Volume 2 — CHAP. XXXVIII. THE STOCK EXCHANGE TRIAL.

NECESSITY FOR ENTERING ON THE SUBJECT.—LORD CAMPBELL’S OPINION RESPECTING IT.—LORD BROUGHAM’S OPINION.—HIS LATE MAJESTY’S.—MY RESTORATION TO RANK.—REFUSAL TO REINVESTIGATE MY CASE.—THE REASONS GIVEN.—EXTRACT FROM LORD BROUGHAM’S WORKS.—MY FIRST KNOWLEDGE OF DE BERENGER.—HOW BROUGHT ABOUT.—THE STOCK EXCHANGE HOAX.—RUMOURS IMPLICATING ME IN IT.—I RETURN TO TOWN IN CONSEQUENCE.—MY AFFIDAVIT.—ITS NATURE.—IMPROBABILITY OF MY CONFEDERACY.—MY CARELESSNESS OF THE MATTER.—DE BERENGER’S DENIAL OF MY PARTICIPATION.—REMARKS THEREON.—SIGNIFICANT FACTS.—REMARKS ON THE ALLEGED HOAX COMMON ON THE STOCK EXCHANGE.

I now approach a period of my life in which occurred circumstances beyond all others painful to the feelings of an honourable man. Neglect I was accustomed to. Despite my efforts to rise superior to the jealousies of others, it has followed me through life. Exclusion from professional activity at a period when opportunity for distinction lay before me, was hard to bear; but I had the consolation of exerting myself ashore for the benefit of the noble service, in the active duties of which I was not permitted to participate. But when an alleged offence was laid to my charge in 1814, in which, on the honour of a man now on the brink of the grave, I had not the slightest participation, and from which I never benefited, nor thought to benefit 318one farthing, and when this allegation was, by political, rancour and legal chicanery, consummated in an unmerited conviction and an outrageous sentence, my heart for the first time sank within me, as conscious of a blow, the effect of which it has required all my energies to sustain. It has been said that truth comes sooner or later. But it seldom comes before the mind, passing from agony to contempt, has grown callous to man’s judgment. To this principle, I am thankful to say, I have never subscribed, but have to this hour remained firm in the hope and confidence that by the mercy of God I shall not die till full and ample justice of my fellow-men has been freely rendered me.

It may be thought that after the restoration to rank and honours by my late and present Sovereigns—after promotion to the command of a fleet when I had no enemy to confront—and after enjoyment of the sympathy and friendship of those whom the nation delights to honour,—I might safely pass over that day of deep humiliation. Not so. It is true that I have received those marks of my Sovereign’s favour, and it is true that from that day to the present I have enjoyed the uninterrupted friendship of those who were then convinced, and are still convinced of my innocence; but that unjust public sentence has never been publicly reversed, nor the equally unjust fine inflicted on me remitted; so that if I would, it is not in my power to remain silent and be just to my posterity. The Government of my country has, though often invoked, refused to re-investigate my case, as impossible in form, and from fear of creating a precedent. Nevertheless, I 319will, repugnant as is the subject, re-state the facts, and, posterity being my judge, have no fear as to the verdict. The coronet of my ancestors, and the honour of my family, which will, in the course of nature ere long be committed to the keeping of a devoted and sensitively honourable son, demand no less at my hands.

It must not, however, be imagined that the recital of leading facts, is for the first time adopted in pursuance of the dictates of family duty and affection. Neither would it have been possible to write my autobiography without entering on this most important and painful portion of my life, because such an omission would be fatal to my reputation, as it might be construed into an admission of my culpability.

At a period before the experience of the present generation, the circumstances about to be recorded were over and over again submitted to public judgment, but at a time when the rod of justice was suspended in terrorem over the public press, which did not venture openly to espouse my cause on its own merits. Yet even then my efforts were not in vain. The press, instead of being, as in those days it was, the organ of ill-concealed public dissatisfaction, has now become the exponent of the public voice; which, through its medium, is heard and felt throughout the length and breadth of the land. Though approaching the subject with distaste, I do so with confidence that my unvarnished tale will not be told in vain.

For the more ready appreciation of the reader in the 320present day, as regards facts, the details of which the lapse of half a century has nearly obliterated, I may be permitted to introduce the subject by extracts from the works of two of the most learned and distinguished lawyers and statesmen of the age in which we live—two noblemen, of whose learning, of whose judgment and integrity it is unnecessary for me to say one word, because they are much above my praise, and therefore can receive no addition from it—viz. Lord Brougham, formerly our Lord High Chancellor, and Lord Campbell, the present Lard High Chancellor of England. I will take those of Lord Campbell first, because they embrace points into which Lord Brougham does not enter, and also because Lord Campbell, in addition to the dignity which he now adorns, for many years occupied the same high position as did Lord Ellenborough, when he presided at the trial to which the reader’s attention is now directed.

Lord Campbell, at page 218, vol. iii. in his valuable work, entitled “The Lives of the Chief-Justices of England,” says:—

“I have now only to mention some criminal cases which arose before Lord Ellenborough in later years. Of these, the most remarkable was Lord Cochrane’s, as this drew upon the Chief-Justice a considerable degree of public obloquy, and, causing very uneasy reflections in his own mind, was supposed to have hastened his end.”

“Lord Cochrane (since Earl of Dundonald) was one of the most gallant officers in the English navy, and had gained the most brilliant reputation in a succession of naval engagements against the French. Unfortunately for him, he likewise wished to distinguish himself in politics, and taking 321the Radical line, he was returned to Parliament for the city of Westminster. He was a determined opponent of Lord Liverpool’s Administration; and at popular meetings was in the habit of delivering harangues of rather a seditious aspect, which induced Lord Ellenborough to believe that he seriously meant to abet rebellion, and that he was a dangerous character. But the gallant officer was really a loyal subject, as well as enthusiastically zealous for the glory of his country. He had an uncle, named Cochrane, a merchant^[91], and a very unprincipled man, who, towards the end of the war, in concert with De Berenger, a foreigner, wickedly devised a scheme by which they were to make an immense fortune by a speculation on the Stock Exchange.”

“For this purpose they were to cause a sudden rise in the funds, by spreading false intelligence that a preliminary treaty of peace had actually been signed between England and France. Everything succeeded to their wishes; the intelligence was believed, the funds rose, and they sold on time bargains many hundred thousand pounds of 3 per cents. before the truth was discovered.”

“It so happened that Lord Cochrane was then in London, was living in his uncle’s house^[92], and was much in his company, but there is now good reason to believe that he was not at all implicated in the nefarious scheme. However, when the fraud was detected,—partly from a belief in his complicity, and partly from political spite,—he was included in the indictment preferred for the conspiracy to defraud the Stock Exchange.”

“The trial coming on before Lord Ellenborough, the noble and learned Judge, being himself persuaded of the guilt of all the defendants, used his best endeavours that they should all be convicted. He refused to adjourn the trial at the close of the prosecutor’s case, about nine in the 322evening, when the trial had lasted twelve hours, and the jury, as well as the defendants’ counsel, were all completely exhausted and all prayed for an adjournment. The following day, in summing up, prompted, no doubt, by the conclusion of his own mind, he laid special emphasis on every circumstance which might raise a suspicion against Lord Cochrane, and ELABORATELY EXPLAINED AWAY WHATEVER AT FIRST SIGHT MIGHT SEEM FAVOURABLE to the gallant officer. In consequence the jury found a verdict of Guilty against all the defendants.”

“Next term, Lord Cochrane presented himself in Court to move for a new trial, but the other defendants convicted along with him did not attend. He said truly that he had no power or influence to obtain their attendance, and urged that his application was founded on circumstances peculiar to his own case. But Lord Ellenborough would not hear him, because the other defendants were not present. Such a rule had before been laid down^[93], but it is palpably contrary to the first principles of justice, and ought immediately to have been reversed.”

“Lord Cochrane was thus deprived of all opportunity of showing that the verdict against him was wrong, and in addition to fine and imprisonment, he was sentenced to stand in the pillory.^[94] Although as yet he was generally believed to be guilty, the award of this degrading and infamous punishment upon a young nobleman, a member of the House of Commons, and a distinguished naval officer, raised universal sympathy in his favour. The judge was proportionably blamed, not only by the vulgar, but by men of education on 323both sides in politics, and he found upon entering society and appearing in the House of Lords that he was looked upon coldly.

“Having now some misgivings himself as to the propriety of his conduct in this affair, he became very wretched. Nor was the agitation allowed to drop during the remainder of Lord Ellenborough’s life, for Lord Cochrane being expelled the House of Commons, was immediately re-elected for Westminster. Having escaped from the prison in which he was confined under his sentence, he appeared in the House of Commons. In obedience to the public voice, the part of his sentence by which he was to stand in the pillory was remitted by the Crown, and a bill was introduced into Parliament altogether to abolish the pillory as a punishment, on account of the manner in which the power of inflicting it had been recently abused. It was said that these matters preyed deeply on Lord Ellenborough’s mind and affected his health. Thenceforth he certainly seemed to have lost the gaiety of heart for which he had been formerly remarkable.” (Lord Campbell’s “Lives of the Chief-Justices,” vol. iii. pp. 218, 219, 220.)

Such are the recorded opinions of one of the most learned and acute men of the age, one who now does honour to the judgment-seat of the highest tribunal of our country; and who, at the time those opinions were given to the world, held the scarcely less dignified position of Chief-Justice of England, sitting in the very court in which that cruel sentence—the unmerited cause of so much misery to me—was pronounced. From such an authority—as much judicial as historic—may the reader form his own conclusions.

It is with no less satisfaction that I add the opinions of another learned and highly gifted peer of the realm, 324who has also adorned the dignified office of Lord High Chancellor of England, viz. my friend Lord Brougham, to whose name, as the untiring advocate of everything nationally progressive and socially expansive, no testimony of mine could add weight.

In the year 1844, when I submitted to Her Majesty’s Government how incomplete I considered the restoration of my honours, I wrote to Lord Brougham, ever my constant and steadfast friend, to ask his opinion of the step I was taking. The subjoined was Lord Brougham’s reply:—

“Grafton Street, March 29th, 1844.

“My dear Lord D.—I think, upon the whole, the time is favourable.

“I have well considered the matter as of importance, and have read the papers through. I don’t think the best way of bringing the subject before the Duke is to send that correspondence, but rather to make a statement, and I authorise you distinctly to add to it these two important facts.

“First, that William IV. only objected to the Bath being restored at the same time with your rank, and not absolutely at all times.

“Secondly, that your counsel were clearly of opinion that the verdict as concerned you was erroneous, and I always concluded that you had sacrificed yourself out of delicacy to your uncle, the person really guilty.

“The restoring you to rank without your honours is too absurd and unfair. It means ‘we will take all we can get from you in service, and give you nothing.’

“Yours ever truly,

“H. Brougham.”

No one knew better than His late Majesty, King William the Fourth, the injustice under which I had laboured, and the causes of the political spite which had been directed against me. Before His Majesty 325came to the throne he warmly interested himself in my behalf, and intimated to Sir Francis Burdett, that if I were to memorialise the Government, he would use his influence to procure my restoration. This was accordingly done, but in vain, His Royal Highness’s influence then proving insufficient for the purpose, but not so after His Majesty’s accession to the throne.

The following extract of a letter from Sir Francis Burdett, coming shortly before my restoration to rank, will show the continued interest taken by His late Majesty and those near him to remove unmerited obloquy from a brother sailor, notwithstanding the failure of His Majesty’s previous effort when Duke of Clarence. The same intimation to Sir Francis Burdett being made, a similar memorial was laid before His Majesty in Council; this time with effect.

“My dear Lord Dundonald,—I went to the Levee on Wednesday to give your memorial to Greville, the Clerk of the Council, to present—but the King returned to Windsor immediately after the Levee and no council was held. Had it been, I can entertain no doubt that your memorial would have been presented and granted.

“I went to see Greville about it the next day—he was so kind and so desirous of doing everything in his power to expedite it, even proposing to take it out of its usual turn, that I cannot but feel quite satisfied and assured that there will be not a moment’s unnecessary delay. A little patience and all will be right. I should like to see you for a day or two, and perhaps may.

“Yours sincerely,

“F. Burdett.”

326My restoration not long afterwards followed, and no one knew better than His Majesty the justice of reversing the unjust sentence which had so long and so undeservedly excluded me from a service which from my youth upwards had been my pride.

I shall ever consider this interferenceinterference on my behalf as a testimonial from His late Majesty not only to my innocence, but also to my unjustifiable persecution, for had he not believed me innocent, His Majesty would have been the last person to interfere so pertinaciously. Still less when, on coming to the throne, his former influence had become authority.

I was not restored to my honours till the reign of Her present Most Gracious Majesty, and on this restoration being made, I again requested of Her Majesty’s Ministers a reinvestigation into the causes which led to my unjust conviction, alleging that my restoration to rank and honour might be construed into an act of mercy, were not my innocence of the Stock Exchange hoax fully established. In this sense I addressed the late Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel. The following was his Grace’s reply.

“Walmer Castle, Sept. 12th, 1844.

“My Lord,—I have just received the package from your Lordship, containing your Lordship’s letter to myself of the 10th inst. and other papers, which I will peruse with attention according to the desire and for the purpose expressed in your Lordship’s letter.

“I have the honour to be, &c.

“Wellington.

“Admiral the Earl of Dundonald, &c.”

The reply of Sir Robert Peel was more explicit, and 327gave as a reason why my request could not be complied with, that just, or unjust, it was not, from lapse of time, in the power of the Government to attempt to reverse a decision in a court of law.

“Whitehall, Nov. 7th, 1844.

“My Lord,—Her Majesty’s servants have had under their consideration the letter I received from your Lordship, bearing date the 10th of September 1844, together with the documents by which that letter was accompanied.

“On reference to the proceedings which were adopted in the year 1832^[95], it appears that previously to the restoration of your Lordship to your rank in the navy a free pardon under the great seal was granted to your Lordship, and, adverting to that circumstance, and to the fact that thirty years have elapsed since the charges to which the free pardon had reference were the subject of investigation before the proper judicial tribunal of the country, Her Majesty’s servants cannot consistently with their sense of public duty advise the Queen to re-open an inquiry into those charges.

“I beg leave to refer your Lordship to the letter which the Earl of Haddington, the First Lord of the Admiralty, addressed to your Lordship in the year 1842—as I am not enabled to make any communication to your Lordship on the part of Her Majesty’s Government differing in purport from that letter.

“I have the honour, &c.,

“Robert Peel.

“Admiral the Earl of Dundonald, &c.”

Here was the whole secret why I had never been able to obtain an investigation of my case, and why the Admiralty, which deprived me of rank and honour, declined to investigate it, notwithstanding that an appeal from the verdict had been refused by the Court 328of King’s Bench, though I had then in court such additional evidence as must have set aside the verdict, which evidence will shortly be laid before the reader who will now be in a condition to understand the following explanation of Lord Brougham, given, under the article “Ellenborough,” in his “Historic Sketches of British Statesmen in the time of George the Third.”

“On the bench, it is not to be denied that Lord Ellenborough occasionally suffered the strength of his political feelings to break forth and to influence the tone and temper of his observations. That he ever, upon any one occasion, knowingly deviated one hair’s breadth in the discharge of his office is wholly untrue. The case which gave rise to the greatest comment, and even led to a senseless show of impeachment was Lord Cochrane’s. * * * I must, however, be here distinctly understood to deny the accuracy of the opinion which Lord Ellenborough appears to have formed in this case, and deeply to lament the verdict of guilty which the jury returned, after three hours’ consultation and hesitation.

“If Lord Cochrane was at all aware of his uncle Mr. Cochrane Johnstone’s proceedings, it was the whole extent of his privity to the fact. Having been one of the counsel engaged in the cause I can speak with some confidence respecting it, and I take upon me to assert that Lord Cochrane’s conviction was mainly owing to the extreme repugnance which he felt to giving up his uncle, or taking those precautions for his own safety which would have operated against that near relation. Even when he, the real criminal, had confessed his guilt, by taking to flight, and the other defendants were brought up for judgment, we, the counsel, could not persuade Lord Cochrane to shake himself loose from the contamination by abandoning him.

“Our only complaint against Lord Ellenborough was his 329Lordship’s refusal to adjourn after the prosecutor’s case closed, and his requiring us to enter upon our defence at so late an hour—past nine o’clock—that the adjournment took place at midnight, and before we called our witnesses. Of course, I speak of the trial at Guildhall only. Lord Ellenborough was equally to blame with his brethern in the Court of King’s Bench for that most cruel and unjustifiable sentence, which at once secured Lord Cochrane’s re-election for Westminister when the House of Commons expelled him upon his conviction.

“In 1833, the Government of which I was a member restored this great warrior to his rank of Admiral in our navy. The country, therefore, in the event of hostilities, would now have the inestimable benefit of his services, whom none perhaps ever equalled in heroic courage, and whose fertility of resources, military as well as naval, place him high amongst the very first of commanders. That his honours of knighthood, so gloriously won, should still be withholden is a stain, not upon him, but upon the councils of his country; and after his restoration to the service, it is as inconsistent and incomprehensible as cruel and unjust.” (Lord Brougham’s “Historic Sketches.”)

A brief outline of the circumstances which led to the trial will enable the reader to comprehend the grounds upon which the opinions just quoted were based.

At the commencement of 1814 I was appointed by my uncle, Sir Alexander Cochrane, then commanding the British fleet on the North American station, as his flag-captain; and in the month of February was busily engaged in getting the Tonnant line-of-battle-ship, then fitting at Chatham as my uncle’s flag-ship, ready for sea. The presence of Sir Alexander being imperatively required upon the station, he had previously quitted 330England in a frigate; and it had been understood between my uncle and myself that, on joining him with the Tonnant, the most efficient measures should be adopted to compensate for our late defeats with the better manned and equipped vessels of the United States.

Previous to my uncle’s departure at the latter end of 1813, he had, in pursuance of this object, repeatedly though unsuccessfully applied to the Admiralty for permission to engage an officer in the Duke of Cumberland’s regiment of Sharpshooters, as having a reputation not only for skill in teaching rifle practice, but also for his pyrotechnic acquirements, as an engineer officer; this proficiency having become known to Sir Alexander through his brother, who, strongly urged the employment of the person alluded to, a Captain De Berenger, with whom Mr. Cochrane Johnstone had been for some time acquainted. It was thus that I was subsequently brought in contact with a man who eventually proved my ruin, by involving me in an appearance of complicity in an attempt to raise the public funds by the dissemination of groundless news to the prejudice of the Stock Exchange speculators, one of those common deceptions which, I am told, were then, as now, practised by parties connected with the transactions of the Stock Exchange.

In the month of January Mr. Cochrane Johnstone invited De Berenger to a dinner, at which I was present. Towards the close of the evening this person asked me to step aside with him for the purpose of conversation. 331His object was to request me to take him on board the Tonnant in any capacity, for having failed to obtain the consent of the Admiralty he would be happy to trust to Sir Alexander’s generosity to employ him in any situation for which he was qualified. With this view he begged me to peruse his testimonials as Adjutant of the Duke of Cumberland’s rifle regiment, as well as other documents of a similar character.

Finding the testimonials satisfactory, I expressed my regret at not being able to take him in the Tonnant without an appointment, or at least an order, from the Board of Admiralty; adding, that no person could possibly have less influence with their Lordships than myself, and that therefore it was useless for me to apply to them on his behalf, especially as they had refused the application of Sir Alexander Cochrane. Knowing, however, that it was the wish of Sir Alexander that De Berenger should go if possible, I recommended him to exert himself to secure the influence of those under whom he appeared to have served so satisfactorily; adding that, if he succeeded, I should have great pleasure in taking him in the Tonnant.

With these prefatory remarks the reader will readily comprehend what follows:—

About midnight on the 20th of February, according to the current report of the transactions hereafter to be named, a person calling himself Colonel de Bourg, aide-de-camp to Lord Cathcart, presented himself at the Ship Hotel at Dover, representing that he was the 332bearer of intelligence from Paris, to the effect that Buonaparte had been killed by the Cossacks—that the allied armies were in full march for Paris—and that immediate peace was certain. After this announcement he forwarded similar intelligence by letter to the Port-Admiral at Deal, with a view—as was supposed—of its being forwarded to London by telegraph; thus making the Port-Admiral the medium of communication with the Government.

This person, as was afterwards known to the Stock Exchange only through my instrumentality, was the before-named De Berenger. The intelligence was false, having been concocted for the purpose of causing a rise in the public funds.

On the 7th of March, the Committee of the Stock Exchange published an advertisement offering a reward of two hundred and fifty guineas for the discovery of the person who had perpetrated the hoax; a report being at the same time current that the pretended Du Bourg had, on the morning of the 21st of February, been traced to my house in Green Street.

At this time I had joined the Tonnant at Chatham, and was preparing to sail for the North American station, but on learning the injurious report above mentioned, and being aware from the ordinary channels of public intelligence of the nature of the transaction—being moreover indignant that the perpetrator of the deception should have dared to visit me, I determined to denounce him, in order that if he were really the guilty person, his name should be made public at the earliest possible moment, so that 333no time might be lost in bringing the matter home to him.

In pursuance of this determination I obtained leave of absence from the ship. On my return to town, I found that although the authorities were ignorant of the name of the person who came to my house on the 21st of February, public rumour did not hesitate to impute to me complicity in his transactions, simply from the fact of the suspected person, whoever he might be, having been there.

To rebut these insinuations was of the first importance. Accordingly I immediately consulted my legal advisers.

The result was that an affidavit was prepared and submitted to an eminent barrister, Mr. Gurney, to whom I disclosed every particular relative to the visit of De Berenger, as well as to my own previous, though very unimportant transactions, in the public funds. I was advised by him and my own solicitors to confine myself simply to supplying the authorities with the name of De Berenger as the person seen in uniform at my house on the 21st ultimo.

With this suggestion, wisely or unwisely—but certainly in all honesty, I refused to comply, expressing my determination to account for all my acts on the 21st of February, even to the entire occupation of my whole time on that day. Finding me firm on this point, the affidavit was settled by Mr. Gurney, and sworn to, the name of De Berenger for the first time thus becoming known to those who were in quest of him. (See Appendix.)

334A circumstance may here be mentioned which has an important bearing on the subject. My letter to the Admiralty, giving my reasons for asking leave of absence for the purpose of rebutting the insinuations against my character, contained most material matter for my exculpation. It was written to Mr. Secretary Croker, but when I afterwards moved for and obtained from the House of Commons an order for the production of my correspondence with the Admiralty, this letter was not to be found, though all others asked for were!! Had the letter been produced, it must have had great weight with the House, the adverse decision of which I mainly ascribe to its nonproduction. Unfortunately, in the haste of the application, no copy was taken.

I have been particular in recording dates, because it has been insinuated to my injury that I had been tardy in giving the information in my power. It is hence my desire to put on record that the moment the necessity for vindicating myself arose not an hour was lost by me in giving the Stock Exchange a clue to the offender, if such De Berenger should turn out to have been.

I will here notice another circumstance, viz. that the very Mr. Gurney who had advised me in the matter of my affidavit, and to whom I had unreservedly communicated every circumstance connected with my private affairs, as well as those connected with the visit of De Berenger, was afterwards chosen by Mr. Lavie, the solicitor to the committee, as the leading counsel for the Stock Exchange at the subsequent 335trial against me! I simply relate the fact, without comment.

It is not necessary here to weary the reader by the insertion of a lengthy affidavit, which accounted for every act of mine on the day of the alleged hoax. The main facts, as relating to the visit of De Berenger, are these. That early on the morning in question I had gone to a lamp manufactory in the city, for the purpose of superintending the progress of some lamps patented by me, and ordered for the use of the convoy of which I was about to take charge on their voyage to North America. Whilst thus engaged, my servant came to me with a note, which had been given to him by a military officer, who was waiting at my house to see me. Not being able to make out the name, from the scrawling style in which the note was written, and supposing it to have come from a messenger from my brother, who was then dangerously ill with the army of the Peninsula, and of whose death we were in daily expectation of hearing, I threw down the note, and replied, that I would come as soon as possible; and, having completed my arrangements at the lamp manufactory, arrived at home about two hours afterwards, when, to my surprise, I found De Berenger in place of the expected messenger from my brother. The reader may gather from my affidavit what occurred at this interview. (See Appendix.)

The comprehensiveness of the voluntary disclosure contained in the affidavit has been termed indiscreet, and may have been so, as entering on much that might be deemed unnecessary. But I had nothing to 336conceal, believing it could in no way affect me—nor would it have done so but for the trickery subsequently resorted to. There was nothing extraordinary in the document. A poor but talented man—a prisoner within the Rules of the King’s Bench—came to me in the hope that I would extricate him from his difficulties by taking him to America in the Tonnant. After my renewed refusal, on professional grounds, De Berenger represented that he could not return to the Rules in his uniform without exciting suspicion of his absence. The room happened at the time to be strewed with clothes, in process of examination, for the purpose of being sent on board the Tonnant, those rejected being thrown aside; and at his urgent request I lent, or rather gave, him a civilian’s hat and coat to enable him to return to his lodgings in ordinary costume. This simple act constituted my offence, and was construed by the Court into complicity in his fraudulent conduct! though under ordinary circumstances, and I was aware of no other, it was simply an act of compassionate good nature.

A very remarkable circumstance connected with this affidavit, and afterwards proved on the trial, was this—that on De Berenger’s arrival in town from Dover, he neither went to the Stock Exchange, nor to his employers, whoever they might be, nor did he take any steps on his arrival in town to spread the false intelligence which he had originated. He was proved on the trial to have dismissed his post-chaise at Lambeth—to have taken a hackney-coach—and to have proceeded straight to my house. The inference is plain, that the 337man was frightened at the nature of the mission he had undertaken, and declined to go through with it, preferring to try once more whether he could not prevail on me to take him on board the Tonnant, where he might remain till the ship sailed for North America.

Had I been his confederate, it is not within the bounds of credibility that he would have come in the first instance to my house, and waited two hours for my return home, in place of carrying out the plot he had undertaken, or that I should have been occupied in perfecting my lamp invention for the use of the convoy of which I was in a few days to take charge, instead of being on the only spot where any advantage to be derived from the Stock Exchange hoax could be realised, had I been a participator in it. Such advantage must have been immediate, before the truth came out, and to have reaped it, had I been guilty, it was necessary that I should not lose a moment. It is still more improbable, that being aware of the hoax, I should not have speculated largely for the special risk of that day.

Neither, had I been his confederate, is it more probable that I should have declined to take him on board the Tonnant, when, by so doing, I could have effectually concealed him under another name, together with every trace of the plot, and could have either taken him with me, or have shipped him in safety to the Continent.

I will here repeat what has been previously stated, that before my affidavit the committee of the Stock Exchange was ignorant even of the name of any person, 338that my affidavit alone disclosed the necessary information. In other words, I voluntarily gave the only information upon which the subsequent trial was based, and this disclosure was so complete as to leave the Stock Exchange nothing to do but to prosecute De Berenger.

Let me ask the common-sense question, whether this was the act of a guilty person, who by concealing his knowledge could have effectually prevented all further investigation? Or, to put the question in another form—would it not have been the act of an insane person, if guilty, to have denounced another to his own conviction, when by holding his peace both would have been safe from detection? To have done such an uncalled-for act, would have been little in accordance with the acumen for which the public had for many years given me credit. In one respect, my affidavit might have been an error, but it was not the error of a guilty man; viz. in not deferring to the opinion of my legal advisers, who wished me to confine myself to the single fact that the pretended Du Bourg had been traced to my house, and that I suspected De Berenger to be the person.

My fault was, that being conscious—till too late—that nothing in the whole affair could in any way concern me—I was careless about my defence—had nothing to do with the brief beyond a few rough notes (see Appendix)—and never even read it after it was finally prepared for counsel. This was not the act of a guilty man. Yet, had I been guilty, I should have had every chance in my favour of acquittal; first, by concealing the fact that De Berenger was the stranger who 339came to my house on the 21st of February, in military uniform—and, without this voluntary information on my part, the case must have disappeared; secondly, had I really been guilty, my chance of acquittal would have been greater than if innocent—because the knowledge of facts which I must have possessed if guilty, and could not have possessed if innocent, would have enabled me to make an effectual defence in place of the aimless defence which was made.

If proof of my non-participation in the hoax were required, it existed, so far as the statement of such a person was credible, in the handwriting of De Berenger himself, immediately after my affidavit disclosing his name in furtherance of the purposes of justice; a proceeding on my part which might naturally be supposed to embitter him against me. So far from this being the case, an innate sense of justice on the part of De Berenger led him to admit even the truth of the declaration contained in the affidavit as regarded himself.

“13, Green Street, April 27th, 1814.

“Sir,—Having, I trust, given ample time and opportunity to those who have endeavoured to asperse my character to learn from your own mouth the circumstances which induced you to call upon me on the 21st of February last, I feel it now due to myself no longer to delay this my earnest request, that you will afford me that explanation.

“I am, Sir, your obedient Servant,

(Signed) “Cochrane.

“Baron de Berenger.”

[De Berenger to Lord Cochrane:—]

“King Street, Westminster, April 27th, 1814.

“My Lord,—I have the honour of acknowledging the 340receipt of your Lordship’s favour, which has this moment been delivered.

“Rest assured, my Lord, that nothing could exceed the pain I felt when I perceived how cruelly, how unfairly my unfortunate visit of the 21st of February was interpreted (which, with its object, is so correctly detailed in your affidavit); but my agony is augmented, when I reflect that acts of generosity and goodness towards an unfortunate man have been, and continue to be, the accidental cause of much mortification to you: a fear of increasing the imaginary grounds of accusation caused me to refrain from addressing you.

“I have the honour, &c.,

“Chas. Random de Berenger.”

The tone of this letter, which, without answering in express terms my query as to the object of his visit on the 21st of February, declares the truth of my affidavit as to the same, and also to what occurred during the short time he remained there.^[96] This indisposed me for further communication with the writer, who, finding such to be the case, commenced a series of vituperative epistles, the object of which was evidently the extortion of money. The whole of these letters were transmitted by me to the public press, without reply or comment, and were so published at the time.

A no less important admission emanated from De Berenger. The press had by some means or other got hold of the fact that this man, whom I had denounced to the Stock Exchange, was in communication with certain members of the Government for the purpose of implicating me! The communication does not appear 341to have resulted in anything further than was known from my affidavit, and I have reason to know that from fear of the man’s character, the Government abstained from committing themselves with him.

“King’s Bench, July 19th, 1814.

“Whereas several newspapers have asserted that I have written to Lord Sidmouth, whilst others state that I have addressed the committee of the Stock Exchange, &c. disclosing particulars to prove Lord Cochrane’s guilt, I feel justified thus solemnly, publicly, and positively to declare, That, since my confinement here, I have neither written, or otherwise applied, directly or indirectly, to any of the offices of Government for the purpose of disclosure. That I have not written to any one on the subject of the 21st of February last, since the 11th instant (July), excepting one private letter to Lord Cochrane. That the assertions in the newspapers are totally false, &c. &c.

“Charles Random de Berenger.”

The plain inference is, that De Berenger did so before the trial, and whilst he was writing to me that the contents of my affidavit, as regarded himself, contained the exact truth. That he had such communication with both Government and Stock Exchange, before the trial, is beyond doubt, and part of the reasons which warrant my assertion, that a higher authority than the Stock Exchange was at the bottom of my prosecution. Deeply degraded as was the man, he affords the strongest presumptive evidence of my non-participation in the hoax. In the next chapter I trust to adduce such positive evidence as shall place the matter beyond doubt.

I do not blame the Judge for not taking these matters into account, for, confident in my entire innocence, I 342could not see their importance or bearing, and did not even communicate them to my solicitor till too late.

Bitter after-knowledge has however convinced me of the error of carelessness—even from a consciousness of innocence—when once entangled in the meshes of law—a word by no means synonymous with justice.

Of the subject of the prosecution itself, I will here say one word. It was that of one set of stock-jobbers and their confederates trying—by means of false intelligence—to raise the price of “time bargains” at the expense of another set of stock-jobbers, the losers being naturally indignant at the successful hoax. The wrong was not then, and still is not, on the statute-book. Such a case had never been tried before, nor has it since—and was termed a “conspiracy;” or rather, by charging the several defendants—of most of whom I had never before heard—in one indictment, it was brought under the designation of a “conspiracy.” The “conspiracy”—such as it was—was nevertheless one, which, as competent persons inform me, has been the practice in all countries ever since stock-jobbing began, and is in the present day constantly practised, but I have never heard mention of the energy of the Stock Exchange even to detect the practice.

I do not make these remarks to palliate deception, even at the expense of Stock Exchange speculators. My object is, that the present generation, knowing that in my early life I was imprisoned and fined 1000l. for an alleged offence against the Stock Exchange fraternity, may understand the exact character of the accusation. It is clear that the influence and vindictiveness 343with which this most unjustifiable prosecution was carried out as against me, arose from motives far deeper than the vindication of stock-jobbing purity, viz. from a desire in more influential quarters to silence, if possible, an obnoxious political adversary; the visit of De Berenger to my house, as disclosed by myself, and his acquaintance with my uncle as before stated, affording a basis for the accomplishment of this object.

Happily, Providence has implanted in the breast of man an amount of moral and physical energy proportioned to the wrongs and inflictions he may be called upon to bear, and, even in my eighty-fifth year, I am still left sound in mind, and with a heart unbroken, to tell my own story.

344