Chapter XX: Appendix: V

LETTER FROM RICHARD GURNEY, ESQ. TO LORD|COCHRANE.

King’s Bench, Sept. 9th, 1814.

MY LORD,—In replying to your Lordship’s letter of yesterday, I beg to
observe that several applications have been already made to me from
several quarters, for the purpose of obtaining the particulars of the
conversation between the Honourable Mr. Murray, another gentlemen, and
myself, alluded to in your letter, but that I have hitherto refused to
comply with such applications, for reasons which must be sufficiently
obvious to every delicate and honourable mind. Being requested,
however, by your Lordship, to say whether “your name” was said to have
been connected “by De Berenger” with the imposition which he had “in
contemplation,” I can no longer hesitate in giving, to the best of my
recollection, a statement of the facts relating to your Lordship.

A few days before the late trial against your Lordship and others, I
was informed by Mr. Murray, that he was to be examined as a witness on
the approaching trial. I asked him what was the nature of the evidence
he had to give? He replied, that De Berenger had some time ago told
him that he, De Berenger, and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, had a plan in
contemplation, which would be the means of putting a large sum of
money into each of their pockets: that he joked De Berenger, and asked
him to let him into the secret of the plan: that De Berenger laughed,
and refused to tell him what the plan was, saying it was too good a
thing to be made known.

Mr. Murray added that this conversion with De Berenger took place a
short time previous to the hoax on the Stock Exchange; and that it was
imagined, from a combination of circumstances, that De Berenger must
have had the hoax in view when he spoke of the plan between Mr.
Cochrane Johnstone and himself.

I asked Mr. Murray if your Lordship’s name was mentioned by De
Berenger? He replied, “_Oh, no; nothing was said about Lord
Cochrane_.”

I observed that I was glad of this, as I conceived De Berenger would
certainly have mentioned your name as well as Mr. Cochrane
Johnstone’s, had your Lordship been in the plot.

Mr. Murray rejoined, “_Yes, I think it very probable_.”

The morning after, Mr. Murray, in accidentally recapitulating the
conversation between De Berenger and himself, remarked, that upon
recollection he thought your Lordship’s name was mentioned by De
Berenger, and presently afterwards he observed, that, on
reconsideration, your Lordship’s name certainly was mentioned. I
naturally felt surprised at this statement, it being so contradictory
to that of the preceding day, and took the liberty of observing to Mr.
Murray, that I conceived he would act wrong, however correct his
intentions might really be, to give any evidence respecting your
Lordship, after so strangely forgetting himself as to the only part of
the conversation which could affect your case.

Other conversation passed, but I am not so positive and clear in my
recollection of it as of that which I have detailed to your Lordship.

I have the honour to be, &c.,
RICHARD GURNEY, Jun.

------------------------------------