LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he had to present a petition from a distinguished individual—he meant the Earl of Dundonald, better perhaps known as Lord Cochrane—to the subject of which he begged the attention of their Lordships and Her Majesty's Government. The petitioner referred to the great misfortunes which had pressed and were pressing upon him—misfortunes which he did not think he had done anything to deserve. The noble petitioner, in referring to his past misfortunes, now for the first time alluded to the real author of all his calamities, in the person of a party in whose handwriting a paper was found which clearly established his guilt, and Lord Dundonald's innocence. This party, it would be recollected, fled the country, and would not stand his trial. When brought up for judgment, knowing the real facts of the case, Mr. Topping, Mr. Serjeant Best (the late Lord Wynford), and himself (Lord Brougham), who were counsel for Lord Dundonald, urged him to avert it, by declaring who the guilty person was; but such was his delicate sense of 276 honour towards a near relation, to whom he lay under great personal obligations during his youth, that no power of entreaty they could use could prevail on him to do so, and he went before the court to receive its judgment without disclosing the facts of the case. The sentence pronounced at that time continued unrepealed by law, and the banner which, as a Knight of the Bath, he had won by services which in point of gallantry would bear comparison with any of the proudest periods of our naval or military history, had been removed, and he continued degraded. In 1833, Her Majesty's Government, of which he (Lord Brougham) was then a Member, restored the noble Earl to his rank in the navy, and he was now a Vice Admiral. But he complained that the sentence recorded against him in a court of law remained unrepealed by Act of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord recapitulated the well-known services of Lord Dundonald to this country and to several of the South American States in their struggle for independence. The noble petitioner also stated that he had claims against the South American Governments for 75,000l. prize money, earned by him whilst serving at Chili and Peru, besides 25,000l. for his half pay, all of which money the American Governments had in their coffers; but on the principle of what was called repudiation, which had, it seemed, extended to South America, they would not allow him to touch one farthing of it. This money he had earned hardly in their service, and he called on the Government of this country and their Lordships to give him such an amount of countenance as would show the Americans that he was not in that degraded state in which they were supposed to believe him to be at the time the sentence in question was passed. One kind word said on his behalf to the South American Governments would no doubt enable him to have his claims more speedily adjusted. There was another subject mentioned in the petition, which no doubt many of their Lordships had frequently heard of. It related to the discovery, by Lord Dundonald, of a great destructive power. It was a most important secret—an invention the effects of which in case of any war would be wholly incalculable. The power had been examined by naval officers of great experience, amongst others by Lord Keith and Lord Exmouth, all of whom were astounded at its capabilities. It had also been submitted to the Duke of York, who requested that 277 the secret might not be disclosed, and Lord Dundonald had strictly kept it to this hour, He (Lord Brougham) could take it upon himself to say that the invention was quite of a different character to Captain Warner's. Having endured all these misfortunes and never having disclosed his valuable secret, the noble petitioner prayed that the House would be pleased to adopt such measures for securing to him an investigation into the merits of his plan for destroying and dismantling ports and fleets, as to the wisdom of their right honourable House might seem meet.
§ Petition to lie on the Table.