Life and Correspondence of John, Earl of St Vincent, G.C.B. Vol. I: Admiral of the Fleet &C. &C. & C.

proceed.

CHAPTER II.

Lord Keppel’s action — Origin of the dispute between him and Sir Hugh Palliser — Unfair advantage taken by the latter as a Lord of the Admiralty — The trial takes place at the Government House in Portsmouth Garrison — Remarks on the removal of that building — The court meets on board a ship in Portsmouth harbour, and adjourns to the Government House on shore — Evidence of Captain Jervis — Observations on the conduct of the court as exhibited in the difference shown in their treatment of Lord Mulgrave and Captain Jervis — Captain Hood taking the leaf out of his Log-book, wrong but not criminal — Irregular and improper mode of keeping that record in the Navy — Suggestions for improving it — Letter to George Jackson, Esq.

The drawn battles between the British and French fleets off Ushant, in the summer of 1778, excited much murmuring and discontent throughout all parts of the country; and as nearly twenty years had elapsed since the execution of the unhappy Byng, the vox populi (which, though on some occasions it may be the voice of God, is in most the voice of the devil), grew clamorous for another sacrifice.

Sir Hugh Palliser was suspected of being the author of many anonymous letters and publications on this subject, the object of which was to cast reflections on Lord Keppel; and the latter seems to have taken more notice of them than anonymous accusations usually deserve. Much hostile correspondence passed between the two admirals and Sir Hugh, having the advantage over his adversary of being a lord of the Admiralty, availed himself of it, and had influence enough with the Earl of Sandwich, then first lord, to obtain an order to try Lord Keppel, his commander-in-chief, by a court-martial, for neglect of duty in presence of the enemy on the 27th and 28th of July. This step was highly resented by all the respectable flag-officers in the service, and a considerable number of them memorialised the king on the subject. But the trial, nevertheless, took place; indeed, it is probable that Lord Keppel was, under the circumstances, the first to urge it on.

The trial took place in what was called the Government-house, in Portsmouth garrison it having been transferred thither from a ship of the line in Portsmouth harbour{7}.

As Captain Jervis’s evidence on this important and interesting case is at once illustrative of his own character, and gives the best account extant of the whole affair, I shall make no apology for giving it entire. The truth is that the fame and character of Lord St. Vincent depended almost as much on this trial as did those of Lord Keppel; and as on this occasion the former attached himself to the party and politics of his chief, so he adhered to them throughout the whole of his after-life.

The court first assembled in January, 1779, as I have said, on board of a ship of the line in Portsmouth harbour, whence it was adjourned to the Government house, where it met from day to day, until the final termination and finding of the sentence.

Of all the important moral lessons to be learned in our service, none in my mind exceed those which are to be acquired by an attentive listener at a court-martial. It has been my fortune to attend many of the most important of these trials during the late war, and to have read the proceedings of many others with great interest. In looking over this of Lord Keppel’s, I could not help being struck with the inconsistency, and, I should say, great impropriety, of the court, in calling upon Lord Mulgrave to give his opinion on certain facts in the action in question, which he, as captain of the Courageux, must have been a witness to. His lordship very properly declined giving any opinion. He said that his opinion might be right, or it might be wrong, and that in giving it he might perhaps be pronouncing censure where it was not deserved but that at all events his opinion was his own, and he would not give it; he was ready to state facts as far as he knew them. It is difficult to regard this as other than just and honourable conduct; but the court thought differently, and very seriously and harshly rebuked the noble lord for his pertinacity.

Captain Jervis, on the other hand, pursued a different line of conduct, and one which he was equally justified in adopting: he gave his opinion when asked to do so. Now, though I hold it highly improper to intrude or volunteer an opinion, unasked, before a court-martial, yet, as it ought not to be wrested from a witness by force, he may yield it to solicitation. We find, however, that the same court which reprimanded Lord Mulgrave for withholding his opinion, afterwards told Captain Jervis (vide Question 82) that he need not answer the question unless he pleased, as it was a matter of opinion!

Before proceeding to give Captain Jervis’s evidence on this trial, I will premise, in favour of Captain Hood, (afterwards Lord Bridport) that, however I may have regretted his altering his log-book, nothing could induce me to think he had done so with a criminal or improper intention for he must have known that the fraud would necessarily be discovered, and that he would then put himself in the power of the master, and of every officer in the ship. Yet he was sharply reproached for it, as if he had been guilty of the most atrocious violation of the laws of the service, as well as those of honour. Had such really been the case, he would have been brought to a court-martial himself, and most probably for ever disgraced nor was there wanting the disposition to do this, if it could have been done with any hope of success. I am ready to admit that there was great want of discretion in the act, but I cannot think there was any criminal intention. The loss of the Arethusa’s signal-log was a far more questionable matter: that book was stolen from the officer who had charge of it, and was never afterwards found{8}.

The reader will not fail to remark that the evidence given by Captain Jervis, on the trial in question, was straightforward, clear, and manly; and neither the court nor the prosecutor could detect the most trifling error in his account of the transaction; and there can be no doubt it decided the court in the verdict of honourable acquittal which it pronounced on Lord Keppel. Sir Hugh Palliser, his accuser, was afterwards tried, and acquitted also.

I entered the service ten years after this remarkable trial; and it was even then, and for years afterwards, the common topic of conversation in every department of the naval service. It also afforded much useful instruction to our officers; and its good effects were seen in the battles of the 12th of April, 1782, and the 1st of June, 1794.

EVIDENCE GIVEN BY CAPT. JOHN JERVIS IN THE TRIAL OF ADMIRAL THE HON. AUGUSTUS KEPPEL.

1. Q. By the prisoner. From my first seeing the French fleet to the time of their being brought to battle, did they show any intention of coming to action, or did they always avoid it?

A. On the 23rd of July, in the afternoon, when the French fleet was first discovered by the English fleet, I did think they showed a disposition to give battle; from the 24th, in the morning, as soon as they discovered the force of the English fleet, I am convinced they never did design to give battle.

2Q. Did I use my utmost endeavours, as an officer, to bring them to action, from the morning of the 24th till they were brought to action?

A. You used the most unremitting endeavours.

3 Q. Had you commanded a British fleet in the situation the French fleet was, with respect to the fleet under my command during the 24th, 25th, and 26th of July, would you have hesitated a moment to have led it down to battle, on account of the wind or weather, on any part of those days?

A. Any officer who had hesitated a moment would have been unworthy of command in the British fleet.

4 Q. Do you remember the signal being made early in the morning of the 27th July for several of the ships of the vice-admiral of the Blue’s division to chase to windward?

A. I do.

5 Q. Was there at that time any greater indication of the French fleet’s designing to come to action than on the preceding day?

A. There was not.

6 Q. What was the position of the vice-admiral of the Blue and his division at that time?

A. To the best of my recollection, the vice-admiral of the Blue, in the Formidable, was on the lee-bow of the Foudroyant, at the distance of three miles and a half, or thereabouts.

7 Q. What, in your judgment, was the object of that signal? And do you think it a proper one under the circumstances in which it was made?

A. I reflected on the signal when it was made, so that I have no sort of doubt in answering the question. I observed at the time that it must have been made to combine the division of the vice-admiral of the Blue with the centre division.

8 Q. What, in your opinion, would have been the consequence if I had formed the line of battle early in the morning, instead of bringing up the leewardmost ships by signal to chase?

A. I am clearly of opinion that you would not have brought the French fleet to action on that day.

9 Q. Did you see the French fleet upon the larboard-tack just before the action began?

A. I did.

10 Q. Was not our getting into action with the enemy very sudden and unexpected, from the shift of wind?

A. That was the principal event which produced it.

11 Q. What would have been the consequence if I had formed the line of battle at that time?

A. You would have given an opportunity for the enemy, when they were in great disorder, to have got into some form, and thereby subjected your fleet to an attack before it could have been got into order, or given the French time to escape out of gunshot if they had been disposed to do so.

12 Q. As I am charged with having advanced to the enemy, and made the signal for battle without having formed the line, I desire you will inform the Court if you think I was justifiable in doing so under the circumstances you have stated.

A. To the best of my judgment and ability, you certainly was.

13 Q. I am charged with having stood to a great distance beyond the enemy, before I wore to stand towards them again — I desire to know if the fact be true.

A. It is not true.

14 Q. Did I make the signal for the line of battle as soon as I wore{9}.

A. You did.

15 Q. Was that the properest signal I could make to collect the fleet together?

A- It was the properest signal, and the signal that required the most prompt obedience.

16 Q. I am charged with having shortened sail instead of having advanced to the enemy. I desire you will acquaint the Court whether 1 had a sufficient force collected to admit of my advancing faster than I did.

A. To the best of my recollection, when I approached you on the larboard-tack, a little before three o’clock, you had not more than two or three ships near you of your own division the rest were at a considerable distance astern.

17 Q. Had I at any time, while I stood on the larboard-tack, a sufficient force collected near me to renew the fight?

A. You had not.

18 Q. Did you see the French fleet wear, and begin to form the line on the larboard-tack?

A. I did.

19. Q. Had I at that time a sufficient force collected to prevent their forming?

A. You had not the means, in any sort

20 Q. I am charged with having wore at this time, and led the British fleet directly from the enemy. I desire you will explain this matter to the Court?

A. It appeared to me at the time that you had two great objects in view in wearing the British fleet and standing as you did: the first and principal was to cover four or five disabled ships of your fleet in the S. S. E.; the other to give the opportunity to the vice-admiral of the Blue (Sir H. Palliser) and his division to form in their stations astern of you.

21 Q. Did I make every necessary signal to form the line, and to assemble the fleet on the starboard-tack?

A. I do not know a signal you could have made which you did not make to produce that effect.

22 Q. What sail did I carry during the afternoon?

A. To the best of my recollection, you carried your double-reefed topsails and foresail, the latter much shot, as well as the foretop-sail.

23 Q. Was not the sail I carried necessary for the protection of the disabled ships, and could the degree of sail I did carry possibly have prevented the vice-admiral of the Blue from coming into the line?

A. The sail you carried appeared to me well-proportioned to effect both those purposes

24 Q. Did not the sail I carried permit the French to range up with me under their topsails?

A. It did.

25. Q. Had this evolution, or my subsequent conduct, as you have stated it, the least appearance of a flight?

A. Very much otherwise.

26 Q. Could the French fleet have attacked the British fleet at any time they had thought proper during the afternoon?

A. They could, and at some periods of the afternoon with very great advantage.

27. Q. Where was your station in the line of battle ahead on the starboard-tack?

A. The next to, and astern of, the Victory.

28. Q. When did you get into it, and did you preserve it?

A. I got into it as you wore, at or about three o’clock in the afternoon, and never was out of it till four o’clock the next morning.

29. Q. Did you think I intended to renew the battle if I could have formed the line?

A. I did; and as a proof of it, I turned my people up, thinking it advisable to say a few animating words to them.

30{10} Q. What prevented my forming the line?

A. The vice-admiral of the Blue not leading his division down into his station.

31. Q. Was he in a situation to have led his division down into the line?

A. He appeared so to me.

32. Q. Did anything appear to you to prevent his bearing down?

A. There was nothing visible to me but a foretop-sail unbent.

33. Q. How long did you observe the Formidable’s foretop-sail unbent?

A. To the best of my recollection, it was near four hours unbent; I cannot speak positively to time it appeared to me the greatest part of the afternoon, after we were on the starboard-tack.

34 Q. By the Court. Could he have got into his station under his maintop-sail and fore-sail?

A. I believe he could.

35. Q. How many points might he have kept away?

A. About four points, I think; he appeared to me to be always in the wind’s eye of his station.

36. Q. By the prisoner. Did the vice-admiral of the Blue ever make any signal to inform the admiral that he was disabled?

A. I never saw any such signal.

37. Q. Did you ever see him repeat the signal for the line of battle?

A. I did not.

38 Q. What sail did you carry on the night of the 27th to keep your