« AnteriorContinuar »
' most confident terms.
_VoL. XXV. No. 25.] LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 18, 1814. [Price 15.
SUMRIARY OF POLITICS.. ‘Hoax earns STOCK-EXCHANGE. ~
The issue of the trial, upon this subject, has grieved and disappointed me more a great deal than my vown conviction and sentence for writing about the flogging of the Local hlilitia-‘men and, the German troops. I was confident of a complete acquittal of my Lord Cochrane, his Uncle, and Mr. Butt; and, whenever, in conversation, I have had occasion to speak of the matter, I have expressed myself in the I was assured, that it could be clearly proved, that De Berengcr was nottizc Hoaxer. I depended upon this; and I have been grievously disappointed. I never took, in my writings upon the subject, any other grounds than what were afforded by publications in other'papers. From all that appeared, the parties seemed to me to stand acquitted, even upon the shewing of the accusers. But I always feared, that, if it was not clearly proved that De Bcrenger was not the man, my Lord Cochrane would be convicted ; because, though he might be able to convince me of his innocence, he never would be able to produce a like conviction in the minds of men, who did not know him pcrsonally.—The bare fact of the Hoaxer going to Lord Cochrane’s house would not have. been much; and even the furnishing him with a disguise would not have been conclusive against, my Lord Cochrane. Suppose, for instance, that a friend of mine were to commit a murder in one of the woods hercabouts, and were to come to me, telling me that hewas. pursued by hailitl‘s, and wished to keep out of their clutches. If I lent him clothes to disguise him in his retreat, would any one impute tome‘a participation in the murder? I might be reasonably suspected, and brought to trial; but I am sure that I should not be convicted on that ground alone. But, joiuedto the facts ‘of 'rgfilge and dz'sgm'se afi'orded, there was, unhappily, the fact of Lord Cochrane having profited from the Home. Yet, this might happen too, as he was_in the almost daily habit of selling out,
in case of a rise, stock to as large an amount as he did sell on the dayiu question. These facts were all unfortunate, but they were all consistent with innocence as to the Hoax. Facts as, unlikely to meet do meet every day ; but, being of little importance, are unnoticed. And when I saw the afiidavit of Lord Cochrane, in whose word I would have staked mylife, always having observed himto beso scrupulous in making assertions, even ‘as to the most trifling matters, all the unfavourable circumstances disappeared, or, at least, left very little impression on my mind; and, when to this was added, ‘the most solemn verlal assurances that the charge was false, I could not possibly entertain any doubt. The evidence, as published in the newspapers, is very difl'erent from what I hoped to see. My Lord Cochrane’s servants all swore that De Bcrenger wore
an under coat with a GREEN COL- '
LAB. It is now proved, by numerous witnesses,that that collar was SCARLET; and I do not see any. witness brought to prove that its collar was GREEN. Lord Cochrane is habitually careless in his-private matters; but, when so much was at stake, how came the servants, who had deposed to the GREEN Icollar, not to havevbeen brought to swear that fact before the Court? Instead of this, Isse Mr. Serjeant Best endeavouring to account for the wantof recollection in my Lord (locbrane as to this point. But if lzev did not recollect, could‘ all his servants have for otten too? They all deposed to a GREEN collar; and howwas I to believe that De Berenger was the man, when the Kentish people swore, that the Hoaxer’s coatwas SCARLET? There were two swearings, directly in the teeth of each other; and I, of course, believed that
which was made by a person, ofwhose word
I could ‘not entertain a doubt.—-.This single circumstance had naturally very great weight. But I was_assured, in the most positive terms, that it would be proved that De Berenger was in London on tile Sltflnl day evening. This Essiprauce I have given
to all those who have talked with me on the subject. But I was, it now appears, misinformed. The proof of the aliz'u'has Indeed, had I been made acquainted with the sort of proof intended to be produced, I should have feared that it must fail, when opposed to the positive oaths ‘of so many witnesses, whose veracity, in si'i a case, it is impossible to suspect ; because there could have been no motive sulliciently powerful to induce them to run the fearful risk of wilful and corrupt perjury—The afiidavit of my Lord Qochrane was, from the moment I saw it, a subject of regret with me, and so I described it at the time. I agree with h'Ir. Gurney, that this sort of aflidavits are a monstrous abuse,
' as well as contemptible in point of ell'ect.
No accused man ever better-ed his cause with the public ‘by making an oath, to which, in case of proved falsehood, vno legal punishment is attached—This ailidavit, and the other sol'emn declarations, constitute, in my view of the matter, the whole of the moral ollcnce. Whether it be a legal oll'ence to spread false reports for the purpose of gaining in the funds, remains to he shewn; but if it be a legal oll'ence, it is one of which the newspaper people have been accusing each other almost every week, for twenty years past, and we have never yet heard of any suit, or trial, upon the subject before. ' For my part, I was so ignorant of the nature of ‘those transactions, called‘ strckjjobbing, that, not three months ago,’ it required a long while to make me understand how a man could’ sell a million’s worth of stock, without bein possessed of‘ a million of money; and was utterly astounded at the idea of a man’s holding such immense sums in name, without any-'rcality.--It is gambling,- sheer gambling, to'all intents and purposes; and it is, morally speaking, no more criminal than it is to play at cards, even for a penny a ~game. The object of the gambler at cards (no matter whether'in a parsonage; house, 'or at the Cocoa Tree) is to gain by thelloss of one’s' nei hhour. And as to the taking of an an air advantcgm'in the case of the Funds, it is‘ no more unfair to contrive the meansv of raising or depressing the tinnds, than it is'to avail o‘ne’s-sell' of real intelligence, which one takes the means of obtaiiiinf; sown- than the rest oi'i‘the fundholdcrs; and we heard a man ‘giving his ‘evidence upon this very trial, stating, that his business at Dover was‘ to olrtaz'n emu, irltellllpjie to mil lzz'mi'n lu'rr-jimdr'flg 31761 L _ .
proportions of moral turpitnde A Hoax upon the Stock-Exchange has been unjust
ly compared to the cofigi'ng of a die, or the marking of a card. tlis not common to cog dice and mark cards. But it is notoriously common to devise stories to all'eet the funds. If one ofthe newspaper people were openly accused of cogging a die, or marking a card, for the purpose of winning his neighbour’s money, he would resent the injury done to his character; he would‘ bring his action for damages. But this never happens, though the newspaper people are continually accusing each other, in the plainest terms, of publishing paragrap/zsfor stockg'obbing purposes—Therefore, the stock-jabbing and the Hoax are, in themselves, nothing at all in a moral ‘ point of view, other than as all gambling, of all sorts, is immoral; but the aflidarifs and the declarations are a great deal; and, of those declarations, no one has more reason to complain than myself, upon the supposition of their being untrue, which, after all, I cannot bring myself to believe. Judges, jurors, advo~ rates, all may be deceived by a combination of circumstances. Had I been a. ' juror, never having heard any thing but what was produced in evidence, ‘as '
in I/ze m'wipmpers, I think I should have decided as the jury, upon this occasion, did decidca. And, I allow, that, in many cases, circumstantial evidence must be admitted as’ proof, or, that the worst of ' crimes must go unpunished. But, on the ' other hand, circumstances may occur, such as do, and ought to, produce conviction, and yet the arty accused ‘may be innocent, and may sugar without any one being to blame. Of the many suspiciousvcircum- ' stances in this case, one, which had much ' weight with the public, was, that it was discovered that one of De Bcrenge'r’s bm'l was a (lac/tram’. But how naturally was this ex lained, when it appeared, that it was a’hlr. Cochrane, a bookseller, in no wayrclated to, or acquainted with, my“
Lord Cochrane or his uncle, but the brothcr-iu-law of .Mr. De Berenger’s attorEiey? It has been, said, that, if these parties be innocent, the combination of circumstances is almost miraculous. I agree to this‘, but still there-is ‘a Possibility of such a combination. This is an idea that I shall with great reluctance abandon; for, if I were to .give it up, my resentment against the parties would have no bounds. They all, from first to last, to me protested their innocence; and, with me, I could see no reason for disguise. Of course, I looked upon them as most foully calumniated; and with the share of ability that I had, I espoused their cause; never, however, in any case, endeavouring to- give a false colouring to any one fact or circumstance that came under my notice. ~It is to be hoped, that the perilous situation of these gentlemen, whatever the final consequence may be, will operate as a warning to every body not to indulge in gambling speculations of any sort; and to parents, not to educate their children in gambling principles. He who suffers the use of cards, dice, and the like, to make part of the pastime of his fire-side, must not complain if his sons and ‘daughters, are mined at the gaming-table, or in the Alley. If the habit of seeking to obtain gain by the loss of a brother or a cousin once gets hold of a boy, he is ready to go forth into the world a gambler, and utter ruin is more than half prepared to his hands. The excuse for playing at cards and dice is, that something is necessary to pass away the time. Amongst savages, or persons Wholly illiterate, such an excuse might have something like reason to support it; but, is it not shocking to suppose that such a mode of passing the time, that such a mode of preventing ' weariness, amongst persons with houses full of books, and with all the arts and all the sciences as a field for conversation, should obtain. The deaf cannot want cards for amusement, nor can the dumb, while they have eyes to read. with; and as to the blind, they cannot see the cards. So that there is no excuse for any person, who is able to hear, see, or speak, except, as I. said before, for those who are in a state of savage ignorance; 1am _not to he told that it is a matter of taste; for the law makes gambling a crime, and it is, unquestionably, a moral oil'ence to endeavour to obtain your neighbour’s goods, without an equivalent rendered to in return;
boy so engaged does not, at any rate, contract, the truly hateful habit of seeking to , obtain the property of his neighbour without exchange or payment. It is- said that the‘ use -of cards and dice and the like, tsiuds to cheerfulness in society. Look at a group of card-players,watch thennxiety, the!‘ hopes, the fears, the exultation, the chafgrin,v the disappointment, the affectstion, 3 and the spite that alternately bemy themselves‘ by the countenancés of the se leral players; and then turn to the~ fire-side of ' a qaakcr, who never suffers a card to ‘come into his house, and you will soon be able to ‘decide which is the scene of real cihserfuluesa—Gaming, in many cases, bect'tnes a disease of the mind, of which it would be full as diflicult to cure a man as it wohld be to cure him of insanity. I remember a. vdrum‘boy who was afilicted of this disease to that degree, that he gamed away all his pay, his shirts, his stockings, and all his necessaries, and who coustane 1y, for many months, gamed away his loaf, which was Served out to him twice a. week, ti'll, at last, to prevent him from hogging about ‘the streets of Cha‘tham and Rochester,’ we were compelled to take his loaf frdrn him, to serve it out to him a slice at a timeyand to see that he eat it‘. If this boy had been in high life,w_hat a brilliant figure might he not have cut in St.James’s-street_, or upon the Stock-Exchange! What a famous BIZ” or Bear, he would ' have i made! ‘He would have sold you'half the National Debt of a‘ morning, and the other half in the afternoon. People talk of an innocent game of cards. There is no such ,tlr'ing‘as an innocent game of cards. The very basis of gaming is morally wrong, and the smallness of the sum endeavoured to be obtained by it, cannot alter the nature of
~ the act,‘ any more than the amount of a
bank-note can alter the nature of the act of forging it. ‘The evil passion is as visible, and very‘ often as powerful in a con.tention ‘for small sums as for large sums. ,I‘hztve an hundred times'seen men with their heavy accoutrcments-upon their back, and ‘in a broiling hot sun (heingfor'oidden ‘ to play iinv the guard room) playing‘, for .honrs together. for grains of Indian corn, or short bits of tobacco-pipe, and be as eager-‘to over-reach one another‘, and as lo'ud ‘in-their mutual accusations'and' roproaehcs, as any pair of stoek-jobbers‘that. ever bawled in Change AlleyA—In short, gaming is always the same in tltCjH'ffiC-"PIB. SI: produces-(infarct eil'ects is‘ different
After the Special Paper had been gone through, Lord Cochrane presented himselfto the Court, and spoke to the following efl‘ect :. “ scarcely recovered, from the shock produced by the late charge'of a very serious offence. which was preferred against me.[ have to request the indulgence of the Court. lint only on that ground, but also because I am not. habituated to, nor acquainted with the form of proceedings in a Court of Law. I feel it essentially necessary, on the present occasion, to apply to your Lordsbips, in order that what I conceive to he justice may be done to me with reference to the proceedings on the late trial—amt] hope I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships, that a new trial ought to be granted, as far, at least, as I am concerned and implicated in the transaction to which I allude. It has been my misforlune. lam sorry to say, to form an intimacy—t beg your Lordships’ pardon—l did not mean to- use the word intimacy—but to form an acquaintance with individuals, whose habits, conduct, and general character, have been most unfavourable-10 me, I have been informed, my Lords, that it is not competent for Counsel to move. on on occasion of this sort, for a new trial; and. therefore,'l am induced to supplicate your Lordships, by a personal application in my own hehalf-”
Lord Follcnhorough—-“ You must have been misinformed on thntsuhject. Auapplication of this kind maybe made by Counsel, and perhaps with more convenience and advantage to yourself." _
Lord Cochrane.-“ I understand there has been a decision of this Court. which prev dudes any person, convicted with others of a ‘conspiracy, from appearing before ‘the Court to make an application for a new trial, uuless‘the whole of the conspirators are preseat when the application is made 2”
Lord Ellenborough—“ We cannot extend to you that indulgence which we would not shew to otlter persons. The rule of practice in this Court isimperative. We are extreme— ly unwilling- to interrnptyon on such an occasion, but we cannotforego a rule solemnly laid down—We must oppose the same ob; ‘jection to an application made by an individual, as we should interpose ifit were made by Counsel." '
Lord Cochrane—“l trust that I shall be able to satisfy the Court, that it is most pro
er to grant a new trial in this case. Ifyonr ordships will permit me to proceed, I shall be able to prove to your Lordships, by these atfidavits, that the justice of the case requires that a revision ofit should take place. as far as I am concerned. I shall be able to‘
' show to your Lordships, that I am innocent
of the ofl‘ence imputed to me: and that those who are guilty in this transaction, and
,viction in the minds of all the bctter-in-'
over whom I have no control, do not dare to appear ini'Court.” I .
Lord Elleuhoropgh-—“ We must really. abide by the rules of the Court, which ‘are imperative upon us. No'distinction can he made between the poor and the rich'in the administration of puhl'ic justice.”
Lord Cochrane--“ It has been my great‘ misfortune to be connected with .personsv over whom I have no sort of control whatever; I hope, therefore, that your Lordship will extend your indulgence so far as to permit me to read afiizlavits.”--His Lordshi _ was then proceeding to ‘read an at‘iidavit, when _ y - ‘ v ' Lord I'lllenhormigh again interposed— “ The rules of this Court. asI have already said, must he observed. They exclude you, and every other person in a similiar situation, from making such an application. The principle on which we have acted this day towards other persons (the Askt'ws), must now be observed towards you. It would he said,very naturally, ifithis were not the case; that laws were made for the poor, and not for the rich. We cannot sutler your Lordship to proceed." ,
Lord Cochrane—“ I will briefly state to, your Lordships ‘the facts which occurred at the late trial, on which Ifound my application- On that occasion, there were several circumstances which were not laid before the Court by my Counsel, (‘and here l mean not to impute any blame to them), which would have been extremely material to my defence: and, my Lords, there was even in the brief an admission stated on my part, which 1' never meant to have made-a statement, however, which Iam convinced merely arosefrom error: I mean, my Lords, the statement of myhaviug admitted that the stranger came to my house with a red coat on.—That admission, my Lords, I never intended to have made.” ’
The Court again interposed, and said, his Lordship could not he suffered to proceed.
His Lordship then put up his papers. and, I withdrew. I v f .
CORN BILL. Instead of an answer, or any attempt at ‘an answer, to my Address to “ my worthy but. deluded “ neighbours of Southampton,” Iv have’ received three. most abusive among/man's‘ letters from that town. This is not a proof,v at any rate, of the weakness of my arguments. This is so far from CinPlCaSlUg me, that it affords me great satisfaction; because I conclnde, that the few base and brutal people in Southampton (and what towii is wholly without such 9) are enraged’ at perceiving, that I have product-dram’
formed, impartial, and worthy‘ part ol“ my" neighbours.
_ Southampton is\ not less di“-_ ' 'tmguishcd by the general good sense and