Chapter XXIV: A Naval Study for All Time (11)

Unworthy as was this course, it was as nothing compared with what fell from the lips of Mr. Croker in the subsequent portion of his address to the House; in which address he asserted that my resolutions were “gross and scandalous libels against the honour, the valour, and the character of the British navy”—accused me of having traduced the commander of the _Java_ and _Macedonian_, though the names of either ships or their commanders had never passed my lips, nor were in my thoughts—and wound up by asserting that I had _grossly libelled Captain Broke of the Shannon frigate_!!! though I had never mentioned the name of one or the other in the House, and only regarded them either in or out of the House with the highest admiration!

As this would be incredible were I not to introduce Mr. Croker’s own words, I shall do so without abridgment. 1st, to show the impudence of the falsehood, and 2ndly, as a really clever tribute to the gallant Captain Broke, had it been uttered in common honesty and not to get rid of Sir Francis Burdett’s motion; which was thus converted into a pretext of vilifying me in such language as no modern House of Commons would for a moment tolerate.

“Having shown, he trusted, to the satisfaction of the House, the
ignorance and unfounded statement of the noble lord, he could not
suffer the present opportunity to pass by without also showing that
the resolutions lately proposed by his Lordship were gross and
scandalous libels against the honour, the valour, and the character of
the British navy. The noble lord appeared to be peculiarly and most
unseasonably unfortunate both in his mis-statements and libels. It was
not necessary for him to tell either the noble lord or the House that
he alluded to the gallant action fought by the _Shannon_ frigate with
the _Chesapeake_ American frigate. The communication which he was
about to make to the House had not been sought for or prepared by him.
It had presented itself to him as if from a divinity to confute and
confound the noble lord’s misrepresentations and libels, and rescue
the honour of the British navy from unfounded aspersions, and raise
the glory of the British flag still higher than ever. As _he was
coming to the House the official information of that glorious
engagement was put into his hands_!! He should not trouble the House
at any length with the character of Captain Broke, who commanded the
_Shannon_. It would be sufficient for him to say that Captain Broke
was an officer no less distinguished for his indefatigable activity
and unwearied enterprise than for his skill and valour. With many
occasions of making and preserving the valuable prizes which must have
materially contributed to increase his private fortune, he had
uniformly preferred the cause of his country and the good of the
service to his own interests. Cases had even occurred, when, although
he might have fairly preserved his prizes, he rather chose to send
them, with all they contained, to the bottom of the sea than let any
opportunity slip in which his exertions and co-operation could be
useful in another quarter. The action which he fought with the
_Chesapeake_ was in every respect unexampled. It was not—and he knew
it was a bold assertion which he made—to be surpassed by any
engagement which graced the annals of Great Britain; the enemy’s ship
was superior in size, superior in weight of metal, superior in
numbers. She entered into the contest with the previous conviction of
all her superior advantages, and with a confirmed confidence of
victory resulting from that conviction. All this superiority served
but to heighten the brilliancy of Captain Broke’s achievement. What,
continued Mr. Croker, will, or rather what can, the noble lord say
now? Will he persist in still maintaining that the captures made by
the Americans have been caused by the decayed and disheartened state
of our seamen, and not by the enemy’s superiority in numbers and
weight of metal? He begged leave to assure the House, that he had not
introduced the account of the glorious victory gained by Captain Broke
as a single instance of the success of one of our frigates; but it had
come so opportunely to confound the noble lord’s statement and confute
his misrepresentations, that he felt he would be doing an act of
injustice to our gallant officers and seamen, to the House, and to the
country at large were he to pass it over unnoticed, at a moment so
peculiarly fitted and seasonable for its introduction. It was not, he
knew, the day or the hour which could enhance the value and glory of
Captain Broke’s great achievement, nor had he any occasion to
strengthen by its effects his arguments and statements against the
noble lord, for he sincerely believed there could not be any day or
hour in the course of the year in which he would not have more than
ample means of contradicting and disproving such assertions as the
noble lord had made on this occasion. Mr. Croker concluded with
observing that he trusted he had shown not only the impropriety, but
the danger of adopting the motion proposed by the honourable baronet.”

The reader may possibly inquire what this tirade could possibly have to do with Sir Francis Burdett’s motion? or with anything that I had said? He may wonder too that the House should have patiently listened for an hour to an imaginary charge against me _for what I had never said_! and the Secretary of the Navy’s refutation of a charge _which his own ingenuity had trumped up_! In our day it could not be that gentlemen by birth or education should have endured such claptrap, when its object was to malign one of their own body without a shadow of foundation for the malice displayed. The history of the period, however, so fully details the reasons for all this, that I may be spared the trouble of recapitulating them.

Unpractised in oratorical arts, whether professionally or as the hired advocate of a faction, my reply may appear tame; yet what it lacked in eloquence it made up by facts which had been _contradicted_, because they could not be _impugned_.

“LORD COCHRANE admitted all that could be said of the gallantry of our
seamen; but maintained that a great and a rapid decay had been
produced in their physical powers by the cause to which he had felt it
his duty to call the attention of the House. He was pleased that he
had done so in the form of a resolution which could neither be
misrepresented or misquoted without detection. It was in the
recollection of the House that he had not cast the slightest
reflection either on officers or men, collectively or individually,
although the honourable secretary had chosen to defend them in both
cases. Such a line of conduct might be best calculated to excite a
feeling of disapprobation towards him (Lord Cochrane) in the minds of
those who had not attended to the subject, but it was not an
honourable or a candid mode of proceeding to put _words into his mouth
and then argue to refute them_. He had never mentioned the name of
Captain Broke or alluded to him in the slightest degree, although the
secretary had spared no pains to defend him. Captain Broke had done
his duty; his men proved adequate to the task he had imposed upon
them; but, if his information was correct, the _Shannon_ was the only
frigate on the American station in which the captain would have been
justified in trusting to the physical strength of his crew.

“The honourable secretary seemed to flatter himself, from the exulting
manner in which he had delivered his speech, that he had also
_refuted_ those facts, which he (Lord Cochrane) did state. ‘Ford,’
says he, ‘did not pay 80_l._ for his discharge, or any other sum.’ But
does not the honourable secretary know that this man raised _four
substitutes_, and that he (W. Ford) could not procure them otherwise
than by money?[90] Was not the difficulty of getting seamen such that
the Admiralty demanded four men for the discharge of one? Under such
circumstances it was obvious that the navy was manned not by the
national bounty or the prospect of reward from the service, but out of
the funds of those who had long served their country. The noble lord
pledged himself to establish at the bar of the House every
circumstance stated in the resolutions which he had moved on a former
evening. Ford, he repeated, paid 90_l._ for his discharge—a sum equal
to all that he could have saved during eighteen years’ service! No man
of feeling could justify the continuance of such a practice.

-----

Footnote 90:

He had paid 90_l._ for them, as I had asserted.

-----

“As to the case of Farley, the honourable secretary assured the House
that he was not invalided for harbour-duty, neither had he died in the
service—facts which will not be deemed important when it is known (and
it can be proved) that this respectable petty officer, who had been in
thirteen general actions, and thirty-two years in the navy, was not
invalided until within a few days of his death; and that, unable to
return to his friends, he died on board the _Impérieuse_. Ought not
seamen to be entitled to their discharge before they are reduced to
this state? Can ships be efficient whilst men so debilitated form part
of their crews?

“It is impossible. The honourable secretary laid particular emphasis
on the case of Milton, as above all the most unfounded of his (Lord
Cochrane’s) unfounded assertions. He had discovered that Milton had
received his pension through Gawler, perhaps this was the easiest way;
but he (Lord Cochrane) knew that Milton deserved that pension, having
been wounded under his command. He was the first man who boarded the
_Tapageuse_ in the river of Bordeaux, when that ship’s corvette was
captured by the boats of the _Pallas_ alone. This led him to observe
that the lieutenant of the _Pallas_, who executed this service was not
promoted by the Admiralty until Sir Samuel Hood’s first lieutenant had
brought out another sloop, long afterwards, from the same place with
the boats of a whole squadron—nor, is it probable that he ever would
have obtained the reward of his gallant conduct, unless the Admiralty
had felt that the one could not longer be neglected if the other was
promoted. So much for impartiality! He pledged himself to prove to the
House the literal fact that Milton _had_ served seventeen years, and
_had paid_ nearly 100_l._ for his discharge. Surely such length of
service should entitle seamen to some deduction from so oppressive an
expense! This was not the case, however; neither was there any period
fixed to which they could look forward as the termination of their
compulsory confinement.

“He (Lord Cochrane) did not accuse the present Admiralty of
originating these abuses; possibly they were even ignorant of their
existence. Boards never listen to individuals, and therefore he had
adopted the present mode of calling the attention of parliament and of
the country to the state of the navy. Could any person have believed
that the Admiralty, instead of _decreasing_ the sum to be paid by
meritorious seamen after long service, actually _increase_ the amount?
He wished that the present first lord would look into his father’s
papers, who had it in contemplation to have made many alterations and
improvements in naval affairs, with which he was well acquainted.
Probably had he remained in office the seamen would have had no cause
now to lament the continuance of those evils of which he (Lord
Cochrane) was desirous to inform the House, with a view that they
might investigate the subject.

“Here the noble lord read an extract from a letter he had received
that morning from a seaman’s wife, the mother of a family, and whose
husband was compelled to pay 60_l._ for a discharge, which left their
children without bread. She owed 7_l._ to her doctor, who had written
to Mr. Croker, stating her extraordinary exertions for her family’s
support as the cause of her illness. The husband after a long service
had but 17_l._ remaining; and he was obliged to go down to Plymouth
before he could get his discharge. Was this the situation in which
British sailors should be placed? He was in the judgment of the whole
navy, and he would prove his facts at the bar. If the honourable
secretary had any feelings they ought to wring his breast, and prevent
him from daring to defend such abuses. He would not detain the House
longer than to say that the army was now a model on which to form the
navy—so much had circumstances changed. Their service was limited, and
officers who did gallant acts were rewarded by promotion and brevet.
He named Lieutenant Johnson, who served under his command in the
Basque Roads, as an instance to prove the unwillingness of the
Admiralty to do justice unless by favour.”

“MR. CROKER would not permit the noble lord to _lead the House away!_
by stating that his material facts had not been _disproved_. He (Mr.
Croker) had _contradicted_ his main assertions. The noble lord had not
got _rid of that_; and if he would give him further opportunities he
would give him _an equally satisfactory answer_!

“LORD COCHRANE admitted that the honourable secretary had
_contradicted_ his assertions, but he defied him to _disprove one
word_ contained in his resolution. As the feelings of his brother
officers might be excited by the statement of the honourable secretary
who had stood forward in their defence, though they had not been
attacked, he would again add, that he had not even thought
disrespectfully of any individual to whom the honourable secretary had
alluded. He admired the gallant conduct of Captain Broke, and asserted
that if the Admiralty did their duty no 38-gun frigate of ours need
shrink from a contest with the Americans.

“LORD COCHRANE repelled with scorn the accusation made against him of
endeavouring to excite dissatisfaction in the navy.”

The end of Mr. Croker’s attack on me was fully answered, viz. that of averting the attention of the House from Sir Francis Burdett’s motion, which fell to the ground.

So far I have vindicated myself, I will now appeal to authorities far more reliable than Mr. Croker.

“You may guess my surprise and disappointment on viewing forty-five of
the most filthy creatures that ever were embarked, sent as part of our
complement.”—(_Letter of Lord St. Vincent to Admiral Markham, quoted
by Brenton._)

If such men were sent as part of the complement of the ship of the commander-in-chief, the public may judge of the description furnished to private ships of war. Captain Brenton when confirming the above opinion of Lord St. Vincent, shall describe them.

“I can vouch for the correctness of the above picture of the men who
used to infest our ships. Their personal appearance, in spite of every
attention, was most miserable, particularly the importations at
Plymouth. I remember being ordered on a survey of _some of them in
1811_; and so truly wretched and unlike men did they appear, that I
took portraits of them, which I gave to Captain Nash, of the _Salvador
del Mundo._ _My wonder is that more of our ships were not taken by the
Americans in the late struggle, when it is considered how shamefully
they were manned_”!!—(_Brenton’s St. Vincent_, vol. ii. p. 246.)

Yet for speaking of them in 1813, after our ships were everywhere beaten by the Americans, I was denounced by Mr. Croker as wanting in veracity! My arguments all pointed to the reorganisation of a noble service whose cause of failure was solely attributable to a want of proper ships, well-trained men, and an armament capable of contending with a nation which, in this respect, had gone ahead of us.

This is not the place to enter into a description of our disasters in the American war, or it would be easy for me to show their origin in the abuses embodied in my resolutions. Nor is it to be wondered at that seamen who were so ill treated, and who suffered so much in former wars, should have recounted their sufferings to their descendants, now arrived at manhood. Which of them, who could obtain a better livelihood, would be likely, after such a description of the miseries of naval life, to enter on board an English man-of-war? It was no wonder they preferred the American service.

Had Mr. Croker been candid, he would, when speaking of the victory of the _Shannon_, have adduced the fact, which must have been known to the Admiralty that one-third of the _Chesapeake’s_ crew _were British seamen_, driven from their own national service by ill-treatment. A man in Captain Broke’s frigate found his own brother amongst the enemy’s wounded!

I will adduce the following extracts from Brenton.

“Sir Sidney Smith never spared himself. He was ever present in danger,
and the last to retreat from it. He was equally gallant and
enterprising with his contemporary, Cochrane, but less cautious and
less of a sailor. Both these valuable officers were latterly lost to
the service, because the Admiralty would not, _when they might have
done it_, give them sufficient employment at sea to keep them at
work.” (p. 461.)

“Vernon owed much of his celebrity to his manly and straightforward
dealing in the House of Commons.” (p. 347.)

“The services of the gallant Vernon were rewarded by his _being struck
out of the list by a weak and wicked government_. Vernon was supposed
to have been the author of two pamphlets, reflecting on the conduct of
the Admiralty, and the gallant Admiral very shortly afterwards
received a letter from Mr. Corbett, the secretary, announcing that His
Majesty had been pleased to direct their Lordships _to strike his name
off the list of flag officers_.” (p. 345.)

“If we would have good and faithful seamen to man our ships, we must
give them full and ample remuneration for their services, _with
security from want and penury in old age_. I most earnestly pray God
that the next parliament may have sense and influence enough to listen
to men belonging to our profession who will fearlessly advocate the
cause of our sailors.”—(_Brenton._)

It would not be difficult to multiply these extracts by dozens from naval writers of this and a subsequent period. These, however, being well known to students of naval history, need not be recapitulated. The following extract from a letter of Lord Collingwood, quoted by Brenton, vol. i. p. 436, embraces the whole subject.

“What day is there that I do not lament the continuance of the war?
Nothing good can happen to us short of peace. Every officer and man of
the fleet is impatient for release from a situation which daily
becomes more irksome to all. I see disgust growing around me very
fast.”

The debates in parliament sealed my fate.

It is, however a remarkable fact, that, notwithstanding my resolutions respecting the navy were thrown out without a division—that everything I advanced for the good of the navy was pooh-poohed—and that every fact I brought forward was flatly denied by Mr. Croker, in his position as Secretary of the Admiralty—the Government secretly proceeded to adopt nearly every one of the _reforms which had been originated and advanced by myself_. Thus instead of _my plans_, my efforts for the removal of naval abuses became _their plans_!

This would certainly never have been known to me, but for the recent publication of the “Diaries and Correspondence of the Right Hon. George Rose,” the Treasurer to the Navy. From this work I will cull a few extracts. Mr. Rose thus writes:—

“I dined at Lord Mulgrave’s with the Board of Admiralty, to discuss
some points respecting _my plan_ for _ensuring regular_ adjudication
and speedy distribution of the proceeds of prizes.... At the Levee to
day, Mr. Wellesley Pole kissed hands as principal Secretary for
Ireland, and Mr. Croker as his successor as Secretary to the
Admiralty. _I continue to think this last appointment, without any
impeachment of the gentleman’s character_, VERY MUCH TO BE REGRETTED.”
(Vol. ii. p. 411.)

Nothing of the kind, Mr. Rose, Mr. Croker was the only man who could be found to contradict my facts, and then induce his superiors to act upon them—to ridicule my plans, and then adopt them. So far from being out of his place, he was a necessity, since being thoroughly acquainted with all my plans and aspirations in our days of friendship, he could effectively defeat my efforts in the House of Commons and profit by them in Whitehall. Mr. Rose possibly did not suspect the causes for Mr. Croker’s appointment.

At page 503 of the same work, is an intimation from Mr. Perceval to Lord Bathurst of “_some future arrangement of the interests of Greenwich Hospital in prize-money_;” the very subject I had for the first time introduced into the House under the disadvantage of not knowing what papers to call for! My motions for the _proper payment of seamen_, though repudiated in the House, were completely successful in the Administration, as is shown by the subjoined correspondence between Lord Melville and Mr. Rose on the subject:—

“Admiralty, September 15th, 1814.

“DEAR ROSE,—I do not trouble you with the inclosed from any special
consideration of the particular case, but as a specimen of a
considerable and increased number which I have of late received. The
circumstance may be accidental, and I have little doubt that the
several instances may be satisfactorily accounted for.... I have no
doubt that real neglect does not occur, but it is very desirable that
there should not be even the appearance of it. On your return to town,
you will probably examine into the subject, with a view to ascertain
whether in the inferior branches of the Pay Office, the business is
conducted to your satisfaction.

“Believe me, &c. &c.
“MELVILLE.”

The business was not conducted to Mr. Rose’s satisfaction, for in his reply to Lord Melville, he says:—

“I gave the most positive orders, accompanied by strong assurances of
my severe displeasure if they should not be complied with, for
insuring early answers to all applications, and, _finding these
ineffectual_, from not knowing on whom individually to fix blame,
where there was an appearance of neglect, I divided the alphabet
amongst the clerks in the inspection branch, assigning to each certain
letters in it, that I might know with whom the responsibility rested,
who should not perform his duty. That has been followed up by mulcts
and reprimands. At one time I had the whole branch into my room, and
stated to them in the most impressive terms, my fixed determination to
dismiss the first person against whom a well founded complaint should
be made; on which I had _remonstrances for having disgraced the
branch_!

* * * * * * *

“My servants have general orders, never, under any pressure of
business, to refuse admittance to seamen or their relations, or,
indeed, to any poor inquiring person. I have sometimes picked up
stragglers in the country and maintained them till I could ascertain
whether I could be useful to them, _either in getting their
prize-money, or obtaining for them admission to Greenwich
Hospital_!... I have by the aid of a law I brought in, punished
_frauds of every description practised upon the seamen_, even in cases
where _only larger prices have been exacted than ought to have been
paid for articles sold to them_.”

Formidable admissions, truly, despite the virtuous indignation of Mr. Croker on the supposition that anything could be wrong at the Admiralty. Yet here, after my attempts at remedying abuses, the Treasurer to the Navy testifies to the difficulty of seamen obtaining access to the Admiralty—to their begging about the country in the character of common tramps for want of their prize-money, whilst even the wounded and aged required Mr. Rose’s humane intervention to get them a chance of Greenwich Hospital—to the fact, that frauds of all kinds were practised upon them—whilst the “_branch which was disgraced_,” by merely being told of its misconduct, was in the habit of charging to the seamen “_larger prices than ought to have been paid for articles sold to them_!!”

I had brought nothing before the House half so bad as this testimony of the Treasurer of the Navy. Yet for bringing forward what I did on behalf of the navy, I was, as will presently be seen, hunted on a false accusation into prison, whilst those who marked me down were quietly adopting as their own the reforms I had advocated!!

CHAP. XXXVIII.
THE STOCK EXCHANGE TRIAL.

NECESSITY FOR ENTERING ON THE SUBJECT.—LORD CAMPBELL’S OPINION
RESPECTING IT.—LORD BROUGHAM’S OPINION.—HIS LATE MAJESTY’S.—MY
RESTORATION TO RANK.—REFUSAL TO REINVESTIGATE MY CASE.—THE REASONS
GIVEN.—EXTRACT FROM LORD BROUGHAM’S WORKS.—MY FIRST KNOWLEDGE OF DE
BERENGER.—HOW BROUGHT ABOUT.—THE STOCK EXCHANGE HOAX.—RUMOURS
IMPLICATING ME IN IT.—I RETURN TO TOWN IN CONSEQUENCE.—MY
AFFIDAVIT.—ITS NATURE.—IMPROBABILITY OF MY CONFEDERACY.—MY
CARELESSNESS OF THE MATTER.—DE BERENGER’S DENIAL OF MY
PARTICIPATION.—REMARKS THEREON.—SIGNIFICANT FACTS.—REMARKS ON THE
ALLEGED HOAX COMMON ON THE STOCK EXCHANGE.

I now approach a period of my life in which occurred circumstances beyond all others painful to the feelings of an honourable man. Neglect I was accustomed to. Despite my efforts to rise superior to the jealousies of others, it has followed me through life. Exclusion from professional activity at a period when opportunity for distinction lay before me, was hard to bear; but I had the consolation of exerting myself ashore for the benefit of the noble service, in the active duties of which I was not permitted to participate. But when an alleged offence was laid to my charge in 1814, in which, on the honour of a man now on the brink of the grave, I had not the slightest participation, and from which I never benefited, nor thought to benefit one farthing, and when this allegation was, by political, rancour and legal chicanery, consummated in an unmerited conviction and an outrageous sentence, my heart for the first time sank within me, as conscious of a blow, the effect of which it has required all my energies to sustain. It has been said that truth comes sooner or later. But it seldom comes before the mind, passing from agony to contempt, has grown callous to man’s judgment. To this principle, I am thankful to say, I have never subscribed, but have to this hour remained firm in the hope and confidence that by the mercy of God I shall not die till full and ample justice of my fellow-men has been freely rendered me.

It may be thought that after the restoration to rank and honours by my late and present Sovereigns—after promotion to the command of a fleet when I had no enemy to confront—and after enjoyment of the sympathy and friendship of those whom the nation delights to honour,—I might safely pass over that day of deep humiliation. Not so. It is true that I have received those marks of my Sovereign’s favour, and it is true that from that day to the present I have enjoyed the uninterrupted friendship of those who were then convinced, and are still convinced of my innocence; but _that unjust public sentence has never been publicly reversed, nor the equally unjust fine inflicted on me remitted_; so that if I would, it is not in my power to remain silent and be just to my posterity. The Government of my country has, though often invoked, refused to re-investigate my case, as impossible in form, and from fear of creating a precedent. Nevertheless, I will, repugnant as is the subject, re-state the facts, and, posterity being my judge, have no fear as to the verdict. The coronet of my ancestors, and the honour of my family, which will, in the course of nature ere long be committed to the keeping of a devoted and sensitively honourable son, demand no less at my hands.

It must not, however, be imagined that the recital of leading facts, is for the first time adopted in pursuance of the dictates of family duty and affection. Neither would it have been possible to write my autobiography without entering on this most important and painful portion of my life, because such an omission would be fatal to my reputation, as it might be construed into an admission of my culpability.

At a period before the experience of the present generation, the circumstances about to be recorded were over and over again submitted to public judgment, but at a time when the rod of justice was suspended _in terrorem_ over the public press, which did not venture openly to espouse my cause on its own merits. Yet even then my efforts were not in vain. The press, instead of being, as in those days it was, the organ of ill-concealed public dissatisfaction, has now become the exponent of the public voice; which, through its medium, is heard and felt throughout the length and breadth of the land. Though approaching the subject with distaste, I do so with confidence that my unvarnished tale will not be told in vain.

For the more ready appreciation of the reader in the present day, as regards facts, the details of which the lapse of half a century has nearly obliterated, I may be permitted to introduce the subject by extracts from the works of two of the most learned and distinguished lawyers and statesmen of the age in which we live—two noblemen, of whose learning, of whose judgment and integrity it is unnecessary for me to say one word, because they are much above my praise, and therefore can receive no addition from it—viz. Lord Brougham, formerly our Lord High Chancellor, and Lord Campbell, the present Lard High Chancellor of England. I will take those of Lord Campbell first, because they embrace points into which Lord Brougham does not enter, and also because Lord Campbell, in addition to the dignity which he now adorns, for many years occupied the same high position as did Lord Ellenborough, when he presided at the trial to which the reader’s attention is now directed.

Lord Campbell, at page 218, vol. iii. in his valuable work, entitled “The Lives of the Chief-Justices of England,” says:—

“I have now only to mention some criminal cases which arose before
Lord Ellenborough in later years. Of these, the most remarkable was
Lord Cochrane’s, as this drew upon the Chief-Justice a considerable
degree of public obloquy, and, _causing very uneasy reflections in his
own mind, was supposed to have hastened his end_.”

“Lord Cochrane (since Earl of Dundonald) was one of the most gallant
officers in the English navy, and had gained the most brilliant
reputation in a succession of naval engagements against the French.
Unfortunately for him, he likewise wished to distinguish himself in
politics, and taking the Radical line, he was returned to Parliament
for the city of Westminster. He was a determined opponent of Lord
Liverpool’s Administration; and at popular meetings was in the habit
of delivering harangues of rather a seditious aspect, which induced
Lord Ellenborough to believe that he seriously meant to abet
rebellion, and that he was a dangerous character. But the gallant
officer was really a loyal subject, as well as enthusiastically
zealous for the glory of his country. He had an uncle, named Cochrane,
a merchant[91], and a very unprincipled man, who, towards the end of
the war, in concert with De Berenger, a foreigner, wickedly devised a
scheme by which they were to make an immense fortune by a speculation
on the Stock Exchange.”

“For this purpose they were to cause a sudden rise in the funds, by
spreading false intelligence that a preliminary treaty of peace had
actually been signed between England and France. Everything succeeded
to their wishes; the intelligence was believed, the funds rose, and
they sold on time bargains many hundred thousand pounds of 3 per
cents. before the truth was discovered.”

“It so happened that Lord Cochrane was then in London, was living in
his uncle’s house[92], and was much in his company, but there is now
good reason to believe that he was not at all implicated in the
nefarious scheme. However, when the fraud was detected,—partly from a
belief in his complicity, and partly _from political spite_,—he was
included in the indictment preferred for the conspiracy to defraud the
Stock Exchange.”

“The trial coming on before Lord Ellenborough, the noble and learned
Judge, being himself persuaded of the guilt of all the defendants,
used his best endeavours that they should all be convicted. He refused
to adjourn the trial at the close of the prosecutor’s case, about nine
in the evening, when the trial had lasted twelve hours, and the jury,
as well as the defendants’ counsel, were all completely exhausted and
all prayed for an adjournment. The following day, in summing up,
prompted, no doubt, by the conclusion of his own mind, he laid
_special emphasis on every circumstance which might raise a suspicion
against Lord Cochrane_, and ELABORATELY EXPLAINED AWAY WHATEVER AT
FIRST SIGHT MIGHT SEEM FAVOURABLE to the gallant officer. In
consequence the jury found a verdict of GUILTY against _all_ the
defendants.”

“Next term, Lord Cochrane presented himself in Court to move for a new
trial, but the other defendants convicted along with him did not
attend. He said truly that he had no power or influence to obtain
their attendance, and urged that his application was founded on
circumstances peculiar to his own case. But Lord Ellenborough would
not hear him, because the other defendants were not present. Such a
rule had before been laid down[93], _but it is palpably contrary to
the first principles of justice, and ought immediately to have been
reversed_.”

“Lord Cochrane was thus deprived of all opportunity of showing that
the verdict against him was wrong, and in addition to fine and
imprisonment, he was sentenced to stand in the pillory.[94] Although
as yet he was generally believed to be guilty, the award of this
degrading and infamous punishment upon a young nobleman, a member of
the House of Commons, and a distinguished naval officer, raised
universal sympathy in his favour. The judge was proportionably blamed,
not only by the vulgar, but by men of education on both sides in
politics, and he found upon entering society and appearing in the
House of Lords _that he was looked upon coldly_.

“_Having now some misgivings himself as to the propriety of his
conduct in this affair, he became very wretched._ Nor was the
agitation allowed to drop during the remainder of Lord Ellenborough’s
life, for Lord Cochrane being expelled the House of Commons, _was
immediately re-elected for Westminster_. Having escaped from the
prison in which he was confined under his sentence, he appeared in the
House of Commons. In obedience to the public voice, the part of his
sentence by which he was to stand in the pillory was remitted by the
Crown, and a bill was introduced into Parliament altogether to abolish
the pillory as a punishment, _on account of the manner in which the
power of inflicting it had been recently abused. It was said that
these matters preyed deeply on Lord Ellenborough’s mind and affected
his health. Thenceforth he certainly seemed to have lost the gaiety of
heart for which he had been formerly remarkable._” (Lord Campbell’s
“Lives of the Chief-Justices,” vol. iii. pp. 218, 219, 220.)

-----

Footnote 91:

This is an error. My uncle, an East India merchant, was the Hon. Basil
Cochrane, a highly honourable man, not the one alluded to by Lord
Campbell.

Footnote 92:

It was my uncle Basil with whom I for a time resided.

Footnote 93:

On one special occasion only.

Footnote 94:

This vindictive sentence the Government did not dare carry out. My
high-minded colleague, Sir Francis Burdett, told the Government that
if the sentence was carried into effect, he would stand in the pillory
beside me, when they must look to the consequences. What these might
have been, in the then excited state of the public mind, as regarded
my treatment, the reader may guess.

-----

Such are the recorded opinions of one of the most learned and acute men of the age, one who now does honour to the judgment-seat of the highest tribunal of our country; and who, at the time those opinions were given to the world, held the scarcely less dignified position of Chief-Justice of England, sitting in the very court in which that cruel sentence—the unmerited cause of so much misery to me—was pronounced. From such an authority—as much judicial as historic—may the reader form his own conclusions.

It is with no less satisfaction that I add the opinions of another learned and highly gifted peer of the realm, who has also adorned the dignified office of Lord High Chancellor of England, viz. my friend Lord Brougham, to whose name, as the untiring advocate of everything nationally progressive and socially expansive, no testimony of mine could add weight.

In the year 1844, when I submitted to Her Majesty’s Government how incomplete I considered the restoration of my honours, I wrote to Lord Brougham, ever my constant and steadfast friend, to ask his opinion of the step I was taking. The subjoined was Lord Brougham’s reply:—

“Grafton Street, March 29th, 1844.

“MY DEAR LORD D.—I think, upon the whole, the time is favourable.

“I have well considered the matter as of importance, and have read the
papers through. I don’t think the best way of bringing the subject
before the Duke is to send that correspondence, but rather to make a
statement, and I authorise you distinctly to add to it these two
important facts.

“First, that William IV. only objected to the Bath being restored _at
the same time_ with your rank, and not absolutely at all times.

“Secondly, that your counsel were clearly of opinion that the verdict
as _concerned you was erroneous_, and I always concluded that you had
sacrificed yourself out of delicacy to your uncle, the person really
guilty.

“The restoring you to rank without your honours is too absurd and
unfair. It means ‘we will take all we can get from you in service, and
give you nothing.’

“Yours ever truly,
“H. BROUGHAM.”

No one knew better than His late Majesty, King William the Fourth, the injustice under which I had laboured, and the causes of the political spite which had been directed against me. Before His Majesty came to the throne he warmly interested himself in my behalf, and intimated to Sir Francis Burdett, that if I were to memorialise the Government, he would use his influence to procure my restoration. This was accordingly done, but in vain, His Royal Highness’s influence _then_ proving insufficient for the purpose, but not so after His Majesty’s accession to the throne.

The following extract of a letter from Sir Francis Burdett, coming shortly before my restoration to rank, will show the continued interest taken by His late Majesty and those near him to remove unmerited obloquy from a brother sailor, notwithstanding the failure of His Majesty’s previous effort when Duke of Clarence. The same intimation to Sir Francis Burdett being made, a similar memorial was laid before His Majesty in Council; this time with effect.

“MY DEAR LORD DUNDONALD,—I went to the Levee on Wednesday to give your
memorial to Greville, the Clerk of the Council, to present—but the
King returned to Windsor immediately after the Levee and no council
was held. Had it been, I can entertain no doubt that your memorial
would have been presented and granted.

“I went to see Greville about it the next day—he was so kind and so
desirous of doing everything in his power to expedite it, even
proposing to take it out of its usual turn, that I cannot but feel
quite satisfied and assured that there will be not a moment’s
unnecessary delay. A little patience and all will be right. I should
like to see you for a day or two, and perhaps may.

“Yours sincerely,
“F. BURDETT.”

My restoration not long afterwards followed, and no one knew better than His Majesty the justice of reversing the unjust sentence which had so long and so undeservedly excluded me from a service which from my youth upwards had been my pride.

I shall ever consider this interference on my behalf as a testimonial from His late Majesty not only to my innocence, but also to my unjustifiable persecution, for had he not believed me innocent, His Majesty would have been the last person to interfere so pertinaciously. Still less when, on coming to the throne, his former influence had become authority.

I was not restored to my honours till the reign of Her present Most Gracious Majesty, and on this restoration being made, I again requested of Her Majesty’s Ministers a reinvestigation into the causes which led to my unjust conviction, alleging that my restoration to rank and honour might be construed into an act of mercy, were not my innocence of the Stock Exchange hoax fully established. In this sense I addressed the late Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel. The following was his Grace’s reply.

“Walmer Castle, Sept. 12th, 1844.

“MY LORD,—I have just received the package from your Lordship,
containing your Lordship’s letter to myself of the 10th inst. and
other papers, which I will peruse with attention according to the
desire and for the purpose expressed in your Lordship’s letter.

“I have the honour to be, &c.
“WELLINGTON.

“Admiral the Earl of Dundonald, &c.”

The reply of Sir Robert Peel was more explicit, and gave as a reason why my request could not be complied with, that just, or unjust, it was not, from lapse of time, in the power of the Government to attempt to reverse a decision in a court of law.

“Whitehall, Nov. 7th, 1844.

“MY LORD,—Her Majesty’s servants have had under their consideration
the letter I received from your Lordship, bearing date the 10th of
September 1844, together with the documents by which that letter was
accompanied.

“On reference to the proceedings which were adopted in the year
1832[95], it appears that previously to the restoration of your
Lordship to your rank in the navy a free pardon under the great seal
was granted to your Lordship, and, adverting to that circumstance, and
to the fact that thirty years have elapsed since the charges to which
the free pardon had reference were the subject of investigation before
the proper judicial tribunal of the country, Her Majesty’s servants
cannot consistently with their sense of public duty advise the Queen
to re-open an inquiry into those charges.

“I beg leave to refer your Lordship to the letter which the Earl of
Haddington, the First Lord of the Admiralty, addressed to your
Lordship in the year 1842—as I am not enabled to make any
communication to your Lordship on the part of Her Majesty’s Government
differing in purport from that letter.

“I have the honour, &c.,
“ROBERT PEEL.

“Admiral the Earl of Dundonald, &c.”

-----

Footnote 95:

My restoration to rank.

-----

Here was the whole secret why I had never been able to obtain an investigation of my case, and why the Admiralty, which deprived me of rank and honour, declined to investigate it, notwithstanding that an appeal from the verdict had been refused by the Court of King’s Bench, though I had then in court such additional evidence as must have set aside the verdict, which evidence will shortly be laid before the reader who will now be in a condition to understand the following explanation of Lord Brougham, given, under the article “Ellenborough,” in his “Historic Sketches of British Statesmen in the time of George the Third.”

“On the bench, it is not to be denied that Lord Ellenborough
occasionally suffered the strength of his political feelings to break
forth and to influence the tone and temper of his observations. That
he ever, upon any one occasion, knowingly deviated one hair’s breadth
in the discharge of his office is wholly untrue. The case which gave
rise to the greatest comment, and even led to a senseless show of
impeachment was Lord Cochrane’s. * * * I must, however, be here
distinctly understood _to deny the accuracy of the opinion which Lord
Ellenborough appears to have formed in this case, and deeply to lament
the verdict of guilty which the jury returned, after three hours’
consultation and hesitation_.

“If Lord Cochrane was at all aware of his uncle Mr. Cochrane
Johnstone’s proceedings, it was the whole extent of his privity to the
fact. Having been one of the counsel engaged in the cause I can speak
with some confidence respecting it, and I take upon me to assert that
Lord Cochrane’s conviction was mainly owing to the extreme repugnance
which he felt to giving up his uncle, or taking those precautions for
his own safety which would have operated against that near relation.
Even when he, the real criminal, had confessed his guilt, by taking to
flight, and the other defendants were brought up for judgment, we, the
counsel, could not persuade Lord Cochrane to shake himself loose from
the contamination by abandoning him.

“Our only complaint against Lord Ellenborough was his Lordship’s
refusal to adjourn after the prosecutor’s case closed, and his
requiring us to enter upon our defence at so late an hour—past nine
o’clock—that the adjournment took place at midnight, and before we
called our witnesses. Of course, I speak of the trial at Guildhall
only. Lord Ellenborough was equally to blame with his brethern in the
Court of King’s Bench for that most cruel and unjustifiable sentence,
which at once secured Lord Cochrane’s re-election for Westminister
when the House of Commons expelled him upon his conviction.

“In 1833, the Government of which I was a member restored this great
warrior to his rank of Admiral in our navy. The country, therefore, in
the event of hostilities, would now have the inestimable benefit of
his services, whom none perhaps ever equalled in heroic courage, and
whose fertility of resources, military as well as naval, place him
high amongst the very first of commanders. That his honours of
knighthood, so gloriously won, should still be withholden is a stain,
_not upon him_, but upon the councils of his country; and after his
restoration to the service, it is as inconsistent and incomprehensible
as cruel and unjust.” (Lord Brougham’s “Historic Sketches.”)

A brief outline of the circumstances which led to the trial will enable the reader to comprehend the grounds upon which the opinions just quoted were based.

At the commencement of 1814 I was appointed by my uncle, Sir Alexander Cochrane, then commanding the British fleet on the North American station, as his flag-captain; and in the month of February was busily engaged in getting the _Tonnant_ line-of-battle-ship, then fitting at Chatham as my uncle’s flag-ship, ready for sea. The presence of Sir Alexander being imperatively required upon the station, he had previously quitted England in a frigate; and it had been understood between my uncle and myself that, on joining him with the _Tonnant_, the most efficient measures should be adopted to compensate for our late defeats with the better manned and equipped vessels of the United States.

Previous to my uncle’s departure at the latter end of 1813, he had, in pursuance of this object, repeatedly though unsuccessfully applied to the Admiralty for permission to engage an officer in the Duke of Cumberland’s regiment of Sharpshooters, as having a reputation not only for skill in teaching rifle practice, but also for his pyrotechnic acquirements, as an engineer officer; this proficiency having become known to Sir Alexander through his brother, who, strongly urged the employment of the person alluded to, a Captain De Berenger, with whom Mr. Cochrane Johnstone had been for some time acquainted. It was thus that I was subsequently brought in contact with a man who eventually proved my ruin, by involving me in an appearance of complicity in an attempt to raise the public funds by the dissemination of groundless news to the prejudice of the Stock Exchange speculators, one of those common deceptions which, I am told, were then, as now, practised by parties connected with the transactions of the Stock Exchange.

In the month of January Mr. Cochrane Johnstone invited De Berenger to a dinner, at which I was present. Towards the close of the evening this person asked me to step aside with him for the purpose of conversation. His object was to request me to take him on board the _Tonnant_ in any capacity, for having failed to obtain the consent of the Admiralty he would be happy to trust to Sir Alexander’s generosity to employ him in any situation for which he was qualified. With this view he begged me to peruse his testimonials as Adjutant of the Duke of Cumberland’s rifle regiment, as well as other documents of a similar character.

Finding the testimonials satisfactory, I expressed my regret at not being able to take him in the _Tonnant_ without an appointment, or at least an order, from the Board of Admiralty; adding, that no person could possibly have less influence with their Lordships than myself, and that therefore it was useless for me to apply to them on his behalf, especially as they had refused the application of Sir Alexander Cochrane. Knowing, however, that it was the wish of Sir Alexander that De Berenger should go if possible, I recommended him to exert himself to secure the influence of those under whom he appeared to have served so satisfactorily; adding that, if he succeeded, I should have great pleasure in taking him in the _Tonnant_.

With these prefatory remarks the reader will readily comprehend what follows:—

About midnight on the 20th of February, according to the current report of the transactions hereafter to be named, a person calling himself Colonel de Bourg, aide-de-camp to Lord Cathcart, presented himself at the Ship Hotel at Dover, representing that he was the bearer of intelligence from Paris, to the effect that Buonaparte had been killed by the Cossacks—that the allied armies were in full march for Paris—and that immediate peace was certain. After this announcement he forwarded similar intelligence by letter to the Port-Admiral at Deal, with a view—as was supposed—of its being forwarded to London by telegraph; thus making the Port-Admiral the medium of communication with the Government.

This person, as was afterwards known to the Stock Exchange only _through my instrumentality_, was the before-named De Berenger. The intelligence was false, having been concocted for the purpose of causing a rise in the public funds.

On the 7th of March, the Committee of the Stock Exchange published an advertisement offering a reward of two hundred and fifty guineas for the discovery of the person who had perpetrated the hoax; a report being at the same time current that the pretended Du Bourg had, on the morning of the 21st of February, been _traced to my house in Green Street_.

At this time I had joined the _Tonnant_ at Chatham, and was preparing to sail for the North American station, but on learning the injurious report above mentioned, and being aware from the ordinary channels of public intelligence of the nature of the transaction—being moreover indignant that the perpetrator of the deception should have dared to visit me, I determined to denounce him, in order that if he were really the guilty person, his name should be made public at the earliest possible moment, so that no time might be lost in bringing the matter home to him.

In pursuance of this determination I obtained leave of absence from the ship. On my return to town, I found that although the authorities were ignorant of the name of the person who came to my house on the 21st of February, public rumour did not hesitate to impute to me complicity in his transactions, simply from the fact of the suspected person, whoever he might be, having been there.

To rebut these insinuations was of the first importance. Accordingly I immediately consulted my legal advisers.

The result was that an affidavit was prepared and submitted to an eminent barrister, Mr. Gurney, to whom I disclosed every particular relative to the visit of De Berenger, as well as to my own previous, though very unimportant transactions, in the public funds. I was advised by him and my own solicitors to confine myself simply to supplying the authorities with the name of De Berenger as the person seen in uniform at my house on the 21st ultimo.

With this suggestion, wisely or unwisely—but certainly in all honesty, I refused to comply, expressing my determination to account _for all my acts_ on the 21st of February, even to the entire occupation of my whole time on that day. Finding me firm on this point, the affidavit was settled by Mr. Gurney, and sworn to, the name of De Berenger for the first time thus becoming known to those who were in quest of him. (See Appendix.)