It has been stated, that, conscious of my innocence, I took no personal
steps for my defence, beyond forwarding a general statement of a few
lines to my solicitors (see Appendix), that I never even read the
completed brief which they drew up for the guidance of my counsel, nor
was I present in court to suggest questions in cross-examination. After
my conviction, however, it became necessary to seek additional evidence
to support an appeal from the conviction, or an application for a new
trial as against myself.
Lord Ellenborough refused the application, _because all the persons
tried were not present to concur in it_, though the law gave me no power
to compel their attendance. The evidence on which it was grounded,
however, is none the less conclusive because Lord Ellenborough and his
colleagues declined to receive it, or even _to hear it!!_ but in place
of so doing, at once delivered their outrageous sentence against me.
This appeal was grounded on the evidence of several respectable
tradesmen, residing in the neighbourhood of Crane, the hackney coachman,
they voluntarily and unsolicited by me, but as an act of public justice,
going before the Lord Mayor, and making the affidavits from which the
subjoined extracts are taken. Not one of these tradesmen was even known
to me or my solicitors:—
JAMES MILLER, butcher, of Marsh Gate, Lambeth, made affidavit that he
saw De Berenger “get out of the chaise into a hackney coach—that he
was _dressed in green_, with a grey great coat, and that _there was no
red on any part of his dress_.”
JOSEPH RAIMENT, fishmonger, Westminster Bridge Road, made affidavit
that he saw De Berenger “get out of the chaise into the hackney
coach—that his great coat was partly open, and that _the under dress
was dark green, like that of the sharpshooters_.”
CHARLES KING, stable-keeper, Westminster Bridge Road, made affidavit
that he met William Crane accidentally, and asked him what he had been
doing with Sayer?[97] He answered, that “he had been to see De
Berenger, in order to identify him, but _he could not swear to him, as
many faces were alike_.” But he said, using a protestation in the most
horrible language, too gross to repeat—“he would have a hackney coach
_out of them_,” meaning, as deponent believed, the prosecutors. During
this conversation, a person passed dressed in a grey great coat, which
Crane said was just like De Berenger’s, and that he (Crane) did not
see De Berenger’s under-dress, _as his coat was closely buttoned up_.
“Deponent further saith, that after the trial he saw Crane’s father,
who told him that ‘he was _going after the money_’ (meaning the
reward), adding that ‘_his son was considered a first-rate witness!_’
On this deponent asked Crane the elder ‘how he could consider his son
in that light, as he knew very well that had he (deponent) been
examined, he must have _beat him out of Court_.’ To this Crane’s
father replied, ‘that if he had appeared, there was the place where
the clothes were bought, and the post-boy.’ On deponent being severe
in his remarks, the father said, ‘I don’t know what they did with the
boy, _they had him two days locked up in the police officer’s house,
that he might not be tampered with_.’[98] Deponent asked him if there
had been any advances by the opposite party. He said, ‘None.’
“Deponent further saith, that he has seen William Crane since the
trial, and on deponent accusing him of going too far with his
evidence, he said, ‘_he would swear black was white, or anything else,
if he was paid for it_!’
“Deponent further saith, that before the trial, the said William
Crane’s coach and horses _were of a most miserable description, but
that since the trial he has purchased a hackney coach and horses of
the best description_!
“Deponent further saith, that the said William Crane’s general
character _is most infamous_, and his mode of expressing himself _so
obscene and blasphemous_ as to preclude deponent from stating the
exact words made use of by the said William Crane. This deponent
further saith, that Mr. Keir, and the groom of Colonel Taylor, were
present when Crane said that ‘_he would swear black was white, or
anything else, if he was well paid for it_.’”
RICHARD BALDWIN, servant to Mr. Keir, made affidavit “that, on the 2nd
of July, he was present at a conversation between Charles King and
William Crane, when he heard Crane, in reply to King, who had accused
him of having gone too far in his evidence, say that ‘_he would be
damned if he would not swear black was white, or anything else, if any
one would pay him for it_.’”
THOMAS CRITCHFIELD, Westminster Bridge Road, coach-maker, made
affidavit “that he knew William Crane, and that he heard him say,
previously to the said trial, when speaking of his father, that ‘_he
did not care a damn for his father_, that he was twenty-one years of
age, _and should soon have more money than ever his father had_.’
“Deponent further said that _since_ the trial the said William Crane
has been enabled _to purchase a very good hackney coach, with horses
and harness_, though _previous_ to the trial his coach and horses were
of the most miserable description. Deponent lastly saith, that the
said William Crane _is a man of the most infamous character, and this
deponent positively declares that he would not believe him on his
oath_.”
JAMES YEOWELL, of Silver Street, Falcon Square, ticket porter, made
affidavit “that _a few days after the 21st of February_, William Crane
told him that the person whom he took from a post-chaise and four at
the Marsh Gate, was NO OTHER THAN LORD COCHRANE HIMSELF! that he knew
Lord Cochrane as well as he knew him (deponent). That he _had driven
Lord Cochrane from the Opera House, and other places of amusement
twenty times_, and described Lord Cochrane as a tall man, with a long
face and red whiskers.
“Deponent further saith, that after the trial he (deponent) accused
the said William Crane _of perjury_, in having sworn to De Berenger as
the man taken up by him at the Marsh Gate, whereas he had _previously
declared_ before the Stock Exchange Committee that LORD COCHRANE WAS
THE PERSON! Whereupon Crane refused to converse with him further on
the subject.
“This deponent further saith, that having on the same day again met
William Crane, he inquired if he had received the reward offered by
the Stock Exchange Committee, when he, the said William Crane,
admitted that _he had received a part, and expected more_.”
JAMES LOVEMORE, of Clement’s Lane, made affidavit “that he heard the
said James Yeowell interrogate William Crane as to the person of Lord
Cochrane, and that Crane said he knew Lord Cochrane as well as he did
him (Yeowell), and that he had driven Lord Cochrane from the Opera
House and other places of amusement, _twenty times_, and Crane further
declared that _it was Lord Cochrane_ whom he drove from the
post-chaise and four at the Marsh Gate, Lambeth, and described his
Lordship as a tall man with a long face and red whiskers.”
-----
Footnote 97:
A messenger of the Court.
Footnote 98:
The post-boy admitted on the trial that he had several previous
examinations, and that he _received_ 52_l._ _for his evidence_!
-----
Such was a portion only of the facts which I was prepared with in my
appeal to Lord Ellenborough and his colleagues. But, as before said, the
same judge refused to listen to the appeal, not on the ground of my
having no evidence to rebut the perjury of Crane, but because _all the
persons convicted were not present in Court to join in the appeal_. It
was the rule of Court, which I had no power to alter, though, as has
been seen in a recent chapter, Lord Campbell, in his “Lives of the Chief
Justices,” states, that such a case had _only been ruled once, and that
in this case it ought to have been overruled_.
In the two affidavits last adduced there is abundant proof that if the
resource of the _red coat_ had not been adopted, Crane was prepared to
swear that _it was I whom he had driven from the Marsh Gate to my own
house_! the conclusion being that I was the pretended De Berenger. Crane
evidently knew my personal appearance, as did most persons in London,
and said, further, that he knew me from having driven me _twenty times
to the Opera_; the fact being that I was never at the Opera but twice in
my life, and once in the vestibule, when I was refused admittance from
not being in full evening dress, the deficiency consisting in wearing
white pantaloons on a very hot day.
It should be remembered, that Crane stated this before the Committee of
the Stock Exchange _soon after the 21st of February_, i. e., _before_ I
had given the clue to De Berenger in my affidavit as the person who
visited my house on the morning of that day. _After_ I had thus
disclosed the name of De Berenger, the project of proving by the perjury
of Crane that _I was the pretended Du Bourg_, was given up by the
prosecution,—from the dissimilarity of his personal appearance to mine;
and then—_but not till then_—was the equally atrocious perjury of the
_red coat_ resorted to.
Upon the evidence of such a man as Crane was I convicted, and refused an
appeal from the conviction, or a new trial because the defendants to the
indictment were not all in Court!! It was “_a rule of Court_,” which, as
Lord Campbell says, ought to have been in my case overruled, but Lord
Ellenborough refused to hear a word of the abundant evidence _then in my
hand_ and available for my exculpation. Crane’s evidence that De
Berenger had on a red coat, was relied on, but the far more reliable
evidence that the coat was “_green_,” as I had stated, was repudiated.
Crane had boasted that “_he would swear black was white, if well paid
for it_”—and I held in my hand the most reliable evidence that from the
money he had been paid for his perjury, he had bought “_a new coach,
horses, and harness_.” None of these circumstances were allowed to be
received in Court, or even listened to, because all the persons included
in the indictment were not present, though, as Lord Campbell has well
said, the rule of Court in my case ought, under the peculiar
circumstances, to have been overruled.
A few more particulars relative to this _convict_, Crane,—for such was
his subsequent fate,—are necessary to enable the reader to judge of my
prosecution and those who selected this man as their chief witness.
Not long after the trial, the solicitor of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone wrote
me to the following effect relative to a discovery made when too late as
to Crane’s character:—
“This fellow has lately been prosecuted by Mr. Dawson, before the
Commissioners of the Hackney Coach Office, for brutality and general
misconduct. This offence was so flagrant that the _severest
punishment_ was inflicted, and at present he is under a long
suspension. He is a worthless rascal, and if Mr. D. can do your
Lordship any service, you have only to command it.”
Enclosed in the above communication was the following extract from the
_Times_ newspaper of May 25th, 1814:—
“On Friday last, William Crane, driver of the hackney coach No. 782,
was summoned before the Commissioners on a charge of cruelty to his
horses, and for abuse to a gentleman who noticed his conduct. The
circumstances detailed were so shocking as to induce the Commissioners
to observe that they never _heard a more atrocious case_. They would
have inflicted a pecuniary penalty, but as it must necessarily be paid
by his father, they ordered him instead to be suspended from driving
any hackney coach for three months.”
The trial, which resulted in my conviction, _on this very man’s
evidence_, took place on the 8th of June, 1814, _only a fortnight after
his conviction of the atrocity just quoted_! so that at the moment of
giving his evidence this man was himself under punishment for an offence
pronounced by the Commissioners to be “_so shocking that they never
heard of a more atrocious case_”!!! Had this information been available
at the trial, the jury would have paid but small attention to Crane’s
evidence.
Crane was convicted of stealing twenty sovereigns and other property
under circumstances no less atrocious. He was sentenced to
transportation for seven years, but at the expiration of three years
_received a free pardon from the Government on his own petition_.
The subjoined certificate from the officials of Newgate, however, place
his conviction and premature pardon by the Secretary of State in 1830
beyond doubt:—
“Office, Newgate, 23rd October, 1830.
“I do hereby certify that William Crane (aged 33) was committed to
this gaol on the 17th of February, 1826, by J.C. Conant, Esq., for
‘stealing a box, a pair of scissors, and twenty sovereigns, the
property and moneys of William Bucknall;’ tried before Mr. Sergeant
Arabin on the 20th of February, convicted and sentenced to
transportation for seven years, and that he was removed on the 23rd of
March following, on board the _Justitia_ hulk at Woolwich.”