CHAPTER II.

Lord Keppel's action-Origin of the dispute between him and Sir Hugh Palliser-Unfair advantage taken by the latter as a Lord of the Admiralty - The trial takes place at the Government House in Portsmouth Garrison-Remarks on the removal of that building — The court meets on board a ship in Portsmouth harbour, and adjourns to the Government House on shore-Evidence of Captain Jervis— Observations on the conduct of the court as exhibited in the difference shown in their treatment of Lord Mulgrave and Captain Jervis - Captain Hood taking the leaf out of his Log-book, wrong but not criminal Irregular and improper mode of keeping that record in the Navy -Suggestions for improving it-Letter to George Jackson, Esq.

THE drawn battles between the British and French fleets off Ushant, in the summer of 1778, excited much murmuring and discontent throughout all parts of the country; and as nearly twenty years had elapsed since the execution of the unhappy Byng, the vox populi (which, though on some occasions it may be the voice of God, is in most the voice of the devil), grew clamorous for another sacrifice.

Sir Hugh Palliser was suspected of being the author of many anonymous letters and publications on this subject, the object of which was

to cast reflections on Lord Keppel; and the latter seems to have taken more notice of them than anonymous accusations usually deserve. Much hostile correspondence passed between the two admirals; and Sir Hugh, having the advantage over his adversary of being a lord of the Admiralty, availed himself of it, and had influence enough with the Earl of Sandwich, then first lord, to obtain an order to try Lord Keppel, his commander-in-chief, by a courtmartial, for neglect of duty in presence of the enemy on the 27th and 28th of July. This step was highly resented by all the respectable flagofficers in the service, and a considerable number of them memorialised the king on the subject. But the trial, nevertheless, took place; indeed, it is probable that Lord Keppel was, under the circumstances, the first to urge it on.

The trial took place in what was called the Government-house, in Portsmouth garrison; it having been transferred thither from a ship of the line in Portsmouth harbour *.

This house has been entirely removed since the conclusion of the late war. It was understood to be the intention of the government to have built one on the same spot, for the admiral commanding in chief; but the plan has been abandoned for one more economical, though certainly not to be compared with it in point of efficiency and the real interest of the naval service. That house commanded a complete view of Southampton Water, the Needles, Spithead, St. Helens, and as far eastward as Bognor Rocks. A more noble and commanding position

As Captain Jervis's evidence on this important and interesting case is at once illustrative of his own character, and gives the best account extant of the whole affair, I shall make no apology for giving it entire. The truth is that the fame and character of Lord St. Vincent depended almost as much on this trial as did those of Lord Keppel; and as on this occasion the former attached himself to the party and politics of his chief, so he adhered to them throughout the whole of his after-life.

The court first assembled in January, 1779, as I have said, on board of a ship of the line in Portsmouth harbour, whence it was adjourned to the Government house, where it met from day to day, until the final termination and finding of the sentence.

Of all the important moral lessons to be

for a British admiral, or, shall I say, for a British monarch, could not be conceived; but "economy " has condemned the commanderin-chief to a smoky residence in the dock-yard, where, if the rear-admiral does his duty, the presence of the senior officer can not be required at all. Moreover, he is entirely out of sight of all that is passing in the busiest part of his command, where it might happen that his prompt orders would be of incalculable advantage to the service. This is the more to be lamented, as no expense has been spared to construct a beautiful residence at Devonport for the admiral, and one equally extravagant at Sheerness, where a house of less dimensions would have answered the purpose. The same money expended on the King's Bastion, or on the Parade at Portsmouth, which was lavished on the horrid neighbourhood of Blue Town, would have built a residence creditable and useful to the country.

learned in our service, none in my mind exceed those which are to be acquired by an attentive listener at a court-martial. It has been my fortune to attend many of the most important of these trials during the late war, and to have read the proceedings of many others with great interest. In looking over this of Lord Keppel's, I could not help being struck with the inconsistency, and, I should say, great impropriety, of the court, in calling upon Lord Mulgrave to give his opinion on certain facts in the action in question, which he, as captain of the Courageux, must have been a witness to. His lordship very properly declined giving any opinion. He said that his opinion might be right, or it might be wrong, and that in giving it he might perhaps be pronouncing censure where it was not deserved; but that at all events his opinion was his own, and he would not give it; he was ready to state facts as far as he knew them. It is difficult to regard this as other than just and honourable conduct; but the court thought differently, and very seriously and harshly rebuked the noble lord for his pertinacity.

Captain Jervis, on the other hand, pursued a different line of conduct, and one which he was equally justified in adopting: he gave his opinion when asked to do so. Now, though I

hold it highly improper to intrude or volunteer an opinion, unasked, before a court-martial, yet, as it ought not to be wrested from a witness by force, he may yield it to solicitation. We find, however, that the same court which reprimanded Lord Mulgrave for withholding his opinion, afterwards told Captain Jervis (vide Question 82) that he need not answer the question unless he pleased, "as it was a matter of opinion!"

Before proceeding to give Captain Jervis's evidence on this trial, I will premise, in favour of Captain Hood, (afterwards Lord Bridport) that, however I may have regretted his altering his log-book, nothing could induce me to think he had done so with a criminal or improper intention; for he must have known that the fraud would necessarily be discovered, and that he would then put himself in the power of the master, and of every officer in the ship. Yet he was sharply reproached for it, as if he had been guilty of the most atrocious violation of the laws of the service, as well as those of honour. Had such really been the case, he would have been brought to a court-martial himself, and most probably for ever disgraced; nor was there wanting the disposition to do this, if it could have been done with any hope of success. I am ready to admit that there was great want of discretion in