vidence of the distinct actings
of separate parties breathing the same purpose, and immediately
conducing to the same end. The question, therefore, for you to consider
upon the evidence (which I am sorry it will be necessary for me to state
to you at a greater length, than, with regard to your ease and
convenience, I could have wished) will be, whether the case is not
brought home by satisfactory evidence to a great number, if not to all
the Defendants.

The crime charged upon this indictment, in eight different charges or
counts, is that of conspiring to raise the price of the public funds; in
some of them it is charged to be with a view to corrupt gain upon the
part of these persons or some of them, or at least to the _prejudice_ of
other _individuals_; for that is enough to constitute the offence, even
if the individuals engaged in this conspiracy had not (as it is imputed
to them that they had) any corrupt motive of personal advantage to all
or any of themselves to answer; if the criminal artifice operated, or
was in all probability likely to operate to the prejudice of the public,
and was clearly so intended, we need not go further; when we know that a
great amount in the funds is at certain periods bought for the public or
large classes of individuals; and you find by the testimony of Mr.
Steers, that on this very day the sum of L.15,957. 10. 8. was bought for
the Accountant General, which would have been bought for less; and every
person for whose use the Accountant General purchased, having to acquire
by means of such purchase shares in the public securities, would of
course have so much the less stock for his money, on account of this
fraud, and would consequently receive a great pecuniary injury thereby;
and no doubt, multitudes of persons besides those immediately alluded
to, and whose cases are not brought individually under your view, must
have been affected by it; for the dealings in the funds are, we know,
every day carried on to a vast amount, and every person dealing on that
particular day, as a purchaser, was prejudiced by the practices by which
a false elevation of the funds was on that day occasioned.

Of the counts, one or two, I think, are not counts on which, properly,
your verdict can be founded, because they state, that every one of these
Defendants knew that a gain was to be acquired by Mr. Cochrane
Johnstone, Lord Cochrane, and Mr. Butt; and it does not appear, with
sufficient certainty, that