Mackesy P. The War for America, 1775-1783

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

page_291

file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_291.html[1/17/2011 2:27:01 PM]

< previous page page_291 next page >

Page 291

moment's notice. Amherst's reply to Sandwich's demand for troops at Torbay sums up the situation with bluntness

and force:

Your Lordship must know as well as I do that the number of bays and length of the coast will not admit of

defences being made to prevent an enemy from landing, and if they were, your Lordship likewise knows the

number of troops will not afford a sufficiency for guarding those defences, besides there are other bays

nearer the capital, as likely for an enemy to land in, and it is necessary to consider the whole.1

Amherst was confident that if invasion came the people would fly to their country's defence. The Lords-Lieutenant

and magistrates were ordered to make arrangements for 'driving the country' in the path of the enemy, and for

collecting all able-bodied men at the sound of church bells to dig entrenchments. The Duke of Richmond, who was

Lord-Lieutenant of the vital county of Sussex, gave a characteristic display of wrong-headed scruples about these

measures; but his attitude did not reflect the tone of the country as a whole. Patriotism was as evident as in other

crises. Volunteer companies sprang up everywhere. At Plymouth the gentry greeted the enemy by raising a force to

march the prisoners of war inland, and the Cornish gentry sent miners to work on the fortifications. From the

behaviour of all classes on the arrival of the Combined Fleets, Amherst felt hopeful2 that the national resources

could beat off any attack.

A different picture has usually been painted, of a panic-stricken population and defenceless ports. It was said by

the Opposition, and has been repeated, that the enemy rode within twelve hours of Plymouth for a fortnight, while

the batteries guarding the harbour were incapable of resistance for lack of ammunition, gunners and equipment.

The source of most of these tales was the garrison commander. While the Governor of Portsmouth put the best face

on his difficulties and prepared to do his utmost, the Governor of Plymouth, Lord Waldegrave, was sulking in

London because he had been passed over for Commander-in-Chief. Thus the organisation of the defence was left

in the hands of three unco-ordinated authorities, the Port Admiral Lord Shuldham, the dockyard commissioner

Ourry, and the garrison commander Sir David Lindsay.3

Lindsay had revealed himself to Amherst as 'diffident from the beginning',

1 WO 34/115, f. 116; WO 34/118, f. 61; WO 34/231, pp. 190, 2546; WO 34/232, p. 448.

2 WO 34/231, pp. 2546. Hutchinson lamented the general apathy, but he was in London, where he was unlikely

to receive a faithful picture.

3 For the troubles at Plymouth see Patterson, Chaps. VIII, X; J. C. Long, Amherst, 2648; Sandwich, III, 6483;

G 27523; WO 34/116, ff. 218 et seq; Malmesbury Letters, I, 422, 427, 429.

< previous page page_291 next page >

page_292

file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_292.html[1/17/2011 2:27:01 PM]

< previous page page_292 next page >

Page 292

and would probably have been removed before the crisis but for his connection with Lord Mansfield. He had

pestered the Commander-in-Chief for written instructions on the defence of the dockyards, and had talked of

disowning responsibility unless the fortifications were strengthened and reinforcements sent. On 10 August he had

gone so far as to refuse to give any orders for the defence of the harbour without Amherst's express approval. And

still he was not replaced.

When the enemy appeared, there was consternation among the towns-people of Plymouth. The thud of gunfire as a

ship of the line ran by mistake into the enemy fleet, followed by the sight of the enemy standing in towards the

Sound, was enough to send the shopkeepers and their families scurrying inland. The town with its 4,800 troops and

weak fortifications was certainly vulnerable to an attack on the landward side, if the enemy could land a force at

Torbay which was strong enough to make the long march and force the many deep defiles on the road; but it was

not vulnerable to a coup de main by a fleet. Ships could not come within bombarding range of the dockyard till the

batteries in the Sound had been silenced by landing parties; and this Amherst had made arrangements to prevent.

He had been down at the beginning of July to give the directions which Lindsay demanded, and had ordered the

only possible landing places to be blocked with trees and defended by concealed infantry and masked cannon. With

three battalions to hold the western shore of the Sound, there was little likelihood that the enemy could land a force

capable of seizing the batteries.

So at least thought Sandwich and Middleton; and at Plymouth Admiral Shuldham agreed. But Commissioner

Ourry and General Lindsay saw it in a different light. When the enemy stood in towards the Sound, they were

convinced that the dockyard would be in Bourbon hands in a matter of hours, and Ourry talked of setting fire to it

before the enemy did. He suspended all work in the yards, banded his artificers into companies as the Admiralty

had suggested to Shuldham, and demanded the rank of Colonel.1 A floating boom was built across the harbour

with the agreement of Lindsay and Shuldham.

In London, where heads were cooler, these activities caused much dismay. Sandwich was horrified at the thought

that Ourry might burn the dockyard; and he shared Middleton's fear that if the Commissioner's military activities

continued indefinitely work would cease in the yards. Hard though the Navy Board was pressed, a Commissioner

was spared for Plymouth to restrain Ourry's enthusiasm. When he arrived the enemy had gone, and he ordered

some labourers back to the yards. On 26 August Shuldham con-

1 On 15 July the Admiralty had ordered Shuldham in consequence of a letter from Amherst, to train the

artificers in military exercises and co-operate in the defence of the dockyard (Adm. 2/107).

< previous page page_292 next page >

page_293

file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_293.html[1/17/2011 2:27:02 PM]

< previous page page_293 next page >

Page 293

ferred with Lindsay, and withdrew the 200 seamen he had lent to man the batteries. At this Lindsay exploded.

Though Shuldham promised to restore the gunners if the enemy returned, the General wrote a violent protest at the

withdrawal of seamen and artificers. He declared that if they were not restored he would wash his hands of the

defence of the place beyond what concerned the troops, and asked to be placed under another general.

It was now plain that Lindsay must go. Amherst and the King did what should have been done before, and

obtained Mansfield's approval for Lindsay's exchange with the commander of the north-western district at White-

haven. But Lindsay refused the exchange, denied that he had intended to resign, and threw up his appointments. To

justify his stand he declared that he could not have fired a single gun without the co-operation of the

Commissioner and Admiral. He complained of his shortage of troops; but troops were short everywhere, and

always had been when England was engaged in serious fighting abroad. His successors were confident that they

could put up a stout defence; and the Chief Engineer declared that the batteries were admirably sited, equipped and

manned. But Lindsay spread reports that ammunition had been short, though the Ordnance officers at Plymouth

denied it; and in the following year he primed the Duke of Richmond for his attack on the state of the Plymouth

defences. Had the government had the confidence to break with Lindsay in time at the risk of offending Mansfield,

it is unlikely that he would have remained long enough in his command to do such mischief.

The End of the Affair

But though the danger at Plymouth was exaggerated and the Ministry knew it, it cannot be said that they were at

ease. The King's spirits soared at the prospect of a naval battle: 'Decision is the joy of my life.' But the Cabinet had

been completely surprised. The Ministers were outside London; and the fleet was outside the Channel. Hardy had

learnt of the enemy's presence on 17 August; but an easterly wind was driving him before it, and by the 25th he

was 100 miles beyond the Scillies.

'God grant that you may send me good news in the course of tomorrow', Germain wrote to Knox on the 17th. The

disgraced Palliser wrote to Sandwich pointing out the danger that with the easterly wind and Hardy so far to the

west the enemy army might make its crossing. He begged the First Lord to take the advice of reliable sea officers,

and send frigates off the invasion ports to intercept the transports. This was taken in hand, and on the 23rd Captain

Brisbane sailed from the Downs with a squadron of copper-bottomed frigates to scour the invasion coast from

Boulogne to

< previous page page_293 next page >

page_294

file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_294.html[1/17/2011 2:27:02 PM]

< previous page page_294 next page >

Page 294

Cherbourg, where he joined Sir Hyde Parker and the force from the Channel Islands.1

'No news of Sir Charles Hardy', the embittered Navy Board clerk Robert Gregson wrote to Shelburne. 'I am afraid

our fate is sealed . . . delivered up by a set of the most abandoned villains that ever disgraced a nation.' 'Nothing but

croaking', Shelburne wrote in the margin.2 And indeed if the Ministers and the frightened people of Plymouth

could have seen what was passing in d'Orvilliers' cabin in the Bretagne their minds would have been eased. For the

tide was on the turn, and the great armada which seemed to dominate the English coast had reached the limit of its

effort. Provisions were low, the sick in the French ships equalled the healthy, and so many dead were going

overboard that Devon gave up eating fish. Becalmed off Plymouth, and supposing the British fleet to be in harbour

up the Channel, d'Orvilliers was impatient to push on to the Isle of Wight and bring it to action while his own ships

were still capable of fighting. But a frigate arrived with orders which put a different light on his task. On 1 August

the Spanish Ambassador in Paris had despaired of executing the original plan after the long delays in concentrating

the fleets, and persuaded Vergennes to revert to an alternative which had been discussed when d'Orvilliers'

instructions were drawn up. Instead of seizing Portsmouth, d'Orvilliers was to land the army at Falmouth when he

had cleared the Channel of the enemy, and Marshal Vaux would then overrun and hold Cornwall as a bridgehead

through the winter. To enable the fleet to keep the sea through the autumn it would be revictualled by a convoy

from Brest.3

D'Orvilliers read the new orders with distaste. Instead of a safe anchorage at Spithead, he faced months of cruising

on a hostile lee shore, with water and provisions gone, and no real possibility of revictualling at sea whatever the

Ministry might hope. Only one chance to salvage the campaign remained: to bring the British fleet to battle and

release the French from the prospect of conducting a winter blockade of Plymouth and Portsmouth. The remaining

provisions were divided between the ships, extending the fleet's cruising time till the middle of September.

The wind which had driven Hardy beyond the Scillies was neutral; and on 17th August, as the alarm on shore rose

to its crescendo, the Combined Fleets weighed and ran before it. By the 20th they were fifty miles south-south-

west of the Lizard; and here d'Orvilliers wrote to the Minister suggesting the abandonment of the campaign till the

following year. But five days later, on 25 August, a passing vessel revealed that Hardy was not up the Channel

1 CL, Knox, 17 Aug.; Sandwich, III, 634, 73; Adm. 2/107, to Sir Hyde Parker.

2 CL, Shelburne, Vol. 146, No. 145.

3 Patterson, 150, 2056.

< previous page page_294 next page >

page_295

file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_295.html[1/17/2011 2:27:03 PM]

< previous page page_295 next page >

Page 295

but in the open sea to the westward. Here lay the last chance of success. A Council of War was summoned in the

flagship, and agreed that in view of disease and shortage of supplies the fleets should not re-enter the Channel but

seek battle with Hardy: in any event the cruise should end on 8 September and the fleets return to port.

It was on the day after this conference that the wind veered to the south and Hardy began to work his way back

towards the Channel. On the 29th he was off the Scillies in thick weather when one of his ships sighted the enemy.

They were seen again on the 30th, and on the 31st they sighted Hardy for the first time and gave chase. But by then

the British had worked far to the eastward, and the sluggards of the Combined Fleet, especially the Spanish ships,

prevented d'Orvilliers from closing. By the following morning Hardy was off the Eddystone and the enemy had

vanished, drawn away to the southward by a contact which turned out to be a fleet of Dutch Indiamen.

Hardy's despatch from the Eddystone was the first word of him which the Government had received since the

appearance of the enemy. 'I shall do my utmost to draw them up Channel', he wrote; and the Ministers were now

happy enough to see him come. They had had a fright, and were thankful to see their fleet inside the enemy and in

reach of shelter and reinforcements. Everyone assumed that a battle was inevitable; but even the King now wrote

of drawing the enemy towards the narrow waters of the Downs before engaging.1 Every ship that could swim was

pressed into service: the St Albans and Isis, just home from the West Indies and scarcely able to float; Arrogant,

listed as unfit for service; Blenheim, reported by Shuldham to be irreparably bad and unfit to leave the harbour;

and Amelia, which with the Blenheim had been refused by Keppel in the previous year. Arrogant, Blenheim, and St

Albans were all listed as unfit to weather a storm. But everything that could fire a gun was needed. In the first three

days of September six ships of the line joined the fleet, bringing its strength to forty-five.

August was out, and Hardy's ships were in immediate need of water. Darby's division which had been at sea since

the middle of May was particularly low. Most of the fleet had begun to use their ground tier of water casks, which

was only done in case of real necessity; and some ships had only a week's supply on board. The Admiralty's

promise to supply beer and water at sea was impracticable, for the fleet's consumption was 150 tons a day. It was

therefore absolutely necessary to come in to harbour. Sandwich would have preferred the fleet to remain at the

seaward anchorage of St Helen's on the Isle of Wight instead of coming up to Spithead, partly for the sake of

appearances and partly because Palliser and Mulgrave feared that it might be blockaded or attacked at anchor in

Spithead. But Hardy came

1 Sandwich, III, 62, 80, 867.

< previous page page_295 next page >

page_296

file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_296.html[1/17/2011 2:27:03 PM]

< previous page page_296 next page >

Page 296

boldly up to the inner anchorage; and Middleton and Kempenfelt thought he was right. The fleet could replenish

five times as fast at Spithead; and Kempenfelt saw no reason why it should not go out from there in line of battle if

the enemy appeared.1

The politicians' chief reason for preferring St Helen's was their fear of public opinion. Hardy's retreat up the

Channel, though fully justified, had created the image of a British fleet flying before the enemy; and the

withdrawal to Spithead did nothing to improve appearances. Though North and the King did justice to Hardy's

resolution in defying public clamour to speed the replenishment of his stores, all were anxious to see him away

again. Mulgrave suggested from Spithead that Sandwich might come down in person again; and with the King's

blessing he hustled off on the day after Hardy's arrival. His purpose was partly to discover the real state of the fleet

and speed its provisioning; but also, as he said himself, to enforce the Ministry's views without committing it to

any official correspondence at this critical moment. Thus for the third time in the campaign the First Lord sheltered

behind an unofficial communication: if the fleet put to sea before it was ready, or gave battle and suffered defeat,

no one should be able to say that Hardy had been forced to act against his better judgment. For all his ability

Jemmy Twitcher in a fright cannot have been much loved by his admirals.2

Sandwich reached Portsmouth at 9.30 on the morning of 5 September. Mulgrave was waiting for him at the

Commissioner's office, and they had a talk before Sandwich went out to see Hardy at Spithead. He found the

Commander-in-Chief apparently eager to get to sea, and was convinced by Kempenfelt of the necessity of coming

in to Spithead. The First Lord explained to Hardy 'many public and private reasons why he should not continue

here', and returned to Portsmouth determined to stay till he saw the fleet depart. The next two days were devoted to

the Victualling Office, whose operations Sandwich hoped he had quickened. He caught sight of several Opposition

politicians poking about and fishing for information. Perhaps, like Keppel, they saw in his activity 'the affected

appearance of despatch, with which the present First Lord of the Admiralty has so often covered his real neglect'.3

The spirit of the fleet seemed better than might have been expected from the feuds of the spring. Sandwich's

informants were mainly his own friends; but Captain Walsingham, who was regarded as a Keppelite, wrote to him

most warmly and declared that all party was laid aside. But, he added,

1 G 2759, 2762, 2763; Sandwich, III, 59, 61.

2 G 2759, 2764; Sandwich, III, 91, 96.

3 G 2763; Keppel, II, 338.

< previous page page_296 next page >

page_297

file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_297.html[1/17/2011 2:27:03 PM]

< previous page page_297 next page >

Page 297

'give us a man to command us that we have confidence in'. Here he put his finger on the trouble. There was little

wrong with the fleet that a strict and trusted commander could not have cured. 'The fleet', said Kempenfelt, 'wants

a sensible, active and strict officer at the head of it, to brace up relaxed discipline, to give alertness and activity to

it, in which consists the great part of its force. There is none of that ardour remains now that upon extraordinary

occasions urged everyone to try to have his ship first ready; but there is a supine languour and indifference reigns

now: it is the epidemic disorder of the nation. . . .' Perhaps the Channel fleet was always too near to home comforts

and Westminster politics to achieve the high polish that the best commanders could put on squadrons abroad.

Perhaps even Hawke had failed here, for when Anson took over the Channel fleet in 1758 he was disappointed in

the standard of discipline and manoeuvring which that renowned though unpopular commander had achieved.1

All this activity at Portsmouth was misdirected. For on the day when Hardy anchored at Spithead, the Combined

Fleet was ordered home and turned for Brest. Thus ended the invasion of 1779, a prey to careless preparation and

disjointed planning. But the government continued to agitate for the Channel fleet to sail, in ignorance of the

enemy's departure. The fleet's replenishment became so drawn out that Sandwich could not wait to see it

completed, and returned to London with its commander's promise that it would begin to drop down to St Helen's as

soon as a dozen ships were ready. Hardy, however, remained at anchor throughout September, and even the

Admiralty's efforts to get him as far as St Helen's were frustrated. Early in October he met a firm order to move

down from Spithead with a declaration signed by his flag officers that so large a fleet could not use the seaward

anchorage so late in the year. Yet we shall see that the Channel fleet had not finished its cruising, and that it might

have done better service in port preparing for future operations than in vain patrolling of the Channel when the

enemy had vanished for the winter.

1 Barham, I, 295, 2978; Sandwich, III, 17, 46, 92; G 2763, 2767.

< previous page page_297 next page >

page_299

file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_299.html[1/17/2011 2:27:04 PM]

< previous page page_299 next page >

Page 299

PART FOUR

THE EDGE OF THE KNIFE 1780

< previous page page_299 next page >

page_301

file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_301.html[1/17/2011 2:27:04 PM]

< previous page page_301 next page >

Page 301

Chapter XVII

Towards the Caribbean

Lord North and the People

'Never did a deeper political gloom overspread England, than in the autumn of 1779.' Looking back on the crisis,

Wraxall questioned whether the Dutch in the Medway or the defeat off Beachy Head had caused such despondency

and discontent. The enemy's command of the Channel, the loss of St Vincent and Grenada, and d'Estaing's threat to

Jamaica were misfortunes which might have made a Chatham falter. And soon political agitation at home was to

erupt into new channels with dangerous violence. A storm was brewing such as the Ministry had never yet

encountered.

On 10 September Lord North wrote to ask Germain for his advice on future diplomacy and strategy. But in the

same letter he asked an ominous question of another kind. How could the Ministry be strengthened to meet the

coming session of Parliament? The Ministry's future lay very much in the hands of Germain. The deadlock over

the vacant Secretaryship of State was still unresolved. Wedderburn and Eden were hoping to bring in a

professional diplomatist, Sir Joseph Yorke or Lord Stormont, who they imagined might be more accessible to their

influence than a politician; and to Stormont the King and North inclined. But the Bedfords' protégé Lord Carlisle

was still unbeneficed. There were signs that the Bedford group might desert the Ministry; so it was more than ever

vital to conciliate Gower over his son-in-law. If Germain would surrender the Board of Trade, Carlisle could be

provided for. Some tiny grain of resolution had momentarily asserted itself in the Prime Minister, and this was the

purpose of his approach to Germain.

Germain could have been bought out with a peerage, but the King would not hear of it. 'He has not been of use in

his department, and nothing but the most meritorious service could have wiped off his former misfortunes.' This

ungenerous allusion had nothing to do with Germain's handling of the war. The King assessed his servants

primarily by their political usefulness; and Germain's rash handling of the Howes had temporarily annoyed him.

But while he vetoed the easy solution, he did push North into stating his difficulty candidly to Germain. Germain

grumbled that Carlisle's promotion following on his peace mission would raise the expectations of the Americans;

but after a token resistance he gave way, and the Board of Trade was at

< previous page page_301 next page >

page_302

file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EX01.335/The%20War%20for%20America%20%201775-1783/files/page_302.html[1/17/2011 2:27:05 PM]

< previous page page_302 next page >

Page 302

Carlisle's disposal. The Board's revival as a separate institution was successfully attacked in the great campaign

against sinecures which was soon to come.1

The way was now clear, and the King was anxious to have the business settled. But North had lapsed into nerveless

procrastination. He let Carlisle leave London without getting his acceptance of the Board of Trade; and though

Sandwich implored Robinson not to leave the Prime Minister's side till he had acted, North himself slipped out of

London without seeing Stormont or writing to Carlisle. In the meantime a fresh blow had fallen. On being told of

the proposed arrangements, Lord Gower had stopped North short with his own resignation from the Lord

Presidency of the Council.2

Gower's reason was the Ministry's intolerable weakness and evasion, particularly in its handling of a crisis which

was rapidly developing in Ireland. Soon afterwards he told the House of Lords that he had presided for years at the

Council table, and had seen such things pass of late that no man of honour or conscience could sit there. He had

supported the American War on principle, confident that the country's resources were equal to the effort; 'but to

profit by those resources, energy and effect must be restored to government'.3 Lord Weymouth followed Gower

into retirement; and there seemed to be a general conspiracy of the Bedfords to force the King to give up North.

Inside the Ministry, too, a hostile front was forming against the Prime Minister. Rigby and Wedderburn ran him

down in conversation; and when Stormont entered the Cabinet he united with Thurlow in such a display of

hostility that it scarcely seemed possible for North to sit with them. Nevertheless Thurlow, the most formidable of

the Bedford group, did not follow his leaders out of office. The youngest member of the Cabinet, he had succeeded

Bathurst as Lord Chancellor in 1778. Tough, intractable and outspoken, he was respected by the King for his

energy and straightforwardness. In turn he respected Germain, but disliked Sandwich and despised the Prime

Minister. His loyalty to the Ministry in the autumn of 1779 was of great importance.

The key to the Ministry's disunion was their despair of North. All were sure that the Government was less

unpopular than the Opposition, and could survive with a draught of fresh blood. But as early as August North's

behaviour on the Irish question had convinced Robinson that the Administration would 'blow up' as soon as

Parliament re-assembled. 'Nothing done,

1 G 2626, 2631, 2657, 27701, 2788; Sackville, II, 1389, 141, 145. By 1780 Germain had recovered the

King's confidence (see e.g. Walpole, Last Journals, II, 405, 413).

2 G 2777, 2780, 2791; Abergavenny, 26.

3Parl. Hist., XX, 1176.

< previous page page_302 next page >