LORD COCHRANE'S RETURN TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.—HIS SHARE IN THE
REFUSAL OF THE DUKE OF CUMBERLAND'S MARRIAGE PENSION.—HIS CHARGES
AGAINST LORD ELLENBOROUGH, AND THEIR REJECTION BY THE HOUSE.—HIS
POPULARITY.—THE PART TAKEN BY HIM IN PUBLIC MEETINGS FOR THE RELIEF
OF THE PEOPLE.—THE LONDON TAVERN MEETING.—HIS FURTHER PROSECUTION,
TRIAL AT GUILDFORD, AND SUBSEQUENT IMPRISONMENT.—THE PAYMENT OF HIS
FINES BY A PENNY SUBSCRIPTION.—THE CONGRATULATIONS OF HIS WESTMINSTER
CONSTITUENTS.
[1815-1816.]
Released from imprisonment on Monday, the 3rd of July, Lord Cochrane
resumed his seat in the House of Commons on the evening of the
same day, just in time to secure the defeat of a measure which was
especially obnoxious to his Radical friends. The Duke of Cumberland
having lately married a daughter of the Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz,
it was proposed to augment his income of about 20,000£ a year by
a further pension of 6000£ A bill to that effect was brought in by
Lord Castlereagh, and, after much sullen opposition from independent
members, allowed a first reading by a majority of seventeen. On the
second division the majority was reduced to twelve. The bill was
brought on for the third reading on the 3rd of July, and would have
been passed through the House of Commons by the Speaker's casting vote
but for Lord Cochrane's sudden appearance. His vote secured a majority
against it, and thereby it was finally overthrown. Great, on the
morrow, were the rejoicings of his supporters. "What a triumph," it
was said in a friendly newspaper, "is this to innocence! After being
sentenced to the scandalous and disgraceful punishment of the pillory,
after being confined in a loathsome dungeon, fined 1000£ in money
to the king, disgracefully removed from that service in which he had
attained such high honours and rendered to his country such essential
service, his escutcheon kicked out of Westminster Abbey, his order
of knighthood taken from him; in short, after having every possible
indignity which the most malignant imagination could invent heaped
upon him in every way, his single vote, on the very first day of his
returning to his parliamentary duties, has been the means of obtaining
a signal victory over those under whose persecution he had been so
long suffering."
The one victory upon which Lord Cochrane set his heart, however—the
reversal of the unjust sentence passed upon him, and the consequent
restoration of the honours and offices that were now doubly dear to
him—he was not able to obtain. On the 6th of July, just before the
prorogation of Parliament, he gave notice that, early in the next
session, he should move for the appointment of a committee to inquire
into the conduct of Lord Ellenborough and others towards him during
the Stock Exchange trial. In arranging for this new effort at
self-justification, he was partly occupied during the ensuing autumn
and winter, and the question was brought prominently before the House
of Commons in the spring of 1816; only to issue, however, in further
injustice and disappointment.
His purpose from the first was, of course, virtually the impeachment
of Lord Ellenborough; and that object was yet more apparent from the
altered shape which the question assumed when introduced in the new
session. During the recess, Lord Cochrane, with the help of advisers,
some of whom were more zealous than wise, William Cobbett being the
chief, had prepared an elaborate series of "charges of partiality,
misrepresentation, injustice, and oppression against the Lord Chief
Justice;" and these were formally introduced to the House of Commons
on the 5th of March. "When I recollect," said Lord Cochrane on that
occasion, "the imputations cast upon my character, and circulated
industriously previous to any legal proceedings, the conduct pursued
at my trial, the verdict obtained, the ineffectual endeavours; to
procure a revision of my case in the Court of King's Bench, and the
infamous sentence there pronounced, together with my expulsion from
this House without being suffered to expose its injustice—when I call
to mind my dismissal from a service in which I have spent the fairest
portion of my life, at least without reproach, and my illegal and
unmerited deprivation of the order of the Bath—it is impossible
to speak without emotion. I have but one course now left to pursue,
namely, to show that the charge of the Lord Chief Justice, on which he
directed the jury to decide, was not only unsupported by, but was
in direct contradiction to, the evidence on which it professed to
be founded. This is the best course to pursue both in justice to the
learned judge and to myself. Either I am unfit to sit in this House,
or the judge has no right to his place on the bench. I have courted
investigation in every shape; and I trust that the learned lord will
not shrink from it or suffer his friends on the opposite side to evade
the consideration of these charges by 'the previous question.'"
Lord Cochrane thereupon tendered to the House thirteen charges against
Lord Ellenborough, in which every point of importance in the Stock
Exchange trial was minutely detailed and discussed; and these charges
being read, therein occupying nearly three hours, were ordered to be
printed. A fourteenth charge, bearing upon Lord Ellenborough's conduct
subsequent to the trial, was introduced on the 29th of March; but
this, as it included aspersions upon the character of another judge,
Sir Simon Le Blanc, was objected to and withdrawn. There was further
discussion on the subject on the 1st and the 29th of April; but not
much was done until the 30th of April.
On that evening, Lord Cochrane formally moved that his charges against
Lord Ellenborough should be referred to a Committee of the whole
House, and that evidence in support of them should be heard at the
bar. A lengthy discussion then ensued, the most notable speeches
being made by the Solicitor-General, Sir Francis Burdett, and the
Attorney-General.
The Solicitor-General of course opposed the motion. "As the House, on
the one hand," he said, "should jealously watch over the conduct of
judges, so, on the other, it should protect them when deserving of
protection, not only as a debt of justice due to the judges, but as
a debt due to justice herself, in order that the public confidence in
the purity of the administration of our laws may not be disappointed,
and that the course of that administration may continue the admiration
of the world; for, unless the judges are protected in the exercise of
their functions, the public opinion of the excellence of our laws will
be inevitably weakened,—and to weaken public opinion is to weaken
justice herself."
That sort of argument, too frivolous and faulty, it might be supposed,
to influence any one, had weight with the House of Commons to which it
was addressed; and the Solicitor-General adduced much more of it.
To him the spotless character of Lord Ellenborough appeared to be an
ample defence against Lord Cochrane's charges. "Never," he said, with
a truthfulness that posterity can appreciate, "never was there an
individual at the bar or on the bench less liable to the imputation
of corrupt motives; never was there one more remarkable for
independence—I will say, sturdy independence—of character, than the
noble and learned lord. For twelve years he has presided on the bench
with unsullied honour, displaying a perfect knowledge of the
law; evincing as much legal knowledge as was ever amassed by any
individual; and now, in the latter part of his life, when he has
arrived at the highest dignity to which a man can arrive, by a
promotion well-earned at the bar, and doubly well-earned at the bench,
we are told that he has sacrificed all his honours by acting from
corrupt motives!"
Sir Francis Burdett replied effectively to the speeches of the
Solicitor-General and others who sided with him, and nobly defended
his friend. He showed that the proposal to refuse investigation of
this case because it might weaken the cause of justice, by making the
conduct of the administrators of justice contemptible, was worse than
frivolous. "Such language," he averred, "would operate against the
investigation of any charges whatever against any judge; would indeed
form a barrier against the exercise of the best privilege of this
House—the privilege of inquiring into the conduct of courts of
justice. It would serve equally well to shelter even those judges
who have been dragged from the bench for their misconduct." He then
reviewed the incidents of the Stock Exchange trial, and urged that
Lord Cochrane had good reason for bringing forward his charges. "The
question for the House to consider is, 'Do these charges, if admitted,
contain criminal matter for the consideration of the House?' I
conceive that they do. No doubt the judges who condemned Russell and
Sidney were, at the time, spoken of as men of high character, who
could not be supposed to suffer any base motives to influence their
conduct. Such arguments as those ought to be banished from this House.
It is our duty to look, with constitutional suspicion on jealousy, on
the proceedings of the judges; and, when a grave charge is solemnly
brought forward, justice to the country, as well as to the judge,
demands an inquiry into it."
That, however, was refused. After a long speech from the
Attorney-General, and an eloquent reply by Lord Cochrane, the House
divided on the motion. Eighty-nine members voted against it. Its only
supporters were Sir Francis Burdett and Lord Cochrane himself. Not
only did the House refuse to listen to the allegations against Lord
Ellenborough; in the excess of its devotion to such law and such order
as the Government of the day appointed, it even resolved that all the
entries in its record of proceedings which referred to this subject
should be expunged from the journals. Lord Cochrane made no
resistance to this further insult thrown upon him. "It gives me great
satisfaction," he said, in the brief and dignified speech with which
he closed the discussion, "to think that the vote which has been come
to has been come to without any of my charges having been disproved.
Whatever may be done with them now, they will find their way to
posterity, and posterity will form a different judgment concerning
them than that which has been adopted by this House. So long as I have
a seat in this House, however, I will continue to bring them forward,
year by year and time after time, until I am allowed the opportunity
of establishing the truth of my allegations."
Other occupations prevented the full realization of that purpose. But
to the end of his life Lord Cochrane used every occasion of asserting
his innocence and courting a full investigation of all the incidents
on which his assertion was based. Posterity, as he truly prophesied,
has learnt to endorse his judgment; and therefore, in the ensuing
pages, it will not be necessary to adduce from his letters and actions
more than occasional illustrations of the temper which animated him
throughout with reference to this heaviest of all his heavy troubles.
By these troubles, however, even in the time of their greatest
pressure, he was not overcome; and in the midst of them he found time
and heart for active labour in the good work of various sorts that was
always dear to him. He used the advantages of his liberty in striving
to perfect the invention of improved street lamps and lighting
material that had occupied him while in prison, and to procure their
general adoption. His place in Parliament, moreover, all through the
session of 1816, was employed not only in seeking justice for himself,
but also in furthering every project advanced for benefiting the
community and checking the pernicious action of the Government. A
zealous, honest Whig before, he was now as zealous and as honest
as ever in all his political conduct. And his devotion to the best
interests of the people was yet more apparent in his unflagging
labours, out of Parliament, for the public good. His great abilities,
rendered all the more prominent by the cruel persecution to which he
had been and still was subjected, made him a leading champion of the
people during the turmoil to which misgovernment at home, and the
distracted state of foreign politics, gave a special stimulus in 1816.
A long list might be made of the great meetings which he attended,
and took part in, both among his own constituents of Westminster
and elsewhere, for the consideration of popular grievances and their
remedies. One such meeting, attended by Henry Brougham and Sir Francis
Burdett among others, was held in Palace Yard, Westminster, on the
1st of March, for the purpose of petitioning Parliament against the
renewal of the property-tax and the maintenance of a standing army in
time of peace. Lord Cochrane, the hero of the day, on account of "the
spirit of opposition which he had shown to the infringement of the
constitution and the grievances of the people," won for himself new
favour by the boldness with which he denounced the policy of the
Government, which, boasting that it was ruining the French nation, was
at the same time bringing misery also upon Englishmen by the excessive
taxation and the reckless extravagance to which it resorted.
A smaller, but much more momentous meeting assembled at the City
of London Tavern on the 29th of July, under the auspices of the
Association for the Relief of the Manufacturing and Labouring Poor.
Instigated in a spirit of praiseworthy charity by many of the most
influential persons of the day, it was used by Lord Cochrane for the
enforcement of the views as to public right and public duty, and the
mutual relations of the rich and the poor, which were forced upon him
by his recent troubles, and the relations in which he was at this time
placed with some over-zealous champions of popular reform, and some
unreasonable exponents of popular grievances. That his conduct on this
occasion was extravagant and even factious, he afterwards heartily
regretted. Yet as a memorable illustration of the power and
earnestness with which he fought for what seemed to him to be right,
as well with word as with sword, its details, as reported at the time,
may be here set forth at length.
About half-past one o'clock the Duke of York entered and took
the chair, supported on his right by the Duke of Kent, and on
his left by the Duke of Cambridge. He was accompanied on
his entrance by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of
London, the Duke of Rutland, Lord Manvers, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, Mr. Wilberforce, and other distinguished
individuals.
His Royal Highness the Duke of York immediately
proceeded to open the business of the day, by observing that the
present meeting had been called to consider and, as far as possible,
to alleviate the present distress and sufferings of the labouring
classes of the community. These distresses were, he feared, too well
known to all who heard him to require any description; and all he
had to add to the bare statement of them was the expression of his
confidence that the liberality which had been so signally manifested
in the course of foreign distress would not be found wanting when the
direction of it was to be towards the comfort and relief of our own
countrymen at home.
THE DUKE OF KENT, after alluding to the exertions of the Committee of
1812, observed that the immediate object was to raise a fund, in
the subsequent accumulation and management of which many ulterior
arrangements might be projected, and from which charity might soon
emanate in a thousand directions. He doubted not that every county and
every town would be quick to imitate the example of the metropolis.
The association of 1812 had at least the merit of producing this
effect, and had spread through the whole land that spirit of active
benevolence which he was feebly invoking on this occasion. He trusted
that it was necessary for him to say but little more to insure the
adoption of the resolution which he should have the honour to propose.
He confessed he felt gratified when he saw so great a concourse of
his countrymen assembled together for such a purpose, and additional
gratification at seeing by whom they were supported. He was sure,
then, that he should not plead in vain to the national liberality; but
that the remedy would be promptly afforded to an evil which he trusted
would be found but temporary. If they should be so happy as but to
succeed in discovering new sources of employment to supply the place
of those channels which had been suddenly shut up, he should
indeed despond if we did not soon restore the country to that
same flourishing condition which had long made her the envy of
the world. The royal Duke then moved the first resolution,
as follows:—"That the transition from a state of extensive
warfare to a system of peace has occasioned a stagnation of
employment and a revulsion of trade, deeply affecting the
situation of many parts of the community, and producing many
instances of great local distress."
The resolution was seconded by Mr. Harman.
Lord Cochrane offered himself to the attention of the meeting,
but was for some time unable to proceed, his voice being lost
in the huzzas and hisses which his presence called forth.
Silence being at length in some measure obtained, his lordship
said he would not have addressed the meeting but that, having
received a circular letter from the committee, and feeling
the importance of the subject, he would have thought it a
dereliction of his duty if he refrained from attending. He
rose thus early because the observations he had to submit
would not be suitable if made when the other resolutions were
put. The first resolution was, in his opinion, founded on
a gross fallacy; and this was his reason for saying so. The
existing distresses could not be truly ascribed to any sudden
transition from war to peace. Could it be pretended that it
was peace which had occasioned the fall in the value of all
agricultural produce? Or could any man venture to assert that
the difficulties and sufferings of the manufacturing classes
had any other cause than a prodigious and enormous burthen of
taxation? He was much gratified at seeing the royal Dukes so
active in promoting a generous and laudable undertaking, and
he hoped he should not be understood as treating them with
disrespect when he repeated that the resolution was founded
on an entire fallacy. But, not to content himself with a mere
assertion of his own belief,
he had brought official documents to prove the correctness
of his statements; and if he should be wrong, he saw the
Chancellor of the Exchequer near him, who would have the
opportunity of correcting his misrepresentation. This brief
statement, he believed, would be quite sufficient to show that
the financial situation of the country was such as to render
any attempts of that meeting for the purpose of extending
general relief utterly ineffectual. The whole revenue of the
kingdom was 62,267,450£, deducting the property-tax, and
the revenue was thus expended. The interest of the national
debt, including the interest of unfunded exchequer bills, was
upwards of 40,300,000£, leaving to support the expenses of
Government only about 22,000,000£ It was this enormous sum
which now hung round our necks—it was this, which unnecessary
extravagance had caused to increase from year to year to its
present terrible amount, which was the cause of all the
evils of the country at this moment. This taxation, and
extravagance, for which the country was now suffering, was
supported and sanctioned by those who had derived and still
derived large emoluments from them. These were truths that
the people ought to know; for they were the source of their
burthens, and the origin of all the mischief. It was this
profuse expenditure of the public money, to say no worse of
it, that occasioned the present calamities. It was the lavish
expenditure to meet a compliant list of placemen that brought
the country to its present state. The deficiency in the
revenue occasioned by the enormous interest of the national
debt, which ministers would have to supply, would, according
to the present disbursements and receipts, amount to
11,578,000£ unless that expenditure were reduced, every
such attempt as they were at present making would, he was
convinced, prove abortive: it was a mere topical application
while a mortal distemper was raging within. He had taken
no notice in his estimate of the charges for sinecures or
the bounties on exports and imports: and yet the returns upon
which he went, exclusive of these charges, showed a deficit
for the ensuing year of 3,500,000£ Were those who heard him
prepared to make this good? It was, he believed, undeniable
that nothing could equalize our revenue with our expenditure,
but the putting down entirely the army and navy, or the
extinction of one half of the national debt; but when he
looked to the actual receipt of the last quarter and found
a falling off of 2,400,000£, which, with a corresponding
decrease in the three succeeding quarters, must create a new
deficit of 10,000,000£, and, added to the 3,500,000£
to which he had alluded, would form a sum equal to the whole
amount of the boasted sinking-fund, he felt that it was worse
than trifling to suppose we could go on upon the present
system. Were they prepared to make up this enormous
deficiency? [A voice from the crowd cried "Yes."] He was happy
to hear it: he supposed it was some fund-holder who answered,
and if any class could do so, it was the fund-holders. They
alone had the ability, they alone now derived any returns
from their property; but even if they should be both able and
willing, still it would only remain a positive deficit made
good, and no new facility would be derived for alleviating
the existing burthens. The burthens and distresses must
still remain what they were before. He spoke not now upon
conjecture, or loose calculation, he had brought his authority
with him. These were the records from which he derived his
statements—the official returns of the Treasury; and
if false, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was present to
contradict them. He was glad, he confessed, to see him, for
those who heard him were, no doubt, aware that it was not
always in the House of Commons that a minister could discover
the genuine sentiments of the people. If, therefore, no other
person should move an amendment, he should feel it his duty
to propose an omission of that part of the resolution which
ascribed the distressed state of the country to the transition
from a state of war to a state of peace, and to state the
cause to be an enormous debt, and a lavish expenditure. He had
come there with the expectation of seeing the Duke of Rutland
in the chair; and with some hopes, as he took the lead upon
this occasion, that it was his intention to surrender that
sinecure of 9,000£ a-year which he was now in the habit
of putting in his pocket. He still trusted that all who were
present and were also holders of sinecures had it in their
intention to sacrifice them to their liberality and their
justice; and that they did not come there to aid the
distresses of their country by paying half-a-crown per cent,
out of the hundreds which they took from it. If they did not,
all he could say was, that to him their pretended charity was
little better than a fraud. Without, however, taking up more
of their time, he should move his amendment, with this one
additional observation, that it would be a disgrace to an
enlightened meeting, and particularly to a meeting which might
be considered as comprising an aggregate mass of the property
and intellect of the country, to place a fallacy upon the
record of their proceedings, and to build all their following
resolutions upon an assertion which had no foundation in
truth. He concluded by moving the following amendment to the
first resolution:—"That the enormous load of the national
debt, together with the large military establishment and the
profuse expenditure of public money, was the real cause of the
present public distress."
Mr. Wilberforce said he was himself too much of an Englishman,
and had been too long engaged in political discussions to feel
any surprise that those who felt warmly on such a subject as
the present should be anxious to give
expression to their sentiments: but he could not help thinking
that, upon cool reflection, the noble lord would be of opinion
that his own object would be better attained if he confined
himself, on this occasion, to the distinct question under
consideration. The noble lord said the country was in a
crisis, and would they apply a mere topical remedy? but he
might ask the noble lord if he would refuse to assuage the
pain of a temporary distemper because he had it not in his
power at once to cure it radically? To him the existing
distress appeared to be a distemper which rather called for
immediate alleviation, than for the speculative discussion of
its cause. He thought the most charitable and manly course to
be pursued—and that which must be most congenial to what
he knew to be the noble lord's own charitable and manly
disposition—was not to call upon the meeting to give any
opinion upon a political question not under consideration,
so as to divert them from pursuing it with diligence and
confidence, but to postpone to a better opportunity a
discussion of this nature, and to unite cordially in the
general cause of finding employment and encouragement for our
suffering fellow-citizens. If the noble lord would reflect
upon the best mode of relieving the distresses of the people,
he would find his amendment not likely to have that tendency.
Let him reserve all discussion on the question it involved
until he could do it without interrupting the stream of
charity, and until he could enter upon it under fair and
proper circumstances. He (Mr. Wilberforce), in a proper place,
would not shrink from meeting the noble lord on that inquiry;
he was twice as old in public life as the noble lord could
pretend to be, and fully as independent; yet he would not have
easily supposed any man, however young in politics, could have
started such topics there. For his part, he should be sorry to
take advantage of any credit which might be
to supposed to belong to him upon such an occasion as this to
cast reproaches upon those who were concurring with him in a
benevolent design. The meeting must on the present occasion
feel how much indebted it stood to the royal personages for
their attendance. They had come to listen to a discussion
which had for its avowed and direct object the relief of the
people, and they were in the room suddenly called upon to lay
aside the practical part of their inquiry and to enter upon
a distinct pursuit. Was such a course fair towards those
illustrious individuals? Was it that which was likely
to induce them to listen to proposals for their personal
co-operation on occasions of benevolence, if they had no
security against the occupation of their time for discussions
of a different character? In conclusion, he entreated the
noble lord, of whose real disposition to relieve the people
of England he had no doubt, and whose motives he could justly
appreciate, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cochrane thanked the honourable gentleman for his
personal civilities towards him, and said that he would feel
no hesitation in withdrawing his amendment if the honourable
gentleman would state to the meeting, on his own personal
veracity and honour, that he believed that the original
resolution contained the true cause of the public distress,
and the amendment the false one. If the honourable gentleman
would say that—if any respectable man present would say
it—he would be satisfied.
Mr. Cotes said he was entirely unconnected with the noble
lord, and had never even had the honour of speaking, to him.
He agreed, however, with him in thinking that this was a
moment when the eyes of the public ought to be open to their
real situation. The amendment harmonized entirely with all
the opinions which he had been able to form upon subject. Mr.
Wilberforce, to whose humane and benevolent
Mr. character he was happy to pay his acknowledgments, had
attempted to get rid of the noble lord's amendment by a sort
of side-wind; but to his judgment there was no incompatibility
between the object of the meeting and the amendment. There was
nothing irrelevant in it; it naturally grew out of the course
adopted by the chair, and in which a cause of the prevailing
distress was distinctly specified. The question was, then,
ought their resolutions to go forth to the public with a
falsehood upon the face of them? Ought they not to state the
true cause, since His Royal Highness by mistake had assigned
a fallacious one? Mr. Wilberforce, with his usual ability, but
in a manner that still marked its duplicity—he meant the
word in no offensive sense—had asked, would he enter into
a political discussion when we were called upon to extend
relief? He begged to state this was not the true question: it
was whether they would found all the future proceedings
upon error and misstatement, or upon incontrovertible facts.
Another question was, would they be satisfied to patch up the
wounds of the country for a short period or seek to remedy
the disease in its spring and in its sources before it became
still more alarming and incurable? The Duke of Kent said he
had offered the resolution as it had been put into his hand;
and if he had conceived there had been any mention of a course
upon which difference of opinion could exist, he hoped they
knew him sufficiently to believe that he should have been
incapable of requiring their assent to it. He now, therefore,
proposed an omission of all that part of the resolution
which had any reference whatever to the cause of the present
distress. He knew the noble lord well enough—and he had known
him in early life—to be assured that he would agree with him,
at least in a declaration as to the fact. Their common object,
he believed, was to afford relief and to admit its necessity
without assigning
either one cause or another. For his own part, it had not been
his intention to attend a political discussion. He would never
enter the arena of politics with the noble lord; but he begged
leave to say, he considered himself as competent to plead
the cause of humanity, to advocate the interests of the
weather-beaten sufferer, as the noble lord could be. There
were, however, other times and other places for men to engage
in discussion of party politics, and he therefore implored the
noble lord not to distract the attention of the meeting by the
introduction of these; and to keep solely in view that they
had met as the friends of benevolence, not as the advocates of
a party. His Royal Highness then proposed to alter the motion
as follows:—
"Resolved that there do at this moment exist a stagnation
of employment and a revulsion of trade, deeply affecting the
situation of many parts of the community, and producing many
instances of great local distress."
Lord Cochrane, in reply, stated that he had no wish to excite
a difference of opinion on such an occasion, and that, after
the alteration in the resolution, nothing gave him more
pleasure than the opportunity of withdrawing his amendment;
but, in justification of what he had done, it became necessary
for him to say that he never would have thought of his
amendment if it had not been for the assertion as to the cause
of existing distress—he had no doubt in his mind as to the
nature of that cause, and he held it but just and honourable
that if a cause must be assigned, it should be the true one.
After returning thanks to Mr. Wilberforce and the Duke of Kent
for their expressions of personal civility, the noble lord
consented to withdraw his motion so far as he was personally
concerned in it.
Considerable opposition, however, from various parts of the
hall was manifested to this mode of withdrawing the
amendment, and a great deal of disturbance took place. At last
the resolution, as altered by the Duke of Kent, was put and
carried.
The Duke of Cambridge, in his speech, which followed, returned
his warm thanks to the noble lord for the handsome manner in
which he had withdrawn his amendment. He moved the following
resolution, which was unanimously agreed to:—
"From the experienced generosity of the British nation it may
be confidently expected that those who are able to afford the
means of relief to their fellow-subjects will contribute their
utmost endeavours to remedy or alleviate the sufferings of
those who are particularly distressed."
The Archbishop of Canterbury moved the following resolution,
which was seconded and carried unanimously: "That although it
is obviously impossible for any association of individuals to
attempt a general relief of difficulties affecting so large a
proportion of the public, yet that it has been proved by
the experience of this association that most important and
extensive benefits may be derived from the co-operation and
correspondence of a society in the metropolis encouraging the
efforts of those benevolent individuals who may be disposed to
associate themselves in the different districts for the relief
of their several neighbourhoods."
The Duke of Rutland afterwards addressed the meeting,
and moved that a subscription be immediately opened, and
contributions generally solicited for carrying into effect the
objects of this association; which was seconded, and agreed
to.
The Earl of Manvers, after stating that he had opposed the
amendment of the noble lord (Lord Cochrane) solely from his
anxiety to preserve the unanimity of the meeting, as it was
only by becoming unanimous they could gain their
object, moved: "That subscribers of 100£ and upwards be
added to the committee of the Association for the Relief of
the Manufacturing and Labouring Poor; that the committee have
full power to dispose of the funds to be collected, and to
name sub-committees for correspondence."
The motion was seconded by Sir T. Bell, and unanimously
carried.
The Bishop of London proposed a vote of thanks to the Duke of
York, which Mr. C. Barclay was about to second, but—
Lord Cochrane again stepped forward and gained the attention
of the meeting. He repeated the explanation of the motives
for withdrawing his proposed amendment, adding, that he had no
wish again to press that amendment upon the consideration
of the meeting. But he could not forbear from observing what
would have been the fate of such a proposition, if brought
forward in another place, which he need not name. For there,
instead of being requested to withdraw the proposition, it
would have been met by a direct negative or by 'the previous
question,' in support of which, no doubt, a majority of that
assembly, miscalled the representatives of the people, would
have voted. Yet the manner in which this, a meeting of the
people, would have decided, was pretty obvious; and hence it
might be inferred how far the people concurred in sentiment
and feeling with the House of Commons. That the proposed, or
any charitable subscription, must be inadequate to relieve the
actual distress of the country was a proposition which could
not be disputed, but yet he did not intend to oppose that
subscription; on the contrary, he should give it every
possible support in his power; and it was, he felt, a
consolation to them that there were still some persons in this
country who could afford something to relieve the poor; but
he was afraid that neither the landowner nor the mercantile
interest had the means of
doing so; for the former could obtain no rent, and the latter
no trade—the only persons, in fact, who were able to assist
the poor under present circumstances were the placemen, the
sinecurists, and the fund-holders, who must give up at least
half of their ill-gotten gains in order to effect the object.
With this impression fixed upon his mind, he felt it his duty
to propose an additional resolution, that the ministers of
the crown, that the Government of the country, who wielded
the power of Parliament, were alone competent to remove and
to alleviate the national distress. This, indeed, was evident
from the statement of our financial situation which he
had already made. He had called upon the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, who was present, to contradict that statement if
he could; but the right honourable gentleman had felt it
expedient not to utter one word, as the meeting had witnessed.
Yet from that statement it must be obvious, as he had already
observed, that the military and naval situation of the country
must be abandoned, or at least half the national debt must be
extinguished, for the resources of the empire could not endure
such burthens. The noble lord concluded with expressing his
intention when the present resolutions were got over, to move
another, stating the real cause of the present distress,
and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his majesty's
ministers were alone capable of affording serious relief to
the present distress.
Mr. Barclay seconded the motion of the Right Reverend the
Bishop of London, to which Lord Cochrane assured the meeting
he entertained no objection.
Great confusion prevailed in the meeting, some crying out
for Lord Cochrane's motion, while others were equally loud in
testifying their anxiety for the vote of thanks.
The Duke of Kent then put the motion.
Lord Cochrane said that his sole object was to have an
opportunity of moving his resolution after the present was
disposed of.
A person from a distant part of the room exclaimed: "That resolution
shall not be put, for it is a libel on the Parliament." Several other
remarks were made, but they were generally unintelligible from the
violent uproar and confusion that prevailed. Loud cries of "Put Lord
Cochrane's motion first" were mixed with the cry of "Chair, chair."
The Duke of Kent said that he had attended this meeting with a view
to assist in promoting an object of charity, and he had no doubt that
such was the intention of the noble lord (Cochrane). Of this he
was sure from the noble lord's own declaration, as well as from his
knowledge of the noble lord's feelings. The noble lord had, indeed,
himself stated that he had no wish to introduce any political, or to
press any, measure likely to interfere with the object of the
meeting. Therefore, he called upon the noble lord, in consistency, in
politeness and urbanity, not to urge any political principle; and the
noble lord must be aware that his proposition had a strong political
tendency. The proposition was indeed such, that the noble lord must be
aware that it was calculated to injure the subscription, for those who
were not of the noble lord's opinion in politics were but too likely
to leave the room if that proposition were pressed to a vote, and thus
a material object of charity would suffer through a desire to urge a
declaration of a mere political opinion.
Lord Cochrane disclaimed any wish to provoke political discussion.
He expressed his desire merely to declare a truth which no man
could venture to dispute in any popular assembly, in order that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and others present, might have an
opportunity of reporting to Government the decided sentiment
and real feeling of the people.
The Archbishop of Canterbury begged leave to call back the
attention of the meeting to the motion before it, and which,
he had no doubt, would be unanimously adopted. This motion,
the most reverend prelate added, was not intended in any
degree to interfere with the motion of the noble lord.
Amid loud cries of "Put Lord Cochrane's motion first, for if
the motion of thanks be disposed of, the Duke of York will
leave the chair, and the noble lord's motion will not be put
at all," the Duke of Kent declared that there could be
no intention to get rid of the noble lord's motion by any
side-wind.
The motion of thanks was then passed while Lord Cochrane was
engaged in writing his motion, and the Duke of York, having
bowed to the meeting, immediately withdrew, amidst loud
hissings, and cries of "Shame! shame! a trick! a trick!"
The Duke of Kent, whose head was turned towards Lord Cochrane,
was much surprised and disappointed at discovering the absence
of the chairman.
The general cry was then raised: "The Duke of Kent to the
chair."
His Royal Highness addressed the meeting. Having, he said,
pledged himself on proposing the last resolution that there
was no intention of getting rid of Lord Cochrane's motion by
any side-wind, he felt himself in a very awkward predicament.
"But," he added, "I hope that, as liberal Englishmen, you
will consider my situation and who I am; and that after my
illustrious relatives have retired from the meeting, you
will not insist upon my taking the chair for the purpose of
pressing the declaration of a political opinion;
but that you will commend my motives, and do justice to
those feelings which determine the propriety of my immediate
departure." His Royal Highness accordingly withdrew.
The majority of the meeting still remained, calling for the
nomination of another chairman, and pressing the adoption of
Lord Cochrane's motion; but the noble lord also withdrew, and
the meeting separated.
That meeting was memorable. If Lord Cochrane's bearing at it was
factious, it must be remembered how greatly he had suffered and how
earnestly he desired to save the people at large from the sufferings
entailed upon them by the Government which he and they had learnt to
regard with a common dislike. By exposing what appeared to him and
many others to be the hypocrisy of seeming philanthropists, and
showing what he deemed the only real cause and the only real remedy
of the national distress, he only acted as a brave and honest man, and
his work was appreciated by the masses in whose interest it was done.
A thrill of satisfaction ran through the land. During the ensuing
weeks and months congratulations were heaped upon him from all
quarters, and from nearly every class of society. If he had lessened
the resources of the Association for the Belief of the Manufacturing
and Labouring Poor, he was thanked even for this, since it was
believed to be a good thing for shallow charity to be stayed, in order
that the cause of real justice might be promoted.
The thanks were all the heartier because of the fresh persecution to
which Lord Cochrane was subjected on account of his patriotism. This
persecution was in the shape of legal proceedings instituted against
him by the Marshal of the King's Bench Prison for his escape therefrom
on the 10th of March, 1815. The action had been formally commenced
almost immediately after the alleged offence, but on technical
grounds, and perhaps from the consciousness that he was already
punished enough, it was delayed for more than a year. As the
previous punishment, however, had not been enough to silence him, the
Government determined to revive the old charge as a further act of
vengeance. At the special instigation of Lord Ellenborough, as it
was averred, the prosecution had been renewed in May, 1816, almost
immediately after the rejection by the House of Commons of Lord
Cochrane's charges against the vindictive and unprincipled judge; but
the time was too far gone for trial to take place during the summer
term. It was again renewed, and at length successfully, directly after
Lord Cochrane's fresh exhibition of his hostility to the Government at
the London Tavern meeting.
The trial was at Guildford, on the 17th of August. Its history and
issue may best be told in the words of an autobiographical fragment,
written by Lord Dundonald shortly before his death. "I was accompanied
to Guildford," he said, "by Sir Francis Burdett and several other
leading inhabitants of Westminster, whose names are forgotten by me. I
took neither counsel nor witnesses, having determined to rest my case
on the point of law that 'no Member of Parliament can be imprisoned,
either for non-payment of a fine to the king, or for any other cause
than treason or felony, or refusing to give security to keep the
peace,' my inference being that as I was illegally imprisoned, I had
committed no illegality in escaping. I read to the jury a general
statement, on which they unequivocally expressed their conviction that
the trial had better not have been instituted, for that the punishment
already sustained was more than adequate to the offence alleged to
have been committed. The judge, however, interfered, and told the
jury that, as I had admitted the escape in my statement, they had no
alternative but to bring in a verdict of guilty, which was reluctantly
done, and judgment was deferred.
"After the trial I returned to my house in Hampshire, and not hearing
anything more of the affair, naturally concluded that, in the face of
the opinion expressed by the jury, the Government would be ashamed to
prosecute the matter further. Not liking, however, to trust to their
mercy, whilst their malevolence might be exercised at an inconvenient
season, or made to depend upon my political conduct, I directed my
attorney to inquire whether it was intended to put in execution the
sentence at Guildford. The reply was that no steps had been taken,
and the impression was, that Government would be against further
proceedings, lest they should tend to increase my popularity.
Considering that this might be a feint to put me off my guard, I went
to London for the purpose of attending a large political meeting, in
the conduct of which I participated. Shortly afterwards I received
a summons to appear at Westminster Hall and receive judgment on the
verdict; the judgment being that I was condemned to pay a fine of
100£ to the Crown.
"On my refusal to pay the fine, on the 21st of November, I was again
taken into custody, I alleging that the sentence would amount to
perpetual imprisonment, for that I would never pay a fine imposed for
escaping from an illegal detention.
"On my being taken back to prison, however, a meeting of the electors
of Westminster was held, at which it was determined that the amount
of the fine should be paid by a penny subscription, no person being
allowed to subscribe more. This plan was adopted in order that the
public throughout the kingdom might have an opportunity of manifesting
their disapprobation of the oppressive way in which I was being
treated. Though I knew nothing of the intentions of the committee at
the time, it was expected that the subscription would amount to a
much larger sum than the fine, and resolved that the surplus should be
devoted to the re-imbursement of the former fine of 1000£ and of the
expenses to which I had been put at the trial. Receiving-houses were
accordingly opened in the metropolis and in various other large towns,
and the amount of the fine of 100£ was speedily collected in London
alone.
"Meanwhile meetings were constantly being held to petition Parliament
for reform, and at these my name and sufferings formed a prominent
topic, so that the Government would have been glad to be rid of
me. After one of these meetings in Spafields, for the purpose of
requesting Sir Francis Burdett and myself to present a petition to
Parliament, a serious riot took place in the city of London, in which
a gentleman was shot by the military. The Government, in alarm lest
the people should proceed to the King's Bench and liberate me, did me
the honour to send a company of infantry to guard me, the officers of
the prison being ordered to admit no strangers whatever. The troops
were further ordered to continue their attendance till I was released
from custody.
"The subscription having been completed in pence, sent from all parts
of the kingdom, my secretary, Mr. Jackson, applied to the Master of
the Crown Office to receive the amount of the fine in coppers. This
was refused, as not being a legal tender. The Master, however, in
token of the suffering to which I had so unworthily been subjected,
said that, as payment of the fine in such a manner marked the sense of
the people on my case, he would not oppose himself to the expression
of public sentiment, but would take 10£ of the sum in coppers. This
was accordingly paid, and the remainder in notes and silver, which
were given by various tradesmen in exchange for the coppers of the
people, whose money was thus literally appropriated to the payment of
the fine.
"Finding, on my liberation, whole chests filled with penny pieces, I
wrote to the committee, stating that sufficient had been collected.
The reply was that the subscription should go on till the amount of
the fine of 1000£ was paid in addition. The whole of the amount of
the fine was thus realized, with something beyond—I do not recollect
how much—towards my law expenses, which had necessarily been
excessive. Taking, however, the 1100£ paid in pence, this
alone showed that two million six hundred and forty thousand
persons—composing a very large portion of the adult population of
the kingdom—sympathised with me. Not one of my persecutors could have
elicited such an expression of public sympathy."
The fine being thus paid, Lord Cochrane was released from the King's
Bench Prison on the 7th of December, after a confinement of sixteen
days, which was attended by all the wanton severity shown to him
during his previous incarceration. Having been apprehended on a
Thursday, he was, on his arrival at the King's Bench, placed in an
unhealthy room protected by an iron grating. In the evening, having
complained of such unusual treatment, he was informed that it was
under the express directions of the Marshal. Next day, being seriously
unwell, a physician was sent to him, who reported that he was
suffering from palpitation of the heart and other symptoms of
dangerous excitement, which made it necessary that he should be
removed to better quarters. Accordingly, worse quarters were found for
him, in a damp, dark, and very imperfectly-ventilated room, entirely
devoid of furniture, in the middle of the building. Stedfastly
refusing to go there, he was allowed to remain for that night in
the room, first assigned to him. On Saturday morning, just as he
was sitting down to breakfast, he was ordered to proceed to his new
dungeon. Again refusing, his untasted breakfast was forcibly taken
from him until he consented to eat it in the appointed place. Thither
he accordingly went, and there he was detained for the fortnight that
passed before his liberation.
On the 17th of December an enthusiastic meeting of the citizens of
Westminster was held to congratulate Lord Cochrane upon his release.
"We, your lordship's constituents," it was stated in an address
adopted by that meeting, "beg leave, on the present occasion, to
declare that, after having had long and ample means for inquiry and
reflection, we remain in the full and entire conviction of the perfect
innocence of your lordship of every part of the offence laid to your
charge at the outset of that series of persecutions by which, during
the last three years of your life, you have been incessantly harassed.
But, indeed, those persons must have very little knowledge of public
affairs, and particularly of your distinguished naval and political
career, who do not clearly perceive that all those persecutions have
arisen from your public virtues, and who are not well convinced that,
if you had not served the people by your exposure of the abuses in the
prize courts, by your endeavours to restore to the right owners
the immense sums unjustly alienated under the names of Droits of
Admiralty, by your honest explanation of the causes which prevented
the naval renown of your country being complete at Basque Roads, and
by having caused to be produced in Parliament, and published to the
nation, that memorable account of sinecures, pensions, and grants
which so usefully enlightened the public, you never would have
been prosecuted for a pretended fraud on the funds. Your lordship's
constituents, being thus fully sensible that you have suffered and are
still suffering solely for their and their country's sake, would deem
themselves amongst the most ungrateful of mankind were they to neglect
this occasion to tender you the most solemn assurances of their
unabated attachment and their most resolute support, and, whilst they
are endeavouring to discharge their duty towards your lordship, they
entertain the consoling reflection that the day is not distant when
you will mainly assist in carrying forward that measure of radical
parliamentary reform which alone can be a safeguard against all sorts
of oppressions, and especially oppressions under which your lordship
has so long and so severely suffered."
To that honourable address an honourable reply was penned by Lord
Cochrane on the 24th of December, and presented to the electors of
Westminster at another meeting assembled for the purpose on the 1st of
January ensuing.
The direct persecution which began with the Stock Exchange trial and
its antecedents was now at an end, after three years of gross and
untiring vindictiveness. Indirect persecution was to continue for more
than thirty years.