LORD GAMBIER’S DEFENCE.—SECOND DESPATCH IGNORING THE FIRST.—ATTEMPT
OF THE COURT TO STOP MY EVIDENCE.—EVIDENCE RECEIVED BECAUSE
OPPOSED TO MINE.—I AM NOT PERMITTED TO HEAR THE DEFENCE.—THE
LOGS TAMPERED WITH.—LORD GAMBIER’S DEFENCE AIMED AT ME UNDER AN
ERRONEOUS IMPUTATION.—MY LETTER TO THE COURT CONFUTING THAT
IMPUTATION.—ADMIRALTY ACCUSATION AGAINST LORD GAMBIER ON MY
REFUSAL TO ACCUSE HIS LORDSHIP.—HIS INSINUATIONS AGAINST ME
UNCALLED FOR.—ASSUMES THAT I AM STILL UNDER HIS COMMAND.—ENEMY
ESCAPED FROM HIS OWN NEGLECT.—THE SHOALS PUT IN THE CHART TO
EXCUSE THIS.—ATTEMPT TO IMPUTE BLAME TO ME AND CAPTAIN
SEYMOUR.—THE TRUTH PROVED BY CAPTAIN BROUGHTON THAT LORD GAMBIER
HAD NO INTENTION OF ATTACKING.—LORD HOWE’S ATTACK ON THE AIX
FORTS.—CLARENDON’S DESCRIPTION OF BLAKE.
The most damnatory point connected with the court-martial is—that on
finding me inflexible with regard to the vote of thanks to Lord Gambier,
the Board of Admiralty ordered his lordship, AFTER HIS RETURN TO
ENGLAND, to _write a second despatch containing fresh details of the
action_! thus superseding the first despatch written by himself as
Commander-in-chief at the time of the action!!
With this extraordinary demand Lord Gambier appears to have gladly
complied on the 10th of May, 1809; so that there are two despatches
(Appendix A, _written on the spot_, and B, _written in England_), the
first highly praising me for what I neither did nor intended to do—the
second IGNORING MY SERVICES ALTOGETHER!! In fact, only mentioning me by
name, as _lying “about three miles from the enemy.”_ One step more in
the second despatch, viz. that I was not in Aix Roads at all! would only
have been in keeping with the assertion just quoted. Were not these
contradictory documents now adduced, the denial of such an act by
suppressing all mention of it in the despatches would be incredible.
Nevertheless, I fearlessly assert, that to my personal conduct of the
explosion vessel was solely attributable the panic produced in the
enemy’s fleet, and that such conduct was one of the most desperate acts
on record. There, however, they are—printed in the Appendix at the end
of this volume. The naval reader may regret their reproduction, as I do,
for the sake of the service, but he can no more ignore them than I can
pass them over.
There is nothing like this in the records of the British or any other
naval service, and the reasons for a precedent so unusual must
themselves have been extraordinary. It is clear to me, that from the
order of the Board of Admiralty to the Commander-in-chief to make a
second report of the action in Aix Roads the court-martial took its cue.
This may be a harsh conclusion, and perhaps would be so were it not
corroborated by circumstances, not the least significant of which was,
that the Commander-in-chief’s official report had been long before
_published in the Gazette_! No naval reason to invalidate this official
report was alleged, or could have existed.
During my examination before the Court I alluded to the fact of having
“reported to the Commander-in-chief the ruinous state of the Ile of Aix,
it having the _inner fortifications completely blown up and destroyed_.
This I not only ascertained from the deck of the _Impérieuse_ with
perfect precision as to the side towards us, but also as to the opposite
side, from personal observations made from the main-topgallant
mast-head. There were thirteen guns mounted.” (_Minutes_, p. 58.)
This evidence, if admitted, and its truth was fully proved by the
testimony of other officers, completely confirmed Lord Gambier’s
previous statement to the Admiralty, that “_the fortifications were no
obstacle_.” But now it was expedient that these fortifications should
constitute the bugbear which, as was asserted, would have destroyed any
British ships sent in to attack the enemy’s ships aground! and that the
issue of the court-martial mainly rested on establishing the formidable
character of the fortifications, a second despatch was called for. When,
in my evidence, I was explaining to the Court the little danger to be
apprehended from these fortifications—one of the principal points before
the Court, Admiral Young stopped me with the query, “Will you consider,
my Lord Cochrane, before you go on, HOW FAR THIS IS RELEVANT?”
On my insisting upon further explanation the Judge-Advocate attempted to
stop me, by demanding—“CAN THIS RELATE TO THE QUESTION ASKED?” The
President—seeing that I would not be stopped—remarked—“_Lord Cochrane
states this as his reason for not taking a particular line of conduct_.”
I stated it for no purpose of the kind, but to show that opposition from
such fortifications was hardly worth taking into consideration, and thus
continued:—
“I have felt that if I had answered ‘_Yes_’ or ‘_No_’ to all the
questions which had been put to me, I ought to be hung, and that if a
court-martial were held upon me and only the answers ‘_Yes_’ or ‘_No_’
appeared to those questions, I _should_ be hung for them.”
JUDGE-ADVOCATE.—“_I believe nobody has desired your Lordship to answer
merely ‘Yes’_ or ‘_No_!’”
A still more striking instance of the animus of the Court was the
following attempted stoppage of Captain Beresford’s evidence.
CAPT. BERESFORD.—“The only thing I know with respect to the _Calcutta_
being fired, was by a conversation between Lord Cochrane and myself in
the presence of Captain Bligh, Captain Maitland, and others.”
PRESIDENT.—“_Is this strictly evidence, Mr. Judge-Advocate?_”
JUDGE-ADVOCATE.—“_Yes! I should think it is_; BECAUSE I CONCEIVE IT IS
TO AFFECT THE EVIDENCE OF LORD COCHRANE!!!” (_Minutes_, p. 163.)
At the present day such proceedings in any tribunal would be thought
impossible. There, however, they are on record—showing that the
openly-avowed object of the court-martial was the suppression and
invalidation of my evidence by any means that could be brought to bear,
rather than an inquiry into the conduct of the Commander-in-chief on the
merits of the case.
One point more must be noticed, relative to the manner in which the
Court was conducted. Having reason to believe, as has been shown, that
the inquiry was being directed against myself, I was naturally anxious
to be present at the reading of the Commander-in-chief’s defence, in
order to judge how far I might thereby stand affected. With this view I
presented myself at the Court on the fifth day of the inquiry, when it
was known that the defence would be made.
To my surprise the Court saw fit to refuse the privilege.
PRESIDENT.—“All the witnesses must withdraw.”
LORD COCHRANE.—“With all due respect to the Court, in some former
courts-martial the witnesses have been permitted to hear the defence.”
PRESIDENT.—“_I never heard such a thing in my life._ The Court have
ruled the point.”
LORD COCHRANE.—“The case of Admiral Harvey is a case in point.”
PRESIDENT.—“Lord Cochrane, the Court have determined the contrary.”
“(_Lord Cochrane withdrew_”.) (_Minutes_, p. 105.)
One of my reasons for wishing to be present was to ascertain what use
would be made of the logs of the small vessels present in the action; it
being quite clear from circumstances which had come to my knowledge that
some of these had been tampered with. As such an assertion may readily
be doubted, it must be confirmed.
When Mr. Earp inspected the logs at the Record Office, several, for the
date of the action, were found missing from the log books. One—the log
of a line of battle ship—_had been torn out and was put back loose_!
This, however, is after-knowledge, I will rather rest the matter on
circumstances at the time.
When the master of the _Beagle_ was under examination, the subjoined
conversation took place:—
PRESIDENT (_to the Master_).—“Were these things written (in the log)
day by day as they occurred?”
MASTER.—“Yes; everything was written every day at twelve o’clock.”
“Then what is called the log of the 6th of April _was_ written on the
6th of April?”
MASTER.—“Yes.”
“And what is inserted here as of the 7th, _was_ written on the 7th in
this book?”
MASTER.—“Yes.”
“Is this the identical book into which it was copied from the board?”
MASTER.—“Yes.”
“And there never was any other log-book kept?”
MASTER.—“No.”
“Who kept this?”
MASTER.—“I kept it myself.”
PRESIDENT.—“It is written so fair and so neat that _it bears every
mark of being a fair copy_!”
JUDGE-ADVOCATE.—“_I tell the gentleman I am sure no imputation rests
upon him!_”