LVIII. 1779. known to fame, nor yet in Parliament, Sheridan CHA P. and Erskine. It was an anxious time for all concerned. After thirty-two days' sitting, the Court came to an unanimous decision that the charges were malicious and ill founded, and that Keppel, far from having sullied the honour of the service, had acted in all respects as became a judicious, brave, and experienced officer. By this time the tide of public feeling was running strongly in his favour. Gibbon writes as follows, in London, on the expected news of the acquittal:-" In a night "or two we shall be in a blaze of illumination "from the zeal of naval heroes, land patriots, and "tallow-chandlers; the last are not the least sin"cere."* The enthusiasm rose even higher than Gibbon had foreseen. For two successive nights were the cities of London and Westminster illuminated at the tidings of Keppel's triumph, whilst a lawless mob deemed they did him honour in breaking open the house of Sir Hugh Palliser, destroying its furniture, and burning Sir Hugh himself in effigy. The houses of Lord North and Lord George Germaine were likewise assailed, and their windows broken; and at the Admiralty the iron gates were forced from their hinges. The popular excitement was revived a few days afterwards, when Keppel was presented with the freedom of the City, and went to dine with the Common Council at the London Tavern. At *Letter to Holroyd, February 6. 1779. CHAP. Charing Cross the mob insisted on taking the LVIII. horses from his carriage and drawing him onwards 1779. by their own strength. His coachman at the same time found it necessary to relinquish the box; "in favour," says a contemporary, "of a number "of Jack Tars, who swarmed about the carriage "like bees round a hive."* Nor can it be said that this revulsion of feeling in behalf of the Admiral was confined to the capital alone. In the country villages "The Admiral Keppel" became a favourite sign; held equal, at the least, to the effigy of other Admirals, who, unlike Keppel, had had the opportunity of gaining some great victory, and doing their country some signal service. In both Houses of Parliament a vote of thanks to the acquitted Admiral was moved and carried, with only one dissentient voice; this came from Mr. Strutt, a gentleman of Essex, grandfather of the present Lord Rayleigh. Sir Hugh Palliser felt keenly the reflection implied against himself by the recent decision of the Court Martial, as well as by the votes of Parliament. With high spirit he resigned, not only his employments, amounting to 4000l. a-year, but also his seat in the House of Commons, and demanded a Court Martial on himself. This new Court Martial continued to sit for three and twenty days. At last they declared that the behaviour of Palliser had *Town and Country Magazine for 1779, as quoted in Keppel's Life, vol. ii. p. 209. ed. 1842. 1779. been in many respects exemplary and meritorious. CHA P. They could not help thinking it was incumbent LVIII. on him to have made known to the Commanderin-chief the disabled state of his own ship, but on no other point did they consider him chargeable with misconduct, and therefore upon the whole they acquitted him. But this acquittal did not at first by any means appease the rancour of the multitude.* The Ministers, though not perfectly satisfied with Keppel, had no intention of withdrawing him from the command of the Channel fleet. But Keppel had conceived the utmost resentment against them. He had by nature a haughty temper, or, according to the fine image which Burke applies to him, "it was a wild-stock of 66 pride." He wrote a letter to the King, entreating that he might not be expected to go again to sea under men who had treated him with "so "glaring an injustice." He also, as he tells us, took great umbrage at the expressions of a subsequent letter from the Board of Admiralty, although in that letter, as published, and as now before me, it is not easy to discover a single word or thought to give offence. Under the influence of feelings which, with all respect to him, we may 66 * An accomplished contemporary, on reviewing these transactions many years afterwards, observes of Sir Hugh Palliser: Perhaps no man was ever more cruelly used by the public, "through a virulent party-spirit." (Lord Sheffield, note to Gibbon's Miscellaneous Works, vol. ii. p. 228.) CHAP. consider overstrained, he invited and received LVIII. directions to strike his flag; thus deeming himself 1779. justified in leaving the active service of his country at a time when it greatly needed men like him.* Not merely Admirals and Captains took part in these discussions. The attack against Lord Sandwich was headed by Fox in the House of Commons. In his speeches he proceeded to the most violent extremes. The First Lord of the Admiralty, cried he, has driven from the service both Admiral Keppel and Lord Howe; he is a worse traitor to his country than even Jack the Painter ! Fox even went to the length of moving, in express terms, that Lord Sandwich might be dismissed from His Majesty's presence and councils for ever; and Lord Bristol renewed that motion in the House of Peers. Lord Sandwich found it necessary to remind his accusers that though he was solely responsible for the equipment, he was not *The Life of Admiral, afterwards Viscount, Keppel, has LVIII. 1779. solely, but jointly, responsible for the employment, CHAP. of the naval force, which was decided in the Cabinet, and finally sanctioned by the King. The motions against him might be, and they were, rejected by large majorities; still, however, the invectives of the Opposition leaders could not fail to make a gradual impression on the public. Several officers of rank, besides Lord Keppel, declared that they would not serve under the present Ministers. Nor were such feelings of dissatisfaction confined to the highest class. Before the close of the Session symptoms, though happily suppressed, of mutiny had appeared on board the fleet in the Channel. Symptoms of insubordination, though from another cause, showed themselves in Scotland also. Riots took place both at Edinburgh and at Glasgow in January and February of this year, against the Roman Catholics, real or reputed. Their houses were assailed, their furniture broken, their lives threatened, their persons insulted. At Edinburgh the popular indignation was more especially directed by hand-bills against what was termed "that Pillar of Popery" -a new-built house, namely, in Leith Wynd, containing containing a room for Roman Catholic worship. The house was accordingly set on fire, and the inhabitants scarce escaped with their lives. In some of these cases the magistrates are accused of culpable remissness, as though their own sympathies were rather with the perpetrators than with the victims of the No Popery |