« AnteriorContinuar »
Much had been said of a conspiracy; but if a conspiracy existed, how easy and natural would it have been for those who sustained it to effect their object, as far as the Hon. Member's reasoning went, by fabricating the fact at once, instead of going into long and disgusting details? But if this was a conspiracy, it was a conspiracy without example, and that was an additional reason for proceeding with the investigation, and sifting the subject thoroughly. If there was a conspiracy, in the name of God let it be sifted to the bottom by full investigation of the evidence. His Majesty's advisers had done every thing that could be done in the execution of every wish of her Majesty, whatever may be thought or asserted by the Counsel out of doors, who were generally not the best counsel. With regard to the feelings out of doors, he observed that there was much of generous delusion in the country on this question; this feeling he could not but honour; but while he said this, he could not avoid adverting to the efforts of a party-not numerous he trusted-who fastened on this, as on every other public calamity (hear, hear!)—whether a mutiny in the fleet, an enemy, the evils of a long protracted war, or the distresses of the country-which they would ascribe to the acts of the Government (whether justly or not he did not now enquire) or this calamity-which befel the country after every effort had been made by Ministers to avert it. This disastrous subject was fastened on by the party to whom he alluded, with the hope of making it the means of effecting their base and wicked object of subverting the laws and constitution of the country. The language held out by some hon. Gentlemen was too well calculated (without probably intending) to encourage this party; if hon. Members wished traitors to be put down, they would not countenance their efforts by unguarded expressions.
Mr. Creevey said he had not wanted the evidence to convince him that the investigation should not proceed. The in
justice of the measure was so great, that the evidence went for nothing. (Hear, hear!) That was the opinion of the people. (Hear!)
Mr. P. Moore said, on his soul he believed this was as foul a conspiracy against her Majesty, and the nation at large, as ever was planned, and moreover he believed that his Majesty's Ministers were at the bottom of it.
Mr. Ellice opposed the amendment.
Sir M. W. Ridley adverted to an assertion made by Ald. Wood, that the defence of the Queen had been impeded by the want of pecuniary resources.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that 20,0007. had been advanced to her Majesty. The sum of 10,0007, was advanced before the proceedings commenced, and a second sum of the same amount a few weeks since; every sum for which application was made by the Queen's legal advisers had been advanced, with an intimation from the Treasury, that if any further sums were deemed necessary they would be cheerfully furnished, subject only to such an account as the legal advisers of the Queen should be able to render.
Mr. Whitbread and Sir G. Noel spoke in favour of the amendment.
Mr. Ald. Heygate spoke of the attempts made to excite the minds of the military on this question. He was astonished that any one who professed to love liberty should encourage the interference of the military in political matters, as it was, evident that the soldiery who aided the cause of liberty to-day might to-morrow be turned against it..
Mr. K. Douglas thought that Ministers should take some measures for correcting the licentiousness of the Press, to which much of the present agitation might be ascribed.
On a division, the amendment was lost by 66 to 12.
The House of Commons then adjourned to the 17th of October.
Tuesday and Wednesday, Oct. 3 and 4. The proceedings against her Majesty re-commenced on Tuesday, Oct. 3. The attendance of Peers was very numerous. After their Lordships had been called over, previous to Counsel being called in, Lord Liverpool read some letters, explanatory of the transactions which took place between the Marrietti's, Col. Brown, and Sacchini. The letters were ordered to lie on the table ;- Lord Holland declaring, that he should not be satisfied, without a full investigation taking place
on this subject. Lord Darnley then renewed his motion for an account of the entire expence of the proceedings against her Majesty. The motion, however, was ultimately withdrawn, as being very inconvenient pending these proceedings. Counsel were then called in; and Mr. Brougham immediately commenced his Address on behalf of her Majesty. The learned Counsel commenced at 20 minutes before 11. At 4 o'clock the House adjourned. On Wednesday, Mr. Brougham resumed his comments on the evi
dence adduced in support of the Bill, and concluded a powerful and most eloquent address about 1 o'clock. He was followed by Mr. Williams, another of her Majesty's Counsel, whose address was not concluded when their Lordships' hour of adjournment arrived.
The following is a brief abstract of Mr. Brougham's luminous Speech in defence of her Majesty:
The learned Counsel observed, that it was not the novelty nor the magnitude of the cause confided to him, which dismayed him: but the knowledge of the full conviction of its strength, and the fear that his best exertions must be inadequate to it. It was, however, a gratification, that his cause did not demand of him, that he should go back beyond her Majesty's departure in the year 1814; nor to recur to a recriminatory Defence. If necessary, he would not hesitate to recur to recrimination; but if he did not deceive himself, no such necessity could arise. He denied it as foul and false, that her Majesty's advocates acknowledged her Majesty to have been guilty of levities; he denied them all. He gave the Attorney General full credit for not having exceeded his instructions. But in illustration of the degree to which these instructions were supported by the evidence, he would advert to a few of the assertions made in the AttorneyGeneral's statement. First, he would ob. serve, that the Attorney General had promised to bring down the history of the Queen's conduct to the present time, whereas the evidence did not approach the present time nearer than an interval of three years. Again, at Naples it was said that the Princess had denied herself to the Neapolitan nobility, but nothing of this kind had appeared in evidence. The Attorney and Solicitor Generals had certainly manifested no acquaintance with Italian manners, when they set up so highly the judgment of a Cassino, as a proof of the Princess's unworthiness, and made it a matter of wonder, that she went disguised to a masquerade in a hired carriage, and not in her state coach. Brougham proceeded to point out other discrepancies between the Attorney Ge neral's statement and the testimony of the witnesses. Nothing had been proved of the disgust of the foreign nobility; in fact the opposite had been proved. She had been received by the legitimate House of Baden, the more legitimate Bourbons of Palermo, the legitimate Stuarts of Sardinia, and, most legitimate of all, the Bey of Tunis. Adverting to the character of Italians in all ages, Mr. Brougham quoted the opinion of the Italians as taken by Henry VIII. and recorded by state papers in Rymer, and Bishop Burnet's History of the Revolution; and drew at great length
a humourous parallel between the proceedings upon that occasion in Italy, which were, it appeared, conducted by a Mr. Crook, and the Milan Commission. The next point to which he drew their Lordships' attention was, the evidence of the first witness. He had only to refer to the evidence of Majocchi himself, to show that there never was a more palpable perjury and false swearing, than is evinced in his memorable answer of "I don't remember." At once, to give proof positive of Majocchi's perjury-to show his mode of forgetting, when it suited his convenience, he would come to the manner of his swearing to the position of Bergami's bedroom, with respect to that of the Princess. This was a great object. It was evident that the Attorney General wished to establish the contiguity of those two bedrooms, and that a communication existed between them. It was evident that Majocchi was concerned in the concoction of this plan. He came forward prepared to prove the relative situation of these bedrooms, as he knew, that thereon would rest the charge of adulterous intercourse. When he asked the witness a question relative to the situation of the other rooms, he said he did not know; he did not recollect; though he must have known, he must have recollected the circumstance at the time, as in examination in chief he said, they were distant and apart. The witness then must have perjured himself in one case or the other. As to time, too, the witness had, when it suited him, a most excellent memory. But when be found that the answers would be of use not to the prosecution, but to the defence, he could not remember any thing. Their Lordships would recollect the shuffling of this witness in his answers relative to the money given to him by Lord Stewart at Vienna to go to Milan. First, he distinctly stated that he got the money to go to Milan. He next swears that he never got any money at Vienna, and next says, "I remember to have received no money at Milan. I do not know-rather no than yes -non mi ricordo." When this man was reminded by the Attorney General of the kissing which took place in the closet, he refused to repeat it; he said he only heard "whispering." There are many other points which clearly show that Majocchi told one story before his instructors and another here. It is probable that he recollected the facts, but forgot a part of the fiction-the falsehood which he had grafted upon them. There was one part, in particular, of Majocchi's evidence which is in itself altogether incredible; he would have it believed, that the Queen having free access to the bed-room of Bergami, through other rooms in which no person slept, had yet preferred passing through
the room in which he (Majocchi) slept, in which she knew he slept in a bed without curtains, in a room so small, that it was impossible for any person to go through it without touching the bed, in which there was a fire burning, which gave light; and still more monstrous than all, he says, that her Majesty, in order, it would seem, to make her detection inevitable, as she passed through the room, paused for a moment near the bed of Majocchi, and looked in his face to ascertain whether he was asleep. This is a monstrous tale which defeats itself; it is not credibleit cannot be believed; it carries its own refutation along with it. When Majocchi speaks of the night scene, he told you, first, that he did not know of the courier Rastalli, did not recollect his arrival at all: but, in a subsequent part of his evidence, he explains the reason of his recollecting a circumstance, by the fact of the arrival of the courier Rastalli. He would next call their attention to the wellpaid swearers, the Master and Mate of the Polacre. He thought that the Queen, on board a vessel, sitting with her arms entwined round her menial servant, and sometimes kissing him, was a circumstance not so insignificant as not to be likely to attract the particular attention of the Master and the Mate; and yet the accounts given by these two men of this transaction materially differ. The Master says, the Queen was sitting on a gun, and Bergami was supporting her. The Captain says, the Queen was sitting near the mast on Bergami's knee. The difference here is most important. The Captain swears that the Queen was sitting on Bergami's knee near the mast, and that Bergami and the Queen were kissing; the Mate says the Queen was sitting on a gun, but not a word about kissing. No doubt both witnesses were here swearing to a fact supposed to have been seen by them at the same time; for the Captain expressly says, "The Mate of the vessel saw it as well as myself." The Mate did not see it; he did not swear it; they did not dare to put the question to him. He would now advert to two persons of greater importance in this case- Madame Dumont and Sacchi. They had both lived under the same roof with the Queen, enjoying during that time nothing but favours, both dismissed, both wishing to be taken back after they had unwillingly left her. He believed that Dumont was sincere and true in innocence when she praised the Queen, and that it was only since that she had been corrupted, when after having been refused to be taken back to the place in which she had met with nothing but kindness, she had fallen into the hands of the other conspirators against the honour of her illustrious mis
tress. To any man capable of estimating probabilities, the allegations of Sacchi to a certain exhibition in a carriage, would at once be rejected. He appealed to their Lordships whether it was possible to believe such an allegation, or that the hands of the Princess and Bergami could be so disposed while asleep as that allegation imports. From this witness's statement, it would appear that the carriage alluded to, in which he so easily opened the curtains, was an Italian carriage. what, if I should prove that this carriage was of English manufacture, with spring blinds, which the witness could not remove without putting his hands inside, and thus very likely awakening the parties within. What if it should appear also, that Sacchi was not the courier of the Princess's suite at the time he said he saw the situation in the carriage. I mention these things in passing, although they more properly belong to another part of the case. Their Lordships would remember the answer of Sacchi, when asked whether there was any person in the carriage with the Princess and Bergami, at the time of the exhibition alluded to. witness replied in the words so often used by another witness, namely, Non mi ricordo. But was it possible that he should not know whether there was another person present upon such a remarkable occasion? He knew that if he said there was another person in the carriage with the Princess and Bergami, such a circumstance would render his statement, as to their hands, utterly improbable, while if he deposed that nobody was present he might be contradicted, and the fallacy of his evidence established. Mr. Brougham next adverted to Mrs. Barbara Kresse, of Carlsruhe. That witness deposed, that she could not state the precise evening upon which she saw the scene she described in Bergami's room, but that she was certain it was not on the first evening that the Princess and suite arrived at the Inn. He would now turn his attention to Kresse, and delineate her character. The most reputable situation she ever held was that she had in the inn in Carlsruhe. And how was it that no other or more respectable witness had been found? for on looking at the list of agents, he found Baron Grimm, the Minister of the Court of Wirtembergh; there were also Baron Roden and Baron Ompteda. Baron Grimm immediately after the Princess's departure, ran through the apartments, accompanied by another person, closely examining the rooms, beds, &c.; in hopes of discovering something which might have been communicated to, and give pleasure and satisfaction in another quarter. This Baron Grimm was the agent who brought forward Barbara Kresse. And what was
the evidence of this important female witness, as she was described? The learned Counsel then proceeded to comment on Kresse's evidence, which, he contended, both as related to the remuneration she received for coming to this country, her account of the different transactions which had occurred in Bergami's bed-room, and in other respects, abounded in contradictions. With regard to most of the other witnesses, they were mere make-weights, and the facts they proved contradicted themselves; for, could it be believed, that such scenes as those described by the boatmen, by Razzelli, and the other witnesses, could have been displayed in the face of day, with the liability of being seen by any passer-by-by any person in his senses? It had been said that Bergami's original sphere of life, his promotion and subsequent rise to fortune in her Majesty's service, were in themselves matters of suspicion. He trusted he should never live to see such an opinion generally adopted. -Bergami's origin was not so low as had been represented; and if put to call witnesses, he would prove him to be the son of a Gentleman of small estate in the North of Italy; but the family having fallen into difficulties, the son entered the service of General Pino, at whose. table he sat frequently; and when engaged in the service of her Royal Highness by her then Chamberlain, without her knowledge, he was told, that his good conduct might insure his promotion, in consideration of his family having seen better times. Mr. Brougham continued till nearly one o'clock to comment on different parts of the evidence, and thus concluded: My Lords, if you decide on the evidence against the Queen, the judgment may go forth against her; but it will be the only judgment you have ever given which will fail of its purpose, and return on your own heads. Save the country, my Lords, from the horrors of this dilemma; save yourselves from this disgrace; save the country of which you are the ornaments, but without which you can no more flourish, than the blossoms without the trunk of the tree. Save the Crown, which is in jeopardy; save the Aristocracy, which is shaken; save the Altar, which can never be secure when attacks are directed against the kindred Throne. You have withheld your prayers from the Queen: the Church and the Crown have decided that the Queen shall not be joined in the solemn services of Religion; but she has, instead, the heartfelt prayers of an affectionate People:-she wants none of mine; but, for my Country, I prostrate myself before my Maker at the Throne of Mercy, most fervently to pray that he would send down on us a larger measure of happiness than
the follies of our rulers have deserved, and that your hearts may be turned to justice," Thursday, Oct. 5.
This day Mr. Williams concluded his Speech, in which he commented on the evidence that had been adduced against her Majesty; and in the course of which he complained that the witnesses for the Defence had been obstructed in coming to this country. He especially mentioned the case of the Chamberlain to the Grand Duke of Baden, who, though willing himself to have come to give evidence on ber Majesty's behalf, was prevented by the command of the Grand Duke, his master; and General Pino had also been prevented by the Austrian Government.
In consequence of this, Earl Grey, as soon as Mr. Williams had finished his speech, moved, that the Queen's Counsel should be asked whether they were prepared to prove that these obstructions had been offered by the Courts of Vienna and Carlsruhe.
The Earl of Liverpool did not object to the question being put ;, but he contended, that every facility had been offered by his Majesty's Government to enable her Majesty's Agents to collect witnesses in her defence. They had been told so; and yet no application had been made to the Foreign Office on that subject. If the Queen's Counsel thought that the attendance of the Chamberlain of the Grand Duke of Baden was necessary for her Majesty's defence, he would pledge himself that not two hours should be suffered to expire.before a Messenger should be dispatched to request that he might be permitted to come over.
Anthony Butler St. Leger (Chamberlain to her Majesty from 1808 to 1819), the Earl of Guildford, Lord Glenbervie, and Lady Charlotte Lindsay, were examined concerning the conduct of Bergami and the Queen, and of the Countess of Oldi. None of them had seen any thing improper; and Bergami was described as unassuming and unobtrusive.
Friday, Oct. 6.
The evidence of Lady Charlotte Lindsay was resumed. It was followed by that of the Earl of Llandaff, who visited her Royal Highness both at Naples and Venice. The Hon. Keppel Craven, who went out with her Majesty as Joint-Chamberlain with Sir Wm. Gell, was also examined; but the time he passed with his Royal Mistress was of short duration. The next witness examined on behalf of her Majesty was Sir Wm. Gell, who certainly had a much better opportunity of making observations on the conduct of his Royal Mistress than any of the witnesses who preceded him, as he was with her at a much later period, and acted on various occasions with Bergami in the capacity of Chamberlain. The
Monday, Oct. 9.
This day were examined Dr. Holland, who left England with her Majesty in 1814;-Mr. Mills, a resident at Rome in 1817, who frequently visited her Majesty;
character given to this person by Sir Wil liam was one highly honourable to him. He described him as a man of the most gentlemanly manners, modest, unassuming, and unobtrusive in his conduct, and as a person with whom he (Sir Wil-Colonel J. Toulier, on the Staff of the liam) felt not the least objection to share the duties belonging to the office of her Majesty's Chamberlain. The Countess of Oldi also came in for a share of Sir William's commendation. He described her as a woman of interesting manners, very lady-like, modest, and by no means vulgar. All the witnesses spoke in the highest terms of the general conduct of her Royal Highness, and strongly denied that the least unbecoming familiarity had ever existed between her and Bergami.
Saturday, Oct. 7.
W. Carrington had been valet to Sir W. Gell nine years. He attended Sir. William to Naples in 1814, and lived in the Queen's house. He knew Majocchi, and heard him speak of Baron Ompteda's plots. In consequence of this, Majocchi underwent a severe cross-examination, in which he stated that he did not remember having told Carrington, that Baron Ompteda had employed persons to get possession of the keys of the Princess, in order to have false ones made, nor any thing to that effect; nor that a person had been discharged out of the Princess's service for having confessed that he had been employed for that purpose; and that he had never told any person that, were it not for the prohibition of the Princess against taking any notice of Ompteda, he would have killed him like a dog. Carrington was then called, and directly and positively contradicted Majocchi, stating, that all this conversation thus denied by Majocchi, had taken place between him and witness.
John Whitcomb was valet to Dr. Holland, had frequently been in Mademoiselle Demont's room by her invitation, no other person being present, and the door locked and bolted. Witness remembered the situation of the Queen's and Bergami's rooms at Naples. He said that the Queen's room was at the distance of twenty yards from Bergami's, and the only communication between them was a passage in which were the rooms of Dr. Holland, Hieronymus, and Mr. Austin.
Viceroy of Italy ;-Carlo Forti, courier to her Majesty in 1817;-and Lieut. John Flynn, R. N. who had the command of the polacre in 1815. They severally testified to the propriety of her Majesty's conduct.-Carlo Forti, in referring to the evidence of Sacchi, stated that on the journey from Rome to Senigaglia, Sacchi set out two hours before her Royal Highness. His business was to order houses and pay for the horses. Witness always travelled on horseback, and rode close beside her Royal Highness's carriage. On the journey to Senigaglia no one accompanied her Royal Highness's carriage but witness. In this journey the landaulet was occupied by the Princess, Bergami, Countess Oldi, and little Victorine, who sat very often on the knee of the Princess. The Countess of Oldi sat in the middle; but falling ill at Loretto, her place (in the middle) was taken by Demont. After leaving Rome, Oldi was always in the carriage with the Princess, and always in the middle. Witness never saw Bergami kiss the Princess on taking leave, or any thing of that sort. On such occasions he would kiss her hand (as witness and other members of the suite were accustomed to do) with much respect. Lieut. Flynn also said, that he remained on board the polacre the whole of the time with her Royal Highness. He knew the bed-rooms of her Royal Highness and Bergami. .It was impossible for persons lying in the beds in those rooms to see each other. Lieut. Flynn, in his cross-examination on Tuesday, hesitated and prevaricated very much, and at last fainted away. On his recovery his examination was concluded.
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, were occupied with the examinations of Lieut. Hownam (who joined the party of her Royal Highness in 1815), and Giuseppe Gaolino. The former spoke very much in favour of her Majesty, and denied the contiguity of Bergami's room to that of his Royal Mistress, either at Villa d'Este, or on any other occasion. He, however, after some hesitation, admitted that Bergami slept under the same tent with the Princess of Wales on board the polacca. He never saw her Royal Highness sitting on a gun with Bergami, or Bergami's arms round her Royal Highness; never saw one kiss the other. He recollected a dance performed by Mahomet; it originated in a sort of quarrel that this Arab had with the Doctor. He was sick on board,