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 Jast, 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 10th, or Prince of Wales's own royal 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 Highness 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 adjournments 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 and horses of the regiment were the enemy, whereby some men taken prisoners, and the safety of such divisions hazarded; 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 Articles

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 10th hussars, under his command, but neglected and abandoned his duty as conmanding officer, and thereby hazarded the safety of those divisions, and the character and

reputation

tin's command, whilst on foreign service, during the period alluded to in the letter and orders referred to in the charge, and as they cannot but consider the Commanding Officer of a regiment to be responsible for such relaxation of discipline, they therefore think themselves bound to find Col. Quentin guilty to the extent of allowing it to exist; but as they consider the letter from the Adjutant-General to the troops on the Continent, of March 30th, 1814, expressing the displeasure of the Commander of the forces, as a reprimand to Colonel Quentin adequate to the degree of blame which attached to him, the Court do not feel themselves called upon to give any sentence upon this charge in the way of further punishment, and they consider that any thing unusual in this determination will be explained by the singularity of the circumstances attending this charge, by which an officer is put upon his trial for conduct which had before been the subject of animadversion by those under whose command he was then serving, but which at the time was not considered deserving of a more serious proceeding by the Commander of the Forces; nor does it appear to have been made the subject of any remonstrance or request for a more serious investigation on the part of the officers of the regiment.

The Court having found the prisoner guilty of so much of the first charge as is above expressed, and so much of the fourth charge as is above recited, with the reasons which induce the Court to feel that they are not called upon to affix any punishment to the last

mentioned charge, do only adjudge, with reference to the first charge, that Colonel Quentin be reprimanded in such manner as his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief be pleased to direct.

The Court, however, cannot conclude these proceedings without expressing their regret, that there appears to have existed such a want of co-operation among the officers of the regiment, as to render the duties of the commanding Officer much more arduous than they otherwise would have been.

I am to acquaint you, that his Royal Highness the Prince Regent has been pleased, in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, to approve and confirm the finding and sentence of the Court.

His Royal Highness has further been pleased to consider, that, when the Officers of a corps prefer accusations affecting the honour and professional character of their commander, nothing but the most conclusive proof of their charges before a Court-martial can justify a proceeding which must otherwise be so pregnant with mischief to the discipline of the army; and that a regard due to the subordination of the service must ever attach a severe responsibility to subordinate Officers who become the accusers of their superior. His Royal Highness, therefore, could not but regret that the Officers of the 10th Hussars should have been so unmindful of what they owe to the first principles of their profession, as to assume an opinion of their Commander's personal conduct, which neither their general experience of the service, nor their knowledge of the alleged

facts

facts (as appears from their own evidence), could sanction or justify, -and which opinion would appear, from the proceedings, to have been utterly void of foundation, in every instance of implied attack or insinuation upon that Officer's courage and conduct before the enemy, as conveyed by the tenour of the second and third charges.

In allusion to the letter signed by the chief part of the officers, and in which the present proceedings originated, the Prince Regent has specially observed, that, exclusive of the doubt which may be entertained of their capability to form a judgment so much beyond the scope of their experience in the service, it was worthy of remark, that some who have affixed their names to that paper had never been with the regiment during the period in question, and others had never joined any military body beyond the depot of their corps; and it might thus be deduced, that although the officers have manifested, according to the appropriate remark of the Courtmartial, a want of co-operation in support of their Commander's authority, yet those who have assumed a personal observance of Colonel Quentin's conduct, and those who, though absent, appear to have acted under a mischievous influence, by joining in an opinion to his prejudice, have all cooperated in a compact against their Commanding Officer, fraught with evils of the most injurious tendency to the discipline of the service: nor did it escape the notice of his Royal Highness, that this accusation has not been the momentary offspring of irritated feel

ings, but the deliberate issue of a long and extraordinary delay, for which no sufficient reasons, or explanation, have been assigned.

In this view of the case (which is not palliated by the very slight censure passed on Colonel Quentin upon the 1st charge) his Royal Highness has considered that a mark of his displeasure towards those Officers is essential to the vital interests of the army and that the nature of the combination against Colonel Quentin would call for the removal from the service of those who have joined in it; but as his Royal Highness would willingly be guided by a lenient disposition towards a corps of officers who have hitherto merited his approbation, and would willingly believe that inadvertency in some, and inexperience in others, had left them unaware of the mischievous tendency of their conduct upon this occasion, his Royal Highness is averse to adopt such severe measures as the custom of the service in support of its discipline usually sanctions, upon the failure of charges against a commanding officer. Still it is essential that conduct so injurious in its nature should be held forth to the army as a warning in support of subordination; and his Royal Highness has, therefore, commanded, that the officers who signed the letter of the 9th of August shall no longer act together as a corps, but that they shall be distributed by exchange throughout the different regiments of cavalry in the service, where it is trusted that they will learn and confine themselves to their subordinate duties, until their services and experience shall sanction their being placed in rauks

and