Anna,
There are obviously different points of view about this but, reading between the lines of this sometimes quoted piece, it hardly seems that Gardner is giving Calder fullsome praise here. There would appear to be some lingering bone of contention or grievance, even though (seemingly) it was written some years later. I don't know when Gardner actually wrote it, but he does say 'The newspapers at the time were teeming with abuse,' so it sounds as though it were some years afterwards. I may be wrong here, but it might almost be an obituary for Calder which he was asked to write, perhaps against his inclinations and because he had served with him. If this were happening today, one can actually imagine him saying this to a microphone-wielding reporter on the BBC news, perhaps after the funeral (I think in 1818)) and after she had asked him, 'Mr Gardner, what are your feelings on the death of Sir Robert Calder?' Try it and see, especially with the first paragraph.
As to his remarks about the newspapers, things obviously haven't changed much!
With regard to the Admiralty's censure (and I have not read that much about the action either) I feel that they have some claim. I can accept that Calder had difficulties, the fog for example, and that he did have some success at the first clash, but he then seemed more intent on looking to the safety of his prizes and seeing that his own ships were in top-notch order, before thinking about pursuing Villenueve. I can't imagine Nelson doing this, and imagine he would have followed the French at all costs, perhaps calling on some of the less damaged ships to pursue. I'm not sure that prizes were all that important to Nelson, in light of the bigger picture, which here was surely perilous in the extreme – with the French fleet almost in the Channel itself, which of course was their intention. We have to remember, there was also the 160,000 man so called 'Army of England', waiting at Boulogne waiting to embark when this fleet arrived. I also read that he was rather reticent about facing the French fleet in the first place, merely because they had a few more ships than he had. I would have thought that the Royal Navy was quite used to that, and that it didn't deter them unduly! They were probably not in the best of fighting trim either, following the passage across the Atlantic.
It would seem that this 'misdemeanor' went very deep with the Admiralty, since Calder never held a sea appointment again, although they eventually gave him the position of Port Admiral at Plymouth. They presumably thought that he couldn't cause much harm there. Strangely, one site I was reading (and which was very pro-Calder) were of the view that this was some sort of vindication. I'm not so sure!
As to Nelson's behaviour towards Calder, I think one has to say that this was just Nelson – magnanimous, in letting Calder remain in the Prince of Wales for the passage home (for which I think he was criticised) just when Trafalgar was looming, and for his generousity towards him. However, I think he would have done this for any of his officers. As to Nelson's own words on his having 'raised the bar', he may to an extent have done, but I think there were other officers who had and were doing the same thing – even before Nelson. For example, Nelson was not the first to 'break the line'.
_________________ Kester.
|