“Lord Holland represented in strong terms the light in which ministers
placed themselves before Parliament and the country by coming forward,
so hastily in the first instance to procure thanks, and then suddenly
sending Lord Gambier to a court-martial _with the thanks on their
lips_. He thought that in a case of parliamentary thanks the case
should be _clear and strong_ to receive such a reward. What said Lord
Cochrane in his reply to the Admiralty?[66] ‘_Look at and sift the
log-books!_ and not ask me for accusations.’ He (Lord Holland)
condemned the precipitancy of ministers, who by their measures had
endeavoured to _stultify the House as they had already stultified
their own administration_.
“After sending Lord Gambier through the ordeal of a court-martial,
Lord Mulgrave now came down, pronounced his praises, and called upon
the House to vote him their thanks! It was not in this manner that the
French government conducted itself towards their admirals and
generals. They instituted a very severe inquiry as to this affair at
Basque Roads, and many of their commanders were most severely
punished.[67] They did not give thanks to General Monnet for his
defence of Flushing, but, on the contrary, censured his conduct most
severely.[68]
“If the barren thanks of both Houses of Parliament were _often to be
voted in this way, they would soon cease to be of any value_. The
noble Lord (Mulgrave) had said a great deal about the battle of
Talavera, and the resistance made to the vote of thanks in that
instance. Now it did not appear to him (Lord Holland) that the battle
of Talavera could have anything to do with the action of Basque Roads
or with the conduct of Lord Gambier. But if resistance to the vote of
thanks to Lord Wellington were adduced as a proof of party motives, it
might well be considered a proof of party spirit on the other side to
bring forward motions of thanks for services of such a description as
were those of Lord Gambier.”
-----
Footnote 66:
See Vol. I. p. 408.
Footnote 67:
For having, as Buonaparte afterwards said (see Vol. I. p. 421),
suffered themselves to be terrified by the explosion-vessels, so as to
take every fireship for one, and then to run their ships ashore in
order to avoid the impending danger; this result forming the very
essence of my plan. Poor Captain Lafon of the _Calcutta_ was shot,
_not for surrendering to Lord Gambier’s fleet_, but to the
_Impérieuse_ frigate under my command, she being a vessel of inferior
force to the _Calcutta_.
Footnote 68:
Though he had thwarted, but not so effectively as he might have done,
the powerful armament mentioned at the commencement of the next
chapter.
-----