Volume 2 — CHAP. XL.

REMARKS ON LORD ELLENBOROUGH’S DIRECTIONS.—PROOFS OF THIS FALLACY.—HIS ASSUMPTION OF THINGS NOT IN EVIDENCE, AND UNWARRANTABLE CONJECTURES, IN POSITIVE OPPOSITION TO EVIDENCE.—HIS DESIRE TO CONVICT OBNOXIOUS PERSONS.—LEIGH HUNT, DR. WATSON, AND HONE.—LORD ELLENBOROUGH A CABINET MINISTER AT THE TIME OF MY TRIAL.—MY CONVICTION A MINISTERIAL NECESSITY.—VAIN ATTEMPTS TO GET MY CASE REHEARD.—LETTER TO LORD EBRINGTON.—THE IMPROBABILITY OF MY GUILT.—ABSURDITY OF SUCH IMPUTATION.—LETTER OF SIR ROBERT WILSON.—LETTER OF THE LATE DUKE OF HAMILTON.—MR. HUME’S LETTER.—CAUSES FOR MY PERSECUTION.—TREATMENT OF THE PRINCESS CHARLOTTE, WHO FLED TO HER MOTHER’S PROTECTION.—SYMPATHY OF THE PRINCESS FOR MY TREATMENT—MY POPULARITY INCREASED THEREBY.— MINE REALLY A STATE PROSECUTION.—RESTORATION OF SIR ROBERT WILSON.—MY RESTORATION INCOMPLETE TO THIS DAY.

If such evidence as has been exposed in the last chapter was unreliable, the use made of it by the Bench was unjustifiable. Crane deposed to De Berenger’s having with him “a portmanteau big enough to wrap a coat in.” The person of whom the coat was bought deposed to his taking it away in this portmanteau, yet the judge—despite the obvious consideration, that De Berenger could not have gone to Dover in this splendid and ornamented dress, but must have had some other dress for his journey—charged the jury that “it did not appear that De Berenger had the means of shifting himself!” He had the means of putting on the red coat at or near Dover, and what doubt could there be that his portmanteau supplied the means of again shifting it after his return? The 373evidence on the trial showed that shortly before reaching London he drew down the sun-blinds of the chaise, when there can be no reasonable doubt that he changed it for the green one in which he went to Dover, and which had been temporarily placed in the portmanteau. Crane, as has been shown by his own words, gave his evidence under the expectation of reward, and had no doubt been instructed that a red coat was the very thing wanted.

On the evidence of this man Crane, the jury was further charged that De Berenger not only entered my house in a red uniform, but that it was also decorated with a star and medal! There was nothing in the testimony of Crane or the waterman, which even related to a star and medal. They never gave the slightest intimation of De Berenger’s wearing any such ornaments; but as he appeared to have worn some ornaments of the kind at Dover, this is prima facie proof that he had changed his coat on his return, otherwise both Crane and the waterman must have seen ornaments so conspicuous.

Still a star, like a red coat, was wanted to convict me, and a leading question to the postboy—who admitted that, previous to the trial, he had received 52l.!!! was, whether he had seen a star? His reply was that he had seen something of the kind, but that “he could not swear what it was.” He nevertheless said that he had “opened the chaise-door,” and therefore must have been within a yard of the star, if star there were, so that his refusal to swear to it is palpable proof that De Berenger wore no star on his return, this being 374no doubt on the red coat in the portmanteau. Yet, said Lord Ellenborough to the jury, “He pulled off his scarlet uniform at Lord Cochrane’s house. He came to Lord Cochrane fully blazoned in the costume of his crime.” (Times’ report of the trial.)

The fact that De Berenger had with him, according to Crane’s evidence, “a portmanteau big enough to wrap a coat in,” was not laid before the jury, nor the obvious inference, that he must, beyond doubt, have conveyed his scarlet coat to Dover in that portmanteau, because a man whom the Solicitor-General said “was no fool,” would not have committed such an act of folly as prematurely to array himself in so remarkable a dress, intended for so criminal a purpose.

A circumstance strongly inferential, occurred which went far to prove that De Berenger had changed his dress before coming to my house. On the first part of the journey he was proved to have worn a sword, unquestionably as essential to his assumed character. But before he came to my house, he had disengaged himself from the sword, for Crane swore that on entering, he “took out of the chaise a portmanteau and a sword, and went in.” So that, according to the evidence of Crane himself, the chief witness for the prosecution, he had made one material alteration in his appearance. Why should De Berenger have worn his sword up to the last stage from Dover, during which he “pulled down the sunblinds,” and then have taken it off, but for the plain reason that he could not change his scarlet coat for his green uniform without first taking off his sword, which he had not replaced, but laid it on the chaise-seat during the operation. Not a word 375of this was allowed to go to the jury, though if—as Lord Ellenborough argued—he had been regardless of exhibiting himself to me in the false character of a military officer, he would hardly have taken off his sword! These facts were not only proofs that a partial change of dress had been made, but that an entire change had been effected, to which the removal of the sword was absolutely necessary. Had my servants been called upon the trial, their testimony, as seen in their affidavits contained in the previous chapter, must have been decisive.

It has been stated, that at the instance of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, Sir Alexander Cochrane applied to the Admiralty for permission to engage De Berenger, and the records of the Admiralty would then, as no doubt they will now, prove the fact. There was not a word passed on the subject at the trial, nor any witness brought from the Admiralty to decide the point. Yet Lord Ellenborough put it to the jury as beyond doubt, that it was I or Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, who was also a defendant in the same prosecution, who applied to Sir Alexander for his engagement!—thus making this unfounded but important fact part of his direction to the jury. Here are the judge’s words:—

“There is no doubt that Sir Alexander Cochrane had, on some application from Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, or Lord Cochrane, applied for him.” (Report, p. 483.)

It is difficult to account for the judge’s motive in making such a statement, wholly unsupported by evidence. Neither was there even an attempt to show 376that I had ever interfered or even interested myself in any application on De Berenger’s behalf. The fact of Sir Alexander Cochrane having made the application was most important for my defence, because it added greatly to the probability of my statement in my affidavit, and accounted for the conduct of De Berenger in presuming to call on me to request a passage to America. This Lord Ellenborough completely neutralised by telling the jury that it was I who applied to Sir Alexander for his employment; the impression made on the minds of the jury being, that notwithstanding I disclaimed all knowledge of the man, I had been on terms of intimacy with him before the application was made!

The judge then declared as follows:—“But it does not rest there; for he himself lends to this person the immediate means of concealment,—he lets him have a hat instead of his laced cap; and what had such a cap to do with a sharpshooter’s uniform?” (Report, p. 485.) I had never said a word about a “laced cap,” nor had I ever seen De Berenger’s cap, for, as one of my servants testified, it lay in the hall. After this direction to the jury and my consequent conviction, I made it my business to ascertain what kind of cap was worn by the adjutant of Lord Yarmouth’s rifle-corps, and, to my great surprise and indignation, discovered that the regimental head-dress of De Berenger was a black cap with a spacious gold band upon it, a long gold tassel pendant, and a death’s head and marrow-bones in bronze!—so that sharpshooters had something to do with laced caps.

Still more extraordinary was the judge’s observation 377to the jury:—“The uniform of the rifle-corps is of a bottle-green colour, made to resemble the colour of trees, that those who wear it may hide themselves in woods, and escape discovery there.” (Report, p. 478.) This was in direct opposition to the evidence, for Lord Yarmouth had actually testified in Court that the uniform of the corps was “waistcoat-green, with a crimson cape!”

Mr. Park.—“What is the uniform of your corps?”

Lord Yarmouth.—“The uniform is the waistcoat-green, with a crimson cape.”

Mr. Park.—“A bottle-green, is it not?”

Lord Yarmouth.—“Some have got it a little darker than others, but it should be a deep bottle-green, with a crimson collar.”

I have merely taken these instances at random, and without comment further than necessary to enable the reader to comprehend them. As my judge is no longer here to reply to me, I abstain from comment, however much it might tend, now that the party spirit which ruined me has died out, to establish my innocence. Still I cannot refrain from adducing a few extracts from Lord Campbell’s work, relative to the trials of politically obnoxious persons.

Lord Ellenborough’s efforts to convict Leigh Hunt of libel, and the verdict of “Not Guilty” pronounced by an indignant jury, are matters within the memory of many now living. “Such scandal,” says Lord Campbell, “was excited by the mode in which Government prosecutions for libel were now instituted and conducted, that Lord Holland brought the subject before the House of Lords. The violence of Lord Ellenborough 378when opposing Lord Holland’s motion, is foreign to the subject of the present work. Sir James Mackintosh, who heard it, expressed himself ‘disgusted with its dogmatism.’” (Lord Campbell, vol. iii. p. 205.)

The subjoined are Lord Campbell’s remarks when introducing the subject:—

“He did his best to convict Leigh Hunt, then the editor of the Examiner, upon an ex officio information for publishing an article against the excess to which the punishment of flagellation had been carried in the army.

“‘Gentlemen;’ said he to the jury, ‘we are placed in a most anxious and awful situation. The liberty of the country—everything we enjoy—not only the independence of the nation, but whatever each individual amongst us prizes in private life, depends upon our fortunate resistance to the arms of Buonaparte and the force of France, which I may say is the force of all Europe, combined under that formidable foe. It becomes us, therefore, to see that there is not, in addition to the prostrate thrones of Europe, an auxiliary within this country, and that he has not the aid for the furtherance of his object of a British press.’”

* * * * * * * *

“‘This publication is not to draw the attention of the legislature or of persons in authority with a view to a remedy, but seems intended to induce the military to consider themselves as more degraded than any other soldiers in the world, and to make them less ready at this awful crisis to render the country that assistance without which we are collectively and individually undone. I have no doubt but that this libel has been published with the intention imputed to it, and that it is entitled to the character given to it in the information.’

“Nevertheless, to the unspeakable mortification of the noble judge, the jury found a verdict of Not Guilty.” (Lord Campbell’s Lives of the Chief Justices, vol. iii. pp. 201-203.)

379The following are Lord Campbell’s remarks on the verdict in the seven days’ trial of Dr. Watson on a charge of high treason. After charging the jury,

“He asked them whether they would take some refreshment before they left the bar, when the foreman, in a tone which made the Chief Justice’s countenance visibly collapse, said, ‘My Lord, we shall not be long.’ Accordingly, after going through the form of withdrawing and consulting together, they returned and pronounced their verdict, to which they had long made up their minds—Not Guilty.”—(Vol. iii. p. 222.)

The case of Hone, in 1817, is another in point. I know nothing of Hone’s works, nor of the libels of which he was accused, but Lord Campbell says, that “he defended himself with extraordinary skill and tact, and at the end of the first day’s trial was acquitted.”

“This being related to the enfeebled Chief Justice, his energy was revived, and he swore that, at whatever cost, he would preside in Court himself, so that conviction might be certain!” (He did so, and thus charged the jury:) “‘I will deliver to you my solemn opinion, as I am required by Act of Parliament to do; under the authority of that Act, and still more, in obedience to my conscience and my God, I pronounce it to be a MOST IMPIOUS AND PROFANE LIBEL.^[99] Hoping and believing that you are Christians, I doubt not but that your opinion is the same.’”

The jury almost immediately pronounced a verdict of “Not Guilty.”

“Still,” says Lord Campbell, “the Chief Justice was undismayed, and declared that he would next day proceed with the indictment. This was a most indiscreet 380resolution. The whole of Hone’s third trial was a triumph, the jury plainly intimating their determination to find a verdict in his favour.... After a similar summing up as on the preceding day, there was the like verdict.... The popular opinion was, that Lord Ellenborough was killed by Hone’s trial, and he certainly never held up his head in public after.” (Lord Campbell, vol. iii. p. 225.)

These facts prove, that subsequently to my trial, whenever Lord Ellenborough, in a popular case, charged the jury to bring in the defendant “Guilty,” the jury made a point of finding “Not Guilty.” It was unfortunate for me that such a course was not previously adopted, but, perhaps, it may be said, that my case brought about this result.

One most material point connected with the trial cannot be overlooked; one, in fact, which not only concerned the liberties of obnoxious persons like myself, but also the liberties of every man in the country. At the period of my trial, Lord Ellenborough was not only Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, but at the same time a Cabinet Minister!!! This terrible combination of incompatible offices was for the first time under constitutional government effected in the person of Lord Ellenborough, and, to the credit of subsequent administrations, for the last time also. No other Chief Justice ever came hot-foot from a Cabinet Council to decide the fate of an accused person, politically obnoxious to the Cabinet; the trial going on from day to day, so as to become open no less to Cabinet than to forensic discussion.

381The thing was monstrous, and could only have been acted on in this instance for the purpose of suppressing, by the expedient just shown, the rising spirit of public liberty, which the Government was ever on the watch to keep down. The Quarterly Review, when commenting on the “Life and Correspondence” of Sir Samuel Romilly, thus treats the matter (No. 132, 1840, page 612):—

“The Whigs, by way of including all the talents, had given the Chief Justice of the King’s Bench (Lord Ellenborough) a seat in the Cabinet, and upon this before unheard-of combination of the judicial and ministerial characters, this monstrous attempt to tinge the ermine of justice with the colour of party!!”

The chance I had may be readily estimated with a Cabinet minister for my judge, and the Cabinet of which he was a member composed of ministers to whom I had become deeply obnoxious by determined opposition to their measures; having, in fact, given them more trouble than any other of my party, because my knowledge of naval abuses and profligate expenditure enabled me to expose both. It might, with one of my most bitter opponents for a judge, have been a still greater marvel had I been acquitted, than that I was convicted without and in opposition to evidence. Had Lord Ellenborough possessed a true sense of delicacy, he would never have presided at that trial. Still less would he have refused me a new trial when more perfectly prepared; a proceeding no doubt adopted as the best means of silencing further discussion, which had begun to harass him personally, and to cause uneasiness to the ministry. The shortest course, if not the justest, 382was to screen himself and them by immediately crushing his adversary. But the injury went farther than my conviction in the Court of King’s Bench. After my subsequent expulsion from the House, which, as Lord Brougham rightly says, “secured my re-election for Westminster,” on its adverse note hung the fate of the ministry. Had that vote been in my favour, the Chief Justice could not have held his seat in the Cabinet, and his evacuation could scarcely have been otherwise than followed by that of the whole ministry. Of this, however, there was little danger, the great bond of adhesion to the Ministry, as has been fully shown in the course of this work, being the pensions and sinecures so freely distributed amongst an unreformed House of Commons.

The question, however, became thus one of ministerial existence. Had the House, as it ought to have done, irrespective of me or my case, repudiated the anomaly of a Chief Justice holding a seat in the Cabinet, the retirement of Lord Ellenborough must have been indispensable and immediate. He could not have maintained his political office for an hour. In place of an individual member being heard in his own defence, the question really was the right of a Chief Justice to hold a seat in the Cabinet, or in legal phrase, the issue was, Lord Cochrane versus Lord Ellenborough, the Admiralty, and the Cabinet. In the unreformed House of Commons Lord Cochrane, as a matter of course, went to the wall, no one expecting otherwise.

Of the guilt or innocence of the other parties convicted I know nothing, but this I will say, that, if guilty, there was nothing in their guilt half so bad as the deliberate 383malice which on two occasions had conspired to ruin me. My appointment as flag captain to my uncle was gall and wormwood to those who, for opposing a vote of thanks to Lord Gambier, had condemned me to five years’ deprivation of employment, at a time when my services would have been honourable to myself and beneficial to my country. I had gained employment in a way beyond their control, and my unjust conviction of having participated in a trumpery hoax, which common sense might have convinced them was beneath my notice, was converted into the means of preventing the future exercise of my abilities as a naval officer.

I have to apologise to Lord Campbell for the freedom with which I have used his great work, but though an unjustly maligned man, my reputation is as dear to me as though no spot had ever rested upon it, and I have adduced these extracts to show that Lord Ellenborough, in his zeal for justice, might have possibly mistaken my case. His biographers ascribe to him pure motives, and I am bound not to set my opinions against those of his biographers, nor have I done so. But for forty-six years I have been vainly endeavouring to get my case reheard, and much allowance should be accorded me. I would not ask for mercy, if guilty, but for increased severity of punishment, as I should most richly deserve. To demand a hearing of my case was my first public act after my trial. It shall be my last. That public act was a letter to Lord Ebrington, deprecating his Lordship’s interference for a mitigation of my outrageous sentence. The following is a copy of this letter:—

384

“King’s Bench, July 13th, 1814.

“My Lord,—Although I claim no right to interfere with the Parliamentary conduct of any member, or to interfere with the motions which he may judge proper to originate, yet I owe a duty to myself which demands that I should apprise your Lordship that the motion of which you have given notice respecting me, has a tendency to bring down upon me a greater indignity than any which has been offered to me by my enemies. I had flattered myself, from a recent note of your Lordship, that, in your mind, I stood wholly acquitted; and I did not expect to be treated by your Lordship as an object of mercy, on the grounds of past services, or severity of sentence. I cannot allow myself to be indebted to that tenderness of disposition, which has led your Lordship to form an erroneous estimate of the amount of punishment due to the crimes of which I have been accused; nor can I for a moment consent, that any past services of mine should be prostituted to the purpose of protecting me from any part of the vengeance of the laws against which I, if at all, have grossly offended. If I am guilty, I richly merit the whole of the sentence which has been passed upon me. If innocent, one penalty cannot be inflicted with more justice than another. If your Lordship shall judge proper to persist in the motion of which you have given notice, I hope you will do me the justice to read this letter to the House.

“I have, &c.

“Cochrane.

“The Lord Ebrington.”

Independently, however, of these or any other considerations, I might point to my previous general services as a naval officer, for which I had not received public reward of any kind;—to my refusal of a squadron of frigates, and Lord Mulgrave’s own regiment, if I would consent to a vote of thanks to Lord Gambier conjointly with myself,—an offer which, had it been 385accepted, would have been tantamount to the acquisition of half a million of prize-money;—to my unceasing opposition in Parliament to the abuses of the Admiralty Courts and naval administration in general, in direct opposition to my own pecuniary interests;—to my rejection of the openly-expressed proposal of the Secretary to the Admiralty to quit the Radical party, and come over to that of the Government;—to my anticipated employment on the coasts of the United States, and the great pecuniary proceeds which there was every reason to expect as the result of putting my previous experience in practice. I would then put it to the common sense of the reader, whether the acquisition of a few paltry hundred pounds—by means of the imputed frauds on the Stock Exchange, was a likely motive to actuate me in joining a conspiracy with persons, some of whom I never knew nor heard of, which, if detected, must have destroyed my future prospects, when on the eve of an expedition calculated in all human probability to have raised me above all political enmity? The reply is self-evident.

I would again ask, whether, with a guilty knowledge of the act in which De Berenger had been engaged, I should have perpetrated the consummate folly of voluntarily disclosing all that took place on unexpectedly finding him at my house; this voluntary information on my part affording the only clue to the case, which could otherwise never have been developed.

If guilty, such disclosure on my part would have been an act of absolute insanity. Had I been aware 386that his asking me for the means of concealing his uniform,—first, on his representation that, not being a drill day, he could not appear in it before his colonel, Lord Yarmouth; and secondly, that he could not return in it to the rules of the King’s Bench without exciting suspicion that he had been violating the rules,—is it likely that I should have voluntarily become my own accuser, when there existed no necessity for me to say a single word, on the subject. Should I not rather, if guilty, have given him the order to go on board the Tonnant, and thus place both him and myself beyond the reach of danger?

In place, however, of further vindication of my character as having had any participation in this wretched hoax, I will, in addition to the legal opinions already adduced, bring forward others since pronounced by men in whom the public repose the most implicit confidence.

And first the voluntary statement of a gallant General, who had been equally ill used with myself, and by the same political adversaries and clique who persecuted me. I mean Sir Robert Wilson, who happily survived his persecution, was reinstated in his military rank and honours, and died honoured and lamented.

“Regent Street, 14th March, 1823.

“My dear Lord,—It has been mentioned to me that a memorandum I once held with the late Mr. Whitbread on the subject of your persecution, and which I have frequently repeated, might be a document of some utility; my compliance with the expressed wish is not an act of friendship, but of duty and justice to all parties.

“I therefore do affirm, upon my honour, to the accurate 387truth of the following statement, being ready, if required, to give it any legal character of which it may be susceptible:—

“Being at Southall Park in the year 1814, I took an opportunity of asking Mr. Whitbread for his opinion on the subject of Lord Cochrane’s trial and sentence, stating to him that as I had been out of England at the time, I was very imperfectly acquainted with the proceedings; but feeling much interested about the character of an officer so eminently distinguished, I was desirous to pin my faith upon his (Mr. Whitbread’s) judgment; but if, from any political or personal consideration, he could only give me a partial or half compliance, I begged him to be silent altogether, as my object was to know the whole truth, and to be put in possession, for my future guidance, of his most secret feelings on the transaction.

“Mr. Whitbread replied, that he had no hesitation to acquiesce with my wish; that there never was a case to which he had given more attention, or which had caused him more sleepless nights, as he had been resolved to probe the matter to the bottom, if possible, and come to a just conclusion. That he had formed his conclusion; and, if they were the last words he had to utter before appearance in the presence of the Creator, he should say that he was convinced that Lord Cochrane was totally and entirely innocent of the whole or any part of the offence laid to his charge,—that he felt certain that Lord Cochrane was in no way privy to the proceedings so far as they related to any imposition.

“Mr. Whitbread added, ‘My family know this to be my conscientious opinion, and I am persuaded that time will prove it to be the correct one^[100];’ but, in any case, you have it 388from a man who has endeavoured to form it honestly, and also, for that purpose, divested his mind, as much as possible, of every bias.

“I remain, my dear Lord,

“With much regard, yours,

“R. Wilson.”

The following warm-hearted letter was written me by the late Duke of Hamilton on my appointment to the command of the West India fleet:—

“Hamilton Palace, Jan. 6, 1848.

“My dear Lord,—Your letter of yesterday has awakened the liveliest sensibilities of my heart. If I ask myself whether they proceed from the love of justice, or the love of a friend, my reply is, from both.

“The communication you have just made to me is most gratifying; and the First Lord of the Admiralty has done himself immortal honour in appointing that naval officer Commander in one hemisphere who had previously illustrated his name by his most brilliant exploits in the other. Everything, I think, has now been done to undo the foul aspersions with which you have been assailed, and I am sure everything will be now done that will most serve to establish the ability of the officer and the delicacy of the gentleman.

“I congratulate you most sincerely upon your appointment, and hope you will meet with difficulties when you arrive at your destination. Don’t be surprised at my wish. It proceeds from knowing the ample resources of my friend to overcome them, and his constant desire to sacrifice everything to duty and honour.

“My good wishes will follow you across the ocean, and reside with you in your future destinies. Let me have the satisfaction of hearing from you, and with every sentiment of affectionate regard, believe me to be, my dear lord, your truly attached friend and cousin,

“C.H. and B.”

389Without multiplying communications of a similar kind, I will merely adduce a portion of a letter written to me by a gentleman, in whose opinions and sterling honesty the public has been accustomed to repose the highest confidence, viz. the late Joseph Hume. The occasion of the letter was my having consulted him in an attempt to obtain a re-investigation of my case so late as 1852:—

“Bryanstone Square, May 10, 1852.

* * * * * * * *

“I knew at the time the alleged offence was committed, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and my conviction at the time was, and still is, that you were the dupe of his cupidity, and suffered from his act. With David Ricardo, who was the prosecutor on the part of the Stock Exchange on that occasion, I have often conversed on the subject^[101].

“I considered that you were incapable of taking the means resorted to, and for which you suffered, and was pleased to learn that you had been restored to your rank. I considered that act a proof that the Government which had restored you to the rank and honour of your profession, and had afterwards appointed you to the command in the West Indies, must have come to the same conclusion; and until the perusal of your draft petition, I concluded that you had had all your arrears paid to you as a tardy, though inadequate, return to your Lordship, whose early exploits did honour to yourself, and gave additional lustre to the naval service of your country.

“Sir Robert Wilson, acting with me as a friend of the late Queen Caroline, in our desire to see justice done to her, was, 390by a secret and most unjust decision of the Government of the day, under Lord Liverpool and Lord Castlereagh, dismissed from the military service, of which he had been a distinguished ornament, and had all his honours taken away. The honour he had received from the Court of Vienna, for the preservation of the life of a member of that family (in a river in Flanders) under Colonel, afterwards Lord, Lake, was also taken from him!!

“The offence of Sir Robert Wilson was his supposed interference in obstructing the funeral cortége of the late Queen Caroline in its progress towards the City. The progress was ordered by the Government to have been by the New Road to Essex. The people obliged Sir Robert Baker, then at the head of the police and in charge of the escort, to proceed through the City of London, contrary to the express order of the King (George the Fourth), and under that suspicion Sir Robert Wilson was dismissed and unjustly treated.

“I knew that Sir Robert Wilson had arrived from France in company with Mr. Edward Ellice, and did not reach the house of Mr. Alderman (the name is illegible) where I was until eight or nine o’clock of the evening before the funeral. His offence was his accompanying the funeral along with Sir John Hobhouse, myself, and others; and when the troops fired on the people at Hyde Park, Sir Robert Wilson endeavoured to prevent bloodshed. I was present, and heard and saw everything that passed. For that supposed offence he was cashiered, and remained for years, as your lordship did, under the disgrace.

“His Majesty, King William, was satisfied of the innocence of Sir Robert Wilson of the offence charged against him, and he was restored to the service, and I understood was paid all the arrears of pay and allowance during his suspension, and afterwards appointed to the command at Gibraltar. I was pleased at the result, and it would give me equal pleasure to learn that your application to her Majesty should be attended with an act of justice to you equally merited.

“I think other instances of restoration to rank, accompanied 391with payment of arrears of pay and restoration to all military honours, will be found if you should adopt the same course to seek justice.

“I remain, &c.

“Joseph Hume.

“The Right Hon. the Earl of Dundonald.”

This letter narrates the arbitrary and unjust dismissal of an eminent officer without trial, without accusation, and without having in any way rendered himself politically obnoxious, otherwise than to stop the indiscriminate slaughter of an unarmed people. The act of his dismissal was one of pure despotism, committed by a ministerial faction, of which history affords scarcely a redeeming feature. It is not surprising that I, of all others in the House of Commons the most politically obnoxious to the same faction, should have been for years selected as the mark for their unscrupulous hatred. Still less is it probable that men who regarded and defended place, pensions, and sinecures as a right, would stick at the practices which have been laid bare in this work, when a political adversary who exposed their greediness for national plunder could be crushed. To say more of them, than that they were the men who crushed Sir Robert Wilson, would be superfluous.

I will add yet one more illustration. At my re-election for Westminster—the consequence, as Lord Brougham has well said, of the outrageous treatment to which I had been subjected—an incident occurred with which my wrongs became indirectly mixed up. Whilst the electors of Westminster were securing the triumphant return of one who was in durance, under 392an infamous sentence, the daughter of the Prince Regent was flying from Court tyranny.

On the day preceding my re-election, the greatly beloved Princess Charlotte, then under age, escaped from her father’s protection, and, having called a hackney coach from the stand at Charing Cross, fled to her mother’s residence in Connaught Place. The public mind was at the time in a state of great excitement on account of the vindictive sentence passed upon me, and the electors of Westminster having determined to sustain me, every precaution was taken by their leaders to keep alive the public sentiment.

In the midst of this excitement the flight of the princess became known, together with the fact that she had been treated by her father with an amount of unbecoming violence and coercion, and through some of his acquiescent ministers outraged by an injudicious pressure, the object of which was to force upon her a marriage to which she had not only a personal objection, but towards which she had publicly expressed a decided and insuperable aversion.

Notwithstanding this, the Regent, regardless of his daughter’s feelings, insisted on proceeding without loss of time with the preparations for her marriage; and it was on repeating his fixed determination as regarded her fate, that she took the step of placing herself under her mother’s protection, the terror inspired by the interview with her father being such that, without bonnet or shawl, she ran down the back staircase of Warwick House, and escaped by the servants’ entrée.

Not many hours elapsed before the fact of her 393flight and its cause became publicly known. This act of political tyranny towards a princess, who, though so young, had, by her powers of mind and engaging manners from her childhood, secured the universal affection of the people, created an amount of sympathy which, coupled with the excitement and irritation at my outrageous treatment, almost amounted to public frenzy.

The Government became alarmed. Crowds beset the house of her late Majesty Queen Caroline, where their favourite was safely sheltered. The carriages of the Royal family and of the ministers, including those of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Ellenborough, and the Law Officers of the Crown, were all in attendance, their occupants having been sent to use their influence with Her Royal Highness to induce her to return, but in vain. She even refused to see any of the royal family except the Duke of Sussex, for whom she had sent, as well as for Mr. Brougham, the latter to advise her in the difficult position in which she had been compelled to place herself. The advice was to return; but she declared in strong terms that she could not overcome her repugnance to the violent treatment she had received, or to the attempt to force her into a marriage which she held in aversion.

The day following this scene was the day of my re-election for Westminster. The same overtures were repeated to the princess, but without making the slightest impression on her wounded feelings. At length the Duke of Sussex took his niece to the window of the drawing-room, and drew her attention to the angry multitude assembled before the house, explaining to 394her that such was the public sympathy in her favour, and such the interest the people took in her happiness, that they would form a shield for her protection against which her oppressors would scarcely venture to array themselves.

Still the princess remained inexorable, till the danger of continued public excitement was pointed out to her. She was told by the Duke of Sussex, that the irritation was twofold, for that very day was appointed for the re-election of Lord Cochrane for Westminster, after the unjust sentence which had been passed upon him, and which also formed another great cause of public excitement, whilst the two causes combined might lead to a popular outbreak, which it was to be feared would end in bloodshed, and perhaps in the destruction of Carlton House itself. It was further urged, that in case of mischief, no small portion might be laid by ministers to the account of Her Royal Highness.

These considerations sensibly affected the princess, who was moved to tears, and exclaimed: “Poor Lord Cochrane! I heard that he had been very ill used by them (meaning her father’s ministers); should it ever be in my power, I will undo the wrong.”

With a magnanimity which her persecutors could neither feel nor comprehend, the princess then declared her perfect readiness to render herself a self-sacrifice, in order to prevent the dreadful result which she felt might be possible; and shortly afterwards returned to Warwick House, accompanied by her uncle the Duke of York. Her courage and firmness relieved her from further importunity from her father and his ministers 395on the subject of the hateful marriage, which was broken off, and this noble-minded woman afterwards contracted with the present King of the Belgians a marriage of affection, approved by the whole country.

Such instances of tyrannical oppression as these will be read with amazement by the present generation, though there are those yet living who can corroborate their recital. When even a princess of the blood royal, the idol of the whole nation, was not exempt from persecution, what hope had I of escaping ministerial vengeance, backed by a House of Commons, the majority of which consisted of sinecurists and placemen, whose fortunes in esse and in posse depended on them subservience to the place-givers?

It is true, I had with me the sympathy of the public, and this alone sustained me under such an accumulation of injury. Men do not become popular for nothing; but I have no hesitation in saying, to the honour of my constituents, that the injustice done to me by an adverse ministry gave me far greater popularity than anything I had accomplished in my professional capacity. For five years my adversaries had taken care that no fresh achievements in war should be added to my professional reputation; and it was only when, by my uncle’s favour, I had once more an opportunity of distinguishing myself in spite of the Admiralty, that the concentrated malice of the faction I had offended by my pertinacious opposition in parliament burst on my head in the shape of a prosecution, in which my judge was a member of the very cabinet to which I was politically and personally obnoxious.

396In a general point of view, there can be no two opinions on the impropriety of a Cabinet Minister occupying the bench of the highest law court of the realm. In all State prosecutions—and mine was one—it would fall to his lot to decide in the Cabinet as to their commencement, though in my case this was apparently avoided, by the law officers of the Crown keeping aloof from the proceedings; care, however, being taken to employ as my prosecutor an attorney of tried shrewdness, having a personal dislike to myself. A judge thus politically connected had to leave the Cabinet in order to carry out its decisions, himself presiding at all trials which might result, adjudging and sentencing the unlucky offenders; of which mode of prosecution the instances of Leigh Hunt, Dr. Watson, and Mr. Hone are cases in point, the parties accused being only saved by the indignant firmness of the juries. Happily, no such combination of political and judicial offices has occurred since Lord Ellenborough’s time, nor can it occur, unless some retrograde spirit of despotism shall again—to use the significant language before quoted from the Quarterly Review—“tinge the ermine of justice with the colour of party.”

A few words in addition are necessary. In Mr. Hume’s letter before quoted was an enclosure which he had, in his anxiety to procure full justice for my sufferings, with great difficulty obtained. It is an enumeration of the tardy steps taken to reinstate Sir Robert Wilson in the rank, honours, and emoluments of which for eleven years he had been unjustly deprived by the mere caprice of a political faction. 397

“30th October, 1830.—Restoration of his rank submitted to the King.

“22nd August, 1832.—Sir Robert Wilson claimed the pay of a General Officer from 27th May, 1825, the time when his commission states his rank is to be considered as hearing date.

“8th October, 1832.—Letter of Secretary at War to the Hon. J. Stewart, recommending Sir Robert Wilson’s claim of pay to the Treasury as a special case, considering the act of Royal favour to extend to pay as well as rank. The letter also refers to Sir Robert Wilson’s signal services hitherto unrewarded, and adverts to the fact, that even should the request be granted he will have suffered a considerable pecuniary penalty in the loss of pay from 1821 to 1825, although no military tribunal has tried his conduct.

“16th November, 1832.—Letter of Mr. Stewart, announcing the concurrence of the Treasury, but desiring the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief to be taken.

“19th November, 1832.—Letter from Secretary at War to Lord Hill, acquainting him that he had, in consequence of a communication from Sir R. Wilson, recommended to the Treasury that the arrear of back pay from the date of his restored rank of Lieut.-General should be allowed^[102], and that the Treasury was inclined to acquiesce in this recommendation, but requested his Lordship’s concurrence in the first instance.

“22nd November, 1832.—Lord Hill’s concurrence.

“21st December, 1832.—Treasury sanctions the amount of Sir Robert Wilson’s unattached pay as a general officer from the date of his commission being included in the estimates of 1833.”

It has been said that Sir Robert Wilson’s dismissal from the service differed from mine, inasmuch as his was a consequence of ministerial displeasure, whilst 398mine arose from the verdict of a court of law. How that verdict was procured, I trust has been satisfactorily shown, and if so, both Sir Robert Wilson and myself were sufferers from ministerial displeasure. On the word of a man about (at no distant date) to give an account to his Maker, I was no more guilty of the act attributed to me, than Sir Robert Wilson was of the disloyalty attributed to him.

Sir Robert Wilson claimed his back pay as a right consequent on his unjust deprivation, and obtained it. I have unceasingly done the same, not from the pecuniary value of the amount due, but from the consideration that its being withheld still operates as a stigma on my character and family, which is inconsistent with any restoration to the service. My efforts have been hitherto without success.

Sir Robert Wilson’s application was recommended to the Treasury as a “special case.” My applications have not been so regarded.

Sir Robert Wilson’s application was further recommended on account of “services hitherto unrewarded.” I will here repeat what has been stated in a previous chapter, in reply to writers who have assumed that I had been handsomely rewarded—that on no occasion did I ever receive the reward of a single shilling for any services which it was my good fortune to render to my country, beyond the ordinary pay of my rank, and the good service pension of 300l. a-year, conferred upon me by Sir James Graham, in 1844. Yet Lord Collingwood testified that with a single frigate I had done the work of an army, by keeping a French army 399from overrunning the Mediterranean coast of Spain. Neither for this nor the destruction of the enemy’s ships in Aix Roads, did I ever receive reward or thanks.

The reader, who is now well acquainted with my services, can pursue the subject for himself. With the exception of the Red Ribbon of the Bath, which as the gift of my sovereign I highly prize, my reward has been a life of unmerited suffering. Even the stipulations of the South American Governments, to whom I gave freedom, are violated to this day, from a conviction that no sympathy will be accorded by the Government of my own country.

These are the requitals for my “hitherto unrewarded services.”

Amongst the curiosities shown to visitors of the Bank of England, there was, and no doubt is still, a thousand pound bank-note, No. 8202, dated 26th June, 1815, on the back of which are endorsed the following words:—

“My health having suffered by long and close confinement, and my oppressors being resolved to deprive me of property or life, I submit to robbery to protect myself from murder, in the hope that i shall live to bring the delinquents to justice.

(Signed) “Cochrane.

“King’s Bench Prison, July 3rd, 1815.”

There is the reward bestowed on me by a ministerial faction, memorable only for its political corruption. With that protest I close the book.

401