AFFAIR RESPECTING ADMIRAL KEPPEL AND SIR HUGH PALLISER.
During the debate on the amendment in the commons, Charles Fox introduced the subject of the operations of the fleet commanded by Keppel and Palliser, and attributed all the blame of its failure to the conduct of ministers and the admiralty, who, he said, had not sent a sufficient fleet out, and that it was sent to sea too late to effect the objects for which it was fitted out. This subject was brought prominently before the house of commons on the 2nd of December. Mr. Temple Luttrel said, that the whole of that transaction demanded a particular and close inquiry, and that the two admirals, who were both in the house, were bound to give information for the sake of their own honour, and also for the sake of public tranquillity. Thus challenged, Keppel, who was a whig, stood up to defend his own conduct. He could not consider, he remarked, that the British flag had been tarnished in his hands, or that the affair off Ushant was in any way disgraceful. He impeached no man; and was persuaded that Sir Hugh Palliser manifested no want of courage. He expressed a hope that he should not be compelled to answer any questions relative to the action or to individuals, at the same time asserting that he was ready to explain his own conduct in that house or elsewhere, Nothing, he said, was left untried to bring the French to a decisive action. He then adverted to Palliser’s publication in the newspapers. He was surprised, he said, that he should have appealed to the public when no accusation was made against him, and have endeavoured to render his superior in command unpopular and odious; and he declared that he would never again embark in a fleet with an officer who could conduct himself in a manner so fatal to all obedience and discipline. Sir Hugh Palliser, who was a Tory, then rose and said, that it was his interest to obtain inquiry, and that he was as eager for it as his superior officer. He censured Keppel’s reserve, and challenged him to deliver his opinions without disguise, that he might be able to give a full answer. He complained of the aspersions thrown upon his character by the newspapers, and said that while justice was rendered to his courage, insinuations were thrown out that he might have neglected or disobeyed the signals of his superior. He concluded by asserting that he had vainly sought an explanation from Keppel, before appealing to the public with a detail of facts, by which he would stand or fall; by denying that he had refused to obey signals; and by declaring that he feared neither a parliamentary inquiry nor a public trial. In reply, Admiral Keppel asserted that one of his signals was not obeyed though it was flying for five hours, but that he would not charge Vice-admiral Palliser with disobedience, as the condition of his ships might, as represented by him, have prevented his coming up. Palliser rejoined by charging Keppel with having neglected to arrange his ships in such a manner as to ensure a general engagement; with having neglected to tack and double on the French with his van and centre, after these had passed the enemy’s rear, whereby he, the vice-admiral, was exposed to be cut off; with having permitted the enemy to rally, and to claim a victory by standing after the English ships; and with having, finally, led the British fleet in an opposite direction, instead of pursuing the enemy. The conversation here dropped, but the charges made by Sir Hugh Palliser were afterwards repeated to the Admiralty; and this led to the trial of both the accuser and the accused before a court-martial.