HC Deb 10 April 1877 vol 233 cc857-77
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER,

in rising to move that a Select Committee be appointed To inquire and report upon Lord Cochrane's Petition, laid upon the Table of the House upon the 8th instant, praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to complete the gracious act of Royal justice which restored the late Lord Dundonald to his rank and honours, said, he felt sanguine that he should be able to carry the House and the Government with him in this matter. Hon. Gentlemen who had been kind enough to read the Petition of the noble Lord as laid on the Table of the House would probably have come to the conclusion that the case was one which might almost be left to speak for itself. It was the case of one of the most distinguished men who ever bore Her Majesty's commission in the Royal Navy. It was the case of one of the most distinguished sailors in the long list of distinguished men who had served the Crown in the British Navy —the case, it might almost be said, of the most distinguished servant the Crown had ever had in this country. That was saying a good deal; but anyone who looked at the exploits of the late Lord Dundonald would not be disinclined to admit that in the whole record of the glorious achievements of the British Navy there were to be found the names of few men who had done so much to cover the flag of England with glory as had the late Lord Dundonald. His achievements formed part of the noble records of that Service to which every British officer and sailor looked back with pride. It was not his intention to trouble the House with a detailed account of his many eminent services, but to deal with that part of his history which related to the Motion before the House. It was well known that after a very distinguished career, when ho had every hope and was rising high in the Service, the late Lord Dundonald, then Lord Cochrane, was charged with being mixed up in the matter of bringing false news to the Stock Ex- change with the view of trying to raise the funds. He was tried for that offence before Lord Ellenborough, was found guilty, dismissed the Navy, fined £1,000, and condemned to the great humiliation of standing in the pillory; while, subsequently, by a vote of the House of Commons—a vote which, without disrespect, it might be said that it was not one which did much credit to the House of that day—was expelled from that House. It was a very delicate thing, even after a long interval, to bring a charge against a man whose reputation stood so high as that of Lord Ellen-borough; but it could be shown that the mind of the then Lord Chief Justice of England was, to say the least of it, biased against Lord Cochrane. That was the opinion entertained by the late Lord Campbell and other distinguished lawyers. In his work, Lord Campbell referred to the matter in the following terms:— Of these (criminal cases) the most remarkable was Lord Cochrane's, as this drew upon the Chief Justice a considerable degree of public obloquy, and, causing very uneasy reflections in his own mind, was supposed to have hastened his end. In the whole of the proceedings connected with it he was, no doubt, actuated by an ardent desire to do what was right; but, in some stages of it, his zeal to punish one whom he regarded as a splendid delinquent, carried him beyond the limits of mercy and of justice. …. It so happened that Lord Cochrane was then in London, was living in his uncle's house, and was much in his company; but there is now reason to believe that he was not at all implicated in the nefarious scheme. However, when the fraud was detected, partly from a belief of his complicity, and partly from political spite, he was included in the indictment preferred for the conspiracy to defraud the Stock Exchange. The trial coming on before Lord Ellenborough, the noble and learned Judge, being himself persuaded of the guilt of all the defendants, used his best endeavours that they should all be convicted. He refused to adjourn the trial at the close of the prosecutors' case, about nine in the evening, when the trial had lasted 12 hours, and the jury as well as the defendants' counsel were all completely exhausted, and all prayed for an adjournment. The following day, in summing up—prompted, no doubt, by the conclusion of his own mind—he laid special emphasis on every circumstance that might raise a suspicion against Lord Cochrane, and elaborately explained away whatever at first sight appeared favourable to the gallant officer. In consequence, the jury found a verdict of Guilty against all the defendants."—[Campbell's Lives of the Chief Justices—Ellenborough—vol. iii., pp. 218, 219.] A new trial was moved for, but was refused. Lord Ellenborough would not hear the motion, and speaking of the decision against Lord Dundonald, Lord Campbell remarked that it was "palpably contrary to the first principles of justice, and ought immediately to have been reversed." That showed that the trial was conducted, as against Lord Cochrane, at least with a very strong bias adverse to him in the mind of the presiding Judge. After all these humiliations, the first step which the electors of Westminster took was to re-elect the noble Lord as their representative in the House of Commons. That showed the opinion of the electors of Westminster as to the merits of the case. With regard to the fine of £1,000, that was immediately paid by subscriptions throughout England of a penny a-piece; and the number of people who subscribed to the fund was 2,640,000. That at least showed that in the public mind of England there existed a very wide-spread opinion that Lord Cochrane had been unjustly convicted, and that the fine was not one that ought to have been inflicted. With regard to the third punishment, that of standing in the pillory, it was recorded of his Colleague in the representation of Westminster in Parliament (the late Sir Francis Burdett) that he had declared if such a disgraceful humiliation were inflicted on Lord Cochrane he would stand with him in the pillory himself. This last punishment, it was gratifying to think, never was inflicted on the noble Lord. With regard to the Petition, its object was set forth in the terms of the Motion—namely, to complete the act of justice which had been done towards the late Lord Dundonald by restoring him to honour; and the way in which that could be done was by refunding the half-pay of his rank which he had lost when dismissed, and which was due even by the very terms of the Memorandum under which the noble Lord was restored to honour. On May 2, 1832, an announcement appeared in The London Gazette, intimating that from that date, in pursuance of His Majesty's pleasure, Lord Dundonald was promoted to be Rear Admiral of the Blues, in the position on the List which he would have occupied if he had never been struck off the List. He was accordingly restored to all his honours, and, in the very nature of the case, he ought to have been restored at the time to his half-pay. Having been restored to his rank, which was the greater thing, it followed that he ought also to have been restored to his half-pay, which was the lesser thing. The Government of the day had restored him, because they believed he was not guilty of the offence. Now, it was unworthy of the British nation that one of its most distinguished servants, in the person of his grandson, should come forward to claim full restitution and be refused, merely because it happened to be a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence. It was conceivable that on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer technical objections might be raised to the refunding of the half-pay on the ground of interference with the prerogative of the Crown—on the ground, possibly, that a Committee would have to deal with a question of the granting of money; and that it would be precluded by the Rules of the House from entertaining any such question as that involving the granting of money. Any possible reply of that kind was met by reference to the Select Committee which was appointed in 1858 to inquire into the case of Mr. William Henry Barber, who was tried in 1844, some 14 years before the Committee was moved for. If it was thought right to go back 14 years in that case, there was no reason why we should not go back 40 years in the present instance. Mr. Barber was tried for forgery on the Bank of England, was found guilty, condemned as a convict, and sent to Norfolk Island. The very first objection raised to the appointment of that Committee was that by a Standing Order of the House the Committee would have no power to recommend a grant of money in such a case, and would be precluded from entering into the question of compensation. The Commission was appointed, and reported to the effect that it found the statements of the Petition substantially proved—a conclusion which there would be no difficulty in arriving at in the present case—and that, though precluded by the Rules of the House from recommending a grant of money, yet, in view of the facts which had come under their notice with regard to the conviction of Mr. Barber, the sufferings he had endured in his confinement in Norfolk Island, and his subsequent exculpation, the Committee could not forbear saying that the case appeared to be a peculiar one, calling for exceptional treatment, and having strong claims on the Crown. He relied very strongly on that case; and the more so because, as a matter of fact, Mr. Barber received a full pardon and £5,000 as compensation from the Crown for his unjust imprisonment. If compensation in the shape of an absolute money grant was awarded in this case, how much stronger was the case of a man who demanded only the half-pay to which he considered himself entitled, from the fact of his having been restored to that position in the Navy which he would have occupied if he had never left the Service? On that Committee sat many distinguished persons, including Mr. Brady, Mr. Crossley, Mr. Woodridge, Lord Hotham, Mr. Hardy, Mr. Massey, Mr. Cobbett, and Mr. Bright. The only conceivable objection to the appointment of the Committee was that it would interfere with the Prerogative of the Crown. Now, he admitted that the Royal Warrant replacing Lord Cochrane in the position he occupied before he was dismissed the Service also bore upon it that his half-pay was to date from 1832, the period of his restoration, and so far it was against him. But he contended that it was not a question of the power of the Crown to grant the half-pay. The Crown restored his honours and his rank, and it was for the Government of the day to say as to the half-pay; as was done in the case of Sir Robert Wilson. Therefore, the Committee would only supplement the powers of the Crown in the very point in which, so to speak, a supplementary power, flowing from the Treasury or from the House, was required. One thing was plain, that the services of Lord Cochrane were never in his lifetime rewarded as they ought to have been, considering the deeds ho performed, the fame he won, the scourge he was to the whole of the French coast, and that ho with one ship did more than other men with seven or eight ships. So far from his services being adequately rewarded, they were miserably ill-rewarded. Although it was a long time ago, surely the memory of their distinguished sailors could live in the mind of the House for 40 years; and it was not too much to ask that his services should not be forgotten in 1877, because they were performed in the early part of the century. So far from this being the case, they would live in the recollection and be gloried in by all our sailors, and our sons who were sailors, so long as the records of the British Navy existed. If, therefore, the question was merely one of reward of services, he might, without going back to precedent, rely upon that as constituting, in the case of the petitioner, some claim for recognition of a competent and handsome kind at the hands of that House. But they had a precedent in the case of Sir Robert Wilson, who was dismissed from Her Majesty's Army for having disturbed the funeral of Queen Caroline in 1821. He was restored in 1830, and was ordered to rank as lieutenant-general next to Sir Herbert Taylor. In October of the same year he applied for his back pay from the date when he was appointed a lieutenant-general in the Army, and it was granted, upon the ground that he was restored to rank from a certain date, and from that date it was reasonable that he should receive his pay. Lord Cochrane was restored to the Service, so as to be in the same position as he would have hold if he had never left it. Therefore, if Sir Robert Wilson claimed it, much more could the representative of Lord Cochrane claim it. He therefore recommended this Motion to the favourable consideration of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, feeling sure that if he could he would grant the Committee asked for. It was a case in which the credit of the Government was concerned. It was not right—it was hardly decent—for a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence to stand between the representative of a distinguished man like Lord Cochrane, and full justice being done to his memory; and therefore he had every confidence in submitting this Motion to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, in order that the whole of the facts might be brought before the House.

MR. WALPOLE,

in seconding the Motion, said, he would not weaken the remarks which had just been made by his hon. Friend by dwelling at any length on the points on which he had touched. There was no doubt that there was something peculiar in the Motion, and in some respects it was almost unprecedented; but in answer to any objection being made to it on the latter ground, it seemed to him that the circumstances of the case wore also so unprecedented as to entitle the hon. Baronet to bring the whole matter under the consideration of the House. For, if the facts contained in the Petition were substantiated, the justice of the case emphatically demanded that the grievous wrong that had been inflicted on Lord Dundonald should receive a fuller compensation and a completer redress than had hitherto been made to him. The question, no doubt, involved, to a certain extent, the Prerogative of the Crown and the proper functions of Parliament; but he hoped to deal as frankly as possible with all objections. It might, in the first place, be urged that the length of time which had elapsed since the circumstances to which the attention of the House had been called occurred, were, if not actually a bar to re-opening the case, at least a strong argument against it; and, secondly, that the reparation granted to Lord Dundonald in his lifetime might be taken as a sufficient satisfaction for the claims which were now attempted to be made upon Her Majesty's Government. But it appeared to him (Mr. Walpole) that neither the length of time that had elapsed nor the partial reparation that had been made to Lord Dundonald could be any answer to this case where so grievous a wrong had been committed, and unless they could be considered as an insuperable bar to anything further being done, it was only an act of justice to grant this Committee that the facts of the case might be accurately ascertained. Now, it was a wise principle of our Constitution that no time should run against the Crown in asserting rights which had been wrongfully withheld from it, and it seemed to him to be an equally wise principle in our Constitution—or, perhaps, it was only a part of the same principle — that no time should run against the Crown in confirming and recognizing those rights which had been unjustly withheld from any of its subjects. Could anyone say that much wrong had not been done to Lord Dundonald, and that the reparation had not been postponed from time to time until he was deprived of that which was due to him? The moment that he was restored to his rank what was now asked for should have followed. There was one point in the facts of the case which he admitted, as his hon. Friend had admitted, was a very delicate matter, but he could not pass it by, for, in point of fact, the whole foundation of the case rested upon it. Since Notice was given of this Motion he had referred to the proceedings which took place at Guildhall on the occasion of the trial, and also to the proceedings which took place in Parliament, with reference to that matter. Well, what was the conclusion which anybody would draw from a fair reading and study of those proceedings? The only conclusion he, for his part, could possibly draw was that Lord Dundonald had not altogether been fairly treated at his trial; and that, in point of fact, it was in consequence of political rancour, or, as Lord Campbell called it, "political spite," that justice had not been done to him on that occasion. It was clear from those proceedings that a great prejudice had been raised against him. As Lord Campbell said, special emphasis was laid on every suspicion which could be urged against him, and everything which could be urged in his favour was elaborately explained away. That was the opinion deliberately given by Lord Campbell, after a long and careful review of the whole proceedings, in his Lives of the Lord Chief Justices of England. But the wrong done to Lord Dundonald did not end there. On the ground that the charge against him had been that of conspiracy, and that a new trial could not be granted in the absence of the other defendants, his application for that purpose was refused. On this point Lord Campbell remarked that the refusal of a new trial, under such circumstances, was palpably contrary to the first principles of justice. Well, if that was the case, was it not extraordinary to find that so many years should have passed away after that trial before any attempt was made by any Government or any person to do something like justice to Lord Dundonald? Until the year 1832 nothing was done—no attempt was made by anyone to do something like justice to Lord Dundonald, or to put him in a position by which he might have been relieved from the stigma that was cast upon him. In that year he was restored to the position he would have held in the Navy if he had never been deprived of his rank in the Service. But the pay to which he would have been entitled was not given to him, nor was the Order of the Bath restored to him. Twelve years passed away, and he again applied to have his case re-opened. He was then told by the Ministers of the day that a period of 30 years having elapsed, and a free pardon having been given to him, they could not advise the Crown to accede to his petition. Accordingly, in 1844, that Order which he had so gloriously won in some of the greatest actions in which their country had taken part was still withheld from him. Lord Brougham, in his Lives of British Statesmen, said—"The withholding of that honour was a stain, not upon him, but upon the Councils Of the country;" and afterwards he remarked—"It was as inconsistent and as incomprehensible as it was cruel and unjust." In 1847, however, by the grace of the Crown, the Order of the Bath was at length restored to him; but the back pay was never granted to him. In his remarkable Autobiography, Lord Dundonald said the reason for refusing the pay was the fear of creating a bad precedent — a bad precedent indeed ! Why, every precedent must have a beginning; and he (Mr. Walpole) considered that if the circumstances of a ease were just and right and required that a precedent should be made, it ought to have been established in order to do justice, instead of being withheld so as to inflict injustice. The answer to that observation was twofold—first, that if circumstances and justice demanded that a precedent should be made it could not be a bad one; and, secondly, there was a precedent in the case of Sir Robert Wilson. He was told that a distinction should here be taken—namely, the length of time during which Lord Dundonald had been deprived of all these rights and honours. If so, it was rather a distinction which ought to induce them to make good what was so long waited for, than to say that it was a bar to it. By establishing the facts of this case before a Committee the Government would be in a better position to recommend what should be done, and the House would be in a better position to determine whether it was reasonable or not to make any grant. He felt confident that this was not a case in which the Government could think that the partial reparation made, or any of those excuses hitherto offered, should be lightly allowed to interfere with that which the justice of the case, in his opinion, imperatively demanded. The Go- vernment of 1832 had the honour and satisfaction of restoring Lord Dundonald to his rank. The Government of 1847 had the honour and satisfaction of restoring him to the Order of the Bath; and he hoped the present Government would feel, after a full consideration of all the facts, that they could advise the Crown to grant the prayer of Lord Cochrane's memorial. He hoped and believed that when his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had satisfied himself of the justice of the case, there was no man in that House who would be more anxious that full justice should be done to the memory of one whose sufferings and services alike entitled him to the sympathies of the nation, and with that confidence in his right hon. Friend he left the case in his hands.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I rise now—though observed that an hon. and gallant Gentleman was about to rise, and though, as I have no doubt, there are many who would desire to join in the expression of the feeling of the House, which has been so admirably stated by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, with regard to the high character and great services of the late Lord Dundonald—still I rise at once, because I think it is right, feeling as I do, and feeling very strongly, the difficulties of this case—I feel it right at once, without waiting for further discussion, to state the views which I must submit on behalf of the Government. I approach this case with a most anxious desire to meet the wishes of those who are bringing forward this Motion. I am actuated by feelings, which, I think, everyone must share—feelings of admiration for the great man whose services have been now brought before the House. I am actuated also by another feeling, that of sympathy and respect for those motives of filial affection which have induced his representatives to come before this House, not so much, as I verily believe, for the sake of obtaining the grant of a more or less important sum of money, as for the object—the truly worthy object—of executing that duty which they rightly consider was laid upon them by the charge of their ancestor, in that most touching address which he left to his grandson, the duty of clearing his character completely and the putting forward of his claim. I think no one can, without a feeling of deep sympathy and without emotion, enter upon a question which touches so very many chords in our nature. I therefore feel all the greater difficulty and embarrassment in addressing the House, because I think it to be my duty, as the representative of the Government —looking at the whole of the circumstances of this case—to call the attention of the House to circumstances and considerations which may possibly be considered to be hardly worthy of the question that has been raised, but which I think it my duty to impress on hon. Members. The points to which I wish to direct attention may be said to be of a merely technical character. The difficulties which suggest themselves to my mind, with reference to the Committee now moved for, may be said to be of a character which ought not to weigh with us when we have such motives brought before us for compliance with the Motion. Yet, if the House will calmly consider the matter, I think they will see there is reason to pause before we take the step which we are now invited to take. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Fife-shire (Sir Robert Anstruther), and my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Walpole), who have spoken, appeared to be embarrassed by the question they touched upon as to the possibility and propriety of this House, by any action of its own, interfering in a matter which is really one of Royal Prerogative, and in which it would be exceedingly difficult for the House to interfere with without setting an example and a precedent which might be found to be a very great inconvenience hereafter. Let us see what are the facts of the case. I wish to lay aside all reference whatever to the painful circumstances of the trial of Lord Dundonald, and to his removal from the Navy. Taking the facts as they appear in the official record, I see that in the Warrant by which Lord Dundonald, then Captain Cochrane, was removed, no reason is assigned, except that it was done at the pleasure of the Crown. Lord Dundonald was, however, subsequently restored to the Service with the rank of Rear Admiral; and I observe in the Warrant by which he was restored to the Service the statement that he was to be re-instated with the rank of Rear Admiral, and that his half-pay was to commence from the date of his restoration, in the year 1832. That was the decision which the Government and Sovereign of the day arrived at, being cognizant of all the circumstances of the case, and no doubt being actuated by the warmest feelings of admiration and friendship for Lord Dundonald, and with every desire to do him justice. Now, Sir, the complaint made is that in merely replacing him in the rank he held in the Navy before he was removed from it an act of incomplete justice was done. It is very difficult at the present day to weigh the precise motives which may have actuated the Government of the day and the Crown in making the restoration in the terms in which they did make it; but there can be no doubt that they made it deliberately, and with the most perfect knowledge of the facts of the case, such seeming to them to be the proper course to pursue. I am told by those who are more cognizant with these matters than I am that there is a principle laid down both in the Army and in the Navy which may account for the step they took. The principle is this—that pay, military or naval, should not be given to those who were not actively or constructively in the service of the Crown; and the principle is one which it is important to maintain, because cases may arise, not like this, but of a very different character, in which claims may be put forward by persons out of the Service for pay which they think they ought to be granted for time when they were not actually in the employ of the Government. I may be met by a technical objection from the hon. Baronet opposite to this technical question. But what, I ask, was the case of Sir Robert Wilson? He was removed from the Army in the year 1821, he was restored in the year 1830, in the month of July, and when he was so restored it was the object of the Crown to do for him what they did afterwards in the case of Lord Dundonald—namely, to restore him to the same position in the Army which he would have occupied if he had never been removed from it. The mode in which Sir Robert Wilson's case was dealt with was this. He was replaced in the Army, with the rank of lieutenant-general; and, in order to re-instate him in the position he had previously held, which was next to a certain officer, he was gazetted as lieutenant-general from a certain date in the year 1825. In the Army that, I understand, is the usual and necessary practice by which a proper rank can be given. But that is not the case in the Navy, for the commission, though dated from a subsequent period, places him in the position which is mentioned in the commission. After he had been actively and constructively replaced in the Service in 1825, Sir Robert Wilson claimed his pay from the day on which he was so constructively replaced. I very much doubt whether it was the intention of those who restored him that he should have any back pay; but undoubtedly, according to the terms of the restoration, he considered himself able to claim it—indeed, he did claim it, and after some difficulty the concession was made to him; but it was made to him as being an officer still in Her Majesty's Service. When the concession was made he distinctly stated that he did not, and could not, claim any pay for the years which had elapsed between 1821 and 1825. He did not claim pay for the whole time during which he had been out of the Service. That constituted the distinction between the two cases; and the fact that Sir Robert Wilson did not claim his pay during that time establishes and confirms the principle upon which I feel it my duty to demur to the proposal now made to the House. As this has been a case which has been before successive Governments, all of whom were well disposed towards those interested, but who were hampered by the difficulty of creating an injurious precedent, I feel that my course is not free in the matter. Shortly after Lord Dundonald's death his representatives made a claim, and Lord Palmerston declined to accede to it, on the ground that pay should not be given for the time during which Lord Dundonald was out of Her Majesty's Service; therefore, there is a very great difficulty in complying with the wishes expressed in the Petition. There is also a great difficulty in the matter being referred to a Committee of this House. What is such a Committee, if appointed, to do? Is the Committee to inquire into the facts —to re-try the case as it was tried in 1814? There would, I think, be the greatest possible objection to such a proceeding on the part of a Committee of this House. How is it possible when 60 years or more have elapsed, and probably everyone connected with the case has long since died, that a Committee can pursue an inquiry in the nature of a re-trial of the whole case? Then, if it was assumed that there had been misconduct on the part of Lord Ellenborough at the time, and a failure of justice in consequence of transactions at the trial, there might be some feeling on the part of those interested, either in the memory of Lord Ellenborough or in any of those who were concerned in the trial, that their case also should be considered, and their answer to accusations such as those brought forward by the hon. Baronet should be heard. I must confess I was sorry to hear the hon. Baronet speak of the conduct of Lord Ellenborough in a way which seemed to me unnecessarily to prejudice the matter. This is a case in which there was a strong feeling, and everybody knows that charges were brought against Lord Ellenborough of a very grave character for having politically perverted justice—charges which no one looking calmly at the matter will think were well-founded. Whether, under the circumstances, Lord Dundonald had all the advantages which he ought to have had in the way of defending himself, and whether, if he had had them, the result would have been different, is quite another question. But when it is implied that there had been, if not conscious, at any rate serious misconduct on the part of Lord Ellenborough, that is a point with which it would be extremely difficult for a Committee to deal, and upon which they could not arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. If anything is to be done in the matter, it must be done on different grounds from those which have been urged. It might be a question whether it was possible for the Crown, by grace and favour, to propose any Vote of money for the purpose of recognizing the services of an illustrious man. That was a different idea. But that a Committee of this House should now undertake to look into a question of this sort seems to me to be a proposal of very grave consequence. My right hon. Friend says that is objected to because it might set a bad precedent, and he remarked that all precedents must have a beginning. But that is just the point; precedents generally do get a beginning in a hard case, and lead on in time to results which are very inconvenient. It will, I think, be inconvenient to appoint a Committee to inquire into the question of recommending to the Crown a grant of money. Again, it would be a grave inconvenience to set aside the principle of not applying money in the nature of pay to an officer not in the Service; and there would be some inconvenience even in re-opening, after so long a time, a case of this kind, on the ground that the services of an eminent person who died a considerable number of years ago had not been adequately rewarded. It may be perfectly true that the services of Lord Dundonald have not been adequately rewarded. I am far from saying they have been. But, on the other hand, there may be many cases in which persons might put forward claims of their ancestors for services rendered 30, 50, or even a greater number of years ago, and might plead that precedent as a reason for doing so. For all these reasons I confess that I feel a great objection to the appointment of the Committee. The only thing the Committee could really do would be to establish more clearly perhaps the facts of the case as far as regards the exact steps that have been taken, and the time and the manner in which Lord Dundonald was removed from the Service and restored to it, and to compare these with the corresponding precedent of Sir Robert Wilson. But it would hardly be worth while to appoint a Committee of the House for such a purpose as that. If there is any desire on the part of the friends of the family to bring out more clearly the facts of the case, the Government have every disposition to give Returns and information which might establish them. But I feel—and I have not come to the conclusion without reluctance and hesitation—that we are not in a position to recommend the House to adopt the Motion. I should be sorry to meet a proposal of this kind with a direct negative. It would be entirely contrary to my feelings to do so. I prefer to appeal to the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution to consider whether it would not be better not to put us to the pain of a division on a question on which a division might seem to give a false impression. I am sure no hon. Member would wish that there should be even the appearance, however unfounded, of anything like unwillingness to recognize the claims of Lord Dundonald to the gratitude of the nation, or of any doubt as to their sympathy with his long and undeserved sufferings. I, therefore, hope that the hon. Baronet will not press his Resolution to a division, but will allow it to rest on the discussion which we have had, and let us see whether, by bringing the facts of the case more completely together and putting them in a shape in which they have not yet been placed—for there seems to have been some misconception as to the precise steps which have been taken—we cannot arrive at some conclusion of a more satisfactory character.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

The conciliatory speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as the general character of the debate, must prove satisfactory to the friends of the late Lord Dundonald. I may, without presumption, class myself among them, for the gallant Admiral selected me to be the depository of his secret plans for destroying an enemy, and his papers on this subject are in my keeping. I need not again refer to the circumstances which led to his judicial sentence, and to his expulsion from this House. When the late Earl solemnly stated in his Autobiography that, as a man standing on the brink of the grave, he declared himself innocent of all knowledge of the Stock Exchange transaction, this denial sufficed for his friends, and time has softened his enemies, if any be still alive. To the last moment of his life he bitterly felt the injustice which he had suffered. I hold in my hand a letter written within a few days of his death, perhaps the last letter that the brave old sailor ever wrote. In this letter he tells me that he is dying, but he still reverts with pained feelings to the life-long injustice which he had to endure. True, during his life, in 1832, the King gave him a free pardon for a crime which he never committed. Then the Admiralty restored to him his rank in the Navy, and authorized his half-pay to begin from that date. In this the Chancellor of the Exchequer sees a difference from the case of Sir Robert Wilson, upon which so much stress has been laid. So do I; but in completely an opposite view. The future half-pay of Admiral Dundonald was a necessity of his restoration, and was within the competence of the Admiralty: the retrospective pay was a question for the Treasury, just as in the case of General Wilson it was given by the Treasury and not by the War Office. But it was not till the 3rd of February, 1848, or 34 years after the event, that the Treasury deal with the matter of back pay to Lord Dundonald, and then do not see that they can give it. On what grounds? Well, we will see this in the Papers promised to us. At present they are inconceivable. Sir Robert Wilson was dismissed in 1821, and was restored in 1830 to his proper position among generals, receiving from the Treasury his back pay as dating from 1825, when in ordinary course he would have become a general. Here, however, is only a case of partial restoration. His new commission dated four years after his dismissal. There was no such proviso or partial restoration in Lord Duudonald's case. To the honour of the King and Government of 1832 it was full and complete, at least as regards rank. When he was dismissed in 1814 he stood as post-captain under the Hon. G. Dundas. In 1832, on restoration to rank, he was put among the admirals immediately under the Hon. G. Dundas, also then an admiral. So there were no conditions attached to his rank by the abstraction of any period of service. It was full and complete so far as rank was concerned, its only failure being that retrospective pay did not follow as a matter of course. But that, as I have stated, was only considered in 1848, 16 years after the restoration. The Treasury, however, then had not been strengthened by a Parliamentary expression of opinion. Sir Robert Wilson's case was twice before this House. He himself moved for Papers in 1822, but was refused them on a division. Again, in 1825, Mr. Abercromby brought the case before this House, and was supported by Mr. Brougham, Lord William Bentinck, and other speakers. On that occasion, as to-day, the speaking was all in favour of justice being done, and yet the Treasury took five years longer to do it. But we may hope for a more favourable issue now. The Government of 1822 refused even to produce Papers relating to the dismissal of General Wilson, while the Government of 1877, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, voluntarily offers us the Papers to let us get fully at the facts in the case of Lord Dundonald. The Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, however, sees a difficulty in the case, because it is a rule of the Combatant Services only to pay officers who are actually in the service. I think he is mistaken in laying down this rule so rigidly. When prisoners of War are made by the enemy, they are certainly no longer in the service of this country; and yet, when they are liberated, if their capture was not due to cowardice or fault of negligence, their back pay is given to them as if they had continued in service. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were somewhat more explicit I would urge upon the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for a Select Committee that it would be well to accept this offer on the part of the Government and not to press their Motion to a division. I have entire faith in the impartial spirit with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deal with the question. The Treasury is now quite in a different position from 1848. The public reparation was then still more partial than it is now. It is true that the Queen had just restored the Order of the Bath to the Naval hero; but the Government did not restore the banner to his stall at Westminster. That banner had been not figuratively, but physically kicked out of the Cathedral with every mark of ignominy, and it was only replaced when the gallant old seaman was dead. And yet he died in full confidence that a nation would repair his wrongs. Tardily, but steadily, all the acts of 1814 have been repaired except one, and that is that the nation still keeps the fine of £1,000 and the back pay of the officer unjustly deprived of his commission. There is no Statute of Limitation for a debt of national honour. That debt, in full reliance on public conscience, Lord Dundonald left to his grandson, the present Lord Cochrane, whose Petition lies before us. Let me read from his autograph will, which I hold in my hand, the touching terms in which it is bequeathed— I leave exclusively to my grandson Douglas all the sums due to me by the British Government for my important services, as well as the sums of pay stopped (under perjured evidence) for the commission of a fraud on the Stock Exchange. Given under my trembling hand this 21st day of February, 1860, the anniversary of my ruin. Will we, who represent the public, refuse to the memory of an illustrious hero the completion of justice which he asks at our hands? Whatever may be the decision of the Government, or of this House, on a review of the whole case with the Papers fully before us, we may be certain that the old Party bitterness which led to so much persecution will not influence the decision now. The question will be resolved on the single issue—is it or is it not for our national honour that full reparation should be made to the memory of one of its most gallant sailors?

ADMIRAL EGERTON

said, he would occupy the attention of the House only a few minutes; but he could not help saying how much he felt that the country would to-morrow regret the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this question. There was an intense feeling of satisfaction throughout the whole of the Profession many years ago when it was known that the flag of this gallant officer was once more afloat at the masthead, and he was sure that the feeling of the Profession was the same now as then. He could not help feeling that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be glad if he were to receive gentle compulsion, and he hoped that if they went to a division such compulsion would be applied.

MR. BUTT

contended that they were bound to consider that the conviction of Lord Dundonald was wrong. If the House went to a division they ought to clearly understand the issue which was before them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to think that the object of the Committee which was asked for would be to inquire what took place in 1810; but that was not so. They now proceeded upon the ground that the conviction of Lord Dundonald was erroneous, and that his having been restored to his honours the conviction was unjust. The question now was, whether, having been wrongfully convicted—and no one who had studied the case could come to any other conclusion than that the conviction was unjust and wrong—and partial reparation having been made to him, they ought not to complete that reparation by the very small act which was now asked? It was said that this might possibly be an interference with the prerogative of the Crown; but an instance had been referred to in which, after inquiry by a Committee into a case of improper con- viction, large compensation was voted by Parliament; and he remembered the case of a magistrate in the North of England where compensation was given under similar circumstances. No pecuniary grant could compensate Lord Dundonald if he were alive for the injury suffered by him in his conviction at a time when he stood as the equal of Nelson in the eyes and in the affections of the British nation; and the intensity of his feelings on the subject was painfully illustrated by the touching words written shortly before his death, and dated on the "Anniversary of my ruin." Perhaps he felt more strongly upon the matter from the circumstance that among the memories of his life it had been his privilege to meet Lord Dundonald on more than one occasion at the house of a mutual friend, and he could never forget the manner in which that great and noble man spoke, almost in the agony of a broken heart, of the injustice that had been done to him. Lord Dundonald only sought the payment of the amount which he considered to be due to him, because the fact of its being withheld conveyed something like an imputation, and seemed to indicate that his country had not fully recognized the injustice of his conviction. It was in the same spirit that the claim was now made by his grandson, who brought the case forward, not for the sake of the money, but in order that full and complete justice might at last be done to the memory of Lord Dundonald. He (Mr. Butt) looked back to his conversation with Lord Dundonald on the subject with some satisfaction that after an interval of 40 years he was able to give his vote for the removal of the stigma that must rest upon the memory of that gallant officer till full and complete reparation was made for the great injury he had sustained.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

gathered from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that it might be desirable to vote a sum of money as a recognition of the claims of Lord Dundonald, and that that would meet the difficulty. He wished to know whether the Government would perform the graceful, generous, and just act of proposing such a Vote. They often heard it said that the House must not interfere with the Royal Prerogative; but there was nothing unconstitutional in the House advising the Crown as to the exercise of its Prerogative. In fact, the Royal Prerogative had always, according to the Constitution, been exercised upon the advice of the Ministry or of the Great Council of the nation.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER,

in reply, said, he thought that from the temper of the House he was justified in concluding that if they went to a division he would carry his Motion; but he did not wish to do that in the face of the observations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [" Oh, oh "] The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not expressed himself hostilely to the Motion, but to the form of it; and after those expressions he felt warranted in believing that, so far as the substance was concerned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was favourable to the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman had said he would produce the Papers; but would he also give him this further understanding—that when the Papers had been produced he would, with the consent of his Colleagues, take action upon them?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I will just say that my objection to the Motion is that I think the Committee, if appointed, would not be sufficiently authoritative for any other purpose than that of ascertaining facts which might be equally well put on record by the production of Papers. The Papers I shall be ready to produce, and then my hon. Friend can take any course he pleases. Further than that I cannot go.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

In that case I see no choice but to take a division.

Question put, and agreed to.

Select Committee appointed, "to inquire and report upon Lord Cochrane's Petition, laid upon the Table of the House upon the 8th day of March last, praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to complete the gracious act of Royal justice which restored the late Lord Dundonald to his rank and honours."—(Sir Robert Anstruther.)

And, on May 14, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. WALPOLE, Admiral EGERTON' Mr. WHITBREAD, Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY, Mr. WILLIAM HOLMS, Mr. ALLSOPP, Mr. BUTT, Mr. ALFRED MARTEN, Mr. BAXTER, Mr. SACKVILLE, Mr. GREENE, Mr. O'BYRNE, Mr. TREMAYNE, and Sir ROBERT ANSTRUTHER: — Power to send for persons, papers, and. records; Five to be the quorum.