aided by the British guns, had repulsed four attacks by the flower of the French horse, and had driven back an infantry brigade sent up in support. The moment appeared opportune for pursuit, and repeated orders were sent to Sackville to advance with the British cavalry, which was away behind a wood on the right, The orders were regarded as not sufficiently precise by Sackvlile, who, after some expostulation with Colonel Fitzroy, the bearer of the last order, peremptorily halted Granby, who had already got the blues in motion, and went off to confer with Prince Ferdinand. In the end the movement was made, but, to the vexation of the whole army, the moment for decisive action had gone by, and the British cavalry lost their share in the honours of the day. Prince Ferdinand pointedly omitted Sackville's name, while mentioning Granby, in his general order to the army after the battle, and in his despatch to England. Sackville having remonstrated, the prince replied: 'Je vous dirés doré tout simplement que je nài pu voir avec indifference ce qui e'est fait avec la cavallerie de la droite. Vous commandés tout le Corps Brittanniques; ainsi votre poste fixé ne devait pas etre tout la cavallerie, mais vous deviés egalement conduire les uns et les autres euivant que vous en trouviés l'occasion pour coopererals reussited' une journés iglorieuse pour l'armés. Je vous si fourni la plus belle occasion pour profiter et pour faire decider la sort de cette journés, si mes ordres avaient etês remplis au pied de la lettre, . . . Le temoinage que j'ai rendu à mylord Granby je lai dois parce qu'il le merite a tous egards at qu'il ne ma manquée dans tous d'occasions. Ce n'este regle que puisque je loue l'un que je blame l'autre. Mais il ne me peut pas être indifferent si mes ordres ne s'executent point et qu'on ne veut ajouter foi aux porteurs de cet ordre' (Hist. MSS. Comm. 9th Rep. (iii.) 80). Sackville obtained leave to return home, and arrived in London three weeks after the date of the battle. On lO Sept. he was dismissed the service by a war-office letter from Lord Barrington, informing him that 'his majesty has no further need of your services as lieutenant-general and colonel of dragoon guards.' He was succeeded in his command in Germany and at the ordnance by his rival Granby. Horace Walpole writes of Sackville: 'He immediately applied for a court-martial, but was told it was impossible, as the officers were all away in Germany. This was in writing from Lord Holdernesse but my lord Ligonier in words was more squab. "If he wanted a court-martial he must go seek it in Germany." All that could be taken from him is his regiment, about 2,000l. a year, his command in Germany 10l. a day, 3,000l. to 4,000l., lieutenant-general of the ordnance 1,500l. a year, a fort 300l. He retains his patent place in Ireland, about 1,200l. a year, and 3,000l. of his wife and himself, With his parts and ambition it cannot end here; he calls himself ruined, but when parliament meets he will probably attempt some sort of revenge' (Walpole, Letter, iii, 249). Sackville was one of the very few men of acknowledged ability in parliament who were not connected with the party in power (Macaulay, Essay on Chatham). He pressed for a court-martial, which the government appeared in no hurry to grant. He published an 'Address to the English Public,' and an 'Answer to Colonel Fitzroy," When at last it was decided to refer to the law officers of the crown the question of the legality of trying an officer no longer in the service by court-martial for offences committed while serving, he was officiously warned that if the finding of the court were adverse, he would certainly be shot, like Byng. Sackville persevered with a dogged resolution that gave the lie to the common suggestion of cowardice (see the pamphlets under 'Sackville' in Watts, Cat. Printed Books; also Brit. Mus. Cat. Prints and Drawings, Div. i, iii. (ii.), 1197-1202, In some of the satires it is suggested that Sackville was bribed by France). The law officers having pronounced in favour of the trial—an opinion on which it would not be safe to rely (Clode, Admin. Mil. Law, p. 92)—a general court-martial, composed of eleven lieutenant-generals and four major-generals, under the presidency of General Sir Charles Howard, K.B., assembled at the Horse Guards. 3 Feb, 1760. Before this tribunal Sackville was arraigned on the charge of disobedience of orders. The disobedience (the judge-advocate, Charles Gould, was careful to explain) was confined to orders relating to the battle of Minden. Sackville objected to General Belford, of the artillery, as being under the influence of Granby. The objection was allowed.
After repeated adjournments caused by the illness of the president and the expiry in the meantime of the Mutiny Act, it was considered necessary to summon a new court. The court with the same president , was accordingly convened afresh at the Horse Guards on 25 March 1760, Sackville, who took a highhanded tone with the court, made an able and spirited defence. On 5 April the court agreed to its finding and sentence, which was that Sackville was 'guilty of having disobeyed the orders of Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, whom he was by his commission bound to obey as commander-in-chief,
