Star.
London, England, 1814-07-20 00:00:00

.
.

... •
•
peifectly correct. If the Hon., Baronet, hciwever,
meant to imply that the Noble and Learned Judge,
who tried the cause would wickedly alter his charge,
so as to give it a different colour, be who knew the
Noble and Learned persons presiding in the Courts
would say that there was not a Judge on the Bench
who was capable of such 'conduct. Why should not
the Solicitor General have delivered. his opinion on
this subject ? It was well known that he, as well as
his Learned Friend, had peremptorily refused to be
employed on either side on that trial. If it was said
that they must be supposed as Counsel for the Go-
vernment. he should ask, what had Government or
the Administration to do with that trial, except in the
ipstaace of administering the mercy of the Crown
upon .the present occasion ? It appeared now, that
not% ithstanding the denial of the Noble Lord, he
had gilien instructions for his brief with his own
niout.h, and bad heard it read to him. The Judges,
notwithstanding the rule, would have allowed in
this case, as in many others, a new trial, if any sur-
prise or mis;ake could have been proved to have hap-
pened ; but there was nothing of that sort here. The
Hon. Baronet believed Lord Cochrane innocent,
because his Solicitors and Advocates had not appeared
to contradict him. Alas ! their mouths were sealed,
but his Lordship might, if he pleased, unseal them.
His defence had been conducted by great and ho-'
nourable rnen : they had not called witnesses, because
they dared not. If the three servants could have
cOntirmed the affidavit of the Noble Lord, where
was the advocate who cculd have been stupid enough
to hesitate to produce them ? Would he not have
rained himself by such an omission ? He was glad
that the period had arrived when the trial could be
read at length, and thus do away the effect of those
imperfect statements which misled the public mind.
But the Honourable Baronet thought the Noble
Lord innocent. Perhaps De Berenger was innocent
also. Pethaps there had been no fraud committed ;
but all was merely a gov-ernment plot to hunt down
an innocent rival, who, by the way, was neither very
important nor very formidable.—(A laugh.)—Lord
Cochr.ne, it appeared, was so innocent that the
pillory was to be dignified by his mere appearance
therein. Whit liad'hitherto been considered such a
punishment as to bow down the head v:ith humiliation
ever a't..r, was now to be esteemed an honour :
the pillory was to become a place of favourite and
ambitio.i., resort : delinquents, is stead of deprecating
its disgrace, would now be eager to attain it, because
the two noble colleagues of Westminiter had graced
it with their presence. If*Lord Cochrane was inno-
cent, then De Berenger was also an honourable man,
for he had his a!ibis and his affidavits as well as my
Lord. Mr. C,;chrane Johnstone was even more in.
pocent, for scarce!), any connection had been proved
between him and De lierenger. The Lcarned Gentle-
man then commented n the advantage which Lod
candtrane had icapeJ irom the fraud, by which he
pot only p=et off absolute rt.irt, but picketed a large
sum of money. /kind. a consideration of all the cir-
cumstaaers, it was impossible .to believe that Lord
Cochrane was innocent ; and he trusted that the
country, as soon as its prejudices, too hastily raised,
had subsicied, vinuld acknowledge that the Grand
Jury had clone its duty in ending the Bill, the trying
Jury in their verdict, and that the Judges had done
their duty in inflicting that sentence which Lord
Cochr ac himself allowed not to be too severe, on the
supposition that he was guilty.
Lord Eli RIINIGToN rose to withdraw his motion,
ifer the communication made by the Noble Lord.
He regretted, and was surprised, that it had not been
made earlier, especially us the Noble Lord had on a
fAmer occasion so earnestly deprecated discussion.
Mr. HoT..,bdEa hoped Lord Cochrane would re-
base his Counsel and Solicitor from their obligation
gl,secreCy, otherwise every man must come to the
same. conclusion with the Solicitor-General; but
he (Mr, .Holmes) had no doubt Lord Cochrane
w•--,tad do 60.

.• The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, the instrnc-.
;ions for the br!ef (he heard from the Solicitor)
were taken from Lord Cochrane, and the draught of
the b; let was read to him, and approved of by him.
The statement of Lord cochrane's servants was taken
at his request, and before him; and I'. Dewman, the
servant, corrected his statement before his Lordship.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE said, he had been furnish-
ed with a statement from the Counsel for Lord C. as
to his having heard the brief ; both Rarts of the brief
were read to his Lordship, and on the proof part he'
made some remarks.
Mr. WETHERELL corroborated the statement
of the last speaker.
Mr. WHI I'BREAD merely rose to state, that
there were in the brief 12 other lines expunged, besides
the four alluded to by the Solicitor General; and
against these the name of Lord Cochrane did not ap.
year. He was not aware that the fact was of any
value, but he mentioned it to shcw that the circurn-
etance of the expunging could not fairly weigh on ei-
ther side. The communication whic!) had been made
by the Noble Lord precluded the necessity of any ob-
rtvations on the present question; though he thought
that the Noble Lord would have done better to make
That communication_ either earlier or before the debate.
If, however, he had been called upon to vote, he cer-
tainly should have voted for the motion, but without
any reference to the guilt or innocence of Lord
Cochrane.
The original motion and the amendment were then
withdrawn.

REVERSIONARY GRANTS.
Mr. BANKES then rose, and after some prelimi-
nary remarks made his annual motion for an humble
Address to the Prince Regent, that he would be gra-
ciously pleased not to grant any office, place, or sa-
lary, in reversion, or for joint lives, till six months
filer die next Session of Parliament.
Lord CASTLEREAGH opposed the motion on
the gr,)und, that arum the rejection which the Rever-
iion 411 had received from the Lords, there was ,
reason to prestime, that there was a deliberate repug-
nance to it in that H. use. The Address now pro-
posed by his Honourable Friend appeared therefore
t:: Lion a summary mode of giving the Commons le.
i s w atitiiority to the exclusion of the other House.
thii ground' he would oppose the motion, though
(torn no pal Ocular hoitility, to the object of the address..
pE RNLY ipprelsehded that as the grant of
versions kid been stopped fin 614 or Xix years pad,
_ •
tl, -- • Imre