Imágenes de página
[blocks in formation]

‘reach ol'ifrnominy, ‘but I cannot feel (lis

raced while I know that I am quil'tlcss. lilmler the influence of this sentiment, ‘I persist in the defence of my character. I have often been in situations where I had an opportunity of showing it. This‘ is the

' first time, thank God, that I ‘was ever

called upon to defend it.” The Noble Lord th'cnhancled in several ailidavits. The first was one from himself; it was as {olloivsb— , ' '


Sir Thomas. Co'cbrane, commonly called Lord Corhrane, one of the above named-Defendants, m-iketh oath and saith,'tha.t the several facts and circumstancesjlated in his atlidavit, sworn on the Hill day of March last, before Mr. Graham, ‘the lila'gistrate, are true. And this drponcnt further saith, that, in addition to the several facts and circumstances stated in his saidalfi(layit, he deposelh as follows, that is to s'ay, That he had not, (lircrtly'or indirectly, any concern whatever in the formation, or'z'xny knowledge of the‘ existence oi‘ an intention to form‘the plot charged in the Indictment, or any other scheme or design for all'ectinz 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 l-tth of that month, to sell the same whenever a profit of one percent. could be realized;v and that these directions were given, and the sale thereof took place without any knowledge, information, hint, or surmise, on the part‘of this cleponent, of any concern or attempt whatever, to alter thc'priec of the funds ; an'l the said sale on the ‘list. took place entirely without this depoaent's knowledge —that_ when this deponeni returned home from Mr, King’s manufactory,;on the 2151 of February, which lie on di


rcctly‘ after the receipt of a n0te,.he fully _-expected to have met an Oilicer from abroad, with intelligence of his brother, who had by letter to this dcpmienl, received on the Friday before, communicated his being confined to his bed, and severely alflictcd by a dangerous illness, and about whom thisdeponcnt was extremely anxious; but'this deponent found Captain De Berengrr at his house, in a grey coat ‘and a green jacket. That this depo‘ncnt never saw the defendants Ralph Sandom, Alex. hi‘Rac, John Peter Holloway, and Henry Lyte, or any or either of them, nor ever had any communicatiou or correspondence with them, or ady or either of them, directly or indirectly. That this dcpoucnt, in pursuance of directions'from the Admiralty, proceeded to Chatham, tojoin his hhjesty‘s ship “ The Tonnant,” to which he had been appointed on the Bill day of February last. That the ship wasthen lying a; Chatham. That previous to the eighth day of February, this dcponent applied to the Admiralty for leave of absence, which was refused, until thisdeponent 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 tov Long Reach ; and after that was done, viz. 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 tbr a patent, as had been previously communicated by this drpoucnt to their Lordships; that leave-of absence was accordingly granted for 14 days, commencing on the 14th of the said month; that this dcponcnt was engaged in London, expecting the said specification til i tbe..'28th of the said month, when the said spe~ cification was completed, and this'deponcnt left town about one o'clock on the morning of the

[blocks in formation]

the lOthofthat month, to the best of his belief;

and that afier his an ival, he'himsell', conscious of

his own innocence, and l‘c'aui in; no consequences from a development pf his ownconduct’, and do‘ > public character; that he never asked the said Dc lierenger to his house, nor did he ever breakfast or dine with this deponent thcreiufon any occasion whatsoever ; and further this depoztcnt saith, that he hath beenvinformcd and verily believes that the Jury who tried the said indictment, and the Counsel for the defence, were sorompletcly exhausted and worn out by extreme fatigue, owing to the Court having ‘on-tinned the trial without intermission for many hours beyond thattime which nature is capable of

the public prints, without any communica

tion whatever with any other person, and with

outany assistance, onthe impulse ‘of the moment,_

prepared the before-mentioned aflidavit, which he swore before Mr. Graham the Magistrate, on the 11th ; that at the time he swore Such affidavit, be had not seen or heard the contents of the Re

‘DON published by the Committee of the Stocki

Exchange, except partial extracts in the News1papers; 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 cover to Admiral Bicllerton, at Portsmouth, and that Admiral Bickerton returned the letter, saying ‘that Ad

pniral Fleming had sailed for Gibraltar; that this

deponent sent his servants Thomas Dewman, Elizabeth Rush, and Mary Turpen, on the trial pf his indictment, to prove that an Otiiccr came to thisideponeut's ltouse on the morning of the said 21st of February, and to prove the dress ,that he came in ; but that the said Thomas Dewxnan only was called; and, as this deponent has been informed, he was not interrogated as to the dross in which the said Oflicer came to his house; and this deponcnt further says, that had the said witnesses been examined according to the directions of this dcponent, 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 this deponcnt on the Qlst 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 deponent's' former atiidavit herein-before mentioned: and this deponent solemnly and po-v sitively denies, that he ever saw the said Do lierenger in a scarlet uniform'dccorated 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, butmerely be

flleved he wished, for the reasons stated in deponent’s former afiidavit, to go on board this deponent’s ship, with a view'to obtain some military employment in America; and this depo_pent declined complying with his'request to send him on board his ship widtouhpermission, or an order from the Lords of the Admiralty:

hand this deponcnt further saith, that he “as in

no degree intimate with the said Berenger; that Etc had no personal knowledge of his privzite or

string only to rescue iris character from erronepus impressions, made by misrepresentations in

pose, tliatjusticc could not heldone to this deponent. ‘ ‘

was one from .Thomas‘ Dewman.——Lord -Ellenborougb remarked that this :itlidavit could not, inasmuch as the person who had made it had been examined on the trial, and'might have been tbcn questioned upon the subject, it‘ the Counsel of the_de— ifendants had thought proper. I Several. other aflidavits from witnesses who had attended the trial, but WhQbad not beenexamined, were likewise attempted to boread, but Lord Ellénborough said there was no instance on record in which such ailidavits were permitted to be read—Lord Crch— 'rane said his object was, if possible, to obtain a new‘trial, so that these witnesses might be examined, as they would have been, but for an W or in .his Counsel’s brief, over which 1c'had not looked, from a perfect consciousness of his own innoccuce.—-Sir Simon Le Blane» obserypd, it was quite without precedent to have the ailidavit of a ‘witness read, who had- been at the trial, but who-bad not been called. An aflidavit of the Hon- W. E. Cool“ ranc, brother of Lord ‘Cochrane,- was then read, for the purpose of skewing the existonce of his‘ illness in the month of-Feb~ ruary last, and the consequent anxiety with which Lord Cochrane went home to his house from Snow-bill, when he heard

decipher from his note, awaited his arrival.

"‘ The Honourable Willi-1m Erskine Cochrane, Major in the 15th Regiment of Dragoons, now residing in'Portmnn-squnre. in the County of

with a violent and alarming illness on the 1st 0? January, 18“. at Combo, in the south of France; and that this Ds‘p'onent remained in a stateo't‘ dangerous [illness until III'E 18th of’ the following month: that early in February last he wrote to his brother, Lnrd Cochrane, to arquaint his


Lordship with this Deponeni’s situation, as De

,sustaining herself, without refreshment and re-v

The next ufiidavit proposed to be read,

that a. stranger, whose name he could not‘

Middlesi-A, on his oath saith, that he was seized . pourut lmd (‘hen wry little hope of recovery, and tolling him that he had roccivrd a nnlllicatlon llml he would be ordcrcd to England, “here he lboulll procccd, if (‘V('\' able to undertake the journey. And this Dnponvut furlhrr saith, that thc annexed cerllflculé was glven to him for tbr [impose of bring laid olliri llly before a Board of‘ Medical ()tficois’nl b'l. Jenn dc Luz, by the Surgeon of “Ii: Dcpoucnl's rvgimenl, and is in tho and Sorgcou’a bond writing.”

This was uccompzmird by a confirmation from tho Surqcon, who attended this gallant (‘)l'licrr, and _a statement of the particulars ofthe disease by which he was at tacked. ' i '


, Conn Laws. '

DIR. COBBETT. Having been from home some time past, on my return 1 found your Banister, containing your Lettor to the People of Southampton, with flbosc that have been since published, coniaining further remarks on the Corn Bill. In the last number you say, that ‘instead of sending abuse in anonymous letters, they Should have answered you; but ' you could scarcely expect that. You have so mm'plotely exposed their gross ignorance, exhibited them in'so contemptible a light, that their rags must be almost boundless. But, Mr.'Cobbett, isv there not a danger

l‘ fallingv into error ourselves, when the , errors of others are oi" so gross a nature as to make it an pony task to expose them? We w-o'apt to go on with confidence, in a hasty careless manner, and, satisfied with having done what we proposed,-seud the article to the press, without that minute revisionwhicli a cooler state of mind would induce us to give. These remarks are drawn from me, by s belief, that yaw—you, Sir, are wrong in your supposition; that the increase in the price of the qnartern loaf is attributable to the weight of taxes which abe landlordv and farmer has to pay. You certainly do couple another cause with taxation; namely,- the alteration in the currency; but you have not attempted to show what share taxes have had, and what belongs to the alteration in the currency.


Vhen two causes are assigned for one,

eli‘cct, it is desirable that each should be traced in its operation; this you have at_ tcmptcdto do,>witl\ taxes. In page ‘140 of your Register, you cnumqratc'many of the taxcs'paid by the land-owner and farmer,

‘by the community in gcnrral as consumers. Upon this I must pause; for bore 1 find, that all are producers and all consumers; and the question may therefore be put into a more simplr': form, recollccting that our

prices generally; and here, Dir. Cobbett, I must assert, in opposition to what you have said in your Letter to the Southampton ' Petitioners, that taxes cannot causea general rise in prices; nor will you, I believe, porsi.-.t in it, wbcn you review the subject. hi1‘. Huskisson, whose opinions you say are. the same as yours on this subject, puts it in a shape that admits of a coolcr'argu

' rncnt, when he states, that in 1792, all our

Government establishments required but 10 millions a year; and that a peace establishment, at present, will'probably be between 50 and 60 millions. Now, Sir,. supposingv the taxes to have increased in precisely the same proportion, has the quartern loaf done the same.> According to your statement, on the} peace which ter-' minated in 1792, the loaf was at “Id. 540 ;' and, during 1803-4, it averaged 9d.; and now, I suppose, is nearly ls. But, Sir, if the taxes were added tovthe original cost of the article, must not the rise have been much greater? “7e will take the difi'creuce between the taxes of 1792, anilithc present‘ period, at 60 millions. Is it 'possible, Mr. Cobbctt, that the producers of the taxed articles could reimburse tbcmf selves by increasing the prices of the articles, until they obtained 60 millions‘ more than their‘ former prices? The thing is impossible :‘ it‘ we consider the effect of taxation, by i-‘sq'f, on prices, we must suppose, that in 1792, there was 20 millions of currency in England. Had the currc-nry not increased, how would it have been possible for the prices of last year to have been paid? Had we only the same 20 millions of currency, that sum would have been equal to all the sales made in the country, and the price of every particular article would have held a due proportion. I Food, clothing, furniture, labour; every thing must have continued the same in price. For, could any one article have risen, without others being lowered, if we imagine quantitiesto continue the same? Suppose the seller of food to ask a_ higher I price, whatever excuse he might‘ have for y " the alteration, a consumer would say, F


and contend, that those taxes must be paid “ l‘olr. Farmer. I have onlyso much money‘;v bv the consumer of the produce of the land. ilil' you persist in your demand, I certainly You also enumerate many other taxes paid ,must pay you as far as my means will go;

present enquiry is, ‘as to the cause oi'lrigh' but I shall have less money to expend in other things, and those other things must consequently fall in price. I shall have

‘less money to pay to my draper, tailor,

shoemaker, to my brewer, and all those who furnish me with the comforts of life. Now, hlr. Farmer, these good people are all your customers, as well as I am‘, and in proportion to the increase in your charge to mt‘, you lessen t/wir mtuns of purchasing from you. They of course will eat less, and you will be at last obliged to come down to the means which the consumer has of paying you for your produce. If you cannot allot-d to pay your rent and taxes, without raising your prices, I am sorry for you; for you really cannot get more money from vus than we have; if you get more from one, you will have less from anal/m‘; so that at last it will he the same.” I will not say, that such reasoning would convince the farmer; but I'will assert, that such would be the cllect of any demand for higher prices, if the quantities of goods and money continued the same. The farmer, however, has the taa: to pay; that is imperative upon him 5 there no bargain in that business ;‘ the Government will be paid, or they will seize. ‘What is to be done ? The farmer cannot obtain higher

'prices, because money, which measuncs

the price of every thing, has not increased; he must, therefore, pay a

_smaller rent to the owner of the farm.

Disguise it as we may, it is the owner—the

person in the receipt of the revenue which‘ is left, after paying for the labour expend-v It is the proprietor of property that' really pays all, the taxes; and every tax_


laid on the cultivator of the soil, or on the o '

roduco, is deducted at last from the rent.

I his, certainly, does not take lace where

leases are held ; because here is a positive

engagement to pay a stipulated sum, which

may not be altered in consequence of a heavy tax ; when the farmer, having to pay all the rent which the land will fairly allord, after supporting himself and family, and in addition, a tax to the Government

. not contemplated when he made hisv lease,

he may he mined: for observe, if by increased exertion he should produce more food, this only makes it cheaper, and _will not enable him to pay the additional de— mand with greater case.-VVe know well, that if the farmer be ruined under such circumstances, the owner of the property will also be injured ; his land will be exhausted 3 and, being liable to the payment of


a tax, will not let/hr the sum it did formerly. The farmer will, at last, pay a‘ part of his rent to Government, and the remainder to the owner of the land. The

‘same takes place with the owners of

houses: if a house be liable to the pay" ment of a tax, it will bring less rent. This will appear very evident if we imagine one house to he offered for 100]. a year, which is liable to the payment of 50/. in taxes -, and another equally good is oll'crcd for’ 1501. per year, but liable to no tax. ls it not evident, I say, that the owner is the loser? Precisely the same thing takes place with all property that yields a revenue to the proprietor; and how can the owners of property indemnify themselves by high prices, if it were possible, which it is not, from the limited ability of the other parts of the community, it would re-act upon themselves. If the farmer and land proprietor charged higher for'thcir goods, they in their turn would be charged higher for every thing they had to purchase; so that‘ at last they would have precisely the same quantity of clothing, furniture, and

other means of enjoyment which they '

would have had, without any rise in price having taken place; the only mll'crenc’e being, that there must be more money In

circulation; for without that a general rise 4

in prices is impossible, supposing the vari

ous articles brought to marl-let in the same "

quantities as before. Although I think that what has been said, is sufiicient'to shew, that taxes, without an increase in the money of the country, cannot raise prices, yet I will venture to risk the taking up of a little more room in your admirable REGISTER, by showing the fallacy of the proof produced by you at page 717; You

suppose a man cultivating! his own farm of\ I

100 acres, which yields‘ him 300 quarters of wheat, at 41. per quarter, making an income from his ‘farm of 1200!‘. per year; but his land is subject to a tax of 3/. per acre, so that he pays‘to' the Government 3/. out of his 1200/. You go on to sup

pose, that if the tax were taken oil, that he '

could afford to sell at 31. per quarter, instead of 4!. It is _ true he could 'qflorrl it, andhe could now qfl'ord it at 31. if he were to make 600i. serve him instead of 900/. per year. But why should he sell

his corn at less after the tax was taken 03' ‘

than he did before? Do not ownerspof land always take as high a price for the produce as it will fetch in the market P Has a land proprietor, such as Illa‘. Coke, any

thought of selling his wheat, or letting his land, at one half their present price, because he could (fwd to live at the rate of‘ 900} a year, as well as the owner and cultivator you have imagined? Does not the owner, in fact, take, in the shape of rent, all, or nearly all, that the farmer has left, after supporting himself and paying ‘,the various expcnces attending cultivation, taxes, $0.? and does not the farmer nways take as high a price as he can get for‘ his food? You imagined that wheat was at 41. a quarter instead of on acciunt of the tax: I should say, that the quantity of currency in the country had brought things generally to certain prices, and among-‘other things, wheat, to the price of 41. a quarter. \‘Vell, supposing the same money to continue in the country, would the farmer take 11. a nnrter less because he could allhrd it ?—-is it'likely? Do you expect that he would do it voluntarily ; ind why should he be compelled by the consumer. Ey'en supposing, for the sake of argument, that the farmer vote to lower his price, the resent‘ the community would have one-fourth more money to expend on other things, which must, of course, make other articles rise : and thus the fall in the price of food would cause other things to be dear, unless, indeed, we could imagine that a greater part of the money of the people remained unemployed, and thus less come into the market. This would be equal to takingaipait of the currency out of

I circulation, which is certainly a suilieient cause fox-lowering he' PU’JC- But again,‘

,the farmer and owner would have only the

some money to lay out he had before the

tax was taken off, and tho rcst'of the people would have the 3!. per core, which formerly passed through the hands of the Government. “:hy should this be? ‘Vhy should not the farmer charge as high prices as he did before, if others do not alter their prices? and [1010, how can prices be altered, if there be the same goods and the same quantity of money

I as before, seeing that in the nature of

things one is the measure of the‘ other. In‘ crease the quantity of goods, whether food, clothing, or any other, ‘ or all saleable things, and let the money remain the same. in quantity, and each particular quantity must fall in price, as the whole of the , oods is equal to the ‘whole of the money.

hen a tax is laid on, the Government re- Genres a part of the revenue arising front

property (after supporting the labourer),


and as taxes are increased, Government comes in for a greater and a greater- proportion ; they may at last take nearly all, and make the owners mere funnels, as you strongly expressed. it. But ‘this has no‘ thing to do With prices. Prices are determined by the proportion which exists be~ tween the saleable goods and the currency of a country. In the supposition of can— dles paying 6d. per pound duty, you say, that the duty being added to the original cost 6d. the candles are sold at ls. per lb.‘ It is here that nearly every one ‘is misled by appearances—it is so obvious it strikesv s0 plainly the dullest mind, that taxes may and do increase the prices of some things,that they take it as a proofof taxes having a power to produce thahell‘ect generally ; whereas, if we suppose, before a tax were laid on candles, and when they were sixpence a pound, that 100,000]. of the currency of the country was employed in the sale and purchase of candles, and after the tax, and the consequent rise to 1s. per lb. 200,000]. of the currency must be kept in employment by them.‘ Is it not clear, that there being less money left for the purchase of other articles, they must all fall in price equal to the rise in candles, thus establishing the equilibrium; Government may by a tax divert a larger proportion of the currency to one article, but it must be

vtalien from‘ the other articles; if one be

dearer, others must be ‘cheaper- always supposing no additional currency thrown‘ into circulation. The same reasoning applies to beer, to spirits, to salt, in fact, to every thing: in vain might Government in‘ every article equally witlrafiew to raise prices—‘*they would remain stntio'tii nry, there would not be money to pay an

increase in price. The real cause of



the general rise in prices is to be found .

in the increase in the quantity of circulating money. This cause may be di

‘vided into two branches: the first, is the

increase in the quantity, which naturally results from successful commerce. The second, from swelling up our currency 'by Thrcadneedle-street, and other substitutes for metallic money. ‘With respect to the former cause, it ‘has happened to us, in common with other nations that have had a commerce, flourishing and highly profitable to those'engaged in it',ap accumulation o fthe precious metals has always been the consequence of prosperous trading, unless where they have been banished by similar means to those which we have used to send

« AnteriorContinuar »