During this year, soon after the return of the commissioners to England, an important operation took place on the side of Georgia, and the complete success of which gave a hope that the war, if transferred to the south, might prove more successful than it had hitherto been. Some of the southern colonies were in a state of utter confusion—royalists being arrayed against revolutionists, and province against province. Thus, between the people of East Florida, who remained under the British government, and the people of Georgia, who had joined the cause of congress, there existed an irreconcilable hatred. These provinces had but recently been at war with each other, when Georgia was successfully invaded by the British. Sir Henry Clinton despatched Colonel Campbell thither with 3500 men, by sea, under convoy of Admiral Parker, and on his arrival his first object was the reduction of the city of Savannah, the capital of Georgia, which was defended by the American General Robert How. The whole country between Savannah and the sea was impassable to troops, being low, marshy, and intersected by creeks and artificial watercourses. The city stood on the southern bank of the Savannah River, about fifteen miles from the sea; and Parker therefore conveyed the troops up that river, and after surmounting some difficulties he succeeded in landing them at a plantation about three miles below the city. Some Highlanders, commanded by a Cameron, first moved from the river bank along a narrow causeway, with some high ground at the end of it where the Americans were posted. As they approached the Americans opened a fire upon them, and Cameron and two of his company were slain. The loss of their leader, however, urged the clansmen on to desperate enterprise. They rushed upon the enemy with a fierce cry for revenge, and drove them back into some woods nearer the town. When Campbell arrived on the scene of action he found the American general posted outside the town, having swamps, woods, trenches, and deep rice-fields all around him. He discovered a private path leading through the swamp, which covered the enemy’s right flank, and having sent some of his Highlanders’ light infantry and New York volunteers round by that path, he surprised the enemy in the rear. They fled for their lives through the town of Savannah, four hundred and fifty of them being captured in their flight; and the town and fort, with an abundance of stores, became the prize of the conquerors. In a few days the remnant of How’s army was driven across the Savannah River into South Carolina, and then the inhabitants flocked to Colonel Campbell to take the oath of allegiance to the British monarch. The provincials were greatly conciliated by his lenity and moderation; and even some of the hot preachers, who had excited the Georgians into insurrection and republicanism, now turned royalists. The whole of Georgia was in the hands of the royalists except the town of Sunbury, and this place was soon after reduced by General Prevost, who was sent to Savannah to take the chief command. He was joined here by many suffering royalists from South Carolina and Virginia, while others repaired to head-quarters at New York.
MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
Parliament met on the 25th of November. Little notice was taken of the operations in America; but his majesty bitterly complained of the unprovoked hostility of the court of France. His majesty also alluded to preparations going on in Spain, and remarked that however friendly and seemingly sincere the professions made to us might be, it was a subject that must gain the attention of the house. The king noticed the complete failure of the commissioners and of the conciliatory measures passed during the last sitting of parliament, and urged the necessity of the most active exertions, in order to vindicate and maintain the honour of the crown and the interests of the people. He concluded with saying, that, according to the powers vested in him, he had called out the militia to assist in the defence of the country, and that he had with high satisfaction witnessed the public spirit, ardour, and love of their country which animated all classes of his subjects; and which could not fail of ensuring safety at home and procuring respect abroad.
In both houses the address of his majesty was opposed. In the lords it was condemned in toto, with the king’s speech, and the opposition proposed putting an absolute negative upon the whole. It was argued in support of this proposition, that ministers were proceeding upon false principles, upheld by obstinacy, folly, and error, and tending to inevitable ruin; that new men and new measures must be adopted before we could hope for success in war, or honour and security in peace; that as ministers had shown themselves incompetent to the management of the war when they only had the Americans to contend with, it was not to be expected that they would be able to contend with the united arms of France and America; and that they would be still less able if Spain joined the contest. Ministers and their supporters argued that it would be monstrous to refuse addressing, especially as the speech dwelt solely on the dangers of the kingdom from the perfidy of France; and as the address was a simple declaration of supporting his majesty against the machinations of the French government. The address was carried by a majority of sixty-seven against thirty-five. In the commons the opposition moved an amendment “to assure his majesty that from zeal and affection that house was ready to give the most ample support to such measures as might be thought necessary for the defence of those kingdoms, or for frustrating the designs of that restless power which had so often disturbed the peace of Europe; but that they thought it their duty to inquire by what fatal councils and unhappy systems of policy this country had been reduced from that splendid situation which, in the early part or his majesty’s reign, made her the envy of all Europe, to her present dangerous state, which had of late called forth our utmost exertions without any adequate benefit.” The speakers in opposition, who supported this amendment, chiefly dwelt on the numerous blunders of administration in the management of the war; attributing every failure to their measures, and every successful operation to circumstances over which they had no control. It was argued, indeed, that ministers had only made such preparations as would ensure defeats; and that it was marvellous we were not involved in indiscriminate ruin and disgrace. The blunders of ministers were both numerous and palpable, but it cannot be denied that they were mightily magnified by the opposition, who looked at their every movement with a jealous and jaundiced eye. The amendment was rejected by a majority of two hundred and twenty-six against one hundred and seven.
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.