notice of it, or to ask it through the sourt; but in the present case no such thing was done; and in the reexamination his learned friend, the Solicitor-General, took the witness back to Naples, and, referring to the account which she had given of the scene in the passage, had' asked her whether she had observed any thing done to the door, (of the passage) after she went out of it? To which she, whose memory was of course much improved by the interval of a day or two, answered, that the door was shut, and, not only shut, but that it was shut on the inside, and that she heard the key turned in it. The object of this was to show that Bergami, by appearing in the passage, could not have intended to seek Demont, but must have intended to visit the room of her Royal Highness. Now he contended that there was no judge in Westminster-hall who would have suffered a witness, two days after her examination-in-chief, and after she had seen the effect of her former evidence, thus to be examined as to matter entirely new, and which in no manner arose out of the cross-examinationmatter, too, to which she might have been prompted as an important adjunct to her former statement. If such a case were to come before the Lord Chief-Justice, or any other judge, he would have instantly prevented the party from putting the question. It was, however, allowed to be put here; and what was before, at the most, only a case of mere suspicion, was thus attempted to be turned into something of positive criminality. He felt it his duty to advert to this instance as extremely disingenuous on the part of his learned friends. He would for the present leave it, and go to another part of the case, as it was his object to pursue facts. He now called their lordships' attention to another part of the evidence, which was relied upon as proof of adulterous intercourse. He alluded to that part where her Royal Highness was described to have visited Bergami during his illness; for even illness, it seemed, was not to prevent the continuance of this degrading connexion. Her Royal Highness was said to have visited Bergami's room twice on this occasion, and to have remained each time just long enough to have yielded herself to his embraces, as it was meant to be inferred. But was not this part of the case fully answered by the evidence of Dr. Holland? He (Dr. Holland) positively swore that, to his knowledge, her Royal Highness never entered BerDef. Pari 2.] 25

gami's room during his illness. Was this a satisfactory answer to their lordships? The next statement of that wretched, discarded servant, Majochi, who swore to having seen her Royal Highness passing through his room twice in the night, on her way to Bergami's apart ment, would their lordships call upon him to reply to this Good God! if such an account were to be credit ed, what safety was there for the life or character of the most innocent individual? Was it credible that if her Royal Highness sought Bergami's room for the purpose alleged, she would have chosen to pass through the room where a servant slept, when she might have gone through another passage? Would it be credited that she had gone through the room of this servant, who was but newly hired, and in whom no confidence could be placed? Was it, he asked, to be believed that her Royal High ness would have gone through a room where a servant slept, or pretended to sleep, where there was a fire and a light, and where she ran all the chance of detection, and this on two occasions in the night-and all this was done too by a person who was said to be endeavouring to screen her guilty connexion with this individual? So that, for the very purpose of secrecy, she went where she must have been inevitably detected. Would, he repeated, their lordships call upon him to give any reply to such a statement? The thing carried its own false hood along with it. There was, then, in support of it, the account of kissing. This was mentioned as having been heard in the opening speech of the AttorneyGeneral: it was said that a witness would prove the having heard kissing after her Royal Highness had passed through the room. The throwing in a few kisses was, no doubt, likely to increase the proof; but the witness only heard whispering. He did not hear what he might have heard, if it had taken place. But why, he asked, had not Dr. Holland been called in support of the statement of Majochi? Dr. Holland was in attendance on Bergami, and he might have supported his (Majochi's) testimony, as to the visit of the Queen to Bergami, if it had so taken place. Why, then, had not Dr. Holland been called on the other side? After the undertaking which was first given by his Majesty's ministers, and subsequently by the law-agents in conducting the prosecution, that all the witnesses should be called who could state any circumstance connected with

the case why, then, after those repeated undertakings, had not Dr, Holland been called? Surely he was as respectable a witness as Majochi. Why did they not call for the testimony of those respectable ladies who bad attended her Royal Highness-some of those who had been placed in attendance on her by her royal huse band, and who must have had the best opportunities of observing her conduct, who could have described what that conduct was? The counsel for her Majesty could have no objection to their stating all they knew respecting her Royal Highness's conduct; there would be no confidence violated. These were not called, but their lordships were told that there was sufficient ground for passing this bill upon what was called a prima facie case, supported by such detestable witnesses as he had described. Their lordships had heard of a secret staircase, and the inference which was attempted to be drawn from it. Now, he would suppose that any one of their lordships were called upon to account for the arrangements of their houses and family at the distance of six years; suppose they were accused of some crime connected with such arrangements, and without potice of the places or particulars of such accusation, could they point out accurately what those arrangements were after the lapse of such time? Ought any one, under such circumstances, to be convicted because they were unable to give such particulars? The greater the innocence of the party, the greater would be the difficulty of proving it. Guilt was always cautious and wary; it was scrupulous in contriving such means as might continue to screen itself from detection. Innocence, on the contrary, confident in itself, was improvident: it neglected, very naturally, to look for protection to such circumstances where no danger could be apprehended. It was not therefore to be expected that an innocent person could be prepared to enter into a detail of every circumstance connected with his conduct; and least of all could it be fairly required in such a case as the present. It was sworn by Majochi that Bergami dined at the table with her Royal Highness at Genoa, and every day after. Now this circumstance was most positively contradicted by not less than three most respectable witnesses. It was contradicted by Dr, Holland in page 619, (Def. Pt. 1. p. 239.) by Lieutenant Hownam in page 702, (Def. Pt. 1, p. 326.) and by Lord Glenbervie in page $11. (Def.

Pt. 1. p. 155.) Here were three positive contradictions by witnesses whom it was impossible to suspect. What did this prove? Did it not clearly show to their lordships that this wretched man (Majochi) was determined to do something worthy of his hire-something which would be a sort of return for the payment he received? He therefore swore to what he knew must have been false; and was this palpable perjury to be answered? was this man's credit to be bolstered up by such remarks as had been made by the Solicitor-General on what his learned friend had said respecting the frequent non mi ricordos. Neither he nor his learned friend objected to Majochi's want of recollection; they did not blame him for his forgetfulness alone (for any man's memory might be frail); but Majochi's memory was remarkably acutehis recollection of times and places was most astonishing. He spoke to the most minute circumstances of time and place, for a series of years, but this recollec tion was all on one side. On the other he could recollect nothing-no, not even the most remarkable facts; all were lost to his memory when he came to be crossexamined. This was the reason why his learned friend (Mr. Brougham) had dwelt so much and so justly upon his non mi ricordos. It was here that Majochi gave the most decided negative to the truth of his own story, for he (Mr. Denman) believed that in the whole course of. his life he had never met in any court a witness whose evidence was so completely demolished by himself as was that of this man. This was the contradiction, which their lordships would weigh. In every case where he spoke of what took place in the presence of a third party he was contradicted, but who could contradict him, who could disprove that which he swore he alone saw? How was it possible to say that he was not, as he said, balf asleep when he saw her Royal Highness enter his room? What did their lordships think of the accuracy of this man's memory when asked as to the having received money from Lord Stewart: "I remember to have received no money when I arrived at Milan; I remember I did not; non so. I do not know, piu no, more "no than yes-non mi ricordo, I do not remember." Was this answer a proof of a frail memory? or did it not show that the witness who had so sworn was anxious to do something to earn the money he had received by. giving his wretched deposition in support of this case?

He (Mr. Denman) would not now go into this part further. He would afterwards have to call their lordships' attention to what he should show was a conspiracy. It was not necessary for him to go into detail with every circumstance respecting this man's testimony; but there was one to which he wished to call their lordships' attention. They had heard the seeming accuracy with which he had described the bed-rooms in several places through which her Royal Highness had passed; but at Civita Vecchia, Porto Ferrajo, Rome, and several other places, he could give no account whatever of the disposition of the rooms. If this alleged adulterous intercourse were still followed up, it must have led to similar dispositions of the apartments, as it was manifest that it could not have been carried on in open day but of such dispositions Majochi could not recollect one word. This was the frailty of memory, the wilful and corrupt forgetfulness of which his learned friends had complained. There was one part of the case which had nearly escaped his recollection; their lordships would bear in mind that in the opening statement of the Attorney-General great stress was laid on the scene which was said to have taken place at the theatre of San Carlos. Her Royal Highness was described to have been so indecently attired as to excite the indignation of some of the company present. What, however, did this turn out. to be? What was Demont's account of it? She stated, not that the dress was grossly indecent, but that her Royal Highness was covered up in an ugly dress, and, being surrounded by a number of disagreeable masks, they had left the theatre. But what said his learned friend the Solicitor-General to this? He had asked, "Could Demont have invented her account?" He (Mr. Denman) said she did invent, and that her story was nothing but invention. They had proved her falsehood where it was possible she could be contradicted. They had proved it in her account of getting leave of absence from Como. But, said the SolicitorGeneral-and he (Mr. Denman) had heard the observation repeated by other sagacious persons out of doors -this could not be a conspiracy, for it had not gone far enough. He maintained that, if it were true, it had gone far enough: and the circumstance of having omitted some parts, in particular situations, arose solely from this-that the witnesses were afraid to tell' what