Chapter XXIV: A Naval Study for All Time (14)

It is true, I had with me the sympathy of the public, and this alone sustained me under such an accumulation of injury. Men do not become popular for nothing; but I have no hesitation in saying, to the honour of my constituents, that the injustice done to me by an adverse ministry gave me far greater popularity than anything I had accomplished in my professional capacity. For five years my adversaries had taken care that no fresh achievements in war should be added to my professional reputation; and it was only when, by my uncle’s favour, I had once more an opportunity of distinguishing myself in spite of the Admiralty, that the concentrated malice of the faction I had offended by my pertinacious opposition in parliament burst on my head in the shape of a prosecution, in which my judge was a member of the very cabinet to which I was politically and personally obnoxious.

In a general point of view, there can be no two opinions on the impropriety of a Cabinet Minister occupying the bench of the highest law court of the realm. In all State prosecutions—and mine _was_ one—it would fall to his lot to decide in the Cabinet as to their commencement, though in my case this was apparently avoided, by the law officers of the Crown keeping aloof from the proceedings; care, however, being taken to employ as my prosecutor an attorney of tried shrewdness, having a personal dislike to myself. A judge thus politically connected had to leave the Cabinet in order to carry out its decisions, himself presiding at all trials which might result, adjudging and sentencing the unlucky offenders; of which mode of prosecution the instances of Leigh Hunt, Dr. Watson, and Mr. Hone are cases in point, the parties accused being only saved by the indignant firmness of the juries. Happily, no such combination of political and judicial offices has occurred since Lord Ellenborough’s time, nor can it occur, unless some retrograde spirit of despotism shall again—to use the significant language before quoted from the _Quarterly Review_—“_tinge the ermine of justice with the colour of party_.”

A few words in addition are necessary. In Mr. Hume’s letter before quoted was an enclosure which he had, in his anxiety to procure full justice for my sufferings, with great difficulty obtained. It is an enumeration of the tardy steps taken to reinstate Sir Robert Wilson in the rank, honours, and emoluments of which for eleven years he had been unjustly deprived by the mere caprice of a political faction.

“_30th October, 1830._—Restoration of his rank submitted to the King.

“_22nd August, 1832._—Sir Robert Wilson claimed the pay of a General
Officer from 27th May, 1825, the time when his commission states his
rank is to be considered as hearing date.

“_8th October, 1832._—Letter of Secretary at War to the Hon. J.
Stewart, recommending Sir Robert Wilson’s claim of pay to the Treasury
_as a special case, considering the act of Royal favour to extend to
pay as well as rank_. The letter also refers to Sir Robert Wilson’s
signal services _hitherto unrewarded_, and adverts to the fact, that
even should the request be granted he will have suffered a
considerable pecuniary penalty in the loss of pay from 1821 to 1825,
although no military tribunal has tried his conduct.

“_16th November, 1832._—Letter of Mr. Stewart, announcing _the
concurrence of the Treasury_, but desiring the opinion of the
Commander-in-Chief to be taken.

“_19th November, 1832._—Letter from Secretary at War to Lord Hill,
acquainting him that he had, in consequence of a communication from
Sir R. Wilson, recommended to the Treasury that _the arrear of back
pay from the date of his restored rank of Lieut.-General should be
allowed_[102], and that the Treasury was inclined to acquiesce in this
recommendation, but requested his Lordship’s concurrence in the first
instance.

“_22nd November, 1832._—Lord Hill’s concurrence.

“_21st December, 1832._—Treasury sanctions the amount of Sir Robert
Wilson’s unattached pay as a general officer from the date of his
commission being included in the estimates of 1833.”

-----

Footnote 102:

The italics in this document are Mr. Hume’s.

-----

It has been said that Sir Robert Wilson’s dismissal from the service differed from mine, inasmuch as his was a consequence of ministerial displeasure, whilst mine arose from the verdict of a court of law. How that verdict was procured, I trust has been satisfactorily shown, and if so, both Sir Robert Wilson and myself were sufferers from ministerial displeasure. On the word of a man about (at no distant date) to give an account to his Maker, I was no more guilty of the act attributed to me, than Sir Robert Wilson was of the disloyalty attributed to him.

Sir Robert Wilson claimed his back pay as a right consequent on his unjust deprivation, and obtained it. I have unceasingly done the same, not from the pecuniary value of the amount due, but from the consideration that its being withheld still operates as a stigma on my character and family, which is inconsistent with any restoration to the service. My efforts have been hitherto without success.

Sir Robert Wilson’s application was recommended to the Treasury as a “_special case_.” My applications have not been so regarded.

Sir Robert Wilson’s application was further recommended on account of “_services hitherto unrewarded_.” I will here repeat what has been stated in a previous chapter, in reply to writers who have assumed that I had been handsomely rewarded—that on no occasion did I ever receive the reward of a single shilling for any services which it was my good fortune to render to my country, beyond the ordinary pay of my rank, and the good service pension of 300_l._ a-year, conferred upon me by Sir James Graham, in 1844. Yet Lord Collingwood testified that with a single frigate I had done the work of an army, by keeping a French army from overrunning the Mediterranean coast of Spain. Neither for this nor the destruction of the enemy’s ships in Aix Roads, did I ever receive reward or thanks.

The reader, who is now well acquainted with my services, can pursue the subject for himself. With the exception of the Red Ribbon of the Bath, which as the gift of my sovereign I highly prize, my reward has been a life of unmerited suffering. Even the stipulations of the South American Governments, to whom I gave freedom, are violated to this day, from a conviction that no sympathy will be accorded by the Government of my own country.

These are the requitals for my “_hitherto unrewarded services_.”

Amongst the curiosities shown to visitors of the Bank of England, there was, and no doubt is still, a thousand pound bank-note, No. 8202, dated 26th June, 1815, on the back of which are endorsed the following words:—

“MY HEALTH HAVING SUFFERED BY LONG AND CLOSE CONFINEMENT, AND MY
OPPRESSORS BEING RESOLVED TO DEPRIVE ME OF PROPERTY OR LIFE, I SUBMIT
TO ROBBERY TO PROTECT MYSELF FROM MURDER, IN THE HOPE THAT I SHALL
LIVE TO BRING THE DELINQUENTS TO JUSTICE.

(Signed) “COCHRANE.

“King’s Bench Prison, July 3rd, 1815.”

There is the reward bestowed on me by a ministerial faction, memorable only for its political corruption. With that protest I close the book.

APPENDICES