A.D. 1820.] THE CABINET INVESTIGATION. These conditions were wholly declined by the queen, and on the 19th of June the negotiations were broken up. On the 22nd two resolutions were passed by the House of Commons, declaring their opinion that, when such large advances had been made toward an adjustment, her majesty, by yielding to the wishes of the house, and forbearing to press further the propositions on which a material difference yet remained, would not be understood as shrinking from inquiry, but only as proving her desire to acquiesce in the authority of parliament. CHAPTER III. THE BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES. ALL attempts at negotiation having failed, sealed green bags were laid upon the table of the house of lords and of the house of commons, with a message from the king to the effect that in consequence of the arrival of the queen he had communicated certain papers respecting her conduct, which he recommended to their immediate and serious attention.* The bags contained documents and evidence connected with a commission sent in 1818 to Milan and other places, to investigate charges-rather to collect evidence to sustain charges which had been made against the princess of Wales. The principal of those charges was that she had been guilty of adultery with a person named Bergami, whom she had employed as a courier, and afterwards raised to the position of her chamberlain and companion. The commission was under the direction of Sir John Leach, afterwards vice 11 secretly favoured her. Although his majesty had sanctioned this investigation, he was pleased to thwart the prince, whom he regarded as a political enemy; he expected that an opportunity might arise for censuring the conduct of the ministers. Accordingly, a very intimate intercourse, both by visits and letters, was established between him and her royal highness. Lord Eldon at that period would often dine with her at Blackheath, and to him she used to assign the seat of honour on her right hand. In Germany it had not been the custom to help the ladies near them to wine, but each sex filled their own glasses at their option. The princess, however, as lord Eldon related, used to reverse, in some sort, our old English fashion in his favour, for she would quietly fill his glass herself, and so frequently, that he seldom left her house without feeling that he had exceeded the limits of discretion. Those, indeed, who recollect the proverb, that though one man may take a horse to the well, ten men cannot make him drink', will moderate their commiseration for the hard lot of the ex-chancellor. " Mr. Horace Twiss, in his "Life of Lord Chancellor Eldon," passes lightly over this connection with the princess, which was not the most creditable to his hero, viewed in the light of his subsequent conduct. He gives some of the letters of her royal highness to lord Eldon, written in the most friendly and confiding spirit, but says nothing of the splendid entertainment given to her at his house, and the other proofs which he afforded of ardent devotion to her cause. The commissioners made a report, fully acquitting the princess on the main charge, which was that of having given birth to a child in 1802. "This report," says Mr. Twiss, was dated the 14th of July, 1806," but the unhappy lady who was the subject of it seems not to have been regularly apprised of its contents until the 11th of August, when a copy of it was sent to her by Lord Erskine.* แ Sir Samuel Romilly says:-"The result of this examination was such as left a perfect conviction on my mind, and, I believe, on the minds of the four lords, that the boy in Brownlow Street hospital on the 11th of July, 1802; and question is the son of Sophia Austin; that he was born in chancellor. This was not the first investigation of which the princess of Wales was the object. As early as 1806 certain grave charges were laid against her, while residing at Blackheath, after her separation from her husband, the principal of which was that she had given birth to a child, the fruit of illicit intercourse. These charges were laid before the king, and four members of the cabinet were appointed to investigate them, pursuant to the advice of lord Thurlow. The four members were lord chancellor Erskine, earl Spencer, and the lords Grenville and Ellenborough, with Sir Samuel Romilly, the solicitor-general, as their secretary. Such names might seem to be a guarantee for proceedings perfectly constitutional in was taken by the princess into her house on the 15th of spirit at least, and in every respect just to the November in the same year." If we could be sure of any accused; but, nevertheless, it was altogether a star-fact in history, one might suppose that there could be no chamber investigation. They gave the accused no notice of the charges alleged against her. Witnesses were brought with mysterious secresy from their homes at night, and examined in the absence of the accused. She had no opportunity to contradict or explain the evidence, which was not taken down verbatim, but only stated in substance without the questions, so that the effect of the testimony of each witness could not be accurately ascertained. When the unhappy lady who was the subject of this "delicate investigation" heard of what was going on against her, she applied for advice to the ex-chancellor Eldon, "who was delighted to become her patron," says lord Campbell, "for he thought that he might thereby please the king, who he believed Hansard, 886. doubt about the fact he has stated regarding the mysterious parentage of "Billy Austin;" but lord Campbell says, It is now ascertained that he was of a totally different parentage, and born in Germany." The cause of lord Eldon's zeal for the princess of Wales was, no doubt, the hope that he would thereby please the king, and prepare the way for his own restoration to office; but when he saw that the regent, whom he had so strenuously opposed, was about to reign, he turned about suddenly, and worshipped the rising sun. He could not plead, in justification of this change, any new light thrown upon the character of the queen, for he made a statement in confidence to lord Grey, which shows how little credit is Twiss's "Life of Eldon," vol. ii., p. 24. ↑ "Memoirs of Sir S. Romilly," vol. 11., p. 244. due to him for consistency, sincerity, or a nice sense of honour. Although at the time of his intimacy with the princess he maintained that she was the most chaste, and the most injured of her sex, he said, "My opinion is, and always was, that, though she was not with child, she supposed herself to be with child." The four lords had added to their verdict of acquittal the remark that evidence had been laid before them of other particulars respecting the conduct of her royal highness, "such as must, especially considering her exalted rank and station, necessarily give occasion to very unfavourable interpretations;" and it was intimated to her by lord chancellor Erskine that "she was to be admonished by his majesty to be more circumspect in her conduct." Under lord Eldon's advice, she several times wrote to the king, complaining of the manner in which the proceedings against her had been conducted by his ministers, solemnly denying the levities which the report imputed to her, and praying that she might again be admitted into the presence of her uncle, her father-in-law, and her sovereign, who had ever hitherto proved her friend and protector. She would have been at once received by the king, but for the interference of the prince, and the advice of the ministers. But ultimately all obstacles were removed, and she appeared at court. Considering, therefore, the former relations between the princess of Wales and lord Eldon, as her confidential adviser, it is not surprising that he should have taken credit to himself for feeling some pain in being the chief instrument, in the hand of her royal persecutor, for effecting her ruin. The crown had resolved to proceed against the queen by a bill of pains and penalties, the introduction of which was preceded by the appointment of a secret committee, to perform functions somewhat analogous to those of a grand jury, in finding bills against accused parties. Mr. Brougham earnestly protested against the appointment of a secret committee, which was opposed by lords Lansdowne and Holland. The course was explained and defended by the lord chancellor, who said that the object of ministers in proposing a secret committee was to prevent injustice towards the accused; that committee would not be permitted to pronounce a decision; it would merely find, like a grand jury, that matter of accusation did or did not exist; such matter, even if found to have existence, could not be the subject of judicial proceeding, strictly so called. The offence of a queen consort, or a princess consort of Wales, committing adultery with a person owing allegiance to the British crown, would be that of a principal in high treason, because, by statute, it was high treason in him; and as accessories in high treason are principals, she would thus be guilty of high treason as a principal: but as the act of a person owing no allegiance to the British crown could not be high treason in him, so neither could a princess be guilty of that crime, merely by being an accessory to such a person's act. Yet although, for this reason, there could be no judicial proceeding in such a case, there might be a legislative one; and the existence or non-existence of grounds for such legislative proceeding was a matter into which it would be fit that a secret committee should inquire. In no case could injustice be done, because that committee's decision would not be final. There might be differences of opinion about the best mode of proceeding, but, for God's sake, said the lord chancellor, if their lordships differed, let it be understood that they all had the same object in view, and that their difference was only about the best mode of effecting it. Mr. Canning, who had been on terms of intimacy with her majesty, declined to take any part in the proceedings, declaring that nothing would induce him to do anything calculated to reflect upon the honour and virtue of the queen. The queen intimated to the lord chancellor that she meant to come in person to the house of lords when her case should next be discussed there. He answered that he would not permit her to enter without the authority of the house, for which she must previously apply. She then desired that he would deliver a message to the house in her name, which he declined, stating that "the house did not receive messages from anybody but the king, unless they were sent as answers to addresses from the house." Lord Campbell thinks he was quite wrong. Lord Eldon thus refers to the matter in a letter written at the time, "when they brought a petition from her to be presented to the house by me; this I declined also, and for this Messrs. Grey, Lansdowne, and Holland abused me pretty handsomely. However, I don't think I suffered much by all that, and I am resolved I will not be employed in any way by this lady." The petition was presented by lord Dacre, on which occasion the lord chancellor declared that he had no objection to its being submitted to the consideration of the house, adding that he would sooner suffer death than admit any abatement of the principle that a person accused is not therefore to be considered guilty." Mr. Brougham and Mr. Denman, her majesty's attorney and solicitor-general, were then called in to support the petition, which prayed that their lordships would not prosecute a secret inquiry against her. The powerful pleading of these two orators had an immense effect upon the public mind. On the following day lord Grey moved that the order for the appointment of a secret committee should be discharged. His motion was negatived by a majority of one hundred and two to forty-seven. This was the first division on the proceedings against the queen, and so large a majority naturally gave great confidence to the government. The secret committee accordingly set to work, opened the green bag, and examined the charges. On the 4th of July they brought in their report, which stated “that allegations supported by the concurrent testimony of a great number of persons in various situations of life, and residing in different parts of Europe, appeared to be calculated so deeply to affect the character of the queen, the dignity of the crown, and the moral feeling and honour of the country, that it was indispensable that they should become the subject of a solemn inquiry, which would best be effected in the course of a legislative pro * Lord Campbell's "Lives of the Chancellors," vol. vii., p. 197. "Romilly's ceeding." On the 5th lord Liverpool introduced the Memoirs," vol. iii., p. 104. bill of "Pains and Penalties" against her majesty, which, A.D. 1820.] THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE QUEEN'S TRIAL. having recited in the preamble that she carried on an adulterous intercourse with Bergami, her menial servant, enacted "that she should be degraded from her station and title of queen, and that her marriage with the king should be dissolved." Counsel were again heard against that mode of proceeding, a second reading was set down for the 17th of August, when the preamble was to be proved, and the "trial" to begin. In the meantime lord Erskine moved in vain for a list of the witnesses, which was peremptorily refused, so that the queen had no means of contradicting their testimony, should it be false or fabricated, or of supplying materials 13 James's Square, and proceeded to the house of lords in her new state carriage, an elegant landau, drawn by six beautiful chestnut horses, which the people were with difficulty dissuaded from unyoking, that they might draw it themselves. As she passed Carlton House, the crowd gave three cheers, and also at the Treasury. The soldiers on guard at the former place, and at the house of lords, presented arms when she arrived. The queen's carriage was preceded by alderman Wood's, and followed by one of her majesty's travelling carriages, in which were Sir Keppel Craven and Sir William Gell, her chamberlains. The way from Charing Cross to Westminster Abbey was crowded tor an effective cross-examination. The lord chancellor's to excess, and all the windows of the houses on either side were filled with people, particularly with ladies. Such was the enthusiasm of the people, that the barrier erected at St. Margaret's Church was insufficient to keep them back, and the dense mass forced their way through, and reached Palace Yard shortly after the queen. Sir T. Tyrwhitt, as gentleman usher of the black rod, attended by the officers of the house, received the queen at the private entrance which had been prepared for her. She entered at the door near the throne, supported by lord A. Hamilton, and attended by lady A. Hamilton. She was The memorable 17th of August arrived, and the curtain was raised on a new act in the great drama, on which the whole nation gazed with the deepest interest, and with feverish anxiety. The queen left her residence in St. VOL. VII.-No. 314. dressed in deep mourning, and wore a large white veil. Her demeanour was in the highest degree dignified. On her entrance the peers all rose, and she was pleased to salute them in return. The duke of Leinster, in pursuance of his intention to oppose the bill in all its stages, moved that the order of the day be rescinded. The motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and sixty to forty-one; the number of peers present being three hundred and one. Lord Carnarvon denounced the bill of pains and penalties as a measure unnecessary and unconstitutional. It was a species of ex post facto and illegitimate mode of proceeding against an individual, an unprecedented anomaly in the law. In one of the cases which they had adduced as the best precedent, the sentence passed on the criminal was that he should be boiled to death! Far better to have drawn a veil over the transactions, than to have searched the Alps, the Apennines, and the ocean, for evidence against the queen. The measure had excited the disgust of every honest man in the kingdom. Lord Grey moved that it should be referred to the judges to determine whether adultery committed out of the country with a foreigner amounted to high treason. The motion was carried. The judges retired, and, after an absence of twenty minutes, returned, with their decision announced by chief justice Abbott, which was, that the crime in question was not punishable as high treason, under the statute of Edward III. Counsel on both sides were admitted; Messrs. Brougham and Denman, for the queen, sitting on the right of the bar, and the king's attorney and solicitor-general on the left. Mr. Brougham prayed to be heard against the principle of the bill. Permission was granted, and he addressed their lordships in a strain of impressive eloquence, demonstrating that the mode of proceeding now adopted was in the highest degree unjust to his illustrious client. He concluded by imploring their lordships to retrace their steps, and thus become the saviours of their country. Next morning Mr. Denman spoke nearly two hours for the queen, strongly maintaining her right of recrimination against the king, who, when seeking for a divorce, should come into court with clean hands. He commented on the several clauses of the bill as he went along. He said the person who framed it had worked himself up into an ebullition of moral zeal, and used expressions for the full support of which the bribes and schemes of the prosecutors would produce witnesses. Referring to a former investigation, he called the attention of the house to the letter of Mrs. Lisle, in 1806, when flirting and familiarity were the worst things alleged against her royal highness. On the subject of familiarity he referred to a note addressed by a waiter to the prince of Wales-" Sam, of the Cocoanut Coffeehouse, presents his compliments to his royal highness, and begs" so and so. That illustrious person remarked, "This is very well to us, but it won't do for him to speak so to Norfolk and Arundel." He concluded by apologising to the queen for putting even the hypothesis of her guilt, which he never could believe would be established; and whatever might be enacted by means of suborned perjury or foul conspiracy, he never would pay to any one who might usurp her situation the respect to which the laws of God and man entitled her alone. On the third day lord King moved that the bill was not one of state necessity or expediency. This gave occasion to lord Liverpool, then at the head of the government, to express his sentiments upon the measure. He declared upon his honour and in his conscience that, if the bill passed, he believed the king would not marry again. But if the charges against the queen were proved, it was absolutely impossible not to conclude with an enactment for a divorce. Earl Grey replied to lord Liverpool, and called upon their lordships, from respect for their own character, not to persevere with the measure before them. The attorney-general was then called in, when he proceeded to state the case against the queen. He traced her majesty's conduct from the time at which she left this country, in 1814. Her suite consisted of lady Charlotte Lindsay and lady Elizabeth Forbes, and the hon. Keppel Craven; Sir William Gell and a Mr. Fitzgerald as chamberlains, with captain Hash as equerry; Dr. Holland as physician; and other persons, in various capacities. She went first to Brunswick, her native place, and thence to Milan, where she remained three weeks. There Bartholomeo Bergami was received into her service as a courier, having been a servant in a similar capacity to a general Picco. The princess went next to Rome, and thence to Naples, where she arrived on the 8th of November, 1814. Her adopted child, William Austin, then only six or seven years of age, to whom she was particularly attached, had been in the habit of sleeping in a bed in the same room with her, while, according to the domestic arrangements that had been adopted, Bergami slept, among other menial servants, at a distance. On the 9th of November, three weeks after his appointment, an apartment was assigned to Bergami near her own bedroom, and communicating with it by means of a corridor. The surprise occasioned by this alteration was increased when the princess directed that the child Austin should no longer sleep in her room. There was an air of hurry, agitation, and embarrassment about her manner which awakened suspicion, which was increased in the morning, according to the story of the witnesses, when they found that her own bed had not been occupied, and instead of summoning her female attendants at the usual time, she remained in the apartment of Bergami until a late hour. Her recent arrival at Naples naturally induced persons of consequence to pay their respects to her, but she was not accessible. The attorney-general thought their lordships could have no doubt that "this was the commencement of that most scandalous, degrading, and licentious intercourse which continued and increased." The natural effect of this was that Bergami assumed airs of importance, and became haughty and arrogant with the other servants. A few days afterwards the princess gave a masked ball to the person then filling the Neapolitan throne. She first appeared as a Neapolitan peasant, but soon retired to assume another character, taking the courier with her, for the purpose of changing her costume. She then came forth as the genius of history, in a dress, or rather want of dress, of a most indecent and disgusting kind. A.D. 1820.] THE CASE AGAINST THE QUEEN. 15 him. On her return to Milan, Mr. W. Burrell quitted her service, after which it was observed that the queen's conduct to Bergami became even less restrained. Her house was called the Villa Villani, and there she presented her courier with a silk dressing gown, which he wore every morning. At this time her majesty also became more familiar with her servants, the consequence of her wicked attachment. The courier was advanced to the office of chamberlain, and dined constantly with the queen. One of the female servants would testify that she had often heard Bergami in the apartment of the queen, while the latter was frequently seen passing from Bergami's room to her own. One morning the servants observed the door of Bergami's room open, and the queen was seen on her way from thence to her own apartment, with the pillow under her arm on which she was in the habit of sleeping. The state of the dress of the queen also gave evidence that she had but just left the bed of her paramour. If this fact stood alone, without any support from the many other circumstances he had detailed, the attorney-general con ordinary case of adultery. It was to be remarked also that the daughter of Bergami, two or three years old, for whom the queen showed a love almost parental, and who was now dignified by the title of princess, slept constantly in her bed or bedroom, and was frequently heard to cry in the night for its mamma (for so the queen was called by it), when the queen was absent with Bergami, and when countess Oldi could not pacify it. At Catania she had influence to procure for Bergami the dignity of knight of Malta. She ordinarily spoke of him as the chevalier, and forsook all society but his. But the important fact was this, that that change of dress took place in the presence and with the assistance of the courier, Bergami, and no other person. She afterwards appeared as a Turkish peasant, accompanied by Bergami in a corresponding dress, though he afterwards returned alone apparently chagrined. It would be proved also that she always breakfasted with Bergami, though he still acted as valet or footman. About this time he received a kick from a horse, and had the influence to introduce a servant into the family to attend him, which servant saw Bergami and the queen kissing each other. From November to March the intimacy increased, and when the queen left Naples, she was deserted by Lady E. Forbes, Sir W. Gell, Mr. Craven, &c. Another fact which occurred at Naples was important. A public masquerade was held at the Theatre St. Charles, and to this the queen went, accompanied by Bergami and a fille de chambre. The dresses were so indecent that the parties were hastily compelled to withdraw. They had gone there in a common fiacre, or hackney-coach. It was no slight aggravation, that the queen knew at this time that Ber-tended that it would satisfy the scruples of any jury in an gami was a married man, and that thus a double adultery was committed. During the whole of this time Bergami was admitted into the queen's bed-room, without knocking or notice. The assumption of Bergami was such, in consequence, that he soon became the lord and master of the house. On quitting Naples, the queen went to Rome, and from thence to Civita Vecchia, where she embarked on board a frigate. On her arrival at Genoa, she had no English lady in her suite. Bergami still filled the same menial capacity after this embarkation. At Genoa the intimacy increased. Bergami accompanied the queen in her rides and walks, and an apartment was assigned to him near her bed-room. Here it was found that the queen's bed was so little discomposed, that it was not necessary to re-make it. How happened it that this man always slept near the queen, and that his bed frequently appeared as if two persons had been in it? What conclusion could be formed, but that an adulterous and licentious intercourse had taken place? If this evidence were not found sufficient, it would be put beyond doubt by subsequent facts. Bergami had a daughter named Victoire, and at Genoa this child was received into the queen's family with a brother of Bergami, named Louis, and Faustina, his sister-nay, even his mother was also entertained by her majesty. How was this to be accounted for? At Milan, lady C. Campbell, also one of the ladies in waiting upon her majesty, quitted the queen, leaving her no female attendant. In her stead, the queen received a person of vulgar manners and low habits, another sister of Bergami, dignified by the name of the countess Oldi. She was now the only lady of honour attending and dining with the queen. Her majesty next made a tour to Venice-Bergami still as courier on the road. A circumstance occurred at Venice, strongly showing the intimacy between the queen and Bergami. The attendants and company having withdrawn after dinner, Bergami alone remained with the queen, who was seen to place a gold chain round his neck, which he returned to her majesty's person, and she again playfully gave it to The attorney-general referred to a number of facts of a similar kind to those already detailed; also to instances of indelicacy and indecency, in which the queen was said to have indulged in the presence of her attendants and of strangers- things which seemed quite incredible, but which, if true, would be evidence of gross depravity. CHAPTER IV. The Queen's Trial-The Evidence-The Defence. ON the fourth day, after the conclusion of his address, the attorney-general proceeded to call his witnesses. Before the examination commenced, the rolling of the drums without announced the arrival of the queen, who entered and took her seat, looking more animated and cheerful than usual. The first witness called was Theodore Majocci, a robust man, with large whiskers and bushy hair. The queen, on hearing his name, turned quickly round, screamed loudly, and exclaimed, Theodore!" She then darted from her seat, to her apartment, though she had not been in more than three minutes when this occurred. Her friends asserted that the exclamation was, "Oh, traditore!” (oh, traitor!*) for what reason does not appear, unless to imply that he was a perjurer. The effect upon the house was electrical. A long pause succeeded. Peers, counsel, strangers, looked as if they "Diary of the Times of George IV.," vol. ii., p. 348. "What, |