“_Having hunted down the game_, the prosecutors showed _what became of
his skin_, and it was a very material fact that the defendant De
Berenger _stripped himself at Lord Cochrane’s_. HE PULLED HIS SCARLET
UNIFORM OFF THERE, and if the circumstance of its not being green did
not excite Lord Cochrane’s suspicion, what did he think of the star
and medal? It became him on discovering these, as an officer and a
gentleman, to communicate his suspicions of these circumstances. Did
he not ask De Berenger where he had been in this masquerade dress? It
was for the jury to say whether Lord Cochrane did not know where he
had been. This was not the dress of a sharpshooter, but of a
mountebank. HE CAME BEFORE LORD COCHRANE FULLY BLAZONED IN THE COSTUME
OF HIS CRIME!!”
The reader will not fail to perceive that in the _Times_ verbatim
report, which is no doubt correct, the Court in every sentence affirms
my _positive guilt_. In the “_revised_” report, his Lordship is made to
go throughout on the hypothetical “if,” whilst in the revised report of
the trial,—which revised report, I affirm, was made up for the
occasion,—I am represented to have been treated with all proper
fairness! Every evil which followed afterwards was inflicted on the
strength of this revised report, and not on the actual transactions at
the trial, as reported in the daily papers.
This “revised” report was, indeed, a very serious matter for me. From
the reports in the daily papers, which were unquestionably accurate, the
public mind was in a state of great ferment at the unfairness of the
trial as regarded myself, and therefore the prosecution got up the
“revised” report. On its appearance, the Attorney-General said in the
House of Commons (July 20th) “He was glad the period had arrived when
the trial could be read at length, and thus _do away the effect of those
imperfect statements_ (the reports of the daily papers) which _misled
the public mind_.” The Solicitor-General, on the same date, went
farther, and accused me of having in my defence _misrepresented and
misquoted the Judge_, because I had quoted the reports of the daily
papers, not having in fact any other to quote. On the testimony of that
“revised” report further investigation was declined by the Admiralty,
and I was dismissed from the naval service.
On the strength of Crane’s evidence, the Court had held that “_De
Berenger appeared before me blazoned in the costume of his crime—that he
pulled off his scarlet uniform in my presence—and that, if the
circumstance of its not being green did not excite my suspicion, what
did I think of the star and medal?_” It is certain, that, even in the
“revised” report of the trial, these unqualified assertions, which, put
as they were to the jury, were sufficient for my conviction, _are not
supported by one particle of evidence_!!
But more has yet to be said of Crane’s evidence, which led to these
expressions on the part of the Judge. It will admit of little doubt that
a man who would swear to the colour of a coat, and would not swear
positively (by the “revised” report) to the identity of the person who
wore it, must have had cogent reasons for a course so extraordinary.