“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.)
A circumstance may here be mentioned which has an important bearing on
the subject. My letter to the Admiralty, giving my reasons for asking
leave of absence for the purpose of rebutting the insinuations against
my character, contained most material matter for my exculpation. It was
written to Mr. Secretary Croker, but when I afterwards moved for and
obtained from the House of Commons an order for the production of my
correspondence with the Admiralty, _this letter was not to be found,
though all others asked for were!!_ Had the letter been produced, it
must have had great weight with the House, the adverse decision of which
I mainly ascribe to its nonproduction. Unfortunately, in the haste of
the application, no copy was taken.
I have been particular in recording dates, because it has been
insinuated to my injury that I _had been tardy_ in giving the
information in my power. It is hence my desire to put on record that
_the moment_ the necessity for vindicating myself arose not an hour was
lost by me in giving the Stock Exchange a clue to the offender, if such
De Berenger should turn out to have been.
I will here notice another circumstance, viz. that the very Mr. Gurney
who had advised me in the matter of my affidavit, and to whom I had
unreservedly communicated every circumstance connected with my private
affairs, as well as those connected with the visit of De Berenger, was
afterwards chosen by Mr. Lavie, the _solicitor to the committee, as the
leading counsel for the Stock Exchange at the subsequent trial against
me!_ I simply relate the fact, without comment.
It is not necessary here to weary the reader by the insertion of a
lengthy affidavit, which accounted for every act of mine on the day of
the alleged hoax. The main facts, as relating to the visit of De
Berenger, are these. That early on the morning in question I had gone to
a lamp manufactory in the city, for the purpose of superintending the
progress of some lamps patented by me, and ordered for the use of the
convoy of which I was about to take charge on their voyage to North
America. Whilst thus engaged, my servant came to me with a note, which
had been given to him by a military officer, who was waiting at my house
to see me. Not being able to make out the name, from the scrawling style
in which the note was written, and supposing it to have come from a
messenger from my brother, who was then dangerously ill with the army of
the Peninsula, and of whose death we were in daily expectation of
hearing, I threw down the note, and replied, that I would come as soon
as possible; and, having completed my arrangements at the lamp
manufactory, arrived at home about two hours afterwards, when, to my
surprise, I found De Berenger in place of the expected messenger from my
brother. The reader may gather from my affidavit what occurred at this
interview. (See Appendix.)
The comprehensiveness of the voluntary disclosure contained in the
affidavit has been termed indiscreet, and may have been so, as entering
on much that might be deemed unnecessary. But I had nothing to conceal,
believing it could in no way affect me—nor would it have done so but for
the trickery subsequently resorted to. There was nothing extraordinary
in the document. A poor but talented man—a prisoner within the Rules of
the King’s Bench—came to me in the hope that I would extricate him from
his difficulties by taking him to America in the _Tonnant_. After my
renewed refusal, on professional grounds, De Berenger represented that
he could not return to the Rules in his uniform without exciting
suspicion of his absence. The room happened at the time to be strewed
with clothes, in process of examination, for the purpose of being sent
on board the _Tonnant_, those rejected being thrown aside; and at his
urgent request I lent, or rather gave, him a civilian’s hat and coat to
enable him to return to his lodgings in ordinary costume. This simple
act constituted my offence, and was construed by the Court into
complicity in his fraudulent conduct! though under ordinary
circumstances, and I was aware of no other, it was simply an act of
compassionate good nature.
A very remarkable circumstance connected with this affidavit, and
afterwards proved on the trial, was this—that on De Berenger’s arrival
in town from Dover, he neither went to the Stock Exchange, nor to his
employers, whoever they might be, nor did he take any steps on his
arrival in town to _spread the false intelligence which he had
originated_. He was proved on the trial to have dismissed his
post-chaise at Lambeth—to have taken a hackney-coach—and to have
proceeded straight to my house. The inference is plain, that the man was
frightened at the nature of the mission he had undertaken, and declined
to go through with it, preferring to try once more whether he could not
prevail on me to take him on board the _Tonnant_, where he might remain
till the ship sailed for North America.
Had I been his confederate, it is not within the bounds of credibility
that he would have come in the first instance to my house, and waited
two hours for my return home, in place of carrying out the plot he had
undertaken, or that I should have been occupied in perfecting my lamp
invention for the use of the convoy of which I was in a few days to take
charge, instead of being on _the only spot_ where any advantage to be
derived from the Stock Exchange hoax could be realised, had I been a
participator in it. Such advantage must have been immediate, before the
truth came out, and to have reaped it, had I been guilty, it was
necessary that I should not lose a moment. It is still more improbable,
that being aware of the hoax, I should not have speculated largely for
the special risk of that day.
Neither, had I been his confederate, is it more probable that I should
have declined to take him on board the _Tonnant_, when, by so doing, I
could have effectually concealed him under another name, together with
every trace of the plot, and could have either taken him with me, or
have shipped him in safety to the Continent.
I will here repeat what has been previously stated, that before my
affidavit the committee of the Stock Exchange was ignorant even of the
name of _any_ person, that my affidavit alone disclosed the necessary
information. In other words, _I voluntarily gave the only information
upon which the subsequent trial was based, and this disclosure was so
complete as to leave the Stock Exchange nothing to do but to prosecute
De Berenger_.
Let me ask the common-sense question, whether this was the act of a
guilty person, who by concealing his knowledge could have effectually
prevented all further investigation? Or, to put the question in another
form—would it not have been the act of an insane person, if guilty, to
have denounced another to his own conviction, when by holding his peace
both would have been safe from detection? To have done such an
uncalled-for act, would have been little in accordance with the _acumen_
for which the public had for many years given me credit. In one respect,
my affidavit might have been an error, but it was not the _error of a
guilty man_; viz. in not deferring to the opinion of my legal advisers,
who wished me to confine myself to the single fact that the pretended Du
Bourg had been traced to my house, and that I suspected De Berenger to
be the person.
My fault was, that being conscious—till too late—that nothing in the
whole affair could in any way concern me—I was careless about my
defence—had nothing to do with the brief beyond a few rough notes (see
Appendix)—and never even read it after it was finally prepared for
counsel. This was not the act of a guilty man. Yet, had I been guilty, I
should have had every chance in my favour of acquittal; first, by
concealing the fact that De Berenger was the stranger who came to my
house on the 21st of February, in military uniform—and, without this
voluntary information on my part, the case must have disappeared;
secondly, had I really been guilty, my chance of acquittal would have
been greater than if innocent—because the knowledge of facts which I
must have possessed if guilty, and _could not have possessed_ if
innocent, would have enabled me to make an effectual defence in place of
the aimless defence which was made.
If proof of my non-participation in the hoax were required, it existed,
so far as the statement of such a person was credible, in the
handwriting of De Berenger himself, immediately after my affidavit
disclosing his name in furtherance of the purposes of justice; a
proceeding on my part which might naturally be supposed to embitter him
against me. So far from this being the case, an innate sense of justice
on the part of De Berenger led him to admit even the truth of the
declaration contained in the affidavit as regarded himself.
“13, Green Street, April 27th, 1814.
“SIR,—Having, I trust, given ample time and opportunity to those who
have endeavoured to asperse my character to learn from your own mouth
the circumstances which induced you to call upon me on the 21st of
February last, I feel it now due to myself no longer to delay this my
earnest request, that you will afford me that explanation.
“I am, Sir, your obedient Servant,
(Signed) “COCHRANE.
“Baron de Berenger.”
[De Berenger to Lord Cochrane:—]
“King Street, Westminster, April 27th, 1814.
“MY LORD,—I have the honour of acknowledging the receipt of your
Lordship’s favour, which has this moment been delivered.
“Rest assured, my Lord, that nothing could exceed the pain I felt when
I perceived how cruelly, how unfairly my unfortunate visit of the 21st
of February was interpreted (_which, with its object, is so correctly
detailed in your affidavit_); but my agony is augmented, when I
reflect that acts of generosity and goodness towards an unfortunate
man have been, and continue to be, the accidental cause of much
mortification to you: a fear of increasing the imaginary grounds of
accusation caused me to refrain from addressing you.
“I have the honour, &c.,
“CHAS. RANDOM DE BERENGER.”
The tone of this letter, which, without answering in express terms my
query as to the object of his visit on the 21st of February, declares
the truth of my affidavit as to the same, and also to what occurred
during the short time he remained there.[96] This indisposed me for
further communication with the writer, who, finding such to be the case,
commenced a series of vituperative epistles, the object of which was
evidently the extortion of money. The whole of these letters were
transmitted by me to the public press, without reply or comment, and
were so published at the time.
-----
Footnote 96:
See my affidavit in the Appendix.
-----
A no less important admission emanated from De Berenger. The press had
by some means or other got hold of the fact that this man, whom I had
denounced to the Stock Exchange, was _in communication with certain
members of the Government for the purpose of implicating me_! The
communication does not appear to have resulted in anything further than
was known from my affidavit, and I have reason to know that from fear of
the man’s character, the Government abstained from committing themselves
with him.
“King’s Bench, July 19th, 1814.
“Whereas several newspapers have asserted that I have written to Lord
Sidmouth, whilst others state that I have addressed the committee of
the Stock Exchange, &c. disclosing particulars to prove Lord
Cochrane’s guilt, I feel justified thus solemnly, publicly, and
positively to declare, That, _since my confinement here_, I have
neither written, or otherwise applied, directly or indirectly, to any
of the offices of Government for the purpose of disclosure. That I
have not written to any one on the subject of the 21st of February
last, _since the 11th instant_ (July), excepting one private letter to
Lord Cochrane. That the assertions in the newspapers are totally
false, &c. &c.
“CHARLES RANDOM DE BERENGER.”
The plain inference is, that De Berenger did so _before the trial_, and
whilst he was writing to me that the contents of my affidavit, as
regarded himself, contained the exact truth. That he had such
communication with both Government and Stock Exchange, before the trial,
is beyond doubt, and part of the reasons which warrant my assertion,
that a higher authority than the Stock Exchange was at the bottom of my
prosecution. Deeply degraded as was the man, he affords the strongest
_presumptive_ evidence of my non-participation in the hoax. In the next
chapter I trust to adduce such _positive_ evidence as shall place the
matter beyond doubt.
I do not blame the Judge for not taking these matters into account, for,
confident in my entire innocence, I could not see their importance or
bearing, and did not even communicate them to my solicitor till too
late.
Bitter after-knowledge has however convinced me of the error of
carelessness—even from a consciousness of innocence—when once entangled
in the meshes of law—a word by no means synonymous with justice.
Of the subject of the prosecution itself, I will here say one word. It
was that of one set of stock-jobbers and their confederates trying—by
means of false intelligence—to raise the price of “_time bargains_” at
the expense of another set of stock-jobbers, the losers being naturally
indignant at the successful hoax. The wrong was not then, and still is
not, on the statute-book. Such a case had never been tried before, nor
has it since—and was termed a “conspiracy;” or rather, by charging the
several defendants—of most of whom I had never before heard—in one
indictment, it was brought under the designation of a “conspiracy.” The
“conspiracy”—such as it was—was nevertheless one, which, as competent
persons inform me, has been the practice in all countries ever since
stock-jobbing began, and is in the present day constantly practised, but
I have never heard mention of the energy of the Stock Exchange even to
detect the practice.
I do not make these remarks to palliate deception, even at the expense
of Stock Exchange speculators. My object is, that the present
generation, knowing that in my early life I was imprisoned and fined
1000_l._ for an alleged offence against the Stock Exchange fraternity,
may understand the exact character of the accusation. It is clear that
the influence and vindictiveness with which this most unjustifiable
prosecution was carried out as against me, arose from motives far deeper
than the vindication of stock-jobbing purity, viz. from a desire in more
influential quarters to silence, if possible, an obnoxious political
adversary; the visit of De Berenger to my house, as disclosed by myself,
and his acquaintance with my uncle as before stated, affording a basis
for the accomplishment of this object.
Happily, Providence has implanted in the breast of man an amount of
moral and physical energy proportioned to the wrongs and inflictions he
may be called upon to bear, and, even in my eighty-fifth year, I am
still left sound in mind, and with a heart unbroken, to tell my own
story.