566 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1805. 



to the good opinion of my country, 

 that country for which ] have bled, 

 and for which I have conquered. 



Before, however, I enter into the 

 particuiar statements, permit me to 

 make an observation or two on the 

 specific charge, which is the princi- 

 pal object of your enquiry. It does 

 not range itself precisely within any 

 of the articles of war, though it in 

 part adopts the language of one of 

 them. — It assumes, as a principle, 

 that it was my duty to renew the 

 engagement, and to endeavour to 

 take or destwjy every ship of the 

 cneni}'. 



1 am ready to admit that it is so 

 much the duty of an officer to en- 

 gage the enemy wherever he meets 

 with Ihem, that it is incumbent up- 

 on him io explain, salisfactorily, 

 "why he does not; but in making 

 that explanation, it is nor necessary 

 for him to prove the physical im- 

 possibility of doirig so. It may be 

 possible, and yet there may be very 

 many reasons why ho should not. — 

 Indeed, the absurdity of a contrary 

 position is such, that it would bean 

 idle waste of time to trouble the 

 court with many observations upon 

 it. 



They will, however, permit me 

 to observe that mine is not the only 

 instance where a British fleet has 

 laid in sight of that of the enemy 

 ■without renewing an engagement. 



In proof of this assertion,, if it be 

 necessary, I need only recal to your 

 memory, out of many others, the 

 example of two very great and gal- 

 lant officers, who, after having ob- 

 tained most brilliant viflories over 

 the enemy, did not think themselves 

 justified in bringing them a second 

 time to action, although they were 

 in sight of them fully as long as J 

 ■was. The two meritorious officers 



to wliom I allude, are earl Howe, 

 in the action of (he 1st of June, 

 1794 ; and earl St. Vincent, in that 

 of the 27th of February, 1797.— 

 Of the latter I am competent to 

 speak from ray own knowledge, 

 having had the honour to serve un- 

 der his lordship as captain of the 

 fleet in that engagement. 



Of the propriety of the conduct 

 of these noble lords, in both in- 

 stances, no doubt has at any mo- 

 ment been entertained by any body. 

 They certainly exercised a sound 

 discretion upon the occasion ; but it 

 may not be improper for me to re- 

 mark, that although the advant-tges 

 they had acquired were certainly 

 superior to mine, that mine was a 

 situation in which it was in every 

 respect more necessary to exercise 

 that discretion', which, in every 

 case, must be vested in the comman- 

 der ol a squadron, to judge of the 

 propriety or impropriety of offering 

 battle to a superior fli^et. In the 

 instances abovementioned, there was 

 no other force to contend with, no 

 other quarter from which an attack 

 was to be apprehended, than the 

 fleets which had been already en- 

 gaged : — In mine, it behoved me to 

 be particularly on my guard against 

 the Ferrol and Rochefort squa- 

 drons, consisting of 21 sail of the 

 line, both which, I had reason to 

 believe, were out, and one of which 

 appears to have been actually on 

 the sea, and to which the squadron 

 opposed to me might easily have 

 given notice of their situation, as 

 will be hereafter more fully stated. 



With these observations I shall 

 dismiss this part of the case for the 

 present, and proceed to lay before 

 the court a statement of the facts to 

 which I am to request their serious 

 attention : 



In 



