Volume 2 — CHAP. XXXIX.

ADMIRALTY INFLUENCE AGAINST ME.—APPOINTMENT OF MR. LAVIE AS PROSECUTOR.—THE TRIAL.—CRANE, THE HACKNEY COACHMAN.—INDECISION OF HIS EVIDENCE.—LORD ELLENBOROUGH’S CHARGE, AND UNJUSTIFIABLE ASSUMPTIONS.—REPORT OF THE TRIAL FALSIFIED; OR, RATHER, MADE UP FOR THE OCCASION.—EVIDENCE, HOW GOT UP.UP.—PROVED TO BE POSITIVE PERJURY.—THIS CONFIRMED BY SUBSEQUENT AFFIDAVITS OF RESPECTABLE TRADESMEN.—ANOTHER CHARGE IN STORE FOR ME, HAD NOT THIS SUCCEEDED.—THE CHIEF WITNESS’S CONVICTION.—HIS SUBSEQUENT TRANSPORTATION AND LIBERATION.—AFFIDAVITS OF MY SERVANTS, THOMAS DEWMAN, MARY TURPIN, AND SARAH BUST.—MY SECOND AFFIDAVIT.—APPEAL FROM MY CONVICTION REFUSED.—EXPULSION FROM THE HOUSE.—MINORITY IN MY FAVOUR.

Had I been aware of a very curious coincidence connected with the trial which followed, my confidence, arising from consciousness of innocence, would have vanished in an instant; so that instead of indifference about the result, I should have seen the necessity of meeting every accusation with the most deliberate caution, supporting the same by every attainable evidence, in place of no evidence at all.

The fact alluded to is this—that the same Mr. Lavie who had displayed so much tact on Lord Gambier’s court-martial was selected as solicitor to the prosecution in the present case, to the exclusion of the appointed solicitor to the Committee of the Stock Exchange! The fact was significant, as affording additional suspicion 345that an influence other and higher than that of the Committee was at work.

As in various publications connected with Lord Gambier’s trial I had spoken very freely of Mr. Lavie as regarded the fabricated charts, exposed at the commencement of this volume, there could be no doubt of his not unreasonable personal animosity towards myself. But when, after the trial, I became for the first time aware that he had been employed to conduct it, the enigma was solved as to how I, from having voluntarily given the only information upon which the case could have originated at all, came to be mixed up in one common accusation with a number of persons, of most of whose very names I had never before heard.

More than this, it then became but too apparent that from the selection of Mr. Lavie as prosecuting attorney, I was not so much the subject of a Stock Exchange prosecution as of the political vindictiveness of which I have spoken, and which had gone out of the usual course to secure his services. That there was collusion between a high official at the Admiralty and the Committee of the Stock Exchange on this point, I do not hesitate for one moment to assert; nor do I think, from previous revelations in this work, that many of my readers will be inclined to differ with me.

I will not, however, dwell upon this matter. Whoever selected Mr. Lavie had a perfect right so to do, as Mr. Lavie had to accept the conduct of the case; the result of which is attributable to my being so satisfied of my own innocence as to decide that an accusation which so little concerned me ought not to take 346me from the more important duties in which I was employed. Had I been aware at the time of Mr. Lavie’s appointment, I should have known its meaning, and prepared accordingly.

The principal circumstance which was held to have implicated me in the hoax practised on the Stock Exchange was this:—That (as gathered from my own voluntary information) De Berenger came to my house on the 21st February; but that instead of being dressed in a green uniform, as set forth in my affidavit, he was in scarlet uniform, that being the alleged costume in which he had disseminated the false intelligence at Dover. If this point could be proved, it was inferred that I must have had a motive in wrongly describing the uniform in my affidavit, and that motive could be none other than my own knowledge of the hoax which had been perpetrated. How this inference was arrived at will appear in the sequel.

The main question relied on by the prosecution related to the colour of De Berenger’s coat, whether scarlet or green: the point held by the Court being, that if scarlet, I must have made a false declaration in my affidavit as to its colour, and therefore must have at least known how De Berenger had been engaged. A non sequitur truly, but nevertheless the one relied on for my conviction as one of the conspirators.

The evidence was this—that when De Berenger arrived from Dover at the Marsh Gate, Lambeth, he exchanged the post-chaise in which he had been travelling for a hackney coach, in which he drove to my house,—which was true enough. The waterman on the 347stand was called as the first link in the chain; but as he said “he did not see that he could recollect De Berenger, having only seen him for half a minute,” (Report, p. 120,) this evidence is not worth commenting on, unless to remark that, failing to recognise De Berenger in court, the extraordinary course was taken of pointing him out, and then asking the witness if “he thought he was like the man who got into the coach?” The reply was “he thought he was, but he only saw him for half a minute.”—(Ibid.)

The next witness brought forward was a man named Crane—the hackney coachman who drove De Berenger. In his examination, Crane did not say a word about the colour of De Berenger’s coat, but in his cross-examination swore that he had on a “red coat underneath his great coat” (Report, p. 124). At the same time he stated that De Berenger had with him “a portmanteau big enough to wrap a coat in.” Other witnesses proved that he had drawn down the sun blinds in the vehicle, so that he had abundant opportunity to exchange his red coat in which he appeared at Dover, for the green sharpshooter’s uniform, and this no doubt he had done. The person of whom the red uniform had been purchased also deposed, that he had carried it away from his shop in a portmanteau, so that there was no doubt of the capacity of the latter to contain the coat. In short, he left London in the uniform of the rifles, and put on the scarlet uniform at Dover, to assume the pretended rank of a staff officer. On his return to London he in like manner, no doubt, changed his uniform by the way.

348It has been shown that the waterman who opened the coach-door for De Berenger refused to identify him, but swore that the person alluded to had a red coat beneath his military coat. It is also remarkable that the hackney coachman, Crane, could not be got to identify him, though, like the waterman, he swore to the red coat. The subjoined is Crane’s evidence on the subject:—

Mr. Adolphus.—“Have you seen that person since that you drove that morning?”

Crane.—“Yes; I saw him in King Street, Westminster.” (At the messenger’s house, where Crane was taken by Mr. Lavie for the purpose of being identified by this witness.)

Mr. Adolphus.—“Do you see him in court?”

Crane.—“I think this is the gentleman here.”

Mr. Adolphus.—“Were you of the same opinion when you saw him in King Street?”

Crane.—“When I came down stairs he looked very hard at me.”

Mr. Adolphus.—“Did you know him then?”

Crane.—“Yes: it was something of the same appearance, but he had altered himself very much by his dress.”

Mr. Richardson.—“He was pointed out there as being the person in custody?”

Crane.—“No: I walked down stairs, and met the gentleman coming up stairs.”

Mr. Richardson.—“You thought you saw a resemblance?”

Crane.—“Yes, I thought he was something like the same gentleman that I had carried.”

Mr. Richardson.—“You do not pretend to recollect every person you carry in your hackney coach every day?”

Crane.—“No, but this gentleman that I took from a post chaise and four: when he got out at Green Street, I saw that he had a red coat underneath his great coat.”

349Thus, neither the waterman nor the hackney coachman would swear to the man, but to a red coat only. I have no hesitation in saying, that in a court of justice in the present day no weight whatever would have been attached to such evidence. I will, however, assume that the evidence was such as to carry weight, and that it was in every respect unexceptionable, because I shall shortly come to the reason why they swore to the coat, but not to the man who wore it.

The case against me then stood thus. One witness (the waterman), but no more, swore to the under coat of a person whom he had seen step from one vehicle into another; and one witness, but no more (the hackney coachman) swore to the person whom he brought to my house, as having on a red coat beneath his military coat, but would not swear positively to the wearer. It was, however, to support this extraordinary evidence that my voluntary declaration in my affidavit, of lending De Berenger an old hat and coat, because he alleged that he could not return to his lodgings in the King’s Bench in uniform, without exciting suspicion of his absence from the rules, and thus endangering his securities—was charged against me as involving confederacy.

On the evidence here adduced—and there was not a tittle beyond it, on the subject of the coat—the point was held by Lord Ellenborough to be established that De Berenger stripped off the red coat in my house! and as it was afterwards found in the river, his lordship charged the jury in a way which bore the construction of my having been also a participator in 350that act, though there was not a particle of evidence on the trial which could give even the shadow of such a conclusion, nor was there even a pretence on the part of the prosecution that such was the case. His Lordship’s address to the jury on this head is amongst the most remarkable that ever fell from the lips of an English judge.

“Now, gentlemen, he (De Berenger) is brought to the house of Lord Cochrane; further evidence afterwards arises upon the subject of his being there. We will at present follow the dress to its conclusion. George Odell, a fisherman, says, ‘In the month of March, just above Old Swan Stairs, off against the Iron Wharfs, when I was dredging for coals, I picked up a bundle which was tied with either a piece of chimney line or window line in the cover of a chair bottom; there were two slips of a coat, embroidery, a star, and a piece of silver, with two figures upon it; it had been sunk with three pieces of lead and some bits of coal; I gave that which I found to Mr. Wade, the Secretary of the Stock Exchange; it was picked up on the Wednesday, and carried there on the Saturday. I picked this up on the 24th of March.’ 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 been 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.”—(Report, p. 478.)

That this unwarrantable assumption, based on no evidence whatever, of De Berenger’s stripping off his clothes at my house, could have anything to do with a coat found in the river, was positively absurd, and was not supported by a particle of evidence. Besides 351which, I had some reputation for shrewdness, and should not have been likely to tie up the coat “in an old chair cover, with three pieces of lead and some lumps of coal!” when the winter’s fire in my grate would in five minutes have destroyed the coat and its evidence together, had it been “stripped off” in my house, or had I been a party to its destruction. The position in which the coat was found, showed where it came from, viz. from the Southwark side of the river, where De Berenger’s lodgings were.

The Judge thus proceeded:—

“De Berenger must have had that dress with him, whatever it was in which he had come in the coach, and it does not appear that he had any means of shifting himself. If he had on an aide-de-camp’s uniform with a star, and so presented himself to Lord C., how could Lord C. reconcile it to the duties he owed to society, to government, and to his character as a gentleman, to give him the means of exchanging it? It must be put on for some dishonest purpose.

“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 been 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 coat, and with that red coat and aide-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 sharpshooter. This seems wholly inconsistent with the conduct of an innocent and honest man; for if he appeared in such an habit, he must 352have appeared to any rational person fully blazoned in the costume of that or some other crime.” (Report, pp. 484, 485, 486.)

The preceding quotations from his Lordship’s address to the jury are taken from the “revised” report of the trial. They will appear still more extraordinary as quoted from the report of the Times newspaper, taken verbatim at the time. Of this no one acquainted even with ordinary newspaper reports will doubt the accuracy, and after having perused it, there will be as little doubt but that the “revised” report was subsequently altered from what really occurred in Court.

The subjoined is the Times report of the Judge’s speech:—

“Having hunted down the game, the prosecutors showed what became of his skin, and it was a very material fact that the defendant De Berenger stripped himself at Lord Cochrane’s. He pulled his scarlet uniform off there, and if the circumstance of its not being green did not excite Lord Cochrane’s suspicion, what did he think of the star and medal? It became him on discovering these, as an officer and a gentleman, to communicate his suspicions of these circumstances. Did he not ask De Berenger where he had been in this masquerade dress? It was for the jury to say whether Lord Cochrane did not know where he had been. This was not the dress of a sharpshooter, but of a mountebank. He came before Lord Cochrane fully blazoned in the costume of his crime!!”

The reader will not fail to perceive that in the Times verbatim report, which is no doubt correct, the Court in every sentence affirms my positive guilt. In the “revised” report, his Lordship is made to go throughout on the hypothetical “if,” whilst in the revised report 353of the trial,—which revised report, I affirm, was made up for the occasion,—I am represented to have been treated with all proper fairness! Every evil which followed afterwards was inflicted on the strength of this revised report, and not on the actual transactions at the trial, as reported in the daily papers.

This “revised” report was, indeed, a very serious matter for me. From the reports in the daily papers, which were unquestionably accurate, the public mind was in a state of great ferment at the unfairness of the trial as regarded myself, and therefore the prosecution got up the “revised” report. On its appearance, the Attorney-General said in the House of Commons (July 20th) “He was glad the period had arrived when the trial could be read at length, and thus do away the effect of those imperfect statements (the reports of the daily papers) which misled the public mind.” The Solicitor-General, on the same date, went farther, and accused me of having in my defence misrepresented and misquoted the Judge, because I had quoted the reports of the daily papers, not having in fact any other to quote. On the testimony of that “revised” report further investigation was declined by the Admiralty, and I was dismissed from the naval service.

On the strength of Crane’s evidence, the Court had held that “De Berenger appeared before me blazoned in the costume of his crime—that he pulled off his scarlet uniform in my presence—and that, if the circumstance of its not being green did not excite my suspicion, what did I think of the star and medal?” It is certain, that, even in the “revised” report of the trial, 354these unqualified assertions, which, put as they were to the jury, were sufficient for my conviction, are not supported by one particle of evidence!!

But more has yet to be said of Crane’s evidence, which led to these expressions on the part of the Judge. It will admit of little doubt that a man who would swear to the colour of a coat, and would not swear positively (by the “revised” report) to the identity of the person who wore it, must have had cogent reasons for a course so extraordinary.

I will now adduce those reasons:—

It has been stated, that, conscious of my innocence, I took no personal steps for my defence, beyond forwarding a general statement of a few lines to my solicitors (see Appendix), that I never even read the completed brief which they drew up for the guidance of my counsel, nor was I present in court to suggest questions in cross-examination. After my conviction, however, it became necessary to seek additional evidence to support an appeal from the conviction, or an application for a new trial as against myself.

Lord Ellenborough refused the application, because all the persons tried were not present to concur in it, though the law gave me no power to compel their attendance. The evidence on which it was grounded, however, is none the less conclusive because Lord Ellenborough and his colleagues declined to receive it, or even to hear it!! but in place of so doing, at once delivered their outrageous sentence against me.

This appeal was grounded on the evidence of several respectable tradesmen, residing in the neighbourhood 355of Crane, the hackney coachman, they voluntarily and unsolicited by me, but as an act of public justice, going before the Lord Mayor, and making the affidavits from which the subjoined extracts are taken. Not one of these tradesmen was even known to me or my solicitors:—

James Miller, butcher, of Marsh Gate, Lambeth, made affidavit that he saw De Berenger “get out of the chaise into a hackney coach—that he was dressed in green, with a grey great coat, and that there was no red on any part of his dress.”

Joseph Raiment, fishmonger, Westminster Bridge Road, made affidavit that he saw De Berenger “get out of the chaise into the hackney coach—that his great coat was partly open, and that the under dress was dark green, like that of the sharpshooters.”

Charles King, stable-keeper, Westminster Bridge Road, made affidavit that he met William Crane accidentally, and asked him what he had been doing with Sayer?^[97] He answered, that “he had been to see De Berenger, in order to identify him, but he could not swear to him, as many faces were alike.” But he said, using a protestation in the most horrible language, too gross to repeat—“he would have a hackney coach out of them,” meaning, as deponent believed, the prosecutors. During this conversation, a person passed dressed in a grey great coat, which Crane said was just like De Berenger’s, and that he (Crane) did not see De Berenger’s under-dress, as his coat was closely buttoned up.

“Deponent further saith, that after the trial he saw Crane’s father, who told him that ‘he was going after the money’ (meaning the reward), adding that ‘his son was considered a first-rate witness!’ On this deponent asked Crane the elder ‘how he could consider his son in that light, as he knew very well that had he (deponent) been examined, he must have 356beat him out of Court.’ To this Crane’s father replied, ‘that if he had appeared, there was the place where the clothes were bought, and the post-boy.’ On deponent being severe in his remarks, the father said, ‘I don’t know what they did with the boy, they had him two days locked up in the police officer’s house, that he might not be tampered with.’^[98] Deponent asked him if there had been any advances by the opposite party. He said, ‘None.’

“Deponent further saith, that he has seen William Crane since the trial, and on deponent accusing him of going too far with his evidence, he said, ‘he would swear black was white, or anything else, if he was paid for it!’

“Deponent further saith, that before the trial, the said William Crane’s coach and horses were of a most miserable description, but that since the trial he has purchased a hackney coach and horses of the best description!

“Deponent further saith, that the said William Crane’s general character is most infamous, and his mode of expressing himself so obscene and blasphemous as to preclude deponent from stating the exact words made use of by the said William Crane. This deponent further saith, that Mr. Keir, and the groom of Colonel Taylor, were present when Crane said that ‘he would swear black was white, or anything else, if he was well paid for it.’”

Richard Baldwin, servant to Mr. Keir, made affidavit “that, on the 2nd of July, he was present at a conversation between Charles King and William Crane, when he heard Crane, in reply to King, who had accused him of having gone too far in his evidence, say that ‘he would be damned if he would not swear black was white, or anything else, if any one would pay him for it.’”

Thomas Critchfield, Westminster Bridge Road, coach-maker, made affidavit “that he knew William Crane, and that he heard him say, previously to the said trial, when 357speaking of his father, that ‘he did not care a damn for his father, that he was twenty-one years of age, and should soon have more money than ever his father had.’

“Deponent further said that since the trial the said William Crane has been enabled to purchase a very good hackney coach, with horses and harness, though previous to the trial his coach and horses were of the most miserable description. Deponent lastly saith, that the said William Crane is a man of the most infamous character, and this deponent positively declares that he would not believe him on his oath.”

James Yeowell, of Silver Street, Falcon Square, ticket porter, made affidavit “that a few days after the 21st of February, William Crane told him that the person whom he took from a post-chaise and four at the Marsh Gate, was no other than Lord Cochrane himself! that he knew Lord Cochrane as well as he knew him (deponent). That he had driven Lord Cochrane from the Opera House, and other places of amusement twenty times, and described Lord Cochrane as a tall man, with a long face and red whiskers.

“Deponent further saith, that after the trial he (deponent) accused the said William Crane of perjury, in having sworn to De Berenger as the man taken up by him at the Marsh Gate, whereas he had previously declared before the Stock Exchange Committee that Lord Cochrane was the person! Whereupon Crane refused to converse with him further on the subject.

“This deponent further saith, that having on the same day again met William Crane, he inquired if he had received the reward offered by the Stock Exchange Committee, when he, the said William Crane, admitted that he had received a part, and expected more.”

James Lovemore, of Clement’s Lane, made affidavit “that he heard the said James Yeowell interrogate William Crane as to the person of Lord Cochrane, and that Crane said he knew Lord Cochrane as well as he did him (Yeowell), and that he had driven Lord Cochrane from the Opera House 358and other places of amusement, twenty times, and Crane further declared that it was Lord Cochrane whom he drove from the post-chaise and four at the Marsh Gate, Lambeth, and described his Lordship as a tall man with a long face and red whiskers.”

Such was a portion only of the facts which I was prepared with in my appeal to Lord Ellenborough and his colleagues. But, as before said, the same judge refused to listen to the appeal, not on the ground of my having no evidence to rebut the perjury of Crane, but because all the persons convicted were not present in Court to join in the appeal. It was the rule of Court, which I had no power to alter, though, as has been seen in a recent chapter, Lord Campbell, in his “Lives of the Chief Justices,” states, that such a case had only been ruled once, and that in this case it ought to have been overruled.

In the two affidavits last adduced there is abundant proof that if the resource of the red coat had not been adopted, Crane was prepared to swear that it was I whom he had driven from the Marsh Gate to my own house! the conclusion being that I was the pretended De Berenger. Crane evidently knew my personal appearance, as did most persons in London, and said, further, that he knew me from having driven me twenty times to the Opera; the fact being that I was never at the Opera but twice in my life, and once in the vestibule, when I was refused admittance from not being in full evening dress, the deficiency consisting in wearing white pantaloons on a very hot day.

It should be remembered, that Crane stated this 359before the Committee of the Stock Exchange soon after the 21st of February, i. e., before I had given the clue to De Berenger in my affidavit as the person who visited my house on the morning of that day. After I had thus disclosed the name of De Berenger, the project of proving by the perjury of Crane that I was the pretended Du Bourg, was given up by the prosecution,—from the dissimilarity of his personal appearance to mine; and then—but not till then—was the equally atrocious perjury of the red coat resorted to.

Upon the evidence of such a man as Crane was I convicted, and refused an appeal from the conviction, or a new trial because the defendants to the indictment were not all in Court!! It was “a rule of Court,” which, as Lord Campbell says, ought to have been in my case overruled, but Lord Ellenborough refused to hear a word of the abundant evidence then in my hand and available for my exculpation. Crane’s evidence that De Berenger had on a red coat, was relied on, but the far more reliable evidence that the coat was “green,” as I had stated, was repudiated. Crane had boasted that “he would swear black was white, if well paid for it”—and I held in my hand the most reliable evidence that from the money he had been paid for his perjury, he had bought “a new coach, horses, and harness.” None of these circumstances were allowed to be received in Court, or even listened to, because all the persons included in the indictment were not present, though, as Lord Campbell has well said, the rule of Court in my case ought, under the peculiar circumstances, to have been overruled.

360A few more particulars relative to this convict, Crane,—for such was his subsequent fate,—are necessary to enable the reader to judge of my prosecution and those who selected this man as their chief witness.

Not long after the trial, the solicitor of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone wrote me to the following effect relative to a discovery made when too late as to Crane’s character:—

“This fellow has lately been prosecuted by Mr. Dawson, before the Commissioners of the Hackney Coach Office, for brutality and general misconduct. This offence was so flagrant that the severest punishment was inflicted, and at present he is under a long suspension. He is a worthless rascal, and if Mr. D. can do your Lordship any service, you have only to command it.”

Enclosed in the above communication was the following extract from the Times newspaper of May 25th, 1814:—

“On Friday last, William Crane, driver of the hackney coach No. 782, was summoned before the Commissioners on a charge of cruelty to his horses, and for abuse to a gentleman who noticed his conduct. The circumstances detailed were so shocking as to induce the Commissioners to observe that they never heard a more atrocious case. They would have inflicted a pecuniary penalty, but as it must necessarily be paid by his father, they ordered him instead to be suspended from driving any hackney coach for three months.”

The trial, which resulted in my conviction, on this very man’s evidence, took place on the 8th of June, 1814, only a fortnight after his conviction of the atrocity just quoted! so that at the moment of giving his evidence 361this man was himself under punishment for an offence pronounced by the Commissioners to be “so shocking that they never heard of a more atrocious case”!!! Had this information been available at the trial, the jury would have paid but small attention to Crane’s evidence.

Crane was convicted of stealing twenty sovereigns and other property under circumstances no less atrocious. He was sentenced to transportation for seven years, but at the expiration of three years received a free pardon from the Government on his own petition.

The subjoined certificate from the officials of Newgate, however, place his conviction and premature pardon by the Secretary of State in 1830 beyond doubt:—

“Office, Newgate, 23rd October, 1830.

“I do hereby certify that William Crane (aged 33) was committed to this gaol on the 17th of February, 1826, by J.C. Conant, Esq., for ‘stealing a box, a pair of scissors, and twenty sovereigns, the property and moneys of William Bucknall;’ tried before Mr. Sergeant Arabin on the 20th of February, convicted and sentenced to transportation for seven years, and that he was removed on the 23rd of March following, on board the Justitia hulk at Woolwich.”

Endorsement at the back of this certificate:—

“William Crane has been discharged from the hulks on petition to the Secretary of State, and is now again driving the coach No. 781, belonging to his father! Crane’s discharge took place Thursday before last.

“13th November, 1830.”

(No signature, but evidently a police memorandum.)

These facts will be sufficient to convince the reader 362of my innocence as regarded the evidence of Crane, the hackney coachman. Yet his evidence was laid before the jury as of the highest reliable kind, whilst the very facts relative to his character, even to his being under conviction whilst giving his evidence, Lord Ellenborough and his colleagues refused to hear, because all the parties convicted were not present in Court. It is scarcely possible to imagine greater injustice and folly, even in that day.

So little apparent danger was there of the possibility of my being declared implicated in this hoax, that even my solicitors had not taken the precaution of summoning my servants to give evidence as to the kind of dress worn by De Berenger; though during the period he remained in my house, previous to my arrival from the lamp-maker’s, where, on receiving his letter, I was busily engaged, and amidst the busy operations of packing my clothes, and other effects, to be sent on board the Tonnant, he had been seen by nearly all my servants, the selection of clothing being carried on in the very room in which he was waiting my return for nearly two hours.

On my appeal to the Court of King’s Bench, I provided myself with the following affidavits from such of my servants as had come in contact with De Berenger, whilst waiting at my house:—

“Thomas Dewman, servant to Lord Cochrane, maketh oath, and saith, that he, this deponent, has lived with branches of Lord Cochrane’s family for nearly twenty years; that he attended Lord Cochrane last year to take letters and go on errands, and that he has been in the habit of going 363to Mr. King’s manufactory almost every day; that this deponent was in Lord Cochrane’s house, in Green Street, Grosvenor Square, on the 21st day of February last, when an officer came in a hackney-coach, about ten o’clock in the morning; that this deponent opened the door and spoke to the officer in the coach, who asked if Lord Cochrane was at home; that this deponent replied he was not, upon which the officer asked the deponent, if he knew where Lord Cochrane was gone to, which deponent answered that he believed his Lordship was gone to breakfast with his uncle in Cumberland Street; that the officer then asked him if he could let him have a slip of paper and a pen and ink, which this deponent said he could; that this deponent then opened the coach door, and the officer came into the house, and went into the parlour, where this deponent gave him a small slip of paper, upon which he wrote a few lines by way of note, and desired this deponent to take the same to Lord Cochrane in Cumberland Street; that this deponent went immediately into Cumberland Street, but finding that Lord Cochrane was gone, he returned with the note to the officer in Green Street; that on his return the officer asked deponent if he knew where he could find him, that deponent then told the officer he had been ordered by Lord Cochrane to follow him to Mr. King’s manufactory with a glass globe, and thought it probable he might meet with his Lordship there, and if he did not, he would then go to the Admiralty, where he understood his Lordship was to go that day; that the officer then took back the note from this deponent, opened it, and wrote a line or two more, and then re-sealed it and gave it to deponent, requesting him to take it immediately to Mr. King’s manufactory, and that if he did not meet with Lord Cochrane there, he would take the note to the Admiralty, and if his Lordship had not been at the Admiralty, to leave it there; that on the officer’s requesting deponent to go to Mr. King’s manufactory, he told the deponent that his finding Lord Cochrane was of consequence, and therefore begged deponent to be as expeditious as he could, and, if necessary, 364to take a coach; that this deponent did not take a coach, but went instantly to Mr. King’s manufactory, where he met Lord Cochrane, and delivered him the note, which he opened in deponent’s presence; that upon opening the note, Lord Cochrane asked deponent several times if he knew who the gentleman was that had written it, and upon deponent’s informing him that he did not, Lord Cochrane made several inquiries as to his appearance and dress, observing that he could not make out the whole of the note, or who it came from; to this deponent answered, that he was an army officer; upon which Lord Cochrane having torn the note, threw it down, and then said, ‘Very well, Thomas, I’ll go back;’ that from Lord Cochrane’s manner and appearance, and the questions he put to deponent, on his delivering the note, this deponent verily believes that his Lordship did not know from whom it came. And this deponent further saith, that when the officer came into Green Street, as above stated, he was dressed in a great grey coat, such as the Guards wear, which was buttoned very close round the body up to the breast, and that such part of the under coat as he could see was of a dark-green colour; that upon the officer’s coming out of the coach into Lord Cochrane’s house, he brought with him a sword, and a small leather clothes-bag or portmanteau, which deponent believes might have held a change of clothes. That this deponent further saith, that he was hired by his Lordship at Christmas last to go into the country, and relieve Richard Carter, his Lordship’s sea-steward; that this deponent left London about the 25th day of February, and Richard Carter, the sea-steward, then came to town, for the purpose of accompanying Lord Cochrane to his ship.

“Thomas Dewman.

“Sworn in Court, June 14th,

“1814. By the Court.”

“Mary Turpin, cook-maid to Lord Cochrane, maketh oath and saith, that she went into his Lordship’s service on the 18th day of February last, and that she was in the house on 365the 21st day of February, when an officer came there, and that she was in the kitchen at the time the coach drove to the door; that she saw an officer alight from the coach and come into the house; that he arrived a little before nine o’clock; that this deponent went twice into the parlour while the officer was there, and doth most positively swear, that he wore a great grey coat, buttoned up, with a dark-green collar or facing under it. That the officer had with him a dark military cap with a gold band round it, and also a sword, and a small portmanteau.

“Mary Turpin.

“Sworn in Court, June 14th,

“1814. By the Court.”

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

“Sarah Bust.

“Sworn at my Chambers,

“June 13th, 1814. Before me,

“S. Le Blanc.”

To this I will append my second affidavit:—

“Sir Thomas Cochrane, commonly called Lord Cochrane, one of the above-named defendants, maketh oath and saith, that the several facts and circumstances stated in his affidavit, sworn on the 11th day of March last, before Mr. Graham the Magistrate, are true. And this deponent further saith, that in addition to the several facts and circumstances stated in his said affidavit, he deposeth as follows; that is to 366say: That he had not, directly or indirectly, any concern whatever in the formation, or any knowledge of the existence, of an intention to form the plot charged in the indictment, or any other scheme or design for affecting the public funds. That the sale of the pretended omnium, on the 21st day of February, was made in pursuance of orders given to his broker at the time of the purchase thereof, on or about the 14th of that month, to sell the same whenever a profit of one per cent. could be realised: and that those directions were given, and the sale thereof took place, without any knowledge, information, hint, or surmise, on the part of this deponent, of any concern or attempt whatever, to alter the price of the funds; and the said sale on the 21st took place entirely without this deponent’s knowledge. That when this deponent returned home from Mr. King’s manufactory on the 21st of February, which he did directly after the receipt of a note, he fully expected to have met an officer from abroad, with intelligence of his brother, who had, by letter to this deponent, received on the Friday before, communicated his being confined to his bed, and severely afflicted by a dangerous illness, and about whom this deponent was extremely anxious; but this deponent found Capt. De Berenger at his house, in a grey great coat, and a green jacket. That this deponent never saw the defendants Ralph Sandom, Alex. M’Rae, John Peter Holloway, and Henry Lyte, or any or either of them, nor ever had any communication or correspondence with them, or any or either of them, directly or indirectly. That this deponent, in pursuance of directions from the Admiralty, proceeded to Chatham, to join His Majesty’s ship the Tonnant, to which he had been appointed on the 8th day of February last. That the ship was then lying at Chatham. That, previous to the 8th day of February, this deponent applied to the Admiralty for leave of absence, which was refused, until this deponent had joined the said ship, and had removed her down to Long Reach; that this deponent, in pursuance of those directions, removed the said ship from Chatham to Long Reach, and after that was done, 367viz. on Saturday the 12th day of the said month, this deponent wrote to the Admiralty to apply for leave of absence for a fortnight, for the purpose of lodging a specification for a patent, as had been previously communicated by this deponent to their Lordships; that leave of absence was accordingly granted for fourteen days, commencing on the 14th of the said month; that this deponent was engaged in London, expecting the said specification, till the 28th of the said month, when the said specification was completed, and this deponent left town about one o’clock on the morning of the 1st of March, and arrived at Chatham about daylight on the same morning: that on the 8th or 9th of the same month of March, this deponent received an intimation that placards were posted in several of the streets, stating that a pretended Colonel De Bourg had gone to this deponent’s house in Green Street; that at the time this deponent received this intimation, he was on board the said ship at Long Reach, and in consequence went to Admiral Surridge, the Port Admiral at Chatham, to obtain leave of absence, which was granted; previous to the receipt of the leave forwarded by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, this deponent arrived in London, on the 10th of that month, to the best of his belief; and that after his trial, he himself, conscious of his own innocence, and fearing no consequences from a development of his own conduct, and desiring only to rescue his character from erroneous impressions, made by misrepresentations in the public prints, he, without any communication whatever with any other person, and without any assistance, on the impulse of the moment, prepared the before-mentioned affidavit, which he swore before Mr. Graham, the Magistrate, on the 11th; that at the time he made such affidavit, he had not seen or heard the contents of the Report published by the Committee of the Stock Exchange, except partial extracts in the newspapers; that when the deponent understood that the prosecution was to be instituted against him, he wrote to Admiral Fleming, in whose service Isaac Davis, formerly this deponent’s servant, then was, under 368cover to Admiral Bickerton, at Portsmouth, and that Admiral Bickerton returned the letter, saying that Admiral Fleming had sailed for Gibraltar; that this deponent sent his servants, Thomas Dewman, Sarah Bust, and Mary Turpin, on the trial of his indictment, to prove that an officer came to this deponent’s house on the morning of the said 21st of February, and to prove the dress that he came in; but that the said Thomas Dewman only was called, and, as this deponent has been informed, he was not interrogated as to the dress in which the said officer came to his house; and this deponent further saith, that had the said witnesses been examined according to the directions of this deponent, and who were in attendance on the Court for that express purpose, they would, as he verily believes, have removed every unfavourable conclusion respecting this deponent’s conduct, drawn from the supposed dress in which the said De Berenger appeared before the deponent on the 21st of February, and on which circumstances much stress was laid in the charge to the jury, the said De Berenger’s dress being exactly as stated in this said deponent’s former affidavit hereinbefore mentioned: and this deponent solemnly and positively denies, that he ever saw the said De Berenger in a scarlet uniform, decorated by medals, or other insignia; and he had not the least suspicion of the said De Berenger being engaged in any plot respecting the funds, but merely believed he wished, for the reasons stated in deponent’s former affidavit, to go on board this deponent’s ship, with a view to obtain some military employment in America; and this deponent declined complying with his request to send him on board his ship without permission, or an order from the Admiralty: and this deponent further saith, that he was in no degree intimate with the said De Berenger; that he had no personal knowledge of his private or public character; that he never asked the said De Berenger to his house, nor did he ever breakfast or dine with this deponent therein, on any occasion whatsoever; and further, this deponent saith, that he had been informed, and verily believes, that the jury 369who tried the said indictment, and the counsel for the defence, were so completely exhausted and worn out by extreme fatigue, owing to the Court having continued the trial without intermission for many hours beyond that time which nature is capable of sustaining herself without refection and repose, that justice could not be done to this deponent.”

“Cochrane.

“Sworn in Court, June 14, 1814.

By the Court.”

With such documents in my hand I was refused a new trial, for reasons hereafter to be adduced. Of the vindictiveness with which I was pursued, there can be no better proof than that the other parties convicted on clear evidence were let off with imprisonment and half the fine inflicted on myself and Mr. Butt; whilst we, who had nothing to do with the matter, were fined 1,000l. and in addition sentenced to the barbarous punishment of the pillory. I advisedly say “we,” for I will here put on record my conscientious belief that Mr. Butt had no more to do with the hoax than myself. I give this testimony to the memory of a truly excellent man, whose misfortune it was to have become the dupe of others, without the least hope of benefit to himself.

It is impossible in an autobiography like the present to go into the entire case seriatim, as it would be easy to bring forward other proofs as clear as those now adduced. The evidence of Crane was, however, the important point. I have now laid before the reader the documents which the Court of King’s Bench declined to entertain, and have no doubt as to what his decision 370must be. Whether was it the more probable, that a man in my position, with nothing to gain by it, should, in order to commit a fraud, conspire with several other persons of whose names he had never before heard, and then swear that I did not commit it—or, that such a man as Crane, at the moment of giving his evidence, himself under conviction and sentence for a heinous offence, should swear falsely to the colour of a coat for a pecuniary reward? I, to whom the public voice, and the rewards of my sovereign, had elevated to an honourable rank in my profession, or a hackney coachman, under conviction at the moment of giving his evidence, and known in his own line of life to have been the most depraved of one of the most depraved classes of society?

My conviction was followed by expulsion from the House of Commons, and was voted by a majority of 140 to 44. But that in a House like the one with which the reader is now well acquainted, forty-four independent gentlemen should be found to believe in my innocence, in the teeth of the ministers of the day, of whom Lord Ellenborough was one, the same ministryministry being, as personified in Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Croker, is perhaps as good proof of innocence as could be desired,—certainly as great as could be expected.

It is with no small pride that I publish the names of the minority. There are those amongst them whose testimony will weigh with posterity:—

371“LIST OF THE MINORITY

WHO VOTED AGAINST THE EXPULSION OF LORD COCHRANE.

Allan, G.

Atherley, A.

Barham, S.

Bennet, Hon. H.

Brand, Hon. T.

Brown, D.

Brydges, Sir E.

Burdett, Sir F.

Burrel, Hon. P.

Butterworth, Jos.

Challoner, R.

Ebrington, Visc.

Flood, Sir F.

Gaskell, B.

Grant, Ch., sen.

Grant, J.P.

Hughes, W.

Lambton, J.

Lloyd, H.

Macginnis, —

Maddox, Wm.

Martin, J.

Mildmay, Sir H.

Mills, Rt.

Montgomery, Sir H.

Moore, P.

Newman, Rt.

Nugent, Lord.

Ossulston, Lord.

Ponsonby, Rt. Hon. G.

Power, R.

Rancliff, Lord.

Rashleigh, Wm.

Richards, Rt.

Ridley, Sir M.

Russell, Lord Wm.

Simpson, G.

Smith, W.

Tavistock, Marq. of

Western, C.

Whitbread, S.

Williams, Sir R.

Wortley, J.

TELLERS.

Lord A. Hamilton.

A. Brown.”

372