Part 154

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 L.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 L.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 L.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 L.100 notes, by which one hundred L.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 L.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 L.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 L.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 L.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 L.1 notes, and those two hundred L.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 L.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 L.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 L.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 L.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 L.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.