Mr. GURNEY.
May it please your Lordship;
Gentlemen of the Jury,
It is now my duty to make a few observations in reply on this momentous
cause; and, I assure you, that I rise to the discharge of that duty with
feelings of no ordinary nature. It is a duty in which it is impossible
to feel pleasure; for every gentleman must feel degraded in the
degradation of a gentleman, and every Englishman must feel mortified in
the disgrace of a man whose name is associated with the naval or
military glories of his country. But we are here to try these defendants
by their actions; and whatever their conduct may have been in other
respects, by those actions must they stand or fall. By the actions of
these defendants, as respecting the matters charged by this indictment,
you are now called upon to pronounce upon all the evidence that you have
heard, whether they are innocent or guilty.
Gentlemen, if in the outset of this case I addressed you with
confidence, as to the result, I address you now with confidence,
increased ten-fold, when I recollect the arguments by which these
defendants have been defended; when I recollect the evidence which _has_
been adduced in their defence, and when I recollect too the evidence
which has _not_ been adduced in their defence; the first, as it appears
to me totally failing, in making out a case of innocence; and the two
latter concluding to their guilt.
Gentlemen, as it is the smallest part of the case, I will take up that
part upon which you were addressed last this morning, by my learned
friend Mr. Serjeant Pell, which has been denominated in this transaction
the underplot. My learned friend endeavoured, with great ability and
ingenuity, to persuade you, that the transactions which have been
brought before you, did not constitute one plot, consisting of two
parts; but two separate and distinct plots, two conspiracies totally
unconnected with each other. And my learned friend concluded very
properly, that if he could convince you of that, he should entitle his
own clients to an acquittal on this indictment.
Gentlemen, if there were two conspiracies, then miracles have not
ceased; for unless you can believe, that a most extraordinary miracle
has occurred, it is quite impossible to conceive that there were two
plots. It is not necessary in a conspiracy, that every party should know
every other party in the conspiracy; it is not requisite that he should
be acquainted with all the dramatis personæ, and the character assigned
to each; it is enough if they engage in the general plan to forward the
same general end, and each takes the part which is assigned him to the
furtherance of that end. Now, gentlemen, look at the whole of the case,
and see whether it is possible to believe, that these persons who came
in the second post-chaise from Northfleet to London, were not cognizant
of part of the plan, at least, if they were not of the whole, and that
they were not aiding in the general conspiracy, to give a temporary rise
to the funds on the 21st of February. That they afforded very material
assistance in the completion of that purpose, is proved to
demonstration. Independent of the facts, we have their own testimony
against themselves, which is quite conclusive. Ask M'Rae, whether the
plot was one or whether it was two? M'Rae was ready to come forward, and
to impeach _all_ the parties who were concerned in the conspiracy. Did
he not, therefore, know the _whole_? When Mr. Cochrane Johnstone
proffered him as a person who should betray the _whole_, and inform
against _all_ the parties conspiring. Are we to be told, that Mr.
Cochrane Johnstone thought he knew a _part_ only instead of the _whole_?
Was Mr. Cochrane Johnstone meditating a second fraud upon the Stock
Exchange? Was he endeavouring to get another £.10,000 out of them, by
tendering them a witness, under pretence of his disclosing the _whole_,
when he had it in his power to disclose no more than they already knew?
Gentlemen, M'Rae has been surrendered by my learned friend Mr. Alley,
who never deserts his client if he can render him any service. No
advocate is more zealous for his clients; yet my learned friend felt the
proof given so irresistible, that he should be disgracing himself, if he
stood up to ask you to disbelieve that proof, or even to hesitate about
it, and he surrendered his client at once. Mr. M'Rae then stands here
confessedly guilty of this conspiracy. Mr. M'Rae, who on the 15th of
February had been proposing to Vinn the same plot, which was executed by
De Berenger on the 21st. You find his companions in the post chaise were
Sandom and Lyte, and their employer, by his own acknowledgment, the
defendant Holloway. What can you wish more to prove that they were all
engaged in this transaction? Mr. Serjeant Pell says, you must take
Holloway's confession altogether; and because he declares, that he was
not concerned with the Cochranes and Butt, you are to take that to be
the fact.--Gentlemen, I do not assent to that doctrine, that when a
defendant makes a confession, you are to take all the circumstances he
alleges in his own favor, at the same time that you take those which are
against him. Mr. Holloway came to propitiate the Stock Exchange
committee; he came to ask them not to prosecute him. He could not have
asked for that forbearance, if he had confessed a participation with De
Berenger and the Cochranes. The only chance he had, therefore, was to
deny his having any part in that plot, which, he knew, they were most
anxious to unravel. But taking the whole of the case together, I think
that it is impossible for you to entertain the smallest doubt upon this
part of the subject.
I come therefore, gentlemen, to the other part of the case, upon which,
after the great length of time which you have employed upon this case,
and the fatigue you have undergone, I will not trespass upon you long.
Gentlemen, this part of the case branches itself into three or four
heads, upon each of which I must make a few observations.
My learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Best, addressed you at considerable
length upon the subject of the stock transactions of his three clients,
Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and Mr. Butt; and he argued, that
because it appeared not by any accounts which he put in, in addition to
mine, but by the accounts which I gave in evidence, that these parties
had been large dealers in consols and omnium, and had had large balances
previous to the 21st of February; that therefore you were to believe,
that they had on that day no possible interest to commit this fraud.
That because they had had on a former day a larger balance, they could
have no possible inducement to the commission of this crime. Gentlemen,
observe the amount of the balance on that day, it was in omnium and
consols very nearly a million. Reduced to consols it amounts to
£.1,600,000. Then attend to the evidence of Mr. Baily, who tells you
that the fluctuation of one-eighth was a gain or loss of two thousand
pounds. Though they had been both buying and selling, yet their
purchases had been much larger than their sales, and their attempts to
purchase larger than their actual purchases. On Saturday the 19th, Mr.
Butt had endeavoured to purchase one hundred and fifty thousand, and
actually purchased fifty thousand. On this Monday, the 21st, all the
three have this immense quantity of stock upon their hands; they have no
means of getting rid of it, for Mr. Baily has told you, that but for
this fraudulent transaction, it would have been impossible to have got
rid of it, but at a great loss. They had been buying as a person must
do, to keep up the market, to redeem himself from loss; and on this
memorable day, all this stock is sold, it is sold at a profit of upwards
of ten thousand pounds; and if it had been sold without a profit of one
single farthing, still the getting out without a great loss, was to them
very great gain.
Recollect gentlemen, that just one month afterwards came the news of the
rupture of the negotiation at Chatillon, when the premium on omnium fell
from 28 to 12 per cent.; if that news had come instead of this false
news, on the morning of the 21st of February, the loss of these three
defendants, would have been upwards of one hundred and sixty thousand
pounds. These persons, therefore, were so involved, that ruin stared
them in the face, and when they were in this situation, they did as I
allege, and as I maintain I have proved by evidence perfectly
irresistible, engage in this conspiracy, to give this fraudulent rise to
the funds by this false news; and the moment the object had been
attained of the rise of the funds, that moment all the stock was sold,
and sold to the profit that I have proved. So much for these several
stock transactions, which supply the corrupt motive by which these
defendants were instigated to the commission of this crime.
Then, Gentlemen, we come to that which is a very important part, and
indeed a main part of this case, _the identity of Mr. De Berenger_; that
identity, including the question of hand-writing. Upon this subject we
have had, for the last two hours, the evidence which has nauseated every
man in Court; the evidence of the alibi, which no man living can
believe; in which no two witnesses agree; in which we have contradiction
after contradiction from every one of them. My learned friend, Mr. Park,
last night told us we should have the evidence of two watermen, who had
rowed Mr. De Berenger across the Thames, who knew his person perfectly
well, and who recollected the occurrence particularly, because it was
the first Sunday after the frost had broken, and the river became
navigable. I suppose the river is frozen again this morning as they are
not here. Gentlemen, the interval of the night has made the advisers or
manufacturers of this part of the case reflect upon it, and they have
brought, instead of the two watermen from the river, the Irish ostler
from Chelsea. Gentlemen, they who projected this alibi, did not attend
to one circumstance, which cannot fail to have struck you long ago,
namely; that this is a case perfectly unassailable by alibi. Let it be
supposed, that I had not identified Mr. De Berenger by the persons who
saw him at Dover; by the persons who saw him on the road; by those who
saw him get out of the chaise at the Marsh Gate, and get into a hackney
coach; that I had not identified his countenance by any one of them,
still his identity is established beyond all contradiction, for knowing
that an alibi would be attempted, I defeated it by anticipation. I take
up De Berenger at Dover as I would a bale of goods--I have delivered him
from hand to hand from Dover to London--I have delivered him into the
house of Lord Cochrane--and I have Lord Cochrane's receipt acknowledging
the delivery. You have, at the Ship at Dover, the person pretending to
be Colonel Du Bourg, the aid de camp, in a grey military great coat, in
a scarlet uniform embroidered with gold lace, and he has a star and a
medallion. You have him traced from stage to stage, identified by the
Napoleons with which he is rewarding his postillions; the first
postillion delivers him to the second, the second to the third, and so
on till he is landed in the house of Lord Cochrane. Who went into the
house of Lord Cochrane? Ask Lord Cochrane. It was Mr. De Berenger, and
it is not pretended that any other person entered that house in that
dress, or any thing resembling it; and therefore if I had not any
witness to speak to the identity of the countenance of Mr. De Berenger,
I have proved such a case as no alibi can shake. But add to that the
evidence of identity. I have had much experience in courts of justice,
and much upon the subject of identity, and I declare, I never in my life
knew a case of identity, by the view of countenance, so proved. The
countenance of Mr. De Berenger is not a common one, a person who has
observed it cannot have forgotten it. I do not call merely such persons
as have seen him at the messenger's, or in the court of King's Bench, or
anywhere else. I put the case to the severest test, calling witnesses
who had not seen him since his apprehension, desiring them to survey the
court, Mr. De Berenger sitting, as he has done, undistinguished from
other persons, in no conspicuous situation, and you saw, how one after
another, when their eyes glanced upon his face, recognised him in an
instant as the person who had practised this fraud. Now, gentlemen, if
this were not a case of misdemeanor, but a case in which the life of the
party were to answer for the crime he had committed, I ask, whether
many--many--many guilty men have not forfeited their lives upon
infinitely less evidence than I have given as to the person of Mr. De
Berenger?
Then if Mr. De Berenger was Colonel Du Bourg, what becomes of the
question of hand-writing? The hand-writing of De Berenger to Du Bourg's
letter, was spoken to by Mr. Lavie, who had made particular observation
on his hand-writing, having seen him write at the messenger's. My
learned friend, Mr. Park, says he should not know the hand-writing from
an hour's observation; perhaps not; but this was more than an hour's
observation; it was observation repeated more than once, and it was
observation for the very purpose. The fact confirms the judgment of Mr.
Lavie. I ask, who sent the letter to Admiral Foley? The answer is, Mr.
De Berenger; whose hand writing is it? can you have any doubt that it is
the hand-writing of the person who sent it? On this point, witnesses are
called by De Berenger (one of them a most respectable witness,
undoubtedly) to prove that this does not resemble his ordinary
hand-writing. No, gentlemen, certainly not; he would not write in his
usual hand. Lord Yarmouth says, the character is more angular than his
usual hand. That would be the case, where a man is writing a feigned
hand; but still that occurs here, which almost always does occur, a
person so writing is very likely to betray himself just as he gets to
the end, and when he comes to sign his name, the initials shall be so
striking, as at once to excite the observation of such a man as Lord
Yarmouth, and his lordship says, This R in the signature of R. Du Bourg
certainly does very much resemble the R in the usual signature in C. R.
De Berenger; but, taking the evidence of identity and that together, it
is clear, that he was the person at Dover; that he was the person,
therefore, who sent the letter to Admiral Foley; and the evidence of Mr.
Lavie is therefore so strongly confirmed, as far to outweigh all the
evidence you have had on the other side respecting his hand-writing.
Then, gentlemen, we come a little further; my learned friends last night
addressed you at great length, and with great earnestness, upon Lord
Cochrane's affidavit, and they requested you would not suppose Lord
Cochrane was capable of making a false affidavit. Gentlemen, that Lord
Cochrane would have been incapable of deliberately engaging in any thing
so wicked some time ago, I am sure I as earnestly hope as I am desirous
to believe; but you must see in what circumstances men are placed, when
they do these things; Lord Cochrane had first found his way to the Stock
Exchange, he had dealt largely in these speculations, which my learned
friends have so liberally branded with the appellation of _infamous_; he
had involved himself so deeply, that there was no way, but by this fraud
of getting out of them; he had then got out of them in this way, and
then he found, as guilty people always do, that he was involved still
deeper; he found the great agent of the plot traced into his house, and
traced into his house in the dress in which he had perpetrated the
fraud; he was called upon for an explanation upon the subject.
Gentlemen, he was gone to perdition, if he did not do something to
extricate himself from his difficulty; then it was that he ventured upon
the rash step of making this affidavit, and swearing to the
extraordinary circumstances upon which, as I commented so much at length
in the morning of yesterday, I will not trespass upon your attention by
making comments now.
My learned friends were properly anxious not to leave Lord Cochrane's
affidavit to stand unsupported; they were desirous of giving it some
confirmation, and they exhausted two or three precious hours this
morning in calling witnesses to confirm it; but those witnesses were
called to confirm the only part of the affidavit which wanted no
confirmation; they were called to give Lord Cochrane confirmation about
applications to the Admiralty, and applications to the War Office, and
applications to the Colonial Office, by Sir Alexander Cochrane for De
Berenger; and after they had called witness after witness to give this
confirmation upon this insignificant and trifling point, they leave him
without confirmation upon that important, that vital part of this case
to my Lord Cochrane, _videlicet_: the dress which Mr. De Berenger wore
at the time he came to that house, and had with him that interview.
Lord Cochrane puts him on a grey military great coat, a _green_ uniform,
and a fur cap. I have proved, that the uniform he wore was _red_. My
learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Best, felt the strength of the evidence for
the prosecution upon that, and he endeavoured to answer it by a very
strange observation. "Why," says he, "consider, Lord Cochrane had been
accustomed to see Mr. De Berenger in _green_; he did not make his
affidavit till nearly three weeks afterwards; and how very easily he
might confound the _green_, in which he ordinarily saw him, with the
_red_, in which he saw him on that day, and on that day only." Now, if I
wanted to shew how it was impossible for a man to make a mistake, as to
the colour of the coat in which he had seen another, I should select the
instance in which he had seen that other in a peculiar dress but for
once.
But, gentlemen, my learned friend had to account for more than the red
coat. It is not a plain red coat, it is a scarlet military uniform, the
uniform of an aid-de-camp; and on the breast, there is that star which
you have seen; and suspended from his neck, there is the medallion. Lord
Cochrane is a man of rank, not unacquainted with the distinction of a
star. If he was not in the secret of De Berenger's dress, he must have
had curiosity upon the subject; and I beg to ask, what is to be said for
Lord Cochrane seeing De Berenger in that scarlet uniform, with that star
on his breast, and that medallion suspended from his neck, swearing that
the uniform was _green_, and that he lent De Berenger a black coat,
because he could not wait on Lord Yarmouth in that _green_ uniform,
which you will recollect was the uniform of Lord Yarmouth's corps, in
which, Lord Yarmouth has told you, it would have been more military to
have waited upon him, than in any other dress.
Gentlemen, there is more than this. My friends call one of Lord
Cochrane's servants, who received De Berenger when he came there, who
told him in the hearing of the hackney coachman, that his master was
gone to breakfast in Cumberland-street, who took the note which De
Berenger wrote to Cumberland-street, who brought back the note, and upon
that note Mr. De Berenger wrote two or three lines more. Then what
becomes of Lord Cochrane's affidavit, who says the signature was so near
the bottom of the paper, that he could not read it. The postscript is
written after the signature, yet Lord Cochrane cannot read the note,
because the signature is written so near the bottom; and then when my
learned friends had that servant in the box, they did not venture to ask
that servant what was the dress of Mr. De Berenger. After calling
witnesses to confirm Lord Cochrane, as to applications to different
offices by Sir Alexander Cochrane, they dare not ask Lord Cochrane's own
servant as to the dress De Berenger wore, to try whether he could
confirm Lord Cochrane's affidavit upon that subject. They then tell us,
that another servant is gone abroad with some admiral, and I pray you,
as he was here long after this business was afloat, how was it he was
suffered to go, unless his absence was more wanted than his presence;
but they have a maid-servant who also saw him, and she is not called;
and my learned friends, though they were so anxious to confirm Lord
Cochrane's affidavit, leave him without confirmation, utterly abandoned
and hopeless.
_Mr. Brougham._ Davis had left.
_Mr. Gurney._ I say why was he suffered to go away. The maid-servant is
still here, and she is not called. Gentlemen, I say so much for the
affidavit of Lord Cochrane, which is a vital part of this subject, and
upon which, I observe with great regret; but if I forbore the
observations, I should desert the duty which I owe the public.
Gentlemen, there is indeed but little more for me to trouble you with, I
think; but there was an observation made by my learned friend, which is
very important; they cross-examined Mr. Wright, whom I put up to prove
the affidavit, by asking him, whether Lord Cochrane did not at the time
he put that affidavit into his hands, observe, that now he had furnished
the Stock Exchange Committee with the name of Mr. De Berenger, if he was
the person who practised this fraud. Gentlemen, Mr. Serjeant Best
laboured this point with you in the course of his address to you, and
labored it with great ability; but my learned friend did not advert to
one circumstance respecting that affidavit, which disposes of all his
observations in an instant. _When_ did Lord Cochrane furnish the name of
De Berenger to the Committee of the Stock Exchange? _On the 11th of
March_; Mr. De Berenger having quitted London on the 27th of February,
twelve days before; and when my Lord Cochrane had no more doubt that he
was out of the country, than that he was himself in existence; he was
gone to the north, not gone to the south, to Portsmouth, to go on board
the Tonnant; he had been gone twelve days, twice as long as was
necessary to find his way to Amsterdam; it was believed he was safe
there, and when it was thought he was quite safe, Lord Cochrane was
extremely ready to furnish the Stock Exchange Committee with the name of
the party, and so to get credit for his candour. "What can a man do
more? I have given you the name of the party, only find him, and you
will see whether he is Du Bourg, or not;" he did not expect that he
would be found; he was, however, found, and the intentions of these
parties were frustrated.
I come now, gentlemen, to another part of the case, which would have
excited my astonishment, if it had not been for the management and
machinery that I had seen in this case; still I could hardly have
expected to have met with that which we have had to-day in evidence, I
mean the mode which has been resorted to, of accounting for the bank
notes which were found in the letter-case of De Berenger, and those that
were paid away by him. Gentlemen, the Defendants knew this part of our
case; in truth, there is no surprize upon them in any part, they knew it
all. You have it in evidence, that they have inspected the notes in the
letter-case; they knew the use that we were to make of them, and then we
have that notable expedient, the fruit of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's
fertile brain, the mode of accounting for all these bank notes, by this
extraordinary transaction of the drawings of a design for improving an
acre of ground behind Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's house in Alsop's
buildings.
Now, gentlemen, only have the goodness to look at it. The work was done,
it is said, last September; £.50 was then paid on account, respecting
which you might, from Mr. De Berenger's letter, have supposed that no
voucher had been given, for it is mentioned carelessly in the
postscript, "a-propos, you have paid me £.50 on account." On the
contrary, you find that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone took a stamped receipt at
the time; then we have the architect called, as in an action on a
quantum meruit; and architects have most magnificent ideas of plans and
money, and he tells you, that two or three hundred pounds would not have
been too much for such a design as that. Gentlemen, I think we are all
as well qualified to decide upon that, as an architect; you will, if you
think proper, look at it, and form your own judgment. But how comes it
that we have these strange accounts from Mr. Tahourdin, his verbal
testimony contradicting his client's letter. Mr. Tahourdin says, "I did
delicately, but I did by Mr. Berenger's desire, again and again hint to
Mr. Cochrane Johnstone the subject of payment, to which I must do him
the justice to say he was never averse. I had done this some time before
February, but no money had come;" and then, as soon as these words were
out of his mouth, he puts in Mr. De Berenger's letter to Mr. Cochrane
Johnstone, who says, "You (Mr. Cochrane Johnstone) have been pressing me
to take money, and now I will take it." Oh, gentlemen, when does this
fit of money-paying and money-taking seize these two persons? _On the
22d of February!_ The day speaks volumes. Added to all the extraordinary
coincidences, which the Defendants wish you to believe were accidental,
we now have the acknowledged payment of money by Mr. Cochrane Johnstone
to Mr. De Berenger on the day after Mr. De Berenger had so rendered Mr.
Cochrane Johnstone, Lord Cochrane, and Mr. Butt, the important service
of raising the funds by the imposition that he had practised, of which
they had so promptly and profitably availed themselves.
Then, gentlemen, we have the extraordinary evidence of Mr. Tahourdin,
the attorney for Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and for De Berenger, from which
it appears that they were all getting up the defence to the indictment
by anticipation. Mr. Tahourdin is to give a contemporaneous existence to
the transaction by the production of these letters and instruments, the
receipt for two hundred pounds, and the promissory note for two hundred
pounds more. From all this it is plain, that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, at
the very moment when he was settling with his agent his reward for the
fraud he had committed, like a man of great foresight, looked forward to
the possible consequence of the trial of this day, and he provided for
it, as he thought, sufficiently:--"It may be thought, Mr. De Berenger,
that this money which I am now giving you is for the business of
yesterday, let us take care to prevent it; you write to me, I will write
to Tahourdin; it is not absolutely necessary (perhaps, he added) to
trust him with the secret, he will be an admirable witness hereafter; I
will put into his hands the promissory note and the receipt, he will
give them contemporaneous date, and then I shall be able to account for
my giving you, on this 26th of February, four hundred pounds."
Persons who devise these contrivances, gentlemen, have not, as I
observed to you yesterday, the skill to provide for all circumstances,
and now and then the very things which they do to effect concealment,
shall lead to detection.--Now mark:--Mr. Cochrane Johnstone is to pay
and to lend to Mr. De Berenger four hundred pounds. As he was to give
him four hundred pounds, why did he, or Mr. Butt (for they are one and
the same) take so much trouble, and go through so much circuity in
shifting and changing the bank notes? You observe, that the bank note
for £.200 is sent to the bankers, and exchanged for two notes of £.100
each; and then the same agent is sent to the Bank of England to get two
hundred notes of £.1 each; and that about the same time another agent is
sent to the bank, to exchange the two other notes for £.100 each for two
hundred more notes of £.1 each. Why, for the purpose of this payment and
this loan, do they go through this operation of changing and changing
again, to procure a vast number of notes for Mr. De Berenger, to enable
him to take this long journey to the north? Why, gentlemen, it is
because one pound notes are not traced so easily as notes for one
hundred pounds; people take these small notes without writing upon them,
but they do write upon such large notes as £.100 and £.200, and that
they knew might afford means of immediate detection, but the device,
when detected, makes the fact still stronger, and you have in proof,
that sixty-seven of one hundred, and forty-nine of another hundred, were
found at Leith in De Berenger's writing-desk. This affords a strong
presumption, that he had the whole four hundred, besides which I have
traced to him; a forty-pound note which he changed at Sunderland, and a
fifty-pound note which he gave to his servant, Smith; and these, too,
have been traced up to Mr. Butt. When all these turnings and windings
are thus discovered, what measure of your understandings, gentlemen,
must these Defendants have taken, to imagine that you could be imposed
upon by such flimsy materials as these manufactured papers? The device
is gross, palpable, and monstrous. What does all this prove?--Nothing
_for_ the defendants; but then it proves a great deal _against_ them.
Recollect too, gentlemen, that this £.400, which is shewn to come out of
the hands of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone and Mr. Butt, after the 24th of
February, is also shewn to have come originally out of the hands of Lord
Cochrane himself on a prior day; and therefore you have the money coming
out of the hands of all the three; the reward of the agent coming out of
the hands of the persons who had been benefited by the fraudulent
services of that agent.
Gentlemen, it is difficult to abstain from many more observations on
this defence; but the case is too clear to require them, and I will no
longer trespass upon your patience. It appears to me absolutely
impossible to doubt respecting the guilt of the several defendants. De
Berenger is Du Bourg. When De Berenger is Du Bourg, the rest all
follows; he was the agent of others, unquestionably; he was not himself
the principal. You have had a mass of perjury exhibited to-day to
extricate him, and consequently his employers. That, like all
falsehoods, when detected, only serves to make conviction more clear and
more certain. With these observations I sit down, feeling most grateful
for the patient attention I have received, both from his Lordship and
from you, and perfectly sure that you will do justice to the Public.