iDceantca fmnl^^iiir CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Gift of Herbert Fisk Johnson '22 CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 924 087 998 534 Cornell University Library The original of tliis book is in tlie Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924087998534 THE AUTOBIOGEAPHY OF A SEAMAN. Vol. II. LONIJON PEIMTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND CO. MEW-STEEET SQUABE THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A SEAMAN. THOMAS, TENTH EARL OF DTJNDONALD, G.C.B. ADMIKAI, or THE KED ; REAE-ADMIKAL OF THE FLEET, ETC. ETC. VOLUME THE SECOND. LONDON: EICHAKD BENTLEr, NEW BUELINGTOX STEEET, f nblis^tr in iS>rbmare io fw IPajtstij. 1860. CONTENTS THE SECOND VOLUME. CHAPTER XXrV. A NAVAL STUDY FOR ALL TIME. Charts, &c., supplied by tlie present Government. — Refused by a former Government. — Alteration made in the Charts. — Mr. Stokes's Affidavits. — Letter to Sir John Barrow. — Singular Ad- miralty Minute. — Second Letter to Su- John Barrow.- — The Charts again Refused. — My Departure for Chili. — Renewed Application to the Admiralty .^Kindness of the Duke of Somerset. — Dif- ference of Opinion at the Admiralty . . Page 1 CHAP. XXV. A NAVAL STUDY — Continued. French Hydrographic Charts. — One tendered by me to the Court. — Rejected by the President. — Grounds for its rejection. — The object of the rejected Chart. — Would have proved too much, if admitted. Rejection of other Charts tendered by me. — Mr. Stokes's Chart. Its Fallacy at first sight. — Judge Advocate's Reasons for Adopt- ing it. — Its Errors detected by the President, and exposed here. — Probable Excuse for the Error. — Imaginary Shoal on the Chart. A 4 viii CONTENTS OF — Falsification of "Width of Channel. — Lord Gambler's Voucher for Stokes's Chart. — Stokes's Voucher for its Worthlessness. — Stokes's Chart in a National point of View. — Taken Advantage of by the French ..... Page 15 CHAP. XXVI. A NAVAL STUDY — continiled. The Evidence of Officers present in Basque Roads. — Admiral Austen's Opinions confirmatory of my Statements. — Fallacy of alleged Eewards to myself, in place of these Persecutions. — Treat- ment of my eldest Son, Lord Cochrane. ^Letter from Capt. Hutchinson confirmatory of the Enemy's Panic. — A Midshipman near taking the Flag-ship. — Evidence of Capt. Seymour, con- clusive as to Neglect, which was the Matter to be inquired into, in not sending Ships to attack. — Attempt to Weather his Evidence. — Capt. Malcolm's Evidence confirmatory of Capt. Seymour's. — Capt. Brougliton's Testimony proves the complete Panic of the Enemy, and the Worthlessness of their Fortifications. — Lord Gambler declares them Efficient on Supposition arising from Hearsay. — Enemy unable to fight their Guns. — The imaginary Shoal. — A great Point made of it. — Mr. Fairfax's Map. — Lord Gambler on the Explosion Vessels. — Contradicted by Mr. Fairfax. — Contrast of their respective Statements. — Fairfax's Evasions. — His Letter to the Naval Chronicle. — These Matters a Warning to the Service . . . . . . 40 CHAP. xxvn. CONDUCT OF THE COUET-MAETIAL. Lord Gambler's Defence. — Second Despatch ignoring the First. — Attempt of the Coui-t to stop my Evidence. — Evidence received because opposed to mine. — I am not permitted to hear the Defence. The Logs tampered with. — Lord Gambler's Defence aimed at me under an erroneous Imputation. — My Letter to the Court con- fating that Imputation. — Admiralty Accusation against Lord Gambier on my Kefusal to accuse his Lordship. — His Insinuations against me uncalled for.— Assmues that I am still under his Com- THE SECOND VOLUME. ix Eiand. — Enemy escaped from liis own Neglect. — Tlie Shoals put in the Chai-t to excuse this. — Attempt to impute blame to me and Captain Seymour. — The Truth proved by Captain Broughton that Lord Gambler had no Intention of Attacking. — Lord Howe's Attack on the Aix Forts. — Clarendon's Description of Blake. Page 82 CHAP, xxvni. THE VOTE OF THANKS. My Jlotion for Minutes of Court-martial. — Mr. Tiemey's Opinion respecting them. — Mr. Whitbread's Views. — The Minutes indis- pensable. — Mr. Wilberforce on the same point. — Lord Grey's Opinion of the ^linistry. — The Vote of Thanks leaves out mj Name, yet the Credit of the Affair given to me. — Inconsistency of this. — I impugn the Decision of the House. — Sir Francis Bur- dett's Opinion. — Mr. Windham's. — Lord Mulgrave turns round upon me. — His Lordship's Misrepresentations. — Yet admits the Service to be "Brilliant." — Lord Midgrave Eebuked by Lord Holland. — Earl Grosvenor's Views.— Lord Melville hits upon the Truth, that I, being a Junior Officer, was left out. — Vote of Thanks in Opposition to Minutes. — The Vote, though carried, damaged the Ministry . . . . . .104 CHAP. XXIX. REFUSAL OF JIY PLANS FOR ATTACKING THE FRENCH FLEET IN THE SCHELDT. Eefused Permission to Eejoin my Frigate. — I am regarded as a marked Man. — No Secret made of this. — Additional cause of Offence to the Ministry. — The Part taken by me on the Eeform Question, though Moderate, resented. — Motion for Papers on Admiralty- Court Abuses. — Effect of the System. — Modes of evading it. — Eobberies by Prize-Agents. — Corroborated by George Eose. — Abominable System of Promotion. — Sir Francis Burdett committed to the Tower. — Petitions for his Liberation intrusted to me. — Naval Abuses. — Pittances doled out to wounded Officers. X CONTENTS OF - — Sinecures cost more than all the Dockyards. — My Grand- mother's Pension. — Mr. Wellesley Pole's Explanation. — Overture to quit my Party. — Deplorable Waste of Public Money. — Bad Squibs. — Comparison with the present Day. — Extract from Times Newspaper , » » . ^ Page 126 CHAP. XXX. MT PLANS FOB ATTACKING THE FRENCH COAST REFUSED, AND MYSELF SUPERSEDED. Plans for Attacking the French Coast submitted to the First Lord, the Eight Honourable Charles Yorke. — Peremptorily ordered to join my Ship in an inferior Capacity. — My Remonstrance. — Contemptuous Eeply to my Letter. — Threatened to be super- seded. — Mr. Yorke's Ignorance of Naval Affairs. — Kesult of his Ill-treatment of me. — My Eeply passed unnoticed, and myself Superseded . . . . . .151 CHAP. XXXI. VISIT TO THE ADMIRALTY COURT AT MALTA. The Maltese Admiralty Court; — Its extortionate Fees, and conse- quent Loss to Captors. — My Visit to Malta. — I possess myself of the Court Table of Fees. — Ineffectual Attempts to arrest me. — I at length Submit, and am carried to Prison. — A mock Trial. — My Defence. — Eefuse to answer Interrogatories put for the purpose of getting me to criminate myself. — Am sent back to Prison. — Am asked to leave Prison on Bail. — My Eefusal, and Escape. — Arrival in England . . . ■ .166 CHAP. XXXII. NAVAL LEGISLATION HALF A CENTURY AGO. Inquiry into the State of the Navy.— Condition of the Seamen. The real Cause of the Evil. — Motion relative to the Maltese Court. — Its extortionate Charges. — My own Case. — A lengthy THE SECOND VOLUME. XI Proctor's Bill. — Exceeds the Value of the Prize. — Officers ought to choose their own Proctors. — Papers laoved for. — Mr. Yorke's Opinion. — Sir Francis Burdett's. — My Reply. — Motion agreed to. — Captain Brenton's Testimony. — French Prisoners. — Their Treatment. — Ministers refuse to inquire into it. — Motion on my Arrest. — Circumstances attending it. — My right to demand Taxation. — The Maltese Judge refuses to notiqe my Communi- cations. — Afraid of his own Acts. — Proceedings of his Officers illegal. — Testimony of eminent Naval Officers. — Proclamation on my Escape. — Opinion of the Speaker adverse. — Mr. Stephen's erroneous Statement. — Motion Objected to by the First Lord. — My Reply ...... Page 181 CHAP. xxxm. OPENING OF PARLIAMENT, 1812. Sir Francis Burdett's Address seconded by me. — Employment of the Navy. — Naval Defences. — The Address rejected. — Curious Letter from Captain Hall. — Perversion of Naval Force in Sicily. — A Nautico-mihtary Dialect. — Uselessness of oxii Efforts under a false System, which excludesUnity of Purpose . . .215 CHAP, xxxrv. MY SECRET PLANS. My Plans submitted to the Prince of Wales. — ^Negotiations thereon. — A modified Plan submitted, which came to nothing. — Incon- siderate Proposition. — Recent Report on my Plans. — Opinions of the Commissioners. — Plans probably known to the French. — Faith kept with my Country in spite of Difficulties. — Injurious Results to myself both Abroad and at Home. — Opposition to my Plans inexplicable. — Their Social Effect. — The Subject of Fortifica- tions: these greatly overrated. — Reasons why. — The Navy the only Reliance . . ■ • ■ .227 XU COIfTENTS OF CHAP. XXXV. NAVAL AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS IN PARLIAMENT. Sinecures. — Admiralty Expenses ill directed. — What might be done with small Means. — Flogging in the Army and Navy attributable to a bad System : nevertheless, indispensable. — National Means wrongly applied. — Injurious Concessions to the French. — Denied by the Government. — Explanations of my Parliamentary Conduct ■ on the Dissolution of Parliament. — Letter to my Constituents. — Appointment of Officers by Merit instead of political Influence the true Strength of the Navy. — My Ee-election for Westminster. — Address to the Electors. — Ministerial View.s. — Treatment of an Officer. — My Interference .... Page 246 CHAP. XXXVI. MY MARRIAGE. Romantic Character of my Marriage. — Unforeseen Difficulties. — • Family Eesults . . . . . .269 CHAP. XXXVII. NAVAL ABUSES. Greenwich Hospital. — Droits of Admiralty. — Pensions. — My EiForts fi-uitless. — Contradiction of my Facts. — The Manchester Petition. — Naval Debates. — Eeaolutions thereon. — Mr. Croker's Reply. — Remarks thereon. — Sir Francis Burdett.— My Reply to Mr. Croker. — Resolutions negatived without a Division..^Sir Francis Bur- dett's Motion. — Mr. Croker's Explanation. — His Attack on me confirming my Assertions. — The Truth explained. — Another un- founded Accusation. — Official Claptrap of his own Invention. — My Reply. — Its Confirmation by Naval Writers. — Lord Colling- wood's Opinion. — My Projects adopted in all important Points. — ' Official Admissions. — The Result to myself . . 273 THE SECOND VOLUME. xiu CHAP XXXVIII. THE STOCK-EXCHANGE TRIAL. Necessity for entering on the Subject. — Lord Campbell's Opinion respecting it.— Lord Brougham's Opinion. — His late Majesty's. — My Restoration to Eank. — Refusal to Reinvestigate my Case. — The Reasons given. — Extract from Lord Brougham's Works. — My first Knowledge of De Berenger.— How brought about. — The Stock-Exchange Hoax. — Rumoru-s implicating me in it. — I return to Town in consequence.— My Affidavit. — Its Nature. — Improba- bihty of my Confederacy. — My Carelessness of the Matter. — De Berenger's Denial of my Participation. — Remarks thereon. — Sig- nificant Facts. — Remarks on the alleged Hoax common on the Stock-Exchange ..... Page 317 CHAP. XXXIX. Admiralty Influence against me. — Appointment of Mr. Lavie as Prosecutor. — The Trial. — Crane, the Hackney Coachman. — In- decision of his Evidence. — Lord EUenborough's Charge, and unjustifiable Assumptions. — Report of the Trial falsified ; or rather made up for the Occasion. — Evidence, how got up. — Proved to be positive Perjury. — This confirmed by subsequent Affidavits of respectable Tradesmen. — Another Charge in Store for me, had not this succeeded. — The chief Witness's Conviction. — His subsequent Transportation and Liberation. — Affidavits of my Servants, Thomas Dewman, Mary Turpin, and Sarah Bust. — My second Affidavit. — Appeal from my Conviction refused. — Expulsion from the House. — Minority in my Favour . 344 CHAP. XL. Remarks on Lord EUenborough'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 XIV CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. my Case reheard. — Letter to Lord Ebrington. — The Improbability of my Guilt. — Absurdity of such Imputation. — Letter of Sir Eobert 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. — Restora- tion of Sir Eobert Wilson. — My Restoration incomplete to this Day . .... Page 372 Appendices .„„,... 410 DIRECTIONS TO THE BINDEE. Chart A . . . . to face page 15 „ B . ... „ 101 „ C . . . . „ 24 „ D „ 37 AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A SEAMAN. CHAPTEE XXIV. A NAVAL STUDY FOK ALL TIME, CHAETS, ETC., SUPPLIED BY THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT. REFUSED BY A FORMER GOVERNMENT. ALTERATION MADE IN THE CHARTS. MR. STOKES'S AFFIDAVITS. LETTER TO SIR JOHN BARROW. SINGULAR ADMIRALTY MINUTE. SECOND LETTER TO SIR JOHN BABROW. THE CHARTS AGAIN REFUSED. MY DEPARTURE FOR CHILI. RENEWED APPLICATION TO THE ADMIRALTY. KINDNESS OF THE DUKE OF SOMER- SET. DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AT THE ADMIRALTY. It wiU be asked, " How is it tliat the matters recorded in the present volume are, after the lapse of fifty years, for the first time made pubhc?" The reply is, that it was not tiU after the pubHcation of the preceding volume that I have been enabled to place the subject in a comprehensible poiat of view *, and that only through the high sense of justice mani- fested by the late and present First Lords of the * This concession will, in the ftiture narrative, render necessary a sliglit recapitulation of some matters contaiaed in the previous volume, but not to any appreciable extent. VOL. IL B 2 CHAETS SUPPLIED BY THE PEESENT GOVERNMENT. Admiralty, in furnishing me with charts and logs, access to which was prohibited by former Boards of Admiralty. On several previous occasions the attempt has been made, but from the obstiuate refusal of their predecessors to afford me access to documents by which alone truth could be ehcited, it has not hitherto been in my power to arrive at any more satisfactory result than that of placing my own personal and unsupported statements in opposition to the sentence of a court-martial. The necessary materials being now conceded, in such a way as to enable me to prepare them for pubhcation in detail, it is, therefore, for the first time in my power to vindicate myself. A brief recapitulation of former refusals, as well as of the manner in wliich I became possessed of such documentary testimony as vfill hence- forth exhibit facts in a comprehensive point of view, is desirable, as placing beyond dispute matters which would otherwise be incredible. My declaration previous to the com't-martial — that it was ia my capacity as a member of the House of Co mm ons alone that I intended to oppose a vote of thanks to Lord Gambler, on the ground that no service had been rendered worthy of so high an honour — Avill be fresh in the remembrance of the reader* ; and also that when, at the risk of intrench- ment on the privilege of Parhament, the Board of Admiralty called upon me officially to accuse his lord- ship, I referred them to the logs of the fleet for such * See my conversation with Lord Mulgi-are, vol. i. pp. 345, 346. EEFUSED BY A FORMER GOVERNMENT. 3 information relative to the attack in Aix Eoads as they might require* ; — it nevertheless became evident that I was regarded as his lordship's prosecutor! though, throughout the trial, excluded from seeing the charts before the Court, hearing the evidence, cross-examining the witnesses, or even listening to the defence I f On the acquittal of Lord Gambler, the ministry did not submit the vote of thanks to Parhament till six months afterwards, viz. in the session of the following year, 1810. To myself, however, the consequences were — as, Lord Mulgrave had predicted — immediate ; bringing me forthwith under the fuU weight of ministerial displeasure. The Board of Admiralty pro- hibited me from joining the Imperieuse ia the Scheldt. The effect of this prohibition in a manner so marked as to be unmistakeable as to its cause, produced on my mind a natirral anxiety to lay before the pubhc the reasons for a proceeding so unusual, and, as a first step, I requested of the Board permission to inspect the charts upon which — in opposition to the evidence of officers present at the attack — the decision of the court-martial had been made to rest. The request was evaded, both then and afterwards, even though persisted in up to the year 1818, when it was ofiiciaUy denied that the original of the most material chart was in the posses- sion of the Admiralty. Even inspection of a copy admitted to be in their possession was refused. An assertion of this nature might be dangerous were not ample proof at hand. * See my letter to the Secretary of the Admiralty, vol. i. p. 408. f See Minutes of Court-martial, p. 228. B 2 4 ALTEEATION^S MADE IN THE CHARTS. It having come to my knowledge, from certain affi- davits filed in the Com't of Admiralty by Mr. Stokes, the master of Lord Gambler's flagship, on whose chart the acquittal of Lord Gambler had been based — that, after the lapse of eight y-ears from the court-martial I material alterations had been made by permission of the Board itself, and under the direction of one of its officers — I naturally became suspicious that the charts might otherwise have been tampered with ; the more so, as neither at the court-martial, nor at any period sub- sequent to it, had I ever been allowed to obtam even a sight of the charts in question. The very circumstances were suspicious. On the apphcation for head-money to the Court of Admiralty in 1817, the Court had refused to receive Mr. Stokes's chart, on account of its palpable incorrectness. On tills, Mr. Stokes appHed to the Admiralty for permission to alter his chart! The permission was granted, and in tins altered state it was received by the Court of Admkalty, which, on Mr. Stokes's authority, decreed that the head-money should be given to the whole fleet, contrary to the Act of Parhament, instead of the ships tchich alone had taken part in the destruction of the enemy's vessels. Fearful that material erasures or additions had been made, I once more apphed to the Board for permission to inspect the aherations. The request was agahi refused, though my opponents had been permitted to make what alterations and erasm-es they pleased. The foUowing are extracts from the above-mentioned affidavits of Mr. Stokes : — ME STOKES'S AFFIDAVITS. 5 Extract from the affidavit, sworn before the High Court of Ad- miralty on the 13th of November, 1817, of Thomas Stokes, master of the Caledonia, as to the ti-uth of the MSS. chart, upon which the acquittal of Lord Gambier was based ; before the Court of Admiralty rejected his chart, and before the alterations were made. " And this deponent maketh oath that the annexed paper writing marked with the letter A, being a chart of Aix Eoads, is a time copy * rnade by this deponent of an original French chart found on board the French frigate L'Armide in Sep- tember, 1806, which original chart is now in the Hydro- graphic Office in the Adnniralty, and by comparing the same with the original chart he is enabled to depose, and does depose that the said chart is correct and true, and that the soundings therein stated accurately describe the soundings at low water, to the best of his judgment and beUef." Extract from a second affidavit, sworn by Mr. Stokes, before the High Court of Admiralty, on the 17th of April, 1818, after the Court had reiused to admit his chart from its incorrectness ; and after the alterations had been made ! " Appeared personally, Thomas Stokes, master in the Eoyal l^&Yj, and made oath that the original MSS. chart found on board the French frigate UArmide, and marked A, annexed to his affidavit of the 13th of November, 1817, were delivered at the Hydrographic Office at the Admiralty, and this deponent for greater convenience of reference ! inserted a scale of a nautic 'mile ! ! the original manuscript chart having only a scale of French toises ; that in inserting a scale of a nautic mile, this deponent had allowed a thousand French toises to a nautic mile, and that Mr. Walker, the Assistant-Hydro- grapher, accordingly made the erasures which now appear on the face of the chart !" &c. In these affidavits Mr. Stokes first distinctly swore * The original was neither produced at the court-martial nor before the Court of Admiralty. A far greater and more dehberate error will appear in a future chapter. B 3 6 LETTER TO SIK JOHN BAEROAY. that his chart, copied from a French MSS. was correct ; 2ndly — when detected by the Court of Admiralty — that it was incorrect; Srdly — that the original was deposited in the Hydrographic Office at the Admiralty. My apphcation to Sir John Barrow, then Hydro- grapher to the Admiralty, was as follows : — " May 4th, 1818. " SiE, — As it appears by the affidavit of which I enclose a copy that two charts of Aix Eoads, the one stated to be a copy of the other, were deposited in the Hydrographic Office, and that the one 'purporting to he the copy has been delivered up for the purpose of being exhibited as evidence on the part of my opponents in a cause now pending in the High Court of Admiralty, and as it further appears that an alteration in the last-mentioned chart was made by Mr. Stokes, and a further alteration by Mr. Walker, Assistant-Hydrographer, I have to request that the Eight Honourable the Lords Commis- sioners will be pleased to permit me to see the other or original chart of Mr. Stokes still remaining at the Hydro- graphic Office, in order that I may be enabled to judge for myself of the nature and effect of the alterations now acknowledged to have been made on the charts. The reasonableness of this request will, I presume, be manifest to their Lordships, and the more especially, seeing that my op- ponents are not only allowed similar access, hut have heen permitted to withdraw one of the said charts for the purpose of exhihiting it in evidence, notwithstanding that a variation from the original has been avowedly made therein. I have, &c., " COCHEANE. " Sir John Barrow, Hydi-ographer, &c." To this request Sir John Barrow, on the 6th of May, retiirned the following refusal : — "As Mr. Stokes's charts have been restored to him, and a copy made for the use of the office, I am directed to acquaint SIJfGULAR ADMIRALTY MINUTE. 7 your Lordship that my Lords cannot comply with your request m respect to the original chart, and as to the copy of the chart made in this office and now remaining here, their Lord- ships do not feel themselves at liberty to communicate it. " I have the honour, &c. "John Baekow." This refusal was accompanied by tlie following copy of a minute from the Admiralty : in which it was pre- tended that Stokes had only lent the original chart to the Hydrographer's office, to be copied for the use of the Hydrographic Department — though it had been made use of to acquit an admiral, to the rejection of the charts of the fleet, as will presently be seen. " Mr. Stokes lent the original chart to the Hydrographer's office, to be copied for the use of that department. "Mr. Stokes then went abroad. "On his return he applied for his chart, which being mislaid they gave him the copy. "Stokes, finding the alteration objected to in a court of law, applied about a month since for his own chart, the original of which was restored to him, copy being made." — 23, 141, 147. To this singular communication and minute I re- tiu-ned the subjoined reply: — " 13, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden. I8th May, 1818. " SiE, — Your letter of the 6th of May was delivered to me as I was going out of town, consequently I had no oppor- timity of referring to documents which I have since consulted, in order to refute the statements which the Lords of the Ad- miralty appear to have received. " You inform me, by command of their Lordships, that ' it appears by a report from the Hydrographer that Mr. Stokes had become possessed of the original chart which he B 4 8 SECOIs^D LETTER TO SIE JOHN BAKROW. lent to the Hydrographer's office for the use of that depart- ment.' This appears to imply that Mr. Stokes became possessed of the original chart at the time of the attack in the Charente under Lord Gambier, whereas Mr. Stokes made oath that it was taken from the Armide in 1806, two years and a half previous to the attack in question. As it does not appear from the Minutes of the court-martial on Lord G-ambier that the original chart was then produced, and as it is not now forthcoming in the cause now pending in the Court of Admiralty, I am compelled to disbelieve its existence, or at least to believe that it underwent material alterations after it came into Mr. Stokes's possession. The original ought to have been exhibited with the copy at the trial of Lord Grambier, and both either were or ought to have been filed in the office of the Admiralty with the Minutes of the proceedings ; but whether either are so filed their Lordships have not ^permitted me to ascertain. " If the original were filed, it could not afterwards have been ' lent by Mr Stokes to the Hydrographer's office to be copied for the use of that department.' Even had the copy only been filed — sworn as it was by Mr. Stokes ' to he cor- rect ! ' there could have been no necessity — if Mr. Stokes was deemed worthy of belief — for the Hydrographer to borrow the original. Eight years having elapsed since the court- martial on Lord Gambier, you inform me that 'Mr. Stokes on his return from abroad applied for his chart accordingly, which chart happening to be mislaid, he was furnished with the copy in question,' viz. that ' made for the use of the Hydrographer's department.' It is important to observe that this is completely at variance with the affidavit oi Mr. Stokes, who swears that ' he himself made the copy,'' and that ' both the copy and the origincdwere delivered at the Hydrograjjliic Office ! ' It cannot fail to be observed, that to ' deliver ' a chart at the Hydrographic Office, and to ' lend a chart to be copied for the use of that department' — the language of the letter before me — are different expressions, conveying widely dif- ferent meanings. SECOND LETTER TO SIR JOHN BAERO^\ 9 " It is also material to observe that it is strange alterations at all should have been made on a chart represented to be a copy of an original, and exhibited as evidence in a court of law. That such original is ')wt forthcoming is a very material and a very suspicious circumstance. If it be true, or if there really be any other chart than that which is described as a copy and admitted to be altered, I may fairly infer that such altered copy differs so materially and so fradulently from the original, or that the original — so called — is itself so palpable a fabrication, or has so obviously been altered, that Mr. Stokes and his employers do not dare to exhibit it in a court of law ; and have withdrawn it from the Hydrogra- pher's office for the purpose of suppressing so convincing a proof of the fraud practised on Lord Grambier's trial. " Exclusive of the glaring contradiction between the state- ments of Mr. Stokes on the court-martial, and that which you have been commanded to make to me, when it is considered that ]Mr. Stokes is detected in having altered a document which he exhibits in a court of law as a correct copy of an original, and that he is no sooner detected than he endeavours to defend the alteration by declaring that it proceeded from the Hydrographer's office, where the original was deposited ; and that upon such defence leading to an application for leave to inspect the original, answer is made that such original haA merely been borrowed of Mr. Stokes, and had been returned to him at his own request, and that request, too, made in consequence of the alteration in the alleged copy having been detected — it is impossible not to infer a juggle between Mr. Stokes, the Hydrogi'aphic Office, and others whom I shall not here undertake to name, for the purpose of defeating the ends of justice. " COCHEANE. " Sir John Barrow, Hydrograplier, &c.'' Eeceiving no reply to this letter, I subsequently addressed the following to the Secretary of the Ad- miralty. 10 LETTEU TO THE SECKETARY OF THE ADMIKALTT. " 9, Biyanstone Street, Portman Square, 2nd July, 1818. " SiE, — I feel it proper to inclose to you, as Secretary of the Admiralty, a copy of an affidavit, accompanied by a general outline of tlie chart of Basque Eoads, the originals of which are filed in the High Court of Admiralty, by which their Lordships will clearly perceive that five more ships of the line tnight and ought to have been taken or destroyed, had the enemy been attacked between daybreak and noon on the 12th of April. And I have to request, Sir, that you will have the goodness to lay these documents before their Lordships (as well as the inclosed printed case which they have already partly seen in manuscript), with my respectful and earnest desire that their Lordships may be pleased to cause the facts therein set forth to be verified by comparing them with the original documents, logs, charts, and records in their Lordships' possession. I am the more solicitous that the present Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty should adopt this mode of proceeding, as it will enable them deci- sively to judge on a subject of great national importance, and also to ascertain (what a portion of the public know) that it is not by false evidence from amongst the lower class of society alone that my character has been assailed, in order not only to perpetuate the concealment of neglect of duty, but to prevent an exposure of the perjury, forgery, and fraud by which that charge was endeavoured to be refuted. " I beg. Sir, that you will assure their Lordships on my part, that as a deep sense of public duty alone induced me formerly to express a hope that the thanks of Parliament might not be pressed for the conduct of the affair in Basque Eoads, so, in addition to that feeling, which made me disre- gard every private interest, I have formed a fixed determin- ation never, whilst I exist, to rest satisfied until I expose the baseness and wickedness of the attempts made to destroy my character, which I value more than my life. " As the affidavits of Captains Eobert Kerr and Eobert Hockings (which, as well as my own, are filed in the High Court of Admiralty) may immediately be made the subject of MY DEPAETUEE FOE CHILI. 11 indictment in a court of law, and as the proceedings in the Admiralty Court have been put off under the pretence of obtaining further evidence in support of the mis-statements of these officers and the claim of Lord Gambier, I have respectfully to request that when the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty shall have instituted an inquiry into the logs, charts, and documents, and ascertained the conduct of the before-named officers, they will be pleased to cause public justice to be done in a matter involving the character of the naval service so deeply. " If, Sir, through their Lordships' means, a fair investigation shall take place, it will be far more gratifying than any other course of proceeding. "I have the honour to be, &c. &c., " Cochrane. " Jno. Wilson Croker, Esq., Secretary, &c., Admiralty." After the above correspondence I gave up, as hope- less, all further attempts to obtain even so much as a sight of the charts without which any public expla- nation on my part would have been unintelligible. In the year 1819 — when nearly ruined by law expenses, fines, and deprivation of pay — in despair moreover, of surmounting the unmerited obloquy which had befallen me in England — I accepted from the Chilian government an invitation to aid in its war of independence ; and removed with Lady Cochrane and our family to South America, in the vain hope of find- ing, amongst strangers, that sympathy which, though interested, might, in some measure compensate for the persecutions of our native land.* I will not attempt * The malice of oifended faction pursued me even to this remote part of the globe, in the shape of a " Foreign Enlistment Act " (59th George III. cap. 69). This Act was introduced by the At- 12 EE^'EWED APPLICATION TO THE ADMIRALTY. to describe the agonised feelings of this even tem- porary exile under such circumstances from my country, in whose annals it had been my ambition to secure an honourable position. No language of mine could convey the mental sufferings consequent on finding aspirations — founded on exertions which ought to have justified aU my hopes — frustrated by the enmity of an iUiberal political faction, which regarded services to the nation as nothing when o|)posed to the interests of party. On my return to England, from causes which will appear in the sequel, the subject of the charts was not again officially renewed. Latterly, however, considering that at my advanced age there was a probability of quitting the world with the stigma attached to my memory of having been the indirect cause of bringing my commander-in-chief to a court-martial — though in reahty the charges were made by the Admiralty — I determined to make one more effort to obtain those documents which alone could justify the course I had deemed it my duty to pursue. In the hope that the more enhghtened pohcy of modern times might concede the boon, which a former period of pohtical corruption had denied, I apphed to Su" John Pakington, late First Lord of the Admkalty, for permission to inspect such documents relative to the affair of Aix Eoads as the Board might possess. toniey-General, Sir Samuel Shepherd, for the express purpose of preventing any one from assisting the South American States then at war with Spain ; the Act being thus especially levelled at me, though injuriously driven from the service of my own country. ICIXDjS'ESS of the duke op SOMERSET. 13 Permission was kindly and promptly granted by Sir John Paldngton ; but Lord Derby's ministry going out of office before tlie boon could be rendered available, it became necessary to renew the application to the suc- cessor of the Eight Honourable Baronet, viz. his Grace the Duke of Somerset, who as promptly comphed with the request. The reader may judge of my surprise on discovering, in its proper place, bound up amongst the Naval Eecords, in the usual official mamier, the very chart the possession of lohich had been denied hy a former Board of Admiralty ! The Duke of Somerset, moreover, with a considera- tion for which I feel truly grateful, ordered that what- ever copies of charts I might require, should be supphed by the Hydrographic Office ; so that by the kindness of Captain Washington, the eminent hydrographer to the Board, tracings of the suppressed charts have been made, and are now appended to this volume. BQs grace further ordered that the logs of Lord Gambler's fleet should be submitted to the inspection of Mr. Earp, wT.th permission to make extracts ; an order fully carried out by the courtesy of Mr. Lascelles, of the Eecord Office, to the extent of the logs in his possession. It is, therefore, only after the lapse of fifty-one years and in my own eighty-fifth year, — a postponement too late for my peace, but not for my justification, — that I am, from official documents, and proofs deduced from official documents which were from the first and still are in the possession of the Government, enabled to remove the stigma before alluded to, and to lay before the pubhc such an explanation of the fabricated chart. 14 DIFFEEENCE OF OPINION AT THE ADMIRALTY. together mth an Admiralty copy of tlie chart itself, as from that evidence shall place the whole matter beyond the possibility of dispute. It will in the present day be difficult to credit the existence of such practices and evil influences of party spirit in past times as could permit an Administration, even for the purpose of pre- serving the prestige of a Government to claim as a glorious victory ! a neglect of duty which, to use the mildest terms, was both a naval and a national dis- honour. The point which more immediately concerns myself is, however, this : — that the verdict founded on this fabri- cated chart, together with the subsequent official enmity directed against me m consequence of my determina- tion to oppose the vote of thanks to Lord Gambler, was persevered in year after year, till it reached its climax in the consequences of that subsequent trial which was made the pretext for driving me from the navy, in defiance of remonstrance at the Board of Admiralty itself I have not long been aware of the latter fact. Admiral CoUier has recently mformed me that Sir W. J. Hope, then one of the Naval Lords of the Ad- miralty, told him that considering the sentence passed against me cruel and vindictive, he refused to sign his name to the decision of the Board by which my name was struck off the Navy List. CHART A. Tracing from the official French Chart of the isles of E6 and d'OUeron. Tendered to the Court-Martial by Lord Coctieake, and rejected. 2' I I S.^ -JZt> 5; ^^ •■!¥ ^S' ;o * fi) ^/ ^^ *- ^ '^ ^ 8^; ^0 40 &s So 25 4S' 4ff "■3«. *f 1^ i?J 2o «•; ?2 £2 ^.^... ^'-'^■ti^^r)^ P<:»'>^df x^: r. Y 'e^-^. V OuxtsJaUIanf Vif .?& .^Datx. JS be ■to J.S J^ Fa? t?0 -SS it &? 4^ £6' $0 Ckij^v^nsqf def! cn\ d'OEeron • ■■.. ^o •• ^i .S drwnd Oarwrv ;■: „ •. "s^ ■ -'<'' •■.■■■■•■ *■••'* '■■ /ri V iC't^'J-^ Ze.- ■■:■:. ■■'■■■ ■•■■^ ;££, j/"' ^OT'lip- -'■'■:•■■'<•■■,, ^ ■"■'%^Xl$ '7 *« n^--: s :->k •J**' ^.S' 4i' *y rTj''j' SoLvndui^s in,Jeet .aijjow W(Uer Spptmfn 3 asffiEKBEaassiSSttfflst^ JSSHSiSIKSIira^EEESiC^ London : Sichard Bentley : 1860. ■^xmasismismmM 35 CHAP. XXV. A NAVAL STUDY — continued. frexch htbeogeaphic chaets. one tendered bt me to the court. rejected bt the president. geodnds foe its eejection. the object of the eejected chaet. would have proved too much, if admitted. rejection of other chabts tendered by me. mr. Stokes's chart. — its fallacy at first sight judge advocate's reasons foe adopting it. its eeeoes detected by the presi- dent, and exposed heee. probable excuse foe the error. imaginary shoal on the chart. falsification of width of CHANNEL. ^LORD GAMBIER's VOUCHER FOR STOKES's CHAET. STOKES'S VOUCHEE FOE ITS WOETHLESSNESS. STOKEs's CHAET IN A NATIONAL POINT OF VIEW. TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY THE FRENCH. The charts to which the reader's attention is invited are those alluded to in the last chapter, as having, after the lapse of fifty-one years, been traced for me by Captain Washington, by the order of his Grace the Duke of Somerset. The subject being no longer of personal but of historical interest, there can be no impropriety ia laying before the naval service, for its judgment, materials so considerately supphed by the present First Lord of the Admiralty. Chaet a is a correct tracing of Aix Eoads from the Neptwie Franqois, a set of charts issued by the Erench Hydro- graphical Department — bound in a volume, and sup- phed for the use of the French navy previous to 16 FEENCH HYDROGEAPHIC CHARTS. 1809 * ; copies from the same source being at that period supphed under the auspices of the Board of Admiralty for the use of British ships on the French coasts — these, in fact, forming the only guides available at that period. Chart A shows a clear entrance of two miles, with- out shoal or hindrance of any kind, between He d'Aix and the Boyart Sand ; the sormdings close to the latter marking thirty-five feet at low water, with fi-om thirty to forty feet in mid-channel. The chart shows, moreover, a channel leading to a spacious an- chorage between the Boyart and PaUes Sands, marking clear soundings at low water of from twenty to thirty feet close to either sand, with thirty feet in mid-channel. In this anchorage line-of-battle-ships could not only have floated, without danger of grounding, but coiild have efiectively operated against the enemy's fleet, even in its entire state before the attack, wholly out of range of the batteries on lie d'Aix, as will hereafter be cor- roborated by the logs and evidence of experienced ofiicers present in the attack, and therefore practically acquainted with the soundings. To a naval eye, it will be apparent that, by gaining this anchorage, it would not at any time have been difficult for the British force to have interposed the enemy's fleet between itself and the fortifications on He d'Aix in such a way as completely to neutrahse the fire of the latter. Further inspection of the chart wiU indicate an inner * Sets of these cLarts, bound as described, were found on board the grounded ships captured in the aftemoon of the 12th of April, and were therefore available for the purposes of the court-martial, had it been deemed expedient to consult them. ONE TE.\DKRED BY MB TO THE COURT 17 anctorage, called Le Grand Trousse, to which any British vessel disabled by the enemy's ships— two only of which, out of thirteen, remained afloat, — might have retired with safety to an anchorage capable of holding a fleet— the soimdmgs m Le Grand Trousse marking from thirty to forty feet at low water. Between these anchorages it will be seen on the chart that there is no shoal, nor any other danger whatever.* The rise of tide marked on the chart was from ten to twelve feetf , consequently amply sufiicient on a rising tide for the two-deckers and frigates to have been sent to the attack of the enemy's ships aground on the Palles Shoal, as testified by the evidence of Captains Malcolm and Broughton.J The flood-tide making about 7-0 A.ii. gave assurance of abundant depth of water by 11-0 A.M., which is the time marked in the commander-m-chief s log § as that of bringirig the British ships to an anchor ! m. place of forwarding them to the attack of ships on shore ! This chart was tendered by me to the Court, in ex- planation of my evidence. It was, however, rejected, * This anchorage was plainly marked on the French charts sup- plied to the British ships, as deposed to by the officers present in the action. (See the evidence of Captain Broughton, Minutes, p. 222, and that of Captain Newcomb, p. 198). The correctness of the chart furnished by me being thus clearly established in evidence. I In reality, from eighteen to twenty feet, at spring tides, as appeared from the testimony of various officers. Admiral Stopford amongst others. Even Mr. Stokes marked on his chart a rise of twenty-one feet, so that there was abundance of water for the operation of ships of the largest class. The defence of the Com- mander-in-chief was, that there was not sufficient water at half-flood to float the ships ! \ See pp. 58 and 63. § Erroneously, according to the. logs of the other ships. VOL. II. C 18 EEJECTED BY THE PRESIDENT. because I could not produce the French hydrographer to prove its correctness! though copies of a similar chart, as has been said, were furnished to British ships for their guidance ! Being thus repudiated, my chart was flung contemptuously under the table, and neither this nor any other official chart was afterwards allowed to corroborate the facts subsequently testified by the various officers present in the action, they being im- peratively ordered to base their observations on the chart of Mr. Stokes alluded to in the last chapter, as having been — eight years after the court-martial — pronounced by the Court of Admiralty so incorrect as to require material alteration before it could be put in evidence in a court of law ! To this point we shall presently come. A singular circumstance comiected with the rejected chart should rather have secured its reception, viz. that it was taken by my own hands out of the Ville de Varsovie French hne-of-battle ship shortly before she was set fire to, and therefore its authenticity, as having been officially supphed by the French government for the use of that ship, was beyond doubt or question. I also produced two similar charts, on which were marked the places of the enemy's ships aground at dayhght on the 12 th of April, as observed from the Imperieuse, the only vessel then in proximity. The positions of the grounded vessels are marked on Chart B. The manner of the rejection by the Court —at the suggestion of the Judge-Advocate — of the chart ten- dered by me, is worthy of note. Pkesident. — " I think your lordship said just now, that you ALLEGED GROUNDS FOR ITS REJECTIOKT. ig thought there was water enough for ships of any draught of water ? " Lord Cochrane. — " Yes." President. — "Have you an authenticated chart, or any evidence that can be produced to show that there is actually such a depth of water ? " LoED CocHEANE (putting in the charts). — "It was actually from the soundings we had going in, provided the tide does not fall more than twelve feet, which I am not aware of. I studied the chart of Basque Eoads for some days before. The rise of the tide, as I understand from that, is from ten to twelve feet. It is so mentioned in the French chart. I have no other means of judging." * Judge-Advocate. — "This chart is not evidence before THE Court, because his lordship cannot prove its cor- rectness ! ! " President. — No ! It is nothing more than to show upon what grounds his lordship forms his opinion on the rise and fall of the tide ! ! " f * This was fiilly corroborated by Captain Malcolm, when, having said that "there were no obstacles to prevent the frigates and some ships of the line from going into Aix Eoads, he was asked by the President, " if he made known to the Commander-in-chief that by keeping close to the Boyart Shoal the ships might have yone in?" The reply was in every way remarkable. Captain Malcolm. — " I do not know that I mentioned this to the Commander-in-chief. The charts showed it." — Minutes, p. 214. A complete corroboration of the correctness of my charts tendered to but rejected by the Court ; though as these had been supphed under the sanction of the Admiralty, it was out of the question to reject them as the basis of evidence, inasmuch as there could be none other of a rehable nature. f The following extract from my evidence, and the singular remark from Admiral Young, are extracted from the minutes of the court-martial. " The Commander-in-chief had the same charts as I was in pos- session of, and from these I formed my conclusion with respect to the anchorage. In reconnoitring the enemy's fleet, so near as c 2 20 THE OBJECT OF THE EBJECTED CHART. It was not put in for any purpose of the kind — for I had expressly said that I had no opinion as to the rise and fall of the tide, except as marked on the French official charts. The object of my putting in those charts was to show the truth of the whole matter before the Court. The president, however, flung the chart under the table with as much eagerness as the Judge- Advocate had evinced when objecting to its re- ception in evidence.* The object of the chart was in fact to prove, as indeed was subsequently proved by the testimony of eminent offi- cers, and would have been proved even by the ships' logs had they been consulted, that there was plenty of channel room to keep clear of the batteries on lie d'Aix, together with abundant depth of water f ; and that the comman- der-in-chief, in ordering all the ships to come to an anchor, in place of sending a portion % of the British to induce, Mm to open a fire from almost his whole line, I reported to the Commander-in-cMef the ruinous state of He d'Aix, the inner fortif cations being completely blown up and destroyed. There were only 13 guns mounted." Admiral Young. — " Will you consider, my Lord Cochrane, before you go on, how fab this is relevant " ! ! ! — Minutes, p. 58. My assertion of the fact that the Commander-in-chief's charts were identical with my own, as having come from the Admiralty, was con- sidered irrelevant, because, had they been put in, or mine not rejected, there could have been no doubt of the result of the court-martial. * It is a singular circumstance that notwithstanding the chart was flung under the table and rejected by the Court, I found it hound up amongst the Admiralty records ! f The ships which were sent in though too late were untouched by shot or shell. For the depth of water they found on going in, see page 71. :j: My signals were, " half the fleet can destroy the enemy." Then, " the frigates alone can destroy the enemy." Yet in his defence WOULD HAVE PROVED TOO MUCH, IF ADMITTED. 21 ships to the attack of the enemy's vessels aground on the north-west part of the Palles Shoal, on the morning of the 12th of April, had displayed a " mollesse" — as it was happily termed by Admiral Graviere — - unbecoming the Commander-in-chief of a British force, superior in numbers, and having nothing to fear from about a dozen gims on the fortifications of Aix ; which, had the ships been sent in along the edge of the Boyart, could have inflicted no material damage, either by shot or shell.* These were precisely the points which the ministry did not want proved, and which — as will presently be seen — the Court was no less anxious to avoid proving. Had the French chart been received in evidence, as it ought to have been — I do not say mtue, but those on board the flagship itself, or indeed any copy supphed by the Admiralty to the fleet — a vote of thanks to Lord Gambler would have been impossible, and with the impossibility would have vanished the Govern- ment prestige of a great victory gained by their com- mander-iu-chief, under their auspices.f The French oflacial chart being thus adroitly got rid of by the Judge- Advocate, the other charts tendered by me to mark the positions of the enemy's ships Lord Gambier assumed that I had signalled for the fleet at a time when, as he alleged, it could not have floated for want of water ? * See Captain Malcolm's evidence, page 58. Also Captain God- frey's, of the Etna, who " thinks some of the enemy's shot went over them " {Minutes, p. 173), but admits that not a mast, yard, or even a rope-yarn was touched. f " I was furnished by Lord Cochrane with a French chart, and considered it a good one." — Evidence of Captain Neivcomb, p. 199. " I had for several years been in the possession of official French charts, which, in my previous cruises, had not been found defective, c 3 22 REJECTION OF OTHER CHARTS TENDERED BY ME. aground shared the hke fate, though not open to the same objection. The exactness of the positions was moreover confirmed by the evidence of Mr. Stokes, the master of the Caledonia, Lord Gambier's flagship ; though his chart, substituted for those in use amongst the British ships, was in direct contradiction to his oral evidence. The positions, of the ships aground as marked on my charts, were as follows. The Ocean, three-decker, bearing the flag of Admiral Allemand, and forming a group with three other hne-of- battle ships close to her, lay aground on the north-west edge of the PaUes Shoal, nearest the deep water, where even a gun-boat, had it been sent whilst they lay on their bilge, could have so perforated their bottoms, that they could not have floated with the rising tide. AU were immoveably aground, and were therefore incapable of opposition to an attacking force* ; whilst each of the and from those charts I had at all times drawn my conclusions with respect to the depth of water, or other circumstances which related to the navigation on the enemy's coast." Pkesident. — " The coast of the enemy, I suppose you mean ? " Lord Cocheajsie. — '■'■'■ I refer to the French coast." Admiral Young. — " Wlien did you discover that there was this anchorage in deep water ? " Lord Cochrane. — " I have said that in going in I found the soundings correct, and that, in fact, I had such confidence in the chart, that I had said to Admiral Keates, when we were off there, and to Admiral Thornborough, that there could he no difficulty in going in there and destroying the enemy'' s fleet. I took the chart on board Admiral Thomborough's ship." — See my Letter to Admiral Thornborough, vol. i. p. 195. — Lord Cochrane' s Evidence, p. 57. * " Till about noon, the Ocean, three-decker, was heeling consi- derably, and appeared to me to be heaving her guns overboard." Captain Malcolm {Minutes, p. 209). She escaped about two o'clock P.M., just before I advanced in the Imperieuse, lest all should escape. MR. STOKES'S CORROBOEATION OP MY CHARTS. 23 group of tlaree lay so much inclined towards each other as to present the appearance of having their yards locked together.* They had, in fact, drifted with the same current, into the same spot, and being nearly of the same draught of water, had grounded close to each other. The one separate was a vessel of less draught than these, and had gone a httle further on the shoal. The correctness of these positions, as marked on my chart, was completely confirmed by Mr. Stokes, master of the flag-ship, in his oral evidence as subjoined. Question. — " State the situation of the enemy's fleet on the morning of the 12th of April." Mr. Stokes. — " At daylight I ohserved the whole of the enemy's ships, except two of the line, on shore. Four of them lay in group, or lay together on the western part of the Palles Shoal. The three-decker {L'Ocean, flagship) was on the north-west edge of the Palles Shoal, with her broadside flanking the passage ; the north-west point nearest the deep luater." * — [Minutes, page 147.) This was the truth as to the positions of the grounded ships which escaped ; these being referred to in Mr. Stokes's evidence precisely as marked on my rejected chart. That is, his evidence showed, in corroboration of my chart, the utter helplessness of an enemy which a British admiral refrained from attacking, though aground ! * "I thinh their yards were not locked." — Evidence of Mr. Fairfax, Minutes, p. 144. It was, however, so nearly, that Mr. Fairfax, a witness carefiilly in Lord Gambler's interest, cotdd only thinh about it. He reluctantly admitted that all lay " within a ship's length of each other," and ships lying aground on their bilge inclined towards each other at an angle of thirty degrees are — if not locked together, — completely incapable of resistance. c 4 24 ME. STOKES'S CHAET. The French charts produced by me being thus re- jected, those in the possession of the Commander-in-chief not produced, and those connected with the fleet not being called for, the court decided to rely upon two charts professedly constructed for the occasion by the master of the Caledonia, Mr. Stokes, and the master of the fleet, Mr. Fairfax, neither of whom was present in the attach* Chart C was tendered to the Court by Mr. Stokes, the master of Lord Gambler's flag-ship Caledonia. This chart professed to show, and was sworn to by Mr. Stokes as showing, the positions of the enemy's sliips aground on the morning of the 12th of April, be- fore the Ocean three-decker, together with a group of three outermost ships near her, had been permitted by the delay of the Commander-in-chief to warp off and escape. Instead, however, of placing these on his chart as they lay helplessly aground " nearest the deep water " as he had sworn in his evidence, they were placed in * It is a remarkable fact that many of the witnesses chiefly relied on by the Commander-in-chief, in confirmation of his having done his duty, had not heen in Aix Boads at all, and could therefore have no knowledge of anything, except their remaining inactive with the fleet whilst the enemy's ships were warping oiF. Mr. Stokes was of this niiimber ; yet all were qiiestioned on points known only to oiScers intimately acquainted with Aix Eoads, and present at the action. But for the court to adopt exclusively, as will presently be seen, a chart constructed by a man who admitted that an im- portant portion had been laid down from hearsay, was monstrous ■ the more so, as the official charts, would have shown the truth. Coiistructea"bylF Std fes foi the purposes of the CoTixt-Ma2tLal.,ajia_ exclusively aaop|ed,-aiOTighitiLaiTOTv^s the diaDneLto Aix Hoadsto onem'le only, the official Ireucli Charts m |uig I iiid twomMes. ITS FALLACY AT FIRST SIGHT. 25 on the other side of the sand, in the positions occupied after their escape I and to this Mr. Stokes swore as their position whe7i first driven ashore I The Ocean three- decker, and group in particular, which, according to Mr. Stokes's oral evidence, must, as already stated, have been an easy prey to a gunboat had such been sent on the first quarter instead of the last quarter flood, was thus placed on his chart where no vessel could have approached them ! * This falsehood on Mr. Stokes's chart, in opposition to his oral evidence just given, as well as to the evi- dence of other officers, formed one of the priacipal grounds of Lord Gambler's acquittal ; and it was for this end that the official French charts presented by me for the information of the court were rejected by the judge-advocate. On the presentation of Mr. Stokes's chart to the court, the subjoiued colloquy took place as to the me- thods adopted in its construction. Me. Bicknell. — "Produce a chart or drawing of the anchorage at Isle d'Aix, with the relative positions of the * Mr. Stokes, moreover swore, in his evidence, that the Ocean three-decker lay on the north-west edge of the Palles Shoal, and that the group lay on the western part of the same shoal, though the latter observation was incorrect, as the group lay around the Ocean which formed a part of it. On his chart these vessels are placed to the south-east of the shoal, and the remainder nearly due EAST ! ! That is, in place of being " nearest the deep water ^^ where they were easily attackable, they were placed on the chart '■^farthest from the deep water," where they were not attackable. He swore too that they lay with their broadsides "flanking the passage " to Aix Eoads. On his chart, not one of them "flanks the passage," but all are made to flank the opposite direction ; so that they could not have fired on any British ship which might have been sent in. 26 STOKES'S DESCEIPTION OF HIS CHAET. British and French fleets, and other particulars, on and previous to the 12th of April last." The Witness 'produced it. Me. Bicknell. — " Did you prepare this drawing, and from what documents, authorities, and observations ; and are the several matters delineated therein accurately delineated, to the best of your knowledge and belief? " Me. Stokes. — "I prepared that drawing (Chart C), partly from the knowledge I gained in sounding to the south- ward of the Palles Shoal, and the anchorage of the Isle of Aix.* The outlines of the chart are taken from the Nejptune Frangois, and the position of the enemy's fleet from Mr. Edward Fairfax, and from the French captain of the Ville de Varsovie, and the British fleet from my own observation." The distance between the sands was copied from a French MS. which will be produced, and that / take it is correct. Me. Bicknell. — " Are the matters and things therein accu- rately described?" Me. Stokes. — " They are." Peesident (inspecting Mr. Stokes^s chart). — " There was a large chart you lent me ? " * In his subsequeiat evidence Mr. Stokes admitted that he had never sounded there at all previous to the action ! Question. — " Had you any knowledge of that anchorage previous to the 12th of April? " Mr. Stokes. — "None whatever! " — Minutes, p. 148. He swears that everything on his chart is accurately described — then, that " the distance between the sands," which was one of the most important points of the court-martial, rwas copied from a French MS. .' the name of whose author he does not think proper to com- municate, nor does the court ask him ! nor was any MSS. produced in Coiu-t. Yet, as master of the Admiral's flagship, Mr. Stokes must have navigated her by the French, charts supplied by the Admiralty, though these when tendered by me to the Court had been rejected. The fleet could, in fact, have had no other for its guidance, as no British survey of Aix Eoads was in existence. Such charts were surely a better guide in any case than an anonymous MSS. JUDGK advocate's REASONS FOR ADOPTING IT. 27 Me. Stokes. — " That is the chart I allude to. This chart I produce as containing the various positions." Judge-Adtocate (to the President). — " This Chart is PRODUCED TO SATE A GEEAT DEAL OF TROUBLE ! ! " {MinuteS, pp. 23, 24.) No iovht — the trouble of confirming the Comman- der-in-chiefs neglect of duty in not following up a manifest advantage, as would have been shown had the court allowed the Neptune Franqois itself to have been put, in evidence ; for it would have shown a clear passage of two miles wide, extending beyond reach of shot, instead of the one mile passage in Mr. Stokes's "accurate outlines" of the Trench chart, and no shoal where he had marked only twelve feet of water ! * That the president should have allowed this to pass, after having himself detected the imposition practised on the court, is a point upon which I wiU not comment. Mr. Stokes further admitted his chart to be valueless, as regarded the position of the enemy's fleet ashore, for he said that position was taken "from Mr. Edward Fairfax and the captain of the Ville de Varsovie, and the British fleet from "his own observations." That is, he confessed to know nothing but from hearsay as to the position of the enemy's fleet, the important object before the court ; but only of the position of the British fleet, lying at anchor nine miles from the enemy's fleet ashore, a matter with which the court had nothing to do ; he being aU the time on board the flagship, at that distance. Yet the court insisted on this chart being ex- * Compare charts A and C. 28 Stokes's chart exclusively adopted. clusively referred to throughout the court-martial! * It is strange that such a chart should have been used at aU, when the charts of the fleet were available, but more strange that, when the court saw the two miles passage in the French chart was reduced to Httle more than one mile in Mr. Stokes's chart, he was not even asked the reason why he had not conformed to the scale of the French chart, to the correctness of the outlines of tohich he had sworn ! But the most glaring contradiction of Mr. Stokes's chart is this : he swore to his chart as truly depicting the positions of the Ocean and other grounded ships, as they lay on the morning of the 12th of April, which was the point before the Court; but being further questioned, reluctantly admitted that he had marked the Ocean * The President tlius dictated to Captain Beresford : — " Captain Beresford must say wlietlier the ships are marked on that chart (Mr. Stokes's) as they appeared to him." Captain Beresford took no notice of the order. Captain Bligh was less independent when asked to Tonch for the accuracy of Mr. Stokes's cliart. He " thinks the enemy's ships, on the morning of the 12th, were as there represented, though Mr. Stokes, in contradiction to his own chart, had sworn that they were not so marked, but only those that were destroyed ! " When asked if the ships agroimd could have annoyed the British ships had they been sent in ? Captain Bligh replied, " I thinhthey were capable of annoying the British ships." — Minutes, p. 154. He, however, immediately afterwards stated that the ships "were not within reach of the guns of the British squadron." Captain Kerr " thinhs the situation of the enemy's fleet on the morning of the 12th was marked on Mr. Stokes's chart as nearly as it can be. There were seven sail-of-the-line ashore, and two afloat.'' — Minutes, p. 166. What had the numbers ashore or afloat to do with their exact position ? A palpable evasion of the question was permitted by the court. ITS ERRORS DETECTED BY THE PRESIDENT 29 as she lay on the 15th of April, viz. on the following day when an attack was made on her by the bomb vessel I though he had just sworn to the positions of the ships on the chart as being those on the morning of the 12th, immediately after having run ashore to escape destruction. The fact was, as will be seen on inspection of the chart, that not one of the ships under the cognizance of the court is marked on Stokes's chart as they lay on the morning of the 12th, which position, and not that on the 13th, was the subject of inquiry. Though as already said this misrepresentation was detected hy the Pre- sident, the coiurt nevertheless persisted in the exclusive use of Mr. Stokes's chart throughout the trial, in ac- cordance vnth the suggestion of the Judge- Advocate, that it was produced to " save a great deal of trouble." The President thus commented on the manifest con- tradiction. President. — " I observe in the chart I had from you the situation of the Ocean particularly is not marked on the I2th. She is marked on the 13 th as advanced wp the Charente ! " Me. Stokes. — " The only ships marked on the chart on the I2th are those that were destroyed. The reason I marked her on the 13th is, that a particular attack was made on her by the bombs. / observed her from the mizentop of the Caledonia *, and I also had an observation from an officer, so that I have no doubt her position is put down within a cable's length." (Minutes p. 147.) There is something in this evidence almost too re- * Nine miles off. This answer shows most forcibly the nature of the data on which Mr. Stokes's chart was constructed. 30 AND EXPOSED HERE. pugnant for observation. Mr. Stokes first swore that his chart accurately described the positions of the enemy's ships ashore on the morning of the 12th. He then admitted tliat the most material ship of the enemy's fleet was marked as she lay on the 1 Zth ! ! On this mis- statement being detected by the president, he then swore that the only ships marked on the 12th were those which were destroyed, viz. on the evening and night of the 12th I — a matter foreign to the subject of inquiry ; which was how the ships lay on the morning of the 12th, and whether Lord Gambier was to blame for refraining from attaching them at that particular time ? So that the positions of the enemy's ships aground on the morning of the 12th, according to Mr. Stokes's own admission, were not marked on his chart at all ! though he had sworn to this very chart as giving those positions accurately to the lest of his knowledge and belief; and with the full knowledge that their position on the morning of the 12th, when they were helplessly agroimd, was the pomt before the court, — not their position in the evening, and on the following day after their escape to a spot where the British ships could not have pm-sued them. The fact is, Mr. Stokes swore to their positions after their being warped off in consequence of the British fleet being prematurely brought to an anchor — as being their positions previous to their escape! which was the matter of inquhy before the court, viz. as to whether the Commander-in-chief had not committed a neg- lect of duty in permitting them to escape by the rising tide, when and before when the British force coiddhave operated with every advantage in its favour. PROBABLE EXCUSE FOR THE ERROR. 31 The court had nothing whatever to inquke about with regard to the ships which were destroyed, re- specting which there coidd be no question ; the sub- ject of inquiry being whether the escape of the other ships run ashore from terror of the explosion vessels on the night of the 11th, and still ashore on the morning of the 12th, ought to have been prevented. Not so much as one of the ships marked on Mr. Stokes's chart formed part of the " group" to which he had sworn, in his oral evidence, as lying on the " western and northernmost edge of the Palles Shoal, nearest the deep water, aU of which escaped towards the Charente, where he truly enough placed the Ocean three-decker, but as she lay on the 13th instead of the 12th, he having sworn to the truth of his chart as showing her position on the morning of the 12th ! It was a desperate venture, and can only be accounted for by the supposition that, in reahty, Mr. Stokes had never seen the chart to which he was swearing. It Avas no wonder, as proved in the first chapter, that Mr. Stokes apphed to the Admiralty for permission to alter his chart before producuig it in a court of law, where it must have fallen under my inspection ! I wiU indeed so far exonerate Mr. Stokes from a portion of blame, by declarmg my behef that he never had looked at the chart to which he had sworn. There is Httle question in my mind but that this chart had. been fabricated under the auspices of Mr. Lavie, Lord Gambler's sohcitor, the only hope of success consisting in affirming a false position for the grounded slaips ; the chart bemg then given to Stokes for paternity. Had it been otherwise, Stokes could not possibly have 3-2 IMAGINAEY SHOAL ON THE CHART. sworn to a cliart in diametrical opposition to his oral evidence, whicli truly stated that on the morning of the 12th, the Ocean and group lay on " the north-west edge of the Palles shoal, nearest the deep water" where they were easily attackable. On his chart they were placed on the opposite side of the shoal ! where no ship could have got near them. Lord Gambler no doubt saw the mistake committed by the evidence of his Master, and adroitly relieved him from the dilemma, by putting a question of a totally different nature. With this course the court complacently complied, notwithstanding that the pre- sident had detected a discrepancy so glaring. Another material point on Mr. Stokes's chart was his marking a shoal between the Boyart and the Palles Sands, where Capt. Broughton and others present in the action, who actually sounded there, testify in corrobora- tion of the French chart to there being no shoal what- ever* Yet Mr. Stokes marks only from twelve to sixteen feet, in the deepest part. That this statement was a misrepresentation on the part of Mr. Stokes, is proved by Lord Gambler himself, who, in his defence, says that " Mr. Stokes found on this bar or bank from fourteen to ninetee^i feet [Minutes, p. 134). When closely questioned on the point, Mr. Stokes deposed to these soundings as " having heen reported to him to have been found"! {Minutes, p. 150.) The Neptune Franqois gives from twenty to thirty feet at low water, which was no doubt correct. But even had there been only nineteen feet of water Mr. Stokes again forgot his chart when he gave oral * See p. 68. FALSIFICATION OF WIDTH OF CHANNEL. 33 evidence that " the rise of tide in Aix Eoads is twenty-one feet, which is more than we ever found in Basque Eoads " (Minutes, p. 150). I had put the rise of tide at twelve feet only, so that by the oral evidence of Mr. Stokes there was abundance of water for the British force to have operated with fiiU effect. A still further falsification of the chart was, that it reduced the channel by which the British fleet must have passed to the attack to httle more than a mile in width, in defiance of the fact that on aU the ofiicial French charts the nunimum distance between the Boyart Sand and the fortifications on lie d'Aix was nearly two miles, and that Admiral Stopford, the second admiral in command, confirmed the correctness of the French charts so far as to admit a width of a mile and a half^ The object of Mr. Stokes's statement was to prove the danger to which, in a channel only a mile wide, the British ships would have been ex- posed from the batteries on He d'Aix had they been sent to the attack. To this end was the chart no doubt produced, and as narrovsdng the channel to a mile only — to meet the occasion — gave a colour to this view, his chart was accepted by the court, whilst the French charts which marked two miles, were rejected. A yet more flagrant contradiction is — that within pistol shot of the western and north-western edge of the PaUes Shoal, where Mr. Stokes first truly swore " the Ocean three-decker and a group of four lay aground on the morniug of the 12th," he has placed the attaching British ships, where their logs show that they never touched the ground, notwithstanding that they took up VOL. II. i> 34 LOED GAMBIER'S VOUCHER FOR STOKES'S CHART. their positions on a falling tide. If tliey could float in safety much more could other ships have done so at 11 a.m. on a rising tide? Row such a manifest dis- crepancy could have passed without comment from any member of the coiurt-martial, is a point which is not in my power to explain. Such are some of the leading featm-es of this famous chart, upon which the acquittal of Lord Gambler was made to rest, though the chart was admittedly con- structed — not from personal observation, otherwise than from the mizentop of the Caledonia, nine miles off — but from unofficial sources — from an anonymous manuscript, and even from hearsay ! Yet Lord Gambler did not scruple to introduce this chart for the guidance of the court, in the following terms : " I have to call the attention of the Cotirt to the plan drawn by Lord Cochrane of the position of the enemy's ships as they lay aground on the morning of the 12th of April, and to that position marked upon the chart verified by Mr. Stokes; the former laid down from uncertain data, the latter from angles measured and other observations made on the spot * ; the difference between the two is too apparent to escape the notice of the Court, and the respective merits of these charts will not, I think, admit of a comparison." {Minutes, p. 133.) This statement was made by Lord Gambler in face of the admission previously made by Mr. Stokes, that his observations were taken from the mizentop of the Caledonia, three leagues off — that he had never * See note, p. 26. STOKES'S VOUCHEE FOB ITS WOETHLESSNESS. 35 sounded in Aix Eoads — that the soundings were only reported to him, the name of the reporter being omitted — and that he had only marked upon his chart, " the ships that were destroyed " on the evening and during the night of the 12th, the destruction, in fact, not being complete till the morning of the 13th. This contradiction is so important to a right com- prehension of what follows, that I will, at the risk of prolixity, bring into one focus Mr. Stokes's admissions as to his data for the construction of his chart. "I prepared that dra-wing partly from the knowledge I gained in sounding to the southward of the Palles Shoal. The outlines of the chart are taken from the Neptune Fran- cois (narrowed from two miles to one !). The positions of the enemy's fleet are from Mr. Fairfax and the captain of the Ville de Varsovie. For the distance between the sands I must refer the court to a chart %uhich I copied from a French Tuanuscript!" {Minutes, pp.23, 24.) For this confused jumble from unauthoritative sources, the French charts were rejected as not being trustworthy, and Lord Gambler did not hesitate to endorse Mr. Stokes's fabrication as beiiag " from angles measured and other observations taken on the spot ; " whilst by this act he decried the use of the French charts by which his own fleet had been guided ! Comment, whether on Lord Gambler's statement or on Mr. Stokes's involuntary contradiction thereof in his oral evidence, is superfluous. If such were wanted, it must be sought for in the fact already adduced in the first chapter, viz. that, in 1817 and 1818, Mr. Stokes, when conscious that his fabrication must become pubhc, and that it might fall into my D 2 36 STOKES S CHART IN A NATIONAL POINT OF VIEW. hands, thought it prudent to make affidavit before the Court of Admiralty that this chart, produced at the court-martial nine years before, was incorrect, and therefore required alteration ! ! for which purpose the Admiralty gave him back his chart, though this, as already observed, remains to this day bound up amongst the Admiralty records. The affidavits of Mr. Stokes wlH be in the remembrance of the reader. In a national point of view, Mr. Stokes's chart has another aud even more important feature. A com- parison between the French chart and that produced by Mr. Stokes wiE show that the latter narrowed the entrance to Aix Eoads — which on the French charts is two miles wide — to one mile, and that it filled a space with shoals where scarcely a shoal existed. Of the imagmativeness of Mr. Stokes in this respect, the French Government appears to have taken a very jus- tifiable naval advantage, calculated to deter any British admiral in future from undertaking in Aix Eoads offensive operations of any kind. A chart of the Aix Eoads based on a modern French chart has recently been shown me, as on the point of being issued by the Board of Admiralty, on which chart the main channel between He dAix and the Boyart sand is laid down according to charts copied from fabricated charts produced on Lord Gambler's court-martial, and not according to the hydrographic charts of the Neptune Francois. The comparatively clear anchorage shown in the new chart is also filled with Mr. Stokes's imagmary shoals! the result being that no British admiral, if guided by the new chart, Coil stiiucteaiylFPaiifc«aii(ijroaxiceafoT the gaida7iaM)fl3ieC Kltoaasfi-omzfe^^7/«^i5?^to«^^vw7(?tlioiig]ialsolikelxiirpr^^^ i;v -^M "'^'•i. -A / i-. ■■ > la , <^ J/yraJs tmekiu h "m of positiffli of?[§^^J©[!i][F^g[l¥ 7y7V^iyc:I>^ads seama. ■^ ,.••:• r 10 •■ 'I'*'^^ J -.(i* 20 : .L 3 8 11 i-3o; 14 14 Th^ advanceTrenchT) iffnt^J^crjyp for slipped// T?efere'0iefire's7>Jp.s (fotto wJiere -fftey were> sef/on/ Hr&Men theZyra, ciu ■ severv Vesseits were ony ether 4 fire- Ships tA^oTc, oan^fwP say^JVoneare^ \ Tn-ar'ke-d- hiit wTiO'i passed^ t^ZyrO'prwr to Aer ,. aittin^^The o1im?-ivU'rnviy7vt ha,ve parsed : witkoMtmy obsa I'otion-, it h&tnj^ very d<^rk a t \ tii-t?^'i 4f WE 14;/"l3- 12 ■■■4&'& 14 iOncLoii-. fficliaT(lBciitlej';1860 ^«5>^ onllf&ri^prvllSOB.- liJcewtse of some'qf'the/J''ire Ships hefori^tJiey werey ori'Fire-: Thy&KTyplo simony VeiSseZ oorvdyrA-cte^d' 'by lord Coclhra'rty&,Li&i^tenanyt Bissau nvctrkedwhe-r/^ i^ewpTyod^il'. Soimdim^.s areiri'fee^t-/rornyivFreru;h'Chayrt oopi^d- ^y E. F. JprUJI^8O0.K.i:n^^liefiyiyiyayt€s ire advanoe: C. Zi(^ht YesseT^ Jf^pol^ S^Zyray. ■ ! S - Xyra, aytsecondsAnc?ior/zge titiS^M.lZ f^ '^.R>siPhnofIrenchFteetprif?rtoFireS?dpsgo7jiffini:\ **i^ •SitMaMonyof£a;plosion vessel where eiqotosioh I toohpleecey »< Medyia^tor- eirpdy sonve^ of'the flre'sMps i>efore I they appearedy tired. - AprffylZflSOffJi^ TwoZreriychshrps ajyd^y liyhd^a-ta^ru^wr -Ireneh ships ore shore a^day /jiyht. 'R.Zine- ofposititynytaJcereT/ySnyKsh ships . onyafterr>yaonyOt^l2f':Apri7y. ■i^Zr&ncht- destroyed Z.M. '^Jitn^Ziomb iftjvwin^ shell Z. Mi. -"d^- lo O- d>. ^-'*?. 113- '«*>-& I ZsiyeMiidameW erieuse for " my accommodation " ! 1 instead of Captain Duncan having been appointed from the necessity before mentioned ! Mr. Yorke concluded his letter with a peremptory order for me to proceed to sea within a week : — " Admiralty, June 8tli, 1810. "My Lokd, — I had the honour this morning of receiving your Lordship's letter of yesterday, communicating your Lord- ship's opinions on various points of service connected with operations on the French coast in the Bay as well as in the Mediterranean, which appear to be nearly of the same effect with those which I had the honour of hearing from your Lordship personally some days ago. " I beg to return you my thanks for this communication of your sentiments, and have now to inform you that as your Lordship's ship, the Irapeneuse, is now nearly ready for sea, and destined for the Mediterranean, and as the period of the session of Parliament during which your Lordship has been accommodated with an acting -captain to command the frigate in your absence (!) has now nearly reached its close, I presume that it is your intention to join her without loss of time, and to proceed lq her to join Sir Charles Cotton, who will no doubt employ your Lordship in the annoyance of the enemy and in the protection of om- Allies in the manner best suited to the exigencies of the service. " I request that your Lordship will have the goodness to inform me as early as you can on what day next week it is your intention to join your ship, as His Majesty's service will not admit of her sailing being much longer postponed. " I have the honour, &c., " Capt. Lord Cochrane." " C. YoEKE. The assertion that an acting-captain had been ap- 156 IX AN INFEEIOK CAPACITi'. pointed to the Imperieuse for my accommodation as a member of Parliament was monstrous, for after the court- martial was ended I begged to be allowed to join her ; first, soon after the Walcheren expedition saUed, and again when it failed to satisfy the national expectations ; even then offering to destroy the enemy's fleet as had been done in Aix Eoads. I afterwards asked permission to view the siege of Flushing as a spectator only, and was refused, the refusal being fortunately still in my possession : — "Admkalty, Oct. llth, 1809. " My deae Loed, — I have mentioned your request to the Naval Lords at the Board, and find it cannot be complied with. I am, my dear Lord, " Your very faithful servant, " MflgkAve. " The Lord Cochrane." Notwithstanding Mr. Yorke's version of the reason of my absence from the Imperieuse, I determined to make one more effort for permission to carry out my plans for harassing the enemy's coast, and thereby pre- venting them from forwarding troops to Spain. My object was to get two or three frigates and a few troops under my command. Had I been able to ac- comphsh this, what had been effected with the Im- perieuse alone on the coast of Catalonia toU be my excuse for saying, that such a force would have been the most valuable aid to the British army in the Peninsula. Preferring, therefore, the service which I was deskous to render to my coimtry to my own womaded feehngs, I addressed another letter to Mr. Yorke : 157 " London, June llth, 1810. " SiK, — In acknowledging the receipt of your letter of tlie 8th I confess nauch embarrassment. The measures submitted to your judgment were, in my humble opinion, of great national importance. They had in view to weaken the hands of our enemy and strengthen our own. I therefore indulged in the hope that they would have received your countenance and support. " It must have been apparent to you, Sir, that I did not offer them on light grounds, nor without calculated certainty of success in the event of their prosecution. I flattered myself with the hope of being employed in the execution of a service on which my previous observations would have enabled me to act with confidence. " But although. Sir, you are pleased to thank me for my communication, you pass over in silence the objects it em- braced ; and do away with even the expressions of courtesy bestowed on it by asking ' on what day in this week it was my intention to join my ship, as His Majesty's service would not admit of her sailing being much longer postponed ; ' thus leaving me to conclude that in taking the liberty of ap- proaching you I had trespassed too far, and that to prevent my importunities in future you had deemed it advisable to order me to join my ship, and further, to join Sir Charles Cotton, who, you signify, ' would no doubt employ me in the annoyance of the enemy, and in the protection of our Allies, in the manner best suited to the exigencies of the service.' " I have throughout life been accustomed to do my duty to the utmost of my power, and my anxiety to render the performance of it acceptable to my country, whilst it stimu- lated me to inform myself on the best means for that pur- pose, may have led me to intrude on those with whom alone rests the power of encouraging my expectations. Yet I might have imagined that my motives would sufficiently plead my excuse. On the present occasion I had an addi- tional inducement in addressing myself in the first instance 158 AND REPETITION OE MT PLAKS. to you, Sir, instead of the House of Commons. I felt that I was paying the respect due to the First Lord of the Ad- miralty. " It appears, however, that I have inadvertently offended, and am sorry for it, as the public interest may be injured by the step I have taken. I should have been gratified had you done me the honour to call for details of the sketch which I laid before you, when I should have been happy to supply a properly digested plan by which I propose to secure the objects there shadowed forth. " Had this plan been brought under your consideration, I may venture to say that you would have directed it to be carried into execution ; and I should have envied any person whom you might have honoured with the charge of it, how- ever much I might have regretted the refusal to permit me to share in it, I should nevertheless have cheerfully rendered every information required of me, or that I might have conceived necessary. " I have now no alternative than to submit to the wisdom of the House the propositions you have thought proper to reject, or rather suffer them to die away without further notice. I do not pride myself on the accuracy of my judg- ment, but may be allowed to understand those matters that come under my own immediate observation better than those who have had no experience in such kind of warfare. " The capture of Los Medas by the French has confirmed me in the opinions I gave to Lord Mulgrave on my last ?'e- connaissance of He d'Aix, and which I had the honour to state to you in my last. I again submit that a similar course pursued by His Majesty's Grovernment towards France would distract the purposes of Buonaparte, and injure him infinitely more than any other step likely to be taken. The capture of even one of the islands enumerated in my former letter would be felt by him much as we should feel if a French force were to capture the Isle of Wight. " In another part of your letter you say that I have been ' accommodated with an acting-captain to command the CONTEMPTUOUS REPLY TO MY LETTER. 159 frigate during my absence.^ I have to assure you that it was an accommodation I never solicited, and one which, far from conveying a favour, was extremely painful to my feelings, as it prevented my going on a service which I was extremely desirous of witnessing. I even made an application to Lord Mulgrave for permission to be a spectator only of the scene of Flushing, so as to avail myself of the opportunity to acquire information about the Scheldt and its environs, but was refused, although others not connected with the service obtained leave to proceed there. " In conclusion, I beg permission to say that I have yet some objects of moment to bring forward in Parliament, and that as there is no enterprise given to the Imperieiise, I have no wish that she should be detained for me one moment. " I have the honour, &c., " Cochrane. " The Eight Hon. Chas. Yorke. " P.S. Your letter. Sir, is marked ' private,' which I con- sider as applying solely to the destination of the Im/pirieuse, and, of course, shall be silent on that subject." The reply of the First Lord was that it was " neither his duty nor his inclination to enter into controversy with me!" A proof how the interests of a nation may suffer from the pohtical pique of a single man in power. Not an individual of the Ministry considered me incapable of carrying into execution, even with an insignificant force, the plans foreshadowed; yet they were treated with contemptuous sUence, and a com- mand to proceed immediately on a subordinate service. " Admiralty, June 12th, 1810. " Mt Loed, — I have had the honoxir this morning of re- ceiving your Lordship's letter of yesterday. As I do not conceive it either my public duty so it is by no means my 160 TIIEEATENED TO BE SUPEESEDED. private inclination to be drawn into any official controversy with your Lordship, either in your capacity of captain of a frigate in His Majesty's service or of a member of Parliament. " For this reason I must beg to decline replying to several parts of your Lordship's letter, in which j'ou appear to have much misconceived my meaning, as expressed in my former letter, or to observe upon the turn and direction which your Lordship is pleased to endeavour to give to our cor- respondence. " I have thought it proper to lay the two letters which I have received from your Lordship, being on points of service, before the Board of Admiralty for their consideration ; and have only now to request to be distinctly informed whether or not it is your Lordship's intention to join your ship, the Imperieuse, now under orders for foreign service, and nearly ready for sea, as soon as Parliament shall be prorogued. " I shall be much pleased to receive an answer in the affirmative, because I should then entertain hopes that your activity and gallantry might be made available for the public service. I shall be much concerned to receive an answer in the negative, because in that case I shall feel it to be my duty to consider it as your Lordship's wish to be superseded in the command of the Iinperieuse. " I am, my Lord, " Your most obedient servant, "C YOEKE. " Capt. Lord Cochrane." A more unjust order from a lay Lord of the Admi- ralty than this, to join the Imperieuse and proceed on foreign service, was never issued from the Admiralty. As a lay Lord, he was wholly ignorant of naval affairs, but nevertheless refused even to listen to the advice of an experienced sea-officer, who had at least seen some service, and was therefore capable of offering MR. YORKE'S ignorance OP NAVAL AFFAIRS. 161 an opinion. In place of this he ordered me to sea, without the semblance of promotion in any shape, or even the oiFer of a larger ship. I had nevertheless received the warm thanks of Lord CoUingwood for — as his Lordship expressed it — having with a single frigate stopped a French army from penetrating into Eastern Spain. With the same in- adequate means I had kept the whole coast of Lan- guedoc in alarm, so as to prevent any combination of troops on the Spanish frontier, this voluntary service being executed in such a way as to induce Lord Col- hngwood to write to the Admiralty, that " my resources seemed to have no end." Weighed down with fatigue and anxiety I had returned home, in the hope of re- laxation, when the Admiralty, even before there had been time to pay off my ship, ordered me to prepare plans for destroying the French fleet in Aix Eoads, Lord Gambler having plainly told them that, if he made the attempt, " it must be at their peril and not his." I prepared those plans, with the addition of a novel element in naval warfare, and drove ashore the French fleet, which afterwards became a wreck, in spite of the want of proper co-operation on the part of the Admiral who had hesitated to attack them. On my return to England I had been ofiered by Lord Mulgrave the thanks of Parhament in conjunction with the Commander-in-chief, but refused to couple my name with his. After all these services, for which I never received reward nor thanks — except the red ribbon of the Bath from the hands of my sovereign another First Lord ordered me to proceed to sea VOL. II. M 162 RESULT OF HIS ILL-TREATMENT OF JIE. in a tveek, and that in a capacity as subordinate as tile one occupied before any of these services had been performed ! nay, more, in spite of my pointing out to him, how, with a trifling force, I could do far more than I had done— a proposition which he treated with contemptuous silence. There is nothing worse in the records of the Admiralty even at that period. Nevertheless, this ill-treatment determiaed me not to shrink from my duty, though I was resolved that Mr. Yorke should neither get an affirmative nor a negative from me as to joudng the frigate. If the command of the Imperieuse, under the orders of Sir Charles Cotton, were forced upon me I would take it, but of this the Admu-alty should be the judges — not I. Had Lord CoUingwood hved to reach England the Ad- miralty would not have ventured to thrust such a com- mand upon me after my services of the previous three years and my plans for future operations, which, as I have once or twice said, would have saved miUions spent on prolonged strife in the Peninsula. In the vaia hope that the national welfare would, on calm dehberation, rise superior to petty official spite, I agam addressed Mr Yorke as follows : — " Portman Square, June 14th, 1810. " SiH, — When I had the honotir to present to you in writing those ideas that I had previously communicated verbally, it was far from my views and contrary to my intention to draw you into any unofficial correspondence. My solicitude to see the interests of my country promoted and the power of the enemy reduced were my only objects. I presumed that amidst the pressure of business any hints thrown out in MT REPLY 163 desultory conversation might escape your memory, but that committed to paper they would meet your consideration. This was my chief reason for addressing you by letter. "As a member of Parliament I never harboured a wish to intrude myself on your notice. I know that as a captain of a frigate I do not possess any consequence, and am conscious that I never assumed any. But, Sir, I submit that if informa- tion promising essential benefit to the State is procured, the source from which it flows, however insignificant, is not of the least moment. " With an impression which I must lament. Sir, that you decline entering on those parts of my letter which alone prevailed with me to trouble you, I regret having done so. I am not in the habit of entreaty, but when the public service is to be advanced entreaty becomes a duty. I trust, therefore, that you will pardon me if I repeat the hope that you will be pleased to regard the subject in a more favourable light, and examine the grounds and principles on which my opinions are founded. I feel convinced that any other officer possessed of the knowledge necessary to form his judgment will tell you that the measures I have proposed may to a certcdnty and with great ease he carried into execu- tion ; and that the enemy would, in consequence, be entirely crippled in his best resources. " Had I been fortunate enough to receive the least en- couragement from you I should have brought forward other objects than those noticed. Amongst these is one that has reference to the coast of Catalonia, where the maritime towns are occupied by troops of the enemy just sufficient to keep the peasantry in awe and exact from them provisions. These, by possessing the open batteries, the French convey coastways in fishing boats and small craft to their armies, which, from the scarcity of cattle, fodder, and the state of the roads, they could not obtain by any other means. " The few troops stationed along the coast for these pur- poses might be seized and brought off with a trifling force employed in the way I have indicated. As a proof of this, M 2 164 PASSED UNNOTICED, the aid-de-camp of General Lechu, and a whole company were brought' off by the marines and crew of the Imperieuse alone, to whom they surrendered, well knowing that had they left the battery they would have been put to death in detail by the oppressed and irritated Spaniards. " I am thankful. Sir, for your kindness in laying my letters before the Lords Commissioners. The flattering terms in which you speak of my humble abilities also demand my acknowledgment ; and, whilst again tendering them to the service of my country, I beg permission to say that it is the first wish of my heart and the highest aim of my ambition to be actively employed in my profession, and that from former associations I prefer the Impirieuse to every other frigate in the Navy. But as she is to proceed immediately on foreign service, I feai it is impossible for me to be in readiness to join her within the time specified. " I have the honour, &c., " Cochrane. " The Eight Hon. Chas. Yorke." To this letter no reply was vouchsafed, and the Honourable Captain Duncan was confirmed io the command of the Imperieuse, which in the folloiuing month sailed to join Sir Charles Cotton off Toulon. Parhament being prorogued within a few days after the date of the last letter, I had no opportunity of bringing the subject before the House. On the publication of the first volume, it was said by some gentlemen of the press, when kindly reviewmg its contents, that something more might have been said of that excellent and gallant admiral, Lord CoUing- wood. This, I admit, would have been an easy task as regards the gossip of others relative to his Lordship, but that is not the principle upon which this work AND MYSELF SUPBESEDED. 165 is conducted, every incident therein having befallen myself personally. The fact was, that though I had the good fortune to serve imder Lord ColHngwood, it had never been my lot to serve with him. His Lordship's first act on joining him was, as is narrated in the first volume, to appoint me as the successor of the officer in command of the squadron in the Ionian Islands. Shortly after my arrival at Corfu, I fell in — as has also been said in the first volume — diiring a cruise with a number of enemy's vessels hearing the comtnandanf s license to trade ! and m spite of the Hcense captured and sent them to Malta for condemnation. The commandant, as shown in the first volume, hereupon denounced me to Lord CoUing- wood as an unfit person to commajid a squadron. I was immediately afterwards recalled, and, as the reader knows, was subsequently employed in harassing the French and Spanish coasts, without further personal intercom-se vdth his Lordship, except when paying a flying visit to the fleet blockading Toulon. M 3 166 CHAP. XXXI. VISIT TO THE ADMIRALTY COURT AT MALTA. THE MALTESE ADMIRALTY COURT. ITS EXTORTIONATE FEES, AND CON- SEQUENT LOSS TO CAPTORS. MY VISIT TO MALTA. 1 POSSESS MYSELF OF THE COURT TABLE OF FEES. INEFFECTUAL ATTEMPTS TO ARREST ME. I AT LENGTH SUBMIT, AND AM CARRIED TO PRISON. A MOCK TRIAL. MY DEFENCE. REFUSE TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES PUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING ME TO CRIMINATE MYSELF. AM SENT BACK TO PRISON. AM ASKED TO LEAVE PRISON ON BAIL. MY REFUSAL AND ESCAPE. ARRIVAL IN ENGLAND. At the commencement of 1811, finding tliat, in place of anything being awarded to the Inqyerieuse for nu- merous prizes taken in the Mediterranean, the Maltese Admiralty Court had actually brought me in debt for vicious condemnation, I determiaed to go to Malta, and insist on the fees and charges thereon being taxed ac- cordiag to the scale upon which the authority of the Court in such matters was based. It is not my intention to enter generally into the nature of the demands made by the Maltese Com-t, but rather to point out the manner in which, after reaUsa- tion of the prize ftmds, costs were inflicted on the officers and crews of ships of war, till little or nothing was left for distribution amongst the captors. This THE MALTESE ADMIRALTY COURT. 167 will give a good idea of the practices which prevailed ; preventing officers from harassing the coasting trade of the enemy, as the expenses of condemmng small craft were ruinous, being for the most part the same as those charged by the Com't for the condemnation of large vessels. One of the customs of the Com't was as foUows : to charge as fees one fourth more than the fees of the High Court of Admiralty in England ; this one foiurth was practically found to amount in some cases to one half, whilst any scale of charges by which the conduct of the Court was guided, remained inaccessible to the captors of prizes. The principal officer of the Court in this department was a Mr. Jackson, who held the office of Marshal. This officer, however, though resident in Malta, per- formed his duty of marshal by deputy, for the purpose of enabling him also to exercise the stiU more profitable office of proctor, the duties of which he performed in person. The consequence was that every prize placed in his hands as proctor had to pass through his hands as marshal ! whilst as proctor it was further in his power to consult himself as marshal as often as he pleased, and to any extent he pleased. The amount of self-consultation may be imagined. Eight profitably did Mr. Proctor Jackson perform the duty of attending and consulting himself as Mr. Marshal Jackson ! Subjoined is an extract from the charges of Proc- tor Jackson for attending himself as Marshal Jack- son : — M 4 Cro. reals. sc. 2 9 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 168 ITS EXTOETIOlSrATE FEES, Attending (as proctor) in the registry and bespeaking a monition .... Paid (himself as marshal) for said monition under seal, and extracting Copy of said monition for service . Attending the Marshal ! (himself) and feeing and instigating him to execute the same ! 2 Paid the Marshal (himself ) /or serti-ice of said monition ! (on himself) .... Certificate of service ! (on himself) Drawing and engrossing affidavit of service! (on himself) ...... Oath, thereto, and attendance! (on himself) . By what ingenious process Marshal Jackson managed to administer the oath to himself as Proctor Jackson I know not, but the above charges are actual copies from a bin in my possession, the said bill containing many hundred similar items besides. Some idea of its extent may be formed from the statement that, previously to a debate on the subject, I pasted together an exact copy the difierent sheets of which the bill of charges was composed, formed them into a huge roll, and, amidst the astonishment and laughter of the House of Com- mons, one' day unrolled it along the floor of the House, when it reached from the Speaker's table to the bar ! ! In addition to this multitude of fees and charges, the Marshal also claimed, and received as his own especial perquisite, one half per cent on the inspection of prizes, one per cent for their appraisement, and two and a half per cent on the sale. This, with one fourth added as AND CONSEQUENT LOSS TO CAPTORS. 169 aforesaid, made jnst five per cent on all captures for the Marshal's perquisite alone, irrespective of his other fees; which, being subjected to no check, were extended ac- cording to conscience. So that, for every amount of prizes to the extent of 100,000/. the Marshal's share, as a matter of course, would be 5000/., whoUy irre- spective of other fees of Court calculated on a similar scale. When numerous other officials had to be paid in Hke manner, also without check on their demands, it scarcely needs to be said that such prizes as were usually to be picked up by ships of war on the Mediterranean coast entailed positive loss on their cap- tors ; the result, as has been said, being that officers avoided taking such prizes, and thus the enemy carried on his coasting operations with impunity. In other words, the most important object of war — that of starving out the enemy's coast garrisons — was sus- pended by the speculations of a colonial Admiralty Court ! Foiled in procuring redress in the House of Com- mons, where my statements were pooh-poohed by the representatives of the High Com-t of Admiralty as rash and without proof, I determined on procuring, by any means whatever, such proof as should not easily be set aside. Embarking, therefore, in my yacht Julie, one of the small French ships of war captured at Caldagues and afterwards purchased by me, as narrated in the first volume, I set sail for the Mediterranean. On arriving at Gibraltar I considered it prudent to quit my yacht, fearing that so small a vessel might fall 170 MY VISIT TO MALTA. a prey to the French cruisers, and embarked on board a brig-of-war bound to Malta. My first demand upon the Admiralty Court on ar- riving at that place was, that the prize accounts of the Imperieuse and Speedy should be taxed according to the authorised table of fees. This revision was refused. Entering the Com't one day when the Judge was not sitting, I again demanded the table of fees from Dr. Moncrieff, then Judge-Advocate, who denied that he knew anything about them. As by Act of Parhament they ought to have been hung up in the Court, I made careful search for them, but without success. Entering the Judge's robing-room unopposed, I there renewed the search, but with no better result, and was about to return tableless ; when, having been directed to a private closet, I examined that also, and there, wafered up behind the door of the Judge's retiring-chamber, was the Adufiralty Court table of fees ! which I carefully took down, and reentered the Com^t in the act of folding up the paper, previously to putting it ia my pocket. Dr. Moncrieff instantly saw what I had got, and rose from his seat with the intention of preventing my egress. Eeminding him that I had no cause of quarrel with or complaint towards Mm, I told him that guard- ing the Judge's water-closet formed no part of his duties as Judge-Advocate ; and that it was rather his place to go and tell the Judge that I had taken pos- session of a pubhc document which ought to have been suspended in Court, but the possession of wliich I POSSESS MYSELF OF THE COUKT TABLE OF FEES. 171 had been denied. He seemed of the same opinion, and suffered me to depart with my prize ; this in half an hour afterwards being placed in the possession of a brother-officer who was going over to Sicily, and pro- mised to take charge of it till my arrival at Girgenti. This "Eape of the Table," as it was termed in a poem afterwards written on the occasion by my secre- tary and friend, Mr. Wm. Jackson, caused great merri- ment, but the Judge, Dr. SeweU, was fiirious, not per- haps so much at the invasion of his private closet, as at losing a document which, when laid before the House of Commons in connexion with the fees actually charged, would infallibly betray the practices of the Maltese Court. A peremptory demand was accordingly made of me for the restoration of the table, this being met by my declaration that it was not in my possession. The Judge, beheving this to be untrue, though in fact the tables were in Sicily, finally ordered me to be arrested for an insult to the Court ! The duty of arresting me devolved on my friend in duphcate, Mr. Marshal Mr. Proctor Jackson. I re- minded him that the Court was not sitting when the alleged offence was committed, and therefore it could be no insult. I further cautioned him that his hold- ing the office of proctor rendered that of marshal illegal, and that if he dared to lay a finger on me, I would treat him as one without authority of any kind, so that he must take the consequences, which might be more serious to himself personally than he imagined. The proctor-marshal, well knowing the illegahty of his double office, which was not known — much less 172 INEFFECTUAL ATTEMPTS TO AKKEST ME. officially confirmed in England — prudently declined the risk, on wHch the Judge ordered the deputy marshal, a man named Chapman, to arrest me. Upon this I informed Chapman that his appointment was illegal also, first as holding the office of deputy marshal to an illegally constituted person, and secondly, from his also exercising the duphcate office of deputy auc- tioneer — the auctioneer being a sinecurist resident in London ! ! So that if, as deputy marshal combined with deputy auctioneer, he ventiured to arrest me, he too must put up with the consequences.* This went on for many days, to the great amusement of the fleet tu harbour, no one being wiUing to in- cur the risk of arresting me, though I walked about Malta as usual. Chapman following me hke a shadow. At length the Judge insisted on the deputy marshal- auctioneer arresting me at all risks, on pain of bemg himself committed to prison for neglect of carrying out the orders of the Court. Finding himself in this dilemma, Chapman resigned his office. On this a man named Stevens, unconnected with any other official position, was appointed in a j)roper manner ; and all the legal formalities being carefully * The Tory organs in England said that I threatened to shoot Chapman. I need hardly say that this was a gratuitous falsehood. With the exception of the silly duel nan-ated in the first volume, I never either harmed, or intended to harm, a man in my life, other- wise than in action. The fact was, both these Maltese officials were illegally appointed, and they knew it. The officers and crews of the ships of war present had but too much experience of their selfish conduct, and were as well pleased as myself at the success of my method of keeping their natural enemies at bay, so that the pseudo-msii-shsls were in reality frightened at their own warrants. I AT LENGTH SUBMIT, 173 entered into, I no longer resisted, as that would have been resistance to law. The manner in which the arrest was made showed a spirit of petty malevolence quite in keeping with the dispositions of men who were making enormous fortunes by plundering the officers and crews of His Majesty's ships of war. I was on a visit to Percy Fraser, the naval commissioner, when the newly appointed deputy mar- shal who had watched me in was announced, and on entering told me he was come to arrest me. On demanding his credentials, I found them to be signed by Mr. Proctor Jackson, and as I wanted this proof of his acting as marshal illegally, admitted myself satisfied with them. The deputy marshal then requested me to accom- pany him to an inn, where I naight remain on parole. I told him that I would do nothing of the kmd, but that if he took me anywhere it must be to the town gaol, to which place he then requested me to accom- pany him. My reply was : — " No. I will be no party to an illegal imprisonment of myself. If you want me to go to gaol, you must carry me by force, for assuredly I will not walk." As the room was fiill of naval officers, all more or less victims of the iniquitous system pursued by the Maltese Court, the scene caused some merriment. Finding me inflexible, the Vice-admiralty official sent^ first for a carriage, and then for a piquet of Maltese soldiers, who carried me out of the room on the chair in which I had been sitting. I was then carefully de- posited in the carriage, and driven to the town gaol. 174 AJVD AM CAEBIBD TO PEISON. The apartments assigned for my use were the best the place aflforded, and were situated on the top story of the prison, the only material unpleasantness about them being that the windows were strongly barred. The gaoler, a simple worthy man, civilly inquired what I would please to order for dinner. My reply was : — " Nothing ! — that, as he was no doubt aware, I had been placed there on an illegal warrant, and would not pay for so much as a crust ; so that if I was starved to death, the Admiralty Court wotild have to answer for it." At this declaration the man stood aghast, and shortly after quitted the room. In about an hour he returned with an order from Mr. Marshal Jackson to a neigh- bouring hotel-keeper, to supply me with whatever I chose to order. Thus armed with carte-blanche as to the cuisine, I ordered dinner for six ; under strict injunctions that whatever was prized in Malta, as well in edibles as in vdnes, should be put upon the table. An intimation to the gaoler that he would be the richer by the scraps, and to the hotel master to keep his counsel for the sake of the profits, had the desired effect ; and that evening a better-entertained party (naval officers) never dined within the walls of Malta gaol. This went on day after day, at what cost to the Admiralty Court I never learned nor inquired ; but, from the character of our entertainment, the bill when pre- sented must have been almost as extensive as their own fees. All my friends in the squadron present at Malta were invited by turns, and assuredly had no A MOCK TRIAL. 175 ward- room fare. They appeared to enjoy themselves the more heartily, as avenging their own wrongs at the expense of their plunderers. At length the Admiralty authorities thought it high time to decide what was to be done with me. It was now the beginning of March, and I had been incarcerated from the middle of February without accusation or trial. It was evident that if I were imprisoned much longer, I might complain of being kept out of my place in Parliament, and what the electors of Westminster might say to this, or what the House of Commons itself might say, were questions seriously to be pon- dered by men whose titles to ofSce were unconfirmed. They had at length discovered that I had committed no offence beyond the fact of having been seen to fold up and put in my pocket a piece of dirty paper, but what that paper might be, or where it was, there was no evidence whatever. At length they hit upon a notable expedient for getting rid of me, viz. to get His Excellency the Governor to ask me to give up the table of fees. This I dechned, telhng His Excellency that as I had been incarcerated illegally I would not quit the prison without trial. It was accordingly determined that I should be put on my trial, the puzzle being as to what offence I should be accused of. The plan, as I afterwards found, was to interrogate me, and thus to entrap me into becoming my own accuser. On the 2nd of March I was taken to the Court-house, accompanied by the naval commissioner Mr. Eraser, 176 MT DEFENCE. Captain Eowley the naval officer in command, and nearly all the commanding officers in port. Two clerks, one a German and the other a Maltese, were said to have deposed to " seeing a person, whom they beheved to be Lord Cochrane, with a folded paper." On the strength of this evidence, the following charge was made out : — " That I had entered the Registry of the Admiralty Court, and had there taken down the table of charges ; that I had held up the same, so as to cause it to be seen by the Eang's Advocate, Dr. Mon- criefiF, and had then put it in my pocket, and walked away." * To this I rephed that " there must be an error, for as the Act of Parhament ordered that the table of charges should be displayed in open Court, it could not possibly have been the paper which I saw in the Judge's water- closet. That the paper showed by me to Dr. Moncrieff was folded up, so that he was necessarily ignorant of * This charge contained a wilful falsehood, Vvz. that the table of fees was hung in " the Registry ; " the perversion of truth being proved by the remarks in Parliament of the King's Advocate, Sir John Nicholls, on the authority of the Maltese Court, as foUows : — " Lord Cochrane went to the court-room of the Vice- Admiralty, for the purpose of comparing the charges in his bills with the table of established fees, which, according to Act of Parliament, ' shoiild be suspended in some conspicuous part of the Court.' After look- ing for it in vain in the Court, and in the Registry, whither he was first directed by His Majesty's Advocate, he was told that he might see it affixed on a door leading to the adjoining room. The table was certainly not in its place — but it was as certainly not con- cealed !" (^Speech of Sir J. Nicholls in the House of Commons, June 6th, 1811.) It was equally false that the King's Advocate directed me where to look for the table of fees ; the whole affair having taken place as narrated in this chapter. REFUSE TO LEAVE PRISON OiST BAIL. 177 its purport or contents. Finally, I denied having taken down the table of charges, as estabhshed by Act of Parhament, from the Court-room." After this reply I demanded to be confronted vsdth my accuser, for the purpose of cross-examining him. This the Judge would not allow, but said he should consider my denial ia the hght of a plea of " not guilty." He then put to me a series of interrogatories, for the purpose of getting me to criminate myself; but to these I refused to reply m any way, merely repeating my assurance that his Honour must have made a mis- take, it being highly improbable that the lost table of fees should have been hung anywhere but in open Court, as the Act of Geo. H. prescribed, viz. : in an open, visible, and accessible place, which his Honour's retiriag-closet was not. Dr. Sewell then admitted that the charges entered on the table of fees had not been ratified by the King in Council ! and that he had there- fore not caused them to be suspended in open Court, accorchng to the Act. On which declaration I pro- tested against the whole proceedings as illegal. Fmding that nothing could be done, the Judge then asked me to go at large on bail I This I flatly refused, alleging myself to be determined to remain where I was, be the consequence what it might, till the case shoT-ild be decided on its merits. At this unex- pected declaration the Court appeared to be taken aback, but as I refused to be bailed, the Judge had no alternative but to remand me back to prison.* * As it may be useful to note tlie despotic practices of our foreign tribunals in those days, I will transcribe a portion of the Judge's VOL. IL N 178 AM KEMANDED, On arriving there, my friends were of opinion that the affair had been carried far enough, and that I should apologise for taking the table of charges, and send for it to Girgenti. To this counsel I refused to hsten, as I wanted the tables for exhibition in the House of Commons, and would in no way compromise the matter. On this the senior naval officer. Captain Eowley, said to me : — " Lord Cochrane, you must not remain here ; the seamen are getting savage, and if you are not out soon they will puU the gaol dovni, which will get the naval force into a scrape. Have you any objection to making your escape ? " " Not the least," replied I, " and it may be done ; but I will neither be bailed, nor will I be set at liberty without a proper trial." Li short, it was then arranged that my servant, Eichard Carter, shou^ld bring me some files and a rope ; that I should cut through the iron bars of the vsdndow ; speech on this occasion, as correctly reported at the time. On my demanding to cross-examine the witnesses against me, Dr. Sewell said : — " The present course was the one practised on these occasions. He would not allow any but a direct answer to the charge made, and if that contained no crime, he should himself be responsible." He then said that he must administer to Lord Cochrane certain interrogatories, and on Lord Cochrane persisting in demanding his accuser or accusers, in place of replying to the questions, the Judge peremptorily required answers. In place of giving these, I denied the competence of the Court to take cognizance of a criminal charge, asserting that it was not a Court of Eecord; and tliat on a pretended accusation made by witnesses who could not be produced, I had been arrested, im- prisoned in the common gaol, and publicly criminated, without being permitted to clear myself by being placed iace to fece with my accusers, &c. &c. AND ESCAPE. 179 and that when everything was in readiness, on the first favourable night, a boat should be manned at the sally- port, and that I should be taken across to Sicily, to pick up the table of fees at Girgenti. Some three or four nights were occupied m cutting through the bars, the marks being concealed in the day-time by f illing up the holes with a composition. When all was in readiness, my friends and I held our last symposium at the expense of the Admiralty Court. The gaoler was purposely made very tipsy, to which he was nothing loth ; and about midnight, having first lowered my bedding into the streets, to be carried off by some seamen under the direction of my servant, I passed a double rope round an iron bar, let myself down from the three-story window, pulled the rope after me, so that nothing might remain to excite suspicion, and bade adieu to the merriest prison in which a seaman was ever incarcerated. On arriving at the harbom' I foimd the Eagle's gig in readiness, and several brother-ofiicers assembled to take leave of me. The night was dark, with the sea smooth as glass, it being a dead calm. When pulling along the island we came up with the Enghsh packet, which had sailed from Malta on the previous day, she having been since becalmed. As she was boimd to Girgenti, to pick up passengers and letters from Naples, nothing could be more opportune ; so, dismissing the gig, I went on board, and was on my way to England, doubtless, before I was missed from my late involuntary domicile at Malta. I had thus a manifest advantage in those days of slow transit, viz. that of arriving in k2 180 AKEIVAL IN ENGLAND. England a month before news of my escape from Malta could be sent home by the authorities of the Admiralty Court. As I afterwards learned, nothing could exceed the chagrin of the Admiralty officials at having lost, not only their table of charges, but their prisoner also. No one had the sHghtest suspicion that I had gone to sea, and that in a man-of-war's boat. Yet nothing could better show the iniquitous character of the Maltese Admiralty Court than the fact that my escape was planned in conjunction with several naval officers pre- sent in harbour who lent me a boat and crew, for the pur- pose ; the whole matter being previously known to half the naval officers present with the squadron, and, after my escape, to not a few of the seamen, all of whom must have been highly amused at the diligent search made for me the next day throughout Valetta, but still more at the reward offered for those who aided me in escaping. Yet not a word transpu-ed as to the direction I had taken, or the time occupied in searching for me on the island might have been turned to better account by an endeavour to intercept me at Gibraltar, where I re- mained long enough to dispose of my yacht, and amuse the garrison with a narrative of my adventures since I left the Eock two months before ! 181 CHAP. XXXII. NAVAL LEGISLATION HALF A CENTURY AGO. INQUIRY INTO THE STATE -OF THE NAVY. CONDITION OF THE SEAMEN. THE HEAL CAUSE OF THE EVIL. MOTION RELATIVE TO THE MAL- TESE COURT. ITS EXTORTIONATE CHARGES. MY OWN CASE. A LENGTHY proctor's BILL. EXCEEDS THE VALUE OF THE PRIZE. OFFICERS OUGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN PROCTORS. PAPERS MOVED FOR. MR. YORKE'S OPINION. SIR FRANCIS BURDETT'S. MY REPLY. ^MOTION AGREED TO. CAPTAIN BEENTOn's TESTIMONY. FRENCH PRISONERS. THEIR TREATMENT. MINISTERS REFUSE TO INQUIRE INTO IT. MOTION ON MY ARREST. CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING IT. MY EIGHT TO DEMAND TAXATION. THE MALTESE JUDGE EFFUSES TO NOTICE MY COMMUNICATIONS. AFRAID OP HIS OWN ACTS. PROCEEDINGS OF HIS OFFICERS ILLEGAL. TESTIMONY OF EMINENT NAVAL OFFICERS. PROCLAMATION ON MY ESCAPE. OPINION OF THE SPEAKER ADVERSE. MR. STEPHEN'S ERRONEOUS STATEMENT. — MOTION OBJECTED TO BY THE FIRST LORD. MY REPLY. On my return from tlie Mediterranean, having no pros- pect of employment, I devoted myself assiduously in Parliament to the com-se I had marked out for myself, viz. the amelioration of the condition of the naval service ; whether by originating such measures of my own accord, or assisting others who had the same object in view. At this period it was the custom to compel naval officers on foreign stations, in whatever part of the world located, to draw biUs for their pay. The consequence was that the bills had to be sold at a discount some- N 3 JS2 IKQUIRY liJJ^TO THE STATE OF THE NA'ST^. times amounting to 35 and 40 per cent, the whole of the loss falling on the officers negotiating the bills. A motion to place officers of the navy upon the same footing as officers of the army was made by Captain Bennet, and strenuously opposed by the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Yorke, as an innovation on old rules and customs, which, when once sanctioned, no one could tell where it might stop. Upon this I inquired " what greater difficulty there could be ia paying officers of the navy abroad than ui paying officers of the army ? There were consuls at aU the foreign stations, who could certify what the rate of exchange really was. Under the present system, to my own knowledge, officers on the Gibraltar station were 25 per cent, or a fourth of their scanty pay, out of pocket, and it was with great difficulty that they could provide themselves with proper necessaries." The eifect of these remarks was, that Sir C. Pole moved as an amendment that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the state of the navy gene- rally, and this was seconded by Admiral Harvey. The debate having taken this turn gave me the oppor- tunity of entering more minutely mto particulars. I will transcribe my remarks from the reports of the time : — " LoED CoCHKAKE Said an increase of pay to the seamen in the navy would be of little advantage to them, so long as the present system continued. He had in his hands a list of ships of war in the East Indies. The Centurion had been there eleven years — the Rattlesnahe, fourteen years, came home the other day, with only one man of the first crew — the Fox frigate, under the command of his brother, had been there fifteen years— the Sceptre eight years — the Albatross twelve, &c. Not one farthing of pay had been given all COA'DITION OF THE SEAMEN. 183 that period to all those men. He had made a calculation on the Fox frigate, and supposing only one hundred of the men returned, there would be due to the crew 25,000Z., not in- cluding the officers. What became of these sums all the while ? The interest ought to be accounted for to Govern- ment or to the seamen themselves. The Wilhelmina had been ten years, the Russell seven years, the Drake six years, of which the men would be exiles froi^i England for ever, and another vessel four years. Nothing would be of greater service than the frequently changing the stations of ships, which might be done without any inconvenience, and even with much advantage to the East-India Company's ships. " The seamen, said Lord Cochrane, from the want of their pay, had no means of getting many necessaries of the utmost consequence to their health and comfort. They drew less prize-money under the existing acts than formerly. He in- stanced a vessel, the proceeds of which came to 3551. ; by the present mode of distribution the seaman would receive 13s. 5^d., whilst by the old mode he would have received 15s. l^d. From the officers' share there was deducted in all 75 per cent, allowing only 10 per cent for the prize courts. " The Minister had exultingly asked, what had become of the commerce of France ? But he would undertake to show him, before he was 48 hours on the coast of France, at least 200 sail of the enemy's vessels. If they were to pay more liberally the Judges of the Admiralty Courts, and operate a proper reformation in them, he would undertake to say that they might score off at least one third of the present ships of the navy. Ministers said there were no vessels on the coast of France, but he said there were ; and, if they would go with him, he would show them how they could be got at. " He rather thought that the inattention of Government to the profligate waste of the public money, arose from their unwillingness to believe anything contrary to their own crude notions on these subjects. He stated, and he begged the House to attend to it, for it was as important as the subject N 4 184 THE BEAL CAUSE OF THE EVIL. of Mrs. Clarke, that in the reign of James the Second the pay of a captain of a first-rate was 801. more than at present. Ejng William, when he came over with his Dutch troops, whom he was much more anxious to attend to than he was to attend to his subjects here, took up his pen and cut off one half of the pay. So much for foreign troops ; but still, taking the advance of prices into view. King William left it far better than it is now. His Lordship then again called the attention of the House to the extent to which the French coasting trade was carried on, and observed that it could not be checked, unless greater encouragement were given to the captains. If he commanded a ship on the French coast, by keeping at a good distance he might go to sleep, but in order to intercept those coasting vessels the captain must be on deck watching all night. It was impossible ofiicers would do this merely to put money into the pockets of those who practised in the Admiralty Courts. " Me. Yobke said that at this late period of the session it would be impossible to enter upon a subject of such detail. As to ships being detained so long upon foreign and distant stations, it was much to be regretted, but it was often un- avoidable." These were singular reasons for not entertaining a subject of such importance. According to Mr. Yorke, it was too late in the session to conduct the war suc- cessfully, whilst the other evil complained of coiild only be " regretted ! " For want of better argument, I was accused of in- simiatrng that without the chance of prize-money officers would lose a great incentive to duty. I only took human nature as I found it, and it is not m human nature to exercise unremittmg vigilance and exertion without the hope of reward ; much less that unceasing vigilance, by night as well as day, requiring almost constant presence on deck to intercept an enemy's MOTION RELATIVE TO THE MALTESE COURT. 185 coasting trade, carried on almost solely in the night, when the enemy felt secure of our vessels being run out to sea, from want of motive to remain in shore. On the 6th of Jime I entered on the subject of the Maltese Court of Admiralty. As the debate in the House is sufficiently exphcit, previous comment is un- necessary. " Vice-Admiralty Court of Malta. " Lord Cochrane rose to make the motion of which he had given notice. The noble lord began by stating that he had before had occasion to trouble the House on this subject, but he then failed in his attempt to obtain justice, on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence of the facts stated to warrant the House in entertaining his motion. He had since, how- ever, personally been at Malta, and had procured such a chain of evidence, that if the House should now be pleased to entertain his motion, he had no doubt but he should be able to lay before them such a connected string of evidence of flagrant abuses in the Vice- Admiralty Court at that island, as would astonish all who heard it. " He would undertake to prove that, if the Court of Ad- miralty at home would do their duty, one third of the naval force now employed in the Mediterranean would be sufiBcient for all purposes for which it was employed there, and that a saving might be made in the naval service alone of at least five millions sterling a year. If the Committee for which he moved last year had been granted, the evidence to prove this might now have been before the House." There was no question at the time, and many naval officers are yet hving to confirm the assertion, that the rapacity of the Admiralty Courts and their extravagant charges for adjudication and condemning prizes did prevent the interception and capture of the majority of the numerous small vessels employed in the coasting trade of the enemy, this forming to him the most vital 18G ITS EXTORTIONATE CHARGES. consideration, as the means of provisioning his armies. At the commencement of the war, the capture of large vessels coming from distant parts with valuable cargoes gave so much prize-money as to render both officers and crews careless about a httle exertion more or less, but when the enemy's foreign trade was destroyed nothing remained to be looked after but small craft, and as the Admiralty Court charges had increased in an inverse ratio to the worthlessness of small craft, few would run the risk of looking after them, with the cer- tainty of small gain, and the more than probability of being brought in debt for their pains. The consequence was, that little or no destruction was offered to the enemy's coasting trade, which, important as it was to him for subsistence, ought to have been far more so to x\s, as its destruction would have deprived him of the means of subsistence. Between the years 1803 and 1807, the naval esta- blishment was increased from 200 to 600 vessels of war, notwithstanding which the coasting commerce of the enemy still went on, and it should have been obvious that when the navy was increased to vip wards of 1000 ships, nothing more was done. The amusement of cutting out coasting vessels when under the protection of batteries ceased to operate as an incentive. The logs of frigates showed that their commanders avoided the risk of keeping their ships in contiguity with the shore at night, and secured a good night's rest for their men by running into the offing. Hence the enemy's coasting convoys proceeded by night, and in the day ran into some port or other place of protection. The MY OWN CASE. 187 result in the frigates' daily journal, — "Employed as usual," was no less true than comprehensive. For teUing such truths as these, an outcry was raised against me for depreciating the character of officers ! The case was my own. I took prizes m the Mediter- ranean and elsewhere by dozens, for which neither my officers nor crews got anything, the proceeds being swallowed up by the Admiralty Courts. I then turned to harassing the coast armies and forts of the enemy, without hope of reward, deeming this kind of employ- ment the most honourable to myself, and the most ad- vantageous to my country. So far from my poiathig out the effect on the mind of officers in general being a reflection on their honour, it was only creditable to their common sense. They could not reasonably be ex- pected to sacrifice their rest and that of their crews, or to run their ship^g into danger and themselves into debt, for the exclusive emolument of the Courts of Ad- miralty ! I have no hesitation in asserting that had the Ministry diminished the navy one half, and given the whole cost of the other half to the Admiralty Court officials in lieu of their charges, the remaining ships would of themselves have turned the course of the war, and their commanders would have reaped fortunes. * These remarks will enable the naval reader to com- prehend what follows. They are not intended so much for a history of past maladministration as a beacon for the future. * In February, 1811, I pointed out to the House of Commons the monstrous fact that 107 ships of the line were in commission to watch 23 ! (Hansard, vol. xv.) 188 A LENGTHY PBOCTOE'S BILL. " The noble lord then read a letter from a captain of a vessel at the Cape of Good Hope, complaining ' that the officers of ships of war were so pillaged by those of the Vice-Admiralty Courts, that he wished to know how they could be relieved ; whether they could be allowed the liberty to send their prizes home, and how far the jurisdiction of the Vice-Admii-alty Court extended ; for that the charges of that court were so exorbitant, it required the whole amount of the value of a good prize to satisfy them. In the case of one vessel that was sold for 11,000 rupees, the charges amounted to more than 10,000. This was the case at Penang, Malacca, and other places, as well as at the Cape.' He would not, however, wish to dwell on this, but put it to the feelings of the House, whether naval officers had any stimulus to do even their duty, when the prizes they took would not pay the fees of the Vice-Ad- miralty Courts merely for condemning them ? It had been stated the other day at some meeting or dinner by a very grave personage, the Lord Chancellor, that the ships of France were only to be found in our ports. If that statement were believed by Ministers, he should be glad t"o know why we at this moment kept up 140 sail of the line, and frigates and sloops of war in proportion to that number." What follows is very curious, as establishing the mag- nitude of the charges for adjudication in the Vice- Admiralty Courts. The biU for the condemnation of the King George privateer, the first vessel taken by the Imperieuse, had brought me 600 crowns in debt, and was of such magnitude that I had an exact copy made of it, and pasted continuously together. The result will be gathered from what foUows. " His Lordship then produced the copy of a Proctor's Bill in the island of Malta, which he said measured six fathoms and a quarter, and contained many curious charges. [The unrolling this copy caused a general laugh, as it appeared long enough EXCEEDS THE VALUE OP THE PRIZE. 189 to reach from one end of the house to the other.'] This Proctor, the noble lord said, acted in the double capacity of Proctor and Marshal ; and in the former capacity feed himself for consulting and instructing himself as counsel, jury, and judge, which he himself represented in the character of Marshal ; so that all those fees were for himself in the one character, and paid to the same himself in the other. He then read several of the fees, which ran thus: — for attending the Marshal (himself) 2 crowns, 2 scudi, and 2 reals ; and so on, in several other capacities in which he attended, con- sulted, and instructed himself, were charged several fees to the same amount. An hon. member, not then in the house, had last year opposed the motion he had brought forward, for a Committee to inquire into this subject; but, on seeing these articles of this his own Proctor's bill, his Lordship flattered himself that the hon. member would now join in the support of the present motion. The noble lord said he had produced the copy of the bill to show the length of it. He then showed the original ; and to show the equity and moderation of the Vice-Admiralty Court, he read one article where, on the taxation of a bill, the Court, for deducting fifty crowns, charged thirty-five crowns for the trouble in doing it. A vessel was valued at 8608 crowns, the Marshal received one per cent for delivering her, and in the end the net proceeds amounted to no more than 1900 crowns out of 8608 — all the rest had been embezzled and swallowed up in the Prize Court. He was sorry, he said, to trespass on the time of the House, on a day when another matter of importance was to come before them. He pledged himself, however, that no subject could be introduced more highly deserving their serious attention and consideration." I am not sure that by late treaties prize-money in future wars is not in effect abolished, though how treaties can exist during war I am not aware. If this be so, or anything like the spirit of such an arrangement, certain I am that the prestige of our navy is gone till the old system is restored. The United States Government has, 190 OFFICERS OUGHT TO CHOOSE THEIK OWN PROCTORS. I am told, had the good sense not to conform to any arrangement of the kind. If my hfe be longer spared I may in a future volume revert to this subject. However, even as the matter now stands, something must be captured, and I would suggest as a remedy for this enormous Admiralty Court evil to assimilate the regulations of those courts to the courts of law. Pay the judges and officials as other judges and officials are paid. Permit officers of the na^vy to choose their own proctors, as suitors m other courts choose their own attorneys. It is not honourable to the Government nor just to those serving under its authority, to compel officers to place the htigation of aU prizes — even de- tained neutrals — in the hands of one individual, who, under the name of proctor, may have hundreds of causes in hand at the same time. The detention of a neutral may compromise a captain's fortune ia the event of an imfavourable or hm-ried decision, for ia such cases the habUity to damages falls exclusively on captains, the admkals and crews having no responsibility. For my own part, as it was neither my bounden pubhc duty, nor safe to my personal iuterests, to iaterfere with neutrals, I avoided their detention, however apparently flagrant the violation of their nomiaal neutraUty. " He (Lord C.) would not trouble them with anything con- cerning himself, because he trusted he had a remedy elsewhere. The noble lord then stated that altering or regulating the fees established by the King in council, for the island of Malta, was contrary to Act of Parliament, that when he went to Malta five years ago he found the fees very exorbitant; and, in order to prove to the House that the fees demanded now were fees which had been altered since the table of fees was sent out, the PAPERS MOVED FOE. 191 noble lord mentioned an instance of thirteen small vessels which had been taken by the gallant Captain Brenton, who lately lost his arm in the service, being brought into the Vice- Admiralty Court for condemnation ; the charge made for doing that act (which must be done before the prizes could be sold) was 3767 crowns ; but on a severe remonstrance from Captain Brenton, the Judge deducted 3504 crowns, and was glad to accept 263 crowns instead of 3767, rather than have a noise made about it in England. "He (Lord C.) could assure the House the subject was well worthy their attention ; and, if the Lords of tbe Admiralty knew all the circumstances, he was confident that, instead of opposing, they would support his motion. He meant to accuse the Judge, the Marshal, and the Ee- gistrar of the Court with abuse of their offices, and con- cluded by moving, ' That there be laid before this House, 1. Copy of the Commission or Appointment of Dr. Sewell to officiate as Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court of Malta. 2. Copy of the Commission or Appointment of Mr. John Jackson to the office of Marshal to the said Court. 3. List of the Proctors officiating in the said Court, with the dates of their admission. 4. Copy of the Appointment of Mr. Locker to execute the office of Eegistrar of the said Court. 5. Copies of the several deputations given by the Eegistrar and the Marshal of the said Court to their respective deputies to the end of February last ; together with the notifications of those appointments to the High Court of Admiralty, or the Board of Admiralty, with the reasons assigned for such nominations or appointments. 6. Copies of any representations made to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty regarding the incompatibility of the situations of Proctor and Marshal, united at Malta in the person of Mr. Jackson, and the con- sequent correspondence with the Court of Admiralty, or the Judge of the Court of Admiralty, on that subject. 7. Copy of any Table of Fees established by His Majesty in Council, and furnished to the Courts of Vice- Admiralty under the Act of 45 Geo. in. c. 72, or any other Act of Parliament. 8. 192 MK. YOEKE S OPINION. Copy of the Table of Fees by which the charges were made on the suitors in the Court at Malta. 9. Copy of the Au- thority by virtue of which the Judges of the Vice-Admiralty Courts are empowered to alter or amend the Table aforesaid ; or to make any other Table of Fees, to regulate the charges incurred by the suitors in that Court. 10. Copies of Official Demands made, or Official Correspondence which has taken place, between the Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court at Gribraltar, or at Malta, and the High Court of Admiralty, or the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, requiring or regarding a Table of Fees to be sent for the guidance of those Courts, or either of them. 11. List of the number of vessels that have been prosecuted in the Court of Vice-Ad- miralty at Malta, and which have been liberated on payment of costs and damages or otherwise. 12. Copies of the Ap- pointments which Wood, Esq., late Secretary to Lord Viscount Castlereagh, holds in the island of Malta.' " Me. Yoeke said that he did not mean to object to the production of the greater part of the papers moved for by the noble lord. His motion seemed to charge with extortion the persons connected with the Admiralty Court at Malta ; and certainly the ■prima fades appeared to justify it, and some reform might be necessary in some of the departments, which induced him to acquiesce in the general features of the noble lord's motion ; but some difficulty might exist in the production of one or two of the papers he moved for, as they possibly implicated some private correspondence which it would be improper to produce. Many of the papers moved for must be brought from Malta, and therefore it would be impossible that the investigation could take place this session ; and he hoped the noble lord would, on examination, if he found just ground, persevere in his motion, as it was certainly highly improper for the dignity of the House and the due management of the affairs of the country that a remedy should not be applied to those evils, if they existed. " SiK John Nicholl (King's Advocate), while he admitted with the First Lord of the Admiralty, that the case, as it stood SIB PEAA^CIS BUEDETT'S. 193 at present, called for inquiry, thought proper at the same time to state, in the absence of his learned friend (Sir W. Scott), that he had no control over the Vice-Admiralty Court of Malta in matters of prize. The appeal lay to the King in Council, and his learned friend was not in the smallest degree responsible. If the abuses charged by the noble lord existed, they ought to be corrected ; but his doubt was as to the means. His Majesty in Council had authority to correct abuses as to fees, &c. ; but no application, as far as he knew, had been made in that quarter. It was the fashion now to come to Parliament in such cases. As to the character of the Judge of the Prize Court at Malta, he not having been in the habit of corresponding with him could not undertake to speak positively to that point. Having practised with him for some time at the same bar, he had every reason to believe that he was a man of talent and integrity, and the noble lord knew that he was not wanting in spirit to execute what he thought right. He was absent, and he was a Judge — and no prejudices ought to be admitted against him till he had an opportunity of being heard in his defence. He hoped the noble lord was under a misapprehension. The regulation of the fees had been probably left to the Judge because he him- self could hardly have any interest in augmenting them. They could hardly fall below 2000?., to which sum only he was entitled out of them. From the failure of the noble lord in substantiating charges made by him on former occa- sions, it might be fairly inferred that accusations preferred by him might possibly turn out to be unfounded. " Sir FkA2s^cis Buedett said be should have made no ob- servation on the subject, after having seconded the motion, but from what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down, that his noble colleague had not substan- tiated the charges he formerly brought forward. The reason of this was obvious ; the noble lord had never had an oppor- tunity given him to substantiate his charges. He had pledged himself to prove them at the bar of the House, but his motion for a committee was negatived. VOL. II. O 194 MY REPLY. "jMr. Eose said that when abuses in the Vice-Admiralty Courts abroad were detected, measures were always taken to rectify them, and proceedings were at present pending against three of those courts. But he defied the noble lord to point out any impropriety in the Admiralty Courts at home. After the minutest investigation, he could not find a single ground of complaint against the officers of that Court. The proctor for the navy was remarkable for his attention and integrity, and his charges were more moderate than those of any other proctor. The interests of the officers of the navy were as well attended to as those of any individual. The noble lord had failed in two charges on former occasions. He had brought charges against the Admiralty Court, and against the Grovernment for the treatment of the prisoners of war. Both were utterly unfounded. The prisoners, as had been found on inquiry, were even more healthy than our militia regiments. " Mb. Ltttleton said the right honourable gentleman who had spoken last allotued abuses existed ; he did not know whether it was so or not, but he knew several officers of the navy of the highest character who complained loudly that there were, and this was in his opinion good ground for granting the present motion. "LoED CocHEANE stated that, haying complained to the Admiralty here of a giievance in being obliged to submit to exorbitant charges in the prosecution of a prize cause at Malta, the opinions of the Attorney and Solicitor-General, and other lawyers, had been put into his hands, purporting that his plan was to apply to the Judge at Malta. He wrote to the Judge accordingly, who referred him to the Proctor, as he did not choose to enter into private correspondence with suitors in causes before him. He then wi-ote to the Proctor, who sent for answer that it was unprecedented to demand a bill to be taxed that had been paid so long ago as 1808 ; so that he thought his having got the money a good reason for not parting with it. He then wrote to the Judge but got no answer, and this was the redress he got in MOTION AGREED TO. 195 tlie quarter where the crown law officers had advised him to apply. The noble lord further observed, that in opposition to the act of the 45th of the King, the Judge at Malta had not only established but altered the table of fees. An allusion was made to the spirited conduct of the Judge ; but he had affidavits of Captain Maxwell and others, who were present, that the Judge had admitted that he had no proof of the crime for which he (Lord C.) had been sent to gaol. Against him, however, he would proceed in another way, unless he should find it necessary to call for the interference of the House to bring this Judge home. He had consulted lawyers, and understood that he could not proceed against him till he came to this country. As to his former charges, he had been denied the opportunity of proving them. He concluded by repeating his charges of extortion, &c., against the Judge and Marshal. "Me. WhitiskeAd said that if the official correspondence did not clear up the case, he would move for further papers if no one else did. " Some alterations were then made in the motion, in con- sequence of a difference of opinion as to the construction of the 45th of the King, relative to the establishment of tables of fees in the Prize Courts, after which they were all carried." Notwithstanding tlie admission of the First Lord of the Admiralty that the papers were necessary, and that they were produced, it is scarcely creditable that the Government subsequently refused to act in the matter, thus turning a deaf ear to proofs that the enactments of the Legislature were defeated by the rapacity of distant Admiralty Courts, which continued to impound without scruple the rewards which the Legislature had decreed for effective exertion. The naval reader who may wish to know more re- specting the extortionate fees of these courts may refer o 2 196 CAPT. BKENTONS TESTIMONT. generally to Capt. Brenton's '"Life of Lord St. Vincent." I will extract one passage. He says (vol. ii. p. 166) : — " Lord Coctuane made a statement of some facts to this effect in the House of Commons, but he might have gone much further. The proctor's bill for a prize taken by the Spartan, when my brother commanded her, was 1025/., which, when refused payment and taxed, was reduced to 28bl. ! " Capt. Brenton thought " I might have gone much further." So I might, but with as little effect. Even the facts I did state were impudently denied or shame- lessly defended. On the 14th of June an attack was made upon me by the Secretary of the Treasury, on account of some remarks which I had deemed it my duty to make on the condition of the French prisoners at Dartmoor. In consequence of circumstances which had come to my knowledge, I visited that prison and was refused admittance the moment my name was amiounced. This did not, however, prevent my surveying the prison from an emiuence on the exterior : this cursory uispection confirmed the information I had received. "Me. Eose observed that it would appear from these documents that the total number of French prisoners re- maining in England amounted to 45,939, and that the returns of the sick were 321. The number on parole were 2710 ; and the sick 165. This statement, he conceived, would be a sufficient answer to the imputations of negligence upon the part of the Government which had been thrown out by a noble lord. " LoED CoCHEANE referred to the manner in which he had been reproached by Mr. Eose's pointed address, and thought FRENCH PEISONEES. 197 it incumbent upon him, considering tlie repeated assertions of that hon. member, that he was unable to prove facts which he had stated to the House, to justify his conduct in having given notice of a motion relative to the prison in Dartmoor ; but in which he did not persevere, for reasons very different from those assigned by the right hon. gentleman. His Lord- ship had never asserted that which he could not establish. The time that had elapsed would suiBciently evidence his re- luctance to bring the matter to the knowledge of the public, fearing that a disclosure might add to the misfortunes of his countrymen in France. " Having received many letters stating the condition of the prisoners of war at Dartmoor to be truly deplorable, he determined to investigate the subject ; and, having had occasion to go to Exeter, he proceeded to Launceston and other depots, whence he obtained the intelligence, and, being satisfied that the complaints had some foundation, he went to Dartmoor ; but was refused admittance, even in his capa- city as a member of Parliament (a laugh). Though members might laugh, he thought members of Parliament should be entitled to admission there, or to any other prison in the kingdom. Having contributed to place many individuals there, he applied for permission to see the interior, biit was refused leave, except to look through a grating into the outer court- yard. He found the climate of the prison accurately and faithfully described, and he was the more anxious to see the interior, owing to the refusal directly given him. He in- quired the reason for building a depot in such a barren, elevated, and extraordinary situation, and was told that it was for the purpose of attracting inhabitants. He proceeded to Plymouth, where he obtained a plan of the prison, which fully corroborated one complaint, that the health of the pri- soners had suffered by exposure to heavy rains whilst stand- ing in an open space for several hours receiving provisions issued at a single door; the cooking-room being several hundred feet from the prison, which then contained six thousand prisoners, divided into messes of six ; consequently o 3 198 THEIE TREATMENT. one thousand were soaked through in the morning attending for their breakfast, and one thousand more at dinner. Thus a third were constantly wet, many without a change of clothes. He was told, however, that they gambled or sold them. On his second visit to Dartmoor his Lordship, being again refused admittance, began to explore the exterior, and found, by a very peculiar coincidence, that the manure from this prison had been placed on the only spot in Devon whence the stercoraceous matter of the depot could descend on a neighbouring and elevated estate belonging to the Secretary of His Eoyal Highness the Prince Eegent (Mr. Tyrwhitt). Had such a circumstance happened in the island of Walcheren to an estate of the Secretary of Louis Napoleon, he would not have been surprised. The prison of Dartmoor was built in the most inclement part of all England, on the top of the highest mountain in Devonshire, involved in per- petual rains and eternal fog. That the prison was not built there on a principle of economy might be seen by inspecting the contracts for provisions, coals, and necessaries furnished at Dartmoor and at Plymouth. He thought he calculated a difference of more than seven thousand pounds a year on the provisions alone. It might be very proper, he imagined, that prisoners should not be collected in great numbers at Plymouth, but he asserted that Dartmoor depot ought not to have been placed upon the top of the highest and most barren range of mountains in Devonshire, where it is in- volved in constant fog, and deluged with perpetual rain. He had relinquished his intention of entering into the matter, because he received assurances that the situation of the prisoners would be immediately attended to. He would abstain from remarking upon the manner in which Mr. Kose had taken him by surprise, and wrested from him those facts in his own defence. Had he brought that matter forward voluntarily, his Lordship would have cleared the House, to prevent publicity." Capt. Brenton, in his " Life of Lord St. Vincent," when MINISTERS REFUSE TO INQUIRE INTO IT, 199 speaking of the treatment of our prisoners of war, bore testimony to the truth of my representations, wliich ]\Ir. Eose had so emphatically denied : — "The charge of sick and wounded prisoners of war fell into the hands of a set of villains, whose seared consciences were proof against the silent but eloquent pleading of their fellow-creatures — sick and imprisoned for no crime, in a foreign land, far away from their friends and relations," (Vol. ii, p. 165.) No one supposed the Government to be guilty of the matters complained of, but they refused to hiquhe into the conduct of those who were, thereby protecting them in their iuiquity, I saw at Dartmoor old and recently mutilated bulls, covered with dust and gore, driven along the road towards the prison, leaving tracks of blood behind! Thus the contract for Supplying the prisoners with ox beef was fulfilled by some partisan of the government, who had sublet his contract to a Devon butcher. It was not always in those days that a contract was given to the tradesman who ful- fiUed it. On the 18th of July I brought forward a motion on the subject of my arrest at Malta : — " Conduct of the Vice-Admwalty Court at Malta. — Arrest of Lord Cochrane. " LoED CoCHEANE rose and said : — « Siu^ — The delay that has taken place since my return to England, and the legal authorities that I have consulted, will, I trust, evidence that I trespass on your attention with reluct- ance relative to the conduct of the Judge and members of the Court of Vice-Admiralty at Malta ; partly from a desire to avoid the possibility of private motives being imputed to o 4 200 MOTION ON MY AEEEST. me, but chiefly from a conviction that Parliament should not interfere in matters cognisable in the courts of justice. " How far, under the last impression, I am warranted in calling upon this House to exercise an authority in the pre- sent instance, will appear by the opinions of Sir A. Piggott, Mr. Holroyd, Mr. Leach, and of another learned gentleman who is not now in his place. 'Process of the Courts,' says Sir A. Piggott, ' does not extend to Malta : there is no mode whilst they are abroad to compel appearance to actions here.' The answers of the other learned gentlemen being the same in substance, I need not detain you by reading them. "Three years have passed since I memorialised the Ad- miralty on this subject ; it cannot therefore be said that I have acted with precipitation. Indeed, I have had time enough to reflect, and I do assure you that I am fully aware of the responsibility which I shall incur if I fail in establish- ing whatever accusations I bring against a judge presiding in one of His Majesty's courts, and against those acting under his authority ; but furnished as I am with original docu- ments, having the signatures of the judge and members of the Court, I am not inclined to shrink from the task of proving their violation of the Acts on your table, especially of the 37th, 38th, 39th, and 41st sects, of the 45th of his present Majesty, c. 72. The first of which empowers the King in Council alone to make or alter a table of fees to regulate the charges in Courts of Vice- Admiralty, and yet the members of the Court of Malta fabricated one for them- selves, which the judge subsequently altered by affixing a note in his own hand, abolishing the table in toto, except by reference to certain unascertained charges made in a distant court, which were not set forth. This note is as follows : ' At a meeting of all the members of the court shortly after its arrival, for the purpose of settling what should be con- sidered as reasonable fees, it was agreed, that in no instance they should exceed the proportion of one third more than those paid for similar services in the High Court of Ad- miralty in England,' signed 'J. Sewell;' who thus assumed CIECUMSTANCES ATTENDING IT. 201 the authority of the King in Council, in open violation of the 37th, and in contempt and defiance of the penalties enacted by the 38th and 39th sections, which declare that * receiving or taking any fee or fees beyond those specified in the table aforesaid,' that is, the table authorised by the King in Council, shall be punished by the loss of office ; and further, ' demanding or receiving any sum or sums of money other than the fees aforesaid shall be deemed and taken to be extortion and a misdemeanour at law, and shall be punished under and by virtue of this Act.' Words cannot convey a more distinct prohibition, and yet I hold in my hand demonstration of an opposite line of conduct being pursued by the Court. This is not all ; the law directs that the 'Table of Fees, authorised as aforesaid, shall be sus- pended in some conspicuous part of the Court in which the several judges of the Vice- Admiralty Court shall hold their courts.' At Malta, however, it was concealed, first, during five years in a drawer, and when taken therefrom in con- sequence of loud complaints on the subject of their charges, it was affixed, not ' in some conspicuous part of the Court,' not in the Court at all, but on the door of a private room behind the Eegistry, where suitors could have no access to it. " Sir, The fabricating, altering, and concealing the table of fees is, perhaps, the least profligate part of their conduct. What will the House think when they find that John Jackson the marshal, who, to the knowledge of the judge, acts also as proctor in defiance of the law, is in the constant habit of charging his clients of the navy for attending, fee- ing, consulting, instructing, and admonishing himself, and this in the very teeth of the 41st section, which enacts that 'No registrar or deputy-registrar, marshal or deputy-mar- shal, of or belonging to any of His Majesty's Courts of Vice- Admiralty, shall, either directly or indirectly, or himself or themselves, or by any agent or agents, or any person or persons whomsoever, act or be concerned in any manner whatsoever, either as an advocate or proctor.' Mr. Jackson's charges are so ingenious that I must beg leave to read a few 202 MY RIGHT TO DEMAND TAXATION. of them. ' Attending in the Registry and bespeaking a monition, two crowns ; paid for the said monition, under seal and extracting, nine crowns; copy of the said moni- tion for service, two crowns ; attending the marshal (him- self, observe) and instructing him to serve the same, two crowns ; paid the marshal for service of said monition, two crowns ; certificate of service, one crown ; drawing and en- grossing an affidavit of service, two crowns; oath thereto and attendance, two crowns, two reals, and three scudi.' How exact ! ten shillings and two-pence three farthings for an oath that he had attended on himself with a monition ! One of these bills was taxed by the deputy registrar, who admitted these iniquitous charges. Yes, Sir, they were allowed and admitted by Stevens, the deputy registrar, who treats his friends with Burgundy and Champagne out of the proceeds of captures made by the navy, from which fund, John Locker, the sinecure registrar, like the sinecure regis- trar at home, also derives his unmerited emoluments. I ask, is it fit that the reward granted by His Majesty and the legislature to the navy, for the toil and risk which they undergo in making captures from the enemy, should be thus appropriated ? " That I had a right to demand the taxation of such a bill as that which I have shown there can be no doubt, even if I could not produce the opinion of His Majesty's Attorney- Greneral to that effect. Yes, the opinion of Sir V. Gribbs, and of the Solicitor-General, signed also Charles Eobinson, Wil- liam Battine, T. Jarvis, to all of whom the memorial which I presented to the Admiralty was referred in April, 1809. ' The expenses,' say these learned gentlemen, ' in this case do not appear to have been brought to the knowledge of the Court so as to have given the judge an opportunity of exer- cising his judgment upon them ; that would be the proper mode of redress for grievances of this description.' "Thus instructed, I addressed the judge on my return to Malta, in February last, soliciting that he would be pleased to direct my bill to be taxed, to which he returned the fol- THE MALTESE JUDGE 203 lotting answer, addiesaed on His Majesty's service: — 'My Lord, In reply to your letter of yesterday's date, I beg leave to refer you to your proctor for the information you are desirous of, it not being the practice of the Vice-Admiralty Court here, any more than the Court of King's Bench in England, to enter into private correspondence with suitors on the subject of their suits or of any matters connected with them. Signed J. Sewell.' "It appeared extraordinary that I should be referred to the person complained of, as judge in his own cause. Still, however, in compliance with Dr. Sewell's advice, I directed my agent to make the application, and the following, as might have been anticipated, was the ingenious gentleman's reply : — ' Sir, My bill in this case having been delivered to you so long ago as the 8th of August 1808, and having been paid by you soon after, I was a good deal surprised at your note, received yesterday, informing me that Lord Cochrane wishes to have the said bill taxed, and therefore I beg that you will apprise his Lordship that it is a thing quite un- precedented to tax a bill which is paid. I should have sup- posed that the advice I gave his Lordship, not to proceed in this cause, would have exempted me from the suspicion of having made unwarrantable charges. Signed John Jackson.' As the unwarrantableness of the charges did not rest on sus- picion, I wrote to Sir. Jackson myself, who answered : — ' I humbly conceive that your Lordship is not now entitled to demand a copy of your account, and therefore I beg that you will excuse me from complying with such demand.' I next required him to submit my account for taxation, this he also declined as follows : — ' My Lord, In reply to your letter of this day, I have to inform you that I cannot consent to open an account that was closed two years ago, and that is my only objection to my bill in the cause of King George being taxed, which I hope your Lordship, on reflection, will see to be a reasonable objection.' I confess I did not consider the lapse of two years to be any objection at all, particularly as I was absent from Malta when the bill was paid, and no earlier 204 REFUSES TO NOTICE MY COMMUNICATION. opportunity had offered to call for a revision of the charges ; for this reason, and fortified with the opinion of the learned gentleman opposite (Sir V. Gribbs) about a month afterwards, I again addressed Dr. Sewell on the subject, who, so far from ' exercising his judgment ' on the marshal's iniquitous bill of costs, did not condescend to take the slightest notice of my communication, though furnishing him with extracts from Mr. Jackson's written refusals. Neither did the judge reply to a note delivered to him on the following day. "Being thus excluded from the 'proper mode of redress for grievances of this description,' I proceeded to the court- room of the Vice- Admiralty for the purpose of comparing the charges contained in numerous bills in my possession with the established fees, which I was instructed by the Acts of Parliament, ' should be suspended in some conspicuous part of the Court,' every part of which 1 searched in vain ; neither was the table in the Eegistry, where His Majesty's Advocate directed me to look for it, who, on my retm-ning into Court again, to make further inquiry, said that I would find it affixed on a door leading to the adjoining room. " That mutilated paper, concealed contrary to law, I was accused of having taken down and carried away from a place where it could not have been affixed, except in defiance of these statutes, and in contempt of justice. That, Sir, was the paper for which I was followed through the streets of Malta for the space of a week by the deputy auctioneer, styled in the judge's warrant and attachments by the title of ' deputy marshal,' but who, in fact, never had an authority from the marshal ; perhaps, because the marshal was conscious of having vitiated his powers by the illegal acts of which he was guilty, and thus thought to escape the consequences which might arise from the acts of his nominal deputy. So loosely are things conducted in that Court ! Surely no reasonable man can blame me for refusing to be taken to gaol by the deputy auctioneer. Indeed, Chapman admits, in his affidavit of the 24th of February, that my objection was to his want of authority ; for, I naturally concluded that unless AFEAID OF HIS OWN ACTS. 205 he was an officer of the Court his acts might be disowned, and thereby the guilty would escape punishment. "That this was the view which I took of the case, will appear by my offering no resistance to James Houghton Stevens, who was appointed on Chapman's nominal resigna- tion ; I say. Sir, that I offered no resistance, for, by refusing to walk to gaol, I did no more than decline, by an act of my own, to contribute to illegal proceedings. " It is not my intention to trouble the House at length relative to this affair, which is of trifling importance com- pared with the mischiefs that arise from the system of plunder and abuse practised in the Courts of Vice- Admiralty. How- ever, it may not be improper to mention that I was conducted by the keeper of the gaol to a place with a broken window barred with iron, furnished with an old chair, and a close- stool in the corner. From this, however, I was removed, as the judge began to fear the consequences of his illegal acts; and on the third day, being brought from the keeper's room to the Court of Vice-Admiralty, there, without an accuser, except the judge, that learned and worshipful gentleman attempted in the absence of proof to administer a long string of interrogatories, which I, of course, refused to answer, and thereby furnished what might be construed by him into evi- dence of my having taken away his illegal table. Being further pressed and threatened, I delivered a protest in writing, ' against the illegal warrant issued by William Stevens, an examiner and interpreter to the Vice-Admiralty Court of Malta, registered merchant, commission broker, and notary public, calling himself deputy registrar of the Court, and professing to act under an appointment of John Locker, sinecure registrar, and further against the illegal endeavours to execute the warrant by John Chapman, deputy auctioneer, acting for and on behalf of — "Wood, late private secretary to Lord Castlereagh, a non-resident, enjoying an income of about seven thousand pounds sterling per annum, derived from the sale of prizes and the goods of merchants trading to Malta, but calling himself deputy marshal of the Vice-Admi- 20(5 PROCEEDIlSrGS OF HIS OFFICERS ILLEGAL. ralty Court, and professing to act under an appointment from John Jackson, proctor and marshal, contrary to law; and farther against all acts of the said John Jackson, in the capacity of marshal, by himself or his deputy, and against John Locker, sinecure registrar, and William Stephens, calling himself deputy registrar : John Locker having, under the signature of William Stephens, taxed bills of fees and expenses of the Court of Vice-Admiralty, wherein the fees of the said John Locker and William Stephens in their capacity of registrar, deputy registrar, examiner, interpreter, &c. &c. &c., are made and examined by themselves, and in which various illegal charges were allowed and suffered to be made by John Jackson, as proctor, for attending, feeing, consulting, and instructing himself as marshal ; in which double capacity he acts, in defiance of the 41st and of the 45th Geo. III. chapter 72.' And further, I solemnly protested John Sewell, styling himself judge of the aforesaid Court, for refusing, by letter dated the 13th Janiiary, 1811, to order satisfaction to be given by the said John Jackson, referring to him a judge in his own cause; and likewise for not having given any answers to official letters delivered to him, bearing date the 19th and 20th of February, 1811, on the same subject. And further, I protested against the said John Sewell, for not complying with the Act of Parliament, which directs that ' a table of fees shall be suspended in some conspicuous part of the Court, in which the several judges of the Court of Vice- Admiralty hold their sittings.' " Sir, Tlie judge at first refused to receive any protest, but afterwards did so; and afterwards I was re-committed to prison, not for contempt of court, but for the old accusation of not having complied with certain warrants addressed to a person styled deputy marshal, who never had an authority to act as such. That no proof existed of my having taken the table of fees will appear from the following affidavit of Com- modore Eowley, Commissioner Fraser, and Captain Murray Maxwell, of the navy : — " Be it known to all persons whomsoever it may concern. TESTIMOMT OF EJIIKENT NAVAL OFFICEES. 207 that on the 2iid day of March, in the year of our Lord 1811, personally came and appeared before me the undersigned notary-public Percy Fraser, commissioner of His Majesty's navy, resident in the island of Malta, Charles Eowley, Esq., captain of His Majesty's ship Eagle, and Murray Maxwell, Esq., captain of His Majesty's ship Alceste, and solemnly made oath that on the aforesaid 2nd day of March, whilst the CoTU't of Vice- Admiralty of the said island of Malta was sit- ting, they severally and distinctly heard John Sewell, LL.D. the judge thereof, and whilst sitting in his judicial chair, admit in open Court, and in the presence of divers persons there assembled, to the Eight Honourable Lord Cochrane, that there existed no proof in the aforesaid court of his said Lordship's having taken down the paper in question, by the judge aforesaid called the table of fees. (Signed) Percy Fraser, C. Eowley, Murray Maxwell.' « On the second day of August, 1811, the aforegoing attes- tation was duly sworn at Malta, where stamps are not used, before me, Chas. Edw. Fenton, Notary-Public' " Notwithstanding the confession of the judge in open Court thus attested, I remained unnoticed three days longer in the public gaol, where I now clearly saw that it was the intention of the judge to detain me until the packet had sailed for England, and probably until she returned to Malta with in- structions. I therefore wrote to the Grovernor, who, having consulted Messieurs Moncreiff, Forrest, and Bowdler, three gentlemen of the law, sent me their opinion, that His Ex- cellency should not interfere with a Court, acting, as they were pleased to call it, under His Majesty's authority, although in violation of the law. I addressed the President also, who said, that the Courts of Malta could not interpose. Indeed, had it been otherwise, little good could have been expected from an appeal to these Courts, which are still governed by the iniquitious and oppressive code of Ehoan, to the disgrace of all the ministers who have ruled since the surrender of the island to England. Sir, The Maltese stipulated then that 208 PEOCLAilATION ON MT ESCAPE. a constitution securing property and rights should be granted, and trial by jury ; but these have been denied, and examina- tions are still taken, and sentence pronounced, with shut doors, by their j udges, whose appointments are during pleasure. I do not impute blame to His Excellency the Governor, for whom I have a high respect, yet I must say that the system of blending the military and civil authority cannot fail to become oppressive. Ministers have no better excuse for this union of power contrary to the express stipulations of the inhabitants of the island, than a despicable petition signed by the dependents on Grovernment, and shamelessly trans- mitted and received as the voice of the people! Being furnished with an affidavit that the judge did not intend to proceed in the matter on the next Court day, I resolved, as the door was locked and guarded, to get out by the window, which I according effected ; and the following proclamation was issued for my apprehension, in which I am designated by as many names as if I had been a notorious thief: — "'Escape of Lokd Cocheane. " ' Whereas, the Honourable Thomas Cochrane, esquire, otherwise the Honourable Sir Thomas Cochrane, Knight Companion of the most Honourable Order of the Bath, com- monly called Lord Cochrane, escaped out of the custody of James Houghton Stevens, the Deputy Marshal of the Vice- Admiralty Court of this Island, from the prison of the Cas- tellanea during the course of last night. This is to give notice, that whoever will apprehend or cause to be appre- hended the said Lord Cochrane, and deliver him into the custody of the said Deputy Marshal, shall receive a reward of Two Thousand Scudis currency of Malta, and that who- ever will give such information as may lead to the apprehen- sion of any person, or persons, who was or were aiding and assisting the said Lord Cochrane in such his escape, shall receive upon such conviction, if only one person was so aid- ing and assisting, the sum of One Thousand Scudis, or if more persons than one were so aiding and assisting, then OPINION OF THE SPEAKER ADVERSE. 209 upon the conviction of each of such persons the sum of Five Hundred Scudis, notwithstanding that in such latter case the person so giving information shall himself have been aiding and assisting to the said escape. Witness my hand, this sixth day of March, 1811. — Jas. H. Stevens, Deputy- Marshal. No. 188 Strada Stretta.' "Now, Sir, although the treatment which I received is altogether foreign to the main point, yet I am desirous to learn from you as Speaker of this House, whether my im- prisonment was or was not a breach of the privilege of par- liament ? " The Speaker. — I do not know whether the House expects me to reply to the questions which the noble lord has put to me, perfectly new as one appears to be ; but, as far as my information goes, I will give it, if the House thinks fit that I should do so. (Hear, hear !) With respect to the privileges of the House, I know of no means of enforcing its privileges, but in the usual way, from time imemorial, by its own officers ; and I never knew one instance of any officer having been sent across the seas at the instance of any member, on a complaint of insult offered to him personally. (Hear, hear !) So much for the question of privilege. In the next place I never knew an instance in which any member of parliament, properly before a court of justice, was at liberty to treat with impunity the proceedings of that court, or to say that what was done in respect to himself was done in contempt, or that could authorise him to say that the privileges of par- liament were infringed in his person for such conduct. Lord Cochrane. — Sir : It was at first my intention, to have moved an address to the Prince Eegent, to recall the judge, registrar, and marshal, to answer for their conduct and proceedings, contrary to the express words of acts of parliament; but on consideration, and in compliance with the suggestion of the First Lord of the Admiralty, I have thou