ich the years 1832 and 1867 are epochs. In after years, Lord
Cochrane himself clearly saw that he had been rash in his advocacy
of the sweeping reforms which the excited people deemed necessary for
their welfare in the years of trouble and misgovernment consequent on
the tedious war-time ending with the battle of Waterloo. But he never
had cause to regret the honest zeal and the generous sympathy with
which he strove, though in violent ways, to lessen the weight of the
popular distresses.

Distresses were not wanting to himself during this period. The weight
of his former troubles still hung heavily upon him. He could not
forget the terrible disgrace--none the less terrible because it was
unmerited--that had befallen him. And in pecuniary ways he was a
grievous sufferer by them. In losing his naval employment he lost
the income on which he had counted. His resources were thus seriously
crippled; and the scientific pursuits, in which he still persevered,
failed to bring to him the profit that he anticipated.

In one characteristic way--only one among many--the Government
persecution still clung to him. In the distribution of prize-money
for the achievement at Basque Roads all the officers and crews of
Lord Grambier's fleet had been considered entitled to share. To this
arrangement Lord Cochrane objected. He urged that as the whole triumph
was due to the _Imperieuse_ and the few ships actually engaged with
her, the reward ought to be limited to them. "I am preparing to
proceed in the Court of Admiralty on the question of head-money for
Basque Roads," he wrote on the 5th of November, 1816; "my affidavit
has reluctantly been admitted, though strenuously opposed, on the
ground that I was not to be believed on my oath!"

Lord Cochrane's council in this case was Dr. Lushington, afterwards
the eminent judge of the Admiralty Court. Dr. Lushington showed
plainly that the greater part of the fleet, having taken no share in
the action, had no right to head-money, and that therefore all ought
to be divided among those who actually shared with Lord Cochrane
the danger and the success of the enterprise. But Sir William Scott
(afterwards Lord Stowell), the judge at that time, was not disposed
to sanction this view. Therefore he thwarted it by delays. The case
having been postponed from November, 1816, was brought up again in the
first term of 1817. "The judge has again delayed his decision," wrote
Lord Cochrane on the 28th of Februa