Gentlemen, the only part of the evidence which has the least tendency to connect my Lord Cochrane, by means of the notes, with Mr. De Berenger, is the evidence that was given by a person of the name of Lance; there is not one other witness that attempts to state, that a single note traced from the hands of Lord Cochrane, ever was found in the hands of Mr. De Berenger; now, if you will have the goodness to attend to Lance's evidence, you will find that there were for a time put into the hands of Lord Cochrane two £.100 notes, which were afterwards found at the Bank, and in exchange for which two hundred one pound notes were given to the person changing them, and that a considerable quantity of those £.1 notes have certainly been proved to be found in the chest of Mr. De Berenger; but permit me to state, that though those two £.100 notes, by which one hundred £.1 notes were afterwards produced, are for a short space of time shewn to be in the hands of Lord Cochrane, that the same witness tells you, that those £.100 notes were got back from my Lord Cochrane again, before they were exchanged at the Bank; for he tells you, that he carried those two £.100 notes to the Bank for Mr. Butt. Gentlemen, my learned friend, who cross-examined Mr. Lance, certainly could not get from him that he was present at the time when my Lord Cochrane paid those two notes into the hands of Mr. Butt; but it is perfectly clear, from that which he subsequently stated, that at some period before they found their way into the Bank, and before they can furnish any means of proof against the parties, they must have been returned to Butt's; these notes might have been in the hands of any one of you, gentlemen; but the question is, on whose account the two hundred £.1 notes were received from the Bank, for it is these small notes which can alone connect the party with Mr. De Berenger. Now, I say, Mr. Lance, in a part of his evidence, stated, that though he was not present at the time Lord Cochrane returned the two £.100 notes to Butt, yet that he afterwards received those notes, not from the hands of Lord Cochrane, but from the hands of Mr. Butt; for Mr. Butt he went to the Bank; for Mr. Butt he got the two hundred £.1 notes, and those two hundred £.1 notes he delivered back into the hands of Mr. Butt. Gentlemen, I am sure therefore, that if I have made myself understood upon this part of the case, I have completely released Lord Cochrane from the effect of this evidence, for though the two large notes were once in his hands, these notes were never in the hands of De Berenger. The notes found on him were the small notes given in exchange for them at the Bank, and these were given to Mr. Butt, and not Lord Cochrane. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that though these had been in the hands of Lord Cochrane, from the money transactions taking place between them every day, it was Mr. Butt that was the possessor of those notes, at the time the £.1 notes were obtained for them; I am satisfied, therefore, you will see that this evidence does not connect Mr. De Berenger with Lord Cochrane. I am quite confident, therefore, that I am right, when I state to you, that my learned friend's attempt to draw an unfavourable inference from the circumstance of De Berenger being in possession of notes which once belonged to Lord Cochrane, is completely answered; and then I state again, that the only points which remain for your consideration, with respect to Lord Cochrane, are, first; the large sale of stock on the 21st of February; and, next, De Berenger being at his house on that day; with respect to the last circumstance, that is proved only by Lord Cochrane's affidavit, and I think I shall shew that Lord Cochrane, in that affidavit, completely explains that circumstance.
Gentlemen, with respect to the large sale on the 21st of February, I do not think the Committee of the Stock Exchange have conducted themselves quite fairly in a criminal case; because, in a criminal case, it is not fit to take up a piece of evidence just exactly at that point where it will suit the purpose of those who offer it, keeping back other evidence which they know is extremely important, which they must know is calculated to do away the effect of that which they offer. Now, gentlemen, for the purpose of implicating Lord Cochrane, the Stock Exchange have instructed my learned friend, Mr. Gurney, to state, and Mr. Gurney did, in pursuance of his instructions, state most expressly, that Lord Cochrane began his Stock Exchange speculations about one week before the 21st of February; and, till I cross-examined Mr. Fearn, you must necessarily have understood, as well from the statement of counsel, as from the evidence that has been offered, that Lord Cochrane, about six or seven days only antecedent to the 21st of February, had purchased the whole of the £.139,000 that was sold out on that day; that his lordship had never speculated in the funds before, and, therefore, that all his purchases must have been made in order that he might have so much stock to sell at this particular time. But, gentlemen, it turns out that Lord Cochrane had been deeply speculating in the Stock Exchange for several months before, and so the inference, that he purchased this stock with a view to the event that happened on the 21st of February, is rebutted; that Lord Cochrane did not first begin to buy this £.139,000 merely for the purpose of selling on the 21st of February, is most clearly proved by the testimony of Fearn and of Hichens, who say, that so early as the month of November preceding Lord Cochrane had bought very largely, and had sold very largely; and that he continued to buy and to sell, down to the very period of the last sale taking place; it is impossible, therefore, when the evidence is laid before you, that you can collect, merely from the circumstance of his selling so large a sum as £.139,000 on the 21st of February, that he was guilty of a conspiracy to occasion a rise in the funds on that day. The witness did not come prepared to state to you, what had been the extent of the sales made by Lord Cochrane on antecedent days; but when he states that he sold largely, (I think I may venture to say, that he sold nearly as much on previous days as on this occasion); you will find therefore nothing to distinguish the conduct of Lord Cochrane on the 21st of February, from that which had been his conduct on many days precedent.
Gentlemen, I trust therefore, that in a criminal case, you will think that the inference of criminality which is supposed to arise merely from the circumstance of the sale of this large quantity of stock, is rebutted by the fact I have now brought under your consideration; but you will have the goodness also to bear in mind another circumstance. I did expect, when I heard the case opened with so much confidence against Lord Cochrane, that you would hear of some particular directions being given to sell on that day; but, gentlemen, how does that fact turn out; no particular directions are given to sell on that day, but Lord Cochrane's general directions, from the first moment when he became a speculator in stock, were, that whenever any event should happen by which the stocks should be raised, one per cent. the broker was not to wait for particular directions, but to sell; and this large sale of £.139,000, from whence the inference is drawn, that Lord Cochrane necessarily knew of the conspiracy which had taken place, was made under these general directions. It is also to be observed, that Lord Cochrane was never present in the city a single hour during the 21st; there is no evidence given that he was there; on the contrary, all the witnesses that have been examined, have told you they did not see him there; all the stock was therefore sold on that day, without any interference on his part; and as it appears beyond all question, a very considerable part of the stock of all these gentlemen was sold before any of them came into the city, and without any particular directions on the subject of the sale of it.
Gentlemen, the sale of the stock which Lord Cochrane possessed, considering the circumstances under which he became possessed of it, and the circumstances under which it was sold, furnishes, I submit to you, no proof that he was privy to what they have called the hoax. I beg pardon of the noble and learned judge, for using this term, after the observation that his lordship has made upon it. I did not use it for the purpose of treating with levity the crime contained in the indictment; but it has been so frequently applied to this crime, both before and since the prosecution was instituted, that it is difficult in the hurry of speech to avoid using it.
Gentlemen, another circumstance has transpired, which I think furnishes a strong observation in favour of all my clients; namely, the practice of selling both stock and omnium, which the seller is not at the time of such sale in possession of. If Lord Cochrane had been privy to the fraud, would he have contented himself with merely selling the stock that he had previously purchased. Would you not have found him selling to every buyer that offered (and on the 21st of February there was no scarcity of buyers at the advanced prices) stock and scrip in any quantity; if he had been privy to the fraud, he must have known that the bubble would soon burst, that the funds would fall back to their former prices, and that by every sale that he so made, he must be a great gainer; yet he is not found selling the value of a shilling in this manner; nothing is sold but what had been previously bought, and that sold under general directions given to the broker previous to the day of sale, and previous to the time when the conspiracy could have been conceived. If his lordship had been one of the conspirators, he must have been found to have made many more thousands of pounds by the speculations of this day, than he either is or can be proved to have made hundreds. Avarice, always insatiable, which had in this case impelled the defendant to hazard every thing that was dear and valuable to him in life, stops short in the hot pursuit of its object, at the very moment when the most abundant means of gratification are brought within its reach. Does not then the inference of innocence, arising from what he did not sell, although he might have sold much, outweigh the inference of guilt, arising from what he actually did sell; what he did on this day, it is not only possible but probable that he might have done, and yet be innocent of the conspiracy with which he is charged; what he did not do, he could not have omitted to do, if he had been guilty.
My learned friend, Mr. Gurney, has told you, that the circumstance of his selling out as he did, proves his privity to the conspiracy. Men who were unconscious of the risk, says my learned friend, did not sell on the first rise in the market, but held their stock in the expectation of gaining still higher prices; but the defendant, knowing that the falsehood of the news would soon be discovered, and that its effect on the funds must be of very short duration, sells his whole stock on the opening of the market. I should have felt the force of this argument, had you found Lord Cochrane on the Stock Exchange, pressing his brokers to complete their sales; but when you find that his lordship was not present, and gave no directions for immediate sales, but that his stock was sold under orders given before the fraud could have been thought of, I trust that you will find it not worthy of much attention. If, however, you are to decide on the guilt or innocence of Lord Cochrane from the transactions of the 21st of February, you will look at the whole of his conduct, and when pressed to find that the circumstance of his selling is proof of his guilt, you will say, that the circumstance of his not selling more than he did, is a still stronger proof of his innocence. My learned friend will have an opportunity in his reply, of accounting why his lordship and his supposed co-conspirators did not sell more; and I think he will find it a task that will transcend even his powers, to account for it in a manner compatible with their guilt.
Gentlemen, the only remaining point relative to Lord Cochrane is this; that on the morning of the 21st of February Mr. De Berenger went to the house of his lordship. Gentlemen, it is material for your consideration how the Stock Exchange got the knowledge of that fact. Gentlemen, but for my Lord Cochrane, the Stock Exchange never would have known of the existence of any such person as De Berenger; but for my Lord Cochrane, it is impossible that the Stock Exchange could have instituted this prosecution, because it was by Lord Cochrane's affidavit only that the name of De Berenger was given to them. I am aware my learned friend stated to you, that the Stock Exchange had some reason to suspect that a Mr. De Berenger had been engaged in it before this affidavit was published; but, Gentlemen, my learned friend has offered no proof of the grounds of such suspicion; the only proof that he has offered upon the subject, is the proof which my Lord Cochrane's affidavit furnished him with. Now, Gentlemen, I have a right to say, that the mere circumstance of Lord Cochrane's introducing the name of Mr. De Berenger for the first time, in that affidavit, is of itself sufficient to repel the inference arising from the circumstance of De Berenger's going to his house. But, gentlemen, I am sure you will bear in mind the very important evidence that was given by Mr. Wright upon that subject. My learned friend may repeat again the observation with which he introduced this prosecution, that those who are wicked are not always wise, and that it so happens frequently, that men do acts without considering the consequences of those acts, and that it is in consequence of this want of consideration that criminality is often brought home to delinquents; but it appears from Mr. Wright's testimony, that Lord Cochrane was fully aware of the consequence of the affidavit that he was about to publish. Mr. Wright, the printer, who was called for the purpose of shewing that this affidavit had been printed by Lord Cochrane, tells you, that when he received the instructions from Lord Cochrane to print the affidavit, Lord Cochrane said this, I have no reason to think De Berenger was the man, but if he was, I have given the Stock Exchange a clue to him; so that you see, at the very moment that his lordship published that affidavit, he was perfectly aware of the consequence of what he was about; and he must know, that if the Stock Exchange could not find out who this man was who came to his house, it would be impossible for them to reach his lordship. He must know that they were likely to remain for ever ignorant who that person was. He comes forward and tells them who that person was, recollecting at the time he makes the disclosure, that if that person be guilty, he would by the act he was about to do deliver him over to their justice. What must those persons think of Lord Cochrane? who after this can consider him as implicated in the guilt of this conspiracy? the guilty men knowingly and advisedly point out to their prosecutors, the only course by which they can be hunted down; such guilty men must be men of too weak understandings to be answerable for their conduct either to God or their country. In the declaration that Lord Cochrane made to Mr. Wright, he did that justice to Mr. De Berenger which his knowledge of that gentleman compelled him to do; he said he did not think him guilty; but if he was guilty, he was about to give him up to the punishment that he justly merited. Gentlemen, there is more of simplicity, more of fair dealing in this behaviour, than was ever found connected with so much guilt as is imputed by the indictment that you are trying, to this defendant.
Gentlemen, let us look at the affidavit itself; my learned friend indulged himself with making upon it a great number of very harsh observations. It is easy to raise suspicions; but suspicion and conviction are different things. Recollect, that before you can convict Lord Cochrane, you must be convinced that this affidavit is altogether false. Gentlemen, it might possibly be said, that that noble Lord, not reflecting on the consequences of such an offence as that imputed to him by this indictment, might be engaged in it; but you must impute to Lord Cochrane a much more serious offence, one for which want of consideration will be no excuse, after that affidavit has been laid before you, or it is impossible for you to say that he can be convicted of this conspiracy; for it will not be forgotten by you, that at the close of that affidavit, my Lord Cochrane does, in the most solemn manner protest, that he is altogether innocent of the offence which is imputed to him by the Stock Exchange Committee. Gentlemen, I cannot put that better to you than in the words of the affidavit itself; after stating every thing that had taken place with respect to De Berenger coming to his house, his Lordship says, "Further, I do solemnly depose, that I had no connexion or dealing with any one, save the above mentioned, and that I did not directly or indirectly, by myself, or by any other, take or procure any office or apartment for any broker or other person for the transaction of Stock affairs."
Gentlemen, it is said that this affidavit has only been sworn before a magistrate; a lawyer, like my learned friend, knows that upon an affidavit so sworn a party cannot be indicted for perjury; but my learned friend will have a great difficulty in convincing you, that Lord Cochrane, whose education has been different from that of my learned friend, knew that he was not liable to that punishment. I am persuaded that he conceived himself as completely amenable to the guilt of perjury, as if that oath had been taken in a court of justice. But is the temporal danger that awaits an act of this sort, the only thing that could prevent a person of the character and situation in life of this noble person, from making such an affidavit. What reason has my learned friend given you to-day? What reason can you collect from the former life of this noble person, (for he has been before you, and has lived in the view of the public), that can induce you to believe that he is so completely lost to all sense of that which is right and wrong, to all sense of what is due to himself, as to go before a magistrate to make an affidavit, in which he must know he was deposing to that, which at the time he was making the deposition was absolutely false? Gentlemen, I ask you what evidence you have upon which you are to find this noble person, not only guilty of a foul conspiracy, but also of the still higher crime of wilful and corrupt perjury? Gentlemen, I am quite satisfied, you will not feel that there is any evidence in this cause, which can weigh down the testimony which my learned friend has thought proper to put in. I say the oath of Lord Cochrane makes the evidence offered on the other side kick the beam; that there is nothing to put in competition with the affidavit which my learned friend has himself given in evidence.