The Trial of Charles Random de Berenger, Sir Thomas Cochrane, commonly called Lord Cochrane, the Ho | Page 6

will be laid before you, and to that evidence alone--by
that evidence let the Defendants stand or fall.
Gentlemen, it would be very extraordinary indeed, if it could ever have

been supposed by any person, even the most ignorant, that this was not
a crime. It would be a disgrace to any civilized country, if its laws were
so defective. If that which has been done by these Defendants in
conspiracy, had been done by any one of them singly, it would have
been unquestionably a crime; but when done by conspiracy, it is a
crime of a more aggravated nature--To circulate false news, much more
to conspire to circulate false news with intent to raise the price of any
commodity whatever, is, by the Law of England, a crime, and its direct
and immediate tendency is to the injury of the public. If it be with
intent to raise the price of the public funds of the country, considering
the immense magnitude of those funds, and, consequently, the vast
extent of the injury which may be produced, the offence is of a higher
description. The persons who must be necessarily injured in a case of
that kind, are various; the common bona fide purchaser who invests his
money--the public, through the commissioners for the redemption of
the national debt--the persons whose affairs are under the care of the
Court of Chancery, and whose money is laid out by the Accountant
General, all these may be injured by a temporary rise of the public
funds, growing out of a conspiracy of this kind; and, Gentlemen, this is
no imaginary statement of mine, for it will appear to you to-day, that all
these persons were in fact injured by the temporary rise produced by
this conspiracy. Undoubtedly the public funds will be affected by
rumours, which may be considered as accidental; in proportion as they
are liable to that, it becomes more important to protect them against
fraud.
If this had been a conspiracy to circulate false rumours, merely to abuse
public credulity, it would not have been a trivial offence; but if the
object of the conspiracy be not merely to abuse public credulity, but to
raise the funds, in order that the conspirators may sell out of those
funds for their own advantage, and, consequently, to the injury of
others, in that case the offence assumes its most malignant character--it
is cold blooded fraud, and nothing else. It is then susceptible of but one
possible aggravation, and that is, if the conspirators shall have
endeavoured to poison the sources of official intelligence, and to have
made the officers of government the tools and instruments of
effectuating their fraud--Gentlemen, this offence, thus aggravated, I

charge upon the several Defendants upon this Record, and I undertake
to prove every one of them to be guilty.
Gentlemen, when I undertake to prove them to be guilty, you will not
expect that I shall give you proof by direct evidence, because, in the
nature of things, direct evidence is absolutely impossible--they who
conspire do not admit into the chamber in which they form their plan,
any persons but those who participate in it; and, therefore, except where
they are betrayed by accomplices, in no such case can positive and
direct evidence be given. If there are any who imagine, that positive
and direct evidence is absolutely necessary to conviction, they are
much mistaken; it is a mistake, I believe, very common with those who
commit offences: they fancy that they are secure because they are not
seen at the moment; but you may prove their guilt as conclusively,
perhaps even more satisfactorily, by circumstantial evidence, as by any
direct evidence that can possibly be given.
If direct and positive evidence were requisite to convict persons of
crimes, what security should we have for our lives against the murderer
by poison?--no man sees him mix the deadly draught, avowing his
purpose. No, he mixes it in secret, and administers it to his unconscious
victim as the draught of health; but yet he may be reached by
circumstances--he may be proved to have bought, or to have made the
poison; to have rinsed the bottle at a suspicious moment; to have given
false and contradictory accounts; and to have a deep interest in the
attainment of the object. What security should we have for our
habitations against the midnight burglar, who breaks into your house
and steals your property, without disturbing your rest or that of your
family, but whom you reach by proving him, shortly afterwards, in the
possession of your plate? What security should we have against the
incendiary, who is never seen in the act by any human eye, but whose
guilt, by a combination of circumstances over which he may have had
no