When this phenomenon of a trial was ended, Mr. Bond, the magistrate, and myself walked out of the court together, who exclaimed—“what do you think of this conviction?” To which I answered, I think as you do, that the jury ought to be taken out of the box, and hanged at the hall door. However, what can be said? but, alas, poor human nature! judges are but men, and juries subject to fallability! It may be supposed, that the prosecutor received every assistance that could be had: the late Mr. Bearcroft appeared, to give him a character: a character for what?—why, that he paid his debts, and that he would not pick a pocket; _and that he was never accused of committing a rape_! which seems to be the amount of character in every case, where a wretch is either prosecutor or defendant on similar occasions. However, we will now come to the touch-stone, which will, in a great measure, decide the purity of this old lecher’s character. It seems the horrid sacrifice made to purify his reputation, was not, in the opinion of sensible and discerning men, perfectly satisfactory, whether his penchant for breeches was not paramount to his affection for petticoats? And even Mr. Bearcroft was not without a slender portion of scepticism on the subject: for he remarked, in a company where some doubts were entertained which of the two ought to have been put in the pillory, Cope, or his prosecutor, “_D—n the fellow_! _now I think of it_, _I never remember his having a girl at college_!”—But, to put all doubts at rest, respecting this diabolical wretches’ guilt, it is only necessary to state, that he retired into the country, and attacked a farmer’s son; who seized, and took him before a magistrate, when he gave bail: but, foreseeing that he had a man to deal with who was under no military command, nor subject to any impediment for want of money, and too inflexible for any chance of being diverted from his steady purpose of prosecution, be wisely withdrew himself from England—to which place he has never returned. I shall now conclude my observations on these hedious transactions with a relation of the unexampled oppression that Cook and his wife have been the objects of. With respect to his wife, she could not have participated in any transactions of her husband; she did not live in the odious house, or even visit it; and, therefore, her sufferings are not warranted by any plea:—and, indeed, whatever the man’s offences might be, he has most amply purged himself from all the criminal effects of it; and is surely entitled to the protection of the same law to guard his innocence, that was exerted to punish his offence. That I may be clearly understood in what I deem _acts of oppression_, I must state the ground that gave pretence to the proceedings against him.