coach, instead of going out through a back-door. Why had she not the eyes of the world upon her when she went forth, instead of quietly passing without pomp or show? It was a wonder that his learned friend did not go on and say, "Why did she go in a domino and disguised cap to a masquerade? who ever before heard of this disguise on such an occasion?" How little did his learned friends know, when they talked in this manner, of the royal recreations of Murat's court! He would refer to another part of his learned friend's speech, where he said that "During her Majesty's residence at Naples another circumstance took place to which it was his duty to call their lordships' attention. A masquerade was held at a theatre called, he believed, the Theatre of St. Charles. To this entertainment her Majesty rose to go in a very extraordinary manner, accompanied, not by Lady Charlotte Lindsay or Lady Elizabeth Forbes, or even by any of the gentlemen of her suite, but by the courier Bergami and a femme de chambre of the name of De Mont. The dresses chosen by her Majesty for herself and her companions to appear in on this occasion were, as he was instructed, of a description so indecent as to attract the attention of the whole company, and to call forth marks of general disapprobation. Indeed, so strong was the disapprobation, that her Majesty, finding she was recognised, was under the necessity of withdrawing with her companions from the entertainment, and returning home." Now, what did Madame de Monte say, when called upon to describe this "most indecent and disgusting dress" of her Majesty? Why, all that the perseverance and ingenuity of his learned friend could extract from the witness (no very unwilling one) was, that the Princess, on that occasion, wore what she (De Mont) called "ugly masks;" for, strange as it might appear to his learned friends, she went to the masquerade in a mask! Indeed, if she had not gone so, she would have had no business there. He should, he feared, greatly fatigue their lordships, were he to go over the whole of the numerous parts of his learned friend the Attorney-General's speech which were left utterly unproved by the evidence. They would recollect that the Attorney-General stated he had evidence to prove that the Queen and Bergami were for a considerable time locked up together in a room at Messina in the night, and that the sound of kisses was heard from

within: it now turned out, that only voices were heard, and of whom the witness could not say! It was also stated, that on the 12th of April-(for their lordships would observe his learned friend never forgot dates-his particularity was in this respect remarkable ;)-on the 12th of April, at Sadouane, he had stated that the access to the Princess's room was through Bergami's, in which no bed was. But passing over this and a number of ineffectual attempts to obtain answers from De Mont, in conformity with the statement, he would recall their lordships' attention to the statement of the allegations which it was intended through Majochi to substantiate. His learned friend had said "that the Princess remained in Bergami's bedroom a considerable time, while he was sleeping there, and the witness then distinctly heard the sound of kissing." Now what did Majochi himself say in this part of his testimony? He distinctly said "that she remained the first time about ten minutes, and at another time 15 minutes," and he only heard "whispering." Then, again, in Sacchi's evidence, who was the courier that brought the answer back to Milan, which he was to deliver to Bergami, by Bergami's own order, at whatever hour of the night he returned,-bis learned friend stated, that the courier, (which courier was Sacchi,) on repairing to Bergami's bedroom, did not find him there, but soon after observed him coming from the direction of the Princess's room; and that Bergami then told him the cause of his being out of bed then was, having heard his child cry, and that he had gone to see what was the matter. But when Sacchi was brought to give his evidence, not a word of this came out in answer to the repeated questions put to him to elicit such a corroboration of the statement. Then came next in order the disgraceful scene which was represented to have occurred at the Barona; so disgraceful, that his learned friend declared it made the place in which it was transacted deserve rather the name of a brothel than of a palace. His learned friend asserted, when he gave it this designation, that he was prepared with the most entire and satifactory proof to show, that so disgusting was the scene, the servants became shocked by what they were obliged to witness. Her Majesty, ac cording to the Attorney-General, had become at this time deserted by all the English persons in her suite, These were the words of his learned friend :-" It was

certainly very singular, that on leaving Naples her Majesty was abandoned by the greater part of her English suite. Mr. St. Leger, it was true, had quitted her before; he left her at Brunswick, and he therefore admitted that no inference could be drawn from his case. But, on her Majesty's departure from Naples. Lady Charlotte Lindsay and Lady Elizabeth Forbes were left behind. No, he begged pardon, Lady Charlotte Lindsay did not leave the Queen until they were at Leghorn, in March, 1815. At Naples however, Lady Elizabeth Forbes, Sir William Gell, the Honourable Mr. Craven, and Capt. Este, certainly did separate from her. Thus, of the seven persons who composed her Majesty's suite when she left this country, no less than four left her in Naples." But his learned friend forgot that, of these persons whom he so hastily dismissed from her Majesty's service at Naples, she was afterwards joined by Lady Charlotte Lindsay. How did it happen, he would ask, if the Princess's servants had become so shocked at the occurrences at Barona, that they never communicated their astonishment to the servants of Lady Charlotte. Lindsay, with whom they were in hourly communication? Was it likely that such feeling, if it pervaded the servants, would be kept as a grave-like secret from first to last by those who were the depositaries of it? But, after Lady Charlotte Lindsay joined the Princess, Lord and Lady Glenbervie came, Lady Charlotte Campbell came, and others equally honourable and equally virtuous and yet, notwithstanding the servants were, as it were, astounded by the practices then occurring at the Barona, there was not one whisper to the servants of the English personages of rank who rejoined her Royal Highness as part of her suite. These joined her Royal Highness after the scenes at Barona; some met the Princess at Naples, some joined at Rome, others at Leghorn. Aye, at even much later periods her Majesty was attended by illustrious company. The Queen's company, in fact, became rather improved than neglected, at the time alluded to. She was constantly received, and with suitable respect, after her return from the long voyage. She was courteously received by the legitimate Sovereign of Baden, and the still more legitimate Bourbon of Palermo. She was courteously treated by the legitimate Stuarts of Sardinia, whose legitimacy stands contradistinguished from the illegiti

macy of the family whose possession of the throne of these realms stands upon the basis of public liberty and public rights. She was received even by a Prince who ranks higher in point of legitimacy-the Bey of Tunis. (A laugh). She was also received with the same respect by the representative of the King at Constantinople. In fact, in all those countries she met with that reception which was due to her rank and consideration. He trusted their lordships would suffer him now t dwell more minutely upon the statement of the case as opened by the Attorney-General, and the case as proved by his learned friend. The case, as opened, it was of no little importance to dwell upon. Was it not marvellous to have such a case, and to be capable of adducing in support of it such witnesses? Was it not, in the next place, more marvellous to find that such a case was left so miserably short, as it must be admitted this case was left, in comparison between the evidence and the opening statement? In the ordinary cases of criminal conversation, the two very witnesses who of all others were deemed of the utmost importance were the female's woman in attendance, and the man's bodyservant or serving-man. These were the servants who must know the fact, if the criminal conversation took place. They had these witnesses here; they therefore had their case under the most favourable auspicesthey had the man's valet, and the woman's maid. These, in an ordinary case, would be deemed conclusive witnesses. The man's servant was rarely to be had for the prosecution, from the nature and manner of the action; but if counsel could get the female servant, they generally deemed their case proved. They had also, if their case were true, the very extraordinary, unaccountable, and unprecedented advantage of having parties to proceed against for the fact, who, from beginning to end, concealed no part of their conduct under the slightest or even most flimsey disguise. Throughout the whole of the proceedings these parties, knowing they were watched, discarded all schemes of secrecy-showed an utter carelessness of the persons who were watching them-threw off all ordinary trammels-banished from their practice every suggestion of decorum and prudence-and, in fact, gave themselves up to the gratification and indulgence of their passion, with that warmth which is only found

in the hey-day of young blood, and with that utter indifference to reserve which marks the conduct of those who are joined together in those bonds which make the indulgence of their passion rather a virtue than a crime. There was no caution or circumspection here. If they believed any one part of the evidence relied upon by his learned friend the Solicitor-General, there was not only no caution used by the parties to prevent discovery, but every thing which the most malignant accuser could require to fortify his case was left open by the parties who were to suffer by the proof. He entreated their lordships to observe how every part of the case was left open to this remark; and, after having entreated them to bear it in mind, and apply it hereafter when they came to consider the evidence, he should simply observe, that just in proportion as the conduct became criminal, and of the most unquestionably atrocious nature and character, exactly in the same proportion would the parties be found to have taken especial care that during their commission, of the act they had present, and seeing it, good witnesses to detect and expose them for their Conduct. Thus it would be seen that they were sitting together in familiar proximity. The act is also seen with the addition of the lady's arm round the neck, or behind the back, of her paramour. When it is necessary to trace their conduct a step higher in the scale of criminality, and exhibit the parties in such an attitude as to leave no room for explanation or equivocation, the act is done, not in a corner, apart from any scrutinizing eye, but in a villa filled by servants, and where hundreds of workmen are at the very time employed; and all this too is done, all this saluting is performed, in open day, and exposed to the general gaze. Especial pains are taken that the slander shall not be secret, but, on the contrary, that it shall be liable to the most widely-diffused publicity, It would not do that Bergami, upon his departure on a journey from the Queen, while in Sicily, should salute her Majesty before the servant entered the room. No; the exhibition of that act was reserved for the presence of a servant to tell it. The same was the case in the story about Terracina. All the parties were on deck; they could not take the salute in their own cabin; it must be delayed until Majochi enters to witness it.