dispute is of slight present interest, except as an
historical link in the fighting development of the British Navy;
and only this historical significance justifies more than a passing
mention. In 1778 men's minds were still full of Byng's execution
in 1757, and of the Mathews and Lestock affair in 1744, which
had materially influenced Byng in his action off Minorca. Keppel
repeatedly spoke of himself as on trial for his life; and he had been
a member of Byng's court-martial. The gist of the charges against
him, preferred by Palliser, was that he attacked in the first
instance without properly forming his line, for which Mathews had been
censured; and, secondly, that by not renewing the action after the
first pass-by, and by wearing away from the French fleet, he had not
done his utmost to "take, sink, burn, and destroy." This had been the
charge on which Byng was shot. Keppel, besides his justifying reasons
for his course in general, alleged and proved his full intention to
attack again, had not Palliser failed to come into line, a delinquency
the same as that of Lestock, which contributed to Mathew's ruin.

In other words, men's minds were breaking away from, but had not
thrown off completely, the tyranny of the Order of Battle,--one of the
worst of tyrannies, because founded on truth. Absolute error, like a
whole lie, is open to speedy detection; half-truths are troublesome.
The Order of Battle[50] was an admirable servant and a most
objectionable despot. Mathews, in despair over a recalcitrant second,
cast off the yoke, engaged with part of his force, was ill supported
and censured; Lestock escaping. Byng, considering this, and being a
pedant by nature, would not break his line; the enemy slipped away,
Minorca surrendered, and he was shot. In Keppel's court-martial,
twenty-eight out of the thirty captains who had been in the line were
summoned as witnesses. Most of them swore that if Keppel had chased
in line of battle that day, there could have been no action, and
the majority of them cordially approved his course; but there was
evidently an undercurrent still of dissent, and especially in the rear
ships, where there had been some of the straggling inevitable in such
movements. Their commanders therefore had uncomfortable experience
of the lack of mutual support, which the line of battle was meant to
insure.

Another indication of still surviving pedantry was the obligation felt
in the rear ships to take post ab