“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.)
The 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.’”
-----
Footnote 99:
The italics and capitals are Lord Campbell’s.
-----
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 resolution. 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.
The 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, was 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 malice 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:—
“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 accepted, 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 that 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 truth 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 from 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.”
-----
Footnote 100:
Not if the “_revised_” report of the trial is consulted; for the
studied appearance of fairness which is there put on might mislead the
reader. But if the _verbatim_ reports of the trial are consulted, as
they appear in the _Times_ and other daily papers, I have no fear of
any amount of criticism, or that anything but my entire innocence will
be made manifest. The _animus_ against me is there so clear, that the
reader would hardly be induced to inquire further.
-----
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.”
Without 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, by _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 with
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.”
-----
Footnote 101:
Mr. Hume’s statement that David Ricardo was the prosecutor on the part
of the Stock Exchange throws additional light on the selection of Mr.
Lavie, as the _acting prosecutor_ on the trial. As Mr. Ricardo was
selected to manage the prosecution, the transference of his duties to
_a known Admiralty solicitor_, who had once before been successfully
employed against me, requires no comment.
-----
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 an 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 flight 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 her 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 on 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.
In 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.
“_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.”
-----
Footnote 102:
The italics in this document are Mr. Hume’s.
-----
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 mine 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 300_l._ 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 from
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.