THE EARL OF DUNDONALD'S CLAIM FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE ORDER OF THE BATH.—HIS GOOD SERVICE PENSION.—THE INVESTIGATION OF HIS SECRET WAR-PLANS.—HIS PAMPHLET ON NAVAL AFFAIRS.—HIS INSTALLATION AS A G.O.B.—HIS CANDIDATURE FOR ELECTION AS A SCOTCH REPRESENTATIVE PEER.—THE QUEEN'S PERMISSION TO HIS WEARING THE BRAZILIAN ORDER OF THE "CRUZIERO."—HIS APPOINTMENT AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE NORTH AMERICAN AND WEST INDIAN STATION.
[1839-1848.]
The restoration of his naval rank to the Earl of Dundonald in 1832, was slowly followed by other acts reversing the injustice of previous years by which a large portion of his life had been embittered.
"Your lordship and the Admiralty," he wrote to Lord Minto, then at the head of naval affairs, on the 30th of March, 1839, "may have been surprised that I have never solicited any appointment since my reinstatement in the naval service by his late Majesty, whose memory I shall ever cherish for this magnanimous act of justice. The cause, my lord, has not been from any reluctance on my part, but from a feeling which, I have no doubt, will appear satisfactory to your lordship, if you do me the favour to read the enclosed copy of a letter which I have written this day to the Marquess of Lansdowne as President of the Council." The letter to Lord Lansdowne referred in great part to Lord Dundonald's rotary-engine, and to his secret war-plan, which he expressed his willingness to put in execution if ever it was required. "Your lordship and the Privy Council, however," it was added, "will not fail to observe that, if it shall ever be the intention of the Government, under any circumstances, again to employ me in the naval service, it would be quite inconsistent with the character of that service, as well as my own reputation, for me to assume command, unless the Order of the Bath, gained on the 12th of April, 1809, now thirty years ago, shall be restored to me."
"I hope it will appear to your lordship," said Lord Dundonald, in a letter to Lord Melbourne, dated the 11th July, 1839, "that my services as a naval officer have been useful and honourable to my country; and, referring to those services and to the peculiar opportunities I have since had of acquiring further professional knowledge, I may say, without vanity, that her Majesty has no officer in her navy more experienced than myself; and yet, from the extraordinary circumstances of my case, I am the only flag-officer in her Majesty's service who, if called upon to take a command, could not do so consistently with his own honour and the respect due to those who might be appointed to serve under him. For where is the officer who could not conveniently call to mind, that I, who when only a captain was a Knight of the Bath, was deprived of that honour, and that now, though a flag-officer, I have not been deemed worthy of having it restored?" "I am sensible," wrote Lord Dundonald in another letter to the Premier, written eight days later, "that the act of justice which I experienced from the late King, under the ministry of Earl Grey, of which your lordship was a distinguished member, in restoring me to my naval rank, was a great favour, inasmuch as it evinced a considerate feeling towards me; and I was then fully satisfied with it, under the impression that it would be viewed by the public, and especially by the navy, as a testimony of the belief of the Government, at that time, that I was innocent of the offence that had been laid to my charge, and also that I should stand as good a chance as most of my brother officers (and perhaps, from my experience, a better) of being called to active service. I did not then foresee that the restoration of my naval rank alone would be viewed as a half-measure. Still less did I anticipate that, in the event of my being offered an appointment, I should be incapacitated from accepting it by reason of the feelings of other officers that I still laboured under some imputation which would render it derogatory to them to serve under me. But it is now impossible for me to conceal from myself the fact that, while the navy generally is kindly disposed towards me, and would rejoice to see me fully reinstated in all that I once enjoyed, I am considered by many to remain as completely precluded from active service as if my name had never more appeared in the Navy List, I trust, my lord, that it cannot be thought reasonable to reduce me to the inglorious condition of a retired or yellow admiral at home, and at the same time to deny me the privilege of acquiring either emolument or distinction in foreign service."
Lord Dundonald's hope was that, on the occasion of her Majesty's marriage, there would be a bestowal of honours, which would afford a convenient opportunity for the restoration of his dignity as a Knight of the Bath. But in this he was disappointed.
A minor favour was conferred upon him, however, and in a very gratifying way, eighteen months later. "You are probably aware," wrote Lord Minto to him on the 3rd of January, 1841, "that the death of Sir Henry Bayntam has vacated one of the pensions for good and meritorious service. Before I left town a few days ago I made my arrangements to enable me to confer this pension upon you, if you should think it worthy of your acceptance, either as evidence of the high estimation in which I have ever held your services, or as convenient in a pecuniary point of view. Although you are one of the few who have not applied for this, I do not fear that any one of the numerous claimants can show so good a title to it."
That compliment was accepted by Lord Dundonald in a spirit answering to that in which it was offered. Yet his reasonable anxiety for a restitution of the Order of the Bath was not abated, and thereupon he was engaged in a correspondence with the Earl of Haddington, then First Lord of the Admiralty, during the early part of 1842, which was closed by the intimation, bitterly disappointing to Lord Dundonald, that the Cabinet Council declined recommending the Queen to comply with his earnest request.
Equally disappointing was the result of another application with the same object which he made to Sir Robert Peel in the autumn of 1844. "Her Majesty's servants," wrote Sir Robert Peel on the 7th of November, "have had under consideration the letter which I received from your lordship, bearing date the 10th of September. On reference to the proceedings which were adopted in the year 1832, it appears that, previously to the restoration of your lordship to your rank in the navy, a free pardon under the Great Seal was granted to your lordship; and adverting to that circumstance, and to the fact that thirty years have now elapsed since the charges to which the free pardon had reference were the subject of investigation before the proper judicial tribunal of the country, her Majesty's servants cannot consistently with their duty advise the Queen to reopen an inquiry into these charges."
Lord Dundonald failed to see, in the partial reversal, twelve years before, of the unjust treatment to which he had been subjected eighteen years before that, a reason for refusing to inquire whether there was any injustice yet to be atoned for. He had not, however, very much longer to wait for the object which he sought.