stances, their lordships found that all these disgraceful familiarities continued between them (and he alluded more particularly to the scene in the tent on board of the polacre)-when they looked at what occurred at Charnitz, at Carlsruhe, and other places surely these facts of themselves would be sufficient; but when coupled with others, if they should be satisfactorily proved, they could not leave the slightest doubt of the disgraceful conduct charged in the preamble, and of the shameful and wicked intercourse which took place between Count Bergami and her Majesty. But their | lordships had heard it said at their bar, and said with a sort of triumph by his learned friends-" What witnesses have you? How is all this to be proved? Will you attempt to prove it? Have you any competent witnesses?" And their lordships had heard a great deal of undeserved slander heaped on foreign witnesses. They had heard his learned friends say, on the other hand, when speaking of their client, "Oh! we expect persons of high rank, and character, and consequence, in the country where the circumstances are stated to have taken place." Now, let their lordships look at the case. It did not admit of such witnesses; it was when her Majesty was in retirement, and surrounded only by her servants, that those facts took place. Could there be any witnesses of facts like these, but those whose avocations and humble employments gave them opportunities of seeing the conduct of the parties from time to time, and of examining the beds and bed-room's? In cases of criminal conversation, they never had-at least, it was very frequently quite impossible and impracticable to have-any other evidence but that of servants, or others whose duties called them to different parts of the house.

66

|

But it was said, and with something like an air of exultation, Aye, but these are foreign witnesses." Foreign witnesses! Let them look at her Majesty's conduct: why was it that her Majesty was abandoned by all her other suite, by all her English servants? why: but that, after her arrival from Milan, she seemed anxious to forget that she was, or should be, an English woman. Could she complain of those foreign witnesses when she had shown, by her conduct, what she thought of

Italian servants—what she thought of this man, her favoured Bergami? Should it be said, Don't hear foreign witnesses, there is the strongest objection_to them; they are not to be believed. But he would ask them what did this hold out to the public? Was it not to say, "Go abroad, commit what crime you please, carry on what conduct you please; however flagitious, you never can be convicted in an English court of justice." And why? Because the fact can only be proved by foreign witnesses, and they, we tell you before we hear them, are branded with infamy. They are marked for discredit; therefore"go abroad, abandon yourself to the most dissolute profligacy you please; it can never be proved in a court of this country, for foreign witnesses are unworthy of belief." Would their lordships listen to such argument as this? Let them pride themselves on the superiority of the English character, but let them not by a sweeping condemnation declare that all foreigners were unworthy of credit. It was her Majesty who had herself to thank, if the facts could only be proved by Italian witnesses. She had taken into her household Italian servants, and surely would not treat with such disgrace the person highest in her confidence. If their lordships' condemnation, however, extended to Italians, it could hardly be applied to foreigners of all countries and descriptions. He was satisfied,notwithstanding the adroit manuer in which the case had been put by his learned friends, who presumed that these witnesses would exercise their faculty of locomotion, and take the air at their ease, the observation would make no impression on their lordships' minds. Would to God those witnesses could do so; but he would recall to their lordships' remembrance circumstances which had happened, Iand ask whether the witnesses could feel that security which they ought to enjoy. It was disgraceful to the country that such circumstances had taken place; but he trusted that the public mind would soon resume its former calmness, and the popular clamour subside. Upon the circumstances of the case, it was hardly necessary for him to add, their lordships were to decide under a sacred obligation. It had been said that the witnesses, being foreigners, were the less worthy of belief, and that their testimony ought to be received

with suspicion and distrust: but the conduct of her Majesty, and the nature of the case, made such evidence indispensable. Their lordships would decide upon its value, and, he doubted not, calmly and firmly pronounce their judgment. He should now proceed to call his witnesses.

A considerable pause now ensued. Lord ERSKINE observed, that it might be expedient to come immediately to an understanding, with regard to the situation of the witnesses, after they should have delivered their testimony. It might be material to the ends of justice that they should be placed in a station of security, and be forthcoming, if, on a subsequent occasion, their presence should be found

necessary.

The LORD-CHANCELLOR said, that in accordance with the usual course of their proceedings, the witnesses might be questioned before their departure from the house as to where they were about to go. He agreed that they ought to be kept within call, and remain in attendance till the end of the cause; and therefore now moved, that the witnesses do attend from day to day till further orders.

This motion was immediately carried without opposition.

Lord KING expressed a wish that the house should distinctly understand in what situation the witnesses would be placed, and that it should be known whether, on their coming to that bar, they would be liable upon the evidence which they gave to an indictment for perjury. Their lordships were now proceeding in a legislative capacity, but the King's Attorney-General was employed to conduct the case brought under their consideration. This, it appeared, was done upon an order of the house itself. Undoubtedly their lordships might commit a witness for falsehood and prevarication, for the term of their own sitting; but as it was not improbable that they might have to revise parts of this proceeding, it was desirable to learn whether the witnesses would be in the same predicament as in a court of record.

The LORD-CHANCELLOR said, that if the noble lord's question were put to his experience, he could make no answer; but on general principles he would state his opinion, that the witnesses might be prosecuted at law for perjury.

Lord KING observed, that his doubt arose from the circumstance of their now sitting, not in their judicial, but in a legislative capacity.

The Earl of LIVERPOOLremarked that in his apprehension what might be done in the case of an impeachment might also be done upon this occasion.

Lord KING was of opinion that this was a question of law, not of parliamentary privilege; but it might yet be doubted whether a prosecution could be commenced without the special order of the house.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL thought the question would be, whether the house would interfere to stop a prose

cution?

Lord GREY said a few words, upon which the conversation dropped.

Her Majesty at this moment entered the house, attended as nsual by Lady Ann Hamilton, and took her seat in a chair placed within the bar, about the distance of three yards from it, and which though not directly opposite to, enabled her to confront the witnesses.

THEODORE MAJOCHI.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then called Theodore Majochi, who, in a very few moments was ushered in, and placed before the bar. He is a man of middle stature, decent appearance, and was handsomely attired.

Her Majesty, having fixed her eyes on him, exclaimed in a piercing tone, "Theodore! oh, no, no;" and was immediately conducted to a private apart ment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL applied to their lordships to allow the Marchese Nicolas Spinetto to be sworn as an interpreter, the witness being an Italian, and utterly ignorant of the English language.

The interpreter was then sworn.

Mr. BROUGHAM asked, whether he appeared by an order of the house, or at the instance of the party promoting the present bill. He wished to ascertain this point, because upon the answer which he received would depend his right to introduce an interpreter on the part of her Majesty.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR thought there could be no objection to inquiring of the interpreter himself by whom he had been engaged to offer himself to the house in that capacity.

Mr. BROUGHAM then addressed the Marchese Spinetto, and asked in

whose employment he appeared there as interpreter? I received my instructions from Mr. Planta and Mr. Maule Mr. BROUGHAM. Do you mean Mr. Planta of the Foreign-office, and Mr. Maule, solicitor to the Treasury? I do.

Mr. BROUGHAM. That, then, is quite a sufficient reason for my desiring to have a second interpreter sworn. Thought it may not, strictly speaking, be necessary at this moment, it may be more convenient to swear him immediately.

What situation did you yourself hold at that period? I was the postilion, or rider.

Do you know what was the condition of Bergami at that time in point of finances? He was rather poor than

rich.

What wages did he receive? Three livres of Milan a day.

Do you know whether he was possessed of any property besides the wages that he received? No."

What do you mean by no? Do you mean that you do not know, or that he was not possessed of any separate pro

Mr. BROUGHAM said he understood that the witness at the bar did not object to the form of being sworn, but he submitted to their lordships that it might be proper to enquire whether he had undergone those preparations which were necessary in his own country before his evidence could be received in a court of justice.

The LORD CHANCELLOR entertained no doubt, that, if the witness was sworn according to the forms of this country, and was himself satisfied with that mode of attestation, his evidence was upon every legal principle admissible.

he received three livres a day.

Did you leave the service of General Pino before Bergami quitted it? I did. Into what service did you enter? I went to Vienna, and was in the service of the Duke of Roccomania as his postilion.

Did you afterwards enter any service at Naples? Yes, into that of General Joachim Murat,

Was Murat at that time King of Naples He was.

Did you there see Bartholomew Bergami? Yes, I did.

When did you see him there for the first time? In June, I believe.

Mr. BROUGHAM said he had objections to urge to this course of examination. He apprehended also that it was competent to him to state his objection to a question before the answer was received.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL observthat the house would be better enabled to judge of the force of any objection to a question after hearing the answer to it.

The LORD-CHANCELLOR found himself compelled to admit that the objection should be heard in the first instance, as the answer might other

When did you first become acquainted with him? In the service of General Pino.

At what time did you first know him? It was in the year 1813 or the year 1814. I knew him by being in the same service.

(By Mr. BROUGHAM.) Do you understand English? No, not at all.

In what situation was Bergami when in the service of General Fino? He was there as a servant, a valet-dechambre.

question were over-ruled, it might be difficult to remove.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL resumed his examination.-At what time did you meet with Bergami at Naples ? About Christmas, 1814.

In whose house? In the house of her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales.

In what situation was he at that time? He was courier, and, it was reported, equerry.

Can you tell us the precise time? At the beginning of the year 1815.