rose to make the motion, of which he had given notice, relative to certain papers, which he wished to have laid before the House, in consequence of certain proceedings which had taken place in the department of the Post-office. It appeared, from the statement of the noble lord, that, in November last, two packets, bound for the Brazils, viz. the Montague, commanded by captain Norway, and the Lady Pelham, commanded by captain Perring, fell in with, off the island of Madeira, an American privateer, called the Globe, and were both brought to action with her. Captain Norway, being the senior commander, ordered the Lady Pelham to attack in such a manner, that it was upwards of ten minutes, before she could bring her guns to bear on the Globe, without, at the same time, firing into the Montague; and, during that time, the Montague was so roughly handled by the privateer, that captain Norway was killed, and Mr. Watkins, the master, who succeeded to the command, was so apprehensive that she would be taken by the Globe, that he deemed it proper to throw the mail overboard, and sink it. In the mean time, the Lady Pelham, having got into a proper situation, opened her fire on the Globe with so much effect, that, after about forty minutes hard fighting, captain Perring obliged the privateer to sheer off, and saved the Montague from being taken. That, during the action between the Lady Pelham and the privateer, captain Perring was very severely wounded, and disabled, for a considerable time, from doing any duty whatever. His lordship then stated, that Mr. Watkins had, immediately after the engagement, written home to the Post-office, and had stated, that he had been attacked by the Globe, and had repulsed her after the death of captain Norway. That the Post-office had, in consequence of such representation of Mr. Watkins, promoted him to the rank of commander of that regular packet, which gave the rank of commander in the navy. In the mean time, captain Perring proceeded to the Brazils with the Lady Pelham, and safely delivered the mail that was on board of her. On the return of captain Perring to England, as soon as he found what had taken place, he made his representations to the Post-office, stating the facts which had happened, and a court of enquiry was appointed, to investigate the business; and by this court of enquiry, which was guided solely by ex parte evidence, Mr. Watkins was acquitted; but, on the remonstrance of captain Perring, and the production of the affidavits of the whole crew of the Lady Pelham, a second court of enquiry was held, which, after hearing evidence, censured Mr. Watkins, and exculpated Mr. Perring from all blame whatever, and determined, by their judgment, that, if it had not been for the exertions of the Lady Pelham, the Montague must have fallen into the hands of the privateer. Nevertheless, the Post-office persisted in supporting the promotion of Mr. Watkins, and had refused, to every application of captain Perring, the correspondence which had passed on the occasion. This was not a case of a trifling nature, but one in which the characters of a gallant officer, and a brave crew, were deeply interested; and, he thought, there was great reason to complain of the justice of the Post-office, in holding a court of enquiry at a time when captain Perring, from his wounds, was not able to attend. His lordship concluded by moving, "That there be laid before this House, a copy of the reports of the two courts of enquiry, together with the correspondence relating to an action fought on the 3rd day of November last, (off Madeira), by his Majesty's packets, Lady Mary Pelham and Montague, with the Globe American privateer."

said, he did not rise to oppose the motion, but to assure the noble lord, that when the documents were produced, the conduct of the captain, who was the object of complaint, would appear in a light most materially different from that in which he had viewed it. The throwing of the mail overboard was always justifiable when a packet was in danger of being captured; and this danger appeared to have arisen from the other vessel hanging back.

denied, that he had made the throwing over of the mail a ground of complaint against captain Watkins.

pledged himself, that captain Perring's conduct would be found to have been of the most honourable and praise-worthy nature. From his personal knowledge of him, he would venture to say, that no man was likely to be less liable to reproach; and he hoped, the enquiry would do ultimate justice to the injured.

The motion was agreed to.

rose and said, that before he proceeded, in pursuance to his notice, to address the House, he should beg leave to read to them a letter which he had received from lord Cochrane. His lordship then read the following letter:—

"King's-bench, July 13, 1814.

"My Lord; Although I claim no right to interfere with the parliamentary conduct of any member, or to interfere with the motions which he may judge proper to originate; yet, I owe a duty to myself, which demands that I should apprise your lordship, that the motion of which you have given notice respecting me, has a tendency to bring down upon me a greater indignity than any which has been offered to me by my enemies. I had flattered myself, from a recent vote of your lordship, that, in your mind, I stood wholly acquitted; and I did not expect to be treated by your lordship as an object of mercy, on the grounds of past services, or severity of sentence. I cannot allow myself to be indebted to that tenderness of disposition, which has led your lordship to form an erroneous estimate of the amount of punishment due to the crimes of which I have been accused; nor can I, for a moment, consent, that any past services of mine should be prostituted to the purpose of protecting me from any part of the vengeance of those laws against which I, if at all, have grossly offended. If I am guilty, I richly merit the whole of the sentence which has been passed upon me; if innocent, one penalty cannot be inflicted with more justice than another.

"If your lordship shall judge proper to persist in the motion of which you have given notice, I hope you will do me the justice to read this letter to the House.—I have the honour to be my lord, your obedient humble servant.

(Signed) COCHRANE."

Lord Ebrington then continued. He disclaimed any private or personal considerations in bringing forward his motion. The letter which he had read, and his answer to it, was the only correspondence which had ever passed between himself and the noble lord. If he had consulted lord Cochrane previously, he should not have given his notice; if he had acceded to the wishes of lord Cochrane, he should subsequently have withdrawn it; but, notwithstanding the letter of the noble lord, he felt himself compelled, by a sense of public duty, to bring the subject before the House. He had hoped that some one, better qualified than himself, would have originated the question—some gentleman on the other side of the House, backed by the weight and authority of his Majesty's ministers, or that those ministers would have rendered the motion altogether unnecessary, by a spontaneous advice to the crown, to remit the ignominious part of lord Cochrane's sentence.

He should avoid mingling with the discussion, the subject of the debate of the former night, however he might be convinced that the decision of that night was erroneous and that the doubts respecting the guilt of lord Cochrane, required to be examined before the sentence of expulsion was pronounced. The House, however, had decided on that point, and he should give no opinion on the guilt or innocence, but attempt to persuade the House to bear testimony to his eminent services, by expressing their sense of the severity of the sentence passed on him. Before he should proceed to the particular circumstances of lord Cochrane's case, he could not but observe on this punishment of the pillory in general, that it was a disgrace to the enlightened age in which we lived; for it withdrew the individual subjected to it from the protection of the laws, and made the populace at once his judges and his executioners. So that, at one time, it was a scene of mockery and triumph; at others, a punishment equivalent to a cruel death. They would all remember the horrid scenes of the last year, on the occasion of punishments of this kind; and though the crimes of the wretches who suffered, might deprive us of our compassion, it was bad in principle to inflict cruel torture where the law professed only to inflict exposure and disgrace. This punishment, he was happy to find, however, was by no means frequent; for he saw, from the returns on the table of the House, that in the three years since 1811, in all the counties except Middlesex, it had been inflicted but twice, and that in the cases of crimes similar to those which he had before alluded to. But would the House consent, that lord Cochrane should be associated with wretches such as these? But it would be said, that conspiracy carried with it such a punishment. He found, however, that others had been punished for the same crime by trifling fines and short imprisonments. Why, then, was the law to be strained to inflict the most degrading punishment on a man, who, whatever had been his conduct on a recent occasion, had contributed more, perhaps, than any man of equal rank in the honourable profession in which he had been engaged, to raise and establish the glory of the British arms? It would be needless and tedious for him to relate the whole of the noble lord's exploits, but he would mention one of them, which would be sufficient; the El Gamo, a Spanish ship of 38 guns, which was taken by his lordship in 1801, in the Speedy, a vessel of 14 guns only.

Lord Ebrington then desired the clerk to read the vote of thanks of January 10, 1810, to the officers employed in the gallant affair of Basque-roads, which bestowed great praise on lord Cochrane's conduct, for the destruction of the fire-ships. The vote having been read, lord Ebrington continued: such was the praise which lord Cochrane received on that occasion; and he had, moreover, received the order of the bath. When the noble lord was struck off the list of the navy, deprived of his ribbon, and condemned to the pillory, could it be said, that the punishment on him was not greater than on Butt or De Berenger? As to the rule of court which had prevented the noble lord from obtaining a new trial, it was most unjust; as what could be more essential in the case of a conspiracy, than that there should be facilities afforded to distinguish between the guilt of the different parties? But to return to the sentence: when the extent of it had been executed on Butt and De Berenger, they might return to their former obscurity; and, by removing their residence, regain all the respectability in society which they had lost. It had been said, that the law had no respect for persons; but, before he could allow any weight to this principle, he must see how it had been carried into effect. On a late occasion, a noble marquis (Sligo), who had been condemned for seducing sailors from his Majesty's navy, had been sentenced to a fine, slight, considering the wealth of the person, and a short imprisonment. It might be said, that the two offences were not parallel, but certainly there was no kind of proportion between the crimes and the punishment in the two cases. After a short period of imprisonment, the noble marquis returned to the world without any other diminution of his honours than might arise from the view which society took of his conduct. But lord Cochrane was de- prived of his rank and his marks of honour,—all that he had been labouring for years to obtain—all that his country had given him had been taken away. He had accumulated honours to aggravate his punishment,

—Numerosa parabat

Excelsæ turris tabulata, unde altior esset

Casus, et impulsæ præceps immane ruinæ.

The noble lord stated two instances in which the House had addressed the crown, praying the exercise of its prerogative of mercy, with regard to sentences pronounced by courts of law; and thus he had to offer precedents in support of the reasons, which he had urged for the interposition of the House upon this occasion. He trusted, that he had throughout kept clear, as he promised, of the question respecting the guilt or innocence of lord Cochrane. Still, in the proposition which he had to submit, he anticipated the support of all those who had any doubts upon that question. Those who believed lord Cochrane innocent, would of course vote for his motion; and from even those who believed the noble lord guilty, he calculated upon support; because he hoped they would think the punishment too severe for the offence, and especially objectionable, when applied to lord Cochrane. Indeed, he thought the punishment of the pillory altogether exceptionable, and upon that ground alone, he would expect the acquiescence of every humane and thinking man in the motion which he proposed to submit to the House. For himself, he declared, that he always considered the punishment of the pillory as bad on all occasions, but as peculiarly bad in the case to which his motion referred. The noble lord concluded with moving, "That an Address be presented to the Prince Regent, praying, that his Royal Highness would be graciously pleased to remit the ignominious punishment of the pillory, included in the sentence passed upon lord Cochrane, in consequence of the distinguished services of that noble lord."

in seconding the motion, said, that he felt it would be superfluous to add much to what had been so ably urged by his noble friend. He felt, with his noble friend, the propriety of abstaining from the question which had been decided by the House on a former evening, and of confining the scope of this discussion to the question, whether the pillory was a proper punishment in any case, and whether it was applicable to the case re- ferred to in the motion. In his judgment, it was impossible, in considering the latter question, to exclude the character of lord Cochrane. For it was the uniform practice of the courts below to take into account the character of the prisoners, in measuring the amount of the punishment. Why, then, should not that House pursue the same course upon this occasion? The appeal in favour of lord Cochrane, did not appear in any whining shape of intreaty, or in the mere assertion of the noble lord's innocence by himself, or others, but it rested upon the solid ground of high character, established by eminent services. For this character, indeed, the House had only to look to the brightest solemn pages of our naval history, and there the services of lord Cochrane would be found among the most conspicuous. It was most lamentable to find the noble career of this gallant officer so cruelly stained; but still he trusted, that the fountain of mercy would recollect the claims which the noble lord had established upon the gratitude and favour of the country. Was there not, he would ask, notwithstanding what had been urged on a former occasion by noble lord, that intimacy should not in the noble Secretary, a material disparity between the case of lord Cochrane, and that of the other persons under sentence? The difference, indeed, appeared to him peculiarly striking in the distribution of punishment. For instance, if a captain and a private were found guilty of a conspiracy to defraud the company of its pay, the consequence would be, he presumed, to have the soldier flogged; but he rather apprehended, that no such sentence would ever be pronounced upon the captain. As to the punishment of the pillory, he conceived it highly exceptionable, and that it ought to be abolished, because it was, in fact, impossible for any court to regulate the measure of such a punishment. It might be to some, as it was known, a mere matter of triumph; while, to others, it might prove, as it happened, a punishment little short of death—a punishment, indeed, which might consist of savage torture, inflicted by the mob, although never intended by the law. It was, in a word, a punishment which might turn out to be cruel and degrading, or the contrary, according to circumstances, wholly independent of the control, and perhaps out of the contemplation of the judge by whom the sentence was pronounced. A punishment, then, of this extraordinary nature, ought not, he submitted, to be allowed to belong to our code, for he could not conceive a case to which it would be justly applicable. As to the assertion, or insinuation, that it was meant by this motion to inculpate the judge by whom the sentence was pronounced, he entirely disclaimed any such intention. The object of the motion, was not to condemn the conduct of the judge, but to interest the mercy of the crown, and that upon the ground of lord Cochrane's great public services. But, in addition, he could not help thinking that considerable attention was due to the fact urged by lord Cochrane, that he had further evidence to offer in his vindication; and also, to the noble lord's declaration of innocence in that House, upon which he so anxiously implored for enquiry. It was upon that ground, therefore, that he felt himself warranted in thinking that the House was not justified in refusing an enquiry respecting lord Cochrane's case. With lord Cochrane personally, he declared, that he never had the slightest acquaintance; but if he even had—were he even intimate with the influence his judgment upon this case. All he had seen of the noble lord was in that House; and he had generally differed from the noble lord's propositions. But still, he observed, that although these propositions were not often discreet, they evidently proceeded from an ardent manly mind, and were always manfully supported. Upon such a man, then, he could not agree to inflict an ignominious punishment; and he really believed, that no one who heard him, could consult his heart, and say, that the punishment to which the motion referred, was not totally inapplicable to the case of lord Cochrane.

expressed his conviction, that both the noble mover and seconder were actuated by the purest motives, that they were not influenced by any sinister or personal consideration whatever, and that their only object was public justice and truth, For himself, too, he could most conscientiously declare, that he had no other object in view than the discharge of his duty as a member of parliament; feeling himself wholly free from any animosity against lord Cochrane; having no prejudice whatever against that noble lord, private, political, or otherwise. But, as to political prejudice, he could not help expressing his astonishment that any po- litical prejudice could have been supposed to influence the proceedings respecting lord Cochrane. He really felt it difficult to account for the existence of such a supposition. In opposing the motion before the House, he cordially concurred with those who regretted that a person of lord Cochrane's exalted birth and professional services—that a member of that gallant profession which was generally distinguished by a principle the reverse, even among the most ignorant of every sordid feeling, should have been betrayed into the commission of an offence of the most sordid character—that the noble lord should have fallen so low from his high station. But he lamented to think that those circumstances, instead of pleading in extenuation of the noble lord's delinquency, or entitling him to any preference over the other individuals to whom that sentence applied, rather operated in a different direction. For these high motives which ought to have acted upon the mind of the noble lord, and saved him from the degradation of guilt, could not be supposed in the same degree, at least, to affect the consideration of his fellow prisoners. There were cases, no doubt, in which passion might be concerned to prompt delinquency; and in such cases, former service would justly plead in extenuation. But in the case before the House, the delinquency was marked by cold iniquity, by deliberate avarice, by spontaneous meanness. Here there was nothing of passion—craft characterized the whole proceeding—and what excuse, then; could be offered for such delinquency?—what claim to lenity did it afford?—The noble seconder of the motion had urged, in support of the pretension to clemency towards lord Cochrane a case which had, in fact, no analogy. The noble lord had asked, whether a court martial in sentencing a captain and private, convicted of a conspiracy to defraud, would adjudge the same description of punishment to both—whether both would he condemned to the halberts?—He (Mr. Shepherd) would answer no—and why? because military law had ordered it otherwise. But how would the law in our criminal judicature be administered towards a captain and a private convicted of frauds? Would the punishment of the captain of superior intelligence be mitigated, and all the severity of the law be, visited upon the ignorant private to whom it was the peculiar duty of the former to shew a good example, from his higher rank and better education? And here he would ask the advocates of lord Cochrane—the professed advocates for the equal administration of justice—whether they would desire, that the high in birth, the noble in rank, or the affluent in circumstances, should commit that crime with comparative impunity, which should meet the utmost severity of the law, when perpetrated by the poor? He would also ask the advocates of lord Cochrane, whether, bearing in mind the case quoted by the noble seconder of the motion, they would have our courts of criminal jurisprudence governed by the principles of martial law? The whole of the circumstances pleaded in favour of lord Cochrane, were, he had no hesitation in saying, precisely such as ought to produce a different impression. This, however, he urged without any reference to the mercy of the crown, of which he could know nothing. But, he felt fully persuaded, that lord Cochrane had no better claim to that mercy, to say the least of him, than the others connected with him. Although the motion claimed mercy towards lord Cochrane, on the ground only of his professional services, he remarked, that the noble lords by whom it was supported, had thought proper in their speeches, to refer to other grounds of extenuation: first, with regard to the rule of court, so often alluded to; and secondly, with regard to evidence withheld upon the trial. Several circumstances had also been adverted to, arising out of the noble lord's speech in the court of King's-bench, and his address to that House, with a view, obviously, to induce a belief of lord Cochrane's innocence. But, upon this point, he was sorry to be obliged to declare a directly opposite impression. He, indeed, felt it his duty to make this declaration, as a member of parliament, which declaration he should make were he merely a member of that House, without being, in any degree, an officer connected with the government, or the administration of the law. Having read, and attentively examined the report of the trial, including the evidence, the address of the counsel on both sides, and the charge of the judge, he declared before God and the country, he should have felt himself bound, were he on the jury, to find lord Cochrane guilty, were that noble lord his own brother. In looking at all the circumstances of the case, he was really astonished at the existence or expression of any doubt upon the subject. When it was found from the evidence, that De Berenger, of whose identity, as Du Bourg, no one could possibly entertain a doubt, had, upon his arrival from Dover, gone directly to the house of lord Cochrane, clothed in the very coat of his imposition, in which coat the noble lord, had he been there at the time, must have seen the impostor; it could not be presumed, that De Berenger would have gone there so dressed, if lord Cochrane had not been aware of his purpose. Was it credible, that De Berenger would have gone to lord Cochrane's house without an understanding—without being conscious and certain, that the noble lord was apprised of the transaction in which he had just been engaged? Indeed, if he were not so conscious, lord Cochrane's house was one of the last places to which he would have gone, particularly in the garb which he wore, according to the evidence. And, here he had to notice a most important fact in the evidence of the hackney-coachman. This witness, in his examination in chief, deposed to the identity of De Berenger; and it was through mere accident, in the subsequent examination, that any evidence was obtained from him as to the nature of De Berenger's dress. Being asked, whether he could undertake to recollect every person who got into his coach, he answered "No," but that the red coat which Berenger wore, drew his attention, and made an impression upon his memory. Thus, this answer, coming naturally and inartificially from the witness, had all the characteristics of truth about it. Then, when lord Cochrane found De Berenger at his house, was any thing more natural, than that he should have deemed his appearance suspicious, and asked, had he himself been innocent, what he (De Berenger) had been about? But the fact was, that, had not lord Cochrane been guilty, De Berenger would Berenger would never have attempted to put himself under his lordship's protection; nor would he have solicited a place of refuge on board lord Cochrane's own ship. De Berenger also, as it appeared from lord Cochrane's own affidavit, solicited a hat from the noble lord to put on in place of his seal skin cap; and here, he would ask, was not the learned judge's comment perfectly just, that the noble lord, seeing De Berenger so altered, should have questioned him as to what he had been about; and would not every reasonable man think that a probable question, had not lord Cochrane been himself implicated in the transaction? His surprise, indeed, was, that any man in the habit of examining probabilities, could, in viewing every part of the case, find any justification or excuse for doubt, as to the guilt of lord Cochrane.—With respect to the noble lord's address to that House, it involved, as had been before justly observed, rather an attempt to criminate the court by which he was tried, than to vindicate himself. Nay, more, if that address were attended to, a most formidable conspiracy, indeed, existed against the noble lord, of which conspiracy the judge and the jury were, con- contrary to their solemn oaths—contrary to oaths quite as solemn, and he presumed, as credible to the noble lord's own voluntary affidavit—were the prominent members. But the noble lord's statement would extend to conspiracies much further. For it seemed, truly, that not only were the judge and jury partial, but the noble lord had not been well defended. His counsel had neglected his case. Now, he (Mr. Shepherd) could not, he confessed, forbear expressing his surprise at this extraordinary charge, particularly when he looked at the names of the counsel who acted for the noble lord, whom he knew to be some of the most able and eminent in the profession; and among whom was one, at least, it was impossible to suspect of any relaxation of effort from the influence of party spirit, against the noble lord [alluding to Mr. Brougham]; was it credible, then, that such distinguished men would abstain from any exertion, or agree to stultify themselves, with a view to prejudice the case of the noble lord? Who were the attorneys of the noble lord, he had only learned within a few days, and he himself knew them to be two as respectable men as belonged to the profession, or to any other profession whatever. By these gentlemen, who, be it remembered, did not act for any of the others accused, but for lord Cochrane solely; the noble lord's brief was drawn up according to the instructions they had received, and nothing could be more improbable, than that such agents would draw up this or any brief carelessly. It was notorious, that the utmost confidence prevailed between the counsel, the attorney, and the client. Therefore, what the attorney stated to the counsel, in this case, he could not know; nor would he know it if he could. Indeed, if all the briefs and confidential statements upon the sub- ject, had been laid on his table, he would not look into them; on the contrary, he would fling them away, for he never could persuade himself to invade professional confidence. But this, without any such invasion, he could state as a positive fact, that all the instructions upon which the brief was drawn up, were received from lord Cochrane himself; and that the brief, after it was drawn up, together with the statements of the witnesses by which it was proposed to sustain it, were read over by the noble lord, by whose suggestion a correction was made in it. Yet this noble lord, in the court of King's-bench, but especially in that House, had spoken in a high tone of confidence, that he truly had given no instructions to his lawyers—that he had never read his brief—nay, that he had been totally careless about the conduct of his defence, so much, indeed, did he rely upon the consciousness of his innocence! Whether the House would, under all the circumstances of the case, deem it proper to exercise its prerogative of mercy towards the prisoner, he was not prepared to say; but he deprecated the idea of calling upon that House to interfere with the exercise of that prerogative. Whether the conduct and statement of the prisoner, or his professional services—which, by the way, had been very well rewarded—were such, as to entitle the noble lord to the peculiar interposition of that House in his favour; or whether he had not fallen much lower, in consequence of these considerations, were questions which he could have no difficulty in deciding. Then, as to the pillory, if it were desirable to abolish that species of punishment altogether, as the two noble lords on the other side contended, let that abolition be decided by parliament. But it must be recollected, that the acquiescence of another assembly, as well as that of the House he had the honour to address, was essential to that decree. Such a decree could not be concluded by that House alone, and he had a very strong objection to any interference of the House with that jurisdiction, which had, in the case under consideration, only exercised its legitimate authority, in ordering a punishment, which, from the earliest times, the law had annexed to the crime of conspiracy, of which the subject of the motion had been convicted.

As to the observations made upon the rule of court, of which lord Cochrane complained, the fact was, that the rule, in no degree, stood in the way of the noble lord's vindication; on the contrary, he was, upon the day he was brought up for judgment, afforded all the opportunity he could desire, of stating the grounds upon which he demanded a new trial, and he was heard with the utmost attention by the court, from which he received this rational answer:—"You have stated no grounds, upon which, consistently with the practice of the court, or the principles of justice, we can adjudge a new trial." And this, surely, was a just answer; for, upon what principle should any person be allowed to avail himself of after thoughts, as to the production, or examination of witnesses, whom he had it in his power to produce and examine on the trial? If, indeed, such a practice were allowed, the consequences would be obvious. The accused might intentionally withhold testimony on his trial, with a view to make an experiment as to the evidence for the prosecution; and then, if he failed, he might come forward to try his hand again. In fact, if such a practice were tolerated, no one could say, where it would end, or to what mischiefs it might lead. But to return to the rule of court—he repeated his opinion, that it, in no degree, operated against the noble lord; and, therefore, that rule, which he was by no means prepared to admit, was not founded in wisdom, although he did not, on the present occasion, think it necessary to argue its merits, could form no reasonable ground of complaint on the part of lord Cochrane.

The learned gentleman repeated his objection to any interference of the House with the prerogative, or, what he called, the jurisdiction of the crown, in the exercise of mercy. Such an interference, indeed, he could not deem wise, or, he would even add, constitutional. Those who had the peculiar privilege of advising the crown, would, no doubt, take into consideration all the circumstances which could make in favour of lord Cochrane, and the other prisoners; and, he had no idea, or wish, that any observations he had felt it his duty, as a member of parliament, to address to the House on this occasion, should operate against the extension of mercy to the noble lord. His object was, to deprecate the interposition of that House upon the subject, in the shape of an address to the crown; and with that view, he had endeavoured to shew, that even if such interposition were frequent, the case of lord Cochrane was by no means deserving of it; particularly considering the conduct of that noble lord in his attempts to criminate the whole administration of our public justice—to fix the charge of perjury upon those, whose oaths of office were, at least, entitled to as much credit as the noble lord's voluntary affidavit or statement, which had, in fact, been completely falsified in all its material points. The learned gentleman concluded, with expressing his opinion, that no argument whatever had been adduced to sustain the motion; and, therefore, he must give it his solemn dissent.

was of opinion entirely different from the learned gentleman who had just sat down, and he would express that opinion as decisively, though not so loudly, as the learned gentleman had done. He felt convinced, that this was a fit opportunity for the House to interfere in behalf of lord Cochrane, a part of whose punishment did not seem to be called for. He, too, had read the report of the trial, and the evidence, with all possible attention; and he declared it to be his firm conviction, that lord Cochrane was perfectly innocent. It had not been fully proved, at least, to his mind, that Berenger had gone to the house of his lordship with his privity, or, that he was expected there; and the way in which this was attempted to be proved was unsatisfactory. He thought it was not proved, that lord Cochrane had seen him, or would have seen him, in the dress which he was stated to have worn as De Bourg. Satisfied that he was not guilty, he, though never before acquainted with lord Cochrane, had, after reading the trial, introduced himself, to inform his lordship, that he was convinced of his innocence; and to ask, if he had any objection to explain one or two points, which appeared, in some degree, doubtful. His lordship had said, the greatest favour any one could do him, was to give him an opportunity of explaining what might appear to him of a doubtful nature. It was under such circumstances, that he had contracted an intimacy with lord Cochrane, which would continue as long as he lived. He wished that part of the motion to be omitted, which prayed that the punishment of lord Cochrane, by the pillory, might be remitted, "in consideration of his past services." He wished the motion to pray, that that part of the sentence might not be carried into execution, without stating on what grounds their prayer was founded. The hon. member concluded, with proposing an amendment, omitting the last sentence of the motion; for gentlemen might vote for the motion on different grounds; some, because they thought lord Cochrane innocent; others, because they thought his case was doubtful, and not fully examined; and others, in consideration of the noble lord's professional services.

observed, that the noble seconder of the motion had said, that those who, on a former night, had felt any doubt of the guilt of lord Cochrane, were bound to vote for the Address. He was of a different opinion; and begged to state, what were the reasons which influenced his vote, on the occasion alluded to, and why he should, that night, oppose the motion before them. Lord Cochrane, in the statement he made in that House, had asserted, that the judge, in summing up, had given that to the jury, as proved in evidence, of which no proof had been given; namely, that De Berenger had gone to him, blazoned in the costume of his crime. Had it turned out that the judge, in summing up, had made any material misstatement, this was a circumstance which would have had great weight with many. He had since read the trial with as much attention as he could read any thing, and the effect of it on him was to re-establish that conviction, which he had at first had of lord Cochrane's guilt. De Berenger had been traced from Dartford in the costume of his crime. Every witness had spoke to the star, &c. which he wore till he arrived in London. The waterman who saw him into the coach did not mention the star, but he stated his coat to have been red; and Crane, the hackney-coachman, had most distinctly sworn to its having been of that colour. Now, if it was not asserted by these witnesses, that they saw the star and order, sworn to by others, as they had given evidence to the colour of his coat being red, he thought it of little importance that they had not mentioned the star, &c. and considered lord Cochrane to have greatly overstated the conduct of lord Ellenborough, in his description of that noble lord's summing up. Here he read part of lord Ellenborough's address to the jury; from which, it appeared that he had said, "if they believed he, had gone to lord Cochrane's in the dress, and with the insignia described, they must find his lordship guilty; but on this, he added, it was for them to form their own judgment." He thought the colour of his coat having thus been proved to be red, justified his lordship in the direction which he had given the jury; and, for himself, after giving the evidence the most attentive perusal, he was sorry to say it, but, with the Solicitor General, he must declare that, had he been on the jury, he could have given no other verdict than guilty. With respect to the motion before them, he certainly thought the present was not a case in which that House was called upon to interfere, and should therefore vote against it.

from his knowledge of lord Cochrane, was much disposed to believe him totally innocent. It was possible for all those circumstances to have occurred, which had been stated to bear against lord Cochrane, without his being guilty. If he could believe the noble lord capable of making the statements he had made, knowing them to be false, from the evidence given on the trial, he should, in that case, consider him guilty of the offence of which he had been convicted; but, not believing him capable of such falsehood, he must come to a very different conclusion. He declared, that the impression of lord Cochrane's innocence, which he had originally conceived, still remained upon his mind; and it was undoubtedly right to lean to the side of innocence, where guilt was not established. He could respect the opinion of those gentlemen, who thought the record of the conviction sufficient, though he did not agree with them. He thought it was possible, that all the circumstances, stated by the Solicitor General, might have been true, and might have been proved in evidence, and yet that lord Cochrane might have been innocent. The main fact, that lord Cochrane saw De Berenger in the red dress, was not established by any witness. Had evidence been adduced on that point, the fact would have been conclusive of his lordship's guilt; but when this was not the case, he thought doubts might very fairly be entertained. He did not mean to vote for the motion, either on account of the severity of the punishment, or because lord Cochrane's services had been honourable to his country. He conceived, he would do an act of injustice to the noble lord, if he did not state that his vote proceeded from a conviction that he was an innocent man. That conviction arose from his knowledge of lord Cochrane, from the assertions he had made in that House, and from the affidavits he had published to the world. If he thought his lordship capable of asserting falsehoods in the face of the House, he could easily believe him guilty of the offences with which he was charged; but, as he considered him incapable of such a proceeding, he would neither do him the injustice of giving a silent vote, nor of supporting the motion on any other ground, than from a strong sentiment that he was innocent. Much stress had been laid on the mere circumstance of De Berenger's having proceeded to the house of lord Cochrane; but, if he really wished to go to America, there was nothing either extraordinary or unnatural in his waiting on his lordship, when he arrived in London. The noble lord had thought fit to disclaim any degree of indulgence, on account of his former services; admitting, that, if he were guilty, the punishment was, by no means, too severe. He, however, considered the sentence as extremely harsh, with reference to the person, with reference to the offence, and with reference to precedents, which had occurred before the same noble judge, who tried lord Cochrane. He should not, he repeated, insist on lord Cochrane's former services, nor on the undue severity of the sentence; the ground which he took, and which he felt due, both to his own conviction, and lord Cochrane's character, was the total innocence of his lordship.

expressed his regret, that a question, which had been decided by a jury, should be brought under the cognizance of that House; because, he was convinced, that was not the place in which the merits of a proceeding of the kind could, with propriety, be tried. In a court of justice alone could such a question be decided. It was extremely unpleasant to his feelings, to be obliged, in consequence of this motion, to give a vote against the noble lord, who had performed so many glorious deeds in the service of his country. But, when a motion like the present was submitted to their consideration, every man who was anxious that the powers of parliament should not be extended beyond their just bounds, must stand forward, and oppose it. The verdict of the jury was, in his mind, a most satisfactory ground for their proceeding; and if those who thought otherwise would con- sider a little, they would find, that a departure from this known and established principle, would plunge the House into a labyrinth of difficulty. The fact was, that the idea of the pillory, in the present instance, was grating to the feelings of every man in the country. He meant not, however, to say, that the judges acted unwisely or improperly in making it a part of the sentence; because he could not conceive that any, save the best motives, could influence four learned men against whom no imputation had ever been levelled, sitting in judgment on the nature and extent of an offence against the laws. He, as an individual, certainly considered the sentence as too severe, and he thought, on the ground of lord Cochrane's former services, the disgraceful part might be remitted; but still he was of opinion, that this House could not act by Address. It was the duty of ministers, if they conceived the punishment more than equal to the crime, to recommend the noble lord's case to the crown. The best and safest way appeared to him to be, to leave the prerogative of mercy unmolested, where the constitution had placed it, and not to attempt any interference whatever. He must therefore, oppose the motion.

said, if they subscribed to the doctrine of his learned friend, there would be, at once, an abandonment of their best rights, privileges, and immunities. His learned friend had said, that it was better to leave the prerogative of mercy just where the constitution had placed it; and be seemed to think it would be a violation of the constitution to interfere with it. Now, he denied that there was any prerogative of the crown, which that House had not a right to interfere with, so far as to give advice with respect to the way in which it ought to be administered. Not only did the House give advice in the two cases cited by his noble friend, but in many others. He did not mean to say, that the House were not bound to examine the particular case before them, and every other in which their interference was called for; but he could not allow that they should sit down shorn of one of their greatest privileges. It was as much their duty, if they thought the punishment undeserved, to come forward and address the crown on the subject, as it was that of the ministers of state. They were the great council of the nation; ministers were merely the council of the Prince. With respect to the case of lord Cochrane, he, from the beginning, considered the evidence as sufficient to warrant the conviction; and he had heard nothing in the whole course of the business, that could induce him to alter his opinion. Some of those who doubted the guilt of lord Cochrane, observed, that De Berenger might have been dressed in red, when he took coach at Dartford, and that, in the carriage, he might have put on the sharpshooter's green uniform; but this presumption was entirely done away, by the evidence of the coachman who put him down at lord Cochrane's house. But supposing the fact to be the other way, why should De Berenger have taken clothes with him, in which he could not appear in London? And why did he proceed, in his altered dress, to lord Cochrane's? There were many cases, in which the House would have a right to examine the record of conviction, and even to reverse the judgment: such were those of Russell and Sidney. But the present did not appear to him to be a case of that description. Having no doubt of lord Cochrane's guilt, and yet wishing to alleviate the sentence—which he admitted to be very severe—, he would not, by voting for the amendment, endeavour to obtain a declaration from that House, which would seem, by condemning the sentence as a bad one, to inculpate the judges who pronounced it. He thought the past services of lord Cochrane afforded a sufficient ground on which the House might advise the crown to remit the ignominious part of the punishment. And, even if the other persons concerned were obliged to stand in the pillory, and lord Cochrane were absolved from that part of the sentence, he thought his lordship's name being struck out of the list of naval commanders, and the order of the Bath being taken from him, placed him, with respect to punishment, on a level with the parties who should undergo the whole of the sentence. As to the observation made by the Solicitor-General, that the rank or services of a party ought not to procure him any remission of punishment, it ought not to be forgotten, that even the law made a difference in the punishment awarded for the crime of treason, to a peer and to a commoner; and not long since, a captain in the navy, who was sentenced to the pillory for a fraud, was absolved from that ignominious punishment, on account of his services. He thought, when the rewards which lord Cochrane's former services had gained, were taken away from him, that it was not fair he should be told that those services were written in sand, and that all remembrance of them was buried in the magnitude of his crime. His learned friend, the Solicitor-General, had argued, that the achievements he had performed, were aggravations of his offence. Now, he was aware, that great services and elevated rank were incentives to virtuous and honourable conduct—but, if a man, high in rank, and who had performed praiseworthy achievements, became guilty of a base action, he could not conceive how his former services aggravated his present crime. He should vote for the original motion; but, if his Majesty's ministers intended to oppose it, he suggested the propriety of doing so, by moving the previous question, instead of meeting it with a direct negative.

explained, that he had not meant to deny the right of the House to interfere in a case like the present; he only contended, that it was neither usual nor expedient.

insisted, that he had quoted the learned gentleman's words accurately.

denied that the motion now before the House interfered, in the smallest degree, with the royal prerogative. It merely pledged the House to address the Prince Regent, for the purpose of procuring pardon or remission of the ignominious part of lord Cochrane's sentence. He thought the observations of the Solicitor-General went to aggravate the case most unnecessarily, and were a little too violent. But, whatever the learned gentleman's view of the subject might be, the public feeling was pronounced strongly against the infliction of the pillory on lord Cochrane—a punishment, which every rank of society seemed to think ought to have been spared. He would not utter any expression, in the slightest degree, disrespectful to the judges; he reverenced them; still, however, they were but men, and might have gone beyond what the occasion called for. Now, if the public and the House felt that they had done se, it was their duty to exercise the functions with which the constitution vested them, for the purpose of rectifying the error. One of those functions enabled them, where a sentence was not commensurate with the crime, to call upon the crown to extend its prerogative of mercy to the person convicted; and this was a case in which, he thought they ought to indulge the public feeling, by an address to the throne.

deprecated the interference of the House with the administration of justice in courts of law, or with the exercise of the prerogative of the crown, in the extension of mercy. On this ground, he felt strongly the impropriety of the present motion. In periods of our history, when the courts of law were more in the power of the crown, it was proper for the House of Commons to interfere with its advice and authority, in cases where the law had been wrested to purposes of in justice. But we had every motive in the present day not to bring into doubt the pure unbiased administration of the law, or to throw an unmerited and dangerous aspersion on the most revered characters in the country. It was impossible, continued the noble lord, for any person, who had carefully investigated all the circumstances of the trial, to doubt the propriety either of the conviction or the punishment. However painful it might be to him, in considering the situation to which the noble lord was reduced, yet, he felt considerable relief in reflecting, that the affidavit to which the noble lord had alluded in the course of that solemn declaration of his innocence, which he had made in that House, had been fully before the jury and the court in a manner peculiarly favourable to his lordship. It was produced on the part of the prosecution; and the judge, in his charge to the jury, had distinctly told them, that, if they believed that affidavit, they must acquit him. For his own part, he must own, that he could not enter into the principle which it was attempted to establish that night. He was not, indeed, prepared to say, that as far as the case personally affected lord Cochrane, it was not a most rigorous and painful one; because it was natural to wish, that an individual who had performed such splendid services to his country, should have carefully abstained from any crime that could render him the object of a punishment of that nature. But, he could not admit the doctrine which went to establish privileged orders, as it were, in the country, with regard to the punishment for crimes, upon a principle of aristocracy most dangerous and unwise, that those artificial ranks, which ought to have the effect of elevating the mind above the commission of such base and dishonourable practices, should be converted into a claim to secure the individuals from the punishment they had incurred; and which would be inflicted upon inferior of- fenders. To argue the present case upon any reference to the practice of the army and navy, where officers received a punishment different from that of the common men, and to apply that practice to a totally different system of jurisprudence—a system, whose pride and glory it was to know no distinction of persons, and where every individual was alike tried by his peers—was a mode of proceeding which he could not but consider as inconsistent and nugatory. He had already stated, that it was painful to contemplate the noble lord in the situation to which he had reduced himself; but it would, indeed, be dangerous to admit as a general principle, that either his rank in life, or his professional services, ought to operate as an indemnity to him in the commission of a crime, that had called down the judgment of the law. He had no doubt, that the revered judge who tried the cause, was deeply impressed with the importance of making it known to the country in what light the law contemplated the malignity of the crime, what its true character was, and what the nature of the punishment belonging to it. This was the more necessary also, because there had been a most extraordinary attempt out of doors to confound the real qualities of the offence, as if no crime in reality had been committed, but only an allowable exercise of ingenuity, in playing off a trick against the Stock Exchange. Even the hon. baronet opposite, from whose habits, education, and general sentiments, he should have expected a different line of conduct, had, on a former evening, spoken with a degree of tenderness, which he did not think belonged to the offence. With regard to one part of the punishment, he apprehended, they were not to discuss the abstract question, as to the fitness, o otherwise, of the pillory; that was a matter for parliament to determine in another way, by revising the law, as it now stood, if they thought it proper to do so; it was enough for them to know, that the punishment was such as the law had pronounced against in famous off and as long as it continued a part of the law of the land, the judges, in applying it, had upheld the public morality of the country, and had protected the country from a species of fraud, which, if suffered to be perpetrated, under the impression, that it was beyond the cognizance of the law, would subvert all the security of property throughout the empire, and all our notions of public honour and integrity. It was another thing to consider what should be done under all the circumstances of the case. The law had done its duty, the judges had done their duty, and it was for the crown to determine what line it would pursue in the exercise of its own prerogative. No satisfactory ground had been laid for the interference of parliament; and he should, therefore, feel it his duty to resist the motion. He would add, however, that he had no difficulty in stating, that the crown had taken steps to interpose its mercy with respect to the infamous part of the punishment, not only as far as it related to lord Cochrane, but to all the other parties. The ground upon which the crown had been advised to adopt this course, did not arise from the slightest doubt of the propriety of the conviction, nor the slightest doubt as to the integrity of the judges; but because it was satisfied the crime was so little known to Englishmen, was of a nature so repugnant to the national character, and, above all, to persons moving in the sphere in which the noble lord did, that it might safely remit the ignominious part of the punishment. The object of all punishment was, not personal retribution, but to operate as an example, and prevent the extension of crimes; and the crown flattered itself that it might, in this instance, extend its mercy, not on the ground of any claim recognised in the parties who were the objects of that mercy, but because of the infrequency of the crime, and in the hope that the conviction and sentence, though not fully carried into effect, would deter others from the repetition of it. He thought it right to state this view of the question itself, and of the motives from which the crown acted, in order that no perverted interpretation might be put upon the exercise of its mercy.

said, that he had offered his sentiments so much at length on a former night, when the question of lord Cochrane's innocence was under their consideration, that it would ill become him again to trespass on the attention of the House; nor should he, indeed, have risen at all but for some things which had dropped in the course of the present debate. The intimation of the noble lord, if it had been given earlier, would have saved that House the trouble of listening to a long discussion. There were many ways in which the question might be considered, as affecting the feel- ings of the people at large, as affecting the public justice of the country, and, as affecting the noble lord himself, whose case was under consideration. He confessed, indeed, that as far as the noble lord was concerned, the motion was a matter of perfect indifference; he relied wholly upon the consciousness of his innocence, and valued his character far more than any ignominious punishment which could be inflicted. But, as it affected the feelings of the country, and the feelings of that profession to which the noble lord was an honour, he should certainly have supported the motion, had not the declaration, which the noble lord had just made, rendered it unnecessary to press it. Some remarks, however, had been made, and particularly by the Solicitor-General, which had a tendency to shake that favourable judgment with respect to the innocence of lord Cochrane, which some members had formed on a preceding evening. He knew the candour and gentlemanly feeling which belonged to that learned and hon. gentleman, yet he could not help thinking, that he (sir F. Burdett) had some reason to complain of the course he had adopted that evening. He was disposed to regard him with every sort of respect; but still, as Solicitor-General, he could not regard him exactly in the same light as any other independent member of the House; because, from his very situation, he could not be wholly free from a bias or inclination to support the measures of administration. He sat in that House, in some measure, as a judge; but he had indulged himself in giving evidence into which the House had no opportunity of enquiring. He had affirmed, that lord Cochrane's statement, as delivered before that House, was incorrect, and especially that part of it which declared that the noble lord, conscious of his innocence, had used no endeavours to prepare for his defence. He (sir F. Burdett) had always considered the noble lord as going into court as pre-judged in the mind of every man, from what had transpired previously to the trial? even his counsel seemed to be under the influence of the same feeling, as they certainly did not defend bins with that ability which they might have exerted. Their defence was undoubtedly not so powerful as that employed by the noble lord himself when he moved for a new trial; if they might judge from the effect produced by it on the public mind. With respect to the brief, which lord Cochrane affirmed he had not read, and which it was now stated he had, he (sir F. Burdett) did not positively know that the noble lord had read the brief; but he could believe the fact might be so, and yet that he was ignorant of its contents. He, who knew the noble lord well, had no doubt that, at the time he was reading the brief, his head was dreaming or scheming over the plans which withdrew his attention from the subject. He would state to the House why he thought so: the copy of the brief stated, that De Berenger wore a red coat; lord Cochrane, in his affidavit, had declared that he wore a green coat; and it was impossible, if his mind had been intent upon the matter of the brief, that he could have allowed such a contradiction to remain. It was known also, that briefs and all legal instruments were drawn up in such a manner, that persons possessing a much more penetrating mind than he (sir F. Burdett) did, had often signed such instruments without knowing what their nature was, except so far as they received an account from the attornies employed. Another hon. member had said, that lord Cochrane had given an erroneous account, in saying, that the judge made an unfair charge to, the jury, in declaring that De Berenger appeared before him in his scarlet coat, star, ribbon, &c.; because it now appeared, from another account of the trial, that a very important word was introduced, the word "if;" he knew, indeed, that your if, "was a great peace-maker;" but did not the hon. member know that the account in question of the trial, was taken by a short-hand writer belonging to the belonging to the Court, and sent to the learned judge for his revision. He did not know that any change was made in the charge; but the only way to ascertain the fact, would be to examine the short-hand writer at their bar. In fact, however, there was not a tittle of evidence to prove that De Berenger appeared before lord Cochrane in the "costume of his crime," as it had been called. Then, again, not the slightest notice was taken of a portmanteau which De Bereuger had with him, though it was a fact of the greatest importance, and compatible with everything which lord Cochrane had stated in his affidavit. He should now advert to what the noble lord, who spoke last, had said with respect to himself. The noble lord's candour was greatly celebrated; but what he meant to convey by the expression that he (sir F. Burdett) had spoken of the offence "with a tenderness that did not belong to it;" he knew not. Looking at it merely in a legal point of view, he certainly did say, that, in the eye of the law, it was not considered as a crime, but as a misdemeanour only, and not deserving of the same heavy punishment that belonged to a crime. Where, then, was the tenderness of that opinion? The noble lord had stated, as the ground for that advice which had been given to the crown (and for which he had his thanks), the most singular reason, truly, upon earth. The crime was so rare, so uncommon, that it was not necessary, for the sake of example, to carry the full sentence of the law into effect! The noble lord might be right in what he said, as he certainly had better opportunities of knowing the state of the country; but of this, he (sir F. Burdett) was certain, that if he were to meet any gentleman in the lobby of that House, and tell him such a reason for the mercy of the crown being extended towards the parties in question, he would certainly laugh in his face. They would not suppose frauds in the Stock Exchange to be quite so unfrequent and so rare as the noble lord imagined. He felt, however, obliged to the noble lord for the advice he had given to the crown on this occasion,—not for the sake of lord Cochrane, who despised that part of the sentence—but for the sake of the public, and of that gallant profession of which he had been so bright an ornament.

with considerable warmth, defended the speech of his learned friend, the Solicitor General. He said, it was impossible to suffer the House to depart without some observations upon what had fallen from the hon. baronet. When the noble lord stated, that the Prince Regent had determined to put the merciful prerogative of the crown in force, the hon. baronet observed upon that statement, that if he were to tell it to any gentleman in the lobby, he would laugh in his face—

rose to explain. What he said, was, that if he had told any person the grounds upon which that mercy was extended, they would laugh in his face.

said, that if the hon. baronet had listened to the whole of his sentence, he would have found, that he meant to quote his precise words. The crime was one to which the law affixed a certain punishment, but it was the prerogative of the crown to remit the whole, or any part of that punishment; and in the present case, the crown had remitted a part, in the hope that the conviction and sentence being known, would be sufficient to operate as a prevention of the repetition of the offence. But what was the course pursued by the honourable baronet? It certainly would not be denied, that the honourable baronet found many occasions, and fit occasions, as he deemed them, to exalt the trial by jury, and eulogize its merits and value; but when it was necessary to run down that trial by jury—when it was necessary to stigmatize our most sacred institutions—when it was necessary to cast the most unfounded imputations upon the judge and the court, for the purpose of establishing the innocence of a convicted offender—then persons were to be found out of doors, and the hon. baronet was to be found within that House, to talk of picking and packing juries, which were under the controul of the judge, and removable at the pleasure of the judge, if they did not obey his instructions. The hon. baronet professed to dwell upon the newspaper accounts of the trial; but now there was an account of it published, not given in the hurry of the moment when it occurred, but taken by a person known for the fidelity and accuracy of his labours. In that account an important alteration appears in the charge of the judge. He did not know, that it had been submitted to the judge for his revision, but he dared to say it was, as the practice was a common one, for the sake of obtaining the greatest possible accuracy. The judge might alter a phrase or a word to make that correct which before was not so; but if the hon. baronet meant to state, that the noble lord wickedly altered any portion with the intent of giving a different and a new meaning to what he said, or to soften down any part of it, he would venture to assert, not only from his own knowledge of that learned lord, but of all who sat upon the bench, that there was not one of them who would descend to such a practice. The learned member then went into a detailed examination of the evidence as affecting ford Cochrane. With respect to the dress of De Berenger, he contended, that the fact of his being in a red coat did not rest upon the mere assertion of Crane and Shilling, but was established by a series of witnesses, tracing De Berenger from Dartford to lord Coch- rane's house. Such being the case, any judge must have been a driveller, who would not have charged the jury in the way the learned lord had done on this occasion. With regard to juries, he denied that it was possible to pack them; they were all struck the same way, all reduced the same way, and all were out of the reach of any improper practices. He would tell the hon. baronet also, that, notwithstanding any supposed rule of court, the court of King's-bench would have granted a new trial, had any sufficient ground for one been submitted to it. The hon. baronet had said, that there were no means by which the House could judge of the evidence alluded to by his hon. and learned friend; but he would tell the hon. baronet how the House might judge of it. The lips of his counsel and solicitors were sealed; but let lord Cochrane release them from their professional obligation to secrecy, and then the House could have the necessary information. But lord Cochrane, forsooth, was an object of political rivalry, (though a rival that nobody ever cared for) and therefore a venal judge, a packed jury, and the interposition of government, were to be associated for the purpose of ruining him! Such was the opinion of the hon. baronet. Oh, what an advocate! No doubt the hon. baronet was equally persuaded of the innocence of De Berenger, who was also an honourable man! The pillory was, it seemed, to be thenceforward considered as a desirable place of resort! The day on which any individuals—the co-members for Westminster, for instance—were to stand in that situation, was to be marked as memorable! It had been said, that to Butt and Berenger, the punishment would be as nothing. They might retire from it, and would be again received into society as if nothing had occurred!—Berenger forsooth was an honourable man! And this assertion was made, although witness after witness had proved incontrovertibly his connection with the conspiracy. It had happened, that eight or nine witnesses were asked in open court, one after the other, if they could point out the person who had travelled from Dover with the false intelligence; and although Berenger was sitting in an unsuspected part of the court, looking down and writing as if he were a clerk to one of the solicitors, they one and all, after moving their eyes round the court, as soon as they fixed upon him, declared, as if by elec- tricity, that he was the man. And yet, after this, Berenger had the hardihood to attempt to prove an alibi, and to adduce the voluntary affidavits of his servants. With respect to Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, no man, he presumed, doubted his guilt; and yet really there was less evidence of his personal connection with the fraud than there was of lord Cochrane's. It was well known, that in in all conspiracies each individual conspirator had his part assigned him. There was the arch traitor, and there were the subordinate agents. The part assigned in this conspiracy to Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, was the hiring of an office near the Exchange for the purpose of carrying on the speculations. The part of Berenger was to go to Dover, and to come up with the false news. M'Rae, Holloway, &c. were to act the subordinate parts in this nefarious drama. Lord Cochrane could not take an active part. He was too well known to go about it. His person would have been recognized. But he was not the less useful a member of the conspiracy, on that account. For when Berener came to town, after he had spread the intelligence, the question was, where he could go to be safe. Was it uncharitable to say, that he could go only to a friend who knew his errand, and who was prepared to receive him with open arms? To lord Cochrane's house, in his military habiliments, he was brought. That was the place chosen by him, in which to change his dress, that he might return, without danger, to the rules of the King's-bench. If, therefore, the question related as to the comparative degrees of personal connection, which lord Cochrane and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone had had with Berenger, lord Cochrane had it all to nothing. But it was said, that lord Cochrane had gained nothing, or next to nothing, by this transaction in the funds. From what loss had he not redeemed himself? Was there any other parson in the kingdom, who, in consequence of this conspiracy, had thus averted himself from impending ruin? It was evidently irresistible, on the part of the grand jury, to find the Bill against lord Cochrane. It was evidently irresistible, on the part of the petty jury, to bring him in guilty. He (the Attorney General), had not heard the whole of the evidence on the trial; but he had attended to every title, as read over by that learned and upright judge, sir Simon Le Blanc; and he could lay his hand on his heart, and express his firm conviction, that when the existing prejudices against the constituted authorities had subsided, the grand jury, the petty jury, the judge who recapitulated the evidence, and the four judges, who refused to grant a new trial, and who thought the crime deserving of an infamous punishment, would all be considered as having strictly done their duty. At the same time, he confessed his satisfaction to find, by the intimation of his noble friend, that it was his royal highness the Prince Regent's gracious intention to remit that part of the sentence on lord Cochrane, which must be most unpleasant to that noble lord's feelings, and still more to the feelings of that profession, of which he was lately a member, and of which he had formerly been an ornament.

said, that after the speech of the noble lord, he did not feel himself justified in taking up the time of the House further, in withdrawing, as he intended to do, his motion. He could not help expressing his regret, however, that the communication which had been made that night by the noble lord, had not been made before, and the more especially as the noble lord had deprecated discussion. The noble lord then proposed to withdraw his motion.

On the question being put from the chair,

said, that in consequence of the statement made by the Solicitor General in the course of his speech, respecting lord Cochrane's inspection of the briefs which had been delivered to his counsel, previous to his trial, he had sent a letter to the noble lord, requesting an explanation upon this subject; and had received, by a confidential friend of that noble lord, his answer, which he would take the liberty of reading to the House. The hon. gentleman then read a letter from lord Cochrane, asserting that the statement of the Solicitor General was not correct, for that he had never read the briefs, although a part of them had been read to him by Mr. Parkenson, a person connected with his solicitors. The noble lord had also sent the brief, part of which was marked, and in the margin were the words, "Read this to lord Cochrane." This memorandum, the hon. gentleman remarked, was confirmatory of the noble lord's statement. He also observed, in allusion to what had fallen from the Attorney General, that if lord Cochrane did not release his counsel and solicitors from the secresy which their professional character imposed upon them, he should be the first to pronounce him guilty; but he was satisfied the moment the noble lord heard of the suggestion, he would, without delay, avail himself of the advice which was given.

begged to repeat what he had already said, that the statement which he had given, was not made from any thing within his own knowledge, although he had no reason to doubt the veracity of the person from whom he had received the information. He did not actually state that lord Cochrane had seen and read the briefs before they had been delivered to counsel; but what he said was, that instructions had been taken from lord Cochrane for the briefs, which were read in his presence, and approved of by his lordship; and that, saving the indictment, and the statement of the Stock Exchange, the whole of the briefs had been prepared under his immediate inspection; and he had further stated, on the authority to which he had alluded, that the evidence of lord Cochrane's servants, as taken down by the attorney's clerk, was read over to him; and that his lordship had made an alteration in the evidence of Thomas Dewman, who had confounded the arrival of De Berenger at his master's house on the 21st, with another officer, who had called on some previous day; and with that correction, the brief was sent to be engrossed, and was afterwards sent to counsel. The hon. gentleman having alluded to the draft of the brief which had been sent to him by lord Cochrane, and stated, that parts only of it had been read to the noble lord previous to its being delivered to counsel, as was evident from the note in the margin, he begged to notice one part of this draft, in which the words "read to lord Cochrane" were inscribed in the margin. This was a part in which three or four lines were erased. This, no doubt, had been done by his lordship. What those lines contained could not be known, although it was evident, from this circumstance, the noble lord had not been inattentive to the text, which was submitted to his judgment.

adverting to the former discussions on this subject, said, that lord Cochrane's counsel, apprehending, that lord Cochrane would allege neglect on their part, and more particularly with respect to the brief, had furnished him with a statement of the facts, which, to the best of his recollection, were as follows:—a brief, the House would observe, was divided into two parts—the statement, or recital, and the proofs, or the evidence which it was expected to obtain in support of the statement. Now, according to his recollection of the facts to which he had alluded, the first part of the brief (the recital) had been read over to lord Cochrane at one period, and the second part (the proofs) at another period; and on the last, lord Cochrane made some observations, which were strictly attended to.

had witnessed the statement of lord Cochrane's counsel, to which his hon. and learned friend had just adverted, and entirely coincided with him in his recollection of the facts.

upon looking over the draft of the brief sent by lord Cochrane, said, he observed many lines erased, which did not appear to have been read to his lordship; he deprecated, therefore, any inference being drawn from these erasures, either for, or against, the noble lord. After the communication which had been made of the intention of the crown, it was quite unnecessary to discuss the motion any further; for all argument must bear not on the question of guilty or not guilty, (for, by the verdict of the jury, and by the vote of the majority of the House, for the expulsion of lord Cochrane, although he was not one of that majority, that question had been decided), but on the propriety of the punishment; and, although he should certainly have voted with his noble friend, yet he repeated, that nothing more need now be said on the subject. In his opinion, however, the noble lord would have done better, had he made his communication at an earlier period, and have thus prevented a most useless discussion.

The motion of lord Ebrington, as well as the Amendment of Mr. Barham, with the permission of the House, was then withdrawn.

recapitulated most of the arguments made use of by him, on the occasion of an Address which he moved in 1807, and which was carried, without one dissentient voice; and the subsequent Bills introduced by him. He concluded with moving, "That an humble Address he presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased not to grant any office, place, employment, or salary, in any part of his Majesty's dominions, in reversion, or for joint lives, with benefit of survivorship, until six weeks after the commencement of the next session of parliament."

contended, that when the House voted the Address in 1807, they had no reason to presume any repugnance in the other House of parliament, to the abolition of the places in reversion.—[Mr. Bankes said, that the Bill was then thrown out.]—They had no reason, however, continued the noble lord, to presume, that the repugnance was of that deliberate nature, which it had since assumed. The House had now, however, made several attempts, and the other House was found to differ with them on the principle of the measure. It was not on the spur of the moment, they were now called on to make an address of the House tantamount to a law, in matters of prerogative. He opposed the Address, because he considered the object of it an innovation of the constitution, and an exclusion of the House of Lords, from their share in the legislature. It might lead to a conflict of jurisdictions, and might place the crown in a contradictory relation to each of the Houses. He wished he could persuade his hon. friend to withdraw his motion.

thought there had been a sort of tacit compact between the two Houses, on the subject before the House that in consequence of saving the honour of the crown, and not infringing on the prerogative, the other House would have no objection to the passing of temporary Bills. It seemed, however, as if the suspense which took place six or seven years ago, and which had accumulated a number of reversions, had quickened the appetite of ministers. He did not mean to say, they meant to make any improper use of the power of granting sinecure places; for when an office was granted, with no duties attached to it he did not see how it could be improperly filled. The noble lord had started the difficulty of a conflict between the two Houses, and as the Lords had shewn an indisposition to his measure, the present Address, he thought, might put the two Houses in an embarrassing situation. But how was this more to be apprehended now, than at any time during the last seven years? The Lords had never sent any message on the subject. The Address would merely have the effect of keeping matters open till next session. Ministers seemed now determined no longer to keep up any appearances; and to get hold of all that the last seven years had saved for them.

contended, that there was no hope of taking any other step, than by an Address, to carry into effect the repeated votes of the House against reversions, as the session would probably close in the course of five or six days. There was nothing unusual in addresses of this kind; and, he apprehended, there was little danger of any breach of harmony between the two Houses. It must be recollected, that the moment the House let this subject out of their hands, that moment they restored to the crown the power of granting reversions, against which so many unanimous votes of the Commons had been passed.

wished to suggest to his hon. friend, that the Bill rejected by the Lords, was preventive of the grant of reversions for two years; but another Bill, of one year's duration, might still pass that House, and he sent up to the Lords this session.

said, as the other House were so tenacious on this subject, it was not unfair for the country to suppose that they conceived themselves to have a stronger right to reversions than the Commons had. It was a fair inference, that they had stronger reasons than the Commons for continuing the abuse.

The House then divided. For the Motion 34; Against it 58: Majority 24.

admitted the propriety of the first, second, and third clauses of the Bill. The next clause, however, he could not comprehend. What ground was there for inserting a long recital of a paper, drawn up in the year 1809, respecting an arrangement between the Prince and Princess of Wales, by which, in consideration of his Royal Highness, discharging 49,000l. of debts of her Royal Highness, and increasing her allowance to 17,000l.; she, on her part, signed an agreement, that, if she exceeded her income, or contracted future debts, a Bill was to be brought into parliament, to free the Prince of Wales front being liable for future debts? His objection to such a recital, was, that since 1809, her Royal Highness had not exceeded her income, nor had any demands on that account been made on the Prince of Wales. Why, then, recite this agreement of 1809, which, to say the least of it, was nothing to the purpose. It was impossible for any body to read the Bill without inferring, that her Royal Highness had exceeded her income, and that this recital was necessary, in order to prevent it in future. What was gained by all these recitals? Ha could comprehend the reason of the other clauses; they served to explain why the 22,000l. a year was taken from his Royal Highness, and paid to the consolidated fund, and to exonerate him from any future debts of her Royal Highness.

apprehended, that without such a recital, the Bill would not explain itself. He denied, that it would lead any one to suppose, that any breach of the covenant had taken place on the part of her Royal Highness. In that case, he should have adopted a different kind of remedy, and have imposed on the Princess of Wales, regulations similar to those which were applied to the Prince of Wales's own income. The present Bill took away 22,000l. from the Prince of Wales, and gave 22,000l. to the Princess of Wales for life. This was certainly placing her in a situation not very natural for married persons, and which required some explanation. He really did not apprehend, that there was any thing in the recital discreditable to the Princess of Wales, either the living separately, or the having contracted debts previous to the agreement. If they erected her into a character, independent of the Prince for money, they owed it to themselves to give some explanation of this.

was satisfied the noble lord had not perused the pipers before the House accurately. The settlement of 1809, bore, that in case the Princess of Wales exceeded her income, then an application should be made to parliament, for indemnifying the Prince. As long as she continued within her income, nothing was to be said; but whenever she exceeded her income, the subject was to be brought before parliament. New, when this subject was introduced in the Bill, was it not an inference, that the Princess had broken this agreement? He did not believe the noble lord understood the Bill himself. He believed, that the noble lord had been desired to carry through the Bill, which had been drawn up by some other hand, and that there was some lieu upon it, which the noble lord would not chuse to avow. The noble lord had stated this, as an arrangement for life to the Princess of Wales; but it ought to be stated merely as an arrangement, during the joint lives of his Majesty and her Royal Highness; for, on the death of his Majesty, a different arrangement would necessarily take place. With respect to liability, whether the debts were incurred by the Prince or Princess, the public had to pay them. It was an ostentatious display of the noble lord, therefore, to state the readiness of the Prince, to pay the debts of the Princess. The Prince had no more means to pay 49,000l. without borrowing, than he had. When the noble lord talked of the anxiety of his Royal Highness to pay these debts, without occasioning any increase of charge to the public, did he mean to say, that he had any more means to pay the 49,000l. than his other debts? All this came of the recital. He dared to say, there were good reasons for the recital, but the noble lord did not seem to have been let into the secret.

contended, that the creditors of her Royal Highness received payment of their debts, by installments of 10,000l. a year; and he considered the insinuation of the right hon. gentleman as unfair.

said, that the payments, on account of Princess, were at the expense of the Prince's creditors.

objected to the recital. With respect to the liberality of the Prince of Wales, of which so much had been said, it was sufficient to state, that the Princess had been reduced seven years, to 12,000l. a year: and that when the Prince's income was augmented from 49,000l. to 60,000l. under lord Sidmouth's administration, an application was made on behalf of the Princess, and no notice was taken of it.

The clauses were agreed to, and the Report ordered to be received to-morrow.