Green-street, Grosvenor - square, and there leaving him; also to the circumstance of his red uniform under a great coat, and to his taking with him into the house a small portmanteau; and thus was completed the process of tracking Berenger from Dover to Lord Cochrane's house in London.

The next circumstance brought forwards for the prosecution was that of the fishing up by a waterman on the Thames, of a bundle containing a coat cut to pieces, a star, embroidery, &c. which was recognised by a military-accoutrement maker, to be the same that he sold on Feb. 19th. to a person who mentioned its being wanted for one who was to perform the character of a foreign officer, and who also purchased a military regimental coat, and a military cap. The person with whom Berenger lodged deposed, that on the 20th he went out in a new great coat.

With the main plot in which Berenger was the chief actor, another was stated to be connected, involving M Rae, Sandon, Lyte, and Holloway. With respect to this, the first witness called was Thomas Vinn, an accountant, who deposed to having been applied to by M'Rae for the purpose of engaging to assist in a hoax upon the Stock-exchange, by personating a French officer along with him, which he refused to do. A female witness, a fellow-lodger with M'Rae and his wife, deposed, that M'Rae brought home, on Feb. 20, a parcel with two coats and two opera hats, the coats being like those of officers, with some white ribbon for cockades; that he said they were for the purpose of deceiving the flats, and that he must

go down to Gravesend-that on the next day she met him in London, apparently much tired, and that he brought back a bundle containing one of the coats and hats, and the cockades; and that he said he was to have 50l. for what he had done.

Mr. Foxall, master of the Rose Inn, at Dartford, then deposed as to receiving a note from Mr. Sandon, dated from North Fleet, on Monday, Feb. 21, desiring him to send a chaise and pair, and to have ready 4 good horses to go to London with all expedition, that in consequence, his chaise brought from North Fleet Mr. Sandon and two gentlemen with white cockades in their hats, who immediately proceeded for London with the four horses. A driver deposed to carrying these persons, the horses being decked with laurels, over. London-bridge, through Lombardstreet and Cheapside, and thence to Marsh-gate, Lambeth, where they got out, having taken off their military hats and put on round ones. It was then proved by Mr. Francis Bailey, that Holloway confessed before the Committee of the Stockexchange that he was a contriver of this plot, and that Lyte confessed himself and M'Rae to have been the persons who accompa nied Sandon in the post chaise.

The next body of evidence produced related to the Stock concerns of Mr. Butt, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and Lord Cochrane. The most material points went to the close connection between these three persons, to the vast amount of omnium which they held on the morning of the day in which the fraud took place, to the sale of the whole on that day, and to the circumstance

circumstance of Mr. C. JohnStone's having taken a new office in a court adjoining the side door of the Stock-exchange against that day for Mr. Fearn, their principal broker, without having having previously acquainted him with his intention. An affidavit by Lord Cochrane was then read, which admitted the coming of Berenger to his house on Feb. 21st, but stated that he was in a green uniform, which he took off, putting on a black coat which his Lordship gave him for the purpose of waiting on Lord Yarmouth. The affidavit further averred that Lord C. had no knowledge whatever of the imposition, and stated that he had given instructions to his broker to sell out the whole of his omnium at a rise of one per cent.

Mr. Le Marchant was next examined with respect to a conversation held with Berenger; and he deposed, that having asked him how he could go to America under the command of Lord Cochrane (as he had said his intention was) with the embarrassments he lay under, B. replied that he was easy on that score, because, for the services he had rendered Lord C. and Mr. C. Johnstone, whereby a large sum might be realised in the funds or stocks, Lord C. was his friend, and had told him he had kept a private purse for him. The hon. Alexander Murray, a prisoner in the King's Bench, also deposed to a great intimacy between Berenger and Mr. Cochrane John

stone.

Another examination of witnesses to a considerable length was consequent upon the capture of Berenger, who had absconded, at Leith, when there was found in

his possession certain papers and bank notes, which last he was very urgent to have restored to him, but which were detained, others of corresponding value being given to him. From an entry in his memorandum book there appeared to be a sun of 540l. part of which he had expended, and the remainder was in the notes in his possession. All these notes, as well as most of those he had paid away, were with great industry traced to Lord Cochrane, Mr. C. Johnstone, and Mr. Butt.

This closed the evidence

for the prosecution.

The business on the following day commenced with the evidence for the defendants. Letters were first adduced which passed between Le Marchant and Lord Cochrane, and which went to contradict the evidence he had given.

Lord Melville was then called for the purpose of proving that admiral Sir A. Cochrane had made application to be allowed the service of Berenger, in his command on the North American station, Colonel Torrens, secretary to the commander in chief, was examined to the same point, as was Henry Golburn, Esq. The intention in these examinations was to confirm Lord Cochrane's statement, and to show a connection between the parties independently of any other transactions. King, a tin-plate worker, next deposed to Lord C.'s being at his manufactory in Cocklane, on the morning of the 21st, whence he was called by a note, brought to him by his servant.Dewman, a servant of Lord Cochrane's, deposed to a gentleman's coming to their house in a backney coach, and writing the note, which he brought to his Lordship.

Mr.

Mr. Tahourdin, solicitor to Berenger, was called to prove that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone had employed Berenger to make a plan for a projected building in some premises belonging to him, and had paid him money for it. Two receipts were produced for such payments, signed by Berenger, the last, for 200l. dated Feb. 26, 1814. This witness also absolutely denied the letter sent to admiral Foley, at Deal, to be the hand-writing of Berenger. The Earl of Yarmouth spoke to Berenger's having been adjutant of the corps of Cumberland's sharp-shooters, and thought the letter to admiral Foley very unlike his usual writing. Two other persons also deposed to their belief that this letter was not of his writing.

A series of evidence was then brought to prove an alibi with respect to Berenger. The first of the witnesses were W. Smith and his wife, who were his servants, and who swore to his sleeping at home on the night of Feb. 20th. Then followed an ostler of some livery stables at Chelsea, who swore to Berenger's being there on the evening of the 20th. Other depositions were made to the same effect, which it is not material to enumerate, since from the rank and character of the persons no regard seems to have been paid to their testimony. Here the case for the defendants terminated.

Lord Ellenborough summed up the evidence with great minuteness, making various observations on different parts. He particularly dwelt upon the evidence of the identity of the person taking a chaise from Dover, and traced to

Lord Cochrane's house, with Berenger; and of the disguise he wore, and the colour of his uniform, which he seemed to think proved in such a manner that no doubt could remain; and from these circumstances, and his subsequent change of apparel, he drew a strong inference of Lord Cochrane's privity to the plot.

The Jury retired at ten minutes after six in the evening, and returned at twenty minutes before nine with a verdict, finding all the defendants Guilty.

Of the subsequent proceedings relative to Lord Cochrane's application for a new trial, and a motion in arrest of judgment, some account will be found in our report of the parliamentary debates respecting Lord Cochrane. It is sufficient here to mention that these attempts were void of effect, and that on June 21 all the persons charged, with the exception of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, who had absconded, were called up to receive sentence. This was pronounced by Mr. Justice Le Blanc, and was to the following effect:Lord Cochrane, and R. Gathorne Butt were condemned to pay to the king a fine of a thousand pounds each, and J. P. Holloway of five hundred; and these three, together with De Berenger, Sandon, and Lyte, were sentenced to imprisonment in the Marshalsea for twelve calendar months. Further, Lord Cochrane, De Berenger, and Butt, were to stand on the pillory for one hour before the Royal Exchange once during their imprisonment. This last part of their punishment was afterwards remitted.

Court

Court Martial on Colonel

Quentin.

After a series of proceedings in this case which for several days strongly excited the public curiosity, the result was made known in the following General Order, dated from the Horse Guards, No

vember 10:

His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief has been pleased to direct that the following copy of a letter, containing the opinion and sentence of a General Court-martial recently held for the trial of Colonel George Quentin, of the Ioth, or Prince of Wales's own Toyal regiment of light dragoons, and the Prince Regent's pleasure thereon, shall be entered in the General Order Books, and read at the head of every regiment in his Majesty's service.

By command of his Royal Highress the Commander in Chief, HARRY CALVERT, Adjutant-Gen.

(COPY.)

Horse Guards, Nov. 8. Sir, I have laid before the Prince Regent the proceedings of a General Court-martial, held at Whitehall, on the 17th of October, 1814, and continued by adjourn ments to the 1st of November following, for the trial of Col. George Quentin, of the 10th Royal Hussars, who was arraigned upon the following charges, viz. :

1st Charge. That on the 10th day of January, 1814, the regiment being on that day on duty, foraging in the valley of Macoy, in France, and the said Colonel Quentin having the command of the regiment, he did not make the proper

and timely arrangements to insure the success of the regiment in its directed so to do by the Brigade operations of foraging, although Order of 9th January, 1814, but neglected and abandoned his duty as Commanding Officer, leaving some of the divisions without or

ders or support when attacked by the enemy, whereby some men and horses of the regiment were taken prisoners, and the safety of such divisions bazarded; such conduct on the part of the said Colonel Quentin evincing great professional incapacity, tending to lessen the confidence of the soldiers of the regiment in the skill and courage of their officers, being unbecoming and disgraceful to his character as an officer, prejudicial to good order and military discipline, and contrary to the Artioles of War.

2d Charge. The said Colonel Quentin, having the command of the regiment, the day after the battle of Orthes, viz. on the 28th day of February, 1814, on the high road leading to St. Sever, in front of the village of Hagleman, department of Landes, in France, and the regiment being on that day engaged with the enemy, he, the said Colonel Quentin, did not previously to, or during the period the regiment was so engaged, make such effectual attempts as he ought to have done, by his presence, and by his own personal exertions and example, to COoperate with or support the advanced divisions of the Joth hussars, under his command, but neglected and abandoned his duty as commanding officer, and thereby hazarded the safety of those divisions, and the character and reputation

reputation of the regiment; such conduct on the part of the said Colonel Quentin tending to lessen the confidence of the soldiers in the skill and courage of their officers, being unbecoming his character as an officer, prejudicial to good order and military discipline, and contrary to the Articles of War.

3d Charge. That on the 10th day of April, 1814, during the battle of Toulouse, in France, the said Colonel Quentin, having the command of the regiment, and the regiment being on that day in the presence of, and attacked by, the enemy, he, the said Colonel Quentin, did not during such attack make such effectual attempts as he ought to have done by his presence and his own personal exertions, to co-operate with, or support the advanced divisions of the regiment under his command, but neglected and abandoned his duty as Commanding Officer, leaving some of the divisions, when under fire from the enemy, without orders, and thereby unnecessarily hazarding the safety and reputation of those divisions; such conduct on the part of the said Colonel Quentin tending to lessen the confidence of the soldiers of the regiment in the skill and courage of their officers, being unbecoming and disgraceful to his character as an officer, prejudicial to good order and military discipline, and contrary to the Articles of War.

4th Charge. For general neglect of duty, by allowing a relaxed discipline to exist in the regiment under his command when on foreign service, by which the reputation of the regiment suffered in the opinion of the Commander of

the Forces, and of the LieutenantGeneral commanding the cavalry, their displeasure having been expressed, or implied, in a letter from the Adjutant-General of the forces on the Continent, addressed to Major-General Lord Edward Somerset, commanding the hussar brigade, dated on or about the 29th of March, 1814; and in the orders of the Lieutenant-General commanding the cavalry, dated the 26th of February, 1814; such conduct on the part of the said Colonel Quentin being unbecoming his character as an officer, prejudicial to his Majesty's service, and subversive of all order and military regulation and discipline, and contrary to the Articles of War.

Upon which charges the Court came to the following decision:

The Court having maturely weighed and considered the evidence on the part of the prosecution, as well as what has been offered in defence, are of opinion that Colonel Quentin is guilty of so much of the 1st charge as im putes to him having neglected his duty as Commanding Officer, on the 10th of January, by leaving some of the divisions without orders when attacked by the enemy, but acquit him of the remainder of the charge.

With respect to the second charge, the Court are of opinion that Colonel Quentin is not guilty.

With respect to the third charge, the Court are of opinion that Colonel Quentin is not guilty.

With respect to the fourth charge, the Court are of opinion that a relaxed discipline, as set forth in that charge, did exist in the regiment under Colonel Quen