Chapter IV, of Cassells Illustrated History of England, Volume 7 page 4

" As to what has passed, and is passing out of doors, I will take no notice of it, for 1 am not supposed to hear it, or to know anything about it; only this I will say, that whatever has happened, or whatever may happen, I will perform my duty here. But, in the course of this solemn inquiry, your lordships have heard from the bar of this house what I was very sorry to hear, and what I believe was never before addressed to a court of justice. Something like a threat was held out to your lordships, that if you passed judgment against the queen you would never have the power of passing another judgment. I do not profess to use the words of the speaker, but the impression is distinct upon my mind. My lords, however that may be, I will take upon myself to declare that an address of such a nature, such an address of intimidation to any court of justice, was never until this hour considered to be the duty of an advocate; and that such an address, whether an advocate has a right to make it or not, ought to have no effect on your lordships. You stand here as the great and acknowledged protectors of the liberties, the character, the honour, and the lives of your fellow-subjects, and you cannot discharge that high trust a moment longer than while you can say to one another - and for myself, if I had not a moment longer to live, I would say to you - 'Be just and fear not!'

" My lords, I know the people of this country. I am sure that if your lordships do your duty to them, by preserving their liberties and the constitution which has been handed down to you from your ancestors, the time is not far distant when they will do their duty to you; and they will acknowledge that those who are invested with the great judicial functions of the state, ought firmly to meet all the reproaches to which the faithful performance of those functions may expose them; to court no popularity; to do their duty, and to leave the consequences to the wisdom and justice of God, who guides the feelings and actions of men, and directs the course and consequences of all human affairs. My lords, I have shortly stated my opinion, and the grounds of it. Having thus discharged my individual duty, it is for your lordships to declare what it is your pleasure to do with the bill before us." (" Life of Eldon," by Twiss, vol. ii., pp. 891-5.)

The case against the queen closed on the 7th of September. An adjournment took place to allow time for the preparation of her defence, which was opened on the 3rd of October by Mr. Brougham, in a magnificent oration, justly celebrated as one of the finest specimens of British forensic eloquence. It concluded as follows: -

"It was always," said Mr. Brougham, "the queen's Bad fate to lose her best stay, her strongest and surest protection, when danger threatened her; and by a coincidence most miraculous in her eventful history, not one of her intrepid defenders was ever withdrawn from her without that loss being the immediate signal for the renewal of momentous attacks upon her honour and her life. Mr. Pitt, who had been her constant friend and protector, died in 1806. A few weeks after that event took place, the first attack was levelled at her. Mr. Pitt left her as a legacy to Mr. Perceval, who became her best, her most undaunted, her firmest protector. But no sooner had the hand of an assassin laid prostrate that minister, than her royal highness felt the force of the blow, by the commencement of a renewed attack, though she had but just been borne through the last by Mr. Perceval's skilful and powerful defence of her character. Mr. Whitbread then undertook her protection; but soon that melancholy catastrophe happened, which all good men of every political party in the state, he believed, sincerely and universally lamented. Then came with Mr. Whitbread's dreadful loss the murmuring of that storm which was so soon to burst with all its tempestuous fury upon her hapless and devoted head. Her child still lived, and was her friend; her enemies were afraid to strike, for they, in the wisdom of the world, worshipped the rising sun. But when she lost that amiable and beloved daughter, she had no protector; her enemies had nothing to dread; innocent or guilty, there was no hope, and she yielded to the entreaty of those who advised her residence out of this country. Who, indeed, could love persecution so steadfastly, as to stay and brave its renewal and continuance, and harass the feelings of the only one she loved so dearly, by combating such repeated attacks, which were still reiterated after the echo of the fullest acquittal? It was, however, reserved for the Milan commission to concentrate and condense all the threatening clouds which were prepared to burst over her ill-fated head; and as if it were utterly impossible that the queen could lose a single protector without the loss being instantaneously followed by the commencement of some important step against hers the same day which saw the remains of her venerable sovereign entombed - of that beloved sovereign who was, from the outset, her constant father and friend - that same sun which shone upon the monarch's tomb ushered into the palace of his illustrious son and successor one of the perjured witnesses who were brought over to depose against her majesty's life.

" 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." ("History of Europe," vol. ii., p. 465.)

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 bad 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 lie 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 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 miss 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 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."