Star.
London, England, 1816-08-19 00:00:00

-.. -_ - V"

dictraent, and very revere punishment. The Marshal'
had two objects in view by instituting the Petent
prosecution—the roost prominent of 'illicit was, Ins
own vindication from all suspicion of connivance at
the defendant's escape ; and the next was, to bold out
to the hundreds of persons intrusted to 'his custody,
that • there was no poisibility of escaping without
punishment far such an offence, by showing 10111 t even
a persim of the highest rank could not violate the laws
of his country with impunity.. In what manner the
defendant's escape was effJeted, the prosecutor was
ottetly ignorant. Whether it was done by stratagem
from without the prison walls, the prosecutor was
wholly unin Formed : he only knew it was not done by
his own connivance, (Sr by any contrivance to which
he was privy. All that was known relative totheescape
was, that Lon: Cochr-o.e was seen for the last time
hy the Attendants of the prison on Sunday the 6th of
bl-tell ; lie was not missed until a day or two after-
watds ; .and he was Lot recaptured until the 21st of
tl:e same month. Thera was reason to suppose, than
soon after hi, escape, Lf.rd Cochrane was very anxious
. to return to conflne,nent when he was aware of the
consequences. With the motives of his conduct, or
the means of his escape, the Jory had nothing to do;
it was sufficient, that on the 21st of March, before the
time of his imprisonment had expired, the defendant,
being a Memter of Pailiameat, was found at large
'sitting in the House of Commons some hours before
'the Speaker took the chair ; and the prosecutor, hay-
inj heard of this place of his retreat, went in company
With his assistants; and re-apprehended him on the
same day in the House of Commons. This was die
short outline of the case; and how the defendant
meant to dispute either the law or the facts of the case
be was unable to divine. As to the facts which were
necessary to support this indictment, they would be
proved beyond the possibility of doubt. The princi-
ple of law applicable to the case was equally clear.
It was simply this t the King's subjects owed obe-
' dience to the Magistrates and constituted authorities;
they were bound to acquiescein the sentences which
the Magistrates pronounced. Indeed, so well esta—
Mished was this principle, that if a man sentenced to
the stocks made his escape from the persons empower-
' td to see the sentence carried into-execution, be was
• liable by the old law to be indicted as a felon.
Un-
doubtedly this law in modern times had been altered;
and where there was no actual breach of prison, but
the party escaped by a stratagem or management, he
was indictable only for an escape, or for going at large
before the expiration of the time of his imprisonment
—an offence which was certainly not subject to the
severe penalties entailed upon the person who broke
the prison walls, or forcedlhe doors. In this case it
was not imputed to Lord C. that he broke the prison
walls, but oaly that he broke its boundaries, and was
out of prison long before his sentence bad expired.
This allegation was incontrovertible, because it would
be proved, that he was recaptured in the month of
March, at a erne when his period of imprisonment
had three months or more to run : added to this was,

the fact of his having actually paid the fine of £ WOO
on the following Sil of July. The only iuquirt of to.
day was, whether Lord Cochrane had escaped from
his confinement in the King's Bench pi ism before the
twelvemonths were expired i Ilproved to have been
without the limits of the prison, he would be found
guilty of a tnisdemeanour. Lord Cochrane appeared
to-day without counsel ; but whether his object was
merely to watch the legal proof of the misdemeanour
against him, or to meet the charge by a speech and
evidence, was at present uncertain. Whatever course.
the Noble Lord might think proper to take, he (Mr.
'Marryat) would confine himself to the simple facts of
the case, which lay in an extremely narrow compass ;
and of the result of the inquiry there could not be a
doubt. With the sentence the Jury had nothing to
do ; that would be matter of consideration of the
Court of King's Bench in the ensuing term.
Richard Gude, eumined by Mr. GUANSY.—Stated
'that he was clerk in the Crown-office; and produced
a c spy of Lord Cochrane's commitment to the King's
Sench prison in execution of his sentence, and also a
copy of the rule of. Court by which his commitment
Was mad* out. These documents were put in and read.
Thomas Gibbons examlned.—Witness was Lord
Ellenborough's tipstaif ; be was present 1e the Court
of King's Bench when defendant was brought up and
received sentence of the Court os the 21st of .11131.•
1.14. In obedience to the order of the Court, witness
conveyed the defendant to the King's Bench prison,
in execution of his sentence, and delivered him into
the custody of the gaoler. ; sitnem afterwards saw
the defendant on the 21st of March, 1815, about two
in the afternoon, in the House of Commons; and with
.the assistance of Mr. Jones tho. Marshal, Mr. 13roo-
:Isn't the Deputy Marshal, Lavender the Bow-street
officer, Poole a tipst4l, and another officer, took him
into custody, conveyed him back to the King's Bench,
and replaced him in confinement.
Cross-examined by Lord Cochrane.—By what an.
thority. did fou convey Lord Cochrane from the
Court of King's Bench to the King's Bench prison,
on the 21st of June, 1814 ?—A. I was present in
Court,' and heard your Lordship's sentence pro-
pounced by the Judge ; and in performance of in y
duty, as directed by the Court, I took your Lordship
to the King's Bench prison, in execution of your len.
once. I delivered you to the turnkey, in obedience
to my orders. .
Q. Was the Marshal present whets you delivered
Lord Cochrane into the custody of the turnkey ? A.
The Marshal was not present.
Q. Do you consider a deliverance to the turnkey a
deliverance to the custody of the Marshal of the
King's Bench ; and do you know whether the turnkey
had, any authority to act ? A. I know nothing of the
authority of the turnkey; I acted in obedience to my
orders, and I delivered your Lordship into the cus-
tody of the torakey at the servant of the Marshal.
' Q Had you any authority to act on that occasion?
A. I had no authority to act by except the verbal
orders of the Lord Chief 'Justice, which Were quite
=scion for me. I was present at the proceeding,
and heard the Judge's orders pronounced.
Q. Will you take upon yourself to swear, that the
person into whose custody you delivered Lord
Cochrane was a turnkey, duly authorised to act as
lit^uch ? A.. I know nothing of the person's authority :
acted as turnkey, and I delivered your Lordship
o his custody, as the acting officer on duty.
V. Will you take upon Yourself to say, that the
persons into whose . custody ypu delivered. Lord
Cacti-race were really torokos 1

kr.• Justice icanoter.--ite only question is,
were they acting es EA at the time; vete they thee
on duty at turnkeys 1 A. Thai were the persons who
opened the gates, and were'on duty at the time.
Q. tby Lord Comotexa.) Will you take upon
yourself to swear that they were not persons merely
baring 64 the run of the byre A. I g_on't know of
any such circumstance; they were tbAt'Marshal's ser-
vants, and acted under his orders. f
Q. The Marshal was not present? A")To, he was not.
. Do you considet the_deliverydsf Lord Cochrane
at the time to the tin:they:o delivery to the Marshal,
the Marshal not being patnt ? A. I certainly con-
sidered it a delivery to thitenstody of the Marshal of
the King's Bench, in obeiience to the orders of the
Court; the principal officers, Mr. Morris and Mr.
Deveant, being then on duty.
Q. Then, to the best of your belief, and upon your
oath, you never saw the authority upon which those
persons acted ? A. I only know that they were acting
officers of the prison.
Q. You think the Marshal was not present ? A.. I
have already said he was not.
Re examined.—The persons to whom the defen-
dant was delivered were acting as turnkeys and ME-
cers of the prison; defendant was delivered to their.
custody in the usual way in which all other persons
committed by the Court of King's Bench were deli-
vered, in obedience to the order of the Court, in exe-
cution of their sentence.
Examined by Mr. JosticeSURROVOU--Witness
was in the habit of conveying prisoners to the Kings
Bench prison, and generally delivered them to the
;custody of the same persons.
• Bernard Emanuel Brooshoft said, he was clerk of
the Marshal of the King's Bench prison; the defen-
dant was committed to prison on' the 21st of June,
1814 D-invocation of his sentence, nnd remained there
'until his escape took place, wbieh was some time in
the month of March following, but witness could not
state the day.; witness first heard of the defendant's
absence from prison about the Bth or 9th of March, •
when be searched, and found the defendant was miss-
ing I he was afterwards present, on the 21st of March,
when defendant was taken into custody in the House
of Coupons ; there were no other Members in ,the
House at the times and the Speaker eats not then in
the Chair ; the House of Commons was nut a part of
the rules or limits of the King's Bench prison; de.
Pendant was re conveyed to confieement, and under.
went the remainder of his sentence of imprisonment,
On the 3d of July witness accompanied defendant's
secretary to the Crown Office where the fine of 181000
was paid ; defendant was liberated on the same day.
Cross•examined by Lord Cocnaees.—Q. Were
you present when Lord Cochrane was committed ?
A. No, I was not present t this I recollect.
Q. Was the Marshal, present when Lord Cochrane
was delivered into custody at the King's Bench pri-
son ? A. Nu, certainly net.
Q. Do you consider the delivery of Lord Cochrane
into the custody of the turnkeys, a delivery into the
custody of the Marshal ? A. I certainly consider a
delivery into the custody of the officer of the prison
in effect a delivery into the custody of the Marshal.
Q. Do you know by what authority Mt. Jones, the
Marshal, acted on that occasion ; and do you not
know that in point of fact the Marshal was not acting
in his office of Marshal ?

Mr. Justice B•musoucrw.r—The question is not upon
what authority the Marshal acted, or whether he pro-
perly discharged the duties of his offices we hare no
right to inquut into that subject. The issue is not
whether Mr. Jones, the Marshal, in point of law,
acted legally and properly; but the question is, whe-
ther the, defendant, being legally delivered into cus-
tody, escaped from that custody before the period of
his imprisonment had expired I
Lord COcaRANZ...I submit to your Lordship that
it is of material importance to inquire whether an of-
ficer holding a certain situation, to which certain du-
ties arc assigned, has performed those duties. Does
not ymir Lordship think it is an important issue in
this case, whether that officer, bolding such a situa-
tion, has performel the duties of his office ? and whe-
ther that officer can be considered as. legally execu-
ting the duties of his office, when it appears by the
evidence that he was not present
Mr. Justice BURIMGM—We have nothing to do
with the authority or the duties of the Marshal. The
question is, whether, Oro tarn,. the dc;endant has
been legally committed to custody ? If the Marshal
does not perform his duty, or misbehaves himself, he
may be removed from his office, or punished for any
misbehaviour its it; but that is not the offence we are
now trying.
Lord Cocuawasr..—lt is clear, upon my cross-exa-
'mination of the witness, that Mr. Jones, the Marshal,
was not in the.exereise of his office, 'nor performing
the duties assigned to him, and that he was not act-
ing agreeably to the tenour of his commission.
Mr. Justice nuanouou.—He was exercising the
office of Marshal, and the defendant was delivered to
the sustody of his servants acting os his behalf. The
Marshal might not be ally acting, .but still he
wadlegally exercising is office through the medium
of his servants. _ _

Lord COCHRANE...4 trust I may be permitted to
call your Lordship's attention to the terms of the
commission under which Mr. Jones is authOrisel to
set ?

Mr. Maanyarr.—r submit Luton: Lordship, it is
not competent for the Court to enter into aby such
inquiry as this.
Mr. Justice ButtaouGn.—l take the object of my
Lord Cochrane to be rather ee suggest what is the
nature of the office and the nature of 01111111h600
under which the Manhal acts. _ _ _

Lord ellellegifit then wad.* passage from the Re-
port of the Committee of the House of Commons on
the subject of the King's Bonk Prison. The defini-
tion of the dotes of the office of the Marshal of that
prison was there contained.; thrpribeipal of
was, that he should be present and personally acting
in the discharge of his functions. He read isms lb .„
evidence of Mr. Brembeft before the Committee
that the Marshal war seldom or never within its walls,
though in the receipt ofa salary of mew than 43000
a-year.
Ddr..Justice Buseouou —We cannot go Into any,
abases in thuds's. ,This fecund a• pan of the is-
dictment. Whatley*, obiestionathlbeemendt,ade to the
ntiniter in which the duce 1119 . that de"
not make tins nificevoid. He' • limas the 011011.
bible of in the peseemesiestibe glow
idt. submitted, tbst tbe Covet oeibt