Chapter XI: Part 11

If it was all false, it must be false with respect to De Berenger himself, and according to his own statement he must have invented this story, merely to implicate Lord Cochrane in the transaction; it is absurd gentlemen not to speak to you as men of understandings. Do you believe that this letter has any other sense, than give me so much money, or I will do so and so? After threatening him, he says, "As for my part, I now consider all that man told me to be diabolically false," and then without even a new paragraph in his letter, "If my conduct meets your approbation;" what conduct meets his approbation, that he would say in all places and at all times that this man's statement was diabolically false, as far as respected Lord Cochrane; "Can I ask a reciprocal favour, as a temporary loan, on security being given;" then he goes on to say, "I am just appointed to a situation of about £.1,200 a-year; but for the moment am in the greatest distress, with a large family; you can without risk, and have the means to relieve us, and I believe the will of doing good." And then, because Lord Cochrane most wisely refuses to comply with this request, we have this man set up in the box, to tell you this supposed story of De Berenger, which De Berenger has no means of contradicting; but which I say is so incredible, and so contradicted by the letter under his own hand, that I think jurymen, if it stood upon his testimony alone, or even supported by one or two witnesses to other things, would do most unrighteously if they convicted upon such testimony as that fellow has given, for I never saw a man so disgrace himself as he done.

Now gentlemen, with respect to the proof of Mr. De Berenger's hand writing, as to those things which were found in his box. I put Mr. Lavie's evidence out of the question; at first his lordship put it, that it was slight evidence; but that it was evidence subject to my observations, the thing being found upon him; gentlemen, supposing there was no evidence of his hand-writing, I can only say he must be well clothed in innocence who can escape, if a man is to be convicted, merely because a paper is found upon him; if a man writes to me a paper containing matter of a criminal nature, and I happen not to destroy it, I must immediately be convicted. I do not mean that his Lordship has said so; but if I am to be convicted because a paper is found upon me, then a man may be in danger from every letter he receives from a correspondent; I am sorry to say that I receive a great many letters which I do not answer; but does my possession of the letters give ground for inferring an approval of all contained in those letters. If you were to convict this gentleman on account of any memorandums found in his possession, because they are found there, I do think a great injustice indeed would be worked.

But, gentlemen, Mr. Lavie has proved his hand-writing. I shall call witnesses to contradict Mr. Lavie; but do not misunderstand me, I believe Mr. Lavie to be a very honourable person, and one who would not tell you a falsehood; but I say he has not the means of knowledge. I can only say, gentleman, that a man must be much more attentive to hands-writing than most of the persons of my profession, in which I include Mr. Lavie, if he can swear to a hand-writing, because he has seen that hand-writing once. I have seen my learned friends near me write many times, but I could not swear to their hands-writing; if I saw a very bad hand indeed, I should say it was Mr. Serjeant Best's; but let me caution you; you are trying these defendants for a conspiracy; you are trying them for a crime of the greatest and most enormous magnitude; you are trying them for an offence that will shut these gentlemen, if you find them guilty, out of the pale of all honourable and decent society; and therefore, though this subject is one, which, from the singularity of it, may create a smile, it is a matter which you will not smile upon when you come to pronounce your verdict; because upon your verdict must the happiness of these gentlemen depend. Will you, upon the evidence of Mr. Lavie, honourable as may believe him to be, and just as you may believe him to be, say that he has those means of knowledge which he professes to have.

Gentlemen, I am placed in a very awkward situation as to that paper, which my client assures me he never saw, and I mean to call witnesses to prove, that he is not the writer of it; I do not think it necessary, but I will do it, for it shall not rest upon me that I have not done my duty. But I am placed in an awkward situation as to the hand-writing; I do not complain of it, but the witnesses into whose hands I must put that paper, have never seen it. Mr. Lavie has seen it; he has had an opportunity of conning it over; but I think he might have done better than to have given his own testimony of this Mr. de Berenger's writing. Mr. de Berenger is not an obscure man in the city of London; he has lived in this country twenty-five years; he tells me there was no man acquainted with his hand-writing, who could be called to prove this to be his hand-writing; and that no witness to speak to that could be found; but Mr. Lavie went to him improperly; for the Stock Exchange had no more right to break in upon Mr. de Berenger, at the Parliament-street coffee-house, than any one of you. I say it was an impertinent intrusion; this gentleman was brought up on a warrant not respecting this affair, but on a warrant from the Secretary of State, whilst he was fatigued and tired, as he stated to the messenger; still most disgracefully the messenger allowed Mr. Lavie and the Stock Exchange Committee to pump him upon this matter. How the hand-writing is attempted to be proved, it does not become me to say further; but I put papers into the hand of Mr. Lavie, the hand-writing of which, if they be of the hand-writing of Mr. De Berenger, I will venture to say that the paper lying before his Lordship is not; because I have eyes as well as Mr. Lavie has; and I think I can speak to any hand-writing as well as he can. I say it is not the same hand-writing as these, if my eyes do not deceive me; and I shall put it into the hands of persons who have known Mr. De. Berenger long, and they shall say whether it be his hand-writing or not. Gentlemen, if it be not his hand-writing, which I must assume, I say the whole of that Dover case falls to the ground; because the main sheet-anchor of the whole of the Dover case is that paper. Why do I say so? Because all the witnesses who have come from the Ship Inn at Dover, Marsh, Gerely, Edis, (Wright is not here, being ill;) these men one and all, speak to the person called Du Bourg, as being the person who sent this letter, as aid-de-camp to Lord Cathcart; they all say it was this man, as they believe, that wrote that letter, and sent it off to Admiral Foley. I say, gentleman, that story, as applied to Mr. De Berenger, falls to the ground, if that letter was not the hand-writing of Mr. De Berenger; inasmuch as the letter is now supposed to be traced into the hands of Admiral Foley, from the Ship Inn at Dover, by the conveyance of the little boy. If Mr. De Berenger was not the writer of it, then Mr. De Berenger was not the man who was at that inn.

Gentlemen, it was said by Mr. Gurney in his opening, that he should call the landlord and landlady of the house at which Mr. De Berenger lodged, to prove that he did not sleep at home that night; but they have proved no such thing. I expected, from my learned friend's statement of it, and I am sure he expected it, or he would not have so stated it, that they would have proved that. The man says, he does not know who comes in and who goes out, being the clerk of a stockbroker, and being a good deal out; he says, Mr. De Berenger comes in without their interference; he has his own servants; and all he reasons from is the fact, that he did not hear him blow his French horn at eight or nine o'clock on the Monday morning, which I shall prove to you he could not do, for that Mr. De Berenger went out to Lord Cochrane's at eight o'clock. These people do not swear, that he did not sleep at home; all they say is, that they do not know whether he was at home or not.

Now, Gentlemen, upon the subject upon which I am about to address you, I do not think it absolutely necessary to go into it; and I should not at this hour in the morning call evidence, but in a matter so highly penal as this is, and where I am placed in so delicate a situation, and in which, thank God, I can very seldom be placed, I do not think it right to act on my own judgment, where my client assures me that he was not the man, and is an innocent person; and that he is determined (because he knows perfectly well that what he says is the truth) to have his witnesses called; he shall have those witnesses called, for I chuse to have no responsibility cast upon me that does not belong to my situation. Gentlemen, I shall prove to you most completely that which will dispose of the case, if it is believed. I trust I have already shewn, that it is a case depending upon such frail testimony, as it stands, that it is not worthy of any degree of credit. But I am instructed, that I shall be able to call five or six witnesses, who all saw this gentleman in London, at an hour which was impossible, consistently with the case for the prosecution, and who have no interest, and had better means of knowledge than those who have been called before you.

Gentlemen, I do not mean to say those witnesses who have been called before you have been perjured; but I mean to say, they had not the same means of knowledge with my witnesses; and that, except one of them, or two at the utmost, they had not the day light to assist them in observations they made upon this traveller. Be so good as to recollect the circumstances under which he was supposed to have come to Dover; he is found knocking at the door of the Ship Inn, about one in the morning; the man belonging to the opposite house, having been carousing there at a most astonishingly late hour for a reputable tradesman, in the town of Dover, the hatter, the cooper, and the landlord, being sitting together, hear a knocking at the door; and they find a man in the passage of the house. Whom do they find there? a man dressed in the manner you have heard described; but the person who sees him, and holds the candle in the passage, has a very short conversation with him; the whole time he saw him did not exceed five minutes, and in that time he went up to call the landlord; he put the pen, ink and paper, into his room, and then he left him; he did not see him without his cap, and yet he swears he is the man; and he is not singular in that, for there are many others swear to the same.

Gentlemen, it is a prejudice my client has to encounter, that we have been engaged in this case seventeen hours; and that my learned friend, Mr. Gurney, who opened the case, was in the full possession of his powers, and that he has in a measure forestalled your minds by the evidence he has given, and that the evidence given by me has to eradicate the impressions which his statements and his evidence have made. Gentlemen, I put questions to one of the witnesses which his lordship thought were not of any weight, and _per se_ they were not strong; but when we are proving identity every little circumstance goes to the question, aye or no; we had some witnesses swearing to a slouch cap, one which comes over the eyes, and another swearing that it was like the coat, _grey_; another that it was a dark brown. If the _fac simile_ is correct, there are discordances in the evidence which raise a suspicion in my mind, a suspicion not that the witnesses are perjuring themselves, but that they had not sufficient means of knowledge upon the subject; and that you are called upon to convict this gentleman of a base and infamous crime, from which, except from the evidence of Le Marchant, he was to derive no benefit unless the £.400 was a _bonus_, and that upon the evidence of witnesses, who, however respectable, had very little means of observation; for it was not day light hardly even when they left Dartford; and the morning we hear was a foggy morning, and therefore, except Shilling's evidence, we have not evidence that this is the man in _day light_; we have no evidence of any persons who saw him in daylight, and identify him as being the person who came from Dover to London; Shilling's evidence I admit, is, as to his seeing him in day light, and his evidence is extremely strong undoubtedly.

Gentlemen, I am quite aware, though I have not practised a great deal in criminal courts, that the evidence of an _alibi_, as we call it, that is evidence to prove that the person was not upon the spot, is always evidence of a very suspicious nature; it is always to be watched therefore; but I am sure that I shall have his lordship's sanction for this; that if the witnesses to be called have all the means of knowledge upon the subject, if the generality of them have no interest at all in the matter of discussion, and if they prove the _alibi_ satisfactorily, there is no evidence more complete than that of _alibi_, and that _alibi_ will produce advantage in favour of the person who sets it up, according to the nature of that case which is made against him; and if it be merely circumstantial evidence, although that is in some cases much stronger than positive testimony, yet if the evidence against that person is chiefly mere evidence of identity of person, I say that the proof of the _alibi_ will receive stronger confirmation, if those witnesses who undertake to identify have not had sufficient means of knowledge upon the subject.

Hear then, Gentlemen, how I shall prove this case. This person, by the consent of his bail, Mr. Tahourdin, as I have told you, was continually soliciting for the situation he was desirous of obtaining, for the purpose of going out to America under Sir Alexander Cochrane; he was therefore continually violating the rules; and in order to do that with safety, he used to go down a passage and take water, instead of crossing Westminster Bridge; because he thought that on Westminster Bridge he should be more likely to be met by the officers, and so more likely to get to the ears of the marshal, so as to lose the benefit of the rules; he was well known to the usual watermen plying there; and I have two watermen here, who will prove to you that on that Sunday morning, which was the first Sunday after the frost broke up, so as to open the river Thames, which had been shut a considerable time, that on the first Sunday after, namely, the 20th of February, this gentleman crossed at that ferry to go over to the Westminster side. Gentlemen, I shall prove to you, that in the course of that day he was at Chelsea; he had been known at Chelsea, having lived there for a considerable time before he was in the rules of the Bench. I will prove that he had called at a house which I will not name, because we shall have that from the witnesses from whence the stage coaches go; that the ostler at that house perfectly well knew him, and that he knew his servant; that he told him the coach had gone off at an early hour in the evening, and there was no coach to go for some time; he will tell you, that he knew this gentleman, and is positively sure that he was there. I shall prove that he went to another house in the course of that evening; and I have two or three of the members of that family who saw and conversed with him between eight and nine in the evening of the Sunday, so that by the course of time, it was absolutely impossible that he could have been at Dover by one in the morning, if he had been at this gentleman's house at eight in the evening. I shall prove that after that he went home to his lodgings. I shall prove that he slept in his lodgings; that his bed was in the morning made by his maid servant; that he constantly slept at home, and that he did that night. I have his servants here who will prove these facts. I allow that he went out that morning, and went out in regimentals, which they will describe to you, and went to Lord Cochrane's upon the errand I have described to you.

Now, Gentlemen, in addition to that, there will be the evidence to be given by my learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Best, which I have a right, as far as it applies to Mr. De Berenger, to pray in aid for him. Does it not immediately go to shew, that it is impossible, but that these persons who have been examined for the prosecution, must have been mistaken? I do not ask you to presume that these persons have knowingly said what is not true; but this made a great noise, and persons were sent to see Mr. De Berenger, and from some similarity of person believed him to be the man. I do not indeed believe the account given by one of the witnesses, Mr. St. John; he told a story the most singular, that he being the collector of an Irish charitable society, with no other means of livelihood, found himself at Dover searching for news, by desire of the editor of a newspaper, and he was afterwards on coming up, sent to Newgate to see Mr. De Berenger, who was exposed to the view of every person who chose to look at him. Mr. De Berenger was fixed upon as the man, and you are asked to presume that he fled, because he knew he was the man. Gentlemen, you will take all these circumstances into your consideration, and they will account for the mistake in the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution; but St. John tells you, that he found himself by _accident_ at Westminster. I do not call that an accident at all, for it appears that he walked down to Westminster to see his person; he went and took a good view of his person, when he was standing upon the floor of the court of King's Bench, pleading to his indictment, for being in custody he must be brought into court to plead to it; this fellow says, he was not in court, but he put his head within the curtain, where he could see this gentleman, he heard the officer read to him, and he says that he answered something; I do not care whether he heard what passed, he saw sufficient to know that he was the person in custody. I cannot, under these circumstances, believe this fellow when he tells you, that he went by _accident_ down to Westminster, for it appears evidently that he went by _design_. I say there is a readiness and a desire on the part of the Stock Exchange, to follow this up, I think, with an improper spirit.

Gentlemen, we have had this case dressed up to-day; and it has been attempted to induce you to believe, that the transactions of the Stock Exchange were all laudable. Gentlemen, I say they are infamous; but my learned friend would persuade you, that all the infamy rests upon those who deceived these poor creatures. It is very true, as his lordship says, the circulation of a false report is not innocent, for that may operate against you or me going fairly to buy stock; but I think there has been an excess of zeal on this business; some of these witnesses were carried to Mr. Wood's, at Westminster, and they all fixed upon Mr. De Berenger, not corruptly, but in consequence of being carried there, and his being pointed out as the man by Mr. Lavie and some of his clerks; they come readily enough and fix upon him; the deaf man not so easily, but at last he did it too; and it struck me, the question I put to that deaf man was extremely relevant. I cannot tell by a witness's face whether he is merely an actor or not, and especially when my instructions tell me he is mistaken; I wished therefore to know, whether he was not looking round the court to give it the air of probability, and whether he had been standing behind, so as to see the others point out Mr. De Berenger, whom they all knew, because most of them had seen him since that time; some of them had not I admit; he is a soldierly-looking man, and a man likely from the description to be fixed upon. My learned friend seemed to think that one of the witnesses had not a fair opportunity of seeing his person, in consequence of his holding down his head; the fact was, he was taking notes (for he has taken a very full note); but without meaning to do anything improper, I said, hold up your head, and he did so immediately; his recognizance was to appear here to-day, not fearing to have all enquiry made respecting him and as it appeared to me; he did not on any one occasion attempt to conceal his person from their observation, I do say, gentlemen, that the means of knowledge of these witnesses are so slight, that if I call witnesses to prove, not by vague surmise, never having seen him before, that he was in their society and company that evening so late, as to render it impossible that he should have been at Dover that night. But supposing that the evidence of _alibi_ should not be satisfactory, it then comes back to the other observations made in the prior part of the defence.

Gentlemen, this is the general nature of the defence I have to make to you. You will, I have no doubt, endeavour to free yourselves from all prejudice infused into your minds; and will come to your conclusion with a desire to do justice. And I trust that you will, in the result of this long hearing, be enabled to pronounce, that this defendant, for whom I am counsel (not meaning by that to exclude any of the rest, but he is the only one committed to my care) is not guilty of the charge imputed to him.

MR. SERJEANT PELL.

May it please your Lordship,

Gentlemen of the Jury,

My two learned friends, who have preceded me, Mr. Serjeant Best and Mr. Park, have both stated to you the peculiar difficulties under which they laboured, in consequence of the great fatigue which they had both undergone. I am sure you will agree with me, that that topic, so pressed by them, will come with still greater force from me; for, as the night advances, the fatigue becomes greater, and the mind more exhausted. Gentlemen, it is under the full persuasion that you and his Lordship are also much oppressed with fatigue, that I can venture to promise you my address will not be very long. But I trust, that considering the point which it will be necessary for me to expatiate upon, you will be ultimately of opinion, that my address, although not long, is still effectual for the interest of my clients.

Gentlemen, I stand in a most peculiar situation, because, upon the notes of the noble Lord, it is distinctly proved, that two of the persons for whom I am counsel, Mr. Holloway and Mr. Lyte, have admitted themselves to be guilty of that, which no man can for one moment hesitate to say is extremely wrong. Gentlemen, I think it is also sufficiently proved, that Sandom, the third person for whom I am counsel, was in the chaise which was driven from Northfleet to Dartford, and from Dartford to London; and on my part, I should consider it a most inefficient attempt, if I were to attempt, for one moment, to persuade you that Mr. Holloway and Mr. Lyte, together with Mr. Sandom, have not been most criminally implicated in this part of the transaction; but, gentlemen, although I admit this in the outset, and very sincerely lament, that men who have hitherto maintained a very respectable situation in life, should have been tempted to involve themselves in so disgraceful an affair; yet I think, unless I am mistaken in my notion of law, as applying to that record on which you are to give your judgment, it will be found that they are entitled to your acquittal.

Gentlemen, I feel myself under a difficulty, also, in another respect. I must differ from all my learned friends who have preceded me in this trial, I mean, my learned friend Mr. Gurney, of counsel for the prosecution; my learned friend Mr. Serjeant Best, as counsel for Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, Mr. Butt, and Lord Cochrane; and Mr. Park, as counsel for Mr. De Berenger. I am not here to find fault with the committee of the Stock Exchange for prosecuting this inquiry; whether that committee is composed of honourable men or not, is to me a matter of perfect indifference. If they have been actuated by a sincere desire of bringing to justice persons who have been guilty of criminal conduct, I, for one, am not disposed to complain of them. Gentlemen, I cannot agree with my learned friend Mr. Gurney, or my learned friend Mr. Serjeant Best, in what, in different parts of their address, they stated to you as being the leading features of this prosecution; for my learned friend Mr. Gurney, in the outset of his address to you, stated, that what he called the Northfleet plot was only a part of the Dover conspiracy--was subsidiary to it. I think his expression was, that they both formed different parts of one entire plot, and that those who were guilty of one must be taken to be guilty of both; although Mr. Holloway, in his confession, had acquitted Lord Cochrane and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, of having any part or share in the Northfleet conspiracy. Now, gentlemen, I will state to you in the outset, that I mean to consider the case in a different point of view. I have not the slightest doubt on earth, that what was done by Sandom, Lyte, and M'Rae, when they left Northfleet on the morning of the 21st of February, was altogether unconnected, and was utterly unknown to, that person, whoever he was, who came from Dover, and that he had no sort of connection with it. Gentlemen, if I am right in establishing this point; if you shall ultimately be satisfied that Mr. Holloway, Mr. Sandom, and Mr. Lyte, who I admit were concerned in that part of the business, were altogether unconnected with the person who came from Dover, and who has been stated to-day to be involved with Lord Cochrane and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, I apprehend that the three defendants for whom I appear cannot be found guilty. That my learned friend Mr. Gurney considers the case in this point of view is beyond all question, for he opened it to you as part of this case, that what he called the Northfleet conspiracy, was a part of the Dover plot, and was in furtherance of it; and he not only has so stated it in his address, but, as I read the record, it is so stated upon the record; for, in the very first count of the indictment you are now impanelled to try, it is set forth, that Sandom, M'Rae and Lyte took the chaise from Northfleet, and so passed on to London, in furtherance of that plot which was originated at Dover. Gentlemen, I submit to you, therefore, on behalf of these gentlemen for whom I appear, that their guilt or innocence with respect to this particular trial will depend upon this circumstance;--did they form, or did they not form, parts and members of that single plot in which it is supposed the three or four other gentlemen were concerned?

Gentlemen, I certainly have not the good fortune to appear for men of the high rank of those on whose behalf my learned friends Mr. Serjeant Best and Mr. Park have addressed you. I can introduce no such eloquent topics as those which my learned friend Mr. Serjeant Best has touched upon. I cannot illustrate the character or the situations of life of the gentlemen for whom I appear, with the terms in which Mr. Park has spoken of his client De Berenger. I know of no claims to honour from any ancestry to which they can justly entitle themselves; they are men in a respectable, but in a humble line of life, compared with the other defendants upon the record; but I know, that it is not upon that account that you will be less disposed to give a ready and a willing ear to any topics that may be urged in favour of their legal innocence.

Gentlemen, as I followed the evidence, there was but one point of coincidence, in which these persons who came from Dartford to London, could be at all connected with the person who came from Dover, and it was in the very slight circumstance of the chaises driving to the same place; and my learned friend, Mr. Gurney, in furtherance of that which he submitted to you as against Holloway, Sandom and Lyte, as an ingredient, and a necessary ingredient, in their conviction, stated to you in the opening, that he should prove they went to the same place. I could not but be struck with that circumstance, because I knew it was one from which a connexion might fairly be felt; I was therefore anxious to watch the evidence which applied to that part of the case, and so far from finding that the person who came from Dover, under the name of Du Bourg, went to the Marsh Gate by design, I find that he went there altogether by accident; for by the evidence of Shilling, the person who drove him, if I do not mistake it altogether, he first proposed to drive him to the Bricklayers Arms in the Kent Road, and when he got there he found there was no hackney-coach, and then to use the very expression of the witness, "I told him there was a stand at the Marsh Gate, and if he liked to go there nobody would observe him;" so that it is quite obvious, that the supposed Colonel Du Bourg went to the Marsh Gate, in consequence of having been driven by the suggestion of Shilling. I admit that Sandom, Lyte and M'Rae went there by their own direction; but it is equally clear that Du Bourg went there in consequence of there being no hackney-coach at the Bricklayers Arms, and in consequence also of Shilling advising him to go there for the purpose of obtaining one. The only circumstance therefore in the cause, which shews a coincidence of plot between the one at Northfleet and the one at Dover, is this circumstance respecting the carriages driving to the Marsh Gate; and it will appear upon his Lordship's notes, as with reference to Du Bourg, the going of Du Bourg to the Marsh Gate at Lambeth was purely accidental.

Gentlemen, my learned friend, Mr. Gurney, was so aware of the necessity of proving a connexion between these parties, that he stated another circumstance; and I think, in the course of his address, those were the only two which he adduced, for the purpose of shewing that there was any fair probability that could lead the Court to believe that the person assuming the name of Du Bourg, and Holloway, Sandom, M'Rae and Lyte, had concurred in any part of this most scandalous transaction. My learned friend stated, that he should shew an intimacy between Mr. Sandom and De Berenger, when both of them were prisoners within the Fleet prison, and that they became acquainted there.

_Mr. Gurney._ My learned friend has misunderstood me, I said they were prisoners at the same time; that was the extent of my statement.

_Mr. Serjeant Pell._ I am very much obliged to my learned friend; I am by no means disposed to mis-state him; I find he did not state it quite so strongly as I had supposed, but the inference he meant to raise in your minds, was, unquestionably, that both being prisoners at the same time within the walls of the same gaol, it was fair to conclude, considering the other parts of the case, that an intimacy had existed between them. Now let us see how that part of my learned friend's statement is made out.--Mr. De Berenger was unfortunately a prisoner within the Rules of the King's Bench Prison in the month of February last; he had been so for some time. I think it does not exactly appear, with respect to Mr. Sandom, according to the evidence of Mr. Broochooft, the officer, who was called for that purpose, when or for how long Mr. Sandom first went there, or how long he continued there, but far from Sandom's being a prisoner in that gaol during the time when Mr. De Berenger was confined there, my Lord will find upon his notes, as given by a person of the name of Foxall, that Sandom had lived at Northfleet for nine months before he sent for the chaise on the 21st of February. You observe therefore, gentlemen, that there is not the slightest reason to believe, as far as the evidence extends, that either Mr. Sandom, Mr. Holloway, or Mr. Lyte, had any knowledge or acquaintance with the other defendants.

But, Gentlemen, I will mention another circumstance, which puts that out of all doubt:--I allude to the confession of Mr. Holloway, a confession made in the presence of Mr. Lyte, and with his concurrence. He admitted that he had used means for the purpose of inducing a persuasion that a revolution had taken place in France, which unquestionably at that time was not true. How stands the circumstance? There was a person of the name of M'Rae, who was spoken to by Vinn, the first witness called by Mr. Gurney to this part of the transaction. Vinn told a most extraordinary story, and I will venture to say, that with respect to Mr. Vinn, if the case of all the defendants had stood upon the testimony of such a man as that, no human being, who had been accustomed to watch the manners and the terms which witnesses use in courts of justice, could have believed him for a moment. His story was this.--That on the 15th of February, M'Rae met him at the Carolina coffee house, and he proposed to him to frame a conspiracy for the purpose of raising the funds; and Vinn asked him if there was any moral turpitude in the transaction. No human being could doubt for a moment, that such a transaction would be deep in moral turpitude. He says, that he told him he would as soon engage in a highway robbery, as in such a transaction; and then immediately he told him, that though he would not himself, he could find somebody else who would engage in that dirty office. Can any human being believe such a story as this? What passed between him and M'Rae upon that occasion, I am unacquainted with; but I know enough of your sober judgment, to be sure of this, that no conversation which Vinn states to have taken place between M'Rae and him, when Holloway, Sandom and Lyte, were not present, will be by you permitted to affect their interests.

Now, gentlemen, the next stage in this transaction, in which Mr. M'Rae appears, is, I think, a very singular one; he appears in a letter, I think, from Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, to be the person proposed, who, for £10,000 would make known the whole of this affair. It is a very singular part of this most curious story. This letter is sent to the Stock Exchange; M'Rae proposes, that he shall be the person who is to detect the whole of this scandalous transaction, and he proposes to himself the great reward of £10,000. Only observe, what Mr. Bailey has stated to you took place on Holloway's being acquainted with this circumstance. Holloway, knowing that M'Rae had been concerned in this, which I shall term a second plot;--knowing that M'Rae could not communicate any thing, at least as far as Holloway had reason to believe, that could at all affect that which was the greater object of the Committee of the Stock Exchange, namely, the conviction of Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, Mr. Butt, and Mr. De Berenger, for that is the end and aim of the present prosecution; and as to the clients for whom I appear, Mr. Holloway, Mr. Lyte, and Mr. Sandom, I firmly believe, if the Stock Exchange had not been of opinion they would have derived some benefit from the conviction of my clients, they would no more have been put forward on the present occasion, than I or any of my learned friends should have been. No, gentlemen, the other defendants are the game the prosecutors are attempting to catch, and it is only for the purpose, in some shape or other, of confusing and confounding two separate and distinct parts, with a hope that in some degree the transaction of Holloway, Sandom, Lyte and M'Rae, in reference to the journey from Northfleet, on the 21st of February, may be connected in your minds with the other defendants, that they are introduced upon the present record.

Gentlemen, do me the favour to recollect what Mr. Baily has stated to-day. It was this;--Mr. Holloway, finding there had been some proposition on the part of M'Rae, to make known all that he was acquainted with in the transaction, and that M'Rae had demanded the sum of £.10,000, before he would be induced to relate that which he knew, Mr. Holloway applied to the Committee of the Stock Exchange, and stated this to them, in the presence of Mr. Lyte;--"I admit that we were concerned in that affair when the chaise went from Northfleet to Dartford; I admit we were concerned with those persons when they came through London (and it would be vain and most impertinent if I were to take up your time to deny it), but I deny that we knew any thing of the other parts of the business; we are altogether ignorant of it." Now, gentlemen, is Mr. Holloway to be believed in any part of that which he said? I take it my learned friend will contend, that he is to be believed in all that made against himself, and all that made against Lyte, who was present; but is he not to be believed in the other part of his story? Will my learned friend contend, that he can take the one part, and reject the other? I am satisfied he will not. If you take the whole, then it appears, that Holloway and Lyte admitted that Sandom was privy to their plan, but that they were altogether unconnected and unacquainted with the business which took place at Dover, and had no more to do with Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, Mr. Butt, Lord Cochrane, or Mr. De Berenger, than any of you whom I have the honour of addressing.

Gentlemen, I should have supposed, in a prosecution of this kind, that if there had been any connection between the two plots, it would have been traced in some way or other; you observe the minute points which have been made in every other part of the prosecution. There has been labour unexampled; witnesses brought from the most distant parts of the kingdom; no expence spared; every thing done that could be done to make good the charge against four of the defendants upon the record. Is it not a most extraordinary thing, if Holloway, Lyte and Sandom, were at all connected with Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, or the two other gentlemen, that no trace can be found, no clue can be discovered, that can connect the one with the other. Under circumstances so singular as these, there being not only no evidence of any connexion, but there being an express contradiction on the part of Holloway and Lyte, and the only connecting circumstance being explained away, I mean as to both the chaises driving to the Marsh Gate, I think you will be of opinion with me, that the two plots are altogether distinct from each other, and that my clients, although morally guilty, must be acquitted upon the present charge.

Gentlemen, I cannot but feel, that a kind of prejudice against my clients may have arisen in your minds; I am not only surprised at it, but I should have been surprised if it had not found its way there. Here is a plot conducted in the most artful and most scandalous manner;--persons of the highest authority imposed upon, dresses bought, and the whole drama got up with the greatest skill. God forbid, that I should for one moment insinuate that it was accomplished by any of the other defendants upon the record. I am bound to believe, from the character of all these gentlemen, that they are not guilty; but however this may be, still we get back to that which forms the main feature of my defence for these three gentlemen. Are they, or are they not privy to this scheme? Gentlemen, I was observing to you, that some prejudice must necessarily arise in your minds; it is my case that there were two separate plots; they are, as far as the evidence extends, two different transactions on the same day; a prejudice, however, must arise in your minds, because when you find both these transactions point to producing the same effect, you would naturally be disposed to believe, that all the persons who were concerned in both, were equally acquainted with both. You well remember the strong disposition there was at that time, for every person, those at least who were disposed to do unjust and unfair things, to invent such reports as should enable them to sell their stock at an unreal price; and I submit to you, that supposing Holloway, Sandom and Lyte, had intended to do so, there is nothing very singular in their doing it on the day when the other transaction took place. I am fortified in the opinion, that the one plot is not connected with the other, because I find another part of the evidence which disconnects them altogether, and it is this;--from the evidence of the broker who was called to prove the sale of stock, or the directions to sell stock, on the 21st of February, (a person of the name of Pilliner) it turns out that Holloway did not give him any directions to sell his stock till the middle of the day. Now the middle of the day was the time when the chaise drove through the City of London. If Holloway had been connected with those who were engaged in the first plan, I think you will be of opinion, that he would have taken advantage of the most beneficial state of the market, and sold his stock as early as when he found that conspiracy had produced its intended effect upon the funds, so that, in addition to other circumstances, this also shews that Holloway had no connexion with the other transaction.

Gentlemen, I cannot but be struck at the singularity of Mr. M'Rae's withdrawing from the field of battle. M'Rae certainly has performed a very singular part upon this occasion; he proposed to sell himself for £.10,000; he would have had the Stock Exchange to believe, that he had been let into the secrets of my Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, Mr. Butt, and Mr. De Berenger;--the first object he had in view, was to persuade the Stock Exchange that he knew the whole of their concern in the transaction. A pleasant sort of a gentleman, to ask the sum of £.10,000, to induce him to tell all that he knew, when no human being can doubt that all M'Rae knew was, that which has been proved by the witnesses, as to Sandom, Lyte and Holloway, namely; that M'Rae was in a chaise which passed through the City of London, coming from Northfleet. This man, who has the audacity to propose the receiving £.10,000, turns out to be a miserable lodger in Fetter-lane, who after he had carried into execution the whole of his part of the conspiracy was rewarded--but how? was he rewarded as he would have been by such wealthy persons as the gentlemen whose names stand upon this record? If they had engaged M'Rae in this scandalous affair, do you believe they would have left him on the Monday morning, with nothing but a £.10 note in his pocket? It appears, by the woman with whom he lodged, that he was before in a state of abject poverty, and that afterwards he was seen with a £.10 note, and that he bought a new hat and a new coat--and this is the man who proposes to receive £.10,000 from the Stock Exchange to tell all he knew. Gentlemen, I think I am not very much deceived myself, if I say, that you will be of opinion, that a man who was in the situation of M'Rae, was not very likely to have known of transactions which would have involved the four first defendants upon the record, in such a serious prosecution as that under which they now labour; and it is not the least singular part of his conduct, that he makes no defence to-day.

Now, gentlemen, you observe the manner in which (subject to my Lord's correction) I put the defence of the three defendants for whom I appear. I have stated to you, that Holloway and Lyte have admitted themselves guilty of most immoral conduct, for I never can believe that such transactions as these, let them be conducted by whom they may, are not immoral in the highest degree. Holloway, at all events, has since done all he can to make amends; he has confessed his guilt; he has come forward with Lyte, knowing and feeling that they had done wrong, with a view to protect the Stock Exchange against giving that monstrous sum for an imperfect discovery. Had Holloway or Lyte been concerned with any of the other defendants on the record, I submit there is the strongest reason to believe, that when he confessed his own guilt, he would not have been backward in speaking of theirs. He was not aware of the effect I am giving to his defence when he made it; and if he has done no more than that which he has stated, I submit to you, under his Lordship's correction, that you cannot find him guilty; and I submit to you, upon the reasoning with which I commenced my address to you, that whatever Sandom, Holloway and Lyte did, is not at all connected with what Du Bourg, or the person so calling himself, did; that what they did is not connected with what the other three defendants on the record are supposed to have done; that there is not only no connexion proved between the two, but as far as the evidence extends that connexion is negatived; and then I submit to you, if you are of that opinion, these persons must be acquitted; because, as I apprehend, two distinct conspiracies included in one count, both being different offences, cannot be permitted to be proved in a court of justice. Crimes must be kept separate; persons must know what the charge is, on which they are called upon to defend themselves, and miserable would be the situation of persons charged with the commission of crimes, if one crime was connected with another totally distinct and separate from it, and both were brought under one and the same charge, to unite in the same defence.

Gentlemen, I have stated to you, that the gentlemen for whom I appear are in a very humble situation in life. Mr. Holloway is a wine merchant, Mr. Lyte was formerly an officer in a militia regiment, Mr. Sandom is a private gentleman of small fortune;--they are none of them, by their situation in life, apparently likely to be connected with any of the other defendants upon the record. What is there that should lead you to believe they are so? Mr. Holloway and Mr. Lyte stand under a sufficient load of guilt already; they have admitted themselves guilty of what they did on that day. Will you, therefore, because they admitted themselves guilty of one part of the day's infamy, put upon them the infamy of the whole? Will you do this, because the two plots happen to take place on the same day? Can you not, in your recollection, find, in former times, the same sort of coincidence? Do we not know that such things have happened; that plots of a similar description, carried on by different parties, but having the same end, have taken place on the same day? Have there not been much more curious coincidences than chaises driving to the same point of destination, and the persons in the carriages leaving them there? Have juries ever been satisfied that such coincidences should lead to proving a connection with plots in other respects dissimilar?

Gentlemen, it is upon these grounds, therefore, I submit to you, these three defendants are not guilty of the offence charged upon this record. I shall trouble you with no witnesses;--there is nothing for me to repel. If I am right in my notion of the law;--if I am right in the persuasion that you can see nothing in the evidence connecting the two plots together;--and if my opinion of the law is sanctioned by my Lord, when he shall address himself to you, there is nothing I have to answer for. It is out of my power to prove, by any evidence, that these three persons were not connected with any of the other defendants upon the record; such a negative as that I can never establish, and therefore I can have no proofs.

Gentlemen, such is the situation in which the three gentlemen for whom I appear stand. I have expressed my sentiments upon the subject as shortly as I could. It is undoubtedly a great misfortune to my learned friends, as well as myself, that we should have been called upon to make our defences, when both you and we are so much exhausted.

There is but one other circumstance for me to mention, it is but a slight one;--the person who came up from Dover appears to have paid all his post-chaise drivers in foreign coin; there is no pretence for saying that any thing was paid by my clients but in Bank of England notes; there is nothing in that respect, therefore, connecting these two parties together; and if they are not connected together, I trust you will find Mr. Holloway, Mr. Sandom, and Mr. Lyte, not guilty of this charge.

_Lord Ellenborough._ Gentlemen of the Jury; It appears to me this would be the most convenient time for dividing the cause, as the evidence will occupy considerable time, probably. I cannot expect your attendance before ten o'clock.

_It being now three o'clock on Thursday morning, the Court adjourned to ten o'clock._

Court of King's Bench, Guildhall.

_Thursday, 9 June 1814._

The Court met, pursuant to Adjournment.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

_Mr. Brougham:_--We will first read the letters which were proved yesterday?

_Lord Ellenborough:_--These are read to contradict Le Marchant?