said, he held in his hands a Petition from Alexander M'Rae, one of the persons lately convicted of a conspiracy against the Stock Exchange. He begged leave shortly to state to the House, the way in which the Petition came into his hands, and the reasons which induced him to undertake to present it to the House. He considered it to be the duty of all representatives in parliament to be open at all times to communication with their constituents. On this occasion, the petitioner had sought out him in this great metropolis, as his representative in parliament, and found access to him. The petitioner was supposed by the public in general, and by many members of the House, to have gone abroad. The petitioner stated to him, that he was ready to bring forward evidence in support of all the allegations contained in his Petition. He (Mr. Moore) told him, that he conceived it to be his duty to present all Petions from every description of individuals, drawn up in proper and respectful language, and that, as he saw nothing exceptionable in his Petition, he would have no hesitation in presenting it. The Petition stated, that a great public grievance and injustice had taken place; that one set of men had been punished for the crimes of another, and the petitioner preferred to come to the bar and prove the allegations contained in his Petition. He prayed to be heard at the bar of the House. He begged leave to assure the House, that the Petition itself and the object of it were totally unknown to the noble lord whose expulsion was that day to be moved, who had no conception either that such a Petition had found its way to him, or that it was his intention to present it to the House.

said, as the hon. member had stated the general purport of the Petition, it appeared to him of a nature to call for instantaneous observation without waiting to hear it read. This Alexander M'Rae was one of the persons lately convicted of a conspiracy; and his proposal was no less than to be heard at the bar of the House, against a sentence of a court of justice. The hon. member had stated, that the grievance complained of in the Petition, was, that one set of men were made to suffer for another, and that some of the persons convicted along with the petitioner were not guilty. The nature of the Petition amounted to this: the House were called on without evidence, or any allegation or statement, that he had applied for a new trial, or of the existence of any abuse at the trial, as a simple matter and an ordinary exercise of their functions, to release an individual or individuals solemnly tried and found guilty by the verdict of a jury. Had the hon. member not stated the particular grievance of which he complained, he should not have said any thing till he had heard the Petition read. But to listen to an application of this kind, was neither more nor less than to sap the foundation of the jurisprudence of the country. Every body knew that the House was open to the highest and lowest subjects of the realm; but this privilege would be abused, were they to allow any individual to come forward and state at the bar of the House, that the sentence of the court below was founded on injustice. The hon. member had only done his duty in presenting the Petition; but the House could never suffer such a petition to be read.

wished the House not to visit upon the petitioner any injustice which he might have done his cause in alluding to his Petition; and if there was any thing wrong in what he had stated, he requested them to lay it on his own shoulders alone.

observed, that every member on presenting a petition was bound to state his own view of it; and it was then for the House to consider whether they would allow it to be read.

intreated the House to allow him to state the object of the Petition, in the petitioner's own language. He stated that he was competent to explain the whole mystery of the Stock Exchange conspiracy; that in order to rescue from an ignominious punishment an individual who, though included in the indictment, verdict, and sentence of the court, was unjustly accused of participation in the plot, to which he was an entire stranger; he was ready to come forward and state the persons who were really guilty of the conspiracy, and to prove his statement by the testimony of many witnesses; that he had formerly made a similar offer to the committee of the Stock Exchange; that the secretary of that committee at first offered to give him some compensation for this information, but when he found that it would have the effect of exculpating lord Cochrane, he refused to listen to him, and included him in the trial, as he verily believed, to deprive lord Cochrane of the benefit of his evidence: that he threw himself on the generosity of the House for protection; and if he failed to establish the allegations in the Petition, that he was ready to deliver himself up to justice.

On the question that the Petition be brought up, being put,

said, it was well known that the petitioner offered to reveal his knowledge of the conspiracy for the sum of 10,000l. If the petitioner had the means of confirming his testimony at the bar by other evidence, all this might have been adduced at any time; at the period of the trial, or in mitigation of punishment; but instead of this, he had thought proper to come forward with his explanation of the whole of this transaction in the first instance before this House, in order that the House might not proceed on the sentence of the court against a noble lord who had been convicted. He had consented to suffer the punishment of the law, if he should not establish the allegations in his Petition. Then if he made out the innocence of the noble lord, he supposed the House were to address the Prince Regent for a pardon for this individual, who had absconded at the time the sentence was passed; but who now thought it a convenient time to introduce evidence to escape the punishment of the law. It was now, however, too late for him to turn informer.

said, if his hon. friend had reflected a moment on the Petition, he would have found that it was impossible to bring it up to any good purpose. The object of it was not only to afford an explanation of the conspiracy, but to clear the character of the noble lord. This was, however, not only not now allowable, but the petitioner was not credible when he came forward as a witness. Had he submitted to the judgment he would have become infamous, and incapable of giving testimony in a court of justice. The House were not bound by the rules of inferior courts; but there was an evident propriety in observing this rule in the present case. The individual who had absconded from justice ought not to be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong, and to offer that to the House which no tribunal in England would receive. His petition to the House ought not to be complied with. Were he allowed to throw out a suggestion, if the petitioner was possessed of this evidence, he might communicate it to the noble lord, and it would be with the noble lord to consider how far it would be advisable in him to state such evidence to the House, and for the House to consider in their discretion if it ought to be received.

The question was then put, and negative. The following is a copy of the Petition which Mr. Moore offered to present:

To the Honourable the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of Alexander M'Rae, lately convicted, with others, of a Conspiracy and Misdemeanor: Most respectfully sheweth,

"That, penetrated with contrition and grief, your humble petitioner approaches this honourable House, truly conscious of the disgrace with which a recent sentence has overwhelmed him, but which cannot diminish his confidence; but such odium will not prevent that attention which marks the conduct of the representatives of this empire, especially when a petitioner most respectfully declares, that, great as his fault has been, his present and sole object is to prove his repentance, and which he conceives he cannot do more effectually, than by an artless and undisguised acknowledgement and minute confession of every thing which relates to that transaction, which has involved him in his present unhappy situation.

"That your petitioner is fully competent to unveil the whole mystery; that he is anxious to do so on grounds of public justice, as well as private feelings, in order to rescue from false imputations an illustrious innocent individual, a member of your honourable House, who, although unhappily included with others in a verdict for a conspiracy, your petitioner will make manifest to have been most unjustly so included and condemned of the participation in a plot, to which he was in every stage a most perfect stranger. That your petitioner solemnly pledges himself to prove this declaration most fully by the testimony of many witnesses; and in support of this allegation, he begs to state that, on a former occasion, he offered a similar disclosure to the Stock Exchange committee, for which their agent offered him a pecuniary consideration; but on the committee finding that the information he had to give went to exculpate lord Cochrane, and to implicate a different combination of men amongst themselves, they rejected you petitioner's information, and included him in the indictment, in order, as he verily believes, to prevent him from giving his evidence on the trial; and, conscious of their iniquity towards your petitioner, they paid all his expenses for his appearing and pleading, and consented to wave his entering into the usual recognizances.

"That in order to enable your petitioner to accomplish this purpose, by examination at the bar of your honourable House, or in any other way you may think proper, he throws himself on the generosity of your honourable House, to afford him such protection as is usually extended to persons in his situation; and should your petitioner appear to your honourable House to fail in establishing the allegations contained in this Petition, he freely delivers himself up to receive such sentence as the law may award against him on his late conviction, and with such increased penalty as an attempt to impose on your honourable House would naturally subject him to.

"And your petitioner humbly prays to be heard accordingly. ALEX M'RAE."

"London, July 4, 1814."

then moved, that the record of the conviction and sentence of lord Cochrane be entered as read.

observed, that the hon. member had thus given the House to understand, that the record of the conviction was the ground of charge against the noble lord. It was for the noble lord, or any hon. member, now to advance what they had to say in his defence.

thought, that separate motions might perhaps be advisable, as there was no question but the one would be carried of course.

stated, that as far as he understood the practice of the House, the proceeding of the hon. member was perfectly regular. The record formed the charge. Regular House would not, however, act, till they heard the members, if present, or had cause to know that they were absent by their own fault. One of the members was in the House. The course of proceeding would be this:—the noble lord would state what he had to say in his defense; after being heard, he would then withdraw, and the House, with the record and defense of the noble lord, would come to the decision of the question.

then rose, and read from a written paper the following statement:—

Mr. Speaker;

The circumstances under which I appear before you and the House this day, entitle me to at least, a patient hearing. The unfortunate man, who, in the time of cardinal Richelieu, was condemned to be racked and burnt, on the charge of practising magic, when protesting his innocence and exposing the villainy of his enemies, while the fire was preparing before his eyes, was, to prevent his being heard by the people, struck, upon the mouth with a crucifix, borne in the hand of a monk. This horrible judicial murder shocked all France, and all Europe; but of all the circumstances attending it, the fabrication of evidence, the flagrant partiality of the judges, the cruelty of the sentence, the notorious falsehood of the charge, nothing produced so deep a sense of indignation as the act of this execrable monk; who, not content with the torture and the death of the victim, not content with the destruction of his body, was resolved to pursue him even beyond the grave. Therefore, Sir, though what I have now seen of ***** convinces me that cowardly malignity is not the exclusive possession of monks, I trust that, on this day, no means will be resorted to, to stifle my voice, or to prevent the public at large from hearing all that I have to say in my defense; all that I have to urge against the conduct of my enemies, and against the means that have been pursued to bring ruin and degradation upon me.

I am not here, Sir, to bespeak compassion, or to pave the way to pardon. Both ideas are alike repugnant to my feelings. That the public in general have felt indignation at the sentence that has been passed upon me, does honour to their hearts, and tends still to make my country dear to me, in spite of what I have suffered from the malignity of persons in power. But, Sir, I am not here to complain of the hardship of my case, or about the cruelty of judges, who, for all act which was never till now either known or thought to be a legal offence, have laid upon me a sentence more heavy than they have ever yet laid upon persons clearly convicted of the most horrid of crimes,—crimes, of which nature herself cries aloud against the commission. If, therefore, it was my object to complain of the cruelty of my judges, I should bid the public look into the calendar, and see if they could find a punishment like that inflicted on me, inflicted by these same judges on any one of these unnatural wretches. It is not, how- ever, my business to complain of the cruelty of this sentence. I am here to assert, for a third time, my innocence, in the most unqualified and solemn manner; I am here to expose the unfairness of the proceedings against me previous to the trial, at the trial, and subsequent to it; I am here to expose the long train of artful villainies which have been practiced against me, hitherto with so much success.

I am here, in short, to appeal to my country against the decision of.

I am persuaded, Sir, that the House will easily perceive, and every honourable man will, I am sure, participate in my feelings, that the fine, the imprisonment, the pillory;—even that pillory to which I am condemned, are nothing, that they weigh not as a feather when put in the balance against my desire to shew, that I have been unjustly condemned. Therefore, Sir, I trust that the House will give a fair and impartial hearing to what I have to say respecting the conduct of my enemies, to expose which conduct is a duty which I owe to my constituents and to my country, not less than to myself.

In the first place, Sir, I here, in the presence of this House, and with the eyes of the country fixed upon me, most solemnly declare, that I am wholly innocent of the crime which has been laid to my charge, and for which I have been condemned to the most infamous of punishments. Having repeated this assertion of my innocence, I next proceed to complain of the means that have been made use of to effect my destruction. And first, Sir, was it ever before known, in this, or in any other country, that the prosecutor should form a sort of court of his own erection, call witnesses before it of his own choosing, and, under offers of great rewards, take minutes of the evidence of such witnesses; and publish those minutes to the world under the forms and appearances of a judicial proceeding? Was it ever before known that steps like these were taken previous to an indictment, previous to the bringing of an intended victim into a court of justice? Was there ever before known so regular, so systematic a scheme for exciting suspicion against a man, and for implanting an immoveable prejudice against him in the minds of a whole nation, previous to the preferring a Bill of Indictment, in order that the grand jury, be it composed of Whomsoever it might, should be predisposed to find the Bill? I ask you, Sir, and I ask the House, whether it was ever before known, that means like these were resorted to, previous to a man's being legally accused? But, Sir, what must the world think, when they see some of those to whom the welfare and the honour of the nation are committed, covertly co-operating with a Committee of the Stock Exchange; and becoming their associates in so nefarious a scheme? Nevertheless, Sir, this fact is now notorious to the whole world. I must confess I was not prepared to believe the thing possible. I was aware, indeed, that I had to expect from some of those in power, whom I had in vain endeavored to bring to justice, every thing that malignity could suggest, and cunning perpetrate. I was aware that my endeavors, though humble, to expose the sources of corruption, through the Pension-list and the Prize-courts, had raised against me many enemies; I was aware of the unquenchable thirst for revenge, which, by the exposure of truth, I had excited in the breasts of many corrupt and hypocritical individuals; and, especially I was aware of the offence which I had given to the grasping and never-pardoning phalanx of the law, by exhibiting to the world their frauds upon my ill-treated brethren of the navy. But, notwithstanding all this, I was not prepared to see

So much, Sir, for the steps taken previous to the indictment. The conspiracy against me being thus matured, the public mind being completely prejudiced, and that prejudice kept alive by a series of falsehood and misrepresentations, the legal proceedings began. The Bill of Indictment was preferred; and here, Sir, must not the wicked design of the conspirators be manifest to all the world? There were some persons indicted who had confessed their share in the imposition. These persons had declared to my prosecutors, that they knew me not; that they had never seen me; that they never had any connection with me; and yet we were all put into one indictment, for the manifest purpose of so confounding innocence with guilt, as to secure a chance, at least, of my conviction, even at the hand of a jury who, in spite of all precautions, might be disposed to act justly. Their object was so to confound and confuse ideas, that with the aid of the craft of a, a jury of even honest men might be led to give a wrong verdict.

Care, however, was taken, Sir, that the success of this base conspiracy should not be exposed to the chances of failure, from the jury not being of the right stamp. The indictment, if left to its fair regular course, would have been tried at the Sessions-house at the Old Bailey, before a jury impartially taken. In that case it would have been what is called a Common Jury; that is to say, a jury whose names are taken promiscuously out of a box, containing the names of the whole of the jurors, summoned for the trial of all the cases brought before the court during the sessions. I was ready to meet the accusation before such a jury. I took no steps to put off the trial for a day. The indictment was removed from the court, before which it regularly came, into a court where the prosecutors knew they could cause me to be tried by a jury and, which was full as much to their purpose, before a judge [Here the noble lord made use of some strong expressions in mentioning the judge, which excited a murmur in the House.]

[The Speaker said the House were willing to hear all that the noble lord could state in his own defence; but the House, while unwilling to interrupt the noble lord, could not suffer virulent invectives or words to be made use of by him, which were not fit to be heard, if not proved. If the House, from an unwillingness to interrupt the noble lord, should allow assertions of an unwarrantable nature to be made use of, they would not certainly allow them to be afterwards repeated, merely because they were said there.]

Lord Cochrane continued:

Dr. Johnson, in reference to the happier times England had seen, has these lines—

"When sterling freedom circled Alfred's throne, And spies and Special Juries were unknown."

Sir, when I first read these lines, I was wholly ignorant of what special jury meant. I now understand the thing but too well; and I am not without hopes that the horrible injustice which has now been practiced, a which could not have been practiced without the aid of that contrivance of crafty tyranny, a special jury, may in the end, be the means of totally extirpating that intolerable evil. A special jury is composed of twelve persons taken out of forty-eight persons, the whole of which forty-eight persons are selected by the master of the Crown-office, who is dependent for his bread on the will of his Superiors, and who is invariably a person put into his office through the means of political, if not corrupt influence. It is notorious, Sir, that these special jurors follow the business as a trade; that they are paid a guinea each for every trial; that they sometimes gain eight or ten guineas a day; that it is deemed a favour to be put upon the special jury list; that persons pay money to get upon that list; that if they displease the care is taken to prevent them from serving again, or, in other words, to cut them off, or turn them out from a profitable employment. And is it this, Sir, which we call a jury of our country? Have I been tried by a jury of my country? Sir, I have been tried by twelve men, If there be any meaning in the word packed, as applied to juries; To pack a jury, means to select, by one of the parties, men, who, it is known, will decide, as that party wishes them to decide. And was not that the case in the present instance? Was not the master of the Crown-office For what other purpose than that of securing was the case removed from the Old Bailey to the Court of King's-bench? I ask for what other purpose? and I defy any one to answer me, unless he add that it was also for the purpose of securing The institution of special juries, an institution unknown till times of modern date, and repugnant to the laws of England, had its rise in a pretence, that matters of technical difficulty a common jury might not be competent to understand. As in cases of insurance, shipping of goods, and the like. But what was there in this case that a common jury, composed of tradesmen in the city of London, would not have understood? A common jury would surely have been as competent to decide upon my case as upon the cases of hundreds, who are condemned to death upon the decision of such a jury in that same court, where, if it had been the intention to do me justice, my case would have been tried. The House are told that it is sufficient for them to have read the verdict against me: by what principle of justice, or of reason, the House is to proceed to inflict upon me a new punishment, without themselves hearing and examining the evidence, I will not here attempt to enquire. I shall satisfy myself as to this point in having shewn that the jury, whose verdict was produced in the House, and that it was, as all such juries in such cases are,

If, Sir, the accusation against me had not brought the whole conduct of my life under animadversion, I should not think it necessary to account for the manner in which my time has been employed, since I was actively engaged in my professional duties. The interval has not been idly spent, nor without a view to the interests of my country. At an expense of nearly 2,000l., for which I neither sought or thought of remuneration, I examined the situations, and procured plans of various important ports and places in the Mediterranean. I meditated and matured plans for the more effectual prosecution of the war. They were approved, pronounced practicable, and considered infallible, by some of the most distinguished officers now living. I offered them to successive administrations, and I also offered my services to put them in execution. Subsequently my attention was chiefly directed to the prosecution and perfection of an invention of considerable public convenience and utility; and on the very day of the offence so unexpectedly laid to my charge, I was solely occupied in furthering this, at least inoffensive, object, without the slightest idea of the mischief which that day was to bring forth.

I had then been appointed to the command of his Majesty's ship the Tonnant, and the loss of that command, after expending more than 1,000l. in fitting for sea, is one of the many misfortunes in which this groundless accusation has involved me. I had obtained leave of absence, to procure a patent for the above invention; and to my duty on board my ship returned on the 1st of March, and it was not till the 8th day of that month that I found, that my name was connected with the fraud from the following paragraph in the public prints of the 7th:

"We are glad to hear that the committee of the Stock Exchange have made considerable progress in discovering the authors of the late nefarious fraud, and that they have ascertained that the pretended colonel De Bourgh went to the house of a gentleman who has a large stock-jobbing account. Though the committee have posted the following notice, yet we should hope, that the gentlemen named therein, were no parties to the deception practiced. They cannot, however, take too early an opportunity of clearing themselves from all suspicion of having participated in the transaction."

"Stock-Exchange Committee Room, March 4.

"It is particularly requested, that all those members of the Stock Exchange who transacted business, either directly or indirectly, for any of the persons under-mentioned on Monday the 21st of February last, will favour the committee with an interview:—the hon. Cochrane Johnstone, Mr. G. R. Butt, lord Cochrane, Mr. Holloway, Mr. Sandom, Mr. M'Rae."

On reading this paragraph, I lost no time, (whatever may have been insinuated to the contrary), in applying for leave of absence. I gave the necessary orders about the ship, and waited on admiral Sturbridge to obtain his permission to proceed to town. He informed me, that he had just sent me admiralty-leave to the ship, and a letter from lord Melville; neither of which were forwarded to me for a considerable time after, and lord Melville's letter remains still unopened. I mention this merely to shew, that in returning to town for the purpose of clearing my character, I was not influenced by any communication from the Admiralty. On my return to town I did what I think every innocent man would have done; I made oath to a true statement of all that I knew of the circumstances on which the accusation against me was founded.

It was said by the counsel for the prosecution, that he should have thought that a nobleman in my situation would have pledged his word and honour. If I understood the difference between the sanctity of such a pledge, and that of an oath, I might be able to reply to his observation; but I do not: but this I understand, that if I had pledged my word and honour, it would not have escaped that person's discernment, that I did not dare to make oath to the truth of my statement.

The report of the Stock-Exchange Committee was not published till two days after my affidavit, and the description of the dress of the pretended messenger, as given by them in their hand-bill of the 7th, to wit a brown great coat, and a red under-coat, being wholly different from that in which De Berenger appeared before me, which was a grey great coat and a green uniform. I firmly believed that he was not the same person; and so impressed, I published my affidavit of the 11th, and shortly after the affidavits of three of my ser- vants who made oath that the upper-coat was grey, and that the collar and all that they saw of the under-coat was green. These Affidavits I hold in my hand, and if it is the pleasure of the House I will read them.^*

^* The following are the Copies of the said Affidavits:

"Having obtained leave of absence to come to town in consequence of scandalous paragraphs in the public papers; and in consequence of having learnt that hand-bills had been affixed in the streets in which, I have since seen, it is asserted that a person came to my house, at N^o. 13 Green-street, on the 21st day of February, in open day, and in the dress in which he had committed a fraud, I feel it due to myself to make the following deposition, that the public may know the truth relative to the only person seen by me in military uniform at my house on that day. COCHRANE,"

"13, Green-street, March 11, 1814."

No. 13, Green-strret, Grosvenor-street, March 11, 1814.

"I, sir Thomas Cochrane, commonly called lord Cochrane, having been appointed by the lords commissioners of the Admiralty to active service (at the request, I believe, of sir Alexander Cochrane) when I had no expectation of being called on, I obtained leave of absence to settle my private affairs previous to quitting this country, and chiefly with a view to lodge a specification to a patent relative to a discovery for increasing the intensity of light.—That, in pursuance of my daily practice of superintending work that was executing for me, and knowing that my uncle, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, went to the city every morning in a coach, I do swear, that on the morning of the 21st of February, which day was impressed on my mind by circumstances which afterwards occurred, I breakfasted with him at his residence in Cumberland-street, about half past eight o'clock, and I was put down by him (and Mr. Butt was in the coach) on Snow-hill, about ten o'clock.—That I had been about three quarters of an hour at Mr. King's manufactory, at No. 1, Cock-lane, when I received a few lines on a small bit of paper, requesting me to come immediately to my house; the name affixed, from being written close to the bottom, I could not read; the servant told me it was from an army officer,

and concluding, that he might be an officer from Spain, and that some accident had befallen my brother, I hastened back, and I found captain Berenger, who, in great seeming uneasiness, made many apologies for the freedom he had used, which nothing but the distressed state of his mind, arising from difficulties, could have induced him to do. All his prospects, he said, had failed, and his last hope had vanished of obtaining an appointment in America. He was unpleasantly circumstanced on account of a sum which he could not pay, and if he could, that others would fall upon him for full 8,000l. He had no hope of benefiting his creditors in his present situation, or of assisting himself. That if I would take him with me, he would immediately go on board and exercise the sharp-shooters (which plan sir Alexander Cochrane I knew had approved of). That he had left his lodgings, and prepared himself in the best way his means had allowed. He had brought the sword with him, which had been his father's, and to that and to sir Alexander he would trust for obtaining an honourable appointment.—I felt very uneasy at the distress he was in, and knowing him to be a man of great talent and science, I told him I would do every thing in my power to relieve him; but as to his going immediately to the Tonnant with any comfort to himself, it was quite impossible. My cabin was without furniture; I had not even a servant on board. He said he would willingly mess any where. I told him that the ward room was already crowded, and besides, I could not with propriety take him, he being a foreigner, without leave from the Admiralty. He seemed greatly hurt at this, and recalled to my recollection certificates which he had formerly shewn me from persons in official situations; lord Yarmouth, general Jenkinson, and Mr. Reeves, I think, were amongst the number. I recommended him to use his endeavor to get them or any other friends to exert their influence, for I had none; adding, that when the Tonnant went to Portsmouth, I should be happy to receive him; and I knew from sir Alexander Cochrane,

that he would be pleased if he accomplished that object. Captain Berenger said, that not anticipating any objection on my part from the conversation he had formerly had with me, he had come away with intention to go on board, and make himself useful in his military capacity; he could not go to lord Yarmouth or to any other of his friends in this dress (alluding to that which he had on), or return to his lodgings, where it would excite suspicion (as he was at that time in the rules of the King's-bench), but that if I refused to let him join the ship now, he would do so at Portsmouth. Under present circumstances, however, he must use a great liberty, and request the favour 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 that had not been packed up, and having tried it on, his uniform appeared under his great coat; I therefore offered him a black coat that was lying on a chair, and which I did not intend to take with me: he put up his uniform in a towel, and shortly afterwards went away in great apparent uneasiness of mind; and having asked my leave, he took the coach I came in, and which, I had forgotten to discharge in the haste I was in.—I do further depose, that the above conversation is the substance of all that passed with captain Berenger, which from the circumstances attending it, was strongly impressed upon my mind: that no other person in uniform was seen by me at my house, on Monday, the 21st of February, though possibly other officers may have called (as many have done since my appointment); of this, however, I cannot speak of my own knowledge, having been almost constantly from home, arranging my private affairs. I have understood that many persons have called under the above circumstances, and have written notes in the parlous, and others have waited there in expectation of seeing me, and then gone away; but I most positively swear, that I never saw any person at my house resembling the description, and in the dress stated in the printed advertisement of the members of the Stock Exchange: I further aver, that I had no concern, directly or indirectly, in the late imposition, and that the above is all that

I know relative to any person who came to my house in uniform on the 21st day of February before alluded to. Captain Berenger wore a grey great coat, a green uniform, and a military cap.—From the manner in which my character has been attempted to be defamed, it is indispensably necessary to state that my connection in any way with the funds arose from an impression that, in the present favourable aspect of affairs, it was only necessary to hold stock, in order to become a gainer, without prejudice to any body: that I did so openly, considering it in no degree improper, far less dishonourable: that I had no secret information of any kind; and that had my expectation of the success of affairs been disappointed, I should have been the only sufferer.—Further, I do most solemnly swear, that the whole of the omnium on account, which I possessed on the 21st day of February, 1814, amounted to 139,000l. which I bought by Mr. Fearn (I think) on the 12th ultimo, at a premium of 28¼: that I did not hold on that day any other sum on account, in any other stock, directly or indirectly; and that I had given orders when it was bought, to dispose of it on a rise of 1 per cent. and it actually was sold on an average at 29½ premium, though on the day of the fraud it might have been disposed of at 33½. I further swear, that the above is the only stock which I sold of any kind on the 21st day of February, except 2000l. in money which I had occasion for; the profit of which was about 10l.—Further I do solemnly depose, that I had no connexion or dealing with any one, save the above-mentioned, and that I did not at any time, 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.

"COCHRANE."

Sworn at my house in Great Queen-street, Lincoln'-inn-fields, in the county of Middlesex, the 11th day of March, 1814, before me,

A. Graham.

My affidavit of the 11th of March was most unmercifully handled by the counsel for the prosecution, and also by the Chief Justice. They insisted that I must have known when I received the note that it came from De Berenger. My statement was, that while I was superintending work at Mr. King's manufactory, I received a note, but did not know that it came from De Berenger, because the name was written so close to the bottom that I could not read it. It was triumphantly remarked, that this note was not forthcoming. It was mentioned as a suspicious circumstance that I could not produce this note. The fact is, that I tore it and threw it down. I had not the smallest idea that it was worth preserving—a note merely soliciting an interview which I was immediately going to grant. What could it contain that the writer himself could not inform me of? If I had preserved it—if I had brought it forth—what would the learned judge have said? Why, Sir, he would have said, that there could not be a more suspicious circumstance—that I could never have been so careful of an apparently insignificant scrap of paper, if I had not foreseen that it might one day be called in question; or else he would have said, that it had been subsequently fabricated.

Affidavit of Isaac Davis.—I, Isaac Davis, do swear, that I was in lord Cochrane's service. That when his lordship was appointed to a ship, I received warning to

provide myself with a place; and that, on the 21st day of February, and when the month's warning had expired, I was in his lordship's house in Green-street, where several gentleman called in the morning, one of whom was captain Berenger. He had on a grey great coat, buttoned, and a green collar under it. I knew him, having seen him when his lordship lived in Park-street. And I do further swear, that no man lived in his lordship's house but his servants, and that I did not see any man dressed, or answering the description of Crane, the hackney-coachman, at his lordship's house on the day above-mentioned.

ISAAC DAVIS.

Sworn at the Mansion-house, London, this 21st day of March, 1814.

Wm. Domville, Mayor.

The Affidavits of Thomas Dewman and Mary Turpin were afterwards repeated in the court of King's-bench, and will be found in a subsequent part of the Speech.

I have to lament that I was not more particular as to the important fact of my going away from the lamp makers, under the impression that I was about to meet an officer with distressing intelligence relative to my brother, the hon. major Cochrane. I can now only supply the deficiency by the same statement, and the same evidence which I tendered to the court of Kings Bench when I made my second application for a new trial. I then observed, "that I was in apprehensions of fatal news respecting my brother then in France, from whom I had received a letter but three days before, with the intelligence of his being dangerously ill; and I now tender you his affidavit, with the surgeon's certificate, dated the 12th of February, which he brought home with him: and, therefore, on receiving the note from Berenger, whose name I was unable to decypher, and as that note announced that the writer, whom I learnt from my servant had the appearance of an officer in the army, was desirous of seeing me, I hastened to learn intelligence so anxiously expected; nor had I the least doubt that it related to my brother. When, however, I found that the person was De Berenger, and that he had only to speak of his own private affairs, the apparent distress he was in, and the relief it gave my mind to know that he was not the bearer of the news I dreaded, prevented me from feeling that displeasure which I might otherwise have felt at the liberty he had taken, or the interruption it had occasioned. Comments have been made on my saying so little to the servant who brought me that note; but the fact is, I did ask him several questions as appears by his affidavit. That I did not learn the name of the writer from the note itself, I have truly accounted for, by its being written so close to the bottom that I could not read it. This assertion is said to be contradicted by the circumstance of the writer having found room to add a postscript, as if there was only one side of the paper. Of the postscript I have no recollection, but it might have been written even opposite the signature. That I did not collect from the handwriting that it was addressed to me by De Berenger is nothing extraordinary; my acquaintance with that person was extremely slight; and till that day, I had never received more than one or two notes from him, which related to a drawing of a lamp. I was too deeply impressed with the idea that the note was addressed to me by an officer who had come with intelligence of my brother, to apprehend that it was written by De Berenger, from whom I expected no communication, and with whose hand-writing I was not familiar. All that I could afterwards recollect of the note, more than what is stated in my affidavit, is, that he had something to communicate which would affect my feeling mind, or words to that effect, which confirmed my apprehensions that the writer was the messenger of fatal news of my brother."

My brother's affidavit is as follows:

"The hon. Willliam Erskine Cochrane, major in the 15th regiment of dragoons, now residing in Portman-square in the county of Middlesex, on his oath, saith, that he was seized with a violent and alarming illness on the 1st of January, 1814, at Cambo, in the South of France, and that this deponent remained in a state of dangerous illness until the 18th of the following month; that, early in February last, he wrote to his brother, lord Cochrane, to acquaint his lordship of this deponent's situation, as deponent had then very little hope of recovery, and telling him that he had received a notification that he would be ordered to England, where he should proceed if ever able to undertake the journey. And this deponent further saith, that the annexed certificate was given to him for the purpose of being laid officially before a board of medical officers at St. Jean de Luz by the surgeon of this deponent's regiment, and is in the said surgeon's hand writing."

From the certificate of the surgeon dated the 12th of February, I think it material to insert the following extracts:—"Major Cochrane was seized with the usual symptoms of fever on the 1st of January, which was continued for the first three days, then the remittent character developed itself; the evening paroxysm was severe every day, and he was all through much worse on the third day than on the two preceding days.—On the 23d he had a crisis, and went on very well till the 1st of February, when he suffered a relapse, attended with rather alarming symptoms. There was great determination to the head, and a tendency to coma. On the morning of the 7th he had a second relapse. I hope the change of air and objects will serve him."

The affidavit of my brother, as well as the certificate of the surgeon, were treated as fabrications; and with respect to my brother's letter, the judge would not believe that I had received it, unless I could produce it, and shew him the post-mark. It is known to all my friends, that I seldom preserve such letters as are not likely to be of future importance, but it was also known to many of my friends that I had received such a letter: and since my brother colonel Cochrane's return from Ireland, I have learnt that he did actually receive the letter enclosed from me, and my other brother, major Cochrane, has sworn to the fact of having sent it. His affidavit was before the court, but was impudently discredited by the judge.

Having rejected the letter and the affidavit, it was easy to dispose of the certificate. He chose to consider it as the cer- tificate of a day's illness only, namely, the 12th of February, although it expressly certifies that such illness commenced on the 1st of January, and he contended that I could not have heard of such illness prior to the 21st of February. The authority of the certificate is unquestionable, and it is more important since it was not obtained for the purpose of proving the truth of my statement, but is the original certificate granted to my brother, on the 12th February, by the surgeon of his regiment, for the purpose of being laid before a board of medical officers at St. Jean de Luz, to shew the necessity of his return to England, where he arrived some time in March, and brought the certificate with him, and now resides in Portman-square, in a very precarious state of health. The certificate of the surgeon includes a period of six weeks, namely, from the 1st of January: and yet the learned judge argued against the probability, nay, stated that it was almost impossible, that I should have heard of his illness on the 17th of February!

When it is considered, that lord Ellenborough admitted, that evidence of the illness of my brother would add great probability to my statement, that, on hearing of the arrival of an officer from the army, I went home with the expectation of hearing distressing intelligence respecting him, and that such evidence would indeed be important, is it not strange that he shonld have rejected such evidence without the slightest examination?

With respect to my account of the conversation which passed between De Berenger and myself, I submit that it is not only true, but perfectly probable. It was not necessary that I should know what De Berenger had been transacting, in order to believe that he had reasons for wishing to quit the kingdom. His wish to go to America, and sir Alexander Cochrane's application in his behalf, were known to me, and clearly proved on the trial: and the prosecutors counsel admitted that De Berenger was in the rules of the King's-bench, and so involved in debt, that he would rather reside in any country than this. Since the trial, a letter from De Berenger to his solicitor, Mr. Gabriel Tahourdin, has come into my possession, which clearly proves the distressed state of his mind, and his anxiety to get out of the country. The letter is dated the 17th of February, four days previous to the fraud of the 21st; the letter is long, and to me perfectly unintelligible: the following passage shews the perturbed state of his mind:

"I cannot refrain from pressing you as my solicitor, and as a confidential friend, to take immediately those measures, which alone can tranquilise my mind, and enable me thereby to meet the numerous sufferings I am doomed to bear. Something must be done; for what is so harrassing as doubt about future fate? Mine is all gloom; and self preservation, that powerful argument, but which I have so long neglected, and which every body more or less seems to use, requires my immediate and unalterable decision. I have refused what most people would call the safe side of the question: what are my prospects in consequence? that I shall have enemies in abundance—that I shall, in either result, have lost all chance of encouragement, perhaps in all Europe, and that I shall be tossed about, God knows how and where, and at an age, which claims rest: and horrible as the picture is, it is even the best of the prospects that await me."

After the apprehension of Mr. De Berenger, I did, by the advice of Mr. Johnstone, address to him a letter, through the office of lord Sidmouth, calling upon him to state to the public his reasons for coming to my house on the 21st of February, and he answered, that "nothing could exceed the pain he felt when he perceived how cruelly, how unfairly, his unfortunate, visit of the 21st of February was interpreted, which, with its object, was correctly detailed in my affidavit." I hold his original letter in my hand.

Relying upon the difference of the dress in which De Berenger appeared before me, from that described by the Stock Exchange Committee, and on the assurance of Mr. Johnstone, that De Berenger had informed him that he could unequivocally prove an alibi, by at least a dozen credible witnesses, and believing that, at all events, my own innocence would prove my protection, I felt so perfectly secure as to the issue of the trial, that I gave no instructions to counsel, attended no consultation, and never even read my own brief, into which a serious error was introduced; but, leaving the whole business in the hands of my solicitor, I retired to my house in the country, and did not return till two days previous to the trial.

While in the country, I received a letter from my solicitor, informing me, that at a consultation, it had been resolved to defend my case jointly with that of Mr. Butt, and that it was not determined, whether it might not also be adviseable to unite it with that of Mr. Johnstone. I had ordered that my case should be defended separately, and Messrs. Topping and Scarlett were engaged as my counsel. To the above communication I returned the following answer.

"Holly-hill, Titchfield, May 29, 1814:"

"The counsel are certainly better able to judge than I am, as to the necessity of mixing Mr. Butt's case with mine, but I will not consent to any further union."

Notwithstanding this, my case was defended conjointly, and it deserves particular attention, that the able counsel who pleaded my cause (Mr. Serjeant Best), was intended to defend Mr. Johnstone only, and that the counsel whom I did employ, had no opportunity of opening their lips. The unavailing expression of my dissent to an union of cases, was almost the only step taken by me in my own behalf, in the whole course of the proceedings prior to my return to town; for, in addition to the perfect consciousness of my innocence, I cannot help remarking, that Mr. Johnstone was anxious to relieve me from the trouble of attending to my own interests in this matter; and in a letter which he wrote to me a few days previous to the trial, he intreated me to make myself perfectly easy as to the issue, and informed me that he had seen De Berenger's brief, by which it appeared that he would fully establish an alibi. I have had no opportunity of searching for this letter, which, pursuant to my general practice well known to my friends, perhaps I have destroyed; but the receipt and purport of it can be proved on oath by a visitor then at my house.

On my return to town, immediately before the trial, a copy of the brief of Mr. De Berenger was shewn to me by Mr. Johnstone; and the case as therein stated appeared to me so perfectly clear, that I solemnly assure the House that I then thought it impossible that he could be the person who personated Du Burgh. That I had no concern whatever in the alibi set up by Mr. De Berenger, will sufficiently appear from the following Letter from my Solicitors:—

"Lincolns-Inn Fields, 1st July, 1814.

"My Lord; We beg to acknowledge the receipt of your lordship's letter of yesterday's date, and to acquaint you, in answer, that we were certainly employed exclusively for your lordship in the late trial, and not for any other of the defendants; and we also beg leave to state most explicitly, that we never received from your lordship, or any other person whatever, any instructions in respect to the alibi attempted to be proved by Mr. De Berenger, and consequently did not, nor could give any directions to counsel in respect to that alibi, nor had we ever any intercourse or communication whatever with the witnesses by whom it was to be established. We have the honour to be, my Lord, &c. FARRER and Co."

My description of the dress in which De Berenger appeared before me at my house on the 21st of February, has excited much animadversion. When I swore that he wore a green coat, the counsel for the prosecution declared that I had incurred the moral guilt of perjury, without subjecting myself to the legal penalty. When I came into court and repeated my assertion upon oath, under all the risks of the law, and tendered the affidavits of others who saw him as I did, in his green coat at my house, the same counsel impudently repeated the foul and false accusation. I also affirmed, upon my honour, in the court of King's-bench, and I do affirm upon my honour in this House, that I only saw him in a green uniform.

I have already stated, that an error of the most dangerous nature was introduced into the brief. In that brief the coat of De Berenger is described to have been a red one, with a green collar, and my counsel in consequence admitted that to be red which had been sworn to be green.

My attention was not called to this error, which has been so injurious; and Mr Serjeant Best, in the course of my defence, marked the contradiction between my affidavit and what his brief told him, and he gave me credit for an oversight in consequence thereof, but declined examining my servants, then ready in attendance. Early on the morning of the second day of the trial, being informed, to my surprise, of the mode of defence which had been resorted to, I again sent my servants to Guildhall with a note to my solicitor, of which the following is an extract;

"9th June, 1814.

"Dear Sir; I have sent my servants who, I submit, ought to be examined in order to prove the appearance of Berenger. This seems necessary, to free me from the internal uneasiness which I should ever feel were the investigation to terminate otherwise."

Still, Sir, it was not deemed proper to examine my servants: and to the error which crept into the brief, and the consequent misapprehension of my counsel, I must, in some measure, attribute the unfavourable result of the trial. I say, in some measure, because I must ever consider myself as principally indebted for my conviction to the injustice of

About half past seven o'clock, on the evening of the last day of the trial, a clerk, on the part of my solicitors, called upon me, and the following is a memorandum made by him of the conversation that took place between us in consequence:

"I told lord Cochrane I had just come out of court to prepare him for the worst result, as the Judge was summing up against him very decidedly; and I delivered him a memorandum of Mr. Brougham, recommending his lordship's being made acquainted with the result to be apprehended; he enquired much about the trial, but particularly what witnesses had been called on his side?—I told him Dewman, and a person to prove major Cochrane's illness, and some others.—He enquired if Mary Turpin was called?—I answered not.—He said Mr. Parkinson had put his foot in his case, or that he had botch'd his case, and it was cruel in him.—He requested I would tell him he ought to have called her to prove Berenger's dress.—I told him his letter was submitted to counsel, and the measure not approved of by them. He answered, Mr. P. should have done as I instructed him; I am to be the only sufferer if convicted.—I also told him, that at the time his lordship's letter was received, his case was closed.

"(Signed) HM. COULTHURST, 10th June, 1814."

I introduce this, Sir, to shew to the House how anxious I was, to the very last moment, that my servants should be examined. Had they been examined, they would have proved that the dress in which De Berenger came to my house was green; and I submit whether the testimony of all these persons ought not to preponderate over that of one. The only witness to the point of De Berenger's coming to my house in a red coat is Crane, the hackney-coachman. And under what circumstances was his evidence given? Not one of the counsel for the prosecution ventured to question him to the point; but, on his cross-examination, being asked the following question, "you do not pretend to be able to recollect every person you carry in your hackney-coach every day?" he replied, "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." Does it not appear from this answer, that the witness having been disappointed in not being questioned to that point before, speaks to it now as his only chance of securing the reward of 250l. offered by the Stock Exchange, and which, I understand, he has laid claim to? With respect to the evidence of Crane, it is worthy of notice, that the great coat which I have sworn was grey, was described by him, in his examination before the Stock Exchange Committee, to have been a brown one; but, on the trial, he meets my description, and calls it a brown-grey: he also described Berenger as a red-faced man. Shilling also stated, before the Committee, that De Berenger had a large red nose, and face rather blotch'd. Now, it is well known, that De Berenger bears no resemblance to such description; he is pale, marked with the small pox, and free from blotches.

But, Sir, I have another fact to state with regard to Crane; and I call upon the House to give it that attention which it deserves. At the moment, Sir, that this man was giving evidence, which was to convict me of the crimes of fraud and perjury, he himself was suffering the sentence of the law for conduct of no common atrocity. The account of this conduct I will read to the House, as it was stated in the public papers:—

"On Friday last, William Crane, the driver of the hackney-coach No. 782, was summoned before the commissioners upon a charge of cruelty to his horses—The circumstances detailed were so shocking as induced the Commmissioners to observe, they never heard a more atrocious case."

Now, Sir, I ask, is the evidence of an old and faithful servant, who has been in our family seventeen years, together with the evidence of three other witnesses of unimpeached veracity, to be outweighed in the balance by a wretch of this stamp?

On the subject of the Bank-notes found in De Berenger's possession, which had been exchanged for others that had once been mine, I pledge myself to prove, in the clearest and most unequivocal manner, that such notes of mine as have been called in question, were part of a sum given by me to Mr. Butt for the purpose of discharging just and bonâ fide debts; namely, a debt of 200l. to himself for money borrowed, and the payment of my wine merchants, Messrs. Wilkinson and Crosthwaite, whose bill amounted to 699l. 11s. the payment of which, through the hands of Mr. Butt, had escaped my recollection at the time of the trial. The several papers relating to the loan of 200l. extracted from the Stock-broker's books, together with the wine-merchants' affidavit respecting the whole of the transaction, I hold in my hand, and entreat the House to examine them. In looking over the wine-merchants affidavit, I find, that on the 19th of February, the very day on which the fraud is alleged to have been planned, I was "engaged in their cellars for upwards of two hours in tasting wines," to be sent on board the Tonnant.

Having mentioned Mr. Butt, I take this opportunity of stating, that my connection with the funds arose from a conversation with that gentleman in October last, when the progress of the allies and the favourable aspect of affairs induced him to recommend me to place my spare money in government securities: I told him that I had disposed of it in private securities and land. He then informed me, that I might gain without advancing the principal, and offered to conduct the business for me: he urged this proposal; which I then declined, being unwilling to enter into speculations which I did not understand: however, in the course of a few days, to my very great surprise, he brought me the sum of 480l., as the profit on a speculation which he said he had made for me! Not wanting the money, I desired him to sport with it till he had lost it; and between that period and the 19th of February the sum which he had gained and placed to my account, without fee or reward, and without check or controul on my part, amounted to 4,200l. I have witnessed many generous and disinterested acts of Mr. Butt, and I think him incapable of a dishonourable action. In justice to him I must also observe, that the notes in ques- tion, as appeared on the trial, were part of a sum lent by him on the 25th of February, to Mr. Johnstone.

I come now, Sir, more particularly to the conduct of the judge before whom the cause was tried. The public have read an account of that conduct during the examination of the witnesses. It must be in the recollection of the House, as it is in that of the public, that he urged, that he compelled the counsel to enter upon my defence after midnight, at the end of fifteen hours from the commencement of the trial, when that counsel declared himself quite exhausted, and when the jury, who were to decide, were in a state of such weariness as to render attention to what was said totally impossible. The speeches of the counsel being ended, the judge, at half past three in the morning, adjourned the court till ten; thus separating the evidence from the argument, and reserving his own strength and the strength of my adversaries' advocate for the close; giving to both the great advantage of time to consider of the reply, and to invent and arrange arguments to meet those which had been urged in my defence. By this means, too, another important object was secured. From the lateness of the hour at which the counsel were compelled to enter on my defence, it was impossible, that that defence should appear the next day in print; while the speech of the advocate by whom I was accused would appear at full length. The object was completely attained; and thus were the public, by seeing hardly a word in my defence, while so much was urged against me, prepared to approve of the verdict which was given the next day.

Lord Ellenborough, in his charge to the jury, remarked, that in my affidavit of the 11th of March (but not before) I first connected the name of De Berenger with this transaction. It is true, that I did so; and the fact was known to his lordship, for he had heard it in evidence, that when I gave the affidavits to be printed, I declared that "if De Berenger was the impostor, I had furnished the clue to his detection;" and lord Ellenborough was not warranted in insinuating, that I had delayed the disclosure till I knew or believed that De Berenger had escaped. Why I could not take this step sooner, I have already explained, and the statement contained in my affidavit of the 14th of June, is full and decisive on the subject, and is a complete answer to the calumny, that I acted on the supposition of De Berenger being out of the kingdom. I, at least, had done nothing to contribute to his escape. I had refused his application to join my ship without leave from the Admiralty: if I had had the least reason to wish for his concealment, I could easily have smuggled him into the Tonnant; but it is obvious that I had no such intention.

By what authority, Sir, did lord Ellenborough take the unfavourable part of my affidavit as true, and the favourable part as false—when the former was not corroborated, nor the latter contradicted by any other evidence? or why did he represent me as making admissions which I did not make? He professed to speak from my affidavit, and indeed had no other evidence, to the fact of my furnishing De Berenger with a coat to wear instead of his uniform, and put it to the jury to consider "whether a man coming so disguised, and going away again with his disguise in a bundle, was not on a dishonest errand." Lord Ellenborough, Sir, professes to quote and draw conclusions from my affidavit; and he represents me as admitting that De Berenger came into my presence disguised, and that he went away with his disguise in a bundle! If there be one word of this in my affidavit, then I am perjured, and lord Ellenborough speaks truth. I stated that De Berenger, an officer in a rifle corps, called upon me in a green uniform; and this the judge submits to the jury is a disguise, and a proof of his coming on a dishonest errand!

"But," continues lord Ellenborough, "if other witnesses are to be believed, that visitor went to lord Cochrane's house, recently after having blazoned the false news, decorated with a star, a medallion, and dressed in a scarlet coat." In this short sentence there are two mis-statements; for there was only one witness who represented such visitor coming to my house in a scarlet coat, and not one word of the star, or medallion. Why did not lord Ellenborough submit to the jury, whether it was probable that De Berenger came there, and in that dress, by any previous arrangement of mine? Why did he not say, that it was for the jury to enquire, whether he came there as my instrument, or for his own convenience?

"Having hunted down the game," continues the dignified Chief Justice, "the prosecutors at last showed what became of his skin; and it is a very material fact, that the defendant De Berenger stripped himself at lord Cochrane's." Why is it material? Because it is one of those facts which a guilty man would have been most anxious to conceal; and since this material fact never could have been known if I had not voluntarily divulged it, it is chiefly important as affording strong presumptive proof of my innocence; and in that light, it was lord Ellenborough's duty to have submitted it to the jury.

"He stripped his scarlet uniform off there," says the judge, "and the circumstances of its not being green did not excite lord Cochrane's suspicion." Did no lord Ellenborough know, that there was no evidence before the jury of De Berenger pulling off his scarlet uniform at my House? Even if it had been clear that he entered my house in that uniform, which I verify believe he did not, which of the witnesses on the trial saw him pull it off at my house? NOT ONE. Which of the witnesses proved that he went away in a dress different from that in which he entered? NOT ONE. On what ground, then, did this Chief justice rest his assertion, that he pulled off his scarlet coat in my presence? That he pulled off any coat at all in my presence, he has no authority for stating, but my affidavit; and was he to give the prosecution the benefit of my evidence to the fact of De Berenger pulling off a coat in my house, and to deprive me of the advantage of the like evidence as to the colour of it, without the slightest proof to contradict that evidence?

Lord Ellenborough goes on to say, "that dress was such as ought to have immediately excited the suspicion of lord Cochrane; for how could a man in such disguise be supposed to have an honest purpose? If the colour of the coat escaped observation, what did he think of the star and medal? It became him, upon discovering these, as an officer and a gentleman, to communicate his suspicions of these circumstances. Did he not ask De Berenger where he had been in this dress? It was for the jury to say whether lord Cochrane did not know where he had been.

Had the jury, Sir, not been a packed jury—had any one of them felt an honest confidence in his situation, would he not have started up in the box, and desired this judge to refer to his in minutes, and point out where it had been given in evidence, that De Berenger was seen to wear the star and medal in my presence? This, perhaps, would have staggered him, and have led him not to enquire, whether I did not know where De Berenger had been, but to ask where he himself was going—whether he was not travelling out of the Record—and whether he was so doing for

"This", continues the learned judge, "was not the dress of a sharp-shooter, but of a mountebank. He came before lord Cochrane, fully blazoned in the costume of his crime." Sir, this is one of those extraordinary effusions of lord Ellenborough's eloquence, which no language but his own can do justice to. I shall therefore adopt the expression used by his lordship in another place, and observe that "it is !"

"And such a masquerade," concludes lord Ellenborough, "should have excited lord Cochrane, from his duty to the public service, to enquire into, and, if he could ascertain it, to expose promptly the errand of De Berenger."

Throughout the whole of this, and indeed every part, of the charge—a charge, that never was surpassed by —it is obvious, Sir, that lord Ellenborough loses sight of the evidence, and speaks entirely from his own Why did he omit to remind the jury, that it was in evidence that I was from home when De Berenger arrived? that he remained at my house for nearly two hours before I returned? and that he had with a him a portmanteau "big enough to wrap a coat up in?" Why did he not say that it was for the jury to consider whether the portmanteau could be for any other purpose? It could not have been to supply a change of linen—the expedition of a single night did not require it, and clean linen would not have favoured the appearance of a sudden arrival from abroad. Nay, did not lord Ellenborough know that De Berenger, (admitting him to be Du Bourg) must necessarily have had another De coat with him—that he must have gone to Dover in another dress—that there was no evidence of his leaving London, or appearing on his way to Dover, in "the garb of a mountebank bedecked with stars and ornaments"—that it would have been madness, and almost certain detection, to have travelled from London to Dover in "such a masquerade." Why, then, did not lord Ellenborough submit to the jury, that the portmanteau which, in all probability, served to convey the ornamental dress to Dover, would also serve to convey the other dress back? And instead of asserting that De Berenger appeared before me fully blazoned in the costume of his crime, why did not the judge submit to the jury, whether he had not the means and sufficient opportunity of changing his dress before I saw him? Whether he might not have so changed it in the hackney-coach, or even in my House before I arrived? Had he any honest reason for not reminding the jury that De Berenger (admitting him to have been Du Bourg) did certainly take the best and easiest means to get at once out of the way, by applying to go on board of my ship, where he had also a prospect of future advantage? Why did not he say that it was for the jury to consider, whether he might not have come to my house without any previous arrangement, of mine? and whether, in short, he came there as my instrument, or for his own convenience? Why did he suppress the circumstance of my brother's illness, which was in evidence? And why did he not ask, whether it was not possible that I might have been deceived? whether it was not possible that I actually went home in the expectation of meeting an officer with intelligence of my brother? Why did he assert that my duty to the public ought to have made me expose the fraud as soon as possible, as if it had been in evidence that I did not; when the fact was, that the knowledge of the imposition having been practised by a person coming to my house, never reached me on board of my ship till the 9th of March, and I instantly applied for leave of absence, which I obtained, even before I heard from the Admiralty on the subject. This was well known to the judge, and yet he dared to represent me as having secreted the fact of De Berenger's coming to my house. Was there any thing so strange in my paying money to Mr. Butt, with whom I had constant pecuniary transactions? This judge, in his charge, made me answerable for Mr. Butt's application of his own money, and for the possession of notes by De Berenger, which were exchanged for notes that had before ceased to be mine. In short, Sir, he was and the main object of the prosecution was, I am thoroughly convinced, my degradation, and especially my expulsion from this House.

Before I take leave of lord Ellenborough, I have two or three questions to ask, which it behoves the friends of his lordship to answer. Did he take an active part in promoting the prosecution? Did he visit lord Melville at the Admiralty, to request that I might be suspended from my command, and detained for the purpose of being prosecuted? And did he advise the counsel for the prosecution to shape the indictment after a particular and well-known case?

I now come, Sir, to the injustice done me subsequent to the trial. I did think, that as the witnesses, who could materially have contributed to prove my innocence of the charge, had not been examined, and as I could shew that their not being examined originated in error, and that such error was not my own, that I had a just claim to a new trial. I thought, too, that the circumstances of my defence having been conducted jointly with that of another person, contrary to my express injunction, and of the counsel for that person having been compelled to enter upon the defence, when exhausted and unequal to the task of doing justice to his clients, and of my counsel not having had an opportunity of speaking in my behalf, were additional reasons for a revision of my case. It is notorious, that I made two applications for a new trial, and that both were refused. My first application was rejected under the pretext of a rule of court—which is, that no person, however innocent, if included with others in an indictment for a conspiracy, and unjustly condemned, shall be allowed a re-hearing, unless he can catch his supposed associates, and compel them to accompany him into court—a condition which it appears is as indispensable, as impossible to perform. As I could neither see the wisdom nor justice of this rule of court, I pressed very hard to be heard in behalf of my application—but it so happened that another person, also convicted of a conspiracy, had that very morning been refused a new trial for a similar reason; which furnished the court with the plausible pretence, that to grant to me that which he had refused to the other, would be to lay down one law for the poor, and another for the rich. But whether his lordship has or has not laid down different laws for different persons is another question. He sentenced the Askews who were convicted of a crime of the first magnitude, to twelve months imprisonment, and the pillory; and he passed the like sentence upon me, with the additional penalty of 1,000l. The court must have known, that one part of the sentence would be worse to me than death; and also that it was calculated to lead to new punishments in other places. It was calculated and intended to degrade and injure me in every possible way: it was intended to deprive me of those marks of distinction of which my sovereign once thought me deserving; to bereave me of my commission in the navy, and of my seal in this House.

On my second attempt to obtain a new trial, I was indeed permitted to speak; and I have reason to believe, that the statement which I then read convinced many persons in court, and has since convinced many thousands out of court, of my entire innocence. Of the different documents on which my motion for a new trial was founded, some were not permitted to be read, and others were only read to be rejected. Among the latter was my affidavit of the 14th of June, to which, as well as to the affidavits of my servants, I beg to call the attention of the House:

"Sir Thomas Cochrane, commonly called lord Cochrane, one of the above-named defendants, maketh oath and saith, that the several facts and circumstances stated in his affidavit, sworn on the 11th day of March last, before Mr. Graham, the magistrate, are true. And this deponent further saith, that in addition to the several facts and circumstances stated in his said affidavit, he deposeth as follows, that is to say, That he had not, directly or indirectly, any concern whatever in the formation, or any knowledge of the existence, of an intention to form the plot charged in the indictment, or any other scheme or design for affecting the public funds. That the sale of the pretended omnium, on the 21st day of February, was made in pursuance of orders given to his broker, at the time of the purchase thereof, on or about the 14th of that month, to sell the same whenever a profit of one per cent. could be realised. And that those directions were given, and the sale thereof took place, without any knowledge, information, hint, or surmise, on the part of this deponent, of any concern or attempt whatever, to alter the price of the funds; and the said sale on the 21st, took place entirely without this deponent's knowledge. That when this deponent returned home from Mr. King's manufactory on the 21st of February, which he did directly after the receipt of a note, he fully expected to have met an officer from abroad, with intelligence of his brother, who had, by letter to this deponent, received on the Friday before, communicated his being confined to his bed, and severely afflicted by a dangerous illness, and about whom this deponent was extremely anxious; but this deponent found capt. De Berenger at his house, in a grey great coat and a green jacket. That this deponent never saw the defendants Ralph Sandom, Alex. M'Rae, John Peter Holloway, and Henry Lyte, or any or either of them, nor ever had any communication or correspondence with them, or any or either of them, directly or indirectly. That this deponent, in pursuance of directions from the Admiralty, proceeded to Chatham, to join his Majesty's ship "The Tonnant," to which he had been appointed on the 8th day of February last. That the ship was then lying at Chatham. That, previous to the 8th day of February, this deponent applied to the Admiralty for leave of absence, which was refused, until this deponent had joined the said ship, and had removed her down to Long Reach; that this deponent, in pursuance of those directions, removed the said ship from Chatham to Long Reach, and after that was done, (viz.) on Saturday, the 12th day of the said month, this deponent wrote to the Admiralty to apply for leave of absence for a fortnight, for the purpose of lodging a specification for a patent, as had been previously communicated by this deponent to their lordships; that leave of absence was accordingly granted for 14 days, commencing on the 14th of the said month; that this deponent was engaged in London, expecting the said specification till the 28th of the said month, when the said specification was completed, and this deponent left town about one o'clock on the morning of the first of March, and arrived at Chatham about day-light on the same morning: that on the 8th or 9th of the same month of March, this deponent received an intimation, that placards were posted in several of the streets, stating that a pretended colonel De Bourg had gone to this deponent's house in Green-street; that at the time this deponent received this intimation, he was on board the said ship at Long Reach, and in consequence went to admiral Surridge, the port admiral at Chatham, to obtain leave of absence, which was granted; previous to the receipt of the leave forwarded by the lords commissioners of the Admiralty, this deponent arrived in London, on the 10th of that month to the best of his belief; and that after his arrival, he himself, conscious of his own innocence, and fearing no consequences from a developement of his own conduct, and desiring only to rescue his character from erroneous impressions, made by misrepresentations in the public prints, he, without any communication whatever with any other person, and without any assistance, on the impulse of the moment, prepared the before-mentioned affidavit, which he swore before Mr. Graham, the magistrate, on the 11th; that at the time he made such affidavit, he had not seen or heard the contents of the Report published by the committee of the Stock Exchange, except partial extracts in the newspapers; that when the deponent understood that the prosecution was to be instituted against him, he wrote to admiral Fleming, in whose service Isaac Davis, formerly this deponent's servant, then was, under cover to admiral Bickerton, at Portsmouth, and that admiral Bickerton returned the letter, saying, that admiral Fleming had sailed for Gibraltar; that this deponent sent his servants, Thomas Dewman, Elizabeth Rush, and Mary Turpin, on the trial of his indictment, to prove that an officer came to this deponent's house on the morning of the said 21st of February, and to prove the dress that he came in; but that the said Thomas Dewman only was called, and, as this deponent has been informed, he was not interrogated as to the dress in which the said officer came to his house; and this deponent further says, that had the said witnesses been examined according to the directions of this deponent, and who were in attendance on the court for that express purpose, they would, as he verily believes, have removed every unfavourable conclusion respecting this deponent's conduct, drawn from the supposed dress in which the said De Berenger appeared before this deponent on the 21st of February, and on which circumstances much stress was laid in the charge to the jury, the said De Berenger's dress being exactly as stated in this deponent's former affidavit herein before-mentioned: and this deponent solemnly and positively denies, that he ever saw the said De Berenger in a scarlet uniform, decorated by medals, or other insignia; and he had not the least suspicion of the said De Berenger being engaged in any plot respecting the funds, but merely believed he wished, for the reasons stated in deponent's former affidavit, to go on board this deponent's ship, with a view to obtain some military employment in America; and this deponent declined complying with his request to send him on board his ship without permission, or an order from the lords of the Admiralty: and this deponent further saith, that he was in no degree intimate with the said De Berenger; that he had no personal knowledge of his private or public character; that he never asked the said De Berenger to his house, nor did he ever breakfast or dine with this deponent therein, on any occasion whatsoever; and further this deponent saith, that he hath been informed and verily believes, that the jury who tried the said indictment, and the counsel for the defence, were so completely exhausted and worn out by extreme fatigue, owing to the court having continued the trial without intermission for many hours beyond that time which nature is capable of sustaining herself without refection and repose, that justice could not be done to this deponent. COCHRANE."

Sworn in Court, June 14,

1814. By the Court.

"Thomas Dewman, servant to lord Cochrane, maketh oath, and saith, That he this deponent has lived with branches of lord Cochrane's family for nearly twenty years; that he attended lord Cochrane last year to take letters and go on errands, and that he has been in the habit of going to Mr. King's manufactory almost every day; that this deponent was in lord Cochrane's house, in Green-street, Grosvenor-square, on the 21st day of February last, when an officer came in an hackney-coach, about ten o'clock in the morning; that this deponent opened the door and spoke to the officer in the coach, who asked if lord Cochrane was at home; that this deponent replied he was not, upon which the officer asked the deponent if he knew where lord Cochrane was gone to, which deponent answered, that he believed his lordship was gone to breakfast with his uncle in Cumberland-street; that the officer then asked him if he could let him have a slip of paper, and a pen and ink, which this deponent said he could; that this deponent then opened the coach door, and the officer came into the house, and went into the parlour, where this deponent gave him a small slip of paper, upon which he wrote a few lines by way of note, and desired this deponent to take the same to lord Cochrane in Cumberland-street; that this deponent went immediately into Cumberland-street, but finding that lord Cochrane was gone, he returned with the note to the officer in Green-street; that on his return the officer asked deponent if he knew where he could find him, that deponent then told the officer he had been ordered by lord Cochrane to follow him to Mr. King's manufactory with a glass globe, and thought it probable he might meet with his lordship there, and if he did nut, he would then go to the Admiralty, where he understood his lordship was to go that day; that the officer then took back the note from this deponent, opened it, and wrote a line or two more, and then re-sealed it and gave it to deponent, requesting him to take it immediately to Mr. King's manufactory, and that if he did not meet with lord Cochrane there, he would take the note to the Admiralty, and if his lordship had not been at the Admiralty, to leave it there; that on the officer's requesting deponent to go to Mr. King's manufactory, he told the deponent that his finding lord Cochrane was of consequence, and therefore begged deponent to be as expeditious as he could, and if necessary to take a coach; that this deponent did not take a coach, but went instantly to Mr. King's manufactory, where he met lord Cochrane and delivered him the note, which he opened in deponent's presence; that upon opening the note, lord Cochrane asked deponent several times if he knew who the gentleman was that had written it, and upon deponent's informing him he did not, lord Cochrane made several enquiries as to his appearance and dress, observing that he could not make out the whole of the note, or who it came from; to this deponent answered that he was an army officer; upon which lord Cochrane, having torn the note, threw it down, and then said, "Very well, Thomas, I'll go back;" that from lord Cochrane's manner and appearance, and the questions he put to deponent on his delivering the note, this deponent verily believes that his lordship did not know from whom it came; and this deponent further saith, that when the officer came into Green-street, as above stated, he was dressed in a grey great coat, such as the guards wear, which was buttoned very close round the body up to the breast, and that such part of the under coat as he could see was of a dark green colour; that upon the officer's coming out of the coach into lord Cochrane's house, he brought with him a sword, and a small leather clothes-bag or portmanteau, which deponent believes might have held a change of clothes; that this deponent further saith, that he was hired by his lordship at Christmas last to go into the country, and relieve Richard Carter, his lordship's sea-steward; that this deponent left London about the 25th day of February, and Richard Carter, the sea-steward, then came to town for the purpose of accompanying lord Cochrane to his ship.

"THOMAS DEWMAN."

Sworn in Court, June 14,

1814. By the Court.

"Mary Turpin, cook-maid to lord Cochrane, maketh oath and saith, that she went into his lordship's service on the 18th day of February last, and that she was in the house on the 21st day of February, when an officer came there, and that she was in the kitchen at the time the coach drove to the door; that she saw an officer alight from the coach and come into the house; that he arrived a little before nine o'clock; that this deponent went twice into the parlour while the officer was there, and doth most positively swear, that he wore a grey great coat, buttoned up, with a dark green collar or green facing under it. That the officer had with him a dark military cap with a gold band round it, and also a sword, and a small portmanteau. MARY TURPIN."

Sworn in Court, June 14,

1814. By the Court.

"Eleanor Barnes, housekeeper to lord Cochrane, maketh oath and saith, That she has lived with his lordship since January last, and well remembers being told that an officer came to his lordship's house in Green-street, Grosvenor-square, on Monday, the 21st of February last; and this deponent further saith, that at the time the officer arrived, she was not at home, but that she returned between eleven and twelve o'clock. That seeing a cap in the parlour, she enquired of Mary Turpin whose cap it was, and that the said Mary Turpin replied, that it belonged to an officer who was with his lordship in the drawing-room; and this deponent further saith, that she took up the cap which was of a dark brown colour, with a gold band and tassel, and immediately afterwards went to her room and did not see the officer. That this deponent never saw captain Berenger to her knowledge. ELEANOR BARNES."

Sworn in Court, June 14,

1814. By the Court.

"Sarah Bust, of No. 4, Great Mary-lebone-street, in the county of Middlesex, spinster, maketh oath and saith, That she lived a servant to lord Cochrane for nearly twelve months, and that she quitted his service on the evening of the 21st of February last; that she well remembers an officer coming to his lordship's house in Green-street, in the morning of that day; that the officer sent the man-servant out; that the officer had a grey great coat, which was buttoned up to the breast, and that the neck of his under-coat, or such part as she could see, was a dark green; and he had also with him a military cap.

"SARAH BUST."

Sworn at my Chambers, June

13, 1814, before me, S. LE BLANC.

Here, Sir, I submit, is ample refutation of the aspersions cast upon me from the bench. I trust that the house will be satisfied that I did, at the earliest possible period, make a true and full disclosure of all that passed between me and De Berenger on the 21st of February, and that he did not appear before me in the "costume of his crime."

Of all tyrannies, Sir, the worst is that which exercises its vengeance under the guise of judicial proceedings, and especially if a jury make part of the means by which its base purposes are effected. The man who is flung into a prison, or sent to the scaffold, at the nod of an avowed despotism, has at least the consolation to know, that his sufferings bring down upon that despotism, the execration of mankind; but he who is entrapped and entangled in the meshes of a crafty and corrupt system of jurisprudence; who is pursued imperceptibly by a law with leaden feet and iron jaws; who is not put upon his trial till the ear of the public has been poisoned, and its heart steeled against hint, falls, at last, without being cheered with a hope of seeing his tyrants execrated even by the warmest of his friends. In their principle, the ancient and settled laws of England are excellent; but of late years, so many injurious and fatal alterations in the law have taken place, that any man who ventures to meddle with public affairs, and to oppose persons in power, is sure and certain, sooner or later, to suffer in some way or other.

Sir; the punishment which the malice if my enemies has procured to be inflicted in me, is not, in my mind, worth a moment's reflection. The judge supposed, apparently, that the sentence of the pillory would disgrace and mortify me. I can assure him, and I now solemnly assure his House, my constituents, and my country, that I would rather stand in my own name, in the pillory, every day of my life, under such a sentence, than I would sit upon the bench in the name and with the real character of for one single hour.

Something has been said, Sir, in this House, as I have heard, about an application for a mitigation of my sentence, in a certain quarter, where, it is observed, that mercy never failed to flow; but I can assure the House, that an application for pardon, extorted from me, is one of the things which even a partial judge and a packed jury, have not the power to accomplish. No, Sir; I will seek for, and I look for, pardon no where; for, I have committed no crime. I have sought for, I still seek for, and I confidently expect JUSTICE; not, however, at the hands of those by whose machinations I have been brought to what they regard as my ruin, but at the hands of my enlightened and virtuous constituents, to whose exertions the nation owes, that there is still a voice to cry out against that haughty and inexorable tyranny, which commands silence to all by parasites and hypocrites.

Lord Cochrane, after having read his defence, addressed the House nearly as follows:—Having so long occupied its time, I will not trouble the House longer, than to implore it to investigate the circumstances of my case. I think I have stated enough to induce it to call for the minutes of the trial: all I wish is an enquiry, and had I not been prevented from attending the House in an early stage of this unfortunate business, and from entreating it to make at that time the necessary investigation, I should not now have been placed in this unhappy predicament. I did speak to Sir Francis Burdett, and to Mr. Cochrane Johnstone upon the subject, but Mr. Johnstone said to me, "Cochrane, you know you have uniformly failed in all your exertions in the House, and, therefore, I strongly advise you not to do it.—If you do, I wash my hands of the consequences which your imprudence may lead to." I lament, most bitterly, that I did not pursue my own intention. Many important facts yet remain to be considered, and I trust that the House will not come to a decision with its eyes shut. I entreat—I implore investigation. It is true, that a sentence of a court of law has been pronounced against me—that punishment is nothing, and will to me seem nothing in comparison with what it is in the power of this House to inflict. I have already suffered much, but if after a deliberate and a fair investigation, the House shall determine that I am guilty, then let me be deserted and abandoned by the world. I shall submit without repining to any the most dreadful penalty that the House can assign. I solemnly declare before Almighty God, that I am ignorant of the whole transaction, and uniformly I have heard Mr. Cochrane Johnstone deny it also. Into the hearts of men we cannot penetrate: we cannot dive into their inmost thoughts, but my heart I lay open, and my most secret thoughts I disclose to the House. I entreat the strictest scrutiny and a patient hearing. I implore it at your hands, as an act of justice, and once more I call upon my Maker, upon Almighty God, to bear witness that I am innocent. He knows my heart, he knows all its secrets, and he knows that I am innocent, and ignorant of the whole transaction.

The noble lord then handed to the clerk, various letters and affidavits for the information of the House.

said, the noble lord having now concluded his defence, will please to withdraw.

I shall withdraw, Sir. I cannot too often or too earnestly implore the House to enquire. Never in the history of this country, was a case of such gross and cruel injustice recorded. I could submit to any punishment, however severe, after due enquiry, but I entreat the House to give me an opportunity of proving how the bank-notes came into the hands of Mr. Butt, and other strong circumstances to which I have referred in the course of my defence; and I pledge my honour, that not a doubt will remain on the mind of a single member in the House.

The noble lord then withdrew. The Speaker proposed, that his lordship should be remanded into the custody from which he had been brought, which, on the motion of lord Castlereagh, was ordered, and the necessary warrants of the Speaker were ordered to be made out accordingly.

rose and said, that before the House proceeded to the question which an hon. member was to propose, he could not avoid expressing his sense of the very painful and difficult situation in which the House was placed. If one sentiment was more prevalent than another, it was an anxious desire to hear patiently all that the noble lord could utter, but the House would also feel that much that had been offered was not given in justification of the individual, but in inculpation of the most exalted characters in the country. It was happy for Englishmen that by the form of our constitution, no character was so high, no authority so exalted as not to be amenable to the laws of the land. It was, however, a great abuse of a defence in parliament to make it the medium of a charge to which no answer could then be given. His lordship said, he had once or twice hesitated as to the fit course to be pursued, but he felt how difficult it was for the House to draw the exact line that in such cases ought to be pursued. An indulgent and liberal interpretation was always to be put upon expressions used on occasions like the present. It was the less necessary to interfere during the course of what the noble lord had offered, because he was sensible that the judgment and wisdom of parliament would be able to separate the inculpation from the justification; but elsewhere the same prudence would not probably be exercised, and if the defence of the noble lord were to be circulated, it would be the publication of libels and calumnies against the most sacred characters in the nation, and against the system of jurisprudence, which had hitherto upheld itself in spite of all attacks; in this view the defence just made must be considered a wanton abuse of the indulgence extended by the House. For the sake of public justice, and of the jurisprudence of the country, his lordship felt it necessary now to observe, that if, on any future occasions it was deemed fit to interpose in point of law, regarding the publication of this defence, none of the parties accused could hereafter say that a want of warning was an additional feature of severity in their cases.

then rose to submit his motion to the House. The duty that he was called upon to discharge was, in this instance, extremely painful. It was impossible for any liberal mind to contemplate the situation of the individual who had just left the House, without the deepest regret that the same man who had once trodden the path of honour, should now be involved in the labarynths of disgrace. He lamented, with unfeigned sincerity, that the justice which the House owed to itself, could not allow it to spare an individual, whom he would not, by any thing he could say, attempt to sink deeper in disgrace. On public grounds it was necessary to bring forward the subject, however distressing the discussion might be to private feelings. He would abstain from making any remarks upon the defence, however objectionable it was, leaving the noble lord in full possession of every advantage it gave him. He should simply confine himself to those remarks which the case suggested, and which his judgment prescribed, leaving it to the wisdom of the House to determine upon the steps it would pursue. He came not forward upon this occasion as an accuser, nor did he presume to constitute himself a judge of the guilt of the party; but it being a matter of publicity that certain proceedings had taken place in a court of law, the result of which was, that two members of the House were involved in a charge affecting their characters and conduct, under such circumstances he felt it to be his duty as a member of parliament to call the attention of the House to the subject, with a view to the maintenance of its honour and purity. He did not conceive it necessary to go into any detail of precedents, thinking the principle which was established by the case of Mr. Walsh, sufficient for his purpose. There the individual had been convicted of felony, but the verdict was reversed by the judges, and in the debate upon the question, it was urged, that the conviction being destroyed in a legal sense, Mr. Walsh was to be viewed as an innocent man; yet the House had proceeded to expulsion, being of opinion, that sufficient guilt was proved to render the individual unfit to continue a member. Such being the power and the practice of the House, it was to be considered whether the record upon the table did not afford sufficient authority for the House to say, that the members implicated on this occasion, were so stigmatized and disgraced as to be unworthy any longer to retain their seats. It would be easy to descant upon the enormity of the crime, but that was not within the line of his duty; nor would it be proper to wound personal feelings by bitterness of reproach and keenness of invective. Neither did he presume to dictate to the House the measure it ought to adopt: he only offered such a motion as his humble judgment suggested, to prevent the stain that would otherwise be attached to parliament. If the House of Commons was of importance to the constitution, or if the exclusive rights it possessed were of any value, the private purity and political virtue of its members were of equal consequence, since without it both the one and the other would be destroyed. Under all the circumstances, he did not think it necessary to trouble the House further, under the full persuasion that in deciding, it would be guided by a due regard to justice to the parties, as well as to its own character. He should move therefore a declaratory resolution, founded upon the record of conviction, stating, "That it appears to this House by the said record, that the right hon. lord Cochrane, therein called sir Thomas Cochrane, a member of this House, has, upon an indictment found against him by the name of Sir Thomas Cochrane, late of the parish of Saint George, Hanover Square, in the county of Middlesex, knight of the Bath, been convicted of a conspiracy, with a wicked and fraudulent intention to thereby cheat and defraud his Majesty's subjects of divers large sums of money, as in the said record is mentioned."

said, he rose under greater embarrassment, than he had ever before experienced, to propose to the House, with all humility, the course which, under the circumstances of this case, it would in his mind be most consistent with justice that the House should pursue. The House had heard, with all the attention which was due to a case of such importance, the grounds on which the noble lord had endeavoured to rescue himself from the effect of the conviction. And it had heard also the single ground on which the hon. member had rested the proposed vote of expulsion. of the question which appeared to him to present itself for the decision of to-night, was, whether the record of the conviction of the court below, was that document which of itself compelled the House to come to the vote of expulsion, which had been proposed by the hon. member; or whether, after all that had been said by the noble lord in his defence, the House should be of opinion, that the case furnishes matter to make it incumbent on the House to pause before it comes on such a conclusion, and to satisfy itself upon a careful examination of the evidence, and by the force and conviction of its own understanding, that the expulsion of the noble lord is the conclusion to which it must arrive in the exercise of that justice which the House is bound to administer.

In the part which he had taken, unsuccessfully, upon a former occasion, to induce the House to look beyond the verdict, and to found its judgment upon the evidence which had been taken in the cause, his attention had been drawn to the subject, from the unsuccessful attempt which had been made by the noble lord to obtain a new trial, in consequence of a rule of the court, which appeared to him to operate with extreme severity upon the noble lord. He felt it extremely hard, that the noble lord, though loudly complaining of the effect of that verdict, should be denied that opportunity of bringing his case before the revision of a second jury, though involving consequences so highly important to him, which in a case of less importance would have been afforded, without the intervention of such a rule; and perceiving that he had lost that opportunity of a rehearing, which he anxiously solicited, and which, whatever confidence may be due to the ability and integrity of our courts of justice, is nevertheless found to be essential to the benevolent and to the rightful administration of justice, he felt it inconsistent with his notions of what was due to the importance and to the justice of the case to be governed in the part which he was to take upon it in this House, by a conviction, that there was the slightest reason to suppose, doubtful or questionable; and if he felt that anxiety at that moment, from the mere circumstance of the noble lord being refused an opportunity of bringing his case to a re-hearing, he felt that anxiety in a tenfold degree at the present moment, when he found the case surrounded with doubts and difficulties, and pregnant with matter, which called upon the House to examine the case, not with a view to affect or interfere with the judgment of the court below, but with a view to the dignity and to the justice of its own proceedings, distinct in their nature from the proceedings of the court below, and leading to a separate and distinct judgment on the part of the House, and that too, in all probability, the very severest that it was in the power of the House to inflict. The very course which the debate had taken, would of itself, make it desirable that the House should be in possession of the evidence of the case; for though the hon. member, in a speech, distinguished for that moderation and candor, which was to be expected from his cultivated mind, has wisely confined himself to the conviction below, and has relied upon that conviction, as of itself sufficient to warrant the vote of expulsion; yet the noble lord, who has been heard in his defence, has necessarily and unavoidably adverted to the facts and circumstances of the case, and so materially, indeed, as to make it impossible for the House to decide on the weight that may be due to the noble lord's explanation, without being aware of the bearing and tendency of that evidence, upon which his explanation rests. Unless, therefore, the House meant to reject altogether his statement, and to pass it by as deserving of no notice, in opposition to the conviction (and he could not believe, that they intended such a mockery upon their own proceedings, and such a wanton delusion upon the feelings of the noble lord, as to afford him an opportunity of being heard in his defence, without meaning to pay the slightest attention, or to be influenced, in any degree, by what might be urged in his justification) it was impossible for the House to come to any satisfactory conclusion, without enquiring into the evidence, as commented upon, explained, or denied, by the noble lord. It was admitted, in the course of the discussion which took place upon the subject a few evenings ago, that if the conviction of the court below was any way questionable, from the misdirection of the judge, or from the misconduct or partiality of either judge or jury, it was incumbent on the House to examine into the evidence of the case, with a view to the perfect satisfaction of their own minds, before they pronounced their own separate judgment; and, indeed, the admission was scarcely necessary, because the power or the right of this enquiry, is inherent in, and necessarily belonging to the judicial functions of the House, and could not possibly be separated from it; the question then is, has the noble lord urged any thing to shake the effect of the conviction, or to induce a doubt as to his being implicated in the fraud of the conspiracy?—If such feeling has been produced by any thing that has fallen from the noble lord, it is incnmbent on the House, if they would permit him to say so, to examine into the case upon its own evidence, and to determine for themselves according to their own conviction, whether the guilt of the noble lord is so apparent and unquestionable, as to make it fit and just to expel him from this House. What, then, has been urged by the noble lord to shake the necessary confidence in the verdict below? He had had no previous communication with the noble lord, and he was afraid he should but feebly advert to the several points relied upon in his defence. He had, in the first place, in the face of this House, in the hearing of his constituents, and in the presence of his God, solemnly proclaimed his innocence. It had been said, on a former occasion, by an hon. and learned gentleman (the Attorney General) to use his own terms, that few persons were to be found "complaisant enough" to admit the justice of their own condemnation. He would not contend, in this respect, with the experience of the hon. and learned gentleman; but, judging from his own feelings, and according to his own conception of the power of our nature, he could not believe, that with the mind, the habits, and the feelings of such a man as lord Cochrane, he could persevere in protesting his innocence, after a verdict of conviction by a jury of his country, after a sentence which exposed him to the pillory, unless he was rendered firm enough to bear up uuder the accumulated pangs of such a situation, by a consciousness of innocence. It was that consciousness alone which could support him in his affliction, and arm him with strength enough to raise his voice, in the awful presence of this House, to avail himself of the last opportunity of protecting his honour, and proclaiming his innocence. The protestation, therefore, of the noble lord, in the solemn manner in which it had been made, had shaken, he acknowledged, in some degree, the effect of the verdict, and raised an irresistible anxiety in his mind, to look at the foundations of that verdict, and to be satisfied that that verdict was rightly given. He could not reconcile it to his duty, and to his conscience, to deal out so severe a measure of punishment, as that of expelling a member from his seat in that House, unless satisfied, by the conviction of his own understanding, that the member had committed an offence that deserved that punishment. He was discharging the duties of a judicial character, and he could not depart from that which appear- ed to him to be the course of justice: but what more had been offered by the noble lord? The noble lord had entered into a minute and detailed examination of that part of the evidence which connected him with this conspiracy, and had given a satisfactory explanation (at least to his own mind,) of those circumstances upon which his connection with the case was founded. Was the House competent to judge of the effect of this explanation, without looking at the bearings and tendency of the evidence upon which the explanation rests? Was the House competent, upon the mere transitory effect produced by a speech, to bear in mind all that had been said, to tear in pieces the connection of the noble lord, and to decide, without that anxious enquiry which is due to a case involving consequences so deeply important? If the House felt itself competent to such an awful purpose, in the present state of the subject, uninformed as it was; except from the record of the conviction, he was bound to acknowledge himself not one of that number, and to lay in his claim to weigh all the circumstances deliberately in his mind, before he pronounced a sentence, in which the interests of the public, and the interests of an individual, were so materially involved. And what more has the noble lord urged?—The noble lord has arraigned the conduct of the judge who tried him—he has accused him of partiality in the conduct of the cause, and of error in his charge to the jury, in his statement of the evidence, in a most material point. He presumed not to express an opinion upon the justice of this imputation upon the conduct of the noble judge; the integrity and ability with which the noble lord conducts the duties of his high situation, the public has been long familiar with, and his respect for our courts of justice, and for the noble lord who presides, would prevent him from saying a word that could add to, or strengthen, the imputation that has been cast upon his conduct; but the House cannot shut its ears to what has been alledged by the noble lord—it cannot pass it by unheeded and unnoticed. The noble lord over the way (lord Castlereagh) had injulged himself in terms of reprobation of this part of the noble lord's defence, and had been pleased to term it an inculpation of the noble judge, and not an exculpation of himself; but he would ask, how could the noble lord do otherwise than inculpate the noble judge, if he had reason to think that the charge to the jury was an erroneous one, and that his general conduct was, in other respects, partial and unbecoming his high situation? The inculpation of the one was necessary to the exculpation of the other, or so connected, as to make it a necessary part of the noble lord's defence, if he really believed, that he was warranted in making the charge against the judge; but how could the House pass by the circumstance? It was gravely alleged, that the noble judge had stated that to the jury, as matter of evidence, which was not to be found in the body of evidence, and which, in fact, was not given in evidence: could the House be indifferent to such an allegation? Can they pass it by, as not deserving of notice, in a case like the present, where so much was at stake, both as relating to the interests of the public, and to the interests of an individual? He thought it impossible; but, at all events, he would not be governed in the sentence he was to pronounce upon the case in this House, by a verdict thus impeached; he felt himself bound to look into the case upon its own facts and circumstances, and to decide upon his own conviction: for all these reasons, he took the liberty of moving, "That the statement made by the noble lord, together with the affidavits accompanying that statement, be referred to a select committee, with power to examine witnesses, and send for papers, and that they do make a report thereupon to the House."

The Amendment being put,

rose, and entered upon a difinition of the difference between the present case and those on which the House had decided on former occasions. On these it had been proposed that the House itself should send for papers; but the foundation of the present motion was totally different; as it rested on a supposition that the learned lord at the head of the court below had exceeded the forms of justice, by referring to a rule which rendered a new trial irregular. Respecting the justice and wisdom of this rule he should not stop to argue; that it was a rule long in the usage of the court, had just been admitted: But be that as it might, that rule did not stand in the way of the noble lord; for whatever he had thought necessary to state to the court, had been heard to the fullest extent; and it was the unanimous opinion of the judges that there was no occasion for further proceedings. As to the point which went to impugn the character of the court, it was perfectly unnecessary for him to set about making a defence. But there had been two questions proposed, on which he desired to deliver a distinct opinion. Respecting the first question, concerning the record, he would answer, in the most perfect and absolute manner, that the learned lord never saw the indictment, or any copy or abstract of it, except when it was handed up to him to make his observations on it; and he would say in honour of the profession, that there was no man in Westminster-hall who would suffer himself to be employed, or even approached, by a person who should dare to approach the judges on such a matter, or would suffer himself to be approached by them. He would speak of this as a universal proposition, which never had been nor ever would be broken. But even the verdict had been arraigned; and he was sorry that this bold accusation had not met with an earlier answer, for he could not sit and hear such a charge as had been made that day on the tribunals of the country, without thinking it his duty, if there were the least foundation for it, to declare, that the trial by jury ought instantly to be abolished, as a curse and scourge on the nation. It had been stated in effect, that the judge was partial and wicked; and that the jury had been selected, picked, and packed together, by an officer dependent upon and removeable at the pleasure of the court. It was, indeed, with difficulty that the House could restrain its indignation on hearing these foul aspersions; for it was evident that the judge could not by any possibility controul the selection of a jury. The hon. and learned gentleman then entered into a detail of the manner in which special juries were selected. The master of the crown-office was, in fact, always one of the most respectable men in the profession: he was not appointed by political influence, but by his court; and he held his office during good behaviour, which was the same tenure as that of the chief justice. What would those members of the House who served on special juries at the assizes say, if they were accused of being packed? Yet they were packed quite as much as the jury which tried the noble lord. The master of the crown-office merely turned over the leaves of the book which was given him by the sheriff, and in the presence of the agents of both parties, selected 48 names. Each party strikes off one, till the number is reduced to 24: these 24 are to appear at the trial, and no one knows which 12 will be selected, as it depends solely on the presence or absence of the jurymen. It was the same in criminal cases. This charge had frequently been brought; it was very common in Wilkes's time, and it was then refuted in the same manner as he had now refuted it. The chief justice never saw this book of freeholders; the master never saw it till the time of the trial, when the sheriff gave it to him: and he believed it would be difficult to shew, that the sheriffs of London of late years had been disposed to pack juries from subserviency to the crown. But there was this peculiarity in the present case, that it was not left to the agents to reduce the list, but Mr. Cochrane Johnstone had himself attended when the list was reduced from 48 to 24. It had happened that the jury who tried the defendants were nearly all new men, probably selected on that very account: but if, which was impossible, the judge should know the disposition of any man, and wish to influence him, yet he had not the smallest power. The learned gentleman then pronounced a panegyric on juries, saying, that in the coarse of his long experience, though he sometimes disapproved of a verdict, he never saw one which he believed to be corrupt; and as to this particular jury, could a better be chosen than twelve respectable merchants conversant with business and the world? He should give no opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the noble lord, but he trusted he should be pardoned for rising when the chief tribunal of the country was arraigned.

could not agree that the motion before the House had in effect been discussed on a former night. On that occasion, had there been a division, he should have voted with the Attorney General, but he thought that strong grounds should be laid, before the House should send a representative back to his constituents, and that in fairness to the noble lord, and in justice to the case, and to the character of the House of Commons, a further enquiry was necessary. He had always had doubts as to the privity of lord Cochrane to the conspiracy of which he had been convicted. The presumption against him had been founded on the two circumstances of the dress, and the impossibility of accounting for the banks notes exchanged for the draft of the noble lord, which were found in the possession of De Berenger. The noble lord had stated, that he should be able to prove the means by which the bank notes passed to De Berenger, and that five persons would prove that De Berenger had appeared in his house in the dress which the noble lord had described in his affidavit. The House, he trusted, would not think it advisable, at a time when the noble lord offered to explain all that was mysterious, and had been inexplicable in the affair, to come to a hasty decision. The country had been carried away by a variety of publications on the subject, and by that self-constituted committee of the Stock Exchange; and, on the other hand, the noble lord, from a consciousness of innocence, had been inattentive to a culpable degree, while his prosecutors had been so active—indecently active, in influencing the country. He hoped, therefore, that the committee would be appointed, and he thought a committee of the whole House would be most proper for the examination.

rose to say a few words on one particular point, which had called forth the surprise of the House, as well as some observations from an hon. gentleman. The noble lord had asked whether the Lord Chief Justice had not been in communication with the first lord of the Admiralty?—Whether he did not even wait upon that nobleman, to advise him to suspend him from his ship, and that his lordship had advised the prosecutors how to frame their case, according to a particular precedent? From being in the confidence of the noble lord at the head of the Admiralty, as well as from the situation he held, he must say, that to his entire belief, no such interview had taken place; that no such steps had been taken; that the resolution for suspending the noble lord from his command had been discussed at an open board; and that the noble lord, at the head of that board, had stated the facts to him which he just declared; assuring him that no communication whatever, either directly or indirectly, had taken place between him and the Lord Chief Justice on the subject in question. The noble lord, who had just been before the House, must therefore have been totally misinformed when he was induced to make the assertion.

did not wish to be understood to have a community of feeling with the noble lord in all that he had said in the course of his defence, but supposing him to be innocent, it was not to be expected that he should speak in cold blood on the subject. He had always great doubts of the guilt of the noble lord; those doubts had gradually increased and they had grown stronger within these new hours, after the explanations given by the noble lord. The noble lord had laboured under great difficulties; for, considering the previous self-erected tribunal to which he was subjected, he must have had not only a very perfect, but a very happy innocence, to have escaped. The noble lord, too, through the pride of innocence, had neglected the proper means of defence, imprudently, certainly; for, however innocent, he should have taken measures to establish that innocence beyond doubt. He had also been deprived of the advantage of a new trial, in which he might have supplied his former omissions. Under such circumstances the hon. member said, he conceived the noble lord might be as innocent as any one in the House, and, therefore, he felt it impossible to add to the other punishments which the noble lord was condemned to endure, by assenting to a motion for expulsion. Such a motion, indeed, appeared to him inconsistent with a due regard to justice and humanity. The noble lord had, it was to be recollected, suffered already most severely. He had been degraded in his rank and profession, and had been sentenced to an ignominious punishment. To all this, which might be the result of an unjust sentence, he could not consent to add the still more harsh sentence of expulsion from that House, at least without some previous enquiry by the House itself. The case was, he felt, peculiary embarrassing from the nature of the verdict, and the guilt imputed; but still, from the statement of the noble lord, and from a view of all the circumstances of the case, he was unwilling to go farther than the sentence of the court. At all events, he should enforce the propriety of a farther investigation before a vote of expulsion should be acceded to, and he would recommend that such investigation should be conducted by a committee of the whole House.

began by observing, that if the severest and bitterest enemy of the noble lord had been employed to injure his cause, such enemy could not have done it more injury than the noble lord himself had that night endeavoured to do to it; but he trusted the House, in considering the real merits of the question, would dis- miss such conduct from its recollection. Indeed, he had no doubt that such would be the case—for he never witnessed so much candour, moderation and tenderness as the House had throughout manifested towards the noble lord. That House would, therefore, he was satisfied, be ready to separate the the conduct to which he had alluded, from the facts of the case. Some one had appeared to hold, that to impeach the charge, was tantamount to an impeachment of the rectitude of the judge by whom that charge was made, and that, therefore, such impeachment should be decidedly discountenanced; but he was persuaded, that no one could suppose him inclined to cast an imputation upon any judge, and sure he was, that to question the rectitude of a judge's charge, implied no imputation whatever. Indeed, no such conception prevailed, for nothing was more common than an application for a new trial upon the special ground of a judge's misdirection to the jury, either as to case or fact. Yet it was never understood, that any judge felt himself offended by such a motion, or that it implied any imputation upon his general rectitude. For himself, he could say that no one was more likely to feel a higher respect for the judicial character, but yet he could never feel that respect so far as to believe in the infallibility of a judge; and, therefore, he could not subscribe to any such doctrine as that upon which he had animadverted. The law itself, indeed, supposed the infallibility of a judge by providing the remedy which he had stated. The noble lord who had made his defence that night, had stated one fact, which, if true, certainly illustrated that infallibility. For the noble lord had stated, that the judge before whom he was tried had, in his charge to the jury, said, that De Beranger had presented himself to the noble lord, "blazoned in the costume of his crime," although not a tittle of evidence was adduced to sustain such an allegation. This he could not help thinking a very extraordinary allegation, if the statement of the noble lord was true—and that the judge did mis-state a very material point to the jury, which was particularly calculated to mislead their judgment. It was said by the learned Attorney General, that although a new trial was refused to the noble lord, he had stilt the advantage of an opportunity to state his case, and to explain his conduct. But to this assertion, he could not subscribe, and he hoped that he should not be charged with any disrespect to the court, in declaring that he was quite unable to comprehend the rule which had been pressed against lord Cochrane's motion for a new trial. Indeed, he could not conceive such a rule to have any foundation in law, justice, or reason. He did not presume to say that this rule was unjust, but that he did not comprehend the grounds upon which it could be justified. For instance, was it meant by this rule, that if a verdict of guilty should be pronounced against six persons, five of whom were really guilty, while one was really innocent, the innocent should be refused a new trial, although perfectly able to establish his innocence, because the others over whom the innocent might have no controul or influence, should decline to join in the motion? If so, how could such a refusal be sustained upon any principle of equity, or law, or reason? What, was an innocent person to suffer through any mistake or deficiency of evidence, because the guilty, with whom he might be connected by a prosecution, should not think proper, or could not be controlled, to join in an application for a new trial? He declared that to his mind such a rule was totally incomprehensible; and if it were to be maintained, what was to become of the highest authority, by whom it was said that it was better that ninety-nine unjust persons should escape, than that one innocent person should suffer? That no such rule as that to which he objected ever prevailed in the court of King's-bench in Ireland, he was prepared to state, and he understood that it was a rule which had been but a few years existing in the court of King's-bench of this country. It was not, indeed, as he was assured, at the utmost, twenty years old. He had never heard of the cause which gave birth to such an extraordinary rule, and he should be glad to hear upon what foundation, in justice or reason, it could be sustained. It was said, that the application of only one person convicted of a conspiracy, for a new trial, should not be acceded to, because, upon such trial, the case of all the other conspirators must again also be gone into. But even so, he saw no objection to the application of the innocent; for upon what ground of fairness should one man be precluded from an opportunity of manifesting his innocence, because the conduct of others would be subjected to a second investigation, and their guilt thus publicly rendered more glaring? Surely the desire to save trouble could never dispose any court to make a rule that tended to operate against just and necessary investigation—that was too likely to make the innocent suffer for the guilty. The right hon. gentleman here took notice of lord Cochrane's explanation respecting the bank-notes found in the possession of De Berenger, and traced into his hands, observing, that this explanation was calculated to make a material impression in the noble lord's favour, as it served to show, that these notes might have found their way into the possession of De Berenger, without the noble lord's privity. This explanation, indeed, appeared to make a great difference in the merits of the noble lord's case, and therefore must, with other circumstances, indispose the House to agree to a motion of expulsion, at least without some further enquiry. From such an enquiry, he could not conceive that any danger could arise of an improper interference with the due administration of justice. For it was not proposed to interfere with the sentence of the court; but that House being called upon to super-add to that sentence the expulsion of the noble lord, it became its duty, for the sake of justice and its own character, fully and candidly to consider the grounds of such an extraordinary proceeding. He protested, therefore, against the idea that such consideration would involve any interference with the jurisdiction of the court of King's bench, and with a view to that consideration, he should recommend the appointment of a select, and perhaps a secret committee, to investigate the allegations of the noble lord, and to report the evidence to the House. That such a committee was likely to involve in its proceedings any reproach upon an interference with the due administrution of justice, he did not at all apprehend, and such an apprehension could not therefore influence his judgment. As to the declaration of the Attorney General, that the noble lord was afforded all the advantage of a new trial, although his motion was refused, he could not admit the fact; for the noble lord was notoriously without the assistance of counsel; and unless it was maintained, that a man unlearned in the law was likely to make as much impression as a learned counsel, the position of the learned gentleman was not tenable. On all these grounds, the right hon. gentleman thought the House should agree to the appointment of a committee of enquiry, or at least adjourn the discussion with a view more coolly to consider the merits of the case before it came to any decision. At all events, he declared, that as the case at present appeared, he could not sleep upon his pillow if he voted for the expulsion of lord Cochrane.

said, that he was anxious thus early to state his view as to the course of proceeding submitted to the consideration of the House. He was anxious to enter his protest against any departure from the fundamental principle of parliamentary practice by any assumption of, or interference with, the judicial functions. It was material for the character and future conduct of the House to decide what course it ought to pursue, not with respect to this case particularly, but with respect to a general principle, and in this decision he did not mean to prejudice the individual under consideration, but to conform to parliamentary practice. The motion before the House did not involve the expulsion of the noble lord. But the main question for consideration, and that to which he wished to point the consideration of the House, was, whether the verdict of a jury should be deemed a sufficient ground upon which to rest a motion for the exclusion of a member? Whether a jury should be deemed a competent jurisdiction to influence the decision of that House? Upon this point, he must observe, that if such verdict were not received as competent, great injustice had been done on many former occasions where members were expelled on no other grounds. But unless the House was prepared to open a door for the investigation and revision of verdicts in courts of law, he thought the decision of the court in this case ought to be left untouched. And here he wished to impress upon the House, that expulsion could not be correctly regarded as an additional punishment or ignominy upon any member.—that such expulsion could, in fact, add nothing to the turpitude or ignominy of the guilt pronounced by a court of law. Indeed, it never had been held that expulsion could rest upon any other grounds, than that the member expelled had not delivered himself from the charge legally charged upon him, and that, therefore, he was not a fit person to remain in that House. This was the general principle upon which the House had always proceeded, and he hoped that the innate sense of benevolence which influenced the House with respect to the case of the noble lord, would not allow it to depart from that principle, which departure must involve it in all the mazes of litigation, with judicial decisions to which he had before adverted. If, by such departure, the precedent which he deprecated were established, it was hardly possible to imagine to what an extent it might be abused. Probably every person who felt or fancied a sentence severe, would be found to appeal to that House, and to call for its interference. So much did he deprecate such a precedent, that he had rather submit to let an individual, convicted of an ignominious offence, remain in that House until the ordinary time should arrive for submitting his elegibility to the consideration of his constituents, than agree to the institution of a new trial of his case by that House, which would at once subject the House, as an incompetent tribunal, to the disgrace of an inadequate investigation, and subject to suspicion the hitherto unsuspected tribunals of the country. The House must be sensible of its incompetency to a trial of this case, from its inability to examine evidence on oath; and he could not help expressing his wonder, to hear the proposition of submitting to a Secret Committee above stairs, to a sort of Star Chamber, an inquisition into the conduct of the established tribunals of the country. This wonder was, he declared, materially heightened by considering the quarter from which the proposition came—by considering the legal knowledge and constitutional principles which belonged to that right hon. gentleman. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman as to the propriety of laying out of view that language of the noble lord, which must be considered rather an attack than a defence. He wished, indeed, to have entirely obliterated from the memory every thing that could be deemed uncongenial with the feelings of the House. But as to the phrase respecting the appearance of De Berenger before the noble lord in "the costume of his crime," it seemed rather extraordinary that this circumstance was this night brought forward for the first time. This alleged misdirection of the judge was certainly never mentioned by the noble lord either upon his motion for a new trial, or in his affidavits when brought up for judgment. But his main objection was to the course proposed by those who would interfere with the regular administration of justice, and thus entangle the House in difficulties of which it was impossible to see the end.

acknowledged the difficulty in which the House was placed, as the noble lord who had just sat down had stated, but the answer to that difficulty was, that the main duty of the House was to do justice. He had read all that had appeared upon this subject, and the effect was, that some doubts arose in his mind as to the guilt of lord Cochrane, but from the statement of the noble lord that night, he confessed that he entertained great doubts. Therefore, to use the words of a right hon. gentleman, he could not sleep upon his pillow if he voted for the noble lord's expulsion without further enquiry. He had some difficulty with respect to the nature of the enquiry which ought to be instituted; whether by a committee of the whole House or by a select committee; but he had no difficulty in stating that the House ought not to come to an immediate decision—that some time should be taken coolly to consider the case before the House finally decided. As to the reliance which the noble lord who spoke last said ought to be placed upon the verdict of the jury, he would ask, why send for lord Cochrane, or call upon him to make any defence, if that verdict was to determine the judgment of the House? In fact, with the noble lord's view of the subject, the House had already gone too far, and it was quite a mockery to hear lord Cochrane at all. The hon. member concluded with observing, that he could not conscientiously vote for lord Cochrane's expulsion, without further consideration and enquiry.

observed, that it had been stated by an hon. gentleman, that the noble lord might be as innocent as any person addressing them, and if so, that he ought certainly not to be expelled the House. Such a decision, however, he would venture to say, would be contrary to all parliamentary precedent. There was no instance whatever to be found in the Journals of the House, or the practice of parliament, in which expulsion had not followed the producing the record of conviction, as a matter of course. This consequence followed not only in criminal cases, but in all cases parliament reserved to itself a discretionary power of expulsion. There was one view taken of the subject by the noble lord who spoke last but one, which he thought perfectly just, namely that the vote of expulsion was not in the nature of punishment, or a vindictive proceeding against the person expelled, but a vindication of the character and dignity of those who remained. It could not be said that the refusal of the House to follow up the record of conviction by expulsion, would not affect the character and credit of the courts below. It must necessarily tend to invalidate the verdict of the jury, and thus to confirm those scandalous and unfounded imputations thrown out in the course of the defence of the noble lord, on the general jurisprudence of the country. He trusted that the House would not step out of its natural course and wholsome functions to give their countenance to aspersions of such a kind. They had no power of receiving evidence under the religious sanction of an oath, and consequently could have no power of reversing or revising the verdict of a jury, proceeding on such evidence. As to the idea of a select committee, he conceived that it would hardly be persisted in even by the right hon. member who had suggested it. Mr. Bankes concluded by observing, that he did not mean to say, that a case could not be made out, in which it would be improper to expel a member on account of the verdict of a jury: and if there was any one who, in the present instance, thought there was a rational doubt of the noble lord's guilt, he ought undoubtedly to suppose him innocent, and must necessarily vote against his expulsion.

said, that however much the hon. member who spoke last, might be accustomed to consult the Journals of the House, yet he thought he could never be so entirely blinded by precedents, or buried under the records of parliament, as to imagine, because in former instances members had been expelled the House who were placed in the situation of the noble lord, that therefore parliament were to lay aside their own discretion and not to judge of every case which should be brought before them as a foundation for a parliamentary proceeding on its individual merits. Because a person was convicted of a criminal charge, were they, the members of that House, to affect so much purity, so much delicacy of character, as immediately to proceed to the expulsion of that person from the House, not stopping to enquire into the justice of the sentence, and even refusing to hear any proofs which might be brought forward afterwards to establish its injustice. It had been said, that the expulsion which was to follow the record of the conviction, was no additional punishment: but he would put it to the House, whether the bitterest of all the bitter moments which a person in the situation of the noble lord must endure, would not, in all probability, be that in which he learned the sentence of expulsion from his seat in that House. Undoubtedly, the question involved considerable difficulties, if the House should go into the enquiry. He thought, that in a question of privilege, a committee of the whole House would be the most eligible mode. He had always entertained doubts as to the guilt of the noble lord. There were certainly circumstances attending the transaction, for which he could by no means satisfactorily account. The speech of the noble lord had strengthened those doubts as to his guilt. And if such had been the effect of that speech on his mind, and on the minds of many other gentlemen, what must be the innate value of the facts contained in it, when it was evident that in the course of his speech the noble lord had gone out of his way to excite the feelings of the House against him, and to prejudge instead of advocating his own cause? Such was the force of those facts, that even an hon. member who had risen to call the noble lord to order, in one part of his defence, had candidly declared, that after hearing the whole statement, he could not conscientiously vote for his expulsion. It had been declared, that there were several parts of the charge made by the judge which were incorrect in point of fact. Lord Cochrane had also given an explanation, which he professed himself ready to confirm by evidence, of some of the most mysterious circumstances in the transaction, and which he (Mr. Whitbread) had often declared in conversation, he thought most required explanation, such as the particular dress of De Berenger, and the bank notes found in his possession. After the statement made by the noble lord, he did now firmly believe the possibility of his innocence, and if the question were pressed to a division, he should vote against the original motion. If the House were not to exercise their discretion in a case of this kind, but merely to look at the record of the conviction, it would be better to pronounce the sentence of expulsion at once, without the mockery of a defence. He thought it possible that the noble lord might have been entrapped into an apparent participation in a crime of which he was innocent, and circumstances which the noble lord had, in an agony of feeling, mentioned with respect to the conduct of a near relation of his who had absconded, seemed to warrant such a supposition. He here alluded to Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's advice to lord Cochrane, not to come down to the House with any statement on the subject previous to the trial. As a juror, if he had a doubt on his mind, he must acquit; and entertaining that doubt, if pressed to vote that night, he must say "Not guilty."

alluded to the language held by lord Cochrane with respect to the conduct of the learned lord before whom he had been tried in terms of the strongest censure. To appoint a committee, would, he said, be worse than useless; nay, it was utterly and wholly impossible an enquiry of the nature recommended to them could take place. The noble lord, in the statement, which had been deliberately prepared, had urged nothing which might not be urged by any person convicted of a serious offence. The noble lord had published his innocence: so had his relation who had absconded. Many individuals, whose guilt was proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, had gone out of the world protesting their innocence. The noble lord might have a motive for asserting that which was not true. His motive for making his statement was to hold himself up in the eyes of his constituents. If an enquiry was made into the case of lord Cochrane, one must also be instituted with respect to Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, for they could not take upon themselves in this way to do justice to one, without making the same attempt in favour of the other. The noble lord had said, that a systematic plan had been formed, by his political opponents, to effect his expulsion and ruin. He might have learnt from his friend and relation, whose advice had been quoted, and who had told him what he said was never attended to, that he was not of such importance in the House as to make any party care for his absence or his presence. If the noble lord had not called forward those witnesses on his trial which were necessary for his defence, he had no one to blame but himself. He had since been able to shew no grounds on which a new trial ought to be granted. The sentence inflicted on him was disgraceful, but not more so than was necessary to punish the crime of which he had been convicted. He could see no reason for interfering with the decision of the court, and was of opinion, that the noble lord ought no longer to continue a member of that House.

condemned the tone of asperity with which the right hon. gentleman had expressed himself, and the absence of all that generous feeling, in commenting upon the defence of the noble lord, which had been observed during the discussion, till the speech of the right hon. gentleman. Not only, indeed, had that right hon. gentleman been deficient in candour, but he had grossly mis-stated the facts of the noble lord's defence. The noble lord had said, that the judge, in his charge to the jury, had stated circumstances which had not been given in evidence. Now there were matters which seemed to prove that the case was so. Lord Ellenborough had supplied evidence to the jury, and had he been upon that jury, and heard from the judge presiding, that De Berenger had gone to lord Cochrane's, blazoned in the costume of his crime, with the medallion stars, &c. he must confess, notwithstanding what might have been his high opinion of that noble lord, he should have concluded, that he could not have been off his guard, could not have been without suspicion, and that such a fact was conclusive against him: at all events, it was a fact which he thought well worth ascertaining by that House, whether lord Ellenborough had so charged the jury, because upon that charge, he believed, the conviction of lord Cochrane had mainly depended; and if what the noble lord had stated respecting it was true, then he had been unjustly convicted. Another gross mis-statement of the right hon. gentleman was with regard to the rule in court. It had been asked by the right hon. gentleman, why lord Cochrane had abandoned his legal advisers? He did not abandon them, he consulted with them; but they were of opinion they could not interfere with so good a grace as the noble lord, who was not bound by the same technicalities. Another part of the right hon. gentleman's speech, related to the conduct of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, who, he said, had also protested his innocence in that House, and was therefore entitled to claim the same re-hearing as the noble lord, as he stood on the same footing. But here again the fact was otherwise. Mr. Cochrane Johnstone had not appeared in that House since his conviction; while on the other hand, lord Cochrane had not fled from the penalties of the law, which indeed he laughed at, anxious only to redeem his character. Lord Cochrane had seized the first moment to entreat a hearing, and having obtained it, had declared on his honour that he was innocent; and such a declaration from a man of a profession, the life and soul of which was honour and glory, ought to have weight. This conduct on the part of the noble lord had made a powerful impression upon his mind, which it would require a strong concatenation of evidence to remove. He did not mean to impute any blame to the jury, because under all the circumstances, and with that charge which was delivered to them, he believed they acted an honourable, impartial, and just part. He should be surprised, however, if that jury, now that new things had transpired, and new lights were thrown upon the question, did not feel anxious to amend their own verdict, and re-consider the case. The only difficulty he felt in considering the present question was, because lord Cochrane appeared to be so slightly connected with the transaction. It was not as if lord Cochrane had been found in the company of notorious sharpers and swindlers. If, indeed, he was at all involved in it, he had been so through a near relation, upon whose guilt or innocence he did not mean to pronounce, but from whose influence it certainly appeared lord Cochrane had acted. In expressing his reprobation of the conduct of the judge, he might, perhaps, incur the same censure as his noble friend—for so he would call him, because he verily believed that he was perfectly innocent—but he should be the basest, the meanest, the vilest of beings, if he remained silent upon a sentence, from which the gallant and eminent services of that noble lord ought to have protected him, even if he had been guilty. (Hear, hear!) and the House would deceive themselves, if they thought that no feeling of disgust was excited in the public mind by that sentence. There was not a single person with whom he had conversed (except the noble lord himself) who did not consider it as cruel and unjust, beyond all former precedent. Lord Cochrane was the only one indifferent to it as a punishment. In a conversation which he had held with him in the King's-bench, his noble friend said he did not complain of the sentence; if he were guilty, he deserved it all and more; but what he most felt was the stain upon his character, and he had almost lost his power of existing under such a dreadful load of shame. Such were the feelings of the noble lord upon the occasion. It was the first time, indeed, that the offence had been considered as amounting, in the scale of crimes, to a fraud. In the eye of the law, it was considered as a misdemeanour only; and in former and better times, six months imprisonment were considered as a very heavy punishment for a misdemeanour. But here we had a large fine, a long imprisonment, and a punishment which, he contended, was unfit to be applied to a naval officer of eminent services, holding that high rank in the country which lord Cochrane did. There was no equality of punishment in such a sentence. No one would pretend to say, that in reference to the individual who had petitioned the House on that day (M'Rae), and whose Petition seemed to contain matter important to the present question, and lord Cochrane, that the punishment of the pillory would be equal upon both of them. The pillory was never intended in this country as a punishment for persons in lord Cochrane's station. Yet, in addition to all this, the noble lord opposite had told them, that, to expel lord Cochrane from that House, was to be considered as no additional punishment. It was merely a proceeding of course, following upon the record of conviction, no matter what circumstances might attach to that conviction. There might be corruption in a judge—there might be perjury in a juryman—but still, according to the doctrine held that evening, they were to allow an innocent roan to perish, provided he had once been convicted, under whatever circumstances! It was thus an hon. member on the floor (Mr. Bankes) had argued; but then he soon forgot himself, and admitted that it might be proper to go into enquiry, when a proper case could be made out. Now, if ever there was a case which called upon the feelings, the character, and the justice of that House, the present surely was one of them. A great deal had been very eloquently said by the learned Attorney General, in behalf of special juries. He (sir F. Burdett) happened to know something of the mode in which those juries were got together. He had been present at what was called the striking of a special jury, "when I happened, said the hon. baronet, to be engaged in a great law question with you, Sir." The hon. baronet then went into an examination of some parts of the evidence, and contended, that it was preposterous to oppose, to the declaration of lord Cochrane, the evidence of such men as Crane, the hackney coachman, and the post-boy Shilling, with re- gard to the colour of the coat worn by De Berenger; and concluded by observing, upon the improbability of a man like lord Cochrane, whose whole life had been devoted to the pursuit of glory, and whose conduct had been hitherto free from reproach or stain, becoming all at once a swindler and a cheat. He therefore hoped the House would at least consent to pause before it decided, though for his part he saw no reason for refusing to appoint a select committee.

thought it would be more consonant to the practice of parliament, and to the principles which had uniformly guided them, to hear evidence at their own bar, in order to come to a fit decision. In cases where a divorce was applied for, parliament did not consider the verdict of a jury, giving damages, as a proof of the adultery, but required evidence to be produced, and upon that evidence, grounded its proceedings. If the House refused to concur in the motion of expulsion, it would then become indispensably necessary to bring in a Bill to reverse the judgment of the court. He had no objection, however, to a motion for delay, not because he had any doubts himself, but out of deference to those who did entertain doubts.

considered the expulsion of the noble lord to be the necessary consequence of the sentence passed against him in the court of King's-bench.

opposed the motion for a committee, and defended the proceedings which had taken place against the noble lord. The hon. baronet had mentioned the forgery of the paper called l'Eclair, and had asserted, that that of which the noble lord had been convicted, had now, for the first time, been made a crime. What! was it now for the first time made a crime by the law of England for persons to conspire, to cheat, and to defraud? He denied the truth of this assertion. It had always been a crime, and it was a crime which had long been punished by pillory. He thought the connection that was established between lord Cochrane and the rest of the conspirators quite sufficient to justify the Stock Exchange committee in proceeding against the noble lord, though it might happen he was less implicated in the transaction than the others. Much had been said about the rule of court; but in point of fact, the noble lord had been allowed the privilege, when called up for judgment, of saying all that he could have urged in moving for a new trial.

rose in justice to one whom he thought an injured individual, as to whom he would not discharge his duty by giving a silent vote. He could not, indeed, consider the noble lord as being exactly in the same situation as before his conviction, but still there remained on his mind such a doubt as to the guilt of the noble lord, that he felt he should not do his duty, if he did not vote for further enquiry. The sentence of pillory, too, he conceived to be harsh beyond all precedent, exciting, as it had done, universal reprobation.

thought it could not but be painful for any man to deliver his sentiments on such an occasion as the present. That House had declared itself unfitted to the discharge of judicial functions, by divesting themselves of all right to try them in election cases, and delegating their powers to a committee. If, then, they were not fitted to discharge their judicial functions, were they driven to do so because our courts of justice were weak on the one hand, or corrupt on the other? On the contrary, our judicial system was the grand fabric of human wisdom in this happy land—the peculiar system of all others—the greatest among the great—the fairest among the fair. This being so, he felt it to be his duty to yield to the sentence of the judge and jury. He should doubt his own judgment if opposed to it. He was sorry to add to the pain of a brave man, whose heart was already tortured; but he must say, 'Nolumus leges Angliæ mutari.'

declared, that one or two particulars in the statement of the noble lord had made an impression on his mind, which rendered it impossible for him to give a silent vote on this question. He was aware that the appointing a committee would be an inconvenient mode of proceeding; but he thought the justice of the case might be got at by an adjournment of the debate, which would afford time for farther consideration. He understood that the whole trial was about to be printed by authority. This was, in his opinion, a good reason for postponing a decision on the subject, in order to ascertain (a thing which sometimes occurred with the best intentions) whether the learned judge, on summing up the evidence to the jury, might not have omitted some circumstance material to the case? He would therefore move, as an amendment, that the debate be adjourned until that day se'nnight.

, however painful it was to him to press the immediate decision of the House, thought that it would betray a morbid sensibility to accede to the proposition for adjournment; and thus to allow loose doubts to rebut the strong presumption of the case, and to do a great injustice to the venerable persons who sat with the Lord Chief Justice on the court of King's-bench, as well as that learned person himself.

Mr. Lockhart was for the immediate decision.

warmly urged the adjournment.

The gallery was then cleared. Mr. Browne withdrew his motion for a committee, and the House divided on the question of adjournment: Yeas 74,—Noes 142. The first, or declaratory Resolution was agreed to without a division. The House again divided on the Resolution for expelling lord Cochrane: For the Expulsion 140,—Against it 44.

A new writ was then ordered for Westminster.

observed, that, in consequence of this liberal proposition of her Royal Highness, some alteration must of course take place in the Bill which it was intended to introduce.

assented to this remark, and the report of the committee for grant- ing the additional allowance to her Royal Highness, was ordered to be brought up on Friday.