The Trial of Charles Random de Berenger, Sir Thomas Cochrane Part 17

_A._ No, it was brought to me by my maid-servant at three o'clock in the morning, I was in bed.

_Q._ Did you get up immediately?

_A._ I read the letter in bed.

_Q._ Is that the letter? (_shewing a letter to the witness._)

_A._ This is the letter.

_Q._ Did you mark it before you parted with it?

_A._ I do not know whether I marked it or not.

_Q._ You know it again.

_A._ I inclosed it in a letter but I did not mark it.

_Q._ You inclosed it in a letter to Mr. Croker?

_A._ Yes a private letter to Mr. Croker.

_Q._ Is that the letter in which you inclosed it to Mr. Croker (_shewing a letter to the witness._)

_A._ This is the letter.

_Q._ That letter which I first shewed you is the letter you received from your maid servant?

_A._ It is.

_Q._ I suppose you rose directly?

_A._ I rose and sent for the boy into my dressing room.

_Q._ Did you communicate the news by telegraph to the admiralty that morning.

_A._ It was very late before I began, I will tell you what I did, I questioned the boy a good deal, for I must say I did not believe the letter.

_Q._ I must not ask you what pa.s.sed between you and the boy, but whether you telegraphed the admiralty?

_A._ I did not, because the weather was thick, and I further say, the message I should have sent to the admiralty would have satisfied them--

_Q._ In fact you did not telegraph the admiralty because the weather was too thick?

_A._ I did not.

_Q._ When you sent for the boy up had you the letter in your hand?

_A._ I had, it was then three o'clock and dark, the telegraph would not move.

_Q._ I take for granted you had a candle?

_A._ Of course.

_Mr. Gurney._ We will now read the letter.

_Mr. Park._ I object, with great deference to his Lordship, to that letter being read, the evidence does not bring home that to the supposed officer, who is said to be Mr. De Berenger, it does not appear from any evidence to have come out of his hand it reaches this boy by the communication of Mr. Wright, who has not been called.

_Mr. Gurney._ I will ask the witness as to the reason of Mr. Wright's not being here--he is very ill, is not he?

_A._ He is extremely ill.

_Mr. Park._ My Lord, that does not alter the law of evidence, I submit there is a chasm in that chain that precludes their reading the letter as evidence against Mr. De Berenger. I do not mean to say that might not be supplied in the absence of Mr. Wright, but that letter lying before your Lordship's Officer is not identified to be the very paper which issued forth from this supposed person. It was delivered to this youth at the door of the inn by Wright, who is ill and absent from illness, he is not present to tell your Lordship from whom he received that, and there is a chasm in the chain of evidence, nor does the Admiral say he received the letter from this boy, he received it from a maid servant.

_Lord Ellenborough (to Admiral Foley.)_ When the boy came into your presence I suppose you asked him about this letter?

_A._ I did.

_Q._ Did he recognize that as the letter he had brought?

_A._ He did.

_Mr. Park._ With deference to your Lordship I should submit the letter was then open, the boy had delivered the letter shut to the maid servant, and I should have submitted, it is quite impossible that this youth could distinguish the letter, n.o.body doubts it is the letter, but that must be proved by legal evidence.

_Lord Ellenborough._ It is prima facie evidence. I do not speak now of the communication from De Berenger (supposing he is the person) of the letter to the boy. I do not say any thing upon that objection of yours, but that the letter which reached Admiral Foley was the letter the boy brought I think no human being can doubt.

_Mr. Park._ But still upon the original point, I submit it is not so proved as to be read in evidence.

_Lord Ellenborough._ Yes, you may resort to that if you please, the witness said he wanted an express horse to send to the Admiral at Deal, and then an express horse was got, and something was carried to the Admiral at Deal. That is the evidence as it stands.

_Mr. Serjeant Best._ So far the evidence goes my Lord, they now want to make the contents of that letter evidence, but before they can do that they must either prove that letter to be the hand-writing of Mr. De Berenger, or trace that Letter regularly from the hand of Mr. De Berenger: they have no such evidence, but all they say is, that Wright, the Landlord of the inn, took the letter out of the inn and delivered it to the boy at the door, the boy never having seen Mr. De Berenger, nor they having the smallest evidence whatever to connect the boy with him.

_Lord Ellenborough._ If there had been, the question would not have arisen.

_Mr. Serjeant Best._ I submit there is nothing to connect that letter with this person, and if it is the hand-writing of Mr. De Berenger I should think they would have no difficulty in proving that, there were other gentlemen waiting for information from France, as we hear from the witnesses, and if this letter is read Mr. De Berenger and the other Defendants may be made responsible for that letter which may have been written by one of those other persons.

_Lord Ellenborough._ I only want to get first all the facts relating to this letter. I cannot find any thing beyond that that he wanted an express horse to send to the Admiral at Deal.

_Mr. Gurney._ And that a sheet of paper was brought to him to write.

_Lord Ellenborough._ That he was preparing to write a letter and that he wanted an express horse to carry it, but as to the immediate identification of that letter you lose the intervening proof by the absence of Mr. Wright.

_Mr. Gurney._ My Lord, if there is any sort of difficulty about it, I will identify it at once by proving the hand-writing, but the Gentleman to prove that felt a delicacy in consequence of his being the Attorney for the prosecution.

_Germain Lavie, Esq. sworn._

_Examined by Mr. Gurney._