Mackesy P. The War for America, 1775-1783
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
page_234
file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_234.html[1/17/2011 2:26:33 PM]
< previous page page_234 next page >
Page 234
and overrunning Georgia with a force of regulars and loyalists, and had repeatedly put this to Clinton. But he had
been opposed by his military commander, Prevost, and the ill-feeling which had long existed between Governor
and General ran still higher. Clinton now cut short the argument; for on 10 October he received Germain's August
letter urging the importance of Georgia, and responded by ordering the reinforcement already destined for East
Florida to act offensively towards Savannah. Characteristically he covered himself with a prediction that as soon as
Washington knew he had been reduced to the defensive at New York, the Americans could send a force to the
south which might recover all that the British gained.1
The force for East Florida and Georgia consisted of nearly 3,000 rank and file fit for duty.2 Like the Pensacola
force it consisted largely of Germans and Provincials, since the St Lucia expedition had taken British regiments;
but the commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Archibald Campbell, had his own two-battalion regiment, the Seventy-first
Highlanders. On 29 December he landed near Savannah. Guided by a negro he groped his way through the
swamps, and surprised and routed a rebel force. Soon the whole of Georgia was cleared; and this vigorous
highlander could claim to be 'the first officer . . .to take a stripe and star from the rebel flag of Congress'.3
1 CO 3/96, f. 174.
2 There are discrepancies in the returns.
3 Carlisle, 413.
< previous page page_234 next page >
page_235
file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_235.html[1/17/2011 2:26:33 PM]
< previous page page_235 next page >
Page 235
PART THREE
THE BOURBON ALLIANCE 1779
< previous page page_235 next page >
page_237
file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_237.html[1/17/2011 2:26:34 PM]
< previous page page_237 next page >
Page 237
Chapter XIII
The Cracks in the Foundations
1
The Keppel Affair
The conquest of St Lucia brought to a close the phase whose foundations the Cabinet had laid in March 1778 on
the breach with France. Considering how long England's war preparations had been delayed, the balance was not
unfavourable. She had more than held her own in home waters. In North America Pennsylvania had been
evacuated without loss, the strategic flanks in Florida, Nova Scotia and Quebec had been strengthened, and
Georgia had been recovered. In the West Indies the loss of Dominica had been balanced by the conquest of the
strategically more valuable St Lucia. Above all, the year had provided a vital breathing space. If the Spanish navy
had intervened, disaster might have followed in the Channel or the Caribbean. But Spain held back, as she had
done in 1756. By the autumn of 1778 the mobilisation was well advanced, and the navy was in sight of re-
establishing its ascendancy over France.
To the Ministers and the country the account did not appear so favourable as the autumn closed in. The loss of
Dominica was a shaking revelation of the military weakness in the Leeward Islands; and the forces from New York
had not yet sailed to redress the balance. Not till February 1779 were the fall of St Lucia and the conquest of
Georgia known. Long before then Spanish intentions had begun to cast their shadow over the future. And for the
Ministry there were more immediate embarrassments at home.
For the past year the defection of the commanders in America had been a mounting embarrassment. Carleton had
confined his feud with Germain to a personal level, and the Howes had held their hand for the moment. The first
political explosion was detonated by Burgoyne, who came home on parole and left his army at the mercy of a
Convention which his indiscretions had given Congress a specious cause to repudiate. He landed at Portsmouth in
May, 1778, while Byron's squadron lay at Spithead waiting for news of the Toulon fleet. He was unlikely to be
retained in the Ministerial interest, in view of his contention that his disaster was caused by the inflexibility of his
orders, and his friend Fox apparently settled the matter by hiring a carriage and hurrying down to meet him on the
road from Portsmouth. In the Seven Years War Burgoyne might well have been court-martialled and disgraced.
But he was popular and well connected, and with passions running high in the House over the escape of d'Estaing,
and the
< previous page page_237 next page >
page_238
file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_238.html[1/17/2011 2:26:34 PM]
< previous page page_238 next page >
Page 238
country gentlemen out of humour with the Irish Trade Bills, the political scene did not invite the government to
handle him roughly. His welcome, however, was not calculated to conciliate him. In self-defence Germain had
produced the papers which showed how far the Saratoga plan was Burgoyne's own.1 On the General's arrival at his
office he gave him friendly reception, but informed him that as an officer whose conduct was under enquiry, he
was excluded from Court. A Board of General Officers was assembled at once, but reported that the enquiry must
be deferred, since Burgoyne was a prisoner on parole and might be recalled at any time by Congress. Within a few
days Burgoyne was assailing Germain's role in his disaster, and the Ministry's supineness in the face of France.
The occasion was seized by the Opposition to provoke Germain. Temple Luttrell compared Burgoyne's conduct
favourably with that of the American Secretary, who he said had been promoted for disobedience and cowardice.
Two years earlier Germain had sat quiet under a similar shower of Luttrell insults; but now he started up in a rage,
and denounced him as an assassin of the most wretched character and malice. 'Old as I am', he continued, 'and
young as is the hon. member, I will meet that fighting gentleman and be revenged.' There was an immediate uproar
and two hours of confusion. Germain retracted, but Luttrell had to be ordered into custody before the two men
would satisfy the House with an apology.2
Against Burgoyne retaliation was prompt but ineffective. A letter from the Secretary at War ordered him back to
rejoin his troops in America as a prisoner of war as soon as his health was re-established. He did not go, and for a
year and a half no steps were taken to force him although his health was good. In October 1779 the Secretary at
War wrote to reproach him with disobedience and neglect of duty; on which Burgoyne replied that it was useless
for him to surrender himself, that he demanded a court-martial, and wished to resign all his military appointments
except the rank which entitled him to trial. Amherst had always been reluctant to rouse passions by treating him
harshly; and even now he hesitated to accept his resignation. The letter was referred to the King, who was revolted
by 'so Attorney-like an epistle' and insisted that it should be noticed. Burgoyne was deprived of his regiment and
his governorship of Fort William, leaving him only his pay and the hope of future favours from the Opposition.3
1 See above, p. 152.
2Parl. Hist., XIX, 1199; Walpole, Last Journals, II, 34, 180.
3 On the behaviour and treatment of Burgoyne, see Sandwich, II, 45; Wraxall Memoirs, II, 2934; Knox, 277;
Long, Amherst, 24852; Add. MSS. 38210, ff. 628; Add. MSS. 38212, ff. 1447, 155, 175; Add. MSS. 38383,
draft speech by Jenkinson; G 27945; Hutchinson Diaries, II, 210; and Parl. Hist., passim.. Valentine devotes a
chapter to the subject.
< previous page page_238 next page >
page_239
file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_239.html[1/17/2011 2:26:34 PM]
< previous page page_239 next page >
Page 239
Burgoyne was a light-weight and his case was weak. More extensive was the trouble brewing in the navy as a
result of the summer's operations. When the Channel fleet returned to port at the end of October, Admiral Palliser
found an attack in an Opposition newspaper on his conduct at the battle of Ushant. The bare facts are that when
Keppel had tried to reform his line and renew the battle, Palliser had not conformed with the order to wear his
ships. He commanded the most damaged division; and his own flagship had been reduced to confusion by an
explosion and was visibly in no condition to manoeuvre. From accounts of the battle one very able officer who had
not been present formed the impression that the masts and rigging of the British fleet had been so damaged that it
lay at the enemy's mercy after the first exchange of fire1; and Palliser always maintained that Keppel's intention of
re-engaging that day was mere pretence.
Keppel and Palliser had been friends since they had returned from America together in 1756, though there had
been jealousy on Keppel's part when Palliser was appointed Lieutenant-General of Marines. It was Palliser who
had brought Keppel the invitation to command the Channel fleet, who had promoted his reconciliation with
Sandwich, and who had smoothed the relations between the two men in the early weeks of the campaign.2 But
Palliser took strong exception to the newspaper article, which he attributed to friends of his Commander-in-Chief.
He wrote at once to Keppel demanding his signature to a contradiction and a statement that he had not intended to
re-engage till the following day. Keppel made no answer. Palliser called on him in person, and after an angry
altercation he published his own version of the battle in the ministerialist Morning Post. The quarrel shifted to
Parliament; and on 11 December Palliser suddenly produced charges against his Commander-in-Chief and
demanded that he should be brought to trial. The same day the Admiralty informed Keppel that he would be court-
martialled.3
The very haste of the Board had an indecent air, though Sandwich pleaded the need to act while witnesses were
still in England. The Opposition maintained that the First Lord could have stopped the whole affair by rejecting the
charges, though the Crown lawyers and the members of the Board argued with conviction that it was not open to
the Admiralty to reject a charge by a high-ranking officer. Yet there were peculiarities in the case. Keppel, a
political opponent of the Ministry, had had two members of the Board of Admiralty in his fleet; Palliser had
continued to serve under
1 ''Tis plain to me that our fleet after that action, for all the first part of the afternoon, was at the mercy of
the French' (Kempenfelt). (Barham, I, 291).
2 Sandwich, II, 88, 110.
3 A balanced account of the affair is J. H. Broomfield's in Mariner's Mirror, 1961.
< previous page page_239 next page >
page_240
file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_240.html[1/17/2011 2:26:35 PM]
< previous page page_240 next page >
Page 240
him for five months before he charged him; and the circumstances suggested malice. Palliser denied on his honour
that he had had collusion from the Board; but in the circumstances it was important that there should be no
suggestion of a plot against Keppel.
Palliser's reply to the anonymous newspaper attack and his charges against Keppel were a calamitous error of
judgment. Yet there is another side to the case. For Palliser had believed from the first that Keppel intended to fix
the blame on him for the failure to renew the attack: so much so that when the fleet put to sea again he left a paper
in his bureau for the First Lord in case he should be killed and his memory aspersed.1 Though Keppel had
commended Palliser's conduct in his official despatch, he had sent his flag captain to tell Sandwich that he had
private matters to communicate; and his young protégé Lieutenant Berkeley whispered it about that Palliser had
disobeyed Keppel's order to come up with the French again.2 Palliser believed that in private conversation Keppel
had contradicted his public despatch; and Keppel's refusal to contradict the press attack confirmed his suspicion
that a plot for his ruin had been formed on the day of battle. Ill-health may have nourished his suspicions; for like
Keppel himself he had been in pain throughout the operations, and came in to Spithead ill and exhausted.
On the first day of the new session of Parliament Lord Bristol had demanded an enquiry and declared that in view
of Palliser's newspaper attack Keppel would never serve with him again. A few days later a Commons debate on
the Navy Estimates brought the two admirals into personal collision. Pressed by Temple Luttrell, Keppel confessed
that Palliser had shown 'no want of what was most essential in a British seaman courage'; and proceeded to say that
he would never sail with him again unless the newspaper article was explained. Palliser complained that Keppel
gave the appearance of withholding something; and Keppel rose again to say that the signal for coming into his
flagship's wake had flown for five hours unobeyed. Luttrell attempted to move for an address for the trial of
Palliser, and renewed the motion a week later on the day when Keppel had been charged.3
Palliser now stood under the shadow of an oblique accusation. For some days he waited for Keppel to prefer a
charge against him; but Keppel seemed intent on ruining his reputation without a trial. And in a campaign of
slander the Commander-in-Chief enjoyed overwhelming advantages.
1 Sandwich, II, 198, 218.
2 Walpole, Last Journals, II, 309; G 2460. Berkeley, who became an Admiral and seventeenth Baron Berkeley,
was an Opposition politician. He was a lieutenant in the Victory in the battle, and Keppel afterwards promoted
him to command a fireship.
3Parl. Hist., XIX, 1300, 13806.
< previous page page_240 next page >
page_240-0
file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_240-0.html[1/17/2011 2:26:35 PM]
< previous page page_240-0 next page >
LORD GEORGE GERMAIN
Engraving of 1780 after Romney
< previous page page_240-0 next page >
page_240-1
file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_240-1.html[1/17/2011 2:26:36 PM]
< previous page page_240-1 next page >
GIBRALTARA STRATEGIC MAGNET
View of the grand attack of 1782, from the Spanish lines
< previous page page_240-1 next page >
page_241
file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_241.html[1/17/2011 2:26:37 PM]
< previous page page_241 next page >
Page 241
Palliser was the son of an obscure Yorkshire army officer. By merit alone he had risen to flag rank and a
baronetcy; and he lacked the advantages of education, deportment and polish.1 His hard-won reputation was now
threatened by the noble house of Albemarle and its extensive connections. Keppel had started on the ladder with
every advantage, and quick promotion had come to him as of right. He was three years younger than Palliser, but
had got his flag thirteen years earlier; nor was he ashamed to press this advantage, for it was on rank that he had
grounded his objection to Palliser's Lieutenant-Generalcy of Marines. Behind him stood the menacing ranks of the
aristocracy. With reason Palliser might think that his only defence was to strike back and bring the matter into the
open.
Sandwich had shared Palliser's suspicions of the Opposition faction in the Channel fleet.2 Hitherto he had stood
fast against an enquiry, recalling the mischief done by the Mathews-Lestock affair in 1744; and in the House of
Lords he had described the conduct of both admirals as gallant and able.3 He had had no intention of making
Keppel an unofficial scapegoat; but a formal charge was a different matter. The delayed charge, and the charging
of a senior by a junior, were justified by precedents: in the Austrian War Admiral Knowles's captains had accused
him more than a year after his battle off Cuba, when they discovered that he had censured them in public and
private letters. Yet twelve admirals now petitioned the King that the charge was destructive of discipline: 'It will
not be easy for men attentive to their honour to serve your Majesty, particularly in situations of principal
command.' This protest was organised by two Opposition admirals, Lord Bristol and the Duke of Bolton. The aged
and infirm Lord Hawke was induced to head the list; and among those who signed Samuel Graves had refused at
first and afterwards apologised to Sandwich. Some may have recalled how Hawke had twenty years earlier been
superseded in the command of the Channel fleet for 'a high breach of discipline'; and how the Duke of Bolton had
accused his senior officer Admiral Griffin. But the petitioners' aim was not to further justice: it was to create
prejudice.4
The trial opened at Portsmouth in January 1779, in circumstances which the Opposition exploited to the utmost.
Because of Keppel's poor health Parliament had passed a bill enabling it to be held on shore, which allowed the
Rockingham party to fill the courtroom with a claque headed by the great leaders. The Ministry was to pay not
only for Sandwich's error in allowing the trial, but for their predecessors' wicked execution of Byng;
1 Wraxall, I, 385; Sandwich, I, xvi.
2 G 2403, 2460.
3Parl. Hist., XIX, 1298, 1302.
4 Sandwich, II, 213; Pack, Anson, 21617; Walpole, Last Journals, II, 324; Williams Transcripts, 22 June 1780,
Palliser's observations.
16
< previous page page_241 next page >
page_242
file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_242.html[1/17/2011 2:26:37 PM]
< previous page page_242 next page >
Page 242
for the charges against Keppel were capital, and while the navy rallied against the sacrifice of a second scapegoat,
the politicians whipped up sentiment for a man ostensibly on trial for his life.
It was a highly charged courtroom over which Admiral Pye presided. The passions beneath the smooth surface of
eighteenth century life welled up. Tears were shed, witnesses were hissed, the Deity was invoked. The court made
no pretence of fairness, and Admiral Montagu's bias was so glaring that Walpole thought Palliser should have
refused to proceed before such partial judges.1 Palliser was hampered at every turn in conducting his case. His
flag-captain giving evidence was threatened by Keppel, and Palliser censured for asking the court to protect him.
Witnesses were required to give their opinion of the charges as though they were judges; and after repeated
refusals to hear Palliser, the court in acquitting Keppel passed a sort of judgment on the accuser by describing the
charges as 'malicious and ill-founded'.
Violent demonstrations followed the verdict. The London mob forced householders to illuminate for Keppel's
'victory': a victory which the Opposition was forced to claim, though it had been won by Sandwich's fleet. Even
Ministers put candles in their windows to save their glass. Palliser's house in Pall Mall was gutted. In the early
morning Fox and Burgoyne's Stanley relations left their bottle at Almack's and led the mob to smash Germain's
windows, and thence to the Admiralty, where the gates were unhinged and the windows broken. Society joined the
celebrations of the mob with illuminations, processions and balls. And while Lord North's carpets were strewn
with broken glass, Thurlow and Amherst celebrated the acquittal.
Palliser's career was finished. The Opposition shed crocodile tears at the prospect of his conviction and execution,
but Keppel still wisely refused to charge him. The King wanted to dismiss him at once to forestall a parliamentary
petition, and found some support in the Cabinet though North pointed out that it might prejudice his defence if he
were brought to trial. But Sandwich stood loyally by his old friend, and forced a compromise. He went down with
Robinson to meet Palliser as he returned from his place of refuge when the disorders had ended, and persuaded
him to resign. On 21 February Palliser resigned his Lieutenant-Generalcy of Marines, his governorship of
Scarborough, and his seat in Parliament. Fox had demanded that he should be deprived of his rank, adding that like
Germain he could still have a court-martial.2
1 Walpole, Last Journals, II, 343; Hutchinson Diaries, II, 243. Montagu was surprised when he was
immediately removed from the Newfoundland command. In spite of his applications he was never re-
employed.
2 G 2539, 2540, 2542, 254750; Walpole, Last Journals, II, 350.
< previous page page_242 next page >