Chapter XXIV: A Naval Study for All Time (13)

“MARY TURPIN, cook-maid to Lord Cochrane, maketh oath and saith, that
she went into his Lordship’s service on the 18th day of February last,
and that she was in the house on the 21st day of February, when an
officer came there, and that she was in the kitchen at the time the
coach drove to the door; that she saw an officer alight from the coach
and come into the house; that he arrived a little before nine o’clock;
that this deponent went twice into the parlour while the officer was
there, and doth most positively swear, _that he wore a great grey
coat, buttoned up, with a dark-green collar or facing under it_. That
the officer had with him a dark military cap with a gold band round
it, and also a sword, and a small portmanteau.

“MARY TURPIN.

“Sworn in Court, June 14th,
“1814. By the Court.”

“SARAH BUST, of No. 4, Great Marylebone Street, in the county of
Middlesex, spinster, maketh oath and saith, that she lived a servant
to Lord Cochrane for nearly twelve months, and that she quitted his
service on the evening of the 21st of February last; that she well
remembers an officer coming to his Lordship’s house in Green Street,
on the morning of that day; that the officer sent the man-servant out;
that the officer _had on a grey great coat, which was buttoned up to
the breast_, and that the neck of his under coat or such part as she
could see, was a _dark green_, and he had also with him a military
cap.

“SARAH BUST.

“Sworn at my Chambers,
“June 13th, 1814. Before me,
“S. LE BLANC.”

To this I will append my second affidavit:—

“Sir THOMAS COCHRANE, commonly called Lord Cochrane, one of the
above-named defendants, maketh oath and saith, that the several facts
and circumstances stated in his affidavit, sworn on the 11th day of
March last, before Mr. Graham the Magistrate, are true. And this
deponent further saith, that in addition to the several facts and
circumstances stated in his said affidavit, he deposeth as follows;
that is to say: That he had not, directly or indirectly, any concern
whatever in the formation, or any knowledge of the existence, of an
intention to form the plot charged in the indictment, or any other
scheme or design for affecting the public funds. That the sale of the
pretended omnium, on the 21st day of February, was made in pursuance
of orders given to his broker at the time of the purchase thereof, on
or about the 14th of that month, to sell the same whenever a profit of
one per cent. could be realised: and that those directions were given,
and the sale thereof took place, without any knowledge, information,
hint, or surmise, on the part of this deponent, of any concern or
attempt whatever, to alter the price of the funds; and the said sale
on the 21st took place entirely without this deponent’s knowledge.
That when this deponent returned home from Mr. King’s manufactory on
the 21st of February, which he did directly after the receipt of a
note, he fully expected to have met an officer from abroad, with
intelligence of his brother, who had, by letter to this deponent,
received on the Friday before, communicated his being confined to his
bed, and severely afflicted by a dangerous illness, and about whom
this deponent was extremely anxious; but this deponent found Capt. De
Berenger at his house, in a _grey_ great coat, and a _green_ jacket.
That this deponent never saw the defendants Ralph Sandom, Alex. M’Rae,
John Peter Holloway, and Henry Lyte, or any or either of them, nor
ever had any communication or correspondence with them, or any or
either of them, directly or indirectly. That this deponent, in
pursuance of directions from the Admiralty, proceeded to Chatham, to
join His Majesty’s ship the _Tonnant_, to which he had been appointed
on the 8th day of February last. That the ship was then lying at
Chatham. That, previous to the 8th day of February, this deponent
applied to the Admiralty for leave of absence, which was refused,
until this deponent had joined the said ship, and had removed her down
to Long Reach; that this deponent, in pursuance of those directions,
removed the said ship from Chatham to Long Reach, and after that was
done, viz. on Saturday the 12th day of the said month, this deponent
wrote to the Admiralty to apply for leave of absence for a fortnight,
for the purpose of lodging a specification for a patent, as had been
previously communicated by this deponent to their Lordships; that
leave of absence was accordingly granted for fourteen days, commencing
on the 14th of the said month; that this deponent was engaged in
London, expecting the said specification, till the 28th of the said
month, when the said specification was completed, and this deponent
left town about one o’clock on the morning of the 1st of March, and
arrived at Chatham about daylight on the same morning: that on the 8th
or 9th of the same month of March, this deponent received an
intimation that placards were posted in several of the streets,
stating that a pretended Colonel De Bourg had gone to this deponent’s
house in Green Street; that at the time this deponent received this
intimation, he was on board the said ship at Long Reach, and in
consequence went to Admiral Surridge, the Port Admiral at Chatham, to
obtain leave of absence, which was granted; previous to the receipt of
the leave forwarded by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, this
deponent arrived in London, on the 10th of that month, to the best of
his belief; and that after his trial, he himself, conscious of his own
innocence, and fearing no consequences from a development of his own
conduct, and desiring only to rescue his character from erroneous
impressions, made by misrepresentations in the public prints, he,
without any communication whatever with any other person, and without
any assistance, on the impulse of the moment, prepared the
before-mentioned affidavit, which he swore before Mr. Graham, the
Magistrate, on the 11th; that at the time he made such affidavit, he
had not seen or heard the contents of the Report published by the
Committee of the Stock Exchange, except partial extracts in the
newspapers; that when the deponent understood that the prosecution was
to be instituted against him, he wrote to Admiral Fleming, in whose
service Isaac Davis, formerly this deponent’s servant, then was, under
cover to Admiral Bickerton, at Portsmouth, and that Admiral Bickerton
returned the letter, saying that Admiral Fleming had sailed for
Gibraltar; that this deponent sent his servants, Thomas Dewman, Sarah
Bust, and Mary Turpin, on the trial of his indictment, to prove that
an officer came to this deponent’s house on the morning of the said
21st of February, and to prove the dress that he came in; but that the
said Thomas Dewman only was called, and, as this deponent has been
informed, he was not interrogated as to the dress in which the said
officer came to his house; and this deponent further saith, that had
the said witnesses been examined according to the directions of this
deponent, and who were in attendance on the Court for that express
purpose, they would, as he verily believes, have removed every
unfavourable conclusion respecting this deponent’s conduct, drawn from
the supposed dress in which the said De Berenger appeared before the
deponent on the 21st of February, and on which circumstances much
stress was laid in the charge to the jury, the said De Berenger’s
dress being exactly as stated in this said deponent’s former affidavit
hereinbefore mentioned: and this deponent solemnly and positively
denies, that he ever saw the said De Berenger in a scarlet uniform,
decorated by medals, or other insignia; and he had not the least
suspicion of the said De Berenger being engaged in any plot respecting
the funds, but merely believed he wished, for the reasons stated in
deponent’s former affidavit, to go on board this deponent’s ship, with
a view to obtain some military employment in America; and this
deponent declined complying with his request to send him on board his
ship without permission, or an order from the Admiralty: and this
deponent further saith, that he was in no degree intimate with the
said De Berenger; that he had no personal knowledge of his private or
public character; that he never asked the said De Berenger to his
house, nor did he ever breakfast or dine with this deponent therein,
on any occasion whatsoever; and further, this deponent saith, that he
had been informed, and verily believes, that the jury who tried the
said indictment, and the counsel for the defence, were so completely
exhausted and worn out by extreme fatigue, owing to the Court having
continued the trial without intermission for many hours beyond that
time which nature is capable of sustaining herself without refection
and repose, that justice could not be done to this deponent.”

“COCHRANE.

“Sworn in Court, June 14, 1814.
By the Court.”

With such documents in my hand I was refused a new trial, for reasons hereafter to be adduced. Of the vindictiveness with which I was pursued, there can be no better proof than that the other parties convicted on clear evidence were let off with imprisonment and half the fine inflicted on myself and Mr. Butt; whilst we, who had nothing to do with the matter, were fined 1,000_l._ and in addition sentenced to the barbarous punishment of the pillory. I advisedly say “we,” for I will here put on record my conscientious belief that Mr. Butt had no more to do with the hoax than myself. I give this testimony to the memory of a truly excellent man, whose misfortune it was to have become the dupe of others, without the least hope of benefit to himself.

It is impossible in an autobiography like the present to go into the entire case _seriatim_, as it would be easy to bring forward other proofs as clear as those now adduced. The evidence of Crane was, however, the important point. I have now laid before the reader the documents which the Court of King’s Bench declined to entertain, and have no doubt as to what his decision must be. Whether was it the more probable, that a man in my position, with nothing to gain by it, should, in order to commit a fraud, conspire with several other persons of whose names he had never before heard, and then swear that I did not commit it—or, that such a man as Crane, at the moment of giving his evidence, himself under conviction and sentence for a heinous offence, should swear falsely to the colour of a coat for a pecuniary reward? I, to whom the public voice, and the rewards of my sovereign, had elevated to an honourable rank in my profession, or a hackney coachman, under conviction at the moment of giving his evidence, and known in his own line of life to have been the most depraved of one of the most depraved classes of society?

My conviction was followed by expulsion from the House of Commons, and was voted by a majority of 140 to 44. But that in a House like the one with which the reader is now well acquainted, _forty-four_ independent gentlemen should be found to believe in my innocence, in the teeth of the ministers of the day, of whom Lord Ellenborough was one, the same ministry being, as personified in Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Croker, is perhaps as good proof of innocence as could be desired,—certainly as great as could be expected.

It is with no small pride that I publish the names of the minority. There are those amongst them whose testimony will weigh with posterity:—

“LIST OF THE MINORITY

WHO VOTED AGAINST THE EXPULSION OF LORD COCHRANE.

Allan, G. Atherley, A. Barham, S. Bennet, Hon. H. Brand, Hon. T. Brown, D. Brydges, Sir E. Burdett, Sir F. Burrel, Hon. P. Butterworth, Jos. Challoner, R. Ebrington, Visc. Flood, Sir F. Gaskell, B. Grant, Ch., sen. Grant, J.P.

Hughes, W. Lambton, J. Lloyd, H. Macginnis, — Maddox, Wm. Martin, J. Mildmay, Sir H. Mills, Rt. Montgomery, Sir H. Moore, P. Newman, Rt. Nugent, Lord. Ossulston, Lord. Ponsonby, Rt. Hon. G. Power, R.

Rancliff, Lord. Rashleigh, Wm. Richards, Rt. Ridley, Sir M. Russell, Lord Wm. Simpson, G. Smith, W. Tavistock, Marq. of Western, C. Whitbread, S. Williams, Sir R. Wortley, J.

TELLERS.

Lord A. Hamilton. A. Brown.”

------------------------------------

CHAP. XL.

REMARKS ON LORD ELLENBOROUGH’S DIRECTIONS.—PROOFS OF THIS FALLACY.—HIS
ASSUMPTION OF THINGS NOT IN EVIDENCE, AND UNWARRANTABLE
CONJECTURES, IN POSITIVE OPPOSITION TO EVIDENCE.—HIS DESIRE TO
CONVICT OBNOXIOUS PERSONS.—LEIGH HUNT, DR. WATSON, AND HONE.—LORD
ELLENBOROUGH A CABINET MINISTER AT THE TIME OF MY TRIAL.—MY
CONVICTION A MINISTERIAL NECESSITY.—VAIN ATTEMPTS TO GET MY CASE
REHEARD.—LETTER TO LORD EBRINGTON.—THE IMPROBABILITY OF MY
GUILT.—ABSURDITY OF SUCH IMPUTATION.—LETTER OF SIR ROBERT
WILSON.—LETTER OF THE LATE DUKE OF HAMILTON.—MR. HUME’S
LETTER.—CAUSES FOR MY PERSECUTION.—TREATMENT OF THE PRINCESS
CHARLOTTE, WHO FLED TO HER MOTHER’S PROTECTION.—SYMPATHY OF THE
PRINCESS FOR MY TREATMENT—MY POPULARITY INCREASED THEREBY.— MINE
REALLY A STATE PROSECUTION.—RESTORATION OF SIR ROBERT WILSON.—MY
RESTORATION INCOMPLETE TO THIS DAY.

If such evidence as has been exposed in the last chapter was unreliable, the use made of it by the Bench was unjustifiable. Crane deposed to De Berenger’s having with him “a portmanteau big enough to wrap a coat in.” The person of whom the coat was bought deposed to his taking it away in this portmanteau, yet the judge—despite the obvious consideration, that De Berenger could not have gone to Dover in this splendid and ornamented dress, but must have had some other dress for his journey—charged the jury that “it did not appear that De Berenger _had the means of shifting himself_!” He had the means of putting on the red coat at or near Dover, and what doubt could there be that his portmanteau supplied the means of again shifting it after his return? The evidence on the trial showed that shortly before reaching London he _drew down_ the sun-blinds of the chaise, when there can be no reasonable doubt that he changed it for the green one in which he went to Dover, and which had been temporarily placed in the portmanteau. Crane, as has been shown by his own words, gave his evidence _under the expectation of reward_, and had no doubt been instructed that a _red coat was the very thing wanted_.

On the evidence of this man Crane, the jury was further charged that De Berenger not only entered my house in a red uniform, but that it was also decorated _with a star and medal_! There was nothing in the testimony of Crane or the waterman, which even related to a star and medal. They never gave the slightest intimation of De Berenger’s wearing any such ornaments; but as he appeared to have worn some ornaments of the kind at Dover, this is _prima facie_ proof that he _had changed_ his coat on his return, otherwise both Crane and the waterman must have seen ornaments so conspicuous.

Still a star, like a red coat, was wanted to convict me, and a leading question to the postboy—who admitted that, _previous_ to the trial, _he had received 52l.!!!_ was, whether he had seen a star? His reply was that he had seen something of the kind, but that “_he could not swear what it was_.” He nevertheless said that he had “opened the chaise-door,” and therefore must have been within a yard of the star, if star there were, so that his refusal to swear to it is palpable proof that De Berenger _wore no star on his return_, this being no doubt on the red coat in the portmanteau. Yet, said Lord Ellenborough to the jury, “HE PULLED OFF HIS SCARLET UNIFORM AT LORD COCHRANE’S HOUSE. HE CAME TO LORD COCHRANE FULLY BLAZONED IN THE COSTUME OF HIS CRIME.” (_Times’ report of the trial._)

The fact that De Berenger had with him, according to Crane’s evidence, “a portmanteau big enough to wrap a coat in,” was not laid before the jury, nor the obvious inference, that he must, beyond doubt, have conveyed his scarlet coat to Dover in that portmanteau, because a man whom the Solicitor-General said “_was no fool_,” would not have committed such an act of folly as _prematurely_ to array himself in so remarkable a dress, intended for so criminal a purpose.

A circumstance strongly inferential, occurred which went far to prove that De Berenger _had changed_ his dress before coming to my house. On the first part of the journey he was proved to have worn a sword, unquestionably as essential to his assumed character. But before he came to my house, he had disengaged himself from the sword, for Crane swore that on entering, he “took out of the chaise a portmanteau and a _sword_, and went in.” So that, according to the evidence of Crane himself, the chief witness for the prosecution, _he had made one material alteration in his appearance_. Why should De Berenger have worn his sword up to the last stage from Dover, during which he “pulled down the sunblinds,” and then have taken it off, but for the plain reason that he could not change his scarlet coat for his green uniform without first taking off his sword, which he had not replaced, but laid it on the chaise-seat during the operation. Not a word of this was allowed to go to the jury, though if—as Lord Ellenborough argued—he had been regardless of exhibiting himself to me in the false character of a military officer, he _would hardly have taken off his sword_! These facts were not only proofs that a partial change of dress had been made, but that an entire change had been effected, to which the removal of the sword was absolutely necessary. Had my servants been called upon the trial, their testimony, as seen in their affidavits contained in the previous chapter, must have been decisive.

It has been stated, that at the instance of Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, Sir Alexander Cochrane applied to the Admiralty for permission to engage De Berenger, and the records of the Admiralty would then, as no doubt they will now, prove the fact. There was not a word passed on the subject at the trial, nor any witness brought from the Admiralty to decide the point. Yet Lord Ellenborough put it to the jury as beyond doubt, _that it was I or Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, who was also a defendant in the same prosecution, who applied to Sir Alexander for his engagement_!—thus making this unfounded but important fact part of his direction to the jury. Here are the judge’s words:—

“There is no doubt that Sir Alexander Cochrane had, on some
application from Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, _or Lord Cochrane_, applied
for him.” (_Report_, p. 483.)

It is difficult to account for the judge’s motive in making such a statement, wholly unsupported by evidence. Neither was there even an attempt to show that I had ever interfered or even interested myself in any application on De Berenger’s behalf. The fact of Sir Alexander Cochrane having made the application was most important for my defence, because it added greatly to the probability of my statement in my affidavit, and accounted for the conduct of De Berenger in presuming to call on me to request a passage to America. This Lord Ellenborough completely neutralised by telling the jury that _it was I_ who applied to Sir Alexander for his employment; the impression made on the minds of the jury being, that notwithstanding I disclaimed all knowledge of the man, I had been on terms of intimacy with him before the application was made!

The judge then declared as follows:—“But it does not rest there; for he himself lends to this person the immediate means of concealment,—he lets him have a hat _instead of his laced cap; and what had such a cap to do with a sharpshooter’s uniform?_” (_Report_, p. 485.) I had never said a word about a “laced cap,” nor had I ever seen De Berenger’s cap, for, as one of my servants testified, it lay in the hall. After this direction to the jury and my consequent conviction, I made it my business to ascertain what kind of cap was worn by the adjutant of Lord Yarmouth’s rifle-_corps_, and, to my great surprise and indignation, discovered that the regimental head-dress of De Berenger was a black cap _with a spacious gold band upon it, a long gold tassel pendant, and a death’s head and marrow-bones in bronze!_—so that sharpshooters _had_ something to do with laced caps.

Still more extraordinary was the judge’s observation to the jury:—“The uniform of the rifle-corps is of a bottle-green colour, made to resemble the colour of trees, that those who wear it may hide themselves in woods, and escape discovery there.” (_Report_, p. 478.) This was in direct opposition to the evidence, for Lord Yarmouth had actually testified in Court that the uniform of the corps was “waistcoat-green, with _a crimson cape_!”

MR. PARK.—“What is the uniform of your _corps_?”

LORD YARMOUTH.—“The uniform is the waistcoat-green, with a _crimson
cape_.”

MR. PARK.—“A bottle-green, is it not?”

LORD YARMOUTH.—“Some have got it a little darker than others, but it
should be a deep bottle-green, with a _crimson collar_.”

I have merely taken these instances at random, and without comment further than necessary to enable the reader to comprehend them. As my judge is no longer here to reply to me, I abstain from comment, however much it might tend, now that the party spirit which ruined me has died out, to establish my innocence. Still I cannot refrain from adducing a few extracts from Lord Campbell’s work, relative to the trials of politically obnoxious persons.

Lord Ellenborough’s efforts to convict Leigh Hunt of libel, and the verdict of “Not Guilty” pronounced by an indignant jury, are matters within the memory of many now living. “Such scandal,” says Lord Campbell, “was excited by the mode in which Government prosecutions for libel were now instituted and conducted, that Lord Holland brought the subject before the House of Lords. The violence of Lord Ellenborough when opposing Lord Holland’s motion, is foreign to the subject of the present work. Sir James Mackintosh, who heard it, expressed himself ‘disgusted with its dogmatism.’” (_Lord Campbell_, vol. iii. p. 205.)

The subjoined are Lord Campbell’s remarks when introducing the subject:—

“He did his best to convict Leigh Hunt, then the editor of the
_Examiner_, upon an _ex officio_ information for publishing an article
against the excess to which the punishment of flagellation had been
carried in the army.

“‘Gentlemen;’ said he to the jury, ‘we are placed in a most anxious
and awful situation. The liberty of the country—everything we
enjoy—not only the independence of the nation, but whatever each
individual amongst us prizes in private life, depends upon our
fortunate resistance to the arms of Buonaparte and the force of
France, which I may say is the force of all Europe, combined under
that formidable foe. It becomes us, therefore, to see that there is
not, in addition to the prostrate thrones of Europe, an auxiliary
within this country, and that he has not the aid for the furtherance
of his object _of a British press_.’”

* * * * * * * *

“‘This publication is not to draw the attention of the legislature or
of persons in authority _with a view to a remedy_, but seems intended
to induce the military to consider themselves as more degraded than
any other soldiers in the world, and to make them less ready at this
awful crisis to render the country that assistance without which we
are collectively and individually undone. _I have no doubt but that
this libel has been published with the intention imputed to it, and
that it is entitled to the character given to it in the information._’

“Nevertheless, to the unspeakable mortification of the noble judge,
the jury found a verdict of _Not Guilty_.” (Lord Campbell’s _Lives of
the Chief Justices_, vol. iii. pp. 201-203.)

The following are Lord Campbell’s remarks on the verdict in the seven days’ trial of Dr. Watson on a charge of high treason. After charging the jury,

“He asked them whether they would take some refreshment before they
left the bar, when the foreman, in a tone which made the _Chief
Justice’s countenance visibly collapse_, said, ‘My Lord, we shall not
be long.’ Accordingly, after going through the form of withdrawing and
consulting together, they returned and pronounced their verdict, to
which they had long made up their minds—_Not Guilty_.”—(Vol. iii. p.
222.)

The case of Hone, in 1817, is another in point. I know nothing of Hone’s works, nor of the libels of which he was accused, but Lord Campbell says, that “he defended himself with extraordinary skill and tact, and at the end of the first day’s trial was _acquitted_.”

“This being related to the enfeebled Chief Justice, his energy was
revived, and _he swore that, at whatever cost, he would preside in
Court himself, so that conviction might be certain_!” (He did so, and
thus charged the jury:) “‘I will deliver to you my solemn opinion, _as
I am required by Act of Parliament to do_; under the authority of that
Act, and still more, in obedience to my conscience and my God, I
pronounce it to be a MOST IMPIOUS AND PROFANE LIBEL.[99] Hoping and
believing that you are Christians, I doubt not but that your opinion
is the same.’”

-----

Footnote 99:

The italics and capitals are Lord Campbell’s.

-----

The jury almost immediately pronounced a verdict of “NOT GUILTY.”

“Still,” says Lord Campbell, “the Chief Justice was undismayed, and declared that he would next day proceed with the indictment. This was a most indiscreet resolution. The whole of Hone’s third trial was a triumph, the jury plainly intimating their determination to find a verdict in his favour.... After a similar summing up as on the preceding day, there was _the like verdict_.... The popular opinion was, that Lord Ellenborough was killed by Hone’s trial, and he certainly never held up his head in public after.” (_Lord Campbell_, vol. iii. p. 225.)

These facts prove, that _subsequently to my trial_, whenever Lord Ellenborough, in a popular case, charged the jury to bring in the defendant “GUILTY,” the jury made a point of finding “NOT GUILTY.” It was unfortunate for me that such a course was not previously adopted, but, perhaps, it may be said, that my case brought about this result.

One most material point connected with the trial cannot be overlooked; one, in fact, which not only concerned the liberties of obnoxious persons like myself, but also the liberties of every man in the country. At the period of my trial, Lord Ellenborough was not only Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, BUT AT THE SAME TIME A CABINET MINISTER!!! This terrible combination of incompatible offices was for the first time under constitutional government effected in the person of Lord Ellenborough, and, to the credit of subsequent administrations, for the last time also. No other Chief Justice ever came hot-foot from a Cabinet Council to decide the fate of an accused person, politically obnoxious to the Cabinet; the trial going on from day to day, so as to become open no less to Cabinet than to forensic discussion.

The thing was monstrous, and could only have been acted on in this instance for the purpose of suppressing, by the expedient just shown, the rising spirit of public liberty, which the Government was ever on the watch to keep down. The _Quarterly Review_, when commenting on the “Life and Correspondence” of Sir Samuel Romilly, thus treats the matter (No. 132, 1840, page 612):—

“The Whigs, by way of including _all the talents_, had given the Chief
Justice of the King’s Bench (Lord Ellenborough) _a seat in the
Cabinet_, and upon this before unheard-of combination of the judicial
and ministerial characters, this _monstrous attempt to tinge the
ermine of justice with the colour of party_!!”

The chance I had may be readily estimated _with a Cabinet minister for my judge_, and the Cabinet of which he was a member composed of ministers to whom I had become deeply obnoxious by determined opposition to their measures; having, in fact, given them more trouble than any other of my party, because my knowledge of naval abuses and profligate expenditure enabled me to expose both. It might, with one of my most bitter opponents for a judge, have been a still greater marvel had I been acquitted, than that I was convicted without and in opposition to evidence. Had Lord Ellenborough possessed a true sense of delicacy, he would never have presided at that trial. Still less would he have refused me a new trial when more perfectly prepared; a proceeding no doubt adopted as the best means of silencing further discussion, which had begun to harass him personally, and to cause uneasiness to the ministry. The shortest course, if not the justest, was to screen himself and them by _immediately_ crushing his adversary. But the injury went farther than my conviction in the Court of King’s Bench. After my subsequent expulsion from the House, which, as Lord Brougham rightly says, “_secured my re-election for Westminster_,” on its adverse note _hung the fate of the ministry_. Had that vote been in my favour, the Chief Justice could not have held his seat in the Cabinet, and his evacuation could scarcely have been otherwise than followed by that of the whole ministry. Of this, however, there was little danger, the great bond of adhesion to the Ministry, as has been fully shown in the course of this work, being the pensions and sinecures so freely distributed amongst an unreformed House of Commons.

The question, however, became thus one of ministerial existence. Had the House, as it ought to have done, irrespective of me or my case, repudiated the anomaly of a Chief Justice holding a seat in the Cabinet, the retirement of Lord Ellenborough must have been indispensable and _immediate_. He could not have maintained his political office for an hour. In place of an individual member being heard in his own defence, the question really was the right of a Chief Justice to hold a seat in the Cabinet, or in legal phrase, the issue was, Lord Cochrane _versus_ Lord Ellenborough, the Admiralty, and the Cabinet. In the unreformed House of Commons Lord Cochrane, as a matter of course, went to the wall, no one expecting otherwise.

Of the guilt or innocence of the other parties convicted I know nothing, but this I will say, that, if guilty, there was nothing in their guilt half so bad as the deliberate malice which on two occasions had conspired to ruin me. My appointment as flag captain to my uncle was gall and wormwood to those who, for opposing a vote of thanks to Lord Gambier, had condemned me to five years’ deprivation of employment, at a time when my services would have been honourable to myself and beneficial to my country. I had gained employment in a way beyond their control, and my unjust conviction of having participated in a trumpery hoax, which common sense might have convinced them was beneath my notice, was converted into the means of preventing the future exercise of my abilities as a naval officer.

I have to apologise to Lord Campbell for the freedom with which I have used his great work, but though an unjustly maligned man, my reputation is as dear to me as though no spot had ever rested upon it, and I have adduced these extracts to show that Lord Ellenborough, in his zeal for justice, might have possibly mistaken my case. His biographers ascribe to him pure motives, and I am bound not to set my opinions against those of his biographers, nor have I done so. But for forty-six years I have been vainly endeavouring to _get my case reheard_, and much allowance should be accorded me. I would not ask for mercy, if guilty, but for increased severity of punishment, as I should most richly deserve. To demand a hearing of my case was my first public act after my trial. It shall be my last. That public act was a letter to Lord Ebrington, deprecating his Lordship’s interference for a mitigation of my outrageous sentence. The following is a copy of this letter:—

“King’s Bench, July 13th, 1814.

“MY LORD,—Although I claim no right to interfere with the
Parliamentary conduct of any member, or to interfere with the motions
which he may judge proper to originate, yet I owe a duty to myself
which demands that I should apprise your Lordship that the motion of
which you have given notice respecting me, has a tendency to bring
down upon me a greater indignity than any which has been offered to me
by my enemies. I had flattered myself, from a recent note of your
Lordship, that, in your mind, I stood wholly acquitted; and I did not
expect to be treated by your Lordship as an object of mercy, on the
grounds of past services, or severity of sentence. I cannot allow
myself to be indebted to that tenderness of disposition, which has led
your Lordship to form an erroneous estimate of the amount of
punishment due to the crimes of which I have been accused; nor can I
for a moment consent, that any past services of mine should be
prostituted to the purpose of protecting me from any part of the
vengeance of the laws against which I, if at all, have grossly
offended. _If I am guilty, I richly merit the whole of the sentence
which has been passed upon me. If innocent, one penalty cannot be
inflicted with more justice than another._ If your Lordship shall
judge proper to persist in the motion of which you have given notice,
I hope you will do me the justice to read this letter to the House.

“I have, &c.
“COCHRANE.

“The Lord Ebrington.”

Independently, however, of these or any other considerations, I might point to my previous general services as a naval officer, for which I had not received public reward of any kind;—to my refusal of a squadron of frigates, and Lord Mulgrave’s own regiment, if I would consent to a vote of thanks to Lord Gambier conjointly with myself,—an offer which, had it been accepted, would have been tantamount to the acquisition of half a million of prize-money;—to my unceasing opposition in Parliament to the abuses of the Admiralty Courts and naval administration in general, in direct opposition to my own pecuniary interests;—to my rejection of the openly-expressed proposal of the Secretary to the Admiralty to quit the Radical party, and come over to that of the Government;—to my anticipated employment on the coasts of the United States, and the great pecuniary proceeds which there was every reason to expect as the result of putting my previous experience in practice. I would then put it to the common sense of the reader, whether the acquisition of a few paltry hundred pounds—by means of the imputed frauds on the Stock Exchange, was a likely motive to actuate me in joining a conspiracy with persons, some of whom I never knew nor heard of, which, if detected, must have destroyed my future prospects, when on the eve of an expedition calculated in all human probability to have raised me above all political enmity? The reply is self-evident.

I would again ask, whether, with a guilty knowledge of the act in which De Berenger had been engaged, I should have perpetrated the consummate folly of voluntarily disclosing all that took place on unexpectedly finding him at my house; this voluntary information on my part affording the only clue to the case, which could otherwise never have been developed.

If guilty, such disclosure on my part would have been an act of absolute insanity. Had I been aware that his asking me for the means of concealing his uniform,—first, on his representation that, not being a drill day, he could not appear in it before his colonel, Lord Yarmouth; and secondly, that he could not return in it to the rules of the King’s Bench without exciting suspicion that he had been violating the rules,—is it likely that I should have voluntarily become my own accuser, when there existed no necessity for me to say a single word, on the subject. Should I not rather, if guilty, have given him the order to go on board the _Tonnant_, and thus place both him and myself beyond the reach of danger?

In place, however, of further vindication of my character as having had any participation in this wretched hoax, I will, in addition to the legal opinions already adduced, bring forward others since pronounced by men in whom the public repose the most implicit confidence.

And first the voluntary statement of a gallant General, who had been equally ill used with myself, and by the same political adversaries and clique who persecuted me. I mean Sir Robert Wilson, who happily survived his persecution, was reinstated in his military rank and honours, and died honoured and lamented.

“Regent Street, 14th March, 1823.

“MY DEAR LORD,—It has been mentioned to me that a memorandum I once
held with the late Mr. Whitbread on the subject of your persecution,
and which I have frequently repeated, might be a document of some
utility; my compliance with the expressed wish is not an act of
friendship, but of duty and justice to all parties.

“I therefore do affirm, upon my honour, to the accurate truth of the
following statement, being ready, if required, to give it any legal
character of which it may be susceptible:—

“Being at Southall Park in the year 1814, I took an opportunity of
asking Mr. Whitbread for his opinion on the subject of Lord Cochrane’s
trial and sentence, stating to him that as I had been out of England
at the time, I was very imperfectly acquainted with the proceedings;
but feeling much interested about the character of an officer so
eminently distinguished, I was desirous to pin my faith upon his (Mr.
Whitbread’s) judgment; but if, from any political or personal
consideration, he could only give me a partial or half compliance, I
begged him to be silent altogether, as my object was to know the whole
truth, and to be put in possession, for my future guidance, of his
most secret feelings on the transaction.

“Mr. Whitbread replied, that he had no hesitation to acquiesce with my
wish; that there never was a case to which he had given more
attention, or which had caused him more sleepless nights, as he had
been resolved to probe the matter to the bottom, if possible, and come
to a just conclusion. That he had formed his conclusion; and, if they
were the last words he had to utter before appearance in the presence
of the Creator, he should say that _he was convinced that Lord
Cochrane was totally and entirely innocent of the whole or any part of
the offence laid to his charge,—that he felt certain that Lord
Cochrane was in no way privy to the proceedings so far as they related
to any imposition_.

“Mr. Whitbread added, ‘My family know this to be my conscientious
opinion, and _I am persuaded that time will prove it to be the correct
one_[100];’ but, in any case, you have it from a man who has
endeavoured to form it honestly, and also, for that purpose, divested
his mind, as much as possible, of every bias.

“I remain, my dear Lord,
“With much regard, yours,
“R. WILSON.”

-----

Footnote 100:

Not if the “_revised_” report of the trial is consulted; for the
studied appearance of fairness which is there put on might mislead the
reader. But if the _verbatim_ reports of the trial are consulted, as
they appear in the _Times_ and other daily papers, I have no fear of
any amount of criticism, or that anything but my entire innocence will
be made manifest. The _animus_ against me is there so clear, that the
reader would hardly be induced to inquire further.

-----

The following warm-hearted letter was written me by the late Duke of Hamilton on my appointment to the command of the West India fleet:—

“Hamilton Palace, Jan. 6, 1848.

“MY DEAR LORD,—Your letter of yesterday has awakened the liveliest
sensibilities of my heart. If I ask myself whether they proceed from
the love of justice, or the love of a friend, my reply is, from both.

“The communication you have just made to me is most gratifying; and
the First Lord of the Admiralty has done himself immortal honour in
appointing that naval officer Commander in one hemisphere who had
previously illustrated his name by his most brilliant exploits in the
other. Everything, I think, has now been done to undo the foul
aspersions with which you have been assailed, and I am sure everything
will be now done that will most serve to establish the ability of the
officer and the delicacy of the gentleman.

“I congratulate you most sincerely upon your appointment, and hope you
will meet with difficulties when you arrive at your destination. Don’t
be surprised at my wish. It proceeds from knowing the ample resources
of my friend to overcome them, and his constant desire to sacrifice
everything to duty and honour.

“My good wishes will follow you across the ocean, and reside with you
in your future destinies. Let me have the satisfaction of hearing from
you, and with every sentiment of affectionate regard, believe me to
be, my dear lord, your truly attached friend and cousin,

“C.H. AND B.”

Without multiplying communications of a similar kind, I will merely adduce a portion of a letter written to me by a gentleman, in whose opinions and sterling honesty the public has been accustomed to repose the highest confidence, viz. the late Joseph Hume. The occasion of the letter was my having consulted him in an attempt to obtain a re-investigation of my case so late as 1852:—

“Bryanstone Square, May 10, 1852.

* * * * * * * *

“I knew at the time the alleged offence was committed, Mr. Cochrane
Johnstone, and my conviction at the time was, and still is, that you
were the dupe of his cupidity, and suffered from his act. With David
Ricardo, who was the prosecutor on the part of the Stock Exchange on
that occasion, I have often conversed on the subject[101].

“I considered that you were incapable of taking the means resorted to,
and for which you suffered, and was pleased to learn that you had been
restored to your rank. I considered _that act_ a proof that the
Government which had restored you to the rank and honour of your
profession, and had afterwards appointed you to the command in the
West Indies, must have come to the same conclusion; and until the
perusal of your draft petition, I concluded that _you had had all your
arrears paid to you as a tardy, though inadequate, return_ to your
Lordship, whose early exploits did honour to yourself, and gave
additional lustre to the naval service of your country.

“Sir Robert Wilson, acting with me as a friend of the late Queen
Caroline, in our desire to see justice done to her, was, by _a secret
and most unjust decision of the Government of the day, under Lord
Liverpool and Lord Castlereagh_, dismissed from the military service,
of which he had been a distinguished ornament, and had all his honours
taken away. The honour he had received from the Court of Vienna, for
the preservation of the life of a member of that family (in a river in
Flanders) under Colonel, afterwards Lord, Lake, was also taken from
him!!

“The offence of Sir Robert Wilson was his supposed interference in
obstructing the funeral _cortége_ of the late Queen Caroline in its
progress towards the City. The progress was ordered by the Government
to have been by the New Road to Essex. The people obliged Sir Robert
Baker, then at the head of the police and in charge of the escort, to
proceed through the City of London, contrary to the express order of
the King (George the Fourth), and under that suspicion Sir Robert
Wilson was dismissed and unjustly treated.

“I knew that Sir Robert Wilson had arrived from France in company with
Mr. Edward Ellice, and did not reach the house of Mr. Alderman (the
name is illegible) where I was until eight or nine o’clock of the
evening before the funeral. His offence was his accompanying the
funeral along with Sir John Hobhouse, myself, and others; and when the
troops fired on the people at Hyde Park, Sir Robert Wilson endeavoured
to prevent bloodshed. I was present, and heard and saw everything that
passed. For that supposed offence he was cashiered, and remained for
years, as your lordship did, under the disgrace.

“His Majesty, King William, was satisfied of the innocence of Sir
Robert Wilson of the offence charged against him, and he was restored
to the service, and I understood was paid all the arrears of pay and
allowance during his suspension, and afterwards appointed to the
command at Gibraltar. I was pleased at the result, and it would give
me equal pleasure to learn that your application to her Majesty should
be attended with an act of justice to you equally merited.

“I think other instances of restoration to rank, accompanied with
payment of arrears of pay and restoration to all military honours,
will be found if you should adopt the same course to seek justice.

“I remain, &c.
“JOSEPH HUME.

“The Right Hon. the Earl of Dundonald.”

-----

Footnote 101:

Mr. Hume’s statement that David Ricardo was the prosecutor on the part
of the Stock Exchange throws additional light on the selection of Mr.
Lavie, as the _acting prosecutor_ on the trial. As Mr. Ricardo was
selected to manage the prosecution, the transference of his duties to
_a known Admiralty solicitor_, who had once before been successfully
employed against me, requires no comment.

-----

This letter narrates the arbitrary and unjust dismissal of an eminent officer without trial, without accusation, and without having in any way rendered himself politically obnoxious, otherwise than to stop the indiscriminate slaughter of an unarmed people. The act of his dismissal was one of pure despotism, committed by a ministerial faction, of which history affords scarcely a redeeming feature. It is not surprising that I, of all others in the House of Commons the most politically obnoxious to the same faction, should have been for years selected as the mark for their unscrupulous hatred. Still less is it probable that men who regarded and defended place, pensions, and sinecures as a right, would stick at the practices which have been laid bare in this work, when a political adversary who exposed their greediness for national plunder could be crushed. To say more of them, than that they were the men who crushed Sir Robert Wilson, would be superfluous.

I will add yet one more illustration. At my re-election for Westminster—the consequence, as Lord Brougham has well said, of the outrageous treatment to which I had been subjected—an incident occurred with which my wrongs became indirectly mixed up. Whilst the electors of Westminster were securing the triumphant return of one who was in durance, under an infamous sentence, the daughter of the Prince Regent was flying from Court tyranny.

On the day preceding my re-election, the greatly beloved Princess Charlotte, then under age, escaped from her father’s protection, and, having called a hackney coach from the stand at Charing Cross, fled to her mother’s residence in Connaught Place. The public mind was at the time in a state of great excitement on account of the vindictive sentence passed upon me, and the electors of Westminster having determined to sustain me, every precaution was taken by their leaders to keep alive the public sentiment.

In the midst of this excitement the flight of the princess became known, together with the fact that she had been treated by her father with an amount of unbecoming violence and coercion, and through some of his acquiescent ministers outraged by an injudicious pressure, the object of which was to force upon her a marriage to which she had not only a personal objection, but towards which she had publicly expressed a decided and insuperable aversion.

Notwithstanding this, the Regent, regardless of his daughter’s feelings, insisted on proceeding without loss of time with the preparations for her marriage; and it was on repeating his fixed determination as regarded her fate, that she took the step of placing herself under her mother’s protection, the terror inspired by the interview with her father being such that, without bonnet or shawl, she ran down the back staircase of Warwick House, and escaped by the servants’ _entrée_.

Not many hours elapsed before the fact of her flight and its cause became publicly known. This act of political tyranny towards a princess, who, though so young, had, by her powers of mind and engaging manners from her childhood, secured the universal affection of the people, created an amount of sympathy which, coupled with the excitement and irritation at my outrageous treatment, almost amounted to public frenzy.

The Government became alarmed. Crowds beset the house of her late Majesty Queen Caroline, where their favourite was safely sheltered. The carriages of the Royal family and of the ministers, including those of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Ellenborough, and the Law Officers of the Crown, were all in attendance, their occupants having been sent to use their influence with Her Royal Highness to induce her to return, but in vain. She even refused to see any of the royal family except the Duke of Sussex, for whom she had sent, as well as for Mr. Brougham, the latter to advise her in the difficult position in which she had been compelled to place herself. The advice was to return; but she declared in strong terms that she could not overcome her repugnance to the violent treatment she had received, or to the attempt to force her into a marriage which she held in aversion.

The day following this scene was the day of my re-election for Westminster. The same overtures were repeated to the princess, but without making the slightest impression on her wounded feelings. At length the Duke of Sussex took his niece to the window of the drawing-room, and drew her attention to the angry multitude assembled before the house, explaining to her that such was the public sympathy in her favour, and such the interest the people took in her happiness, that they would form a shield for her protection against which her oppressors would scarcely venture to array themselves.

Still the princess remained inexorable, till the danger of continued public excitement was pointed out to her. She was told by the Duke of Sussex, that the irritation was twofold, for _that very day was appointed for the re-election of Lord Cochrane for Westminster, after the unjust sentence which had been passed upon him, and which also formed another great cause of public excitement, whilst the two causes combined_ might lead to a popular outbreak, which it was to be feared would end in bloodshed, and perhaps in the destruction of Carlton House itself. It was further urged, that in case of mischief, no small portion might be laid by ministers to the account of Her Royal Highness.

These considerations sensibly affected the princess, who was moved to tears, and exclaimed: “POOR LORD COCHRANE! I HEARD THAT HE HAD BEEN VERY ILL USED BY THEM (meaning her father’s ministers); SHOULD IT EVER BE IN MY POWER, I WILL UNDO THE WRONG.”

With a magnanimity which her persecutors could neither feel nor comprehend, the princess then declared her perfect readiness to render herself a self-sacrifice, in order to prevent the dreadful result which she felt might be possible; and shortly afterwards returned to Warwick House, accompanied by her uncle the Duke of York. Her courage and firmness relieved her from further importunity from her father and his ministers on the subject of the hateful marriage, which was broken off, and this noble-minded woman afterwards contracted with the present King of the Belgians a marriage of affection, approved by the whole country.

Such instances of tyrannical oppression as these will be read with amazement by the present generation, though there are those yet living who can corroborate their recital. When even a princess of the blood royal, the idol of the whole nation, was not exempt from persecution, what hope had I of escaping ministerial vengeance, backed by a House of Commons, the majority of which consisted of sinecurists and placemen, whose fortunes _in esse_ and _in posse_ depended on them subservience to the place-givers?