Chapter I: My Boyhood, and Entrance Into the Navy (6)

“I remember that on the 14th, the morning in question, the
_Kingfisher_ being off the Chaperon Lighthouse, within which I had
directions from Admiral Thornborough not to go, in consequence of
his having thought I had risked the _Kingfisher_ two days before
by too near an approach to the French squadron—that the _Pallas_
passed in towards Basque Roads (as I supposed, to reconnoitre the
enemy), and when I saw you exchanging shots with the enemy’s guard
frigate, I had no idea you would have attempted to carry her when
so near the squadron.

“The moment, however, I saw that you had run on board the
_Minerve_, and that, on separating, you had lost your foretopmast
and topsailyards, I immediately stood in to assist you, and as we
had a leading wind, and the distance from the Pertuis d’Antioche
not being, I think, above six miles, I have a clear recollection
that within the hour, we gave you the end of a hawser.

“Perhaps I may be able to recall to your recollection that when we
took you in tow, the wind had drawn more westerly, and that we
could not weather Isle Rhe on the port tack, so were obliged to go
about and stand towards the two fresh French frigates and brigs
which were standing towards us. On our approach they backed their
maintopsails, when they might have brought the _Pallas_ and
_Kingfisher_ to action. You then desired me to go round, and we
fetched out on the port tack, the French offering no molestation,
although their squadron was apparently ready for sea.

“In going into this old story, I may add that I have already seen
that there can be no disposition to undervalue the assistance I
afforded you in 1806, when you so handsomely acknowledge that
which I desired to afford you on another occasion in 1809.[34]

“Yours very faithfully, G. SEYMOUR.”

Footnote 34:

In Aix Roads. See page 392.

-----

On the 17th, being still ignorant of the name of the frigate we had
engaged, we landed some French prisoners under a flag of truce, and
thus learned that she was the 40-gun frigate _La Minerve_. The brigs
were ascertained to be the _Lynx_, _Sylphe_, and _Palinure_, each
carrying 16 guns.

On the 18th, the _Pallas_ was ordered to Plymouth in charge of a
convoy of transports, and arrived on the 27th without any other
occurrence worthy of notice.

A device practised by us when, at various times, running close in to
the French shore, must not be omitted. A number of printed
proclamations, addressed to the French people, had been put on
board, with instructions to embrace every opportunity of getting
them distributed. The opportunities for this were, of course, few,
being chiefly confined to the crews of boats or small fishing craft,
who would scarcely have ventured on their distribution, had the
proclamation been entrusted to them.

The device resorted to was the construction of small kites, to which
a number of proclamations were attached. To the string which held
the kite, a match was appended in such a way, that when the kite was
flown over the land, the retaining string became burned through, and
dispersed the proclamations, which, to the great annoyance of the
French government, thus became widely distributed over the country.

CHAP. XII.

MY ENTRANCE INTO PARLIAMENT.

MY ENTRANCE INTO PARLIAMENT.—ENTHUSIASTIC RECEPTION.—SEEK PROMOTION FOR
HASWELL.—CUTTING OUT LE CÆSAR.—GROSS INSTANCE OF PARTIALITY.—CLARET
AGAINST SMALL BEER.—STORY OF MR. CROKER.—MR. CROKER’S
REVENGE.—COMMAND THE IMPÉRIEUSE.—DRIFT TOWARDS USHANT.—JOIN THE
SQUADRON IN THE BASQUE ROADS.—ANCHOR OFF CORDOVAN.—SUPPLY THE
ATALANTE.

On the termination of the cruise, the _Pallas_ was thoroughly refitted, the interval thus occupied affording me time for relaxation, but nothing occurred worthy of record till, in the July following, the electors of Honiton chose me as their representative in parliament.

The story of this election is worth relating. My former discomfiture at Honiton, and the ten guineas a head paid to those who had voted for me on the previous occasion, will be fresh in the recollection of the reader. A general election being at hand, no time was lost in proceeding to Honiton, where considerable sensation was created by my entrance into the town in a _vis-à-vis_ and six, followed by several carriages and four filled with officers and seamen of the _Pallas_, who volunteered to accompany me on the occasion.

Our reception by the townspeople was enthusiastic, the more so, perhaps, from the general belief that my capture of the Spanish galleons—as they were termed—had endowed me with untold wealth; whilst an equally fabulous amount was believed to have resulted from our recent cruise, during which my supporters would have been not a little surprised to learn that neither myself, officers, nor crew, had gained anything but a quantity of wine, which nobody would buy; whilst for the destruction of three French corvettes we never received a shilling!

Aware of my previous objection to bribery, not a word was asked by my partisans as to the price expected in exchange for their suffrages. It was enough that my former friends had received ten guineas each after my defeat, and it was judged best to leave the cost of success to my discretion.

My return was triumphant, and this effected, it was then plainly asked, what _ex post facto_ consideration was to be expected by those who had supported me in so delicate a manner.

“Not one farthing!” was the reply.

“But, my Lord, you gave ten guineas a head to the minority at the last election, and the majority have been calculating on something handsome on the present occasion.”

“No doubt. The former gift was for their disinterested conduct in not taking the bribe of five pounds from the agents of my opponent. For me now to pay them would be a violation of my own previously expressed principles.”

Finding nothing could be got from me in the way of money payment for their support, it was put to my generosity whether I would not, at least, give my constituents a public supper.

“By all means,” was my reply, “and it will give me great satisfaction to know that so rational a display of patriotism has superseded a system of bribery, which reflects even less credit on the donor than the recipients.”

Alas! for the vanity of good intentions. The permission thus given was converted into a public treat; not only for my partisans, but for my opponents, their wives, children, and friends; in short, for the whole town! The result showed itself in a bill _for some twelve hundred pounds_! which I refused to pay, but was eventually compelled to liquidate, in a way which will form a very curious episode hereafter.

One of my first steps, subsequent to the election, was to apply to the Admiralty for the promotion of my first lieutenant, Haswell, who had so gallantly cut out the _Tapageuse_ from the Bordeaux river; and also for that of poor Parker, whose case has been notified in connection with the _Speedy_, though it was not till after my becoming a member of the House of Commons that he was promoted after the fashion previously narrated.

It is unnecessary to recapitulate the services of these gallant officers, further than to state briefly, that on the 6th of April, 1806, Lieutenant Haswell, with the boats of the _Pallas_ alone, acting under my orders, cut out the French guardship, _La Tapageuse_, from the river Garonne, and brought off his prize, in the face of heavy batteries, and despite the endeavours of two vessels of war—each of equal force to the captured corvette. For this service Lieutenant Haswell remained unpromoted.

On the 15th of July, in the same year, the boats of Sir Samuel Hood’s squadron, under the orders of Lieutenant Sibley, performed the somewhat similar, though certainly not superior exploit, of cutting out _Le Cæsar_, of 16 guns and 86 men, from the same anchorage. Within three weeks after the performance of this service, Lieutenant Sibley was _promoted to the rank of commander_, and so palpable an instance of favouritism determined me to urge afresh the neglected claims of both Parker and Haswell.

My renewed application being met with evasion in the case of both officers, I plainly intimated to the Admiralty authorities that it would be my duty to bring before the House of Commons a partiality so detrimental to the interests of the navy. The threat produced what justice refused to concede, and these deserving officers were both made Commanders on the 15th of August, 1806; Parker, for a service performed upwards of five years before, and Haswell for one four months previously. Notwithstanding this lapse of time, Haswell’s promotion was dated _eleven days after_ that of Lieutenant Sibley! though the former officer had effected with the boats of a small frigate, and against _three_ ships of war, as much as Lieutenant Sibley had accomplished against _only one_, though with the boats of a whole squadron! viz. the boats of the _Centaur_, _Conqueror_, _Revenge_, _Achilles_, _Prince of Wales_, _Polyphemus_, _Monarch_, _Iris_, and _Indefatigable_. Lieut. Sibley’s exploit with this overwhelming force had a medal awarded, and appears in the Navy List to this day; Lieut. Haswell’s capture of the _Tapageuse_ under my directions was unnoticed in any way.

The fact is, that neither of my highly meritorious officers would have been promoted, but that, after Lieutenant Sibley’s promotion for a less distinguished service, it was impossible to evade their claims if brought under the notice of the legislature; and it was only by this threatened exposure of such palpable injustice that the promotion of either officer was obtained.

Another gross instance of partiality in the course pursued by the Admiralty towards my officers and crews, consisted in the refusal to purchase the _Tapageuse_ into the navy; though the _Cæsar_—prize to Sir Samuel Hood’s squadron—was so purchased. For the four vessels of war, viz. the _Tapageuse_, 14 guns; the _Malicieuse_, 18 guns; the _Garonne_, 22; and the _Gloire_, 24,—total, 78 guns, driven on shore by the _Pallas_, in one day, no remuneration was awarded: the pretence for withholding it being, that as there were no proceeds there could be no reward; whilst, as the enemy’s crews escaped, head money was denied, though the Act of Parliament conferring it, was expressly framed to meet such cases, the nonpayment practically deciding, that it was not worth a commander’s while to expose himself and ship in destroying enemy’s vessels! Supposing it to have been necessary to adhere stringently to the Admiralty regulation, the rule itself rendered it the more incumbent on the Board to give remuneration for the _Tapageuse_, by purchasing that vessel into the service, as was done to Lieutenant Sibley and his men in the case of the _Cæsar_. Such remuneration was, however, wholly withheld.[35]

-----

Footnote 35:

If a vessel were captured and destroyed, head money was awarded, as in
the case of the _Calcutta_, which surrendered to the _Impérieuse_ in
the subsequent affair of Basque Roads. It was sworn to by others that
she surrendered to the squadron; but that this was not the case is
proved by the French government having shot her captain for
surrendering _to me alone_; a sentence which was not likely to have
been passed had he surrendered to eight or ten ships. In this case
head money was awarded to Lord Gambier’s fleet, on which account I
declined to touch a shilling of it.

-----

Another curious circumstance connected with the _Pallas_ may be here mentioned. As the reader is aware, that ship—on her last cruise—had taken a number of chasse-marées, some of which were laden with the finest vintages of the south of France. Independently of the wine gratuitously supplied by the _Pallas_ to the squadron of Admiral Thornborough, a large quantity of the finest had been reserved to be sold for the benefit of the captors; so much, in fact, that in an easily glutted market, like that of Plymouth, it was not saleable for anything beyond the duty.

An offer was made to the Victualling Board to accept, for our claret, the price of the villanous small beer then served out to ships’ companies, so that Jack might have a treat without additional expense to the nation. The offer was unwisely refused, despite the benefit to the health of the men.

As customs officers were placed on board the prize-vessels containing the wine, considerable expense was incurred. We therefore found it imperative that something should be done with it, and as the Victualling Board refused to take it, there was no alternative but to knock out the bungs of the casks, and empty the wine overboard.

My agent had, however, orders to pay duty on two pipes, and to forward them, on my account, to my uncle the Honourable Basil Cochrane, who had kindly offered to stow them in his cellars in Portman Square. Knowing the quality of the wine, the agent took upon himself to forward seven pipes instead of two, and on these duty was paid. As it was impossible to consume such a quantity, the whole was bottled, in order to await opportunity for its disposal.

On this wine hangs a curious story. My residence in town was in Old Palace Yard, and one of my constant visitors was the late Mr. Croker, of the Admiralty, then on the look-out for political employment. This gentleman had an invitation to my table as often as he might think proper, and of this—from a similarity of taste and habit, as I was willing to believe—he so far availed himself as to become my daily guest; receiving a cordial reception, from friendship towards a person of ardent mind, who had to struggle as I had done to gain a position.

Croker was one day dining with me, when some of the _Pallas_ wine was placed on the table. Expressing his admiration of my “superb claret,” for such it really was, notwithstanding that the Victualling Board had rejected wine of a similar quality for the use of seamen, though offered at the price of small beer, he asked me to let him have some of it. The reply was, that he should have as much as he pleased, at the cost of duty and bottling, taking the wine as I had done from the French, for nothing: jocosely remarking, that the claret would be all the better for coming from a friend instead of an enemy, he stated his intention to avail himself of my offer.

Shortly after this incident, Croker, who had previously been in parliament, was appointed secretary to the Admiralty, and from that day forward he never presented himself at my apartments; nor did I, by any chance, meet him till some time afterwards, we encountered each other, by accident, near Whitehall.

Recognising me in a way meant to convey the idea, that as he was now my master, our relations were slightly altered, I asked him why he had not sent for his wine? His reply was, “Why, really I have no use for it, my friends having supplied me more liberally than I have occasion for!” Well knowing the meaning of this, I made him a reply expressive of my appreciation of his conduct towards me personally, as well as of the wine sources from which he had been so liberally supplied. This, of course, was conclusive as to any future acquaintance, and we parted without one additional word.

This incident converted into a foe one who had been regarded by me in the spirit of sincere and disinterested friendship. He was, moreover, in a position to make his enmity felt, and when I was hunted down by that infamous trial which blasted at a blow my hopes and reputation, the weight of official vengeance was all the more keenly felt, as being the return of former hospitality.

In my previous attempts to call the attention of the House to naval abuses, Croker was my constant opponent; and as, in our days of friendship, I had unreservedly unbosomed to him my views and plans of action, he was in a condition to fight me with my own weapons, which thus became employed in continuance of the corrupt system at which they were aimed. If, at that period, there were any naval abuses requiring reformation, Mr. Croker was certainly the greatest stumbling-block to their removal, for no better reason than that plans for their remedy emanated from me, though in the days of our friendship, he had not only approved those plans, but even suggested others.

On the 23rd of August, 1806, I was appointed to the command of the _Impérieuse_ frigate, which was commissioned on the 2nd of September following, the crew of the _Pallas_ being turned over to her.

We left Plymouth on the 17th of November, but in a very unfit condition for sea.

The alacrity of the port authorities to obtain praise for despatching vessels to sea before they were in fit condition, was reprehensible. It was a point in those days for port admirals to hurry off ships, regardless of consequences, immediately after orders for their sailing were received; this “_despatch_,” as it was incorrectly termed, securing the commendation of the Admiralty, whom no officer dared to inform of the danger to which both ships and crews were thereby exposed.

The case of the _Impérieuse_ was very near proving the fallacy of the system. She was ordered to put to sea, the moment the rudder—which was being hung—would steer the ship. The order was of necessity obeyed. We were therefore compelled to leave port with a lighter full of provisions on one side, a second with ordnance stores on the other, and a third filled with gunpowder towing astern. We had not even opportunity to secure the guns; the quarter-deck cannonades were not shipped on their slides; and all was in the utmost confusion.

The result of this precipitation was—for it had no object—that as soon 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.”

“‘The object of this motion is to prove that vessels, under the
present system, are kept at sea in a dangerous state, and that the
lives of many officers and men are in constant peril. Lieutenant
Cameron, who commanded the _Felix_, and since lost in that vessel, was
one of the best and ablest officers I ever knew. He found it incumbent
on him to report that the _Felix_ ought to be sent into port to
repair. I shall read part of two letters from the surgeon, dated three
months before they all perished, and previous to Lieutenant Cameron’s
being appointed to command that vessel. The other dated eight days
before that melancholy event. On the 14th of November, he says,—“Our
noble commander has been very active in his endeavours to get
confirmed to this vessel, much more than I should be: she sails worse
and worse, and I think the chances are against our ever bringing her
into an English port.” On the 14th of January, 1807, the surgeon
says,—“Every endeavour has been put in force by Cameron and myself to
get her into port, but without success. He attacked the commodore with
most miserable epistles of distress throughout, and I attacked him
with a very formidable sick list, but all, my friend, would not do.”

“‘I may be told that there is danger in agitating such subjects; but
there can be none at any time in bringing to the knowledge of the
Legislature, for redress, that which is notorious to those who have a
right to claim it. No, Sir, let grievances be redressed in time, and
complaints will cease. When the _Impérieuse_, the ship I command, was
about to leave Rochefort, I was ordered to revictual the _Atalante_
for six weeks, though she had then been out eight months—a period
sufficient to ruin the health, break the energy, and weary the spirit
of all employed in such a vessel. The _Atalante_ was hauled alongside,
the commander and several officers came on board, and informed me of
the bad condition of their sloop. They said she was wholly unfit to
keep the sea, and that a gale of wind would cause her inevitable loss.
I think they said the fore-mast, and bowsprit, and fore-yard, were all
sprung; besides, the vessel made twenty inches of water per hour. I
thought it well to mention the circumstances, thus reported, to the
commanding officer off Rochefort—for I well knew that the minds of
subordinate officers ordered to survey were impressed with terror,
lest any vessel surveyed should not be found, on arriving in port,
quite so bad as represented. Their usual plan therefore is, to say
such a vessel can keep the sea a while longer—knowing that if any
accident occurs it will be ascribed to zeal for the good of His
Majesty’s service! So much impressed was I with the bad state of this
vessel, that I said to the builder of Plymouth-yard, in the presence
of Admiral Sutton, on my arrival there, that the first news we should
have from Rochefort, if there should happen to be a gale of wind,
would be the loss of the _Atalante_. Under the harassing system of
eight or nine months’ cruises, men get tired of their lives, and even
indifferent as to the choice between a French prison and their present
misery.

“‘The next document I propose to move for is—“An abstract of the
weekly accounts of H. M.’s ships and frigates employed off Brest and
Rochefort, from the 1st of March, 1806, until the 1st of March, 1807.”
From this the number of men employed, the number of sick, the time the
ships have been kept at sea, and the time they have been allowed in
harbour to refit the vessels and recruit the crews, will appear. The
_Plantagenet_, for instance, was eight months within four hours’ sail
of England. She was then forced, by stress of weather, into Falmouth,
where she remained twelve days wind-bound; but an order existed (which
I shall presently make the subject of a motion,) by which neither
officer nor man could stretch his legs on the gravel beach within
fifty yards of the ship! In order to show how little benefit has been
derived from supplies at sea, as a substitute for refreshment and
recreation which the crews were formerly suffered to enjoy, I shall
next move—“That there be laid before this House an account of the
quantity of fresh provisions, expressed in day’s allowance, received
at sea by each of H. M.’s ships off Rochefort and Brest, from the 1st
of March, 1806, to the 1st of March, 1807.” Formerly, when the four
months’ provisions were expended, the return of a ship to port was a
matter of course; but now they are victualled and revictualled at sea;
so that an East India voyage is performed with more refreshment than a
Channel cruise. Lime-juice is the substitute for fresh provisions, a
debilitating antidote to the scurvy—unfit to re-establish the strength
of the body impaired by the constant use of salt provisions.

“‘The next motion (which I shall propose) is—“That there be laid
before this House all orders issued and acted on between the 1st of
March, 1806, and March, 1807, respecting leave to be granted or
withheld from officers or men, distinguishing who was
Commander-in-chief at the times of issuing such orders.” It is a hard
case that in harbour neither officer nor men shall be permitted to go
on shore; these orders I do not hesitate to condemn; and the injustice
appears the more striking, when it is remembered that the
Commander-in-chief resided in London, enjoying not only the salary of
his office, but claiming the emolument of prize-money gained by the
toil of those in active service. I shall not be surprised to find the
office of Commander-in-chief bestowed on some favourite as a sinecure
by some future minister.

“‘With respect to the sick, I feel it necessary to say a few words,
but I shall first read my motion on that subject—“That there be laid
before this House all orders issued and acted on between the 1st of
March, 1805, and the 1st of March, 1807, by, or by the authority of
the Commander-in-chief of H.M.’s ships and vessels in the Channel,
allowing or restraining commanding officers from sending men to the
naval hospitals, or restricting their admission to such hospitals.” In
consequence of regulations established in these institutions, men are
frequently refused admittance. No man, whatever may be his state of
health, can be sent to an hospital from any of the ships in the
Channel fleet, unless previously examined by the surgeon of the
Commander-in-chief. Deaths, amputations, and total loss of health,
were the consequences of the impossibility of this officer going from
ship to ship, in bad weather, when opportunity offered to convey the
sick to port. So pertinaciously were such regulations adhered to, that
although I sent a sick lieutenant and a man ruptured to the hospital,
they were not admitted. The disease of the one (who was under
salivation) was declared to be contrary to the order regulating
admission, and he was returned through sleet and rain: the other was
refused because everything _possible_ had not been done to reduce the
rupture, as he had not been hung up by the heels, in a rolling sea,
which might have proved his death!

“‘The system of naval hospitals is thoroughly bad. Mistaken economy
has even reduced the quantity of lint for the purpose of dressing
wounds. To the ships there is not half enough allowed. Unworthy
savings have been unworthily made, endangering the lives of officers
and seamen. Indeed the grievances of the Navy have been, and are so
severe, through rigour and mistaken economy, that I can see nothing
more meritorious than the patience with which these grievances have
been endured.’

“Sir Samuel Hood, Admiral Harvey, Admiral Markham, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, Mr. Windham, and others, spoke against the motion.

“Lord Cochrane rose _in reply_, and said, ‘I disclaim, Sir, any motive
whatever, except a regard for the real interests of my country, though
I confess that I cannot help feeling in common with others the
treatment received. Improper motives have been imputed to me, and I
might reply to one of those gentlemen who has denied facts which I can
prove, that he was one of those who established this abominable
system. What his abilities may be, in matters not connected with the
naval service, I know not; but it is a known fact that his noble
patron, the Earl of St. Vincent, sent the master of the _Ville de
Paris_ to put his ship in some tolerable order. (Here there was a cry
of order, order, from Admiral Harvey and others.)

“‘With respect to the assertion made by the same gentleman, that the
health of the men is increased by long cruises at sea, and that of the
Commander-in-chief is improved by being on shore, he may reconcile
that if he can. I shall not follow the example of imputing improper
motives (looking at Captain Sir Samuel Hood); but another complaint
is, that under this obnoxious system of favouritism, captains have
been appointed to large commands of six and seven sail of the line, as
many frigates and as many sloops of war, the right of admirals who
have served, and can serve their country, and who have bled in its
cause. But perhaps, for such times, their ranks did not afford a
prospect of their being sufficiently subservient.

“‘This House, I believe, need not be told that from this cause there
are admirals of ability who have lingered in neglect. (A cry of order,
order, from Admiral Harvey and others.) Sir, two parts of the
statement of the Honourable Knight are especially worthy of notice, so
far as they were meant as a reply to my statement. He said he had an
hundred men killed and wounded in his ship, and no complaint, no
inconvenience arose from want of lint, or anything else. First, this
occurred when surgeons supplied their own necessaries, and next, the
wounded men were sent on the day following to Gibraltar Hospital.