THE FRAUD OF A DERBY 



life to a dead certainty." Turning to Cockburn : 

 " What's to be done now ? You cannot produce 

 a horse you haven't got." Still the case dragged 

 on. Worley, the farmer who had charge of the 

 horse in September 1841 as a yearling, had not 

 a shadow of a doubt that he was the animal he 

 saw win the Derby, and his evidence was cor- 

 roborated by another witness. The Judge then 

 asked Cockburn how, after this identification, he 

 could proceed with the case, and the embarrassed 

 lawyer, having admitted that his client had written 

 a letter to Colonel Peel saying that he now felt 

 that some fraud had been committed and that 

 he would withdraw from the inquiry, consented ta 

 a verdict for the defendant. 



There was an incident at the trial which gave 

 rise to some comment. Although Lord George 

 Bentinck had been subpoenaed by the plaintiff,. 

 Cockburn at the opening of the proceedings applied 

 that he should withdraw from the court. To this 

 arbitrary request the Judge declined to assent. 

 Then Cockburn, in his address to the jury, thDught 

 fit to assail the noble lord, who was his own witness,^ 

 in language of asperity and indecency. He charged 

 Bentinck with being not only the real promoter 

 of the litigation, but also accused him of acting 

 as attorney and policeman and of tampering with 

 the witnesses, whom, he averred, Bentinck had 

 clothed, fed and paid. On the evening of the 

 first day of the trial Bentinck addressed a most 

 polite and temperate letter to Cockburn imploring 

 that he might have an opportunity of denying 

 these accusations in the witness-box. At the con- 

 clusion of the case Cockburn referred to Bentinck's 



139 



