gen house, No. 13, Green-street, Grosvenor-coach-stand, where Crane took up the square.- My Lord Cochrane has sworn, tleman; and the fact, I dare say, was,. that he was sent for home to Captain Be that Crane might suppose, the coincidence renger, who was dressed in a grey great- in point of time and place being so nearly coat and a green under coat. His three late exact, that the gentleman he drove was the and present servants swear to the same man. There was offered, in a large pladress, as far, at least, as relates to the card, 50l. for such information as would collar of the under, or uniform coat.- lead to a discovery of the pretended Du It is stated, in the Sub-Committee's evi- Bourgh, and 250/. in case of conviction; dence (which was not taken upon oath) and, as Crane was not upon oath, he might that the officer, who was taken to Lord have persuaded himself, that colours were Cochrane's house by Crane the hackney- deceiving, and that a Dartford post chaise coachman, was dressed in a brown great- had really put down the gentleman that he coat and a red under coat. This is stated look up! It has been stated by these by Crane; and Shilling, the Dartford post-men, that the gentleman in question had a boy, gives the same description of the dress of the officer whom he put into the hackney-coach. In opposition to this, here are the affidavits (not the bare words) of Thomas Dewman, Isaac Davis, and Mary Turpin, (Nos. I. II. and III.) late and present servants of Lord Cochrane, who swear, that Captain Berenger, or the person who came to the house on the day alluded to, and in consequence of whose arrival one of them went for Lord Cochrane, was dressed in a grey great-coat, buttoned up, and that they saw a green collar of an under coat. Lord Cochrane, who saw the great-coat taken off, has before sworn, that Capt. Berenger's dress was, a grey great coat, a green uniform, and a military cap. 66 Colours more opposite, more strongly contra distinguishable, cannot be well imagined. How the Dartford Post-boy and the Hackney Coachman came so exactly to agree in a declaration so directly opposite to all these oaths the public will, before we have done with the subject, probably, be able to guess.- -But, according to the shewing of the Sub-Committee itself, how do these their witnesses agree, in other respects? One says, that he stopped "by the side of a hackney coach," and that, on the chaise-door and coach-door being "opened the gentleman got in to the coach "and drove off." This clearly means, that he got out of one vehicle into the other. This is the true meaning of the words. But, Crane, the hackney-coachman says, not that the gentleman drew up along side of him, in a Dartford post-chaise, and got out of the chaise into his coach; no; but, that he took up" a gentleman, who "had just alighted from a Dartford post"chaise and four." Are not these stories very different; and must not one of them be false?- -It is a fact not generally known, that Captain Berenger lived in Lambeth, within about fifty yards of the large red nose and blotches on his face. It is useless to multiply affidavits, or, we could prove, upon oath, that Captain Berenger had no blotches, had a pale face, and was uncommonly marked with the small pox.At any rate, we have proof positive; we have the oaths of three persons, that only one person, at all answering to the description, was at Lord Cochrane's on the 21st of February, and that that person was dressed in a grey great coat and a green under coat; and, as the Dartford post-boy says, that Du Bourgh was dressed in a brown great coat and a red under coat, it could not be this man; it could not be the Hoaxer, who went to Lord Cochrane's; and, therefore, this first assertion is proved to be false.- It was shewn, in the last Register, that if he was the Hoaxer, his going thither amounted to very nearly proof of my Lord Cochrane's innocence; but, it is now clear, that he was not the hoaxer, unless Shilling and Crane have both declared falsely as to his dress; and, if their assertions be false, what is there left, whereon to rest this most important of all the circumstances?—-But, since writing the above, real evidence has come forward which gives the coup-de-grace to this pretended evidence of Mr. Grane, the hackneycoachman, and which, indeed, sets this point at rest for ever, if it be possible for the injured parties to get the better of their indignant feelings at the conduct of this Sub-Committee. William Smith and Mary his Wife, servants of Capt. Berenger, and living in the house with him at Lambeth, near the Marsh Gate (see Nos. XII. and XIII.), have voluntarily made oath, as the reader will see, that their Master was at home on Sunday, the 20th of Febru ary (the day before the hoax); that he slept at home that night as usual; that he went out in the morning of Monday, the 21st of February; that he returned home about noon in a black coat; and that his grey great-coat and his green under-coat he brought home in a bundle.- Where are now the colours of Mr. Crane and the SubCommittee? It is now proved upon oath, that Capt. Berenger was not the hoaxer; it was before proved upon oath that no other such person went to Lord Cochrane's house on the day of the hoax; and, therefore, this difficult negative is completely proved: to wit, that the hoaxer did not go to the house of Lord Cochrane; and, if he had so gone, it was before shown, that human nature must have undergone a complete revolution in order to have made it probable that his lordship had a hand in the hoax. Do the Sub-Committee want any thing more? Perhaps not; but they shall have it. -This Sub-Committee com 66 Fearn's, the Broker's, office, in the City, along with the two other gentlemen, at ten o'clock, on the morning of the Hoax. These two assertions being so closely connected as to proof and disproof, I shall take them together.- -Some weight has been given to the circumstance, that, when the suspected hoaxer arrived at the house of Lord Cochrane, the latter's servant knew, at once, where to go after him, with the officer's note, and find him. His Lordship has before stated, on his oath, that he was at Mr. King's manufactory, where some work was executing for him, in the completion of which he was very anxious; and that he was in the daily habit of going to Mr. King's. Mr. King's affidavit [No. VI.). is subjoined, to prove, that his Lordship was at his manufactory, when the servant came to him with the officer's note; and this also proves, that that part of the evidence, or mis-named evidence, published by the Sub-Committee, which states, as from the lips of Mr. Fearn, that Lord Cochrane went to Mr. Fearn's office, in the and Mr. Butt, in the morning of the hoax, is untrue. -The public will perceive, that these assertions, published under the name and guise of "evidence," by the SubCommittee, exhibit circumstances calculated to corroborate and confirm the first main circumstances. The plan, as they would have us believe, having been previously laid, an immense quantity of stock having been purchased on the Saturday, the planners were, all together, and all ready to set to work, on the Monday morning, at ten o'clock.- Now, to prove how false and how base this insinuation was, I have first shown, from the affidavit of Mr. King, that Lord Cochrane went to his ma❤ plain, in their report, "of the great difficulty and delay, which they have expe"rienced in obtaining information.' In the first place, they never sent to any one of the accused gentlemen to ask an explanation at their hands, though the latter instructed their Brokers to inform the Sub-city, along with Mr. Cochrane Johnstone Committee that they were ready to give them every information in their power, and though it is a well-known principle of common justice, never to condemn any one unheard. A different principle suited these gentlemen.But, why did they not go to the servants, or to the house, of Captain Berenger? Nay, (and the abused public will hear it with indignation) these servants, of their own accord, and from their attachment to their master, went last Saturday to Union Hall, in order to make the affidavits now inserted here. They showed them to the officers there; but no magistrate being at hand the making of the affidavits was delayed. -Will the public believe, that this vigilant Sub-Com-nufactory, and not to the city; and the mittee, with Mr. Sayers at their elbow, never heard of this? Moreover, on the 19th of March, William Smith, the servant of Captain Berenger, wrote a letter to Lord Yarmouth, as Commanding Officer of the Captain's corps, stating nearly what is stated in his affidavit, to which letter, he says, he received no answer. This letter does Smith very great honour, and will not, I hope, fail to insure him a reward for fidelity, so rarely to be met with, not only in his, but in any rank of life. II.-That Lord Cochrane went home, immediately, to the officer, upon receiving a note from him. III.-That Lord Cochrane was at Mr. affidavit of William Adams (No. XI.) will at once, all the base inuendoes built upon Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and Mr. Butt were by the Sub-Committee, the following is a in the city no earlier on the 21st than on tolerably good specimen.- -This man is any former days; and the insinuation that stated to have said, that he had ascertained, they were so is thus completely exposed that Lord Cochrane, his brother, and to the execration that it merits.It is, I" three or four more men, lived in the am aware, wholly unnecessary; but, here is" house." Every one must see, that (No. X.) an affidavit of Mr. Berry, prov- this description of his Lordship's house is ing, that, for a long while, it was the con- calculated to produce an impression, that stant practice of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone he kept a sort of house of ill-fame. The and Mr. Butt to be in the city at nine or deponents, Thomas Dewman, Isaac Davis, ten o'clock in the morning. and Mary Turpin, all positively swear, as will be seen by their affidavits, that no man whatever lived in the house, except his Lordship and his servants. Thus, there are three oaths, proving, that what Sayers (as the Sub-Committee say) had ascertained to be true, was false, and utterly destitute of the smallest colour of truth. The public will, it is imagined, want little more to give them a correct notion of the nature of that evidence, as it is called, to which the Sub-Committee have dared to give such extensive circulation. Of the means, which have been resorted to, in order to obtain evidence, on this subject, the public will be able to form an idea from the second affidavit of Mary Turpin (No. IV.), whence it will be seen, that she was inveigled out of her master's house, and had money tendered to her, in the most artful manner, by persons unknown to her, if she would give them information. The scheme did not succeed, and, as it happened, it would have been of no consequence if it had; but, the attempt, in this instance, serves as a criterion whereby to judge of the whole series of acts perpetrated against the character of Lord Cochrane and the other two gentlemen, whose names have been, in so many ways, associated IV. That immediately after the 21st February, one of Lord Cochrane's servants was turned away, and another sent into the country.I, last week, showed the absurdity of building a charge upon assertions like these, at the same time, declaring my belief that they were false.- -I am now going to prove the falsehood of them in the sense in which they were evidently meant; and to show how malicious they are is wholly unnecessary. In the evidence of the Sub-Committee, it is represented to have been stated by Sayers, the Police officer, that he had "ascertained, "that the man-servant of Lord Cochrane "had been turned off, and another hired, "and that the servant who let in the pre"tended Du Bourgh had been sent into the "country." From the affidavit of Isaac Davis, who was the servant said to have been turned off, it appears, that he went away in consequence of a regular month's warning, which was given him when his master was appointed to a ship. From the affidavit of Thomas Dewman it appears, that he was hired by Lord Cochrane expressly for the purpose of going into the country, to supply the place of his Lordship's Captain's Steward, who was living at a residence of his Lordship in the country; and, the fact is, that he did so go, and that the Steward immediately came up to town, a few days before Lord Cochrane set off to join his ship at Chatham. Though, therefore, here really were one man discharged, and another sent into the country, what shall we say of the Sub-Committee's representation, by the means of Sayers, whence it must, as published by the SubCommittee in all the news-papers, evidently be inferred, that the two servants were put out of the way with a view of getting rid of their evidence. The evidence of both is now offered to the public by him who had been, by insinuation, accused of a wish to smother all evidence relating to these transactions. Of the veracity of this, Sayers, or, at least, of the veracity of what has been published under his name with his. V. That the GOLD NAPOLEONS, expended by the Hoaxer on the road, was PURCHASED BY LORD COCHRANE at Binns and Co's. by the means of a draft on his lord-This assertion was made ship's banker. 暑 -This in a paragraph in the Morning Chronicle mittee have published as his evidence. Any thing more shameful than this treatment of that young man, this misrepresentation of . him before the public, I have seldom seen. hensive terms; for, Mr. Thomas swears, that he not only never sold any foreign coin to Lord Cochrane, but also, that he never, in his life, had any transaction with his lordship, and never received any draft, to which his lordship's name was affixed. What ground, what colour, could there have been, then, for this scandalous assertion in the Morning Chronicle? It is clear, that the assertion was not only false, but that there was not the smallest colour for it; that there was no circumstance, no possible circumstance, whereon to build an erroneous conclusion. So that the whole story must have been absolutely an invenlion. With whom such an invention could originate, and from what sort of motive and for what purpose, the public will be at no loss to judge, when they are informed, that, in the very same paper, in which this paragraph appeared, and of a date only two days later, there appeared an advertisement, addressed to the Electors of the City of Westminster (for which it is well known, that Lord Cochrane is one of the Members of Parliament,) requesting them to suspend their choice of a new member, as a man of real honour and purity was ready to offer himself to them on the expected vacancy. -If it had been fully proved, instead of there being not the shadow of proof, of the Hoaxer's notes having been in the possess sion of Mr. Butt, on the Saturday preceding the hoax, who will believe, that Mr. Butt, if he had had any hand in the hoax, would have given the Hoaxer notes, so lately in the hands of a banker, where a record of them was kept, and whence they might have been so easily traced to himself ? -Here is an affidavit, besides, from Mr. Butler (No. VII.) to show, that Mr. Butt, on the day alluded to, gave change out of his small notes, in the afternoon of the Saturday; and that this change was given in the presence of several persons and to an apparent stranger. If, therefore, Mr. Butt really had in his possession, on Saturday, any of the notes expended by the Hoaxer on the Monday, why might not the Hoaxer have come into the possession of them through this channel? But, I feel, that it is trifling with the public to dwell further upon such contemptible grounds of accusation. VII. That the office, used by Mr. Fearn, the broker, had been taken for him, without his knowledge, by Lord and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone. VIII. That, on the afternoon of Saturday, the nineteenth of February, the three accused gentlemen purchased above a million. of stock, which was all sold for them on the morning of the Hoax, that is to say, on the very next Monday, the twenty-first of February. VI. That the bank-notes, expended by the Hoaxer, on the road, were obtained by Mr. BUTT, at a banker's in the city on Saturday the 19th of February.It is necessary to observe, here, in the first place, that, from the "evidence" of the Sub-Committee, any one, ignorant of the real fact, would, at once, conclude, that Mr. Butt was a mere agent employed by and in the pay of Lord Cochrane;, a conclusion tending to what appears to have been the main object in view. Whereas the fact is, that Mr. Butt, so far from being an agent of Lord Cochrane, or of any body else, was a principal, giving his directions to his brokers on his own account, embarking his own capital, and receiving his own profits or paying his own losses.- -Now, as to his having had in his possession, the small notes expended on the road by the Hoaxer, there is no proof whatever of the fact. The young man, named Thomas Christmas, Mr. Fearn's clerk, is said to have said, that he did change some larger notes for small notes for Mr. Butt. What he is said to have said amounts to nothing at all; but, his affidavit is subjoined (No. VIII); and I must press upon the reader, that justice to the young man and to the parties accused demand that this affidavit should be read, and compared with what the Sub-Com- for so many years, experienced the perse These two propositions come under one and the same head of answer; and, as they are both fully answered in the statement of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, I here close what I had to say upon the subject, with observing, that, though I have experienced great pleasure in making what I am sure will be deemed a complete defence of the three accused gentlemen against the foul attacks of their calumniators, I cannot help expressing my regret, that it should have been thought necessary to exert the powers of the mind in the crushing of a swarm of such contemptible reptiles. MR. COCHRANE JOHNSTONE'S STATEMENT. which, when looked into, affect him, in any degree whatever, are these, that he took an office expressly for the purpose of carrying on a traffic in the Funds, and as it were to be ready prepared for the Hoax when it should take place; and that he did this without the knowledge of Mr. Fearn, the broker, who was to occupy that office. Mr. Johnstone, in answer to this assertion, declares it to be a most unqualified falsehood; the fact being, that the office was given up to Mr. Fearn by Mr. Butt, at the earnest solicitation of the former, and merely to oblige him. Mr. Cochrane Johnstone having no interest whatever in the premises, either as proprietor or renter. cutions of power; after having so long had to endure the effects of a 'struggle of right against might; after having had to encounter, from certain quarters, every species of foul play, that of subornation of witnesses, or, at least, something very nearly bordering upon it, not excepted; after having, in short, by the most persevering malevolence, been obliged to descend from those high views, to which his situation in life, and every thing belonging to his character entitled him, without presumption, to look; after all this, he did flatter himself, that it was not too much to hope, that he would be permitted, in an humbler walk of life, to exert, for the preservation of himself and family, those powers of mind, which all As to the second assertion, that Mr. the persecutions he had undergone had not Cochrane Johnstone was the purchaser of been able to subdue. Even in this hope, Stock to a large amount, on Saturday the however, he was, it appears, to meet with 19th of February, and that he had it all disappointment; and the same unrelenting sold out on the morning of the 21st of Fespirit; the same mean, undermining, and bruary, that is to say on the morning of the viper-tongued calumny, which had pur- Hoax; as to this proposition, he must first sued him as a Governor and a General, was observe, that it will here be necessary to still to haunt him in his counting-house and embrace in his answer the cases of Lord his walks upon the 'Change. But, in the Cochrane and Mr. Butt, as well as his own, present instance, as in every former in- all three of them having been asserted to stance, those who have thought proper un- have acted in precisely the same manner, justly to assail his character, will find, that as far as relates to this buying and selling. however he himself may suffer, he, at any The Sub-Committee of the Stock Exchange, rate, is not so to be assailed with impunity. after having given what they called the It is very clear, from all the circum-evidence of Mr. Fearn, and of Mr. Hichens stances, and from every thing that has been (that of Mr. Small boue and Mr. Richard-TM alleged with regard to the recent Hoax, son being of a trifling nature, but precisely that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone has been in no of the same character), after having gone, respect implicated, except upon mere vague under the names of these gentlemen, into a suspicion. detail of monstrous sums, conclude with a remark of their own in these words: The person, or persons, practising the Hoax, have not been attempted to be traced "From these statements it appears, that to him, not even in that ridiculous way in on the afternoon of Saturday, February which it has been attempted to trace one of" 19, the three parties above mentioned, them to another place. In short, the only" may be considered as having purchased two false assertions, made with respect to" for the next settling days, the following him (and all the assertions have been false, "sums, viz." and then they proceed to whether regarding him, or Lord Cochrane, the detail of sums, making in the whole or Mr. Butt); the only two assertions upwards of a Million of Stock, the whole |