BOOKS.
LORD DITNDONALD.4 IT may well be doubted whether it is worth while after more than eighty years to retry the case of Lord Cochrane ; there is no doubt that the case here presented on Lord Ellen. borough's behalf is handled with infinite tact and lucidity. But having studied five hundred solid pages, we are as far as ever from a conclusion, and are willing to confess that, if the innocence of Lord Cochrane can never be established, his guilt is still uncertain, as it was on the day whereon the last of his forfeited honours was restored to him. In fact nothing but a plain confession on Lord Cochrane's part could have pierced the mystery, and since he persisted in declaring his innocence, both be and the Judge who condemned him are likely to find their par- tisans until the end of time. Nor, if we suppose the guilt- lessness of Lord Cochrane, need we condemn Lord Ellen- borough to eternal obloquy. As Lord Brougham, Cochrane's lifelong champion, declared, the Lord Chief Justice tried the case "impartially, according to his conscience," and if he be reproved for the severity of his sentence, he does but suffer the reproof which has always attached to the strong, able, and fierce-minded Judge. Cochrane, be it remembered, did not trouble to superintend his own defence ; his case was un- wisely confused with that of others, and Lord Ellenborough arrived upon the facts before him at a decisive, unhesitating judgment. On the other hand, Cochrane's exasperation is perfectly consonant with the theory of innocence. The hero, who was court-martialled in his youth, and who attacked his superior officer from his place in the Commons, was not likely to suffer in silence what he deemed an affront ; nor is it surprising that in his Autobiography of a Seaman he makes statements which are at variance with the truth and with one another. It is useless to apply the laws of temper and logic to a brilliant fighter, mad with a sense of injustice ; and the words of burning in- dignation hurled at Ellenborough not only met with no sympathy in Parliament, but were even expunged from the pages of Hansard. Moreover, the judicious account written thirty years afterwards by Lord Brougham clears Cochrane, and at the same time completely exonerates Lord Ellen.. borough. Justice is no more infallible than man, and a Judge may turn aside from the truth, when it is represented, and yet escape the charge of partiality or perversion. Why, then, should Lord Ellenborongh stand in need of vindication ? Because, says Mr. Law, Mr. Henty, in a book written for boys, professes a blind faith in the Autobiography of a Seaman. Surely to refute Mr. Henty at this length and with this circumstance hi breaking a butterfly on a wheel. But, none the less, we are glad that the vindication has been attempted, because it gives us an occasion to reconsider one of the strangest romances of criminal history.
In the early morning, then, of February 21st, 1814, a stranger arrived at Dover and knocked at the door of the 'Ship Inn.' He declared that he had just landed from France, and was the bearer of important despatches. Call- ing imperiously for pens and paper, he wrote, or pretended to write, a letter to Admiral Foley, the officer in command at Deal. Therein he announced that Napoleon had been cut to pieces by the Cossacks, that the Allies were in Paris, and that peace was inevitable. No sooner had he discharged this • The Trial of L,-,rd C.chrane before Lord Ellenborough. By J. B. attar. M.A. London: 6tuith, hider, and Co. (18..] duty than he demanded a post,chaise, and set out with all speed for London. But already his news was published, and his volubility increased as he drew near his destination, so that by the time he had taken a hackney cab at the Marsh Gate, the downfall of Napoleon was the common talk of the town. From the Marsh Gate the stranger drove to Lord Cochrane's house, where under the name of Do Bourg he disappeared for ever, and whence be came forth, his uniform changed for a sober suit, as the well-known soldier of fortune, De Berenger, and a sojourner for the while within the rules of the King's Bench. Meanwhile the glorious intelligence was common property, and when at 10 o'clock the Stock Exchange opened, the Funds rose amid the wildest excitement. Omnium, which had closed on Saturday at 261, speedily touched 301-, and although lack of confirmation caused a momentary check, a marvellous demonstration towards noon gave the market a fresh impetus. At the very moment of doubt a postchaise and four, all bedecked with laurels, drove over London Bridge. Within it were seated four rascals, uniformed as French oficers, and wearing white cockades in their hats. Up Lombard Street they drove, and along Cheapside, and then recrossed the river at Blackfriars. Throughout their journey they scattered handbills, bearing the inscriptions, " Vive Is Roi," " Vivent lea Bourbons." This apparition, theatrical enough to destroy the maddest hope, did but revive the ardour of speculators, and Omninm rose with a rush to 32. But with the afternoon came the certainty of fraud. The death of Napoleon was recognised for a lie, and straightway a committee of the Stock Exchange set about discovering the malefactors. Suspicion fell upon Lord Cochrane, Mr. Cochrane-Johnstone, his uncle, and a famous speculator in time bargains named Butt, who, with De Berenger, now generally known for Da Bourg, were charged, and presently put upon trial, for conspiring, by false rumours, "to induce the subjects of the King to believe that Napoleon was dead, and thereby to occasion a rise in the Funds."
The plot had thus succeeded to admiration ; and it must be acknowledged that it was conceived with cunning and address. The moment chosen was obviously favourable ; not only was the world anxious to credit Napoleon's downfall, but the situation of Europe made it probable, and when not many months after the Emperor retired to Elba it might have appeared a prophecy. But this success only made the Stock Exchange more resolute to prosecute the offenders ; and when it was proved that Lord Cochrane, his uncle, and Mr. Butt had between them won some £10,000 on the morning of February 21st, there seemed small doubt as to the culprits. No sooner was the charge brought than Lord Cochrane, then about to join his ship, obtained leave of absence, and made the famous affidavit, which was his first tactical mistake. With all the appearance of innocence, he refused to await his trial, but hastened to declare the whole truth upon oath. His explanation was simple and direct. De Berenger, he con- fessed, came to his house on the morning of the 21st, wearing a grey great-coat, a green uniform, and a military cap. His purpose was to beg an appointment on board Lord Cochrane's ship, where he desired to exercise the sharpshooters, a plan approved by Sir Alexander Cochrane. Farther, Lord Cochrane denied most positively that any man had entered his house in the red uniform sworn to by a dozen witnesses. As for the profits be had made upon the Stock Exchange, they had not the remotest touch with the notorious fraud. He was convinced, said he, that "in the present favourable aspect of affairs it was only necessary to hold stock in order to become a gainer without prejudice to anybody." Moreover he bad bought his Oninium at 28i, and had ordered his broker to sell the stock on a rise of 1 per cent., whereas had he been a party to the fraud, he might have waited until the stock reached 33i, and thus have quintupled his gains. This affidavit did no more than in- crease the public excitement; the Lords of the Admiralty demanded a further explanation, and appointed another officer to Lord Cochrane's ship.
The trial was now inevitable, and then Lord Cochrane made his second error. He withdrew like Achilles to his tent, and, according to his own statement, took no steps to instruct his lawyers or to prepare his defence. He committed an even wore folly, and allowed himself to stand or fall with
Butt and Cochrane-Johnstone. Many years afterwards Lord Brougham declared that this policy of suicide was dictated by loyalty to his uncle. But there is no doubt that, had Lord Cochrane's case been separately developed, his chance ofi' escape, even on the facts presented to the jury, would have been infinitely greater. The mistake, once committed, was. irretrievable, and after a trial conducted on all sides with passion and asperity the defendants were all condemned. The partisans of Cochrane insist that Lord Ellenborough was guilty of partiality in permitting the defence to be opened at midnight, when the jury was tired oat and the counsel exhausted. On the other band, the champions of the Judge point triumphantly to the common practice of the time, and argue that it was Lord Ellenborough's hope to hear the official witnesses before the Court rose, and so to relieve them from further attendance.
It seems idle at this date to discuss the conduct of the trial, but at least Lord Ellenborough may be absolved from this charge of desperate meanness. He tried the prisoners, as he tried Hone, as he would have tried the humblest person brought before him, with a stern inflexibility, and in his charge to the jury he followed the habit of all strong Judges who are not mere mouthpieces, and got the verdict he desired. Sc' Lord Cochrane, with the rest, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, a fine of £1,000, and the pillory. Severe the sentence assuredly was, and the pillory was afterwards revoked. But henceforth the question, so far as the most distinguished defendant was concerned, became political rather than judicial. Lord Cochrane, expelled the House, was instantly returned again for Westminster, and opened the campaign against his sentence, which was only finished by the Royal Commission of 1877. He broke prison and appeared in Parliament, whence be was ejected after a violent struggle ; and having served his time, he re- turned to attack the Judge from whose injustice he declared he had suffered. Enraged beyond measure, be admitted no compromise, and his tongue was as bitter as his temper. But he did not permit disaster to ruin his career. He sold his sword to Chili and Brazil, and fought with all his old dash and bravery ; and at last returning to England, he set himself to reconquer his lost position. After many years his pertinacity was rewarded. In 1832 he received a free pardon and the rank of Rear-Admiral; fifteen years later he was restored to all the honours which had been conferred upon him before his trial ; and in 1860 his banner was hung again in Henry VIPs Chapel. Nor did the public reparation end here. Only twenty years ago a Committee of the House of Commons paid to the eleventh Earl of Dundonald the arrears of half-pay of which his grandfather had been deprived. By a bare majority this Committee declared that no responsible advisers of the Crown could have restored Lord Dundonald to honour had they still believed him guilty. And in this uncertainty of a single vote the case must still rest. A succession of Ministers has believed that Lord Cochrane was unjustly treated, while the champions of Lord Ellenborough suspect an affront in every honour paid to Cochrane's memory. But, to whichever side the truth incline, Judge and prisoner are both strong enough to bear the obloquy of a single mistake. At any rate, one thing is certain, that when the rigging of the Stock Exchange is a faded memory, Lord Cochrane—the least romantic of men, to quote his own phrase, compelled to lead the most romantic of lives—will be still remembered among the greatest Captains ever born in the British Isles.
Previous page
