Search just our sites by using our customised site search engine

Click here to get a Printer Friendly PageSmiley

Click here to learn more about MyHeritage and get free genealogy resources

The Life of General The Hon. James Murray
Chapter XIX. The Reward of Constancy

Murray remained long enough at Minorca to complete the arrangements for embarking the remains of his garrison to England, and to see that every possible care was given to the large number of invalids. He sent his adjutant, Captain Don, direct to England with his despatches, and the other officers were permitted to return on parole not to serve again during the war. By Don he sent the following letter to Lord Hillsborough, which explains the situation which had arisen very completely:

Minorca, Feb. 16. 1782.

"Private. To be laid before His Majesty if Lord Hillsborough shall think proper.

"My Lord, I judge it was better not to mention in my public letters a word of the unhappy differences betwixt Sir William Draper and me. They commenced the moment the enemy invested the place, and at last he refused to act as lieut.-governor, because I would not consent to call a council of war. . . .

After Sir William resigned, or rather refused to act, I ordered the field officers of the garrison to meet and give me their advice how to defend the fort. In place of that they to a man declared it impossible to resist longer, and advised to require a cessation of arms from the besiegers for a month, and then to capitulate if no succours arrived to us from England —an idea which appeared to me absurd and malicious. . . . All this will appear evident to youi Lordship by the authentic papers which 1 will have the honor to present to you. . . . Although great honor must result to me from a publication of the facts, I am far from wishing it, if the least inconveniency to His Majesty or any of his servants should proceed from it.55

It is unfortunate that he did not himself make all speed to get to England. Probably he did not foresee the power which the malignancy of Draper could exercise, and it was but natural that his first thoughts were towards his wife and a desire to see his newly-born son and heir, who had arrived on the scene on January 25.

In his own interests it is certain that no family question should have detained him. He did not arrive in England until the beginning of June, and the time was little propitious to his affairs. Much mischief had already been done by the start given to Sir William Draper, and the very causes which militated against Murray favoured the other. The Government of Great Britain was again in confusion. The Ministry of Lord North had but recently fallen, and that of the Marquis of Rockingham which followed was unstable. The Marquis himself was dying, and the dissensions of the principal officers of State was soon to lead to fresh changes. In the Rockingham Ministry Lord Shelburne had a leading position, and, of course, his fidus Achates, Colonel Barre, had a place.* The views and consideration which might have obtained under the advice of Lord North were likely to be much less favourable under Shelburne, and it is more than probable that Barre would do nothing to lessen the scandal of Draper's attack. Apart from this, the long-drawn negotiations over the terms of peace with the revolted colonies were in full progress, and the disasters of the war had even served to throw into the background the whole question of Minorca. The feelings of the nation were numbed by reverses, and if the loss of Minorca had caused a shock, it was but an additional wrench to nerves already so torn as to be scarcely capable of further feeling.

Probably the first inkling of the state of affairs was conveyed in a letter from Captain Don, dated London, March 21, 1782:

"I arrived here the 19th inst. at six o'clock in the evening, and immediately delivered your despatches and the private letter to Lord Hillsborough.1 He read them in my presence and expressed his entire approbation of the contents. ... I went to the levee. His Majesty inquired particularly about your health, wished it might soon be perfectly re-established, and seemed desirous to see you in England. . . . The dispute between you and Sir William is a good deal talked of. In general he is greatly condemned and looked upon as a madman, yet I can perceive he has some friends. Last night a total change of the Ministry was announced. The Rockingham party comes in. The Marquis in place of Lord North; Shelburne and Fox, Secretaries of State; Burke, First Lord of Trade; Conway, Commander-in-Chief; Barre, Secretary at War.| The Greys have been vacant for some time. ... it is said his Majesty intends to give you the regiment as a distinguished mark of his approbation of your conduct. . . ."

On the April 10 Captain Don reported further:—

"Sir William Draper has had an audience with the King. He has done his utmost to prepossess His Majesty against you, and daily endeavours to injure your character and reputation as an officer; but both, thank God, are established on too firm a basis to be shook by his infamous stories, with which he tries to fill the ears of ignorant people of this country. All he says and does tends to his own ruin and destruction, which his friends foresee. ..."

On receipt of the first of these letters, Murray wrote to the Secretary at War (Thomas Townshend), dated Leghorn, April 22, 1782:

"I am informed letters have been wrote by Sir William Draper arraigning my conduct in the defence of Fort St. Phillips, and that his accusations arc talked of to ruin my reputation.

"His Majesty is too just to allow the character of an old faithful servant to be hurt by whispers of his enemies. I do, therefore, in the most humble manner, throw myself at the King's feet, to beg that a public inquiry may be made into the conduct of his Governor and "Lieut.-Governor during the late siege of Fort St. Phillips, that not only His Majesty, but all the world may judge whether or not my behaviour and proceedings on that occasion are liable to any degree of censure."

Enclosing a copy of this letter to the Commander-in-Chief, General Conway, he said:

"My friends tell me His Majesty means to confer the command of the Greys on me, but that letters from Sir William Draper arraigning my conduct occasions a delay of that intended honour. Certainly the delay is very just and proper. Of course nothing can be more reasonable than my desire to have a most rigid and most public scrutiny made into my conduct.

"No honour or emolument which the King and my country can bestow can make up for the uneasiness I feel while there is the least shadow of doubt regarding my reputation, either as a soldier or a citizen. I therefore flatter myself General Conway will promote my wishes to procure the inquiry I apply for through the Secretary of War, which, I presume, is the proper channel. . . ."

Conway replied, dated May 11:—

"... I have at the same time the pleasure to inform you that the cause of His Majesty disposing of the Greys, which had been some time kept open, as, I understand, in the idea of their being offered to you on your return, was now disposed of from no prejudice in His Majesty's mind arising from anything personal to you, or any idea of disapprobation, but from the long and as he foresaw necessary delay."

Captain Don wrote on the same date that:

"General Conway commanded me to acquaint you that His Majesty still entertained the highest and most favourable opinion of you, and that after inquiry he would most certainly bestow on you the great honour which your conduct justly deserved."

These hitters indicate that if he had returned to England direct from Minorca and put the case in person before the King the course of events would have been very different. His Majesty was evidently well disposed towards him, and it is impossible to suppose that he would have permitted the evident malice of a subordinate to bring discredit on a gallant commander, had that commander been present to state his case. In his absence, the publicity given to the statements of Draper, whose literary ability and journalistic fame gave him an immense advantage over Murray, probably left the King no choice but to bring the matter to trial.

We live in happier days, and it would be difficult to suppose that a subordinate officer, who had been relieved of his post during active service for refusing to carry out his orders, would have the power under King George V. to bring his commander to trial. At all events, whether the commander were tried or not, it is pretty certain the subordinate would be tried first. Under King George III-this did not take place. There seemed to be no disposition to bring Draper to trial, and perhaps Murray had no course open to him but to press for a public examination of the statements published broadcast by Draper. Murray maintained silence, preferring, as he said, to suffer the attacks of his enemy rather than publish matter which might be inconvenient to the Ministry.

On arrival in England he addressed the Commander-in-Chief from Beauport, dated June 11, 1782.

"When I arrived here, two days ago, I had the honour to receive your Excellency's letters of May 11 and 29.2 I am perfectly sensible the only favour my royal master can grant me at present is a public trial and investigation of my conduct by a general court martial. His Majesty's justice assured me of obtaining that, which is the only thing I wished for.

"The zeal I profess for the service of my country, the obedience I owe the King, and the regard I have for my own honour and reputation, must stifle the resentment I severely feel, until the world is convinced and can determine who has been faulty. If I shall be proved in that predicament I must be unworthy of receiving any commands from His Majesty or living in a country I have dishonoured."

To Lord Mansfield he expressed himself from a more public point of view:

"My royal master's affairs have suffered much from the disagreements and caprice of his admirals and generals. I judge it high time to correct such abuses. Minorca, the beginning of the last war, occasioned the reformation of the British admirals; it may now be productive of that of its generals. If Sir William Draper and I are to blame, we both should suffer, and be made examples of, to deter others from forming factions and intrigues, the prevailing spirit of the limes, so destructive to the welfare and honour of our country."

Murray's expressed desire for a court martial was granted, but owing to various delays, the trial did not take place until November (1782), commencing on the 12th of that month and continuing with various adjournments until January 20, 1783. The cause was something of a cause celebre, and attracted much public attention. The loss of Minorca had stirred the popular imagination, and the gallant unaided struggle had brought the defenders prominently to notice, while at the same time it had lent powerful incentive to the opponents of the late Government. The tragedy of Admiral Byng was still a recent memory, and the gossips and scandalmongers of the coffeehouses laid wagers that the Minorca trial of 1782 would bring the same excitements as had followed its loss in 1756.

General Sir George Howard, K.B., was President of the court, and among the members, most of whom were distinguished officers, was the name of General Thomas Gage, and to have this old enemy sitting in judgment upon him must have added a drop to Murray's bitter cup. The general charge, formulated at the instance of Sir William Draper, was :

"Having antecedent to the siege but after certain notice of the preparation making by the enemy for the purpose—as also during the siege and subsequent thereto —been guilty of flagrant misbehaviour in the exercise of his command, as well as of culpable neglect, particularised in full instances."

The particularised instances comprised in all twenty-nine items, of all degrees of importance, from having permitted officers to reside outside the fortress before the siege, and making a road between the fortress and the town of Mahon, to orders published to the troops, which in the opinion of the accuser, tended to " cool the zeal and ardour of the garrison." Of these charges Draper attempted to withdraw several, but Murray insisted on everything remaining on the sheet and declared his strong desire that every item should be fully examined. The proceedings of the court are contained in a bulky volume (War Office Records 71-100 in the Public Record Office) of 600 or 700 pages. It is unnecessary to do more than very briefly summarise the result.

It was not until December 9 that the prosecution completed the evidence tendered, and General Murray was called upon to make his defence. He was much broken, and had hardly recovered from the fatigues and ill-health of his late experiences. It is recorded by the court that "by reason of his voice being feeble" his defence was read by the judge advocate-general. This moving statement, which he had prepared himself, was a long document, of which a few extracts must suffice to indicate its character.

"Sir George Howard, and the other general officers on the court martial! I am brought a prisoner before you after forty-three years' service in various stations, under all the different climates where Ilis Majesty's arms have been employed in the extensive operations which will fill the page of history during that period, without ever having been the author or the object of any military dishonour, nor the prosecutor of any officer to a public trial, much less a prisoner myself at the bar of justice.

"As it is not my wish to conceal or perplex anything, it is my desire to have every accusation sifted to the bottom. It was this motive that induced me to apply for a court martial to decide on my conduct. Some of my friends have thought I did wrong in pressing such a decision: it certainly is not a situation wantonly to be courted. For although I have made no complaints that no assistance was sent to me during so long a siege; and although I have endeavoured to avoid every imputation of blame upon others, and to confine the justification of my own conduct to the best disposition of the means put in my power, yet I hope the peculiar circumstances attending my garrison in this respect will never be forgotten, for their honour and my own, by those who consider the final catastrophe.

"In a scene so trying, with a feeble garrison, a defective fortification, and little hope of relief when attacked by the combined forces of such powerful enemies, I must consider it as a very unfortunate circumstance, notwithstanding the little regard I can now possess for General Sir William Draper, that a man of his rank, station, and reputation for abilities saw all my actions through a medium which aj pears from the charges he has exhibited, I will show from a previous report I made to the King that I acted in all things from deliberate resolves drawn from my conception of the fortification and the probable attack and the best mode of defence which could be adopted under the circumstances in which we stood.

"That the Due de Crillon did attempt acquiring possession of the fortress I commanded by corrupt means is known to all the world, as well as the answer I made him at the moment while I proclaimed the disgraceful proposal. I claim no merit from this behaviour. I hope the meanest soldier in my garrison would have equally rejected such an ignominious offer; but I beg, while I claim no merit from such conduct, that it may not subject me to any malicious insinuations. . . .

I might, indeed, justly complain of Sir William Draper for endeavouring to prejudice the public opinion against me by a number of charges which he had not even professed or attempted to establish in proof. . . .

"If in such a complaint of a public accuser there arc any, much more if there are many, charges evidently dictated by malice or gross prejudice; if there be found a number of articles which he must have certainly known from the beginning to have been incapable of the slightest support from evidence, which could therefore be introduced for no other reason than to prejudice my defence, and which he himself seeks even to abandon and retract, the presumption in the minds of just and sagacious judges is that the same temper pervades the whole accusation, and thus the innocence of the accused derives support from the injustice of the accuser. . . .

One of the heaviest charges against me, and which has made the greatest impression on the public, is giving out in public orders on the 8th day of January last (being the third day of the siege) that ' the enemy's battering train was such as had never been brought against any place of the first magnitude since the invention of gunpowder, and that the garrison of Fort St. Phillips had little or no dependence upon its artillery,' which orders tended to augment the terror of the enemy's attack and to cool the zeal and ardour of the artillerymen of the garrison, and from the date of which order the fire from the place became almost extinct in the day time, and the enemy redoubled their efforts.

"Now, is it possible for any man to read the entire original order and pervert the plain and obvious meaning of it to such an accusation as is stated above, or to believe that a man could suppose that this order should have the effect of dispiriting the corps of artillery as described in the charge. ... I do not pique myself on being an elegant writer. I have carried arms from my youth, and was not educated for any of the learned professions, neither did I ever study the words of any military order with the view of parade. I wish at all times to make my meaning intelligible, and I can only declare to this court that I never was more unfortunate in conveying my sentiments or less understood, if my words contained in that order can bear the interpretation which my accuser has put on them, for my intention was to rouse the "vigilance of the garrison and to dissipate some little alarm which the opening of so unusual a train of artillery against us had occasioned. . . .

"The fortress of St. Phillips was besieged in the last war. The garrison then consisted of 13252 men, of which 2951 were regular troops. The army of the Due de Richelieu was 3 4,000 men. The place was taken in 72 days, after an effort was made to relieve it, and the Governor was made a peer.

"My garrison consisted of 2692 men, of which number only 2016 were regular troops, including 400 invalids from England in 1775. The army under the Due de Crillon was 16,000, and from the time of his landing to the time of my surrender was 171 days.

"I had no relief sent to my assistance; my unfortunate worn-out soldiers suffered every hardship incident to the want of vegetables and to foul air.

"I suffered many of these calamities in common with the rest, and did not surrender my garrison until all the principal officers of the fort were unanimous in their opinion that no further effective defence could possibly be made, and in reward I am a prisoner before this court loaded with imputations of the foulest and blackest kind, drawn up by a man who seems to have been harbouring malice against me from the year 1780, and couched in language the most opprobrious and reproachful to a soldier. ..."

After this address Murray proceeded to examine each charge. I shall only notice three of them:

"Giving out in public orders on January 8 that the enemy's battering train was such as had never before been brought against any place of the first magnitude since the invention of gunpowder. . . . Tending to cool the zeal and ardour of the garrison."

In reply to this charge the whole original order was submitted to the court, and the effrontery of trumping up a charge on the extract is so apparent that one marvels that the accuser was not then and there tried himself. The whole order ran thus :

"The Governor is highly pleased with the alacrity and zeal which has hitherto been shown by the artillery in their profession. lie desires they will accept his hearty thanks. It is true the defences have been hurt by the superiority of such a battering train as was never before brought against any place of the first magnitude since the invention of powder, but the garrison may be assured that the defence of Fort St. Phillips has little or no dependence on its artillery. That branch has already done more than he expected. It is certain that at least 1000 men of the besieging army suffered before its batteries were opened. When our well-timed and well-served fire upon them, while they were exposed so much in opening their batteries, is considered, great havock must have been made. Our artillery is still vigorous, our mines, subterraneous and underground defences, with our outline and glacis, are inaccessible ; it is by a vigorous defence of them we are to get the glory the world expects from us. They cannot be disappointed by so brave a garrison. . . ."

These words may not have been so clear or so elegant as the scholarly Draper would have chosen. As General Murray stated to the court, he had served from his boyhood, he had little opportunity of learning to turn nice phrases ; but the intention cannot be mistaken, and the scandal of permitting his subordinate to bring the charge referred to can hardly be forgiven.

The judgment of the court on this article was "not guilty," and they added a rider:

"The court think it incumbent on them to remark that this article of charge contains a partial quotation from the order in question, the whole whereof, although injudiciously worded in the part alluded to, collectively taken bears a very different construction."

The eighth article of charge ran thus:—

"Giving out an order, dated October 15, 1781, No gun or piece of ordnance is hereafter to be fired in daylight without orders of the commanding officer of artillery, who can upon the smallest notice communicate with the Governor, who is ever watchful' ; which order greatly tended to invite and facilitate the enemy's approach, and numerous opportunities of obstructing their movements were thereby lost."

The instant comment of a modern soldier on such an order would be that if the commander considered it necessary to issue it, it was certainly not for a subordinate to find fault. I imagine very similar orders were not uncommon during the early days of the struggle on the Aisne in our own Great War.* General Murray explained that " the young officers wasted rounds on insignificant objects, and finding remonstrance ineffectual he issued the order," and he had no difficulty in showing that the rate of expenditure of gunpowder gave serious cause for alarm that a shortage would ensue before the critical state of the siege arrived. The real trouble arose from the fact that Draper considered himself insulted by having his authority in this respect subordinated to that of an artillery officer of junior rank. Strangely, as it seems to me, the court adopted this view! "The court are of opinion that Lieut.-General Murray is guilty, although it does not appear to the court that the order was issued with any intention of inviting the enemy's approach."

The only other charge I intend to mention is one of " exacting large sums on auctions held in the prize court of the vice-admiral, notwithstanding that he had agreed to take a fixed allowance in lieu of all perquisites." It appears that the rule formerly in vogue was that the officials of the Vice-Admiralty Court were entitled to a perquisite of 2| per cent, on the value of the sale of prizes captured from the enemy. Murray considered this rule oppressive, and in the particular circumstances likely to give rise to ill-practices, and altered it to one of public auctions, in which the auctioneers' fees should be reduced to per cent. Some correspondence had taken place on the subject between the secretaries of the Governors of Minorca and Gibraltar, and the evidence showed that Murray had been told that, at the latter place, the fees were at the disposal of the vice-admiral. It appears that he did not trouble himself much about the matter, but permitted some person, whom he refused to name, to draw one-half of the fee, the auctioneer retaining the other half. In doing so he stated:

"I imitated the Governor of Gibraltar, who is on the same footing with the Governor of Minorca with regard to having a fixed salary. . . . The court, after what I have candidly said and avowed, are to judge whether or not this half of the auctioneers' fees was not a fair and ostensible perquisite of the Vice-Admiral of Minorca and Gibraltar. If I had not thought it such I certainly would not have claimed it. I do not think it proper to say just how I disposed of it. It is sufficient to assure the court I did not put it in my own pocket."

Perhaps it may have caused some sense of shame to Draper when Murray declared that he had communicated this matter to him, as there was a proposal for him to succeed to the governorship, and he (Murray) did not wish him to lose. The whole affair was trivial, but the court saw fit to adjudge the Governor as guilty. I have little doubt that to the man who had refused to take up the post of Governor, so long as it depended for emoluments on perquisites, and who had written to Lord Rochfort of "His Majesty's assurance that my salary should be fixed independent of such disgraceful emoluments," such a decision was bitter. The very order on which the court relied, which ran, "The revenue arising from monopolies of shops, canteens, corn, oil, tobacco, fines, etc., which formerly composeel part of the emoluments of our commandants at Minorca, be abolished," had been published by Government at the instance of Murray himself!

On the remaining charges the court declared the accused to be not guilty; and a general summary stated:

"Upon the whole it appears to the court, from the evidence, that Lieut.-General Murray did conduct himself with great zeal, courage, and firmness in the defence of Fort St. Phillips, that the place was not half garrisoned, had no prospect of relief, and was not given up till it became, from the enfeebled state of the garrison, no longer tenable, also that several of the articles of charge which have been preferred against Lieut.-General Murray are frivolous and ill-founded."

In addition to the direct charges, Sir William Draper had preferred four others of a personal nature, in which he claimed that he had been "offended." From the court he got very little satisfaction, but out of them arose a secondary question which became important. Murray was alleged to have accused the lieut.-governor of trying to take the command into his own hands, Draper had replied that such an allegation was "false and infamous," and to this the Governor had replied that " he would do justice to himself, he (Draper) might be assured, when the proper time arrives." The court scented the probability that a duel was intended, and there is not the least doubt that the irascible Governor was looking forward to meeting his subordinate on the "green at twelve paces." Such a denoument was apparently highly scandalous to the ourt martial, though why they should all through have had so much regard for Draper's safety is not apparent. His conduct had been unsoldierly to a degree, and he should certainly have been tried himself, and if Murray had succeeded in putting the contents of a pistol into him it was no more than he deserved. In the event, however, in placing the proceedings of the court martial before the King, His Majesty's attention was drawn to the offensive words, and the court suggested that of his royal authority an injunction should be issued " to prevent the most serious consequences between the par4ies."

The King's award on the- court's finding was announced by the judge advocate-general. He declared the:

"Royal approbation of the opinion of the court martial upon every point, but that in consideration as well of the zeal, courage, and firmness with which Lieut.-General Murray appears to the court to have conducted himself in the defence of Fort St. Phillips, as of his former long and approved services, His Majesty had been graciously pleased to dispense with any other reprimand in respect of the misdemeanours whereof he has in two instances been found guilty, than that which the sentence of the court martial itself virtually conveys. And that His Majesty had at the same time expressed much concern than an officer of Sir William Draper's rank and distinguished conduct should suffer his judgment to be so far perverted by any sense of personal grievance as to view the general conduct of his superior officer in an unfavourable light, and in consequence to exhibit several charges which the court martial, after a diligent investigation, have deemed to be frivolous or ill-founded."

The court was further instructed to take such steps as they considered adequate to compose the personal question between the parties.

Sir William Draper at once declared his willingness to make the apology which the court prescribed, and to comply with their injunction to its full extent. It seems, indeed, obvious that he was being treated with a leniency which almost inferred partiality. With Murray the case was far different. The court first decided that Draper had not " sustained any grievance," and then called upon his commander to "express concern," in other words, to apologise for using words that hurt his feelings! This was more than our stout Scot could thole. He replied to the court that he was ready to abide by the injunction of the court with respect to the matter not having any further consequence, "so long as he continued a soldier," at the same time "remonstrating against and objecting to that part of the declaration . . . which is expressive of concern that he should have made use of any words which could have hurt Sir William Draper's feelings"; and on explanation being demanded "he plainly intimated he should not hold himself bound to such compliance beyond that period (of being a soldier), and that he trusted he should not be compelled to serve during life."

Here was a deadlock! The court offered conciliatory arguments, and recommended the outraged General to retire and consult with his friends.

"After some time elapsed, Lieut.-General Murray returning, declared that he still retained the same sentiments, and that he might not be misunderstood, had committed the same to writing, which he read to the following effect: 'In all private concerns I conceive I am master of my own actions, and I choose to keep my honour under my own preservation. In every military point I am under the orders of the King, whose commands are sacred. If Sir William Draper has been guilty of any military offence the department to which it belongs will do justice to this country, as to what respects me privately I seek for no interference.'"

I hardly think any one can read this reply -without a thrill of approval at the attitude taken by this gallant old gentleman. Let us remember that he was broken in health and worn by what was a shameful attack on his reputation ; but though he could not control the judgment of the court or of a Sovereign who valued so lightly the services which he had rendered, he was adamant when the placing of his personal honour in pawn was in question. The court was non-plussed, and remanded Murray in close arrest to communicate the position to the King. The result was that His Majesty, who, perhaps, appreciated the difficulty, sent by Sir Charles Gould a positive order to Murray, that he should comply with the injunction to refrain from violence towards Draper, and to this he felt forced to submit.

"His orders it is as much my inclination as it has ever been my ardent desire immediately to comply with, I therefore in obedience to His Majesty do not hesitate to give my solemn and explicit assurance that the matter in difference between Lieut.-General Sir William Draper and myself shall not have any adverse consequences originating from me ..."

But to the further point of apologising to Draper he could not yield. He wrote to the King:

"finds himself truly miserable that he cannot prevail upon himself to express in the wefts' prescribed to him by the court martial the reply to Sir William Draper's apology to him. That being conscious he never did say or write a word which was meant to hurt the feelings of Sir William Draper, to declare to the world that he did, would be loading himself with the blame of having originated the unhappy difference . . . which was so unbecoming and might have been so hurtful to His Majesty's service. . . .

"That if it is necessary that he should make some declaration before the court martial, he will most cheerfully make the following one : ' I do in deference to the sense of the court martial accept this acknowledgment as a sufficient and full apology for the words used by Sir William Draper in his letter to me, and I think it very unfortunate if any words of mine should so much hurt the feelings of Sir William Draper, who I never did mean to offend while he was under my command at Minorca as I have often declared both in public and in private.' "

This form of words was accepted by the King. On February 8, 1783, the court having by this time been constituted for nearly three months, it was formally tendered by General Murray, who was then released from arrest and the court dissolved.

I turn from this closing incident of Murray's military career with indignation at the gross injustice meted out to him. Blakeney, who, bedridden and senile, had nominally defended Minorca in 1756, during a resistance which might well have led to inquiry, was created a peer; Amherst, whose successes in Canada had resulted far more from Murray's exertions than his own, was a peer and had several high offices; Carleton, who had tried to fasten envenomed shafts in Murray's reputation in Canada, had been forced to follow his policy, and, in fact, owed much of his success and his subsequent peerage to the solid foundation built by his predecessor ; Keppel, who had been tried three years previously by court martial, like Murray, at the instance of a subordinate, was acquitted, the charges tup: reward of constancy against him pronounced malicious and, ill-founded. lie received the thanks of both Houses of Parliament, was subsequently made a peer, and his accuser brought to trial.

Murray, who more than any one leader, had aided in adding a great dominion to the empire, who had added glory to the King's arms by a defence which obtained honour and respect from abroad; against whom charges were brought by a subordinate which were pronounced frivolous and ill-founded; whose accuser escaped anything but a mild censure, while the accused received neither reward nor honour. Rather, indeed, he had received reprimand on a petty charge, which, to a man who had scornfully refused a fortune in return for the betrayal of his trust, and whose whole life had been evidence of a standard of lofty altruism and official integrity, must have been singularly galling. It happened to him, as it has happened to others, that men rose to place and power through his courage and ability, while he who had done much was left without recognition.

I cannot forbear recalling the story of his ancestor. recorded in an early chapter of this history, who was brought to trial at the instance of a malicious enemy, and who " taking impatiently that his fidelity, whereof he had given so great proof, should be ealled in question, did contract a deep melancholy . . . and so after a few days departed this hic." The analogy is almost complete, for though James Murray did not "depart this life," there is no doubt that the consciousness of injustice affected his remaining years. One wonders if King George III. did, like King James VI. of Scotland, "Sore forethink that he should have given ear to such dilations."

I am afraid not, for His Majesty did not possess the wisdom of the "wisest fool in Christendom," though, if' a predilection for favourites and an exaggerated idea of prerogative are sufficient basis for comparison, the two were not unlike.

Return to our Book Index Page

This comment system requires you to be logged in through either a Disqus account or an account you already have with Google, Twitter, Facebook or Yahoo. In the event you don't have an account with any of these companies then you can create an account with Disqus. All comments are moderated so they won't display until the moderator has approved your comment.

comments powered by Disqus