Page images
PDF
EPUB

1897, away, and her masts slightly wounded: a large Maxon stone shot also stuck fast in her cut-water. Her loss amounted to two seamen and one marine killed, two officers, one petty-officer, 22 seamen, and two marines wounded; total, three killed and 27 wounded.* A stone shot of 800 pounds weight struck the mainmast of the Windsor-Castle, and cut it more than three quarters through : her loss amounted to three seamen killed, one petty-officer and 12 seamen wounded. On board the Standard, a stone shot from the castle of Sestos, weighing 770 pounds, and measuring six feet eight inches in circumference and two feet two inches in diameter, entered the lower deck, killed four seamen, and, having set fire to the salt-boxes which were on deck for immediate use, caused an explosion that badly wounded one lieutenant, three petty-officers, 37 seamen, and six marines. The alarm of fire that followed the explosion caused four seamen to leap overboard, all of whom were drowned; making the Standard’s total loss by this single shot (and which of was all she sustained) amount to eight killed and *drowned, and 47 wounded. The Pompée had the good fortune to escape without being struck by a shot, in hull, masts, rigging, or sails. The Thunderer, on the other hand, was a good deal damaged, and had two seamen killed, one lieutenant, one midshipman, 10 seamen, and two marines wounded. The Lucifer had no one hurt. The Active received a granite shot weighing 800 pounds and measuring six feet six inches in circumference, which passed through her side two feet above the water, and lodged on the orlop deck, close to the magazine-scuttle, without injuring a man. The aperture made by it was so wide, that captain Moubray, on looking over the side to ascertain what damage it had done, saw two of his crew thrusting their heads through at the same moment. Had there been a necessity for

[ocr errors]

hauling to the wind on the opposite tack, she must 1897. have gone down.” Her loss altogether amounted No. only to her boatswain, four seamen, and three marines . wounded. The Endymion had three seamen killed, and one lieutenant and eight seamen wounded. The Meteor had the misfortune, about a quarter of an hour before she got abreast of the castle of Abydos, to part the hawser by which the Endymion had been towing her. The Endymion did not wait to take the Meteor again in tow, but hastened past the batteries. These opened a tremendous fire upon the bomb, and all on board the squadron, knowing that the Meteor's magazine was above water, expected every instant to see her blown into the air. The stone shot flew s about her in all directions, and some struck her hull. At length, after (as in the passage up she had done her 13-inch) bursting her 10-inch mortar, the Meteor got past the batteries, with the loss of one lieutenant of the marine artillery and seven seamen wounded. We may notice in passing, that the Lucifer's magazine was also above water, both bombs having originally been merchant vessels. The reso gular bombs, or those built as such, have their magazines below water, which is the proper place. It was certainly a very hazardous experiment, to take these bomb-vessels where they would be exposed to so close and heavy a fire as in the passage of the Dardanells.

The total of the british loss in repassing the Dar-o" danells amounted to 29 killed and 138 wounded; in and the total loss incurred in the expedition, to 46” killed, including the four drowned, and 235 wounded. The following appear to have been the officers who one suffered on the occasion. Killed: captain of marines oncer, R. Kent, of the Canopus, and lieutenant George ..." Lawrence Belli, of the Royal-George. Wounded : Wound. lieutenants John Forbes and Nisbet Josiah Wil- * loughby, and midshipmen George Holbrook, John

* Marshall's Naval Biography, vol. i. p. 809. vol. IV. 2 G

**, Furneaux, — Dalrymple, John Alexander, John March. Wood Rouse, and Charles Cotesworth, of the Royal-George; master's mate John Nichols, and midshipman George Wray, of the Canopus; master's mate William Jones of the Windsor-Castle; lieutenant of marines Thomas Marshall, and master's mate Joseph Magui of the Repulse; lieutenants John Waller and Thomas Colby, and midshipman Moore, of the Thunderer; lieutenant Daniel Harrington, lieutenant of marines William Finmore, master's mates John Haines and William Smith, midshipman Charles Jay, and boatswains William Shorbridge of the Standard, and Mark Palmer of the Active ; lieutenant John Langdon of the Endymion, and lieutenant of marine artillery George E. Ballchild, of the Meteor. When the british admiral, as already related, dropped anchor off Cape Janizary, he was joined by the russian admiral with eight sail of the line. What followed we will give in the words of one who, naturally feeling a bias towards sir John Duckworth,” never wilfully misses an opportunity of bepraising him. “Simiavin requested sir . to return with him, and renew the attack or the negotiations; but this was declined, and it was observed, perhaps with too much national vanity, that where a j. squadron had failed no other was likely to succeed.”f . So much for the far-famed expedition to the Dardanells. Had the board of admiralty of that day ... been better acquainted with the character of sir miralty John Thomas Duckworth, they would have sought .# elsewhere for an officer of “ability and firmness”

[ocr errors]

lecting to carry their orders into execution. There was join one, indeed, not five days’ sail from the mouth of Puck the Dardanells, whose ability and firmness had * never been doubted, and whose local experience, and well-known influence with the Porte, eminently fitted him to be the conductor of such an enterprise.

* See p. 291. f Brenton, vol. iv. p. 150.

As soon as the Turks had decided to be hostile by 1807, firing at his ships, rear-admiral sir. Sidney Smith ‘Y” would have considered himself as released from all further dependence upon the ambassador, and would have thought only of what was due to the honour of the british flag. On meeting the turkish ships off Point Pesquies, he would have left two or three of his line-of-battle ships, and his frigates, to dispose of them, and, with the remainder of his squadron, would have dashed on to Constantinople. There, in defiance of currents and eddies, castles and granite balls, he would have laid his squadron close to the town, with his heaviest ship ready, at a moment's notice, to batter down the walls of the seraglio, if the terms which he had been instructed to demand were not strictly complied with. No one can doubt what would have been the result of a measure so prompt, so intimidating, and so practicable. That there should have been no investigation of the causes that led to so palpable a defeat as the one we have just done relating, may appear extraordinary. An inquiry was undoubtedly in contempla- " tion, but two or three circumstances conspired to prevent it from being prosecuted. On the 16th of May, p.m. 1808, colonel Wood moved, in parliament, for the mentalog of the Royal-George, with the view of ground- 3..." ing a charge against sir John Thomas Duckworth; on but the House of Commons refused to grant the ject motion, on the principle, that the inquiry fell more roperly under the cognizance of a court-martial. Il }. days afterwards the House was called upon to pass a vote of censure upon the planners of the expedition, the members of the late administration. This motion also was lost; although Mr. Canning, then foreign secretary, declared, “it was obvious that the expedition might have done more than it did,” and Mr. Windham, late secretary at war, insisted, that “the failure of the enterprise could not be attributed to any misconduct on the part of the late government.”

[ocr errors][merged small]

1807. This was a broad hint; but sir John Thomas M. Duckworth had already shown, (see p. 440,) that a side wind could make no impression upon him: he, therefore, did not demand an inquiry into his conduct, nor did any one else. The fact is, the public was so astounded at the idea of marble shot of 800 pounds weight, so convinced of the almost insurmountable difficulties of passing the Dardanells, and so satisfied with the admiral for having destroyed the turkish “fleet,” as most of the papers described the 64 and the three or four frigates,” that sir John rather gained than lost credit for the discomfiture he had experienced. wrong . It certainly was, to say the least of it, very injuH. dicious to subject the acts of the admiral to the the ser- consent of the ambassador. The cabinet should .* have decided upon the measure, and the admiral ... alone have been charged with its execution. Although a tissue of contingencies and nicely-drawn distinctions may be unravelled in an instant by the professed diplomatist, a string of ifs and buts cannot fail to puzzle the understanding, and to mislead the judgment, of the unsophisticated sailor. He never succeeds so well, admitting his heart to be in the right place, as when he can see his way all clear before him to the very muzzles of the enemy's cannon. An The attack by the British on the capital of Turkey ... was immediately followed by the departure of an exisfor pedition against Alexandria in Egypt. . On the 6th *... of March the british 74-gun ship Tigre, captain Benjamin Hallowell, accompanied by the 38-gun frigate Apollo, captain Edward Fellowes, 16-gun brig-sloop Wizard, captain Edmund Palmer, and 33 sail of transports, having on board about 5000 troops under major-general Fraser, sailed from Messina in Sicily. On the 7th, in the night, during thick and blowing weather, the Apollo and 19 sail of transports parted company; and on the 15th the Tigre, with the re

* In Ralfe's “Naval Chronology," vol. ii. p. 29, we are favoured with a view of the “Destruction of the turkish fleet,

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »