Page images

report on Monday, when I shall be able to send your Lordship further particulars. I have, &c. (Signed) B. G. MACDONELL. The Earl of Derby,

&c. &c.


Berlin, July 4, 1877.

MY LORD,-With reference to my Despatch, No. 46 Commercial, of the 30th ultimo, I have the honour to enclose herewith a précis of the report made by Dr. Sell to the Imperial German Sanitary Office, on the subject of the appearance of the Colorado beetle, together with a précis from the Gazette of the Empire on the same subject. I have, &c.

(Signed) B. G. MACDONELL. The Earl of Derby,

&c. &c.

In his Report to Dr. Struck, the director of the Sanitary Office of the Empire, Dr. Sell states that he visited the field where the Colorado beetle was said to have appeared, and that there is no doubt that it is the much dreaded beetle, as Dr. Gerstäcker has also reported.

The field, which is about one hectare in extent, had been burnt with petroleum before Dr. Sell's arrival, and the

vegetables in the neighbouring fields cut and burnt by way of precaution. On the day following, a search for traces of the beetle was almost without result, but the next morning from forty to fifty larvæ and chrysalides were dug out in presence of the reporter and Professor Gerstäcker at a depth not exceeding from ten to twelve centimètres.

Another burning of the field was to take place at once, and Dr. Sell proposed the application of an alkaline preparation composed of about 100 hectolitres of raw potash and limewash, which should be worked into the ground, and from which he promised a successful result.

In spite of every precaution which could be taken by the authorities there was still a fear that collectors or the curious might spread the evil, and with a view of preventing this a notice has been issued that all persons in possession of larvæ or chrysalides should hand them over to the authorities, under pain of a fine; the public are also called upon to give any information in their power with regard to the existence of the insect; and all owners of potato fields in the mayoralty have been directed, also under pain of fine, to have them closely inspected at least twice a week.

Dr. Sell concludes by stating that, in his opinion, everything has been done on the part of the local officials which can entail the entire extermination of the plague.





1. Your Committee beg to report that they have carefully examined the

Petition presented by Lord Cochrane to Her Majesty, which has been laid upon the table of the House, and referred by the House to your Committee.

2. Your Committee have received from the Treasury, Home Office, and Admiralty, all the documents in their possession relative to the case of the late Lord Dundonald, and they have been supplied by Lord Cochrane with other papers bearing upon the subject, all of which they have examined.

3. In considering the petition, your Committee have not deemed it necessary to touch upon those portions of it which refer to the trial of the late Lord Dundonald (then Lord Cochrane), but they have confined their inquiry

to the circumstances that have occurred since that trial took place, and the material facts appear to be as follows:

4. In 1814 Lord Cochrane was struck off the Navy List in consequence of his conviction before a court of law of conspiring with others to raise false reports for the purpose of fraudulently effecting a rise in the price of the public funds.

He was deprived of the Order of the Bath, and his banner was removed from King Henry VII.'s Chapel.

5. Lord Cochrane invariably asserted in the most positive terms his absolute and entire innocence of the charges brought against him.

6. Immediately upon his return from foreign service in Brazil in 1825, he made a claim for the re-investigation of his case, and to be reinstated in the Royal Navy, in a letter addressed to Lord Melville, then First Lord of the Admiralty, neither the original nor any copy of which appears to exist. Lord Melville's reply is dated November 4, 1825, and after stating that no naval court could now legally take cognizance of the matter, continues, "I do not deem myself at liberty to recommend to His Majesty to institute the inquiry which you suggest. I am not aware of any tribunal in this country which is competent to such an investigation, and your Lordship must know that even if the charge could originally have been brought before a naval courtmartial (which it could not, as the alleged offence was committed on shore), no such court could now legally take cognisance of the matter, and any opinion or sentence they might pronounce upon it would be null and void. I apprehend that nothing but a free pardon from the Crown can now do away the effect of the verdict and sentence in your Lordship's case; but unless the Secretary of State and the law officers of the Crown were satisfied that such verdict and sentence were unjust and ought not to have been pronounced, His Majesty would not be advised to grant a free pardon."

7. In 1828, Lord Cochrane having returned from foreign service under the Greek Government, presented a memorial through Sir Robert Preston to the Duke of Clarence, then Lord High Admiral of England, "praying his Royal Highness to represent his case to the King, in order that he might be reinstated in the rank and station in the Royal Navy which he had previously held." The memorial was forwarded to the Duke of Wellington, who, on

June 14, 1828, replied that "the King's Cabinet cannot comply with the prayer of the Memorial."

8. The next application made by Lord Dundonald was a memorial sent by him in 1830 to King William IV. through Lord Melbourne, then Secretary of State for the Home Department, accompanied by two copies of a book, entitled, "Review of the Case of Lord Cochrane."

Lord Melbourne informed the petitioner on December 18, 1830, that "His Majesty had returned the letter to him, but has not been pleased to signify any commands."

9. On April 2, 1832, another memorial was sent to the Crown by the late Lord Dundonald, praying for his restoration to the Royal Navy, and in that memorial it is stated that His Majesty has been pleased, in compliance with the prayer of the humble petition of Katherine, Countess of Dundonald, "to relieve the memorialist and his family from great mental anguish and distress, and from the afflicting consequences of the sentence of a court of law." On April 12, 1832, this memorial was, by order of His Majesty in Council, referred to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, who reported under date April 23, 1832.

Your Committee are unable to discover any further notice of Lady Dundonald's petition, but they find that on March 24, 1832, a free pardon was granted to Lord Dundonald by the King, and in order to give full effect to this act of grace, it was recommended by the Admiralty, and His Majesty in Council was pleased to order (on May 2, 1832) "that the Earl of Dundonald should resume his place on the list of Rear Admirals of His Majesty's Fleet, which situation he would have been entitled to hold if he had not been removed from the list, and that the said Earl of Dundonald be and he is hereby reinstated in his rank and station accordingly, and that his half-pay do commence from the date of this order."

10. It is next stated that in 1842 Lord Dundonald applied through Lord Haddington for the restoration of the Order of the Bath, which was refused; although none of the documents relating to this application are forthcoming, there appears no reason to doubt that the statement is correct.

11. In 1844 another memorial was presented by Lord Dundonald to Sir Robert Peel, praying for a revisal of the verdict pronounced against him in 1814, and for his restoration to the


Order of the Bath. In this memorial he states, in reference to King William IV., "I have been assured by the then Chancellor, that His Majesty distinctly intimated that his objection (to restoring my honours) was not prospective, and that he expected the time would arrive when I should be fully reinstated." The Chancellor here referred to was the late Lord Brougham, and the assurance given was contained in a letter from Brougham to Lord Dundonald, bearing date March 29, 1844.

Sir Robert Peel's reply to the memorial is dated November 7,1844,and states that "Her Majesty's servants cannot, consistently with their sense of public duty, advise the Queen to re-open an inquiry into the charges."

12. On May 25, 1847, Lord Dundonald was restored to the Order of the Bath with the rank of Knight Grand Cross, which corresponded, in the reconstituted Order, with the rank of Knight of the Bath. It was stated by Lord Cochrane that the late Prince Consort, Grand Master of the Order, dispensed with the customary formalities in order that Lord Dundonald might wear the Cross at the Birthday Drawing-room before his installation took place.

13. On January 11, 1848, Lord Dundonald was appointed to the Command in Chief of the North America and West India Station.

[blocks in formation]

Robert Wilson claimed and obtained the arrears of his half-pay when restored to his former position in the Army, upon the ground of signal services hitherto unrewarded; if a similar plea can be admitted in the present instance, my Lords can entertain little doubt of the result of the present application, no man now alive having done more, and few as much as Lord Dundonald, to illustrate the Service to which he belongs."

The reply of the Treasury is dated February 3, 1848, and is as follows:"Sir, with reference to your letter, dated the 24th ultimo, respecting the application from the Earl of Dun

donald to receive the arrears of half-pay which was withheld for the period during which his name did not appear upon the Navy List, I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to request that you will apprise the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty that they are mistaken in supposing that in the case of Lieutenant-General Sir Robert Wilson, to which they have referred, that officer obtained the arrears of half-pay for any period previous to the date of his restoration to the service. It appears from your communication above referred to, that Lord Dundonald has already received half-pay from the date of his restoration to his rank, and my Lords do not feel themselves justified in sanctioning the issue of half-pay to his Lordship for a period antecedent to that date."

15. The only other application which was made by the late Lord Dundonald was to Lord Palmerston, May 26, 1856, praying that his banner might be restored to Henry VII.'s Chapel, that the fine of 1,000l. inflicted upon him by the Court of Queen's Bench might be refunded, and that his half-pay during the time he was out of the service might be paid him. This application was refused.

16. Lord Dundonald died in 1860, and after his death his banner as Knight of the Bath was restored to its place in Henry VII.'s Chapel.

In 1864 his successor in the title applied for the reimbursement of the fine, and the payment of the half-pay, and for a pension; this application was refused on July 30, 1864, in a letter as follows:-"I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, that my Lords are of opinion there is not any new ground for reopening the case as to the late Lord Dundonald's pay; that when King William IV. restored his Lordship to his rank in the Navy, in the year 1832, he did not recommend these arrears to be paid; and further, that an application for the payment of the same was made in the year 1848, and refused by the Lords of the Treasury."

17. In his last application to the Treasury, Lord Dundonald relied upon the precedent of Sir Robert Wilson's case; your Committee have taken evidence upon the subject and find that Sir R. Wilson was dismissed the service in 1821; was reinstated in 1830; his commission as Lieutenant General to

bear date May 27, 1825, he being ordered to take rank next after Lieutenant General Sir Herbert Taylor, to whom he was next junior when he was dismissed the service. At that time no back pay was applied for by, or awarded to, Sir Robert Wilson for any part of the time during which he was out of the service. But in 1832 he applied for the restoration of his halfpay as from May 27, 1825, which was the date of his commission. This application was at first objected to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but was subsequently granted upon a recommendation of Sir John Cam Hobhouse, then Secretary at War, to the Treasury, in a letter dated October 8, 1832, in which he states, "I think myself justified in recommending this as a special case for their Lordships' consideration, and I hope I may be excused for adding that, in my opinion, the Act of Royal favour which restored Sir Robert Wilson to the rank that he could have held, had he never been dismissed the service, may fairly be interpreted to extend to pay as well as rank."

18. Your Committee have also received in evidence the particulars of the case of a Major Bristowe, which they report as follows:-It appeared that Major Bristowe was removed from the Army in July 1823, upon a charge of having infringed the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and the sum of 1,8007., the price of a commission, was granted to him by the Treasury in 1826 as a compassionate allow


He was restored to the service in September 1830, and applied that, in reckoning the sum to be returned by him in respect of 1,8007., he might be allowed credit for the amount of his half-pay, as from the date of his dismissal in 1823. Sir John Cam Hobhouse, then Secretary at War, strongly recommended "his case upon the ground that he considered the restoration was an act of justice, rather than of clemency, inasmuch as the officer did not do that for which it had been assumed he had been dismissed the service."

Major Bristowe's application was granted by the Treasury.

19. Your Committee think it right to report that during the time of his exclusion from the Royal Navy, the late Lord Dundonald took service with Foreign countries as follows:

In Chili and Peru, from November 1818 to January 1823.

In Brazil, from April 1823 to November 1825.

In Greece, from March 1827 to December 1828.

20. In connection with his services in foreign countries, your Committee think it right to direct attention to an incident in the life of Lord Dundonald.

In the year 1811, Lord Dundonald, then Lord Cochrane, submitted to the Prince Regent an invention of his own, by which he believed that powers of a nature so destructive as to be practically irresistible could be employed in war.

The plan of this invention was referred to the consideration of a Secret Committee, consisting of His Royal Highness the Duke of York, Admirals Lord Keith and Exmouth, and the two Congreves, inventors of the rockets which bear their name.

In consequence of the Report of this Committee, the invention, whatever may have been its nature, was not used. The papers in which Lord Cochrane explained it were sealed up, and deposited in the Admiralty, where they still remain.

It was stated by Lord Dundonald in a letter to Lord Haddington, dated January 1842, and in a memorial to the Queen, dated 1846, that after the Secret Committee had made their Report, the Prince Regent sent for Lord Cochrane, and enjoined him never to divulge the secret of his invention to anyone except the authorities of this country.

During his services with other countries Lord Dundonald was repeatedly pressed to use this invention in the operations of warfare of which he had the chief command. Resisting, however, all the pressure that was brought to bear upon him, and many temptations of personal advantage to himself, he steadily refused to disclose the nature of his invention, or to use it in any of the operations where he directed. Up to the last hour of his life the secret remained undivulged except in the sealed papers lying in the Admiralty.

The Secret Committee of Officers who, again in 1847, investigated the plans, stated in their Report as follows:

"We feel that great credit is due to Lord Dundonald for the right feeling which prompted him not to disclose his secret plans when serving in war as a naval commander-in-chief of the forces of other nations, and under many trying circumstances, in the conviction that these plans might eventually be of the highest importance to his own country."

21. Lord Dundonald, by his will, left

all the money due to him from the British Government for his important services, as also the amount of his pay withheld during his exclusion from the British Navy, to the Petitioner. Lord Cochrane did not attain the age of twenty-one till the autumn of 1873, and early in 1876 he presented the Memorial to Her Majesty which has been referred to this Committee. On June 3, 1876, Lord Cochrane received an answer from the Treasury to his Memorial, of which the following is an extract: "My Lords fully share in the admiration with which all Englishmen regard the brilliant services of the late Earl of Dundonald; and if they could believe that any further acknowledgment of his merits was required, or that any fresh public expression of regret for all his lengthened sufferings was needed to complete the reparation already made to him, it would be a great satisfaction to them to recommend the adoption of any course which they might deem to be suitable for the purpose. My Lords can come to no other conclusion than that the recognition which you now seek has been long since accorded; and that the question raised in your memorial narrows itself to one of precedent and of the rules of the public service. My Lords find that the question of allowing back pay to Lord Dundonald for the period during which he was out of the service was fully considered in 1848 by the Government of the day, and was decided in the negative, with special reference to the precedent in Sir Robert Wilson's case; and my Lords, therefore, regret to find themselves unable to recommend a compliance with your memorial."

22. Your Committee have arrived at the conclusion that the objects described in this letter can scarcely be said to be carried out, while the claim which Lord Dundonald has bequeathed to his grandson is not recognised. All the proceedings connected with his restoration to the naval service, and to

his rank and honours, proceeded upon the principle that, as far as possible, he should be placed in the same position as if he had never been removed from the service. This appears of necessity to imply that the "reparation" spoken of in the Treasury Minute is not complete; and, in the opinion of your Committee, no technical rule should be permitted to stand in the way of a "reparation," the justice of which seems to follow by a natural inference from the steps that have already been taken.

23. In reviewing the whole case, your Committee have to observe that, under one Government, in 1832, Lord Dundonald received the free pardon of the Crown, and was promoted to that place in the Navy which he would have held had he never been dismissed the service. Under a subsequent Government, in 1847, he was restored to the honours which had been conferred on him previous to his expulsion. Under a third Government, in 1860, Lord Dundonald's banner as Knight of the Bath was restored to Henry VII.'s Chapel.

It appears to your Committee that these steps could not have been taken by responsible advisers of the Crown who believed that Lord Dundonald was guilty of the crime of which, in 1814, he was convicted; and the course pursued towards him amounts to nothing less than a public recognition by those Governments of his innocence.

It should further be borne in mind, that the exceptionally brilliant services of Lord Dundonald as a naval officer, would, but for his dismissal, probably have earned for him a far more ample and adequate reward than any which he received for his services rendered to the British Crown.

Your Committee have arrived at the conclusion that this is a case peculiarly exceptional in its character, and deserving Her Majesty's most gracious and favourable consideration. July 16, 1877.




1. A sum of money is annually granted by Parliament "For public Education in England and Wales."

2. This grant is administered by the Education Department, hereinafter called the Department.

3. The object of the grant is to aid

« PreviousContinue »