as the land was out of sight, we were obliged to heave-to, in
mid-channel, to unstow the after hold, get down the ballast, and clear
the decks. Worse still—the rigging had not been effectually set up, so
that had a gale of wind come on, the safety of the frigate might have
been compromised; or had we been attacked by an enemy—even a gun-boat—we
could not have fired a shot in return, as, from the powder coming on
board last, we had not a cartridge filled.
The weather becoming thick on the following day, no observation could be
taken. The consequence was, that from the current and unknown drift of
the frigate whilst hove-to, to set up the new rigging, secure the masts,
and stow the hold, we drifted toward Ushant, and in the night struck
heavily three or four times on a shelf, but fortunately forged over into
a deep pool, in which, as it was blowing hard, we had to let go three
anchors to hold the ship till the following morning.
As soon as it became daylight, it was found that the _Impérieuse_ was
inside of Ushant, instead of outside, to the manifest peril of the
frigate. As it was, we sounded our way out with difficulty, and happily
without material injury.
I afterwards demanded a court-martial on my conduct in this affair, but
it was not granted; because it was known that the blame would have
fallen on others, not on me. This unwise and arbitrary conduct, in
hastily and prematurely forcing vessels to sea, was mistaken by the
public as a manifestation of official zeal in carrying on the service!
It would be easy to mention numerous instances of the like nature, but
this being my own case, I can vouch for its authenticity.
In a future chapter it will be necessary again to advert to these and
other evils to which men and ships were not only exposed, but actually
sacrificed, by hurry or neglect of equipment.
On the 29th we joined the blockading squadron in Basque Roads, and were
ordered by the admiral to cruise off shore in the vicinity, but without
effect, till the 19th of December, when we captured two vessels off
Sable d’Olonne, and on the 31st a third at the entrance of the Garonne.
On the 4th of January we gave chase to several vessels which ran in the
direction of Arcassan. On the following day the boats were sent in chase
of a galliot and another vessel in shore, but the cutter being swamped
in the surf, both escaped into the creek or basin, and ran ashore. We
then anchored about three miles from the entrance.
On the 6th we again hoisted out boats and sent them with the stream
anchors to warp off the vessels, in which operation they were
successfully obstructed by a battery on an island at the entrance of the
creek. As the water was too shoal for the frigate to approach with
safety, the boats were manned, and before daylight on the 7th we carried
the battery by assault, spiking or otherwise destroying the guns, which
consisted of four 36-pounders, two field pieces, and a 13-inch mortar;
this done, we collected their carriages, and what wood we could find,
with which we set fire to the fort. Several gunboats being at anchor in
the rear of the island, we burned them, as well as the vessels
previously chased, not thinking it prudent to remain and get them off,
as a general alarm had been excited along the coast.
Having destroyed this battery, we again sailed for the Garonne, and on
the 9th anchored off Cordovan, in the hope of intercepting any vessels
entering or quitting the river; but notwithstanding we remained here
till the 19th, none showed themselves, nor was any attempt made by the
enemy to dislodge us from our position. Our anchorage was, however,
exposed, and heavy gales coming on, we were compelled to make sail on
the 19th.
Shortly after this the _Impérieuse_ was ordered home, arriving at
Plymouth on the 11th of February, without further incident. Indeed the
cruise would not be worthy of record, except to preserve the order of
time in this narrative of my services unbroken.
On the 26th we chased some vessels off Isle Dieu, but they ran under the
protection of a battery with which we exchanged some shots, and then
made sail in the direction of Sable d’Olonne. On the 29th joined the
squadron, and were ordered to supply the _Atalante_ with provisions and
water. A further notice respecting this operation will be found in the
parliamentary debate in the next chapter.
CHAP. XIII.
DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.
DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.—WESTMINSTER ELECTION.— REPLY TO MR.
SHERIDAN.—I AM ELECTED.—VIRULENT RECRIMINATIONS.—OPENING OF THE
HOUSE.—MOVE FOR AN ACCOUNT OF SINECURES.—OPPOSITION TO THE
MOTION.—MR. PERCEVAL’S PROPOSITION.—MY MOTION EVADED.—NAVAL ABUSES.—
DETAILS OF ABUSES.—NAVAL HOSPITALS.—SPEECH IN THE COMMONS.—JOIN LORD
COLLINGWOOD’S FLEET.
On the 27th of April, 1807, the short but busy parliament was dissolved,
“his Majesty being anxious to recur to the sense of his people.” In
other words, it was dissolved for political reasons not within the scope
of the present work to enter.
In the following month of May writs were issued for a general election,
and as my Honiton constituents, even during the short period I had been
ashore, had heartily sickened me of further connection with them, by the
incessant cry for places with which they had assailed me, I made up my
mind to become a candidate for Westminster, with the object of adding
the weight of an important constituency to my own representations on
naval or other abuses whenever opportunity might occur. Or, as I told
the electors of Westminster at a meeting convened at the St. Alban’s
Tavern, my motive for soliciting their suffrages was, that “a man
representing a rotten borough could not feel himself of equal
consequence in the House with one representing such a city as
Westminster—that disclaiming all attachment to parties or factions, it
was not only my wish to be independent, but to be placed in a position
where I could become so with effect, and that as this was impossible
with no more efficient backers than my late constituents, my connection
with them had ceased, and I had taken the liberty of soliciting the
suffrages of the electors for Westminster.”
The candidates for Westminster were, the Right Hon. Brinsley Sheridan,
Mr. Elliot, Mr. Paul, and myself. It was not till the poll had
commenced, that Sir Francis Burdett—at that time confined to his bed by
a dangerous wound received in a duel with Mr. Paul—was put in
nomination, without his knowledge, the nature of his wound not
permitting any person to communicate with him, except his medical
attendant.
I was regarded as the opponent of Mr. Sheridan, and for want of better
argument that gentleman’s partisans in the press sought to depreciate me
in the estimation of the electors by representations of the most unjust
character, a far more reprehensible act than that of pointing out to
them the advantage of retaining an eminent and tried man in preference
to one of whose political tendencies they could practically know
nothing.
In electioneering all devices are considered fair, so in place of
resenting or retaliating, they were met by my declaration, that—
“Whatever gentlemen might say of their long political services—to the
electors belonged the privilege of judging for themselves, and that in
looking for security for the performance of pledges, they should also
consider the character of those who gave them. I was not a mere
professed reformer, but the zealous friend of reform, earnestly
desiring to see it thoroughly carried out as regarded many abuses
which had crept into our constitution. Much had been said of
profligacy and profusion of public money. But what was to be said of a
Commander-in-chief of the Navy, who would give away those commissions
which formed the stimulus, and should be the reward of honourable
merit, in exchange for borough interests? If I had the honour of being
returned for Westminster, I should feel confident in rising to arraign
such abuses. But in representing a rotten borough, I was under
restriction.”
This explanation was favourably received, and the result was, that on
the 10th of May I was at the head of the poll, whilst my detractors were
at the bottom; Sir Francis Burdett being third, and Mr. Sheridan
fourth,—a circumstance which called forth from the latter gentleman one
of those diatribes for which he had become famous.
To this I replied as follows:—
“I perfectly approved of the sentiments professed by the right
honourable gentleman, that ‘with respect to his own principles, he
would prefer the approbation of his country before the favour of any
administration, or other set of men.’ It had, however, been said, that
naval officers were unfit for representatives of the people in
parliament. But how were abuses in the Navy to be pointed out or
redressed by parliament, without the presence of men competent to
point them out, give accurate information, and suggest remedies?
“For six years past, such abuses had prevailed as were paralysing the
Navy. It was not the place to enter into details, but a few of the
more prominent points might be mentioned. Under what was called the
system of economy, adopted in the fleet, ships were kept at sea month
after month, and in such a crazy state of repair, as scarcely to be in
a condition to float. The system was, that when such vessels came into
harbour for repair, the Admiralty artificers were sent on board to
examine them. These men were afraid to tell the truth, if they
considered it unpalatable to their employers, lest they should lose
their places. They therefore reported, that such ships would do awhile
longer, with some slight repairs.
“The vessels received those repairs, without coming into dock, and
were sent to sea, where they were wrecked or foundered! This was the
case with the _Atalante_, ship of war, which was four months off
Rochefort last winter. I was ordered to victual that ship for a long
voyage, and remonstrated—declaring my opinion that she was unfit to go
to sea, and that, if she were sent, the first intelligence from her
would be, that she had foundered. The result was exactly as I had
foretold. In spite of remonstrance, she was sent to sea, and ship,
crew, and all went to the bottom (loud laughter). It was no laughing
matter. Like the fable of the frogs, it might be fun to some, though
anything but fun for brave men, whose lives were so valuable to their
families and their country. A similar fate attended the _Felix_
schooner, which was compelled to proceed to sea in a like condition,
and went down with officers and crew, of whom one man only was saved.
“Another point might be mentioned. What could be said of a man at the
head of the Navy, who would lavishly grant away, in exchange for
rotten borough interests, naval commissions which ought to be the
reward of those brave officers who had for years devoted their lives
at every hazard in the service of their country? Yet it was notorious
such things were done.
“It had been asserted, that naval and military officers were
ineligible to seats in parliament, because they might at any time be
called away by their professional duty. But such men might—and often
did—effect more for their country in a few days—sometimes in a few
hours—than half those gentlemen who continued for seven years, sitting
on their cushions in the House of Commons, without speaking a word for
the public good,—nay, very often voting against it (laughter and
applause).
“With regard to reform, it would be my wish to bring back the
constitution to its ancient purity—to exclude altogether from
parliament those placemen and pensioners who, by ancient laws, were
excluded from it, but whom modern practice had deemed it expedient to
place in the Legislature. What had the Committee of Reform done—of
whose labours and intentions so much had been said? When the
dissolution came, they were found sitting where they began their task,
without having effected anything whatever.”
At the final close of the poll, Sir Francis Burdett and myself, being at
the head, were declared elected, and I had the honour of representing a
body of constituents whose subsequent support, under the most trying
events of my life, forms one of my most gratifying recollections. I must
also record it, to the honour of my Westminster friends, that during my
long connection with them, no elector ever asked me to procure for
himself or relatives a place under Government, whilst the multitude of
applications for place from my late constituents formed, as has been
said, a source of intolerable annoyance.
This election was remarkable as being the first in which public opinion
firmly opposed itself to party faction. It had become unmistakeably
manifest that the two great factions into which politicians were divided
had no other object than to share in the general plunder, and, as a
first step to this, to embarrass the government of the “_ins_” by the
factious opposition of the “_outs_.” Indeed, so obvious had this become,
that the appellations of Whig and Tory were laid aside by common
consent, and the more descriptive names of “_outs_” and “_ins_”
substituted in their stead. My election had no doubt been secured by the
emphatic declaration, that I would belong to neither party, supporting
or opposing either as in my judgment might seem conducive to the
national good.
The animosity of these respective parties against each other was
favourable to such a course. Each accused the other of grasping at
offices for the sake of personal or dependent advantage, and averred
that the aim of their opponents was neither the administration of
government—which, as has been seen, was left to administer itself in its
own way—nor the good of the country, but the possession and distribution
of the public money. So virulent did these mutual recriminations become,
that it cannot be wondered at if people took the disputants at their
word; the more so as the moment either party was in power they threw
aside the principles which had gained momentary ascendency, and devoted
their sole attention to their former practices, knowing that, as their
possession of office might be short, a tenure so uncertain must be made
the most of. Statesmanship amongst such people was out of the question.
Neither party could even foresee that the very disgust which their
scramble for office was exciting in the public mind, must one day
overthrow both factions.
It was at this very Westminster election that the patriotism of the
electors made itself felt throughout the length and breadth of the land,
and laid the foundation of that reform which has been obtained by the
present generation. To the error which had been committed both factions
became speedily alive, and each in turn persecuted the expression of
public opinion whenever opportunity offered. The press, as far as
possible, was gagged; public writers and speakers heavily fined, and
sentenced to lengthened imprisonment; and, where the rank or position of
the offender rendered this impracticable, both parties joined in the
most uncompromising hostility to him, as afterwards I had but too much
reason to know to my cost.
On the 24th of June, the electors of Westminster insisted on carrying
Sir Francis Burdett from his house in Piccadilly to a magnificent
entertainment at the Crown and Anchor Tavern in the Strand. A triumphal
car was provided, which on its passage through immense crowds of
spectators was enthusiastically greeted, the illustrious occupant
reclining with his wounded leg on a cushion, whilst the other was placed
on a figure, inscribed with the words “VENALITY AND CORRUPTION,” which
were thus emblematically trampled under foot.
On the 26th the House was formally opened by the delivery of his
Majesty’s speech, through the instrumentality of commissioners, viz.
Lord Chancellor Eldon, and the Earls of Aylesford and Dartmouth. In the
course of the debate on the address, during which much party
recrimination took place, I excited great animosity by expressing a hope
that, “as each party charged the other with making jobs in order to
influence the elections, the conduct of both might in this respect be
inquired into, and that hence, some third party would arise, which would
stand aloof from selfish interests, and sinecure places, for that, as
parties were at present constituted, I would not support either unless
they were prepared to act on other principles than those by which them
present course appeared to be guided.”
On the 7th of July, pursuant to notice, I brought forward a motion to
the following effect:—
“That a committee be appointed to inquire into, and report upon, to
this House, an account of all offices, posts, places, sinecures,
pensions, situations, fees, perquisites, and emoluments of every
description, paid out of or arising from the public revenues, or fees
of any courts of law, equity, admiralty, ecclesiastical, or other
courts, held or enjoyed by, or in trust for, any member of this House,
his wife, or any of his descendants for him, or either of them, in
reversion of any present interest; with an account of the annual
amount of such, distinguishing whether the same arises from a certain
salary or from an average amount; that this inquiry extend to the
whole of his Majesty’s dominions, and that the said committee be
empowered to send for persons, papers, and records.”
My argument was. “that if this motion were granted, the result would
prove whether there was any possibility of making those _who had lived
on, and enriched themselves by the public money_, feel for the
extraordinary burthens under which the people laboured. The late plan of
finance proved that as much as could be exacted had been drawn from the
people, and that it was not possible to extract more—ingenuity having
exhausted itself in devising new sources of taxation; so that it was
necessary to satisfy the greed of dependents on the public purse by the
expedient of profligate advertisements, offering for sale the public
patronage, and even seats in a certain assembly. It was proper to show
the public that there was nothing in the character or habits of those
composing that House which they desired to conceal.”
There was nothing factious in this, but the fear of the Government was,
that were such a motion agreed to, the country would perceive that the
vast accumulation of the national debt did not arise so much from
warlike expenditure, defensive or aggressive, as from political
profligacy. The motion was, therefore, opposed by one of the leading
members of the House, on the ground that it was invidious and improper
_to convey to the public an insinuation that members of parliament were
influenced by considerations of private advantage for themselves or
their dependents; and that it was most essential, at this critical
period, the character of the House of Commons should not be degraded or
depreciated_.
In this view both factions joined _con amore_, for the question as to
which it was aimed at was only that of being _in or out of office_. That
there was any chance of such a motion being passed was not expected by
any one, and least of all by myself; but the predicament in which it had
placed the House was that of either assenting to the correctness of its
principle, or of asserting boldly that there were no grounds for the
inquiry. The latter course was too high to be taken with safety.
Mr. Whitbread, a most excellent man, and a great peacemaker when
practicable, came to the rescue, by stating that though he concurred in
principle with my motion, yet it might be sufficient to refer it to a
committee of finance, with instructions to inquire into and report upon
the matters therein contained. Such a course would be useful without
being invidious, and a report based upon such alteration would probably
be attended with beneficial results.
Mr. Perceval caught at the alternative thus presented, and immediately
proposed that the motion should be thus altered:—
“That there should be an instruction to the committee of public
expenditure, to procure a list of all places, pensions, &c.,
specifying by whom they were held, with the exception of those
belonging to the Army _and Navy_, and officers _below 200l. a year in
the revenue_, and that they should cause this list to be laid on the
table.”
To this compromise I demurred, stating that “my motive had not been made
in expectation of pecuniary saving, but because a general feeling
existed in the country regarding _the corruption of the House of
Commons! It was notorious that commissions in the Army and Navy had been
given for votes in that House_, and to such an extent was the system
carried, that the best way to preferment was considered to be by the
purchase of a house or two in usually contested boroughs. I could not
accept as a substitute for my motion an alphabetical list of pensions
and places, though it would be an object of great curiosity, and though
many might be ashamed of holding such offices if their names were
exposed to public view. On these grounds I would press my motion to a
division,”—which was carried against me by a majority of 29.
Mr. Perceval then moved his amendment, which elicited from Mr. Whitbread
a declaration, that “it was unquestionably Lord Cochrane’s meaning that
there should be exhibited, during the present session of parliament, a
list of _all_ the members of that House holding sinecure offices,
places, &c., under Government, and _in that way liable to have their
conduct influenced. If such a return were not made, the House would
disgrace itself._ Those who at present respected the House would suspect
that all was not right; whilst those who already suspected it would have
their suspicions confirmed.”
Mr. Sheridan also pronounced Mr. Perceval’s amendment “to be nothing but
an evasion of my motion, intended to overwhelm the inquiry, and thus to
suffocate the object Lord Cochrane had in view.” The House, however, was
not inclined to publish its own shame, and Mr Perceval’s amendment was
carried by a large majority. So far as the production of the general
pension list was concerned, my first essay in the House was thus a
success.
The ill-feeling, however, engendered towards myself amongst men of both
parties, the greater portion of whom were either implicated in, or
recipients of, the corruption denounced by a few servants of the crown,
cannot at the present day be conveyed to the imagination of the reader.
To appreciate it he must have been conversant with such matters fifty
years ago, and have witnessed the first onslaught made upon them from a
quarter so unexpected.
On the 10th of July, I brought forward a motion on naval abuses. As in
the present day any discussion of a matter so remote would be tedious,
it will suffice for the continuation of the narrative to transcribe from
the pages of Hansard all that need be said on the subject.
“LORD COCHRANE rose and said,—‘Sir,—A wish to avert part of the
impending dangers of my country has made me resolve to move for
certain papers relative to the Naval Service, not with a retrospective
view to blame individuals, but that unnecessary hardships may cease to
exist. I am willing to believe that members of this House, whose
talents are capable to do justice to the cause, are ignorant of
circumstances which for years have embittered the lives of seamen
employed in His Majesty’s Service; and that as to the gentlemen of the
naval profession who have seats here, I suppose that the diffidence
occasioned by the awe which this House at first inspires, has
prevented them from performing this important duty.
“‘I shall be as brief as possible, but as the nature of some of the
papers for which I am about to move is unknown to many members of this
House, it will be necessary that I should give some explanation. The
first motion is, “That there be laid before this House copies of all
letters or representations made by Commanders of H.M.’s sloop
_Atalante_ and schooner _Felix_, addressed to Captain Keats
(commanding off Rochefort), respecting the state and condition of
those vessels, and the sick therein.”