, on presenting the petitions from Edinburgh, observed, that he had discharged what he conceived to be his duty to his constituents; having done so, there was another duty remained for him to perform, and that was, to state to the House how very widely he differed from the allegations contained in the petitions before them. He did not agree with his constituents, in thinking that any pledge had been given for the discontinuance of the property tax at the close war, nor could he be persuaded that any such pledge had been intended, when he recollected the almost unanimous vote to which the House had come on the tax in 1806, when it was raised from 6¼ to 10 per cent. The same reason convinced him that it was not repugnant to the true principles of the constitution, for the House of Commons would never have consented to the measure if they deemed it so. Independently of the vote which had been come to in 1806 on the tax, proving that no pledge had then been intended, he would contend, that parliament had not the power to give that pledge, by which they would be restricting the privilege of free discussion if ever the tax were again found necessary. His constituents had objected to the tax, that it was a war tax, and should not be continued in time of peace. It undoubtedly was a war tax, and so it should be considered at the present moment. The country was not now in hostility to any other nation, but the great object for which the war had been entered into and carried on, and for which the tax had long been cheerfully paid, could not be said to be effected if the property tax were not continued for the short period proposed. Its object was, to wind up some of the expenses of the war, and to place this country in such a state with regard to her continental relations, as should better secure to her the advantages of that peace which she had so long struggled to obtain. The property tax, in preference to any other, was the best which could be levied at present. It would raise and support the credit of the country, enhance the price of stocks, and give to the whole kingdom tithe to recruit its wealth.

regretted to hear such sentiments as those which had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, but his regret was outweighed by his satisfaction at learning that so numerous and respectable a portion of the community as the inhabitants of Edinburgh had expressed them selves in such strong terms against the renewal of the property tax. He was happy to see petitions so numerously signed Coming from the remote parts of the kingdom, as it served to show how generally the feeling of the people extended on the subject of the proposed addition to their burthens. The petitions from Scotland, and particularly from Edinburgh, were the best proof of the extension of this feeling, as it was known that the Scotch, less than any other portion of his majesty's subjects, came to parliament to complain of any public measures. He had heard from very good authority, that the meetings at which the petitions before the House had been agreed to, was most numerous and respectable, and he had also heard that the general feeling of those who attended them was, that a pledge had been given for the abolition of this tax at the close of the war. He regretted extremely that such an idea had gone among the people, because whether it were well or ill founded, it tended to weaken their confidence in the assurances of the legislature. The general understanding in the country, while they continued to pay the tax, and pay it cheerfully, during the war, was, that they would be released from its pressure when that war should cease. The hon. member then contended, that even if no pledge had been given to discontinue the tax at the return of peace, yet it would be wise and politic in parliament not to renew it, as the country had been led to expect its abolition, from the language which had been held by gentlemen on the opposite side in private life he would not consider that man honourable, who would disappoint the hope which had been founded on a mistake of his words, when such mistake arose from the ambiguity of his expressions: but would still hold, that there had been no misconception on the part of the country with regard to the pledge; for when the table of the House had been covered with petitions from all quarters of the country against the renewal of the tax, it had been given up, and it was only renewed last year, with the direct understanding on every side, that its existence should terminate at the restoration of peace. The hon. member concluded, by expressing a hope that ministers would reflect seriously on the decided manner in which the people had expressed themselves against this tax; and warned them of the consequences of urging a measure, against which the sense and feeling of the nation was so general.

presented the petition from the inhabitants of Horsham, praying for the abolition of the property tax, to which they asserted that ministers had been pledged. They also complained of the distress which they felt from the pressure of taxes, and the great depression of the agriculture of the country; and they implored the House strictly to investigate every department where the public money was expended, for the purpose of ascertaining what reduction could possibly be made. They more particularly implored their attention to the civil list expenditure. Mr. Hurst observed that be differed widely from the conduct of the member for Edinburgh, for he approved of every allegation made in the petition which he had presented. He did conceive that a pledge had been given to abolish the tax at the termination of the war; and it was on that ground that he had given it his support. He saw several gentlemen then in the House, with whom he had voted in support of the tax during the war; they could attest that he, with them, had advised his tenantry to pay their taxes, for that the day would come when peace should be restored, and when they would be released from their pressure. His tenants had paid their share of the tax cheerfully, in consequence of this hope which he held out to them—a hope in which he now regretted to find, that he and they had been disappointed and deceived. It was scarcely necessary for him to observe to the House, that he would never have held out such a hope to his tenants, unless it were conscientiously his own.

wished to advert shortly to one part of the petition which had been just read. An allusion had been made in it to the civil list expenditure; and he believed that the idea which was formed in different parts of the country on that expenditure, was very different from that which the House held on it. It was believed by many in the country that the vast sum which was annually appropriated to the support of the civil list went exclusively to the maintenance of the royal family—whereas, it was known to the House, that several branches of the public service were paid out of it. He had merely risen to correct what, from the prayer of several of the petitions which had been laid before the House, he conceived to be a common error. With the other points he agreed. It would be a great relief to the country to do away the property tax. The present situation of the country might be com- pared to that of a country banker who had a run upon his house, and who, if every body pressed him, must be ruined. Similar to this was the present distressed state of the country, which could not well bear the pressure of the property tax.

, in presenting two petitions against the property tax, from Kingston-upon-Thames, and from Clapham, observed, that though he did not approve of the tax in its present state, he would not pledge himself to vote for or against it until it came regularly before the House. He thought such a line of proceeding subversive of the privilege of free discussion. He would therefore wait to hear what would be said on the subject by the chancellor of the exchequer, and what modifications he intended to introduce into it before he bound himself to any particular vote.

expressed his surprise at the language which had been used by the last speaker. He said, he could not conceive that there was any subversion of parliamentary privilege in giving an opinion connected with a subject on which a petition was presented. If the House were to adopt the line of proceeding which the hon. member had pointed out, the consequence would be, that the chancellor of the exchequer would succeed in forcing the tax on the country.

, on presenting the petition against the property tax from Clifton Dartmouth Hardness, observed, that the petitioners had also included a prayer for the abolition of sinecure places and unnecessary pensions, and for reform in parliament. He said, that before he moved the petition should lie on the table, he deemed it necessary to express his concurrence in the prayer which it contained, but more particularly that which implored the abolition of the property tax, and the reduction of the enormous military establishment proposed by his majesty's ministers. On the subject of the property tax he had before given his opinion to the House, and he would repeat, that he considered such a proposition, in time of peace, should be rejected by every member of the House who valued the salvation of the country. The truth was, that even if ministers should succeed in forcing this burthen on the country, they would not be able to collect it, and for the best possible reason—that the country was unable to pay it. To give the House some idea of the distress to which the country in general, but more particularly the agricultural classes had been reduced, he would mention a circumstance which he had from the best authority. He had, been informed, that in some parts of the country the prisons were so much crowded with farmers, confined for debt, that some of the gaolers had refused to take any more for want of room. He also fully concurred with the petitioners in opposing the standing army which had been proposed to so alarming an extent, and his opinion on this subject was not at all shaken by what he had heard from a noble lord last night.

, in presenting the petition from the inhabitants of Lymington, against the renewal of the property tax, said, that they also prayed for a reduction of the immense standing army, and expressed, in strong language, their sentiments on the danger of such an armed force in time of peace. They also prayed the House not to impute to them "an ignorant impatience of taxation," or a desire to use disrespectful language, when they asserted that they "could not view the proposed renewal of the tax, so burthen some and oppressive to all classes of the community, but especially so to the agricultural and commercial interests at the present moment, when the majority of the nation are sinking beneath the weight of grievous taxation, but as a premium to be paid by this exhausted nation for the detestable purpose of maintaining Louis the eighteenth, nicknamed The Desired, on the throne of France, in decided opposition to the repeatedly expressed opinion of the French people, by the aid of a foreign army to be paid by this country, and for the support of a military force in this kingdom to overwhelm the liberties of Britons."

, on presenting the petition from the landholders of the county of Roxburgh, on the same subject with the other petitions which had been presented, wished to call the attention of the House to the very moderate tone of the petitioners. They did not pray for the absolute repeal of the property tax—they did not even hint at that "consummation devoutly to be wished for," the total abolition of the tax—they only asked, that it might be so modified as to remove those grievances so heavily experienced by the landed interest, from the way in which it was now levied. He could scarcely hope, under the circumstances in which the country was now placed, that this tax could be totally dispensed with; but his expectations would be disappointed—the expectations of Scotland would be disappointed—if the landed interest was now to be pressed upon with the burthen of this tax, as heavily as during the war.

did not rise to oppose the bringing up of the petition, but to express his approbation of the moderate tone of the petitioners—a tone so very moderate, that, in fact, he thought some of the moderation could have been dispensed with, and the petitioners might have ventured to state their real feelings and opinions on the subject. It might perhaps surprise the hon. baronet to hear him say, that he very well knew what were the real feelings and opinions entertained respecting this tax by the country gentlemen in the county from whence the petition came; but he would state a fact which would explain how he knew that the expression of their real opinions would have carried these gentlemen a little beyond the very moderate prayer of this petition. Some years ago he had the honour of a very confidential communication with the landholders of that part of the country on the subject of the distresses under which the agricultural interest there laboured, especially from this tax; and he had at the same time attended a meeting of the principal men in the county held for the purpose of considering the most effectual means of relieving those distresses. The principal subject of complaint then was against the tenants property tax, and those of the assessed taxes in the schedule B. At this meeting it was proposed to draw up a petition to be presented to parliament, mentioning their distresses, and praying to be heard by counsel at the bar of the House. This was in 1808; and he ought also to state, that he had been a party to these proceedings in the capacity of counsel for the county. Some years passed away without any thing farther being done. Having taken occasion to express his surprise to one of the gentlemen of the county, that the petition had not yet been presented, he was informed by him that the design had been for the time abandoned—"for," said he "my countrymen, I am ashamed to say, are afraid of giving offence to a noble lord," (since deceased) "who, with his friends, engross the whole management of the political affairs of Scotland." And this it was which caused the suppression of that petition. The House, after this statement, would not be surprised to hear him say, that the real sentiments of the petitioners would have been expressed, if the tone of the petition had been somewhat less moderate.

said, that the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down had taken upon himself a task quite new to the House. Though the hon. and learned gentleman was not now counsel for the petitioners, he took upon himself to state their real opinions. Did the hon. and learned gentleman pretend to know what were now the sentiments of these gentlemen? It was arrogating somewhat too much for him to say to the House—"This petition now presented to you does not contain the expression of their real feelings and opinions—you must not believe what they now say—I know much better what they think—I held meetings with them seven years ago—I know what they thought then, and therefore you must refer to me, and not to their own words, if you would know what they now wish." Might not the pressure which bore upon these persons in 1808 have been since relieved? But if the House was to believe the hon. and learned gentleman, in 1808, the landholders of Roxburghshire bound themselves by an opinion from which they can never, under any change of circumstances, deviate. The hon. and learned gentleman complained of the tone of this petition, but he would ask, who dictated the opinions said to have been expressed in 1808? In short, it would seem that no credit was to be given to the petition, but all to the hon. and learned gentleman.

said, the rules of debate prevented him from answering the right hon. gentleman by speaking on the present question, but he would take the first opportunity of vindicating himself from his attack.

was satisfied with the terms of the petition, and preferred moderate expressions to violent ones. The petitioners, it would appear, did not object to a modified tax; but he wished to warn them against that danger. He was more particular in this, as the noble lord had said last night, that, however modified, it was desirable to retain the original principle of the tax, which meant that government might retain it in operation as they pleased. Then, on attempting to revive it, they would say they resorted to no new tax, but only to an application of an old principle. He trusted that petitioners would not be lulled into a false security.

The petition was brought up. On the motion that it be read,

said, that a more extraordinary mode of attack than that which had been used against him by the right hon. gentleman, he had never heard. In the first place he had thrown out a pretty broad hint that he objected to the tone of the petition, because he was not now employed as counsel for the petitioners. Was the right hon. gentleman not aware, supposing that such a feeling could be admitted into the mind of any man—was he not aware, that it was not possible for any member of that House to act in the capacity of counsel for any set of men in any matter before that House? The right hon. gentleman then said, that he took offence at the moderate tone of this petition. He did no such thing. He took no offence at the language of it; but he ventured to state that the prayer of the petition only went half way in expressing the opinion of the petitioners; because it did not ask for that which alone could afford them relief. And he said this, too—that this moderation of tone was caused by a fear of giving offence in a certain quarter. He meant no insinuation against the conduct of the petitioners; be only said that in the quarter of the kingdom whence this petition came, the people were under improper political influence—that in Scotland the rights and liberties of the subject were not so much in the subject's own keeping as in England. The right hon. gentleman would not need any more particular explanation as to the quarter whence that influence came, of which he now complained. The warmth evinced by the right hon. gentleman, was the strongest commentary upon his statement: and it was for the information of the House, that he now stated, that in Scotland there was nothing like a due representation of the people; no such thing as a popular election was known in Scotland. In the towns, the cities, and the counties in that part of the kingdom, the elective franchise was monopolised by some twenty individuals; in many of the counties there were only thirteen electors; in the most extensive counties not above 90 or 100, and only one or two in which there were even so many. He would state, moreover, that the political influence which government possessed in Scotland—and which possessing, it exerted, was the cause why there was no popular representation. It was an undeniable fact, that there never was any thing like a representation of the sentiments of the people of Scotland, unless when on some occasion of urgent necessity the people were called together to express their opinions. He wished the House to know these circumstances, and also that the petitioners would have gone much farther but for the influence which he had mentioned—but that the political defects of the constitution prevented the expression of their sentiments.

said he had not stated that the hon. and learned gentleman objected to the petition because he was not now counsel for the petitioners. In the concluding part of his speech the hon. and learned gentleman complained of the way in which Scotland was represented, because, forsooth, it was not such as he would wish. The sentiments of the hon. and learned gentleman on this subject were very well known; but he would tell him this, that till he could persuade parliament to overturn the whole of the system under which that country so long flourished—to overthrow all the rights of corporations—he would in vain attempt to persuade the House into a belief of the existence of the defects which he saw in it, or that it could be improved by any such alterations as he would propose.

was not at all surprised at the anxiety of the right hon. gentleman that no change should be made in the system of representation in Scotland. The petitions which that right hon. gentleman had that evening presented to the House from his constituents, and the speech with which they had been accompanied, was a pretty strong proof that their sentiments were not very accurately represented by those of their member. If the system of giving instructions to representatives were adopted in Scotland, he believed that there was not one individual in the populous city which the right hon. gentleman represented, who would not have instructed him to oppose the property tax. For his part he could well conceive the motive which actuated the right hon. gentleman in his objections to the freedom of election in Scotland, for were they free, both he and his family would find more difficulty in managing electors, than they did at present.

presented a petition from certain inhabitants of Linlithgow against the property tax, nod praying likewise for some alteration in the distillery laws.

drew a strong representation of the agricultural distresses of the country, which were in reality infinitely greater than they had been described in that House, exaggerated as these statements had been termed by some gentlemen on the opposite side. He thought it highly improper, that any member should oppose the wishes of his constituents, when expressed in numerous and respectable meetings.

said he would be glad to know from the noble lord opposite whether this petition came from those whom he had last night been pleased to describe as clamorously running down this tax, be., cause it was a measure of administration? He would be glad to know, if it was on his (Mr. Ponsonby's) side of the House that the cry had been raised against this tax which now resounded from every part of the country—if the noble lord thought that he owed the indisposition which was felt by the whole nation for this tax to the conduct of the opposition? But if the noble lord would only inquire, he would find that public opinion had never been so general, so universal against any measure. Such was the general feeling upon the subject, that if the gentlemen who sat opposite to the noble lord had wished it, they could not have excited such a feeling of animosity against the tax. It was a feeling so general, that no effort was necessary to raise an opposition to it. As to the political artifices of which the noble lord last night talked, he could only for himself say, that he knew none of them. For has own part, he had always opposed this tax—he had never voted for it in his life, under any circumstances whatever, because he thought the principles established by the law for collecting this tax were quite repugnant to public liberty. The noble lord had praised the gentlemen on the opposition side of the House for their wisdom fn increasing this tax,—but he did not feel himself included in the noble lord's compliment. But was there no difference in the imposition of this tax in the time of war? Every petition which had been presented to the House stated, that it had been borne cheerfully during the war. It only remained for him to express a wish that his majesty's ministers would inform themselves of the real opinion of the people. If they did so, they would find that the universal opposition with which their proposal was met, was not owing to those gentlemen in that House who sat opposite to them.

observed, that it was not strictly in order to notice what had passed on a former debate, although it certainly was competent to any hon. member to agitate whatever subject he pleased on a question concerning a petition. But he could not think it was the best way to discuss a great and important measure in that incidental way. He certainly thought that it was better to enter regularly upon the debate of so serious a question, rather than to proceed by interrogations. He did impute to the gentlemen on the other side of the House, that they had raised an unjust clamour against the property tax; and when it was considered that they were the persons who as he had always thought, very wisely, raised it from six and a quarter per cent. to ten per cent., surely they were the last who in political decency could come forward to abuse the tax as iniquitous and unconstitutional. All that he wished from these gentlemen was, to lay aside clamour, and: to come to the discussion of the subject, with nothing but fair argument. If they did so, he was prepared to contend for the expediency of continuing the tax,, not upon a peace principle but a war principle. During the administration of lord Grenville, when the tax was in., creased; and when himself and his friends sat on the other side of the House, they did not attempt to oppose the mea sure, nor to raise any clamour against it: and during the whole time that they sat in opposition, they supported government in all the proper measures which they had brought forward. But be did say that the gentlemen now on the other side of the House attempted to clamour down this tax, instead of arguing the question: and this was shown by their wishing to place ministers in such a situation as to oblige them either to interrupt the public business, or to leave what they said unanswered. The modified continuation of the tax now was proposed on exactly the same principle on which it had been originally proposed; namely, that of carrying the country through the war and its difficulties; and on this principle he was prepared to argue its expediency. He would maintain that the temporary difficulties and distresses of the country would be best relieved by supporting the public credit, and that the public credit would be most effectually supported by the modified continuance of this tax. Until the whole of the war establishment was got rid of, it would be best to retain this tax in a mitigated form. The right hon. gentleman was no doubt correct when he said that he kid never voted for this tax; but he forgot to inform the House of the reason. The fact was that the right hon. gentleman had no opportunity of giving his vote for or against it, as the tax had been originally laid on before the union with Ireland; and when the political friends of the right hon. gentleman increased it to ten per cent it happened that the right hon. gentleman was employed in Ireland in discharging the duties of the office which he then held. This was a very good reason why the right hon. gentleman had never voted for the tax. But was the right hon. gentleman prepared to say, that if at that time he had not been absent, he would have opposed that administration—that he would, on the question of this tax, have voted against his political connation? If the right hon. gentleman would now state that he would have so acted, the House must of course believe him; but he was certain he could not say that he would. He must condemn that course of proceeding by which the gentlemen opposite had carried on ex parte debates against this tax, attempting by their clamorous attacks to oppose a measure which had already so mainly contributed to support the country during a long and difficult war—which had been the sheet anchor of our public credit in the hour of danger, and had enabled us triumphantly to weather the storm.

would venture to say that the strongest opinions expressed against the property tax had come from the hon. gentlemen who voted generally with the noble lord. The noble lord continued to assert what he had asserted last night, that gentlemen on the opposite side of the House were precluded from expressing an opinion against the principle of the property tax, because in 1806, during the administration of lord Greenville, they raised that tax from six and a quarter to ten per cent. But the noble lord was at the same time not only forced by his own candor, but also by the justice of the case, to adroit that 1806 was a time of war, and that we were now in a state of peace. Why, who objected to the income tax, but because we were now in a state of peace who objected to it, but because it was a war tax, which could only apply to a state of war, and which could not now apply to a state of peace? The noble lord had heard gentlemen, day after day, delivering their opinions against those ministers with whom they usually voted, on the subject of a renewal of the income tax, which they considered the faith of parliament pledged to repeal. The noble lord, therefore, while he chose to renew the popular cant against lord Grenville's administration, for it was deserving of no other name than cant, was forced at the same time to admit what destroyed altogether the effect of it. "But then," said the noble lord, "I recommend it now on the war principle." And so this was the boasted result of all the sacrifices of the country—of all the splendid diplomacy of the noble lord, ending in treaties which had bound us up in the most confident security!. Such was the state in which the country was placed—a state which no man would ever have suspected, after the brilliant picture which he had so lately drawn of our relations—that the noble lord was now obliged ultimately to declare to the House, that all on which he grounded the income tax was the war principle. He hoped the House would not be deluded, by all this. Whatever views the noble lord might entertain of appearing to advantage in the negotiations which were expected soon to take place at Frankfort, or elsewhere, if the measures now proposed should be adopted by the country, he hoped the House would not be so far deluded with the hopes of advantages to be derived from these negotiations, as to consent to a renewal of the income tax on any such principle as that now professed; and that if supplies were to be levied on the people, they would not consent that they should be levied on the war principle, but distinctly on that of peace. The noble lord, not content with adverting to the argumentation of the property tax during lord Greenville's administration; while the noble lord and his friends had the misfortune of sitting on the opposition benches took equal credit for not then making any active, opposition to that administration: True, the noble lord did not make any opposition in that House, but he made it elsewhere [Hear, hear, hear!] and on a political principle, but with other views and other hopes of success. He (Mr. Horner) first came into the House, during lord Greenville's administration, immediately after the death of Mr. Fox; he remembered one session when the noble lord was on the opposite side of the House; and he thought he could remember also all the occasions on which the noble lord had attempted to distinguish himself by an opposition to the then administration. He remembered that the noble lord made a fight on that great moral question the slave trade—that he was the last who stood in the gap on that memorable occasion. He remembered too, that when his hon. and learned friend (sir S. Romilly) first brought forward his measure for rendering estates liable for the payment of simple contract debts, the noble lord, with the whole host of his learned friends, came down to the House and made a most vigorous opposition, in order to defeat that bill, against which the noble lord and all his friends for several sessions had not had one word to say [Hear, hear!]. But though the noble lord was silent in that House, the intriguing, as all the world knew, was conducted by him at Windsor And on what question? On the Catholic question—the question whether any relief could at that time be granted to a numerous class of the noble lord's unfortunate and distressed fellow-countrymen.

replied, that he had taken no credit to himself for not opposing lord Greenville's administration. It would have been highly inconsistent in him not to have opposed it to the utmost of his power, and his actual opposition had been very decided. He only stated that he had never endeavored to gain an unworthy popularity, by opposing measures necessary for the public safety.

observed, that the noble lord had taken credit for extraordinary liberality and moderation in not opposing the augmentation of the property tax in 1806. Why, this moderation was not greater than what had been exhibited by his political opponents. "We, (said Mr. Tierney) did not clamors against the property tax in the last war when Bunaparté was in power and threatened the existence of the country." But they had never thought of making a merit of this. He hoped, therefore, that the noble lord would no longer indulge in that sort of language. If he were asked what was the most factious opposition he ever knew, he should without hesitation say it was the persevering activity with which the noble lord struggled to get into office. The noble lord was now, however, and for some days past had been, somehow or other in a state of great irritation. He dared to say if any one of them had access to his bed chamber, they would find him starting in his sleep, and incoherently exclaiming about property tax, petitions, and parliamentary clamor—things which could hardly fail to be uppermost in his mind. Petitions from all parts of the country were now pouring in on him. The only difference between himself and the noble lord respecting these petitions was, that he called the voice which the country had raised against that execrable tax, a proper and becoming spirit, and the noble lord called it clamor. He never saw any gentleman on the ministerial side in that House set out less triumphantly than the noble lord did last night—no one would have suspected from his opening that he was to follow with a triumphant army; for the first half hour at least was taken up with a defence of him self. They had been accused by the noble lord of having voted for the property tax in time of war. Now, as to the principle of the tax, no man could ever declare himself more an opponent of it than he did; but when, contrary to his expectations, the country did pay it with cheerfulness, and when on coming into office, at a most critical period, they found the finances of the country in a state of the greatest embarrassment, where was the wonder that they should avail themselves of that tax? Why so many clamors should be raised, because, when the circumstances of the country rendered it necessary, they had increased that to ten per cent. which had been agreed to at a lower rate in principle by the country? And where was the encouragement for any man to venture any thing for the country, if he was for ever to be twitted with it in this manner? Their objection to the tax now was that it would be a breach of the compact between the country and the House of Commons. The noble lord had told them that they were now to act on a war principle. It was a pity he had not told them so before he called on them to vote an address to the throne, in return to the communication announcing the successful termination of the war, and stating that there existed the best founded hopes of the continuance of peace. The noble lord held one language when he wanted an address of this na- ture; but when he wanted a large tax it was quite another matter—"Come," said he, "let us all agree that we are now at war." I certainly did think, continued Mr. Tierney, that we were now at peace, and that the smallest danger was not to be apprehended in any part of the British dominions; but the noble lord says we are at war—that we are in the winding up of the war—and that is exactly the same thing as war. He was very willing to attribute a great deal of what had fallen from the noble lord, respecting the administration of 1806, to the state of the noble lord's health, and the irritation which he could not fail to be in. For himself, however, he did not think that he had the smallest ground for being ashamed of the part which he took at the period in question respecting this tax. In war, he had then acted with the country in continuing the tax during the war; and now that we were at peace, he had to act with the sense of the country, much to the annoyance of the noble lord, no doubt, in opposing its renewal during peace. He understood the noble lord to be now pinned down to the point; and that whatever opinions might be expressed by the country through their representatives in that House, nothing would satisfy the noble lord but a vote of the House. He would defy him however to obtain such a vote as would show that it spoke the sense of the people of England, and was not evidently obtained by the mere influence of government. What the noble lord called clamor, was, in his opinion, an indication of the good sense of the people of England. The noble lord would not tell him that it was intended by his majesty's ministers that the tax should cease at the end of two years. They did not mean this, unless by some singular fortune other particular branches of revenue should increase to such an amount as to render it no longer necessary. They intended to make it a permanent part of the taxation of England. The noble lord would call that clamor, as he had called what had formerly fallen from him on the same subject; telling him that his call on the country would not be answered. That call, however, had been answered in a manner which, if he were to use another expression of the noble lord, he would say was rather unsatisfactory to him. He had never seen a body of men in a more pitiable state than his majesty's ministers seemed to be in, making every allowance for their irritation—and he did make every allowance for the heat of the noble lord.

complained, that the time of the House was unnecessarily wasted in conversations that could lead to no conclusion. If, however, he were to give credit to the assertions that had been made, that our other sources of finance were in a state of decay, he thought there was so much the more reason for pressing the property tax. He objected to the mode in which the attack a upon ministers had been conducted, both with respect to the ways and means and I the supply, and could not understand how those, at whose suggestion the property tax had been augmented from five to tent per cent. could now consistently argue in a opposition to its continuance, more especially on the ground that the pledged faith of parliament would thereby be broken. The House would recollect, that if on the first introduction of the measure by if Mr. Pitt, it was so far unlimited in its duration to the continuance of the war, that it was actually mortgaged by that minister for the payment of no less than fifty-six millions, which would unavoidably have prolonged it for several years beyond the period of the signature of peace. After a the peace of Amiens, when that debt by the vigorous measures of the administration of lord Sidmouth, had been redeemed, the tax was continued during the war. The words "and no longer" were certainly added. This expression, however, could not be understood, nor did lord Sidmouth so intend it, as fettering the future discretion of parliament; it only amounted is to the expression of an opinion, which it circumstances might alter, that it then appeared expedient that the property tax should terminate at the conclusion of the it war. In 1806 the amount was doubled o by the administration of lord Greenville; and the act for that purpose also contained the proviso, that the tax should continue I. during the war "and no longer." This Is resolution, as in the former instance, could not preclude parliament from the exercise in of its discretion; and, indeed, a plan of finance was soon after submitted to parliament by the marquis of Lansdowne, in to which the prolongation of the property tax seemed to be contemplated. It was to then proposed, that a large sum should be raised upon the credit of the war taxes; the probability indeed was, that the other war taxes would be adequate to meet the id demand without the aid of the property tax; but, if necessary, it was to be resorted to, and for that purpose must have been continued so long as might be necessary. The change which took place in the councils of the Crown prevented the passing of the bill, and the charge was met by the successors of the noble marquis, by a specific appropriation of a portion of the war taxes. Doubtless it had been the opinion of Mr. Pitt, and of those who composed the government, that the property tax should not be rendered permanent. This opinion was expressed in the act itself but the House was aware that in the bill which he (Mr. Vansittart) had introduced last year, it was said, that the property tax should be continued during the war; but the words "and no longer," were omitted. [Hear, hear!] Had they been inserted as usual, he contended that it could not be fairly argued that parliament was conclusively bound by them; but not being there; even that supposed ground failed the opponents of the measure. He was willing to admit that the tax was originally intended as a war tax, and as a war taxis continuance was now proposed. It was to defray a portion of the expenditure of the war, and if parliament in its wisdom should think fit to pledge it for a Specific purpose, such as the payment of twelve millions of the unfunded debt, during the two years which it was to last, his majesty's ministers would have no objection to take it upon those terms. It appeared, that during the present year, at least nine or ten millions of extraordinary expense were to be provided for, and in the next year, though the burthen was less, it was considerable. The truth was that the charges of the war had been wound up in a very satisfactory manner by the financial measures of the last year; but much yet remained to be done, against which no provision had been, or could be made. The House must be aware that in the course of a war which had lasted for twenty-five years, taxes had been gradually accumulating; in that period no revision of the financial system had been undertaken: that such a revision was necessary, no man would deny, and if the property tax were prolonged for two years within that period, it might be accomplished. If the measure were negative, the irregular mode in which money had been raised must be continued, and effectual relief would be impossible. This was an additional and a strong reason for continuing the property tax; with it much might be done; without it, nothing. In the early part of the evening a petition had been laid on the table, praying some modification of the property tax; and. That the House might be acquainted with the alterations proposed by government, in case the tax should be renewed, he would shortly state them. Early in the session he had stated; that for the relief of the country, only half the sum raised since 1807 would be required, and that it might be possible to add the further remission of one million for the peculiar advantage of the agricultural interest. He had since received many communications, and the result was, that be thought the greater part should be given to the tenants of land—those persons who were included in schedule B. To carry this object into effect, it was intended, during the present and the ensuing year, instead of estimating the profits of the tenant at three-fourths of the rent he paid, it should be calculated at only one-third, of the annual value of the land. This modification was made, in consequence of the rapid, decrease in the value of agricultural produce; and the effect of it would be, that the tenant would be entitled to all the exceptions that resulted from the reduction in the calculation of his profits. For instance a person who occupied a farm of the annual value of 600l. instead of being charged with the property tax on 450l. would be supposed to derive only a profit of 200l. and consequently at the rate of 5 per cent. would only be called upon to contribute 10l. A tenant renting a farm of 450l. per annum would be assumed to derive from it a profit amounting to 150l.; and as 150l. per annum was the point at which the highest rate commenced, all those who derived profits to a less amount would have a claim to an abatement in proportion to the diminution of their gains. A farmer who paid a rent of 150l. for his land, would be supposed only to make profits to the amount of 50l. a year, and would consequently be exempted altogether from any payment when gentlemen reflected how many farms in Wales, and in some parts of England, were let at a rent below 150l. they would see what an important relief this arrangement would afford to the tenants of land. The diminution in the amount to be raised by the tax, he apprehended, would not be greater than the sum he had mentioned on a former day, or, if it were, the difference could be made up by a small increase of the other imposts.—Another important point with respect to the relief to be afforded, was, whether it could not be given by extending the period of payment. From all the information procured from different parts of the country of the distresses existing, he was inclined to think that an immediate payment would be felt as a severe pressure; what delay should be allowed was a matter to be considered in the committee, should the bill reach that stage, where it would be fit to consider on the one hand the importance of giving every practicable relief to the tenant in his present difficulties, and on the other the danger of ultimately loosing the amount required from him. Other points connected with the agricultural interest would then also come under discussion.—In the petitions that had been presented, much complaint had been made against that part of the tax which regarded the returns delivered in by persons in trade; but upon that part of the subject he could only say, that after the most anxious and patient investigation, he had not been able to discover any mode of avoiding these returns by the parties. In that particular, therefore, he apprehended that, even were the bill new-modeled no complete relief could be afforded. Upon this part of this question, however, much misrepresentation had gone forth: people in general were much, deceived as to the proportion of the burthen that fell upon individual trade. It was asserted by many, than great weight was sustained by their or, and not by the rich; that great numbers were compelled to pay an unfair proportion; and that one-fourth of the whole sum raised was charged upon persons of a very low description. To remove these erroneous notions, it was only necessary to refer to, documents upon the table: by the abstract of the population returns, it appeared that 1,131,000 families were employed in trade and in handicraft occupations. Of these only 266,000 had made returns under the property tax act; and consequently, three out of four of the families so employed had not only never, paid, but had never been called upon to pay. Of these 266,000, no less than 109,000 families were exempted, having returned that their incomes were less than. 50l. per annum; and the number which really contributed to the tax was, therefore, reduced to 157,000, or, for the sake of round numbers, to 160,000. Of these families, 121,000 had made returns of incomes to a less amount than 150l. and were consequently entitled to an abatement; and only 32,000 had paid for incomes above 150l. and under 1000l. per annum, and 3,692 above that amount. The facts derived from the latest returns, proved, whatever inequality might exist as to the proportions of individuals that it was not true that persons in trade had been too heavily charged. But all these subjects could be more satisfactorily investigated on a future occasion: and if any plan could be suggested by which the assessment could be rendered less onerous or more equal, he would be among the first to hail with joy and gladness such an amendment. All he desired was that an opportunity for inquiry should be afforded, and that the question should not be prejudged. If the measure were finally rejected, he hoped it would be after deliberation and argument by those acquainted with the details of the bill and the necessities of the country, and not by those who refused to examine the one, and were ignorant of the other. That the petitioners were entitled to great consideration, he was as willing as any man to allow; and he had listened to their complaints with great attention, though for two days he had been absent; one of those days he had devoted to necessary recreation after the fatigues of several long discussions, and on the other he had come down to postpone some public business inconsequence of the indisposition of his noble friend, and, after waiting half an hour and disposing of the business in which he was concerned, had returned home to enjoy the repose of his family. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not think that he had been negligent in his public duty.

contended, that the details given by the right hon. gentleman were unsatisfactory to all but his friends. Although he had supported the renewal of the property tax last year, he now resisted it on the same principle—because it was a tax that ought only to exist during war; and he was happy to find, from the great Ministerial authority on the other side the noble lord, that if it were to be forced upon the country, it was to be continued only for two years—a fact with which, it seemed, the chancellor of the exchequer had not been in trusted. The right hon. gentleman had, also been authorized that night to declare, that he was willing to accept the tax in reduction of twelve millions of debt for two years; but if that limit were assigned, it was to be hoped that the words "and no longer," which before had been so slyly omitted by the right hon. gentleman, would not be allowed to drop out of the new bill. He confidently expected that the measure would never arrive at that stage; but in the committee he should be able to prove beyond contradiction, that with the modifications just mentioned, of an insidious and most unfair description, if the tax were continued for the next two years, it would be impossible to find a period, either past or future, when it would be more odious and oppressive. The right hon. gentleman had stated his plan of giving relief to persons included in schedule B. The design of government in making this concession was obvious; and he hoped the House would not be deluded, and that no country gentleman would on that account be induced to impose upon his fellow subjects a heavy burthen, from a portion of which his tenants were to be relieved. He applied the word only to the public conduct, and not to the private character, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he must assert that a more dishonest proposal had never been made by any minister. It was the duty of a person holding that important office to treat all classes with impartiality, and not to make odious distinctions for unworthy purposes, too obvious to admit concealment. These attempts no doubt would be self-defeated. With a debt of 820 millions, it was of little consequence whether 12 more were added to it; but it was of the utmost importance that the people of England should be liberated from this unjust, unnecessary, and odious imposition.

vindicated his right hon. friend from the charge of having acted from unworthy motives, contending that the modification was proposed to satisfy a class of persons whom all men admitted to be severely oppressed. He admired the candor with which the hon. member had termed this acquiescence a dishonest proceeding, and he hoped the good sense of the country would fairly appreciate the alleviation thus afforded. He was willing to listen to all the suggestions of persons interested, and to frame the measure, as much as possible, to meet their wishes; but he thought that the claims of persons in trade to relief had been much lessened by the facts detailed by his right hon. friend.

defended his noble friend (lord Castlereagh) for having entered into the subject of the property tax last night. He had been obliged to do it, in order to follow and answer the speech of an hon. member who had preceded him. He contended that, as had been stated by his noble friend, the country might now be considered as in an intermediate state between peace and war, at least as to her expenditure. At the close of all former wars, the necessity of expenditure beyond a peace establishment had been admitted and acted upon. This was peculiarly the case at the close of the American war, the expenses of which had not been wound up for some years after its termination. It was said that even if the tax were necessary, this was the very worst time for reviving it. That might be, but the arrangement proposed by his right hon. friend, to postpone payments, would yield very considerable relief. They did not intend to keep the tax beyond two years; they only pledged it for twelve millions, and should not press for payment. He was astonished to hear it said it was dishonest to assist the agricultural interest, the portion of the community who were suffering most. It was a species of dishonesty which, he hoped, the ministers would adhere to so long as they retained the administration of this great nation: he hoped, in other words, they would ever retain a due consideration for the subject, and apportion the burdens of taxation according to the capability of the people to bear them. He thought he could perceive a considerable difference in the tone of the gentlemen opposite. They now considered this tax as very proper for war, though it ought not to be borne in time of peace. Were those the gentlemen who described that measure as unjust in its principle, odious, oppressive, immoral, what no free country ought to submit to, a tax that charges the one and lets the other escape? Did war so alter the feelings of men and constitutions of things, as to make that just and proper which had been unprincipled and oppressive in time of peace? And who were those who complained so harshly of the measure? the very men who had been the authors of its most obnoxious regulations! He had always heard, that the ingenuity of a right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Tierney) had been employed to suggest most of those regulations. That right hon. gentleman had first objected to it, but that was when he sat on the side of the House which he now occupied; but he found afterwards that it was very proper, and not inquisitorial at all in time of war. Mr. Pole deprecated these discussions on petitions to which no objection was made, as against the usual practice of parliament, and unnecessary. Ministers had certainly received a great deal of advice: they had been exhorted day by day, and hour by hour, for the sake of their character and their credit, to abandon this measure; but Le was not disposed to take advice from an open enemy. The gentlemen opposite were their declared political enemies; they wished for their political destruction [Hear, hear!]; and should their advice be followed? He suspected a snake in the grass, and would object to take such advice. The government had a painful task to perform. It would be their interest to lighten the burdens of the people as far as it was possible. But their personal feelings must not prevent the performance of their duty, and stop their proposal of such measures as they considered necessary for the safety of the country. Even the gentlemen opposite would think them guilty of a base and cowardly conduct, if they were to abandon the measures which they had proposed, and which they thought best calculated to support the credit and preserve the prosperity of the nation.

said, he had never before heard that any alterations had been made in the regulations of the property tax when his friends were in office. As for himself, he could say that he never suggested in his life, directly or indirectly, alterations in the property tax, except one regulation in favor of the subject: and in that case he was only the channel of communicating a suggestion which he had thought a good one and which had been made by another person. It was, that persons might be allowed to pay the sum at which they were assessed into the bank, without the amount being known to the collector, and thence to the public.

explained by saying that the right hon. gentleman was wrong in supposing that he objected to the proposal of granting relief to the tenants, or of modifying the tax as far as concerned them, in their present distress. What he objected to was, a bill which would disregard the other classes of the community, and enact a more lenient rate to the agricultural interest at their expense.

wished to set the right hon. gentleman right as to some misconceptions into which he had fallen. So far was he from allowing the propriety of the objections made by that right hon. gentleman to the discussions that took place upon the petitions of the people, as they were successively presented, that he thought nothing could be more regular, more proper, or more beneficial. The people made their applications to the House with the hope that they would be attended to, and that they would not be like waste paper on the table. The representations they made should be examined, the prayer they preferred well weighed, the opinions of members should be delivered, and their sense of the relief which their constituents petitioned for, should be promulgated. There could be no reason for the people to state their desires or their grievances at all, if such a procedure did not take place upon them. The House had last night got the noble lord opposite to state his opinion on the property tax, and it had been said that he was provoked into the discussion, although it was irregular, by the observations which had been made by an hon. gentleman whose speech he rose to answer. Now, he did not recollect any thing in the speech of that hon. gentleman that in the least alluded to the subject of the property tax; and if the noble lord had entered into the discussion, he himself had gone beyond the limits of the debate to explain his views, which those who opposed him had thus a right to canvass. The objection to the discussions on the petitions rested on the ground that the regular course of proceeding, which was first to vote the estimates and then to examine the supplies, would by this means be departed from. This objection appeared to him to have no validity. He thought that nations, like individuals, should first ascertain how much they could afford to pay, before they entered into undertakings that required expenses. Now, he conceived that this tax could not in justice, good faith, and wise policy, be resorted to as part of the revenue of the state in time of peace, and applied to the support of the proposed establishment. He had voted for it, not only last year, but on all former occasions, when first proposed by Mr. Pitt, when increased under the administration of lord Grenville, and when renewed by the present chancellor of the exchequer; but he would resist its impo- sition this year on grounds perfectly consistent with his former conduct. It was the only measure that could on those occasions be devised for raising so large a urn of money as was necessary in the existing state of the country; but it would, in his opinion, have been the height of impolicy to have voted it in ordinary times, or in ordinary wars. If it was asked why he objected to it, when a pledge was offered that it should be relinquished at the end of two years, he would distinctly answer, that he did so because that pledge was now of no value, because it had formerly been given, and had been violated. The defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer against this charge was, that the words "and no longer" were omitted in the act. From this strong-hold, into which he ought never to have retreated, he was now driven. What was the whole tenor of his statements and reasonings, when he proposed the measure to the House? What was his answer to the objection made, and the modifications suggested? His reason for rejecting some amendments that were offered implied the pledge which he had now forgotten. The amendments, he said, might be proper, if the tax were to continue as a permanent source of revenue; but as it was only to last for a year, it would be better to allow it to pass as it was, and to reject any modifications, which, besides being unnecessary for so short a time, might have the effect of reducing its productive power. The relief now proposed to be given to the class under schedule B. he would object to from the partiality that it evinced. He agreed in the general distress of the tenants and occupiers of land, but he thought that the condition of the proprietors likewise called for consideration and relief. Were the landlords to pay taxes upon rents which they had not received? He was sorry he did not see a right hon. gentleman in his place, as he wished to learn from him if it was ever the intention of lord Lansdowne, when chancellor of the exchequer, to propose the continuance of the tax in time of peace.

censured the conduct of gentlemen on the other side of the House, in their continued charges' against his majesty's ministers on every petition, as unfair, and proceeding from unfair motives. [Here the hon. gentleman was called to order by the House.]

, after appealing to the chair, proceeded to say, that the words employed by the hon. gentleman could not be used, with any regard to the decency of debate, or the rules of parliamentary decorum.

here interfered, and stated that it was contrary to parliamentary usage to attribute motives to gentlemen in debate.

expressed his regret for having used the language that was declared to be irregular. He employed the words in no personal or offensive sense, but meant merely to convey by them his strong feeling of disapprobation of the conduct of the gentlemen who, without allowing the ministers to make out their own case, took every opportunity of misrepresenting their measures and intentions.

repeated, that the language of the hon. gentleman was indecorous and unparliamentarily, as attributing improper motives to members in delivering their opinions.

submitted that the hon. member had, by his explanation, freed himself from a charge of this kind.

continued his observations, and protested strongly against the practice of making every petition against the property tax the vehicle of unfounded charges and calumnious misrepresentations. He was sorry he did not see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, as he wished to hear from him some additional explanation of the changes to be introduced in his plan of the tax in question. He would proceed to make a few observations till his return. When it was said that the tax was only to be continued for two years, and a pledge entered that it would not be allowed to exist beyond that time, by the proposition of mortgaging it for twelve millions, the gentlemen opposite endeavored to excite the alarms of the country by declaring that the discontinuance would not then take place, but that, on the contrary, it would be perpetuated as a permanent burthen. Distrust and diffidence were thus attempted to be spread over the nation. The most unfounded and incorrect statements were circulated without the walls of the House. It was of importance, therefore, that such things should be mentioned, that the correction might extend as far as the misrepresentation. He was not surprised that an hon. gentleman (Mr. Baring) should oppose the granting of any relief to the farmers (for whose situation he lately expressed such condolence), when he recol- lected the part that he took against them in the discussions on the corn bill. He himself supported that bill, because he believed its provisions necessary for the protection of the agricultural interest, and he applauded the present proposal, as it afforded a relief which, if that measure had been carried earlier, would not probably have been so necessary. He denied the assertion that the chancellor of the exchequer had given a pledge to discontinue the income tax at the end of the year, as he had only given the House to understand, that it might be reimposed for a year without change or modification; but if it was afterwards found necessary to continue it, that it should undergo certain amendments, to suit it to the state of the country, and the exigencies of the times. Seeing the right hon. gentleman now in his place, he wished to know if he was prepared to communicate to the House the paper containing the plan of the tax, sortie parts of which he had read that evening.

said, that he had stated the contents of the paper, and considered it as virtually before the House. After it had undergone some technical alterations, he would lay it formally on the table, and move to have it printed.

said, he should not go at length into the question—not that he had any suspicion that the discussion was irregular, nor from any fear of the imputation of unfair purposes. He would fain remind those gentlemen who objected to the discussions on the presenting of petitions, of the practice of the House in similar circumstances. On the last occasion, when petitions had poured in, indicating a general feeling in the country—namely, during the prevalence of the commercial distress in 1812, similar discussions had taken place, with this difference, that the discussions in the present instance had lasted for ten days, on the former occasion for more than a month. No objection was made on that occasion to the expression of opinion on the part of any gentleman; nor was suspected that there was any infringement of parliamentary order or decorum in those conversations and discussions which had the effect of diffusing information and satisfying the petitioners themselves, that their prayers were not regarded as matter of form merely, but excited the attention which it was the duty of their representa- tives to bestow on them. The effects which had been produced by those discussions rendered them precedents worthy of imitation. He did not doubt that the present discussions would be equally successful, and as the discussions then had succeeded in destroying the system of commercial impolicy which had been followed by ministers, so the discussions now would prevent the imposition of an unfaithful and impolitic tax. The ministers, it was said, would now take it for two years only, and only to raise the sum of twelve millions, with modifications, which rendered it less objectionable. He had no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer-would be very willing to take it on any terms. He and his colleagues were in such a state, that they would be driven to modify it for the relief of one class and another class, till only the shadow of it remained. Yet he (Mr. Brougham) should be so unaccommodating as to object even to that shadow. He should object to it while it kept any hold on the country, on the same condition as he now objected to it as a gross and glaring breach of public faith, whether the amount was one shilling or 10l.. per cent. As long as the tax was in existence, the machine could be screwed up, we were not safe from its effects, and the country should know that if it was not now entirely destroyed, they could never hope for its destruction. It had been said by that side of the House, that the modification proposed for the relief of the tenant was insufficient and unfair; but it was not meant that it was unfair to the tenant, though it was insufficient. But that it was unfair to the other classes, as it was insufficient for the relief of the tenant. It was meant to stop the mouth of the tannery by an act which was the height of injustice to the trading classes. Could any man imagine that a reduction of the tax on tannery, in the proportion of three-fourths to one-third, would so change the state of the agricultural interest, as to make it unnecessary to afford any relief to the traders? it was not merely by the tax, but by the low price of their produce, that the farmers were at present oppressed. But why also was not the tax taken off the landlords, and those landlords especially, who cultivated their own farms—a class of men deserving the best attention of the House—a class which had not been slow to apply for relief; for the 26 petitions which were presented by the member for Devonshire, were chiefly from men of this description. But now, men who held their own farms, to the value of 150l. a year, were left with the whole burthen of taxation on their shoulders, and assessed at the full value. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might say, he would further relieve the yeomanry, and to that end admit another modification. Then the traders who had been so severely affected by the heavy taxes and low prices, could they pay their share when the agricultural body was relieved? No—they would also he relieved. The professions then remained; and no one would say, that the income of these who had neither capital nor land, but who derived their support from active exertions, should be taxed beyond that of a landholder or a capitalist. They also would be thrown into the exempted class who, then, remained but the fundholders—respecting whom there were differences of opinion. Some thought they should also be exempted—others that they should be taxed. But the further these modifications and exemptions were extended for the purpose of stopping the people's mouths, the less reason was there that the tax should be continued at all. If no money, or a small sum, was raised by it, so much the less reason was there that in time of peace this inquisitorial impost should continue to harass the people of England. As to the inconsistency charged on gentlemen on that side of the House generally, he hoped no one would be deluded by so false and vain a clamor. It was false, as it charged on all that which was true only as to part. Many individuals on that side had not voted for it; for his own part, he had not voted either for or against it, and on what side he should have voted was a question quite unimportant. The clamour was vain, because in war there might be a time when this tax might become a necessary evil; but now the jeopardy of the nation existed no longer, the evil should end with it. As to the hopes held out that the tax would continue but for two years, he could not be deceived by any such promises, when he had seen the manner in which they had been broken. What reason was there, that a minister who after making a promise in 1815, attempted in 1816 to shake himself loose from it, should be believed in his promises for 1817 or 18? It would be said when the tax had expired, that the necessity continued, and that the spirit of the law was, that the tax should be renewed. It was gross self-delusion, to expect, that at the stipulated time it would be abandoned. If it existed one moment longer, it would never be given up while the government existed—it was too easy a means of gratifying the passion for expense—by an infinitesimal turn of the screw, its produce might be raised or diminished to meet any demand. By it might be raised 100l. or 14 millions. It was an engine which should not be left at the disposal of extravagant ministers, or extravagant princes, [Hear, hear!]; and if the country by its opposition did not now put an end to it, they might be assured it would be made perpetual.

observed, that there was a material difference between the case of the property tax and that of the orders in council referred to by the hon. and learned gentleman, because the former was a measure which had been adopted and petitioned against, while the latter was a proposition in contemplation, which would be subject to ample discussion. With respect to the hon. and learned gentleman's remarks upon the proposed modification of the property tax as to farmers, those remarks were inapplicable. The levy of the tax upon three-fourths of the rent was deemed fair at the time the tax was imposed, but from a change of circumstances, one-third of the rent was now considered as a more equitable criterion. But it did not follow from this reduction that the hon. and learned gentleman could argue for extending the principle of that reduction to other classes, to whom the considerations upon which it rested did not at all apply. The other classes, however, to whom the hon. and learned gentleman alluded, would derive considerable relief from the reduction of the tax to 5 per cent. Indeed, it was intended to afford to all classes all the relief that could be granted, consistently with a due attention to the principle and produce of the tax. The right hon. gentleman protested against the assertion that any pledge had ever been given that could be supposed to tie the hands of either the government or the parliament upon the subject of this tax. According to the terms of the act, a tax of 10l. per cent. was imposed upon the profits of property, trades and professions for one year, ending the 5th of April next, and it was intended that this act should be allowed to expire according to its original import. Thus, the faith of parliament would be preserved, and it was no violation of that faith to impose a tax of 5l. per cent. in lieu of that about to expire. The tax was, in the first instance, imposed in cornet sequence of the pressure of necessity, and that necessity still existing to a certain degree, such a continuance of the tax as was required to meet it, obviously justified the proposition under consideration, according to the principle upon which the tax originally rested. This tax was not, on the present occasion, to be regarded either as a war or as a peace tax, but as a tax between war and peace, necessary to wind up the expenses of the former and to meet the exigencies of the latter—as a tax calculated to secure the advantages of peace and to guard against the calamities of war. As to the continuance of this tax, his right hon, friend, the chancellor of the exchequer, had stated, that he proposed to raise only twelve millions from it, and this, he contended, was the only pledge which the House or the country had ever had from any minister upon the subject of the tax.

said, that he had only a few words to offer, and those would, he hoped, close the debate. He wished to put two questions—first, to ask the chancellor of the exchequer, whether he was right in understanding it to be his intention to reduce the property tax upon farmers from three-fourths to one-third? and secondly, whether he correctly understood the noble secretary for foreign affairs last night, that it was proposed to do away the duty upon farming horses altogether? Upon these questions, he was anxious to obtain distinct information, before he should meet his constituents at their ensuing meeting.

replied, that the hon. baronet was strictly right it his conception of what was meant, with regard to the proposed reduction of the tax alluded to, as it affected farmers under Before under that schedule was intended to propose a reduction furor three-fourths to one-third; while it was meant that all farmers, the amount a whose rent was less than 150l. a year should be exempted from the tax altogether; and that those whose rent was under 400l. should be allowed certain abatements. A proportionate reduction was also to be made with respect to land lords who occupied their own estates, or whose rents were necessarily reduced by existing circumstances. With regard to the tax upon frame horses, he never understood it to have been held out that this tax would be repealed altogether: but yet the amount of relief to the farmers sequence of the would extend to no less than one million; and among this relief, it was proposed to reduce the tax upon farming horses nearly one-half, that is, from 17s. 6d. to 10s. This reduction would however become a subject for separate consideration, after property tax was adopted.

asked, whether it was ignored tended to make any abatement on the proposed tax to landlords who had reduced their rents, or who had been unable to collect them?

replied, that those landlords whose rents were reduced would naturally experience an abatement proportioned to the amount of that reduction, and as to those who could not obtain their rents, they were certainly entitled to an abatement, which would, no doubt, meet due consideration.

observed, that the conception of the hon. baronet perfectly accorded with what had fallen from his right hon. friend, the chancellor of the exchequer, and the object of the proposed reduction with respect to farmers was, to grant every possible relief to that class, consistently with the preservation of the principle of the property tax. But the proposed reduction of the tax upon farming horses to which he adverted last night, would have the effect of relieving the farmers as much as if the property tax were, with regard to that class, repealed altogether.

remarked, that according to the noble lord's statement, it would be quite as well at once to repeal the tax upon farmers, as to take the circuitous mode proposed to relieve that class from its operation. But it was obviously the intention of ministers to preserve and enforce the principle of the property tax.

said, that it was particularly desirable to afford tenants every practicable relief, and therefore it was intended that a farm of 600l. a year should pay only 10l. a year to the property tax, and from this tax the tenants would be more than relieved by the proposed diminution of the tax upon farming horses. Thus tenants of a certain class would be practically exempted altogether from the property tax.

expressed himself much pleased by these short discussions, which afforded a great deal of information upon a most important subject while they formed an agreeable contrast to those long debates, in which one part of the House were speaking and another generally sleeping. But he wished to know distinctly, whether the property tax was to be regarded as a war or as a peace tax. He presumed that we were at peace, although from the discussions which had recently taken place, there was really room for doubt upon the subject. But if this were not deemed a war tax, how came it that last year, after the conclusion of the peace of Paris, this tax was suffered to expire? This he thought it important to ascertain, and also whether it was intended that, after the expiration of the two years now mentioned by the chancellor of the exchequer, this tax should cease.

observed, that the property tax was abandoned at a certain period of the last session, because it was the general feeling of that House and the country, that it would be more advisable to resort to another mode of taxation, and also because the peace promised to be permanent. On these grounds his right hon. friend brought forward the best budget that he could devise, in lieu of the property tax. But yet the substitute proposed to meet the public exigency was deemed more exceptionable, especially by the gentlemen on the other side. The question, however, on this occasion, was not whether the property tax was more or less exceptionable than any other tax, but whether the public expenditure should be so reduced as to render the country unable to make adequate provision for the preservation of peace, and the establishment of complete security?

said, he was aware that upon first mentioning the intention to continue the property tax he stated, that it was proposed to extend that continuance for two or three years. But he afterwards mentioned two years only, and he was fully prepared to state, that it was undoubtedly the intention of government not to propose the extension of this tax beyond that period.

asked, whether it was intended to make any abatement of the property tax to such landlords as had reduced their demand for rent in consequence of the distress of the tenantry? He meant those landlords who, although they had not reduced their rent by any legal document, yet made substantial allowances to their tenantry.

replied, that this question referred to details which would more properly be examined in the progress of the discussion upon the proposed measure; but he had no doubt that due consideration would be given to every claim of justice.

took occasion to observe, that in adverting to the merits of this measure on a former day, he did not say that his constituents concurred with his views upon this subject, and therefore he was surprised by letters which he had that day received from some of his friends at Maidstone, referring to such a declaration on his part. The representations of his constituents should always have great influence upon his mind, although those representations might, as they certainly did in this instance, differ from his own opinion.

expressed a wish to know whether, in the event of the rejection of the property tax, it was the intention of the chancellor of the exchequer to bring forward a proposition for tripling the assessed taxes, because the idea thrown out upon this subject had created considerable alarm. Whether the right hon. gentleman had intimated any such intention, he could not say, as he had not heard the intimation. Indeed, he could not believe that any such proposition was seriously intended. For the right hon. gentleman must be sufficiently acquainted with the state of the revenue, to be aware that such a measure would only serve to diminish the produce of the assessed taxes, and to injure our resources in that branch of our taxation. But whatever might be the views of the chancellor of the exchequer, he felt fully assured that the House would reject such a proposition as well as the property tax, and that the right hon. gentleman would be found to gain nothing by his projected revenge.

declared that he never did say any such thing as the right hon. gentleman professed to understand; for he never anticipated so great a misfortune for the country as the rejection of the property tax [a laugh, and hear, hear!]. But should such rejection take place, it would then be time enough to state the several taxes, upon which it would be for the good sense of the House to decide.

The several petitions were ordered to lie on the table.

rose, pursuant to notice, to bring forward his promised charges against lord chief justice Ellenborough. The noble lord observed, that when he recollected the imputations cast upon his character, circulated industriously previous to any legal proceedings—the conduct pursued at his trial—the verdict obtained—his ineffectual endeavours to procure a revision of his case in the court of King's-bench, and the infamous sentence there pronounced, together with his expulsion from that House without being suffered to expose its injustice—When he called to mind his dismissal from a service in which he had spent the fairest portion of his life, at least without reproach, and his illegal and unmerited deprivation of the Order of the Bath, it was impolitic to speak without that emotion by which he was almost overcome. [Here the noble lord was for some moments interrupted by the evident force of his feelings, until encouraged by the cheers of the House] He had but one course now left to pursue, namely, to show that the charge of the lord chief justice, on which he directed the jury to decide, was not only unsupported by, but was in direct contradiction to the evidence in which it professed to be founded. He did not wish to use any harsher description of that charge, or to excite discussion at the present moment; but would merely lay his complaint on the table of the House; with a view to the consideration of the subject on a future day, when members would be more competent to decide. This he thought the best course to pursue both in justice to the learned judge and to himself. He (lord Cochrane) was either unfit to sit in that House, or his judge on the Bench. He had brought his charge deliberately against the lord chief justice, and he defied the whole world to disprove the facts therein detailed: they were founded on the summing up of the judge, which he would prove to have been corrected by himself, and on the evidence contained in the minutes taken by the sworn short hand writer of that House. All that he desired was, that the House would investigate this matter to the bottom. He had courted investigation in every shape, and he trusted that the learned lord would not shrink from it, or suffer his friends on the opposite side to evade the consideration of his charges by "the previous question." At present, however, he should merely move that he should be allowed to lay on the table certain charges against the chief justice of the King s-bench with respect to the trial of Charles Random de Berenger and others, accusing the said chief justice of partiality and misrepresentation, injustice and oppression upon the said trial.

observed, that as a member of that House the noble lord was entitled of right, without any motion, to lay on the table any charges he thought proper to prefer against any individual.

then observed, that perhaps it would not be necessary to trouble the House at present by reading more than the heads of the charges.

thought the House could not receive or entertain charges solemnly brought against any person, without hearing them immediately read.

said, he had proposed this course upon the precedent in sir Elijah Impey's case.

The Charges were then laid on the table, and read at length as follow:

ARTICLES OF CHARGE of Partiality, Misrepresentation, Injustice, and Oppression, against the Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough, at the Trial of Charles Random De Berenger, and Others, in the Court of King's Bench, on the 8th and 9th days of June 1814; and upon subsequent Proceedings connected therewith.

FIRST CHARGE.—Of compelling the Counsel for the Defendants to enter upon the Defence, at, or near midnight, when they complained of great fatigue from long attendance; and assigning insufficient and artificial reasons for so proceeding.

That a Bill of Indictment against Charles Random De Berenger, and others, for a Conspiracy to raise the price of the public funds, on the 21st day of February 1814, Was tried before the lord chief justice Ellenborough and a special jury, on the 8th and 9th days of June following, and that a verdict of guilty was returned against the several defendants. That it appears, by the minutes of the proceedings at the said trial, as taken in sport hand and published by William Brodie Gurney, short-hand writer to both Houses of Parliament (page 254 and 255,) that the evidence on the part of the prosecution closed at a late hour on the night of the first day's proceedings, and that the counsel for the defendants then represented to the said lord chief justice, that they had undergone great fatigue, and felt a difficulty in the discharge of their duty, owing to the length of their attendance, and that it would be a hardship upon parties, charged with so serious an offence, if their case was heard at that late hour, and a fresh day given to the counsel for the prosecution to reply. That notwithstanding such representations, the said lord chief justice required and compelled the counsel for the defendants to proceed with the defence, without allowing them any interval for refreshment or repose.

That by the minutes aforesaid (page 2560 it appears that Mr. Serjeant Best, counsel for sir Thomas Cochrane, commonly called lord Cochrane, and two other defendants, then commenced the defence by assuring the jury, "That he was extremely sorry on his own account, and still more sorry on their aceount, that it would be necessary for him, if he was able to do it, to take up a considerable portion more of their time in the discussion of this most important question;" and that towards the conclusion of his speech (page 291 of the said minutes) he expressed himself conscious, "that fatigued as he felt himself when he rose to address the jury, after having been thirteen or fourteen hours in court, he had very imperfectly discharged the duty he owed his clients."

That by the minutes aforesaid (page 255,) it further appears, that when the said lord chief justice required the counsel for the defendants to proceed to the defence, it was not with the view of going through the cause at one sitting, and of preventing the separation of the jury, but with the avowed intention of adjourning at another period of the cause. That since an adjournment was in contemplation, and from the length of the proceedings was evidently expedient, and probably unavoidable, the time suggested by the prayer of the defendants counsel would have been a proper time for that purpose; not only on account of the fatigue of which they complained from the length of their attendance, and the probable weariness of the jury, but because the time (being near midnight) and the situation of the cause (being the close of the case for the prosecution) concurred to render it the period at which the cause might be most naturally and conveniently divided.

That the said lord chief justice, as appears by the minutes aforesaid (page 254 and 255,) expressed himself anxious to get into the defendants case, so as to take the examination of several witnesses, upon whom, he observed, the public business of certain offices depended, and who could not, he asserted, without the greatest public inconvenience, attend the next day; although it does not appear that any such inconvenience was suggested by those officers themselves. That this was the only reason which he, the said lord chief justice, assigned for requiring the advocates to enter upon the defence at so unfavourable and unseasonable an hour. That the reason so assigned, was not of sufficient force to warrant such a proceeding, because the possible injustice of convicting innocent persons of infamous crimes, ought more to have been considered than the greatest public inconvenience that could possibly have arisen from the further attendance of the witnesses.

That the reason so assigned was not only insufficient but artificial; first, because when the speeches for the defendants were ended, the said lord chief justice immediately adjourned the court, without proceeding to the examination of any one of those witnesses to whom he had reference; all of whom attended again, and their further attendance was not productive of any material, if any, public inconvenience whatever.

That the reason so assigned was artificial; secondly, because it appears by the minutes aforesaid (page 333,) that as soon as the speeches for the defendants were concluded, the said lord chief justice observed, that it appeared to him that "that would be the must convenient time for dividing the cause, as the evidence would occupy considerable time probably;" which was not a sufficient motive for separating the argument from the evidence, and deferring the examination of the witnesses, if any great public inconvenience had really been apprehended from their subsequent attendance; and the probability that the evidence would occupy considerable time, was not less obvious previous to the defence than afterwards.

That the aforesaid reason for precipitating the defence was artificial; thirdly, because the said lord chief justice did not allege the immediate necessity of examining all the witnesses, but those witnesses only on whom the business of certain public offices depended (page 255); and that the first lord of the admiralty, the secretary to the commander in chief, the under secretary of state for the colonial department, and one of the clerks in the adjutant general's office, were the only persons connected with the public offices examined as witnesses on the part of the defendants. And their evidence would not have occupied considerable time, because the whole of it was comprised in less than six pages of the said minutes; and therefore, had any such public inconvenience been apprehended as alleged, one or more, or all of those witnesses might have been examined previous to adjournment, at the expense of very little additional time or fatigue.

That the reason aforesaid was artificial; fourthly, because several of the defendants had separate counsel, and only three of the ten advocates who were in attendance for the eight defendants, made any address to the jury, and none of them spoke at so great a length as the counsel for the prosecution; and that the defence occupied considerably less time than could reasonably have been expected, unless it was anticipated that the lateness of the hour, and the fatigue of which the advocates complained from long attendance, would compel some of them to be silent, and others to omit or contract their arguments. That the speeches for the defendants, as appeared by the minutes aforesaid (page 333,) terminated as early as three o'clock in the morning, and that the lord chief justice did not anticipate an earlier termination, because it appears (page 255,) that when requiring the counsel to proceed with the defence, he observed that the sun would be up almost before they could adjourn. That nevertheless the said lord chief justice dismissed the jury without proceeding to the examination of those witnesses, who, he had asserted, could not, without the greatest public inconvenience, attend again for that purpose, and whose present examination, in order to exonerate them from further attendance, he had represented as a matter of state-necessity, to which the avowed incapacity of the defendants counsel to proceed at that period, with justice to their clients, was unavoidably to be sacrificed.

That, for all these reasons, it appears that the motive assigned for hastening the defence was artificial, and that it never was expected or intended, that a single witness should be examined previously to adjournment.

That it further appears by the minutes aforesaid (page 255,) that when the counsel represented the hardship of requiring the defence at that late hour, and of giving a fresh day to the prosecuting counsel to reply, the lord chief justice answered, that it would not be a fresh day, inasmuch as they would again be assembled by nine o'clock, and the sun would be up almost before they could adjourn; and that he would sit through it, if they required it, rather than that. That this was not a satisfactory or well-founded reply, because by the said minutes (page 333), it appears, that when the said lord chief justice dismissed the jury at three o'clock in the morning, as aforesaid, he told them that he could not expect their attendance before ten o'clock, and that he thereby allowed an interval of seven hours to the counsel for the prosecution, which though not literally a fresh day, was as much so in effect, as if he had allowed a similar respite to the counsel for the defendants, by adjourning at twelve o'clock at night till seven in the morning.

That the offer of the said lord chief justice to sit through the cause, if required, rather than allow a fresh day to the prosecuting counsel to reply, was fallacious, because there was no probability that the counsel who then complained of extreme fatigue, after sitting only half through the cause, would have been able, or could have expected his lordship and the jury to be able, to sit through the whole of it.

That, therefore, the said lord chief justice, without any just cause, compelled the counsel for the defendants to enter upon the defence after the trial had been continued without interruption for a longer period than the human faculties are usually sustainable without refection or repose; and when it was impossible that the counsel could be so capable of exertion, or the jury of attention, as the equal administration of justice required. And that the said lord chief justice Ellenborough, by such proceedings, and by saying and doing as herein set forth, was and is guilty of partiality, injustice, and oppression.

SECOND CHARGE.:—Of confounding the different Cases of Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and Mr. Butt, and untruly representing their respective transactions in the Funds, on and prior to the 21st of February 1814, to be so far similar in manner and amount, as to evince a unity of action and object, and to in dicate that each of them had speculated with a view to that particular day.

That by a general statement of transactions in the funds of lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and Mr. Butt, produced in evidence on the part of the prosecution at the trial of Charles Random De Berenger, and others for a conspiracy, and annexed to page 134 of the printed minutes of the proceedings at the said trial, it appeared, that the amount of stock held by Mr. Butt on the morning of the 21st of February 1814 was more than double; and the amount held by Mr. John., stone considerably more than three times the amount held by lord Cochrane. That it further appeared by the said statement, that from the 8th to the 21st of February 1814, being the day of the fraud, the transactions of Mr. Johnstone and Mr. Butt, so far as they were conducted through the agency of Mr. Fearn and Mr. Smallbone, were almost exactly similar in time, mode, and amount, and by an inspection of their earlier accounts the like similarity is apparent from the date of Mr. Johnstone's first speculation, through the brokers employed by Mr. Butt, which appears to have occurred on the 28th of January of that year, the transactions of Mr. Butt and of lord Cochrane having commenced at an earlier period. But it also appeared by the said general statement, that from the 8th of February to the day of the fraud, Mr. Johnstone was engaged in similar transactions to a much larger amount through the agency of another broker, a Mr. Robert Hichens, who was not employed by either lord Cochrane or Mr. Butt; neither of whom as far as appeared was acquainted with Mr. Hichens, or with the extent or existence of Mr. John-stone's transactions through his agency.

That by the evidence of Thomas Vinn, one of the witnesses on the part of the prosecution at the said trial (page 142 of the minutes aforesaid), it further appeared that Alexander M'Rae, one of the defendants, solicited the said Thomas Vinn on the 15th of February, to go down to Dartford, Folkestone, or Dover, that evening., and to personate a French officer, for the purpose of practising a deception against the Stock Exchange; by which it appeared that the fraud was originally in- tended to have been perpetrated on the 16th of February, being five days earlier than it was actually effected. That it further appeared by the general statement (annexed to page 184 of the said minutes as aforesaid,) that Mr. Johnstone had daily and largely increased his purchases, principally through the agency of the said Robert lichens, from the 8th of February aforesaid to the 15th inclusive, the day on which such solicitation was made by M'Rae to Vinn; and that on that day he held to the large amount of 615,000l. omnium, and 100,000l. consols, of which about two-thirds, namely, 465,000l. omnium, was through the said Robert lichens. That it appeared by the minutes aforesaid (page 143,) that the said Vinn refused to engage in the transaction, and therefore that the fraud was not perpetrated on the 16th as intended. And it also appeared by the said general statement, and also by the evidence of the said Robert lichens (page 175 of the minutes aforesaid), that on that clay, the 16th, Mr. Johnstone reduced his account by the sale of 200,000l. omnium; and it appears by the detailed accounts that he did so at a loss of 4,927l. 10s. That after Mr. Johnstone had so as aforesaid, on the 16th of February, sold to the amount of 200,000l. being 25,000l. more than lord Cochrane ever held at one time, he retained a balance of upwards of half a million. That on the same day (the 16th,) the day on which Mr. Johnstone so materially reduced his balance through the agency of the said Robert Hichens, who was not employed by or known to the other defendants, he did, as appears by the statement aforesaid, in a small degree increase it, by the difference between the purchase of 18,500l. and sale of 10,000l. omnium, through the agency of Mr. Fearn, the broker of the other defendants, lord Cochrane and Mr. Butt; and thereby preserved the appearance of dealing in conformity with, under the discretion of, and to no greater extent than Mr. Butt, who it appears made a similar purchase and sale on the same day.

That it further appears by the said general statement (page 184 of the said minutes), that lord Cochrane held a balance of only 100,000l. on the said 15th of February, the day on which M'Rae made the proposal to Vinn; and that on the 16th, after the said Vinn as aforesaid had rejected the proposal of M'Rae, lord Cochrane, instead of reducing his account, increased it by the purchase of 50,000l. more; and by the accounts aforesaid, it appears that more than three-fourths of that amount was purchased at the rate of one and three-eighths per cent. more than the rate at which the major part of Mr. John-stone's large amount of that day was sold; and by which sale he incurred a loss to the amount before stated. That therefore it appears, that lord Cochrane must have been ignorant of M'Rae's application to Vinn, and that he pursued a different line of conduct to that adopted by Mr. Cochrane Johnstone. That by the said general statement it appears, that Mr. Butt on the said 16th of February increased his omnium account with Mr. Foam) in the same proportion as Mr. Johnstone, as aforesaid, with the addition of 40,000l. consols, and that he did not decrease it by means of any other broker; and that therefore it appears, that he also was ignorant of the transactions between M'Rae and Vinn. That the amount bought by Mr. Butt and bold Cochrane, added to the amount sold by Mr. Johnstone on the said 16th of February, making together 290,000l. demonstrates, that so far from there being that similarity between their transactions as alleged at the trial, their dealings were diametrically opposite, at the most critical period, to a very considerable extent.

That it further appears by the said general statement, that lord Cochrane did not only increase his account on the said 16th of February, the day after the failure of M'Rae's application to Vinn, but that he held a larger balance on that day than on the morning of the 21st, when the fraud was actually committed. That although it appears by the aforesaid statement (page 184,) that lord Cochrane purchased 20,000l. on the 19th of February, it also appears that he caused the greater part thereof, namely 17,000l. to be sold on the same day; and by the said accounts it appears, that he did so at a loss, which furnished the strongest presumptive evidence, that he did not anticipate a rise on the morning of the 21st.

That notwithstanding it appeared at the trial, by the evidence aforesaid, that lord Cochrane pursued a different line of conduct to Mr. Johnstone, by making his largest increase of stock on the day on which Mr. Johnstone made his largest reduction, being the day after the failure of M'Rae's application to Vinn, it appears by the minutes aforesaid (page 500,) that the lord chief justice Ellenborough did make, when referring to the cross-examination of the aforesaid Robert Hichens (page 176,) relative to such reduction of Mr. Johnstone's account, the following observation to the jury: "He (Robert lichens) states Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's balance on this and different days, and it appears that they (by which the said lord chief justice evidently intended to include lord Cochrane and Mr. Butt) had been dealing in the funds with a view to that particular day" (meaning the day on which the fraud was committed); and that by such observation the said lord chief justice intimated to the jury, that it appeared by the evidence of their respective dealings in the funds, that the three last-mentioned defendants were all conjointly and equally guilty.

That although it appears by the said minutes (page 28) that the counsel for the prosecution stated, that lord Cochrane had been a speculator in omnium for one week only, and gave in a statement of his account (annexed to page 184 of the said minutes as aforesaid) by which it was made to appear that his first transaction of the kind was the purchase of 100,000l. omnium on the 14th of February, whence it was inferred that he commenced the speculation with a view to the fraud; yet it appeared by the evidence of Mr. Fearn (page 167) that this statement was unfounded, and that he had sold for lord Cochrane hundreds of thousands before that day, and that such speculations had been going on from the month of November preceding; and by reference to the earlier accounts, they appear to have been commenced on the 22d of October, being a period of about four months previous to the fraud.

That by lord Cochrane's account of stock from December 1813 till the 21st of February 1814, it appears, that from the 24th of December till the 10th of January, being a period of seventeen days, and more than six weeks previous to the fraud, he held to the amount of 150,000l. consols; to which amount, on the 8th of the said month, he added 25,000l. omnium, making together a sum of 36,000l. more than he afterwards held on the 21st of February. That again on the 24th of January he held 150,000l., and again on the 16th of February to the same amount. That from the 25th of January to the 9th of February, he held 110,000l. consols., of which part only was sold on the 9th, and the remainder on the 10th; by which it appears, that the 100,000l. omnium purchased on the 14th, and represented at the trial to have been lord Cochrane's first transaction of the kind, was merely a change in the description of stock from consols to omnium, pursuant to his previous practice, as appears by the said accounts, of speculating alternately in those two descriptions of stock; and that no unusual or increased purchase was made by lord Cochrane at the period in question. That a lapse of two days (exclusive of Sunday) between the close of the consol account on the 10th, and the renewal of the omnium account on the 14th, occurred during lord Cochrane's absence from London, and proceeded (as represented by Mr. Butt, who was authorized to replace the account) from the interposition of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, who persuaded him not to enter into any new account on the part of lord Cochrane.

That it further appears by the said accounts, that from the 23d of December till the 21st of February, a period of sixty days previous to the fraud, there were but four days only on which lord Cochrane did not hold stock for account. That on nineteen different days he held from 150,000l. to 175,000l.; that his general speculation during those sixty days was from 100,000l. to 150,000l.; and that on the day of the fraud he held 139,000l. only. That therefore it appears, that there was nothing in the stock transactions of lord Cochrane during the six days previous to the fraud, to distinguish them from his similar transactions during ten times that period, up to that day; and nothing on the face of those transactions to warrant the aforesaid observation of the said lord chief justice, so far as it applied to lord Cochrane, "that it appeared that they had been dealing in the funds with a view to that particular day."

That it further appears by the evidence of Mr. Fearn (page 168 and 170), that he did not see lord Cochrane on the 21st of February, and that for months previous to that day he had been directed to sell whenever he could obtain a profit of one per cent.; and it appears by the said accounts, that, conformably to such general order, the whole of the stock held by lord Cochrane was actually sold on an average at a gain of not more than one per cent. in consequence of the first rise in the morning, although it appears by the said minutes that a much more considerable rise took place after the arrival of M'Rae and others, in confirmation of the rumour spread by De Berenger. And by the said minutes (page 502) it appears that John Peter Holloway, one of the defendants at the said trial, and also a holder of stock on the 21st of February, gave directions to his broker, that the whole of the stock which he so held should be sold about the middle of the day.

That the said lord chief justice did not make any observation favourable to lord Cochrane upon any of the circumstances aforesaid; but by the said minutes (page 500) it appears he stated to the jury, that "for a length of time they all (meaning lord Cochrane as well as Mr. Johnstone and Mr. Butt) had their hands full of omnium and consols; and the omnium having obtained a price which would allow of a profit, all was sold; and the object appears to have been as much to raise the price a little, so as to get out without present loss, as to gain a profit;" and that he further observed, "It appears as if they not only were speculating on what they were buying, but they were speculating to such an amount, that unless they got rid of it, every one of them might be ruined; and they had determined, it should seem, on getting a profit of about one per cent., to sell the whole." And it further appears by the said minutes (page 501), that when stating the evidence of Mr. Bailey, of the Stock Exchange, he the said lord chief justice observed, "The gross amount of the balances of all three was 759,000l. omnium, anti 278,000l. consols, which would make, he says, if the whole amount were reduced to consols and calculated as consols, 1,611,430l. three per cents. Of that quantity of stock they were holders on the 21st of February." That by these statements the respective amounts of stock held by the three defendants, and consequently the different degrees of supposed inducement to the conjoint commission of a fraud, were confounded, and the three defendants were all represented as equally in- volved, and in danger of being ruined by the magnitude of their speculations. That there was no evidence nor the slightest ground to infer a copartnercy between the three defendants; and it did not even appear that lord Cochrane had any knowledge of the magnitude of Mr. Johnstone's speculations, which, as aforesaid, were principally carried on by Robert lichens, unemployed by, and as far as appears unknown to either lord Cochrane or Mr. Butt; and that the real amount of lord Cochrane's speculation was only about one twelfth part of the numerical quantity that was so held out by the said lord chief justice to the jury, and represented by him, without distinction, as an argument of guilt against the three defendants.

That by the observations aforesaid (page 500 of the said minutes) namely, "that it appeared that they were speculating with a view to that particular day," and that "they were speculating to such an amount, that unless they got rid of it, every one of them might be ruined;" the said lord chief justice inferred the guilt of the defendants from two several assumptions that were inconsistent with each other, the former allegation implying that the stock was purchased with a view to the fraud, and the latter, that the fraud was an afterthought to prevent being ruined by the stock. That the former, so far at least as regarded lord Cochrane, had no foundation in evidence, as before alleged; that the latter was equally inapplicable, not only because the amount of lord Cochrane's speculation was small in comparison with that of either of the other two defendants, Mr. Johnstone and Mr. Butt, but because it was actually less than his own account in many preceding instances; and also because it appears by the said accounts, that the result of his previous speculations in the funds between the month of October, when they first originated, and the tenth day of the said month of February, had been a gain of 4,781l. 17s. 6d., and from the state of the funds at that time, a loss equal to such previous gain could not have been apprehended upon that single speculation. That such allegation was also unfounded, because as appears by the said accounts, he was enabled to sell, and did sell, on the 17th of February, the 50,000l. purchased on the day before, as aforesaid, at a clear profit of 155l.; and if he had then sold the remaining hundred thousand at the same rate (though purchased at a higher premium) the loss on the whole account would have been only 720l. or not one-sixth part of the previous gain; and Also because on the 18th of February, it appeared that he again purchased 36,000l., and that the loss on the previous balance, had it been sold at the average rate at which he bought on that day, would have been only 786l., or not one-sixth part of the previous gain, and had it been sold at the highest rate at which he purchased on that day, the loss would have been no more than 220l.; and also because on the 19th of February, the loss on the 136,000l., then held by lord Cochrane, if it had been sold at the rate at which he did sell 17,000l, part of the sum of 20,000l. which he purchased on that day as aforesaid, would have amounted to only an eighth, and according to the mode of calculation adopted by the Stock Exchange, with a view to exaggerate the gain on the 21st, to only one-twentieth part of the previous gain; and also, because he could not have been compelled to close the account till the 16th of March following (the settling day), a period of more than three weeks, and an opportunity to sell at a profit or an inconsiderable loss was reasonably to have been expected in the course of that time, and did actually and repeatedly occur, and particularly on the 24th of February when such amount, if it had been held till that day, and sold at the rate at which Mr. Butt did then actually sell, would have produced a profit of 1,988l. 15s., being more than the profit actually produced on the 21st; and again pn the 25th of February, if it had been held till that day, and sold at the rate at which Mr. Fearn then purchased for lord Cochrane, there would have been a profit of 598l. 15s.; and again on the 26th, if sold at the rate at which Mr. Butt sold on that day, the profit would have amounted to 1,293l. 15s.; that again on the ad of March, at the rate at which Mr. Fearn purchased for lord Cochrane on that day, the result would have been a profit of 251l. 15s.; and on the 4th of March, at the rate at which Mr. Fearn sold for lord Cochrane on the morning of that day, the profit would have been 772l. 10s.; and had it been held till the very last moment, when the account must necessarily have been closed, namely, the 16th of March, the loss would not have amounted to a third part of the sum previously gained.

That by the minutes aforesaid (page 436), it appears, that the counsel for the prosecution alleged, that just one month After the 21st of February came the news of the rupture of the negociation at Chatillon, when the premium on omnium fell from 28 to 12 per cent., and that if that news had come instead of this false news, the loss of the three defendants would have been immense, and that therefore ruin stared them in the face, and instigated them to the commission of the fraud. That the fallacy of this extraordinary assumption and injurious argument, particularly in its application to lord Cochrane, whose amount of stock was comparatively small, and was not bought till the 14th and 16th of February, ought to have been pointed out to the jury, because there was no reason why lord Cochrane should have thought that the aspect of affairs was sufficiently favourable for the purchase of stock on those days, and yet sometime during the short interval between the 16th and 19th of February, have been seized with an apprehension that an event which was then generally thought improbable, and which did not occur till more than a month afterwards, would take place before he could by any fair means dispose of his purchase without being ruined by the loss; and because no such depression in the price of the funds had then taken place, as to render it at all difficult to have instantly made a fair disposal of the whole without any material disadvantage; and also, because the counsel for the defendants had truly stated (page 280) so far at least as applied to lord Cochrane and Mr. Butt, that his clients had continued their speculations subsequent to the 21st of February. And it appears by the accounts, that Mr. Butt on the 23d, and lord Cochrane on the 25th of February, made purchases in the funds to a considerable amount, when the rupture of the negociation at Chatillon was of course still nearer, and without the occurrence of any apparent event that; rendered it less probable as it approached. That such fallacious and injurious argument of the counsel for the prosecution was brought forward in his reply, and when the counsel for the defendants had no opportunity of rebutting his additional arguments. And that the said lord chief justice, instead of supplying such disability of counsel, and representing the fallacy of the assertion, that ruin stared the defendants in the face, because of the eventual rupture of the negociation at Chatillon, did, as aforesaid, state to the jury, that unless the defendants had got rid of their stock, every one of them might have been ruined.

That it does not appear that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone made any purchases in the funds after the 21st of February; which seems to present another most important distinction between the circumstances of his case, and the cases of lord Cochrane and Mr. Butt.

That although lord Cochrane's subsequent speculation in the funds was closed, not only prior to the rupture of the negociation aforesaid, early in the month of March, yet it was not so closed from any apprehension of that event, but, according to the representation of the broker, by the interference of the committee of the stock exchange, who, without any authority from lord Cochrane, and before any legal proceedings had been had against him, commanded the whole of the stock which he then held to be sold, when a considerable depression had taken place, and thereby occasioned a loss of 1050l., although such stock would otherwise have been held longer, and might, and in all probability would, on a subsequent day have been sold at a profit.

That by the accounts rendered by Mr. Fearn to lord Cochrane, it appears that the gain on the stock sold for lord Cochrane on the 21st of February aforesaid, was only 1083l. 15s., being, as appears by the accounts aforesaid, only 337l. 5s. more than he had gained on a former occasion. But by the evidence of Mr. Francis Bailey (page 186 of the minutes aforesaid) a witness on the part of the prosecution, who it appeared (page 166) had had access to Mr. Fearn's books, and who deposed, that he had calculated the profit from accounts furnished by him, the gain on the part of lord Cochrane was represented at the trial to have amounted to 2,470l., being more than the true account, as rendered by the said Fearn to lord Cochrane, by the sum, of 586l. 5s. That the fact that the amount of lord Cochrane's gain was injuriously exaggerated at the trial in the said sum of 586l. 5s., is further apparent by the subsequent proceedings of the persons who instituted the prosecution, for by their report relative to the distribution of the money stopped on account or the fraud, it appears that they represented the loss on lord Cochrane's subsequent speculation at 1,636l. 5s., although, according to the account rendered by the broker, it amounted to only 1050l. as aforesaid, whereby they added exactly as much to the subsequent loss as to the previous gain; and after alleging lord Cochrane's refusal to pay his subsequent loss, which as aforesaid they themselves had occasioned, and his insisting on its being deducted out of the previous gain which had been seized by their order, they were enabled, by so exaggerating the loss in the same degree as the profit, and paying the diflerence only to the charitable institutions, to evade the payment of the said sum of 586l. 5s., for which their exaggerated representation of the profit at the trial, would otherwise have made them responsible.

That by the minutes aforesaid (page 169) it appears, that Mr. Fearn, on his cross-examination deposed, that a person who thinks the stocks may fall may sell stock which he has not previously bought, to any person who thinks they may rise; but that none of the three defendants had recourse to such practice on the day of the fraud. That the said lord chief justice objected to the last-mentioned evidence being given, observing, that it did not affect the charge, and that the sale of stock, not previously purchased, was not imputed to the defendants; and in his charge to the jury, he omitted to recapitulate the evidence so given, notwithstanding it was a circumstance of some weight in favour of the defendants, and particularly of Mr. Butt, who could not be supposed to be ignorant of the practicability of such transactions, and had, as appears by the accounts aforesaid, on other occasions, sold stock which he had not previously bought, and who, on the day of the fraud, if acquainted therewith, must have been aware that less was to be gained by that which he had previously purchased, than by, selling unbought stock to a great amount at the momentary rise, and buying it in at the approaching depression. And that lord Cochrane was also apprized of the practice afore- said, or that Mr. Butt had used it in his I behalf, is shown by the aforesaid accounts, by which it appears, that on the 21st of December 1813, 25,000l. consols, not previously bought, was sold on his account, and bought in on the 23d at a profit; and also that on the 26th of January 1814, 20,000l. omnium, not previously bought, was sold on his account, and bought in at the same rate on the 28th following; but that it does not appear by the said accounts, that Mr. Johnstone was acquainted with, or availed himself of the practice in question.

That notwithstanding the loss of near 5000l., sustained by Mr. Johnstone by the sale of omnium on the 16th of February, as aforesaid, through the agency of his private broker, Mr. Hichens, yet it appears that upon the whole account with that broker, between the 8th and 21st of February only, the balance of profit in his favour was 11,646l. 5s., and was nearly equal to the collective profits of himself, Mr. Butt, and lord Cochrane, through the medium of their common broker, during the same period. And that upon the whole it abundantly appears, and did sufficiently appear at the trial, that the main interests of Mr. Johnstone in such transactions, were not only unconnected with those of either of the other two defendants, and far more considerable, but existed unknown either to lord Cochrane or Mr. Butt.

That therefore the said lord chief justice Ellenborough, in not distinguishing between the cases, and in authorizing the whole of the stock held by the three defendants to be added together and converted into consols, in order to magnify the numerical quantity; and in stating to the jury that of that quantity of stock, they (meaning lord Cochrane, Mr. Johnstone, and Mr. Butt) were holders on the said 21st of February; and that it appeared that they had been dealing in the funds with a view to that particular day, and that they were speculating to such an amount, that unless they got rid of it every one of them might be ruined; and in stating and acting as herein set forth, was and is guilty of misrepresentation and injustice.

THIRD CHARGE:—Of untruly alleging such a communication between lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and Mr. Butt, as to render it impossible for the Jury to say from whom the Draft of 470l. and a fraction, or such part of its ultimate produce as was found in the possession of De Berenger, ultimately proceeded.

That by the minutes of the trial of Charles Random De Berenger, and others, for a conspiracy (page 480) it appears that the lord chief justice Ellenborough, in his charge to the jury, stated, that it was in evidence that when De Berenger was taken, there was found in his writing desk a number of one pound notes, part of the produce of the exchange at the bank of four 100l. notes, part of the produce of a draft of 470l. and a fraction. And that the said lord chief justice further observed, "Originally the 470l. draft had been laid down before and paid to lord Cochrane; it had afterwards got into the hands of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and of Mr. Butt, for there appeared to be such a communication between the parties, that you cannot say from whom ultimately it proceeded, but it had been in some sort in the hands of all, and the produce of this check originally paid to lord Cochrane, is found in the desk of this man." That a part of this statement had no foundation in evidence, by which it did not appear that the said draft ever did get into the hands of Mr. Johnstone or of Mr. Butt, or ever was, in any sort, in the hands of either of those persons; nor did there appear to be such a communication between the defendants as to render it at all difficult to say from whom it ultimately proceeded. That on the contrary it appeared by the evidence (from page 230 to 238 of the said minutes) that such draft was drawn by Mr. Smallbone the broker, on Messrs. Jones and Co. on the 19th of February; that he gave it personally to lord Cochrane at the time; that his (Mr. Smallbone's) clerk or assistant took it on the same day to the bankers for payment, and returned to lord Cochrane with the produce, and that lord Cochrane dealt with such produce as his own money. That it appears by the said report (236 to 245) that on the 24th of February following, a note of 200l. and two notes of 100l. each, part of the produce of the said draft, were in the possession of Mr. Butt; that he caused them to be exchanged for notes of one pound each, and that he passed either the whole or a part of such one pound notes to Mr. Johnstone; that, therefore, if by the words "it had afterwards got into the hands of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and of Mr. Butt," and "it had been in some sort in the hands of all," the said lord chief justice intended the produce of such draft, rather than the draft itself, it does appear by the evidence that the greater part of such produce did get into the hands of Mr. Butt, and was "in some sort in the hands of all;" but if such was his meaning, the words "There appeared to be such a communication between the parties that you cannot say from whom ultimately it proceeded," involve a very serious misrepresentation; because in that case those words can only refer to the actual payment to De Berenger; and imply that so far from there being a doubt that lord Cochrane was a party to such payment, it was just as likely that De Berenger received the notes directly from him as from Mr. Johnstone. Whereas there was not the slightest evidence, or reason to imagine, that any of the notes found in De Berenger's desk had ever been in lord Cochrane's possession, but on the contrary it appeared (page 238 and 244) that they were obtained from the bank on the 24th of February at the instance of Mr. Butt, and that Mr. Butt on the same day delivered them either wholly or in part to Mr. Johnstone (page 244) and that Mr. Johnstone two days afterwards advanced money to De Berenger (page 364). That therefore there could be no doubt that the notes in question "ultimately proceeded" from Mr. Johnstone to De Berenger, and not from lord Cochrane, and that there was no evidence of such a communication between the parties as to render it difficult to say from whom they ultimately proceeded, and no evidence of any privity on the part of lord Cochrane to any such payment.

That by the minutes aforesaid (page 237) it appears, that evidence was offered on the part of lord Cochrane to show that 200l. part of the 400l. passed by him to Mr. Butt, was in payment of money borrowed on the 15th of February. That it appears (page 237 to 240) that the loan of 200l. from Mr. Butt to lord Cochrane on that day was circumstantially proved, inasmuch that it was shown that lord Cochrane had occasion to borrow money on that day, to make up a payment in the city; that he did borrow money of Mr. Smallbone and Mr. Lance, and that he wanted 200l. more; and that Mr. Lance on the same day heard Mr. Butt say, that he had lent it to lord Cochrane, and also that he was told so by lord Cochrane. That nevertheless it appears by the said minutes (page 239) that the said lord chief justice observed, "Then it comes to nothing;" and that in summing up the evidence (510) he observed, "It turns out that he only heard so, and did not see it lent." That the loan of 200l. from Mr. Butt to lord Cochrane on the 15th of February, has since been fully established by the stockbroker's account, by which it appears that the sum wanted by lord Cochrane was between three and four thousand pounds, of which Mr. Fearn advanced 2000l., Mr. Butt 2001, and Messrs. Smallbone and Lance the remainder; and also that Mr. Smallbone, only two days afterwards, namely February 17th, sold stock and India bonds for lord Cochrane, for the express purpose of paying the various sums so borrowed; and that the draft aforesaid, dated February the 19th, for 470l. 19s. 4d. of which the principal part of the produce was afterwards in the hands of Mr. Butt, was the balance due to lord Cochrane after Fearn, Smallbone and Lance had been paid. That it appears therefore that Mr. Butt then remained to be paid, and by the said minutes (page 230) it appears, that Mr. Butt was present when Mr. Smallbone paid the draft to lord Cochrane, and that Mr. Lance (as aforesaid) took it for payment to the bankers, and returned to lord Cochrane with the produce. That these circumstances give the strongest probability to lord Cochrane's statement, that he did then immediately repay Mr. Butt the loan of 200l. by means of the two notes of 100l. each, part of such produce.

That the passage of the further sum of 200l. also part of such produce, into the hands of Mr. Butt, was not attempted to be explained on the part of lord Cochrane at the trial. And it is obvious that, if the 400l. which passed from lord Cochrane to Mr. Butt had been intended by lord Cochrane as a reward to De Berenger, he could not, in all ordinary probability, have forgotten the amount of the sum which he so paid for such a purpose, and could not have heard that the produce of notes proceeding from him had been found upon De Berenger, and would be alleged at the trial, without apprehending that the whole of the sum so applied would be called in question; and therefore, if he had provided a factitious defence against the alleged criminal application of money, he would not have limited such defence to 2004 when the accusation extended to 400l., since it would have been as easy and feasible to have pretended a loan of 400l. from Mr. Butt, and its subsequent repayment, as of 200l. only.

That it now further appears, by a statement of Messrs. Wilkinson and Co. wine merchants, and by their bill for wine, shipped on account of lord Cochrane in his majesty's ship Tonnant, that such bill was paid on the 8th of March 1814, by the hands of Mr. Butt; and that the wine for which he so paid, had been ordered in his presence on the 19th of February, the day on which the aforesaid draft was paid to lord Cochrane; and also that Mr. Butt, on or before the 24th of that month, directed them to make out their bill, and expressed himself desirous to pay it as soon as the wine should be shipped; and that the said bill is dated the 24th, being the day on which Mr. Butt caused the 400l. produce of such draft, to be changed at the bank. That these circumstances accord with, and corroborate the statement of lord Cochrane, that 200l., part of such produce, was part of the sum of 1200l. advanced by him to Mr. Butt, for the payment of his ship bills.

That if there existed such a communication between the defendants, as was alleged by the said lord chief justice as aforesaid, particularly in pecuniary matters, it was more probable that the money paid by Mr. Johnstone to De Berenger, might be traced back to Mr. Butt or lord Cochrane, without both or either of them being privy to the ultimate payment, than that three parties to a criminal transaction, should have determined that the reward of their agent should pass through the hands of them all.

That therefore the said lord chief justice Ellenborough, at the trial aforesaid, in stating to the jury, in reference to the aforesaid draft or the produce thereof, that there appeared to be such a communication between the parties (meaning lord Cochrane, Mr. Johnstone, and Mr. Butt) that they could not say from whom ultimately it proceeded, and in stating and acting as herembefore set forth, was and is guilty of misrepresentation and injustice.

FOURTH CHARGE:—Of unwarrantably insinuating that a connexion between lord Cochrane and the Bank notes found in De Berenger's possession, had been proved by evidence, and expressly instructing the Jury to consider as a circumstance against lord Cochrane, the evidence given, in order to prove such a connexion; and unjustly evading the consideration whether the evidence so given, was not negatived by evidence to the contrary, and particularly by the evidence of a Memorandum found in the hand-writing of De Berenger.

That by the minutes of the proceedings at the trial of Charles Random De Berenger, and others, for a conspiracy (page 49, 50, 223, 224, and 225) it appears, that a memorandum written by De Berenger in a book that was found in his letter-case, was offered in evidence by the counsel for the prosecution, and interpreted by him to have been the heads of a letter from De Berenger to Mr. Johnstone, and to indicate that De Berenger's compensation was a per-centage on the gains of Mr. Johnstone and of Mr. Butt. That such memorandum was read as follows: "To C. J. by March 1st, 1814, 350l.; 4l. to 5,000, assign one share of patent, and 1,000l. worth shares of In. de Beaufain at Messrs. H. to their care. Believe from my informant 18,000l. instead of 4,800l. suspicious that Mr. B. does not account correctly to him as well as me. Determined not to be duped. No restrictions as to secrecy; requesting early answer."

That it further appears (page 234 and 235) that Mr. Johnstone in a letter to the committee of the Stock Exchange, dated March 14th, 1814, had represented lord Cochrane's gain on the 21st of February, to be 1,700l. that of Mr. Butt 1,300l. and his own at 3,500l. and that the two latter sums, making together 4,800l. were interpreted to have been alluded to in the aforesaid memorandum, wherein were the words and figures "Believe from my informant 18,000 instead of 4,800." And it was not pretended that any allusion to lord Cochrane, or to the amount of his gain, was contained in such memorandum, which was interpreted to purport that De Berenger's compensation was a per-centage on the gains of Mr. Johnstone and Mr. Butt only, and that he believed such gains to have been more than they had represented them to be.

That by the said minutes (page 186) it appears that the amount of Mr. Johnstone's gain on the 21st of February, according to the calculation given in evidence on the part of the prosecution, was 4,931l. 5s. and therefore, that it is not necessary to include any estimate of the gains of Mr. Butt, in order to arrive at the sum of 4,800l. mentioned in the said memorandum. But that if the said memorandum related to the fraud of the 21st of February, and was correctly interpreted at the trial, no reason is apparent why De Berenger should not have expected a per-centage on the gains of lord Cochrane as well as on those of either of the other defendants, if he (lord Cochrane) was particeps criminis, or why he should have relinquished his claim on lord Cochrane, at the same time that he was disputing the gross amount of the sum on which he was to be paid, and expressing his belief that it was much below the reality, and his determination not to be duped. That therefore in the same degree that this piece of evidence was calculated to operate against Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, it ought to have operated in favour of lord Cochrane, and in fact the strongest evidence to that end. That it appears that the counsel for lord Cochrane was also of counsel for Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and that he could not, consistently with his duty to the latter, point out to the jury this most important distmction in favour of the former; and that he made no further observation upon it (page 224) than that it could not be evidence against the Cochranes; on which it appears that the lord chief justice Ellenborough observed, "No, if it was transmitted by him in writing to the others, it would be evidence against them; but it purports to be only a memorandum of his own." That if such memorandum was considered by the jury to be the heads of a letter to Mr. Johnstone, as interpreted and not disputed at the trial, they could not be supposed to doubt that such letter was transmitted or intended for transmission; and therefore that the operation of such memorandum on the mind of the jury against Mr. Johnstone, must have been as strong as if a letter to the like effect had been produced, and proved to have been transmitted. That it appears therefore that such memorandum was virtually admitted as evidence, and operated as such against Mr. Johnstone, without being subjected to such observations as it ought to have suggested in favour of lord Cochrane; and that the observation of the said lord chief justice, that if it was transmitted by De Berenger in writing to the others, it would be evidence against them, without expressing any distinction in favour of lord Cochrane, was far from being calculated to supply the aforesaid disability of counsel, and to impress upon the jury the important fact, that the paper in question could not be more hostile to Mr. Johnstone than it was favourable to lord Cochrane. That the possibility of such a memorandum, or of a letter of which it was interpreted to be the heads, having been transmitted in writing to lord Cochrane, ought not to have been supposed, since it was evidently not intended for him, and had no reference either to him or to his affairs; and that no contingency under which it might have been evidence against him could fairly be imagined; and that if evidence at all, it was decidedly in his favour.

That by the said minutes (page 487) it ap- pears that the said lord chief justice expressly stated to the jury, that they were to take into their consideration, as a circumstance against lord Cochrane, "the evidence given in order to prove a connexion with the notes afterwards found in De Berenger's desk." Whereas the evidence so given did not prove any such connexion; but proved only that the notes so found were the produce of other notes that had once been in lord Cochrane's possession; and that the evidence so given did not afford so strong a presumption of such a connexion, as the aforesaid memorandum in De Berenger's hand-writing, according to the uncontradicted interpretation it had received, received, did to the contrary. That therefore the said lord chief justice Ellenborough, at the trial aforesaid, in instructing the jury to consider, as a circumstance against lord Cochrane, "the evidence given in order to prove a connexion with the notes found in De Berenger's desk," without desiring them to consider whether the presumption offered by that evidence of such a connexion, was not counterbalanced and done away by the evidence of the memorandum aforesaid, and in stating and acting as herein set forth, was and is guilty of partiality and injustice.

FIFTH CHARGE:—Of untruly and repeatedly insinuating to the jury, that lord Cochrane, in disclosing the name of De Berenger, was influenced by an opinion that he had quitted the kingdom.

That the lord chief justice Ellenborough in Ids charge to the jury, at the trial of Charles Random De Berenger and others, for a conspiracy, as appears by the minutes of the said trial (page 479), commented on an affidavit made by lord Cochrane on the 11th of March, 1814; and that among other observations, he made the following: "now it is material to observe, that this affidavit first introduced the name of De Berenger into any public document; whether it was known privately at any earlier period, we are not informed;" and that the said lord chief justice further observed, "he appears to have very soon got to Sunderland, and might on the 11th of March, the date of this affidavit, be reasonably supposed to have been out of the kingdom." That by the former observation, it was insinuated that lord Cochrane did not give up the name of De Berenger until it was probable that it had been previously privately communicated; and by the latter that lord Cochrane purposely delayed the disclosure in order to give De Berenger time to escape. That to impress a belief of these suppositions on the minds of the jury, would have been sufficient for lord Cochrane's conviction; whereas on the contrary, in having been the first to make the disclosure, and having done so at the earliest possible period, he gave the strongest indications of innocence.

That by the minutes aforesaid (page 30) it appears, that it was stated by the counsel for the prosecution, that the committee of the Stock Exchange had private information that Du Bourg really was De Berenger, but not having any positive proof, they had said nothing upon the subject. That it appeared, therefore, that lord Cochrane could have had no reason to believe that he was not the first person who made the communication. And with respect to the fact of De Berenger being the individual who went to lord Cochrane's house, it does not appear that it could have been previously divulged by any other person, unless by De Berenger himself or his accomplices.

That the other insinuation, that lord Cochrane purposely delayed the disclosure, to give time to De Berenger to escape, was again repeated, as appears by the minutes aforesaid (page 480), the lord chief justice having observed, that "the affidavit was, as I have already stated, sworn March 11th, 1814, by which time it might well be supposed, that De Berenger, if he had made proper speed-, had got out of the kingdom;" and that again, when stating the evidence of Mr. Wright, who had deposed (page 199) that lord Cochrane, on giving the affidavit to be printed, observed, that he had no reason to think that De Berenger was capable of so base a transaction, but if he was, he had given the Stock Exchange the best clue to find him out. The lord chief justice remarked (page 503) "he had given them a clue, by giving his name in the manner he has done in the affidavit; but it would have been very ineffectual, if De Berenger had carried away his own person previous to that; but it was by accident that he was found at Leith." That the said lord chief justice did not at all advert to the obvious fact, that lord Cochrane, if innocent, could not be conscious that he had any thing to disclose until he was apprized that he was an object of suspicion. And by the first sentence of the said affidavit, as recited by the said lord chief justice (page 480), it appears that lord Cochrane, on the 21st of February; was on leave of absence from the ship which he had then been appointed to command; and by a short statement introductory to the affidavit, which was also recited as evidence by the said lord chief justice, it appeared that he had again obtained leave of absence to come to town, in consequence of paragraphs in the public papers, and of having learnt that hand-bills had been affixed in the streets, in which it was asserted, that a person had been traced to his house who had committed a fraud; and it was thereby in evidence, that between the 21st of February and the 11th of March his first leave of absence had expired; and that it was not until after he had rejoined his ship, that those paragraphs and hand-bills appeared, by which he first learnt that he was suspected of being a party to the fraud that had been committed; and it was evident that a portion of time was requisite for the receipt of the information, obtaining leave of absence, returning to town, and preparing and making the affidavit. That the statement of lord Cochrane, that he was so first apprized of the suspicion against himself, when absent from London, by means of paragraphs in the newspapers, and having heard that advertisements had been posted as aforesaid, was uncontradicted by evidence; and no paragraph, advertisement, or publication on the subject, mentioning lord Cochrane's name or residence, or so worded as that he, if innocent, could possibly have understood it to apply to himself, appeared earlier than the 7th of March, with the exception of a paper dated Committee Room, March 4th, which was said to have been affixed either on that day or the day following within the private hall at the Stock Exchange, but which did not appear in the daily prints till the 7th of March aforesaid.

That by a further affidavit of lord Cochrane, sworn in court on the 14th of June following, and read in evidence on his making application for a new trial (page 563 of the minutes aforesaid), it appeared that he had rejoined his ship at Long Reach as early as the 1st of March, his leave of absence having expired the day before, and that it was not till the 8th of that month that he first received the information in question, and that he made immediate application for leave of absence in consequence. That it therefore appeared, that no avoidable delay had occurred between the publication of lord Cochrane's name, and the publication of his affidavit giving up the name of De Berenger; and consequently, that the insinuation aforesaid was injurious and unfounded; but that neither the last-mentioned evidence, nor any of the additional evidence then offered, had the effect of obtaining for lord Cochrane, from the said lord chief justice, that revisal of his case for which he then made application.

That it is still further proved, and was further proved at the trial, that the said lord chief justice had no just ground to conjecture that lord Cochrane gave up the name of De Berenger, under the impression that he was out of the kingdom, because it was in evidence (page 222), that he was not apprehended until the 8th day of April, being a period of four weeks after the publication of lord Cochrane's affidavit; and it was not in evidence that he had made any attempt to quit the kingdom up to the day on which he was so apprehended; and because it was evidently unfair and unreasonable to imagine that lord Cochrane could be fraudulently connected with him, and yet so ignorant of his movements as not to know on the 11th of March, that he was not out of the kingdom; and also because the counsel for the prosecution offered evidence (page 224), that De Berenger after quitting London, continued to correspond with Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and because the evidence so offered, which he asserted (page 50) was evidently the heads of a letter which De Berenger had written to Mr. Johnstone, was not of any letter engaging to quit the kingdom, but on the contrary indicative of his intention to remain in it, as it expressed his suspicion that the greater part of his stipulated reward had been withheld, and his determination not to be duped; and that therefore lord Cochrane, if privy to the receipt of any such letter, or if he himself received any similar communication from De Berenger, one or both of which must necessarily have been the case, if he at all was a party concerned, must have given up De Berenger's name, not as represented to the jury by the said lord chief justice, under the impression that De Berenger was out of the kingdom, but with the certain knowledge, or strongest reason to believe, that he was not out of the kingdom; and not only so, but must have done so at the risk of his utmost resentment, when it was already kindled by a suspicion that his fraudulent services were not faithfully remunerated, which would have been, and ought to have appeared to the said' lord chief justice, a very improbable proceeding.

That for all these reasons, it abundantly appears, and did sufficiently appear at the trial, that lord Cochrane in giving up the name of De Berenger, was not influenced by any conjecture that he was then out of the kingdom; and that the said lord chief justice Ellenborough, in not only denying to lord Cochrane the benefit of that most important testimony in his favour, that he was the person who gave the clue to the discovery of the principal agent in the fraud, but in converting the date of that disclosure into evidence of guilt, by repeatedly stating to the jury, that De Berenger at that time might well be supposed to be out of the kingdom, and thereby insinuating that lord Cochrane had purposely delayed such disclosure until he imagined that De Berenger had made his escape, was and is guilty of misrepresentation and injustice.

SIXTH CHARGE:—Of unwarrantably and untruly insinuating to the Jury, that the reason assigned by Lord Cochrane, for obtaining leave of absence in February 1814, was introduced by him as a colour to draw off their attention from other matters.

That an affidavit made by lord Cochrane, one of the defendants at the trial of Charles Random de Berenger and others, for a conspiracy, bearing date the 11th day of March 1814, was produced in evidence by the counsel for the prosecution (as appears by the minutes of the said trial, page 201,). and that it began by stating, that he lord Cochrane had been appointed by the lords commissioners of the Admiralty to active service, when he had no expectation of being called on, and that therefore he obtained leave of absence to settle his private affairs, and chiefly with the view to lodge the specification of a patent. That the lord chief justice Ellenborough, as appears by the said minutes (page 481), after reciting the first clause in the said affidavit, being in substance as aforesaid, stated to the jury, " There is no doubt that patent exists, and that there is a true transaction as to the patent; but whether it be introduced here as a colour, and to draw off your attention from other matters, is another point." That by such observation it was insinuated, that the object of lord Cochrane in obtaining leave of absence was not such as he assigned; and that it was not so much to lodge a specification to a patent as to assist in a fraud. That it appears by the minutes aforesaid (page 345), that lord Cochrane was daily occupied on the affair of the said patent, and on the subject of the invention for which it was granted, not only after leave of absence was obtained, but for several months previous to his appointment to a ship, and that he was actually so engaged on the day of the fraud; and also (page 351), that the said specification was not completed till the 28th of February, being one week after that day, and the very day on which his said leave of absence expired. That it is well known, and particularly to men in judicial situations, that a patent is void unless a specification is enrolled within the period of six months after it is obtained, and that it cannot be completed without the personal attendance of the patentee. That therefore, if lord Cochrane had proceeded to America on active service, without first obtaining such leave of absence, and preparing and lodging such specification, he would in all probability have forfeited a right which it appeared from the evidence he was anxious to secure. That for these reasons it appears, and did appear at the trial, that lord Cochrane assigned a sufficiently probable and perfectly correct motive for being absent from the ship at the period of the fraud, and that there was no just cause to insinuate, that such assigning was introduced as a colour to draw off the attention from other matters.

That notwithstanding, the said lord chief justice did, as aforesaid, in his charge to the jury, insinuate that the motive so assigned by lord Cochrane was introduced as a colour, he gave no previous indication of such a suspicion, and did not attempt to ascertain whether it had any foundation, although the first lord of the Admiralty was a witness at the trial, and could probably have stated, not only the grounds assigned by lord Cochrane at the time for requesting leave of absence, but at what time and for what period such application was first made. That the first lord of the Admiralty could have shown that lord Cochrane addressed a letter to the secretary of the Admiralty, dated February 5th 1814, in answer to an official letter from the said secretary, announcing his appointment to the command of the Tonnant, and did thereby apply for leave of absence previous to joining the said ship, for the period of ten or twelve days only, for the purpose of guardedly drawing up the specification of a patent for a discovery which had occupied his attention for twelve months past, and which specification when finished, he was to acknowledge personally before a master in chancery. And that the secretary of the admiralty addressed a further letter to lord Cochrane, dated February 7th, in reply to the said application, informing him that he was required to join the said ship immediately, and that after arriving at Long Reach, leave of absence might then be granted. And therefore it appears, and might have appeared at the trial, that if leave of absence had been granted on the 5th, in compliance with lord Cochrane's first request, he in all probability on the 21st of February, and for some time prior thereto, would have been on board the said ship, and would not have been seen or found by De Berenger on that day. That the jury therefore ought not to have been told that the reason so assigned might be introduced as a colour to draw off their attention from other matters; but it wag itself a matter which, in justice to lord Cochrane, ought to have been impressed on their particular consideration. And that the said lord chief justice Ellenborough, at the trial aforesaid, in insinuating to the jury, that the transaction, as to the patent, had been introduced by lord Cochrane to draw off their attention from other matters, was and is guilty of misrepresentation, partiality, and injustice.

SEVENTH CHARGE:—Of misrepresenting the disclosure voluntarily given by lord Cochrane, on the subject of his seeing and being in the company of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and Mr. Butt, on the morning of the 21st of February; and unwarrantably applying it as evidence, that they met together to communicate on some business in common to be transacted that day.

That by the minutes of the proceedings at the trial of Charles Random de Berenger and others, for a conspiracy, it appears that lord Cochrane, one of the defendants at the said trial, stated bran affidavit, dated March 11th, 1814, that, on the morning of the 21st of February preceding, he went to breakfast with Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, because he knew that Mr. Johnstone was in the habit of going in a coach every morning into the city, where he, lord Cochrane had occasion to go, pursuant to his daily practice of superintending work that was executing for him at a lamp manufactory, near Snow-hill; and that he accompanied Mr. Johnstone (Mr. Butt also being in the coach) as far as Snow-hill accordingly, That the lord chief justice Ellenborough, as appears by the said minutes (page 481), after reciting that clause said affidavit, which was in effect as aforesaid, proceeded to comment thereon, and observed, "Therefore these three gentlemen, who had so much to do on that day, were brought together, and had an opportunity of communicating together, at least at this time. They go on to the city together, after having, it may be supposed, had so much of communication together as was necessary for the current business of the day, whatever that business was." That it therefore appears, that the said lord chief justice passed over the motive assigned by lord Cochrane for visiting Mr. Johnstone on the morning aforesaid, namely, an opportunity of a conveyance into the city, and inferred, that the real motive was, the necessity of communicating together on some business in common that was to be transacted that day, which he thereby insinuated was the fraud on that day committed. That the said lord chief justice had no ground to conjecture, that it would ever have been known by what means, or in whose company lord Cochrane arrived at Snow-hill on the morning in question, if he himself had not voluntarily related the circumstances; and if he, lord Cochrane, had felt them to be suspicious, it does not appear that he was ever under the necessity of revealing them, or that he could have apprehended when he made the affidavit, that any person would inquire by what means he performed the journey from his house in Green-street to the said lamp manufactory, and that it would have been sufficient to have entered at once on the narrative, by simply stating that he went there. That, therefore, the said lord chief justice had no just reason for instructing the jury to give credit to so much of lord Cochrane's voluntary disclosure, as stated that he visited Mr. Johnstone in the morning, and at the same time to discredit that other part of the same statement, which shows that he so visited Mr. Johnstone, not for the purpose of communicating on any business in common, but solely for the convenience of being conveyed in Mr. Johnstone's vehicle to the place where his own separate and immediate business lay. That it was abundantly proved (page 345, 348, 165), that lord Cochrane had such separate business to transact, and that he went to the place where such business was transacted, and no further. And it was also in evidence (page 204), that the stock sold for lord Cochrane was in pursuance of an order given at the time it was bought, similar to a general order long previously given (page 168) to sell at a specified profit; and therefore that no stock was sold for lord Cochrane on that day, which would not have been sold, and equally advantageously, whether he had seen Mr. Johnstone or Mr. Butt in the morning or not. That therefore the said lord chief justice Ellen-borough, at the trial aforesaid, in discrediting the motive assigned by lord Cochrane for his visit to Mr. Johnstone on the morning of the 21st of February, and insinuating, without any foundation in evidence, that it was for the purpose of communicating on some busi- ness in common that was to be transacted that day at the Stock Exchange, or in pursuance of the fraud thereon, was and is guilty of misrepresentation, partiality, and injustice.

EIGHTH CHARGE:—Of unwarrantably controverting the declaration upon oath of Lord Cochrane, that the note received by him on the 21st of February was signed close to the bottom, and that he could not read the name; and of repeating with commendation the fallacious argument of the Counsel for the Prosecution that the name could not be written at the bottom, because the writer after closing the note, opened it again and wrote something more.

That by the minutes of the proceedings at the trial of Charles Random de Berenger, and others, for a conspiracy, it appears that lord Cochrane, one of the defendants at the said trial, stated in an affidavit, dated March 11th, 1814, that on the morning of the 21st of February preceding," he had been about three-quarters of an hour at Mr. King's manufactory, when he received a few lines on a small bit of paper, requesting him to come immediately to his house; the name affixed, from being written close to the bottom, he could not read." That it further appears by the said minutes (page 442), that the counsel for the prosecution in his reply, and when the counsel for lord Cochrane had no opportunity of rebutting his additional arguments, denied that the signature was written close to the bottom, because it was in evidence (page 349), that the writer of the note, after closing it, opened it again, and wrote something more. That the lord chief justice Ellenborough, as appears by the said minutes (page 481) instead of supplying the aforesaid disability of lord Cochrane's counsel, by cautioning the jury against so fallacious an argument, and reminding them that something more might have been written in some other corner of the paper, and not immediately under the signature, or that it might even have been written across, or on the other side of the paper, repeated it with Commendation as follows: "That was certainly a very pointed observation which was lately addressed to you by the learned counsel for the prosecution, that the name which lord Cochrane says he could not read, would not in all probability have been written at the bottom, for he had finished the note once, and there was space enough still left for him to write something more, for the servant says he added something more afterwards, therefore it was not from its being crowded at the bottom, unless it be that he had not signed any name till quite the last, and after he had written the addition which the servant mentions." Whereas it did not appear in evidence on what part of the paper De Berenger wrote after he re-opened the note; and therefore the signature might have been crowded at the bottom, whether written prior to, or after the addition in question. That the observation of the counsel for the prosecution, so repeated with commendation by the said lord chief justice, had been offered as a conclusive argument that lord Cochrane knew from whom he received that note, and had sworn falsely in stating that he did not, and was, if admitted as such by the jury, alone sufficient for lord Cochrane's conviction. That therefore the said lord chief justice Ellen-borough at the trial aforesaid, in not only omitting to expose the fallacy of so injurious an argument, but in repeating it with commendation, was and is guilty of partiality, misrepresentation, and injustice.

NINTH CHARGE:—Of repeatedly, unwarrantably; and unjustly representing to the Jury, that the reason assigned by Lord Cochrane, upon oath, for returning home in consequence of the note he received on the 21st of February, was unworthy of credit, because he did not communicate it to the servant who brought the note.

That by the minutes of the proceedings at the trial of Charles Random De Berenger, and others, for a conspiracy, it appears that lord Cochrane, one of the defendants at the said trial, stated, in an affidavit dated March 11th, 1814, that on the 21st of February preceding, he received a note at Mr. King's manufactory, the signature to which being written close to the bottom he could not read; that the servant told him it was from an army officer, and concluding that he might be an officer from Spain, and that some accident had befallen his brother, he hastened back, and found captain De Berenger. That the lord chief justice Ellenborough, as appears by the said minutes (page 482) after reciting the last-mentioned clause in the said affidavit, proceeded to comment thereon, and that he observed to the jury, "now certainly his anxiety about his brother, if true, was a very good motive for his returning; but I addressed some questions to the witness on this subject, and thought it very likely, if that was the motive which induced lord Cochrane to return, that he should have disclosed that motive to the person who brought the note, especially as he was a servant who had been seventeen years in the family, nothing could be more natural than to say, "Thomas, I hope there is no bad news from my brother, your old master;" no such thing passes, but "well, Thomas, I will return," is all that he says to him; he does not mention any thing about any apprehension as to his brother." That it appeared by the said minutes (page 350) that Thomas Dewman, the bearer of the note, when questioned by counsel, whether his service in the family had not been chiefly with lord Dundonald, answered, "Yes, and with two of his sons." And that the said lord chief justice did, as stated by him in his charge to the jury, put some questions to the witness, and ascertained from him, that one of the persons on whom he had so attended was lord Cochrane's aforesaid brother, major Cochrane, having attended on him when he first went into the army; but the said lord chief justice did not then ask him whether he had been in his peculiar service? That, if that question had been put, it would probably have appeared, that the said servant never was, at any period, in the peculiar service of major Cochrane, but attended on him incidentally when a youth, residing in London with lord Dundonald, previous to his entrance into the army. That although it appears by the said minutes (page 347) that the said servant, in answer to the question of counsel, "have you been an old servant in the family?" said, "I have been so for about seventeen years;" yet, as the question so put was not "how long have you lived in the family?" it evidently applied to the period at which his service in the family commenced; and although the said lord chief justice did as aforesaid address some questions to the witness, yet he did not, when so questioning him, inquire whether his aforesaid answer had reference to the duration of his said service, or to its commencement only.

That by the said minutes (page 350) it appeared, as aforesaid, that the servant's attendance in the family had been chiefly on lord Dundonald and two of his sons, one of whom, as aforesaid, was lord Cochrane's said brother, major Cochrane, and the other colonel Cochrane, not lord Cochrane himself, who was evidently not the other person to whom the said witness alluded, because he also deposed, that he had been engaged with lord Cochrane only since last February, meaning February 1814, so that he had not lived with lord Cochrane more than three weeks prior to the delivery of the note from De Berenger.

That the said lord chief justice, as appears by the said minutes (page 351) asked the said servant whether he knew major Cochrane, and that he replied, "Yes, I attended on the major when he first went into the army;" but the said lord chief justice did not then ask him how many years had elapsed since that period; although it was obviously probable that many years had elapsed since major Cochrane first entered the army, when the said servant last attended on him, and not at all improbable that he had never seen him from that period up to the moment that he delivered to lord Cochrane the note in question: and therefore that the sudden impression that some accident had befallen his brother, alleged by lord Cochrane to have been made on his mind when he received the said note was not the less probable from not being accompanied by the recollection (even if the previous knowledge were admitted) that the bearer of the note had formerly attended on him.

That the said lord chief justice did not only as aforesaid abstain from asking the servant how many years had elapsed since he attended on major Cochrane, but he also omitted to inquire whether he knew or believed that lord Cochrane was at that time in England, or had any opportunity of knowing that he had so attended on his said brother; although it was well known to the said lord chief justice at the trial that lord Cochrane was an officer in the navy, and had passed many years of his life at sea, and that it was extremely probable that at the period when the servant first attended in the family, and during the period that he so attended on major Cochrane, lord Cochrane himself was in another part of the world, and might never have known or heard that such servant had ever at any period attended on, or even known or seen major Cochrane, particularly as it was in evidence as aforesaid (page 350) that he had only lived in the service of lord Cochrane himself during that said month of February.

That therefore the circumstance of lord Cochrane not communicating any apprehension relative to his brother to the bearer of the note, of whose personal knowledge of his brother the said lord chief justice had no reason to believe that he had any information, was no just or probable reason for discrediting the solemn statement of lord Cochrane on oath, that he acted under the influence of such an apprehension.

That although it be true, as aforesaid, that lord Cochrane did not disclose the impression under which he returned home to the servant who brought the note, and that the said lord chief justice did (as afterwards stated by him to the jury) address some questions to the witness, yet the said lord chief justice did not directly ask the witness whether lord Cochrane disclosed any motive for returning, nor whether he inquired of the said servant who the person was that sent him, and neither sought to obtain the entire truth, by close and particular questions, nor by expressly requiring him to state minutely all that occurred on the occasion, and that the imperfect evidence so obtained was not such as to justify the use afterwards made of it by the said lord chief justice, and was by no means conclusive that lord Cochrane said nothing more to the witness than that he would return. That by an affidavit made by the said witness subsequent to the trial (as referred to at page 558 of the minutes aforesaid) and offered in evidence on the part of lord Cochrane on his application for a new trial, but rejected by the said lord chief justice, it appears that lord Cochrane, on perusal of the note aforesaid, did ask the servant several questions. That it was not until lord Cochrane had first asked who sent the note, and what he wanted, and the servant had answered, he never saw him before, and that he did not say what he wanted, but that he thought he was an army officer; that lord Cochrane concluded by saying, "then I will return." That lord Cochrane therefore asked such questions as were natural for an innocent man to ask, and re- ceived such answers as were likely to excite or confirm an apprehension that the writer was an officer from Spain with intelligence from his brother.

That by the minutes aforesaid (page 351), it appears that the first interrogatory addressed by the said lord chief justice to the witness aforesaid, on the subject in question, was "What did lord Cochrane say or do when you gave him this note?" That such question was too general to impress the witness with an opinion that he was required to detail the conversation that then passed between him and lord Cochrane. And by the said minutes (page 349) it appears that he had previously been checked by counsel when attempting to-enter into detail, and not confining himself to a short answer to the question put. That the said witness in answer to such general question of the said lord chief justice, without stating that lord Cochrane retired into the passage of the manufactory to read the note (as previously deposed by Mr. King, page 346, or even that he read it at all, merely replied, "He said then I must return," and thereby evidently gave the result, rather than the particulars of what lord Cochrane said and did on the occasion. That the said lord chief justice did not then put the question "Were those the first and only words used by lord Cochrane after perusing the note?" but rejoined, "That was all that he said?" as if it had been intended to make it appear that he said nothing else, rather than to ascertain with precision all that he really did say. That the witness then said (according to the minutes aforesaid) "Yes, I saw him come out of Mr. King's;"—which latter words, if they were all that he then proposed to utter, had no connexion with the question, and were inconsistent with a former answer (page 349), that he left lord Cochrane at Mr. King's. But that if the said witness was then desirous to have said (as subsequently stated by him) that he saw lord Cochrane come out of Mr. King's warehouse into the passage of the manufactory, when he entered with the note in question, and to have gone on to state all that then followed, the words so used were relevant and consistent. But the said lord chief justice did then instantly proceed to ask the witness, whether he knew the different members of the family, and whether he knew the major? in order, as it might appear, to provide himself with the fallacious argument aforesaid; namely, that if lord Cochrane had conceived that the writer of the note was the messenger of ill news concerning his brother, the witness being acquainted with him, was a person to whom he would have communicated his apprehensions.

That by the evidence of Mr. King, in whose presence the servant delivered the note to lord Cochrane (page 346 of the minutes aforesaid) it appeared, that, after opening the note in the workshop, lord Cochrane retired into the passage of the manufactory to read it, and that he came into the workshop again: that it appeared, therefore, that Mr. King remained in his workshop while lord Cochrane was reading the note in the passage; that the servant naturally followed lord Cochrane into the passage to receive his answer, as was his duty; and Mr. King as naturally remained behind in his workshop, as it was not his duty to do otherwise. That although it appeared, both from the evidence itself and the reason of the thing, that Mr. King did not follow lord Cochrane into the passage, and could have had no opportunity of hearing what lord Cochrane said to the servant on perusal of the note, the said lord chief justice (as appears by the minutes aforesaid, page 346) seemingly considered him a competent witness, as he thus interrogated him: "He made no observation upon reading it?" and notwithstanding the witness replied, "No, not that I heard," the said lord chief justice did not then ask him whether observations might not have been made without his hearing them, but almost immediately repeated the same question "His lordship did not make any observation upon reading it?" that the witness then replied, "No, I think only that he said, very well Thomas," being the words used by lord Cochrane, not after reading the note, but immediately on receiving it from the servant, when Mr. King, was present as aforesaid. That the words, "very well, Thomas." deposed to by Mr. King, who was examined first, and the words, "then I must return," afterwards deposed to by the servant, were entirely different; because the former were used on receiving the note, and the latter was the concluding observation made by lord Cochrane after perusing it. That the said lord chief justice endeavoured to reconcile the two expressions, and make them both relate to the same period, by joining them together, and concluded his examination of the servant by exclaiming, "All that lord Cochrane said was, well, Thomas I will return;" and thereby the said lord chief justice did not only obtain the evidence of two witnesses, that lord Cochrane said but little on the occasion, but made them appear to agree as to what that little was. That again, on stating Mr. King's evidence to the jury, (page 515 of the minutes aforesaid) the said lord chief justice persevered in representing him as a witness to what passed after perusal, and observed, "Lord Cochrane only said, 'very well, Thomas,' not making any observation expressive of anxiety as to his brother."

That the said lord chief justice, as further appears by the minutes aforesaid (page 482) continued to comment upon the clause before recited of lord Cochrane's aforesaid affidavit, and observed that "his brother, as appears by the returns which have come home, had been wounded or was upon the sick list; but it does not appear that he had then actually received any communication upon that subject and which if he had received any such, might have been expected to be proved, and might easily have been so. That his brother was in fact upon the sick list appears, but not that he then knew him to be so, nor did he intimate to the servant that came, one word of apprehension about his brother, or any mention of his health, or of him, but came back immediately on receiving this note." That by these observations the said lord chief justice very pointedly marked the distinction between evidence of a fact, and evidence of lord Cochrane's knowledge of that fact, and expressly cautioned the jury against the supposition that the evidence of lord Cochrane's brother being on the sick list, was any proof that he then knew him to be so. That the said lord chief justice was equally aware that evidence of the servant having attended on lord Cochrane's brother when he first went into the army, was no proof that lord Cochrane himself ever knew that he did so; and that it did not furnish any foundation for the argument that the sudden impression of being about to hear distressing or fatal intelligence of his brother, would have been accompanied with the recollection that the servant, then attending on himself, had attended on his brother many years before.

That although it be true that proof of the fact of lord Cochrane's brother being then on the sick list, was no proof that lord Cochrane then knew him to be so, yet it was proved at the same time (as appears by the minutes aforesaid, page 347) that the date of the return in which his said brother's illness was reported, was the 25th of January, and that it was received in the regular course, and therefore might be supposed to have arrived from France a fortnight or even three weeks prior to the said 21st of February. And it further appears by the said minutes (pages 564, 8 and 9) that evidence was afterwards adduced in support of an application for a new trial, by which it appeared that lord Cochrane's said brother had been dangerously ill for more than seven weeks prior to the said 21st of February, that he wrote to lord Cochrane on the subject early in the month, and that lord Cochrane received his letter on the Friday previous to the 21st of February; but that lord Cochrane did not succeed in his application, and a new trial was refused.

That therefore the said lord chief justice Ellenborough, at the trial aforesaid, in examining the bearer of the note in question as to his knowledge of major Cochrane, in order to found an argument that if lord Cochrane had conceived that the writer of the note was the messenger of ill news concerning him, the witness being acquainted with him, was a person to whom he would have communicated his apprehensions; and in omitting to examine him as to the period which had elapsed since he last saw or attended on major Cochrane, and whether he knew or believed that lord Cochrane had any knowledge of such acquaintance or attendance; and in representing to the jury that evidence of major Cochrane's illness on the 25th of January, was no proof of lord Cochrane's knowledge of the fact on the 21st of February following, at the same time that he assumed that evidence of the servant's acquaintance with and attendance on the major when he first went into the army, was proof of lord Cochrane's knowledge of those facts and recollection thereof many years afterwards; and in stating to the jury that nothing could be more natural than for lord Cochrane to say, "I hope there is no bad news from my brother, your old master," and in repeatedly discrediting the apprehension assigned by lord Cochrane on oath as his motive for returning home, because he did not communicate it to his servant; and in further stating and acting as herein set forth, was and is guilty of partiality, misrepresentation, and injustice.

TENTH CHARGE:—Of devising unwarrantable and unfounded objections to lord Cochrane's declaration upon oath, that he received a letter from major Cochrane, his brother, acquainting him with his dangerous state of health, previous to the 21st of February 1814; and of treating it as unworthy of credit, though supported by circumstances, and by the affidavit of major Cochrane himself, stating that he wrote such a letter early in that month.

That by the minutes of the proceedings at the trial of Charles Random De Berenger, and others, for a conspiracy, before the lord chief justice Ellenborough, on the 8th and 9th days of June 1814, and of the proceedings connected therewith, in the court of King's Bench, on the 14th and 20th of June following (page 563,) it appears that evidence was adduces on the part of lord Cochrane in support of an application for a new trial and that, among other evidence then adduced, was an affidavit sworn by him in court on the said 14th of June, which as appears by the said minutes (page 564) contained the following clause: "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;" and that in further support of such application for a new trial, he adduced in evidence (as appears by the said minutes (page 568) an affidavit of his said brother the honourable Willian Erskine Cochrane, major in the 15th regiment of dragoons, sworn in court on the said 14th of June, with an official certificate of the surgeon of that regiment annexed, dated February 12th, 1814; and that such affidavit stated that he, the said major Cochrane, was seized with an alarming illness at Cambo, in the south of France, on the 1st of January 1814, and continued in a state of dangerous illness during that month and par? of the following (which statement was confirmed by the said certificate), and that he wrote to his brother, lord Cochrane, to acquaint him with his dangerous situation early in February. That the said lord chief justice, as appears by the minutes aforesaid (page 570), after the last mentioned-evidence had been read, made the following observation: "This affidavit is not even material to show that lord Cochrane was in possession of his brother's letter previous to the morning of the 21st of February, so as to account for a connexion existing in his mind between the note he on that morning received, and the state of his brother's health, which should induce him immediately on the receipt of it to return home." That although it be true, that major Cochrane's affidavit proved only that his letter was sent early in February, and not that lord Cochrane received it prior to the twenty-first, yet, as it was sent from a place from whence it was well known that letters usually arrive in England in the course of seven or even five days, it afforded a strong presumption that it had arrived before that day, and connected with lord Cochrane's own statement on oath, which had just then been read, that he did so receive it on the 18th of that month, was conclusive evidence of the fact; although the act of delivery could not specifically be proved, because the letter itself had not been preserved.

That if there could be a reasonable doubt that a letter sent from the place specified on any day early in a month, would in the usual course arrive in London before the 21st, it was well known that both major Cochrane and lord Cochrane were in situations and had possessed opportunities which precluded the possibility of ignorance on the subject, and must have foreseen the objection; and therefore, that if any intention had existed to impose upon the court by false statements, an earlier date would have been assigned to the alleged letter, which might have been done with the greatest plausibility, as the illness was fully proved to have commenced as early as the first of January. That the considerations that an earlier and more definite date was not assigned to the letter in major Cochrane's affidavit, and that lord Cochrane should have sworn to its arrival on the eighteenth (being the day after his removal to Green= street) without pretending to any recollection of its date, ought to have led the said lord chief justice to infer, that no attempt or disposition existed either on the part of lord Cochrane or his brother, to defend him at the expense of truth, and that so far as they knew they deposed, and no further.

That the said lord chief justice, as appears by the minutes aforesaid (page 570), assigned as a further reason for discrediting the statement of lord Cochrane relative to the receipt of his brother's letter previous to the fraud; the circumstance of such letter not being mentioned in his former affidavit: and that the said lord chief justice observed, "Your mind must have been drawn to it at the time you made your affidavit, when you came to mention your brother's illness." That this argument had no foundation in reason, and was contrary to evidence, by which it appeared that major Cochrane's letter was sent early in February, and therefore must have arrived, if not prior to the 21st of that month, yet previous to the 11th of March, the date of the affidavit; and it was as likely that lord Cochrane's mind should have been drawn to it, and far more likely that he should have mentioned it in the latter case than in the former. That it was clear, and indeed admitted, that it was the knowledge of major Cochrane's illness that was the cause of lord Cochrane's apprehensions respecting him on the 21st of February, if true; or if false, that suggested the pretence of those apprehensions, when he asserted them on the 11th of March; but if the latter, he must have felt the necessity of corroboration, which the same information that furnished the pretence, would, by the obvious artifice of antedating the receipt of it, have also supplied. That if lord Cochrane had not scrupled one falsehood on oath, it was utterly improbable that he should have shrunk from a second, which was just at hand, to which his "mind must have been drawn," and was essential to support the first; and therefore, after the words in the affidavit, "concluding that some accident had befallen my brother," he could hardly have failed to add, "from whom I had received information of his being afflicted with a dangerous illness." That the omission therefore of any mention of his brother's letter in his first affidavit, or of any information on the subject of his brother's illness, was not as represented by the said lord chief justice, a proof that he had received no such information previous to the 21st of February, but was on the contrary strongly presumptive that he had then received such information; and being conscious of the truth of his statement, that he acted under the impression of some accident having befallen his brother, he did not advert to the necessity of accounting for his apprehensions; he could not have anticipated that the fact would be disputed, and therefore was unconscious that it needed explanation or support.

That by the minutes aforesaid (page 570,) it further appears, that lord Cochrane then observed to the said lord chief justice, "My brother's affidavit states that he wrote to me early in the month, and I received his letter on the Friday previous to the fraud." And that the said lord chief justice thon replied, "That was capable of being most distinctly verified;" but that the said lord chief justice did not then point out any means by which the fact, if true, might have been further verified, but did immediately dismiss the application of lord Cochrane for a new trial, and afforded him no opportunity of further verification.—That by the minutes aforesaid (page 594) it further appears that sir Simon Le Blanc, while in the act of pronouncing sentence, observed, "If any such letter had been received, if it had come by a private hand, the person who brought it might have been called, and if it had been brought by a ship or by post, the mark on the direction and the envelope of that letter would have given some explanation of it:" that if these were the means of verification to which the said lord chief justice alluded, when he asserted that the fact, if true, was capable of being most distinctly verified, it is clear that the absence of such proofs was very far from being conclusive against the truth of the facts sworn to by lord Cochrane and by his brother, and that he might have received the letter at the time testified, namely the 18th of February, without being able to verify the fact by any such means, after the long interval that lapsed between that period and the proceedings aforesaid; because if such letter had been brought from France by a private hand, it did not by any means follow that the bearer would have delivered it personally into the hands of lord Cochrane, but might have left-it at his house in his absence, or sent it by another person, and lord Cochrane might not have known by whom, or the bearer, particularly it belonging to the army, might again have been absent from England before the month of June; or he might not have been able to depose, whether the delivery of the letter was before or after the particular day in question: that in the other ease "by ship or post," (which was the actual conveyance of the letter in question) the practicability of the supposed method of verification, namely, that "the mark on the direction and the envelope on that letter, would have given some explanation of it," was equally uncertain, because it is notorious that letters are frequently not in existence four months or even four days after delivery, that nothing is more common than to throw away the envelope, even before the perusal of the letter it enclosed and that it is not unusual to destroy, not only the envelope, but the letter itself as soon as-read, particularly if not likely to be of future importance.

That by the minutes aforesaid (page 571) it appears, that in answer to the objection, that the original letter was not annexed to major Cochrane's affidavit, lord Cochrane observed, "No, it is not; I had no idea of bringing the letter of my brother before a court of justice;" thereby intimating, that he had not foreseen the necessity of preserving such letter, which merely gave an account of his brother's health, for any such purpose; and it was obviously impossible that he should have foreseen such necessity, if ignorant of the fraud committed.

That although (as appears by the minutes aforesaid) the said major Cochrane could not depose to the particular day on which he wrote such letter, and therefore made oath generally to its having been sent by him early in February; yet if the rigour of the said lord chief justice had been sufficiently adverted to, he could (as subsequently represented) have been so far particular as to have testified that he wrote such letter between the periods of his first and second relapse, which, as appeared by the surgeon's certificate (page 569 of the minutes aforesaid) occurred on the 1st and 7th of February. That about that period there were frequent departures of vessels from the adjoining ports for England, and among others that might be instanced as a probable conveyance, the Halcyon sloop of war, which, as appears by the logbooks of the said ship, deposited in the navy-office, sailed from Plymouth on the 17th of January 1814, and arrived at Passages, distant only a few miles from Cambo, where major Cochrane then was on the 22d, after a passage of only five days, and remained there, or at the contiguous port of St. Sebastian, till the 6th day of the said month of February, being five days after major Cochrane's first, and one day previous to his second relapse as aforesaid; weighed anchor at 10 A. M. on the said 6th of February, and again arrived at Plymouth at 4 P. M. on the 13th of that month, being a passage of one week only. And by the books of the general post-office, and a letter to lord Cochrane from Francis Freeling, esquire, secretary to that department, it appears that a mail from St. Sebastian's was then brought by the said ship, and arrived in London on the 16th of the said month of February.

That it appears by a further letter from the secretary of the post-office to lord Cochrane, in answer to an inquiry whether the letters by the Halcyon were distributed in London on the day they were received, that he the said secretary states, that "by a reference to the office books, it should appear that the letters received by the Halcyon from St. Sebastian on the 16th February 1814, were put in a course of delivery on that day;" but that the words, "it should appear they were put in a course of delivery on that day," evidently indicate uncertainty as to the precise period of distribution, and a strong probability that they were not presented as addressed, earlier than the day following, being the 17th, which sufficiently coincides with the evidence of lord Cochrane, that he received his brother's letter on the 18th; because on the 17th, as was proved at the trial, he removed from his lodgings in Park-street to a house in Green-street; which was also the circumstance that enabled him as aforesaid, to fix the time of such receipt, recollecting that it occurred in Green-street the morning after his removal from Park-street. That such letter, therefore, if left at Park-street on the 17th, after his removal to Green-street, might have remained there, or at least not have been received by lord Cochrane till the next day.

That the rigour of the said lord chief justice, in representing that proof of a letter having been sent to lord Cochrane from an officer in the British army in France or Spain early in February 1814, did not so far corroborate the evidence of lord Cochrane to the receipt of such a letter before the 21st of that month, as to entitle it to credit, further appears to have been unwarrantable, from the circumstance (as stated in the public papers of the 17th of that said month of February aforesaid) of the under secretary of state for the war department having left the head quarters of the British army on the 9th of that month, and arrived in London on the 15th, being a period of six days only, including his journey from the army to the port whence he sailed, and his journey to London from the English port at which he landed. And it is well known that the voyage alone is frequently performed in the short period of three days.

That therefore the said lord chief justice Ellenborough, in representing the evidence of the hon. William Cochrane, relative to the letter he had written from Cambo to lord Cochrane, acquainting him with his dangerous state of health, early in February 1814, to be immaterial, as not affording any reason to presume that lord Cochrane was in possession of the letter previous to the 21st of that mouth; and in representing the circumstance of such letter as not being mentioned in lord Cochrane's affidavit of the 11th of March, to be a reason for concluding he had not received it prior to the 21st of February; and in asserting that the particular day on which such letter was received in February, was capable of being most distinctly verified in June following, without admitting the evidence of the party so receiving it to be any verification whatever, and without suggesting any means or allowing any opportunity for suggesting verification; and in saying and doing as herein set forth, was and is guilty of misrepresentation, partiality, and injustice.

ELEVENTH CHARGE:—Of unjustly representing that the evidence adduced on the part of lord Cochrane, that application had been made to obtain an appointment for De Berenger, connected with the service in America, was immaterial to corroborate the narrative contained in lord Cochrane's affidavit; of untruly insinuating that lord Cochrane himself had suggested the application; and of applying it as evidence of guilt against lord Cochrane.

That by the minutes of the proceedings at the trial of Charles Random De Berenger, and others, for a conspiracy (page 482) it appears that the lord chief justice Ellenborough, while commenting upon an affidavit made by lord Cochrane on the 11th day of March 1814, represented to the jury that lord Cochrane must be supposed to have been familiar with De Berenger's hand-writing, and must have known from whom he received the note on the morning of the 21st of February, whether the signature itself was legible or not. That the said lord chief justice expressed himself as follows: "Now with the acquaintance he had with De Berenger, no doubt such application had been made to get him appointed, as is proved, and he must have been, one would suppose, familiar with his hand-writing; and if so, he could have no doubt who was the person from whom he received this note, and whom he was to meet when he should get home." Whereas it did not appear by evidence, that lord Cochrane made any application to get De Berenger appointed, or that any application to that effect had ever been made at lord Cochrane's recommendation or request; and therefore that the said lord chief justice was not warranted in attributing the application for De Berenger to lord Cochrane's acquaintance with him, and would not have been warranted in so doing, even if it had been proved that such acquaintance had amounted to intimacy; but by the affidavit of lord Cochrane, the evidence on which the said lord chief justice was then commenting, it appeared, and was not opposed by any other evidence, that De Berenger had endeavoured to recommend himself to lord Cochrane's attention by certificates from persons in official situations; and by the evidence of the hon. Alexander Murray (page 215 of the minutes aforesaid) one of the witnesses for the prosecution, it further appeared, that lord Cochrane's acquaintance with De Berenger was recent, and that he did not understand there was any intimacy at all; and that no evidence whatever of any such intimacy was adduced, except only that of Mr. Le Marchant, whose representations having no other foundation (if any) than the assertions of De Berenger, were admitted by the said lord chief justice (page 504) to be "only what De Berenger said, and not to prove the facts as against any body else," but which in reality could not fairly be said to prove any thing against any one; because from the use which the witness had previously made of his asserted information, as appears by the said minutes (page 357), and was well known to those who availed themselves of his evidence, it had the appearance of being invented, or perverted for interested purposes. That it appears therefore that the observation, "now with the acquaintance he had with De Berenger, no doubt such application had been made to get him appointed, as it proved; and he must, one would suppose, have been familiar with his hand-writing," was intended to draw the jury into an opinion that such acquaintance was more intimate than had been proved, and that lord Cochrane had not only interested himself in promoting the application for De Berenger, but had received a sufficient number of letters from him on that or other subjects, to be perfectly familiar with his hand-writing.

That it did not appear at the said trial, by any evidence whatever, that lord Cochrane, previous to the aforesaid 21st of February, had ever received a letter from De Berenger, or ever even seen the character of his handwriting. But if it had been proved that lord Cochrane was familiar with De Berenger's hand-writing, or if the fact could have been fairly interred from any evidence in the cause, the said lord chief justice was not warranted in the further deduction, that "he lord Cochrane could have no doubt who was the person from whom he received that note, and whom he was to meet when he should get home;" because the circumstances under which that note was proved to have been written were such as might have rendered it almost illegible, or have occasioned a great variation from his De Berenger's ordinary hand-writing. That it was in evidence that De Berenger had been travelling from one o'clock in the morning till ten, almost without refreshment, and it appeared (page 123 and 343 of the said minutes) that he wrote the note immediately on entering the House; and by the evidence of Thomas Shilling (page 118) it appeared that "his face was very red that morning, for it was very frosty." That it could not be reasonably supposed that such long exposure to extreme cold, which had affected his face, had no effect on his fingers; and it is well known, that after the hands have been benumbed by the cold, it is not only difficult to write legibly, but even to write at all. That it appears, therefore, that lord Cochrane might not have known from whom he received that note, even if he had been perfectly familiar with his ordinary hand-writing, of which there was not the slightest evidence.

That there was also a possibility that De Berenger might not have felt fully assured of lord Cochrane's immediate return to his house at his request, and that he therefore deemed it expedient to leave him ignorant of the name of the writer, by designedly affixing an illegible signature. That this was the more probable, because it appeared that the fraudulent letter which he sent from Dover to admiral Foley was not in his ordinary hand-writing, and that the said lord chief justice expressed an opinion (page 368) that a person would certainly write a disguised band when engaged in such transactions, if ever he did in his life.

That it was in evidence, that the application to get De Berenger appointed, from which the said lord chief justice, as aforesaid, inferred that lord Cochrane was familiar with his hand-writing, had been made, not by lord Cochrane, but by sir Alexander Cochrane, previous to his departure to America; and, the evidence of such application was adduced on the part of lord Cochran; because it corroborated the statement contained in his affidavit, and proved that there existed a foundation for such a conversation as is therein related; and that there was a probable cause or pretence for De Berenger's visit to lord Cochrane, independent of any alleged illicit connexion, or of particular or any intimacy. That the use of such evidence on the part of lord Cochrane, was thus explained by his counsel at the trial (page 272):—"If my learned friend could have shown you that all that the affidavit states respecting De Berenger going to America, was the invention of ford Cochrane since the 21st of February, that nothing of the sort had ever been thought of before, such proof would have falsified the affidavit; but so far from offering any such evidence, all the evidence adduced confirms the statement in the affidavit." That the said lord chief justice never adverted to such evidence, in order to place it in that liberal and favourable point of view to the jury, but presented it to them as a proof that lord Cochrane was familiar with De Berenger's hand-writing, and knew who was the person from whom he received the note, and whom he was to meet when he should get home, and consequently that the affidavit was false, and lord Cochrane guilty.

That the said lord chief justice, as appears by the said minutes (page 483), then continued to recite the affidavit of lord Cochrane as follows: "But," he says, "I found captain De 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 hopes 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 sharpshooters (which plan I knew sir Alexander Cochrane had approved of"). That the said lord chief justice (page 483 aforesaid) then observed "And there is no doubt that sir Alexander Cochrane had, on some application of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone or lord Cochrane, applied for him, but that for reasons not communicated to us, such application had not been successful, and it had not been thought fit to appoint him." Whereas the fact of sir Alexander Cochrane having applied for him, had, as appears by the minutes aforesaid (page 340 to 344) been very particularly proved by the first lord of the admiralty, the secretary to the commander in chief, and the under secretary of state for the colonial department; and therefore the representation of the said lord chief jus- tice, that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone or lord Cochrane had requested sir Alexander to make the application, was not at all necessary to arrive at the conclusion that such application had been made, and could only have been intended to betray the jury, contrary to or in perversion of the evidence adduced, into an admission of his own assumption that such application must have originated with Mr. Johnstone or lord Cochrane; and by so uniting the names of lord Cochrane and Mr. Johnstone, to represent the act of the one as the act of the other, to confound the different degrees of acquaintance that had subsisted between De Berenger and them, and to represent the one as likely as the other to have promoted such an application; and further, to divert the attention of the jury from the application itself, and the support which it gave to the affidavit, to the less favourable consideration of the intimacy in which he, the said lord chief justice; represented it to have originated. That the said lord chief justice was so actuated, appears also from the consideration, that when commenting on that part of the affidavit which related to lord Cochrane's motive for returning home, and before he arrived at that part which had reference to the application for De Berenger, he, the said lord chief justice, did as aforesaid observe, "Now with the acquaintance he had with De Berenger, no doubt such application had been made to get him appointed, as is proved;" thereby insinuating, that the fact was not more clearly apparent from the positive testimony of the officers of government, than from the subsistence of that degree of acquaintance between lord Cochrane and De Berenger as must have induced the former to cause such an application to be made.

That the proof adduced of its having been in contemplation that De Berenger should go to America, as connected with the service, and of the fact that sir Alexander Cochrane had applied for him, coupled with the evidence of his pecuniary embarrassments, and the production of certificates to his character and conduct, strongly corroborated the statement of lord Cochrane, that De Berenger came to his house for no other purpose known to him, or under no other pretence than that of requesting lord Cochrane to take him to America. That the said lord chief justice uniformly opposed the exculpatory tendency of th is part of the evidence, and during the examination of colonel Torrens, who, as appears by the minutes aforesaid (page 342) deposed that sir Alexander Cochrane came twice or thrice to urge the appointment of De Berenger, the said lord chief justice observed, "I do not know to what point this applies;" and when the counsel for the defendants replied, "Merely that it confirms the statement made by lord Cochrane, and shows a connexion between the different parties, consistent with that statement," the said lord chief justice rejoined, "It shows that he was acquainted with sir Alexander Cochrane, and that he recommended him to the appointment;" thereby insinuating that it did not prove to the extent stated by counsel, and in effect denying its importance in corroborating the veracity of lord Cochrane's statement. That during the examination of Mr. Goulburn, who as appears by the minutes aforesaid (page 344) deposed that sir Alexander Cochrane applied to the colonial department in behalf of De Berenger, the said lord chief justice observed, "You have laid this basis, that there had been some application, and that it had been in contemplation that he should go out, as connected with the service;" that it was then observed by counsel, "That is all we wish, we want to show a connexion without this illicit connexion," thereby implying 'that it was sufficient to prove such a connexion as accounted for De Berenger's visit to lord Cochrane, consistent with and in verification of lord Cochrane's statement, in order to repel the inference of an illicit connexion from that visit. 'But that the said lord chief justice immediately remarked, "No doubt there had been an intimacy and Cochrane'; whether for good or ill is the question." That the said lord chief justice afterwards decided, that the evidence in question was proof of an intimacy for ill, by representing as aforesaid, that the applications for De Berenger originated with lord Cochrane, and afforded reason to suppose, that "he was familiar with his hand-writing, and knew from whom he received the note, and whom he was to meet when he should get home."

That therefore the said lord chief justice Ellenborough, not only in opposing the exculpatory tendency of the evidence adduced in support of lord Cochrane's affidavit, and particularly of the evidence of the aforesaid applications for De Berenger, but in assigning the origin of such applications to lord Cochrane's acquaintance with him, and inferring therefrom familiarity with his hand-writing and an intimacy for ill between lord Cochrane and De Berenger, in stating, that there was no doubt that sir Alexander Cochrane had applied for De Berenger, on some application of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone or lord Cochrane and that "with the acquaintance lord Cochrane had with De Berenger, no doubt such application had been made to get him appointed as was proved; and that he must be supposed to have been familiar with De Berenger's hand-writing; and if so he could have had no doubt who was the person from whom he received the note, and whom he was to meet when he should get home;" and in stating and acting as herein set forth, was and is guilty of partiality, misrepresentation, and injustice.

TWELFTH CHARGE:—Of injuriously passing over, without comment or observation, that part of lord Cochrane's affidavit, which stated, that when he objected to take De Berenger to America without leave from the Admiralty, he recalled to his recollection certificates which he had formerly shown him from lord Yarmouth, and others in official situations; and of misrepresenting the evidence of the hon. Alexander Murray, on the subject of lord Cochrane's acquaintance with De Berenger.

That by the minutes of the proceedings at the trial of Charles Random De Berenger, and others, for a conspiracy (page 201), it appears, that an affidavit of lord Cochrane, one of the defendants at the said trial, dated March 11th, 1814, was given in evidence by the counsel for the prosecution; and that it contained a narrative of the conversation which took place between De Berenger and lord Cochrane on the morning of the 21st of February preceding; and that in the course of such narrative lord Cochrane stated, that De Berenger appeared greatly hurt at his objecting to take him out to America, and that he recalled to his recollection certificates which he had formerly shown him from persons in official situations, lord Yarmouth, general Jenkinson, and Mr. Reeves, being among the number. That by the said minutes (page 483 and 484) it appears, that the lord chief justice Ellenborough, when reciting the said affidavit to the jury, and commenting thereon, made no observation on that part thereof which stated that De Berenger recalled to the recollection of lord Cochrane, certificates from persons in official situations. That the said lord chief justice had no reason to doubt that such certificates existed, and that they had been shown to lord Cochrane; because it was not to be supposed, that if lord Cochrane had been uncertain of their existence, he would have ventured an assertion on oath, which the gentlemen named as the authors of such certificates might have come forward to re lute. That it was not open to the said lord chief justice to imagine, in the absence of all other evidence and of all ordinary probability, that lord Cochrane came to the knowledge of those certificates in any other way than as described by himself in the said affidavit. That no part of the said affidavit therefore, nor of any evidence in the cause, was more entitled to credit than that in which De Berenger was described as recalling to lord Cochrane's recollection, on the morning of the 21st of February, certificates which he had formerly shown him from persons in official situations. That it was obvious to the said lord chief justice, that the production of or reference to such certificates on the occasion in question, was not indicative of that degree of familiarity between De Berenger and lord Cochrane as must have subsisted in case of mutual guilt; that if De Berenger had rendered any important service to lord Cochrane, and that service of a criminal character, it would have pleaded stronger for lord Cochranc's good offices in return, than any testimonial to his good character from other persons; and that the disparity in the strength, and the repugnance between the considerations of the two claims, were such, that if the first had existed, it was not at all likely that he should have attempted to recommend himself by the other. That the said lord chief justice could not have conceived that a person in the act of soliciting the patronage of another, on the ground of having rendered him such services as only one unprincipled man could render to another, would as a further inducement have recourse to the production of, or a reference to certificates, of which the only effect could be to show, that in the estimation of others he stood higher than he deserved. That notwithstanding it was in evidence that sir Alexander Cochrane, under whom lord Cochrane himself was then preparing to serve, had been impressed with the most favourable opinion of De Berenger, had endeavoured to procure him an appointment under his command, and was desirous that lord Cochrane should promote his wishes; yet it was equally in evidence, that De Berenger was so little conscious that lord Cochrane was under any obligation to serve him, and so uncertain of his inclinations, that he felt the necessity of recommending himself to his notice by the formal production of certificates to his good character and behaviour; that therefore the representation of the said lord chief justice (page 482 of the minutes aforesaid) that it was owing to lord Cochrane's acquaintance with De Berenger that sir Alexander had been induced to make application for him, was not only unsupported, but particularly opposed by the evidence in question, which was not only hostile to the conclusion, that there was any criminal connexion between lord Cochrane and De Berenger, but that there was any degree of intimacy or cordiality, and which evidence the said lord chief justice did as aforesaid, pass over without making any observation thereon.

That by the minutes aforesaid (page 215 and 216) it appears, that the hon. Alexander Murray, one a the witnesses for the prosecution, was examined on the subject of lord Cochrane's acquaintance with De Berenger, and deposed as follows, "I knew there was a very particular intimacy between De Berenger and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, but I did not understand it was with lord Cochrane at all; I understood he was a more recent acquaintance; De Berenger was constantly with Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, he was there almost every day. His acquaintance with lord Cochrane was recent. He did not state any thing with regard to his visits to lord Cochrane." That the said lord chief justice, as further appears by the said minutes (page 506) omitted to recapitulate a part of this evidence to the jury, and stated only as follows "I knew there was a very particular intimacy between Mr. De Berenger and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone. I understood lord Cochrane was a more recent acquaintance, but that there was some acquaintaince; I understood that there was a great acquaintance between him and Mr. Johnstone, and that he was with him almost every day." That the witness did not only state that lord Cochrane's acquaintance with De Berenger was more recent than that of Mr. Johnstone's, but positively that it was recent, and that he had not heard De Berenger say any thing in regard to any visit to lord Cochrane. That neither of the two last-mentioned answers were recited by the said lord chief justice. And further, that the said lord chief justice substituted the words "but that there was some acquaintance" (which were not used by the witness) for his real words, which as appears by the minutes aforesaid, are "that he did not understand there was any intimacy at all." That this is an instance in which the said lord chief justice's statement of the evidence (on which statement he instructed the jury to decide, as appears by the minutes aforesaid, p. 448) was calculated to make an impression by the evidence, different to that borne by itself. That the purport of Mr. Murray's evidence was, that there was the least possible acquaintance between lord Cochrane and De Berenger, and that the effect of the lord chief justice's statement of that evidence was, that there was sufficient for any evil purpose.

That therefore the said lord chief justice Ellenborough, in passing over that part of lord Cochrane's affidavit in which he represented De Berenger to have recalled to his recollection, on the morning of the 21st of February, certificates which he had formerly shown him from lord Yarmouth, general Jenkinson, and others, and omitting to point it out to the jury as a circumstance which justice to lord Cochrane required to be particularly considered; and in misstating the evidence of the hon. Alexander Murray, on the subject of lord Cochrane's acquaintance with De Berenger; was and is guilty of partiality, misrepresentation, and injustice.

THIRTEENTH CHARGE.—Of repeatedly, unwarrantably, and unjustly, conveying and enforcing an opinion, that De Berenger appeared before lord Cochrane on the 21st of February 1814, in the red coat, star and order, in which he had committed the fraud; of suppressing evidence corroborative of lord Cochrane's declaration upon oath, that he wore in his presence a green uniform; and of supplying evidence in opposition thereto; and passing over, without pause or remark, the solemn declaration of lord Cochrane upon oath, that he had no concern, either directly or indirectly, in the fraud that had been committed.

That by the minutes of the proceedings at the trial of Charles Random De Berenger and others, for a conspiracy, it appears, that lord Cochrane, one of the defendants at the said trial, made oath by an affidavit, dated March 11, 1814, and given in evidence at the said trial, that De Berenger, on the morning of the 21st of February, when seen by him at his house in Green-street, wore a grey great coat and a green uniform; and that he further made oath, that De Berenger asserted, when advised by him to apply to his friends to' exert their influence with the admiralty, that he could not go to lord Yarmouth or any other of his friends in the dress 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); and also that he said he must use a great liberty, and request the favour of lord Cochrane to lend him a hat to wear, instead of his military cap; and that he 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; and that lord Cochrane therefore offered him a black coat that was lying on a chair, and which he did not intend to take with him; and further, that De Berenger put up his uniform in a towel, and shortly afterwards went away in great apparent uneasiness of mind. That by the minutes aforesaid, it farther appeared, that the only evidence as to the description of dress in which De Berenger was seen by lord Cochrane on the 21st of February, or as to the fact of his being seen at all by lord Cochrane on that day, or of the fact of his obtaining or making any change of dress at lord Cochrane's house, was the evidence so given by lord Cochrane himself. But it appeared (page 124 of the said minutes) that William Crane, the hackney-coachman who conveyed De Berenger to lord Cochrane's house, made oath that when he got out at Green-street, he saw a red coat underneath his great coat, and also that he had a portmanteau with him big enough to wrap a coat up in; and it further appeared that lord Cochrane was not at that time at home, but was sent for from a distant part of the town. That the lord chief justice Ellen-borough, in charging the jury, repeatedly expressed himself decidedly of opinion, that the dress in which De Berenger was seen by lord Cochrane on the said 21st of February, was that in which the crime had been committed, namely, the red coat of an aid-de-camp, with a star and order of masonry, and that lord Cochrane had wilfully sworn falsely that the dress in which he saw him was green. That first the said lord chief justice (as appears by the said minutes, page 452) expressed himself as follows: "The first question, gentlemen, will be—was the defendant De Berenger, the man who was found at Dover about one o'clock on the morning of Monday the 21st of February, and who proceeded through the several stages to London, and ultimately to the mansion of lord Coch- rane himself, and was there received with that dress, whatever it was, that he wore; but the dress he wore is proved by so many witnesses, that I will not fatigue you with stating it now, because I must by-and-bye state the whole of the evidence to you."

That afterwards the said lord chief justice observed (page 478 of the minutes aforesaid) "You have before had the animal hunted home, and now you have his skin, found and produced as it was taken out of the river, cut to pieces; the sinking it could have bee?? with no other view than that of suppressing this piece of evidence, and preventing the discovery which it might otherwise occasion; this makes it the more material to attend to the stripping off the clothes, which took place in lord Cochrane's house. When he pulled off his great coat there, what must he have displayed to his lordship's eyes if present at the time? Did he display the uniform of the rifle corps? The uniform of the rifle corps is of a bottle-green colour, made to resemble the colour of trees, that those who wear it may hide themselves in woods, and escape discovery there; that is, I presume, the reason of their wearing that species of uniform; and as to the idea suggested in lard Cochrane's affidavit, that his exhibiting himself in that uniform would be deemed disrespectful to lord Yarmouth. Lord Yarmouth has told us, that on the contrary he should have thought it a matter of respect to him, and proper as his officer to have appeared before him in that very dress." That then the said lord chief justice further observed (page 479 of the said minutes) "The account that is given of this man's pulling off his dress, as contained in the affidavit of lord Cochrane, is highly deserving your attention. It is a rule of law, when evidence is given of what a party has said or sworn, all of it is evidence (subject to your consideration, however, as to its truth) coming as it does, in one entire form before you; but you may still judge to what parts of this whole you can give your credit; and also, whether that part which appears to confirm and fix the charge, does not outweigh that which contains the exculpation. Now I will state to you what is lord Cochrane's affidavit."

That afterwards the said lord chief justice further observed (page 484) "What is the dress that lord Cochrane represents as then belonging to him? a green dress? had he a green dress? he must have had that dress with him whatever it was, in which he had come in the coach; he says that would excite suspicion; why, if he had really a green uniform, that would not have excited observation or suspicion, it was the very uniform he ought to have worn; but if it was that in which he had got out of the coach, and it does not appear that he had any means of shifting himself, if he had on an aid-de-camp's uniform with a star, and so presented himself to lord Cochrane, how could lord Cochrane reconcile it to the duties he owed to society, and to government, and to his character as a gentleman and an officer, to give him the means of exchanging it? it must be put on for some dishonest purpose; this red coat and star, and all this equipment, must have appeared most extraordinary, and must have struck, lord Cochrane most forcibly, if he was not aware of the purpose for which it was used. "That again the said lord chief justice observed (page 485) "If he put that uniform in a towel, he must have pulled it off his back, for it was on his back before, and then lord Cochrane, one would think, must have seen him do it; what business had this man with a red aid-de-camp's uniform? he had no business to wear any such garb; he was almost as much out of his proper character, as I should be, if I appeared habited in the particular dress and professional habits of an officer or a clergyman; but it does not rest there, for he himself lends to this person the immediate means of his concealment, he lets him have a hat instead of his laced cap; and what had such a cap to do with a sharpshooter's uniform? upon seeing him appear habited as all the witnesses represent him to have been in his way from Dover to Green-street, Grosvenor-square, would not any one who had known him before have immediately exclaimed, where have you been, and what mischief have you been doing in this masquerade dress? It is for you, gentlemen, to say whether it is possible he should not know that a man coming so disguised and so habited, if he appeared before him so habited, came upon some dishonest errand, and whether it is to be conceived a person should so present himself to a person who did not know what that dishonest errand was, and that it was the very dishonest errand upon which he had so recently engaged, and which he is found to be executing in the spreading of false intelligence, for the purpose of elevating the funds; if he actually appeared to lord Cochrane stripped of his great coat, and with that red coat and aid-de-camp's uniform, star and order, which have been represented to you, he appeared before him rather in the habit of a mountebank than in his proper uniform of a sharp-shooter." And that finally the said lord chief justice observed (page 486) "Now did he wear a green uniform? They are at issue upon the dress then worn by him; if he had not this dress on, what other had he? and if he had the green one on, what true or probable reason existed for the change of that'? the unfitness of appearing in it before his commanding officer, lord Yarmouth, is negatived by lord Yarmouth himself; supposing him to have appeared in any disguise, it is the conduct of an accomplice to assist him in getting rid of his disguise; to let a man pull off at his house, the dress in which (if all these witnesses do not tell you falsely) he had been committing this offence, and which had been worn down to the moment of his entering the house, namely, the star, a red coat and appendant order of masonry, seems wholly inconsistent with the conduct of an innocent and honest man, for, if he appeared in such a habit, he must have appeared to any rational person fully blazoned in the costume of that or of some other crime which was to be effected under an assumed dress, and by means of fraud and imposition; this circumstance is therefore very important for your consideration; the judgment to be formed upon it must rest with you: and you will no doubt consider whether, supposing him to have appeared before lord Cochrane dressed as the witnesses represent him to have antecedently been, the circumstance of his so appearing in a dress proper for the commission of such a fraud as appears to have been committed on that day, by attracting a false belief of the person being a messenger bringing great public news, coupled with the tact of his afterwards walking off with that dress in a bundle, instead of having that dress upon his back, and also with the evidence given in order to prove a connexion with the notes afterwards found in De Berenger's desk, you are not satisfied that he was privy to and assisted in the scheme of effecting a deception upon the public."

That by the minutes aforesaid (page 128) it appears that it was proved on the part of the prosecution, that the dress in which the fraud was committed was purchased in London on the 19th of February; but it was not attempted, by any evidence whatever, to trace him on his way to Dover, in or by means of that dress, or otherwise. And that the said lord chief justice observed (page 473) "Where he got into Dover, or how, we do not hear; of the points of the outward voyage we know nothing." That, in the absence of such evidence, it could not reasonably be assumed that he prematurely arrayed himself in so remarkable a dress, intended for so criminal a purpose, but rather that he departed from London in a plain dress, and invested himself in the other, at or in the vicinity of Dover. That when he purchased the dress as aforesaid (as appears by the said minutes, page 130), he had with him a small portmanteau; and it was also in evidence (page 123), that when he arrived at lord Cochrane's house he had with him a small portmanteau, big enough to wrap a coat up in; that it appeared therefore that he possessed the means of conveying the scarlet coat to Dover, without carrying it on his back, and also the means of returning with another coat in the like manner. That when the said lord chief justice, in summing up the evidence (page 477 of the minutes aforesaid) arrived at that part of it which stated that "the portmanteau was a small black leather one, big enough to wrap a coat up in," he recited the words "the portmanteau was a small black leather one," but omitted the other words, forming part of the same answer, "big enough to wrap a coat up in," and thereby avoided to call the consideration of the jury to the probable contents of that portmanteau; and that afterwards, when commenting upon the affidavit of lord Cochrane, he observed, as aforesaid, that it did not appear that De Berenger had any means of shifting himself.

That the said lord chief justice did, as aforesaid, further observe, that De Berenger, when he appeared before lord Cochrane, must have had that dress with him (evidently meaning upon him) whatever it was, in which he had come in the coach, although it had been proved that lord Cochrane was not then at home, but was sent for from a distant part of the town, and consequently that he had time sufficient to have altered his dress before lord Cochrane's return. That although it was clearly evinced by the circumstances in evidence, that De Berenger was more than an hour at lord Cochrane's house before he saw lord Cochrane, the fact of there being sufficient time for a change of dress in the interval, was further and more expressly denied, when the sentence of the court was pronounced; on which occasion, as appears by the minutes (page 598) Mr. justice le Blanc observed, "that it was impossible to conceive that any change of dress could have taken place during that short interval from the time at which he had got out of the coach, to the period when he had appeared before lord Cochrane."

That the said lord chief justice did, as aforesaid, further assert, that, the dress worn by De Berenger down to the moment of his entering the house, was a star, a red coat, and appendant order of masonry; although it appeared that the only witness who stated that De Berenger entered in a red coat, did not depose to either the star or order; and that of the four witnesses who saw him by day light, after his arrival in London, the only period of importance in regard to lord Cochrane, not one of them gave the slightest testimony of his wearing a star and order at that time. That although it appeared (page 115 of the said minutes), that Thomas Shilling, one of the four witnesses aforesaid, who drove the chaise that conveyed De Berenger from Dartford to the Marsh Gate, deposed that the coat had a star of some sort upon it, yet he added, that he was not close enough to see that, and could not swear to what it was, and had previously stated that he opened the chaise door at the Marsh Gate; and therefore it appeared that, when speaking of the star, he was deposing to a previous period, when he was not close enough to distinguish what it was, and not to the period when he let him out of the chaise, when he must have been close enough, if De Berenger had then continued to wear it. And it further appeared (page 123) that he had taken off his sword, which, unless he was Meditating a change of dress preparatory to his appearance before lord Cochrane, it was as natural to have retained as any other part of his equipment.

That by the minutes aforesaid, it appears that the upper coat worn by De Berenger was proved to have been grey, as described in lord Cochrane's affidavit, and consequently that the description given thereof in the previous publications of the Stock Exchange committee was erroneous; they, on the authority of the said Thomas Shilling and William Crane, having described it to be brown. That the said William Crane, as appears by the said minutes (page 125), did at the trial combine the two descriptions, by terming it a brown-grey, and denied that he had previously described it to be brown; that from the inaccuracy of his description of the upper coat, it was less probable that he had seen or correctly noticed the description of coat worn underneath; and his evidence to the entrance in red, was not only unsupported by other evidence, but contrary to probability, because it implied that De Berenger had hazarded the exposure of himself in that dress to the observation of lord Cochrane's servants, who it could not be supposed were parties to the fraud that had been committed.

That the said lord chief justice, as appears by the minutes aforesaid, represented to the jury, that lord Cochrane was responsible for the veracity of the assertion which he represented to have been made by De Berenger, that he could not go to lord Yarmouth or any other of his friends, or return to his lodgings, in the dress he had on. And that he the said lord chief justice did as aforesaid (page 478) make the following observation, "As to the idea suggested in lord Cochrane's affidavit, that his exhibiting himself in that uniform would be deemed disrespectful to lord Yarmouth, lord Yarmouth has told us, that on the contrary he should have thought it a matter of respect to him, and proper as his officer, to have appeared before him in that very dress." That by a reference to the evidence of lord Yarmouth (page 376 and 377) it appears that his lordship neither expressed himself in the terms so represented by the said lord chief justice, nor spoke of that "very dress," which had been described by lord Cochrane. That the dress spoken of by lord Yarmouth was the uniform of his corps, which, he said, it would have been more military for De Berenger to have come in, but that he never exacted; and which he described to be a green waistcoat with a crimson collar; whereas the description given by lord Cochrane was of a green uniform only; and as farther appeared on his application for a new trial (page 564 of the said minutes) an uniform with skirts, and not a waistcoat only, as described by lord Yarmouth; and it was well known at the period of the trial, that lord Cochrane had represented it to be entirely green. That the dress therefore, which De Berenger was represented to have worn at lord Cochrane's house, was not the "very dress" described by lord Yarmouth, but was more probably an uniform expressly provided with the real or ostensible view of exercising sharp-shooters at sea or in America, or, if any uniform usually worn by De Berenger, not his parade but his drill dress, and such as it might have been less usual or respectful to have appeared in before his commanding officer, than in almost any other.

That the said lord chief justice, as further appears by the said minutes (page 520) when stating the evidence of lord Yarmouth, and reciting his aforesaid declaration, that it would have been more military for De Berenger to have come to him in uniform, but that he never exacted it, again added thereto, and represented lord Yarmouth to have said, "I should not have been angry at it, but should have thought it the regular dress for him to appear in." And that the said lord chief justice did not only repeatedly amplify lord Yarmouth's evidence on this point, and represented it as proving that De Berenger might with propriety have gone to him in the dress described by lord Cochrane, but he represented it as negativing the statement of lord Cochrane, that De Berenger had told him that he could not; and notwithstanding the said lord chief justice had previously held, that evidence of a fact was not evidence of lord Cochrane's acquaintance therewith, and that proof of his brother being ill at a particular time was no proof that he knew him to have been so a month afterwards, yet the statement of lord Yarmouth at the trial, that De Berenger might with propriety have visited him in uniform when not on military duty, he represented to the jury as evidence that lord Cochrane could not have been deceived by any previous representation to the contrary; although it is notorious that the officers of a volunteer corps do not habitually appear in uniform, and although it was obvious that in the opinion of lord Cochrane it might have been as irregular for volunteer officers when not on duty to make morning calls in regimentals, as naval officers in uniform.

And the said lord chief justice, while alleging the improbability of the reasons stated by lord Cochrane to have been assigned by De Berenger for desiring a change of dress, if that dress was green, omitted all consideration of the liability of an innocent and unsuspecting person to be deceived by representations proceeding from a person of supposed veracity.

That the said lord chief justice also observed, as aforesaid, "They are at issue upon the dress then worn by him; if he had not this dress on, what other had he? and if he had the green one on, what true or probable reason existed for the change of that?" And that the said lord chief justice did, as aforesaid, not only discredit the motives represented by lord Cochrane to have been assigned by De Berenger for desiring a change of dress, but he would not admit the possi- bility of De Berenger being actuated by any concealed motive, or any motive whatever for alteration, if the dress which he then wore was green, although the existence of a motive known only to himself, however difficult at the trial to conjecture what that motive might be, was far more probable than that lord Cochrane should voluntarily and unnecessarily have disclosed the circumstance that a change of dress was effected at his house, if on his part it had been a guilty transaction. That it was however obvious, that if the dress in which lord Cochrane saw him was not that in which he committed the fraud, it must have been that in which he had gone down to Dover preparatory to that end; and as guilt is generally accompanied with fear, he might have had a secret apprehension that to appear even in that dress might tend to his detection. That, again, if the said lord chief justice, instead of representing the evidence of the coachman, to the entrance in red, to be fatal to lord Cochrane's evidence to the appearance a considerable time afterwards in green, had considered whether it was not less probable that lord Cochrane should be perjured, than that the hackney coachman, who had mistaken the colour of the upper coat, had also mistaken the period at which he had seen the red coat underneath, and had seen it at De Berenger's entrance into the coach, but not at his exit, a probable reason for his desiring to change the green coat would then have suggested itself; because in that case, De Berenger, having entered the coach in red and quitted it in green, had reason to apprehend that the coachman had first seen him in one and then in the other, and that his observation of such a transformation must have excited his surprise and suspicion, and consequently that a further change of dress must have appeared a prudent, if not a necessary precaution. That if no such connexion in the mind of De Berenger between his green dress and the crime he had committed, as should incline him to change it, could be conceived by the said lord chief justice, there was still a probability that De Berenger was desirous of securing, in the event of being traced, the testimony of lord Cochrane to his appearance in a dress different from that in which the fraud was committed; and considered that the only method of so fixing his observation on the colour of his coat, as to ensure his recollection of it afterwards, was to seize an opportunity of alluding to it in his presence; and that he did so by observing, in reference to lord Cochrane's recommendation to make application to lord Yarmouth, that he could not go to lord Yarmouth or return to his lodgings in that dress. That this was the more probable, because it appeared by the affidavit, that although he alluded to his dress generally, he asked only for a hat to wear instead of a military cap; and therefore that his remarking, when trying on the hat, that his uniform appeared above his great coat, might only have been intended to induce lord Cochrane to notice that it did so, in order to impress the colour of it on his memory; though, being connected by the latter with his previous observation, that he could not go to lord Yarmouth, or return to his lodgings in that dress, it induced him to offer him another coat in its stead.

That the said lord chief justice was aware that the reasons represented by lord Cochrane to have been assigned by De Berenger for an alteration of dress were probably the true reasons, so far at least as they applied to the military cap, which was proved at the trial not to have been the cap of his corps, and, consequently, such as he could not with propriety or prudence have worn on a visit to his commanding officer, nor returned in to his lodgings, without danger of exciting surprise and suspicion; and also, that it was actually the cap in which he had committed the fraud, and might have occasioned his detection; and that, as aforesaid, he was represented in the affidavit to have asked only for a hat to wear instead of his military cap, and therefore it was probable that he had previously used the general word "dress," and made the remark, that his uniform appeared, and accepted the black coat that was then offered him, for no better reason than that lord Cochrane might not eventually conclude that he had any motive to change the cap that did not equally apply to the green uniform; and that the recollection of his apparently equal inclination to change them both might produce the impression, that the cap which he then wore was as unconnected with the fraud as the green uniform itself.

That the existence therefore of such a motive in the mind of De Berenger as might have induced him to allude to, and change the description of dress mentioned in the affidavit, in the manner therein described, was perfectly probable, and consistent with the opinion entertained at the trial, that his immediate object, after the commission of the crime was, to provide against detection and punishment.

That the said lord chief justice did, as aforesaid, observe (page 485), "But it does not rest there, for he himself lends to this person the immediate means of his concealment, he lets him have a hat instead of his laced cap; and what had such a cap to do with a sharpshooter's uniform?" That the said lord chief justice did thereby not only assume, without evidence or probability, that lord Cochrane knew what description of cap was usually worn by De Berenger as adjutant of lord Yarmouth's rifle corps, but that the cap in which he came to his house was not of that description; although it was obviously improbable that De Berenger should have worn his laced cap in the house of lord Cochrane in his presence; and that the probability was that lord Cochrane had only cursorily, if at all, seen the cap in question, and might very well be ignorant as to whether it was a laced cap or a plain, and in either case whether it was or was not his military cap. That the said lord chief justice did, as aforesaid, exclaim, "What had a laced cap to do with a sharp-shooter's uniform?" and that he had previously observed (page 478) "The uniform of the rifle corps is of a bottle-green colour, made to resemble the colour of trees, that those who wear it may hide themselves in woods and escape discovery there." But it appeared by the evidence of lord Yarmouth (page 376) that his "bottle-green uniform had a crimson cape," which had as little to 'do with the colour of trees as gold or silver' lace; and therefore that his sharp-shooters might have worn laced caps as well as crimson collars, for aught that appeared either in evidence or probability to the contrary. That again, notwithstanding the said lord chief justice did as aforesaid exclaim," What had a laced cap to do with a sharp-shooter's uniform?" the fact was, as has sine, and might then have been ascertained, if the said lord chief justice had addressed the question to lord Yarmouth, that the cap usually worn by De Berenger, when on duty as adjutant of the said rifle corps, had a spacious gold band upon it with a long golden tassel suspended. That the question, therefore, "What had a laced cap to do with a sharp-shooter's uniform," would have been more appropriate if addressed as an interrogatory to lord Yarmouth, as a witness, than as used as an exclamation against lord Cochrane to the jury; that it would also have been more pertinent than several of the inquiries which were actually addressed to lord Yarmouth by the said lord chief justice, who, as appears by the minutes aforesaid (page 376), showed the star which De Berenger is said to have worn during the fraud, to lord Yarmouth, and asked him, "Whether the members of his corps wore any such decorations as that?" and also, "Whether if a gentleman should appear before him in an aid-de-camp's uniform, with that star upon his breast, and that other ornament appendant, he should consider him as a man exhibiting himself in the dress of his sharp-shooting corps?" which questions the said lord chief justice well knew that lord Yarmouth, if he answered at all, would answer in the negative:—and whether, "if a sharp-shooter belonging to his corps had presented himself to him in that dress, he would think it a very impertinent thing?" which question the said lord chief justice well knew that lord Yarmouth could only answer in the affirmative. That the said lord chief justice therefore addressed such questions to lord Yarmouth as could produce nothing that was not known before, and thereby used his privilege of examination as a vehicle for the conveyance of insinuations prejudicial to lord Cochrane.

That the said lord chief justice did as afore- said obserye (page 486), "Supposing him to have appeared in any disguise, it is the conduct of an accomplice to assist him in getting rid of that disguise." That the said lord chief justice was equally aware that it was the conduct of an artful and guilty man to impose upon an honest and unsuspecting one, and obtain assistance under false pretences; and that it was neither the conduct of an accomplice to proclaim the culprit nor the assistance afforded him. And the said lord chief justice made no observation on the obvious facility with which lord Cochrane might have concealed the circumstance of De Berenger's desiring or receiving a change of dress at his house, if on his part it had been a guilty transaction.

That the said lord chief justice observed as aforesaid (page 485) that "if De Berenger put that uniform in a towel, he must have pulled it off his back, for it was on his back before; and then lord Cochrane, one would think, must have seen him do it; what business had this man with a red aid-de-camp's uniform?" And that the said lord chief justice did also as aforesaid state to the jury (page 487) "that they would no doubt consider, whether, supposing him to have appeared before lord Cochrane dressed as the witnesses represent him to have antecedently been, from the circumstance of his so appearing, coupled with the fact of his afterwards walking off with that dress in a bundle, they were not satisfied that lord Cochrane was privy to, and assisted in, the scheme of effecting a deception upon the public." And thereby the said lord chief justice did, in effect, instruct the jury to form their conclusion solely upon the supposition that he appeared before lord Cochrane, as the witnesses represented him to have antecedently been, and not at all to take into their consideration the probability of his having worn that dress, in which, according to the only evidence to the point, he did actually appear; and did also in effect positively assert, that the dress which he put into the towel, was that which the witnesses had antecedently seen, and not a green uniform as sworn to by lord Cochrane; although he well knew that there was no evidence at all of his putting any uniform in a towel, except the evidence of lord Cochrane himself.

That the said lord chief justice did also, as aforesaid, state to the jury, "You have before had the animal hunted home, and now you have his skin, found and produced as it was taken out of; he river, cut to pieces; the sinking it could be with no other view than that of suppressing this piece of evidence, and preventing the discovery which it might otherwise occasion; this makes it the more material to attend to the stripping off the clothes, which took place in lord Cochrane's house." That the said lord chief justice was aware that it was quite as probable a precaution on the part of De Berenger to sink the dress in which he had committed the fraud, if he had taken it off before he came into lord Cochrane's presence, as in his presence, because, in whatever situation he took it off, it would be evidence against him, if proved to have been on; and therefore, that proof of an attempt to suppress the evidence of the dress could only be indicative of the evil of the purpose for which it had been worn, and wholly immaterial to show in whose presence (if any) or what particular time or place it was taken off; and that the sinking of the dress at old Swan stairs (the mode of attempting suppression in evidence) did not make it at all the more material, in the view represented by the said lord chief justice, to attend to the stripping off the clothes, which took place in lord Cochrane's house: but that it did make it the more material in another point of view, because it was some indication that the dress so sunk was not that which he took off in the presence, or with the knowledge, of lord Cochrane, and carried away in a towel, but that it was a dress previously taken off and more securely concealed and carried away in the portmanteau; for if it had been any dress which De Berenger had not concealed from lord Cochrane, and which both of them were anxious to conceal from every body else, there could be no reason why the obvious, immediate, easy, and certain method of suppressing that piece of evidence should not have been adopted, of committing it to the flames, or otherwise disposing of it, in the room in which they then were, which was evidently preferable to the circuitous, troublesome, hazardous, and abortive expedient of carrying it out in a towel, a distance of five miles, to sink it at the foot of old Swan stairs. That it was most obvious, that if it was a dress which Iord Cochrane felt interested to suppress, no mode of suppression was so glaringly eligible as that which his own fireside or his own trunks or drawers afforded; but that, on the contrary, if it was De Berenger only who was interested to conceal it, and not less so from lord Cochrane than any other person, he was under the necessity of carrying it out, and seeking elsewhere for the accomplishment of his purpose.

That by the minutes aforesaid, it appears that the said lord chief justice, when reciting the affidavit aforesaid to the jury, omitted several important passages, and among others, the greater part of the following, "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 parlour; 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." That the said lord chief justice (as appears by the said minutes, page 486) recited the concluding clause of the above sentence only, although the whole of it in connexion could hardly have been read without producing an impression that lord Cochrane when he wrote it, was in a state of unfeigned uncertainty and perplexity, as to whether the pretended Colonel Du Bourg had really been at his house or not, and that he was strongly inclined to an opinion that De Berenger was not that person.

That the printed advertisement alluded to in the affidavit, was not produced at the trial, or it would have appeared that the members of the Stock Exchange, on the authority of the post-boy and coachman, had as aforesaid given an erroneous description of the great coat; an inaccuracy which was calculated materially to contribute to an opinion on the part of lord Cochrane, that De Berenger was not Du Bourg; for if lord Cochrane saw De Berenger in green and grey, he could not easily conceive him to be the same person that was said to have been traced to his house in red and brown.

That the said lord chief justice was conscious that it was due to lord Cochrane, that the aforesaid advertisement should be read; and while reciting the clause before mentioned, "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," he observed, "which I suppose will be read;" although he had no reason to believe that it would then be read, as the cases on both sides were closed, and he was then charging the jury.

That the said lord chief justice, as appears by the said minutes (page 486), while stating the affidavit of lord Cochrane to the jury, passed over, without notice or remark, the express and solemn averment, upon oath, of lord Cochrane, that he had no concern, directly or indirectly, in the fraud.

That the denial upon oath was too pointed and unequivocal to escape the observation of the said lord chief justice, and yet he did not bestow upon it even a momentary pause, or represent it to the jury as entitled to any degree of notice or consideration. That the said Nord chief justice did not at all advert to the previous character of lord Cochrane, and, though reminded thereof by the defendant's counsel, he did not appear to feel any thing improbable or repulsive in the supposition, that a person who had lived from early youth to the meridian of life in the view of the public (not only without censure, but with applause) should suddenly become lost to all sense of right and wrong, and plunge himself into the guilt, not only of conspiracy and fraud, but the still higher crime of wilful and corrupt perjury.

That therefore the said lord chief justice Ellenborough, at the trial aforesaid, in virtually representing that the evidence of William Crane, to the entrance of De Berenger into lord Cochrane's house on the morning of the 21st of February 1814, in a red coat, was sufficient to falsify the declaration on oath of lord Cochrane, that he appeared fore him in a green uniform; and in abstaining from all comment upon the important circumstance, that De Berenger had with him a portmanteau; and in omitting to recite the evidence that it was big enough to wrap a coat up in, and thereby avoiding to call the consideration of the jury to the probable contents of that portmanteau, and stating, on the contrary, that it did not appear that De Berenger had any means of shifting himself; and in stating, that when seen by lord Cochrane, De Berenger must have had that dress with him (evidently meaning upon him) in which he had come in the coach, notwithstanding, that lord Cochrane was then in another and distant part of the town, and that De Berenger might have changed his dress before lord Cochrane return; and in asserting, that the dress which he wore, down to the moment of his entering the house, was a star, a red coat, and an appendant order of masonry, although neither the coachman who brought him to the door, nor any one of the witnesses who saw him after his arrival in London, deposed that he wore either star or order at that period; and in representing lord Cochrane as responsible for the veracity of the reasons which he stated to have been assigned by De Berenger, for desiring an alteration of dress; in denying that the reasons so assigned were either true or probable; and in omitting all consideration of the liability of an unsuspecting person to be deceived by the representations of a person of supposed veracity; and in representing that De Berenger, could have had no private reasons unknown to lord Cochrane, and no reason whatever for the change of his green uniform; in asserting, that the uniform of the rifle corps, as described by lord Yarmouth, was the very dress alleged by lord Cochrane to have been worn by De Berenger; and in representing the evidence of lord Yarmouth to the fitness of his appearing in the one, as negativing the unfitness of his appearing in the other, and as 'proving that lord Cochrane knew at the time that no such unfitness existed; in amplifying and pressing the evidence of lord Yarmouth on that subject, and in addressing various superfluous and insidious questions to that nobleman; in representing lord Cochrane to have known that the military cap worn by De Berenger, was not the cap of his corps, without evidence or reason to conclude that he had ever seen either one or the other; and in exclaiming, without previously informing himself on the subject, and totally unwarranted either by evidence or fact, "What had a laced cap to do with a sharp-shooter's uniform?" In asserting, that if he appeared in any disguise it was the conduct of an accomplice to assist him in getting rid of that disguise, and avoiding the equally obvious consideration, that it was not the conduct of an accomplice to proclaim the culprit or the assistance afforded him; in asserting, that the proof adduced of an attempt to suppress the evidence of the red coat by sinking it in the river, made it the more material to attend to the stripping, Off the clothes, which took place in lord Cochrane's house, and thereby insinuating that the sinking of the dress was indicative of its being the same dress that was taken off with the knowledge of lord Cochrane, although it was obviously immaterial and nugatory in that point of view, and that it was equally probable that De Berenger should have attempted to secret the dress of his fraud, whether taken off before or after his appearing in lord Cochrane's presence; and in omitting all consideration of that view of the subject in which it was material, namely, as indicating a necessity on the part of De Berenger of concealing that dress from the view of lord Cochrane, and of secretly removing it from his house, and of seeking elsewhere for the means of its subsequent concealment and suppression; and in insinuating to the jury, that their conclusion could only be formed upon the supposition of De Berenger having appeared before lord Cochrane dressed as the witnesses represented him to have antecedently been; and in omitting to recite several passages of lord Cochrane's affidavit which were unalterably exculpatory; and in passing over without pause or remark the solemn declaration of lord Cochrane upon oath, that he had no concern either directly or indirectly in the fraud that had been committed and in saying and doing as herein set forth, was and is guilty of partiality, misrepresentation, injustice, and oppression.

After the charges had been read, the Speaker wished to know from the noble lord what course he intended to take on them?

said, that at present he should only move that they be printed, He did not think it right to take any further proceedings on them until member: had had an opportunity of examining their deliberately, which they could not dc from the cursory manner in which they had been read. He then moved that they be printed.

seconded the motion, He professed himself altogether ignorant of the merits or demerits of the question at issue, not having been in the country at the time when the proceedings tool place; but he thought that the charges ought to be printed for the use of members, both a justice to the noble lord who laid them, and that the noble judge and his friends night have an opportunity of rebutting them.

The question was then put, and the charges were ordered to be printed.