Amid loud cries of "Put Lord Cochrane's motion first, for if the motion of thanks be disposed of, the Duke of York will leave the chair, and the noble lord's motion will not be put at all," the Duke of Kent declared that there could be no intention to get rid of the noble lord's motion by any side-wind.
The motion of thanks was then passed while Lord Cochrane was engaged in writing his motion, and the Duke of York, having bowed to the meeting, immediately withdrew, amidst loud hissings, and cries of "Shame! shame! a trick! a trick!"
The Duke of Kent, whose head was turned towards Lord Cochrane, was much surprised and disappointed at discovering the absence of the chairman.
The general cry was then raised: "The Duke of Kent to the chair."
His Royal Highness addressed the meeting. Having, he said, pledged himself on proposing the last resolution that there was no intention of getting rid of Lord Cochrane's motion by any side-wind, he felt himself in a very awkward predicament. "But," he added, "I hope that, as liberal Englishmen, you will consider my situation and who I am; and that after my illustrious relatives have retired from the meeting, you will not insist upon my taking the chair for the purpose of pressing the declaration of a political opinion; but that you will commend my motives, and do justice to those feelings which determine the propriety of my immediate departure." His Royal Highness accordingly withdrew.
The majority of the meeting still remained, calling for the nomination of another chairman, and pressing the adoption of Lord Cochrane's motion; but the noble lord also withdrew, and the meeting separated.
That meeting was memorable. If Lord Cochrane's bearing at it was factious, it must be remembered how greatly he had suffered and how earnestly he desired to save the people at large from the sufferings entailed upon them by the Government which he and they had learnt to regard with a common dislike. By exposing what appeared to him and many others to be the hypocrisy of seeming philanthropists, and showing what he deemed the only real cause and the only real remedy of the national distress, he only acted as a brave and honest man, and his work was appreciated by the masses in whose interest it was done. A thrill of satisfaction ran through the land. During the ensuing weeks and months congratulations were heaped upon him from all quarters, and from nearly every class of society. If he had lessened the resources of the Association for the Belief of the Manufacturing and Labouring Poor, he was thanked even for this, since it was believed to be a good thing for shallow charity to be stayed, in order that the cause of real justice might be promoted.
The thanks were all the heartier because of the fresh persecution to which Lord Cochrane was subjected on account of his patriotism. This persecution was in the shape of legal proceedings instituted against him by the Marshal of the King's Bench Prison for his escape therefrom on the 10th of March, 1815. The action had been formally commenced almost immediately after the alleged offence, but on technical grounds, and perhaps from the consciousness that he was already punished enough, it was delayed for more than a year. As the previous punishment, however, had not been enough to silence him, the Government determined to revive the old charge as a further act of vengeance. At the special instigation of Lord Ellenborough, as it was averred, the prosecution had been renewed in May, 1816, almost immediately after the rejection by the House of Commons of Lord Cochrane's charges against the vindictive and unprincipled judge; but the time was too far gone for trial to take place during the summer term. It was again renewed, and at length successfully, directly after Lord Cochrane's fresh exhibition of his hostility to the Government at the London Tavern meeting.
The trial was at Guildford, on the 17th of August. Its history and issue may best be told in the words of an autobiographical fragment, written by Lord Dundonald shortly before his death. "I was accompanied to Guildford," he said, "by Sir Francis Burdett and several other leading inhabitants of Westminster, whose names are forgotten by me. I took neither counsel nor witnesses, having determined to rest my case on the point of law that 'no Member of Parliament can be imprisoned, either for non-payment of a fine to the king, or for any other cause than treason or felony, or refusing to give security to keep the peace,' my inference being that as I was illegally imprisoned, I had committed no illegality in escaping. I read to the jury a general statement, on which they unequivocally expressed their conviction that the trial had better not have been instituted, for that the punishment already sustained was more than adequate to the offence alleged to have been committed. The judge, however, interfered, and told the jury that, as I had admitted the escape in my statement, they had no alternative but to bring in a verdict of guilty, which was reluctantly done, and judgment was deferred.
"After the trial I returned to my house in Hampshire, and not hearing anything more of the affair, naturally concluded that, in the face of the opinion expressed by the jury, the Government would be ashamed to prosecute the matter further. Not liking, however, to trust to their mercy, whilst their malevolence might be exercised at an inconvenient season, or made to depend upon my political conduct, I directed my attorney to inquire whether it was intended to put in execution the sentence at Guildford. The reply was that no steps had been taken, and the impression was, that Government would be against further proceedings, lest they should tend to increase my popularity. Considering that this might be a feint to put me off my guard, I went to London for the purpose of attending a large political meeting, in the conduct of which I participated. Shortly afterwards I received a summons to appear at Westminster Hall and receive judgment on the verdict; the judgment being that I was condemned to pay a fine of 100£ to the Crown.