MY MOTION FOR MINUTES OF COURT-MARTIAL.—MR. TIERNEY’S OPINION RESPECTING
THEM.—MR. WHITBREAD’S VIEWS.—THE MINUTES INDISPENSABLE.—MR.
WILBERFORCE ON THE SAME POINT.—LORD GREY’S OPINION OF THE
MINISTRY.—THE VOTE OF THANKS LEAVES OUT MY NAME, YET THE CREDIT OF
THE AFFAIR GIVEN TO ME.—INCONSISTENCY OF THIS.—I IMPUGN THE DECISION
OF THE HOUSE.—SIR FRANCIS BURDETT’S OPINION.—MR. WINDHAM’S.—LORD
MULGRAVE TURNS ROUND UPON ME.—HIS LORDSHIP’S MISREPRESENTATIONS.—YET
ADMITS THE SERVICE TO BE “BRILLIANT.”—LORD MULGRAVE REBUKED BY LORD
HOLLAND.—EARL GROSVENOR’S VIEWS.—LORD MELVILLE HITS UPON THE TRUTH,
THAT I, BEING A JUNIOR OFFICER, WAS LEFT OUT.—VOTE OF THANKS IN
OPPOSITION TO MINUTES.—THE VOTE, THOUGH CARRIED, DAMAGED THE
MINISTRY.
From this time forward I never trod the deck of a British ship of war at
sea, as her commander, till thirty-nine years afterwards I was appointed
by her present most gracious Majesty to command the West India squadron;
the greater portion of the interval being marked by persecution of which
the court-martial on Lord Gambier was only the starting-point.
The commencement of the parliamentary session in 1810, was remarkable
for its votes of thanks, and the refusal of all information which might
justify them. This led Lord Milton to declare in the House of Commons,
that “votes of thanks, from their frequency, had lost their value, and
ceased to be an honour. They had got so much into the habit of voting
thanks that it was almost an insult not to vote them.” (Feb. 1st.)
On the 25th of January 1810, Lord Grenville adverted in the House of
Lords to notice of motion for a vote of thanks to Lord Gambier, for
_his_ services in destroying the enemy’s ships in Basque Roads; and
observed that as the last intimation on the journals respecting Lord
Gambier was his arrest, it would be necessary that the _Minutes_ of the
court-martial should be laid before the House, in order to enable it to
judge of the necessity for a vote of thanks. To this Lord Mulgrave
strongly objected, on the ground that it “would appear as if it was
wished to retry the case.” Laying the sentence of acquittal only before
the House, said his lordship, would be “sufficient to render their
proceedings regular, and would answer all the purposes of the noble
lord.” With this the House was obliged to be content, though how that
sentence had been obtained the reader is now made aware.
On the 29th of January, in pursuance of notice previously given, I made
a motion for the production of the _minutes of the court-martial_ in the
House of Commons; as being, from the extraordinary discrepancy between
the nature of the evidence and the sentence, absolutely necessary, in
order to enable members fairly and impartially to decide whether the
thanks in contemplation of ministers _were due_ to Lord Gambier for the
part he took in what had been by them denominated a victory in Basque
Roads.[52]
-----
Footnote 52:
The action took place in Aix Roads. The only victory gained by Lord
Gambier in Basque Roads was that of bringing his ships to anchor there
whilst the enemy’s ships were quietly heaving off from the banks on
which they had been driven, nine miles distant from the fleet.
-----
In support of this production of the minutes, I adverted to a previously
expressed opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Perceval),
that Lord Gambier had been honourably acquitted, but that an officer’s
having done no wrong _did not entitle him to the thanks of the House_;
which, if bestowed on trifling, or, indeed, on any but brilliant
achievements, would dwindle into contempt, even with those on whom they
should be conferred. Votes of thanks were already lightly esteemed in
the Navy, and I pledged myself—if the House would insist on the
production of the minutes—to prove that “Lord Gambier’s defence was
contradicted by itself—by his lordship’s official letters—and by his own
witnesses; many of whom, as to essential facts, were at variance with
themselves and with each other.” Lastly, I undertook to prove to the
House, that the chart of the 12th of April was “in a most material point
false—and in every respect a fabrication.”
I will not inflict on the reader a recapitulation of the long discussion
which followed, but the opinions of some whose names are to this day
held in respect are too much to the point to be passed over. The opinion
expressed by Mr. Tierney is so remarkable that I shall give it entire as
reported.
“The question was not as to the noble lord’s (Gambier) innocence, but
as to his claim to a most distinguishing reward. The honours of the
House were high things, dear and valuable; but dear only because they
implied merit, valuable only because that merit must be rare. Honours
too frequently bestowed lost their value, and became signs of nothing
but the weakness which lavished them, or the worthlessness on which
they were to be thrown away.
“He would vote for the minutes, but in his vote he begged to be
understood as merely calling for matter to enable him to shape his
opinion. He could mean no slight to Lord Gambier. He respected his
lordship’s character. He had some opportunities of hearing him spoken
of, and it was always in a high strain of praise and estimation. But
he had never understood that Lord Gambier took _any share_ of the
merit of the achievement to himself. _He had not approached the French
fleet nearer than seven miles._ Ministers had praised Lord Gambier for
discretion; _he hoped they had not intended this_ as an instance in
the enumeration of its proofs.
“It became the House to be cautious of being prodigal of honours
entrusted to their distribution. Lord Cochrane ought to be heard; his
judgment and character, his signal gallantry and signal honours[53]
deserved the serious attention of the House. Even his feelings, led as
they were, perhaps, astray by an excess of strength and sensibility,
deserved all the attention which could be paid to them.”
-----
Footnote 53:
The red ribbon.
-----
The opinions of Mr. Whitbread are no less remarkable. Sir C. Hamilton
had said that the reason why no more ships were destroyed was solely
attributable _to me!_ and that he would engage to prove it to the
House.[54] Mr. Wynne also declared, on behalf of the Ministry, that the
evidence was _all on Lord Gambier’s side!_ and opposed to it only my
solitary evidence. This called up Mr. Whitbread, whose remarks are
reported as follows:—
-----
Footnote 54:
He however omitted so to do.
-----
“The noble lord (Cochrane) had done wrong in returning any answer to
the application of the Admiralty.[55] He ought to have told them, as a
member of the House of Commons, he had no answer whatever to make; and
if they thought the logs _inconclusive_ why did they not manfully come
down and try the question in that House?
“The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wynne) talked of the injustice of trying an
officer in that House! Must not the merits of every officer be
inquired into when it is proposed to confer on him a vote of thanks?
Was he not _then_ on his trial? Was not that a species of trial to
which any officer must necessarily be exposed before he could receive
the high honour of the thanks of Parliament? After a court-martial, by
which Lord Gambier had been acquitted, did it follow, as a matter of
necessity that they must grant him the thanks of that House? He
presumed this by no means followed.
“What then was the situation to which the House was reduced? The noble
lord (Cochrane) had committed himself more than he had ever heard man
do in that House to prove his statements respecting the conduct of
Lord Gambier. And now a member (Sir C. Hamilton) came forward and said
that the duty intrusted to Lord Cochrane had not been properly
executed, and that if it had been he might have done far more injury
to the enemy’s ships. The hon. baronet (Hamilton) said that at the
time Lord Cochrane was in command, and made signals to the vessels
employed under him, ‘_some of them obeyed and others disobeyed_ the
instructions they received, and that those who disobeyed were
ultimately successful, whilst those who obeyed at the moment failed.’
The worthy baronet also added that ‘those who _disobeyed_ the signals
were promoted, whilst those who _obeyed_ were not.’ What would become
of the subordination of our Navy if our officers were to be informed,
in any one instance, that those who obeyed the instructions of their
superior officer were to be _passed by_, while those who disobeyed his
signals _might expect to be promoted_![56]
“From the disagreeable situation in which the House was placed on both
sides, he thought they must unavoidably have the _Minutes_.”
-----
Footnote 55:
Demanding the reasons for my opposition to the vote of thanks. See
vol. i. p. 404.
Footnote 56:
This admission by a ministerial partisan was true. It was chiefly
owing to this that the fireships, to use Lord Gambier’s words, “failed
to take effect on the enemy’s ships;” viz. by kindling them where they
drifted on the shoals or went wide of the enemy’s fleet.
-----
Various other opinions were expressed. Mr. Wilberforce thought
acquiescence in my motion for the production of the minutes “most
important, as throwing a _stigma on all the members of the
court-martial_;” which was true enough, one of my objects being to show
that the influence of a corrupt government had been used to vitiate a
tribunal upon which the very safety of the Navy depended. How far I
should have succeeded in this may be left to the reader’s judgment.[57]
-----
Footnote 57:
See Lord Grey’s expressions, _infra_.
-----
Mr. Ponsonby would not agree to the motion because its adoption would be
a violation of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence. Sir Francis
Burdett said, that “Lord Gambier’s plan seemed to be a desire _to
preserve his fleet_—my plan, to destroy the enemy’s fleet. He had never
heard that the articles of war held out an instruction to preserve the
fleet. What if Nelson, at the Nile or Trafalgar, had acted on this
principle? He had never heard that Lord Gambier, in the affair of Basque
Roads, pretended to have done any hard, or even important service. His
only merit seemed to consist in what he omitted to do.”
Having thus been put on my defence by direct accusation on the part of a
Ministerial supporter that I had not done my duty, I implored the House
to give me an opportunity, not only of defending myself, but of laying
bare matters of more importance to the country than either my judgment
or character. I again pledged myself to prove all I had asserted, and to
stake everything that was valuable to man on the issue, at the same time
telling the House that, if the minutes were granted, I would expose such
matters as might make the country tremble for its safety—and entreating
it well to consider that there was another tribunal to which it was
answerable, that of posterity, which would try all our actions and judge
impartially.
Neither argument nor a sense of justice availed, and the word
“_sentence_” was substituted for “_Minutes_,” in an amendment carried by
a large majority of the faction, in that day dependent on and wielded by
Ministers—of whose general conduct Lord Grey, in the opening debate of
the session, thus thought it necessary to express himself:—“He was glad
to find from the humble and chastened tone of Ministers that they
_appeared to feel some remorse for the numerous miseries which, by their
imbecility and misconduct they had inflicted on their country. Had it
been otherwise, he should have supposed the Almighty vengeance was
hanging over this nation, and that therefore the hearts of its rulers
had been hardened in proportion as their understandings were darkened._”
This merited censure from one of the great lights of that day and of all
time, passed unheeded in the conduct of the session, which outdid its
predecessors in acts of subserviency to the faction in power by whose
supremacy it was felt that the rotten-borough interest could alone
maintain itself against the national execration which was now beginning
to make itself heard.
At the conclusion of the preliminary debate, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer rose to move a vote of thanks to Lord Gambier for _his eminent
services in destroying the French fleet_ in the Basque Roads! My name,
as having effected anything, was _purposely and very ingeniously left
out!_ but warm thanks were accorded to those who directed the
fireships,—not against the enemy, but against the banks of the Boyart
and Palles shoals!
The passage in the vote of thanks is curious: “for their gallant and
highly meritorious conduct on this glorious occasion, _particularly
marked by the brilliant and unexampled success of the difficult and
perilous mode of attack by fireships, conducted under the immediate
direction of Captain Lord Cochrane_!” Yet Lord Gambier stated in his
defence, “The success of the first part of the enterprise arose from the
terror excited by the _appearance_ of the fireships! _as they failed in
the principal effect they were intended to produce_.” (_Minutes_, p.
131.) If the House had been in the possession of the minutes of the
court-martial, would they have voted thanks to officers of whom the
Commander-in-chief says that they “_failed in their object_”? Not a word
of thanks to me for having conducted it, but to the Commander-in-chief,
then twelve miles off, his only merit consisting in coming three miles
nearer, anchoring out of gunshot—and to men whom a ministerial supporter
had praised by saying they had been promoted for “_disobeying my
signals_!” And this though the First Lord of the Admiralty had offered
me his own regiment—a squadron of frigates, with _carte blanche_ to do
what I pleased with them—and a vote of thanks, conjointly with Lord
Gambier, if I would not offer any opposition!
The value of such a vote under such circumstances had been rightly
estimated, even by those who acquiesced in it. The value of the service
rendered was paltry, in comparison with what it ought to have been; and
the vote, either to myself or my superiors, would have been worthy of
it. I had from the first refused to have my name coupled with such
pretence, as a fraud on national honours.
Yet, leaving me altogether out of the vote of thanks, so long as thanks
were voted, and giving them to the Commander-in-chief and the officers
under “my immediate direction,” was a specimen of party spite so
transparent that it could deceive nobody. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer, either ashamed of his subject, or forgetting the purpose in
hand, most unaccountably gave me in his harangue _the credit of the
whole affair_! He could only have done this from two motives. Either he
was too much a gentleman to permit his personal honour to be trampled
under foot by his colleagues, or he could not have read the vote of
thanks till he came to it at the conclusion of his speech. There is,
however, a third hypothesis. The subjoined eulogy might have been
pronounced to blind the House.
“The attack having thus recommenced on the night of the 13th
successively[58] was followed up on the next day by the noble lord
(Cochrane)[59] with peculiar gallantry. The consequence was that no
less than three sail of the line and a fifty-gun ship were completely
destroyed. The House would not, therefore, he trusted, be disposed to
refuse its thanks _for eminent services when performed under such
great peril and risk_, whilst the enemy were possessed of the
protection of their own batteries[60], and other advantages which they
could bring into play for the security of their own vessels. _It was
an enterprise of great and peculiar hazard and difficulty._ The result
had been highly injurious to the enemy, and had the effect of not only
disabling but of removing the enemy’s whole squadron from the
possibility of being for a considerable time available for the
purposes of the naval campaign. _Was not this an object of great
magnitude?_”
-----
Footnote 58:
There was no attack at all on the night of the 13th, for all the ships
taken were destroyed on the afternoon and night of the 12th.
Footnote 59:
No such thing. I followed up nothing on the 14th, except trying to
evade Lord Gambier’s signals of recall. A pretty clear proof that the
Chancellor had never even read the despatches, and less the minutes of
the court-martial!
Footnote 60:
About which I did not trouble myself, and by which the _Impérieuse_
was not once hit.
-----
From this speech it is clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
considered that the whole success was attributable to my exertions, and
it is no less apparent that he contemplated my being included in the
vote of thanks.
Then why leave me out of the vote of thanks, and give thanks to those
who had nothing to do with this “_work of great magnitude_?”
Lord Mulgrave made no such blunder in the House of Lords, nor even
mentioned my name _except in terms of reprobation_—possibly because I
refused his lordship’s temptation of a squadron and a regiment to hold
my peace! Yet it may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no
mistake. His eulogy might have been merely intended to appeal to the
popular ear, whilst contemptuously excluding me from the vote. Be this
as it may, the trick succeeded, and my voice was drowned amidst the
clamour of faction, as were the voices of those who supported me in the
House.
Still I was not disposed to allow the vote to pass without further
protest. I again warned the House that “even their verdict was not
conclusive upon character, but that there was another tribunal to which
even that House was amenable, and that the public would one day exercise
a judgment, even though the House might shrink from a just decision. I
inquired what portion of Lord Gambier’s exploit merited thanks, or what
had been the nature of his exploit? He lay at a distance—never brought
his fleet to the place of action, or even within danger, and yet for
such supineness he was to receive the highest honours of his country!
The ground taken by ministers was frivolous—that where the subordinates
admittedly deserved the praise, the superiors must receive it. The
public _would one day read the minutes, though the House would not. The
public would judge from the facts, though the House would not. The
public would not submit to have its eyes bound because the House chose
to keep theirs shut._ Let a single reason be adduced for this vote of
thanks, and I was ready to vote for it—but the _reasons_ which had been
obtruded on the House were unworthy the name of _arguments_.”
Sir John Orde, of all the supporters of the ministry, gave the only
honest reason for his vote in favour of Lord Gambier, though probably
his argument might not pass current at the present day. It was this:—“As
thanks to his Lordship have been proposed, I shall vote for them,
because I entertained this opinion of Lord Gambier’s conduct before the
prorogation of Parliament, _and their Lordships of the Admiralty
appeared to do the same_!!” Poor Sir John! He must have had better
reasons for his arguments than arguments for his reasons.
A few more reasonable opinions than that of worthy Sir John shall be
transcribed _verbatim_, and first those of Sir Francis Burdett:—
“Sir Francis Burdett wished to know whether the service of Lord
Gambier was worth the thanks of Parliament, even admitting it to have
all the value attributed to it by anything but the unblushing and
profuse spirit of ministerial favouritism.[61] He would not ask
whether, on the other hand, there was not the full and decided
testimony of a man competent to give his judgment, and of whose
admirable valour and good fortune the House and the nation had but one
opinion? He felt that in making these observations he might be
treading on perilous ground. He was probably bringing on himself some
charitable retorts, particularly those of a gentleman whose charity
was of a very peculiar nature. But he was careless about such remarks;
for though he deprecated that person’s charity, he would not shun but
would rather court his hostility.[62]
“Had there been anything said to make out a reason of the vote
demanded? Where was the evidence of the Commander-in-chief’s
_intrepidity or skill? Of that boldness which bursts its way through
all obstacles? Of that genius before which obstacles vanish?_ In place
of this, the House was insulted with a dry catalogue of negatives, and
an account as to how the noble Admiral inspected the action _at a
distance of seven miles_.[63] The question had been treated lightly;
but levity was unbecoming the grave matter for their deliberation.”
-----
Footnote 61:
Lord Gambier had recently been a colleague of the Lords of the
Admiralty.
Footnote 62:
Mr. Croker, who did not, however, respond to the challenge of my
excellent colleague. Had he done so, the House would, no doubt, have
been highly amused at the result. But Mr. Croker was “wise in his day
and generation.”
Footnote 63:
Nine.
-----