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

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 controul, or part of which he may have contrived for his own security, is as clearly established as if deposed to by the testimony of eye-witnesses.
Gentlemen, by the same sort of evidence by which in these, and various other cases, the lives of individuals are affected, I undertake to bring home this case to the Defendants upon this Record. I undertake to shew, that such a conspiracy did exist as this Indictment charges; and I undertake to prove