Part 25

“The vice-admiral was not only conscious that he had done his duty in this affair, but also merited the approbation of his country. He had kept the sea with a very inadequate force, instead of returning into port; he had successfully blockaded a greatly superior fleet for nearly five months; and at sea, he had fought a battle, and captured two large ships, under circumstances where not to be defeated was equal to the honour of a victory. The advantage lay so wholly on his side that the adversary, although repeatedly menacing a farther trial, had been content to forego the opportunity, and at last to sheer off. All this was rightly appreciated by his commander-in-chief, Admiral Cornwallis, who sent him back to Ferrol on the 17th, with twenty sail of the line. But, unfortunately, a different estimate of these circumstances was formed at home. The nation had lately been pampered with naval victories; the Lords of the Admiralty murmured; and, because the enemy had not been completely worsted, it was alleged that the honour of the British flag had been sullied. Bitter representations to this effect were set forth in the public prints; and when these reached the vice-admiral, their effects on his honourable spirit may be easily imagined. He immediately demanded a public trial from the Lords of the Admiralty; and, in spite of the solicitations of Nelson, who besought him to remain, and share in those approaching triumphs of the fleet by which every calumny would be refuted, he returned to Spithead in the _Prince of Wales_, on board of which a court-martial assembled on the 23rd of December, 1805.”

The officers who sat on the court-martial were George Montagu, Admiral of the White, and Commander of His Majesty’s ships and vessels at Portsmouth and Spithead, President. Vice-Admirals: John Holloway, Bartholomew Samuel Rowley, and Edward Thornborough. Rear-Admirals: Sir Isaac Coffin, Bart., and John Sutton. Captains: James Bissett, Robert Dudley Oliver, John Irwin, James Athol Wood, John Seater, the Hon. Thomas Bladen Capel, and John Larmour. M. Greetham, Deputy-Judge Advocate of the fleet, conducted the prosecution.

The court being opened, Vice-Admiral Sir Robert Calder being called in, entered, attended by the Deputy-Marshal of the Admiralty.

The Order for the trial, dated the 15th of November, 1805, and directed to George Montagu, Esq., Admiral of the White, and Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty’s ships and vessels at Portsmouth and Spithead, was read, and was as follows:—

_By the Commissioners for Executing the Office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, &c._—Whereas Sir Robert Calder, Bart., Vice-Admiral of the Blue, hath, by his letter to our Secretary, dated the 30th of September last, requested, for the reasons therein mentioned, that an inquiry may be made into his (the said vice-admiral’s) conduct, on the 23rd of July last, the day after his engagement with the combined fleets of France and Spain, or, upon the whole, or such part thereof (when in presence of the enemy) as shall appear for the good of His Majesty’s service, and for enabling him to give his reasons publicly for his conduct on that occasion:

And whereas we have thought fit, in compliance with the vice-admiral’s request, and for the reasons mentioned in his said letter, that a court-martial shall be assembled for the purpose above-mentioned, and also for inquiring into the whole of the said vice-admiral’s conduct and proceedings on the said 23rd of July last, and into his subsequent conduct and proceedings until he finally lost sight of the enemy’s ships: And to try him for not having done his utmost to renew the said engagement, and to take or destroy every ship of the enemy, which it was his duty to engage: We send you herewith, Sir Robert Calder’s above-mentioned letter of the 30th of September last, and do hereby require and direct you to assemble a court-martial, as soon as the witnesses deemed necessary to be examined on this occasion shall be ready, which court (you being President thereof) is hereby required and directed to inquire into the conduct and proceedings of the said Vice-Admiral Sir Robert Calder, with His Majesty’s squadron under his command, on the said 23rd of July last, and also into his subsequent conduct and proceedings, until he finally lost sight of the enemy’s ships, and to try him for not having done his utmost to renew the said engagement, and to take and destroy every ship of the enemy, which it was his duty to engage accordingly.

Given under our hands, the 15th of November, 1805.

BARHAM. J. GAMBIER. PHILIP PATTON. By command of their Lordships, W. MARSDEN.

After the Members of the Court and the Deputy Judge-Advocate of the fleet were severally sworn, the President then said: Sir Robert Calder, one of your witnesses, Captain Prowse, is absent, are you willing that the court should proceed without him, or would you wish the trial to be postponed? And Sir Robert Calder answering that he wished the trial to proceed, his letter of the 30th of September to the Secretary of the Admiralty, desiring the inquiry, was then read, and was as follows:—

“PRINCE OF WALES,” off Cadiz, “_September 30, 1805_.

“Sir,—Having learnt with astonishment, yesterday, by the ships just arrived, and by letters from my friends in England, that there has been a most unjust and wicked endeavour to prejudice the public mind against me as an officer, and that my conduct on the 23rd of last July, in particular, has been animadverted on, in the most unjust and illiberal manner; for such it must be deemed, having been done at a time when I was absent abroad, employed in the service of my king and country.

“I must, therefore, request you will be pleased to move the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to grant an inquiry into my conduct on the 23rd July last, or upon the whole, or such part of it (when in presence of the enemy), as shall appear to their lordships, for the good of His Majesty’s service, and for the purpose of enabling me to give my reasons, publicly, for my conduct at that time, and to refute such unjust, illiberal, and unfounded assertions, when I trust I shall make it appear to the satisfaction of my King, country, and friends, that no part of my conduct and character, as an officer, will be found deserving of those unfavourable impressions, which, at present, occupy the public mind, being conscious that everything in my power, as an officer, was done for the honour and welfare of my king and country, after a very mature investigation of all the existing circumstances, and the very critical situation I was placed in, with the squadron I had the honour to command, at the time alluded to.

“I am, Sir, “Your most obedient humble servant, “R. CALDER.”

“William Marsden, Esq., “Admiralty.”

The trial then proceeded: the witnesses were, of course, chiefly the admirals and captains who had acted under him in the engagement. The point at issue was brief, and simply this: Did or did not the admiral do his best to renew the battle which had already gone in his favour? The witnesses for the prosecution inferred, rather than positively said, he did not; the witnesses for Calder, to a man, asserted that a renewal of the fight was beyond his power.

The following are the mainly pertinent and interesting portions of the evidence for the prosecution:—

Rear-Admiral Charles Stirling, who in “the _Glory_,” shared in the action, showed in his testimony a bias against Calder. He was asked:—

_Q._ Did the vice-admiral make any signal, or show any disposition to endeavour to renew the action?

_A._ I have before stated, that it appeared to me, that the admiral’s object was to keep company with the crippled ships on that day; and I saw no other signal indicative of an intention to renew the combat, after he had asked, if any of the ships wanted to lay to.

_Q._ Did the vice-admiral take any steps to direct the British fleet to bear up after the enemy on the 24th?

_A._ The British fleet continued standing from the enemy from the time I before mentioned that we were.

_Q._ Could the British fleet have pursued the enemy with advantage on the 24th, they steering to the southward and by east, and the wind being N. and by E.?

_A._ I don’t know any objection to the British fleet following the enemy, if the admiral had thought proper to do so.

_Q._ Did the vice-admiral at any time on the 24th show any disposition to renew the action?

_A._ I think that question answered by the preceding one.

_Court._—That is a specific question.

_A._ We continued, as I said before, to steer from the enemy.

_Q._ Did the vice-admiral, according to your remarks and observations, do everything that might have been done to renew the action, and to take and destroy every ship which it was his duty to engage?

_A._ We never attempted to renew the action, or laid our heads towards the enemy, as I have said before; it appeared to me the admiral’s object was to cover the crippled ships.

_Court._—At the time the British fleet bore down to the crippled ships, in what state was the _Windsor Castle_?

_A._ She appeared to have lost her fore-top-mast, and not able to make sail.

_Q._ What other ships of the British fleet were unable to keep company with the vice-admiral, had he endeavoured to bring the enemy to action?

_A._ I don’t know that any other ship was disabled.

Sir R. Calder cross-examined Admiral Stirling thus:

_Q._ Did you receive a letter from me, on service, after the action?

_A._ Yes; I had two letters from Sir Robert Calder, after the action, on service, of different dates.

_Q._ Did the first give any reason, and what, for standing to the northward, with the _Windsor Castle_ and prizes.

_A._ I have the letter here.

_Court._—That will be most satisfactory.

The letter was then read.

“PRINCE OF WALES,” at Sea, “_24th July, 1805_.

“My dear Sir,—Permit me to return you my most heartfelt thanks for your unremitting attentions, and for the very gallant support you rendered me during the whole of the action on the 22nd instant. Had the weather been favourable, and we could have seen to have made the necessary signals, to have availed ourselves of some of the mistakes of the enemy, I am fully convinced we should have made the victory much more complete. I was obliged to stand to the northward thus far, in order to cover the _Windsor Castle_, and the two captured ships. I think they are now safe from the combined, as well as the Rochefort squadron, and I am going back to Cape Finisterre, in hopes of seeing Lord Nelson; if I do not, I shall proceed off Ferrol, to see if any favourable opportunity should offer, when I may hope to attack the enemy with advantage. Wishing us all possible success,

“I am, my dear Stirling, “Ever yours most truly and sincerely, “(Signed) ROBERT CALDER.”

Sir Robert Calder produced a letter, and said, is this the answer to that letter?

_A._ It is not the answer, but is written in reply. I sent, by the same conveyance, a letter to the vice-admiral on public service.

_Sir Robert Calder._—You will observe they are not of the same date—one is the 24th, the other the 25th.

The letter from Rear-Admiral Stirling was then read.

“GLORY, _25th July, 1805_.

“My dear Sir,—I thank you much for your letter of yesterday; and can assure you, with great truth, I meant, and do mean to give you all the support in my power.

I hope you made a good tale to please John Bull, for you had a good subject to write on; and I think you have convinced Mons. Bonaparte that he cannot always get to sea and home again with impunity.

Excuse haste, and believe me, Most truly yours, (Signed) CHAS. STIRLING.”

“Sir Robert Calder, Bart.”

_A._ I should not have written so to my commanding officer, on public business: that was a private letter.

A conversation took place about the reading the public letter.

_Sir Robert Calder._—“I have no wish that any paper should be withheld; but, if the rear-admiral has any objection, I do not wish this should be read.”

_Rear-Admiral Stirling._—“I have no objection.”

The letter was then read.

“GLORY,” _24th July, 1805_.

“My dear Sir,—I congratulate you on the capture of the two Spaniards from a force so very superior to that opposed to it, and I think, if the three ships, which at one time showed a disposition to support them, had followed the intention, the consequence might have been decisive.

“The great object I had in view was to obey your orders, by keeping in a compact line, whilst the signal for that purpose remained in force, and therefore, as the _Raisonable_ closed with you, my captain took care that nothing could pass between her and this ship.

“On the surrender of the Spaniards, I directed the _Warrior_ to send and assist in taking possession, and afterwards sent similar orders to the _Thunderer_, as there was no knowing, from the thickness of the weather, what might otherwise be the consequence, if your attention was confined to the van. I likewise ordered the _Egyptienne_, when I got sight of her, to get the prizes on the same tack with us, and to tow them to leeward of our line, which orders will, I hope, meet with your approbation. I know not why there was a separation in the night. Captain Linzee went in pursuance of his instructions, and rejoined me before the morning.

“We had only one man killed, and four wounded; the fore-yard was grazed, which we have fished; and what was otherwise hit, was not of any consequence.

“I have great pleasure of bearing testimony to the zeal of Captain Warren and his officers, and feel much confidence from the good conduct of the crew belonging to the ship where my flag is flying, if our good fortune should again lead us against the foes of our country.

“Believe me, with great esteem, dear Sir, “Your most obedient humble servant, “(Signed) CHARLES STIRLING.”

“Sir Robert Calder, Bart.”

_Rear-Admiral Stirling._—I believe that letter was sent to the admiral on the 25th, and I had the honour to wait upon him in the afternoon, by his permission; and to the best of my recollection that was my reason for not returning an official answer. I do not recollect any other communication with the admiral, from about midnight of the 22nd.

_Q._ Did I not always place the British squadron between the enemy and the _Windsor Castle_ and prizes, when they were in tow?

_A._ The British fleet was always between them.

_Q._ Was not the British squadron always placed by me between that of the enemy and the port of Ferrol, while the enemy remained in sight?

_A._ The British fleet was nearer to Ferrol than the enemy, till they crossed our stern on the 24th.

_Q._ When they crossed our stern could the enemy have fetched Ferrol?

_A._ I do not think they could, as we had the wind.

_Court._—What distance was the British fleet from Rochefort, on the morning after the action?

_A._ I don’t know; the chart will tell. By my master’s reckoning, Cape Finisterre bore S.E. and by E. forty leagues.

Rear-Admiral George Martin, who was captain of the _Barfleur_ in the action, was asked,—

Considering the wind, and the relative situation of the two fleets, during the 23rd of July, could the British fleet have neared the enemy, and renewed the engagement?

_A._ The enemy being rather abaft the beam, the British fleet would have neared the enemy had they tacked. But whether they could have renewed the engagement, I cannot say. That must, in great measure, have depended on the enemy, they being to windward.

_Q._ Did the vice-admiral make any signal, or show any disposition to renew the action on that day?

_A._ No.

Sir Robert Calder put in the following paper, which was read:—

“I admit I did not show any such disposition, except by hauling my wind when the enemy bore down, as by doing so I must have separated myself from the crippled ships and prizes.”

Rear-Admiral Martin was further asked,—

Did the vice-admiral, from your remarks and observation, do everything in his power, that he might have done, from the morning of the 23rd, till you lost sight of the enemy, to renew the engagement, and to take and destroy every ship which it was his duty to engage?

_A._ I consider I have answered that question by saying on neither day did he stand towards the enemy.

Sir Robert cross examined Admiral Martin:—

_Q._ Could I have pursued the enemy on the morning of the 24th, without separating the rest of the squadron from the _Windsor Castle_ and prizes, and from the frigates which had them in tow?

_A._ Certainly not, without separating from the prizes; and not under a press of sail, without separating from the _Windsor Castle_.

_Q._ Did I not always place myself between the enemy and the _Windsor Castle_ and crippled ships, while in tow?

_A._ It appeared to me to be the intention of Sir Robert Calder to keep company with them, from the time of the action, till they separated by signal.

_Q._ You understood that for their protection?

_A._ Certainly.

_Q._ Was not the British squadron always placed by me between the enemy and the port of Ferrol, as long as the enemy remained in sight?

_A._ We certainly were between them; but whether the position was taken for that purpose or not, I cannot say.

Captain Philip Charles Durham, of the _Defiance_; Captain Henry Inman, of the _Triumph_, who were also both in the action, were the other two principal witnesses; their testimony did not add much to the weight of the prosecution. After their evidence was given, the court adjourned to Thursday, the 26th of December, 1805, when Sir Robert Calder delivered in his defence, and requested that it might be read by a friend (Mr. Gaselee),[22] and the court intimating their consent, the same was read. It opened thus:—

“MR. PRESIDENT, AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COURT,—I appear before you in a singular, I may almost say an unprecedented, situation. Having served my king and country, not only without reproach, but, I may add, with some degree of reputation, for upwards of forty-six years, during which I have been more than once honoured with marks of approbation from my sovereign; having for the last ten months been employed on a most severe and critical service, without once being in port; and having in the course of it, with a very inferior fleet, forced a superior one of the enemy, who had the advantage of wind and situation, into action, and obtained a decisive victory over them, I felt myself impelled to solicit the present inquiry, for the purpose of vindicating my honour and my character from a variety of injurious and unfounded aspersions which have been cast upon me, in consequence of the not having renewed the engagement during the two days that the enemy afterwards remained in sight. The consciousness of my having done my duty, would, however, have induced me to treat these aspersions with contempt, had they not become so general that I was apprehensive that silence on my part would be construed into an acknowledgment of their truth, and an admission of my own misconduct; I found myself, therefore, under the necessity of applying to the Lords of the Admiralty, to order an inquiry into my conduct, that I might be enabled to state publicly the reasons which actuated it throughout, and to refute the illiberal and unfounded assertions which had been made against me. To this they have been pleased to assent; and although, in a subsequent letter of the 10th of November to that which accompanies the order for your assembling, I requested that the court might be empowered ‘to inquire into the whole of my conduct, even prior to my falling in with the enemy, while in their presence, and subsequent thereto,’ they have thought it right to confine it to _the 23rd of July, and my subsequent conduct and proceedings_, until I finally lost sight of the enemy’s ships, and to direct me to be tried for not having done my utmost to renew the engagement, and to take and destroy every ship of the enemy, which the charge asserts it was my duty to engage. I consider this, therefore, as a declaration by their lordships, that this is the only part of my conduct upon which any particle of doubt can by possibility attach, or of which any explanation can be requisite. At the same time, however, I cannot but lament that the inquiry is so limited; as it prevents my giving evidence of the circumstances of the action, which I have no doubt I should have proved to have been such as to add to the reputation of the British navy.

“As to defending myself against this charge, I trust I shall be able to satisfy the court and the public, that the not renewing the engagement, if it was practicable to have done it, was not only justifiable, but the most proper and prudent course, under all the circumstances, to be adopted; and that the attempting to force a renewal of the action, might not only have endangered the safety of my own fleet, but eventually that of the country itself; I shall request the indulgence of the court, to be permitted to enter fully into all the circumstances, and to lay before them the particular situation in which I was placed, the orders I had from time to time received, and the reasons which induced me not to attempt a renewal of the action; confident that when I have done so, all the prejudices that have been hitherto entertained, will be dissipated, and that by your judgment I shall be restored to the good opinion of my country,—that country for which I have bled, and for which I have conquered.

“Before, however, I enter into the particular statement, permit me to make an observation or two on the specific charge, which is the principal object of your inquiry. It does not range itself precisely within any of the Articles of War, though it in part adopts the language of one of them. It assumes as a principle, that it was my duty to renew the engagement, and to endeavour to take or destroy every ship of the enemy.

“I am ready to admit, that it is so much the duty of an officer to engage the enemy wherever he meets with them, that it is incumbent upon him to explain satisfactorily why he does not; but, in making that explanation, it is not necessary for him to prove the physical impossibility of doing so. It may be possible, and yet there may be very many reasons why he should not. Indeed, the absurdity of a contrary position is such, that it would be an idle waste of time to trouble the court with many observations upon it.

“They will, however, permit me to observe, that mine is not the only instance in which a British fleet has laid in sight of that of the enemy without renewing the engagement.

“In proof of this assertion, if it be necessary, I need only recal to your memory, out of many others, the example of two very great and gallant officers, who after obtaining most brilliant victories over the enemy, did not think themselves justified in bringing them a second time to action, although they were in sight of them fully as long as I was. The two meritorious officers to whom I allude are, Earl Howe, in the action of the 1st of June, 1794, and Earl St. Vincent, in that of the 27th of February, 1797. Of the latter, I am competent to speak from my own knowledge, having had the honour to serve under his lordship as captain of the fleet in that engagement.