CHARTS, ETC., SUPPLIED BY THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT.—REFUSED BY A FORMER
GOVERNMENT.—ALTERATION MADE IN THE CHARTS.—MR. STOKES’S
AFFIDAVITS.—LETTER TO SIR JOHN BARROW.—SINGULAR ADMIRALTY
MINUTE.—SECOND LETTER TO SIR JOHN BARROW.—THE CHARTS AGAIN
REFUSED.—MY DEPARTURE FOR CHILI.—RENEWED APPLICATION TO THE
ADMIRALTY.—KINDNESS OF THE DUKE OF SOMERSET.—DIFFERENCE OF OPINION
AT THE ADMIRALTY.
It will be asked, “How is it that the matters recorded in the present
volume are, after the lapse of fifty years, for the first time made
public?”
The reply is, that it was not till after the publication of the
preceding volume that I have been enabled to place the subject in a
comprehensible point of view[1], and that only through the high sense of
justice manifested by the late and present First Lords of the Admiralty,
in furnishing me with charts and logs, access to which was prohibited by
former Boards of Admiralty. On several previous occasions the attempt
has been made, but from the obstinate refusal of their predecessors to
afford me access to documents by which alone truth could be elicited, it
has not hitherto been in my power to arrive at any more satisfactory
result than that of placing my own personal and unsupported statements
in opposition to the sentence of a court-martial.
-----
Footnote 1:
This concession will, in the future narrative, render necessary a
slight recapitulation of some matters contained in the previous
volume, but not to any appreciable extent.
-----
The necessary materials being now conceded, in such a way as to enable
me to prepare them for publication in detail, it is, therefore, for the
first time in my power to vindicate myself. A brief recapitulation of
former refusals, as well as of the manner in which I became possessed of
such documentary testimony as will henceforth exhibit facts in a
comprehensive point of view, is desirable, as placing beyond dispute
matters which would otherwise be incredible.
My declaration previous to the court-martial—that it was in my capacity
as a member of the House of Commons alone that I intended to oppose a
vote of thanks to Lord Gambier, on the ground that no service had been
rendered worthy of so high an honour—will be fresh in the remembrance of
the reader[2]; and also that when, at the risk of intrenchment on the
privilege of Parliament, the Board of Admiralty called upon me
officially to accuse his lordship, I referred them to the logs of the
fleet for such information relative to the attack in Aix Roads as they
might require[3];—it nevertheless became evident that I was regarded as
his lordship’s prosecutor! though, _throughout the trial, excluded from
seeing the charts before the Court, hearing the evidence,
cross-examining the witnesses, or even listening to the defence!_[4]
-----
Footnote 2:
See my conversation with Lord Mulgrave, vol. i. pp. 345, 346.
Footnote 3:
See my letter to the Secretary of the Admiralty, vol. i. p. 408.
Footnote 4:
See Minutes of Court-martial, p. 228.
-----
On the acquittal of Lord Gambier, the ministry did not submit the vote
of thanks to Parliament till six months afterwards, viz. in the session
of the following year, 1810. To myself, however, the consequences
were—as Lord Mulgrave had predicted—immediate; bringing me forthwith
under the full weight of ministerial displeasure. The Board of Admiralty
prohibited me from joining the _Impérieuse_ in the Scheldt.
The effect of this prohibition in a manner so marked as to be
unmistakeable as to its cause, produced on my mind a natural anxiety to
lay before the public the reasons for a proceeding so unusual, and, as a
first step, I requested of the Board permission to inspect the charts
upon which—_in opposition to the evidence of officers present at the
attack_—the decision of the court-martial had been made to rest. The
request was evaded, both then and afterwards, even though persisted in
up to the year 1818, when it was officially _denied_ that the original
of the most material chart was in the possession of the Admiralty. Even
inspection of _a copy admitted to be in their possession_ was refused.
An assertion of this nature might be dangerous were not ample proof at
hand.
It having come to my knowledge, from certain affidavits filed in the
Court of Admiralty by Mr. Stokes, the master of Lord Gambier’s flagship,
on whose chart the acquittal of Lord Gambier had been based—that, _after
the lapse of eight years from the court-martial!_ material alterations
had been made _by permission of the Board itself and under the direction
of one of its officers_—I naturally became suspicious that the charts
might otherwise have been tampered with; the more so, as neither at the
court-martial, nor at any period subsequent to it, had I ever been
allowed to obtain even a sight of the charts in question.
The very circumstances were suspicious. On the application for
head-money to the Court of Admiralty in 1817, the Court had refused to
receive Mr. Stokes’s chart, on account of its palpable incorrectness. On
this, Mr. Stokes applied to the Admiralty for permission _to alter his
chart_! The permission was granted, and in this altered state it was
received by the Court of Admiralty, which, on Mr. Stokes’s authority,
decreed that the head-money should be given _to the whole fleet_,
contrary to the Act of Parliament, _instead of the ships which alone had
taken part in the destruction of the enemy’s vessels_.
Fearful that material erasures or additions had been made, I once more
applied to the Board for permission to _inspect_ the alterations. The
request was again refused, though my opponents had been permitted to
make what alterations and erasures they pleased.
The following are extracts from the above-mentioned affidavits of Mr.
Stokes:—
Extract from the affidavit, sworn before the High Court of Admiralty on
the 13th of November, 1817, of Thomas Stokes, master of the
_Caledonia_, as to the truth of the MSS. chart, upon which the
acquittal of Lord Gambier was based; _before_ the Court of Admiralty
rejected his chart, and _before_ the alterations were made.
“And this deponent maketh oath that the annexed paper writing marked
with the letter A, being a chart of Aix Roads, _is a true copy[5]
made by this deponent_ of an original French chart found on board
the French frigate _L’Armide_ in September, 1806, which _original
chart is now in the Hydrographic Office in the Admiralty_, and by
comparing the same with the original chart he is enabled to depose,
and _does depose that the said chart is correct and true_, and that
the soundings therein stated accurately describe the soundings at
low water, to the best of his judgment and belief.”
Extract from a second affidavit, sworn by Mr. Stokes, before the High
Court of Admiralty, on the 17th of April, 1818, _after_ the Court
had refused to admit his chart from its incorrectness; and _after_
the alterations had been made!
“Appeared personally, Thomas Stokes, master in the Royal Navy, and made
oath that the original MSS. chart found on board the French frigate
_L’Armide_, and marked A, annexed to his affidavit of the 13th of
November, 1817, were delivered at the Hydrographic Office at the
Admiralty, and this deponent for _greater convenience of reference!
inserted a scale of a nautic mile!!_ the original manuscript chart
having only a scale of French toises; that in inserting a scale of a
nautic mile, this deponent _had allowed a thousand French toises to
a nautic mile_, and that Mr. Walker, the Assistant-Hydrographer,
accordingly made the erasures which now appear on the face of the
chart!” &c.
-----
Footnote 5:
The original was neither produced at the court-martial nor before the
Court of Admiralty. A far greater and more deliberate error will
appear in a future chapter.
-----
In these affidavits Mr. Stokes first distinctly swore that his chart,
copied from a French MSS. was _correct_; 2ndly—when detected by the
Court of Admiralty—that it was _incorrect_; 3rdly—that the original was
_deposited in the Hydrographic Office at the Admiralty_.
My application to Sir John Barrow, then Hydrographer to the Admiralty,
was as follows:—
“May 4th, 1818.
“SIR,—As it appears by the affidavit of which I enclose a copy that
two charts of Aix Roads, the one stated to be a copy of the other,
were deposited in the Hydrographic Office, and that the one
_purporting to be the copy_ has been delivered up for the purpose of
being exhibited as evidence on the part of my opponents in a cause now
pending in the High Court of Admiralty, and as it further appears that
_an alteration_ in the last-mentioned chart was made by Mr. Stokes,
and a further alteration by Mr. Walker, Assistant-Hydrographer, I have
to request that the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners will be
pleased to permit me to see the other or original chart of Mr. Stokes
still remaining at the Hydrographic Office, in order that I may be
enabled to judge for myself of the nature and effect of the
alterations now acknowledged to have been made on the charts. The
reasonableness of this request will, I presume, be manifest to their
Lordships, and the more especially, seeing that my opponents _are not
only allowed similar access, but have been permitted to withdraw one
of the said charts for the purpose of exhibiting it in evidence_,
notwithstanding that a variation from the original has been avowedly
made therein.
I have, &c.,
“COCHRANE.
“Sir John Barrow, Hydrographer, &c.”
To this request Sir John Barrow, on the 6th of May, returned the
following refusal:—
“As Mr. Stokes’s charts have been restored to him, and _a copy_ made
for the use of the office, I am directed to acquaint your Lordship
that my Lords cannot comply with your request in respect _to the
original chart_, and as to _the copy_ of the chart made in this office
and now remaining here, their Lordships _do not feel themselves at
liberty to communicate it_.
“I have the honour, &c.
“JOHN BARROW.”
This refusal was accompanied by the following copy of a minute from the
Admiralty: in which it was pretended that Stokes had only _lent_ the
original chart to the Hydrographer’s office, _to be copied for the use
of the Hydrographic Department_—though it had been made use of to acquit
an admiral, to the rejection of the charts of the fleet, as will
presently be seen.
“Mr. Stokes _lent_ the original chart to the Hydrographer’s office, to
be copied for the _use of that department_.
“Mr. Stokes then went abroad.
“On his return he applied for his chart, which being _mislaid_ they
gave him the _copy_.
“Stokes, finding the alteration objected to in a court of law, applied
about a month since for his own chart, the _original_ of which was
_restored to him_, copy being made.”—23, 141, 147.
To this singular communication and minute I returned the subjoined
reply:—
“13, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden.
18th May, 1818.
“SIR,—Your letter of the 6th of May was delivered to me as I was going
out of town, consequently I had no opportunity of referring to
documents which I have since consulted, in order to refute the
statements which the Lords of the Admiralty appear to have received.
“You inform me, by command of their Lordships, that ‘it appears by a
report from the Hydrographer that Mr. Stokes had become possessed of
the original chart which he _lent_ to the Hydrographer’s office for
the use of that department.’ This appears to imply that Mr. Stokes
became possessed of the original chart at the time of the attack in
the _Charente_ under Lord Gambier, whereas Mr. Stokes made oath that
it was taken from the _Armide_ in 1806, two years and a half previous
to the attack in question. As it does not appear from the Minutes of
the court-martial on Lord Gambier that the original chart was then
produced, and as it is not now forthcoming in the cause now pending in
the Court of Admiralty, I am compelled to disbelieve its existence, or
at least to believe that it underwent material alterations after it
came into Mr. Stokes’s possession. The original ought to have been
exhibited with the copy at the trial of Lord Gambier, and both either
were or ought to have been filed in the office of the Admiralty with
the Minutes of the proceedings; but whether _either_ are so filed
their Lordships _have not permitted me to ascertain_.
“If the original were filed, it could not afterwards have been ‘_lent_
by Mr Stokes to the Hydrographer’s office to be copied for the use of
that department.’ Even had the copy only been filed—sworn as it was by
Mr. Stokes ‘_to be correct!_’ there could have been no necessity—if
Mr. Stokes was deemed worthy of belief—for the Hydrographer to _borrow
the original_. _Eight years_ having elapsed since the court-martial on
Lord Gambier, you inform me that ‘Mr. Stokes on his return from abroad
applied for his chart accordingly, which chart happening to be
mislaid, he was furnished _with the copy_ in question,’ viz. that
‘made for the use of the Hydrographer’s department.’ It is important
to observe that _this is completely at variance with the affidavit_ of
Mr. Stokes, who swears that ‘_he himself made the copy_,’ and that
‘_both the copy and the original were delivered at the Hydrographic
Office!_’ It cannot fail to be observed, that to ‘deliver’ a chart at
the Hydrographic Office, and to ‘_lend_ a chart to be copied for the
use of that department’—the language of the letter before me—are
different expressions, conveying widely different meanings.
“It is also material to observe that it is strange alterations _at
all_ should have been made on a chart represented to be a _copy_ of an
_original_, and exhibited as evidence in a court of law. That such
original _is not forthcoming_ is a very material and a very
_suspicious circumstance_. If it be true, or if there really be any
other chart than that which is described as a copy and _admitted_ to
be altered, I may fairly infer that such altered copy differs so
materially and so fraudulently from the original, or that the
original—so called—is itself so palpable a fabrication, or has so
obviously been altered, that Mr. Stokes and his employers _do not dare
to exhibit it in a court of law_; and have withdrawn it from the
Hydrographer’s office for the purpose of suppressing so convincing a
proof of the fraud practised on Lord Gambier’s trial.
“Exclusive of the glaring contradiction between the statements of Mr.
Stokes on the court-martial, and that which you have been commanded to
make to me, when it is considered that Mr. Stokes is detected in
_having altered_ a document which he exhibits in a court of law as a
correct copy of an original, and that he is no sooner detected than he
endeavours to defend the alteration by declaring that it proceeded
from the Hydrographer’s office, where the _original was deposited_;
and that upon such defence leading to an application for leave to
inspect the _original_, answer is made that such original _had merely
been borrowed of Mr. Stokes_, and had been returned to him _at his own
request_, and that request, too, made in consequence of the alteration
in the alleged copy _having been detected_—it is impossible not to
infer a juggle between Mr. Stokes, the Hydrographic Office, and others
whom I shall not here undertake to name, for the purpose of defeating
the ends of justice.
“COCHRANE.
“Sir John Barrow, Hydrographer, &c.”
Receiving no reply to this letter, I subsequently addressed the
following to the Secretary of the Admiralty.
“9, Bryanstone Street, Portman Square,
2nd July, 1818.
“SIR,—I feel it proper to inclose to you, as Secretary of the
Admiralty, a copy of an affidavit, accompanied by a general outline of
the chart of Basque Roads, the originals of which are filed in the
High Court of Admiralty, by which their Lordships will clearly
perceive that five more ships of the line _might_ and _ought_ to have
been taken or destroyed, had the enemy been attacked between daybreak
and noon on the 12th of April. And I have to request, Sir, that you
will have the goodness to lay these documents before their Lordships
(as well as the inclosed printed case which they have already partly
seen in manuscript), with my respectful and earnest desire that their
Lordships may be pleased to cause the facts therein set forth to be
verified by comparing them with the original documents, logs, charts,
and records in their Lordships’ possession. I am the more solicitous
that the present Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty should adopt
this mode of proceeding, as it will enable them decisively to judge on
a subject of great national importance, and also to ascertain (what a
portion of the public know) that it is not by false evidence from
amongst the lower class of society alone that my character has been
assailed, in order not only to perpetuate the concealment of neglect
of duty, but to prevent an exposure of the perjury, forgery, and fraud
by which that charge was endeavoured to be refuted.
“I beg, Sir, that you will assure their Lordships on my part, that as
a deep sense of public duty alone induced me formerly to express a
hope that the thanks of Parliament might not be pressed for the
conduct of the affair in Basque Roads, so, in addition to that
feeling, which made me disregard every private interest, I have formed
a fixed determination never, whilst I exist, to rest satisfied until I
expose the baseness and wickedness of the attempts made to destroy my
character, which I value more than my life.
“As the affidavits of Captains Robert Kerr and Robert Hockings (which,
as well as my own, are filed in the High Court of Admiralty) may
immediately be made the subject of indictment in a court of law, and
as the proceedings in the Admiralty Court have been put off under the
pretence of obtaining further evidence in support of the
mis-statements of these officers and the claim of Lord Gambier, I have
respectfully to request that when the Lords Commissioners of the
Admiralty shall have instituted an inquiry into the logs, charts, and
documents, and ascertained the conduct of the before-named officers,
they will be pleased to cause public justice to be done in a matter
involving the character of the naval service so deeply.
“If, Sir, through their Lordships’ means, a fair investigation shall
take place, it will be far more gratifying than any other course of
proceeding.
“I have the honour to be, &c. &c.,
“COCHRANE.
“Jno. Wilson Croker, Esq., Secretary, &c., Admiralty.”
After the above correspondence I gave up, as hopeless, all further
attempts to obtain even so much as a sight of the charts without which
any public explanation on my part would have been unintelligible.
In the year 1819—when nearly ruined by law expenses, fines, and
deprivation of pay—in despair moreover, of surmounting the unmerited
obloquy which had befallen me in England—I accepted from the Chilian
government an invitation to aid in its war of independence; and removed
with Lady Cochrane and our family to South America, in the vain hope of
finding, amongst strangers, that sympathy which, though interested,
might, in some measure compensate for the persecutions of our native
land.[6] I will not attempt to describe the agonised feelings of this
even temporary exile under such circumstances from my country, in whose
annals it had been my ambition to secure an honourable position. No
language of mine could convey the mental sufferings consequent on
finding aspirations—founded on exertions which ought to have justified
all my hopes—frustrated by the enmity of an illiberal political faction,
which regarded services to the nation as nothing when opposed to the
interests of party.
-----
Footnote 6:
The malice of offended faction pursued me even to this remote part of
the globe, in the shape of a “Foreign Enlistment Act” (59th George
III. cap. 69). This Act was introduced by the Attorney-General, Sir
Samuel Shepherd, for the express purpose of preventing any one from
assisting the South American States then at war with Spain; the Act
being thus especially levelled at me, though injuriously driven from
the service of my own country.
-----
On my return to England, from causes which will appear in the sequel,
the subject of the charts was not again officially renewed.
Latterly, however, considering that at my advanced age there was a
probability of quitting the world with the stigma attached to my memory
of having been the indirect cause of bringing my commander-in-chief to a
court-martial—though in reality the charges were made by the Admiralty—I
determined to make one more effort to obtain those documents which alone
could justify the course I had deemed it my duty to pursue. In the hope
that the more enlightened policy of modern times might concede the boon,
which a former period of political corruption had denied, I applied to
Sir John Pakington, late First Lord of the Admiralty, for permission to
inspect such documents relative to the affair of Aix Roads as the Board
might possess.
Permission was kindly and promptly granted by Sir John Pakington; but
Lord Derby’s ministry going out of office before the boon could be
rendered available, it became necessary to renew the application to the
successor of the Right Honourable Baronet, viz. his Grace the Duke of
Somerset, who as promptly complied with the request. The reader may
judge of my surprise on discovering, in its proper place, bound up
amongst the Naval Records, in the usual official manner, the _very chart
the possession of which had been denied by a former Board of Admiralty_!
The Duke of Somerset, moreover, with a consideration for which I feel
truly grateful, ordered that whatever copies of charts I might require,
should be supplied by the Hydrographic Office; so that by the kindness
of Captain Washington, the eminent hydrographer to the Board, tracings
of the suppressed charts have been made, and are now appended to this
volume. His grace further ordered that the logs of Lord Gambier’s fleet
should be submitted to the inspection of Mr. Earp, with permission to
make extracts; an order fully carried out by the courtesy of Mr.
Lascelles, of the Record Office, to the extent of the logs in his
possession.
It is, therefore, only after the lapse of fifty-one years and in my own
eighty-fifth year,—a postponement too late for my peace, but not for my
justification,—that I am, from official documents, and proofs deduced
from official documents which were from the first and still are in the
possession of the Government, enabled to remove the stigma before
alluded to, and to lay before the public such an explanation of the
fabricated chart, together with an Admiralty copy of the chart itself,
as from that evidence shall place the whole matter beyond the
possibility of dispute. It will in the present day be difficult to
credit the existence of such practices and evil influences of party
spirit in past times as could permit an Administration, even for the
purpose of preserving the _prestige_ of a Government to claim as a
glorious victory! a neglect of duty which, to use the mildest terms, was
both a naval and a national dishonour.
The point which more immediately concerns myself is, however, this:—that
the verdict founded on this fabricated chart, together with the
subsequent official enmity directed against me in consequence of my
determination to oppose the vote of thanks to Lord Gambier, was
persevered in year after year, till it reached its climax in the
consequences of that subsequent trial which was made the pretext for
driving me from the navy, in defiance of remonstrance at the Board of
Admiralty itself. I have not long been aware of the latter fact. Admiral
Collier has recently informed me that Sir W.J. Hope, then one of the
Naval Lords of the Admiralty, told him that considering the sentence
passed against me cruel and vindictive, he refused to sign his name to
the decision of the Board by which my name was struck off the Navy List.
CHART A.
Tracing from the official French Chart of the isles of Ré and d’Olleron.
Tendered to the Court-Martial by Lord COCHRANE, and rejected.
[Illustration:
_Soundings in feet at Low Water Springs_
London: Richard Bentley: 1860.
]