finuation of neglect of duty, was a feverer ftroke to an officer than any direct terms of accufation, because it was more difficult to remove entirely; he therefore, to clear his honour, which he felt attacked, waited on the commander in chief to have the matter fet to rights, and to have the infinuation wiped away; he could get no redrefs. To fay any thing against a friend, was, to a man of fenfibility, the most disagreeable thing in nature; but where an officer's reputation was at stake, the removing an unjuft ftig. ma was certainly the first object; he had therefore appealed to the public, he had ftated facts to them, and by thofe facts he would ftand or fall.- Ádm. Keppel feemed to difapprove much of relating the private converfation which had paff ed at his houfe; for that nothing of a nature merely private was a matter of public difcuffion. As to any infinuations or indirect charges, he knew not whence they came; for his part he made none; nor did he know any part of the ViceAdmiral's conduct deferving of cenfure, but his feeing the name Hugh Pallifer figned to a letter in the Morning-Post. Now when called upon to speak out, he would inform the House and the public, that the fignal for coming into the Victory's wake was flying from three o' clock in the afternoon till eight in the evening unobeyed: at the fame time he did not charge the Vice-Admiral with actual difobedience: he doubted not, bnt, if an inquiry fhould be thought ne ceffary, that he would be able to juftify himself, because he was fully perfuaded of his perfonal bravery. On the 9th of December, at three o' clock p. m. a charge exhibited by Vice. Admiral Sir Hugh Pallifer (who was himself a Lord of the Admiralty) against the Hon. Admiral Auguftus Keppel, was received at the Admiralty, in a let ter from the Vice-Admiral, dated the faid 9th of December 1778; and notice was given thereof to Adm. Keppel, in a letter from that office at half paft ten o'clock the fame evening. On the 11th of December the Hon. T. Luttell faid in the Houfe of Commons, that in the committee on the navy-eftimates, the commander in chief faid, that his fignal to engage was out from three o'clock in the afternoon till eight in the evening, and was not obey ed. The fact was acknowledged to be true by the Vice-Admiral of the Blue; but he juftified his not answering the nal upon a general affertion of impracti bility, from the damage he had receive The Admiral's affertion contained an i plied charge of difobedience; the c fequence of which was, that he was p vented from reattacking the enem The Vice-Admiral's acknowledgem admitted the fact, qualified by circu ftances of disability: "he therefore mo to address the King to give directio that a court-martial might be held to quire into the conduct of Vice-Adm. Hugh Pallifer reiative to the action the 27th of July laft.-Sir J. Mawbey conded the motion. Sir H. Pallifer then rofe, and fa that he looked upon himself to be m injuriously treated by the attack of for dark, concealed affallin, in a newsper; that he waited on his Admiral, the only perfon who could afford b that affiftance he wanted towards vin cating his character; that his appli tion proving fruitless, he had recourfe the fole means in his power, an appeal the public, of wiping off the afperfic this he had done in an open and f manner: Here the affair refted, till Hon. Gentleman who made the prefe motion, brought the fubject to be c cuffed in that Houfe; on which occafi he could not help obferving, that Hon. Admiral, inftead of explaini acted, in his opinion, in a very un coming manner; for, without mak any direct accufation of a criminal ture, he fubftantially charged him w difobedience, and feemed to lay t want of fuccefs on the 27th of July his door, either on the fcore of refuf what was actually in his power to or a mere want of knowledge in his p feffion. Thefe were infinuations he h determined he would not lie under; was confcious he had performed his d ty; nor would he from any motives convenience, expediency, or public of nion, father the faults of any man. T truth was, that the Admiral endeavou ed to load him with the public odium the miscarriage of that day, and comp him to fubmit to bear the blame of t own miftakes and incapacity. Findi that neither by perfonal applications, from public motives, the Admiral con be prevailed upon to do him juftice; an that he afferted in the face of the natio that he would never ferve with him; found himself drove to the neccffity doing what was extremely irksome and difagreeable; that was, of accufing him of being the cause of our disappointment on that day; in which, if the British flag was not difgraced, it gained no additional honour. He was compelled to do this, to repair the injury done to his honour. Such was the precise fituation he stood in. What he had done, therefore, was dictated by self-defence; and he did it with the utmoft pain and reluctance, as there were few men living he had a higher veneration and efteem for than the Hon. Gentleman, as a friend and intimate acquaintance, whom he had known for many years, and whofe intimacy and friendship he looked upon as one of the happiest circumstances of Ais life. The Earl Nugent blamed the ViceAdmiral for taking notice of an anonymous publication in the manner he did. -The Hon. Capt. R. Boyle Walfingham had extremely to lament that the Vice-Admiral took notice of the anonymous publication: he had good reafon to believe that the author was a lieutetant on board the Vice-Admiral's own hip: he warmly recommended unanimity, and faid he would give his nega. tive to the motion. Lords Shuldham, North, and John Cavendish, expreffed their forrow for fuch unhappy diffenfions at fo critical a time. Adm. Keppel thanked his friends for their partiality for him, and their unwillingness that any inquiry should be made into his conduct. But that was now over: he had been accused, and publicly accufed. Specific charges of neglect, incapacity, &c. had been lodged at the admiralty-board; and he had notice, in confequence of this accufation, from that board, to prepare for a court-martial. However difagreeable fome of the concomitant circumftances might have been, he was now forty years in the fervice, and it was one of the most pleasing paffages of his life. He did not court the inquiry for many obvious reafons, fome of which had been mentioned in the courfe of the debate; but now that an inquiry was determined upon, he fhould meet it with coolness, calmnefs, and inward fatisfaction. The Hon. Gentleman who was his accufer, had, in his peech, ftated the neceffity of his conduct, on account of the infinuations thrown out by him the laft night. He appealed to the candour and recollection of the Houfe, whether what he said ad mitted of fo unfavourable an interpretation; if it did, he furely did not intend to do fo. He ftated a fact, but so far from drawing any conclufion from it, he faid, the only fault that he knew the Vice-Admiral to be guilty of, was writing a letter in a morning paper, figned Hugh Palliser; and if he were of that rancorous difpofition which fuch an imputation would imply, he might have infifted on having the Hon. Gentleman tried for promoting mutiny aboard the fleet; for, moft certainly, whatever goes directly to charge the commander with neglect, &c. in this public manner, is of a mutinous tendency. Thank God, he was not the accufer, but the accused. He was called out to ferve his country at a very critical period; he had performed his duty to the best of his abilities; and whatever the iffue may be, he had one confolation, that he had acted strictly to the best of his judgement. He fhould decline faying a fyllable to the question, as he could not think of voting, and fhould quit the Houfe. [There was an almoft general plaudit at the end of each fentence.] He went away. After Adm. Keppel left the Houfe, Adm. Pigot, Lord Mulgrave, and Mr Burke, spoke each thrice; Mr Fox, Sir Hugh Pallifer, and Sir Jofeph Mawbey, twice; and Ld John Cavendish, Gen. Conway, Gen. Keppel, Sir Richard Sutton, Hon. T. Luttrell, Ld North, Mr Welbore Ellis, Mr Penton, Sir William Meredith, the Attorney-General, and Mr Dunning, once. The perfonal good characters of both the Admiral and the Vice-Admiral was acknowledged by every speaker. Two topics were the fubject of debate; the conduct or Adm. Pallifer, and the conduct of the admiralty board. Adın. Pigot, on the conduct of the Vice-Admiral, faid, "He is prefent on the 27th of July; he is a witness to the pretended neglect and misconduct of the Admiral; he returns to port, and while on fhore continues on a foot of friendfhip with his commander; he goes a fecond time to fea, and returns a fecond time; and yet all this time there is not a word of cenfure or complaint on his part; and now, at the end of almoft five months, he exhibits an accufation againft his principal.' Sir Hugh Pallifer faid, he found, that no reparation for his injured honour was to be obtained, but by a trial. It could not not be expected that he would accuse himself. The Hon. Admiral, though he cenfured him, by openly declaring that he would never ferve with him, at the fame time refused to make that kind of accufation which alone could put him in a way of vindicating himself; he was therefore drove to the neceffity of becoming an accufer, when he could not obtain juftice by any other mode. If his conduct was criminal, why did not the Hon. Admiral call him to account in a proper manner? If it was not criminal, how could the Admiral reconcile to him felf the publicly charging him with difobedience, and accompanying that charge with a declaration that he would never again ferve with him? The truth was, the public were disappointed relative to the event of the engagement of the 27th of July. No mark of difapprobation appeared in the conduct of the Admiral till this circumftance was known, when it was industriously circulated, that it was the fault of the rear-admiral of the fleet, that the French squadron was not re-attacked. This was the true ftate of the cafe. And as to not making his accufation earlier, the fame queftion might be asked of the Admiral, why did not he mention his disapprobation earlier? On the other topic, Adm. Pigot faid, that the admiralty had acted very rafhly. An officer of Mr Keppel's rank, fervices, and perfonal character, deserved another kind of treatment. They fhould have deliberated, and have acted with a becoming caution, before they received the Vice-Admiral's complaint, at leaft before they acted upon it. Lord Mulgrave faid, the conftitution of the board was this: They were, in all matters of accufation, obliged to act minifterially; they had no judicial power, but when a complaint was preferred, they were, in difcharge of their office, compelled, not only to receive it, but to give the neceffary directions to proceed to trial. If indeed the accufation were inaccurately drawn up, frivolous or vexatious in its tendency, or deftitute of fpecification, it might have been the duty of the admiralty to have looked to the confequences of fuch a charge; but the accufation preferred by the Vice-Admiral contained five fpecific charges, directly affirmative of mifconduct, neglect of duty, and of the Admiral's not having done all in his power to deftroy the enemy; and therefore the board could not difcretionally reject them. Adm. Pigot faid, the Noble Lord's de fcription of the conftitution of the admiralty-board was ridiculous, monftrous, and would, if true, destroy all service and fubordination. What would have been the cafe, if, when Adm. Keppel was ready to fail the last time from Portfmouth, when the fate of the kingdom was at ftake, and a few days delay might have proved fatal, if at that time a lieutenant or midshipman had made a specific charge against him, anfwering the defcription of the Noble Lord, respecting his conduct on the 27th of July? That the Admiral would have received notice from the board, that a court-martial would be speedily held upon him; that the next in command under him at that port was to fit as prefident on his trial; and that the thirteen eldest captains were to be his triers. What in this prefumed cafe would be the condition of the nation? All the operations at fea must be fufpended. Gen. Conway believed that every offi. cial board had a difcretionary power: when he prefided at the ordnance-board, he always understood that they had a power to reject complaints, as well as to receive them. Gen. Keppel faid, the usage of the army was, to refer the complaint to a board of general officers; who reported to the King through the medium of the fecretary at war; and his Majefty gave orders to proceed, or not, as he thought fit. Ld North, and Meff. W. Ellis, and Penton, who had all fat at the admiralty-board, faid, that they always underftood the powers of that board to be merely minifterial, in fuch cafes.-Mr Fox, who had alfo fat at that board, faid, that the received opinion of the board then was, that they had a right to act difcretionally, and they did act so. Mr Burke obferved, that Lord Mulgrave admitted, that if the accufation were frivolous, or not of fufficient importance, the board might, and would reject it. By this admiffion, said he, the Noble Lord has given up the argument. The board is not competent in any inftance to judge; or, if competent, it in every fuch act exercifes a difcretionary power. The conclufion is clear either way: Every abfurdity, villany, and evil, which malice, rage, or folly, can fuggeft, is a proper fubject to be fent to be inquired into by a court-martial; or the the admiralty-board have the right contended for; that of judging of the magnitude, extent, and probability of the charge, the circumftances which brought it into exiftence, and every other matter connected with it, which may enable them to be the means of promoting general and particular justice. The Attorney-General contended for the powers of the admiralty in fuch cafes being merely ministerial.— He was anfwered by Mr Dunning: he asked the learned gentleman, or the Noble Lord, whether the board, fo mechanically reftricted, had in fact any power at all? Might not any accufation be as properly delivered to an inferior clerk, or the of fice-keeper, as to the board? At laft the order of the day was called for, and the motion was dropt. On the 16th of December, Adm. Pigot moved, that on account of the bad fate of Adm. Keppel's health, leave might be given to bring in a bill, to order the court-martial on his trial to be held on fhore; which was agreed to without oppofition; and the bill received the royal affent before the recess. [40.684:] On the 30th of December the following Memorial was prefented to the King by the Duke of Bolton. To the KING. We the fubfcribing Admirals of your Majefty's royal navy, having hitherto, on all occafions, ferved your Majesty with zeal and fidelity, and being defirous of devoting every action of our lives, and our lives themselves, to your Majefty's fervice, and the defence of our country, think ourselves indifpenfably bound, by our duty to that fervice and that country, with all poffible bumility, to reprefent to your wisdom and justice, That Sir Hugh Pallifer, Vice Admiral of the Blue, lately ferving under the command of the Hon. Auguftus Keppel, did prefer certain articles of accufation, containing feveral matters of heinous of fence against his faid commander in chief, to the Lords Commiffioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of G. Britain, he the faid Sir Hugh Pallifer being himself a commiffioner in the faid commiffion. This accufation he the faid Sir Hugh Pallifer with-held from the 27th of July laft, the time of the fuppofed offences committed, until the 9th day of this prefent December, and then brought forward for the purpose of recrimination against charges conjectured by him the faid Sir Hugh Pallifer, but which in fact were never made. That the Commiffioners of the Admiralty, near five months after the pretended offences aforefaid, did receive from their faid colleague in office, the charge made by him againft his faid commander; and, without taking into confideration the relative fituation of the accufer and the party accused, or attending to the avowed motives of the accufation, or the length of time of with-holding, or the occasion of making the fame, and without any other deliberation whatfoever, did, on the very fame day on which the charge was preferred, and without previous notice to the party accufed of an intention of making a charge against him, give notice of their intending that a court-martial fhould be held on the faid Admiral Keppel, after forty years of meritorious fervice, and a va riety of actions in which he had exerted eminent courage and conduct, by which the honour and power of this nation, and the glory of the British flag had been maintained and increafed in various parts of the world. We beg leave to exprefs to your Majefty our concern at this proceeding, and to reprefent our apprehenfions of the difficulties and difcouragements which will inevitably arife to your fervice therefrom; and that it will not be easy for men, attentive to their honour, to ferve your Majefty, particularly in fitua tions of principal command, if the prac tice now ftated to your Majesty be countenanced, or the principles upon which the fame has been fupported fhall prevail with any Lord High Admiral, or with any Commiffioner for executing that office. We are humbly of opinion, that a criminal charge against an officer (rifing in importance according to the rank and command of that officer) which fufpends his fervice to your Majefty, perhaps, in the most critical exigencies of the public affairs, which calls his reputation into doubt and difcuffion, which puts him on trial for his life, profeffion, and reputation, and which, in its confequences, may caufe a fatal ceffation in the naval exertions of the kingdom, to be a matter of the most serious nature, and never to be made by authority but on folid ground, and on mature delibera tion. The honour of an officer is his moft precious poffeffion and best qualification; the public have an intereft in it; and whilft those under whom we ferve countenance accufation, it is often impoffible perfectly to restore military fame by the mere acquittal of a court-matial. Imputations made by high authority remain long, and affect deeply. The sphere of action of commanders in chief is large, and their business intricate, and fubject to great variety of opinion; and before they are to be put on the judgement of others for acts done upon their diferetion, the greatest discretion ought to be employed. Whether the board of admiralty hath by law any fuch discretion, we, who are not of the profeffion of the law, cannot pofitively affert; but if we had conceived that this board had no legal ufe of their reafon in a point of fuch delicacy and importance, we should have known on what terms we ferved. But we never did imagine it poffible, that we were to receive orders from, and to be accountable to thofe, who, by law, were reduced to become paffive inftruments to the poffible malice, ignorance, or treafon, of any individual who might think fit to difarm his Majefty's navy of its beft and higheft officers. We conceive it difrespectful to the laws of our country to fuppofe them capable of fuch manifeft injustice and absurdity. We therefore humbly reprefent, in behalf of public order, as well as of the difcipline of the navy, to your Majefty, the dangers of long-concealed, and after wards precipitately-adopted charges, and of all recriminatory accufations of fubordinate officers against their commanders in chief; and particularly the mifchief and fcandal of permitting men, who are at once in high civil office, and in fubordinate military command, previous to their making fuch accufations, to attempt to corrupt the public judgement, by the publication of libels on their officers in a common news-paper, thereby exciting mutiny in your Majefty's navy, as well as prejudicing the minds of thofe who are to try the merits of the accufation against the said superior officer, To this memorial the King is faid to have given the following answer: "That he fhould always receive the reprefentations of his Admirals with pleasure; and this, as it deferved, fo it certainly fhould receive, his moft ferious attention." On Thursday, Jan. 7. 1779, being the day appointed for the trial, at nine o'clock in the morning, Adm. Pye, as Admiral of the White, and prefident of the courtmartial, hoisted his flag on board the Britannia. At a quarter after nine o'clock, the Union flag was hoifted in the larboard mizen throuds, as the fignal for a courtmartial; and the royal ftandard was hoifted in the ftarboard mizen fhrouds, as a fignal that the court-martial was to be held on an Admiral. At ten o'clock the Britannia fired a gun, and the Union jack was hoifted at the fore-top-mast-head, as a signal for all the Admirals and Captains in harbour to come on board. At half paft ten o'clock, the fignal was obeyed, the Admirals and Captains going in their refpective barges on board the Britannia. The names of the thirteen fenior Admirals and Captains, exclufive of thofe fummoned as witneffes, were then called over; and with them the court was con ftituted. Capt. Walfingham, who was a witnefs, finding his name not called, defired to be informed of the reafon. But an opinion of the attorney and folicitor general, and Mr Cuft, the counsel for the Admiralty, on a cafe laid before them by order of the Admiralty, being read, and it appearing, that they thought wit neffes difqualified from being judges, Capt. Walfingham acquiefced. The court was then formed, confil. ing of the following members: Admiral Sir Thomas Pye, Prefident; Vice-Admirals Buckle and Montague; Rear-Admirals Arbuthnot and Roddam; Captains Milbank, Drake, Penny, Bennett, Boteler, Moutray, Duncan, and Cranfton. The members of the court-martial being fworn, the court was adjourned to the Governor's house. Being affembled there, the following charge was exhibited against Admiral Keppel, and read in court. |