The Sun.
London, England, 1814-07-20 00:00:00

of the profession to Which be lyelonge(l,,tbnt the
mist tlegiltdit:tg part-a:his tiimishineut .•slyould
have bee.l remittedtt punishment which he him-
self hail stated, if " he were guilty, would 11,4

be one j it too
,serere
Lord FARINGTO'N ‘vislted slie Noble Lord (Cas-
tlereagh) had communicated the gratifying, intel-
ligunce which he hatl laid before the House, at
an earlier period of the evening, as it would have
avoided much useless discussion. In conse-
quence, however, of-the eneasurr adopted by Go-
- .vernment, be did not feel justified in detaining the
Hoese any longer on the subject of his notion,.
which he should withdraw,
.1111- MiLmits stated, that in consequence of
what had fallen from theSolieitorneneral respect-
ing Lord Cochrane's perusal of the 13riel before
his defence, he had written a note to his Lordship,
to' which he had just received an, answer.—
lie then read the letter which declared that the
Solicitor General bad not been correct in what he
had stated ; that his LOrdship bad never read the
whole Of the Brief, but only that part where, the
following words were written in the margin, in
the hand of Mr Parkinson, read by Lord Coch-
rane." With this he hint sent a comfor the Brief,
in which the marginal note was extailt. He now
thought that if Lord Cochrane did not accent the
incitation given him by theattorney-General, and
did not relieve his CoMisel and Solicitors from the
obligation of secrecy, it would be dionglit con-
sciousness of guilt. lle had no doubt, at the
Fame time, however; that his Lordship wimid-int-
rnediatelv avail himself of the opportunity thus
*afforded him, to give"- the 'necessary leave to his
" Counsel-and Solicitors.
The SoLicrrott-(*sEnAr.. had not stated from
his own knonle4e that Lord Cochrane had read
the brief. I* was, however, on the authority of
a eredible person that he Thad mentioned that the
-.instructions tor the brief had been taken from his
• LOrdship himself, who had read and approVed of
all the piereq, saving the indictment, his own al',
fidavit, and -the account of the Stock Exchange,
which were not vet roade out. As to the copy of
the brief whisth he held, be had only to remark,
that at the place where it was written in the mar-
gin, read by Lord Cochrane, four lines had been
erased, Was the Marginal note put as a justifi-
cation for the erasure ?
Mr. AEFRCKO7.IBE recollected that when the
Noble Lord was preparing ,to make his' defence
in that House, his Counsel and Solicitors, appre-
hensive lest •he should allege that he had vot
read the brief, had issued a statement which rave
some eXplatio'on on the subject. It is well known
that a brief- is 'divided into two parts : the first
contains the recitals, and the second the proofs.
Accore,ing to this paper, both these parts of the
brief were read to his Lordship, and on the se-
cond he made souse observations. it was there-
fore clear that the whole had been submitted to
his inspection.
Mr. WETHERELL followed the same line of ar-

gument.
Mr. IVITITBREAD thought it but fair' to remark,
that if four lines had been expunged in the brief,
at the place where it was stated in the margin to
have treen man tiy
other part where 12 had been erased w nout any
observation at all. After what the Noble Lord,
bad stated respecting the remission of punishment
it would be unnecessary to push the discussion
any further. Had not this communication, been
made, be would have voted for the motion, with-
out considering the question of criminality, which
was not before the House. It was only etn the
presumption of guilt that the House was to pro-
ceed. , The Noble Lord, he thought, ought to
'have communicated the extension of Royal Mercy
'pi an earlier period in the evening.
The Amendment and the original Motion were
then both withdrawn.