President, Sir Thomas Pye, Kt., admiral of the white; Mathew Buckle,
vice-admiral of the red; John Montagu, vice-admiral of the red; Mariot
Arbuthnot, rear-admiral of the white; Robert Roddam, rear-admiral of the
white; Captains Mark Milbank (afterwards an admiral), Francis Samuel
Drake (afterwards an admiral and a baronet), Taylor Penny, John Moutray,
William Bennet, Adam Duncan (afterwards an admiral and a viscount, the
hero of Camperdown), Philip Boteler, and James Cranston.
Pursuant to the Admiralty order, the court adjourned to the house of the
Governor of Portsmouth, and there the trial was held.
Keppel appeared before the court attended by a galaxy of friends; among
them were some of the most illustrious personages in the kingdom, viz.,
the Dukes of Cumberland, Richmond, and Bolton; the Marquis of
Rockingham, the Earls of Effingham and Albemarle, Edmund Burke, Charles
James Fox, and Richard Brinsley Sheridan. Keppel’s counsel was
Erskine—the Hon. Thomas Erskine, the future Lord Chancellor, then in the
first year of his call to the bar, and already becoming famous as an
advocate.
The proceedings commenced by the President desiring the Judge-Advocate,
Sir Charles Gould, to read the charge, which was as follows:
“A charge of Misconduct and Neglect of Duty against the Honourable
Admiral Keppel, on the 27th and 28th of July, 1778, in divers instances
undermentioned.
“I. That on the morning of the 27th of July, 1778, having a fleet of
thirty ships of the line under his command, and being then in the
presence of a French fleet of the like number of ships of the line, the
said admiral did not make the necessary preparations for fight, did not
put his fleet into a line of battle, or into any order proper either for
receiving or attacking an enemy of such force; but, on the contrary,
although his fleet was already dispersed and in disorder, he, by making
the signal for several ships of the vice-admiral of the blue’s division
to chase to windward, increased the disorder of that part of the fleet,
and the ships were, in consequence, more scattered than they had been
before; and whilst in this disorder, he advanced to the enemy, and made
the signal for battle.
“That the above conduct was the more unaccountable, as the enemy’s fleet
was not then in disorder, nor beaten, nor flying, but formed in a
regular line of battle, on that tack which approached the British fleet
(all their notions plainly indicating a design to give battle), and they
edged down and attacked it whilst in disorder. By this unofficer-like
conduct a general engagement was not brought on, but the other
flag-officers and captains were left to engage without order or
regularity, from whence great confusion ensued; some of his ships were
prevented getting into action at all, others were not near enough to the
enemy, and some from the confusion, fired into others of the king’s
ships, and did them considerable damage; and the vice-admiral of the
blue was left alone to engage singly and unsupported. In these instances
the said Admiral Keppel negligently performed the duty imposed upon him.
“II. That after the van and centre divisions of the British fleet passed
the rear of the enemy, the admiral did not immediately tack and double
upon the enemy with those two divisions, and continue the battle; nor
did he collect them together at that time, and keep so near the enemy as
to be in readiness to renew the battle as soon as it might be proper;
but, on the contrary, he stood away beyond the enemy to a great
distance, before he wore to stand towards them again, leaving the
vice-admiral of the blue engaged with the enemy, and exposed to be cut
off.
“III. That after the vice-admiral of the blue had passed the last of the
enemy’s ships, and immediately wore and laid his own ship’s head towards
the enemy again, being then in their wake, and at a little distance
only, and expecting the admiral to advance with all the ships to renew
the fight, the admiral did not advance for that purpose, but shortened
sail, hauled down the signal for battle; nor did he at that time, or at
any other time, whilst standing towards the enemy, call the ships
together, in order to renew the attack, as he might have done;
particularly the vice-admiral of the red, and his division, which had
received the least damage, had been the longest out of action, were
ready and fit to renew it, were then to windward, and could have bore
down and fetched any part of the French fleet, if the signal for battle
had not been hauled down, or if the said Admiral Keppel had availed
himself of the signal appointed by the thirty-first article of the
fighting instructions, by which he might have ordered those to lead who
are to lead with the starboard tacks on board by a wind, which signal
was applicable to the occasion for renewing the engagement with
advantage after the French fleet had been beaten, their line broken, and
in disorder. In these instances he did not do the utmost in his power to
tack, sink, burn, or destroy the French fleet that had attacked the
British fleet.
“IV. That instead of advancing to renew the engagement, as in the
preceding articles is alleged, and as he might and ought to have done,
the admiral wore and made sail directly from the enemy, and thus he led
the whole British fleet away from them, which gave them the opportunity
to rally unmolested, and to form again into a line of battle, and to
stand after the British fleet: this was disgraceful to the British flag,
for it had the appearance of a flight, and gave the French admiral a
pretence to claim the victory, and to publish to the world that the
British fleet ran away, and that he pursued it with the fleet of France,
and offered it battle.
“V. That on the morning of the 28th of July, 1778, when it was perceived
that only three of the French fleet remained near the British, in the
situation the whole had been in the night before, and that the rest were
to leeward, at a greater distance, not in a line of battle, but in a
heap, the admiral did not cause the fleet to pursue the flying enemy,
nor even to chase the three ships that fled after the rest; but, on the
contrary, he led the British fleet another way, directly from the enemy.
“By these instances of misconduct and neglect a glorious opportunity was
lost of doing a most essential service to the State, and the honour of
the British navy was tarnished.”
The trial lasted thirty-two days, and the evidence was very extensive
and very minute; but, after all was heard, it left the affair much as
stated by Mr. Yonge in his account of it. The following incidents from
the testimony adduced may be read with interest.
_Captain Marshall_, of the _Arethusa_ frigate, the first witness called,
stated in answer to the question, whether Admiral Keppel conducted
himself unbecoming a flag-officer; “No, as God is my judge!”
_Captain Sir William Chaloner Burnaby_, Bart., of the _Milford_, in his
evidence, informed the court, that when he first perceived the French
fleet, the afternoon of the 23rd, they were to eastward of our fleet,
nearly a-head, or rather leeward, standing towards us, and appearing to
be in great disorder; that, the _Milford_ having received orders from
the admiral to reconnoitre the enemy, he made towards them. That at half
past four he tacked and stood towards the _Victory_, the French fleet
nearly then beginning to form a line a-head, seeming to direct their
course to leeward of our fleet, and very little from the wind. About
half past eight o’clock the British admiral made signal for the fleet to
bring to, and, to the best of his recollection, it continued in that
situation all night. Upon further interrogations it appeared from Sir
William that the French fleet were all that day forming in line of
battle; that on the 25th and 26th the weather was squally, with fresh
gales, that occasioned such a northwest swell as is usual with such
winds; that they kept the weather-gauge of us all the time, generally
observing their line of battle, and rather gained upon our fleet,
sometimes carrying a pressing sail, at other times under an easy sail,
for the better perfecting their line of battle; and that during all that
time, had they been ever so much disposed to attack our fleet, they
could not have done it without disadvantage, as they could not, without
risk, fight their lee lower-deck guns, whilst we could fight our weather
lower-deck guns. Sir William was cross-examined by Admiral Keppel as to
the vice-admiral’s situation and conduct after the engagement; when it
appeared, that from the natural superiority of the _Victory_ over the
_Formidable_ in sailing, and the damage the latter had sustained, Sir
Hugh Palliser could not accompany the admiral; but that he did not see
him make any signal of his disability.
In the course of the admiral’s questions to Sir William he asked, did I
not pursue with a press of sail, conformable to my worst sailing ships,
to close and get up, until the moment I brought them to battle, except
the two times after the 24th that I made the signal for the line? Sir
Hugh objected to this as a leading question.
_Admiral Keppel_: “I desire I may not be interrupted by the accuser. I
am trying for my life, and for my honour, which is dearer, and I hope
for the protection of the court.” Soon after he said, “I would have
fired at the French if they had not fired at me.” Sir William Burnaby
concluded by saying, Admiral Keppel always pressed sail, and gave every
proof of a great desire of bringing the French to battle.
_Captain Digby_, of the _Ramillies_, was called: Sir Hugh Palliser began
to interrogate him with regard to the business of the 23rd, when Admiral
Keppel begged the Court to take notice, that, for the purpose of
shortening, if possible, the length to which he saw the trial would
necessarily extend, if they still went over the same ground, and
questions were repeatedly asked which he had admitted, he again told
them that he admitted that the French fleet put themselves into order of
battle when we discovered them. When Captain Digby mentioned, that from
squally weather there was a swelling sea, and was asked whether the
ships could then fight their lower-deck guns; he said, he could not have
fought all his.
_Admiral Montagu_: In both articles of the charge, Admiral Keppel is
charged with running away from the French fleet. Did you that day see
him run away from them, instead of advancing to renew the engagement, as
he might and ought to have done, which are the words expressed in the
charge?
The charge was then read, and an objection started by Sir Hugh Palliser
to the question, as contrary to law. Upon which several members of the
court-martial said, “We do not care sixpence in this case for the law;
we are come here to do justice, and hope, in God’s name, it will be
done.”
_Admiral Montagu_: If Admiral Keppel ran away, Captain Digby did so too;
and I suppose every part of the fleet followed their leader. Did you
that day run away from the French fleet?—No.
_Captain Hood_, of the _Robuste_, was called upon and examined. _Admiral
Arbuthnot_ asked him if the admiral had thought fit to have renewed the
attack when the French line was broke, could you have obeyed his signal
and gone down to the enemy in the condition you were in?—I could not.
_Admiral Montagu_: From their relative situation, as you have described
them, do you think the British admiral was running away from the
enemy?—At that time there was no appearance of a flight.
Did the admiral run away any other time?—There was nothing in his
conduct at any time which indicated, in the most distant manner, a
flight. In the morning he pursued them.
_Captain Allen_, of the _Egmont_, was called, and he was finally put
these questions. Sir, was it not more proper and prudent in the admiral
to lay to, and repair his disabled ships before he renewed the attack,
than to have returned to the engagement immediately?—Assuredly it was.
Then, sir, upon the whole did it appear to you, as an old experienced
officer, that Admiral Keppel did by his conduct, either on the 27th or
28th of July, tarnish the honour of the British navy?—No; and I should
not take upon me to say thus much, if I had not been forty years at sea,
and three-and-thirty years an officer. I look upon it, the admiral did
much honour to, instead of tarnishing, the British navy.
One circumstance showed very strongly the animus of Sir Hugh Palliser.
It was discovered in the course of the trial, that some leaves had been
taken out of the log book of the _Formidable_, containing the work of
the 26th, 27th and 28th July, and the master of the _Formidable_ was
required to attend to explain.
Now such a witness should not be interfered with before coming to court
by the prosecutor; yet that Sir Hugh Palliser did so interfere, appears
by the following incident. _Vice-admiral Palliser_ to the President:
Sir, the cutting leaves out of the _Formidable’s_ log-book, is a fact of
which I was totally ignorant, until it was perceived by a member of this
court; nor could any person be more astonished at it than myself. It is
my most anxious wish to have this matter fully investigated; and, for
that purpose, I have ordered the master of the _Formidable_, and the
mate who made the entries, to attend here this morning; and, that they
may be more strictly interrogated upon the matter, I desire that they
may be examined by the court and Admiral Keppel, without any previous
question from me.
_Mr. Forfar_, the master of the _Formidable_, being then called and
sworn, and his former oath read to him, respecting the originality of
the log-book, Admiral Keppel observed, that his reason for wishing to
trouble the court the preceding day, when he requested the master of the
_Formidable_ might be immediately interrogated respecting that
alteration, was to prevent any intermediate communication between him
and others upon that subject; he, therefore, desired to know who was the
person who first acquainted him, that the court had discovered any
extraordinary circumstance relating to the book; and whether, and with
whom, he had any conversation on that subject before the rising of the
court the evening before? The witness answered, that he had heard a
woman mention it to another in a shop where he had been; that it was
between one and two o’clock, at that time, and he immediately came to
the witnesses’ room that he might be ready to attend the court if he
should be called; that in his way, he met the master of the
_Foudroyant_, who told him he thought he would be wanted on that
business; that he spoke to no other person till he came into witnesses’
room, where he saw Captain Walsingham, who told him he supposed he was
come about the log-book; that he had no other conversation about it,
till after the court broke up, when he conversed upon it with Captain
Bazeley, at his lodgings, next door to the vice-admiral’s; shortly after
which he went to Sir Hugh Palliser’s house.
Sir Hugh Palliser here observed, that in order to save the court
trouble, he readily admitted that he had not only conversed with the
witness before on the subject, but had interrogated him very strictly
indeed on the subject. The master of the _Formidable_ then made a very
lame explanation as to the cutting out of the leaves in question.
The evidence being concluded for the prosecution, Admiral Keppel
addressed the court in his defence, in a speech, in the composition of
which he is said to have been assisted by his illustrious friend, Edmund
Burke. Keppel spoke as follows:—
SIR,—After forty years spent in the service of my country, little did I
think of being brought to a court-martial to answer charges of
misconduct, negligence in the performance of duty, and tarnishing the
honour of the British navy. These charges, sir, have been advanced by my
accuser. Whether he has succeeded in proving them or not, the court will
determine. Before he brought me to trial, it would have been candid in
him to have given vent to his thoughts, and not, by a deceptions show of
kindness, to lead me into the mistake of supposing a friend in the man
who was my enemy in his heart, and was shortly to be my accuser. Yet,
sir, after all my misconduct; after so much negligence in the
performance of my duty; and after tarnishing so deeply the honour of the
British navy, my accuser made no scruple to sail a second time with that
man who had been the betrayer of his country. Nay, during the time that
we were on shore, he corresponded on terms of friendship, and even in
his letters he approved of what had been done, of the part which he now
condemns, and of the very negligent misconduct which has since been so
offensive in his eyes!
Such behaviour, sir, on the part of my accuser, gave me little reason to
apprehend an accusation from him. Nor had I any reason to suppose that
the State would criminate me. When I returned, His Majesty received me
with the greatest applause. Even the first lord of the Admiralty gave
his flattering testimony to the rectitude of my conduct, and seemed with
vast sincerity to applaud my zeal for the service. Yet, in the moment of
approbation, it seems as if a scheme was concerting against my life;
for, without any previous notice, five articles of a charge were
exhibited against me by Sir Hugh Palliser, who, most unfortunately for
his cause, lay himself under an imputation of disobedience of orders at
the very time when he accused me of negligence. This, to be sure, was a
very ingenious mode of getting the start of me. An accusation exhibited
against a commander-in-chief might draw off the public opinion from
neglect of duty in an inferior officer. I could almost wish, in pity to
my accuser, that appearances were not so strong against him. Before the
trial commenced, I actually thought that my accuser might have some
tolerable reason for his conduct. But from the evidence even as adduced
to account for the behaviour of the honourable gentleman in the
afternoon of the 27th of July; from that evidence, I say, sir, I find
that I was mistaken. The trial has left my accuser without excuse, and
he now cuts that sort of figure which I trust in God all accusers of
innocence will exhibit!
I have observed, sir, that the opinions of officers of different ranks
have been taken. I trust that the court will indulge me in the liberty
in the evidence for my defence. Some have refused to give their
opinions. I thought it strange, as plain speaking and a full declaration
are the best of evidences in a good cause.
I would wish, sir, the court to consider that in all great naval, as
well as military operations, unless the design be fully known, the
several manœuvres may have a strange appearance. Masters have been
called to give their opinions on the higher departments of command.
Higher authorities should have been taken. Such authorities are not
scarce; for I am happy to say, there never was a country served by naval
officers of more bravery, skill and gallantry, than England can boast at
present. As to this court, I entreat you, gentlemen, who compose it, to
recollect that you sit here as a court of honour, as well as a court of
justice, and I now stand before you not merely to save my life, but for
a purpose of infinitely greater moment—to clear my fame.
My accuser, sir, has been not a little mistaken in his notions of the
duty of a commander-in-chief, or he never would have accused me in the
manner he has done. During action, subordinate officers either are, or
they ought to be, too attentive to their own duty to observe the
manœuvres of others. In general engagements, it is scarcely possible for
the same objects to appear in the same point of view to the commanders
of two different ships. The point of sight may be different. Clouds of
smoke may obstruct the view. Hence will arise the difference in the
opinions of officers as to this or that manœuvre, without any
intentional partiality. Whether I have conceived objects in exact
correspondence with the truth—whether I have viewed them unskilfully (or
as my accuser has been pleased to term it, unofficer-like), these are
matters which remain to be determined. I can only say, that what Sir
Hugh Palliser has imputed to me as negligence, was the effect of
deliberation and choice. I will add, that I was not confined in my
powers when I sailed; I had ample discretion to act as I thought proper
for the defence of the kingdom. I manœuvred; I fought; I returned; I did
my best. If my abilities were not equal to the task, I have the
consolation to think that I did not solicit, nor did I bargain for the
command. More than two years ago, in the month of November, 1776, I
received a letter from the first lord of the marine department, wherein
he observed, that, owing to motions of foreign courts, it might be
necessary to prepare a fleet of observation. My reply to this letter
was, That I was ready to receive any command from his majesty, and I
begged to have the honour of an audience. This request was complied
with. I was closetted, and I told the king I was willing to serve him as
long as my health would permit. I heard no more till the month of March
1778, at which time I had two or three audiences, and I told his majesty
that I had no acquaintance with his ministers, but I trusted to his
protection and zeal for the public good. Here were no sinister views; no
paltry gratifications; I had nothing—I felt nothing, but an earnest
desire to serve my country. I even accepted the command in chief with
reluctance. I was apprehensive of not being supported at home. I foresaw
that the higher the command, the more liable was I to be ruined in my
reputation. Even my misfortunes, if I had any, might be construed into
crimes. During forty years’ service, I have not received any particular
mark of favour from the crown. I have only been honoured with the
confidence of my sovereign in times of public danger. Neither my
deficiencies, nor my misconduct, were ever before brought forward to the
public. And it is now somewhat strange, that so well acquainted as my
accuser must have been with my deficient abilities, it is strange, I
say, sir, that he should be the very person who brought me the message
to take the command upon me! Nay, further, sir, he brought that message
with great seeming pleasure! There was, or there was not, reason at that
time to doubt my ability. If there was reason, how could my accuser wish
me to accept a command for which I was disqualified? If there was not
any reason to doubt my professional abilities sixteen months ago, I have
given no reason why they should since be called in question. When I
returned from the expedition, I did not complain of anything. I
endeavoured to stop all murmurings. I even trusted the first lord of the
Admiralty in the same manner as I would have done my most intimate
friend. This might be imprudent—it might be dangerous; but, sir, I am by
nature open and unguarded, and little did I expect that traps would be
artfully laid to endeavour to catch me on the authority of my own words.
It was in the month of March, 1778, that I was told a fleet lay ready
for me to command. When I reached Portsmouth, I saw six ships ready,
and, on viewing even those with a seaman’s eye, I was not by any means
pleased with their condition. Before I quitted Portsmouth, four or five
more were ready, and I will do the persons in office the justice to say,
that from that time they used their utmost diligence in getting the
fleet ready for service.
On the 20th of June, I sailed with twenty ships of the line, and very
fortunately I fell in with the _Belle Poule_, and other French frigates,
and the letters and papers found on board them were of material service
to the state. Captain Marshall distinguished himself with the greatest
honour. I confess that when I fell in with those frigates, I was at a
loss how to act. On the one hand, I conceived the incident to be
favourable to my country; and, on the other, I was fearful that a war
with France and all its consequences might be laid to my charge. For
anything I can tell, this may be the case. It may be treasured up to
furnish another matter for future accusation. To this hour I have
neither received official approbation, nor censure for my conduct. With
twenty ships of the line I sailed. Thirty-two ships of the line lay in
Brest water, besides an incredible number of frigates. Was I to seek an
engagement with a superior force? I never did, nor shall I ever fear to
engage a force superior to the one I then commanded, or that I may
hereafter command. But I well knew what men and ships can do; and, if
the fleet I commanded had been destroyed, we must have left the French
masters of the sea. To refit a fleet requires time. From the situation
of affairs, naval stores are not very soon supplied. Never did I
experience so deep a melancholy as when I found myself forced to turn my
back on France! I quitted my station, and my courage was never put to so
severe a trial.
I was permitted to sail a second time, without receiving official praise
or blame for the part I had acted. These were discouraging
circumstances. But they did not disturb my temper. My principal object
was to get ready for sea with all possible haste. I was surprised on my
return to be threatened with the fate of Admiral Byng, and I was still
more surprised to be charged with cowardice.
With thirty ships of the line I sailed early in July. The French admiral
sailed from Brest with thirty-two ships. I believe that, when the fleets
came in sight of each other, the French were not a little surprised to
see me so strong. I desire not to throw the slightest imputation on the
courage of the French admiral. I believe him to be a brave man, and one
who had some particular reasons for the line of conduct he pursued. I
was determined, if possible, to bring the French to battle, as I had
every reason to think that their having avoided an engagement, when it
was for four days in their power to attack me, was owing to their
expecting some capital reinforcements. I therefore thought that the
sooner I could engage them the better, especially as I knew that the
principal fleets of our trade were daily expected in the channel, and if
the French fleets had been permitted to disperse without an action, our
East and West India fleets might have been intercepted, the convoys
might have been cut off, and the stake of England might have been lost.
I beg leave to mention, that in the reign of King William, the gallant
Admiral Russell was two months in sight of a French fleet, and he could
not possibly bring them to action. My being in sight of the French fleet
four days before the engagement will not, therefore, appear quite so
extraordinary as it has been represented. Had it not been for the
favourable change of wind on the morning of the 27th of July, I could
not have brought the French to action when I did.
I am exceedingly sorry, sir, that the Admiralty have refused me the
liberty of producing my instructions. In all former courts’-martial the
instructions and orders have been sent with the charge to the members of
the Court. As it has been denied in this instance, I must, and do,
submit.
Although on the 27th of July I fought and beat my enemy, and compelled
him to take shelter by returning into port, yet the effect did by no
means answer my wishes. I rushed on to re-attack my enemy. Why I did not
accomplish my design will be seen in the evidence I shall produce. I
might, it is true, have chased the three ships which were visible on the
morning of the 28th of July, but with very little prospect of success.
I, therefore, chose to return to Plymouth with my shattered fleet, to
get ready for sea again, not, however, forgetting to leave two ships of
the line to cruize for the protection of our trading fleets, which,
thank God! all arrived safe.
On my return, sir, I most cautiously avoided to utter a syllable of
complaint, because it might have suspended our naval operations, which
at that time would have been highly dangerous. I could not think of
attending to a court-martial when greater objects were in view.
With respect to the second edition of the _Formidable’s_ log-book, it
appears to have been fabricated rather for the purpose of exculpating
the prosecutor than to criminate me. I shall, therefore, pass it over,
and permit the gentleman to make the most of such an exculpation. I
cannot, however, be so civil to the alterations and additions in the
log-book of the _Robust_. Captain Hood’s conduct must have struck the
court, as I believe it did every person, except the prosecutor, with
astonishment.
A great stress, sir, has been laid on my letter to the Admiralty. There
is a passage in it where I seemed to approve the conduct of every
officer in the fleet. The court will observe, that I was not in my
letter to inform all Europe, that a vice-admiral, under my command, had
been guilty of neglect, whilst there remained a possibility of excuse
for his conduct. As to courts-martial, one very bad consequence will, I
am sure, result from this trial; it will terrify a commander-in-chief
from accepting a commission, if he should be liable to be brought to
trial by every subordinate officer.
“As I have touched on my letters, I will just observe, sir, that the
most disagreeable task that I ever experienced was that of writing my
letter of the 30th of July. However, if I wrote ill, I am confident that
I fought well, and the destruction of the trade of France was evident
from the number of rich captures which were made, a number far exceeding
anything ever known in so short a period! His Majesty noticed this in a
speech from the throne....”
The admiral then proceeded to reply seriatim and in detail to the five
articles against him, and having concluded, called his witnesses, who
established his complete exculpation, if, indeed, there could have been
anything to explain or clear in his conduct. Among these witnesses was
the Vice-Admiral Sir Robert Harland; and Captain Jervis, the future hero
of St. Vincent, who emphatically said, “I cannot boast of a long
acquaintance with Admiral Keppel; I never had the honour to serve under
him before, but am happy in this opportunity to declare to the court,
and to all the world, that, during the whole time the English navy was
in sight of the French fleet, he displayed the greatest naval skill and
ability, and the boldest enterprise, on the 27th of July, which, with
the promptitude and obedience of the Vice-Admiral Sir Robert Harland,
will be subjects for my admiration and imitation as long as I live.”
The proceedings of the court-martial concluded on February 11, 1779, by
an honourable acquittal of Admiral Keppel; the court unanimously
deciding that the charge exhibited against him was malicious and
ill-founded; it having appeared that the admiral, so far from having, by
misconduct and neglect of duty on the days alluded to, lost an
opportunity of rendering an essential service to the State, and thereby
tarnishing the honour of the British navy, behaved himself as became a
judicious, brave, and experienced officer.
The court did, therefore, unanimously and honourably acquit Admiral
Augustus Keppel of the several articles contained in the charge
exhibited against him, and he was fully and honourably acquitted
accordingly.
The President, on the acquittal being announced, addressed himself to
the admiral in the following words, delivering to him his sword at the
same time:—
“ADMIRAL KEPPEL, it is no small pleasure to me to receive the commands
of the court I have the honour to preside at, that in delivering to you
your sword I am to congratulate you on its being restored to you with so
much honour, hoping ere long you will be called forth by your sovereign
to show it once more in the defence of your country.”
The concourse of people that surrounded the court was immense. As soon
as the sentence was pronounced an exclamation of joy burst forth in
repeated peals, which was immediately communicated to the crowd without,
and soon became general throughout the town and the whole nation by
general illuminations.
In the “Gentleman’s Magazine” for Feb. 1779, the following paragraphs
show the great sensation created by the acquittal:—
“Thursday, Feb. 11.—About eleven o’clock at night, the news having
arrived of the acquittal of Admiral Keppel, a riotous mob, to testify
their zeal on the occasion, suddenly assembled, and did a great deal of
mischief, by breaking the windows of those houses that were not
illuminated, and entering the houses, and destroying the furniture of
some gentlemen, against whom the popular cry had been raised,
particularly of Lord North, Lord Germaine, Lord Mulgrave, Sir Hugh
Palliser, Captain Hood, and some others; but on the appearance of the
military, and some of the leaders being apprehended, they dispersed,
without attempting to rescue those who were in custody.
“Friday, Feb. 12.—At a Court of Common Council held at Guildhall, a
motion was made, and unanimously agreed to, That the thanks of the court
be given to the Hon. Augustus Keppel for his spirited conduct during the
action of the 27th of July last, for the protection given by him to
trade, &c., &c.
“Another motion was at the same time made, That the freedom of the city
be presented to Admiral Keppel, in a box made of heart of oak, richly
ornamented, and embellished with gold, &c., which motion was likewise
agreed to.
“Sunday, Feb. 14.—Admiral Keppel’s flag was hoisted on board the
_Victory_ at Spithead.
“Thursday, Feb. 18.—Admiral Keppel received the thanks of the House of
Commons. He also received the thanks of the House of Lords then sitting.
“Friday, Feb. 19.—Admiral Keppel attended the levee at St. James’s, and
was graciously received by His Majesty.
“Saturday, Feb. 20.—Admiral Keppel dined, by invitation, at the London
Tavern. His carriage was drawn by sailors through the city, and the
illuminations were more general in the evening than ever was known.”
The trial of Sir Hugh Palliser by court-martial seemed a necessary
consequence of the acquittal of Keppel. Palliser was accordingly tried
at a court-martial held on board the _Sandwich_ at Portsmouth. The
investigation lasted from April 12 to May 5, 1779, and the result was,
that though the court blamed Palliser for not having made known to his
commander how the _Formidable_ had been so crippled by an explosion,
that Admiral Keppel’s signals could not be attended to, yet the court
found that Sir Hugh’s conduct had been in many respects highly exemplary
and meritorious, and in general terms acquitted him. Despite of this,
the popular feeling ran strongly against Sir Hugh Palliser, and though a
brave and experienced officer, he never found favour with the public
again. He resigned, in 1779, his seat in the House of Commons, his
appointment as a lord of the Admiralty, and all his other official
employments. He, however, eventually became Governor of Greenwich
Hospital, and an admiral of the White. He died at Greenwich the 19th
March, 1796.
Admiral Keppel remained a popular man to the day of his death. The
admiral, when the party of the Marquess of Rockingham came into power,
in 1782, was made first lord of the Admiralty, and a privy councillor;
and, on the 22nd April, 1782, he was created Viscount Keppel of Elvedon,
in the county of Suffolk. He continued, with a slight intermission,
first lord of the Admiralty till 1784, when, soon after, he retired into
private life, where his constant amiability and unaffected cheerfulness
won him to the last the affection and cordial attentions of all around
him. He died of gout in the stomach on the 2nd October, 1786, at his
seat, Elden Hall, Suffolk, and, as he was never married, his peerage
expired with him; but the noble family to which he belonged still
flourishes high in rank and well-merited reputation. The admiral’s grand
nephew is now head and representative of the house, as sixth Earl of
Albemarle.
Edmund Burke, in his famous “Letter to a Noble Lord,” thus refers to
Admiral Keppel:
“No man lives too long, who lives to do with spirit, and suffer with
resignation, what Providence pleases to command, or inflict; but,
indeed, they are sharp incommodities which beset old age. It was but the
other day that, on putting in order some things which had been brought
here on my taking leave of London for ever, I looked over a number of
fine portraits, most of them of persons now dead, but whose society, in
my better days, made this (Beaconsfield) a proud and happy place. Among
these was the picture of Lord Keppel. It was painted by an artist worthy
of the subject (Sir Joshua Reynolds), the excellent friend of that
excellent man from their earliest youth, and a common friend of us both,
with whom we lived for many years without a moment of coldness, of
peevishness, of jealousy, or of jar, to the day of our final separation.
I ever looked on Lord Keppel as one of the greatest and best men of his
age; and I loved and cultivated him accordingly. He was much in my
heart, and I believe I was in his, to the very last beat. It was at his
trial at Portsmouth that he gave me this picture. With what zeal and
anxious affection I attended him through that his agony of glory, what
part my son took in the early flush and enthusiasm of his virtue, and
the pious passion with which he attached himself to all my connections;
with what prodigality we both squandered ourselves in courting almost
every sort of enmity for his sake, I believe he felt, just as I should
have felt such friendship on such an occasion. I partook, indeed, of
this honour, with several of the first, and best, and ablest in the
kingdom, but I was behindhand with none of them; and I am sure that if,
to the eternal disgrace of this nation, and to the total annihilation of
every trace of honour and virtue in it, things had taken a different
turn from what they did, I should have attended him to the quarterdeck
with no less good will and more pride, though with far other feelings,
than I partook in the general flow of national joy that attended the
justice that was done to his virtue. Pardon, my lord, the feeble
garrulity of age, which loves to diffuse itself in discourse of the
departed great. At my years we live in retrospect alone; and, wholly
unfitted for the society of vigorous life, we enjoy, the best balm to
all wounds, the consolation of friendship, in those only whom we have
lost for ever.”