In the reign of George II. it became quite a fashion for both king and
people to run down to degradation, and even to death, any commander who
should be unsuccessful through even a mere fault of judgment or
misapprehension of the circumstances under which he might be acting.
Admiral Byng was a sad and shameful instance of this kind of treatment
towards men who were honourably doing their best in the public service.
Another example is afforded in General Lord George Sackville, the
subject of the following trial, who was pursued with full the same
malignity as Byng, and who would have undoubtedly perished in the same
way had the sentence of the court-martial been stretched to a similar
extent. The general’s fault, after all, was but a mistake—though a bad
one, certainly—amid a confusion of orders; and the king, as in Byng’s
case, showed no little ingratitude, for Lord George’s father had, like
Byng’s father, Lord Torrington, rendered essential benefits to the House
of Hanover. In fact, there is so much of a parallel character in the two
trials of Byng and Sackville—so much, too, showing the singular spirit
of the age—that they must be read together; and, therefore, in this
series, the court-martial on Lord George comes appropriately after that
on Admiral Byng.
Lord George Sackville, afterwards Lord George Germain and first Viscount
Sackville, belonged to one of the noblest and most ancient families in
England. He was the third son of Lionel Cranfield, K.G., seventh Earl
and first Duke of Dorset—an eminent Whig statesman, who began his career
of devotion to George I. and George II. by taking across the sea to
them, the one Elector and the other Prince of Hanover, the Order of the
Garter and their act of naturalisation. Dorset went again, when Queen
Anne died, to announce to the elder George his accession to the throne.
The duke died Master of the Horse to George III. in 1768. His son Lord
George Sackville’s earlier career may be briefly told. He was born the
26th January, 1716, and his name of George came from the king, George I.
himself, who was his godfather. After the then usual education of
persons of rank which had made of him a polished gentleman, Lord George
Sackville was named in 1734 Clerk of the Privy Council in Ireland, while
his father was Lord-Lieutenant there. In 1737, he obtained a commission
in the army, and thus commenced his military career, which was to be
checked so unluckily. In 1740 he was made the colonel of a regiment of
foot, and soon after aide-de-camp to the king. He showed himself a good
soldier, and won much distinction at Dettingen and Fontenoy. He was
afterwards with the Duke of Cumberland in Scotland, where he mainly
contributed to the suppression of the Rising of ’45. He was after that
Secretary of State under his father, for the second time Lord-Lieutenant
of Ireland, and he sat in the Irish Parliament as member for
Portarlington. He became a Lieut.-General of the Ordnance in 1757, and
so high had his reputation risen, that in 1758 he was appointed to
succeed Charles, second Duke of Marlborough, a distinguished military
leader, as commander-in-chief of the British forces in Germany, then
acting under Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick. This brings us to the Battle
of Minden. England, and, indeed, almost all Europe, were at the time
fiercely engaged throughout the globe in that memorable war which our
ally the King of Prussia, at Rosbach and elsewhere, and our own
generals, Clive at Plassy and Wolfe on the Heights of Abram, were to
make illustrious for ever. On the Continent the Duke of Cumberland, the
sanguinary duke of Culloden, had been cutting somewhat of a poor figure,
and latterly England confined herself, in the European part of the
contest, to sending British troops as auxiliaries to her allies. These
troops were commanded in chief, in 1758 and 1759 as stated, by Lord
George Sackville, but, somehow or other, he could not approve of or
agree with his generalissimo, Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, George H.’s
relative, and Prince Ferdinand in consequence owed him a spite. With the
famous Lieutenant-General the Marquis of Granby, who acted under him,
Lord George was also not on the best of terms. Amid such a state of
feeling among the commanders of the allies, the Battle of Minden was
fought and won by them against the French, under Marshal de Contades, on
the 1st August, 1759. The action, which was a tremendous struggle,
commenced at five in the morning and raged with varied success during
the day, but it is to the latter portion of the contest that the
reader’s attention should, as far as Lord George Sackville was
concerned, be directed.
After much firing on both sides, the allied army, advancing in eight
columns, occupied the ground between Halen and Hemman, and the space
between the last village and Dodenhausen was filled with Vangenheim’s
corps. Against this force the enemy directed their principal effort on
the left; but the Duke de Broglie experienced a severe check from a
battery of thirty cannon prepared by the Count de Buckeburg, Grand
Master of the Artillery, which, under his directions, were fired with
admirable effect. Towards the right of the allies, six regiments of
English infantry and two battalions of Hanoverian guards had to sustain
the charge of the French carabineers and gendarmerie. Such, however,
were their firmness and courage, that every corps of cavalry, as well as
infantry, that assailed them on the left and in the centre not only
failed of piercing their ranks, but was itself absolutely broken. The
cavalry on the right had no opportunity of engaging. They were destined
to support the infantry of the third line, and consisted of the British
and Hanoverian horse, commanded by Lord George Sackville, whose second
was the Marquis of Granby. They had been posted at a considerable
distance from the first line of infantry, divided from it by a scanty
wood that bordered on a heath. During the action they were ordered up,
but through some error, and this was the offence charged on Lord George
Sackville, did not arrive in time to take part in the struggle.
Originally it was not intended that they should be engaged, and there
was no occasion for their services. About noon the French gave way, and
withdrew from the field of battle. They were pursued to the ramparts of
Minden, having lost a great number of men, with forty-three large cannon
and many colours and standards. The loss of the allies was much less
severe. On the following day the garrison of Minden surrendered at
discretion, when many French officers who had been wounded in the
engagement fell into the hands of the victors.
Immediately after the victory, Prince Ferdinand published orders
relative to the troops under him, and by confining himself to
complimenting the Marquis of Granby, clearly implied a severe reflection
on that nobleman’s superior in command, Lord George Sackville; and the
rumour flew to England at once that the complete rout of the French was
prevented by Lord George, through cowardice or disobedience, not
charging at the opportune moment with the cavalry under his command.
Lord George was furious at the imputation. He flung up his appointments
and demanded a court-martial. The sensation the whole affair caused is
so well described by Smollett, that I cannot do better than borrow from
that historian the following graphic account:—
“No subject so much engrossed the conversation and passion of the public
as did the case of Lord George Sackville, who had by this time resigned
his command in Germany, and returned to England, the country which, of
all others, it would have been his interest to avoid at this juncture,
if he was really conscious of the guilt, the imputation, of which his
character now sustained. With the first tidings of the battle fought at
Minden, the defamation of this officer arrived. He was accused of
disobeying orders, and his conduct presented as infamous in every
particular. These were the suggestions of a vague report, which no
person could trace to its origin; yet this report immediately gave birth
to one of the most inflammatory pamphlets that ever was exhibited to the
public. The first charge had alarmed the people of England; jealous in
honour, sudden and rash in their sentiments, and obstinately adhering to
the prejudices they have espoused. The implied accusation in the orders
of Prince Ferdinand and the combustible matter superadded by the
pamphlet writer kindled up such a blaze of indignation in the minds of
the people, as admitted of no temperament or control. An abhorrence and
detestation of Lord George Sackville, as a coward and a traitor, became
the universal passion, which acted by contagion, infecting all degrees
of people, from the cottage to the throne, and no individual who had the
least regard for his own character and quiet would venture to preach up
moderation, or even advise a suspension of belief, until more certain
information could be received. Fresh fuel was continually thrown in by
obscure authors of pamphlets and newspapers, who stigmatised and
insulted with such virulent perseverance, that one would have imagined
they were actuated by personal motives and retained by mercenary
booksellers, against that unfortunate nobleman. Not satisfied with
inventing circumstances to his dishonour in his conduct on the last
occasion, they pretended to take a retrospect view of his character, and
produced a number of anecdotes to his prejudice, which had never before
seen the light, and, but for this occasion, had, probably, never been
known. Not that all the writings which appeared on this subject
contained fresh matters of aggravation against Lord George Sackville.
Some writers, animated by a hope of advantage, or hired to betray the
cause they undertook to defend, entered the lists as professed champions
of the accused, assumed the pen on his behalf, devoid of sense,
unfurnished with materials, and produced performances that could not
fail to injure his character among all those who believed that he
countenanced their endeavours, and supplied them with the facts and
arguments of his defence. Such, precisely, was the state of the dispute
when Lord George arrived in London. While Prince Ferdinand was crowned
with laurel, while the King of Great Britain approved his conduct, and
as the most glorious mark of that approbation invested him with the
Order of the Garter; while his name was celebrated through all England,
and extolled in the warmest expressions of hyperbole, above all the
heroes of antiquity; every mouth was open to execration of the late
commander of the British troops in Germany. He was now made acquainted
with the particulars of his imputed guilt, which he had before
indistinctly learned. He was accused of having disobeyed three
successive orders he had received from the general, during the action of
Minden, to advance with the cavalry of the right wing, which he
commanded, and sustain the infantry that were engaged; and, after the
cavalry were put in motion, of having halted them unnecessarily, and
marched so slow, that they could not reach the place of action in time
to be of any service; by which conduct the opportunity was lost of
attacking the enemy when they gave way, and rendering the victory more
glorious and decisive. The first step which Lord George took toward his
own vindication with the public was in printing a short address,
entreating them to suspend their belief with respect to his character
until the charge brought against him should be legally discussed by a
court-martial; a trial which he had already solicited, and was in hopes
of obtaining. Finding himself unable to stem the tide of popular
prejudice, which flowed against him with irresistible impetuosity, he
might have retired in quiet and safety, and left it to ebb at leisure.
This would have been generally deemed a prudential step by all those who
consider the unfavourable medium through which every particular of his
conduct must have been viewed at this juncture, even by men who
cherished the most candid intentions; when they reflected upon the
power, influence, and popularity of his accuser; the danger of
aggravating the resentment of a sovereign, already too conspicuous; and
the risk of hazarding his life on the honour and integrity of witnesses
who might think their fortunes depended upon the nature of the evidence
they should give. Notwithstanding those suggestions, Lord George,
seemingly impatient of the imputation under which his character
laboured, insisted upon the privilege of a legal trial, which was
granted accordingly, after the judges had given it as their opinion that
he might be tried by a court-martial, though he no longer retained any
commission in the service.”
The court-martial thus earnestly demanded by Lord George was held at the
Horse Guards at the end of March and beginning of April, 1760. The court
consisted of the following members:—
Lieut.-General the Hon. Sir Charles Howard, K.B., President (a general
in 1765).
„ „ John Campbell, Earl of Loudoun (a general in 1765).
„ „ Lord Delawarr (Sir John West, K.B., afterwards Earl of
Delawarr, and in 1765 a general).
„ „ The Hon. James Cholmondeley (distinguished at the
battle of Falkirk, a general in 1770, son of George,
second Earl Cholmondeley).
„ „ The Hon. James Stuart.
„ „ Earl of Panmure (William Maule, of Kelly, a general in
1770).
„ „ Earl of Ancrum (Sir William Henry Kerr, K.G.,
afterwards fourth Marquis of Lothian and a general in
1770: distinguished at Fontenoy and Culloden).
„ „ Earl of Harrington (William, second earl, a general in
1770).
„ „ James Abercromby (a general in 1772).
„ „ Earl of Albemarle (Sir George Keppel, K.G., third Earl
of Albemarle, and brother of the famous Admiral
Keppel. He was aide-de-camp to the Duke of Cumberland
at Fontenoy, and was commander-in-chief at the
reduction of the Havannah).
„ „ Francis Leighton (second son of Sir Edward Leighton,
Bart.).
„ „ Lord Robert Manners (son of John, second Duke of
Rutland, and a general in 1772).
Major-General Edward Carr (a lieut.-general in 1760).
„ „ Earl of Effingham (Thomas Howard, second earl, and
deputy earl marshal; a lieut.-general in 1760).
„ „ Lord Robert Bertie (who had behaved so kindly to
Admiral Byng at his trial; son of Robert, first Duke
of Ancaster; in 1777 a general).
„ „ Julius Cæsar (who, while with the allied army in
Germany, died from a fall from his horse in 1762).
Charles Gould, deputy judge-advocate (afterwards, in 1771,
judge-advocate and a knight and baronet, ancestor of
Lord Tredegar).
The charge against Lord George was:—“That he, being a lieutenant-general
in His Majesty’s army in Germany, under the command of Prince Ferdinand
of Brunswick, and being by his instructions (which were read in court)
directed to obey the orders of the said Prince Ferdinand, did
notwithstanding, on August 1, 1759, disobey the orders that were sent to
him by his Serene Highness.”
The deputy judge-advocate, Mr. Gould, in a short speech, explained the
nature of the charge, and observed that by his lordship’s not advancing
with the cavalry, agreeably to repeated orders sent him by three
aides-de-camp, a signal opportunity was left of ruining the French army,
and the cavalry were thereby prevented from gathering the laurels which
the infantry had prepared.
The evidence which bore most upon the charge was as follows:
Captain Winchenrode, Prince Ferdinand’s Prussian aide-de-camp, deposed
that he was sent early in the morning with orders from the Prince to
Lord George Sackville to march to the left with the cavalry, in order to
sustain the infantry. At the end of the second line he saw Lord Granby,
of whom he inquired where Lord George was, saying that he was going with
orders to him. His lordship answered, “At the head of the first line,”
where, accordingly, the deponent found him. He delivered to him the
Prince’s orders, in French, and afterwards repeated them in French; upon
which his lordship said he did not understand them, and asked him twice
how it was to be done. The deponent then told him, in English, that he
was to march to the left through a little wood (to which he pointed),
after which he would come on a heath, where he was to form, and from
thence he might see our infantry. After this, the deponent left him.
Being asked, at the desire of Lord George, whether it did not seem, by
our dispositions, that the enemy’s cavalry were expected to have been on
their flanks, and their infantry in their centre, he replied that he
knew nothing of that, nor could pretend to form a judgment either of
their dispositions or ours; all he knew was, that he was sent with
orders to his lordship.
Lieutenant-Colonel Ligonier (brother of the famous General John Earl
Ligonier) deposed that he carried orders from the Prince to Lord George,
to march to the left with the cavalry, in order to sustain the infantry
and to form a third line behind them on the plain. He delivered them
accordingly to his lordship, and told him that he was to march to the
left through the wood. Lord George asked him who was to be their guide,
and if he would undertake to lead the line. He answered, that he could
not promise, but would endeavour to do his best. His lordship then
ordered swords to be drawn, and bid them march; and soon after came up
Colonel Fitzroy, with orders from the Prince to march up immediately
with the British cavalry. On which Lord George, turning to the deponent,
said, “Sir, your orders disagree.” He replied, “Only in numbers, my
lord, but their destination is the same; that is, to the left.” Soon
after his lordship and Colonel Fitzroy rode away together.
Being asked, at Lord George’s desire, if he did not insist on his orders
being obeyed, he answered, “Yes,” peremptorily.
Lieutenant-Colonel Fitzroy deposed that the reason of his being sent to
Lord George was, that the Duke of Richmond had been reconnoitering, and
having observed to the Prince that the enemy’s cavalry were in disorder,
he said, “Voici le beau moment pour la cavalerie,” and bid the deponent
go with orders to Lord George Sackville, to march up as fast as possible
with the British cavalry. He delivered them, accordingly, when his
lordship bid him repeat them, and speak slowly and distinctly. He did
so, when his lordship told him that his orders disagreed with those just
brought him by Colonel Ligonier, and added, that the Prince could never
intend to break the line. He insisted on his having been exact in
delivering the orders just as he received them. On which Lord George
said he would go to the Prince himself, and away they went together.
Being asked “What pace?” answered, “A half-gallop,” but that soon after
they set out, Lord George, stopping to speak to Captain Smith, his
aide-de-camp, the deponent then pushed on full gallop, and got to the
Prince time enough to make his report before his lordship came up. When
he told his highness that Lord George was coming himself, he expressed
his surprise strongly, not by words, but actions. What passed between
the Prince and Lord George, he did not hear. Being asked if he carried
afterwards an order to Lord George Granby, he answered, yes, and the
occasion of it was this: he was with the prince at Captain Philips’s
battery, when his highness, seeing the enemy’s cavalry in great
disorder, said that he thought our cavalry might, even then, be of
service. On which the deponent asked if he should go and fetch them. His
highness replied, “Yes, make haste, and deliver the order to Lord
Granby, for I know he will obey me.” He went accordingly, and delivered
the order, as directed, to Lord Granby, whose wing, he observed, was
farther advanced than the other, which his lordship also mentioned to
him. He asked the deponent why he did not deliver his orders to Lord
George Sackville. He replied, that as Lord George had disobeyed a former
order which he carried, he had now the Prince’s direction to deliver
this order to him (Lord Granby)—upon which his lordship immediately put
the second line in motion. Being asked, by Lord George, whether he had
ever reconnoitered the wood, and whether it was close or open, he
replied, that he looked at it as he passed through, and the part through
which he went was very open; and, as to the breadth, two squadrons might
march in front. Being asked whether, if our infantry had been broken by
the enemy, the consequence would not have been very fatal, he replied,
“Undoubtedly, as the action was on a plain, and there were no cavalry to
cover them while they rallied.”
Lieut.-Colonel Sloper (of Bland’s Dragoons) deposed that on August 1,
about four in the morning, Captain Pentz came to his tent, with orders
from the Prince for the men to mount; he added, “In order for action.”
The deponent himself went round the regiment, and found the men lying
down in their tents, booted, and the horses saddled, as they had been
ever since one o’clock, by an order issued the night before. In about
half an hour after they were drawn out, Lord George Sackville came to
the head of Bland’s, where the deponent was, and bid them march. They
had not gone far before Captain Winchenrode, Prince Ferdinand’s
aide-de-camp, came up and told his lordship, in French, that it was the
Prince’s orders that he should march to the left and sustain the
infantry on the plain. He repeated it in French. Lord George replied,
“Mais comment, mais comment?” The captain then said, in English, waving
his hand, that he was to march through those trees (that was his
expression), on the left, and then he would come on a heath, where he
would see our infantry and the enemy. Winchenrode then went away, and
Lord George, saying that he could not understand the orders, the
deponent said that it was clear to him that this was to be done by the
left of the right wing of cavalry. For about a quarter of an hour after
this he did not see his lordship, and they still remained where they
were; till at last Lord George came up, and said to him, “Colonel, move
your regiment.” He replied, “To the left, my lord?” His lordship
answered, “No, straight forward.” Soon after Colonel Ligonier came to
Lord George, with orders from the Prince to march immediately with the
cavalry to sustain the infantry on the plain. (The deponent then desired
to know if he must inform the court what he said to Colonel Ligonier,
and being told, if it related to Lord George, he must, he then
proceeded.) The deponent then said to Colonel Ligonier, “For God’s sake,
sir, repeat your orders, that that man (meaning Lord George Sackville)
may not pretend he does not understand them, for it is now near half an
hour since we received orders to march, and yet we are still here. [He
was sorry (he said) that his oath obliged him to mention what he also
added.] For you see, sir, the condition he is in.” Colonel Fitzroy then
came up, but what he said to Lord George he did not hear, only his
lordship then, turning to Colonel Ligonier, said, “Sir, your orders are
contradictory.” He replied, “In numbers only; not in destination.” Soon
after his lordship and Colonel Fitzroy rode away together, and in about
a quarter of an hour more the cavalry moved.
Being asked to explain what he meant by those words, “You see, sir, the
condition he is in,” he replied, that his lordship seemed to him to be
greatly alarmed; that when he gave him the orders to march the regiment,
he was in the utmost confusion, as appeared by his ordering them to
march straightforward, when the original orders were to go to the left;
Colonel Ligonier’s orders were to go to the left; and when the cavalry
did move, it moved to the left.
Prince Ferdinand’s Prussian aide-camp deposed that, on Lord George’s not
bringing up the cavalry on Colonel Fitzroy’s order, the prince, being
very impatient, directed him to go and hasten Lord George. That on his
way, Colonel Fitzroy passed him at a distance, and soon after he saw his
lordship coming himself. On which he hastened back to inform his
highness that Lord George was coming to take his orders from his own
mouth, rather than from him; but that before he could speak, the prince
cried out, “What, will he not obey me?”
The Marquis of Granby (a celebrated commander, son of John, third Duke
of Portland, and ancestor of the present duke) deposed to the same
effect as Captain Winchenrode in regard to his seeing him both in going
and returning from Lord George Sackville.
Lord George Sackville made an eloquent speech in his own behalf on the
nature of the evidence that had been brought against him. The substance
of the defence was as follows:—That orders were given the night before
the battle for the troops to be in readiness at one the next morning;
the horses of the cavalry to be then saddled, but not to strike tents or
march till further orders; that these orders having been frequently
given for a fortnight before, were not alone sufficient to apprise Lord
George of an engagement next morning; that the first notice that Lord
George, Lord Granby, and other general officers had of an attack was
from the firing of cannon between five and six; that Lord George
immediately rose, being waked by the sound, and rode from the village
where he was quartered to the head of the cavalry, which was then
mounted, and he was there before any other general officer of the
division; that he marched them, although no orders to march had yet
reached him, toward a windmill in front; that when he had advanced a
considerable distance, he received an order to halt and wait till he
should receive further orders; that while he remained on or near the
ground, the artillery had also marched from its ground, though neither
had received any orders; and Lord George, imagining that orders to the
artillery had been forgotten in the hurry usual upon a surprise, he
ordered it to advance in front, where it was of signal service. That
Captain Winchenrode soon after brought him an order to form a line as a
third line to support the infantry, and advance; that he said nothing
about going to the left, between trees, or coming out upon a heath, nor
told him where the infantry to be sustained were to be found, but only
repeated his orders twice in French, which Lord George requested him to
do, not from any difficulty he found in comprehending the general
intention of them, but because they were at first expressed indistinctly
through hurry. That Lord George supposing that to advance was to go
forward, immediately began to execute these orders, by sending an
officer to a Saxe Gotha regiment of foot that obstructed his way in
front, to cause it to remove out of his way, thinking it better so to do
than to cause our artillery, which obstructed the only other way he
could have advanced, to halt, dispatching at the same time a second
officer where the infantry he was to sustain was posted, and a third to
reconnoitre the situation of the enemy. That while this was doing,
Colonel Ligonier came up with an order to advance with the cavalry, in
order to profit of a disorder which appeared in the cavalry of the
enemy; and that neither did he mention, or at least was not heard to
mention, any movement to the left. That the Saxe Gotha regiment being by
this time removed from the front, Lord George, in obedience to the
concurrent orders of Captain Winchenrode and Colonel Ligonier, as he
understood them, and as they were understood by his witnesses, ordered
the troops to advance straight forward. That this could not be more than
eight minutes after he received the order that had been brought by
Captain Winchenrode, because Captain Winchenrode, as he was riding back
from Lord George, met Colonel Fitzroy riding to him very fast; and when
Colonel Fitzroy arrived, the troops were in motion. That it appears from
all the witnesses that they could not be put in motion in much less than
eight minutes, as five minutes were given even by the witnesses for the
prosecution for the Saxe Gotha regiment to remove out of the way. That
almost immediately after the troops were in motion, Colonel Fitzroy came
up and brought the first orders he heard for moving to the left, at the
same time limiting the movement to the British cavalry. That then, being
in doubt what to do, he halted; the order that arrived last, by Colonel
Fitzroy, not superseding the former by Colonel Ligonier; as Lord George
and those about him understood, both from Fitzroy and Ligonier, that
they brought the same order, having received it at the same time, and
brought it at different times by having taken different routes. That not
being able to agree, each earnestly pressing the execution of his own
orders, Lord George took the resolution to go to the prince, who was not
far distant. That Colonel Ligonier went forward, and that as Lord George
was riding on with Colonel Fitzroy, he perceived the wood on the left
more open than he had thought it, which inclined him to think it
possible the prince might have ordered him to the left; and Colonel
Fitzroy still vehemently pressing the execution of the order he brought,
he sent Captain Smith with orders for the British cavalry to move to the
left; the motion to the left and the limitation of the movement to the
British being connected in the same order, and both peculiar to that
brought by Colonel Fitzroy. That by this means scarcely any delay was
made, even by the difference of the orders brought by the two
aides-de-camp, Captain Smith not having advanced above two hundred yards
beyond the left of the British cavalry; the time, therefore, could only
be what he took up in galloping twice that space. That this period
included all the time in which Lord George is supposed to have disobeyed
orders by an unnecessary delay.
Numerous witnesses were called in support of this statement—viz.,
Lieut.-Colonel Hotham, Captain Smith and Captain Lloyd, Lord George’s
aides-de-camp, Lieut.-Colonel Preston of the Greys, Captain William,
R.A., Captain McBean of the train, Captain Hugo, Lord George’s German
aide-de-camp, Captain Brome, R.A., and the Rev. Mr. Hotham, chaplain to
the staff. Their evidence bore out the defence, and among their
testimony the most important was that of Lieut.-Colonel Hotham and
Captain Smith.
Lieut.-Colonel Hotham deposed that the orders which he received on July
29, for generals to reconnoitre the overtures leading from the camp to
the plains of Minden, and on the 31st, for the horses to be saddled,
&c., at one the next morning, were communicated to, and obeyed by, his
lordship, and that such orders as the last had been frequently issued
during the fortnight before. Being asked (as were all the following
witnesses) if he perceived any difference in Lord George’s looks or
behaviour that day, from what was usual, he answered (as did the rest),
“None in the least.”
Captain Smith deposed that he and Colonel Watson reconnoitered the
overtures by his lordship’s orders, on the 30th; and that Lord George
himself went as far as he could, consistent with his picquet-duty, being
lieutenant-general of the day. That by orders from the prince, the
cavalry were first formed into squadrons, and then into line. That while
they were forming he was on a rising ground, from whence he observed,
that by the time four or five squadrons were formed, Lord George marched
them, which occasioned disorder in the rear, they not being able to keep
up, which he went and informed his lordship of, who upon that made them
halt; and he (the deponent) returned to his post. That soon after they
moved again, when a Hanoverian officer, whom he knew, came up to him,
and said that they marched so fast in front that they could not keep up,
and that their horses would be blown, &c., which the deponent went again
and told Lord George of, who then said that he would halt no more, but
that he would march slow, and that then the rear, when it was formed,
might soon overtake him, but desired them not to hurry. That the place
where they were forming the line, he observed, was not wide enough, but
riding forward, he observed that there was room enough a little farther,
which he mentioned to his lordship, who then ordered them to move on,
and the line was soon well formed. And that, as to alteration in his
lordship’s looks or behaviour that day, he was sure there was none; and
that he would have gone to death if it had been needful.
The court-martial pronounced the following sentence:
“This court, upon due consideration of the whole matter before them, is
of opinion that Lord George Sackville is guilty of having disobeyed the
orders of Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, whom he was by his commission
and instructions directed to obey, as commander-in-chief, according to
the rules of war; and it is the farther opinion of the court, that the
said Lord George Sackville is, and he is hereby adjudged, unfit to serve
His Majesty in any military capacity whatever.”
This sentence George II. confirmed to its fullest extent, and caused it
to be directed in the “Gazette,” “that the above sentence should be
given out in public orders, so that officers being convinced that
neither high birth nor great employments could shelter offences of such
a nature; and that seeing they were subject to censures much worse than
death, to a man who had any sense of honour, they might avoid the fatal
consequence arising from disobedience of orders.”
Further, at a court at St. James’s, the 25th day of April, 1760, George
II., in council, called for the council book, and ordered the name of
Lord George Sackville to be struck out of the list of privy councillors.
Horace Walpole, in a letter to Sir Horace Mann, dated 26th March, 1810,
thus refers to the sentence and treatment of Lord George:—
“The history of Lord George Sackville, which has interested us so much
and so long, is at last at an end—gently enough, considering who were
his parties and what has been proved.... I think this is not the last we
shall hear of him. Whatever were his deficiencies in the day of battle,
he had at least showed no want of spirit, either on pushing on his trial
or during it. His judgment in both was perhaps a little more equivocal.
He had a formal message that he must abide the event whatever it should
be. He accepted that issue, and during the course of the examination
attacked judge, prosecutor, and evidence. Indeed, a man cannot be said
to want spirit who could show so much in his circumstances.... But he is
a peculiar man; and I repeat it, we have not heard the last of him. You
will find that by _serving the king_ he understands in a very literal
sense; and there is a young gentleman who, it is believed, intends these
words shall _not_ have a more extensive one.”
Horace Walpole was a true prophet in his anticipations. Lord George
outlived his disgrace, and rose to high position and power again. For
some years subsequent to his trial he lived in obscurity, during which
period a piece of good fortune happened to him. Lady Elizabeth Germain,
a well-known personage in those days, and a correspondent of Dean Swift,
the daughter of Charles, second Earl Berkeley, and widow of Sir John
Germain, Bart., of Drayton, Northamptonshire, died in 1769, and left the
property her husband left her to Lord George Sackville, who consequently
assumed the surname of Germain. In a few years after that George III.
restored him to favour and to his seat in the Privy Council, and he was,
in Lord North’s Administration, appointed American Secretary of State,
and, as such, strongly evinced his hostility to American independence.
He held office from 1755 to 1782, when, on retiring, he was created in
the latter year Baron Bolebrooke and Viscount Sackville. His promotion
to the peerage caused a violent debate in the House of Lords on a motion
of disapproval “of the introduction into the House of a person
stigmatised in the orderly book of every regiment in the service.” The
motion was rejected by a majority of sixty-five, and Viscount Sackville
lived on peaceably, and died on the 26th May, 1785, at Stoneland Lodge,
Sussex.
His lordship, it would appear, was an eloquent writer: the “Gentleman’s
Magazine” for 1785, in commenting on his death, says:—
“The late Lord Sackville, who was a gentleman of extraordinary talent,
wrote a beautiful eulogy on the late Princess of Orange, but which never
graced the press. The genius, learning, and exalted virtue of the
princess were the theme of his lordship’s all-powerful pen. The above
noble lord and his illustrious relation, Lady Betty Germain, had the art
of painting in words to a very eminent degree, and which afforded the
finest ornaments in either poetry, history, or elocution. The very
animated and beautiful imagery of Cicero, in which he paints the cruelty
of Verres, is spoken of with rapture by her ladyship in some of her
letters. It is in a letter to the above lady that Dean Swift styled
Ireland ‘the Isle of Saints,’ from the many very pious and eminent men
it produced; it was also, he said, the school of wisdom and the seat of
knowledge.”
Lord Sackville’s honours were inherited by his eldest son Charles,
second Viscount Sackville, who eventually became fifth and last Duke of
Dorset. The only child and heiress of the first Viscount Sackville’s
second son, George, is the present Mrs. Caroline Harriet Stafford, of
Drayton House, county Northampton, a seat formerly the property of her
grandfather, the Lord George of this narrative, whose representative
this lady now is.
The dukedom of Dorset is extinct, but one of the baronies belonging to
the family, that of Buckhurst, was, on the 27th of April, 1864, revived
by new patent of creation in favour of Elizabeth, present Countess
Delawarr, daughter and heiress of John Frederick, third Duke of Dorset,
with limitations to her younger sons and their issue male. Thus, oddly,
a descendant of the General Lord Delawarr who sat on the court-martial
of Lord George Sackville, may be bearing a title which belonged to Lord
George’s own ducal line.