"Such, my lords," continued Mr. Brougham, "is the case now before you; and such is the evidence by which it is attempted to be upheld. It is evidence inadequate to prove any proposition, impotent to deprive the subject of any civil right, ridiculous to establish the least offence, scandalous to support a charge of the highest nature, monstrous to ruin the honour of the queen of England. What shall I say of it, then, as evidence to support a judicial act of legislature-an ex post facto law? My lords, I call upon you to pause. You stand on the brink of a precipice: if your judgment shall go out against the queen, it will be the only act that ever went out without effecting its purpose; it will return to you upon your heads. Save the country! save yourselves!

"Oh! rescue the country-save the people of whom you are the ornaments, but severed from whom you can no more live than the blossom that is severed from the root and tree on which it grows. Save the country, therefore, that you may continue to adorn it; save the crown, which is threatened with irreparable injury; save the aristocracy, which is surrounded with danger; save the altar, which is no longer safe when its kindred throne is shaken. You see that when the church and the throne would allow of no church solemnity, in behalf of the queen, the heartfelt prayers of the people rose to Heaven for her protection. I pray Heaven for her; and here I pour forth my fervent supplications at the Throne of Mercy, that mercies may descend on the people of the country, higher than their rulers have deserved, and that your hearts may be turned to justice."

"Such," says Sir A. Alison, "was the effect of this splendid speech, and such the apprehensions felt in a large part of the house of peers of the hourly increasing agitation out of doors, that it is generally thought by those best acquainted with the feelings of that assembly, that, if the vote had been taken at that moment, the queen would have been entirely acquitted. Mr. Brougham himself intended to have done this, after having merely presented her maid, Mariette Bron, for examination, but she was not to be found, and the case went on, with most able arguments by Mr. Denman and Mr. Williams.”*

The examination of the witnesses for the defence continued till the 24th of October. The first witness produced was Mr. Leman, a clerk in the service of the queen's solicitor. He had been sent to Baden to request the attendance of baron Dante, the grand duke's chamberlain. His testimony was important, as showing that the baron had kept notes of certain transactions connected with the queen. Why had he done so, if not for the purpose of making out a case against her? And why was he not produced as a witness on the trial? The grand duke, it was alleged, would not allow him to come; but, if his memoranda had been thought damaging to the accused, the same influence that set in motion all the continental courts for the purpose of overwhelming the queen with proofs of guilt, would have been made available here also. Colonel St. Leger, the next witness, proved that he had not resigned his situation in the queen's household

because he disapproved of what was going on there—as had been alleged-but solely from ill health. The earl of Guildford bore testimony to the general propriety of the queen's conduct; nor did he observe anything unbecoming or presuming in the conduct of Bergami. Lord Glenbervie deposed that that person behaved as a respectful servant while attending at table.. He also stated that he had consented that lady Glenbervie should act as lady in waiting till another arrived; which no English gentleman would do if the stories of the Italian witnesses were true, and the queen were living in the immoral way they described. Lady Charlotte Lindsay, who had been lady in waiting to her majesty for a length of time, had heard unfavourable reports; but she declared that she had herself seen nothing to confirm or justify them. William Carrington was produced to show a motive of spite for the evidence of Majocci. Siccard, a cook, gave evidence strongly in favour of his royal mistress. The next witness, Dr. Holland, the queen's physician, who had the best opportunities of observing, gave evidence more favourable than any of those yet examined. His answers were exact, decisive, and to the purpose. The testimony of Mr. Charles Mills was very important as clearing up the mystery about Bergami being in the Queen's bed-room, which strikes English minds as so improper. He proved that it was the custom of French and Italian ladies of respectability to receive visitors in their bed-rooms. The foreign witnesses would, therefore, never have noticed this as an impropriety on the part of the princess of Wales, if they had not been prompted by the Milan commissioners and their jackals, who had given out that money to any amount, and valuable situations in England, might be earned by those who could swear to damnatory facts against the queen. Colonel Theoline bore testimony highly favourable to Bergami's conduct and character. The earl of Llandaff, who had travelled on the continent with his wife and family, confirmed the previous evidence, with regard to the custom of Italian ladies receiving gentlemen in their bed-rooms.

The honourable Keppel Craven gave testimony still more decidedly in favour of Bergami, stating that he had been particularly recommended by the marquis Picco, who respected his family, which had been reduced from a much better position in society. He also contradicted the flippant witness, mademoiselle Dumont, with regard to the dresses worn by the princess at the masquerade. Sir William Gell also bore witness to the former respectability of Bergami's family. Sir William was one of the queen's chamberlains, a most estimable and honourable man, and of his truthfulness there cannot be a shadow of doubt. An intelligent spectator, who heard his evidence, wrote emphatically, "If Sir William Gell spoke truth, the queen is an innocent woman." A man named Whitcomb, the valet of Mr. Craven, swore that, to his own knowledge, mademoiselle Dumont was a person of bad character.

A difference has been noticed between the manner of the witnesses for the prosecution and the witnesses for the defence. The first told improbable stories; for nothing could be more unlikely than that the princess should have acted in the shameless and reckless manner which they

A.D. 1820.]

described. In the second place, it was evident to any close observer of human nature, that they did not speak from the personal recollection of facts and scenes observed, but from imagination; consequently, they were as little affected by what they described as if they had been contemplating a mathematical point. This remark applies particularly to the testimony of mademoiselle Dumont.

A cabinet courier, named Forte, who had been in the employment of the viceroy of Italy, gave testimony, which took away the foundation from a large mass of the evidence against the queen. He gave an explanation of the French and Italian custom with regard to servants kissing their mistresses' hands, which so shocked the sense of propriety and the moral feeling of the English. He admitted that he had seen Bergami kiss the queen's hand on taking leave; but that was the Italian custom, and he had himself done so, both to the queen and the empress Josephine. Lieutenant Flynn and lieutenant Hownan proved nothing of importance. Mr. Granville Sharp was examined to prove that the Moorish dance was not the indecent thing that had been represented. Guzziare was produced to prove the physical impossibility of one of the witnesses seeing the criminal act to which he had deposed.

During the examination of this witness a fact transpired which proved a heavy blow to the prosecution. Rastelli had been an important witness against the queen. In consequence of something said by Guzziare, it was resolved to recall him for further examination, when the startling discovery was made that he had been sent out of the country, under the idle pretence of his having been wanted by some person at Milan. The significance of this fact was fully appreciated by the public. "The plate of earth and salt on the bosom of a corpse in a Scottish cottage is not a more emphatic monument of death than mystery is of regal iniquity." The reason of his disappearance came out on the examination of the next witness, one Pomi, who deposed that he had offered him money. Vilmarcati, an Italian advocate, had been associated with colonel Browne in scraping up evidence for the Milan commission. They bribed a person named Pomarti to give up certain documents with which he had been confidentially intrusted, and for betraying which he expressed the deepest remorse. A milliner named Martini stated that she once grievously offended mademoiselle Dumont, by speaking to her of the reports she had heard concerning the princess of Wales and Bergami.

The evidence for the defence having concluded, powerful speeches were delivered by the attorney-general, sir Robert Gifford, and by the solicitor-general, Mr. Copley. The speech of the former was considered so effective, that William Cobbett threw off one hundred thousand copies of an answer to it. Sir Archibald Alison, the tory historian, admits that it was not the evidence for the prosecution that told against the queen, "for it was of so suspicious a kind that little reliance could be placed

on it, but what was elicited on cross-examination, from

the English officers on board the vessel which conveyed her majesty to the Levant-men of integrity and honour, of whose testimony there was not a shadow of suspicion. Without asserting that any of them proved actual guilt

27

against her majesty, it cannot be disputed that they established against her an amount of levity of manner and laxity of habits, which rendered her unfit to be at the head of English society, and amply justified the measures taken to exclude her from it."*

Mr. Twiss, in an apologetic strain, says: "The trial, when at length resolved on, was a step taken, not, as was alleged, for the final destruction of a long persecuted victim, but for the defence of the country against claims which, while the charges remained unanswered, could not decently be granted, and the ministers who, at an earlier period, had rightly declined to take any steps against her for the mere satisfaction of the thing, no less rightly refused to connive at the triumph which she was seeking by violence and agitation to achieve, at the expense not only of the king, her consort, but of the crown, the constitution, and the state. Heavy blame, undoubtedly, there was upon the side opposed to her; but it lay not with the administration, who reluctantly and unavoidably instituted the trial, but with him whose original maltreatment of her had induced, and did assuredly go far to extenuate, whatever indiscretions and errors she afterwards committed."+

If the ministers were influenced by considerations of morality and decency, they should, with much more reason, have declined to have anything to do with the coronation of the king, who was incomparably the greater and more scandalous sinner of the two. They could have resigned, as Mr. Canning did, like an honourable man. It was much more incumbent upon lord Eldon than upon him to act in this manner. For when he was the queen's confidential adviser, he was a party to the preparation and intended publication of "the book," which consisted of documents, vindicating the character of the princess of Wales, and seriously aspersing the character of her royal consort. It was printed in a private press, in the house of Mr. Perceval, on the west side of Lincoln's Inn Fields. Lady Hester Stanhope, in a conversation with her physician, in the year 1837, referring to this subject, said :"I prevented the explosion the first time, and I will tell you how.

wards states that Mr. Perceval gave ten thousand pounds out of the secret service money for a single copy of the book that had been stolen from his table. Some copies, however, got into circulation surreptitiously, and the Phoenix, a Sunday newspaper, announced the publication of the book in its columns. The attorney-general filed an information in the Court of Chancery, praying that the publication might be prevented, and that, by a decree, the proprietor of the journal might be required to give up the book. The injunction was granted, and a singular fact connected with this strange business was, that the injunction was granted by lord Eldon, one of the authors of the book, which he intended for general circulation, with the view of blackening the character of the prince of Wales, and damaging the whig leaders by whom he was surrounded. Although the book was suppressed, the princess was received at court, and continued to be treated with great kindness and respect by lord Eldon and his colleagues, because the old king was her friend. But when her husband, whose conduct they had reprobated, became king, and was very gracious to lord Eldon, the latter gentleman gallantly cut the connection with his former royal protegé, and zealously assisted her immaculate consort to degrade and ruin her, because, forsooth, her character was not sufficiently pure to be at the head of the society which his character so admirably adorned !

On the 6th of November the second reading of the bill was carried by a majority of twenty-eight, the numbers being one hundred and twenty-three to ninety-five, which the government considered equivalent to a finding of guilty. It appears from these numbers that a large proportion of their lordships abstained from voting. The bishops had an insuperable objection to the divorce clause; but in committee it was sustained by a majority of one hundred and twenty-nine to sixty-two, the opposition having nearly all voted for the clause, with a view of defeating the bill in its last stage. Consequently, for the third reading, on the 10th of November, the majority was only nine, the numbers being one hundred and eight to ninety-nine. Upon this announcement lord Liverpool rose and said, that upon so slender a majority he could not think of pressing the measure further, and so he begged leave to withdraw the bill. The truth is, he had no option. It had not the slightest chance of passing through the lower house, where ignominious defeat awaited the government.

The intelligence of this result was received by the public with transports of joy. A person who was present gives a very graphic and touching description of the scene when the finale was announced. He says: "No occurrence where I was only a spectator ever affected me so much. I shall never forget what was my emotion when it was announced to me that the bill of pains and penalties was to be abandoned. I was walking towards the west end of the long corridor of the house of lords, wrapped in reverie, when one of the door-keepers touched me on the shoulder and told me the news. I turned instantly to go back into the house, when I met the queen coming out alone from her waiting-room, preceded by an

I stopped

usher. She had been there unknown to me. involuntarily; I could not proceed, for she had a dazed' look, more tragical than consternation; she passed ma The usher pushed open the folding doors of the great staircase; she began to descend, and I followed instinctively two or three steps behind her. She was evidently all shuddering, and she took hold of the banisters, pausing for a moment. Oh, that sudden clutch with which she caught the railing! Never say again to me that any actor can feel like a principal. Four or five persons camę in from below before she reached the bottom of the stairs. I think alderman Wood was one of them; but I was in indescribable confusion-the great globe itself seemed shaking under me. I rushed past, and out into the hastily assembling crowd. I knew not where I was, but in a moment a shouting in the balcony above, on which a number of gentlemen from the interior of the house were gathering, roused me. The multitude then began to cheer. Every one instantly, between Charing Cross and Whitehall, turned and came rushing down, filling Old and New Palace Yards, as if a deluge was unsluiced. The generous exultation and hurry of the people were beyond all description; it was a conflagration of hearts."*

London was illuminated for three successive nights; Edinburgh, Dublin, Manchester, Liverpool, and all the great towns followed the example. "For several days," says Alison, "the populace in all the cities of the empire seemed to be delirious with joy. Nothing had been seen like it before since the battle of Waterloo; nothing approaching to it after since the reform bill was passed." Meetings were immediately called in every direction to present addresses both to the king and queen: to the former, to congratulate him on the escape of his illustrious consort, and to call upon him to dismiss his present ministers; and to the latter, to felicitate her on the restoration of those dignities from which she had been so long excluded. Not only public meetings of citizens and civic bodies, but trades of all kinds assembled and adopted addresses expressing their exultation at her triumph, and tendering their homage.

The members of the government were scarcely less rejoiced at getting rid of the matter than the nation was at their defeat. The most thinking men of their party became greatly alarmed at the state of public feeling, and were in constant dread of a revolution. The most violent language was used by the democratic leaders, and the press abounded with libels against the government, whose chief members were hooted and pelted as they passed through the streets. This alarming state of things had arrived at its height towards the end of September. duke of York, who was then at Brighton, was violent against the queen. He felt confident that the troops must be called out, and he thought he could trust them. On them alone he depended for the preservation of the throne. The king, at this time, rarely showed himself to any of his subjects. His conduct was an excitement to popular hatred. Mr. W. H. Freemantle, who was well informed as to all that was going forward in the highest

"Diary of the Times of George IV.," vol. ii., pp. 893-5.

The