all clearly proved or she must be pronounced innocent, and you, when you asserted that the conviction of her guilt must reach all minds, knew well, that nine tenths of the whole of the inhabitants of Great Britain, believed from their hearts that her Majesty was innocent of the charges brought against her by her husband. The main ground of that belief arose from her Majesty's acquittal on two previous cases, when much stronger evidence was sworn to: the known hostility, malignity, and profligacy, of her husband towards her, and the total want of repute in all the persons now brought forward to swear against her. It was not necessary that any individual should look into the minutia of what has now been sworn against her Majesty, they can derive no possible correct information from that source, it is sufficient that they take into consideration her Majesty's former life, and the attempts which her profligate husband has repeatedly made to get her destroyed. It is the common hatred that is feit towards that disgusting character, who now persecutes her Majesty, that has drawn forth the sympathies of the people in her behalf. Even if her Majesty had been guilty of what has been charged upon her since her departure from England, the superior profligacy of her husband would have entitled her to the protection of every honest man and virtuous woman. Then she would not have been the first virtuous woman, whom a drunken, a debauched, a dishonest, and a viciously black and profligate husband, had driven from the path of virtue. I might be told that abuse is not argument. I answer that facts are the best argument, however briefly or bluntly stated, and I would scorn to charge a line of conduct upon any man, much less a king, which would not find a ready assent in the mind of every reader or hearer, akhough, he may not be disposed to make use of similar expressions in public himself. I do boldly aver, that the joint vices of King John, of Henry the Eighth, of Charles the First and Second, of James the First and Second, and of all the vicious Kings whoever sat upon the throne of England, fall far short of the vices by which the people of Britain are disgraced, in the person of their First Magistrate, in the present day. The spirit and intelligence of the age, so different from that of all former times, makes him act more under a cloak, but the dullest eye and mind cannot fail to see and comprehend the cause of all the miseries by which this unhappy nation is afflicted.

You have been fairly beat off every other ground in your charges against her Majesty, except the sudden elevation of

Bergami, and his resting on the deck of the polacre under the same covering with her Majesty. As to the elevation of Bergami, it must appear natural to all but corrupt minds, after reading the testimony of Sir William Gell, and the Honourable Keppel Craven. It has been shewn, that he was a man of the most prepossessing appearance, which, by the bye,, carries more weight than any other accomplishment, in all the common transactions of life: it has been shewn, that he was esteemed by all who had previously known him, and by those persons, among whom more fuss is made about rank, than in any other country whatever, I mean the officers of the Austrian army: it has been shewn, that he was publicly embraced in the street by a general officer, not as a faithful servant, but as an esteemed friend, prior to his entering the service of her Majesty; it has been shewn, that in his capacity of courier, of equerry, or of chamberlain, he at all times conducted himself with equal propriety and a becoming demeanor. The elevation of Bergami forms the strongest possible proof of her Majesty's good sense, liberality, and judgment. It shews that she can despise rank where there is no merit, and give to merit, however humble its origin, the honours due. More than any other circumstance, it renders her fit to fill a distinguished station in life, where she has the control of others. How vile, how base, must be that disposition that can revile her Majesty for being affable and familiar with her servants! It is a trait in power that more than any other thing, renders it admirable, and on the other hand is calculated to elevate and enoble the mind of an honest and faithful servant. But why clamour about the sudden elevation of a menial servant to a higher state in the same service. Look at the origin of the Duke of Somerset and the Duke of Buckingham in the reign of James the First: look at the conduct of the present Duke of York in taking the footmen of Mrs. Clarke and giving them commissions in the army. Say nothing of the Queen's infatuation for Bergami, whilst we have a living example of such infamous infatuation as the Duke of York shewed towards Mrs. Clarke. The Queen's attachment to Bergami was laudable, was honourable, in both: can so much be said for the Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke? Bergami was a man, who carried with him all the accomplishments necessary to fill the post of Chamberlain to a Princess, who had been scouted, watched, dogged, and exposed to continual danger by the brutality of a profligate husband. She stood in need of such a protector; and if it be asked, why she did not seek an Englishman of

366

rank to accompany her? I would answer, that the aristocracy of all countries are abominably corrupt and treacherous. There is nothing like virtue or manhood belonging to it.

As to the resting on the deck of a mere skiff with her Majesty, it forms rather a proof of chastity than of debauchery. No, if the sexual intercourse had been the object, such a place would have been the last thought of, and the man who can make up his mind to pronounce her Majesty guilty from such a circumstance, must be an abandoned wretch indeed. Yet old Eldon pretends that this is enough to satisfy his mind. This old caitiff, when he was about to leave his country-seat, in this county of Dorsetshire, in the winter of 1819, to attend the famous six act Parliament, went into his stable-yard, blustering among his servants, that he would suspend the Habeas Corpus Act again, and lock up all the radicals. So, Mr. Solicitor-General, you see we learn something from being sent to distant gaols.

I cannot conceive any thing more vile, Mr. Copley, than your assumptions about her Majesty's dress not being a sufficient safeguard to her chastity. I will quote your observations, and those from the Courier in which your speech is reprinted as a whole, you are made to say, "Mr. Brougham, in one of his examinations, had asked, whether the Princess took off a stitch of her clothes (such was his word) during the whole of the long voyage? Yet the Princess had been lying all the time side by side with this singular-looking, stoutbuilt' man, and because her dress was not taken off, it was to be concluded that there had been no criminality. Was a proposition so monstrous ever urged before any tribunal, more especially before such a tribunal as this? Paturzo had sworn that he saw her looking out of the tent in a morning gown, and it appeared that the dress of the other party was a loose Tunisian robe, and Dr. Holland had deposed that it was the ordinary mode of dressing. If such obstructions as these were effectual, what was to become of population? (laughter) Formerly it had been said that a hooped and whale-boned petticoat was insufficient.

"Oft have we known that sevenfold fence to fail,

Though stiff with hoops, and armed with ribs of whale.

"This too frequently

"Gave way and bent beneath a fierce embrace.

"And was it credible that the Queen's morning gown had

"made a stouter resistance?" Such language Such language as this might be calculated to please your Royal Master, Mr. Copley, but what will the virtuous, the sober part of the community think of it? It is evident that you have been storing your mind with all the lewd poetry of the reign of Charles the Second, to illustrate the charges you have had to support against her Majesty. In some instances her Majesty is charged with indecency in being too lightly dressed, in others she is told that the heaviest dress is no proof of her chastity! How is a woman to meet such charges as these? There is not a woman in this country but is liable to an accusation of adultery or fornication from the same species of evidence as has been brought against the Queen. And the women of this country will have to rue the persecution of the Queen if they tacitly assent to the proposed degradation. It will be an example that will embitter almost every family in the kingdom sooner or later, and every profligate wretch of a husband will found charges against his wife on similar evidence to that which has been brought against the Queen.

Another astonishing inconsistency in your charge against her Majesty, is her discharging Bergami and her other Italian servants at St. Omer's. What would you have said if she had kept Bergami in her suite whilst this mock trial was pending? Would you not have argued that it was the strongest proof of infatuated passion? Would you have not said that it would have been at least decent for her Majesty to have suspended the services of Bergami whilst this case was pending? How, again, I ask, is any woman to defend herself against such wretches? Almost every other person in the country has argued that the dismissal of Bergami at St. Omer's at a moment's notice, formed the strongest proof of her innocence; but lo! the logic of Mr. Copley strives to make it a proof of guilt! You endeavour to persuade the Ignobles that it is probable Bergami returned from the fear of accompanying her Majesty to this country. Was Bergami the only servant dismissed at St. Omer's? It does not appear that any other than Mariette Bron, the sister of Demont, accompanied her Majesty to England. There were two female servants, besides the Countess of Oldi, dismissed at St. Omer's, and two or three male Italian servants, and had it not been for the trial, it is not probable that any of them would have been sent for again. Again, you have stated, in another part of your new fangled logic, that the Countess Oldi was taken into her Majesty's service to facilitate the intercourse with Bergami. I

1

would ask, must not the Countess Oldi herself be an abandoned woman to have been the instrument of such a case? And have you the slightest charge to make against the manners and conduct of the Countess Oldi. If such a woman had been employed for such a purpose, it is most probable that she herself would have sought an amour with some other servant, which would have been a fine feature in your case, if you could have shewn such a thing. It is now known that Demont is a common prostitute, that she was discharged from the service of her Majesty, owing to the discovery of the connection between her and Sacchi, and that since she has been in London she has walked the streets for hire. If her Majesty had the disposition you have charged upon her, she would not have discharged Demont for such a circumstance, but would have encouraged her as the best safeguard to her own passion. Al your logic and argument, when calmly analyzed, destroys your own case, and the next generation will think that you treated the subject ironically.

I now come to notice your observations on Mr. Denman's comparison of George the Fourth with Nero, and I shall first give all your own distinctions on that head, and try if I cannot strengthen the parallel which Mr. Denman has made, and refute all your excuses and logics. You say Το my surprise-to my amazement and utter astonishment, my learned friend, Mr. Denman, whom I have long known-whose character and private life I have long loved, has for this purpose dared to say that no page in the history of the ancient or modern world furnishes a parallel to the abuses and cruelties her Royal Highness has experienced, unless it is in the annals of Rome in its worst period-in the history of its worst and most infamous Sovereigns! My lords, the Princess of Wales is said, in her sufferings, to stand in the same situation as the Empress Octavia! How are we to answer this, but to see in.. what situation Octavia did stand, in order to see the enormous nature of the charge preferred against the government of this country. Octavia's father was murdered by Nero-Octavia's brother was murdered by Nero, in the presence of Octavia. She, one of the most pure and spotless beings the world ever produced-she was charged with having a criminal intercourse with a slave! My lords, there was not the smallest semblance of truth in the charge; she never advanced this slave; she had never promoted him to orders; she had never slept in the same room with this slave, but without evidence she was sent into banishment. She was seen in Gaul when