252

A. D. 1779.

Year of GEORGE III. 19 & 20.

Trial of Admiral Keppel.― Motions against Lord Sandwich. — Contractors' Bill rejected.— Bill carried in Favour of Dissenters. Commercial Relief to Ireland moved and rejected — Motion carried for Prosecution of those concerned against Lord Pigot.- Committee for examining the Conduct of the War in America.- Manifesto of the Spanish Ambassador. - Militia doubled. Tumults against the Catholics in Scotland. - Non Importation Agreement at Dublin. Operations of the British Army in Georgia and South Carolina. -Expedition to the Chesapeak.-Destruction of Forts on Hudson's River. French Success on the Coast of Africa. Affairs in the West Indies. St. Vincent's and Grenada taken by the French. — Action between Byron and D'Estaign. — British Settlements on the Mississippi taken.- American Flotilla destroyed by Sir G. Collier. Success of the Americans against the Indians. D'Estaign's and Lincoln's Failure at Savannah. - English Fleet superior in the West Indies. Expedition against Fort Omoa. Attempt against the Island of Jersey.— Combined French and Spanish Fleet in the Channel. The Volunteer System commenced in Ireland, and its political Consequences.- Changes in the Ministry.— Parliament meets.King's Speech. Affairs of Ireland, and Lord North's Propositions. War renewed between Austria and Prussia, and Peace. sia and the Porte.

THE

Rus

HE public attention was very generally engaged at the beginning of the year by the trial of Admiral Keppel, which commenced at Portsmouth on January 7th. Some days before, a memorial had been presented to the king, signed by twelve Admirals, Lord Hawke being at the head of the list, strongly condemning the conduct of the accuser, and stating with great energy the mischievous consequences which would result to the naval service and discipline from establishing the precedent and principle now introduced. No effect was, however, produced by it. The court martial, after employing

30 days in examining the evidence on both sides, gave a full and honourable acquittal of the admiral, of every accusation brought against him, and declared that the charge was malicious and ill founded. On the subsequent day, February 12th, a motion was made in the House of Commons to present thanks to Admiral Keppel for his conduct during the course of the last summer, and particularly "for his having gloriously upheld the honour of the British flag on the 27th and 28th of July last," which was carried with only one dissentient voice. A similar motion passed unanimously in the House of Lords. As the conduct of the Admiralty in this business was supposed to have been influenced by party, and the admiral was regarded as an intended sacrifice, extraordinary rejoicings celebrated his acquittal, especially in the cities of London and Westminster, attended with violent marks of popular odium towards the persons who were conceived to have had a share in the prosecution. The resignation by Sir Hugh Palliser of his seat at the admiralty board, of his lieutenant-generalship of marines, and his government of Scarborough castle, and also of his seat in parliament, attested his consciousness of the weight of public opinion against him, though he was universally considered as a brave and skilful officer, and, in the very action in question, had behaved, when engaged, with distinguished valour.

The blame attached to Lord Sandwich in this affair brought upon him, in the House of Commons, three motions of censure relative to the state and disposition of the navy, and one for his removal from his Majesty's service. The first of these, made by Mr. Fox on March 3d, related to the inadequate force with which Admiral Keppel was for the first time sent to cruise off the French coast; and the charge was brought so home, that the motion was negatived by no greater majority than 204 to 170. Administration having afterwards rallied its forces, the subsequent divisions were more in its favour. The discontents in the navy, however, continued to augment, and several officers of high rank and repu

tation either relinquished the service altogether, or declined acting under the present admiralty board.

The bill for prohibiting members of parliament from being concerned in government contracts, was again introduced in this session, but was rejected on the motion for a second reading, by 164 to 124.

The liberal spirit displayed in the relief granted in the last session to the Roman catholics, encouraged the dissenters to apply for a further exemption to their ministers and schoolmasters, from the penalties to which they still by law remained liable. A bill for the purpose was moved in the House of Commons by Sir Henry Hoghton, and seconded by Mr. Frederic Montague; and the opposition to it was so inconsiderable, that a motion by the representative of the university of Oxford, for putting it off for four months, was supported by only 6 votes against 77. It passed without difficulty through the Lords, and received the royal assent in the course of the session.

The distressed condition of Ireland, owing to the American war, and the embargo upon the exportation of provisions, occasioned a notice to be given in the House of Commons of an intention to move for one or more bills for affording commercial relief to that country; and that an alarm might not be excited among the British manufacturers, the first attempt was a motion by Lord Newhaven, on March 10th, for a committee of the house to take into consideration the acts of parlia ment relating to the importation of sugars from the West Indies into Ireland; the object of which was a repeal of that clause in the act of navigation, which obliged every ship laden with sugar to bring its cargo directly to England, whence the necessary quantity for the consumption of Ireland might afterwards be reexported. The motion was carried by a majority of 47 to 42, the minister not interfering in the question; but petitions being received against the intended measures from Glasgow and Manchester, in which towns the friends of administration began to accuse Lord North of duplicity, he exerted his influence, so that the

motion for the Speaker's quitting the chair, in order that the committee might be formed, was lost on a division by 62 to 58.

The unprecedented amount of the army extraordinaries, exceeding two millions, occasioning a motion from a member in opposition, that the estimates should be printed for the use of the members, it was opposed by the minister as a matter improper to be submitted to the discussion of coffee-house politicians, and, on a division, was rejected by 180 to 104.

Admiral Pigot, on April 16th, having entered into a detail of the circumstances attending the government of his late brother, Lord Pigot, moved for an address to his Majesty, praying that he would give directions to the attorney-general for prosecuting four persons by name, on account of their arrest and confinement of their governor and commander-in-chief, Lord Pigot. One of these gentlemen, Mr. Stratton, who was present, spoke in justification of his conduct and that of his colleagues; but the motion was carried without opposition.

The ill success of the principal military operations in America having caused much public dissatisfaction, and blame having been loudly imputed either to the commanders or the ministry as party feelings suggested, the two brothers, Admiral and General Howe, strongly insisted upon the necessity of an enquiry into the conduct of the war, particularly as far as they were immediately concerned in it; and after long and warm debates a committee for this purpose was appointed by the House of Commons, which began to act on May 6th. The officers called upon for examination, were Earl Cornwallis, Major-general Grey, Sir Andrew Snape Hammond, Major Montresor, and Sir George Osborne, whose united testimony went to establish the facts, that the force sent to America was at no time adequate to the subjugation of the country, and that the difficulties proceeded in great measure from the almost unanimous aversion of the people to the British government, added to the nature of the country, which was particularly unfavourable to military operations. They also con

curred in many points of detail, in justification of the commanders on particular occasions for which they had undergone censure. On the other side, Majorgeneral Robertson, and Mr. Galloway, a member of the first congress, who had come over after General Howe's first successes, were examined, and gave evidence contradictory to the opinions advanced by the officers abovementioned. During the sitting of the committee, General Burgoyne, whose character had been very severely treated, procured an enquiry into his conduct which was attended with many respectable testimonials in its favour. After a great deal of time spent in these different examinations, which elicited much curious and important matter, the committee on some pretext of delay was suddenly dissolved, without having come to any determination.

The House of Lords had in the mean time been much occupied in discussions and debates relative to the state of the navy, the conduct of the first lord of the admiralty, and the abuses in Greenwich hospital, which it is unnecessary to specify, as the motions brought on by the opposition were all defeated by large majorities.

On June 16th, the Spanish ambassador to the court of Great Britain, presented a manifesto amounting to a declaration of war, and notified his immediate departure from this country. The document contained a great number of lax and general charges against the conduct of England, the insults and injuries inflicted by which were said to have lately amounted to just one hundred. One piece of information, hitherto kept secret, which it communicated was, that Spain had been applied to as a mediator in the quarrel between England and France, and had actually been negociating a treaty of peace between them for the last eight months. This manifesto being communicated by a message from the crown to both houses of parliament, the usual addresses, assuring his Majesty of an unshaken resolution to support the crown and the country with their lives and fortunes, were moved. In the House of Commons the address was unanimously voted, though not without