Nelson (158 page)

85
. Nelson to Brame, 26/10/1796, SRRC, 112/16/33: 959.

86
. Nelson lost two lieutenants with the captured prize crew, and on 12 January 1797 promoted Charles Gill to fill one of the vacancies on
La Minerve
: Nelson to Gill, 12/1/1797, Houghton Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

87
. Nelson to Elliot, 24/12/1796,
D&L
, 2, p. 318; Fremantle,
Wynne Diaries
(1935–40), 2, pp. 144–6, 164; Nelson to Hamilton, 27/12/1796, Morrison,
Hamilton and Nelson Papers
, 1, p. 226.

88
. Jervis to Elliot, 11/11/1796, Add. MSS 31166; Jervis to De Burgh, 10/12/1796, Add. MSS 31166; Jervis to O’Hara, 13/2/1797, Add. MSS 31159; Nelson to Spencer, 16/1/1797, Add. 75808.

89
. De Burgh to Nelson, 28/12/1796, NMM: JER/2b (two letters); Elliot to Nelson, 1/1/1797, Add. MSS 34905; De Burgh’s letters to Nelson and Jervis, 23/1/1797, ADM 1/396, enclosed in no. 19; De Burgh to Portland, 13, 24/1/1797, and Elliot’s letters to Portland, especially 24/1/1797, all in FO/12; De Burgh to Windham, 3/1/1797, FO 79/15; De Burgh to Elliot, January 1797 (two letters), NMM: ELL/148.

90
. Jervis to O’Hara, 13/2/1797, Add. MSS 31159; Fremantle to William Fremantle, 10/12/1796, CBS, D-FR/45/2.

91
. De Burgh to Nelson, undated, Add. MSS 34905: 108; Fremantle to William Fremantle, 10/12/1796, 21/3/1797, CBS, D-FR/45/2.

92
. These cases involved John Clark and Richard Parke (June 1796), Alexander Ross (August), Hugh Griffiths and John Gourly (October), and John Seymour, James Wilson, Thomas Upton and Edward Tyrrell (December). See ADM 1/5336–37, and Jervis to Nelson, 18/6/1796, 6/8/1796, Add. MSS 31175.

93
. Jervis to Nelson, 10/9/1796, Add. MSS 31176.

94
. Court martial records, ADM 1/5337–38 and Add. MSS 34905; Jervis to Nelson, 14/12/1796, Add. MSS 31159; petition of Robert Major, 10/1/1797, Western MSS 3676, Wellcome Library, London. A useful discussion of the
Dromedary
case is Nick Slope, ‘The Trials of Nelson: Nelson’s Camel’.

95
. De Burgh to Hamilton, 29/1/1797, BL: A. M. Broadley, ‘Nelsoniana’, 3, facing p. 340.

96
. Nelson to Jervis, 25/1/1797, ADM 1/396; John Drinkwater-Bethune,
Narrative of the Battle
, p. 8. Letters relating to the evacuation of Porto Ferraio, with sailing directions for convoys, are contained in Monmouth MSS, E988.

97
. Jervis to Nelson, 13/1/1797, Add. MSS 31159; Jervis to Parker, 14/1/1797, Add. MSS 31159.

98
. Nelson to Pollard, 25/1/1797, William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

XXIV The Happy Moment (pp. 684–718)

1
. John Drinkwater-Bethune,
Narrative of the Battle
, p. 13. For this voyage see Drinkwater-Bethune,
Narrative of the Battle
, pp. 12–15, and the logs of
La Minerve
, ADM 51/1204, ADM 52/3223 and NMM: ADM/L/M292.

2
. Jervis to Nepean, 9/6/1797, Add. MSS 31171.

3
. The logs of the ships of the fleet supply many of the details in this account, but for the
Victory
see also Jervis’s journal, Add. MSS 31186: 159–61, and for the
Captain
the log of Oliver Davis, NMM: WAL/21B.

4
. G. S. Parsons,
Nelsonian Reminiscences
, pp. 168–9. Jervis’s dispatches of the battle (ADM 1/396: no. 21) are in
D&L
, 2, pp. 333–6, and many of the British logs were published in T. Sturges-Jackson, ed.,
Logs
, 1, pp. 197–254. Cordoba’s dispatch, and some analogous
documents, were given in Julian S. Corbett, ed.,
Spencer
, 1, pp. 340 ff. The historiography of the battle of Cape St Vincent may be traced in John Drinkwater (later Drinkwater-Bethune),
Proceedings of the British Fleet
, the original unadorned version of this most valuable of contemporary accounts; Charles Ekins,
Naval Battles
, pp. 239–50; William James,
Naval History
, 2, pp. 29–53; A. T. Mahan,
Life of Nelson
, chap. 8; ‘Battle of Cape St Vincent’,
Journal of the Royal United Service Institution
, which contains the papers of Lt William Bryan Wyke and other documents; A. H. Taylor, ‘Battle of Cape St Vincent’, which considers Spanish evidence; Russell Grenfell,
Horatio Nelson
, chap. 5; Christopher Lloyd,
St Vincent and Camperdown
; John Creswell,
British Admirals
, pp. 214–28; M. A. J. Palmer, ‘Sir John’s Victory’; Brian Tunstall and Nicholas Tracy,
Naval Warfare
, pp. 216–19; David Davies,
Fighting Ships
, chap. 5; Colin White,
1797
; and Stephen Howarth, ed.,
Battle of Cape St Vincent
. Of these, Palmer and White are particularly instructive.

5
. Colin White, ‘The Midshipman and the Commodore’, argues that the
Captain
took her place between the
Barfleur
and
Namur
, and was fourth from the end of the line, but both Nelson and Miller, among other important witnesses, are clear that their ship was third from the rear. Evidence exists for both positions. Compare, for example, the note in the Spencer papers, Add. MSS 75802, with the contemporary plan of the battle in NMM: MKH/102.

6
. John Wilkie’s account, ‘Battle of Cape St Vincent’, p. 334; Drinkwater,
Proceedings of the British Fleet
, p. 22; Corbett,
Spencer
, 1, p. 346.

7
. Reminiscences of John Griffiths, first lieutenant of
Culloden
, in Jedediah S. Tucker,
St Vincent
, 1, pp. 256–7.

8
. Drinkwater,
Proceedings of the British Fleet
, p. 26.

9
. Clear statements of the repulse of the Spanish leeward division can be found in the admiral’s journal, Add. MSS 31186: 160; the narrative of Lieutenant Lewis Stephen Davis, NMM: HIS/35; and Mundy’s journal from the
Blenheim
, NMM: 85/015.

10
. The story about Jervis on the poop (Tucker,
St Vincent
, 1, p. 259) may have come from the admiral’s secretary, father of the author.

11
. I do not accept James’s view (2, p. 37) that Nelson wore out of line in response to Jervis’s signal no. forty-one, flown at 12.51. James may have been misled by the log of the
Prince George
, which erroneously interpreted signal forty-one as an instruction to ‘form the line as was most convenient’ (Sturges-Jackson,
Logs
, 1, p. 218). The correct meaning – that ships were to ‘take suitable stations and engage as arrive up in succession’ – shows that it supplemented signal eighty, flown immediately before and directed to the
Britannia
. Together, the signals directed captains in the rear of the fleet to tack to starboard in succession, and then to use discretion in placing their ships as they came up with the enemy. They did not authorise Nelson to wear his ship out of line to larboard, ‘without waiting our turn’ (Miller to his father, 3/3/1797, in White,
1797
, p. 152). White’s
1797
gives a convincing reconstruction of this phase of the battle.

12
. Wilkie’s account, p. 335, records Nelson’s position a little to windward of the British line.

13
. Nelson to Spencer, 28/3/1797,
D&L
, 7, p. cxxxi. For Nelson’s willingness to modify Jervis’s orders see Jervis to Nelson, 8, 19/8/1796, Add. MSS 31159.

14
. Tunstall and Tracy,
Naval Warfare
, pp. 213–14.

15
. Nelson’s own statement (‘Remarks Relative to Myself in the
Captain
’) that he first engaged ‘the headmost, and of course leeward-most’ of the Spaniards, and that these ships ‘from not wishing (I suppose) to have a decisive battle, hauled to the wind . . . which brought the ships afore-mentioned to be the leewardmost and sternmost ships in their fleet’ (Add. MSS 34902: 119) may have fathered the legend of the
Captain
being thrown across the path of the Spanish van, instead of attacking the ships towards their
centre or rear. A contemporary map of uncertain origin in the Samuel Hood papers also has Nelson attacking the enemy van (NMM: MKH/102). This contradicts Drinkwater (
Proceedings of the British Fleet
, p. 13), who had a perfect view of that quarter and located Nelson’s attack at the sixth ship from the Spanish rear; Miller (NMM: ADM/L/C51), who has the
Captain
crossing enemy bows to reach the Spanish flagship ninth from the rear; and Cordoba himself. The latter’s flagship,
Santissima Trinidad
, which Nelson attacked, was a slow sailer, and in bearing up had already fallen to the rear before Nelson engaged (Corbett,
Spencer
, pp. 343, 345). The subsequent action certainly enveloped the rearmost Spaniards, including
Santissima Trinidad
(130 guns),
San Josef
,
Salvador del Mundo
and
Mexicano
(all 112 guns),
San Nicolas
(eighty-four guns), and
San Ysidro
and
Soberano
(both seventy-four guns).

16
. Drinkwater-Bethune,
Narrative of the Battle
, p. 79; Collingwood to his wife, 17/2/1797, G. L. Newnham Collingwood, ed.,
Correspondence
, 1, p. 37; Foote, enclosed in ADM 1/396: no. 25. There is doubt about whether the
Captain
or the
Culloden
opened fire first. Nelson said that
Culloden
‘immediately’ supported him astern (‘Remarks Relative’ Add. MSS 34902: 119), while Miller thought Troubridge might actually have began firing on the hindmost Spaniards ‘about two minutes before’ (NMM: ADM/L/C51). Other evidence is inconclusive. Saumarez of the
Orion
described the
Captain
as ‘the leading ship’ and the
Culloden
and others ‘the next that came up’ (Saumarez to his brother, 15/2/1797, in Sir John Ross,
Saumarez
, 1, p. 170). The ‘Journal of the Proceedings of H.M. Fleet on the 14th of February 1797, by an Officer on Board one of the Ships’ (Ekins,
Naval Battles
, p. 245) adopted the popular course of bracketing the ships together: ‘the
Captain
took her station in the van, ahead of the
Culloden
, and both engaged the centre of the enemy . . .’. However, the
Prince George
has both the
Culloden
and the
Blenheim
engaging before the
Captain
. Her log reports the
Culloden
firing at one-twenty or one-twenty-five, the
Blenheim
at about one-thirty and the
Captain
‘a few minutes after’ (
Prince George
log, ADM 51/1197). This, like other comments from the
Prince George
, seems ill sustained. While the
Culloden
probably opened fire at about the same time as the
Captain
, the
Blenheim
certainly entered the action later. Mundy’s
Blenheim
journal reports that his ship fell half a mile behind the
Culloden
after tacking at the head of the British line, and that Troubridge had been ‘closely engaged by five or six of the enemy for fifteen minutes before we arrived up with her’. However, the
Captain
had come under the
Culloden
’s lee bow and ‘in some measure assisted her tho’ at random shot’. Mundy’s view of the
Captain
was probably obscured by the
Culloden
, which was firing between them, but it establishes that she engaged before the
Blenheim
. Miller’s log also records that the
Culloden
and
Captain
alone deflected the Spaniards from bearing up, ‘the rest of our van being very considerably astern of the
Culloden
’. See Mundy journal, NMM: 85/015, and Miller log, NMM: ADM/L/C51. On the other hand, Nelson and Miller’s belief that the
Captain
and
Culloden
were unsupported for up to an hour was greatly exaggerated.

17
. Drinkwater,
Proceedings of the British Fleet
, pp. 13–14;
The Times
, 13/3/1797; Geoffrey Marcus,
Age of Nelson
, p. 78; Collingwood to Nelson, 15/2/1797, Add. MSS 34905; Add. MSS 31186: 160; Palmer, ‘Sir John’s Victory’, p. 42; Oliver Davis to his parents, 2/6/1797, NMM: WAL/21A; and the logs of the
Victory
(ADM 51/1187),
Southampton
(ADM 51/1189) and
Captain
(ADM 52/2825 and ADM 51/1194). In another letter Collingwood wrote that ‘a skilful manoeuvre, which was led to by Commodore Nelson, turned most of our force to the greater part where their admiral was’ (Collingwood to Carlyle, 22/2/1797, E. Hughes, ed.,
Private Correspondence
, p. 79).

18
. For Troubridge giving way to the
Blenheim
see Mundy’s journal, NMM: 85/105. In a somewhat crabbed contribution the log of the
Prince George
complained that ‘by backing her main top sail [the
Captain
] kept the followers from closing up so fast with the enemy
as might have been done’ (ADM 51/1197), but ships so placed almost inevitably backed to maintain their station. The
Prince George
,
Orion
,
Captain
and
Culloden
all did so. See also ‘Journal of the Proceedings’, Ekins,
Naval Battles
, p. 245.

19
. Master’s log of
Captain
, ADM 52/2825.

20
. The armament of the
San Nicolas
became known after she fell into the hands of the Royal Navy. Jervis described her as an eighty-four-gun ship, but only eighty guns were mounted (statements of Culverhouse and Frederick in HCA 32/845). That the
Captain
carried one or two sixty-eight-pound carronades is evident from the fact that she fired one hundred and five sixty-eight-pound round shot and twelve sixty-eight-pound grape and case shot during the battle (William Collett and Ralph W. Miller, gunner’s expenditure of stores, 14/2/1797, Houghton Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts). Whether these carronades had replaced or supplemented long guns is not clear.

21
. ‘Remarks Relative’, Add. MSS 34902: 119. For
Excellent
’s role see the account from that ship in ‘Battle of Cape St Vincent’, p. 329.