The Trial of Charles Random de Berenger, Sir Thomas Cochrane, commonly called Lord Cochrane, the Hon. Andrew Cochrane Johnstone, Richard Gathorne Butt, Ralph Sandom, Alexander M'Rae, John Peter Holloway, and Henry Lyte for A Conspiracy, by William Brodie Gurney.

---

On the 20th of April, 1814, the Grand Jury for the City of London, at the Sessions-House, in the Old Bailey, returned a True Bill, which set forth:

[First Count.]—That at the times of committing the several offences in this Indictment mentioned, there was, and for a long time before, to wit, two years and upwards, had been an open and public war between our Lord the King and his Allies, and the then ruler of France, to wit, Napoleon Bonaparte, and the people of France:

And that Charles Random de Berenger, Sir Thomas Cochrane, commonly called Lord Cochrane, Andrew Cochrane Johnstone, Richard Gathorne Butt, Ralph Sandom, Alexander M'Rae, John Peter Holloway, and Henry Lyte, supposing and believing, that false reports and rumours of the death of said Napoleon Bonaparte, and of disasters and losses having recently occurred and happened to the said people of France, would induce the subjects of our said Lord the King to suppose and believe, that a peace between our said Lord the King and his subjects, and the said people of France would soon be made, and that an increase and rise in the Government Funds and Government Securities of this Kingdom, would be occasioned thereby. And unlawfully, &c. intending to injure and aggrieve the subjects of our said Lord the King, who should make purchases of and in said Funds, &c. on the 19th February, in Fifty-fourth year of the Reign of our said Lord the King, at the parish of St. Bartholomew, by the Exchange, in the Ward of Broad-street, in London aforesaid, unlawfully, &c. did conspire, &c. to make and propagate, and to cause, &c. to be made and propagated, a false report and rumour, that the French had been then lately beaten in battle, and that said Napoleon Bonaparte was killed, and that the Allies of our said Lord the King were in Paris.

And that they, the Defendants, would thereby induce the subjects of our said Lord the King to suppose and believe, that a peace would soon be made between our said Lord the King and the said people of France, and occasion an increase, &c. of the prices of the Government Funds, &c.

And that Defendants, Sir Thomas Cochrane Johnstone, Richard Gathorne Butt, and John Peter Holloway, respectively, should then sell, and cause, &c. to be sold for them, to divers liege subjects, &c. divers large parts, and shares in said Funds, &c. at higher and greater prices than said parts and shares of and in said Funds, &c. would otherwise sell for, with a wicked and fraudulent intention to thereby cheat, &c. the said subjects, &c. of divers large sums of money.

And that afterwards, to wit, on the 21st February, in the year aforesaid, at the parish and ward aforesaid, in London aforesaid, to wit, at Dover, in the county of Kent, the said Charles Random de Berenger, in pursuance, &c. of said conspiracy, did unlawfully, &c. write a certain false and counterfeit letter, containing divers false matters, which said false and counterfeit letter is directed as follows:

And did then and there send, and cause and procure to be sent, the said false and counterfeit letter to Thomas Foley, Esquire, at Deal; he, the said Thomas Foley, then being the Commander in Chief of His Majesty's Ships &c. employed on the Downs Station, with intention that the said T. Foley, should, by Telegraph, communicate the false matters in the said false letter, to the Commissioners of our said Lord the King, for executing the office of Lord High Admiral, &c. and that such false matters should be promulgated &c. to the liege subjects of our said Lord the King.

And that said Charles Random De Berenger, did also then and there unlawfully &c. assert and report to Timothy Wright, and other persons, that he, the said Charles Random De Berenger, had just then landed and arrived from France, and that the French were beaten, and that said Napoleon Bonaparte was killed, and that the Allies of our said Lord the King, were then in Paris; and the said Charles Random De Berenger, on same day &c. did travel from Dover towards London, and did unlawfully &c. falsely assert and report at Dartford in the County of Kent, and at other places on his way between Dover and London, the several false matters and things last mentioned, to divers other of the liege subjects of our said Lord the King with intention that the said last mentioned false matters &c. should be believed to be true, and should be generally reported, &c. by the said liege subjects, &c. to whom he asserted the same to divers other of the liege subjects, &c.

And more especially, with intention that the said false assertions &c. should reach London, to be reported and rumoured and believed there. And that on the said 21st February, at the parish &c. aforesaid, at London aforesaid, to wit, at Dartford aforesaid, the said Ralph Sandom, Alexander M'Rae and Henry Lyte, in pursuance &c. of the aforesaid conspiracy did unlawfully &c. hire and take a post chaise to go from Dartford, and did go from thence, the said Alexander M'Rae and Henry Lyte, then and there having white cockades in certain cocked hats, which they wore; and the horses drawing the said post-chaise then and there being decorated with branches of laurel, to and over London Bridge, and through the City of London, unto and over Blackfriars Bridge, and unto a certain place called the Marsh Gate, in the Parish of St. Mary Lambeth, in the County of Surry, with intention thereby to induce the liege subjects, &c. whom they should pass, and who should see them in their route and way from Dartford to near the Marsh Gate, to suppose and believe, and to report and rumour to divers other of the liege subjects, that they the said Ralph Sandom, Alexander M'Rae, and Henry Lyte, were the bearers to the Government of this kingdom, of great and important foreign news, highly favorable to the interests of our said Lord the King, and his subjects, and thereby to occasion an increase and rise in the prices of the said public Government Funds, &c. in order and for the purpose that the said Sir Thomas Cochrane, Andrew Cochrane Johnstone, Richard Gathorne Butt, and John Peter Holloway, respectively should then sell and cause and procure to be sold for them respectively to divers subjects, &c. divers large parts and shares of and in the said public Government Funds &c. at higher and greater prices than they would otherwise sell for, with a wicked and fraudulent intention, to thereby cheat and defraud the said last mentioned liege subjects, of divers large sums of money.

And that the said Defendants, in pursuance and further prosecution of said conspiracy, afterwards, to wit, on the said 21st February, did, by means of the premises aforesaid, unlawfully &c. cause and occasion a temporary increase and rise in the prices of said Funds, &c.

And the said Sir Thomas Cochrane, Andrew Cochrane Johnstone, Richard Gathorne Butt and John Peter Holloway, in pursuance and further prosecution of the aforesaid conspiracy, did on the said 21st of February, unlawfully, &c. respectively sell, and cause and procure to be sold for them respectively, unto divers subjects, &c. divers great parts and shares of and in the said public Government Funds and other Government Securities, (that is to say,) the said

at and for greater and larger prices than such parts and shares of and in the said public and Government Funds, &c. would otherwise have sold for, with a wicked and fraudulent intention, then and there to cheat and defraud the said subjects respectively, of divers large sums of money, of the respective monies of the said last mentioned liege subjects, to the damage of the said last mentioned liege subjects, to the evil example &c. in contempt of our said Lord the King and his Laws, and against the peace of our said Lord the King, his crown and dignity.

[Second Count.]—That the Defendants on the said 19th February, unlawfully &c. to induce the subjects &c. to believe that a peace between our said Lord the King and his Subjects and the people of France, would soon be made, and thereby to occasion an increase and rise in the prices of the public Government Funds, and other Government Securities, and to greatly injure and aggrieve the subjects of our said Lord the King, who should on the 21st February, purchase and buy a part or parts and share or shares of and in the said public Government Funds, &c. on said 19th February, with force and arms, &c. unlawfully &c. did conspire &c. together to make and propagate, and to cause and procure to be made and propagated, a false report and rumour, that the French had then lately been beaten in battle, and that said Napoleon Bonaparte was killed, and that the Allies of our said Lord the King were then in Paris.

And that they, the Defendants, would by such last mentioned false report and rumour induce the subjects, &c. to suppose and believe that a peace would soon be made, and occasion an increase and rise in the prices of the public government funds, &c.

And that Sir Thomas Cochrane, Andrew Cochrane Johnstone, Richard Gathorne Butt, and John Peter Holloway, respectively, should then sell and cause, &c. to be sold for them respectively, to divers of the liege subjects of our said Lord the King, divers other large parts and shares of and in the said government funds, &c. at higher and greater prices than said parts and shares would otherwise sell for, with a wicked and fraudulent intention to thereby cheat and defraud the said liege subjects, &c. of divers large sums of money.

And that on the said 21st of February the Defendants, in pursuance of said conspiracy, &c. unlawfully, &c. did cause and procure divers false reports and rumours to be made, spread, and circulated unto and amongst many of the liege subjects, &c. in certain parts of the counties of Kent and Surry, to wit at Dover in the said county of Kent, and in and along and near unto the King's common highway leading from Dover aforesaid to the said City of London, and also in the said City of London and parts adjacent thereto, that the French had then lately been beaten in battle, and that the said Napoleon Bonaparte was killed, and that the Allies of our said Lord the King were then in Paris. And that a peace between our said Lord the King and his subjects, and the said people of France would soon be made, with intention thereby to occasion an increase and rise in the said funds, &c. in order and for the purpose that the said Sir Thomas Cochrane, Andrew Cochrane Johnstone, Richard Gathorne Butt, and John Peter Holloway, respectively, should then sell and cause and procure to be sold for them respectively to divers liege subjects, &c. divers other large parts and shares of and in the said public government funds, &c. at higher and greater prices than they would otherwise sell for, with a wicked and fraudulent intention to thereby cheat and defraud the said subjects of divers large sum of money, &c.

[Third Count.]—That the Defendants on the said 19th of February unlawfully, &c. by false reports, rumors, arts and contrivances to induce the subjects of our said Lord the King to believe that a peace would soon be made between our said Lord the King and his subjects, and the said people of France, and thereby to occasion without any just or true cause a great increase and rise of the public government funds, &c. and to injure, &c. the subjects of our said Lord the King who should on the said 21st of February purchase and buy any part or parts and share or shares of and in the said public government funds, &c. then and there, to wit, on the said 21st of February, unlawfully, &c. did conspire, &c. to make and propagate, and cause and procure to be made and propagated unto and amongst divers of the liege subjects, &c. in the county of Kent, to wit at Dover, Deal, and Dartford, and other places in that county, and also unto and amongst divers of the liege subjects, &c. at London aforesaid, and places adjacent thereto divers false reports and rumours that the said Napoleon Bonaparte was killed, and that a peace would soon be made between our said Lord the King and his subjects and the people of France.

And that the said Defendants would by such false reports and rumours as far as in them lay, occasion an increase and rise in the prices of the public government funds and other government securities, with a wicked intention to thereby greatly injure and aggrieve all the liege subjects of our said Lord the King who should, on the said 21st of February, purchase or buy any part or parts and share or shares of and in said public government funds, &c. To the great damage of all the last mentioned liege subjects, &c. To the evil example, &c. and against the peace, &c.

[Fourth Count.]—That the said Defendants unlawfully contriving, &c. to injure and aggrieve divers of the liege subjects, &c. on the 19th February unlawfully, &c. did conspire, &c. to write and cause to be written a certain other false and counterfeit letter containing therein divers false matters of and concerning the Allies of our said Lord the King, and the said Napoleon Bonaparte and the French people, and to send and cause and procure the said last mentioned letter to be sent to the aforesaid Thomas Foley at Deal, the said Thomas Foley then and there being the Commander in Chief of His Majesty's ships and vessels employed on the Downs' station, with a wicked intention to impose upon and deceive the said Thomas Foley, and to induce and cause the said Thomas Foley to communicate the false matters contained in the said last mentioned false and counterfeit letter to the said Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of Great Britain. And also with a wicked intention, that by the means in this Count mentioned the said false matters contained in said last mentioned false and counterfeit letter, should be promulgated and publicly made known to the liege subjects, &c. and thereby to occasion a temporary rise and increase in the prices of the public government funds, &c. and to injure and aggrieve all His Majesty's liege subjects who should contract for, and also, all the subjects, &c. who should purchase any part or parts, share or shares of, and in the said public government funds, &c. during such temporary rise and increase in the prices thereof, to the evil example, &c. in contempt, &c. and against the peace, &c.

[Fifth Count.]—That the Defendants unlawfully contriving, &c. to injure and aggrieve divers of the liege subjects of our said Lord the King, afterwards to wit, on the said 19th February, at the parish and ward aforesaid, &c. unlawfully, &c. did conspire together, to make and propagate, and to cause and procure to be made and propagated unto, and amongst divers of the liege subjects of our said Lord the King, divers false reports and rumours of and concerning the said Napoleon Bonaparte and the French people, and thereby to occasion a temporary rise and increase in the prices of the public Government Funds, &c. and to injure and aggrieve all his Majesty's liege subjects who should contract for, and also all the liege subjects of our said Lord the King who should purchase any part or parts, share or shares of, and in the said public Government Funds, &c. during such last mentioned temporary rise and increase in the prices thereof, to the evil example, &c. &c.

[Sixth Count.]—That the Defendants, on the said 19th February unlawfully, &c. did conspire, &c. to make and propagate, and cause, and procure to be made and propagated unto and amongst divers subjects, &c. a certain false report and rumour, that a Peace would then be soon made between our said Lord the King, his subjects, and the people of France, and thereby to occasion a temporary rise and increase in the prices of the public Government Funds, &c. and to injure and aggrieve all his Majesty's subjects who should contract for, and also all the liege subjects, &c. who should purchase any part or parts, or share or shares of and in the said public Government Funds, &c. during such last mentioned temporary rise and increase in the prices thereof, to the evil example, &c.

[Seventh Count.]—That the Defendants, unlawfully contriving, &c. for their own lucre and gain, to injure and aggrieve divers of the liege subjects of our said Lord the King, on the said 19th February, unlawfully, &c. did conspire, &c. by divers false and subtle arts, devices, contrivances, representations, reports, and rumours, to occasion without just and true cause, a rise and increase in the prices of the public Government Funds, &c. and thereby to injure and aggrieve all his Majesty's liege subjects who should contract for, and also all his Majesty's liege subjects who should purchase any part or parts, share or shares of and in the said public Government funds, &c. during such last mentioned rise and increase in the prices thereof, to the evil example, &c.

[Eighth Count.]—That the Defendants unlawfully, &c. contriving to injure and aggrieve divers of the liege subjects of our said Lord the King, on the 19th February unlawfully, &c. did conspire, &c. by divers false and subtle arts, devices, contrivances, representations, reports and rumours, to induce, cause and occasion, divers and very many of the liege subjects of our said Lord the King, to suppose and believe, without true and just cause, that a peace would soon be made between our said Lord the King and his subjects, and the people of France, to the great and manifest injury of divers and very many of the liege subjects of our said Lord the King, to the evil example, &c.

Plea—NOT GUILTY.

The Indictment was removed into the Court of King's Bench, at the instance of the Prosecutors, in Easter Term.

---

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL,

Wednesday, 8th June, 1814.

Before the Right Hon. Lord Ellenborough.

Counsel for the Prosecution.
Mr. Gurney,
Mr. Bolland,
Mr. Adolphus.

Solicitors.
Messrs. Crowder, Lavie, and Garth.

Counsel for C. R. De Berenger.
Mr. Park,
Mr. Richardson.

Solicitor.
Mr. Gabriel Tahourdin.

Counsel for Lord Cochrane, The Hon. A. C. Johnstone, and R. G. Butt.
Mr. Serjeant Best,
Mr. Topping,
Mr. Scarlett,
Mr. Brougham.

Solicitors for Lord Cochrane.
Messrs. Farrer and Atkinson.

Solicitors for the Hon. A. C. Johnstone, and R. G. Butt.
Messrs. Brundrett, Wainwright, and Spinks.

Counsel for R. Sandom, J. P. Holloway, and Henry Lyte.
Mr. Serjeant Pell,
Mr. C. F. Williams,
Mr. Denman.

Solicitor.
Mr. Young.

Counsel for Alexander M'Rae.
Mr. Alley.

Solicitor.
Mr. Twynam.

---

THE JURY.

Thomas Brown, Church-row, Aldgate. Henry Septimus Wollaston, Devonshire-street. George Spedding, Upper Thames-street. George Miles, Gracechurch-street. John Parker, Broad-street. Lewis Loyd, Lothbury. John Peter Robinson, Austin Friars. John Hodgson, New Broad-street. Thomas Wilson Hetherington, Nicholas-lane. Richard Hall, Lawrence-lane. Richard Cheesewright, King-street. John Green, Suffolk-lane.

Merchants.

---

The Indictment was opened by Mr. ADOLPHUS.

Mr. GURNEY.

May it please your Lordship.

Gentlemen of the Jury.

It is my duty, as Counsel for this Prosecution, to state to you the facts which I shall have to lay before you, and to apply those facts to the several Defendants, and to the Charges contained in the Indictment, which has been opened by my learned Friend; and, Gentlemen, I am sure that it is unnecessary for me to request that you will dismiss from your minds every thing that you may have heard upon this subject before you entered that Box. It is one of the circumstances which necessarily attends a free press, that many cases which come under the consideration of a Court of Justice, shall previously have undergone some public discussion; without blame to any one, that will sometimes occur from the nature and publicity of the case itself. It does also sometimes occur, that they who are accused, industriously circulate matters which they consider as useful to their defence; and even on the very eve of trial, force them into public notice. If any thing has fallen under your observation, either on the one side or the other, I intreat you to lay it totally aside; to come to the consideration of this subject with cool, dispassionate, unprejudiced, unprepossessed minds, to attend to the evidence that will be laid before you, and to that evidence alone—by that evidence let the Defendants stand or fall.

Gentlemen, it would be very extraordinary indeed, if it could ever have been supposed by any person, even the most ignorant, that this was not a crime. It would be a disgrace to any civilized country, if its laws were so defective. If that which has been done by these Defendants in conspiracy, had been done by any one of them singly, it would have been unquestionably a crime; but when done by conspiracy, it is a crime of a more aggravated nature—To circulate false news, much more to conspire to circulate false news with intent to raise the price of any commodity whatever, is, by the Law of England, a crime, and its direct and immediate tendency is to the injury of the public. If it be with intent to raise the price of the public funds of the country, considering the immense magnitude of those funds, and, consequently, the vast extent of the injury which may be produced, the offence is of a higher description. The persons who must be necessarily injured in a case of that kind, are various; the common bona fide purchaser who invests his money—the public, through the commissioners for the redemption of the national debt—the persons whose affairs are under the care of the Court of Chancery, and whose money is laid out by the Accountant General, all these may be injured by a temporary rise of the public funds, growing out of a conspiracy of this kind; and, Gentlemen, this is no imaginary statement of mine, for it will appear to you to-day, that all these persons were in fact injured by the temporary rise produced by this conspiracy. Undoubtedly the public funds will be affected by rumours, which may be considered as accidental; in proportion as they are liable to that, it becomes more important to protect them against fraud.

If this had been a conspiracy to circulate false rumours, merely to abuse public credulity, it would not have been a trivial offence; but if the object of the conspiracy be not merely to abuse public credulity, but to raise the funds, in order that the conspirators may sell out of those funds for their own advantage, and, consequently, to the injury of others, in that case the offence assumes its most malignant character—it is cold blooded fraud, and nothing else. It is then susceptible of but one possible aggravation, and that is, if the conspirators shall have endeavoured to poison the sources of official intelligence, and to have made the officers of government the tools and instruments of effectuating their fraud—Gentlemen, this offence, thus aggravated, I charge upon the several Defendants upon this Record, and I undertake to prove every one of them to be guilty.

Gentlemen, when I undertake to prove them to be guilty, you will not expect that I shall give you proof by direct evidence, because, in the nature of things, direct evidence is absolutely impossible—they who conspire do not admit into the chamber in which they form their plan, any persons but those who participate in it; and, therefore, except where they are betrayed by accomplices, in no such case can positive and direct evidence be given. If there are any who imagine, that positive and direct evidence is absolutely necessary to conviction, they are much mistaken; it is a mistake, I believe, very common with those who commit offences: they fancy that they are secure because they are not seen at the moment; but you may prove their guilt as conclusively, perhaps even more satisfactorily, by circumstantial evidence, as by any direct evidence that can possibly be given.

If direct and positive evidence were requisite to convict persons of crimes, what security should we have for our lives against the murderer by poison?—no man sees him mix the deadly draught, avowing his purpose. No, he mixes it in secret, and administers it to his unconscious victim as the draught of health; but yet he may be reached by circumstances—he may be proved to have bought, or to have made the poison; to have rinsed the bottle at a suspicious moment; to have given false and contradictory accounts; and to have a deep interest in the attainment of the object. What security should we have for our habitations against the midnight burglar, who breaks into your house and steals your property, without disturbing your rest or that of your family, but whom you reach by proving him, shortly afterwards, in the possession of your plate? What security should we have against the incendiary, who is never seen in the act by any human eye, but whose guilt, by a combination of circumstances over which he may have had no controul, or part of which he may have contrived for his own security, is as clearly established as if deposed to by the testimony of eye-witnesses.

Gentlemen, by the same sort of evidence by which in these, and various other cases, the lives of individuals are affected, I undertake to bring home this case to the Defendants upon this Record. I undertake to shew, that such a conspiracy did exist as this Indictment charges; and I undertake to prove every one of these Defendants acting in furtherance and execution of the conspiracy, so as to leave no more doubt upon your minds, when you have heard the evidence, that they were all parties to this conspiracy, than if you had witnesses before you who were present with them in consultation, and heard them assign to each man the part which he was to act.

Gentlemen, in the security in which we now repose, in the triumph in which we are now indulging, it is difficult to carry back our minds to the state of agonizing suspense in which we were at the critical time at which this conspiracy took place. At that time the empire of him for whom Europe itself appeared too small, was not confined within the narrow limits of the Isle of Elba; he had been driven back, it is true, from the extremity of Europe into France.—France itself was invaded, and our illustrious Allies had made considerable progress towards Paris, but they had been more than once repulsed, and one army had, by almost super-human efforts, preserved itself from destruction; but the fortune of war was uncertain; in this age of miracles, no man could tell what would be the final event; and every one was waiting in breathless expectation for the destruction of him (or at least of his power) who had been so long the destroyer of his species. Gentlemen, at that most critical moment, when the funds were so liable to be affected by every event of the war, when they were liable to be affected still more by the Negotiations at Chatillon, which were then pending—at that moment this conspiracy with respect to the Funds took place; and you will bear this in mind, Gentlemen, that if the false news were believed but for a single hour, the mischief to the public would be done—the object of the conspirators would be accomplished.

Gentlemen, the first person whom I shall have to present to you, as bearing a principal part in this conspiracy; the main agent in its execution, will be proved to be the Defendant, Charles Random de Berenger;—he was a fit person to be selected for the purpose;—he was a foreigner by birth; he had resided long in this country; he would pass very well for an officer; he had been for fourteen or fifteen months a prisoner for debt in the King's Bench, or rather within the Rules of the King's Bench; he would be a convenient man afterwards to convey away; as he would prefer a residence in any other country, because his creditors resided in this.

You will find that he made his appearance a little after midnight of Sunday, the 20th of February—the morning of Monday, the 21st of February; at Dover; he was first seen in the street, enquiring for the Ship Hotel; he was shewn to it, he knocked loudly at the door, and obtained admittance; he was dressed in a grey military great coat, a scarlet uniform, richly embroidered with gold lace, (the uniform of a Staff Officer) a star on his breast, a silver medal suspended from his neck, a dark fur cap with a broad gold lace, and he had a small portmanteau; he announced himself as an Aid de Camp to Lord Cathcart, just arrived from Paris; that he was the bearer of glorious news, that a decisive battle had taken place, that Bonaparte was pursued and killed by the Cossacks, that the Allied Sovereigns were actually in Paris, and that now (that most welcome news to the Inhabitants of Dover) an immediate Peace was certain. He desired to have a sheet of paper, that he might write a letter to the Port-Admiral at Deal, Admiral Foley; paper was furnished, and he sat down to write, and soon afterwards the letter was dispatched to the Port-Admiral at Deal. Upon persons coming round him and importuning him with questions, he pretended to be extremely fatigued. He said he had travelled two or three nights. "Do not pester me with questions, you will know it to-morrow from the Port-Admiral." He ordered a post-chaise and four for London, and he offered to pay with some gold Napoleons; the landlord of the inn did not know exactly the value of a Napoleon, and scrupled to take them, upon which this gentleman, rather inconsiderately, produced from his pocket some one pound Bank of England notes, with those notes he paid for his chaise, and he set off for London in the post-chaise and four. When he arrived at Canterbury he rewarded his post-boys very liberally; he gave each of them a Napoleon. A Napoleon, I dare say you know, is worth eighteen or twenty shillings; he ordered horses on to Sittingbourn; the same chaise brought him from Canterbury to London, and he gave Napoleons to all his post-boys. It was difficult to say which was first upon the road, this Colonel Du Bourg or other expresses which had been sent off from Dover with this happy news, for as soon as this news was announced all Dover was in agitation. Post-horses were ordered out, and I believe some of the expresses reached London half an hour before this person himself.

Gentlemen, it will be necessary that I should read to you the letter to Admiral Foley, it is dated Dover, one o'clock A. M. February 21, 1814, addressed to the Honorable J. Foley, Port-Admiral, Deal, &c. &c. &c. signed R. Du Bourg, Lieutenant-Colonel and Aid de Camp to Lord Cathcart. "Sir, I have the honor to acquaint you, that the L'Aigle from Calais, Pierre Duquin, Master, has this moment landed me near Dover, to proceed to the Capital with dispatches of the happiest nature. I have pledged my honor that no harm shall come to the crew of L'Aigle; even with a flag of truce they immediately stood for sea: should they be taken, I have to intreat you immediately to liberate them, my anxiety will not allow me to say more for your gratification, than that the Allies obtained a final victory, that Bonaparte was overtaken by a party of Sachen's Cossacks, who immediately slaid him, and divided his body between them. General Platoff saved Paris from being reduced to ashes, the Allied Sovereigns are there, and the white cockade is universal, an immediate peace is certain; in the utmost haste, I entreat your consideration, and have the honor to be, Sir, your most obedient humble Servant, R. Du Bourg."

A post boy was sent over with this letter to Admiral Foley; he delivered it to the Admiral between three and four o'clock, I think, and nothing but the haziness of the morning which obstructed the working of the telegraph, prevented the news reaching the Admiralty, in which case the conspiracy in question, which was effectual to a great degree, would have been complete, and all the expectations of the conspirators fully realized.

Gentlemen, when Colonel Du Bourg, alias Mr. De Berenger, arrived at Rochester, he saw the landlord Mr. Wright, he conversed with him a considerable time, and to him he repeated this news. He ordered horses on for Dartford, and gave Napoleons to the post boys, and when he arrived at Dartford, he there repeated his news to the landlord and the waiter, partly in the hearing of the post boys. When he set off from Dartford he desired the post boys to drive as fast as possible; they did so for the first three miles; when they arrived at Bexley Heath, the road being within sight of the telegraph, he spoke to the post boys, and told them they need not drive so fast, that his business was not so pressing, as the telegraphs could not work; they told him they were sure they could not work, that they knew the telegraphs all along the road. In coming up Shooter's Hill, the post boys alighted from their horses and walked by the side of the chaise. They were naturally very desirous to know distinctly what the news was, and one of them said, "Pray Sir, what is the news?—Oh it is all over—Bonaparte is killed—the Cossacks fought for a share of his body; he was literally torn to pieces by the Cossacks,"—he said, "I landed last night within two miles of Dover, and the French boat immediately put to sea; I went to the Ship at Dover. I wrote a letter to Admiral Foley, in order that he might forward the news by the telegraph; I was obliged to do that—it was my duty;" and then still more to put them in good humour, he handed out to them some wine, which he had brought from Dover.—He said to them, do not talk of this news as you go along—as soon as you have parted with me you may tell who you please; by and by he said, Pray where can I get a hackney coach? the first stand, the boy told him, was at the Bricklayer's Arms—"No, I will not take one there;" then the Marsh Gate—"Very well, I will get one there". When they crossed Saint George's Fields, the post boy, who every now and then turned round for the gratification of looking at this generous bearer of good news, observed that he pulled up the blind, and seemed to avoid observation. He did not know what his reason might be for that, and it did not strike him till afterwards. They tried to get a hackney coach at the Three Stags, they could not, and they went on to the Marsh Gate, there they found one coach, and one coach only; Colonel Du Bourg stepped out of the post chaise into the hackney coach. He gave each of the boys a gold Napoleon; he drove off, and away they went, as happy as they could be, to spread every where this very glorious news. This you will find to have been at about nine o'clock in the morning.

Gentlemen, you may very readily suppose that very soon after ten o'clock, this news reached the Stock Exchange; whether through the post boys or by the expresses sent up from Dover, it did reach the Stock Exchange at a little after ten o'clock. Probably you know that business commences at ten. At ten business commenced as it had left off on Saturday; the price of Omnium for some time was 27-1/2. It began extremely flat at 27-1/2—it went on 27-1/2—but in about a quarter of an hour, accounts came that an officer from Paris had arrived at Dover, and had come up in a post chaise and four to Government with this news, which was recited in detail. The Funds immediately rose to 28—28-1/2—29 and 30, and on it went till about twelve o'clock, when no letter coming from the Secretary of State to the Lord Mayor, people began to doubt its truth, and from 30 Omnium fell to 29, and was getting down, when between twelve and one o'clock there came the amplest confirmation. This, Gentlemen, you will find to be auxiliary to the main plot, and a very important auxiliary. In itself it would have been absolutely nothing. There drove through the City, a post chaise and four, with three persons in it, two of them dressed like French Officers, in blue great coats, with white linings; they wore white cockades, and their horses were decorated with laurel. As they went along they dispersed little billets announcing this news. After a kind of triumphal progress through the City, they turned to the left at Bridge Street, went over Blackfriars Bridge, quitted the main road for the New Cut, and when they had arrived near the Marsh Gate, within a hundred yards of the spot at which Colonel Du Bourg had alighted, these three gentlemen got out of their chaise, folded up their cocked hats, put on round hats, and walked off.

Gentlemen, this you may suppose, indeed we all know, produced an emotion in the City not to be described. There is nothing so contagious as popular feeling, especially on a subject of great public interest. This stamped certainty upon the news; this reached the Stock Exchange, and the funds, which had begun to droop, revived; Omnium rose to 30, 31, 32 and 32-1/2. Thus it went on for a short time, till persons having been sent to the West End of the Town, and it being found that no Messenger had arrived at the Office of the Secretary of State with this intelligence, it was discovered that this had been a gross and wicked deception; and the Funds returned to very nearly their former level. But there were very large sales made, and of course there were many persons defrauded. The members of the Stock Exchange felt it, and felt it deeply; and they appointed a Committee to investigate this business, and to ascertain who were the parties to this fraud. That Committee pursued the investigation with great industry, and they discovered that which I shall lay before you in evidence. As the underplot is the shortest, I may as well dispose of that first.—They ascertained that this second post chaise had come from Northfleet, which is, you know, near Gravesend. That Mr. Ralph Sandom, who is a Spirit Merchant, living at Northfleet, but who was at that time also like Mr. De Berenger, a prisoner within the rules of the King's Bench, and who kept within the rules just as faithfully as Mr. De Berenger did, had sent, early in the morning, to Dartford, for a post chaise and four, to be sent to him at Northfleet, and for four horses to be ready to take him on to town; and that Mr. Sandom; a Mr. Alexander M'Rae, a person in most desperate circumstances; and Mr. Lyte, who is, I believe, a little Navy Agent, and a very poor man, were the persons who had come in this post chaise; and that M'Rae and Lyte were the two persons who were dressed in the uniform of French Officers.

Gentlemen, they ascertained further, that Mr. M'Rae resided at a lodging in Fetter Lane; that on Saturday the 19th of February, he had brought into his lodgings a couple of great coats, blue lined with white, to resemble the coats of French Officers; that he had white cockades made up by his wife in the lodging, and upon enquiry being made by his hostess what all this could mean, said, that it was to take in the flats. He quitted his lodging in the afternoon of Sunday, stating that he was going down to Gravesend by water; and he returned about two on Monday, after having, as I stated, quitted the chaise at the Marsh Gate. The great coat was speedily altered, by the white lining being taken out and another lining put in its place, and the white cockades were burnt: and Mr. M'Rae, who had been in the greatest distress for money, was, in the course of that week, exulting in his success, boasting of the money he had earned by that which he had done; and on being expostulated with on the impropriety of that mode of getting money, said, "If I had not somebody else would."

Gentlemen, the Committee discovered that Mr. M'Rae was a party to this business at a still earlier period, and that it had been for some time in preparation, that he had on the 14th (the Monday preceding) written a letter to a person of the name of Vinn, appointing a meeting at the Carolina Coffee-House for the next day. On the Tuesday Vinn met him. Mr. Vinn speaks French very well, and Mr. M'Rae explained the business on which he wished to converse with him; the funds were then in a critical situation, it would be a very good thing if he would but personate a French officer, and bring some good news to Town, and that a hundred pounds were at his service. Mr. Vinn felt a little indignant at this proposal being made to him, saying that he hoped what Mr. M'Rae knew of him would have given him a different opinion of him; but Mr. M'Rae would not let Mr. Vinn go without giving him some French phrases, which you will find were the very phrases in these billets thrown out when they passed through the City. It was therefore completely ascertained that M'Rae was not only concerned as an actor in this under plot, carried on by the chaise from Northfleet to London, but that he had so long before as the Tuesday preceding, proposed to Vinn to do that which De Berenger in fact did.

The Committee afterwards ascertained, that the immediate employer of the persons in the Chaise was Mr. Holloway, a wine merchant, another defendant, who independently of his concerns with those persons, chose to have a little dealing in the funds himself, he had a small milkscore of about forty-thousand pounds omnium, which he disposed of on that 21st day of February, at a handsome profit.

Gentlemen, you will not fail to observe that this part of the plot could have had no effect but for the foundation laid by the appearance of the pretended officer at Dover and his journey to London; for a post-chaise coming through the City with white cockades and laurel branches would have had no effect except to excite laughter and derision, but for the preparation made by De Berenger in the character of Du Bourg; and when you find for the purpose of producing the same effect, such a coincidence of plan, and such a coincidence of time, the one the basis and the other the superstructure, although I shall not be able to prove all the parties meeting together, conferring together, consulting together, still it will be impossible to doubt that these are two parts of one whole; that this is, in short, not two conspiracies, but one and the same conspiracy.

Gentlemen, the enquiry respecting the chaise from Dover led to much more important results. It was the first business of the Committee to learn to what place this pretended Du Bourg went in the Hackney-coach from the Marsh-gate. They found out the Hackney-coachman, and he informed them that he was directed by Du Bourg to drive, and he did drive straight and direct to No. 13, Green-street, the house of Lord Cochrane, and it is not an immaterial consideration in this matter, a house in which Lord Cochrane had resided but three days, a ready-furnished house which he had taken of Mr. Durand, and a person must have been on intimate terms with Lord Cochrane to know where he resided on Monday, Lord Cochrane having gone into the house only on the Thursday evening preceding.

The Coachman further informed the Committee that when he stopped at this house Du Bourg enquired for some person by the description, as he thought, of Captain or Colonel, and that the answer given by the servant was, that he was gone to breakfast in Cumberland-street.

Having proceeded thus far, the next thing for the Committee to discover was whether Lord Cochrane was a person who could have any possible interest in the success of this fraud. They pursued their enquiries upon that subject, and they discovered, to their utter astonishment, that this nobleman—this officer highly distinguished in the navy, then lately appointed to an important command, and one should have supposed his whole soul ingrossed in preparation for the active and important service on which he was going—this Representative in Parliament for the City of Westminster, bound by the most sacred of all duties, not to involve himself in any situation by which his honest judgment could be warped, and his parliamentary conduct influenced—they found Lord Cochrane to have been a deep speculator in omnium; that he had been so for one week only; that on that Monday morning he had a large balance on hand, and that on that Monday morning he had sold out the whole of that balance, and sold it at a profit.

When the Committee had learned thus much, they could not but feel that it was impossible that it could be an accidental coincidence, that this impostor, Du Bourg, should have alighted at the house of a person thus deeply interested in the success of the imposition which he had practised. But their enquiries and discoveries did not end there; they found that Lord Cochrane had not acted alone in these stock proceedings; that he was connected with two other persons, who were still more deep in them, the one his uncle, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone (also a member of parliament), and the other a Mr. Richard Gathorne Butt, formerly a clerk in the Navy Office. They discovered that these persons were engaged together in speculations of a magnitude perfectly astonishing. I have the statement in my hand; but I do not think it requisite, in my address to you, to go through all the particulars. Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and Mr. Butt, who had commenced their stock speculations on the 8th of February, a week earlier than Lord Cochrane, had dealt much more largely even than he had. Their purchases were the same, their sales the same; they seemed in these stock speculations to have but one soul. If one bought twenty thousand, the other bought twenty thousand; if one bought ninety-five thousand, the other bought ninety-five thousand; you will find the act of one the act of the other; and you will find these three persons, Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and Mr. Butt, having on the Saturday preceding this Monday, a balance amounting in consols and omnium to very nearly a million—reduced to consols, you will find it amount to sixteen hundred thousand pounds; and on the morning of Monday, on the arrival of this news, they all three sold—they sold all that they had, every shilling of it; and, by a little accident in the hurry of this great business, they sold rather more.

Gentlemen, it was discovered still further, that the principal agent in these purchases and sales, was a Mr. Fearn, a stock broker; that Mr. Butt was the active manager; that the directions for Lord Cochrane's purchases and sales were made mostly by Mr. Butt, and were recognized by his Lordship; that the payment for any loss (sustained by either of the three) was made by Mr. Butt, and the receipt of any profit was by the hand of Mr. Butt. They discovered that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and Mr. Butt, were in the habit of coming every morning at an early hour to visit their broker, Mr. Fearn; that on the morning in question, they had come at an early hour, in a hackney coach, and that Lord Cochrane, after having breakfasted in Cumberland-street with Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and Mr. Butt, came in the same hackney coach, at least as far as Snow-hill, if he did not afterwards go on to the Stock Exchange. They discovered, too, that Mr. Fearn was not the only broker they employed; they employed a Mr. Smallbone, a Mr. Hichens, and a Mr. Richardson; they may have employed twenty others that we know not of, because it has been only by accident that the Committee learned their employment of Mr. Richardson, for Mr. Richardson not being a member of the Stock Exchange, the Committee had no controul over him to exact information from him. Mr. Butt had employed Mr. Richardson on the Saturday preceding, to purchase fifty thousand omnium, of which he the same day sold thirty; and so anxious was Mr. Butt on that Saturday to be possessed of as much stock as possible, that he endeavoured to persuade Mr. Richardson to purchase one hundred and fifty thousand, but Mr. Richardson trembled at the idea of making so large a speculation, and refused to go beyond the fifty thousand.

You have these persons, then, linked together in such manner, as will render them perfectly inseparable in these various stock transactions; having dealt for some little time; having bought and having sold; having this tremendous balance, this world of Stock, under which they were, on the Saturday evening, bending and groaning, on the Monday morning they had disburthened themselves completely of this with a profit of a little more than ten thousand pounds. If the telegraph had worked, that ten thousand would have been nearer a hundred thousand—that the telegraph did not work, was not to be ascribed either to them or to their agent.

Gentlemen, when all this was ascertained, the Committee apprised those who had appointed them of the result of their labours; they printed an account for the information of the members of the Stock Exchange; they then had some private information, that Du Bourg really was De Berenger; but on enquiry for Mr. De Berenger, they found he was gone off; they had not, therefore, any positive proof, and on that account they very prudently said nothing upon the subject. When they had printed this information, for the use of their own members only; it did get out, and there were published in the newspapers some accounts of their reports, some of them correct, and some of them incorrect, but sufficient undoubtedly to direct the eyes of all men to these three individuals, Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and Mr. Butt.

Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and Mr. Butt, felt that it was requisite for them to give some explanation upon this subject. Mr. Butt was extremely indignant at suspicions being thrown out respecting him, he abused those who had libelled and slandered him, and threatened prosecution, a threat which he has not executed, nor ever will. Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, too, equally threatened prosecution, and he has equally failed in the execution of his threat; but one fact stated by the Committee, roused the indignation of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone. It had been stated by the Committee, that whereas Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and Mr. Butt, had been satisfied before the 21st of February with doing business at the office of their agent, that on that morning they commenced business at an office, taken by Mr. Cochrane Johnstone for the use of Mr. Fearn, in Shorter's Court, Throgmorton-street, an office most conveniently situated, just by the side door of the Stock Exchange itself. This office consisted of three rooms, in one of which rooms were Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and Mr. Butt; in a second Mr. Fearn, and in the third a Mr. Lance, a person also employed by them; and the Committee stated, from Mr. Fearn's information, that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone had taken this office for Mr. Fearn, even without his (Mr. Fearn's) knowledge.

Mr. Cochrane Johnstone was extremely angry at this; he declared it to be a most unqualified falsehood, and that he was ready to swear positively, that he never had done any such thing; that the office was Mr. Butt's, and that Mr. Butt had given it up to Mr. Fearn; now that would not signify much, for I will shew, that Mr. Butt and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone are one and the same. Gentlemen, I am sorry to say, that after what I have seen of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's conduct in this transaction, I am not surprised at his denying this, merely because his denial is in contradiction to the fact, but I am surprised that he should dare to deny it, when I have a contradiction not only by a witness, but by a letter under his own hand. I will prove to you, by the owner of the house, that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone did take this office; he not only took this office, but he was desirous of taking the whole house; he had taken the office before the 17th of February, and on the 17th of February he called on Mr. Addis, who had the letting of the house, and he wrote and left on his desk this letter: "Sir, I called again upon you to know if you have power to sell the house, part of which I have taken." This is Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, who is ready to swear that he never took any office at all—"part of which I have taken." Gentlemen, mark the remainder, and apply it to the morning of the 21st of February.—"As I find there are several persons in the house at present, which is rather awkward, and makes it too public—Walls have ears." Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and Mr. Butt did not like that their consultations should be liable to be overheard—their guilt might then be proved by other than circumstantial evidence. "If you have powers to sell, I will immediately treat with you; have the goodness, therefore, to leave the terms with your clerk, or send them to me at No. 18, Great Cumberland-street. I will however call again this day, before I return to the West end of the Town."

Gentlemen, that is the letter of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and so much for Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's denial of his having taken the office in Shorter's Court.

Gentlemen, besides this denial of the fact, and this offer to swear to it, these Gentlemen chose to make some criticisms on the report printed by the Committee of the Stock Exchange, and the first criticism was one of great importance.—One person had said, that Colonel Du Bourg got out of the post chaise into the hackney coach, and another person said, he got into the hackney coach having just alighted from the post chaise, and it was supposed that that was a material contradiction. You will find the fact to be, that he stepped from the one into the other.

Another was, that one person called the great coat, a mixture, and another called it brown. In truth it was a greyish mixture, a military great coat.

Another was, that one person had called the lace on the cap gold, and another called it silver. It happens to be a pale gold, which according to the light in which you view it, will appear like either gold or silver. I will produce to you a fac simile of both coat and cap.

But it was felt that these criticisms would not suffice. Lord Cochrane must account for his visitor, and Lord Cochrane came forward with a declaration upon this subject, in a manner, which, I confess, appears to me most degrading. If a person of his rank thought fit to give any declaration, I should have thought that the mode of giving it would have been under the sanction of his honor. Lord Cochrane thought otherwise, and he chose to give it under the half and half sanction of a voluntary affidavit. I call it so, Gentlemen, for this reason, that although he who makes a voluntary affidavit attests his God to its truth, he renders himself amenable to no human tribunal for its falsehood, for no indictment for perjury can be maintained upon a voluntary affidavit. I wish that none of these voluntary affidavits were made; I wish that Magistrates would not lend their respectable names to the use, or rather to the abuse, which is made of these affidavits; for whether they are employed to puff a quack medicine or a suspected character, they are I believe, always used for the purpose of imposition.

Gentlemen, this affidavit I have before me, and I will prove the publication of it upon Lord Cochrane, it is thus prefaced:

Now comes the Affidavit:

Gentlemen, Lord Cochrane has complained that he was not called upon by the Committee of the Stock Exchange to give his explanation personally. It appears to me that he has no reason to complain that they did not so call upon him—would that he had been so called upon: what would any man have given to be present to see whether any human countenance was equal to the grave relation of this extraordinary story. Let us examine it, Lord Cochrane tells us that being at this manufactory of Mr. King's he received a note, the name of the writer of which he cannot read, yet, that he hastens home directly; engaged as he is in the superintending the making of a Lamp for which he had a patent—engaged too in this tremendous stock account, which is at this very moment, under the guardian care of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and Mr. Butt, abruptly closing, he instantly quits the City, and hastens home to see a person whose signature he cannot decypher, and when he comes there he finds Mr. De Berenger to be the writer of the note, and he has all this extraordinary conversation with him about going on board the Tonnant to instruct the crew in sharp-shooting, and then when a negative is put upon Mr. De Berenger's application at least for the present, Mr. De Berenger tells him he cannot forsooth "go to Lord Yarmouth or to any other of his friends in this dress." Why, I beg to know, cannot Mr. De Berenger go to Lord Yarmouth or any other nobleman or gentleman in the dress in which he waits upon Lord Cochrane? if he was dressed as Lord Cochrane describes, there could be no impropriety; but still more, "or return to his lodging, where it would excite suspicion," coming out of his lodging in this dress might to be sure excite suspicion, for persons who saw him might imagine that a gentleman thus dressed was going a little beyond the rules of the King's Bench, but how could his return excite suspicion? If he was returning to his lodgings why would he want any other dress? except that he was afraid to return to his lodgings in that dress because it would afford the means of tracing and detecting him. "If I refused to let him join the ship now, he would join it at Portsmouth, under present circumstances however, he must use a great liberty, and request the favor of me to lend him a hat to wear instead of his military cap. I gave him one which was in a back room with some things which had not been packed up." Then we are to suppose that De Berenger was satisfied; he had got rid of this cap with the gold border which might excite suspicion, and he was content to go. No says Lord Cochrane that will not do. "Having tried it," that is the hat, "on, his uniform appeared under his great coat, I therefore offered him a black coat that was laying on a chair and which I did not intend to take with me." We are, I presume then, to understand that he put on the black coat, though that is not expressly stated, "he put up his uniform in a towel and shortly afterwards went away." Then he was to go off entirely, was he? Gentlemen, I am sorry to find that my Lord Cochrane, filling the high situation that he does, sees nothing wrong in assisting a person within the rules of the King's Bench to abscond, for whose stay within those rules sureties have entered into a bond; either Lord Cochrane's mind has confounded all right and wrong, or what is more probable, he confesses this smaller delinquency to conceal the greater, for I say he would not have made this acknowledgment unless he had to conceal that he lent the dress for another purpose, for which purpose I say De Berenger resorted to him, and which purpose was answered by Lord Cochrane's assistance.

Another part of this affidavit is very important, "Captain Berenger wore a grey great coat, a green uniform, and a military cap." I will prove to you that the uniform was scarlet; that it was embroidered with gold, and that there was a star on the breast. I will prove that by many persons who saw it, and I will produce it to you to-day.

A circumstance is resorted to by Lord Cochrane, and indeed by his associates, as a defence which affords another proof of the infatuation of guilt. They have thought it a favorable circumstance for them that they sold out their stock early in the day at a small profit; in my mind it is one of the strongest circumstances against them. If they had believed the news would they have sold out early, and at that small profit? why did they so sell out? but because they knew that belief in the news would last but a very short time, and that they must take advantage of it without delay, for when I have stated that ten thousand or ten thousand five hundred pounds was the amount of their profit I have very much understated it, their profit vastly exceeded that, their profit was all they had been saved from losing, they had been that which is well known in the language of the Stock Exchange, they had been Bulls and they had been invariably Bulls, they had been raising the price by their purchases, their purchases had vastly exceeded their sales, as appears by the amount of the balance, they had gone on plunging deeper and deeper till they were completely out of their depth; the market was flat, if they had sold at 27-1/2 they would have been losers to a small amount, but unless they had made all mankind as hungry for stock as they were for profit, they could not have got rid of their million of omnium and stock, without an immense loss; and when they tell me they sold at once, I say yes, so you did, that is my argument against you: I say you did not wait half an hour when the news came, that as fast as you found the news operate, the telegraphic communication from Shorter's Court to the Stock Exchange took place, Mr. Fearn was set to work—he was ordered to sell, and he did sell by twenties, thirties, forties, and fifties of Thousands, and in the hurry and confusion they were in, one sold Ten Thousand Consols less than he had, and the other Twenty-four Thousand omnium more than he had; I think therefore this selling early, and selling at a small profit will not much avail them, but very much the contrary.

But, Gentlemen, it was felt that if the case rested there, they had done very little indeed, because no man could be so infatuated as to suppose that this story of De Berenger and his Sharp Shooters would go down, unless they shewed that De Berenger was not Du Bourg: for, if De Berenger was Du Bourg, it was very easily seen through, and therefore they set up for De Berenger, (who was not forth coming to set it up for himself) that best of all defences if true, which is sometimes resorted to in Courts of Criminal Judicature, and is commonly known by the name of an alibi.—It is, I say, the best of all defences if a man is innocent, but if it turns out to be untrue, it is conclusive against those who resort to it. Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and Mr. Butt, published two affidavits of a man and woman of the name of Smith, who were the servants of De Berenger; the affidavits are of the same manufacture with the others. Affidavits are commonly in the third person, "A. B. maketh oath and saith," but I observe all these affidavits, as well Lord Cochrane's as the rest, begin I A. B. do swear, these Affidavits I will read to you, "I William Smith, servant to Baron De Berenger, do swear, that my Master slept at home on Sunday the 20th of February, 1814, as I let him in about eleven o'clock at night; that he went out early next morning, as I went into his room between eight and nine o'clock, and found him gone out. I went about nine o'clock, and did not return till three o'clock, being that day at my mothers cleaning some Pictures for her, and when I returned, I then found my Master at home, and I went to him to ask if he wanted any thing, he desired me to get him some ale and a mutton chop, which I did; I saw his grey military great coat and his green drill dress, and a black coat which I knew was not his, lying upon a chair in the room; he went out that day to dine between five and six o'clock, and came home about eleven that night; he slept regularly at home all that week, until Sunday the 27th, when he went away in the evening, and desired me to carry a box of clothes with him to the Angel Inn, which I did, and I there left him and have never seen him since, and this is all I know about my Master." This, Gentlemen, we have too upon the sanction of a voluntary affidavit. Then comes his wife, "I Ann Smith, female servant to Baron De Berenger, do swear, that my Master came home about twelve o'clock on Monday the 21st day of February, in a Hackney Coach,—that I believe he did, he had on a black coat, he had a bundle with him, which to its appearance, contained his grey military great-coat, and green uniform, he went out the same morning before breakfast without my seeing him; and I do further swear, that I made his bed and cleaned his room as usual, on the 21st day of February, which had been slept in: he always slept at home regularly until Sunday the 27th of February, and he went away that day, and I never have seen him since." Now, Gentlemen, if this be true, to be sure it is idle to talk of Mr. De Berenger having been at Dover on that night; he could not have been at Dover, and at the same time sleeping in his bed within the rules of the King's Bench Prison. These affidavits were put out as complete and conclusive evidence, that all the surmises of Du Bourg and De Berenger being the same person were absolutely mistaken, that the visitor of Lord Cochrane, Mr. De Berenger was not, and could not be the impostor Colonel Du Bourg.

Gentlemen, at that time it was supposed Mr. De Berenger, was safe out of the kingdom, and that no contradiction of these affidavits could ever take place; and that being supposed to be the case, these parties grew very bold and there was a good deal of vapouring. Mr. Butt wanted his money. The Stock Exchange Committee came to this resolution, and it appears to me to be most honorable conduct, they resolved, not that the agreements of that day should be cancelled, but that an account should be taken of the profit made by those persons, who, in these extraordinary circumstances, had attracted suspicion to themselves. That that money should be paid into the hands of trustees, to await the result of the investigation, and if the suspicions were cleared up, they should have it, if not, that it should be disposed of, in a way that could attach no motive of interest whatever to the Stock Exchange or to their Committee. Upon this resolution, £10,500, the profit made by Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and Mr. Butt, were paid into the hands of trustees, to wait the event. Mr. Butt was not satisfied with this arrangement, and he was clamorous for his money. They said, "wait a little, Mr. Butt, you shall have it presently, if you are entitled to it."—"No," he says, "give me my money."—"It is perfectly safe, Mr. Butt, for your own honor and character's sake wait a little."—No reply, but "the money—give me the money."

Gentlemen, that was the consolation to which Mr. Butt looked, for the contempt to which he found his conduct had exposed him;—that consolation he will not have—he will have conviction and shame, but he will not get the money.

Gentlemen, the complete developement of this business, however, now approached. In the beginning of April, Mr. De Berenger was heard of at Sunderland, endeavouring to get out of the kingdom. A warrant had some time before issued from the Secretary of State for his apprehension; and most fitly had it been issued, for though Mr. De Berenger, as an alien, had a licence to live in any part of Great Britain he had no licence to go out of it; and he had abused the privileges of an alien, by having attempted a gross imposition on a high Naval Officer of the country: and information being given to the officer, who had had that warrant in his possession for three weeks, he set off to Sunderland after him. He found he had gone from thence to Newcastle, from thence to Glasgow, and from thence to Leith; and at Leith, on the 8th of April, he apprehended him. He was brought to London, and arrived in London on the 12th, and then on being shewn to various persons who had seen him in the course of his journey, he was identified by every one of them as Du Bourg;—by persons at Dover,—by persons at Dartford,—by the drivers,—by the coachman,—and above all by a very important person in this transaction, he was identified by a Mr. Solomon.—And I will tell you who Mr. Solomon is.—An account of the dress of Colonel Du Bourg having been published, the public attention was drawn to that circumstance, and in the latter end of March a fisherman in dredging in the Thames a little above London Bridge brought up from the bottom a bundle (which had been sunk by pieces of lead) containing a scarlet Aid de Camp's uniform cut in pieces, and a star and badge which identified it beyond contradiction, and upon this being advertised, a Mr. Solomon, an Army Accoutrement Maker, who has one shop at Charing Cross and another in New-Street Covent Garden, came forward and identified these as the cloaths which, together with the grey coat and the military cap, he had sold to a gentleman on Saturday the 19th of February; the gentleman was very liberal in his purchases and said that all these things were to be sent into the country for a person to perform the part of a Foreign Officer. Mr. Solomon said perhaps Sir you had better take them on hire. No. He was not disposed to do that, he would rather purchase them, and he did purchase them, and he paid for them in one pound notes and took them away in a Hackney Coach. On Mr. Solomon being taken to see Mr. De Berenger he recognized his person as the person who had so bought the clothes and paid for them.

Gentlemen, what now becomes of these affidavits and of those who made them? what becomes of this alibi for Mr. De Berenger? what becomes of the affidavits of his servants Smith and his wife? what becomes of Lord Cochrane swearing as he does to his green coat? why do persons resort to falsehood, but because truth convicts them? If any person who is found in suspicious circumstances, and is accused of the highest offence known to the law, resorts to lies to excuse himself, his life pays the forfeit, for no man resorts to lies unless he knows that the truth is absolute conviction: why have these persons thus involved themselves deeper, but because, when they found detection approaching them, they wished to ward it off, careless what were the means, careless who was the instrument, careless too who was the victim.

Gentlemen, suppose I were to rest my case here, and were to call upon my learned friends to answer this case, I beg to know what answer they could give? what are they to say for this impostor Du Bourg, this real De Berenger, resorting to the house of Lord Cochrane thus deeply interested in the success of this fraud? thus linked inseparably with two other persons equally interested in the success of the fraud, who, if a different kind of news had arrived that day, would have been absolutely ruined: for if on the 21st of February that news had arrived, which just a month after did arrive of the rupture of the negociation at Chatillon, there would have been such a fall in the price of the funds that these three persons would have been losers to the amount of upwards of one hundred and sixty thousand pounds. What will my learned friends say for persons thus circumstanced, thus involved in suspicion, thus by falsehood and by moral perjury, though not legal, endeavouring to defend themselves? Will my learned friends to day call these Smiths? will they put these persons whom they have made commit this moral perjury into that box and expose them to the charge of legal perjury? if they do not put them there they "die and make no sign;" and, if they do I think I shall be able to shew you who manufactured these affidavits, and how these servants, the Smiths, have been dealt with. I will undertake to prove out of their own mouths that their master was from home that night instead of being as they pretend, in his bed.

But, Gentlemen, when my learned friends find it impossible to stand upon the ground which their clients have before taken, perhaps they may say, for in the distress of their case I do not know what may not be said;—well, admitting that De Berenger was Du Bourg, are we to infer from his visit to Green-Street that Lord Cochrane and he were thus criminally connected?—why you must infer the contrary; it is a proof of innocence, for if they had been so connected, De Berenger would not have been such a fool as to pay his first visit to Lord Cochrane, he would have gone to any other house rather than to Lord Cochrane's. Gentlemen, that argument will not assist my learned friends, for it is too much to ask credit for rational conduct in those who cannot act criminally without acting irrationally. They who contrive schemes of fraud cannot always provide for all possible events. No, Gentlemen, it is the order of Providence, in mercy to mankind, that wickedness should be defeated by its own folly. When the mind is in disorder the course is not straight and even, but irregular and wavering, it is detected by its obliquity: it is by the winding of the course that you discover you are in the path of the serpent "Quem Deus vult perdere prius dementat," is a maxim which comes down to us sanctioned by the experience of all ages; and no man who has not slept for the last two years, can hesitate to set his seal to its truth. Gentlemen, it is as true of Stock-jobbing conspirators as it is of those who have lately been entrusted with the destinies of empires. There is always something omitted, the omission here was this; in settling their plan of operations they had forgotten to provide where De Berenger should resort on his arrival in Town, and on his way his heart failed him, as to going to his own lodgings; he dared not enter into his own lodgings in a dress, which dress would lead to detection, and he therefore drove to Lord Cochrane's to get rid of his dress; and there he, by Lord Cochrane's assistance, did get rid of it; he procured a round hat and a black coat, and then went confidently and safely home to his lodgings, exempt from observation and suspicion.

But, Gentlemen, I have to tell my learned friends, that if they could dispose of all this, their task would be but just beginning. You will naturally ask, was De Berenger a person known to the Cochranes?—Can it be shewn from any other source, that they had ever been together before? Gentlemen, I will shew you that De Berenger was extremely well acquainted with them; that he was a visitor at Lord Cochrane's, and a visitor at Mr. Cochrane Johnstones; that he made it his boast that he was on very familiar terms with them, and that he had given them important assistance in stock-jobbing transactions, and that he expected to be handsomely rewarded for his services, for that by his means they would get a great deal of money by these stock-jobbing transactions. I will prove this to you by more than one witness. I will prove their acquaintance, if necessary, by persons even of Mr. Cochrane Johnstones family.

Gentlemen, my proof does not end there. If Mr. De Berenger was the hired agent of these persons, for the purpose of committing this fraud, what would you expect?—why that after they had used him they would pay him and send him away.—I will prove to you, that they did so pay him, and that they did send him away.

You have learned from these affidavits of the Smiths, (which so far are true,) that on the evening of Sunday the 27th, (which was the Sunday after he was at Dover,) he quitted his lodgings, and was seen no more. Who do you think was his visitor on Saturday the 26th?—Mr. Cochrane Johnstone. On Saturday the 26th Mr. Cochrane Johnstone came to his lodgings, and left a letter for him; that letter, no doubt, hastened his departure, and off he went. He was taken at Leith, and there were found in his possession certain books and papers and bank notes; these bank notes Mr. De Berenger has desired to have returned to him. The prosecutors thought that one bank note for one pound was as good as another bank note for one pound; and in order that Mr. De Berenger might not complain of being cramped in pecuniary matters, they gave over to him notes of corresponding value. But that does not satisfy Mr. De Berenger; he wants the very identical notes taken from him; he has contracted an affection for them I suppose, on account of their having been his travelling companions. They were his solace in a long journey, and the support to which he looked in future in a foreign land. What harm can these notes do to Mr. De Berenger?—He is much too deeply implicated in this to make the presence or the absence of these notes of the least consequence to him. Who can be so blind as not to see, in the pretended anxiety of Mr. De Berenger for these notes, the real anxiety of his fellow conspirators; who having made him their instrument in the fraud, wish to make him their instrument in the destruction of the evidence.

Gentlemen, there have been differences of opinion on the subject of Bank Notes as a circulating medium, but there can be no difference of opinion as to their being most admirable detectors of fraud. I have these Bank Notes here, and you will find that the fears of these Defendants are well founded, for they furnish conclusive proofs of their guilt. I will read to you first, however, a memorandum of Mr. De Berenger's, in a little book, which was found in his letter-case; from this he appears to have written on the 1st of March, a letter to "C. J." which I take to be Cochrane Johnstone; there are other initials mentioned in the same page, as "W. S." which I take to be his servant, William Smith; and "G. T." which I presume to be Gabriel Tahourdin, his attorney.

The name of Mr. Tahourdin reminds me of something which I had forgotten to mention. The sureties for Mr. De Berenger keeping within the Rules of the Bench, were a Mr. Cochrane, and Mr. Gabriel Tahourdin, his attorney, and also the attorney of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, they were bound in a penalty of four hundred pounds for Mr. De Berenger keeping within the Rules of the King's Bench, Mr. De Berenger absconded and left them liable to the penalty of their bond; and I cannot sufficiently admire the good nature of Mr. Gabriel Tahourdin, who not only has forgiven him for leaving him in the lurch, but actually defends him to-day, and is also one of his bail on this indictment.

Gentlemen, there are some parts of this memorandum which I cannot interpret; perhaps Mr. Cochrane Johnstone will give us the letter, and that will supply the explanation. It begins, "To C. J. by March 1st, 1814, £350, £4 to 5000, assign one share of patent, and £1000 worth shares of Mr. De Beaufain, at Messrs. H. to their care." Now comes the important part; I should tell you, Gentlemen, that Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and Mr. Butt, allege that their gains were not quite so great as the Committee of the Stock Exchange estimate them to have been. They say, that the gains of the three were but £6500, of which Lord Cochrane's share was £1700, and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's and Mr. Butt's were £4800. Mr. Butt was the person who transacted the business, being more a man of figures than the other two, and acting as their agent, he had rendered his account to Mr. Cochrane Johnstone; and it should seem as if Mr. De Berenger's compensation was a per centage upon their gains, for he writes thus: "Believe, from my informant, £18,000, instead of £4800;" he thinks their profit was four times as much as they say; "Suspicious that Mr. B." who can that be except Mr. Butt? "does not account correctly to him as well as me—determined not to be duped—no restrictions as to secrecy, requesting early answer."

These are evidently the heads of a letter which he has written to Mr. Cochrane Johnstone. There are other notes of letters to Mr. Tahourdin and William Smith, giving directions, which plainly indicate that he was a man quitting this country never to return.

Gentlemen, there were found I have told you, certain bank notes, and a memorandum book, and you will find in this memorandum book there are the figures 450 and 90 summed up together, making £540. You will find that he must have received about that sum from Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and Mr. Butt, he accounts here for the expenditure of a considerable part of it, and as you go along with me, you shall be able to account for it: so here is W. S. that is William Smith, £50, W. S. again, £20 and so on, with names and sums altogether amounting to £163, and then there is a statement of expences on his journey: he appears from both to have had in his hands £540. From whom do you think he had it? From his associates in this transaction, Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and Mr. Butt; we have traced the notes up to every one of them. I shall be enabled to shew these persons actually paying him this very money, and when? Between the time of his transaction and his absconding. I will shew you that Mr. Fearn on the 10th of February, drew a check on Bond and Company for £56 5s. payable to Mr. Butt, that that was paid partly in a fifty pound bank note, that bank note was found in the possession of Mr. De Berenger when he was taken at Leith. On the 16th of February, Mr. Smallbone drew a check on Jones, Loyd, and Company for £470. 14s. 4d. made payable to a number, but actually given by him to Lord Cochrane, that was paid in a two hundred pound note, two one hundred pounds, a fifty pound, some small notes, and the fraction in cash. The two hundred pound note was by order of Mr. Butt, exchanged by Christmas (a Clerk of Fearn's) at Bond's, on the 24th of February.—Mark the day, Gentlemen, the Thursday after this fraud, for two £100 notes, those two £100 notes this same Clerk of Mr. Fearn's carried to the Bank, exchanged them for two hundred notes of one pound each, brought them back and gave them to Mr. Fearn, who put them into the hands of Mr. Butt; and, as if these persons had been anxious to link themselves to each other inseparably, Mr. Butt, in Mr. Fearn's presence, handed them over to Mr. Cochrane Johnstone. Gentlemen, of these two hundred notes, I will shew you that eleven were passed at Hull, Mr. De Berenger having been at Hull at that time; that seven were paid by him at Hull, that seven more have come into the bank from that country, marked with De Berenger's name, and that sixty-seven of them were found in Mr. De Berenger's writing desk at Leith.

Gentlemen, I told you that there were two other notes for £100 each. At the same time that Christmas went to the Bank on the 24th, Mr. Lance, who was another of their Agents, went to the Bank, and immediately after Christmas (for the numbers follow each other in the Bank Books) for the other two notes of £100 each, he got two hundred notes also of one pound each, and he gave them to Mr. Butt. Gentlemen, of those two hundred notes, forty-seven have come into the Bank with De Berenger's name upon them, and forty-nine more of them were found in Mr. De Berenger's writing desk. I mentioned to you that another note given in payment of this check to Lord Cochrane, was one for fifty pounds,—that Bank note of fifty pounds, I will prove Lord Cochrane himself paid away to his own coal merchant.

Then, Gentlemen, there is another check paid the 25th of February, 1814, on Prescott and Company by Lance, for £98. 2s. 6d. made payable to Mr. Butt, this was paid in a Bank note for fifty pounds, another for forty pounds, and the remainder in small notes. In the memorandum book, there is an entry to S. £50 importing that he had given to Smith £50. I will prove that Smith paid to Mr. Seeks that same note for fifty pounds, and the forty pound note I will prove that De Berenger paid at Sunderland to Mr. Bray, the rest we are not able to trace: add these sums together, they amount to the £450, and the £90, the very figures entered in Mr. De Berenger's memorandum book, which memorandum book was found in his writing desk when he was taken. Gentlemen, when I thus shew De Berenger, who quitted London on Sunday the 27th of February, having accomplished this fraud on Monday the 21st, thus possessed of notes of this large value, in this great number, which were in the hands of these Defendants on Thursday the 24th; are you not just as certain that he received those notes from these Defendants as a reward of his criminal service, as if you had been yourselves by, seen the notes paid, and heard the reason assigned for which they were paid.

It was stated in the Newspapers, that some of the notes found on De Berenger, had been in the hands of Mr. Butt, upon which Mr. Butt directly addressed this letter to the Morning Chronicle, which appeared on the 18th of April. "Sir, Having read in several papers, a paragraph mentioning that Bank notes were found in the trunk of Captain De Berenger, which were in my possession, and were paid to me by Mr. Fearn, one of my Stock brokers, I think it proper in answer thereto, to say, that as the circumstances will be more fully discussed at a proper period, your astonishment will cease to exist when you see in what manner Captain De Berenger became possessed of the notes in question." Then Mr. Butt knows in what manner De Berenger became possessed of these notes, I call upon Mr. Butt to tell you how they came into De Berenger's possession; my learned Friends will hereafter have to inform you. And, Gentlemen, you will require something more than my Friend's statement, for the statement of Counsel you know, is from the instructions of the Client, and the instructions of the Client may deserve no more credit than a voluntary affidavit. I call upon Mr. Butt to shew that by evidence, and if he does not shew you that those notes came into the hands of De Berenger from some other quarter, for some other reason as a reward for some other service, it is impossible for you to resist the conclusion that they were the reward of De Berenger, for the guilty services which he rendered in this fraud; and if so, it was a reward from Lord Cochrane, it was a reward from Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, it was a reward from Mr. Butt, they are one and the same, there is an identity between these three persons that hardly ever existed, they have but one mind, they are inseparably connected.

Gentlemen, I have to apologize to you for having in this large mass of matter omitted one thing, I stated that I should prove to you that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone had called at the house of De Berenger the day before he finally went off, I shall prove that by Mrs. Davidson, with whom De Berenger lodged, and I shall, by her evidence and that of her husband, falsify the Smith's affidavits, for I will shew by them that on the night in question De Berenger slept out, and that the fact of his sleeping out was known to Smith and his wife, who have made the affidavits.

Now, Gentlemen, it appears to me that I have done a great deal more than sufficient to prove these persons guilty, but they are never contented with giving evidence against themselves; upon the arrival of De Berenger in London they began to apprehend that the hour of detection drew near, and that they must strike a bold stroke to ward off the blow, and on the 12th of April, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone writes a letter to the Chairman of the Committee of the Stock Exchange which I will read to you—"Sir, I have this moment received a letter, of which the inclosed is a copy, and lose no time in transmitting it to you, for the information of the Gentlemen composing the Stock Exchange Committee; from the bearer of the letter I am given to understand that Mr. Macrae is willing to disclose the names of the principals concerned in the late hoax, on being paid the sum of £10,000, to be deposited in some banker's hands in the names of two persons to be nominated by himself, and to be paid to him on the conviction of the offenders. I am happy to say that there seems now a reasonable prospect of discovering the author of the late hoax, and I cannot evince my anxious wish to promote such discovery more than by assuring you that I am ready to contribute liberally towards the above sum of £10,000 and I rest assured that you will eagerly avail yourselves of this opportunity to effect the proposed discovery, and an object you profess to have so much at heart, by concurring with me in such contribution, I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient humble Servant, A. Cochrane Johnstone." And then there is Mr. M'Rae's letter inclosed, addressed to Mr. Cochrane Johnstone. "Sir, I authorize the bearer of this note to state to you that I am prepared to lay before the public the names of the persons who planned and carried into effect the late hoax practised at the Stock Exchange the 21st of February, provided you accede to the terms which my friend will lay before you, I am, Sir, your obedient servant, A. M'Rae." Mr. M'Rae's friend must have been the bearer of some message, for you observe that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's letter states more than Mr. M'Rae's letter offers, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone does not receive an answer, and that he considered as very ill treatment. Six days afterwards he writes another letter, "Sir, I have to request that you will be so good as to inform me what are the intentions of the Stock Exchange on the subject of the letter which I addressed to you, relative to the proposal of Mr. M'Rae; Lord Cochrane, Mr. Butt, and myself are willing to subscribe £1,000 each, in aid of the £10,000 required by Mr. M'Rae."

Gentlemen, these letters call for more than one observation; I cannot forbear to make one upon the term which Mr. Cochrane Johnstone employs to describe this transaction—"a hoax," a mere joke, a matter of pleasantry. Gentlemen, a young, a giddy, an unthinking and careless man, who had no concern in the transaction, and who had never been suspected to have had any, might perhaps, in conversation, make use of that term; but Mr. Cochrane Johnstone is not young, he is not giddy, he is not unthinking, he is not inexperienced, he has seen much of the world, he is a cautious man, he is a man of high and noble family, he knows that he is suspected of having been a party in this transaction, and yet he calls it a hoax! I beg to know what word in Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's vocabulary is to be found to express fraud? I presume he would call obtaining money by false pretences, an indulgence of the imagination, and playing with loaded dice, a mere exercise of ingenuity. Is it possible for any innocent man, situated as Mr. Cochrane Johnstone then was, to describe this foul fraud by the name by which Mr. Cochrane Johnstone here describes it? But, Gentlemen, look at the proposal itself; what must Mr. Cochrane Johnstone have thought of the Stock Exchange Committee? surely he must have thought that they were selected for their extraordinary gullibility, when he made this proposal to them. Undoubtedly they would have had no objection to the assistance of an accomplice, but it must not be an accomplice chosen by his associates. No, Gentlemen, an accomplice chosen by his associates is not chosen to divulge, but to suppress the truth. I should have thought that Mr. M'Rae, knowing that they had complete proof against him—which had been obtained at a cheaper rate than £10,000 might have made a more moderate proposal. I should have thought that impunity for himself, which is the common price of an accomplice, would have been sufficient to have had the evidence of Mr. M'Rae, but Mr. M'Rae's price is ten thousand pounds; his worthy companions are willing to contribute three—that is, they will give him three thousand, and will obtain for him seven thousand more; and I have no doubt, that if the offer had been accepted, Mr. M'Rae would very honestly have earned the whole, and have duly recollected to whom he was obliged for it.

Gentlemen, when Lord Cochrane, a few years ago, was preparing for an attack upon the French fleet in Basque Roads, suppose the French admiral had sent this letter to him:—Sir, You are preparing to attack me to-morrow, the bearer is the best pilot on our coast, I should be sorry that you should run upon a rock, he will pilot you safely, do but accept his services; but as his skill is great his price is high—he requires ten thousand pounds; but so anxious am I for the success of your enterprize, that I will give him three if you will but give the other seven.

Gentlemen, this is the modest proposal which Mr. Cochrane Johnstone makes to the Committee of the Stock Exchange; and when he has so done he affects to be extremely angry that the Committee do not accept it.—Gentlemen what can be said more; what men would have resorted to this expedient but men who felt that they were on the eve of detection, and who tried this desperate expedient to see whether they could ward it off.

Gentlemen,—I believe I have now arrived at the end of my long trespass upon your attention. Survey the whole of these transactions. You find that the principals,—those who were to benefit above all others, were the Cochranes and Butt; Holloway in a smaller degree, but still not slightly;—De Berenger the principal agent;—the others, subordinate agents, who could have done nothing unless the foundation had been previously laid by De Berenger, in the character of the officer from Dover; his news had had its effect upon the funds even before the second arrived. Though it cannot be shewn, as in many cases it cannot, that these parties met and conferred and assigned to each his respective part, yet if you find a coincidence in object, and a coincidence in time; if you find the mode of execution precisely the same, is it possible to doubt that these underplotters were the agents of the great conspirators;—That the great conspirators were the authors of the plan, and that the others were executing their subordinate part?

Gentlemen, I have given you the best assistance in my power to understand and apply the evidence which will be laid before you. They whom I represent, have no wish but that justice should be done; they have investigated this subject with great care, with great assiduity, with great diligence, with great anxiety. They have had no personal difference with any of these defendants; they have never come in collision with them, to have the smallest possible difference; they have no wish but justice, and I am sure that at your hands they will attain that justice; and your verdict to day, (which I am sure after you shall have heard the whole of this case, will be a verdict of guilty,) will be a most salutary verdict:—It will shew the world that as there is no man beneath the law, so there is no man above it. It will teach evil minded persons, the absurdity of expecting that schemes of fraud can be so formed as to provide for all events. It will teach them that no caution can insure safety: that there is no contrivance, that there is no device, no stratagem, which can shield them from detection, from punishment, and from infamy.

---

John Marsh sworn.

Examined by Mr. Bolland.

Q. I believe you keep the Packet Boat public house at Dover?

A. I do.

Q. Was your attention called to any thing early on the morning of the 21st of February?

A. No more than a gentleman was knocking at Mr. Wright's door of the Ship Inn, at Mr. Wright's fore door.

Q. What time?

A. Some time about one, or a little after one, between one and a quarter after one.

Q. Did you go out upon hearing that?

A. I did.

Q. Did you take any light with you, or did you go without one?

A. I went without a light.

Q. Upon going out whom did you find at Mr. Wright's door?

A. Some gentleman there.

Q. What was his appearance?

A. He appeared to be a gentleman.

Q. What was the appearance of his dress?

A. He had on a grey greatcoat and a uniform coat under it.

Lord Ellenborough. Was there light enough by the moon or the stars for you to see this?

A. After I got to the door, I called to a gentleman in my house to bring two lights across, when I had the two lights, the gentleman was in the passage.

Mr. Bolland. Do you mean the gentleman you had seen at the door?

A. Yes; he had a star on his red coat.

Lord Ellenborough. That coat you describe as a uniform coat, was a red coat?

A. Yes it was.

Mr. Bolland. That was under the great coat?

A. Yes.

Q. Will you look at this star, (shewing it to the witness,) and tell me whether it was like that?

A. That I cannot tell, it was something similar to that.

Q. Had he any other ornament?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Did you say any thing to him or he to you?

A. He was very anxious for a post chaise and four.

Q. Did he apply to you for that?

A. No not to me in particular.

Q. Who had come down to him?

A. The porter at the Ship.

Q. Had you any conversation with him?

A. He wanted an express horse and a man to send to the Admiral at Deal.

Q. Did all this pass in the passage, or had you proceeded further?

A. It passed in the passage.

Q. Did he proceed into the house?

A. I asked him where he came from, and he told me he was the bearer of the most important dispatches that had been brought to this country for these twenty years; I asked him where he came from; he told me from France. I asked him where he landed, he told me on the Beach, and he begged of me to get a post chaise and four for him; and then I went and called Mr. Wright of the Ship Inn; after I came down from calling Mr. Wright, he wanted pen, ink, and paper.

Lord Ellenborough. He went into the Ship Inn, did he?

A. I shewed him into a room of the Ship Inn. As soon as Mr. Wright came down stairs, Mr. Wright gave me a sheet of paper, and pen and ink, which I carried into the room. I gave it to him, and he began to write upon it.

Q. You saw him write upon it?

A. I did. He called for a bottle of Madeira, and something to eat. I asked him whether I should call the collector of the port; I told him that it was his business to see such people when they landed; he made answer to me, that his business did not lie with the collectors; then Mr. Wright came to him, and I had no more conversation with him.

Mr. Bolland. You say two candles were brought to you?

A. Yes.

Q. Where were those candles placed?

A. On the table where he was writing, one on each side of him.

Q. Had you an opportunity from the situation of them of observing his person and face?

A. Yes, I think that is the person, (pointing out Mr. De Berenger.)

Mr. Gurney. I will thank Mr. De Berenger to stand up.

Mr. Park. Not unless his Lordship desires it he need not stand up.

Lord Ellenborough. He will make his election whether he will stand up or not.

Mr. Park. He is not to be shewn about like a wild beast as he has been.

Mr. Bolland. Who else was there?

A. A gentleman of the name of Gourley, and another of the name of Edis.

Q. Did you see another person there of the name of St. John?

A. I did not know him, they say there was such a person there.

Q. Was there another gentleman in the house?

A. Yes there was.

Q. Did you go away or remain with him?

A. I went to get the horses ready for him with all possible dispatch.

Q. Did you see him get into the chaise?

A. I saw him after he was in.

Q. Did any thing more pass in your presence?

A. No more than that he told the two postboys he would give them a Napoleon each.

Q. Did you observe how his head was dressed?

A. He had a German cap on with a gold fringe on it or silver; I did not pay that attention to it to say which, it had gold lace round the bottom part of it.

Q. Was it such a coat as that, (shewing a grey coat to the witness.)

A. Yes, such a color as that.

Q. And such a cap as that, (shewing a fur cap to the witness?)

A. Such a cap; but whether that was the cap I did not pay attention.

Q. Have you told his Lordship all that you saw and heard?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he tell you how he got to the beach?

A. No, he told me he landed on the beach.

Cross-examined by Mr. Park.

Q. What are you to this Ship Inn, I do not quite understand?

A. I live opposite.

Q. Are you any way connected with the Ship Inn?

A. Not in the least.

Q. How came you, hearing a knocking at Mr. Wright's Ship Inn, particularly to get up?

A. I was up.

Q. What had you to do with the Ship Inn, that because a man is knocking at the Ship Inn door you light candles at your house and carry over?

A. I went across to see who the gentleman was.

Q. Merely curiosity?

A. Mere curiosity.

Q. And from the same spirit of curiosity you lit two candles and brought them over to the Ship Inn?

A. I told a person to bring them over.

Q. Was it very beautiful moonlight that night?

A. No it was not moonlight.

Q. Was there any moon that night; had there been that night at all?

A. I did not pay that attention to the night to say.

Q. It was beautifully starlight I suppose.

A. I do not know, I did not pay that attention.

Q. Was it a foggy night?

A. That I did not look after.

Q. You will see by the Almanack it was new moon the night before; you did not observe whether it was moonlight, starlight, or foggy?

A. No.

Q. You found he had got into the passage of the house when you got the candles?

A. Yes.

Q. Who let him in?

A. The boots.

Q. Did you see him?

A. Yes in the passage.

Q. How long did you converse with him about the news that you say he said was greater than had ever been heard of for these twenty years from France? All that passed in the passage?

A. Yes.

Q. How long a time might you be in the passage?

A. Not longer than five minutes before I went to call Mr. Wright.

Q. Do you mean you were with him only five minutes before you went up stairs to call Mr. Wright, or altogether?

A. Altogether I suppose about that, I cannot speak to a minute; but he was in great haste to get away.

Q. How long do you think this person was altogether at Mr. Wright's?

A. I should think not more than twenty minutes.

Q. Where were the candles all this time you were in the passage with him?

A. I had them in my hand.

Q. What did you do with them when you went up to Mr. Wright?

A. I left them with him in the parlour; boots got me a candle.

Q. You held the candles in your own hand while you remained in the passage?

A. Yes, while the boots unlocked the parlour door, and I went and put them on the table.

Q. Before you went up stairs?

A. Yes.

Q. Had the person who you say was this gentleman gone into the parlour before you went up stairs?

A. Yes he had.

Q. I take for granted when you came down stairs and Mr. Wright got the paper you did not go in again?

A. No; he wished me gone, and I did not go in again.

Q. Then altogether, except for seeing him for five minutes in the passage, and you going into the parlour for the short time you did, and afterwards when you saw him in the post chaise, and when he offered the postboys a Napoleon each you did not see him?

A. No.

Q. You had nothing to do personally with this inn called the Ship?

A. No, I keep the Packet Boat opposite.

Q. Do you know whether there had been a large company at the Ship Inn that day?

A. I do not know.

Q. You had not seen Mr. Wright the innkeeper late in the evening of that day, had you?

A. No.

Q. Had you ever seen this person who you say is the gentleman sitting before me before that time?

A. Not before, nor yet since, till to-day.

Q. And from this slight observation of him, which you have described, you take upon you confidently to swear that this person sitting before me is the man?

A. Yes.

Q. Never having seen him before nor again till this day?

A. I am very well satisfied.

Q. You are very easily satisfied I see; were you ever examined upon this subject before?

A. Mr. Stowe, the collector—

Q. I do not ask as to Mr. Stowe, but were you ever examined in London before?

A. No, never.

Q. Mr. Stowe is the only person who has examined you upon this subject till my learned friend has done it now, and I cross-examine you?

A. Yes.

Re-examined by Mr. Bolland.

Q. Before you sent for the lights, had the gentleman told you what his business was, and that he had landed from the Beach?

A. He told me before I sent for the lights; I was in the passage with him at the time till the lights came.

Q. Was your attention particularly called to him as a stranger of some importance?

A. Undoubtedly.

Q. You have said you had not seen the person before whom you have pointed out?

A. No.

Q. Did any body suggest to you that that was the person when you saw him?

A. No, it was by myself in the hall.

Q. Did you know him when you saw him?

A. The instant I saw him.

Q. Had you the least doubt upon your mind of his being the man?

A. Not the least.

Thomas Worthington Gourley sworn.

Examined by Mr. Bolland.

Q. You are a hatter at Dover I believe?

A. I am.

Q. Were you at Mr. Marsh's, the Packet Boat, on the morning of the 21st of February?

A. I was.

Q. Was your attention called to any thing in particular on that morning?

A. Yes it was, after Mr. Marsh went out first and called for lights, I took two candles and went across with him to the Ship.

Q. On getting to the inn what did you perceive?

A. I perceived a gentleman in a grey coat, a pepper and salt coloured coat, more properly speaking.

Q. Look at that coat, and tell me whether it was like that?

A. Something similar to that.

Q. Did you remark any other part of his dress?

A. Not at that time.

Q. Tell us what passed when you went over?

A. Mr. Marsh asked me to go and call the ostler up, and tell him to get a post chaise and four immediately.

Q. Had the stranger said any thing in your presence?

A. Not at that time.

Q. Did you do so?

A. I did.

Q. Did you return back again?

A. After some considerable time—I was sometime in getting the ostler up.

Q. Where did you find the stranger on your return?

A. I found him in the parlour.

Q. Were there any lights in the room?

A. There were.

Q. How were the lights placed with reference to him, and what was he doing?

A. There were two candles on the table, the gentleman was walking about, he had got a uniform dress on I perceived then.

Q. What was the colour of that dress?

A. Red, trimmed with gold lace, with a star upon his breast.

Q. Did you perceive any other ornament?

A. No I did not, to notice it.

Q. Did you make any remark upon the dress of his head?

A. He had got a cap on.

Q. Was it like that cap?

A. Something similar to that.

Mr. Park. Does your Lordship think they ought to be exhibiting these paraphernalia; it appears to me something like a novelty exhibiting such things in a Court of Justice till the proof has gone further?

Lord Ellenborough. The witness has said he had a cap on, and so on.

Mr. Park. If they had asked was it that cap I should not object to it if they were prepared to prove that was the cap, but they might send to Covent Garden wardrobe and fetch all these things?

Mr. Gurney. I undertake to prove by the person who made the dress for De Berenger, that these are fac similes of the articles of dress made for him.

Mr. Park. You stated that very expressly and very clearly.

Lord Ellenborough. Unless his recollection goes to their being such things, I think it would not go far; it is a thing that occurs every day, I have seen it twenty times at the Old Bailey.

Mr. Park. It assists the recollection of the witness, which I say my learned friends are not entitled to do.

Lord Ellenborough. When the witness has given a previous description of the dress, it is very usual to ask wherein does it differ, or what sort of a thing is it—they must first lay the foundation for the production which I think they have done in this case.

Mr. Bolland. Had he a cap upon his head similar to that?

A. Yes he had.

Q. Had that gold lace on?

A. It had.

Q. You say the gentleman was walking up and down the room?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he say any thing in your presence?

A. I asked him what the news was.

Lord Ellenborough. How came you to ask that?

A. Because I had heard Mr. Marsh say he was a Messenger come over.

Mr. Bolland. Did he reply to that?

A. He told me that Messengers were sworn to secrecy, but that he had got glorious news he had brought over to England, the best that ever was known for this country.

Q. Had you any further conversation with him?

A. He rung the bell and called for a pen, ink and paper, to write a letter to send off to the Admiral at Deal.

Q. Was that brought to him?

A. It was, and he was writing the letter some little time while I was there, and I bid him good night after that.

Q. Did you take leave of him before he had finished the letter?

A. I did.

Q. Where were the candles during the time that he was writing the letter?

A. On the table.

Q. Were they sufficiently near him to enable you to observe him?

A. Yes they were.

Q. Can you point out to the Court that person who wrote that letter on that night?

A. Yes.

Q. Will you point him out?

A. Yes, that is the gentleman (pointing to De Berenger.)

Q. Have you any doubt upon your mind of that?

A. None in the least.

Cross-examined by Mr. Richardson.

Q. You did not come over until you were called for by Mr. Marsh to bring candles?

A. No I did not.

Q. You were immediately sent to order horses, were you not?

A. Yes, I went and called the ostler up.

Q. I think you state that you were absent some time in performing that service?

A. Yes, I was some little time before I could wake the ostler.

Q. You left the candles in the passage with Mr. Marsh?

A. Yes.

Q. You handed the candles to him, and went immediately to call the ostler?

A. Yes.

Q. It was not till after you returned, having been absent some little time that he rung the bell and ordered pen, ink, and paper.

A. Yes.

Q. That order was given in the parlour, not in the passage?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see him write upon the paper?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. You are a hatter?

A. Yes.

Q. There is a hatter's club at Dover, is there not?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Were you up at this time when this transaction took place, or did you get up for the purpose?

A. I was up at the time.

Q. Had you any particular meeting on that day?

A. No, nothing particular, only I was smoking a pipe with Mr. Marsh.

Q. At one o'clock?

A. Yes, a little after one, it was between one and two o'clock I stopped there after two o'clock, I stopped some considerable time after the gentleman was gone away.

Q. He was not there above a quarter of an hour, or twenty minutes, was he?

A. I cannot tell, it might be a quarter of an hour or it might not.

Q. He was in a great hurry to get off, and went off as soon as the horses were ready?

A. He did.

Q. Had you dined at the Packet Boat, or at the Ship on that day?

A. No, I had not.

Q. Have you seen that gentleman from that time till to-day?

A. No, not from the time I saw him at Dover till to-day.

Q. Have you not been at London to be examined?

A. No.

Q. You have heard a great deal about this transaction?

A. Yes, it has been in every body's mouth.

Q. I take for granted you talk about these things as we do in London?

A. Yes we do.

Q. And read the newspapers that have been full of this thing for a long time?

A. I frequently read the newspapers.

Re-examined by Mr. Bolland.

Q. How long had you an opportunity of observing him?

A. Perhaps I might be in the room three or four minutes.

Q. During that time, was your attention called to him?

A. Yes, on account of the glorious news he said he had brought.

Q. It was a welcome face at Dover?

A. Yes, it was indeed, and that made me take more notice than I should have done.

A Juryman. Had he a cap on all the time you saw him?

A. No, he had not.

Mr. Park. It was only three or four minutes altogether?

A. I beg your pardon; I did not say it was only three or four minutes, I was asked whether it was three or four minutes, and I said I had no doubt it was.

A Juryman. Are you sure that is the man?

A. That is the gentleman that I saw there.

Lord Ellenborough. You have no doubt whatever?

A. No, I have none in the least.

Eliott Edis sworn.

Examined by Mr. Bolland.

Q. You are a cooper in the victualling yard at Dover, are you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you, on the morning of the 21st of February, at the Packet Boat?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Was Mr. Gourley there with you?

A. Yes.

Q. Was your attention called to any thing particular on that morning?

A. Yes, a messenger arrived.

Q. Did you see the messenger?

A. Yes.

Q. Where did you first see him?

A. At the Ship.

Q. Was he in a room, or in the passage of the Ship, at the time?

A. In a room.

Q. At the time you first saw him, how was he occupied, what was he doing?

A. He was walking up and down the room.

Q. Did you make any observation on his dress?

A. He had a grey coat—his great coat.

Q. Did you observe the other coat that he had on?

A. He had regimentals; scarlet, trimmed with gold.

Q. Had they any other ornament on them?

A. I did not particularly take notice.

Q. Do you recollect how his head was dressed?

A. A cap, with a gold band about it.

Q. Will you look at that coat which lies there?

A. That is the color of it.

Q. How was the cap made?

A. A slouch cap.

Q. Where was the band?

A. Round it.

Q. Of what did the cap appear to be made?

A. It appeared to be made of a kind of rough beaver; I do not know whether it was black or brown.

Q. It had the appearance of rough beaver?

A. Yes.

Mr. Bolland. Will you now shew him the cap?

Mr. Park. I think it should be more described before it is shewn to him; this is a totally different description; this may be very material.

Mr. Bolland. Then I will not shew him the cap at all.—Had the cap any flap to it?

A. Rather a flap round, as I thought—all round.

Q. I ask you, whether the cap was cut off without any rim to it, or had it a rim like a hat?

A. No, it had not a rim like a hat by any means.

Q. Had you any conversation with him?

A. No.

Q. You say that at first he was walking about the room?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he employ himself in any other way while you were there?

A. I saw him before I went away sit down to write.

Q. Did you hear him order a pen, ink, and paper?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did he, in your presence, say any thing as to whom he was writing to?

A. No, I could hear him talk, but not to understand him.

Q. That was owing to your deafness?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he keep his cap on the whole time you were there, or did he take it off?

A. His cap was on while I was there.

Q. From the observation you made upon his person, can you point out who that person was whom you saw on that night; have you seen him? look round and see whether you see him here to-day.

(The witness looked round the Court for some time.)

A. That is the gentleman (pointing to De Berenger.)

Q. Have you any doubt upon your mind about it.

A. No.

Cross-examined by Mr. Park.

Q. Had you ever seen him before that night?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever seen him since?

A. No.

Q. How long did you see him?

A. I did not minute the time.

Q. Upon the whole, how many minutes do you think you can now say you saw him that night?

A. I might see him perhaps five or six minutes, or more. I was in the room twice.

Q. Were you there before Mr. Gourley, or after him?

A. I was in the room with him.

Q. Did you go over before Mr. Gourley, or after him?

A. After him—I followed him.

Q. Immediately?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you come away as soon as he did, or did you remain there after him?

A. I did not take particular notice of that; the door was open, and we went in and out as we liked.

Q. Will you tell us whether the word you used before was, that he had a flat cap, or a flap cap—had it not a flap to it?

A. It was a cap rather slouched down, no brim to it.

Q. How could it slouch down, if it had no brim to it? I do not understand that; if it had merely a crown to it that would go round the head, it would not slouch down.

A. It was drawn over his forehead.

Q. The round part of it was drawn down over his forehead?

A. Yes.

Q. Where have you been all the time that gentleman has been speaking?

A. What gentleman?

Q. Were you out of Court?

A. No, I was not out of Court.

Q. You have been behind?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you been in view of his Lordship all the time?

A. No.

Q. When did you come into Court; did you come in when Mr. Gourley was examining, or when Marsh, the former witness, was examining?

A. No, I was out of Court at that time.

Q. Had you left the Ship Inn before this gentleman, as you say it was, had left the Ship Inn and gone back to the Packet Boat?

A. No, I saw him start off.

Re-examined by Mr. Bolland.

Q. Did you come into Court before you were called?

A. No.

Mr. Park. No, I give that up.

Lord Ellenborough. A deaf man is rather an awkward man to be an eaves dropper.

Mr. Park. I could not put so silly a question as that.

Lord Ellenborough. He is the very last man that one should suspect; he could not hear if he was in Court.

Mr. Park. If he had been as deaf as deaf could be, if he had seen a person point at the Defendant, that would have been sufficient for his purpose.

Lord Ellenborough. But you saw how he searched round the Court before he found him.

Mr. Park. But when I have a case presented to me I must do my duty, however painful it may be.

Lord Ellenborough. Certainly, it is my wish you should.

The Cap was shewn to the witness.

Mr. Bolland. Was the cap like that?

A. It was in the same form as that.

Q. Was the lace like that?

A. It was like that; I cannot say that was the cap.

Mr. William St. John sworn.

Examined by Mr. Bolland.

Q. Where do you reside?

A. In Little Brook street.

Q. Were you at the Ship Inn at Dover, on the morning of the 21st of February?

A. I was.

Q. You were there as a guest—as a traveller?

A. I was.

Q. Was your attention called to any thing on that morning?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Were you up in the morning, or had you retired to rest?

A. I had retired to rest.

Q. State to the Court what it was which excited your attention.

A. I think at a quarter past one, or somewhere thereabouts, I heard a violent knocking at the gate or door, and a person calling out for a post-chaise and four immediately. I got up and dressed myself as quickly as possible, and went down stairs. I met Mr. Wright, the landlord, and asked him——

Q. Do not state any thing that passed between you and Wright, unless the stranger was there.

A. I went into the coffee-room, I think it is called.

Q. Did you observe any body there?

A. I saw a gentleman in a military uniform.

Q. Will you state, if you recollect it, what his dress was?

A. He wore a scarlet coat, with long skirts, buttoned across, with a red silk sash, grey pantaloons, and a grey military great coat, and a seal-skin cap, I think it was a seal-skin cap, on his head, of a fawn colour.

Lord Ellenborough. You did not touch it to feel it, did you?

A. No; it had a gold band round it.

Mr. Bolland. Had he any ornament on his uniform?

A. There were some ornaments but I do not know what they were, something of a star on his military dress.

Q. How was he engaged at the time you first saw him?

A. He was walking up and down the room in a very good pace.

Q. Did any thing pass between you and him?

A. I asked a question.

Q. What question did you ask him?

A. I asked him about the arrival of a messenger, and he said, he knew nothing at all about it.

Q. What were the terms in which you asked him?

A. I asked him if he knew any thing of the arrival of Mr. Johnson, who was the Messenger expected.—He said, he knew nothing at all about him, and begged I would leave him to himself, as he was extremely ill. On my leaving the room, he requested that I would send in paper and pen and ink. I immediately retired, and met the landlord, Mr. Wright, coming into the room, I believe with the paper, pens and ink.

Q. Did you return into the room?

A. In a few minutes, I believe a few seconds afterwards, I did.

Q. How was he then occupied?

A. He was writing.

Q. Did he say any thing of what he was writing?

A. No.

Q. Did you afterwards hear him say any thing, or see him do any thing with the paper upon which he was writing?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you hear him say any thing to Mr. Wright?

A. No, I did not,—not in the room.

Q. Did you continue in the room during the whole time he was writing, or leave it?

A. I left it immediately.

Q. Did you again see him, and where?

A. At the door in the street, stepping into the carriage.

Q. Did you hear him say any thing there, or see him do any thing?

A. I asked him what the news was,—he told me it was as good as I could possibly wish.

Q. Did any thing more pass between you and him?

A. Nothing more.

Q. Did you see what he did with the paper upon which he was writing?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you hear any thing pass between him and any other persons?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you leave the place or did he go away first?

A. He went away first.

Q. Did any thing pass from that stranger or to him respecting the letter.

A. No, not that I heard.

Q. From the observation that you made upon that person, could you point him out?

A. Certainly.

Q. Look round the Court, and see whether he is here?

A. The gentleman is below me, (pointing to De Berenger,) this Gentlemen, who is writing here.

Q. Have you any doubt of it?

A. Not in the least.

Q. Had you seen him before that day?

A. This is the third time I ever saw him.—I saw him by accident in Westminster Hall, passing through the Hall.

Lord Ellenborough. Did you recollect him when you saw him there?

A. Immediately.

Mr. Bolland. By what accident was it that you saw him there?

A. I went down there.

Q. And there by chance saw him?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you desired by any body to go down?

A. A friend of mine asked me to go down. The fact is we were going to Newgate; having heard that he was gone to Westminster Hall, I went down there.

Q. Was he walking about the Hall, or where was he when you saw him?

A. I first saw him in the court.

Q. Was he alone, or were there other persons about him?

A. There were many persons about him.

Q. You have no doubt of the person?

A. I have no doubt.

Q. You recollect nothing of any letter?

A. No, I do not.

Cross examined by Mr. Richardson.

Q. You told my learned friend you had seen this person three times;—once at Dover, and to day, and another time; by accident that was so—was it?

A. It was.

Q. Did you go to Newgate by accident?

A. No, I did not, I went there accompanied by a friend to see him; it was mere by chance that I went down to Westminster Hall.

Q. Do you call that an accident in your vocabulary?

A. I had no intention of going there ten minutes before.

Q. You did not go with your friend for the purpose of looking at him?

A. I went alone, I went with a friend to Newgate.

Q. You did not go to Westminster Hall for the purpose of looking at him?

A. I did.

Q. Do you call that an accident?

A. No.

Q. Did you not follow him to Westminster Hall for the purpose of looking at him?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was the friend who went with you to Newgate?

A. Mr. Oakes of the Stock Exchange.

Q. That was the day you knew he was to come to Westminster Hall for the purpose of pleading to this indictment?

A. I did not know any such thing.

Q. Were not you so informed when you got to Newgate?

A. I was.

Q. And then you followed him to Westminster Hall, and saw him pleading to this indictment?

A. I saw him in Westminster Hall.

Q. Did you not hear the officer read the indictment to him?

A. I was not in the Court, I think I just had my head in the inside of the curtain.

Q. Did you not hear the officer read something to him, and ask him whether he was guilty or not guilty?

A. I heard the Officer read something.

Q. And ask De Berenger whether he was guilty or not?

A. I heard him ask some question, but not what it was.

Q. That person was standing up in Court, under the Officer?

A. He was.

Q. You were not resident at Dover, I think?

A. No, I was not.

Q. What is your business in London?

A. I have a situation in a public charity.

Q. What is that?

A. The Irish Charitable Society.

Q. Are you Secretary to that?

A. No, Accountant.

Q. Is that your only line of business?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you nothing to do with the Stock Exchange?

A. No.

Q. You never had?

A. I do not understand that question.

Q. Have you ever had any thing to do with the Stock Exchange?

A. I have had some transactions in the Stocks.

Q. Have you ever acted as a Broker?

A. No, never.

Q. Your transactions in the Stocks have been entirely on your own account?

A. Yes.

Q. Buying and selling Stock upon your own account?

A. The fact is, I held some Omnium.

Q. And sold it again?

A. Yes.

Q. About what time?

A. I bought it before that time.

Q. When was it sold?

A. Some days after this transaction.

Q. You were in this room twice, I think you said?

A. Yes.

Q. When you first went down, you did not find your company acceptable?

A. The gentleman begged I would leave him, and I did so.

Q. Upon your oath, how long were you in the room at that time?

A. Not more than a minute.

Q. It might be less; you went immediately on his requesting you?

A. Yes, as soon as possible.

Q. The second time, you stated to my learned friend, you left the room immediately after you went in,—how long were you then?

A. I suppose a minute; I went up to the table and back again.

Q. You did not see him do any thing, but write a letter?

A. No.

Q. Had he his great coat and cap on, all the time you were with him?

A. Yes, I did not see him without them.

Q. It was a slouch cap we have heard it described?

A. No, it was not; it was a cap without any leaf at all to it.

Q. Coming over the forehead?

A. No, it fitted the head tight, but had neither a leaf or any thing else to it.

Q. What might be your business at Dover at that time?

A. I went down for the purpose of getting information.

Q. Was that for the benefit of the Irish Charitable Society?

A. No, certainly not.

Q. If it is not impertinent, for whose benefit was it?

A. One purpose was to send information to a newspaper.

Q. Another purpose, to send information to whom?

A. If any thing happened, such as the arrival of the preliminaries of a treaty of peace, which was expected, I should have come to London immediately.

Q. You would have gone to the Stock Exchange with it?

A. No, I should not, I have no connexion with the Stock Exchange.

Q. Upon your oath, you would not have communicated it to the Stock Exchange?

A. I should not.

Q. It was by Mr. Oakes's desire, you say, that you went to Newgate,—was it by his desire you went to Dover?

A. It was not.

Q. Did he know of your going to Dover?

A. He did not.

Q. By whose desire did you go down?

A. By desire of a friend of a mine.

Q. Who was that person?

A. He was a friend of mine.

Q. What was his name?

Lord Ellenborough. There is no objection to your telling it.

Mr. Richardson. Have you any doubt of it in your memory?

A. No.

Q. At whose desire did you go down?

A. Mr. Farrell.

Q. Who is Mr. Farrell?

A. He is a Merchant.

Q. A Merchant in the City of London?

A. Yes he is.

Q. Has he any thing to do with the newspaper you have spoken of?

A. Yes he has, he is a proprietor of it.

Q. What is the name of it?

A. The Traveller.

Q. Where does Mr. Farrell live?

A. In Austin Friars.

Q. What day did you go to Dover?

A. I went on the Saturday.

Q. That was the very day before?

A. Yes.

Q. For the purpose of getting any intelligence that might arrive and to communicate it immediately to Mr. Farrell?

A. Yes, or Mr. Quin, the other proprietor of the newspaper.

Q. You told me just now, your object was to get information, partly for the newspaper;—what was the other object?

A. I do not recollect having said partly.

Q. I am in the recollection of the gentlemen of the Jury, whether you did not say so.

A Juryman. You said one object was that.

Mr. Richardson. What other object had you?

A. That was the only distinct object I had.

Q. Then you meant that you had no other object but that?

A. If there had been a preliminary Treaty of Peace arrived, I should have returned to London, and of course I would have made what I possibly could of the little Omnium I held.

Q. That was the other object?

A. Yes.

Q. All information of slighter importance you would have communicated to Mr. Farrell, who sent you; if it had been very important, you would have come to London and sold your omnium?

A. Certainly.

Re-examined by Mr. Bolland.

Q. At the time you saw that person in Westminster Hall, I think you told me he was standing with a number of others?

A. He was.

Q. Did any person point out that person to you?

A. No.

Q. Was it from the recollection of your own mind, that you discovered him?

A. It was.

Q. Do you know a boy of the name of Ions?

A. No. I do not know him by name.

William Ions was called into Court.

Mr. Bolland (to St. John.) Do you know that boy?

A. Yes.

Q. He is one of Wright's boys?

A. He is.

Q. Did you see him on that night.

A. I did.

Q. Upon what occasion?

A. He was sent as an express, there were two expresses that night, he went with one of them.

Q. To whom was that lad sent?

A. I think to the Port Admiral at Deal.

Q. Whose express was that?

A. It was an express I believe that Mr. Wright gave him from the gentleman who was there.

Q. Do you mean from that gentleman?

A. Yes.

William Ions sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. In the month of February last were you in the service of Mr. Wright of Dover.

A. Yes.

Q. Were you up when the officer arrived there, or were you called up?

A. I was called up.

Q. Were you sent off with an express to Admiral Foley?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you take to the Admiral's the letter you received there?

A. Yes, I did.

Cross-examined by Mr. Richardson.

Q. Who gave you the letter that you speak of?

A. Mr. Wright.

Q. He gave you some letters to carry to Admiral Foley?

A. Yes.

Q. Where did he give it you?

A. I was at the fore-door upon the pony, and he came out to the door to me with the letter.

Q. To whom did you deliver it?

A. To the Admiral's Servant.

Q. At Deal?

A. Yes.

Q. What is her name?

A. I do not know, she took it up stairs to the Admiral directly?

Q. You did not see the Admiral?

A. I saw him that night.

Q. Do you mean before you left Deal?

A. Yes.

Q. This letter you delivered to some servant at the door?

A. Yes.

Q. And she carried it up stairs?

A. Yes.

Re-examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. After she had delivered it up stairs you saw the Admiral?

A. Yes.

Admiral Thomas Foley sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. On the morning of Monday the 21st of February did you receive a letter by that boy?

A. A letter was brought to me that that boy brought to the house, and given to me, I was in bed.

Mr. Park. You did not receive it from the hand of that boy?

A. No, it was brought to me by my maid-servant at three o'clock in the morning, I was in bed.

Q. Did you get up immediately?

A. I read the letter in bed.

Q. Is that the letter? (shewing a letter to the witness.)

A. This is the letter.

Q. Did you mark it before you parted with it?

A. I do not know whether I marked it or not.

Q. You know it again.

A. I inclosed it in a letter but I did not mark it.

Q. You inclosed it in a letter to Mr. Croker?

A. Yes a private letter to Mr. Croker.

Q. Is that the letter in which you inclosed it to Mr. Croker (shewing a letter to the witness.)

A. This is the letter.

Q. That letter which I first shewed you is the letter you received from your maid servant?

A. It is.

Q. I suppose you rose directly?

A. I rose and sent for the boy into my dressing room.

Q. Did you communicate the news by telegraph to the admiralty that morning.

A. It was very late before I began, I will tell you what I did, I questioned the boy a good deal, for I must say I did not believe the letter.

Q. I must not ask you what passed between you and the boy, but whether you telegraphed the admiralty?

A. I did not, because the weather was thick, and I further say, the message I should have sent to the admiralty would have satisfied them—

Q. In fact you did not telegraph the admiralty because the weather was too thick?

A. I did not.

Q. When you sent for the boy up had you the letter in your hand?

A. I had, it was then three o'clock and dark, the telegraph would not move.

Q. I take for granted you had a candle?

A. Of course.

Mr. Gurney. We will now read the letter.

Mr. Park. I object, with great deference to his Lordship, to that letter being read, the evidence does not bring home that to the supposed officer, who is said to be Mr. De Berenger, it does not appear from any evidence to have come out of his hand it reaches this boy by the communication of Mr. Wright, who has not been called.

Mr. Gurney. I will ask the witness as to the reason of Mr. Wright's not being here—he is very ill, is not he?

A. He is extremely ill.

Mr. Park. My Lord, that does not alter the law of evidence, I submit there is a chasm in that chain that precludes their reading the letter as evidence against Mr. De Berenger. I do not mean to say that might not be supplied in the absence of Mr. Wright, but that letter lying before your Lordship's Officer is not identified to be the very paper which issued forth from this supposed person. It was delivered to this youth at the door of the inn by Wright, who is ill and absent from illness, he is not present to tell your Lordship from whom he received that, and there is a chasm in the chain of evidence, nor does the Admiral say he received the letter from this boy, he received it from a maid servant.

Lord Ellenborough (to Admiral Foley.) When the boy came into your presence I suppose you asked him about this letter?

A. I did.

Q. Did he recognize that as the letter he had brought?

A. He did.

Mr. Park. With deference to your Lordship I should submit the letter was then open, the boy had delivered the letter shut to the maid servant, and I should have submitted, it is quite impossible that this youth could distinguish the letter, nobody doubts it is the letter, but that must be proved by legal evidence.

Lord Ellenborough. It is prima facie evidence. I do not speak now of the communication from De Berenger (supposing he is the person) of the letter to the boy. I do not say any thing upon that objection of yours, but that the letter which reached Admiral Foley was the letter the boy brought I think no human being can doubt.

Mr. Park. But still upon the original point, I submit it is not so proved as to be read in evidence.

Lord Ellenborough. Yes, you may resort to that if you please, the witness said he wanted an express horse to send to the Admiral at Deal, and then an express horse was got, and something was carried to the Admiral at Deal. That is the evidence as it stands.

Mr. Serjeant Best. So far the evidence goes my Lord, they now want to make the contents of that letter evidence, but before they can do that they must either prove that letter to be the hand-writing of Mr. De Berenger, or trace that Letter regularly from the hand of Mr. De Berenger: they have no such evidence, but all they say is, that Wright, the Landlord of the inn, took the letter out of the inn and delivered it to the boy at the door, the boy never having seen Mr. De Berenger, nor they having the smallest evidence whatever to connect the boy with him.

Lord Ellenborough. If there had been, the question would not have arisen.

Mr. Serjeant Best. I submit there is nothing to connect that letter with this person, and if it is the hand-writing of Mr. De Berenger I should think they would have no difficulty in proving that, there were other gentlemen waiting for information from France, as we hear from the witnesses, and if this letter is read Mr. De Berenger and the other Defendants may be made responsible for that letter which may have been written by one of those other persons.

Lord Ellenborough. I only want to get first all the facts relating to this letter. I cannot find any thing beyond that that he wanted an express horse to send to the Admiral at Deal.

Mr. Gurney. And that a sheet of paper was brought to him to write.

Lord Ellenborough. That he was preparing to write a letter and that he wanted an express horse to carry it, but as to the immediate identification of that letter you lose the intervening proof by the absence of Mr. Wright.

Mr. Gurney. My Lord, if there is any sort of difficulty about it, I will identify it at once by proving the hand-writing, but the Gentleman to prove that felt a delicacy in consequence of his being the Attorney for the prosecution.

Germain Lavie, Esq. sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. You are the Attorney for the prosecution?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see Mr. De Berenger in the custody of the messenger, in the course of the month of April?

A. Several times.

Q. In the course of those interviews did you see him write?

A. I did.

Q. Did you see him write a good deal?

A. Yes, a considerable deal, I saw a whole letter which he handed me across when he had written it, and it was given back and copied again, and for about an hour he was writing different things and handing backwards and forwards.

Q. Did you also see his papers in his writing desk?

A. I did.

Q. From the observation you made upon his writing, seeing him writing as you did at those several interviews, do you or do you not believe that to be his hand-writing?

A. I verily believe it to be his hand-writing from what I saw him write, but I am more impressed with its being his hand-writing, or at least the impression of its being his hand-writing is strengthened by what I saw of his writing.

Q. Do you believe, from what you saw him write, that that is his hand-writing.

A. Yes I do most solemnly, I did not see the letter till afterwards, and the moment I saw it, I concluded that to be his hand writing, and said so at the time.

Mr. Park. What you said at the time is no evidence, and you know that.

Mr. Gurney. Did your observation of it enable you to say you believed it to be his hand writing?

A. I have said so.

Mr. Park. You know as well as any man, that what you said to any body is no evidence.

Lord Ellenborough. It is a measure strongly indicative of his persuasion, it is an act accompanying his seeing it.

Mr. Gurney. Does Mr. De Berenger always write as large as that, or does he write a hand as large as that, and a smaller one also?

A. His usual hand is a good deal smaller than this.

Q. Did you find him sometimes writing larger than at other times?

A. Yes, there was apparently in his letters a larger hand in writing, I could positively swear that the man who wrote those I saw, wrote this, only one was larger than the other.

Cross examined by Mr. Park.

Q. You told my learned Friend just now, that you formed your mind not only from what you saw him write, but from what you saw in his writing desk?

A. That confirmed my mind.

Q. Upon your oath, if you had not seen those writings in his Desk, would you have taken upon yourself to swear that it was his hand writing?

A. I think I should, but that makes it much stronger in my mind.

Q. I ask you again and will have a positive answer to the question, if you had never seen those other writings to which you have alluded, would you upon the mere circumstance of having seen him write, have taken upon you to swear that you believed that to be his hand writing?

A. I could have sworn it not quite so strongly, I could have sworn to my verily believing it, but I can now swear without the least doubt that it is his.

Q. That is because I have examined you perhaps?

A. No it is not.

Q. You verily believe that to be his writing, do you?

A. Yes.

Q. Look at that and tell me whether you believe that to be his hand writing, (shewing a letter to the witness) you need not open it, I have shut it for the purpose.

A. Yes I do, that is more like what I saw him write than this; I believe that to be his hand writing.

Mr. Park. I will put a letter A upon it; will you be so good as to look at that account, (shewing it to the witness) and tell me whether you believe that to be his hand writing.

A. I can only say this is the sort of hand he writes.

Q. Will you swear that is his hand writing.

A. That appears to me to be the same sort of hand.

Mr. Park. I will mark this B. They are very much alike.

A. They are more like the sized hand he writes in common than this, this is a larger hand.

Mr. Serjeant Best. Do you believe these to be Mr. De Berenger's hand writing? (shewing three papers to the witness).

A. They are all like his hand writing.

Lord Ellenborough. I think this should be kept for your case—I never saw any thing like this in my life.

Mr. Gurney. I take for granted these are meant to be produced in the defence?

Lord Ellenborough. You must be conscious that you are doing an irregular thing in tendering them now.

Mr. Park. I am not conscious my Lord, of doing an irregular thing.

Lord Ellenborough. I mean in tendering evidence at a time when it is not open to the Defendant to do so.

Mr. Park. But I may try the credit of the Witness by shewing him these.

Lord Ellenborough. There is no doubt that every Defendant has a right to give evidence in his turn, but at present we are upon the case of the prosecution.

Mr. Park. Have you not shewn that Letter to various other persons in order to procure their testimony to the hand writing?

A. No, I have not.

Q. You have not attempted it?

A. I was always conscious that I should be able to prove the Letter, but this morning finding Mr. Wright was not come up, I asked them if they had any body at hand that could prove it, so as to avoid being called myself; but I believe I must be called at last to the examination of the papers, so that it is not so important my being called sooner or later.

Q. Have you attempted to get other evidence?

A. I have not.

Q. Was Mr. Stevens applied to?

A. Before the Grand Jury, Mr. Stevens was not only applied to, but attended.—Mr. Lees also, of the Bank of England had ascertained before I had any thing to do with the business——

Mr. Park. That is not my question.

Lord Ellenborough. Put your question distinctly.

Mr. Park. I ask whether Mr. Lavie had not applied to various persons to swear to De Berenger's hand writing, and finding that they would not swear to it, then he determined to swear to it himself?

A. No, I have not.

Mr. Gurney. You say you did apply to Mr. Lees of the Bank, and Mr. Stevens?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Lees is the Inspector at the Bank?

A. He is.

The Letter was read as follows:

Mr. Serjeant Best. Your Lordship will allow me to explain. I did not ask these questions of Mr. Lavie, with a view to offer hand writing against hand writing, but to prove these Papers that I mean to offer in evidence.

Lord Ellenborough. They should be proved in your case; I know by mutual consent they are sometimes proved by a Witness for the Prosecution, and I did not interfere in the first instance, but when I saw it multiplying, I thought it necessary to interfere.

Thomas Dennis Sworn.

Examined by Mr. Adolphus.

Q. Are you the driver of a post chaise in the service of Mr. Wright, at the Ship at Dover?

A. Yes.

Q. Early in the morning of the 21st of February, do you remember taking a fare from thence?

A. Yes, I drove the chaise.

Q. With how many horses?

A. Four.

Q. Where did you drive it to?

A. To Canterbury.

Q. To what Inn?

A. To the Fountain.

Q. What sort of person was it that you drove?

A. I cannot say.

Q. Was it one person, or more than one?

A. Only one.

Q. A man or a woman?

A. A man.

Q. Was it dark?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you see how he was dressed?

A. No.

Q. Had you the Wheel horse, or the leaders?

A. The leaders.

Q. When you put the person down whom you had driven, what did he give you?

A. He gave me a gold Napoleon.

Q. Did he give you only?

A. He gave us one a piece.

Q. What became of those Napoleons?

A. I sold mine.

Q. What did you get for it?

A. I got a one pound note for mine.

Q. Do you know the name of the lad at Canterbury that took him after you?

A. Yes.

Q. What is his name?

A. Broad.

Q. Who was the other?

A. Thomas Daly.

Cross Examined by Mr. Richardson.

Q. Did you see Broad and Daly set off with the chaise from Canterbury?

A. Yes.

Q. It was a very dark night, was not it?

A. Yes.

Q. An hazy misty night?

A. Yes.

Q. A dark foggy night?

A. Yes.

Q. How do you remember the day this happened, from Dover you are in the habit of carrying persons in chaises and four to Canterbury frequently?

A. Yes.

Q. Day and night?

A. Yes.

Q. The carrying a gentleman in a chaise and four to Canterbury was nothing extraordinary?

A. No.

Q. How came you to remember this particular day?

A. I do not know.

Q. Upon your oath, might it not have been the 20th or the 22nd?

A. I cannot say indeed.

Q. Have you not heard other people say it was the 21st that this extraordinary affair happened?

A. No, I have not.

Q. You have not heard it talked of at all?

A. No.

Q. For aught you know it might be the 20th or the 22nd?

A. I cannot say.

Re-examined by Mr. Adolphus.

Q. Do you remember what day of the week it was?

A. No.

Q. Do persons often give you a Napoleon for driving them?

A. No, I never had one before.

Q. You do not remember the day of the week?

A. No, I do not.

Edward Broad sworn.

Examined by Mr. Adolphus.

Q. Are you a driver of a chaise at the Fountain at Canterbury?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember the last witness coming to your house with a fare early in a morning in February.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember what day it was?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Do you remember what day of the week it was?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Was it one gentleman you particularly remember, or more?

A. One gentleman.

Q. From whence did he come?

A. From the Ship at Dover.

Q. Did you drive the wheel horses or the leaders?

A. The leaders.

Q. He came with four horses?

A. Yes.

Q. And went away with four?

A. Yes.

Q. Where did you drive him to?

A. To the Rose at Sittingbourn.

Q. Did you see him into a chaise there?

A. He did not get out—the chaise went forwards.

Q. With four horses or two?

A. With four.

Q. Who drove him, do you remember the boys names?

A. Michael Finnis was one, and James Wakefield.

Q. What present did he make you?

A. I did not receive any money from him; the other boy received the money.

Q. What had you for your share?

Mr. Park. That cannot be received unless he saw it given.

Mr. Adolphus. Did you see the money given?

A. I was very busy taking the horses off.

Q. What had you for your share?

A. A Napoleon.

Cross-examined by Mr. Park.

Q. Have you long lived at the Fountain at Canterbury?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you long known Thomas Dennis?

A. Yes, some years.

Q. Have you never driven a fare he brought from Dover before?

A. Not particularly to my knowledge.

Q. Your knowledge has been called to this subject, but you do not know that you ever drove one that he brought before?

A. I might have driven one, but he brought this I know.

Q. You might have driven a fare brought by him from Dover?

A. I might, there are a great many boys from that Inn.

Q. And you have driven a single gentleman before?

A. Yes.

Q. And sometimes you have driven a chaise and four?

A. Yes.

Re-examined by Mr. Adolphus.

Q. Did you ever receive a Napoleon before?

Mr. Park. He did not receive it from that person.

Lord Ellenborough. Did all these circumstances ever concur in any other case. Did you ever drive so early in the morning a single gentleman in a chaise and four, and receive a Napoleon from him?

A. No, I never did.

Michael Finnis sworn.

Examined by Mr. Adolphus.

Q. Are you a post-chaise driver at the Rose at Sittingbourn?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember the last witness bringing a gentleman in a post-chaise to your house?

A. Yes.

Q. In the month of February?

A. I did not take particular notice of the time.

Q. Was it early in the morning?

A. Yes.

Q. In a chaise and four?

A. Yes.

Q. At what o'clock in the morning might it be?

A. It might be somewhere about four, or between four and five I believe. I did not take particular notice, for I had no watch with me, it was dark.

Q. Where did you drive him to?

A. I drove him to the Crown at Rochester.

Q. That is Mr. Wright's house?

A. Yes.

Q. At what time in the morning might it be when you got to Rochester?

A. I cannot say, we were not much above an hour going with the gentleman—it might be an hour and ten minutes at the outside.

Q. Did the gentleman get out there?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. What present did he make you?

A. He gave us a Napoleon a piece; he gave me two, one for my fellow-servant and one for myself.

Lord Ellenborough. You had no opportunity of seeing his person?

A. I did just see him in the house when he paid me, but I did not take any particular notice of him.

Lord Ellenborough. He had no luggage, had he?

A. I do not know.

Lord Ellenborough. I thought he had changed chaise?

Mr. Park. No, he did not change chaise, only got out and in again.

A Juryman. Did you observe his dress?

A. He had a kind of a pepper and salt coat on, and a red coat under that I perceived, and a cap he had on.

Mr. William Wright sworn.

Examined by Mr. Adolphus.

Q. You keep the Crown Inn at Rochester?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember a chaise from Sittingbourn arriving at your house on the morning of the 21st of February?

A. Yes.

Q. A chaise and four?

A. Yes.

Mr. Park. I request that the questions may not be put so leading as to fix the day, for not one witness has proved it.

Mr. Adolphus. Have you any particular reason for remembering that day?

A. Yes.

Q. What sort of a person was it that came in the chaise?

A. It was a tall person rather thin than otherwise.

Q. Dressed how?

A. He was dressed in a pepper and salt great coat, with a scarlet coat under it, a Military scarlet coat; the upper coat was nearer the color of that coat I think than any thing I could state, (pointing to the coat before produced), the scarlet Military coat he had under that was very much trimmed with gold lace, it appeared by the candle light to be gold lace trimmed down the front; he had on also a cap, a Military cap with a broad gold lace round it—a band.

Q. What was the cap apparently made of?

A. The cap appeared to me to be made of cloth; I am not certain whether it was of cloth or fur, but it appeared to be nearly of the color of the great coat.

Q. Was there any thing particular about his Military coat?

A. On the Military coat was a star, and something suspended either from the neck or the button, I do not know which, something which he told me was some honor of a Military order of Russia.

Q. Was that thing at all like this? (shewing the star to the witness.)

A. Yes, it had very much the appearance of that sort of thing.

Q. Did the person stay any time at your house?

A. I should suppose I was in conversation with him about ten minutes in the parlour.

Lord Ellenborough. At what time in the morning was this?

A. The time the chaise drove into the yard I suppose was about half-past 5 o'clock; it was not earlier than that, and I suppose very little later.

Mr. Adolphus. What were you and he doing during these ten minutes?

A. I was getting some chicken for him, and cutting that chicken up and some round of beef.

Q. In what room were you?

A. In our bar parlour; I took him there, the house not being open, that being warmer than the rest of the rooms.

Q. What passed in that conversation you had with him?

A. I was first of all called up by a post-boy of my brother's at Dover, he told me he was to go forward with some letter to London, and that there was a Messenger.

Q. You must not state what passed with your brother's boy, but in consequence of what that boy told you what did you say to the gentleman?

A. I went into the yard and found the gentleman looking out at the front window of the chaise and he said he was very hungry, and could he have any thing to eat, for he had had nothing since he left Calais; I told him that he could get any thing he pleased, and should I bring him any thing by way of a sandwich, as I supposed he would not get out of the chaise, he said he would get out, and he did get out, and I took him into our bar parlour; when he got there I said "I am led to suppose you are the bearer of some very good news for this Country," he said he was, that the business was all done, that the thing was settled. I asked him if I might be allowed to ask him, what was the nature of his dispatches, and he said "he is dead!" I said "who do you mean Sir?" He said "The Tyrant Bonaparte!" or words to that effect; I believe those were the exact words. I said "is that really true Sir?" Upon that observation he said, "if you doubt my word you had better not ask me any more questions." I then made an apology for presuming to doubt his word, and requested he would be kind enough to say, as the Country was very anxious, and our town in particular, what were the dispatches; he then went on that there had been a very general battle between the French and the whole of the Allied Powers, commanded by Schwartzenberg in person; that the French had been completely defeated and Bonaparte had fled for safety. That he had been overtaken at a village, to the best of my recollection he said it was Rushaw, six leagues from Paris, by the Cossacks, to the best of my recollection that was the name of the place and the distance. That the Cossacks had there come up with him, and that they had literally torn him into pieces. That he had come from the field of battle from the Emperor Alexander himself; that he either was an Aid-de-Camp of the Emperor or of one of his principal Generals he told me, but which I am not able to say, but one I know he told me was the case, that the Allies were invited by the Parisians to Paris, and the Bourbons to the throne of France, that was pretty well all the conversation that passed. He eat very little, if he did any thing, he said he was very cold; I asked him if he would take any brandy, he said no he would not, for he had some wine in the carriage. He enquired what he had to pay, I told him what he had had had been in so uncomfortable a manner, that I should not wish to take any thing for what he had had. He did not accept of that, he threw down a Napoleon on the table and desired me to take that for what he had himself taken, and to give the servants something out of it; he meant the whole of the servants, for when he got into the chaise the ostler asked him for something, and he said he had left something with his master.

Q. Did he go away in the chaise that brought him, or in another chaise?

A. In the same chaise.

Q. With four horses?

A. Yes, with four horses.

Q. What were the names of the lads that drove him?

A. James Overy and Thomas Todd, I believe were the boys. I am not quite positive as to the names of the boys.

Q. Should you know the person again that you saw that morning if you were to see him?

A. I think I should, he was very much disguised at that time.

Q. Look about, and tell me whether you see him any where?

A. I do not immediately see any face that I should know again, that I at this moment recollect.

Q. Look with care round about?

A. That is the gentleman, (pointing to De Berenger.)

Q. Do you believe that to be the person?

A. Yes, I do think that is the person—really when I see the face it is the same.

Q. Looking again, have you any doubt of it?

A. I think I can swear that is the gentleman. I have no doubt of it—that certainly is the gentleman.

Cross Examined by Mr. Richardson.

Q. Had you ever seen the gentleman before?

A. No.

Q. Nor since?

A. No not till to-day, not to my knowledge.

Q. The first thing he said was that he was very hungry; and you went to get him something to eat?

A. Yes; and he got out of the chaise, and I got him something. We crossed the yard together.

Q. During all the time you were with him he was getting something to eat?

A. No; he was sitting in the room part of the time.

Q. You were busy getting him something at the time?

A. He was standing while I was getting it, and then he sat down; I staid to wait upon him.

Q. What was the whole length of the time you were with him?

A. I suppose ten minutes.

Q. The greatest part of that time he was eating, was not he?

A. The greatest part of the time he was talking; I do not think he ate any thing; he took a knife and fork in his hand but I do not believe he ate any thing.

A Juryman. Did you observe any thing particular in his dress?

A. He was dressed pretty much in the way I have described; he had one part of his dress I have not mentioned, which was a large white cockade hanging down very dirty, as if it had been a long time worn.

Lord Ellenborough. Had you any conversation with him about his communicating this intelligence in any public quarter; or did you give him any advice upon that?

A. No I did not. When he went away I gave him a card of the road, and requested his favors when he should come that way again; and he bowed, as if assenting.

Q. You have not seen him since?

A. No I have not.

A Juryman. Had he his cap on?

A. Yes he had it on the whole of the time I believe. I have got the Napoleon in my pocket that the gentleman gave me.

The Witness produced it.

A Juryman. What did you say was the color of the cap he had on?

A. I think it was very near the color if not the color of the great coat, to the best of my recollection, looking at it by candle light.

Lord Ellenborough. From the circumstances of his appearance, looking at that person before you, you have no doubt?

A. I have no doubt of it; I can swear to that gentleman, though I have never seen him since.

James Overy sworn.

Examined by Mr. Adolphus.

Q. Did you take up a person at your master's house at Rochester?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recollect on what day it was?

A. On a Monday.

Q. Can you recollect the day of the month?

A. No I cannot.

Q. Where did you drive him to?

A. I drove him to Dartford.

Q. How was he dressed?

A. He appeared to have a great coat on.

Q. What house at Dartford did you drive to?

A. The Granby.

Q. What kind of a coat had he on?

A. A grey mixture coat it appeared to be.

Q. Did you see any other part of his dress?

A. Yes, a red coat, like an aid de camp's, it appeared to be.

Q. Describe the coat, was it adorned with any thing?

A. He had a star very full indeed.

Q. Did you see any thing else?

A. There was something about his neck hanging.

Q. What had he upon his head?

A. He had a cap with a bit of white ribband run through the cap.

Lord Ellenborough. How was that ribband, in the shape of a cockade?

A. No it was not.

Mr. Adolphus. What sort of a cap was it?

A. A cap such as officers wear, with a gold lace band round it.

Q. Was it day-light when you left him at Dartford?

A. Yes; it was about ten minutes before seven when we came to Dartford with him.

Q. Was it then day-light?

A. Yes it was day-light about two miles before we came to Dartford.

Q. Did you see the person sufficiently to think you should know him again?

A. I do not know that I should.

Q. What did he give you at parting?

A. He gave us two Napoleons, and paid me for the Dartford horses and for our horses too; he paid me one £5. note and a shilling for the Dartford horses, and the Rochester horses too, and the turnpikes.

Q. He gave you and the other lad a Napoleon a-piece?

A. Yes he did.

Q. Who took him up at Dartford?

A. Thomas Shilling and Charles Ward.

Cross Examined by Mr. Park.

Q. What was the color of his cap?

A. I did not take notice of it.

Q. There was a white ribband stuck through it?

A. Yes.

Q. You took so much notice of it you said it was like an officer's cap?

A. Yes.

Q. How do you describe an officer's cap, are there not different sorts of officers caps?

A. I have seen what they wear when they are not in their regimentals, those they wear in a morning, this was such a cap as they generally wear in a morning, not what they wear with their regimentals in the day-time.

Q. It slouched down I suppose?

A. Yes.

Q. There is a something comes down to shade the eyes?

A. Not on that.

Q. How does it slouch then?

A. A kind of a turn down, a little way turned down.

Q. What was a little way turned down?

A. The cap.

Q. What part of the cap, in the front, or where?

A. In the front.

Q. Did you observe what color it was?

A. No I did not.

Q. Whether it was a dark brown?

A. I did not take any notice of the color.

William Tozer sworn.

Examined by Mr. Adolphus.

Q. You are an innkeeper at Dartford?

A. Yes.

Q. What is your sign?

A. The Crown and Anchor.

Q. Do you remember on any particular day James Overy bringing a fare to any other house in your town?

A. Yes.

Q. What day was it?

A. About the 21st of February.

Q. What day in the week?

A. Monday morning.

Q. What sort of person was it you took notice of?

A. The person that I took notice of was sitting in the chaise.

Q. Did you speak to him?

A. I did.

Q. What passed between you?

A. I was informed——

Q. Tell us what you told him?

A. In the first place, I made my obedience to the gentleman in the chaise, hoping that he had brought us some good news.

Q. You said so?

A. Yes.

Q. What did the gentleman say?

A. He said he had, and that it was all over; that the Allies had actually entered Paris; that Bonaparte was dead, destroyed by the Cossacks, and literally torn in pieces, and that we might expect a speedy peace.

Q. Did he tell you any thing more?

A. No; during the conversation I saw him give James Overy two gold pieces, which afterwards proved to be French pieces, I had them in my hand.

Q. Do you know the name of them?

A. I cannot say that I do; there was ten francs or something on them.

Q. Did you see enough of the person with whom you conversed in the chaise to think that you should know him again?

A. I am positive I should.

Q. Look round and see whether you see him here?

The Witness looked round.

A. I cannot see him; he is not round here; I cannot say that I am positive.

Q. You do not see him?

A. No I cannot say that I do.

Q. Look from here to the end of the row?

A. No I cannot say that I am positive.

Q. Do you know the boys who drove the Baron away?

A. Yes, Shilling and ——.

Mr. Gurney. Before Shilling comes in, and when what I say is not heard by him, I must say that the person to be identified should hold his head so as to be seen.

Mr. Park. And so he did. I desired Mr. De Berenger to hold his head gently up, and he did it immediately.

Lord Ellenborough. The questions might go much nearer; the witnesses might be asked if that be the person: it is done always at the Old Bailey in cases of life and death, where the prisoner stands in a conspicuous situation—it is less strong in that case; but to be sure when it is proved in the way it has been, it can be of very little consequence.

Thomas Shilling sworn.

Examined by Mr. Adolphus.

Q. You are a chaise-driver at Dartford?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember on a particular day taking up a gentleman who came in a chaise and four to Dartford?

A. Yes.

Q. What day was that?

A. I do not rightly know the day, but I believe it was on the 21st of February.

Q. What day of the week?

A. On a Monday.

Q. Had you a pair of horses?

A. Yes.

Q. Upon your ride to London, did the gentleman say any thing to you?

A. Yes, he discoursed with me a good deal.

Q. Who first spoke to him in your hearing?

A. The first man that spoke to him in my hearing that I took any notice of, was the waiter.

Q. The waiter at your inn at Dartford?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the sign of your house?

A. The Granby at Dartford.

Q. What passed between him and the waiter?

A. The waiter asked him whether he had brought any good news; the gentleman said, yes, it was all over; Bonaparte was dead; he said he was torn in a thousand pieces; and the Cossacks fought for a share of him all the same as if they had been fighting for sharing out gold, and the Allies were in Paris; then we were ordered to go on.

Q. How far had you gone before this gentleman spoke to you?

A. To Bexley Heath, about two miles and a half.

Q. Had he before that said any thing to you about driving?

A. Not that I heard.

Q. When he came to Bexley Heath what did he say to you?

A. He told me not to hurry my horses, for his business was not so particular now, since the telegraph could not work he thought.

Q. Were you in sight of a telegraph then?

A. No.

Q. What sort of a morning was it?

A. Rather a thick morning; very frosty.

Lord Ellenborough. Did it appear to you to be so thick a morning that the telegraphs could not work?

A. It did.

Mr. Adolphus. What did you say to him?

A. I told him I thought the telegraphs could not work, for I knew almost every telegraph between Deal and London. He then said, Post-boy, don't take any notice of the news as you go along; I told him I would not unless he wished; he said I might tell any of my friends as I returned, for he dar'st to say they would be glad to hear it. He then said that he had sent a letter to the Port-Admiral at Deal, for he was ordered to do so, or he was obliged to do so, I will not be certain which.

Lord Ellenborough. You are sure he said so?

A. I am sure he said so. He said that he had to walk two miles after he came ashore before he got to the Ship at Dover. He said the Frenchmen were afraid of coming so near to Dover, for fear of being stopped, the Frenchmen that brought him; then we drove on till we came to Shooter's Hill.

Mr. Adolphus. Did he tell you why he had sent to the Port-Admiral at Deal?

A. To have the telegraphs worked, that he said was the reason.

Q. Did any thing further pass between you at the time?

A. Not any thing that I recollect.

Q. Had you any subsequent conversation at any other part of the stage?

A. Not till I got to Shooter's Hill; when I came there I alighted from my horse, and so did my fellow-servant; the gentleman then looked out of the window, and gave us part of a bottle of wine; he said we might drink that, because he was afraid the bottle should break, and some cakes with it.

Q. What sort of cakes?

A. Little round cakes; I chucked the bottle away, and handed the glass again into the chaise; he told me I might keep it, that I might have it. He then said, "Post-boy, you have had a great deal of snow here, I understand?" I said, "Yes, Sir, we have." He then said, "Here is a delightful morning, post-boy; I have not seen old England a long while before." Then he asked me, "which was the first hackney coach stand?" I told him, at the Bricklayer's Arms, was the first.

Q. Did he say why he asked that question?

A. Not a word; he said that would not do, for that was too public; he was afraid some body would cast some reflections, and he should not like that. I told him, I did not think any body would do that, that they would be so glad to hear of the news. Then he asked me, if there was not a hackney coach stand in Lambeth Road? I told him yes. Then he said, "Drive me there, post-boy, for your chaise will go faster than a hackney coach will, and so you may drive me there." I drove him to the Lambeth Road, and when I came there, there was no coach on the stand.

Q. Where about is the Lambeth Road?

A. I went from the Dog and Duck by the Asylum; this coach-stand was at the Three Stags, there was no hackney coach there. I ordered my fellow-servant to stop, and I looked round and told the gentleman there was no hackney coach there; but that there was a coach-stand at the Marsh Gate, and if he liked to get in there, I dared to say nobody would take any notice of him—I drove him up along side of a coach.

Q. Did he do any thing upon that?

A. I think he pulled up the side-blind as I came round the corner.

Q. Was the side-blind up?

A. Yes, it was up when I came there; I saw it up, but I did not see when he pulled it up.

Lord Ellenborough. Having been down before, it was up when you got there?

A. Yes, when I got there I pulled up alongside of a hackney coach.

Mr. Adolphus. How many hackney coaches were there?

A. Only one; I called the coachman, and the waterman opened the coach door, and I opened the chaise door.

Q. Did the gentleman go into the coach?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. How?

A. He stepped off my step on to that, for he stepped on the body of the coach, or on the step of the coach; I cannot say he never stepped on the ground, the coach and the chaise were too nigh together.

Q. Did he make you any present for your trouble?

A. He then held his hand down, and gave me two Napoleons; I have them here now; he did not say one was for my fellow-servant and the other for myself, but I supposed it was so (the witness produced the Napoleons.)

Q. Did you hear him tell the coachman where to drive to?

A. I did not.

Q. Do you know the name of the coachman or the waterman?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What is the name of the coachman?

A. Crane.

Q. Do you know the waterman's name?

A. I am not rightly sure; I think they call him Bob. I know his person very well.

Q. How was this gentleman dressed, that you drove to town?

A. He was dressed with a dark fur cap—a round cap, and with white lace, of some sort, round it; whether it was gold or silver, I cannot say; he had a red coat on underneath his outer coat.

Q. What sort of a coat was his outer coat?

A. I think it was a dark coat, a kind of brown coat—but I will not swear to that.

Q. You saw a red coat underneath it?

A. Yes, I saw a red coat down as far as the waist; I did not see the skirts of it.

Q. Did you make any particular observation upon the red coat?

A. No, I think it was turned up with yellow; but I should not like to swear that.

Q. Had it any thing upon it?

A. It had a star of some sort upon it, but I was not close enough to see that, and cannot swear to what it was.

Q. Was that all that you observed of his dress?

A. No, not quite all, I think; I think upon the outer coat there was fur, a kind of white fur, the same as off a rabbit's skin.

Q. But that you do not recollect with certainty?

A. No, I should not like to swear to that.

Q. As you conversed so much with that gentleman, do you think you should know him again?

A. I should know him in a moment.

Q. Have you seen him since you have been in Court?

A. Yes, that is the gentleman (pointing to De Berenger.)

Q. Have you any doubt that is the person?

A. Not at all.

Q. Since the day you drove him, have you seen him before to-day?

A. I have.

Q. How often?

A. Only once.

Q. Where was that?

A. In King-street, Westminster, in a room there.

Q. Did you equally well know him then?

A. I did the moment I saw him.

Q. Had you ever the least doubt about him?

A. Never the least in the world; I knew him as soon as I saw him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Richardson.

Q. Have you not been told this morning in what part of the Court he sat?

A. No, I never enquired about it; I looked round when I came in and found him out in a moment; I dare say every gentleman in the Court saw me.

Q. Had you never seen him before this time you speak of in February?

A. I have seen him since, I never saw him before February, to my knowledge.

Q. When was it that you heard of the reward which was offered by the Stock Exchange?

A. I heard of it the day it was printed.

Q. How long after this transaction happened?

A. I think two or three days afterwards.

Q. Do you remember the Club at Dartford, called the Hat Club?

A. Yes, perfectly well; I was there.

Q. Do you remember the conversation there, whether Crane or you should get the reward?

A. Yes, I remember being asked, whether I thought I should get the reward, and I said I thought not.

Q. You produced your purse, with what you had got?

A. Yes, I produced my purse, and rapped it on the table in this way, but that was money I had laid out before; I had received five pounds from the gentlemen of the Stock Exchange towards my expences.

Q. What might be your observation, when you rapped it upon the table?

A. To let them know that I had it.

Q. Did you say any thing about the yellow boys?

A. Yes, those were the gold Napoleons.

Q. Did you not say that the gentleman applauded you, and said you were a clever fellow?

A. No, I did not, I would have said very wrong if I had, I am sure.

Q. I think they would have done you no more than justice. Did you not on that occasion say, you would swear for that side that paid you best?

A. No, I did not.

Q. On that occasion, nor any other?

A. No, I never did, you may depend upon it.

Q. Nor any thing to that effect?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Who were present at this time?

A. Upon my word I do not know; several members round about.

Q. Several neighbours?

A. Yes, they were members.

Q. Was a person of the name of Man there?

A. I do not know him.

Q. Or Wood?

A. I do not know such a person; there were not above a dozen of them there; but I am not there often myself.

Q. How many members of the club are there?

A. I do not know, indeed; the hat maker pays my money for me; being very much out, I am not there one time in ten.

Q. When you are there, you do not know who are present?

A. No, I do not exactly.

Lord Ellenborough. What is this Hat Club?

A. We pay a shilling a week, and have a pint of beer; I have not been there these several weeks.

Lord Ellenborough. You get part of your money back in a hat?

A. We pay twenty-four shillings, and then have a hat for it.

Mr. Richardson. You have described this gentleman's person before to-day?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. You have been examined upon several occasions before this?

A. I have been examined at the Stock Exchange, and before the Grand Jury, no where else.

Q. Did not you describe the person as one that had a great red nose, and a blotched face?

A. A red nose I said, and his face was very red that morning, for it was very frosty. I said he was pitted with the small-pox.

Lord Ellenborough. Red or not sure you are, of the identity of the face?

A. Yes, I am sure of it.

Mr. Richardson. It was you that told him of the stand of coaches in the Lambeth Road?

A. Yes.

Q. That is before you come to the Marsh Gate?

A. Yes.

Q. That is not far from the Asylum, is it?

A. No.

Q. You went there for the purpose of getting a coach in the first instance?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you told him he might perhaps get one at the Marsh Gate?

A. Yes.

William Bartholemew was called into Court.

Q. (to Shilling) Is that the waterman?

A. That is the waterman.

William Bartholemew sworn.

Examined by Mr. Adolphus.

Q. Are you a waterman attending a stand of coaches?

A. Yes.

Q. Where?

A. At the Marsh Gate.

Q. Do you know Shilling, the last witness?

A. Yes, by seeing him come up with post chaises from Dartford.

Q. He is a Dartford boy?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember at any time in February, his coming with a chaise with a gentleman in it?

A. Yes, the 21st of February.

Q. What day in the week was it?

A. On a Monday.

Q. With how many horses?

A. Four horses.

Q. At what time in the morning?

A. Between nine and half past nine in the morning.

Q. Was there a coach on the stand?

A. Yes.

Q. Any more than one?

A. No more than one.

Q. Who drove that coach?

A. One Crane.

Q. Did you see the gentleman get into it?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. How did he go in?

A. He stepped out of one into the other?

Q. Did you open the door and let down the step for him?

A. Yes.

Q. How was that gentleman dressed?

A. He had got a kind of brown cap on, and a dark drab military sort of coat.

Q. Was there any thing round the cap?

A. There was a sort of band or something round the cap.

Q. What had he under his military great coat?

A. A scarlet coat.

Q. Did you see any thing on the scarlet coat?

A. I only took notice of the lace upon it.

Q. Where did that gentleman order the coach to drive to?

A. Up to Grosvenor Square.

Q. To what street?

A. I do not recollect whether he told me any street, only Grosvenor Square.

Q. Do you think you should know that gentleman again?

A. I do not know; dress makes such an alteration.

Q. Look round, and see whether you can see any one.

A. I do not see that I can recollect him, only seeing him that half minute.

Q. Look at that gentleman who is stooping down to write, (De Berenger,) and see whether you think that is like him?

A. Yes, I do upon my word, but I only saw him for about half a minute.

Cross-examined by Mr. Park.

Q. You, being a waterman, take that particular notice of every body that gets into a hackney coach, that you are quite sure having seen him step from the chaise into the coach, that he is the man?

A. I said at first, that the dress made such an alteration that I should think I should hardly know him.

Q. If I were to get into your coach with this dress on, and afterwards with my ordinary dress, you would hardly know me again?

A. No, I should think not.

Richard Barwick sworn.

Examined by Mr. Adolphus.

Q. What are you?

A. I am clerk to Messrs. Paxtons and Company.

Q. Where is their house of business?

A. In Pall Mall.

Q. They are Bankers?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. Do you remember a particular circumstance in passing near the Marsh Gate any morning?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. On what day?

A. Monday Morning the 21st February.

Q. What did you observe in passing?

A. I observed a post chaise with four horses, it had galloped at a very great rate, the horses were exceedingly hot, and the man was getting into a hackney coach that the people there told me had come out of that chaise.

Q. Did you hear that person who got into the coach say anything?

A. No, I had no conversation with any body.

Q. Did you follow that coach?

A. I did.

Q. How far?

A. I saw it as far as the Little Theatre, in the Haymarket.

Q. Why did you follow that hackney coach.

A. Because I wanted to know what the news was.

Lord Ellenborough. How came you to know any thing about the news?

A. I was told, it was a General Officer arrived with news, and I wanted to know what it was.

Lord Ellenborough. You were told it was an Officer arrived with news?

A. Yes, I was.

Mr. Adolphus. Then you went to your own business, having followed this coach to the Haymarket?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he pass by any of the public offices?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Did he stop at any of them?

A. No.

Q. He went straight to the Haymarket?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Was that the reason why you desisted from following?

A. It was nine o'clock, and I must be at the office by that hour, and therefore I did not go on.

Q. Did you see enough of that person to know him again?

A. I believe, I did.

Q. Look at him, and see whether you know his person again?

(The witness looked round.)

Lord Ellenborough. Did you see his body?

A. I saw his face in the coach, he had a cap on such as the German Cavalry wear, after an evening parade, with a gold band upon it.

Mr. Adolphus. Have you seen that person in court?

Lord Ellenborough. There is no objection to his looking at the Defendant, and seeing whether he is the person.

(The witness looked at the Defendant De Berenger.)

A. I really do not know that I do see him exactly.

Mr. Park. This is the gentleman said to be the man.

Lord Ellenborough. If you do not recollect the gentleman's person, say so.

Mr. Park. Is the result of your looking that you do not believe this to be the man?

A. He is something like him.

Q. One man is something like another, he goes upon two legs, and has two hands, and so on.

A. It is like him certainly.

William Crane sworn.

Examined by Mr. Adolphus.

Q. Do you drive a hackney coach?

A. Yes.

Q. What number.

A. 890.

Q. On a Monday morning in February do you remember taking up a fare at the Marsh Gate?

A. Yes.

Q. What day of the month was it?

A. The 21st of February.

Q. Where did the fare come from?

A. From Dartford.

Q. Out of what?

A. A post chaise and four—a Dartford chaise.

Q. Where were you directed to drive to?

A. To Grosvenor Square.

Q. Where to there?

A. He did not say where in Grosvenor Square.

Q. Where did you set him down?

A. I drove him into Grosvenor Square, and then the gentleman put down the front glass and told me to drive to No. 13, Green Street.

Q. Did the gentleman get out there?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you hear whom he asked for?

A. He asked for Colonel or Captain somebody, I did not hear the name, and they said he was gone to breakfast in Cumberland Street.

Q. What did the gentleman say then?

A. The gentleman asked if he could write a note to him.

Q. Did he go in?

A. Yes, he went into the parlour.

Q. Were you discharged then?

A. Yes, the gentleman gave me four shillings before he went in, and I said, I hoped he would give me another shilling: he took out a bit of a portmanteau that he had, and a sword, and went in, and came out into the passage and gave me another shilling.

Q. What sort of a portmanteau was it?

A. A small leather one, big enough to wrap a coat up in.

Q. What sort of leather?

A. I think black leather, as well as I can recollect.

Q. Have you seen that person since that you drove that morning?

A. Yes, I saw him in King Street, Westminster.

Q. At the messenger's house?

A. At Mr. Wood's house.

Q. Do you see him in court?

A. I think this is the gentleman, here, (pointing to De Berenger.)

Q. Were you of the same opinion when you saw him at Mr. Wood's?

A. When I came down stairs he looked very hard at me.

Q. Did you know him then?

A. Yes, it was something of the same appearance, but he had altered himself very much by his dress.

Cross-examined by Mr. Richardson.

Q. You went to Wood's for the purpose of seeing him?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Wood is a messenger of the Alien Office?

A. He lives in King Street.

Q. He was pointed out there as being the person in custody?

A. No, I walked down stairs, and met the gentleman coming up stairs.

Q. You thought you saw a resemblance?

A. Yes, I thought he was something like the same gentleman that I had carried.

Q. You do not pretend to be able to recollect every person you carry in your hackney coach every day?

A. No, but this gentleman that I took from a post chaise and four, when he got out at Green Street I saw that he had a red coat underneath his great coat.

Q. You did not open your coach to him, the waterman did that?

A. Yes, the post boy ordered me to get on the box.

Lord Ellenborough. When he got out you opened the door to him I suppose?

A. Yes, I did.

Mr. Richardson. Did you open the door, or the footman at the house?

A. I opened the door.

Q. And he paid you and passed into the house?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. What was the colour of his great coat?

A. A brown grey great coat, with a brown cape with lace to it.

Q. You have before described the great coat as a brown great coat, have not you?

A. A kind of a brown grey.

Q. Did not you describe it before as a kind of a brown coat?

A. No.

Mr. Gurney. I will now prove the finding the clothes in the river, and then prove the purchase of them.

George Odell sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Are you a waterman?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember in the month of February last, fishing up any bundle in the river?

A. In the month of March.

Q. Where did you fish it up?

A. Above the Old Swan Stairs, off against the Iron Wharfs.

Q. Were you dredging for any thing?

A. I was dredging for coals with a drag.

Q. What kind of a bundle did you find?

A. I picked up a bundle, tied up with a piece of chimney line, or window line in the cover of a calico chair bottom.

Q. What was in it?

A. I think there were two sleeves of a coat, and then a coat cut to pieces, and embroidery, and a star, and a silver coat of arms, with two figures upon it.

Q. How was it sunk?

A. With three pieces of lead, three screws, and some marks for letters.

Q. With some metal?

A. Yes, and some bits of coal.

Q. Did you give that which you found to Mr. Wade, the Secretary of the Stock Exchange?

A. Yes.

Q. How soon after you found it did you give it to him?

A. I picked it up on the Wednesday, and I carried it there on the Saturday.

Mr. Park. Can you give us the day of the month when you picked this up?

A. The 24th of March.

Mr. Gurney. Did you find it on the 24th of March, or give it to Mr. Wade on that day?

A. I picked it up on that day, about half after eleven o'clock in the day; I can bring plenty of witnesses to my picking it up.

Q. Are these the sort of things that you picked up? (shewing a bundle of clothes with star, &c. to the witness.)

A. These are the sort of things, but the star was not in that state it is now; the star was in half, and one of the birds was off.

Mr. Gurney. This, my Lord, is an order of masonry, and this I understand a Russian order of knighthood, the order of St. Ann.

Mr. Francis Baily sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. You are of the Stock Exchange?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Were you present with Mr. Wade, when he received the parcel from Odell?

A. I was,—from the last witness in the box.

Q. Was it delivered over to Mr. Lavie?

A. I believe it was, it lay upon the table some time.

Q. Did you examine it?

A. I did, very minutely.

Q. Are the things contained in that parcel?

A. I believe them to be, they appear to be the same.

Mr. Gurney (to Mr. Lavie). Did you receive that from Mr. Wade?

Mr. Lavie. I did, I took it from the Stock Exchange room.

Q. Mr. Wade and Mr. Baily were present?

Mr. Lavie. Yes, they were.

Mr. Robert Watson Wade sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. You are the Secretary at the Stock Exchange?

A. I am.

Q. Did you, in company with Mr. Baily and other gentlemen, receive from Odell the bundle said to be found in the River?

A. I did.

Q. Was it given to Mr. Lavie?

A. It was.

Q. The star we understand was then in two pieces?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it afterwards sewn together?

A. It was, for the purpose of being exhibited.

Simeon Kensington Solomon sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. I believe you are a military accoutrement maker?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Have you a shop at Charing-Cross, and another at New-Street Covent Garden?

A. We have.

Q. On the Saturday the 19th of February do you remember any person making a purchase of any military dress at your house?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What dress was purchased of you?

A. A military great coat and foraging cap.

Q. What is it made of?

A. Dark fur.

Q. Was any thing on it?

A. It had a pale gold band.

Q. Have you since had a cap and a coat made exactly resembling them?

A. I have.

Q. Are these the cap and the coat you have had so made? (shewing them to the witness.)

A. They are.

Q. Do they exactly resemble the cap and the coat you sold?

A. As nearly as I could possibly recollect.

Q. What else did the person purchase?

A. They purchased at our house in New Street——

Q. You suppose some order had been given in New-Street, did any thing come from New-Street as having been ordered there?

A. Yes there did.

Q. You were at Charing Cross?

A. I was.

Q. Did any person come to your shop at Charing-Cross and take away that which had been sent from New-Street which you furnished?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Was there any other coat purchased besides that great coat?

A. There was a military regimental coat, a staff coat was brought from New-Street.

Q. Was that scarlet?

A. Yes, fitted for a staff officer the uniform of an Aid de Camp.

Q. With this sort of gold lace upon it?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you examined these fragments?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Were there any ornaments besides?

A. There was a star and a badge.

Q. Look at that star and badge and tell me whether you believe them to be the same?

A. Yes, I do believe them to be the same.

Q. Why do you believe them to be the same?

A. The star I certainly believe to be the same, because we had the very fellow star.

Q. Except these two, did you ever see any star like them?

A. I do not know that ever I did.

Q. Do you believe that badge to be the same?

A. The badge I did not notice much.

Q. You sold a badge?

A. The badge came from our house in New-Street.

Q. Had you any conversation with the person?

A. Yes I had.

Q. You have examined these fragments?

A. I have.

Q. Do you believe them to be the fragments of the dress you furnished, or of such a dress?

A. They appear to be those materials, as far as I can judge in that state.

Q. And the same kind of lace?

A. The same description of embroidery.

Q. Speaking of a thing so cut to pieces, does it appear to you to consist of the remnants of the dress you furnished?

A. Yes, except that the scarlet is very much discoloured by being under water, it appears the same description of coat.

Q. Had you any conversation with the person as to the use of these things?

A. I had very little conversation as to the sale of the uniform, for they were already purchased before I saw him, with respect to the great coat I sold that and also the cap.

Q. Did he mention for what purpose they were wanted?

A. He observed that they were wanted for a person who was to perform the character of a foreign officer, to be sent into the country that evening.

Q. Did he take them away with him?

A. Yes he did.

Q. Did you offer to lend them to him?

A. Where he purchased the uniform——

Q. If that was not in your presence you will not state it—did he take them away with him?

A. Yes he took them away in a coach.

Q. Had he any portmanteau with him?

A. He had a small portmanteau.

Q. Did he beat you down in the prices?

A. No, he did not.

Q. Did he say any thing about money?

A. No, he made no observations, he merely paid for them.

Q. You were conversing with that person for some time?

A. For a short time.

Q. Have you since seen him again—have you seen any person that you believed to be the same?

A. I was introduced to a person——

Q. Where was that?

A. At the Parliament-street Coffee House.

Q. Do you believe that person you saw at the Parliament-street Coffee House to be the person who so made the purchase?

A. That I cannot undertake to say.

Q. What do you believe?

A. In point of appearance he resembles him, except that the person whom I served had whiskers.

Q. I suppose the person you saw in Parliament street had not?

A. He had not.

Q. Look at him now and tell me whether you do or do not believe him to be the person? (The witness looked at the Defendant De Berenger.)

A. This is the person I was introduced to at the Coffee-house.

Q. Upon the oath you have taken, what is your belief respecting him?

A. I really cannot undertake to swear that he is the person?

Q. What do you believe?

A. The Gentleman that represented himself to be Mr. Wilson was dressed in a different manner, he had black whiskers, and from that circumstance I could not possibly undertake to swear it was the same person.

Q. What is your belief?

Mr. Park. That belief may be founded on different facts?

Lord Ellenborough. To those facts you will examine, Mr. Gurney is now examining, there is no objection to the question.

Mr. Gurney. What is your belief?

A. Upon my word it is impossible for me to say.

Q. Do you mean to say that you have no belief upon the matter?

A. I mean to say I cannot undertake to swear it is the person.

Q. What is your belief?

A. I believe it resembles the person, except that the person I served had whiskers.

Q. Making allowance for whiskers which may be taken off in a minute, what is your belief upon the subject?

A. Upon my word it is impossible for me to say.

Q. You can certainly say what is your belief?

Lord Ellenborough. You are not asked as to whether you are certain, but to your belief.

A. If I were to say I believe it is the person I might say wrong, if I were to say I believe it is not the person I might say otherwise, it may be the person but I cannot undertake to say I believe it is.

Mrs. Abigail Davidson sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. In the month of February last did you reside in the Asylum Buildings?

A. Yes.

Q. That is near to the Asylum?

A. Yes.

Q. Is the house within the rules of the King's Bench?

A. Yes it is.

Q. Did Mr. De Berenger lodge with you?

A. He did.

Q. Do you remember on what day he finally quitted your house?

A. On the 27th of February.

Q. What day of the week was that?

A. Sunday.

Q. Do you remember where he was the Sunday before that?

A. No.

Q. Did you see him on the morning of that Sunday?

A. No, on Sunday the 20th you mean, I did not.

Q. Did he sleep at home that night?

A. I cannot say.

Q. Did you see him that night at all?

A. We never attended to the door.

Q. Did you usually hear Mr. De Berenger in the morning?

A. Yes.

Q. Much or little did you hear him?

A. We heard him very frequently.

Q. Did you on the morning of Monday the 21st hear him as usual?

A. No.

Q. What did you use to hear of him on the mornings on which you did hear him?

A. We heard the bell ring for the servant.

Q. Once or more than once?

A. More than once?

Q. What rooms did he occupy?

A. The whole of the upper part of the house.

Q. What part did you occupy?

A. The parlours.

Q. How many rooms up stairs were there?

A. Four.

Q. And you and your husband occupied the two parlours?

A. Yes.

Q. On other mornings when you heard him besides ringing the bell did you hear any thing else respecting him?

A. Occasionally Mr. De Berenger would play on the violin or the trumpet.

Q. Did you hear him walk about?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. De Berenger then wear whiskers or no whiskers?

A. Whiskers.

Q. Was there any morning on which you were at home that you did not hear his bell and his walking about?

A. No, I generally heard his bell.

Q. Did you see him come home on the Monday?

A. No.

Q. How early on that evening did you see him?

A. In the evening about a quarter or half past five.

Q. Had you heard him in the house before that time?

A. I heard him in the afternoon.

Q. You say he quitted your house on the Sunday after?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember any Gentleman calling there the day before he quitted with a letter?

A. On the Saturday night—

Q. He called with a letter?

A. Yes he did.

Q. Have you since seen that Gentleman again?

A. Yes.

Q. Where did you see him?

A. I saw him at the Temple?

Q. Was it at the Crown Office?

A. I do not know what office it was.

Q. Was Mr. Lavie present at the time you saw him?

A. Yes he was.

Q. Did you point him out to Mr. Lavie.

A. I cannot say that I should positively know the gentleman.

Q. Do you believe him to be the same?

A. Yes, I think it was.

Q. The same you had seen on the Saturday deliver that letter?

A. Yes, I think so.

Q. Had Mr. De Berenger two servants of the name of Smith, William Smith and his wife?

A. Yes.

Q. When he dined at home did his servants attend him?

A. Always.

Q. On the Sunday before he finally went away, Sunday the 20th, did he dine at home?

A. I cannot answer that.

Q. What was his usual dinner hour?

A. About four o'clock.

Q. Where were his servants at four o'clock on that day? At home or not?

A. I think they went out early on that day.

Q. What do you mean by early?

A. I mean two or half past two o'clock.

Q. Do you remember any thing about your key, respecting either of them, whether either of them had your key?

A. There was a private place where the key always hung for the accommodation of Mr. De Berenger and us.

Q. Where was the key put that night?

A. The key was always under the care of Mr. Smith.

Q. You did not see where he put it that night, did you?

A. No, I did not.

Cross-examined by Mr. Park.

Q. What Sunday was it that these servants went out to dinner at two or half past two?

A. On Sunday the 20th.

Q. You were preparing to go to chapel on that Sunday at eleven o'clock, and Mr. De Berenger went out at the time.

A. Mr. Davidson was going out, I did not go out.

Q. You were not well?

A. No.

Q. Mr. Davidson was going out.

A. Yes, but I did not see Mr. De Berenger.

Q. Did you hear your husband make an observation at the time?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. You did not yourself attend to the door?

A. No.

Q. This Gentleman had been your lodger for some years, had he not?

A. Nine months?

Q. You do not mean to represent, that he slept from his own bed on that Sunday, the 20th?

A. I cannot say that he did, or that he did not.

Q. You do not make his bed or go into his room?

A. No.

Q. Do you sleep in the parlour?

A. Yes, we have the two parlours.

Q. What is your general hour of rising in the morning?

A. Between seven and eight.

Q. Mr. De Berenger's time of trumpeting is not so early as that I suppose?

A. I have heard him at nine o'clock.

Q. He did not alarm the neighbourhood at seven o'clock?

A. No, I have heard him by eight or nine.

Q. Not so soon as that I should think in the month of February, not being very warm weather at that time?

A. I cannot speak to the time.

Q. If a person went out at eight o'clock that morning, you had no particular reason to know of it?

A. No.

Q. You had no call to look after him on the Sunday, or Monday, or Tuesday morning?

A. No.

Q. And whether he slept at home or did not, you cannot take upon yourself to say?

A. No.

Re-examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. My learned Friend has asked you as to your husband observing upon Mr. De Berenger's going out on the Sunday morning: in what words did your husband make the remark as to Mr. De Berenger's going out?

A. He called out, our lodger is gone out with a new great coat on.

Mr. Germain Lavie again called.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Who was the Gentleman that Mrs. Davidson pointed out to you?

Mr. Serjeant Best. I object to that, that is a leading question.

Mr. Gurney. I beg pardon.—Did the last witness point out any person to you at the Crown-Office, at the time of striking the Jury?

A. Before she came into the Crown-Office she saw Mr. Cochrane Johnstone getting out of a Hackney coach at the Crown-Office door—she then told me——

Q. Did she point out any person to you as having seen him before?

A. No, she did not then.

Q. Did she afterwards fix upon any person as having seen him?

A. No she did not, unless I can speak to what passed before.

Q. Did she mention having seen any person get out of a Hackney Coach?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was that person that she observed upon?

A. The person she pointed out to me as having seen get out of a Hackney coach was Mr. Cochrane Johnstone—she staid the whole time of the striking of the Jury, he struck the Jury himself.

Lord Ellenborough. Then the whole of it is, that the person who was striking the Jury, was Mr. Cochrane Johnstone?

A. Yes.

Mr. Gurney. (to Mrs. Davidson). Was that person the person that you believe brought the Letter?

Q. I cannot be positive to his person.

Q. Do you believe that to be the person?

A. I think it was.

Mrs. Abigail Davidson.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Best.

Q. How came you to go for the purpose of striking the Jury.

A. A person from Mr. Lavie came and fetched me for the purpose.

Q. To attend to assist in striking the Jury?

A. No, to see Mr. Johnstone.

Q. You were told Mr. Johnstone was to be there?

A. Yes.

Q. And going there you saw a person taking a part with respect to the striking of the Jury?

A. I saw a Gentleman get out of the coach as I was standing in the passage, I saw a Gentleman come across, that I thought was the person, but I could not be positive.

Q. Can you take upon yourself to swear now, that was the person?

A. No, I would not swear it.

Re-examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. When you saw the person at the time he left the letter, had you any reason to know what his name was?

A. No, I had never seen the Gentleman before, but in conversing with Smith, Mr. De Berenger's servant——.

Q. Had you any conversation about him with Smith, Mr. Du Bourg's servant?

A. I had.

Mr. Gurney. I do not ask you what it was, my learned Friends may if they please.

Launcelot Davidson sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Are you the husband of the last Witness?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. De Berenger we find lodged in your house?

A. He did.

Q. Do you remember on what day he quitted your house?

A. The 27th of February I think.

Q. What day of the week?

A. Sunday.

Q. Do you remember seeing him go out on the Sunday before the 20th.

A. Yes.

Q. At what hour of the day?

A. Before eleven.

Q. Have you any reason to know the time?

A. Yes, I had been out before, and I returned home and stood before the parlour window waiting to hear the Asylum clock strike eleven, to go to chapel.

Q. How was he dressed?

A. At that time that I saw him go out, I had seen him ten minutes before come in.

Q. How was he dressed when he came in before?

A. He had a plaid cloak on that he had worn nearly all the winter, he and I came in together, he was just before me.

Q. When he went out again, how was he dressed?

A. He had just such a coat as this on as to colour, (the grey coat before produced.)

Q. Did it appear to be new or old?

A. I cannot exactly say, but as he went down the yard, I said to my wife who was in the back parlour, there goes our lodger, he has a new great coat on, just before he had his plaid on when I came in.

Q. Did he come home again at all during that day?

A. Not that I saw.

Q. Did you see or hear him at all during that day?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you see or hear him the next morning?

A. No, I am not at home—I always go out the early part of the morning.

Q. At what time do you go out?

A. About nine.

Q. Before nine had you either seen or heard him?

A. No, I had not.

Q. Do you usually hear him in a morning before that time?

A. Yes, I generally used to hear him walking about, or ringing for his servant, or something or other.

Q. On that Monday morning before you went out, did you hear those things you generally did?

A. No, I did not, and we made the observation upon it, and also upon the servants going out at two o'clock, which was not customary.

Q. At what time on the Sunday did they go out?

A. I think about two o'clock.

Q. At what time did they return?

A. That I cannot say.

Q. Did they return that evening?

A. I dare say they did, but we never opened the door?

Q. Were they out or at home at four o'clock?

A. That I cannot say, I do not think they were at home.

Q. What was Mr. De Berenger's usual dinner hour?

A. About four o'clock.

Q. Did they attend him at dinner?

A. The man servant did.

Q. And the woman servant cooked his dinner?

A. Yes, she did.

Q. Did he dine at home on that Sunday?

A. No, he did not.

Q. I do not ask you what conversation took place between you and the Smiths' next day respecting the Sunday night, but did any conversation take place on that subject?

A. Yes, there did.

Q. On the Sunday afterwards he left your house?

A. He did.

Q. Did you see him go away on the Sunday after?

A. No.

Cross-examined by Mr. Richardson.

Q. You had nothing to do with his domestic life, with his dinner, or letting him into the house, or letting him out of it?

A. No.

Q. His servants attended to all that?

A. Yes.

Q. He might come in or go out without your observing it?

A. Yes, he might, but it is almost impossible I should think, because he generally gave a very loud rap at the door, and he had very few visitors.

Q. You yourself go out early in the morning upon your own business?

A. Yes, about nine o'clock.

Q. Do you stay out a considerable part of the day?

A. Yes.

Q. What is your business?

A. A broker.

Q. At that time you acted as a broker?

A. I acted as a broker's Clerk at that time.

Q. You are out a considerable part of the day, sometimes more, sometimes less.

A. Yes.

Mr. Gurney. Now my Lord I am going to what I have stated as the underplot, respecting M'Rae, Sandom, Lyte, and Holloway.

Thomas Vinn sworn.

Examined by Mr. Bolland.

Q. In consequence of a note that was left at your house, did you go to the Carolina Coffee House in February last?

A. I did, where I met M'Rae.

Q. What day in February was it?

A. On the 14th of February the note was dated, and I received it the 15th.

Q. On what day did you go to the Carolina Coffee House?

A. On the 15th in the morning.

Q. Did any body accost you there?

A. I met M'Rae, who was at that time in company with an elderly Gentleman, he desired me to sit down and he would be with me presently.

Q. Had you known M'Rae before?

A. I had some years.

Q. Did he return to you as he said he would?

A. He was not out of my sight, he was standing near the door, and in the course of seven or ten minutes, as far as I can recollect, he came and joined me.

Q. Upon his joining you what passed?

A. He told me he had known me a long time, and that he thought he had now an opportunity of making my fortune; that he knew from the knowledge I had of languages, particularly that of the French, I should have an opportunity of both benefiting others and myself.

Q. What answer did you make?

A. I asked him what the object was, and whether it was to travel abroad; he told me it was not to travel abroad, but it was probably to travel at home, and that almost immediately; that it was a scheme that he had in contemplation, employed by men of affluence and consequence, and that he thought no man more competent to that than myself.—On my asking him if there was any thing of moral turpitude in it, he said that there was none but that it was practised daily by men of the first consequence, it was nothing more nor less than biting the biters, or in other words, a Hoax upon the Stock Exchange. I asked him in what way I could attend to it, or in what way it was to be performed; he told me by going down to Dartford, Folkestone, or Dover, as I should receive instructions, and that, that evening, but that it was necessary to have for himself and me, two dresses appropriated to that of French Officers. I here stopped him, and asked whether he really meant me to be employed in this transaction, to which he replied, certainly, and that I should be in the first place remunerated, and ultimately have a fortune made me. I replied with indignation, that I would as soon be concerned in a highway robbery, that I thought he had known me better than to have suggested to me a plan of the kind, and expressed myself rather beyond the usual tone of my voice, hurt at it, he endeavoured to hush me by saying people would overhear us, he endeavoured to hush me by the ejaculation ish for that we should be overheard there.

Lord Ellenborough. Did he say you might probably be overheard there?

A. Yes, he did, and then he took me out of the Coffee-house and went up Cornhill where I left him, but recollecting this was only what was related to me, and that if ever it took place or did not, it was impossible that what I said could be any proof, I therefore considered that I had better——

Mr. Alley. Give us the facts if you please, and not the reasons?

Mr. Bolland. Do not trouble my friend with your reasons as he does not like them, but tell us what you did?

A. I returned and told him if he would go with me to another Coffee-house, I would introduce him to a person, who though I would not undertake the business might do it.

Q. What was your reason for doing that?

A. Only that I might have a witness.

Mr. Alley. I object to that reason being stated.

Lord Ellenborough. This is only introductory to what he is about to state. I presume no one can be more interested than I am in his narration being short?

A. I told him I would take him to a Coffee-house where a person was who might engage in this hoax.

Lord Ellenborough. I beg you will not call it by that name—such an offence as this.

Mr. Bolland. Did you take him to the Coffee-house?

A. Yes.

Q. What Coffee-house?

A. The Jamaica—there was a young man there to whom I was about to introduce him, but he turned round suddenly and I did not.

Q. Did any thing more pass between M'Rae and you?

A. No, nothing more.

Q. Any thing about French terms?

A. I recollect myself—In consequence of M'Rae returning, he asked me whether I would not give him in writing the terms Vive le Roi—Vive les Bourbons;—which in the expectation of his attending to this young man, (this was in the Jamaica Coffee-house) I gave him.

Q. Did you give him any other?

A. None other to my knowledge.

Q. Was that the letter you received from M'Rae? (shewing a letter to the witness.)

A. That is it.

Q. Is that M'Rae's writing?

A. It is.

(The Letter was read as follows:)

Cross-examined by Mr. Alley.

Q. As I have not the pleasure of knowing you, what is your business?

A. I am an accountant.

Q. Have you been acquainted for any length of time with Mr. M'Rae?

A. I believe five years and a half, or nearly six years.

Q. Have you been concerned in any business in the Stock Exchange?

A. No.

Q. You were not in the habit of buying and selling as a Broker?

A. No.

Q. It was an odd thing that Mr. M'Rae should resort to you in such a base transaction, you being in the business of an Accountant?

A. I have been in business and have been unfortunate, and since have been an Accountant.

Q. Not to lose your character I take for granted?

A. I hope not.

Q. There was no other person present to hear this conversation?

A. He was talking with a gentleman when I entered.

Q. This rests upon your own testimony?

A. We afterwards joined a party, but no person heard the conversation but ourselves, except that any person might hear me when I became vociferous.

Q. You quite met my approbation when you told me that you considered this as base as if he had asked you to go on the highway—how came you to propose a friend of yours after that?

A. It was merely for the purpose of having a witness to the offer to me, because if not, and this took place what I had said would have been of no effect had it been rendered completely abortive by this failing with me.

Q. Then am I to understand you thought it better to let this wickedness be practised in order that it might afterwards be proved?

A. I am sorry I am so misunderstood, I only wished it should not be promulgated to the world merely on my ipse dixit, but on the testimony of another.

Q. You did introduce him to your friend?

A. No, I did not, he would not be introduced. I had communicated to my friend the business in question before he came.

Q. How soon did you communicate this to the Stock Exchange?

A. I communicated it within ten minutes afterwards on that day.

Q. After the thing had been publicly known?

A. No, I went immediately on this application being made and promulgated it to Mr. Rothery, of the Atlas Printing-Office, in Houndsditch; I afterwards went to a house in Clement's lane, where I promulgated it to thirteen or fourteen different persons, and I made it public daily in all the companies I went into.

Q. Was that before this happened?

A. It was on the 15th I made public, not the name of M'Rae, but that such a thing had been offered to me, which I refused with indignity.

Q. Some of these gentlemen are here as witnesses to-day I suppose?

A. I did not think it necessary, but I am perfectly willing that they should be called, I have seen two of them in Court and probably they may be so now.

Lord Ellenborough. This is merely a meditated something if you think it worth while to pursue it you may.

Mr. Alley. He only says that it rests upon his testimony, that was all I wanted to know—you gave him two bits of French to assist him however?

A. After I had agreed to take him to another friend, in order to get him to that business, I certainly did mention the name of Vive le Roi—Vive le Bourbons.

Q. Would not you have thought it quite as honest and as much to your purpose to have omitted that?

A. You will see that that was done for the purpose I have mentioned.

Mr. Gurney. Was it done in order to get a conformatory witness?

A. It was done with that intent and that only.

Sarah Alexander sworn.

Examined by Mr. Bolland.

Q. You live at No. 61, Fetter-lane, do you not?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. How long have you lived there?

A. I have lived there ever since last September.

Q. Do you know Mr. M'Rae?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he lodge with you?

A. Not with me—he lodged on the same floor that I did.

Q. Is he a married or single man?

A. A married man; he had his wife with him.

Q. Do you recollect any thing passing in February last, with regard to Mr. M'Rae?

A. Yes, on a Saturday night.

Q. What Saturday night?

A. The 19th of February.

Q. Where were you at that time?

A. In my own room; he came into my room and brought it and gave it to his wife.

Q. His wife was in your room?

A. Yes.

Q. What did he bring home and give to his wife?

A. A small parcel; he gave it to his wife and told her it was of value and to take care of it.

Q. Did he say any thing else to her?

A. Nothing else.

Q. Did you see any thing more of that parcel on that night?

A. Not that night. On Sunday the 20th, he went out about ten o'clock, between ten and eleven.

Q. Did he return again and when?

A. He returned before twelve.

Q. Did he bring any thing in with him?

A. He brought two coats and two opera hats.

Q. Did he bring the two coats and two opera hats open or inclosed in any thing?

A. They were in a bundle.

Q. Did you see them?

A. Yes.

Q. What sort of coats were they?

A. They were very dark blue, done with braiding—Officers coats.

Q. What coats were they?

A. Like Officers coats.

Q. What was the braiding?

A. It was to ornament the coats.

Q. What was it done in?

A. In flowers.

Q. Of worsted or silk?

A. Of worsted.

Q. What do you mean by opera hats?

A. Shutting together.

Q. Did you remark how the coats were lined?

A. One was lined with white silk.

Q. Were the coats alike, or did one appear of more rank than the other?

A. One appeared of more rank than the other; one was better than the other, and so was one of the hats.

Q. Were the hats plain or ornamented in any way?

A. One was black and the other ornamented on one side.

Q. What with?

A. With a brass plate or something of that kind at the end, and a gold tassel at each corner.

Q. Upon his producing them did he do any thing with them?

A. He put them on and asked me if he looked like an Officer, and I said yes, he did.

Q. What did he then do?

A. He went out again and came home again before one and brought some white ribband with him.

Q. Did you see him do any thing, or hear him say any thing about that white ribband?

A. Yes, he wanted two cockades to be made.

Q. To whom did he apply to make those cockades?

A. To his wife—they were to be made round.

Q. Was any thing said to him either by you or his wife as to the purpose, to which they should be applied?

A. His wife asked him what they were for, and what he was going to do with them, and he said they were to deceive the flats.

Q. Did you see what he did with the cockades?

A. He put them into his pocket and took the coats in his hand, and went out saying he must be at Billingsgate to go down to Gravesend by a quarter before two.

Q. What did he do with the hats?

A. He put them into the bundle.

Q. He then went away, did he?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you see Mr. M'Rae again?

A. About the same time the next day, about half-past one, or a quarter before two, I met him in Cursitor-street.

Q. Did he say any thing to you?

A. He gave me a shilling and asked me to go to the cook's shop for his dinner.

Q. Did any thing else pass in Cursitor-street between you?

A. No, not then, I went for his dinner.

Q. How was he dressed then?

A. Just the same as he went out—in his own cloaths.

Q. Had he any thing with him?

A. A bundle.

Q. Was that the same bundle he took out with him apparently?

A. He brought home one coat and one hat.

Q. Did you see the contents of that bundle when he got home?

A. Yes, the best coat and the best hat he brought home with him.

Q. Did he tell you where he had been?

A. He said he had slept at Northfleet, but he had the appearance of not having been a bed at all.

Q. He appeared tired?

A. He appeared very tired.

Q. Did he bring the cockades back?

A. Yes, he brought the cockades back in his pocket, the ribband was taken off.

Q. By whom?

A. By his wife; and the paper they were quilled on was thrown into the fire and the ribband made use of for strings, they had not buckram, and they made up the cockades on paper.

Q. Was any thing done with the coat?

A. They took the white lining out of the coat, and carried it to the Dyers to be dyed black.

Q. They said they should take it to the Dyers to be dyed black?

A. I know they took it out of the house to the Dyers, and the coat he wore.

Q. Before this how long had Mr. M'Rae lodged with you?

A. He lodged there before I went, he went about a week before me, I went in September.

Q. From September to February had you lodged together in that house?

A. Yes.

Q. Had you been acquainted with him and his wife?

A. Never before that, but at that house we kept but one fire; coals were very dear, and we lived a good deal together there.

Q. Had you any means of judging Mr. M'Rae's circumstances as to poverty or wealth?

Q. He was poor, he never had any money except it was a shilling or an eighteen penny piece.

Q. After this expedition to Northfleet, how did he appear in circumstances?

A. Oh, better; he had a £10. note and a £1. note, and the day before he left his lodgings he had three £2. notes.

Q. Do you mean before he finally left his lodgings?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that?

A. The second of March I think it was, the second or third to the best of my knowledge.

Q. Do you know of his purchasing any new cloaths for himself?

A. Yes, on the Sunday he bought a new coat, dark green, with yellow buttons.

Q. What Sunday was that?

A. Not the 20th.

Q. The Sunday after his return?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he buy any other articles of dress?

A. A new hat.

Q. On what day did he buy that?

A. The Monday.

Q. Was that the Monday after his return?

A. The Monday after he had bought his new coat.

Q. Did he tell you whether it had been a successful expedition to him?

A. He said he was to have £.50 for what he had done.

Q. Had you at any time any conversation with him about the nature of his journey?

A. No, never. He wished when he went away that it might be kept a secret where he was gone to; he did not wish any body to know where he was going to; he seemed very much agitated, and I desired he would not tell me that I might not tell any body else, and I did not know then.

Mr. Philip Foxall sworn.

Examined by Mr. Bolland.

Q. You keep the Rose Inn at Dartford?

A. I do.

Q. Look at that letter, and tell me whether you received it at any time, and when, from the person whose name it bears?

A. I did.

Q. I see it purports to be from Mr. Sandom?

A. It was from Mr. Sandom.

Q. Did you know Mr. Sandom before that time?

A. I did, by his frequently having chaises ordered from my house?

Q. Did you execute that order?

A. Yes.

Q. And sent a chaise to bring the party to Dartford?

A. Yes; and I had horses ready, as the letter advised me.

Q. Had you sent chaises on a similar message before?

A. Yes I had, by messages, and by letter; and he also came down there in the chaise.

Lord Ellenborough. By a message in writing coming to you?

A. Yes sometimes; this came by a boy.

Q. You do not know his hand-writing?

A. No I do not.

The Letter was read as follows:

Mr. Bolland. In consequence of that you sent a chaise to Northfleet?

A. I did.

Q. Did you see the chaise on its return from Northfleet?

A. Yes; the chaise drove furiously into my yard with two gentlemen and Mr. Sandom, with white cockades in their hats.

Q. What sort of hats were they?

A. They were very large cocked hats.

Q. Were they flat hats; what are called opera hats?

A. I did not see; indeed they did not take them off.

Q. Were they quite plain hats?

A. Yes, with the exception of white paper or ribband, I cannot say which.

Q. How were the gentlemen dressed?

A. In blue clothes I think; but there were such a number of persons hurrying into the yard, that I had not an opportunity of examining; the four horses were ready; I gave them another chaise, as I feared the wheels of this were not very well greased.

Q. Had you any conversation with Sandom, or either of the gentlemen with him?

A. I said to Mr. Sandom, "Will those gentlemen breakfast;" he said, "No, they have breakfasted at my house, they have been in an open boat all night, and are very much fatigued." I then asked him a question, "Who are they?" he said he did not know, but they had news of the utmost consequence, and begged I would let them have good horses.

Q. Did any thing else pass between you and Mr. Sandom?

A. No, further than my asking where to; and they said to Westminster. I told the boys I supposed they were going to the Admiralty.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Pell.

Q. What time was it you received the note?

A. I think the note must have been received about seven o'clock.

Q. In the morning?

A. Yes; the boy was unacquainted with the town, and he went to the house opposite with the note, and a man pointed to me as I was standing at the door.

Q. At what time did the chaise come with Mr. Sandom and those gentlemen?

A. I think it could not exceed an hour; I was quite surprised at the chaise coming back in so short a time.

Q. What is Mr. Sandom, do you know him?

A. I only know him from his occasionally having horses to take him to Northfleet; I understood he lived there.

Q. How long had he lived there?

A. That I really cannot say; I think he had been in the habits of occasionally having horses from me for nine months before that time.

Foxall Baldry sworn.

Examined by Mr. Bolland.

Q. You are a post-boy at the Rose at Dartford?

A. I ride occasionally.

Q. Did you ride on the morning of the 21st?

A. I did.

Q. Do you recollect a chaise coming from Northfleet to your house?

A. Yes I do.

Q. Who was in that chaise do you recollect?

A. I have seen one of the gentlemen since; I did not know Mr. Sandom at the time personally.

Q. Was Mr. Sandom one of those persons?

A. Yes he was.

Q. Do you know the other two of those persons?

A. I do not.

Q. Did you drive either of the pair of horses that took those gentlemen to town?

A. I drove the leaders.

Q. Did they give you any orders as to which way they were to go?

A. Just as we were coming to Shooter's Hill, Mr. Sandom got out of the chaise with one of those other gentlemen, walked some little distance, and when he came back I was altering my harness; and he beckoned me, and said, My lads we do not want you to distress your horses up this hill, but when you get up you may get on a little: He asked what the gates were, and said, I shall give you twelve shillings a-piece for driving; but as to saying to what part I did not know at the time; my fellow-servant at the wheel ordered me to go over London Bridge, down Lombard Street, along Cheapside, over Blackfriar's Bridge, down the New Cut, and when I was in sight of the Marsh gate I was ordered to stop.

Q. Did you take that course?

A. I did.

Q. How was Mr. Sandom drest?

A. Why I really cannot say, but I think he had a brown great coat on.

Q. How were the other two persons dressed?

A. They were in blue great coats I think.

Q. Do you recollect what sort of hats they had?

A. They had round hats when they left me.

Q. What sort of hats had they when they got into the chaise?

A. They had military hats on.

Q. Was there any ornament in the hats?

A. A paper or ribband, I cannot tell which.

Q. Had the horses any ornaments upon them?

A. Yes, laurels.

Q. Do you know by whose orders they were put on?

A. No, I do not.

Q. You were near the Marsh gate you say?

A. Yes, I could see the Marsh-gate when I pulled up.

Q. Did the parties get out there?

A. Yes.

Q. How were they dressed then?

A. They had taken off their military hats and put round ones on, and they walked away.

Q. At what hour in the morning was it when you got to the Marsh gate?

A. I should think about eleven o'clock; I cannot say for half an hour.

Q. Did Mr. Sandom give you any thing?

A. Not at that time.

Q. Did he pay for the chaise?

A. He did not, not there.

Q. Has he since given you any thing?

A. He asked us what house we stopped at, I told him the Bull at Kent Street end, and he came to us there, and gave my fellow-servant a one pound note, and the remainder in silver for him and me together.

Q. Did he pay for the chaise?

A. He did not pay for the chaise.

Q. Did either of the other two return with him?

A. They did not.

Mr. Francis Baily called again.

Examined by Mr. Bolland.

Q. In consequence of enquiries that had been made, did Mr. Holloway attend the Committee of the Stock Exchange?

A. He did.

Q. Did Mr. Lyte attend also?

A. Afterwards he did with Mr. Holloway; first Mr. Holloway came, and denied having any knowledge of the transaction.

Q. Did you see him again at any other time?

A. Yes, very near the time of the bill being found; I cannot tell whether before or after that, he came with Mr. Lyte and confessed that he was the person who had planned that plot, or participated in it.

Q. State what he said as nearly as you can recollect?

A. He said that he had done it with a view to obtain money by a rise in the public funds; and Mr. Lyte stated, that he was one of the parties who had been employed by Mr. M'Rae, at Mr. Holloway's suggestion; at Holloway's or M'Rae's.

Q. Did either of them say who were the actors in the plot?

A. Mr. Lyte said that he and Sandom and M'Rae rode in the post chaise from Northfleet to Dartford, and afterwards from Dartford to London.

Lord Ellenborough. In whose presence did Lyte state this?

A. Mr. Wakefield was present, Mr. Lavie was present, and a Mr. Chaumette.

Q. Was Holloway present then?

A. Yes he was; they both came together.

Q. What Lyte stated was in the presence of Holloway?

A. Exactly so. Holloway stated that he did it with a view of obtaining money, by the rise in the funds.

Q. Did he state any thing more?

A. He stated that he was not aware of the serious turn it would take; that he did not contemplate it in that point of view at first; but finding that it had taken so serious a turn, he had come forward and confessed it, in the hope that the Stock Exchange would not pursue it to extremities, and carry on the action against him, or the prosecution: He was asked whether he had any connection with Lord Cochrane, Cochrane Johnstone, or Mr. Butt, which he denied.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Pell.

Q. Do you know what it was that immediately led to Mr. Holloway's making this communication to the Stock Exchange?

A. No I do not; nothing more than the publicity of the measures which they were taking to follow up the parties, I believe.

Q. Did you not learn at the time from Mr. Holloway during this conversation, and from Mr. Lyte, that M'Rae had offered to come forward for a very considerable sum of money and state his knowledge of the transaction?

A. That had been stated before publicly I believe in Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's letter.

Q. I ask as to the conversation at the time, do you recollect whether or not at the time of this interview between Holloway, Lyte, and the gentlemen of the Stock Exchange, any thing was said about M'Rae's having offered to be a witness for a large sum of money?

A. There was certainly something said, but whether it was mentioned first by the gentlemen of the Stock Exchange, or by Mr. Holloway, I cannot recollect.

Q. Did not Mr. Holloway state, that in order to prevent the gentlemen of the Stock Exchange paying a large sum of money for the communication that would be paid in fact for nothing, he would come forward and state the part of the transaction in which he was concerned?

A. I believe he did.

Q. It was understood by the gentlemen of the Stock Exchange, was it not, that that communication of M'Rae's was supposed to extend to my Lord Cochrane's part in the transaction?

Mr. Gurney. What was understood cannot be asked.

Mr. Serjeant Pell. I ask as to what was said at the time, was it not said that M'Rae's communication was to affect Lord Cochrane's share in the transaction?

A. I do not recollect that that was stated.

Q. I think you stated that Mr. Holloway or Mr. Lyte distinctly asserted, that this business of theirs had nothing to do with that in which Lord Cochrane was concerned?

A. He did.

Q. Do you know what was the sum that it was stated M'Rae was to be a witness for, was not it so large a sum as £10,000?

A. That sum had been stated in a letter which passed?

Q. Was it not stated in the conversation?

A. I believe it was; but the subject of the communication of M'Rae was so little attended to by the Committee, that it never entered their heads that any such sum should be paid.

Q. Was there any letter, or any writing of Mr. Holloway's produced at the time?

A. I really cannot fix my memory.

Q. Have you any recollection of any letter of his having been produced at the time?

A. Certainly none that I can recollect.

Q. Do you not know that Mr. Holloway had written a letter to the Committee of the Stock Exchange upon this business?

A. I really do not know it; it may possibly have been.

Cross-examined by Mr. Park.

Q. This person Holloway was asked whether he had any connection with Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and Mr. Butt, and he denied it?

A. He did.

Q. Did he not, in the same conversation, deny that he had any connection, not only with those persons, but De Berenger also?

A. Certainly.

Q. That you dropped?

A. Yes, I did not mean to drop it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Alley.

Q. At the time this conversation passed between you and Holloway, M'Rae was not there?

A. He was not.

Q. It was all in his absence?

A. It was in his absence, it was in Mr. Lavie's office.

Lord Ellenborough. The evidence of course can operate only against Holloway and Lyte, who were there.

Mr. Joseph Fearn sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. You are a stock broker?

A. I am.

Q. How long have you known Mr. Butt?

A. Several years.

Q. Were you introduced by him to Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and to Lord Cochrane.

A. Yes.

Q. In the month of February last, were you employed either by Mr. Butt or Lord Cochrane, or Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, to make any purchases for them in the funds?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. At that time where was your office of business?

A. No. 10, Cornhill.

Q. Was it No. 10 or No. 86, about the 12th of February?

A. I believe it was No. 86.

Q. Had Mr. Butt an office?

A. He had somewhere about that time an office in Sweetings Alley.

Q. From the 12th of February to the 19th of February, did you see Mr. Butt daily?

A. I think I did.

Q. At your office or at his?

A. Both.

Q. Did you generally see him alone, or in company with either of the other persons?

A. Frequently all three together.

Q. You mean Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, Lord Cochrane, and Mr. Butt?

A. Yes.

Q. When you did business for Lord Cochrane, did you in all instances take orders from him or from any person for him?

A. Sometimes from him, and sometimes from Mr. Butt.

Q. After you had acted for him upon the orders of Mr. Butt, did he recognize those orders?

A. Always.

Q. From the 12th till the 19th, did you make various purchases and sales for them?

A. I did.

Q. On the evening of the 19th, what balance had he in his hand; Lord Cochrane's transactions I believe were only in omnium?

A. No.

Q. The amount was £139,000, was it not?

A. Yes.

Q. That is to say, that he had that balance of omnium?

A. Yes.

Q. What balance of omnium had Mr. Cochrane Johnstone on that day?

A. £120,000.

Q. One hundred and twenty, or one hundred and thirty thousand?

A. I have not drawn out the balance here.

Q. What was Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's consol account on that day?

A. £100,000.

Q. How much had Mr. Butt of omnium at the same time?

A. I think about £160,000.

Q. Is not the omnium £130,000.

A. I should think more than that; I believe it was £154,000.

Q. How much his consols?

A. £168,000.

Q. On the morning of the 21st of February, did you sell them all?

A. I did.

Q. Omnium and consols and all?

A. Yes.

Q. On the morning of Monday the 21st, did you remove to any other office than that you had before occupied?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Where was that office?

A. No. 5, in Shorter's Court.

Q. Is that close to the side door of the Stock Exchange?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. How many rooms were there?

A. Three.

Q. Had you one?

A. I had one and a small closet; Mr. Butt had another up stairs with Mr. Johnstone and my Lord Cochrane, and the ground floor was occupied by Mr. Lance.

Q. Was he a clerk of yours, or employed by them?

A. He was employed by them.

Q. Had you taken that office, or had it been taken for you?

A. Mr. Johnstone had taken his with one room or two rooms, I am not sure which.

Q. Had the office been taken for you, or had you yourself gone and taken it?

A. They had taken those two rooms, I believe, without intending to take any more; but as I was not pleasantly situated, and was rather too far from business, I wished to have an office there, if they could procure it; several of my friends went to look at it, and finding it convenient, I requested them to take the whole of it, if they could, in order that I might be accommodated.

Lord Ellenborough. Whom do you mean by friends, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone?

A. No, other persons for whom I did business.

Mr. Gurney. When was this done?

A. In the course of the week preceding.

Lord Ellenborough. When you say Mr. Cochrane Johnstone took a room for you, do you mean at this place?

Q. They had taken those two rooms, I believe, for themselves, without reference to my having any thing to do there.

Mr. Gurney. Did they afterwards take a third?

A. They afterwards took the whole that is in my possession.

Q. You have all of them in your possession now?

A. I have.

Q. On the morning of Monday the 21st of February, how soon did you see either of those gentlemen?

A. They were in the habit of being at the office as early as I myself attended.

Q. At your office in Cornhill?

A. Yes.

Q. How early did you see them at your office that morning?

A. I believe at about ten, or a little past.

Q. Whom did you then see.

A. I think, Mr. Butt and Mr. Johnstone.

Q. Are you positive upon that subject?

A. I am sure they were both there in the course of the morning.

Q. Are you positive whether any body else was with them?

A. No, I think nobody else.

Q. Business begins in the Stock Exchange I believe at ten o'clock.

A. Yes.

Q. At what price had consols for time left off on Saturday?

A. I can hardly say.

Q. Did they open on Monday morning pretty much as they had left off on Saturday evening?

A. I think they did.

Q. How soon after you had been in the Stock Exchange, did any good news come?

A. I think it was near eleven.

Q. What news had arrived?

A. I cannot take upon me to say; I only knew in general, with perhaps every body in the house in business, that there was some news, but we rarely enquire into particulars of news, it is enough that facts are produced.

Q. You were doing a good deal of business at that moment, and must have heard something of it; did you hear any thing about a messenger arriving at Dover?

A. I have heard so much since that, I cannot take upon myself to swear what I heard, whether that a messenger had arrived at Dover, or that Bonaparte was killed, but one of the two certainly.

Q. Did you hear that Bonaparte was killed?

A. Yes.

A Juryman. Were those gentlemen with you at the time the news arrived?

A. They were—not my Lord Cochrane.

Mr. Gurney. Had the good news an immediate effect upon the funds?

A. Yes, it had.

Q. After the funds had begun to rise, did you sell?

A. I began to sell before the rise took place.

Q. What was the first price you sold at?

A. Omnium at twenty-nine and a quarter.

Q. That was the first price you sold at?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you mean to say that omnium opened that morning at twenty-nine and a quarter?

A. I rather think it did.

Q. However, the first price you sold at was twenty-nine and a quarter?

A. Yes.

Q. What was your next price?

A. £29-3/8, 29-1/2, and 30-1/2.

Q. At what did you sell the consols?

A. Beginning at 70-5/8ths, 71-1/4, 71-7/8ths, 72, and 72-1/4.

Q. In what manner did you receive instructions for these various sales; they were sold in different parcels?

A. Yes, I came frequently to my office from the Stock Exchange to Mr. Butt and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone.

Q. And you reported to them and received orders?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you receive notes likewise?

A. I was in the constant habit of doing so.

Q. Did you do so that morning?

A. I am not quite certain; but I am in the constant habit of receiving notes from them.

Q. Do you remember hearing in the course of the morning, of a post chaise coming through the city?

A. I did.

Q. Did that occasion a still further rise in the funds?

A. I do not know.

Q. Before business left off, the funds fell again?

A. They did.

Lord Ellenborough. About what o'clock did the funds fall?

A. I believe about two.

Mr. Gurney. It was discovered at that time that the good news was not true?

A. It certainly was not believed.

Q. Have you an account of the different purchases from the 12th to the 21st, taken from your books?

A. I have.

The Witness delivered in the Accounts.

Mr. Serjeant Best. From what are those taken?

A. From my books.

Mr. Gurney. Have you carried those accounts down to the 5th of March?

A. I have.

Q. Has Mr. Baily, also had access to your books, to take the different balances?

A. He has.

Mr. Gurney. The reading of this would not be very intelligible, a sight of it perhaps would be the best thing.

Lord Ellenborough. We must have the sum total or the results.

Mr. Gurney. I will give your Lordship the result after the examination of several stock brokers; Mr. Baily has abstracted the whole.

Mr. Serjeant Best. I shall carry back the accounts considerably earlier; that should be understood. If I put in accounts of an earlier date, it must not be considered that I am giving evidence in so doing.

Mr. Gurney. I take it the same, as if my learned friend cross examined Mr. Fearn upon that subject.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Best.

Q. You have spoken of these gentlemen engaging in stock transactions, you have been carried back no further than February the 8th, they had all three of them bought to an enormous amount long before that time—had they not?

A. Certainly.

Q. And as to sales, had they not sold very large sums, long antecedent to the month of February?

A. Oh yes.

Q. Can you state as to my Lord Cochrane, for instance, had he not sold hundreds of thousands before that time?

A. Yes.

Q. I would ask you, did he not from time to time, down to that time, continue to be selling large sums?

A. Yes.

Q. With respect to Mr. Cochrane Johnstone—on the 10th or 11th of February, had he not a balance of £100,000.

Mr. Gurney. To save my learned friend time, my account shews every day's purchases, and every day's sales from that time.

Mr. Serjeant Best. Be so good as to look at that printed paper, and tell me whether that is not a correct statement of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's account with you.

A. I cannot tell from this book.

Mr. Gurney. I believe the accounts will agree to a farthing, from the time they each begin.

Mr. Serjeant Best. Then the larger sales will appear upon this paper without troubling his Lordship to take them down upon his notes; there were very large sales for all of them several days precedent to the 21st.

A. Yes, there were.

Q. I believe they began these speculations as early as the month of November, did they not?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Butt managed principally—very much for these gentlemen—for Lord Cochrane particularly?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Lord Cochrane, you have told us, was not there on the morning of the 21st?

A. No, he was not.

Q. For a great many days, I believe I may say months, had you not been directed to sell their stock whenever it should so rise, that you could get one per cent?

A. Yes.

Q. You have told us that on the morning of the 21st, you began to sell before the news came?

A. Yes.

A Juryman. He said before the rise took place.

Mr. Serjeant Best. You found when you came there in the morning, that the stocks had got to such a pitch as that you could sell consistently with the orders they had given you?

A. It was so.

Lord Ellenborough. At what hour was that?

A. Ten o'clock.

Mr. Serjeant Best. Did you not sell out very large sums before either of them came near the place that morning?

A. I think I had began to sell before they came, but I cannot say positively.

Q. Had you not sold to a considerable amount, if you can tax your memory with it, or refresh your memory by looking at any book?

A. I think I had.

Q. Can you tell us to what amount you had sold before any of them came?—I do not ask to a few shillings, we deal in thousands here.

A. I cannot positively say—I had done much before I saw either of them, for I was in the habit of doing twenty or thirty and reporting to them.

Q. Do you mean thousands?

A. Yes.

Q. You think you had sold considerably before you saw them?

A. I think I had.

Lord Ellenborough. Cannot you fix the time of your sale?

Mr. Gurney. I shall prove the prices every half hour.

Mr. Serjeant Best. I am not at all conversant in those things, never having speculated in stock at all, but I am told it is the practice sometimes to sell stock which the persons have not to transfer?

A. I have heard of such things.

Q. Consequently, if I had been at the Stock Exchange that morning, and had found the Omnium up at 34, which I believe it was that morning——

Mr. Bolland. No, thirty two.

Mr. Serjeant Best. If I had been at the Stock Exchange that morning, and had found the Omnium up at 32, and had known that the good news must soon turn out to be all invention, I might have sold if I had liked, a million of stock, according to the practice of the Stock Exchange, though I did not happen to have a sixpence.

A. It certainly might have been done.

Q. Is it not the practice for a man who wishes to gamble in the funds, to sell stock which he has not, when he thinks they will fall?

A. I know it is done.

Q. A man who thinks the stocks may fall, may sell stock he has not, to any person who thinks they may rise?

A. It certainly is done.

Q. Did either my Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone or Mr. Butt, make any such sales on that day to your knowledge, you having stated you were their Broker—do you know of their having sold on that day any stock which they had not purchased before?

Lord Ellenborough. Are you not putting this gentleman in a situation of peril?

Mr. Serjeant Best. If he admits it.

Lord Ellenborough. Why should you place him in such a situation to deny or affirm? This does not affect the charge.

Mr. Serjeant Best. I ask whether it was done by those persons?

Lord Ellenborough. But that would be done through a broker.

Mr. Taddy. If your Lordship will allow me to suggest on behalf of the witness, that in an action for the penalties, the question would be whether he knew they were possessed of the stock, or not, and this would go to make out his knowledge.

Mr. Serjeant Best. Do you know whether either of those persons on that day sold any stock or omnium, which they had not purchased before?

Lord Ellenborough. That question must be limited to any thing in which you have not had participation in the way of sale, otherwise you may criminate yourself—having given you that caution, you may do as you please.

A. They did not.

Lord Ellenborough. That is not imputed to them.

Mr. Serjeant Best. The use I mean to make of it I have no objection to state now.

Lord Ellenborough. No, you need not, I leave it entirely to your judgment.

Mr. Serjeant Best. I think you told us before, those gentlemen told you, whenever the stock rose to one per cent, above what they had bought at, to sell.

A. Yes, they did.

Q. With respect to the taking of this office, when did you first see it?

A. In the course of the week anterior to the 21st of February.

Q. Mr. Butt had before an office in Sweeting's Alley.

A. Yes.

Q. He found that an inconvenient one and he took these rooms in Shorter's Court, he and Mr. Johnstone?

A. Yes.

Q. Those were taken for Mr. Butt, were they not?

A. I believe so.

Q. I believe you went to the rooms as to the rooms of Mr. Butt?

A. I did.

Q. I believe you thought upon seeing Mr. Butt's room, that the situation was a very convenient one for yourself?

A. Yes.

Q. And therefore you suggested, did you not, that you should like a room in the same house?

A. I think I did.

Q. In consequence of this suggestion did not Mr. Butt give up to you the room he had taken for himself, and take another in the same house for himself?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And the room being taken in this manner, you put up your name "Fearn, Stock Broker."

A. On the Monday.

Q. Did you do that at your own idea or was it suggested to you by any body?

A. It was the same transparent blind I had at my former office, which I removed and put in the window.

Q. Your name in gold letters?

A. In black letters.

Q. You took your furniture?

A. The rooms were furnished.

Q. I believe after thus finding your Customers liked the situation, you desired Mr. Johnstone to purchase the lease of the house for you.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Was that before or after the 21st?

A. I think after.

Lord Ellenborough. Then that does not apply.

Mr. Serjeant Best. You had taken it before the 21st and got into possession on the 21st.

A. Yes.

Q. One of your reasons for taking it was that some of your customers were particularly pleased with it.

A. Yes.

Q. That was on the Thursday in the week before.

A. I believe it might be.

Q. You have told us you did not see Lord Cochrane on that morning, how many days previously to that had you seen him?

A. I think I saw him on the Saturday.

Q. You are not quite certain of that?

A. No, I am not.

Q. Does it appear whether he bought any thing on that day.

Mr. Gurney. It appears from the account that he bought 20,000 and sold 17,000.

Mr. Serjeant Best. You have told us that all those three persons, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, Lord Cochrane, and Mr. Butt, were very large speculators; did they always speculate the same way, or on the contrary, when one bought did not the other very often sell?

A. It has been the case.

Q. Has not that happened often, several times?

A. Yes it has, several times.

Re-examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. On that day they all sold?

A. Yes they did.

Q. They all acted together on that day.

A. Yes they did.

Q. Where did Lord Cochrane reside on the 21st of February?

A. I do not know.

Q. How soon after did you know his residence in Green-Street?

A. Not at all until the printed paper of the Stock Exchange came out.

Q. Did you know that Lord Cochrane resided at the time in Green-Street?

A. Only by report.

Q. Not from Lord Cochrane?

A. No.

A Juryman. You say they did not sell any stock but what they had before purchased, do you mean such as they had bought and paid for, or only such as they had contracted for the purchase of, was it actually bought and transferred to them?

Mr. Taddy. That is the very thing I have taken the liberty of suggesting to your Lordship.

Lord Ellenborough. He has before said they had not sold any of which they had not become the proprietors before, so that he is predicating of them that they had purchased this, for they could not otherwise become proprietors.

A Juryman. Is it not a purchase for time altogether, are they not all time bargains both the omnium and the stock?

A. This is one of those questions I cannot answer.

Lord Ellenborough. Gentlemen, he objects to answering the questions as it may criminate him, but the offence charged may have an effect upon the funds, in which not only these individuals are concerned, but every person who has transactions in Stock, the persons belonging to the Court of Chancery, who have to purchase or sell, may be influenced by an improper elevation or depression of the funds, that does not affect the question as to the crime charged upon this record, you will consider Mr. Gurney whether you will persist in the questions, because this man demurs to the answering the questions, being a party in the transaction.

Mr. Gurney. You do decline answering that question?

A. Yes I do.

Mr. Robert Hichens sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. I believe you are a Stock-Broker?

A. Yes I am.

Q. Have you for some years past known Mr. Cochrane Johnstone?

A. Yes.

Q. I believe you have not done business for him till the present year?

A. No.

Q. From the 8th of February to the 19th did you make various purchases for him.

A. Yes I did.

Q. At the leaving off of the business on Saturday what was the balance.

A. £250,000.

Q. That was all omnium.

A. Yes it was.

Q. Have you taken from your books a statement of the business you did?

A. I have memorandums that will enable me to answer any questions.

Q. Has Mr. Baily from your books taken an account of purchases and sales?

A. I furnished Mr. Baily with a copy of it.

Mr. Gurney. Then through Mr. Baily I will give all the particulars of it.

Lord Ellenborough. Whether purchased with money or no they take upon themselves the disposition of that fund, shewing that they had an interest in the rise and fall of the funds, and that they sold on the Monday and gained a profit.

Mr. Gurney. Yes my Lord. On Monday morning the 21st how soon did you see Mr. Cochrane Johnstone?

A. I think between ten and eleven I cannot say exactly.

Q. Where did you see him?

A. I think I met him as I was coming out of the Stock Exchange.

Q. How near ten or eleven?

A. I think it must have been about a quarter before eleven but I cannot say positively.

Q. Did you receive any directions from him as to what you were to do with respect to the omnium?

A. I received an order from him on the Saturday, to sell £50,000 at one per cent. profit, and that I had sold before I saw him.

Q. At what had you sold it?

A. At 29.

Q. Did he give you any further instructions what to do with the remainder?

A. He then ordered me to sell a certain quantity at an eighth per cent more.

Q. In short did you sell the whole of it that day by his directions?

A. I did.

Q. At what prices?

A. At 29, 29-1/8, 29-1/2, 30-3/4, and 30-7/8.

Lord Ellenborough. At those different prices did you dispose of the whole which Mr. Cochrane Johnstone held on that 21st.

A. Yes.

Q. At one or other of those prices.

A. Yes.

Cross-examined by Mr. Topping.

Q. Can you tell me what was Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's balance on the 15th?

A. I think £465,000.

Q. On the 16th how much was that reduced?

A. On the 16th I sold £200,000.

Q. Reducing the balance of course to £265,000.?

A. Yes.

Q. Upon the 17th what did you sell?

A. On the 17th I bought £50,000. and sold £115,000. reducing the balance to £200,000.; on that Saturday I bought £50,000.

Q. And you had his directions upon that Saturday to sell at one per Cent.?

A. To sell £50,000. at one per Cent. profit.

Q. And you had done that before you saw Mr. Cochrane Johnstone at all?

A. Yes, I had.

Mr. William Smallbone, sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. You are a Stock-broker, I believe?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you shortly before the 21st of February make any purchases for Mr. Cochrane Johnstone?

A. Yes.

Q. You had made two purchases only, I believe, the 12th and the 14th?

A. Yes, only two purchases of £20,000. each.

Q. When did you sell them out?

A. On the 21st of February.

Q. At what did you sell them out.

A. 28-1/8, 29-1/4, and 29-1/2.

Q. By whose order did you sell them out?

A. I sold Mr. Johnstone's by his order; I sold Mr. Butt's by his order.

Q. Was that order from Mr. Cochrane Johnstone received on the Monday, or before the Monday?

A. In part it was received on the Monday, but a part on the Saturday.

Q. You had also, I believe, made purchases in Omnium for Mr. Butt?

A. I had.

Q. To the amount of £40,000 I believe?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that £40,000 left as a balance on Saturday the 19th?

A. Yes.

Q. And all sold out on the Monday?

A. Yes, all sold on the 21st.

Q. Have you given Mr. Baily a statement from your books of that?

A. Yes.

Q. And of the prices at which it was sold?

A. Yes.

Lord Ellenborough. Now what is the result of all these accounts?

Mr. Gurney. I am going to call one person more, and then I will give your Lordship the totals.

Q. You had bought for Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, £40,000, and on that 21st you sold it all?

A. Yes.

Q. You had bought for Mr. Butt £40,000, and on the Monday you sold it all?

A. I sold it all on Monday.

Lord Ellenborough. If he sells all the sum is immaterial, if you prove that he sold all of the several amounts, it furnishes a constructive motive for what has passed.

Cross-examined by Mr. Scarlett.

Q. When was it you had purchased the £40,000 for Mr. Cochrane Johnstone?

A. On the 12th and the 14th.

Q. Did Mr. Johnstone send you the order to purchase it?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it upon his own account?

A. No, it was upon his own account, the order was from him.

Q. But not upon his own account?

A. No, it was not.

Q. Was the whole £40,000 purchased at two different times?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. You stated to my learned Friend, that he gave you an order to sell a part of it on Saturday?

A. Yes, he gave me an order on Saturday.

Q. What was it?

A. To sell at a quarter profit if I had an opportunity.

Q. I take for granted that opportunity did not occur on the Saturday?

A. No, it did not.

Q. Otherwise you would have sold it on the Saturday?

A. Certainly.

Q. On the Monday you say he gave you an order as to the other £200,000?

A. Yes.

Q. Had you sold the first £20,000 before you saw him on the Monday?

A. Yes, I had.

Q. At what time in the morning had you sold it?

A. I think about half past ten.

Q. When did you first see Mr. Johnstone?

A. I saw him soon after I had sold out, between ten and eleven.

Q. His order had been confined to £20,000 on the Saturday?

A. Not exactly to £20,000; if I saw an opportunity of selling any at a quarter profit I was to sell.

Q. When you saw him on the Monday, did he then order you to sell the remainder?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you sell it immediately.

A. As soon as an opportunity offered to sell it at a profit.

Q. Was that early in the day?

A. Yes, about eleven I believe.

Q. When was it that you first heard any rumour of good news in the morning?

A. Soon after the market opened, between ten and eleven.

Q. You say you had purchased £40,000 for Mr. Butt?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that?

A. The 12th, 14th, and 18th of February.

Q. Different sums on those days?

A. Yes.

Q. Had you any order from Mr. Butt as to the sales?

A. To sell whenever I saw an opportunity of selling at a quarter profit, or three eighths as the circumstances might allow.

Q. How long have you known Mr. Butt?

A. About six months.

Q. Had you had any transactions with him before in that way?

A. Yes.

Q. He had occasionally employed you?

A. Yes, he had.

Q. Who introduced you to Mr. Johnstone?

A. Mr. Johnstone was in Mr. Butt's office when I first saw him there in Sweeting's Alley.

Q. It was through Mr. Butt you became acquainted with Mr. Johnstone?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. If any person had known that this news was false, and had been disposed to be a bear, he might have made his fortune by selling that day, might not he?

A. Certainly.

Q. By selling for account?

A. Certainly.

Q. You had no directions from either of those Gentlemen to sell more than they had bought that day?

A. No I had not.

Cross-examined by Mr. Richardson.

Q. You stated to my learned Friend that you had bought large quantities of Omnium on account of this Gentleman, had any of it been paid for.

A. Shall I answer that question my Lord?

Lord Ellenborough. If the Witness looks at me I must tell him he need not answer any question that implicates him in a crime.

Mr. Richardson. You decline answering that question?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. You will decline answering any other questions that you think implicate yourself.—Were any of those purchases real purchases for stock transferred, or on account?

A. It was for Omnium—that cannot be transferred.

Q. You spoke of Consols?

A. No this was Omnium.

Q. Was it all bought or paid for, or on account?

A. I decline answering that question.

Q. With respect to the Consols had any of them been paid for or transferred?

A. I had no Consol account.

Mr. Richardson. I will state to your Lordship the object I have in that; I submit it is incumbent upon the prosecutors to prove in support of the allegations of their indictment, which charge a conspiracy for the purpose of enabling Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and the other gentlemen, to sell divers large sums of Government Securities, and so on, that they had an interest in those Government Securities.

Lord Ellenborough. That applies only to the two first counts.

Mr. Gurney. If I leave my case imperfect, my learned friends will take advantage of it.

Lord Ellenborough. It does not apply to the third count, certainly there is a particularity which is quite unnecessary in the others; it states that by certain devices and contrivances they endeavoured to raise the price of the funds, to the prejudice of His Majesty's subjects, to an undue elevation, and so on, there is enough to let in the general evidence.

Mr. Gurney. And there is enough in the first count, independently of the sales.

Mr. Richardson. The first count states this to be to enable these gentlemen to sell Omnium, and Three per Cent. Consols, at larger prices than they would otherwise have sold for; I submit to your Lordship, that in support of that it is for the prosecutors to shew that they had such to sell?

Lord Ellenborough. That will be an observation at the close if they leave their proof imperfect; perhaps I accede to you, but that would only apply to one count, they have six more counts, I do not say that they are all safe counts, but you will see what they propose taking their verdict upon.

Mr. Malcolm Richardson sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. I believe you are a bookseller and also act as a stock broker.

A. I am.

Q. You are not a Member of the Stock Exchange.

A. No, I am not.

Q. In the afternoon of Saturday the 19th of February, did Mr. Butt, make any application to you on the subject of stock.

A. On the morning of that day.

Q. What did he apply to you to do?

A. He applied to me to purchase a quantity of Omnium.

Q. How much did he mention?

A. He mentioned on the first instance as much as £150,000.

Q. What answer did you give to that?

A. I hesitated to execute such a commission as that to that extent.

Q. How much did you purchase for him?

A. £20,000.

Q. On that Saturday?

A. Yes, in the morning I speak of.

Q. What did you do with that £20,000?

A. I received instructions to sell it again, if I could get a quarter per cent profit.

Q. Did you get a profit and sell it again?

A. In a short time I did get three-eighths per cent profit, and consequently sold it again without waiting for instructions.

Q. Did you then by his instructions make any further purchase for him?

A. I did in the latter part of that day purchase first £20,000 and then £10,000.

Q. On the morning of Monday the 21st did you sell out that £30,000?

A. I did.

Q. In pursuance of instructions received on the Saturday or on the Monday?

A. On the Saturday, at the time I saw him.

Q. At what profit did you sell?

A. At three-fourths per cent profit.

Q. What was the price?

A. 28-1/4.

Q. Have you given the account of this to Mr. Baily?

A. Yes I have.

Cross-examined by Mr. Brougham.

Q. You were partner with Mr. Fearn, Senior, Mr. Butts, broker, were not you?

A. Yes, formerly I was.

Q. Did you not apply to Mr. Butt, stating that you had a wife and family, and wishing him to give you some employment.

A. Mr. Butt had been known to me ten or twelve years, and known to Mr. Fearn, Senior, only as being one of my customers in the book line.

Q. Did you not apply to Mr. Butt yourself to ask him to serve you.

A. Not upon this occasion at all.

Q. Will you hear the question first, and then answer it. Did you never before this apply to Mr. Butt to give you some of his business?

A. Yes I did.

Q. And he did give you some of his business upon this day?

A. He did.

Cross-examined by Mr. Richardson.

Q. Was any of the Omnium bought for Mr. Butt, paid for?

A. I would rather decline answering that.

Mr. Francis Baily called again.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. These gentlemen have informed us that they have furnished you with the exact statements of all the purchases and sales; have you drawn out from their statements the purchases and sales, and the daily balances of each?

A. I have. It may be necessary to state, Mr. Richardson has not furnished me with a written account, but I have taken it down now from his own mouth.

Q. Have you from that made out a general statement of the several accounts containing the daily purchases, the daily sales, and the daily balances?

A. I have.

Q. For Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, Lord Cochrane, and Mr. Butt?

A. Yes.

The account was delivered in and read, as follows;—

General Statement of A. Cochrane Johnstone's Omnium Account, from 8th to 21st Feb. 1814													A. Cochrane Johnstone's Consol Account from 12th to 21st Feb. 1814			Lord Cochrane's Omnium Account 14th to 21st Feb. 1814
1814, Feb.	through Fearn			through Hichens			through Smallbone			TOTALS.			through Fearn			through Fearn
	Daily Purchases	Daily Sales	Daily Balances	Daily Purchases	Daily Sales	Daily Balances	Daily Purchases	Daily Sales	Daily Balances	Daily Purchases	Daily Sales	Daily Balances	Daily Purchases	Daily Sales	Daily Balances	Daily Purchases	Daily Sales	Daily Balances
8	10,000		10,000							10,000		10,000
9	47,000	10,000	47,000	20,000		20,000				67,000	10,000	67,000
10	78,000	105,000	20,000	150,000		170,000				228,000	105,000	190,000
11	115,000	35,000	100,000	95,000		265,000				210,000	35,000	365,000
12			100,000			265,000	20,000		20,000	20,000		385,000	100,000		100,000
14	96,500	100,000	96,500	200,000		465,000	20,000		40,000	316,500	100,000	601,500			100,000	100,000		100,000
15	13,500		110,000			465,000			40,000	13,500		615,000			100,000			100,000
16	18,500	10,000	118,500		200,000	265,000			40,000	18,500	210,000	423,500			100,000	50,000		150,000
17	11,000	19,500	110,000	50,000	115,000	200,000			40,000	61,000	134,500	350,000			100,000		50,000	100,000
18	38,000		148,000	50,000		250,000			40,000	88,000		438,000			100,000	36,000		136,000
19		18,000	130,000			250,000			40,000		18,000	420,000			100,000	20,000	17,000	139,000
21		120,000	10,000		250,000			40,000			410,000	10,000					139,000
General Statement of R. G. Butt's Omnium Account, from 8th to 21st Feb. 1814													R. G. Butt's Consol Account from 12th to 21st Feb. 1814
Feb.	through Fearn			through Richardson			through Smallbone			TOTALS.			through Fearn
	Daily Purchases	Daily Sales	Daily Balances	Daily Purchases	Daily Sales	Daily Balances	Daily Purchases	Daily Sales	Daily Balances	Daily Purchases	Daily Sales	Daily Balances	Daily Purchases	Daily Sales	Daily Balances
8	10,000		10,000							10,000	10,000
9	50,000	10,000	50,000							50,000	10,000	50,000
10	78,000	110,000	18,000							78,000	110,000	18,000
11	115,000	33,000	100,000							115,000	33,000	100,000	46,000	20,000	26,000
12			100,000				20,000		20,000	20,000		120,000	87,000		113,000
14	96,500	100,000	96,500				10,000		30,000	106,500	100,000	126,500			113,000
15	13,500		110,000						30,000	13,500		140,000	55,000		168,000
16	18,500	10,000	118,500						30,000	18,500	10,000	148,500	40,000		208,000
17	11,000	19,500	110,000						30,000	11,000	19,500	140,000			208,000
18	38,000		148,000				10,000		40,000	48,000		188,000			208,000
19		18,000	130,000	50,000	20,000	30,000			40,000	50,000	38,000	200,000		30,000	178,000
21		154,000	24,000		30,000			40,000				24,000		168,000	10,000
			Sold too much.									Sold too much.

Q. What appears at last to be the gross balance held by each of them on the 19th February; what is Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's balance of Omnium from all those different accounts, on the 19th February?

A. £420,000.

Q. Now state Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's Consol Account.

A. £100,000.

Q. What was the balance of Lord Cochrane's Omnium account?

A. £139,000.

Q. Now state Mr. Butt's.

A. £200,000.

Q. And it appears, I see, that there were £24,000 sold too much on the Monday.

A. Exactly so; there was that quantity sold more than he had purchased.

Q. What was Mr. Butt's Consol Account?

A. £178,000, and he sold only £168,000.

Lord Ellenborough. Then there was £24,000 too much of his Omnium, and £10,000 too little of his Consols sold?

Mr. Gurney. Exactly so. Now what was the gross amount of their account of balances on that day?

A. £759,000 Omnium, and £278,000 Consols.

Q. As we are not so well acquainted with Omnium as you are, if that were reduced to Consols what would they have amounted to?

A. It may be necessary to state, that every thousand pounds Omnium consists of £1100 Reduced and £670 Consols, therefore the whole amount of that would be £1,611,430 three per cents.

Q. Now upon that amount, what would the fraction of a single eighth per cent. be?

A. £2014:5:9.

Lord Ellenborough. The whole of this fund was cleared on the 21st, except £10,000 Consols, and it was oversold by £24,000 Omnium?

A. Exactly so.

Mr. Gurney. Have you calculated from the accounts, the profits made by those sales of the 21st?

A. I have.

Q. To what does it amount?

A. Exactly £10,450.

Q. That is the total of the three. Can you give me the proportion of each?

A. For Lord Cochrane £2470, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone £4931:5, Mr. Butt £3048:15.

Q. From the state of the market on the morning of the 21st if no news had arrived such as raised the funds on that day, could any persons have sold this large quantity of Omnium and Consols without very much depressing the market?

A. I should think not certainly.

Q. Do you remember at what price Omnium left off on Saturday the 19th?

A. I have referred back to the books; I cannot state from my own memory.

Q. Have you the books here?

A. No; they are the books of the Stock Exchange.

Q. Mr. Wetenall's accounts?

A. Yes.

Q. How soon after the business at the Stock Exchange began on the morning of the 21st did the news arrive there?

A. I should think in about half an hour after, but I really am not quite certain to that point.

Lord Ellenborough. The business begins at ten, I believe?

A. Yes.

Mr. Gurney. As soon as the news came, had it a sensible effect on the funds?

A. Yes; a gradual effect, according as the report was believed.

Q. Do you remember after some time whether there was any check or decline?

A. Yes; there was about the middle of the day.

Q. I mean the first decline.

A. Yes; afterwards they recovered.

Q. To what was that recovery owing?

A. It was generally attributed to the news that came through the city.

Q. You mean the chaise coming through the city?

A. Yes; it was generally believed it was a confirmation of the former report.

Q. Did that second rise which took place upon the chaise going through the city, extend still higher than it had been on the report of the arrival of the messenger?

A. I think it did.

Cross-examined by Mr. Park.

Q. You are not under the same restraint as the other persons are, can you tell us whether these were real transactions, or only fictitious ones which daily take place at the Stock Exchange?

A. The accounts which were given in, I think were given in for time, but I have only taken out the figures.

Lord Ellenborough. I should imagine the witness would say that from the magnitude of the accounts he would think they were for time?

A. Certainly.

Mr. Park. I want to know, for I have never had Omnium in my life, whether you are not competent to say from your knowledge of these accounts, that these are all what they call time bargains?

A. There is nothing stated upon the face of these accounts as to what days the purchases are made for; possibly they may be for time.

Q. I ask you whether from your knowledge of these accounts and the investigations you have made, they are not time bargains?

Lord Ellenborough. He has no personal knowledge of them, he can know nothing but from the magnitude of the sum, he may suppose they must have been time bargains.

A. Certainly; there is nothing upon the face of the accounts to lead to any such conclusion.

Mr. James Wetenall, sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. I believe you are employed by the House to take the prices of the day at the Stock Exchange?

A. I am.

Q. At what price did Omnium leave off on Saturday the 19th of February?

(The Witness referred to a paper.)

Mr. Serjeant Best. Where do you get those accounts from?

A. I collect them from the Stock Exchange.

Mr. Gurney. Do you go about all day long taking the prices?

A. I collect them at different times in the course of the day.

Q. You go about taking an account from all the persons who are there?

A. I take them from different persons who are in the market.

Mr. Serjeant Best. This is a printed paper?

A. Yes.

Mr. Gurney. It is printed under your directions, I believe?

A. Yes.

Q. Is your original paper destroyed?

A. It is.

Q. Is this paper a copy from that of yours?

A. Yes.

Mr. Serjeant Best. Did you ever compare this with the paper on which you took down the prices?

A. Yes.

Q. Where do you get the contents of your written paper?

A. From the gentlemen in the Stock Exchange.

Mr. Serjeant Best. I submit that this paper cannot be evidence. The Witness states that he collects from the gentlemen in the Stock Exchange, the prices at which they buy and sell, from time to time, in the course of the day; he says he compares this printed paper with the original written paper; I am not objecting to that, but I submit, the written paper itself could not be evidence.

Lord Ellenborough. It is all hearsay, but it is the only evidence we can have; it is the only evidence we have of the price of sales of any description. I do not receive it as the precise thing, but as what is in the ordinary transactions of mankind received as proper information, and I suppose there is hardly a gentleman living who would not act on this paper.

Mr. Gurney. At what price did Omnium leave off on Saturday the 19th of February?

A. 26-3/4.

Lord Ellenborough. Do you furnish the Bank with these papers?

A. Yes.

Mr. Gurney. Was that 26-3/4 the money price or the time price?

A. The money price.

Q. The time price, I believe, is about one per cent. higher?

A. In general.

Q. At what price did Omnium commence on the Monday following?

A. 26-1/2.

Q. That is the money price?

A. The money price.

Q. Therefore the time price was 27-1/2?

A. I did not take the time price.

Q. After this news arrived what did it get up to?

A. As high as 30-1/4.

Q. At what time was that?

A. That is impossible for me to say.

Q. How soon did it get up to 30-1/4?

A. I cannot say; it did rise to that by degrees.

Q. Did it stand at that, or rise or fall?

A. It fell by degrees to 30, and from that to 28.

Lord Ellenborough. So that the rumour had a continuing effect to the close of the day?

A. Yes.

Mr. Gurney. Did it fall back so low by one and a half as it began in the morning?

A. No.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Pell.

Q. Do you remember at what time in the course of the day the report came to the Stock Exchange, of a chaise coming through the city?

A. I cannot say at what time it was.

Q. Then perhaps you cannot tell whether or not the Stocks rose again upon any report of that kind arriving there?

A. According to my recollection the Stocks rose a second time; they rose at first, then they fell, and then they rose again.

Q. But you cannot tell at what time that was, or to what cause it was attributable?

A. It was attributable to a chaise arriving.

Q. You remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. See whether you cannot remember how long it was after the opening of the business of the day that they so rose; might it be three hours afterwards?

A. It was in less than three hours, I think.

Q. It was less than three hours that they rose the second time you mean?

A. Yes; the second time.

Q. Have you a distinct recollection of this. Though you cannot remember the precise point of time at which it took place, have you distinct recollection that they rose at first, then fell, and then rose again.

A. Yes; I have a perfect recollection of that, but I cannot tell the time.

Cross-examined by Mr. Park.

Q. How often in the course of the day do you take that account?

A. Not at any particular stated times.

Q. You have nothing to do with buying or selling stock, I presume.

A. Not on my own account.

Q. But you are a Stock Broker?

A. I am.

Q. Then when you are not otherwise employed you fill up that paper from time to time?

A. No; if I perceive there are any particular fluctuations, I then make it my business to collect the prices.

Q. Do you mean to represent that the Stocks had not risen from what they ended at on Saturday before any news came to the Stock Exchange; had not they risen considerably that morning?

A. I think not, because if I recollect, there were reports in the morning that news had arrived.

Q. We have heard from some gentlemen that they sold stock as soon as the Stock Exchange opened; now I ask whether stock had not been sold at a rise before the news arrived?

A. Yes.

Mr. Gurney. But you say before the market opened there were some reports of a Messenger having arrived?

A. Yes.

Mr. Charles Addis, sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Have you a house in Shorter's-court?

A. No, I have not; I am concerned for a gentleman who has some property there.

Q. You have the letting of a house for a gentleman there?

A. I have.

Q. Was any application made to you in the week prior to the 21st of February for any part of that house?

A. Yes, on the 15th or 16th, I think Mr. Cochrane Johnstone applied to me for an Office in a house, the letting of which was under my management.

Q. What number in Shorter's-court did he finally fix upon?

A. It is number 5, the house almost immediately adjoining the Stock Exchange.

Q. Did he on that day take any part of the house of you?

A. He took one room for an office in that house on that day.

Q. The house in which Mr. Fearn is now?

A. Yes.

Q. How soon did he take any more?

A. He called on the following day and engaged another office.

Q. That was the 16th then?

A. I believe it was the 16th, I will not be positive, and he called on the following day the 17th, being the third time.

Q. Did he, when he called on the 17th, write that letter in your office (handing it to the Witness.)

A. This is a letter he left in my absence in the office, on which day I cannot say, but this was a letter that he left for me.

Q. That was on the third day after he had engaged the three offices?

A. Yes.

Q. He had then engaged all three?

A. Yes.

Q. Are they three rooms in the same house?

A. Three rooms in the same house.

Q. (To Mr. Fearn) Is that letter Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's hand writing? (handing it to the Witness.)

A. I believe it is.

It was delivered in, and read as follows:—

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Best.

Q. I believe he took the first room for Mr. Butt expressly?

A. Yes; and gave me a reference to him at Mr. Fearn's, who then lived in Cornhill.

Q. And the next time he came he said he wanted it for Mr. Fearn?

A. No; he said then he wanted it for Mr. Butt.

Q. And the third time he said he wanted it for Mr. Fearn?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Fearn has now the whole.

A. Yes.

Mr. James Pilliner, sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Are you a Stock Broker?

A. Yes.

Q. Prior to the 21st of February had you made any purchases for the Defendant Holloway, in Stock or Omnium?

A. I had, in both.

Q. How much of either was he possessed of before business began on Monday the 21st of February?

A. £20,000 Omnium and £20,000 Consols.

Q. Did you sell that out on that Monday?

A. I sold £20,000 Omnium and £14,000 Consols.

Mr. Serjeant Pell. Does your Lordship think, in consequence of what you have suggested already, that the Witness is bound to answer to the nature of the stock?

Lord Ellenborough. I am not apprized whether it is a real sum or not at present.

Mr. Serjeant Pell. The reason I now interpose is, that if this should turn out to be a transaction which was not real, the Witness would not be bound to answer any question respecting it, because it may tend to criminate himself, and involve him in penalties. The mere circumstance of his having sold stock at all that day, supposing it not real stock, would warrant him in declining to answer these questions.

Lord Ellenborough. Whether he sold any thing is a link in the chain, or else you might exclude all the transactions of the day, because they might ultimately connect with the vicious sale.

Mr. Serjeant Pell. Suppose it should turn out to be a time bargain, these questions would be material to convict this person of an offence, the amount sold would be very material; therefore if he is not bound to answer the last question——

Lord Ellenborough. I do not prohibit him; I am only to tell him that if these are bargains which are against law, he is bound to know the law, and if it would involve him in any penalty he need not answer the question.

Mr. Serjeant Pell. All I would request then is, that your Lordship would now suggest to the Witness that he need not answer any question that will tend to criminate himself.

Lord Ellenborough. If it will convict you in penalties, you are not bound to answer any question.

Mr. Serjeant Pell. I was only taking the liberty to suggest that that admonition may be given in the early part of the examination.

Lord Ellenborough. I cannot tell a witness he is not bound to answer a question, until I see that it has some bearing and probable tendency to accuse him; otherwise I must rummage all the statute books for penalties to put the witnesses on their guard—I must not only carry all the penal laws in my head, but mention them to every witness who comes before me upon any subject.

Mr. Gurney. Did you see Mr. Holloway on the morning of the 21st?

A. Yes I did.

Q. Did he give you any directions?

A. I beg to decline answering that question.

Mr. Gurney. I submit to your Lordship he is not at liberty to decline answering that question.

Lord Ellenborough. You may answer that question. Did he give you any directions?

A. He did.

Mr. Gurney. What to do?

A. I must beg to decline answering that question.

Lord Ellenborough. You need not answer to what you did; but you must state what he proposed to you to do, unless you did it afterwards, and the having done it would involve you in a penalty.

Mr. Gurney. What did he give you directions to do?

A. To sell stock.

Q. Was it to sell all he had, or part of what he had?

A. To sell all.

Q. At what time on Monday was it?

A. About the middle of the day.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Pell.

Q. What is Mr. Holloway?

A. A wine merchant.

Q. Where does he live?

A. In Martin's-lane, Cannon-street.

Q. Have you known him any time?

A. I have known him upwards of twenty years.

Q. How long have you acted for him as his broker?

A. Perhaps two years.

Mr. James Steers sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Are you Stock Broker to the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery?

A. I am.

Q. Did you as broker to the Accountant General, make purchases on Monday the 21st February?

A. I did.

Q. At what prices?

A. I made purchases to the amount of £15,957:10:8, at 71-5/8 per cent.

Q. Consols I suppose?

A. Yes, I have got them down in various sums.

Q. Was that the high price of the day, or the price at which stock opened in the morning?

A. I got to my office I think about eleven o'clock, or a little before, I took the orders from the Accountant General's office.

Q. At what time did you begin making your purchases?

A. I think from eleven to a quarter after eleven.

Q. Had the news then considerably raised the Stocks?

A. It had.

Lord Ellenborough. Is that all you did that day?

A. That is all I did that day.

Mr. Gurney. Did you do business for any body besides the Accountant General on that day?

A. I cannot speak to any thing but what I did for the Accountant General.

Lord Ellenborough. Though you cannot speak to any thing else in precise sums, do you recollect that you did buy for any body else on that day besides the Accountant General?

Q. I can speak to an entry on my books on that day, but I cannot say whether I did the business myself. I do not recollect doing any thing else myself besides that bargain.

A Juryman. At what price could you have bought that lot of Consols on Saturday?

A. I can state the purchases I made on Saturday to the Court; I purchased on Saturday the 19th for the Accountant General £6894:11:4 at 70 per Cent.

Mr. Gurney. I have called for Lord Cochrane's Affidavit, it is admitted by my learned friends that notice has been given to produce it, and it is not produced.

Mr. John Wright sworn.

Examined by Mr. Adolphus.

Q. Where do you live?

A. At No. 5, Panton-square.

Q. Do you know where Lord Cochrane lives?

A. At No. 13, Green-street, Grosvenor-square.

Q. Had you occasion to see Lord Cochrane in February or March last?

A. Almost every day in February and in March last.

Q. In the course of that time did he deliver in a paper to you?

A. Yes he did.

Q. What was it?

A. He delivered several papers to me.

Q. What was done with that? (shewing a paper to the witness.)

A. Lord Cochrane brought me that affidavit for the purpose of getting it inserted in the newspapers.

Q. Did you do so?

A. I did, I got it printed in slips, and distributed a copy of it to each of the newspapers.

Q. Have you a copy of it?

A. I have not.

Q. Have you one of the slips?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Did you receive any other copies of affidavits purporting to be affidavits of persons of the name of Smith?

A. No, I had no concern whatever with Smith.

Q. Smith and his wife?

A. Certainly not, I know nothing of the printing of them.

Q. Was the Morning Chronicle one of the papers in which you put Lord Cochrane's affidavit?

A. Yes, it was.

Mr. Park. It must not be said to be Lord Cochrane's affidavit, till that is proved.

Lord Ellenborough. He printed something purporting to be Lord Cochrane's affidavit. I have taken it that Lord Cochrane delivered several papers, one purporting to be an affidavit which this witness inserted in the newspapers.

Mr. Park. But when once the expression is used by my learned friend, persons do not get rid of it again.

Lord Ellenborough. If he published it as an affidavit, it is quoad him an affidavit.

Mr. Park. To be sure, my Lord.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Best.

Q. You have said that he brought this paper to you, giving you directions to have it printed?

A. He wished it to be inserted in the newspapers.

Q. Tell us all that he said to you at the time; did he not at the time when he was giving you directions to print it, say, that if De Berenger was the man, he had given the Stock Exchange the clue to it?

A. After reading the affidavit, his Lordship said "I once saw Captain De Berenger at dinner."

Lord Ellenborough. Was this at the time?

A. Yes; he said "I once saw Captain De Berenger at Mr. Basil Cochrane's—I have no reason to think that Captain De Berenger is capable of so base a transaction, but if he is, I have given the gentlemen of the Stock Exchange the best clue to find him out."

Lord Ellenborough. Did he say what sort of clue he had given?

A. The clue as to De Berenger.

Mr. Gurney. By his affidavit?

A. Yes, that by that he had given them the best clue.

Re-examined by Mr. Adolphus.

Q. When was it this affidavit was given to you?

A. I cannot state the day.

Q. Was it so late as March?

A. No, it must be about the 27th or 28th of February I think, but the newspaper will prove the date; it might be the first or second of March, I cannot speak to that.

Q. Was it not after the 11th of March?

A. I cannot state indeed.

Q. It was given to you the day before it appeared in the Morning Chronicle?

A. It was the day before, about three o'clock.

Mr. Gurney. Look at that (shewing a pamphlet to the witness) have you received one of those pamphlets either from Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, Lord Cochrane, or Mr. Butt?

A. Lord Cochrane gave me one of those at my own request, hearing it was published.

Q. Look at that which purports to be an affidavit of Lord Cochrane.

Mr. Serjeant Best. Is that the identical book Lord Cochrane gave you?

A. No.

Mr. Gurney. Read the affidavit and tell me whether you know that to be verbally and precisely the same?

Mr. Serjeant Best. I submit to your Lordship that will not do.

Mr. Gurney. Where is your copy of the pamphlet?

A. It is at home.

Mr. Gurney. Will your Lordship allow him to go home and fetch it.

Lord Ellenborough. Certainly.

Mr. Malcolm Richardson called again.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. You are a bookseller?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you employed by Mr. Butt to publish that pamphlet?

A. Not absolutely employed by him to publish it, but I sold it for him at his request, he wrote to me to know whether I would sell it for him.

Lord Ellenborough. This should be a publication by Lord Cochrane, to make the affidavit evidence against him.

Mr. Gurney. Certainly, my Lord, and if my learned friends wish it, I will wait till the witness comes back.

Mr. Serjeant Best. I have no wish to lay any impediment in the way, therefore if your Lordship thinks there is no impropriety in my permitting it to be read now, I will do it?

Lord Ellenborough. I leave it to your judgment, whether your resistance does you more good than the admission.

Mr. Serjeant Best. I will not resist it certainly. If I had the original I would deliver it up in a moment, but the fact is, we have not the original.

The Affidavit was read as follows:

Mr. James Le Marchant sworn.

Examined by Mr. Bolland.

Q. Are you acquainted with Captain De Berenger?

A. I was so.

Q. When did your acquaintance with him commence?

A. About 18 months ago.

Q. How long did it continue?

A. It continued until the 16th of February to the best of my knowledge.

Q. Between those periods was Captain De Berenger in the habit of calling upon you frequently?

A. He was, from the 10th to the 16th of February.

Q. At what period of the day?

A. At different periods.

Q. Did he pass his evenings with you?

A. Occasionally.

Q. In conversations with him, did you ever collect from him, whether he had any connexion with Lord Cochrane or Mr. Cochrane Johnstone?

A. I did—with both.

Q. State to the Court what he has told you.

A. He stated that he was about to go to America under the command of Lord Cochrane; on his mentioning this, I put the question to him, how he possibly could do it under the embarrassments that he laid under, upon which he answered, all was settled on that score.

Q. Do you recollect upon what day this conversation passed?

A. I should think nearly about the 14th, to the best of my recollection, he said, that for the services he had rendered Lord Cochrane and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, whereby his Lordship could realize a large sum or large sums of money by means of the funds or stocks, one of the words, that his Lordship was his friend, and had told him a few days before, that he had kept unknown to him till that period, a private purse for him De Berenger.

Q. Did he state to you whether there was any particular intimacy between him and Lord Cochrane, or Mr. Cochrane Johnstone?

A. He frequently mentioned particular intimacy of dining, breakfasting and supping with his Lordship. He said, in which purse he had placed or deposited a certain per centage out of the profits which his Lordship had made by his stock suggestions.

Q. Did you afterwards hear of the events of the 21st of February?

A. I did so.

Q. Did you upon that make known to any parties, and to whom, your suspicions of Captain De Berenger having been active in them?

A. I did so.

Q. To whom were those communications made?

A. To Captain Taylor of His Majesty's 22nd regiment of foot, and Lieutenant Wright in the Honorable East India Company's Service.

Q. Did you collect in any conversations you had with Captain De Berenger, that Lord Cochrane and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone consulted him in any transactions of Stock?

Mr. Park. That is a pretty good leading question.

Mr. Bolland. Did he state to you any thing respecting their consulting him as to stock transactions?

A. Most undoubtedly, or I should not have drawn the conclusions I did.

Q. For what was he to have a per centage?

A. For the ideas he had given to Lord Cochrane, enabling him to make a profit in the stocks.

Q. Did he extend that to Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, or Lord Cochrane?

A. To both.

Mr. Serjeant Best. I am aware that your Lordship will not consider this as evidence against Lord Cochrane, or Mr. Cochrane Johnstone.

Lord Ellenborough. No; it is admissible evidence, the effect of it is another thing.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Best.

Q. You have been corresponding with my Lord Cochrane.

A. I have so.

Q. You are now a prisoner in the King's Bench, I believe?

A. No; I am not.

Q. You have told my Lord Cochrane?——

Mr. Bolland. Have you ever had any communication with Lord Cochrane but in writing?

A. None individually.

Mr. Bolland. Then I object to any questions except as to letters.

Mr. Serjeant Best. You are a gentleman whose appointment Government have stopped?

A. It is not stopped.

Q. Suspended?

A. It is not suspended.

Q. You mean to state that upon your oath?

A. I state that I hold the situation of Secretary and Register to the Court of Antigua and Montserrat.

Q. You have not been prevented from going out?

A. In consequence of being compelled to give my evidence either at this court or some other court.

Q. And not on any other account?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. You know of no other reasons why Government have prevented your going out, but that you may be kept here as a Witness?

A. Yes.

Q. You mean to state that broadly?

A. Precisely.

Q. Is that your hand writing? (shewing a letter to the Witness)

A. It is.

Q. Just look at these; are these your hand writing? (shewing other letters to the Witness.)

A. That is not.

Q. That is Lord Cochrane's hand writing, is it not, you have got one in your pocket that is a copy of one that Lord Cochrane wrote to you in answer to one of your letters?

A. I will look at it. (the Witness read the letter over.) This is precisely the same as one I have in my pocket.

Q. You have got that letter about you?

A. I have.

Q. Have you not proposed to my Lord Cochrane to lend you money, and have you not told his Lordship that if he would not——

Mr. Bolland. My Lord, he says he has had no communication but in writing.

A. I have had no communication with Lord Cochrane but in writing.

Mr. Serjeant Best. Would you have given this evidence if you could have obtained a loan of money from Lord Cochrane?

A. Most undoubtedly; I must have been compelled to do it upon oath if brought forwards in a court of justice.

Q. I will not have a reasoning answer, but a direct answer, and that answer I will have taken down. Would you have given this evidence here if you could have obtained a loan of money from Lord Cochrane?

A. If my Lord Cochrane had not called me forwards, of course I should not have given an evidence, but he has compelled me.

Q. That will not do, I will put the question again; I want an answer, yes, or no, to this; would you have given this evidence if you could have obtained a loan of money from Lord Cochrane?

A. I hardly consider that question as fair; if his Lordship says it is I will answer it.

Lord Ellenborough. I rather think the terms of the question embrace some communications; he says he has had no communications about a loan in any way but in writing, and I think you cannot in that way travel indirectly to the contents of a letter; if the letter says any thing about a loan of money, you may give it in evidence.

Mr. Serjeant Best. Will your Lordship allow me to put it in this way. I have no right to ask the contents of any letter but with humble deference to your Lordship; I have a right to ask this man what passed in his own mind, for it does not yet appear that he put it upon paper; if the question had been what have you written to Lord Cochrane? that would have been objectionable, but surely I have a right to ask him what is passing in his own mind upon the subject, to know the motives from which this gentleman, of whom I shall speak by and by, comes to speak.

Lord Ellenborough. Do you give your evidence from resentment in consequence of having some loan refused to you?

A. None individually—none whatever.

Mr. Bolland. My Lord, I must object to my learned friend Mr. Serjeant Best getting the effect of a correspondence which was in writing.

Lord Ellenborough. He does not refer to it, but one cannot but be conscious after what has passed, that all that has ever passed about a loan has been in writing, therefore it would be the most ingenuous course to put it in.

Serjeant Best. I certainly mean to read this man's letters.

Lord Ellenborough. I asked him in the strongest manner possible, do you now give your evidence in resentment for having a loan, or any other benefit withheld from you? You may press that if you please.

Mr. Serjeant Best. I will put it in the way your Lordship suggests. Do you not now give your evidence in consequence of your being angry with Lord Cochrane for refusing to lend you money?

A. No. So help me God.

Q. Now take care. Do you know a gentlemen of the name of Palfreyman?

A. I have met him twice, I think, within this fortnight past.

Q. You have no resentment against Lord Cochrane whatever I understand you?

A. None whatever.

Q. You have never so expressed yourself to Mr. Palfreyman?

A. I am persuaded I never have.

Q. You never have told Mr. Palfreyman then that you would be his ruin?

A. Never.

Q. Nothing like that?

A. Never.

Q. That you would assist the Stock Exchange?

A. Never.

Q. Nothing of the sort?

A. I have already answered you.

Q. That will not do. Where did you come from now?

A. I came from the Gloucester Coffee House.

Q. I should have thought you had been in a coffee house, it is after dinner time I suppose. You are sure you never said any thing of the kind?

A. I have repeated it three or four times.

Q. You know this gentleman very well, Mr. Palfreyman?

A. A very slight acquaintance.

Q. Now I ask you another thing—Did you ever disclose this conversation with Mr. De Berenger till after Lord Cochrane refused you a loan?

Lord Ellenborough. If any application you made for a loan was in writing, you are not bound to answer that question.

Mr. Serjeant Best. My question was as to the time of the disclosure to the Stock Exchange, I will certainly read his letters; this does not touch me, but my learned friends of Counsel for De Berenger had not seen these letters. My question is, whether you ever disclosed the matter you have stated to day against De Berenger till after you were refused a loan by Lord Cochrane?

Lord Ellenborough. But if the proposition for loan was in writing, the letter must explain itself.

Mr. Scarlett. If we are not allowed to examine this witness as to his motives and his conduct as to these letters, I do not see how these letters could ever be made evidence.

Lord Ellenborough. You cannot examine him as to his motives, without producing the letters, that would be extracting the most unfair testimony in the world; I know nothing about the man, I never saw his face before to-day; but he, as a witness, has a right to the common protection of the law of the land, and not to have garbled questions put to him.

Mr. Scarlett. We do mean to read the letters.

Lord Ellenborough. And then you may call him back to ask him any questions upon them; but I would not have him answer without the letters being read.

Mr. Brougham. My learned friend merely referred to the letters as a date, not to the substance of the letters.

Lord Ellenborough. But he has said that he never had any communication with Lord Cochrane, but by letter, therefore the request for a loan, if any one was made, must have been by writing, and if he is to be questioned about that request in writing, he ought to have the terms of that request in writing read before the jury, so as to give a pointed answer to it.

Mr. Brougham. With great submission, my learned friend, did not ask as to the contents of the correspondence, but in point of date and time merely; he put this question, Was your information given to the Stock Exchange previously or subsequently to that correspondence, whatever the contents of that correspondence were?

Lord Ellenborough. I never heard that question put till this moment. Previous to some supposed correspondence, without stating the nature of that correspondence, was the information given by you to the Stock Exchange?

A. No, it was given by Lord Cochrane in his publication of the correspondence in the Morning Chronicle.

Lord Ellenborough. We cannot get on without the letters.

Mr. Serjeant Best. I have no objection to the letters being read now.

Lord Ellenborough. That would disturb the order of the proceedings.

Cross examined by Mr. Richardson.

Q. The conversation with Mr. De Berenger was about the 14th of February?

A. Yes it was.

Q. Have you not reason to know that about that time he had expectations of getting some employment in America?

A. He mentioned it to me himself.

Q. To serve under Sir Alexander Cochrane who had a command?

A. To serve under Lord Cochrane as I understood.

Q. He expressed his anxious desire and wish to be so employed?

A. Particularly so.

Q. He expressed a hope that he might make himself useful to the cause, by drilling the sharp shooters, and other things of that sort?

A. That was what he represented.

Q. Did you not know that he had had experience as a volunteer officer in a particular department?

A. I had a very high opinion of him as being acquainted with that science.

Q. He had been a Captain for a considerable number of years in the Duke of Cumberland's Corps of Sharp Shooters?

A. Adjutant I understand.

Q. You considered him as a man of science and skill in that department?

A. I did.

Q. Do you not know that he was making preparations at that time in order to go to America if he should be successful in procuring the appointment he was soliciting?

A. Not making preparations, those I know nothing of.

Q. That it was his anxious wish and desire to go you heard from him?

A. Yes.

Re-examined by Mr. Bolland.

Q. Did the Stock Exchange apply to you, or did you go to them to give information.

A. The Stock Exchange applied to me and sent me a subpœna.

Q. Was the application made to you after Lord Cochrane's publication, or before?

A. After Lord Cochrane's publication. The information that I gave to the two gentlemen, Captain Taylor and Lieutenant Wright was prior to Lord Cochrane's affidavit, or its ever being mentioned in my hearing that Mr. De Berenger was implicated in this business.

The Honorable Alexander Murray sworn.

Examined by Mr. Bolland.

Q. You are in His Majesty's service as an officer?

A. Not at present.

Q. I believe you have the misfortune at present to be in the King's Bench.

A. I am.

Q. In the rules?

A. In the inside.

Q. Are you acquainted with Captain De Berenger, and how long have you been so.

A. About a year and a half I have been.

Q. Who introduced you to Captain De Berenger?

A. Mr. Tahourdin, who was my solicitor, and likewise the solicitor of Mr. De Berenger.

Q. In consequence of that introduction did a considerable intimacy take place between you and the captain?

A. There did.

Q. Were you frequently together?

A. Very frequently; when I first went over to the rules of the Bench, I lodged with Mr. De Berenger in the same house for about one month, till I took a house of my own.

Q. Had you at any time any conversation with Captain De Berenger previous to the 21st of February with respect to Lord Cochrane and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone?

A. Towards the end of January I think, or perhaps the beginning of February.

Q. What was the substance of these conversations?

A. It happened one Sunday between one and two o'clock, Mr. Harrison called upon me, and we were conversing about a pamphlet he was writing.

Q. That Mr. Harrison was writing?

A. Yes; it was relative to the trial between Mr. Basil Cochrane and Mr. Harrison.

Q. That impressed the day upon your recollection?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Captain De Berenger come in that day?

A. Yes; he came in during the conversation and joined in it.

Q. Did any thing pass from Captain De Berenger on that day respecting Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and Lord Cochrane?

A. I at that time knew he was employed by Mr. Cochrane Johnstone.

Q. From whom did you understand that?

A. From Mr. De Berenger himself, that he was employed by Mr. Cochrane Johnstone in planning out a small piece of ground behind his house in Alsop's Buildings.

Q. What passed at that time about Mr. Cochrane Johnstone?

A. He mentioned that there was a transaction going on.

Q. Does the circumstance of the pamphlet bring back to your recollection what Sunday it was?

A. I cannot state the day of the month, but it was towards the end of January or the beginning of February.

Q. State what Mr. De Berenger then said?

A. He said that they had a plan in view——

A. Who had?

A. That De Berenger had, with Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and Lord Cochrane, that provided it succeeded, it would put many thousand pounds in the pocket of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and Lord Cochrane.

Q. Upon hearing this, did either you or Mr. Harrison ask Captain De Berenger what the plan was?

A. I did, and he declined answering it; I said, "is it the plan with regard to Ranelagh which it was proposed to build in Alsop's Buildings, on Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's land," and he said "no, it is not, it is a far better plan."

Q. Did you collect from Mr. De Berenger's conversation with you, whether there was any particular intimacy between him and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and Lord Cochrane?

A. I knew there was a very particular intimacy between him and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, but I did not understand it was with Lord Cochrane at all; I understood he was a more recent acquaintance.

Q. From what did you collect that; what did Mr. De Berenger say to you that induced you to believe he was intimate with Mr. Cochrane Johnstone?

A. He was constantly with him; he was there almost every day.

Q. You say that his acquaintance with Lord Cochrane was recent?

A. I do.

Q. When you understood him to be acquainted with Lord Cochrane, did he state any thing with regard to his visits to Lord Cochrane?

A. He did not.

Cross-examined by Mr. Park.

Q. You have known Mr. De Berenger a great while?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. He is a man of very considerable science and attainment I am told?

A. Very much so.

Q. I believe you happen to know that he was at that time, or had been about that time engaged in some plan of Mr. Johnstone's about building a place called Vittoria, in consequence of the great victories?

A. It was to be called Ranelagh I understood, I never heard of the name Vittoria.

Q. He had been engaged for a considerable time before in drawing a plan?

A. He had, which I had seen.

Q. And that led him, as you understood, to be very much with Mr. Cochrane Johnstone?

A. It did.

Q. Alsop's Buildings is somewhere near Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's house?

A. Mr. Cochrane Johnstone has a house there, and this is the ground immediately behind it, about an acre, which is in garden ground, and which was to be converted to that use.

Q. Something upon the plan of the old Ranelagh?

A. Something upon an improved plan of Mr. De Berenger's.

Q. You have seen the plan you say, which Mr. De Berenger drew for Mr. Cochrane Johnstone?

A. Yes.

Q. How long ago is that?

A. I cannot exactly say how long ago it was.

Q. Was it before this conversation a good while?

A. Before this conversation; when I was in the habit of calling upon him.

Q. About the close of the last year probably?

A. About that time, I cannot exactly say.

Q. Was it not a very beautiful plan that he had drawn for this Ranelagh?

A. It was.

Q. It required, from the nature of it, a considerable deal of time and labour?

A. It did certainly.

Q. Do you know whether Mr. De Berenger was very much employed in plans of that kind for the Royal Family and others?

A. He was.

Lord Ellenborough. If you see any tendency to the advantage of your client, I will not interrupt you, but at present this seems to have no bearing.

Mr. Park. I assure your Lordship, and I know I shall have credit for believing what I state, I would not at this hour of the night pursue it if it was not important, but I feel it necessary when it is stated that there has been a wonderful intimacy, from which, conspiracy is sought to be inferred.

Lord Ellenborough. I will not ask you to go into your reasons, if you only say you think it material.

Mr. Park. As far as you have seen Mr. De Berenger, for the length of time you have described, do you not believe him to be a man of honor and integrity?

A. I certainly do from every thing I have seen; I saw nothing but the most perfect gentleman during the time I lodged under the same roof.

William Carling sworn.

Examined by Mr. Adolphus.

Q. Whose servant are you?

A. The Honorable Basil Cochrane's.

Q. Are you in his service still?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and my Lord Cochrane visit at your master's house?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever seen them there in company with Captain De Berenger?

A. Yes; Baron De Berenger is the name I have given in.

Q. The gentleman who sits there now?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he come there once, or oftener, within your memory?

A. Twice.

Q. Who brought him?

A. I do not know that any body brought him in particular, he came to dine there as a visitor.

Q. With whom?

A. Not with any body in particular; invited by the Honorable Basil Cochrane.

Q. Was that upon days when Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and Lord Cochrane were there?

A. Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and Lord Cochrane dined there once; Lord Cochrane did not the second time?

Q. As far as you could observe, did Lord Cochrane and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone appear to be acquainted with the Baron De Berenger, or to be then first introduced to him?

A. They appeared to be acquainted with him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Topping.

Q. Can you tell us what time this was?

A. In January the first time, and the next in February, but I cannot say what day.

Q. You live with Mr. Basil Cochrane?

A. Yes.

Q. He is related to Lord Cochrane?

A. Yes, he is uncle to Lord Cochrane.

Q. And Mr. Basil Cochrane having a dinner party, Baron De Berenger was one of the party, and Lord Cochrane another?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Cochrane Johnstone another?

A. Yes.

Q. Did the dinner party consist of any other?

A. Yes, the first time, Admiral Cochrane (Sir Alexander), his lady, and some more ladies and gentlemen.

Q. Was that the day Lord Cochrane dined there?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Then upon another occasion, Mr. Basil Cochrane having a diner party, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone formed one of the party, and Baron De Berenger another?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there an indiscriminate mixture of ladies and gentlemen again then?

A. Yes.

Q. And Lord Cochrane was not there?

A. He was not.

Q. You have been asked whether Baron De Berenger and Lord Cochrane and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone appeared to be acquainted—did Baron De Berenger appear to be acquainted with Admiral Cochrane?

A. I cannot say.

Q. You were merely a servant attending at table?

A. Yes.

Cross-examined by Mr. Richardson.

Q. From the conversation that passed, did you understand whether Baron De Berenger was going to America to serve under Admiral Cochrane.

A. I did not.

Mr. Barnard Broochooft sworn.

Examined by Mr. Bolland.

Q. You are Deputy Marshal of the King's Bench?

A. I am clerk to the Marshal of the King's Bench.

Q. Do you know Baron De Berenger?

A. Yes.

Q. Was he, during the latter end of the last year, and the beginning of the present, a prisoner in the King's Bench?

A. Yes.

Q. How long had he been confined there?

A. I think from the latter end of the year 1812.

Q. Till what time?

A. I am not prepared to state the day but till within about six weeks.

Q. Have you the book of rules here?

A. I have not.

Q. Did you miss him at any time?

A. Yes some months.

Mr. Park. I waive the objection to your asking your questions, so far as I am concerned for Mr. De Berenger.

Mr. Bolland. Who were the securities for Mr. De Berenger?

A. Mr. Cochrane, a bookseller, in Fleet-street, and Mr. Tahourdin, the attorney.

Q. You made search for him and could not find him?

A. Yes.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Best.

Q. That Cochrane was not at all connected with the Dundonald family?

A. I asked the question, and I understood not.

Cross-examined by Mr. Park.

Q. Mr. Cochrane is partner in the house of Mr. White, of Fleet-street?

A. Yes.

Q. I believe you saw Mr. De Berenger on the morning of the 21st very early, did not you?

A. No.

Q. Recollect yourself, because I understand you did see him that morning?

A. I cannot recollect having seen Mr. De Berenger for a very great length of time, and I think long previous to that?

Q. I have reason to put the question, or I should not to you, not doubting the veracity of your answer; recollect whether you did not see him near the King's Bench Prison, very early on that morning?

A. I have nothing by which I can charge my recollection.

Q. The security was given a considerable time ago for the rules?

A. A very considerable time ago, nearly two years ago I should think.

Q. It was not for a very large sum?

A. Under £400. I think.

Q. You will excuse my asking, but the security is generally nearly commensurate with the debt?

A. They generally do take it for the amount as nearly as possible, calculating the costs.

Q. More than the debt then?

A. Yes.

Mr. Bolland. Was Mr. Ralph Sandom a prisoner in the King's Bench Prison?

A. Twice he has been a prisoner.

Q. Was he on the 21st of February?

A. I have not the books, and cannot state that.

Mr. Joseph Wood sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Are you a Messenger of the Alien Office?

A. I am.

Q. Did you on the 3d or 4th of April leave London in order to apprehend De Berenger?

A. I did on the 4th.

Q. Had you a warrant of the Secretary of State?

A. I had.

Q. How long had you had it in your possession?

A. Ever since the 17th of March.

Q. Where did you find him?

A. At Leith.

Q. On what day?

A. On the 8th of April.

Q. Did you find him in possession of any writing desk?

A. Of this one. (producing a portable desk).

Q. Did that writing desk contain papers and bank notes?

A. Yes.

Q. Before you parted with any of those papers or bank notes did you mark them?

A. Yes I did.

Q. When did you mark them?

A. I marked them before the Grand Jury the day of the bill being found.

Q. Have they been in your possession from the day you marked them?

A. They have from the hour I took Mr. De Berenger.

Q. Were there any pieces of coin in the writing desk also?

A. There were guineas and half guineas, and in the pocket book there were two Napoleons. (the witness opened the desk.)

Q. The bank notes are in parcels I believe?

A. Yes they are.

Q. Give me the packet with the 67.

They were handed in.

Mr. Gurney. I believe it will be more clear if I do not open them now till I have proved them?

A. Here are two packets, and a pocket book containing a fifty pound note and four five pound notes, the Napoleons are in the pocket book.

Q. There is a memorandum book also and a paper of memorandums?

A. There are.

The Witness delivered them in.

Q. There is a road book besides?

A. Yes there is.

Mr. Park. There are some papers of which I have heard no proof; there is a paper, in which it is stated there is some pencil mark, I have heard no proof of any pencil mark, or any writing; it is not evidence because it is in his pocket-book because one has many things in a pocket-book which are not in one's hand-writing.

Mr. Gurney. This is the writing.

Mr. Park. I shall not look at it; I do not know his hand-writing.

Mr. Gurney. Mr. Jones, I will trouble you to read the first article in that memorandum-book.

Mr. Park. That cannot be done.

Mr. Gurney. It is found in his letter-case.

Mr. Park. I object till his hand-writing is proved; the finding a manuscript in my possession, is not sufficient to warrant its being read as evidence against me; your Lordship might confide some paper to me, and it would be very hard to read that against me.

Lord Ellenborough. It is prima facie evidence I think, subject to any observations you make upon it.

Mr. Park. It is found in that thing, not in his pocket.

Lord Ellenborough. (to Wood) Was it under his lock?

A. It was in his possession when I took him.

Mr. Park. Am I to be answerable for all manner of things sent to me by my friends?

Lord Ellenborough. I think a paper found under the lock and key of the party, is prima facie, readable against him; it is subject to observations. If you do not go further, the reading this as found in his possession, is doing little.

Mr. Gurney. (to Mr. Lavie) Do you believe that to be Mr. De Berenger's writing?

A. I have no doubt about it.

Mr. Park. Is it in pencil or ink?

A. In ink.

Mr. Serjeant Best. That cannot be evidence against the Cochranes.

Lord Ellenborough. No, if it was transmitted by him in writing to the others, it would be evidence against them; but it purports to be only a memorandum of his own.

Mr. Gurney. Certainly not, my Lord.

The Extract was read as follows:

Mr. Gurney. That is all I wish to read.

Mr. Park. I never heard a word of this.

Mr. Gurney. Very likely not.

Cross-examined by Mr. Richardson.

Q. Did you carry this box of papers before the Grand Jury?

A. Yes I did, the writing desk.

Q. By whose orders was that done?

A. By orders of the Secretary of State, of Mr. Beckett; I was subpœnaed to bring it before the Grand Jury, and I carried the subpœna to take directions from Mr. Beckett the Under Secretary of State.

Q. You received Mr. Beckett's orders to do it?

A. With the subpœna I told Mr. Beckett I had received an order to take it before the Grand Jury, and I did so.

Mr. Park. There are no subpœnas for the Grand Jury.

Mr. Gurney. There are indeed, Crown Office subpœnas.

Mr. Richardson. By whose order were the seals put on at Edinburgh taken off?

A. By order of Mr. Beckett.

Q. That was before you went before the Grand Jury?

A. Yes.

Q. Has the box remained in your possession ever since you took it at Edinburgh?

A. Yes, ever since when I went a journey to Holland; in my absence Mr. Tahourdin wished to see it, and Mr. Musgrave opened it for him.

Q. Except the time you took a journey to Holland it has been in your possession?

A. Yes.

Q. Had the seals been opened before that time, before you went to Holland?

A. They had.

Q. In whose possession was it during the time of your absence?

A. Mr. Musgrave's, and he delivered it up to me again.

Q. Who is Mr. Musgrave?

A. One of the clerks in the Office.

Q. How long were you absent?

A. A week or ten days.

Q. Has it been in your possession ever since your return?

A. Yes, it has.

Q. Were you present all the time it was before the Grand Jury?

A. I was; I left it on the Grand Jury table when I went out, but I locked it, and I had the key.

Q. With all its contents locked up in it?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you present when Mr. Wakefield of the Stock Exchange, and Mr. Lavie called, I think on the very day that Mr. De Berenger arrived in London?

A. I was.

Q. Was that at your house?

A. No it was not.

Q. Where was it?

A. At the Parliament Street Coffee House.

Q. That was the place you carried him to first?

A. No, first to the Secretary of State's Office, and afterwards to the Parliament Street Coffee House.

Q. The day of your arrival those Gentlemen came there?

A. They were there.

Q. Mr. Wakefield and some other Gentleman?

A. Mr. Wakefield and another Gentleman.

Q. Who was the other Gentleman?

A. I do not exactly recollect.

Q. Was it not stated to him by those Gentlemen that they did not wish to press him if he would furnish information against Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and Mr. Butt?

A. I do not recollect hearing those names mentioned.

Q. Against the other Gentlemen?

A. No, I do not recollect hearing that.

Q. Did they not state that what they wanted was information from him to fix the guilt upon others?

A. Not to my recollection.

Q. Or any thing to that effect?

A. I do not recollect any thing of the kind, I did not exactly listen to the conversation.

Q. He was in your custody, and you in the room all the time?

A. Not exactly; I was there the greatest part of the time.

Q. Be so kind as to recollect yourself, it was only in the month of April last that this happened, many circumstances have called this to your recollection since; what was the conversation that passed; what did they state to him as to his furnishing information?

A. There were some gentlemen wanted to speak to Mr. De Berenger; Mr. Wakefield went very close to Mr. De Berenger, and I declare to you upon my oath I do not recollect any particular words.

Q. The substance is all I want?

A. I really do not recollect the substance.

Q. Was any thing said as to his furnishing information: recollect, that you are to tell the whole truth upon your oath, as far as you recollect it; what was said upon that subject, as far as you can recollect?

A. Mr. Wakefield did say something to him, but I really do not recollect.

Q. Was it to that effect?

A. Mr. Wakefield put some questions to Mr. De Berenger respecting this business, the Stock Exchange business; but the exact conversation, which I did not listen to, I cannot say.

Q. Respecting the other persons supposed to be concerned, was not that the effect of it?

A. Something to that effect I think, but I did not listen to the conversation.

Lord Ellenborough. What is the effect? only something about other persons, that is no effect.

Mr. Richardson. What was the effect of it?

A. Mr. Wakefield put some questions respecting the Stock Exchange, I did not attend exactly to what it was.

Lord Ellenborough. You had better call Mr. Wakefield, who put the questions, than he who did not hear what passed.

Mr. Park. We cannot call Mr. Wakefield; he is one of the Prosecutors, he is one of the Stock Exchange.

Lord Ellenborough. I know nothing about Mr. Wakefield; as long as the question is sperate I am willing to hear it put, but it has been put ten times and the same answer returned.

Mr. Richardson. Did you hear names mentioned?

A. I did not.

Q. Did you hear them tell him, that their wish was that he should furnish information, to bring home the guilt to others?

A. I remember the word information, and that is all I recollect.

Q. That they wanted information?

A. That is all I recollect.

Q. Before this conversation took place, did not Mr. De Berenger say that he wished to be attended by Counsel, if they wished to converse with him?

A. Mr. De Berenger did answer something, but I cannot state what it was; I did not attend to the conversation.

Q. Before these Gentlemen were introduced by you to him, did he not say that he was exhausted by his journey, and unwilling to see them, unless he could have some person present?

A. He did; he said he was very unwell, and exhausted by his journey.

Q. And desired not to see them, unless some person was present with them?

A. Yes, I think he did say something of that kind, that he was very faint with his journey.

Q. But nevertheless you introduced them to him that evening?

A. They were in the room with him, they came into the room with him; that was at the time that Mr. Wakefield was in the room, I believe.

Mr. Park. That he was very unwell, and would not answer unless some person was with him?

Lord Ellenborough. Did he say that he was unwilling to answer, without having some friend present?

A. I do not recollect that; but he said he was very unwell, and exhausted with the journey.

Mr. Park. Nevertheless a long conversation did take place, did it?

A. I believe Mr. Wakefield was there about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, not more than that.

Re-examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Did you put your marks upon these things before you went to Holland?

A. Yes, I did.

Mr. Joseph Fearn called again;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Be so good as to look at that check dated the 10th of February 1814 [shewing it to the Witness] did you give that check to Mr. Butt?

A. I did on the day of its date, the 10th of February.

Mr. Joseph Brumfield sworn;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Are you the clerk that paid the check on the 10th of February?

A. I am not.

Q. Is Mr. Evans here?

A. I believe not; I have not seen him.

Mr. William Smallbone called again;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. On the 19th of February 1814, did you draw that check [shewing it to the Witness]?

A. Yes.

Q. For whom?

A. For Lord Cochrane.

Q. Did you give it to Lord Cochrane?

A. I did.

Q. For Lord Cochrane?

A. Yes.

Q. To pay for gains upon the stock account?

A. Not gains exactly, but upon the stock account.

Q. To whom personally did you give it?

A. To Lord Cochrane.

Cross examined by Mr. Serjeant Best.

Q. Was Mr. Butt in the office at the time?

A. Yes, I think he was.

Q. Do you recollect whether you gave it into the hands of Lord Cochrane or Mr. Butt?

A. I think into the hand of Lord Cochrane; I feel satisfied in my mind that I gave it to Lord Cochrane and not to Mr. Butt.

Q. If you gave it to Lord Cochrane, did you see Lord Cochrane hand it over to Mr. Butt?

A. No, I cannot say that I did.

Q. Have you no recollection one way or the other?

A. No.

Q. Nor is your recollection very distinct whether you gave it to one or the other?

A. I have no reason to think I gave it to Mr. Butt.

Q. Mr. Butt frequently acted for Lord Cochrane?

A. Not with me.

Lord Ellenborough. Do you believe you gave it to Lord Cochrane?

A. I do, but I am not certain whether I laid it before him upon the table, or gave it into his hand.

Lord Ellenborough. You presented it to him, and gave it into his reach, so that he might take it?

A. Yes.

A Juryman. You charged him with it in account?

A. Yes, I did.

[The check on Messrs. Jones, Loyd & Company, dated the 10th of February 1814, for the sum of £.470. 19s. 4d. was read.]

Edward Wharmby sworn;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Are you clerk to Jones, Loyd & Company?

A. Yes.

Q. Look at that check [handing it to the Witness] did you pay that check?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. On what day?

A. On the 19th of February.

Q. In what Bank notes did you pay it?

A. In one of £.200.

Mr. Serjeant Best. From what are you speaking.

A. I have a copy of the notes.

Q. Is the book here?

A. No.

Mr. Gurney. You were directed to bring the books with you,—you must go and fetch them.

Benjamin Lance sworn;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. On the 26th of February did you give that check to Mr. Butt?

A. Yes, I did. [The check was handed in.]

Mr. Gurney. Perhaps, my Lord, I had better wait till the witness brings the books; I am extremely sorry for the loss of time?

Lord Ellenborough. It will be more clear.

Mr. Gurney. I have a little more evidence to give under this head, if your Lordship will allow me to give that now, the letter which I opened, offering Mr. M'Rae's discovery.

Mr. Joseph Fearn called again;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Look at that letter, [shewing a letter to the witness,] do you believe that to be Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's hand-writing?

A. I do.

Q. Do you believe that also to be Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's hand-writing?

A. Yes, I believe that also to be the same that is dated the 18th of April.

[The letters were delivered in, and read as follow:]

[The inclosure was read as follows:]

[Mr. Gurney to Mr. Fearn.]

Q. Look at the address of that letter [shewing a letter to the witness] is that address Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's hand-writing?

A. I believe it to be so.

[The letter was read as follows.]

"To the Committee of the Stock Exchange.

Mr. Gurney. I apply that to the memorandum I before read, by which it appears that he states his own gains and Mr. Butt's to be £.4,800. subtracting Lord Cochrane's; the whole is £.6,500.

Edward Wharmby called again;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. On what day in February did you pay that check? [shewing it to the witness.]

A. The 19th of February.

Mr. Serjeant Best. Is that entry in the book your own hand-writing?

A. It is.

Mr. Gurney. In what Bank notes did you pay it?

A. In one of two hundred pounds, No. 634.

Q. What other notes?

A. Two, of one hundred pounds each.

Q. What are the numbers?

A. 18,468 is one of them, and the other 16,601.

Q. Was there a £.50.?

A. Yes, No. 7,375.

Mr. Gurney. It is not necessary to mention the other, because I do not trace it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Best.

Q. You do not know to whom you paid that?

A. No, I do not.

Lord Ellenborough. You paid it to the bearer of that check for £.470, in discharge of that check?

A. Yes, I did.

Mr. Thomas Parker sworn;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. You are a coal-merchant?

A. Yes.

Q. Does Lord Cochrane deal with you?

A. He did.

Q. Did you receive from him in payment a bank note of fifty pounds.

A. To the best of my recollection I did.

Q. On what day?

A. I do not exactly know the day; but some time in the beginning of March I think, or probably in the end of February.

A Bank Clerk produced the £.50. note No. 7,375.

Q. Did Lord Cochrane make that payment to you in that bank note?

A. Yes, I believe he did.

Mr. Serjeant Best. Is that your own memorandum?

A. Yes; I write on the back of the notes, and that is my hand-writing.

Benjamin Lance called again;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. On the 24th of February, did you go to the Bank to exchange any bank notes for smaller notes?

A. I did.

Q. By whose desire did you go?

A. Mr. Butt's.

Q. Are those the two notes you received from him to exchange? [shewing the witness the two notes for £.100. each, produced by the bank clerk.]

A. They are.

Lord Ellenborough. Have you seen those £.100. notes, which you carried to the Bank to exchange for smaller notes?

A. I have this moment.

Mr. Gurney. What did you receive in exchange for them?

A. I received two hundred notes for one pound each.

Q. What did you do with those notes?

A. I gave them to Mr. Butt.

Cross-examined by Mr. Scarlett.

Q. Have you any connexion with Mr. Smallbone.

A. Yes, I am with Mr. Smallbone.

Q. Do you remember at any time, on the 15th of February, Mr. Butt lending Lord Cochrane two hundred pounds, in order to make up a sum that he had to pay?

A. Yes.

Q. On the 15th of February?

A. Yes, it might be on the 15th of February.

Q. Do you remember going with that check [shewing it to the witness] which was afterwards given by Mr. Smallbone, to get the money?

A. Yes, that check for £.470. 19s. 4d.

Q. That bears date the 19th of February?

A. Yes.

Q. You were the person who took that to the banker's, to get the money for it?

A. Exactly so.

Q. You say you know Mr. Butt did lend Lord Cochrane two hundred pounds?

A. So I understood; I did not see him lend it.

Mr. Gurney. He does not know that it was lent?

Mr. Scarlett. How do you know that it was lent?

A. Only by Mr. Butt saying so.

Lord Ellenborough. At what time?

A. The 15th of February.

Lord Ellenborough. This check is dated the 19th?

Mr. Scarlett. You received in payment for that check, two notes of £.100. each?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What did you do with those two notes of 100l. each?

A. I gave them to Lord Cochrane.

Q. That was on the 19th of February?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Were you present when Lord Cochrane paid those notes back to Mr. Butt?

A. I was not.

Q. Though you were not present when those notes were given by him to Mr. Butt, do you know that those notes were in Mr. Butt's hands afterwards?

A. I know of receiving them from him.

Q. Though you paid them to Lord Cochrane upon the 19th, did you not afterwards receive them from Mr. Butt?

A. I received the two £.100. notes I have now looked at from Mr. Butt.

Q. It was by Mr. Butt's desire you changed them for small notes at the Bank?

A. Yes.

Q. That you say was the 24th of February?

A. Yes.

Q. For Mr. Butt?

A. Yes.

Q. Was Lord Cochrane in the city at that time?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Do you know on the 15th of February of any loan made by Mr. Smallbone to Lord Cochrane?

A. Yes, I do.

Mr. Gurney. Do you know that of your own knowledge, or how do you know that?

A. I know that of my own knowledge.

Mr. Scarlett. I believe you know that my Lord had a certain sum to make up to pay what he owed at that time?

A. He had.

Q. How much was that amount?

A. I am not prepared to tell you the exact amount.

Q. Was it between six and seven hundred pounds?

A. More than that.

Q. Do not you know that he was without the money in the City, to make it up at that time?

A. He was.

Q. How much did he borrow of Mr. Smallbone?

A. I cannot say exactly.

Q. Was it £.450.?

A. £.450. I think, was advanced by me as clerk to Mr. Smallbone.

Lord Ellenborough.. In all £.450.

A. In all £.450.

Q. £.250. in these bank notes?

A. No, £.450. besides these bank notes.

Lord Ellenborough. The £.450. is to be added to these bank notes?

Mr. Scarlett. The witness was not present when Mr. Butt lent the £.200. I was about to shew, that besides the £.450. that Mr. Smallbone lent, Lord Cochrane wanted £.200. more, and that he went out to get it.

Lord Ellenborough. Did you see the £.200. lent to Lord Cochrane?

A. No.

Q. How do you know it was lent?

A. Because I was told so by Lord Cochrane.

Lord Ellenborough. Then it comes to nothing?

Mr. Scarlett. He knows the fact that he wanted the £.200. You advanced £.450. yourself?

A. Yes, I did.

Lord Ellenborough. In gold or bank notes?

A. In bank notes.

Q. In what description of bank notes?

A. The money was lent in fact by Mr. Smallbone, and he made up the difference; it is not usual to pay in bank notes, and we made it up in checks; his Lordship had left his money at the west end of the town.

Mr. Scarlett. You advanced his Lordship £.450.?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that all that he wanted, or did he want more?

A. No, he wanted £.200. more.

Lord Ellenborough. This advance must all be in paper?

Mr. Scarlett. Yes, my Lord, it is not material to my purpose to shew how Mr. Butt made this advance to him.

Lord Ellenborough. If it was a loan and you rely upon it as such, you must shew in what it was?

A. The £.450. was in a check.

Lord Ellenborough. Then that check must be shewn.

Mr. Scarlett. Mr. Butt was not present, was he?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. At what time Lord Cochrane gave these two £.100. notes to Mr. Butt you do not know, do you?

A. No.

Q. But it was not by Lord Cochrane's desire you took them to the Bank.

A. No; by Mr. Butt's.

Mr. John Bilson sworn;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Look at these two £.100. notes; on the 24th of February; were those two notes of £.100. each brought to the Bank to be exchanged for one pound notes?

A. They were entered for payment in the Bank on that day.

Q. Have you there the book in which your own entries are made, or those which are made by Mr. Northover?

A. I have the book in which is my own hand-writing.

Q. What notes did you pay this in?

A. One pound notes.

Q. You make the entries, and the other clerk gives over the notes?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you all the numbers there?

A. Yes, I have.

Mr. Gurney. I am sorry to trouble your Lordship with having these numbers read; they do not happen to be in sequence. Will you go over those numbers?

A. 27th August, No. 1,048.

Lord Ellenborough. You had better see what you apply your proof to, otherwise he must go through the list.

Mr. Gurney. I am told these clerks have examined all these notes. You have looked over all these notes found in Mr. De Berenger's trunk, have you not?

A. I have not looked over them to-day; we looked over them before the Grand Jury.

Q. Look over that parcel, and tell me whether you paid all that parcel [handing a parcel of bank notes to the witness.]

[The Witness and Mr. Thomas Northover examined the notes.]

A. Yes; those were paid.

Q. There are forty-nine in number?

A. Yes.

Lord Ellenborough. Were all those forty-nine part of the two hundred pounds that were given in exchange for the two £.100. notes?

A. They were.

A Juryman. What were the numbers of the two £.100. notes?

A. No. 16,601 and No. 18,468.

Mr. Hilary Miller sworn;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. You are a clerk in the Bank?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you forty-seven one pound notes that have come into the bank?

A. I have fifty-seven [the witness produces them.]

Mr. Gurney. (to Bilson and Northover) Look and see whether those fifty-seven are also part of the same payment?

Miller. I believe that part of those notes were received at another period.

Mr. Northover. They do not appear to arise from this transaction.

Mr. Gurney. I will state to your Lordship the effect of this; perhaps it is hardly worth pursuing; they came into the bank from various quarters, and Mr. De Berenger's name is upon them, but not in his hand-writing.

Mr. Bilson. Here are some of them in this account.

Lord Ellenborough. They do not appear to be evidence.

Mr. Gurney. Then I will not pursue that.

Thomas Christmas sworn;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Were you clerk to Mr. Fearn, in February last?

A. I was.

Q. Do you recollect being sent on the 24th of February to change a note for two hundred pounds?

A. Yes.

Q. By whom were you sent?

A. By Mr. Fearn.

Q. Where did you go to change that note?

A. To Messrs. Bond & Pattesall.

Q. Look at that bank note (No. 634), is that the bank note which you changed?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you receive in exchange for it?

A. Two notes of £.100. each.

Q. Did you take those two notes of £.100. each to the bank?

A. Yes.

Q. For what did you change them there?

A. Two hundred notes of one pound each.

Q. What did you do with those two hundred notes of one pound each?

A. I gave them to Mr. Fearn.

Q. In whose presence?

A. Two or three gentlemen in his office.

Q. Who were those gentlemen?

A. I do not recollect.

Q. Were Mr. Butt or Mr. Cochrane Johnstone there then?

A. No, they were neither of them there then.

Q. Did you see what Mr. Fearn did with those notes?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you put your name upon the two £.100. notes before you gave them into the bank?

A. I put Mr. Fearn's name upon them.

[Mr. Miller produced two £.100. notes.]

Q. Are those the two?

A. Yes they are.

Q. What are their numbers?

A. 19,482 and 19,592.

Mr. Joseph Fearn called again;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. On the 24th of February did you receive from Christmas two hundred notes of one pound each?

A. Yes.

Q. To whom did you give those notes?

A. To Mr. Butt.

Q. Did you see what Mr. Butt did with them?

A. He gave them to Mr. Cochrane Johnstone.

Mr. John Bilson and Mr. Thomas Northover called again.

Mr. Gurney. Did you on the 24th of February pay a £.100. Bank note No. 19,482?

Mr. Bilson. We paid to Fearn on that day two hundred one pound notes for two notes of £.100. each.

Q. Are those the two notes for which you paid them, [shewing them to the Witness]?

A. Those are the two notes.

A Juryman. What are the numbers?

A. 19,482, the 4th of February 1814, and 19,592 of the same date.

Mr. Gurney. I am now going to put into the hands of the witnesses sixty-seven notes found in Mr. De Berenger's writing desk, for him to see whether they are not part of those he paid for those two £.100. notes?

[The Witnesses compared them.]

Mr. Bilson. These are part of the notes we paid to Fearn on the 24th of February.

Lord Ellenborough. The whole sixty-seven?

A. Yes.

Mr. Joseph Fearn;

Cross-examined by Mr. Brougham.

Q. When Christmas brought back these two hundred one pound notes from the bank, you say they were given to Mr. Butt?

A. Yes.

Q. And you say Mr. Butt afterwards gave them to Mr. Cochrane Johnstone?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see him give them?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see Mr. Butt give him the other two hundred one pound notes he got from Lance?

A. No.

Q. You were not present then?

A. No, I was not.

Mr. Adolphus. We wish Mr. Wood now to produce out of the desk a watch, which he found in the possession of Mr. De Berenger.

[The Witness produced two watches.]

Q. Were they both in the box when you found it?

A. They were.

Mr. Bishop Bramley sworn;

Examined by Mr. Adolphus.

Q. What are you?

A. A watchmaker and silversmith.

Q. Do you live at Hull?

A. Yes.

Q. Look at those watches that lie there; did you sell those watches?

A. No, neither of those.

Q. Did you sell a watch to the gentleman who sits there?

A. Yes.

Q. For how much money?

A. Twenty-nine guineas and a half, £30. 19s. 6d.

Q. When was that?

A. The 4th of March.

Q. What name did he pass by?

A. We did not hear any name.

Q. How did he pay you?

A. In one pound Bank of England notes.

Q. Did you write any name upon them?

A. I put my own initials upon them.

Q. So that you will know them again if they are produced?

A. Yes.

[Mr. Miller produced some bank notes.]

Mr. Adolphus (to Bramley.) Look at those, and see whether those are part of what you received?

A. All these notes we took of the gentleman we sold the watch to, on the 4th of March.

Q. And that is the gentleman who sits there? (pointing to De Berenger.)

A. Yes.

Lord Ellenborough. What mark have you put upon them to know them again?

A. My own initials and the dates; it is written at the top end of the note.

Q. How are you enabled to say that those seven notes are what you received from the person who bought that watch?

A. We took no other Bank of England notes on that day.

Q. You marked them at the time you received them?

A. Yes, I received twenty in the forenoon, and the other eleven in the afternoon, and I marked them and paid them away the same afternoon.

Cross-examined by Mr. Park.

Q. I understand you to say neither of those watches found in the possession of Mr. De Berenger is the watch you sold?

A. Neither of them.

Q. You wrote upon all the notes?

A. Yes.

Q. Those are the only seven you have seen since?

A. Yes.

Mr. Gurney. You paid them all away?

A. We did.

John Bilson and Thomas Northover called again.

Mr. Gurney. Have the goodness to look over your book, and see whether those seven were part of the two hundred that were paid to Fearn?

[The Witnesses examined them.]

Mr. Bilson. Those seven notes were part of the property paid to Fearn on the 24th of February.

Benjamin Lance called again;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. On the 25th of February, did you give Mr. Butt a check on Prescott & Company, for £.98. 2s. 6d.?

A. On the 26th of February I did.

Q. Is that the check? [shewing it to the witness.]

A. That is the check.

John Isherwood sworn;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Are you clerk to Prescott & Company?

A. I am.

Q. Look at that check, did you pay that?

A. I did.

Q. On what day?

A. The date of it the 26th of February, I think.

Mr. Park. That is an entry in your own hand-writing.

A. It is.

Mr. Gurney. Did you pay a 50l. note?

A. Yes.

Q. What number?

A. No. 13,396.

Q. Did you pay also a forty pound note?

A. Yes, No. 6,268.

Q. Look at that, is that the £.40. note?

A. Yes, that is the note.

Mr. Gurney. Mr. Miller, will you produce the £.50. note? [Mr. Miller produced it, and it was shewn to the Witness.]

A. This is the note.

Mr. John Seeks sworn;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Look at that cancelled bank note for £.50. did you receive that bank note in payment from any person?

A. I gave change for it.

Q. On what day?

A. I cannot exactly recollect.

Q. About when; have you any minute on the back of it?

A. Here are some letters here that I know it by.

Q. To whom did you give change for it?

A. Mr. De Berenger's servant, Smith.

Q. The day you cannot exactly fix?

A. I cannot.

Mr. Serjeant Best. I submit to your Lordship, that is no evidence, until they call Smith.

Mr. Gurney. On referring to Mr. De Berenger's memorandum book, I find "W. S. £.50." which I consider as connecting itself with this.

Mr. Park. That book is not proved.

Mr. Gurney. It is proved by being found in the trunk.

Mr. Park. I object to that book being read; that is not the book which was before proved; as to that, Mr. Lavie gave some evidence of the hand-writing before the entry was read.

Mr. Germain Lavie called again;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Do you believe that to be the hand-writing of Mr. De Berenger?

A. Yes I do, most certainly.

Cross-examined by Mr. Park.

Q. I observe this is pencil writing you have been speaking to; did you ever see any writing of this person in pencil before?

A. No, never.

Q. There is no difference in a man's writing with a pencil and with a pen?

A. I conceive that to be written by Mr. De Berenger.

Q. It is exactly like the character of that letter which has been given in evidence upon your testimony?

A. Yes, it is the same sort of writing.

Mr. Serjeant Best. I submit to your Lordship, still I am not removed from my objection. There is first a check of £.98. 2s. 6d.; then an attempt is made to trace £.50. of that into the hands of Mr. De Berenger; the way in which that is attempted is, that a person says he gave change for that note of £.50.;—beyond that, they have produced a pencil memorandum, proved to be in the writing of Mr. De Berenger, at least there is some evidence of that; that pencil memorandum is merely this, not that a particular bank note; not that the note which came into the hand of the witness, and for which he gave change, but that a bank note of £.50. was paid to W. S. It does not appear that it was that bank note, and this, I submit, is no evidence in a criminal case.

Mr. Gurney. I submit to your Lordship it is evidence, valeat quantum, it does not prove that Smith received that bank note from De Berenger, but that it came from De Berenger's servant; I shall give no other evidence to bring it home to De Berenger, and I submit that it is admissible evidence, as that which is proved to come so near as the child, the wife, or the servant.

Lord Ellenborough. I think it is not evidence; it does not get the length of William Smith; but even if it were to be taken to refer to William Smith, it does not connect it with this bank note, or any other means of payment. I cannot translate "W. S." into "William Smith my servant," and "£.50." into "this £.50. bank note." You do not call William Smith.

Mr. Gurney. No, certainly not, my Lord,—I shall leave that to my learned friends.

Mr. Benjamin Bray sworn;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Where do you live?

A. At Sunderland.

Q. Will you look at this £.40. note, [shewing the witness the note just produced,] did you receive that £.40. note from any one?

A. From the waiter of the Bridge Inn at Sunderland.

Q. Did you see Mr. De Berenger about the time of the receipt of it?

A. I had seen him often prior to that.

Q. At Sunderland?

A. Yes.

Q. A waiter brought it to you?

A. Yes, with Major Burne's compliments.

Q. He brought you some message with it?

A. Yes, I gave him six £.5. notes for it, and ten £.1. notes.

Q. Bank of England notes?

A. No, of the Durham Bank.

Q. Did any thing pass between you and Mr. De Berenger afterwards, on the subject of that note?

A. The waiter returned in a few minutes afterwards.

Q. Did any thing pass afterwards between you and Mr. De Berenger, on the subject of that note?

A. Yes, he came shortly afterwards to take his leave of me.

Lord Ellenborough. Where did he come to?

A. To my house.

Q. What shop do you keep?

A. I am a druggist and agent to the Durham bank.

Mr. Gurney. How long had Mr. De Berenger been at Sunderland?

A. I had known him there from the 7th to the 21st of March. I apologized for not being able to send more Bank of England paper in exchange for the Durham bank notes; the waiter having been to request that I would send him Bank of England paper, I gave him a message to Mr. De Berenger.

Q. You made him an apology for not having sent him more bank paper in exchange?

A. Yes.

Q. In exchange for the note you had at first received; for that note?

A. Yes.

Q. What did Mr. De Berenger say, on your making the apology?

A. I apologized for not having sent him more Bank of England paper, and he acknowledged having received the whole of the notes I had sent him from the waiter.

Q. By what name did Mr. De Berenger go there.

A. Major Burne; he gave me his name.

Q. Is that the gentleman you have been speaking of? (pointing to De Berenger.)

A. Yes.

Cross-examined by Mr. Richardson.

Q. How do you know that £.40 note to be the note you received?

A. By a copy that I made at the time.

Q. Have you got that copy with you?

A. This is a copy of my waste book—the waste book is at Sunderland.

Q. You identify it by means of the copy which you have made from your waste-book, which book you have left at Sunderland.

A. Yes; and also from my initials on the back of the note.

Q. Made at the time?

A. A day or two afterwards.

Lord Ellenborough. Before you parted with it?

A. Yes.

Mr. Richardson. You are the agent of the Durham Bank?

A. Yes.

Q. You have a great many notes passing through your hands?

A. Yes.

Lord Ellenborough. Are you sure that when you made that memorandum, you had perfectly in your recollection from whom you took that note?

A. Yes, perfectly.

Mr. Richardson. You did not keep this distinct from your other notes?

A. No.

Q. You mixed it with your other notes?

A. Yes.

Q. You marked it several days afterwards?

A. I marked it between the 31st of March and the 4th of April, when I remitted it.

Q. You put your name upon every bank note that passes through your hands?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Why did you put your name upon this?

A. I cannot give a satisfactory answer why.

Q. Do you generally put your initials on notes that pass through your hands, or not?

A. No, I do not.

Q. How came you to do so in this particular case?

A. I have before answered that I cannot give a satisfactory reason.

Q. At Sunderland, which is a place of great business, do not a large number of bank notes pass through your hands?

A. Yes, there do of course.

Lord Ellenborough. Did the transaction of your sending Durham notes, and his objecting to not having more bank notes, fix the circumstance of the £.40. note more strongly in your memory?

A. I have not had another £.40. note since that.

Q. Nor had you at the time?

A. No, I had not.

Q. Nor since?

A. No.

Mr. Gurney. The only remaining head of evidence that I have to trouble your lordship with, is with respect to a check for £.56. 5s. paid by Mr. Fearn to Mr. Butt, and the produce of that.

Mr. Pattesall sworn;

Examined by Mr. Gurney.

Q. Are you a partner in the house of Bond & Company?

A. I am.

Q. Look at that check of Mr. Fearn's, did you pay that?

A. I did not.

Q. Who did pay it?

A. Mr. Evans, a clerk of ours.

Q. Is Mr. Evans here?

A. Upon my word I cannot tell.

Mr. Gurney. He has been expressly desired to be in attendance.

Lord Ellenborough. Then call him upon his subpœna if he does not appear.

Mr. Gurney. Just look and see whether the entry is Evans's hand-writing.

A. It is Evans's hand-writing.

Thomas Evans was called on his subpœna, and did not appear.

Lord Ellenborough. This entry then will be of no use to you.

Mr. Gurney. No, my Lord; it was mentioned that there were two Napoleons in the letter case: Mr. Wood has those two Napoleons to produce.

[Mr. Wood produced two Napoleons.]

Mr. Gurney. This, my Lord, is the evidence on the part of the prosecution.

---

Mr. Serjeant Best. I wish to apprize your Lordship that I think it will be necessary for the defendants to call witnesses.

Lord Ellenborough. I should wish to hear your opening, and to get into the defendants case, if I can; there are several gentlemen attending as witnesses, who, I find cannot, without the greatest public inconvenience, attend to-morrow.

Mr. Park.. The difficulty we feel, I am sure your Lordship will feel as strongly as we do the fatigue, owing to the length of our attendance here; but we will proceed if your Lordship desires it.

Lord Ellenborough. I would wish to get into the case, so as to have the examination of several witnesses, upon whom the public business of certain offices depend, gone through, if possible.

Mr. Park. I have undergone very great fatigue, which I am able to bear; but I would submit to your Lordship the hardship upon parties who are charged with so very serious an offence as this, if their case is heard at this late hour; and then a fresh day is given to my learned friend to reply.

Lord Ellenborough. It will not be a fresh day when you will be here by nine o'clock, and the sun will be up almost before we can adjourn; I will sit through it if you require it, rather than that.

---

Mr. Alley. On the part of M'Rae, I shall not trouble your Lordship with any witnesses or observations.

---

MR. SERJEANT BEST.

May it please your Lordship,

Gentlemen of the Jury,

I assure you I am extremely sorry on my own account, and still more sorry on your account, that it will be necessary for me, if I am able to do it, to take up a considerable portion more of your time, in the discussion of this most important question; a question, certainly, of great importance to the public; a question, of great importance to the three individuals whose interests are committed to my charge; for, gentlemen, upon the issue of this question, with reference to them, depends whether they are to hold the situation in society which they have hitherto held, or whether they are to be completely degraded and ruined.

Gentlemen, allusions in the course of the day have been made to that which passes at the Old Bailey; no sentence that can be passed there, can be felt more by the persons on whom it is passed, than a verdict of Guilty will be felt by these three persons.

Gentlemen, from the attention I have observed every one of you giving to the evidence, and from the accuracy of the notes that have been taken by the noble and learned Judge, I have, at this late hour, this consolation left to me, that whatever I may omit, you will supply; whatever I shall not be able to impress upon you, in the manner it ought to be impressed upon you, will be brought to your consideration by his Lordship, and that that explanation which I shall feel myself unable to give, he will be in a situation to give; and with this hope, I proceed to call your attention to the case of these gentlemen:—My Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and Mr. Butt; the interests of the other defendants being committed to much abler hands.

Gentlemen, there are very few of the introductory observations that were made to you by my learned friend, which I am in a condition, or feel any disposition to dispute. I by no means dispute, that what is charged in this indictment is not an offence of very considerable magnitude; if I was satisfied that it was not an offence which the law of the country reaches, I protest to you, that I would not take any objection upon that score; because I am quite convinced that acquittal, upon such a ground as that, would be an acquittal that would not answer the purpose of the respectable gentlemen that I represent before you.

Gentlemen, I have observed some of my learned friends asking questions, which seemed calculated to obtain answers on which some legal objection might be founded. I hope you will recollect, that I have never asked any such questions; on the contrary, I have avoided looking at the indictment, lest I should see any thing that should force an objection upon me, and prevent this case from being decided upon its merits.

Gentlemen, I certainly do admit, that it is a crime, and a crime of a great magnitude, for any person, by means of the circulation of false news, to attempt to raise the price of the public funds; in consequence of which, individuals who are fair purchasers of such funds, are compelled to pay more than the stock they purchase is fairly worth. I hope, whoever were the authors of this, which has been called, and improperly called, a hoax, will suffer for their offence; but when we are reminded, that certain persons have suffered by it, I must say, that the fair purchasers who have suffered, are but few in comparison to those who are objects of no compassion, namely, the gamblers who attended at the Stock Exchange upon this occasion.

Gentlemen, I admit also, that which has been stated by my learned friends, that it is not necessary, for the purpose of bringing home the crime of conspiracy to any individual who may be charged with it, that you should call a person who was present at any of the consultations—shew the casting of the different parts of those who were to act in the drama, and point out distinctly who those were who were to perform, and how afterwards they have performed these parts. I admit that all this is not necessary to be proved: conspiracy, like every other offence, may be brought home by circumstantial proof. Indeed, circumstantial proof is, in many cases, more satisfactory than that which is direct and positive, because it is free from the suspicion of falsehood. But I deny, upon this occasion, that there are any circumstances that bring home the crime of conspiracy to any of the three persons whom I represent. All that is proved may be true, and yet the defendants may be innocent. The circumstantial evidence that alone can warrant conviction, is the proof of such facts as could not have happened had the accused been innocent.

Gentlemen, whether Mr. De Berenger be the Colonel Du Bourg who pretended to bring the news from France, or not, it is not for me to discuss; I shall leave that question to my learned friend Mr. Park, who is counsel for Mr. De Berenger, and who, I hope, will be able to satisfy you that Mr. De Berenger is not that Colonel Du Bourg; if he is not that Colonel Du Bourg, then there is no evidence against either of the parties I represent. But admitting, for the purpose of my presenting the case to you which I am called upon to support, that De Berenger is that Du Bourg, still it is another question, whether either of these defendants were connected with De Berenger; and I do, notwithstanding what has been stated to you by my learned friend, that he was perfectly certain that he should bring home the guilt charged by this indictment to all the defendants, submit most confidently, that there is no evidence against either of my clients.

Gentlemen, it is extremely difficult, amidst such a mass of evidence as has been laid before you, to bring one's attention, or to call your attention immediately to the evidence that applied to any particular person. I will take the three cases in the order in which they stand upon this indictment; and the first of those three for whom I am concerned, is my Lord Cochrane.

Now, gentlemen, let us examine the evidence that is offered to you, to prove that he is connected with this conspiracy. It consists in this, that my Lord Cochrane did, on the 21st of February, sell £.139,000 Omnium; and further, that Mr. De Berenger was, on the morning of the 21st of February, at the house of Lord Cochrane. Gentlemen, as far as I can collect, from the attention I have been able to give to the evidence, I have stated the utmost effect of the evidence against my Lord Cochrane; for, gentlemen, though it was suggested by my learned friend, Mr. Gurney, that he should trace some of the notes which were found in the desk of Mr. De Berenger into the hands of my Lord Cochrane, I beg to state, that there is not one single note traced into the hands of my Lord Cochrane. I admit that there are notes found in the chest of De Berenger, traced into the hands of the other two defendants; but I believe I shall be able, by and by, satisfactorily to shew you how these notes came from the hands of one of the defendants into the hands of De Berenger, and to prove that they came into the hands of De Berenger, under circumstances altogether unconnected with that which is the subject of your enquiry; but I am, for the present, only considering the case of Lord Cochrane; and I would beg the favour of his Lordship now to refer to his notes, and I am persuaded his Lordship will go along with me in the observations I am making, that there is no evidence whatever to bring home any one of the notes to my Lord Cochrane.

Gentlemen, the only part of the evidence which has the least tendency to connect my Lord Cochrane, by means of the notes, with Mr. De Berenger, is the evidence that was given by a person of the name of Lance; there is not one other witness that attempts to state, that a single note traced from the hands of Lord Cochrane, ever was found in the hands of Mr. De Berenger; now, if you will have the goodness to attend to Lance's evidence, you will find that there were for a time put into the hands of Lord Cochrane two £.100 notes, which were afterwards found at the Bank, and in exchange for which two hundred one pound notes were given to the person changing them, and that a considerable quantity of those £.1 notes have certainly been proved to be found in the chest of Mr. De Berenger; but permit me to state, that though those two £.100 notes, by which one hundred £.1 notes were afterwards produced, are for a short space of time shewn to be in the hands of Lord Cochrane, that the same witness tells you, that those £.100 notes were got back from my Lord Cochrane again, before they were exchanged at the Bank; for he tells you, that he carried those two £.100 notes to the Bank for Mr. Butt. Gentlemen, my learned friend, who cross-examined Mr. Lance, certainly could not get from him that he was present at the time when my Lord Cochrane paid those two notes into the hands of Mr. Butt; but it is perfectly clear, from that which he subsequently stated, that at some period before they found their way into the Bank, and before they can furnish any means of proof against the parties, they must have been returned to Butt's; these notes might have been in the hands of any one of you, gentlemen; but the question is, on whose account the two hundred £.1 notes were received from the Bank, for it is these small notes which can alone connect the party with Mr. De Berenger. Now, I say, Mr. Lance, in a part of his evidence, stated, that though he was not present at the time Lord Cochrane returned the two £.100 notes to Butt, yet that he afterwards received those notes, not from the hands of Lord Cochrane, but from the hands of Mr. Butt; for Mr. Butt he went to the Bank; for Mr. Butt he got the two hundred £.1 notes, and those two hundred £.1 notes he delivered back into the hands of Mr. Butt. Gentlemen, I am sure therefore, that if I have made myself understood upon this part of the case, I have completely released Lord Cochrane from the effect of this evidence, for though the two large notes were once in his hands, these notes were never in the hands of De Berenger. The notes found on him were the small notes given in exchange for them at the Bank, and these were given to Mr. Butt, and not Lord Cochrane. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that though these had been in the hands of Lord Cochrane, from the money transactions taking place between them every day, it was Mr. Butt that was the possessor of those notes, at the time the £.1 notes were obtained for them; I am satisfied, therefore, you will see that this evidence does not connect Mr. De Berenger with Lord Cochrane. I am quite confident, therefore, that I am right, when I state to you, that my learned friend's attempt to draw an unfavourable inference from the circumstance of De Berenger being in possession of notes which once belonged to Lord Cochrane, is completely answered; and then I state again, that the only points which remain for your consideration, with respect to Lord Cochrane, are, first; the large sale of stock on the 21st of February; and, next, De Berenger being at his house on that day; with respect to the last circumstance, that is proved only by Lord Cochrane's affidavit, and I think I shall shew that Lord Cochrane, in that affidavit, completely explains that circumstance.

Gentlemen, with respect to the large sale on the 21st of February, I do not think the Committee of the Stock Exchange have conducted themselves quite fairly in a criminal case; because, in a criminal case, it is not fit to take up a piece of evidence just exactly at that point where it will suit the purpose of those who offer it, keeping back other evidence which they know is extremely important, which they must know is calculated to do away the effect of that which they offer. Now, gentlemen, for the purpose of implicating Lord Cochrane, the Stock Exchange have instructed my learned friend, Mr. Gurney, to state, and Mr. Gurney did, in pursuance of his instructions, state most expressly, that Lord Cochrane began his Stock Exchange speculations about one week before the 21st of February; and, till I cross-examined Mr. Fearn, you must necessarily have understood, as well from the statement of counsel, as from the evidence that has been offered, that Lord Cochrane, about six or seven days only antecedent to the 21st of February, had purchased the whole of the £.139,000 that was sold out on that day; that his lordship had never speculated in the funds before, and, therefore, that all his purchases must have been made in order that he might have so much stock to sell at this particular time. But, gentlemen, it turns out that Lord Cochrane had been deeply speculating in the Stock Exchange for several months before, and so the inference, that he purchased this stock with a view to the event that happened on the 21st of February, is rebutted; that Lord Cochrane did not first begin to buy this £.139,000 merely for the purpose of selling on the 21st of February, is most clearly proved by the testimony of Fearn and of Hichens, who say, that so early as the month of November preceding Lord Cochrane had bought very largely, and had sold very largely; and that he continued to buy and to sell, down to the very period of the last sale taking place; it is impossible, therefore, when the evidence is laid before you, that you can collect, merely from the circumstance of his selling so large a sum as £.139,000 on the 21st of February, that he was guilty of a conspiracy to occasion a rise in the funds on that day. The witness did not come prepared to state to you, what had been the extent of the sales made by Lord Cochrane on antecedent days; but when he states that he sold largely, (I think I may venture to say, that he sold nearly as much on previous days as on this occasion); you will find therefore nothing to distinguish the conduct of Lord Cochrane on the 21st of February, from that which had been his conduct on many days precedent.

Gentlemen, I trust therefore, that in a criminal case, you will think that the inference of criminality which is supposed to arise merely from the circumstance of the sale of this large quantity of stock, is rebutted by the fact I have now brought under your consideration; but you will have the goodness also to bear in mind another circumstance. I did expect, when I heard the case opened with so much confidence against Lord Cochrane, that you would hear of some particular directions being given to sell on that day; but, gentlemen, how does that fact turn out; no particular directions are given to sell on that day, but Lord Cochrane's general directions, from the first moment when he became a speculator in stock, were, that whenever any event should happen by which the stocks should be raised, one per cent. the broker was not to wait for particular directions, but to sell; and this large sale of £.139,000, from whence the inference is drawn, that Lord Cochrane necessarily knew of the conspiracy which had taken place, was made under these general directions. It is also to be observed, that Lord Cochrane was never present in the city a single hour during the 21st; there is no evidence given that he was there; on the contrary, all the witnesses that have been examined, have told you they did not see him there; all the stock was therefore sold on that day, without any interference on his part; and as it appears beyond all question, a very considerable part of the stock of all these gentlemen was sold before any of them came into the city, and without any particular directions on the subject of the sale of it.

Gentlemen, the sale of the stock which Lord Cochrane possessed, considering the circumstances under which he became possessed of it, and the circumstances under which it was sold, furnishes, I submit to you, no proof that he was privy to what they have called the hoax. I beg pardon of the noble and learned judge, for using this term, after the observation that his lordship has made upon it. I did not use it for the purpose of treating with levity the crime contained in the indictment; but it has been so frequently applied to this crime, both before and since the prosecution was instituted, that it is difficult in the hurry of speech to avoid using it.

Gentlemen, another circumstance has transpired, which I think furnishes a strong observation in favour of all my clients; namely, the practice of selling both stock and omnium, which the seller is not at the time of such sale in possession of. If Lord Cochrane had been privy to the fraud, would he have contented himself with merely selling the stock that he had previously purchased. Would you not have found him selling to every buyer that offered (and on the 21st of February there was no scarcity of buyers at the advanced prices) stock and scrip in any quantity; if he had been privy to the fraud, he must have known that the bubble would soon burst, that the funds would fall back to their former prices, and that by every sale that he so made, he must be a great gainer; yet he is not found selling the value of a shilling in this manner; nothing is sold but what had been previously bought, and that sold under general directions given to the broker previous to the day of sale, and previous to the time when the conspiracy could have been conceived. If his lordship had been one of the conspirators, he must have been found to have made many more thousands of pounds by the speculations of this day, than he either is or can be proved to have made hundreds. Avarice, always insatiable, which had in this case impelled the defendant to hazard every thing that was dear and valuable to him in life, stops short in the hot pursuit of its object, at the very moment when the most abundant means of gratification are brought within its reach. Does not then the inference of innocence, arising from what he did not sell, although he might have sold much, outweigh the inference of guilt, arising from what he actually did sell; what he did on this day, it is not only possible but probable that he might have done, and yet be innocent of the conspiracy with which he is charged; what he did not do, he could not have omitted to do, if he had been guilty.

My learned friend, Mr. Gurney, has told you, that the circumstance of his selling out as he did, proves his privity to the conspiracy. Men who were unconscious of the risk, says my learned friend, did not sell on the first rise in the market, but held their stock in the expectation of gaining still higher prices; but the defendant, knowing that the falsehood of the news would soon be discovered, and that its effect on the funds must be of very short duration, sells his whole stock on the opening of the market. I should have felt the force of this argument, had you found Lord Cochrane on the Stock Exchange, pressing his brokers to complete their sales; but when you find that his lordship was not present, and gave no directions for immediate sales, but that his stock was sold under orders given before the fraud could have been thought of, I trust that you will find it not worthy of much attention. If, however, you are to decide on the guilt or innocence of Lord Cochrane from the transactions of the 21st of February, you will look at the whole of his conduct, and when pressed to find that the circumstance of his selling is proof of his guilt, you will say, that the circumstance of his not selling more than he did, is a still stronger proof of his innocence. My learned friend will have an opportunity in his reply, of accounting why his lordship and his supposed co-conspirators did not sell more; and I think he will find it a task that will transcend even his powers, to account for it in a manner compatible with their guilt.

Gentlemen, the only remaining point relative to Lord Cochrane is this; that on the morning of the 21st of February Mr. De Berenger went to the house of his lordship. Gentlemen, it is material for your consideration how the Stock Exchange got the knowledge of that fact. Gentlemen, but for my Lord Cochrane, the Stock Exchange never would have known of the existence of any such person as De Berenger; but for my Lord Cochrane, it is impossible that the Stock Exchange could have instituted this prosecution, because it was by Lord Cochrane's affidavit only that the name of De Berenger was given to them. I am aware my learned friend stated to you, that the Stock Exchange had some reason to suspect that a Mr. De Berenger had been engaged in it before this affidavit was published; but, Gentlemen, my learned friend has offered no proof of the grounds of such suspicion; the only proof that he has offered upon the subject, is the proof which my Lord Cochrane's affidavit furnished him with. Now, Gentlemen, I have a right to say, that the mere circumstance of Lord Cochrane's introducing the name of Mr. De Berenger for the first time, in that affidavit, is of itself sufficient to repel the inference arising from the circumstance of De Berenger's going to his house. But, gentlemen, I am sure you will bear in mind the very important evidence that was given by Mr. Wright upon that subject. My learned friend may repeat again the observation with which he introduced this prosecution, that those who are wicked are not always wise, and that it so happens frequently, that men do acts without considering the consequences of those acts, and that it is in consequence of this want of consideration that criminality is often brought home to delinquents; but it appears from Mr. Wright's testimony, that Lord Cochrane was fully aware of the consequence of the affidavit that he was about to publish. Mr. Wright, the printer, who was called for the purpose of shewing that this affidavit had been printed by Lord Cochrane, tells you, that when he received the instructions from Lord Cochrane to print the affidavit, Lord Cochrane said this, I have no reason to think De Berenger was the man, but if he was, I have given the Stock Exchange a clue to him; so that you see, at the very moment that his lordship published that affidavit, he was perfectly aware of the consequence of what he was about; and he must know, that if the Stock Exchange could not find out who this man was who came to his house, it would be impossible for them to reach his lordship. He must know that they were likely to remain for ever ignorant who that person was. He comes forward and tells them who that person was, recollecting at the time he makes the disclosure, that if that person be guilty, he would by the act he was about to do deliver him over to their justice. What must those persons think of Lord Cochrane? who after this can consider him as implicated in the guilt of this conspiracy? the guilty men knowingly and advisedly point out to their prosecutors, the only course by which they can be hunted down; such guilty men must be men of too weak understandings to be answerable for their conduct either to God or their country. In the declaration that Lord Cochrane made to Mr. Wright, he did that justice to Mr. De Berenger which his knowledge of that gentleman compelled him to do; he said he did not think him guilty; but if he was guilty, he was about to give him up to the punishment that he justly merited. Gentlemen, there is more of simplicity, more of fair dealing in this behaviour, than was ever found connected with so much guilt as is imputed by the indictment that you are trying, to this defendant.

Gentlemen, let us look at the affidavit itself; my learned friend indulged himself with making upon it a great number of very harsh observations. It is easy to raise suspicions; but suspicion and conviction are different things. Recollect, that before you can convict Lord Cochrane, you must be convinced that this affidavit is altogether false. Gentlemen, it might possibly be said, that that noble Lord, not reflecting on the consequences of such an offence as that imputed to him by this indictment, might be engaged in it; but you must impute to Lord Cochrane a much more serious offence, one for which want of consideration will be no excuse, after that affidavit has been laid before you, or it is impossible for you to say that he can be convicted of this conspiracy; for it will not be forgotten by you, that at the close of that affidavit, my Lord Cochrane does, in the most solemn manner protest, that he is altogether innocent of the offence which is imputed to him by the Stock Exchange Committee. Gentlemen, I cannot put that better to you than in the words of the affidavit itself; after stating every thing that had taken place with respect to De Berenger coming to his house, his Lordship says, "Further, I do solemnly depose, that I had no connexion or dealing with any one, save the above mentioned, and that I did not directly or indirectly, by myself, or by any other, take or procure any office or apartment for any broker or other person for the transaction of Stock affairs."

Gentlemen, it is said that this affidavit has only been sworn before a magistrate; a lawyer, like my learned friend, knows that upon an affidavit so sworn a party cannot be indicted for perjury; but my learned friend will have a great difficulty in convincing you, that Lord Cochrane, whose education has been different from that of my learned friend, knew that he was not liable to that punishment. I am persuaded that he conceived himself as completely amenable to the guilt of perjury, as if that oath had been taken in a court of justice. But is the temporal danger that awaits an act of this sort, the only thing that could prevent a person of the character and situation in life of this noble person, from making such an affidavit. What reason has my learned friend given you to-day? What reason can you collect from the former life of this noble person, (for he has been before you, and has lived in the view of the public), that can induce you to believe that he is so completely lost to all sense of that which is right and wrong, to all sense of what is due to himself, as to go before a magistrate to make an affidavit, in which he must know he was deposing to that, which at the time he was making the deposition was absolutely false? Gentlemen, I ask you what evidence you have upon which you are to find this noble person, not only guilty of a foul conspiracy, but also of the still higher crime of wilful and corrupt perjury? Gentlemen, I am quite satisfied, you will not feel that there is any evidence in this cause, which can weigh down the testimony which my learned friend has thought proper to put in. I say the oath of Lord Cochrane makes the evidence offered on the other side kick the beam; that there is nothing to put in competition with the affidavit which my learned friend has himself given in evidence.

But, gentlemen, let us look at the narrative given in the affidavit, and see whether there is any thing improbable in it. Lord Cochrane states, that he had gone out on the morning of the 21st, with his uncle, not to go into the city, but to go to a man of the name of King, who was engaged in making for him a lamp, for which he was about to obtain a patent; is that true, or is it false? It is true, according to all the evidence in the cause; there is no doubt that Lord Cochrane did set out with Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, for the purpose of going towards the city. Did he go into the city? No one witness has shewn that he did. On the contrary, I think it may be taken as admitted, that he never was in the city on that day. Here then this part of the affidavit is most unquestionably confirmed. He states, that having proceeded to the house of this man, who was assisting him in preparing this lamp, he received a note in which he was desired to come home; then he states, he was informed that the person who brought the note was in the dress of an officer; and Lord Cochrane goes on to state, that imagining it was some officer who had just come from Spain, (and probably you may know, gentlemen, that Lord Cochrane, who is himself serving in the navy, has a very gallant brother at this time serving in the army in Spain, and with respect to whom, I believe I shall shew you in evidence, that he was exceedingly ill, and was considered to be in very great danger), he immediately connected that officer with his brother in Spain, and he proceeded in a hackney coach to his house, hoping for some account of his brother in Spain.

Gentlemen, it appears that the officer turned out to be Mr. De Berenger. Lord Cochrane then gives you an account of what Mr. De Berenger represented to be his object in coming to his lordship's house; he says that Mr. De Berenger had previously made applications to him to take him out to America, for the purpose of exercising his men in small arms, and that Mr. De Berenger renewed his application that morning to him to take him in the Tonnant, the ship to the command of which his Lordship was then appointed, and in which he was about to sail to America. Gentlemen, is this true? we have the evidence of Mr. Murray, a gentleman called on the part of the prosecution; we have the evidence of another person, of whom I cannot speak in the same terms as I do of Mr. Murray, for I shall by and by shew you that he is entitled to no credit, who certainly, as far as he speaks in favour of Lord Cochrane, is entitled to consideration; but where he speaks against Lord Cochrane, as I shall shew you, he is entitled to no consideration, for that he has vowed he will bring on the ruin of Lord Cochrane, in consequence of the refusal of a loan of money. We have it in evidence, that Mr. De Berenger did expect to go to America, under the protection of Admiral Cochrane and Lord Cochrane; the narration in the affidavit is thus confirmed by this evidence; the affidavit then goes on to state, that Mr. De Berenger told Lord Cochrane, that he had left the King's Bench, and come to Lord Cochrane for the purpose of going to America. That he, Lord Cochrane, stated to De Berenger, that it was impossible for his lordship to take him, that his ward room was full; and further, that De Berenger being a foreigner, his Lordship could not take him without the consent of His Majesty's Government; that he might go on board ship at Portsmouth; but in the meantime he must get the permission of His Majesty's Government, upon which his lordship says, De Berenger said he would go to the noble Lord, whom I have the honour to see in court, to get that permission; his affidavit then states, that De Berenger said to his lordship, I must take a great liberty with you, for it is impossible I can go to the first Lord of the Admiralty in the dress in which I now am; upon which he, Lord Cochrane, not suspecting that Mr. De Berenger had been making an improper use of the dress he had on, or his views in wishing to change it, furnished him with a coat and hat.

Here my learned friend, Mr. Gurney, makes an observation which I am sure he will be exceedingly sorry for having made; because he would not intentionally, in a criminal case, prejudice the case of the defendant by any argument that is not borne out by the facts of the case; he says, Did Lord Cochrane think it a right thing for his lordship to do, to furnish De Berenger with the means of escaping from his creditors? Gentlemen, there was no such thing thought of at the time, as the escaping from the King's Bench prison; the cloaths were to enable De Berenger to go to the Admiralty, and to Lord Yarmouth; and it was for the purpose of appearing before Lord Yarmouth and Lord Melville, that this change of dress was asked for, and not for the purpose of escaping out of the kingdom, and avoiding his creditors; whether Lord Cochrane was wise or not in acceding to this request, it is not for us to decide to-day; but I am sure you will feel it was straining the English law too much, to say of a good-tempered English sailor, that he is guilty of a conspiracy, because he yields to a request, to which a person more hacknied in the tricks practised on them, would not have acceded. If my learned friend could have shewn you, that all that the affidavit states, respecting De Berenger's going to America, was the invention of Lord Cochrane since the 21st of February, that nothing of the sort had ever been thought of before, such proof would have falsified the affidavit. But so far from offering any such evidence, all the evidence adduced confirms the statement in the affidavit; and yet my learned friend still ventures to ask you to disbelieve what Lord Cochrane has sworn, although his oath is unopposed by any testimony, and supported by all the testimony given in the cause.

Gentlemen, it is not my business to argue before you, that Mr. De Berenger went that morning to Lord Cochrane, expecting to obtain leave to go to America; it is enough for me that I satisfy you, that he pretended that that was the object of his visit; but why did he go there at all? Why my learned friend, Mr. Gurney, has given you the reason for his going to some person's house before he went to his own. He has told you, that it would have been highly imprudent, if he was Colonel De Bourg, for him to go to his own lodgings; the Stock Exchange would have had no difficulty in finding him out by means of the post-boys, had he driven home. He determined therefore to make a pretence for stopping at some other person's house; and what had passed between him and Lord Cochrane, afforded him a pretence for going to his lordship's.

Gentlemen, bear in mind this; you are to decide this cause upon evidence; you have no positive evidence of any thing that passed in the house of Lord Cochrane, except that evidence which my learned friend, Mr. Gurney, has given you from Lord Cochrane himself; you have had evidence upon the oath of my Lord Cochrane, that whatever concealed objects this gentleman had, the avowed object in going there, was that which he has stated; and in which, I say again, he is completely confirmed by all the evidence that has been offered in this cause. Gentlemen, if it was not for this purpose—if this was not the pretence on which Mr. De Berenger went there, he was much more intimate with Mr. Cochrane Johnstone than he was with Lord Cochrane; why did not he go there; Mr. Cochrane Johnstone lived only in the next street; if he went to the one house or to the other, because of a connection between him and these parties in a conspiracy, why happens it that he did not go to the house of the party with whom he was most intimate.

Gentlemen, there is another circumstance you will not fail to observe; it appears from this affidavit, and will appear from the testimony of witnesses whom I shall call, that Lord Cochrane was sent for to his house by Mr. De Berenger; now, in my humble judgment, that is an extremely strong circumstance to shew, that whoever was connected in this scheme, Mr. De Berenger could not have considered Lord Cochrane as privy to it. If Lord Cochrane was engaged in this conspiracy, what object could De Berenger have for sending for him back from the city, about half past ten in the morning; why, if he and De Berenger had been parties to this conspiracy to raise the price of stocks, Mr. De Berenger could not want to see Lord Cochrane; why therefore was his Lordship to be sent for out of the city, at the very time when his presence in the city was essential to the consummation of the fraud. This therefore shews to you, I think most clearly and satisfactorily, that De Berenger had sent for him on the pretence that Lord Cochrane states in his affidavit, and that Lord Cochrane was not informed of what was passing in the city, nor was in any wise privy to it.

Gentlemen, I have stated to you, that it appears to me that every part of the affidavit of Lord Cochrane is confirmed by the evidence which has been given by Mr. Murray, and by all the other evidence offered in the cause; that from all of it you may collect, that De Berenger did go there under the pretence stated, and that he did not go there as a place at which he was to terminate a journey which he had undertaken in concert with Lord Cochrane and others, for the purpose of raising the price of the funds. But knowing the evidence I have, I will not leave it upon this evidence, for this is a case too important to the honour and character of Lord Cochrane, for me to leave any thing undone which I think may possibly tend to produce that verdict, which I am sure every one of you will by and by feel rejoiced to give; I shall therefore adduce before you other evidence confirmatory of such parts of Lord Cochrane's affidavit as are capable of confirmation. Gentlemen, it has been said that this affidavit is false in this; that it states, that Mr. De Berenger when he came to Lord Cochrane's had on a green coat, whereas it is proved by several witnesses that he had on a red one; but let me suppose that their account as to the colour of the coat is true, and that Lord Cochrane's account is incorrect; would such a mistake, for it is impossible that it can be any thing but a mistake, weaken the credit due to Lord Cochrane. Men do not commit crimes, unless impelled to the commission of such by some strong motive; what object could Lord Cochrane possibly have for stating that this gentleman came in one coloured coat rather than another? Gentlemen, I think I can account for the mistake; my Lord Cochrane made this affidavit a great many days, I think some weeks, after the transaction had taken place; Mr. De Berenger belonged to a corps of riflemen in this country, commanded by Lord Yarmouth, and the proper dress of Mr. De Berenger, as a member of that corps, was a green uniform; my Lord Cochrane had often seen Mr. De Berenger in this green uniform. His lordship, when he made his affidavit, recollected the circumstance of Mr. De Berenger's being dressed in a military uniform, but there being nothing to fix on his lordship's mind the colour of the uniform, the sort of dress in which he had been accustomed to see Mr. De Berenger presented itself to his lordship's mind, as the dress De Berenger wore when his lordship saw him last. Gentlemen, I have now made all the observations that have occurred to me on this affidavit; I cannot, however, take my leave of it, without again intreating you to consider the circumstances under which it was made; remember Mr. Wright's evidence, and say if any thing can more strongly evince Lord Cochrane's consciousness of his innocence, than the publication of this affidavit. Gentlemen, you have been told, and truly told that Lord Cochrane is a public character. From the high station in which he was born, and the still higher place in the eyes of his countrymen to which his public services have raised him, his lordship may, without indulging any blameable vanity, one day expect to fill one of the proudest situations in the country.

Is a man so circumstanced likely to commit so sordid a crime as that with which he is charged? No prospect of gain could hold out any temptation to Lord Cochrane to put in hazard what he now possesses.

The public character which you have been reminded he possesses, would of itself repel such a charge as that which is made against him, though it were supported by much stronger evidence than has been offered in support of this indictment.

Gentlemen, I come now to the case of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone; and with respect to him, I find that the charge is attempted to be made out against him upon these grounds; first of all, that he was a very great speculator in the funds. Gentlemen, I charge again upon the Stock Exchange the same unfair mode of proceeding, with respect to Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, which they pursued in the case of Lord Cochrane: with respect to Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, they take up the case, I think, on the 8th, but my learned friend applied his observations principally to the 12th of February. Now, gentlemen, so far from that being a fair statement of the transaction, it appears most clearly, that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone had been speculating in the funds, and speculating as desperately from the month of November, as he was in this month of February. But another thing is pressed against Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, the largeness of his balance on the 21st of February, which is stated to be £.420,000; now, gentlemen, I am astonished that the Stock Exchange should instruct my learned friend to say any thing to you upon that subject, producing the account which they have produced; if Mr. Cochrane Johnstone had never had so large a balance before, there would have been something in the argument; but cast your eye up that page, and you will find that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, who is supposed to have been desirous of getting a quantity of stock into his possession, to sell on the 21st of February, had on the 14th £.615,000; so that this gentleman, who is supposed by the prosecutor's case, to have meditated a fraud by the sale of stock on the 21st, is found reducing his balance immediately before that day from £.615,000 to £.420,000; to contrive and carry into execution such a trick as that which has been practised, must have taken many days. It certainly must have been in contemplation as early as the 14th, how then can the prosecutors account for Mr. Johnstone's conduct in selling between the 14th and 21st, if Mr. Cochrane was one of the persons who had been contriving to put into his possession all the stock that he could purchase, for the purpose of selling it on the 21st; this is so entirely inconsistent with what must have been the view of a man engaged in a transaction of this sort, that a view of this paper is sufficient to show that there could not have been such an intention; look at this paper, and you will see what he was in the habit of selling; look at his daily sales, and you will find that he began selling; on the 9th that he sold £.10,000, on the 10th £.105,000, on the 11th £.35,000, on the 14th £.100,000, on the 16th £.10,000, on the 17th £.19,500, and on the 19th, this gentleman, who is supposed to have meditated such a fraud as this on the Monday following, sells out £.18,000. Let any man in his senses, any man not carried away with the feelings which agitate the Stock Exchange, in consequence of their having been outwitted; for these sharps, who are called flats by one of the witnesses, did not like to be taken in by other sharps. Let any dispassionate man look at this paper, and say whether Mr. Johnstone could have contemplated the rise in the funds that took place on the 21st.

Gentlemen, it is said that he made a very large profit; that will not prove much, because he was making this sort of profit on several occasions before. What was the general habit of his business, as to the Stock Exchange? Why, that he was content with a very small profit, constantly telling his brokers, that whenever they could get a profit they were to sell, and he was acting in the very same way, until the day on which this transaction took place.

Gentlemen, I have also to observe particularly, that though he did go into the city on the Monday morning, he was in the habit of going every morning; he did not get there any earlier on that day than on any previous day, and so far from his being concerned in the sale of this stock, a very considerable quantity (Hichens speaks to £.50,000) had been sold before he or any one of these gentlemen came there; how is it possible therefore to say, from the circumstance of his being possessed of this stock, and selling it, that he was implicated in this transaction; on the contrary, I ask you, looking at the whole of this evidence, ask yourselves this plain question, whether he was not selling on the 21st upon the same principles as he had been selling to an immense amount on the preceding days on which sales had been had?

Gentlemen, with respect to profit, I believe that will appear somewhat different from what it has been stated, if you cast up the amount of profits. We are sought to be charged with a fraud. Why? because these three gentlemen all together made a sum of £.10,000, which, however, these gentlemen of the Stock Exchange have put their hands upon, and nobody is likely to get at, as they state it; I believe the whole did not amount to more than £.6,000, but the prosecutors state it at £.10,000, that is to be divided among the three, another person taking a share too; but if profits have any thing to do with it, you will find the sales made by Mr. Cochrane Johnstone alone on the 17th, produced a profit of above £.8,000; how, therefore, can you presume, merely from the circumstance of the profits made on the 21st, that he was connected with this conspiracy? Gentlemen, he was near the Stock Exchange, and if in the secret, he certainly would have availed himself of the practice to which I have alluded, namely, selling at a favourable moment, stock he was not in the possession of; all the brokers have been examined, and not one of them has been able to tell you of one single shilling stock sold by these gentlemen, or either of them, of which they were not actually in the possession. It is impossible, if he is so rapacious a man as to engage in a speculation to ruin his fortune and his character, to account for his not taking advantage of such a state of things.

Gentlemen, next to the profit made by Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, is his having been engaged to take a house for Mr. Fearn; and here I was led to expect that my learned friend would falsify the statement made upon oath by Mr. Cochrane Johnstone; he was to prove, that what he had sworn to, or offered to swear to, of his not having taken the house was untrue; it is enough for me to say, that that is not proved; it is an unfounded statement of my learned friend, proceeding from misinstructions which have been given to him by his clients; but on the subject of taking this house, my learned friend must have felt the distress of his case when he pressed it upon you.—Why, gentlemen, what are you desired to find? not that these parties were generally engaged in stock-jobbing transactions; not that these parties had conceived an intention of dealing for a continuance in the stocks; but that they had planned a scheme by which, at one stroke, they were to cheat all persons who came to engage with them in the Stock Exchange; the fraud was to be over in a single day; they wanted no office for that; that could be wanted only for the purpose of carrying on that scheme of stock-jobbing, which these persons began in November, and have actually continued long subsequent to the 21st of February; but does it not appear that my learned friend is wrong in his instructions. According to the papers we have seen (most improperly circulated) a house was taken for Mr. Fearn, without his knowing any thing about it; and Mr. Fearn found himself seated in the office, without knowing how he came there.—Does that turn out to be the fact? No; it turns out that Mr. Butt had an office before, which he did not like; Mr. Cochrane Johnstone took another office for Mr. Butt; Mr. Fearn came to look at Mr. Butt's office, liked it, and it was kept for him. In consequence of this, this office, which you are told was taken by Mr. Cochrane Johnstone for Mr. Fearn, without his knowledge, was taken by Mr. Fearn for himself, because he found the house to be a convenient one; and it was suggested to him by his friends, that such a house would be extremely convenient to them. Upon this, Mr. Butt agreed to give up one of the rooms he had, and allowed Mr. Fearn to take possession of that room. Gentlemen, there is another thing which proves that the taking of this house had nothing to do with this particular day; you find, that Mr. Fearn not only continued to possess these rooms, sticking up his name there, but that he liked them so well, he has since taken the whole house, and now continues to occupy it.

Gentlemen, what is the next head of evidence pressed against Mr. Cochrane Johnstone? It is, that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone called, and left a letter on Saturday the 26th, at the lodgings of Mr. De Berenger. Gentlemen, in the first place, I have to observe, that it was but very loosely and unsatisfactorily proved, that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone was at the house of Mr. De Berenger on that day; but I will admit it, for that is the best way, perhaps. I never have denied, that Mr. De Berenger was acquainted with Mr. Cochrane Johnstone; I never denied that they were in the habit of dining together, and if they were, where was the harm of his leaving a note at the house of Mr. De Berenger.

Gentlemen, I did expect, as there has been so much activity (an activity by the bye that has gone beyond the proper line) in seizing the papers of this gentleman, that we should have seen the letter that Mr. Johnstone left at De Berenger's; but no such letter is produced, and although the prosecutors have got possession of every paper belonging to De Berenger, not a scrap of paper has been produced in the handwriting of my clients; all that is proved is, that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone called upon De Berenger, as one acquaintance would call upon another. Gentlemen, God forbid, that because he does so, it should be conceived that he is a party with Mr. De Berenger in this scheme, if he has been concerned in it.

Gentlemen, the next attempt is this, and a miserable one it is; all possible means have been had recourse to, for making it out; for not only has Mr. Basil Cochrane's servant been subpœnaed by the Stock Exchange, to prove who are the persons dining at his house, but the females of this family have been subpœnaed to this place, and kept here for the purpose of proving the same facts which might have been admitted at any hour of the day, and not only subpœnaed, but that subpœna sent by a person whose presence was the most insulting of any one who could have been selected in this town, and who could have been selected for no other purpose than that of offering insult to the members of this family.

Gentlemen, the next circumstance in this case is, that some money was found in the chest of Mr. De Berenger, which certainly had passed through the hands of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone. Gentlemen, I think you have a clue already given you, by which you can account how De Berenger became possessed of Mr. Johnstone's money. But I shall offer other evidence on this part of the case; I will shew most satisfactorily how that money came into De Berenger's hands. You have had it proved already, that Mr. De Berenger is an extremely ingenious artist; you have had it proved, that he was engaged by Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, for the purpose of planning a new Ranelagh, to be called Vittoria, near Alsop's Buildings. Now, I will prove to you, by a witness I will call, that part of this money was paid by Mr. Cochrane Johnstone to De Berenger, for the plans he had drawn for Mr. Johnstone of the projected garden; and the remainder was lent to Mr. De Berenger on his note of hand, by Mr. Johnstone. Fifty pounds was advanced in September last, when the plans of the garden were begun; and £.200 more was paid in the month of February, the 25th or 26th of February. Mr. De Berenger, at the time he was paid for his plans, stated that his distresses were such, that though what he had received was all he had a right to ask of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, in satisfaction of that which was due to him for what he had done at Vittoria Gardens, yet he hoped Mr. Cochrane Johnstone would advance him £.200 more, by way of loan. Mr. Cochrane Johnstone was exceedingly desirous of relieving the distresses of Mr. De Berenger; but he would not do it, unless he found he would be effectually relieved by the proposed loan. I will prove to you, therefore, that he took same days to consider of it; and on being satisfied on that point, he did lend De Berenger another £.200; and this money was paid in that manner to Mr. De Berenger and Mr. De Berenger has given his note for it, payable in six months.

Gentlemen, my learned friend told you, that bank-notes were good things to trace crimes; certainly they are. The finding of the notes puts me to give some account of them. I will do that by the evidence I have stated; and I have a foundation laid for the proof that I shall offer, by the evidence produced already in the cause. I have seen the plans; you shall see them; and after you have seen them, if you are called upon by the evidence produced in this cause to convict De Berenger, which I hope you will not be, you will lament that you are bound to convict a man whom you will find to be possessed of so much ingenuity and taste. You will find that the sum paid is but a small remuneration for the attention he had paid, and the skill he had bestowed, in the service of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone; but whether he was well or ill paid is not the question; the payment of the money, I admit, renders some explanation necessary, and I will give it to you.

Gentlemen, I come now to the case of Mr. Butt; and with respect to him the case is very much like that of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, therefore I shall have occasion to trouble you with but few observations. He is found to have had a large balance on the 21st of February, but he had as large a one before; he sold on this day, but he had sold a much before. He made only £.1,300 on that day; he had made much more on other days; there is not an atom of evidence connecting him with Mr. De Berenger; but the taking of the office applies to him as well as to Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and also the circumstance of some notes being traced into his hands. Here, gentlemen, I have a difficulty with respect to Mr. Butt, which I cannot explain by evidence so well as I can the transactions of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone; but I am persuaded you will feel that I can, by observation, as completely relieve him from the effect of those notes being in the hands of Mr. De Berenger, as I have Mr. Cochrane Johnstone. I will shew you, by the testimony I shall call, that this debt discharged to Mr. De Berenger, or the sum advanced by way of loan, was principally paid in one pound notes; if so, that will account for the whole of these one pound notes; and as to its going through the hands of Mr. Butt instead of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, is it any thing wonderful, when you find him acting as a sort of agent for Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, that they should have passed through his hands? But it will appear, that all the notes found in the trunk of Mr. De Berenger got into that trunk, either through the loan or payment of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone. One of the witnesses called for the prosecution has proved the payment by Mr. Cochrane Johnstone of the sum of £.200; but whether that relieves him from the whole or not, are you to say a man is guilty of a conspiracy on such a ground as this? I cannot call these persons for each other; being joined in the indictment, I am deprived of that opportunity. I do not find fault with the prosecutors so doing; but you must be content, under these circumstances, with the best explanation I can offer to you, with respect to that which appears against this gentleman. I shall offer you the best evidence the nature of the case admits; and I cannot do more. If direct evidence cannot be offered, you will not expect it, as my learned friend says on the part of the prosecution, I say on the part of the defendants, and much more strongly. If you see my clients offer you the best evidence the nature of the case admits of, with that I am sure you will be content.

Gentlemen, with respect to Mr. Butt, there is not a tittle of evidence bringing him into connection with Mr. De Berenger; no man has proved that ever they were seen in the same room; no person has ever brought them into connection together; and it is merely because Mr. Butt is a great purchaser of stock, and some of Mr. Butt's money is found passing through the hands of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone into the hands of Mr. De Berenger, that you are desired to find them all connected together in this conspiracy.

Gentlemen, I have divided these three persons cases; but there is an observation common to all the cases, which I feel it my duty to make to you. My learned friend said, he could not put them in the same room together; but I think if these persons were conspirators, he would have found no difficulty in bringing them nearer together than he has done. I think he might have shewn, that about the Stock Exchange, or at some place or other, they were at some time or other all acting together; we have eight or nine different persons, Mr. de Berenger, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, Mr. Butt, Lord Cochrane, Mr. Sandom, Mr. Holloway, Mr. Lyte, Mr. M'Rae, all charged as co-conspirators; did any man ever see all these persons together; between a great number of them there is not the least proof of connection; you are desired to find a conspiracy proceeding upon this supposition, that all these parties were acting in concert; and yet between two of the parties, there is no more connection proved to have existed, than there is between you and me, or you and any one of these parties.

Gentlemen, this observation I should have a right to make on any case of a conspiracy. I should have a right to say, it is too dangerous to say these persons were engaged together in a conspiracy; but, Gentlemen, permit me to call your attention to a particular fact proved in this case which negatives the connection of my clients in this conspiracy;—you have two persons who are stated to have made a confession of their guilt; one of these gentlemen appears to have felt the impropriety of his conduct, and in a moment when he had recollected himself, and recollected the offence of which he had been guilty, had gone with a mind disposed to make the fullest compensation that he could to those whom he had injured, and to state all that he knew of the transaction; he goes and he states, that having heard that a Mr. M'Rae was willing to give up the persons who were parties to this conspiracy, on the payment of a large sum; he considers it improper, that the Stock Exchange should be plundered of this large sum, by the extortion of Mr. M'Rae; and therefore, to prevent their paying this large sum to Mr. M'Rae, he (Holloway) goes to the Stock Exchange, and tells them all that Mr. M'Rae could tell them; and what does he say; it would have been enough if he had not said that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, Lord Cochrane, Mr. Butt and himself, were connected; but he says, in the most distinct terms, that he knew nothing of Lord Cochrane, Mr. Johnstone, or Mr. Butt. The way in which the case is put to you, is, that all these parties were acting altogether; if so, one of the actors must know who were the other persons that were engaged; and Mr. Holloway, who was an actor, declares that he knew nothing of either Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, Mr. Butt, or Lord Cochrane; but Lyte, who was present when Holloway made this declaration, does not contradict; he acknowledges his own guilt, and asks for mercy, but he does not attempt to inculpate my clients. I ask, are you against evidence; against the evidence offered by the prosecutors, for this evidence forms a part of the prosecutors case, to say that these persons were connected with the conspiracy.

Gentlemen, if Mr. Holloway could, at the time he was disposed to make confession of his own guilt, have gone the length of saying, I can prove that Lord Cochrane is a conspirator, I can prove that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone is a conspirator, he would not have been here to-day to answer for his crime; he would not only have been paid, but most amply rewarded, if he could have given any testimony by which the conviction of my clients could have been obtained.

Gentlemen, there is another circumstance I must take leave to press upon you. It seems to me that a conspiracy of this sort could never be carried into effect without some broker being concerned in it. If my clients had been concerned, they would certainly have consulted some of the brokers who have been examined. It is impossible that they could have kept the secret from these brokers; and yet I think it is perfectly clear that they knew nothing of it. It is not pretended by the prosecutors that they had, and from the fairness with which they have given their evidence, it is but just to acquit them of any participation in it.

Gentlemen, I beg to be understood in what I am now about to say, as not intending to impute any thing wrong to Government or to the Stock Exchange; though I think I may venture to say, that what has been done as to the breaking open the trunk, and the searching for these papers, cannot be justified by law; for I know of no law that justifies the Government of the country, or any magistrate whatever, in breaking open trunks and taking away papers on suspicion of a misdemeanor; yet I am not disposed to impute blame to public officers, when impelled by proper and adequate motives, they go a little beyond the strict letter of the law; but where such powers have been exerted to detect guilt, if guilt had existed, it could not have escaped detection. There has been a degree of activity exercised to bring home the guilt to these persons, which I never saw on any former occasions; liberties have been taken which I never saw in a case of misdemeanor before. All De Berenger's papers have been ransacked and taken from him, at a moment when he could have no idea that they would be taken, and therefore could not have destroyed or secreted any, and yet not a single paper is found (but the bank notes), not a single letter; the parties to the conspiracy are never brought together in connection, and it does not appear that there has been any communication by letter. Here seems to be a conspiracy without any possible means of conspiring. I do not see how men are to conspire without communicating with each other, and I am not aware of any other modes of communication than conversation or writing; yet you are desired to find several persons guilty of a conspiracy, without any communication having been proved to have been had between them, and without any writing of any sort having been found.

Gentlemen, there is one other circumstance to which I would wish to allude; not that it concerns my clients, for I am persuaded his lordship will tell you the evidence given by that extraordinary man, Le Marchant, does not bear upon either of my clients, because though where several engage in a conspiracy, you may offer evidence that will affect any one of them, yet the declarations of one cannot affect another; now Mr. Le Marchant was never in the company of Lord Cochrane, he never heard one word that Lord Cochrane said; all that he speaks of are conversations with Mr. De Berenger, which may be evidence against Mr. De Berenger, but in point of law or common sense are no evidence against Lord Cochrane; but I will dispose of this man for the sake of the country, that he may never be sent out of the country in any office. I will shew you that he is a man utterly unworthy of credit, for I will prove to you by his own letters that he comes forward to-day, because Lord Cochrane has refused to lend him money; gentlemen, I have a letter of his, in which he desires to have an interview with Lord Cochrane; he has admitted his own hand-writing to the letters, which I will by and by put in. Lord Cochrane very properly gives no answer to the first letter desiring an interview; on the 7th of April 1814, the first being on the 6th April; on the very next day, Lord Cochrane not answering him, he writes an impertinent letter to Lord Cochrane, which you shall hear read; but I produce it for the purpose of introducing the letter which he admits Lord Cochrane wrote to him, and his answer, from which I argue Lord Cochrane's innocence, and this man's infamy. If Lord Cochrane had felt himself a guilty man, he would not have denied this man when he suggested that he could be of use to him in this cause, but you will find from Lord Cochrane's letter, he says, "I should have hoped, that circumstanced as I am, and attacked by scoundrels of all descriptions, that a gentleman of your understanding might have discovered some better reason than that of silent contempt."

Mr. Gurney. My learned friend has not yet proved that letter.

Mr. Serjeant Best. I proved that he had the original in his hand; this is the letter of the guilty Lord Cochrane to the innocent Mr. Le Marchant, in answer to the two applications for an interview. "Sir, I should have hoped, circumstanced as I am, and attacked by scoundrels of all descriptions, that a gentleman of your understanding might have discovered some better reason than that of silent contempt;" that is, what he complains of to Lord Cochrane in his second letter, "to account for the delay of a few hours in answering a note; the more particularly as your note of the 6th led me to conclude, that the information offered to me, was meant as a mark of civility and attention, and was not on a subject in which you felt any personal interest." A more prudent letter than that, I defy any man in Lord Cochrane's situation to write. A guilty man catches at any twig, but Lord Cochrane does not answer this gentleman at first, and when pressed by a second letter, he tells him the reason; it is unsafe you and I should meet, I cannot trust you, I am surrounded by scoundrels who are attempting to charge upon me a crime of which I know I am innocent.

Gentlemen, having stated to you in what light this letter shews Lord Cochrane, I beg to read you the last letter of this man, who has offered his evidence to-day; and I will then ask you, whether upon the testimony of such a man as this, you will convict one of the most suspicious characters that ever was produced in a court of justice; whether you would in any cause, of ever so trifling importance, give the least consideration to it. "I ask your lordship's pardon of my letter of yesterday, and which was written under the supposition of being treated with silent contempt;" so that this gentlemen put the true construction upon it, certainly. "To convince you of the high respect I have for your lordship, I have the honour to enclose to you a statement of what I know relative to the 21st February, and I also now declare solemnly, that no power or consideration shall ever induce me to come forward as an evidence against you, and that all I know on the subject shall be buried for ever in oblivion. Thus much I hope will convince you I am more your friend than an enemy, as my testimony, corroborated by the two officers, would be of great import, not (believe me) that I myself doubt in anywise your lordship's affidavit; but De Berenger's conversation with me, would, to your enemies be positive proof. As for my part, I now consider all that man told me to be diabolically false;" and yet he has to-day come forward to tell you the truth, and the whole truth; he has told you what De Berenger said, and has not stated the qualification, that he did not believe one word of it. "If my conduct meets your approbation, can I ask for a reciprocal favour, as a temporary loan, on security being given; I am just appointed to a situation of about £.1,200 a year, but, for the moment, am in the greatest distress, with a large family; you can without risk, and have the means to relieve us, and, I believe, the will of doing good. Necessity has driven me to ask your lordship this favour; whether granted or not, be assured of my keeping my oath now pledged, of secrecy." He has kept that oath, I dare say, as well as he has kept this; he went and gave information, and comes forward to-day to give evidence; you remember how he fenced with the evidence. I ask you, whether you believe, after I have read this, one word of what he has said. I ask you, whether this is not taking advantage of the situation of this noble lord. I am sorry to see that a man can act so scandalous a part, who has the honour of being appointed to a situation of £.1,200 a year; but I am quite satisfied the moment the Government know this, that suspension which does exist, will be continued, and that this man will never be sent to the office to which he was destined. I am quite satisfied, that when this letter is read, you will feel, that even as it respects Mr. De Berenger, for it is applicable only to him, his evidence can have no influence in any court of justice whatever, for that it comes from a man who, in the clearest and most unequivocal manner, declares himself most infamous, and most unworthy of credit.

Gentlemen, I am conscious that fatigued as I felt myself, when I rose to address you, after having been thirteen or fourteen hours in court, I have very imperfectly discharged the duty which I owed my clients; but, gentlemen, I hope they will not suffer, from not having their case presented to you as it ought to have been. Gentlemen, I do not press upon you the considerations which, in criminal cases, are often pressed, and with propriety pressed, upon juries. I do not ask you to take this case in a merciful point of view; I do not press upon you the common observation, to temper your justice with mercy. I ask you to look at this case fairly and impartially; if the guilt of these gentlemen be made out, so that you, upon your oaths, must declare them guilty, say so, dreadful as will be the consequence to all these parties; but unless their guilt is made out, if there be nothing but suspicion, you will not, upon your oaths, say that suspicion is conviction.

Gentlemen, you will recollect the situations of life in which all these men are; they have all up to this moment been the best possible characters, two of them are persons of very high and distinguished situations in life, members of a very noble family; and with respect to one of them, he has reflected back on a long and noble line of ancestors, more glory than he has received from them; and it would be the most painful moment of my life, if I should to-night find that that wreath of laurel which a life of danger and honour has planted round his brows, should in a moment be blasted by your verdict.

Mr. PARK.

May it please your Lordship;

Gentlemen of the Jury,

If my learned friend, at the close of his address to you, thought it necessary to make an apology for the fatigue which he had endured in the course of this day, and during his address to you; it becomes much more necessary for me to make such an apology, when it is now sixteen hours and a half since I left my own dwelling. Gentlemen, notwithstanding that, I have a very serious and important duty to discharge to the person who now sits by me, and I have no difficulty in calling upon you, in the most serious manner, fatigued and exhausted as you may be, for your attention; you must not permit, I take the liberty of saying, as you regard the oath you have taken, you must not permit that fatigue to disable you from attention to the statement and the evidence that are to be laid before you.

Gentlemen, the case has become an extremely serious and a most important one; for the gentlemen for whom my learned friend the Serjeant has addressed you, I have nothing to say; they have been well and ably defended; but I am to address you on behalf of a gentleman totally unknown to me till this day, when I saw him in Court. He is represented to me as a gentleman of very high descent, and though he has been unfortunate in his pecuniary circumstances, he has been proved, before you to-day, to be man of very considerable attainments, and of high and literary character; it is therefore your duty, and I know it is a duty you will honestly and faithfully discharge, not to allow what my learned friend cautioned you well against, but immediately fell into the very same course himself; not to allow any thing like prejudice to bias any of your minds.

Gentlemen, I am no flatterer of persons who sit in your place; and I have no difficulty in telling you twelve gentlemen, that, though I have no doubt you are honorable men, you cannot have lived in this city, in which you are all merchants, for the last two months of your lives, without having every hour of the day, and at every meal at which you sat down, had your ears assailed by accounts of this transaction, and there is no one, however honourable he may be, who can prevent his mind being biassed by circumstances stated in common conversation. Gentlemen, I only know this matter publicly; but I declare one could hardly go into any company, where the discourse has not been turned upon this very circumstance we are now discussing; how difficult is it then for you to recollect, that you are not to decide upon any thing you heard before you came into that box, but upon the evidence produced before you. But, did my learned friend himself follow that course which he prescribed to you? Did he embark no prejudice into this matter? My learned friend will give me leave to say, that I own it is quite new to me, that in discussing criminal matters, the counsel for the prosecution are to argue it and labour it as they would a cause between party and party:—I dare say I have been extremely faulty in that respect, but having been engaged in criminal prosecutions, chiefly in the service of His Majesty, I never thought myself at liberty so to treat criminal prosecutions. I have generally acted on the opposite scheme, and mean, till corrected, so to continue to act; but at all events, I am surprised that my learned friend, with whose good nature in private life we are all acquainted, should have introduced before you, that which I say my learned friend's great experience in courts of justice told him, before he pronounced it, he had no right to read in evidence before you. I do not speak lightly of this; you will remember we had an affidavit, supposed to have been made by William Smith, read verbatim from some pamphlet my learned friend had in his hand; he knew perfectly well that it could not be given in evidence; if William Smith was called as a witness, undoubtedly my learned friend might ask him, whether he had not sworn the contrary at another time; but it will be for my learned friend to explain to you, under what rule it was, that he was at liberty to read such a document as a part of his speech, which, by the rules of law, could not be received in evidence in this place.

Gentlemen, there was another circumstance which my learned friend has introduced to prejudice this case; and unless I have deceived myself, or my ears have deceived me, I have heard no such evidence given in the cause, as my learned friend stated; a stronger statement to prejudice could hardly be made in a case of this sort; but I heard no such question put to Wood, the messenger, and I listened with all the attention I could to his examination.—My learned friend stated, that Mr. De Berenger had been extremely anxious to get back into his hands the identical notes; that no other notes would serve him; that he must have those notes, and those only delivered back. Was this stated without any reason by my learned friend? Certainly not; it would have been, if the fact had corresponded with the statement, an extremely strong argument on the part of my learned friend against this gentleman for whom I am counsel. But my learned friend, and his learned coadjutors, never put to any witness, at any one period of this cause, the question, whether Mr. De Berenger made any such application to their knowledge? and all this is a gratuitous statement of my learned friend, but a statement that went to prejudice, or was intended to prejudice, your minds upon the subject, and it undoubtedly was very important.

Gentlemen, this may have been said in places unknown to me; it may have been said in newspapers for aught I know to the contrary; but, thank God, I never read newspapers with that attention some gentlemen do, for I think it is a great waste of time. If men are in public situation, they must read them; but I have heard no statement in evidence of that circumstance, which my learned friend Mr. Gurney so much relied upon, and so much reasoned upon in his statement to you.

Gentlemen, it was also said, that there had been publications in this case; I do not know by whom those publications have taken place. There was some evidence given by Mr. Richardson, of a publication by Mr. Butt; that I suppose my learned friend has seen; I have not; but I do not go along with my learned friend in this; I do not agree, that these are the necessary consequences of a free press; I have always been of opinion, and always shall, because it is firmly rooted in my mind, that all previous publications on one side or the other, tending to inflame the minds of the Jury, who are to try questions between the King and his subjects, or between party and party, on whatever side they may be published, are most highly and extremely improper. I think it is a disgrace, that the press of this country has engendered such an avidity in the public mind to have these things detailed to them; that they indulge it to a degree subversive of all justice. Hardly a case has happened within our own observation of late years, that the whole of the case has not been detailed before it came to trial, so that it is impossible but that the minds of the jurymen (and men cannot divine whether they shall be jurymen or not) should receive a bias upon this subject; but it is very hard that all the obloquy which such publications merit, should be thrown upon the defendants. Did that self-constituted Committee of the Stock Exchange, of which I shall speak much more plainly by and by, and tell you what I think of that committee; did that self-constituted Committee of the Stock Exchange, who have brought forward this as a charge against the defendants, make no publication; did they not placard on the doors of their Stock Exchange, the names of these gentlemen, members of the legislature, and persons standing so high in the country? Why did they set so infamous an example? I admit to follow it was bad; but to set it, I insist, was much worse.

Gentlemen, whatever blame may have attached upon some of the defendants, if they have made these publications, my client, Mr. De Berenger, is not implicated in any such transactions. Those who have published have only followed the example set them by the prosecutors on this occasion.

Gentlemen, there are certain rules of evidence on subjects of this nature, with which I am sure you are in a great degree acquainted, but upon which you will hear more from his Lordship by and by. It is quite clear that no declarations of one party, though he may be indicted with the others, can be evidence against the other defendants, unless they be present at that declaration. My learned friend, the Serjeant, has so fully gone through the general nature of the case, that it would be impertinent in me to do it; but I shall observe such things as occur to me, on the different species of proof on the part of the prosecution, and I think I shall most decidedly convince you, that even as the case stands, if it was not to be met by the evidence by which it will be met, it would be impossible for you to convict any of these parties, for whom my learned friend and myself are counsel.

Gentlemen, I will presently come to the evidence by which Mr. De Berenger is supposed to be traced from Dover to London; but the great point upon which my learned friend relied, as affecting him after he came to London, was the contradictory statement, as it is supposed, of Lord Cochrane in his affidavit. Gentlemen, first, upon the subject of what are called voluntary affidavits. It is extremely absurd in magistrates ever to take them; no man who knows the law, if he knew he was taking a mere voluntary affidavit, would swear the person before him; but as far as the magistrates are concerned, it is impossible from the nature of the thing, that they should know whether they are voluntary affidavits or not, for there is a great part of the business of magistrates which does not depend upon the hearing of parties, and unless they were to read every affidavit through, which would be to impose a great burthen upon them, they must sometimes swear a party to a voluntary affidavit.

But, Gentlemen, let us look to Lord Cochrane's situation in this matter. I will suppose that Lord Cochrane knew he was not liable to the pains and penalties of perjury by law; but is Lord Cochrane so reduced in the scale of society by any thing that has yet appeared before you, that you will say he has not only joined in committing the fraud in this conspiracy charged, but that he is a person wholly unworthy of credit, and who, though he may not be subjected to the penalties of perjury, is lost to all sense of duty, so that he would, because he could not be prosecuted at law for the perjury, put his name to a direct and absolute falsehood. I believe no man would say of Lord Cochrane, that he had so utterly thrown off all regard to religion, to the sanction of an oath, properly so called, and to the responsibility he stands under in conscience, as that he would go before a magistrate and make an affidavit, because he could not be prosecuted. I think the supposition is so shocking and so degradatory to him as a man, an officer and a christian, that you will not come to that conclusion. That Lord Cochrane is a brave man, that he has served his country well, no man will deny. Does Mr. Baily then, do the three other brokers, who demurred to the question put to them as to time bargains; do all this mass of people, constituting the Stock Exchange, now standing within the sound of my voice, mean to say, that because Lord Cochrane has acted so improperly (for I so consider it) as to enter into a time-bargain, therefore he is not to be believed upon his oath? If so, Gentlemen, the Stock Exchange and its doors must be shut up for ever; and the great men who stalk about as the self-constituted Committee of the Stock Exchange, must not have any thing to do in future, because time-bargains are their daily bread; they are at that species of traffic daily, conducting themselves in a manner, whether they like it or not, I say, is most highly disgraceful.

Gentlemen, is Lord Cochrane to be believed or not? have you any ground for saying, that this noble Lord has been guilty, not of perjury in the common sense of the word, but of perjury of a much higher kind, in my view, for which he must be accountable, for which he knows he must be accountable, if he has sworn that which he knows to be false, and which he cannot have done without being one of the most worthless men in the world. Gentlemen, what has he said? and I beg your particular attention to it, because the evidence of the brokers will not tally with the statement at all; he has sworn that he breakfasted with his uncle, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, in Cumberland place, which is at a considerable distance (whatever my learned friend may suppose about it) from Green-street Grosvenor-square; it is on the other side, I believe, of the Oxford Road, and near the top of it. It is proved that he breakfasted with him, for Crain's evidence is, that when he set down Mr. De Berenger at the door, the answer was, that he was gone to Cumberland Place. What does Lord Cochrane state; that he went with his uncle in a hackney coach, which took him into the city at the hour of ten in the morning. I beg his lordship's particular attention to that part of the affidavit. Now, Gentlemen, when is it that these time-bargains are supposed to have been made, in consequence of news which it is alleged Mr. De Berenger brought. It is sworn that they were made before eleven o'clock in the day. Why, Gentlemen, we are forgetting distances. If Lord Cochrane was set down at Snow-hill at ten in the morning, if he afterwards came back, as he did, to Green-street Grosvenor-square, being sent for by his servant or Mr. De Berenger, he could not be back before half-past ten or nearly eleven, and I defy all mankind to state how he could after that have communicated to the Stock Exchange, the news this gentleman was supposed to be dispersing abroad, so as to affect the price of stocks. The whole of the transaction took place before eleven in the day, and he was not sent for from Snow-hill till after ten. Why, if this gentleman had been a conspirator with Lord Cochrane, when he heard that Lord Cochrane was gone to Snow-hill, he would have gone on to Snow-hill, then they would have been near the purlieus of that place where all this infamy is daily transacting; instead of that Lord Cochrane comes back. It is too ridiculous and absurd, says my learned friend, to suppose that Lord Cochrane should be coming back to see an officer. I hope, gentlemen, that will not appear to you to be absurd under the circumstances he has sworn to. I can hardly conceive a motive stronger on the mind of a brave man and a good officer for going back, than that stated by him. He was not acquainted with Mr. De Berenger's hand-writing, though Mr. Cochrane Johnstone was. Having a brother in Spain, he expected that he should receive accounts of him from a brother officer; is that an unnatural sensation? I trust it will never be so in the bosom of any one to whom I am addressing myself; it is one of the most natural that can be stated, and under that impression he goes back, and holds the conversation which has been stated.

Gentlemen, it is stated to you by my learned friend, the Serjeant, and he has better means of proving these things than I have, that the grounds upon which this matter rests, as far as Lord Cochrane is concerned, will be fully explained. The gentleman for whom I appear was, at that time, under duress on account of debt; and Mr. Tahourdin, now his attorney, was his security for that debt. He was a distressed man, and was desirous of going out to Sir Alexander Cochrane, who had had conversation with this gentleman, whose bravery and whose character nobody will dispute; and it will be proved to you Sir Alexander Cochrane had made application to the noble lord near his lordship, to enable him to go out to America; but he could not go, because His Majesty's ministers thought (and I dare say most wisely) that it was not fit to give him the rank which he claimed, being a foreigner by birth, though he had been long serving in this country with the approbation of His Majesty's Government. He was a member of the corp of sharp shooters, of which Lord Yarmouth or the Duke of Cumberland was the colonel. He was the adjutant of that regiment, and he had that military garb and dress which might have been sworn to by Lord Cochrane in the way my learned friend supposes, or in consequence of the facts which I have to state. I do not know why I am placed here at all, if I am to take for granted facts because witnesses have sworn them; therefore I say, Lord Cochrane might either mistake, upon the grounds upon which the learned Serjeant has stated it; or the fact might be, as my learned friend has stated, that he was not the man. I know that some of the witnesses have sworn that he was the man whom the hackney coachman took to Lord Cochrane's, but whether he had this uniform on which is stated, I have no means of proving from his declaration; but I have Lord Cochrane's affidavit as to his wearing that which was his proper uniform.

Then, gentlemen, upon my Lord Cochrane's affidavit it stands, and I say that at present there is not evidence enough to meet it. We have not often had the experience of that which has been done to-day; I believe not above twice in my professional life have I seen a prosecutor put in an answer in Chancery of the person who was defendant, and then negative that answer; but I say, there is not that negation of Lord Cochrane's story which can set it aside. You are bound to take all that Lord Cochrane swears upon the subject; and he has sworn to you that Mr. De Berenger did not communicate to him any single fact respecting the stocks, but that all his communication was with respect to his then distresses. Now, gentlemen, where is the inconsistency of that which appears upon the evidence before the Court, and that which will be produced. If this gentleman was desirous of going out with Lord Cochrane in the Tonnant, and if he had done that which I am not commending, though I shall presently shew it is not so culpable as it at first appears. He had no right, I acknowledge, to break the rules of the King's Bench, having the benefit of those rules, but where is the great wickedness of it? He gave bail to the marshal to answer the risk; but if he had come out of that place, dressed as you hear, by my Lord Cochrane, he had done so with a view of going immediately off to Portsmouth; and when my Lord Cochrane could not take him, though there was no inconsistency in his coming in that uniform, which was to be useful to him if he got out to America, there was a great deal of difficulty, at twelve or one in the day, in his returning in that garb or dress into the rules of the King's Bench prison, for he had not only to walk from the place whence those rules began to the house of Davidson, but first of all to where the rules began; and therefore, though it might be imprudent in Lord Cochrane, I shall prove that he did lend clothes to Mr. De Berenger, for that he returned in the black clothes to his lodgings, and that he had in a bundle those clothes which he had taken out on his back. There appears to me nothing so absurd in the story as to induce you to say, that Lord Cochrane has written to the public that which was wholly and absolutely false within his own knowledge, in order to deceive the public.

Gentlemen, when this person found that he could neither go with Lord Cochrane, nor in any other capacity, to Sir Alexander Cochrane, who was then out of the kingdom, you will ask me, why did he then escape from the Rules? Gentlemen, I will tell you:—The fact is, though he was only in duress for £.350; and although this gentleman who sits near him, who is his attorney, and will be called as a witness in the cause, was the principal creditor, who had been his surety for the Rules, he escaped from the Rules, under the apprehension that he should have detainers against him for four thousand pounds more. He asked this gentleman permission to go out of the Rules. I am not prepared to defend the act; but he was the only person who was beneficially interested in his remaining in the Rules; for he and Mr. Cochrane, in Fleet-street, having given this bail, the marshal of the King's Bench could, of course, come upon them for the amount of that sum; and I will prove to you, that he had the leave of this gentleman to go, and that this gentleman took the debt upon himself. He went to Sunderland, and afterwards to Leith; and he went there to avoid that which he was apprehensive of, namely, detention by his other creditors, to this very large amount.

Gentlemen, when we talk of prejudice upon this subject, this very thing has been attempted to-day to be put upon his lordship; and you, as a matter of prejudice against Mr. De Berenger, namely, that Mr. Tahourdin, who was attorney for Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and Mr. Cochrane (a relation as it was supposed of this family, or there was no sense in it) were his bail. But, gentlemen, Mr. Broochooft has negatived the fact; he states that he did not even know Mr. Cochrane Johnstone. Mr. Tahourdin was a creditor of Mr. De Berenger to the amount of four thousand pounds, but he had so good an opinion of him that he consented to his liberating himself; and as to the other security, Mr. Cochrane the bookseller, he is no more a relation of the family of Dundonald, than I who do not know the persons of any of them; but he is a friend of Mr. Tahourdin, whose sister is married to Mr. White, Mr. Cochrane's partner; that is the history of the transaction on which it is supposed that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone has been putting in bail, because Mr. Tahourdin was his attorney; but it will appear that bail was put in two years ago, and that Mr. Tahourdin did not become acquainted with Mr. Cochrane Johnstone till long after that time.

Gentlemen, there have been other prejudices attempted here; they are prejudices that I think could never have entered into the mind of any liberal man; they must have entered first into the minds of the Stock Exchange Committee, for no gentleman could think of such a thing; that which I refer to is, that which my learned friend the Serjeant has commented upon, the proof of Mr. De Berenger being a friend of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, from the circumstance of his dining with the family. Gentlemen, is every one who dines there to be considered as a conspirator? they are not a committee sitting over their bottle and hatching this infamy; but it appears that he dined twice at the house of Mr. Basil Cochrane (who is not implicated in this), not alone, but with Sir Alexander Cochrane, and a great number of ladies and gentlemen; and at another time Mr. De Berenger and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone also dined at Mr. Basil Cochrane's.

Gentlemen, I am told, and I believe, after what I have heard in this cause, for I have heard it from Mr. Murray, that Mr. De Berenger is a man of great abilities; his Society and his company were much courted till his misfortunes put him out of the general run of society; was there ever such a thing attempted till this moment, as that you were from such circumstance to prove a conspiracy as against these persons? On what ground can it be said that his connexion with Mr. Cochrane Johnstone is a matter of complaint against him? I have proved what it was; I have proved, out of the mouth of Mr. Murray, and shall prove again if necessary, that the meeting of these gentlemen there was not a meeting of business; was there any thing in the conversation when Mr. De Berenger came in, in the presence of Mr. Harrison, that gives the least suspicion of a connexion with Mr. Cochrane Johnstone? it appears only, that he being an ingenious man, engaged himself in this Ranelagh that was building, from which it was expected (probably it will terminate in nothing) by Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, that he would derive great benefit; this gentleman, being consulted on the plan first proposed, recommended another from which he conceived Mr. Cochrane Johnstone would make a great deal more money; there is nothing in the connexion more than that. Are you from that circumstance to infer that this gentleman was guilty of any conspiracy? as to any negociation on this subject, you hear nothing nor see nothing. You do not find him at any one period of time with Mr. Cochrane Johnstone. You hear of his dining twice in company with him at the house of Mr. Basil Cochrane; you do not hear of him at all there, except about this Ranelagh; but you are desired from that to infer criminality.

But gentlemen, this is a most important transaction; my learned friend has told you he will more satisfactorily explain it by the evidence upon the subject; there is no doubt of the gentleman who sits before me being in distress of circumstances, but at the same time a most ingenious man; and having done various works of art for Mr. Cochrane Johnston, the latter thought himself indebted to him about two hundred pounds, and paid him the money. Gentlemen, all I can say upon this is, that there is no conspiracy amongst us here, for I do assure you, that until I came into this place, and saw my learned friends, except my learned friend Mr. Topping, with whom I had spoken on the subject, I did not know that the others were concerned for the defendants upon this occasion; but I hear my learned friend state that which I trust he has the means of proving, but which my unfortunate client has not, not only because many of his papers have been immediately taken from him by the messenger, in the manner described, but because he is himself a close prisoner in Newgate, under a warrant of the Alien Office, and therefore has not the same means and opportunity of conferring with his Counsel; for I have never placed myself in that situation, and do not mean hastily to go there, for it is not a very agreeable service, and I would take no man's retainer, if I thought that I must do so; there has not therefore been that communication which we should have had, if our client had been a free man. But I shall prove by some witnesses of my own, that which will give a considerable colour to my case, and shall pray in aid all the evidence given by any other witnesses on this side of the question.

Gentlemen, before I leave this part of the case, I would wish also to remind you that we have had another piece of evidence given against my unfortunate client, by a man of the name of Le Marchant. I will venture to say, and I hope you have observed, that a much more extraordinary witness never did present himself in that box. It does not become me (and I am the last man to do it) to arraign any one act of His Majesty's ministers, but I believe that the exhibition made this day in the presence of some of His Majesty's ministers, will have been sufficient to set aside any intention of sending him out under an appointment, if it ever prevailed in their minds; for I do say, I think he would disgrace any country from which he was sent on any public business whatever; I think he would not be long in any situation, before he disgraced himself as a man, and brought disgrace upon those who employed him. But gentlemen, I do not know whether you observed another thing, which is, that he shot out of court as if he had had a sword stuck into him, and appeared no more; I never saw any thing so marked as his conduct was upon that occasion.

My learned friend has called your attention to his letter, which I never saw till he read it; my client was protesting against his testimony; but I cannot call him as a witness against this man's evidence, which Mr. Richardson endeavoured by his cross-examination to alter, because it was our duty to endeavour to get some alteration of that evidence, not knowing how he had conducted himself. I do earnestly beg of you to recall to your attention, the answers he gave to my learned friend, the Serjeant; did he not positively say upon that examination, that he was only kept by His Majesty's ministers in this country to give evidence, and that he had not given his evidence at all from a feeling of resentment, because Lord Cochrane had not complied with his request in giving him money. Gentlemen, when this correspondence comes to be read by his lordship's officer, is it possible you can believe one word of that; he in this letter, which is the last my learned friend stated, and the only one on which I will comment, stated that he believed every thing that De Berenger had told him respecting Lord Cochrane, was false. If it was all false, as it respected Lord Cochrane, it was all false as it respected himself, for this man had no time-bargains as the other gentlemen had, he was to derive no immediate benefit, except as you believe that man. I beg your particular attention to that, that he is the only person who swears to his having a per centage in this matter. I think I am correct in that statement, that Le Marchant is the only person who says De Berenger told him that he was to have a per centage upon the stock. Now gentlemen, this conversation having been on the 14th of February, seven days before this transaction, he makes the observation in this letter, that he verily believes that every thing De Berenger told him respecting Lord Cochrane was false.

If it was all false, it must be false with respect to De Berenger himself, and according to his own statement he must have invented this story, merely to implicate Lord Cochrane in the transaction; it is absurd gentlemen not to speak to you as men of understandings. Do you believe that this letter has any other sense, than give me so much money, or I will do so and so? After threatening him, he says, "As for my part, I now consider all that man told me to be diabolically false," and then without even a new paragraph in his letter, "If my conduct meets your approbation;" what conduct meets his approbation, that he would say in all places and at all times that this man's statement was diabolically false, as far as respected Lord Cochrane; "Can I ask a reciprocal favour, as a temporary loan, on security being given;" then he goes on to say, "I am just appointed to a situation of about £.1,200 a-year; but for the moment am in the greatest distress, with a large family; you can without risk, and have the means to relieve us, and I believe the will of doing good." And then, because Lord Cochrane most wisely refuses to comply with this request, we have this man set up in the box, to tell you this supposed story of De Berenger, which De Berenger has no means of contradicting; but which I say is so incredible, and so contradicted by the letter under his own hand, that I think jurymen, if it stood upon his testimony alone, or even supported by one or two witnesses to other things, would do most unrighteously if they convicted upon such testimony as that fellow has given, for I never saw a man so disgrace himself as he done.

Now gentlemen, with respect to the proof of Mr. De Berenger's hand writing, as to those things which were found in his box. I put Mr. Lavie's evidence out of the question; at first his lordship put it, that it was slight evidence; but that it was evidence subject to my observations, the thing being found upon him; gentlemen, supposing there was no evidence of his hand-writing, I can only say he must be well clothed in innocence who can escape, if a man is to be convicted, merely because a paper is found upon him; if a man writes to me a paper containing matter of a criminal nature, and I happen not to destroy it, I must immediately be convicted. I do not mean that his Lordship has said so; but if I am to be convicted because a paper is found upon me, then a man may be in danger from every letter he receives from a correspondent; I am sorry to say that I receive a great many letters which I do not answer; but does my possession of the letters give ground for inferring an approval of all contained in those letters. If you were to convict this gentleman on account of any memorandums found in his possession, because they are found there, I do think a great injustice indeed would be worked.

But, gentlemen, Mr. Lavie has proved his hand-writing. I shall call witnesses to contradict Mr. Lavie; but do not misunderstand me, I believe Mr. Lavie to be a very honourable person, and one who would not tell you a falsehood; but I say he has not the means of knowledge. I can only say, gentleman, that a man must be much more attentive to hands-writing than most of the persons of my profession, in which I include Mr. Lavie, if he can swear to a hand-writing, because he has seen that hand-writing once. I have seen my learned friends near me write many times, but I could not swear to their hands-writing; if I saw a very bad hand indeed, I should say it was Mr. Serjeant Best's; but let me caution you; you are trying these defendants for a conspiracy; you are trying them for a crime of the greatest and most enormous magnitude; you are trying them for an offence that will shut these gentlemen, if you find them guilty, out of the pale of all honourable and decent society; and therefore, though this subject is one, which, from the singularity of it, may create a smile, it is a matter which you will not smile upon when you come to pronounce your verdict; because upon your verdict must the happiness of these gentlemen depend. Will you, upon the evidence of Mr. Lavie, honourable as may believe him to be, and just as you may believe him to be, say that he has those means of knowledge which he professes to have.

Gentlemen, I am placed in a very awkward situation as to that paper, which my client assures me he never saw, and I mean to call witnesses to prove, that he is not the writer of it; I do not think it necessary, but I will do it, for it shall not rest upon me that I have not done my duty. But I am placed in an awkward situation as to the hand-writing; I do not complain of it, but the witnesses into whose hands I must put that paper, have never seen it. Mr. Lavie has seen it; he has had an opportunity of conning it over; but I think he might have done better than to have given his own testimony of this Mr. de Berenger's writing. Mr. de Berenger is not an obscure man in the city of London; he has lived in this country twenty-five years; he tells me there was no man acquainted with his hand-writing, who could be called to prove this to be his hand-writing; and that no witness to speak to that could be found; but Mr. Lavie went to him improperly; for the Stock Exchange had no more right to break in upon Mr. de Berenger, at the Parliament-street coffee-house, than any one of you. I say it was an impertinent intrusion; this gentleman was brought up on a warrant not respecting this affair, but on a warrant from the Secretary of State, whilst he was fatigued and tired, as he stated to the messenger; still most disgracefully the messenger allowed Mr. Lavie and the Stock Exchange Committee to pump him upon this matter. How the hand-writing is attempted to be proved, it does not become me to say further; but I put papers into the hand of Mr. Lavie, the hand-writing of which, if they be of the hand-writing of Mr. De Berenger, I will venture to say that the paper lying before his Lordship is not; because I have eyes as well as Mr. Lavie has; and I think I can speak to any hand-writing as well as he can. I say it is not the same hand-writing as these, if my eyes do not deceive me; and I shall put it into the hands of persons who have known Mr. De. Berenger long, and they shall say whether it be his hand-writing or not. Gentlemen, if it be not his hand-writing, which I must assume, I say the whole of that Dover case falls to the ground; because the main sheet-anchor of the whole of the Dover case is that paper. Why do I say so? Because all the witnesses who have come from the Ship Inn at Dover, Marsh, Gerely, Edis, (Wright is not here, being ill;) these men one and all, speak to the person called Du Bourg, as being the person who sent this letter, as aid-de-camp to Lord Cathcart; they all say it was this man, as they believe, that wrote that letter, and sent it off to Admiral Foley. I say, gentleman, that story, as applied to Mr. De Berenger, falls to the ground, if that letter was not the hand-writing of Mr. De Berenger; inasmuch as the letter is now supposed to be traced into the hands of Admiral Foley, from the Ship Inn at Dover, by the conveyance of the little boy. If Mr. De Berenger was not the writer of it, then Mr. De Berenger was not the man who was at that inn.

Gentlemen, it was said by Mr. Gurney in his opening, that he should call the landlord and landlady of the house at which Mr. De Berenger lodged, to prove that he did not sleep at home that night; but they have proved no such thing. I expected, from my learned friend's statement of it, and I am sure he expected it, or he would not have so stated it, that they would have proved that. The man says, he does not know who comes in and who goes out, being the clerk of a stockbroker, and being a good deal out; he says, Mr. De Berenger comes in without their interference; he has his own servants; and all he reasons from is the fact, that he did not hear him blow his French horn at eight or nine o'clock on the Monday morning, which I shall prove to you he could not do, for that Mr. De Berenger went out to Lord Cochrane's at eight o'clock. These people do not swear, that he did not sleep at home; all they say is, that they do not know whether he was at home or not.

Now, Gentlemen, upon the subject upon which I am about to address you, I do not think it absolutely necessary to go into it; and I should not at this hour in the morning call evidence, but in a matter so highly penal as this is, and where I am placed in so delicate a situation, and in which, thank God, I can very seldom be placed, I do not think it right to act on my own judgment, where my client assures me that he was not the man, and is an innocent person; and that he is determined (because he knows perfectly well that what he says is the truth) to have his witnesses called; he shall have those witnesses called, for I chuse to have no responsibility cast upon me that does not belong to my situation. Gentlemen, I shall prove to you most completely that which will dispose of the case, if it is believed. I trust I have already shewn, that it is a case depending upon such frail testimony, as it stands, that it is not worthy of any degree of credit. But I am instructed, that I shall be able to call five or six witnesses, who all saw this gentleman in London, at an hour which was impossible, consistently with the case for the prosecution, and who have no interest, and had better means of knowledge than those who have been called before you.

Gentlemen, I do not mean to say those witnesses who have been called before you have been perjured; but I mean to say, they had not the same means of knowledge with my witnesses; and that, except one of them, or two at the utmost, they had not the day light to assist them in observations they made upon this traveller. Be so good as to recollect the circumstances under which he was supposed to have come to Dover; he is found knocking at the door of the Ship Inn, about one in the morning; the man belonging to the opposite house, having been carousing there at a most astonishingly late hour for a reputable tradesman, in the town of Dover, the hatter, the cooper, and the landlord, being sitting together, hear a knocking at the door; and they find a man in the passage of the house. Whom do they find there? a man dressed in the manner you have heard described; but the person who sees him, and holds the candle in the passage, has a very short conversation with him; the whole time he saw him did not exceed five minutes, and in that time he went up to call the landlord; he put the pen, ink and paper, into his room, and then he left him; he did not see him without his cap, and yet he swears he is the man; and he is not singular in that, for there are many others swear to the same.

Gentlemen, it is a prejudice my client has to encounter, that we have been engaged in this case seventeen hours; and that my learned friend, Mr. Gurney, who opened the case, was in the full possession of his powers, and that he has in a measure forestalled your minds by the evidence he has given, and that the evidence given by me has to eradicate the impressions which his statements and his evidence have made. Gentlemen, I put questions to one of the witnesses which his lordship thought were not of any weight, and per se they were not strong; but when we are proving identity every little circumstance goes to the question, aye or no; we had some witnesses swearing to a slouch cap, one which comes over the eyes, and another swearing that it was like the coat, grey; another that it was a dark brown. If the fac simile is correct, there are discordances in the evidence which raise a suspicion in my mind, a suspicion not that the witnesses are perjuring themselves, but that they had not sufficient means of knowledge upon the subject; and that you are called upon to convict this gentleman of a base and infamous crime, from which, except from the evidence of Le Marchant, he was to derive no benefit unless the £.400 was a bonus, and that upon the evidence of witnesses, who, however respectable, had very little means of observation; for it was not day light hardly even when they left Dartford; and the morning we hear was a foggy morning, and therefore, except Shilling's evidence, we have not evidence that this is the man in day light; we have no evidence of any persons who saw him in daylight, and identify him as being the person who came from Dover to London; Shilling's evidence I admit, is, as to his seeing him in day light, and his evidence is extremely strong undoubtedly.

Gentlemen, I am quite aware, though I have not practised a great deal in criminal courts, that the evidence of an alibi, as we call it, that is evidence to prove that the person was not upon the spot, is always evidence of a very suspicious nature; it is always to be watched therefore; but I am sure that I shall have his lordship's sanction for this; that if the witnesses to be called have all the means of knowledge upon the subject, if the generality of them have no interest at all in the matter of discussion, and if they prove the alibi satisfactorily, there is no evidence more complete than that of alibi, and that alibi will produce advantage in favour of the person who sets it up, according to the nature of that case which is made against him; and if it be merely circumstantial evidence, although that is in some cases much stronger than positive testimony, yet if the evidence against that person is chiefly mere evidence of identity of person, I say that the proof of the alibi will receive stronger confirmation, if those witnesses who undertake to identify have not had sufficient means of knowledge upon the subject.

Hear then, Gentlemen, how I shall prove this case. This person, by the consent of his bail, Mr. Tahourdin, as I have told you, was continually soliciting for the situation he was desirous of obtaining, for the purpose of going out to America under Sir Alexander Cochrane; he was therefore continually violating the rules; and in order to do that with safety, he used to go down a passage and take water, instead of crossing Westminster Bridge; because he thought that on Westminster Bridge he should be more likely to be met by the officers, and so more likely to get to the ears of the marshal, so as to lose the benefit of the rules; he was well known to the usual watermen plying there; and I have two watermen here, who will prove to you that on that Sunday morning, which was the first Sunday after the frost broke up, so as to open the river Thames, which had been shut a considerable time, that on the first Sunday after, namely, the 20th of February, this gentleman crossed at that ferry to go over to the Westminster side. Gentlemen, I shall prove to you, that in the course of that day he was at Chelsea; he had been known at Chelsea, having lived there for a considerable time before he was in the rules of the Bench. I will prove that he had called at a house which I will not name, because we shall have that from the witnesses from whence the stage coaches go; that the ostler at that house perfectly well knew him, and that he knew his servant; that he told him the coach had gone off at an early hour in the evening, and there was no coach to go for some time; he will tell you, that he knew this gentleman, and is positively sure that he was there. I shall prove that he went to another house in the course of that evening; and I have two or three of the members of that family who saw and conversed with him between eight and nine in the evening of the Sunday, so that by the course of time, it was absolutely impossible that he could have been at Dover by one in the morning, if he had been at this gentleman's house at eight in the evening. I shall prove that after that he went home to his lodgings. I shall prove that he slept in his lodgings; that his bed was in the morning made by his maid servant; that he constantly slept at home, and that he did that night. I have his servants here who will prove these facts. I allow that he went out that morning, and went out in regimentals, which they will describe to you, and went to Lord Cochrane's upon the errand I have described to you.

Now, Gentlemen, in addition to that, there will be the evidence to be given by my learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Best, which I have a right, as far as it applies to Mr. De Berenger, to pray in aid for him. Does it not immediately go to shew, that it is impossible, but that these persons who have been examined for the prosecution, must have been mistaken? I do not ask you to presume that these persons have knowingly said what is not true; but this made a great noise, and persons were sent to see Mr. De Berenger, and from some similarity of person believed him to be the man. I do not indeed believe the account given by one of the witnesses, Mr. St. John; he told a story the most singular, that he being the collector of an Irish charitable society, with no other means of livelihood, found himself at Dover searching for news, by desire of the editor of a newspaper, and he was afterwards on coming up, sent to Newgate to see Mr. De Berenger, who was exposed to the view of every person who chose to look at him. Mr. De Berenger was fixed upon as the man, and you are asked to presume that he fled, because he knew he was the man. Gentlemen, you will take all these circumstances into your consideration, and they will account for the mistake in the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution; but St. John tells you, that he found himself by accident at Westminster. I do not call that an accident at all, for it appears that he walked down to Westminster to see his person; he went and took a good view of his person, when he was standing upon the floor of the court of King's Bench, pleading to his indictment, for being in custody he must be brought into court to plead to it; this fellow says, he was not in court, but he put his head within the curtain, where he could see this gentleman, he heard the officer read to him, and he says that he answered something; I do not care whether he heard what passed, he saw sufficient to know that he was the person in custody. I cannot, under these circumstances, believe this fellow when he tells you, that he went by accident down to Westminster, for it appears evidently that he went by design. I say there is a readiness and a desire on the part of the Stock Exchange, to follow this up, I think, with an improper spirit.

Gentlemen, we have had this case dressed up to-day; and it has been attempted to induce you to believe, that the transactions of the Stock Exchange were all laudable. Gentlemen, I say they are infamous; but my learned friend would persuade you, that all the infamy rests upon those who deceived these poor creatures. It is very true, as his lordship says, the circulation of a false report is not innocent, for that may operate against you or me going fairly to buy stock; but I think there has been an excess of zeal on this business; some of these witnesses were carried to Mr. Wood's, at Westminster, and they all fixed upon Mr. De Berenger, not corruptly, but in consequence of being carried there, and his being pointed out as the man by Mr. Lavie and some of his clerks; they come readily enough and fix upon him; the deaf man not so easily, but at last he did it too; and it struck me, the question I put to that deaf man was extremely relevant. I cannot tell by a witness's face whether he is merely an actor or not, and especially when my instructions tell me he is mistaken; I wished therefore to know, whether he was not looking round the court to give it the air of probability, and whether he had been standing behind, so as to see the others point out Mr. De Berenger, whom they all knew, because most of them had seen him since that time; some of them had not I admit; he is a soldierly-looking man, and a man likely from the description to be fixed upon. My learned friend seemed to think that one of the witnesses had not a fair opportunity of seeing his person, in consequence of his holding down his head; the fact was, he was taking notes (for he has taken a very full note); but without meaning to do anything improper, I said, hold up your head, and he did so immediately; his recognizance was to appear here to-day, not fearing to have all enquiry made respecting him and as it appeared to me; he did not on any one occasion attempt to conceal his person from their observation, I do say, gentlemen, that the means of knowledge of these witnesses are so slight, that if I call witnesses to prove, not by vague surmise, never having seen him before, that he was in their society and company that evening so late, as to render it impossible that he should have been at Dover that night. But supposing that the evidence of alibi should not be satisfactory, it then comes back to the other observations made in the prior part of the defence.

Gentlemen, this is the general nature of the defence I have to make to you. You will, I have no doubt, endeavour to free yourselves from all prejudice infused into your minds; and will come to your conclusion with a desire to do justice. And I trust that you will, in the result of this long hearing, be enabled to pronounce, that this defendant, for whom I am counsel (not meaning by that to exclude any of the rest, but he is the only one committed to my care) is not guilty of the charge imputed to him.

Mr. SERJEANT PELL.

May it please your Lordship,

Gentlemen of the Jury,

My two learned friends, who have preceded me, Mr. Serjeant Best and Mr. Park, have both stated to you the peculiar difficulties under which they laboured, in consequence of the great fatigue which they had both undergone. I am sure you will agree with me, that that topic, so pressed by them, will come with still greater force from me; for, as the night advances, the fatigue becomes greater, and the mind more exhausted. Gentlemen, it is under the full persuasion that you and his Lordship are also much oppressed with fatigue, that I can venture to promise you my address will not be very long. But I trust, that considering the point which it will be necessary for me to expatiate upon, you will be ultimately of opinion, that my address, although not long, is still effectual for the interest of my clients.

Gentlemen, I stand in a most peculiar situation, because, upon the notes of the noble Lord, it is distinctly proved, that two of the persons for whom I am counsel, Mr. Holloway and Mr. Lyte, have admitted themselves to be guilty of that, which no man can for one moment hesitate to say is extremely wrong. Gentlemen, I think it is also sufficiently proved, that Sandom, the third person for whom I am counsel, was in the chaise which was driven from Northfleet to Dartford, and from Dartford to London; and on my part, I should consider it a most inefficient attempt, if I were to attempt, for one moment, to persuade you that Mr. Holloway and Mr. Lyte, together with Mr. Sandom, have not been most criminally implicated in this part of the transaction; but, gentlemen, although I admit this in the outset, and very sincerely lament, that men who have hitherto maintained a very respectable situation in life, should have been tempted to involve themselves in so disgraceful an affair; yet I think, unless I am mistaken in my notion of law, as applying to that record on which you are to give your judgment, it will be found that they are entitled to your acquittal.

Gentlemen, I feel myself under a difficulty, also, in another respect. I must differ from all my learned friends who have preceded me in this trial, I mean, my learned friend Mr. Gurney, of counsel for the prosecution; my learned friend Mr. Serjeant Best, as counsel for Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, Mr. Butt, and Lord Cochrane; and Mr. Park, as counsel for Mr. De Berenger. I am not here to find fault with the committee of the Stock Exchange for prosecuting this inquiry; whether that committee is composed of honourable men or not, is to me a matter of perfect indifference. If they have been actuated by a sincere desire of bringing to justice persons who have been guilty of criminal conduct, I, for one, am not disposed to complain of them. Gentlemen, I cannot agree with my learned friend Mr. Gurney, or my learned friend Mr. Serjeant Best, in what, in different parts of their address, they stated to you as being the leading features of this prosecution; for my learned friend Mr. Gurney, in the outset of his address to you, stated, that what he called the Northfleet plot was only a part of the Dover conspiracy—was subsidiary to it. I think his expression was, that they both formed different parts of one entire plot, and that those who were guilty of one must be taken to be guilty of both; although Mr. Holloway, in his confession, had acquitted Lord Cochrane and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, of having any part or share in the Northfleet conspiracy. Now, gentlemen, I will state to you in the outset, that I mean to consider the case in a different point of view. I have not the slightest doubt on earth, that what was done by Sandom, Lyte, and M'Rae, when they left Northfleet on the morning of the 21st of February, was altogether unconnected, and was utterly unknown to, that person, whoever he was, who came from Dover, and that he had no sort of connection with it. Gentlemen, if I am right in establishing this point; if you shall ultimately be satisfied that Mr. Holloway, Mr. Sandom, and Mr. Lyte, who I admit were concerned in that part of the business, were altogether unconnected with the person who came from Dover, and who has been stated to-day to be involved with Lord Cochrane and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, I apprehend that the three defendants for whom I appear cannot be found guilty. That my learned friend Mr. Gurney considers the case in this point of view is beyond all question, for he opened it to you as part of this case, that what he called the Northfleet conspiracy, was a part of the Dover plot, and was in furtherance of it; and he not only has so stated it in his address, but, as I read the record, it is so stated upon the record; for, in the very first count of the indictment you are now impanelled to try, it is set forth, that Sandom, M'Rae and Lyte took the chaise from Northfleet, and so passed on to London, in furtherance of that plot which was originated at Dover. Gentlemen, I submit to you, therefore, on behalf of these gentlemen for whom I appear, that their guilt or innocence with respect to this particular trial will depend upon this circumstance;—did they form, or did they not form, parts and members of that single plot in which it is supposed the three or four other gentlemen were concerned?

Gentlemen, I certainly have not the good fortune to appear for men of the high rank of those on whose behalf my learned friends Mr. Serjeant Best and Mr. Park have addressed you. I can introduce no such eloquent topics as those which my learned friend Mr. Serjeant Best has touched upon. I cannot illustrate the character or the situations of life of the gentlemen for whom I appear, with the terms in which Mr. Park has spoken of his client De Berenger. I know of no claims to honour from any ancestry to which they can justly entitle themselves; they are men in a respectable, but in a humble line of life, compared with the other defendants upon the record; but I know, that it is not upon that account that you will be less disposed to give a ready and a willing ear to any topics that may be urged in favour of their legal innocence.

Gentlemen, as I followed the evidence, there was but one point of coincidence, in which these persons who came from Dartford to London, could be at all connected with the person who came from Dover, and it was in the very slight circumstance of the chaises driving to the same place; and my learned friend, Mr. Gurney, in furtherance of that which he submitted to you as against Holloway, Sandom and Lyte, as an ingredient, and a necessary ingredient, in their conviction, stated to you in the opening, that he should prove they went to the same place. I could not but be struck with that circumstance, because I knew it was one from which a connexion might fairly be felt; I was therefore anxious to watch the evidence which applied to that part of the case, and so far from finding that the person who came from Dover, under the name of Du Bourg, went to the Marsh Gate by design, I find that he went there altogether by accident; for by the evidence of Shilling, the person who drove him, if I do not mistake it altogether, he first proposed to drive him to the Bricklayers Arms in the Kent Road, and when he got there he found there was no hackney-coach, and then to use the very expression of the witness, "I told him there was a stand at the Marsh Gate, and if he liked to go there nobody would observe him;" so that it is quite obvious, that the supposed Colonel Du Bourg went to the Marsh Gate, in consequence of having been driven by the suggestion of Shilling. I admit that Sandom, Lyte and M'Rae went there by their own direction; but it is equally clear that Du Bourg went there in consequence of there being no hackney-coach at the Bricklayers Arms, and in consequence also of Shilling advising him to go there for the purpose of obtaining one. The only circumstance therefore in the cause, which shews a coincidence of plot between the one at Northfleet and the one at Dover, is this circumstance respecting the carriages driving to the Marsh Gate; and it will appear upon his Lordship's notes, as with reference to Du Bourg, the going of Du Bourg to the Marsh Gate at Lambeth was purely accidental.

Gentlemen, my learned friend, Mr. Gurney, was so aware of the necessity of proving a connexion between these parties, that he stated another circumstance; and I think, in the course of his address, those were the only two which he adduced, for the purpose of shewing that there was any fair probability that could lead the Court to believe that the person assuming the name of Du Bourg, and Holloway, Sandom, M'Rae and Lyte, had concurred in any part of this most scandalous transaction. My learned friend stated, that he should shew an intimacy between Mr. Sandom and De Berenger, when both of them were prisoners within the Fleet prison, and that they became acquainted there.

Mr. Gurney. My learned friend has misunderstood me, I said they were prisoners at the same time; that was the extent of my statement.

Mr. Serjeant Pell. I am very much obliged to my learned friend; I am by no means disposed to mis-state him; I find he did not state it quite so strongly as I had supposed, but the inference he meant to raise in your minds, was, unquestionably, that both being prisoners at the same time within the walls of the same gaol, it was fair to conclude, considering the other parts of the case, that an intimacy had existed between them. Now let us see how that part of my learned friend's statement is made out.—Mr. De Berenger was unfortunately a prisoner within the Rules of the King's Bench Prison in the month of February last; he had been so for some time. I think it does not exactly appear, with respect to Mr. Sandom, according to the evidence of Mr. Broochooft, the officer, who was called for that purpose, when or for how long Mr. Sandom first went there, or how long he continued there, but far from Sandom's being a prisoner in that gaol during the time when Mr. De Berenger was confined there, my Lord will find upon his notes, as given by a person of the name of Foxall, that Sandom had lived at Northfleet for nine months before he sent for the chaise on the 21st of February. You observe therefore, gentlemen, that there is not the slightest reason to believe, as far as the evidence extends, that either Mr. Sandom, Mr. Holloway, or Mr. Lyte, had any knowledge or acquaintance with the other defendants.

But, Gentlemen, I will mention another circumstance, which puts that out of all doubt:—I allude to the confession of Mr. Holloway, a confession made in the presence of Mr. Lyte, and with his concurrence. He admitted that he had used means for the purpose of inducing a persuasion that a revolution had taken place in France, which unquestionably at that time was not true. How stands the circumstance? There was a person of the name of M'Rae, who was spoken to by Vinn, the first witness called by Mr. Gurney to this part of the transaction. Vinn told a most extraordinary story, and I will venture to say, that with respect to Mr. Vinn, if the case of all the defendants had stood upon the testimony of such a man as that, no human being, who had been accustomed to watch the manners and the terms which witnesses use in courts of justice, could have believed him for a moment. His story was this.—That on the 15th of February, M'Rae met him at the Carolina coffee house, and he proposed to him to frame a conspiracy for the purpose of raising the funds; and Vinn asked him if there was any moral turpitude in the transaction. No human being could doubt for a moment, that such a transaction would be deep in moral turpitude. He says, that he told him he would as soon engage in a highway robbery, as in such a transaction; and then immediately he told him, that though he would not himself, he could find somebody else who would engage in that dirty office. Can any human being believe such a story as this? What passed between him and M'Rae upon that occasion, I am unacquainted with; but I know enough of your sober judgment, to be sure of this, that no conversation which Vinn states to have taken place between M'Rae and him, when Holloway, Sandom and Lyte, were not present, will be by you permitted to affect their interests.

Now, gentlemen, the next stage in this transaction, in which Mr. M'Rae appears, is, I think, a very singular one; he appears in a letter, I think, from Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, to be the person proposed, who, for £10,000 would make known the whole of this affair. It is a very singular part of this most curious story. This letter is sent to the Stock Exchange; M'Rae proposes, that he shall be the person who is to detect the whole of this scandalous transaction, and he proposes to himself the great reward of £10,000. Only observe, what Mr. Bailey has stated to you took place on Holloway's being acquainted with this circumstance. Holloway, knowing that M'Rae had been concerned in this, which I shall term a second plot;—knowing that M'Rae could not communicate any thing, at least as far as Holloway had reason to believe, that could at all affect that which was the greater object of the Committee of the Stock Exchange, namely, the conviction of Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, Mr. Butt, and Mr. De Berenger, for that is the end and aim of the present prosecution; and as to the clients for whom I appear, Mr. Holloway, Mr. Lyte, and Mr. Sandom, I firmly believe, if the Stock Exchange had not been of opinion they would have derived some benefit from the conviction of my clients, they would no more have been put forward on the present occasion, than I or any of my learned friends should have been. No, gentlemen, the other defendants are the game the prosecutors are attempting to catch, and it is only for the purpose, in some shape or other, of confusing and confounding two separate and distinct parts, with a hope that in some degree the transaction of Holloway, Sandom, Lyte and M'Rae, in reference to the journey from Northfleet, on the 21st of February, may be connected in your minds with the other defendants, that they are introduced upon the present record.

Gentlemen, do me the favour to recollect what Mr. Baily has stated to-day. It was this;—Mr. Holloway, finding there had been some proposition on the part of M'Rae, to make known all that he was acquainted with in the transaction, and that M'Rae had demanded the sum of £.10,000, before he would be induced to relate that which he knew, Mr. Holloway applied to the Committee of the Stock Exchange, and stated this to them, in the presence of Mr. Lyte;—"I admit that we were concerned in that affair when the chaise went from Northfleet to Dartford; I admit we were concerned with those persons when they came through London (and it would be vain and most impertinent if I were to take up your time to deny it), but I deny that we knew any thing of the other parts of the business; we are altogether ignorant of it." Now, gentlemen, is Mr. Holloway to be believed in any part of that which he said? I take it my learned friend will contend, that he is to be believed in all that made against himself, and all that made against Lyte, who was present; but is he not to be believed in the other part of his story? Will my learned friend contend, that he can take the one part, and reject the other? I am satisfied he will not. If you take the whole, then it appears, that Holloway and Lyte admitted that Sandom was privy to their plan, but that they were altogether unconnected and unacquainted with the business which took place at Dover, and had no more to do with Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, Mr. Butt, Lord Cochrane, or Mr. De Berenger, than any of you whom I have the honour of addressing.

Gentlemen, I should have supposed, in a prosecution of this kind, that if there had been any connection between the two plots, it would have been traced in some way or other; you observe the minute points which have been made in every other part of the prosecution. There has been labour unexampled; witnesses brought from the most distant parts of the kingdom; no expence spared; every thing done that could be done to make good the charge against four of the defendants upon the record. Is it not a most extraordinary thing, if Holloway, Lyte and Sandom, were at all connected with Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, or the two other gentlemen, that no trace can be found, no clue can be discovered, that can connect the one with the other. Under circumstances so singular as these, there being not only no evidence of any connexion, but there being an express contradiction on the part of Holloway and Lyte, and the only connecting circumstance being explained away, I mean as to both the chaises driving to the Marsh Gate, I think you will be of opinion with me, that the two plots are altogether distinct from each other, and that my clients, although morally guilty, must be acquitted upon the present charge.

Gentlemen, I cannot but feel, that a kind of prejudice against my clients may have arisen in your minds; I am not only surprised at it, but I should have been surprised if it had not found its way there. Here is a plot conducted in the most artful and most scandalous manner;—persons of the highest authority imposed upon, dresses bought, and the whole drama got up with the greatest skill. God forbid, that I should for one moment insinuate that it was accomplished by any of the other defendants upon the record. I am bound to believe, from the character of all these gentlemen, that they are not guilty; but however this may be, still we get back to that which forms the main feature of my defence for these three gentlemen. Are they, or are they not privy to this scheme? Gentlemen, I was observing to you, that some prejudice must necessarily arise in your minds; it is my case that there were two separate plots; they are, as far as the evidence extends, two different transactions on the same day; a prejudice, however, must arise in your minds, because when you find both these transactions point to producing the same effect, you would naturally be disposed to believe, that all the persons who were concerned in both, were equally acquainted with both. You well remember the strong disposition there was at that time, for every person, those at least who were disposed to do unjust and unfair things, to invent such reports as should enable them to sell their stock at an unreal price; and I submit to you, that supposing Holloway, Sandom and Lyte, had intended to do so, there is nothing very singular in their doing it on the day when the other transaction took place. I am fortified in the opinion, that the one plot is not connected with the other, because I find another part of the evidence which disconnects them altogether, and it is this;—from the evidence of the broker who was called to prove the sale of stock, or the directions to sell stock, on the 21st of February, (a person of the name of Pilliner) it turns out that Holloway did not give him any directions to sell his stock till the middle of the day. Now the middle of the day was the time when the chaise drove through the City of London. If Holloway had been connected with those who were engaged in the first plan, I think you will be of opinion, that he would have taken advantage of the most beneficial state of the market, and sold his stock as early as when he found that conspiracy had produced its intended effect upon the funds, so that, in addition to other circumstances, this also shews that Holloway had no connexion with the other transaction.

Gentlemen, I cannot but be struck at the singularity of Mr. M'Rae's withdrawing from the field of battle. M'Rae certainly has performed a very singular part upon this occasion; he proposed to sell himself for £.10,000; he would have had the Stock Exchange to believe, that he had been let into the secrets of my Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, Mr. Butt, and Mr. De Berenger;—the first object he had in view, was to persuade the Stock Exchange that he knew the whole of their concern in the transaction. A pleasant sort of a gentleman, to ask the sum of £.10,000, to induce him to tell all that he knew, when no human being can doubt that all M'Rae knew was, that which has been proved by the witnesses, as to Sandom, Lyte and Holloway, namely; that M'Rae was in a chaise which passed through the City of London, coming from Northfleet. This man, who has the audacity to propose the receiving £.10,000, turns out to be a miserable lodger in Fetter-lane, who after he had carried into execution the whole of his part of the conspiracy was rewarded—but how? was he rewarded as he would have been by such wealthy persons as the gentlemen whose names stand upon this record? If they had engaged M'Rae in this scandalous affair, do you believe they would have left him on the Monday morning, with nothing but a £.10 note in his pocket? It appears, by the woman with whom he lodged, that he was before in a state of abject poverty, and that afterwards he was seen with a £.10 note, and that he bought a new hat and a new coat—and this is the man who proposes to receive £.10,000 from the Stock Exchange to tell all he knew. Gentlemen, I think I am not very much deceived myself, if I say, that you will be of opinion, that a man who was in the situation of M'Rae, was not very likely to have known of transactions which would have involved the four first defendants upon the record, in such a serious prosecution as that under which they now labour; and it is not the least singular part of his conduct, that he makes no defence to-day.

Now, gentlemen, you observe the manner in which (subject to my Lord's correction) I put the defence of the three defendants for whom I appear. I have stated to you, that Holloway and Lyte have admitted themselves guilty of most immoral conduct, for I never can believe that such transactions as these, let them be conducted by whom they may, are not immoral in the highest degree. Holloway, at all events, has since done all he can to make amends; he has confessed his guilt; he has come forward with Lyte, knowing and feeling that they had done wrong, with a view to protect the Stock Exchange against giving that monstrous sum for an imperfect discovery. Had Holloway or Lyte been concerned with any of the other defendants on the record, I submit there is the strongest reason to believe, that when he confessed his own guilt, he would not have been backward in speaking of theirs. He was not aware of the effect I am giving to his defence when he made it; and if he has done no more than that which he has stated, I submit to you, under his Lordship's correction, that you cannot find him guilty; and I submit to you, upon the reasoning with which I commenced my address to you, that whatever Sandom, Holloway and Lyte did, is not at all connected with what Du Bourg, or the person so calling himself, did; that what they did is not connected with what the other three defendants on the record are supposed to have done; that there is not only no connexion proved between the two, but as far as the evidence extends that connexion is negatived; and then I submit to you, if you are of that opinion, these persons must be acquitted; because, as I apprehend, two distinct conspiracies included in one count, both being different offences, cannot be permitted to be proved in a court of justice. Crimes must be kept separate; persons must know what the charge is, on which they are called upon to defend themselves, and miserable would be the situation of persons charged with the commission of crimes, if one crime was connected with another totally distinct and separate from it, and both were brought under one and the same charge, to unite in the same defence.

Gentlemen, I have stated to you, that the gentlemen for whom I appear are in a very humble situation in life. Mr. Holloway is a wine merchant, Mr. Lyte was formerly an officer in a militia regiment, Mr. Sandom is a private gentleman of small fortune;—they are none of them, by their situation in life, apparently likely to be connected with any of the other defendants upon the record. What is there that should lead you to believe they are so? Mr. Holloway and Mr. Lyte stand under a sufficient load of guilt already; they have admitted themselves guilty of what they did on that day. Will you, therefore, because they admitted themselves guilty of one part of the day's infamy, put upon them the infamy of the whole? Will you do this, because the two plots happen to take place on the same day? Can you not, in your recollection, find, in former times, the same sort of coincidence? Do we not know that such things have happened; that plots of a similar description, carried on by different parties, but having the same end, have taken place on the same day? Have there not been much more curious coincidences than chaises driving to the same point of destination, and the persons in the carriages leaving them there? Have juries ever been satisfied that such coincidences should lead to proving a connection with plots in other respects dissimilar?

Gentlemen, it is upon these grounds, therefore, I submit to you, these three defendants are not guilty of the offence charged upon this record. I shall trouble you with no witnesses;—there is nothing for me to repel. If I am right in my notion of the law;—if I am right in the persuasion that you can see nothing in the evidence connecting the two plots together;—and if my opinion of the law is sanctioned by my Lord, when he shall address himself to you, there is nothing I have to answer for. It is out of my power to prove, by any evidence, that these three persons were not connected with any of the other defendants upon the record; such a negative as that I can never establish, and therefore I can have no proofs.

Gentlemen, such is the situation in which the three gentlemen for whom I appear stand. I have expressed my sentiments upon the subject as shortly as I could. It is undoubtedly a great misfortune to my learned friends, as well as myself, that we should have been called upon to make our defences, when both you and we are so much exhausted.

There is but one other circumstance for me to mention, it is but a slight one;—the person who came up from Dover appears to have paid all his post-chaise drivers in foreign coin; there is no pretence for saying that any thing was paid by my clients but in Bank of England notes; there is nothing in that respect, therefore, connecting these two parties together; and if they are not connected together, I trust you will find Mr. Holloway, Mr. Sandom, and Mr. Lyte, not guilty of this charge.

Lord Ellenborough. Gentlemen of the Jury; It appears to me this would be the most convenient time for dividing the cause, as the evidence will occupy considerable time, probably. I cannot expect your attendance before ten o'clock.

It being now three o'clock on Thursday morning, the Court adjourned to ten o'clock.

---