The National Register.
London, England, 1814-08-14 00:00:00

TrIE NATIONAL REGISTEn:

:its

I apprehend that it was the duty of my solicitors to have sent me
a copy of the brief, which however, they did not ; and I *repeat, •
that previous-to the-t rial-I •tteger -read.it..•• is:appears. that. they pars •
titularly called my attention to an unimportant circumstance which
they had inserted in the brief, or the examinations attached, in
consequence of an erroneous communication from my, servant, who
Lid cdufounded the circumstances of two different occuliences,
This Was the" one particular," which the Solicitor-General says
that 1 myself 'corrected. I admit that this error was eipunged by
my authority •,,aml opposite the four lines which 'contained it, is
written " Wad thii to Lord COebrant,"
_which I think is anargu-
silent that the greater part of the brie* was,.not read to the ;
cularly as there are twelve lines expunged in another place, oppo-
site to which my name does not appear. My Solicitors., however 4
assert, that though Idid Hot read the brief myself, they. read th'e
greater part of it to me; and on their asertion I admit That •they
did so; though I have no recollection of the fact. But if it.coniti
be shewn that they drew my attention to every line ..of the brief,
except •oeily to that one most important point,. the description of
Berenger's tire-s, which immediately follows the cony lines ex
imnered, think that they were guilty of very reprehensible
negligeore. In my affidavit which was before them, and was ins
troduceit into the to ief, the coat worn by De Berenger is •wm•ii to
have hero ffeten ; and in the examinatioos attached to the brief it is
watt 41 to have bet n red. It is iolpossible that this most important
difiereoce roold hive eseapol their observation, and vet it is true
that' they never called ley atteotion to it. I may affirni, without
f ac of being ;leant coatradieted, that I did not know that the
di ess of De Berenger, which I had sworn to be grig'lll WPS in any
part of the brief, touch loss in the esamioations of my servants,
describe i to be red ,• because it is ilipossible, iiniess I had been abso-
lutely insane, thst i should not only have been sati,tied with a brief
which authorised toy cowisel to C'ollll'ildirt my own atfilavit, but
Lae been anxious to send my servants into court to give evidence
againscnie.
If mV sOlicittrrs aetnaly revl this part of the brief to me, it is
obvious that I wac not giving that attention, which a mail, consious
a Pail It naturally would have given. The void " red,,, if I had
heals! it: mint itive instantly excit.sl my particular notice. But,
"It' the slifelence between red and green escaped my t:hservatfon,"
what it toy . olicitors " think" of it? My accusers chiefly depended
for ne, Couvici ion on proving that De Berenge! appealed iiero-re sue
in the red coot in which he Committed the fl sod. It is possible
that one of toy solicitors should hive read it to nie, and not have
said, " Yon observe, Lord Coenrane, that this is contratiictory
your affidavit ?" To have read it to me without a pause, and have
suffered it to pass witliont observation, is, I think, as tiegliciit as
not to have read it at all; .aad is wholly irreconcileable with the as-
aert;ao of Mr. Abercrombie; that both parts of the brief were read
over to me with the utmost care.
• •
If, la /ay dcfeoce in the House of Commons, I did rot state . the .
manner in which 1 app•chended the ditkrence between the brief
and the- affidavit orgisated, it was because I could not have stated
it withoitt tUrOwing twoe blame on my solicitors titan I felt inclined.
to do. I have bee., challenged by the Attorney-General to unseal.
the lips of my solicitor and counsel. My solicitors, however, did
not wait for me to topical toeir lips, as is evident by what is called
the contacr st iteinent, with which they thought pyoper to furnish.
Mr. Ambercromhie and others ;•and 1 think it rather unreasonable
to Is qunc cite to mescal the lips of my counsel to qualify then') to,
give evOteore against me, when -I could. not succeed in aniscalhig
their lips cn the trial to speak ottc..wordin lov behalf. I%lv
COMISeI.*Mr. Topping and Mr. SC..rlett, whom I fully expected
would have advocated my cause, never spoke in my defenee, lii
saving this, however, i east no• blame on those gentlemen, because
I have ni) doubt tbat under the eifsmnstances the n known to them
they acted as they thought hest. Neither do I mean to blame kfr.
Serjeant rest, (the counsel for Mr. Johnstone), who, coots-ant to
my expectation iind direction, &knifed my cans'' in coojnnetion
with that of his own client. He made.as able speech as any advo•
cate could hat•e done, with the informatton he possessed, and Ondrr
his then .eircumstatices ; bat he intimated at the time,. and after-
wards authorised me to assert, that he was not able to do jnstice to
tie cause and it is a just armpit' of complaint that after Mr. Ser-
jeant Best hid been exhait4ed b fifteen bouts' close attention and
confit.ement, he was net allowed a few hours to recover himself
and prepare for the defence.
To return : I do, however,' accept. the daring of the Attorney
Genet al, hn I freely release my solicitors awl counsel from every
obligation of secrecy. I thooght, however, after the statemeot
which had been circulated by my' solicitors, that it was my duty in
41.$ place to put to them certain questions, which I was imt
thhi
• •• -

AVG. 14.

aware would have occasioned much delay ; but after a lapse of
nearly t 'fortnight, they wrote to infoitu -me that they ilion4la it....
would be improper to MISWer thohe quebtiona. I now lay them bQ.

fore the pnbiie.
I particularly authorise the Counsel employed for the detence to
state their reasons for determining to defend me conjointly withMr Johnstone, contrary to the opinion of Mr. Adam expressed on
the 6th of May, contrary to that own opinion expressed on the
k'ani of May, and contrary to my opinion and direction expressed
on the 29th of May ; and I also authorise them to assign the reason
for their opinion, that no witness ought to be examined on my part ;
and.especially their reasons for not examining my servants on the
subject of De Berenget's dress, notwithstanding my cagiest desire to
Ira, c them examined. lam also willing, nay, lam auxions that Mr.
Sedeant Best should state, whether when be admitted that the coat
was red, and not green, lie did not imagnne that I bad sworn falsely
fay desigo? I know that in his speech he attributed my description
of the coat to error only, but I am anxious to know whether lie did
so from his-feelings as a man, or his sense of duty as an advocate
his Lordship afrerwards plocecJs thus : To come now to tin mans
ter in which the error in the brief origniated, I have no hesitation
in acknowledging that I am at issue with my solicitors on that point.
The it account is, that two of my servants whom I had sent to their
office to he examiuril as to the evidt lice they could give on the ilia),
admitted that De Bei enger wore a red coat with a greet) collar.
My servants, on the contrary, assure me that the y did not, and could
tiot.admit, that it was a red coat ! because wilco they saw De Be-
renger he wore a gruat-coat buttoned. up, and they saw neither
she. body nor the skirts of the under-coat; but the collar
roid.so much of the breasos as they saw were green: but they admit
that on being questioned by my solicitors, Whether the could swear
that it was not a red coat, tiny confesve I that they could not, and
admitted that it might be red, and that the green which they saw
might be green faciuga to a military coat ; but they have constantly
declared that no part which they saw was red, and they deny that
they ever admitted that they saw any red. My solicitors were in
prisseSSion of their previous affidavits, describing I)e iterenuer to
have worn a grey great-coat buttoned up, and a c .uit with a green
collar onderneath. I shall not deny that my solicitors considered
the admissions of the servants to amount to an acknowledgmebt that
the coat was red; but I shall ever believe that such admissions
actually went no further tha:,, that since they aid not see the body
of the:coat, it might, for aught they -knew, be red —and possibly,
that trey supposed it was red, because the wearer, having a sword
and Military cap, they conceived him to be aft army officer.
The description whirl'. my solicitors introduced into the brief, in
consequence of this examination. namely, a red coat with a green
collar, neither accords ssith lily description, nor w ith the coat ac-
tually. worn by. I)e B.:rower on his way from Dover, %Oka, as
proved by the witnesses on- the trial, was either wholly scarlet or
turned up with yellow.
If I ha I been a party to the fraud, and had sworn falsely as to the
colone,of the coat,.i doubtless also might have been wicked enoagh
to have endeovoured to suborn the servants to perjure themselves in
my behalf; but I should hardly have ventured to send them to my
so;icitins to be examined on the subject, without previously in.
structing them myself: amid it can hardly be supposed, that if they
had been on theie guard from any previons instructions of mine, that
my solicitors, in the common course 'of examination, would have
obtainl froin them any evidence which militated against my own
sltateineot. I should natmally, too, have teat some anxiety to know
• titc.res4,lt of their examination ; yet the truth is, that I never asked
then' aisitigle question on then return from the Solicitor's office.
Indeed, if had questioned them as narrowly as one may. suppose
al,:nilty; Man, who had sent his servants on a guilty errand, of so
innell clanger anti importance, would have questioned them, I should,
in all probability, have,di,eovered whether they had or had not ex-
ecuted that corm() to my sat i•faction. At all events I should have
beetraasions to know the result of their examination as entered in
the'brief; and it it be true that it was actually read to me by my
Solicitoe, I most, under such circumstances, have lent too attentive
an ear to have Offered the ruinous word red to have escaped my
observation. I must, too, .have shevoi symptoms of uneasiness on
hearing that word which could not have escaped the observation of
the render, particularly as the contradiction between that word
and my oath must have been resent to his mind. And, lastly. with
the knowledge that the brief contained a flat and fatal coutradic.
non to my own
.affidavit out of the biotin's of my Own servants, I
should hardly-have snifered it to have gone to my counsel in that
state ; and then have pressed, in the way in which I did press, to
have those servants examined on the trial.
How my bolicitors could admit'so fatal a contradiction into the brief