Lord Nelson’s love of humanity led him, in February 1805, on the trial of Colonel Marcus Despard, for high-treason, to bear the most honourable testimony to that officer’s character:  they had, his lordship said, formerly served together on the Spanish main; together been in the enemy’s trenches, and slept in the same tent; and he had every reason to believe him a loyal man, and a brave officer.  His lordship, however, was fully satisfied, in the end, that Colonel Despard had been guilty of the crime for which he was executed in Horsemonger Lane, Southwark, on the 21st of the same month.  Lord Ellenborough, the learned judge before whom Colonel Despard was tried and convicted, on noticing, in his address to the jury, the circumstances of Lord Nelson’s testimony, from the seat of justice which he so worthily fills, delivered this fine panegyric on our illustrious hero—­“You have heard,” said that manly, wise, and virtuous judge, “the high character given of the prisoner, by a man on whom to pronounce an eulogy were to waste words! But, you are to consider whether a change has not taken place, since the period of which he speaks.  Happy, indeed, would it have been for him, if he had preserved that character down to this moment of peril!” Had there been a gleam of doubt, as to the guilt of the culprit, the jury would certainly have acquitted him in consequence of our hero’s testimony as to his character; and such was, after all, it’s influence on their minds, that when, in the usual form, they were asked whether he was “Guilty, or not guilty?” the foreman, though he replied—­“Guilty;” immediately added—­“but we earnestly recommend him to mercy, on account of his former good character, and the services he has rendered his country.”  No recommendation, however, the crime being so atrocious, and the guilt so manifest, could reasonably be expected to avail.  It is said, though such disabolism can scarcely be credited, that attempts were made, on this occasion, by secret enemies of his lordship in very high rank, to prejudice characters still more elevated against him; and thus, as in some other respects, vilely insinuating that his most honourable and virtuous heart was tainted with the very vice which he ever held in the greatest abhorrence.  Among the various gross imputations against his lordship, which the future historian may find registered in some of the preserved licentious public journals of blended facts and falshoods, and inconsiderately adopt, is that of the Hero of the Nile’s having been so addicted to gaming, that he lost, at a single sitting, the whole he had gained, both pay and prize-money, during the year of that memorable victory:  whereas, in truth, his lordship was so extremely adverse to this vice, that he had scarcely ever, in his life, entered any one of the fashionable gaming-houses; nor ever, as he repeatedly assured his friends, whom these base reports induced particularly to ask the question, won or lost even the trifling sum of twenty guineas!