Perhaps those who may not attentively peruse the trial, may suppose that the evidence of these witnesses was corroborated by that of more respectable persons. But this was not the case. The only witnesses called for the prosecution, who were known to be credible and respectable, were Captains Briggs and Pechell, and these gentlemen were generally called the Queen's witnesses, because their testimony was of great advantage to her cause. One of them distinctly stated, that he had seen nothing improper in the conduct of her Majesty. When the known profligacy of part of the witnesses is considered, and the total want of corroboration, from the evidence of persons of acknowledged respectability, is it not fair to look with extreme distrust towards those parts of the charges which were not distinctly and individually disproved. It is impossible to bring negative evidence to bear on the whole of such a series of accusations; many of the actions, according to the statements of the witnesses, having taken place in the presence of only one individual.

The Milan Commission is charged, on oath, with practices not less disgraceful than those of the witnesses just referred to. Many documents of this kind will be found in the Appendix. The following statement is from page 857, &c. of the Evidence.

Bonfiglio Omati was confidential clerk to the Advocate Codazzi, at Milan, who was her Majesty's professional agent. Offers were made to Omati provided he would betray his trust; in consequence of which he waited on Vi

4

mercati, who promised him an employment in the police of Milan more lucrative than that which he held under Codazzi, provided he would bring certain papers belonging to the Queen, then in the possession of Codazzi. Omati carried various papers to Vimercati at seven or eight times, but not being sufficiently remunerated, he applied to Colonel Browne, who desired him to call on Vimercati on the following day. Omati did so call, and received the remainder of the money which Vimercati had promised. Omati received in all between 350 and 400 francs. Riganti was concerned in this affair. Omati swore he would receive nothing for coming over to give his evidence, his only motive being to remedy the evils he had inflicted.

Having thus delineated the character of the witnesses for the prosecution, it is necessary to advert to those for her Majesty, and the contrast will be as striking as it is satisfactory. Most of them were highly respectable, and several were of noble rank.

Sir Wm. Gell never saw any thing in the conduct, manners, or conversation of the Queen which induced him to entertain an idea that there was a criminal intercourse between her and Pergami. "I never," (said he) "saw the "Princess speak to Pergami but on matters of 'business, though I was in the house for three "months at once with them."*

The Hon. Keppel Craven remained more than six months with her Majesty, and did not observe any impropriety of conduct, or any degrading familiarity between the Queen and Pergami. †

Evidence, p. 555 and 559. + Evidence, p. 531 and 537.

Dr. Holland affirmed that the Queen's conduct to Pergami was that of a Mistress to a servant, and Pergami's conduct to the Queen was unpresuming and respectful. During the whole time that Dr. Holland attended the Queen, he did not observe any indecent, immodest, or improper behaviour in her Majesty.*

Charles Mills, Esq. never saw the smallest impropriety of conduct between the Queen and Pergami, nor any thing in her behaviour, either in public or private, to which just exception could be taken.†

The Earl of Guildford, the Earl of Landaff, § the Domestic Chaplain of the Pope,|| the Cardinal Albani,¶ the Marquis Antaldi,** the Priest of the parish in which the Villa d'Este was situated,†† the Marchioness Mosca Pussionej,‡‡ Count Odoardo Machirelli, §§ and Felici, Judge of the Tribunal of Pesaro,||| have given their several testimonies to the good conduct of the Queen. If this list should not be completely satisfactory, the reader may easily add to its length by referring to the Evidence adduced before the Lords, and to the Appendix to this work, pages cxxv to clxiv. To these names may be added those of the witnesses, who appeared rather for the purpose of disproving insulated charges, than of speaking to the general character or conduct of her Majesty.

Appendix, p. cxxxviii. §§ Appendix, p. cxl. ||| Appendix, p. cxlii.

The Attorney General's speech contained a standing charge, which was made to apply to almost every place, at which the Queen remained on her journies for even one night. A constant attempt was made to demonstrate, that the bed rooms of her Majesty and Pergami were purposely arranged so as to afford an easy communication. For instance, Majocchi* said, that at Tunis the rooms were only separated by a small room and a passage, in neither of which any person slept; and this evidence was given with all possible particularity, for the purpose of producing an impression unfavourable to her Majesty; but Lieut. Hownam† stated that Pergami's room was not on the same floor as the Queen's, and that there were three or four rooms between that of her Majesty and the flight of stairs which led to Pergami's room. Many other instances might be adduced, where the charges were either refuted or their apparent impropriety explained. But though the arrangements of the rooms, and the inferences to be drawn from those arrangements were misstated by the Attorney-General and the witnesses for the prosecution; it is certain that the Queen generally had some male servant near her bedroom for the object of securing her personal safety. That this was necessary, is apparent, from the circumstance of a man being seized by Pergami in the Villa d'Este, who had been sent by Baron Ompteda to obtain the keys of her Majesty's apartment, for the purpose of counterfeiting

* Evidence p. 22, † Evidence, p. 704.

them.* Pergami was not, however, the only servant who guarded her Majesty. Sometimes Hieronymus, and at others Sicard, performed this duty.t

The Official publication of the Minutes of Evidence taken on the second reading of the Bill, &c. in the House of Lords, has been consulted in preparing the Analysis of the Trial, and the references in figures are, to the pages of that official publication; whilst those in roman numerals, are to the pages of the Appendix to this work.

The preparation of this Analysis has been a much more laborious undertaking than the author anticipated, or probably than the reader would credit. The official publication of the evidence (which does not include the addresses of counsel) extends to one thousand and eight folio pages, every sentence of which it was necessary not only to read, but attentively to weigh. Surrounded by such a mass of unarranged matter, he may possibly have committed some oversights. But he is firmly persuaded that the errors (if any) will neither be numerous or important.

The examination of witnesses commenced on the 21st of August, 1820, and finally closed on the 24th of October.

Having thus closed the observations which it appeared necessary to make preparatory to presenting an Analysis of this important Trial, it is now inserted, and to it the most serious attention is requested.

Appendix p. cxxxiii. † Evidence p. 546.