On Saturday, September 17, Mr. Aslett was again brought to the bar of the Old Bailey, before Baron Chambre and Mr. Justice Le Blanc. The prisoner was attended by four or five gentlemen, who continued in the Dock during the whole time of the trial.
Three indictments were read, with two counts in each, charging the prisoner with secreting and embezzling three notes. The first indictment was, for that he, being an officer or servant of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, had secreted and embezzled a certain piece of paper, partly written, and partly printed, being No. 835, purporting to be of the value of five hundred pounds; the second, 2694, for one thousand pounds; and the third, No. 6061, for one thousand pounds. One count in each stated them as securities, and the other as effects belonging to the said Governor and Company. There were other counts, diversifying the statement of the property in other forms, such as were deemed to come within the law.
Mr. Garrow stated the case at considerable length to the jury. There was one point, to which he called particular attention, and that was that the prisoner had been tried before, and acquitted of the offence of purloining exchequer bills to an immense amount; as it was then proved to the satisfaction of the learned judges on the bench, for whom he entertained the highest respect, that they were not actually such as might in law be termed exchequer bills, in consequence of their not having been signed as the act directs. The present indictments, however, stated them as papers purporting to be exchequer bills, which they evidently were on the face of them, and subdivided the charge, by stating them one time as securities, and at another time as effects belonging to the Company. This he had no doubt that the jury would be convinced of upon hearing them read; and it was an important duty which the Bank owed to the public, that they should not suffer so great a delinquent to escape the justice of the country, in consequence of any want of exertion on their part.
Mr. Erskine, in behalf of the prisoner, delivered a most animated address to the jury. He stated, that the former indictments against the gentleman at the bar had been objected to on grounds which were approved of by the learned judges who then sat upon the bench.—He was now brought up again to be tried for exactly the same offence, though differently stated; and he thought that the present proceeding was liable to the same objections which were then admitted to be valid by the bench; but he should oppose it on much stronger grounds. He then objected to the legality of Mr. Jenning’s signature, in the place of that of Lord Grenville, as Auditor of the Exchequer. That the same illegality in a criminal sense existed with respect to all bills issued at that time from the Exchequer, was manifest from the circumstance of the legislature having found it necessary to pass an act expressly for the purpose of making them legal in a civil view; and that act had a most humane proviso, which declared, in plain terms, that the act was to be considered to make the exchequer bills issued at that time valid only in a civil view, and was not to have any retrospective view to any criminal offence committed before the passing of that act. The learned gentleman stated, that as securities, they were nothing in law, for a person, at the time of their being passed, could not recover at law. As to the idea of calling them effects, he considered that, though the legislature had thought proper to pass an act for the protection of that company above all others, by passing what is generally termed the Bank Act, in consequence of the immense magnitude of that concern, yet effects must obviously mean the same as in a case of petty larceny would be considered as effects, that is something intrinsically valuable in themselves, without taking in or mixing in the mind the idea of their professed or avowed value. If that was not the case, a clerk who took away a loose half sheet of paper lying about the office, or a pen that was worn to the stump, came within the limits of the act, and would be liable to a prosecution for felony. If he did not know the highly respectable character which that Company supported, and the very great ability by which they were counselled, he should be induced to say that the prosecution of the gentleman at the bar a second time, for exactly the same offence of which he had been before acquitted by law, was vexatious; and he should declare, not only as a lawyer, but as a man, that they were rather inclined to be severe towards the prisoner, than that they should be thought in the least to relax from their duty, or from an idea of justice to the public. The articles stated in the indictments must either be really and bonâ fide exchequer bills, or else they were no securities; they were no effects in law; they were no more than pieces of waste paper, for the embezzlement of which he had never known a prosecution to be sustained at law. The generosity of government, or the justice of the country, could not at that time pay a single farthing for them; the strings of the national purse were only to be drawn by the consent of the legislature, and at that time there was no such consent obtained; the articles in the indictment were at that time nothing but so many pieces of waste, printed, and written paper, which had not been called into existence as anything of valuable property, as any effects belonging to the Bank which had obtained the sanction of Parliament; they had not been animated by the breath of the legislature. The learned gentleman then quoted several cases from the Reports, showing that chattels or effects must be something valuable intrinsically in themselves; and said that it was his firm belief that the learned judges at present on the bench would deliver an opinion similar in effect to that which had already been delivered by the learned judges sitting on that bench at the time of Mr. Aslett’s former trial: he believed that they would find themselves in the same situation, and instruct the jury to find a verdict for the acquittal of that gentleman without hearing any evidence upon the case; as in his opinion it was not such as could be supported in law.
Mr. Serjeant Best followed on the same side, and the Court determined to reserve the point for consideration. Evidence was then given in proof of the facts stated at the beginning of this article, and the jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
Mr. Aslett betrayed neither a symptom of fear, nor levity, but seemed to pay the greatest attention to everything that passed, and conducted himself with a becoming firmness throughout the whole of the trial. When the verdict was pronounced, there was a great buz in the Court: Mr. Aslett waited for about two minutes, then bowed to the Court, and withdrew, accompanied by his friends.
On February 16, 1804, Mr. Aslett was brought to the bar to receive his sentence, when Mr. Baron Hothan addressed him as follows:—
“Robert Aslett, you were tried and convicted in this Court, in the September sessions, 1803, for embezzling effects belonging to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, you being an officer and servant of that Bank, and, as such, entrusted with their property. It was argued by your counsel, that the bills were not valid or legal bills, having been signed by a person not properly authorised by Lord Grenville, though they had been issued as good, and paid as such. On this indictment you have been lawfully convicted by a jury of your countrymen; but judgment has been suspended till the opinion of the twelve judges of England was taken on this important case, in order to ascertain whether these bills were good, according to the statute 15 Geo. II. Eleven of these judges were of opinion that some of the objections, so ably argued by your counsel, should be sustained; they have since held various conferences, which produced various different opinions; and it is now my duty to communicate to you the result of their investigation. Several points were urged in your favour, upon all of which, however except one, the Judges have given their decision against you. The only material question for consideration was, whether or not these bills fall within the meaning of the statute 15 Geo. II., and can be denominated effects according to that act. On this point, indeed, the judges were not unanimous, but the majority are of opinion that they are effects and securities within the true meaning of the act. The great object of the legislature was to add security and administer protection to the Bank of England. The immense national concerns with which it was and still is entrusted, called upon the legislature for particular provisions in its favour. The principles of legislation must now be applied to the object under contemplation; and the view we take of any code of laws must be more comprehensive when it concerns so materially such a large incorporated body, than when it only relates to private individuals. Considering this law then in the enlarged and liberal view on which it was framed by the legislature (at the same time that all the judges disclaim any wish to strain any part of it where it is so penal,) the recollection of the enormous weight of exchequer bills, in which the public were so deeply and materially concerned, cannot fail to occur to every mind. That these bills had become the fair and valuable property of the Bank was allowed on all hands; but still it was argued that they were not such securities as fell within the true meaning of the Act of Parliament, because they were not of any positive or intrinsic value. Now, whatever shall be deposited with the Bank, was expressly guarded by the words of the act; and although the bills in question be of no descriptive legal value, yet they carry about them such a consequence at least as may make their preservation of the utmost importance to the Bank. In that view, therefore, they surely have their value. They are at least valuable papers, whatever they may be called, and the holders of them have them as such, having paid for them the value which they respectively import. They are therefore to be included in the true meaning of the word securities, which may be in the end available to any person who may be possessed of them.”
The conviction was therefore determined to be good, and on the following Monday, 20th February, 1804, this unfortunate man received sentence of death. This punishment was, however, subsequently commuted to transportation.