CAPTURE OF ST. LUCIE.

1778

401

St. Lucie, an island in the West Indies, belonging Ch. 23. to the French. The capital of Georgia yielded, after a short resistance, and the troops of Congress, driven out of the province, retreated into South Carolina. The naval and military operations of the English before St. Lucie were equally successful; D'Estaing and his American allies. sustained signal defeats both by sea and land; and the British took possession of the island.

On the whole, though no very important operations were undertaken by the English, the first campaign of the Americans, in conjunction with the arms of their renowned ally, was less successful in military achievement, and less productive of substantial results than the previous campaigns which they had carried on with their own unaided resources. And, at the close of the year 1778, it would have been difficult to determine whether their French allies or their English foes were more odious to the army, and the people of the States.

parations of

Meanwhile, the measure which the first distant Warlike premenace of a war with France naturally dictates, England. had been promptly adopted by England. Early in the year a Channel fleet had been formed, and entrusted to Admiral Keppel, an officer who, by universal assent was considered, from his long experience and high professional reputation, to be the best qualified for such a responsible command.

to sea.

His

Keppel put to sea in June, with twenty sail of Keppel puts the line; but, after reconnoitring the French indecisive

action.

402

Ch. 23.

1778

Public dissatisfaction.

INDECISIVE OPERATIONS

coast, and taking two frigates, he returned to Portsmouth. His reason for a proceeding so unusual and so unexpected was, that a French fleet far superior to his own, was prepared to receive him, and he thought it prudent to obtain reinforcements before risking an action. Ten sail of the line were speedily added to his squadron; and with this powerful armament the English admiral again sailed for the coast of France. In a few days he fell in with the French fleet, consisting of thirty-two ships of the line, being two more than his own; the French, however, it was said, were far superior in frigates. The action took place off Ushant on the 27th of July, and, after fighting for three hours without any decisive result, not a single ship having struck on either side, these great fleets sailed away from each other, the French to their own harbour of Brest, the English to Plymouth.

The British people, entertaining, not without reason, great expectations from an enterprise of such magnitude, were astonished and indignant at such an inadequate result. Keppel, who had mentioned the conduct of Palliser, his second in command, with unqualified approbation, in the despatch which announced the engagement, now sought to divert the storm of public resentment from himself to his inferior officer. He sent a message to the First Lord of the Admiralty, offering to give private information on the subject. This offer was properly declined; nor

OF THE CHANNEL FLEET.

is it easy to understand upon what ground the admiral could justify such a proceeding. It would have been competent to him, had he thought fit to act in accordance with a very ordinary practice, to accompany his official despatch with a private letter to the minister; but he had no intelligible pretence for inviting Lord Sandwich to an unofficial correspondence upon a subject, every detail of which was of the highest public interest and importance. And if, as there is too much reason to believe, Keppel's object was to screen himself by inculpating one of his officers, such a proposal was wholly inexcusable.

403

Ch. 23.

1778

Palliser.

The matter could not be allowed to rest. It Keppel and became a subject of party conflict in Parliament and with the press. Keppel and Palliser were both members of the House of Commons. Keppel belonged to the Whig opposition; but, from his experience, his former services, and his great popularity with the fleet, he had been designated for the chief command in the Channel, from the moment when war with France appeared imminent. Palliser, on the other hand, was attached to the Court party, and had been taken from the Board of Admiralty to command a division under Keppel. The attacks on the Commander-in-chief and the invidious eulogies upon his lieutenant, which appeared in the newspapers, provoked a retort from an anonymous writer, said to be an officer who had been in the action of the 27th of July. This paper contained circumstan

404

Ch. 23.

1778

Lord Bristol defends Keppel.

DEBATES ON THE CONDUCT

tial details, attributing the inconclusive result of the engagement to misconduct and disobedience of orders and signals on the part of Palliser. To refute these aspersions, Palliser required his chief to sign a paper containing a full and particular exculpation of his character from the charges contained in the paper referred to. With this request Keppel peremptorily refused to comply; upon which Palliser published his own version of the affair in the public prints. And, as the letter contained both directly, and by implication, severe censure on the conduct of the Commander-in-chief, Keppel immediately wrote to the First Lord of the Admiralty, demanding a court-martial, or a court of enquiry.

Parliament having assembled for the autumnal session at the period when the controversy had reached this point, the matter immediately became the subject of discussion in both houses. Lord Bristol, on the first day of the session, reiterated Keppel's demand for official enquiry. The motion was resisted by Lord Sandwich, on the ground that no charge was made against the Admiral, who, he said, had fully discharged his duty, and had gained a victory, which had been attended with the important result of protecting trade and clearing the Channel of the enemy's ships. He also expressed his entire approval of the conduct of the Vice-Admiral, and referred to the official letter of the Commander-in-chief as a corroboration of his opinion.

OF THE CHANNEL FLEET.

405

Ch. 23.

1778

The same subject was brought forward in the Commons, when the vote for the naval service afforded the admirals an opportunity of defending Palliser actheir conduct. Keppel took high ground, de- cuses Keppel. claring that if the action of the 27th of July were to be fought over again, he would not change his mode of proceeding. He declined entering into details; but was ready to give explanation upon any particular either in or out of the House. He desired also to be excused from pronouncing an opinion upon the conduct of any officer; nevertheless he censured Sir Hugh Palliser in the severest terms, for having published a letter in the newspapers most unfair to himself and subversive of all discipline. He gave Palliser credit for personal courage, but intimated, plainly enough, that he was deficient in any other quality of a naval officer.

by Court

Palliser retorted in the same strain; and, a Keppel tried few days after, preferred formal charges against martial. his chief. These charges, five in number, were summed up 'as instances of misconduct and neglect, by which a glorious opportunity was lost of doing a most essential service to the state, and the honour of the British navy was tarnished.' Upon charges of such gravity, brought forward as they were, by such high authority, the Government had no alternative but to order a courtmartial.

Public feeling was excited to the highest pitch by these proceedings; and, from the first, the tide