NAVAL OPERATIONS IN THE BRITISH CHANNEL.
The maritime defence of England was entrusted to Admiral Keppel, and he put to sea with twenty sail ot the line for that purpose. On the 17th of June, Keppel discovered two French frigates, the “La Licorne” and “La Belle Poule,” reconnoitring his fleet. The con duct of France seemed to call for and to justify extreme measures, and Keppel’s instructions being ample, he resolved to effect the capture of these two frigates. Accordingly they were chased, and the first, fired both with cannon and musketry, struck her colours and was captured; but the other having fiercely encountered and dismasted a pursuing vessel, escaped among the rocks on the French shore. Shortly after a French schooner and another frigate were captured, and from papers found in these several vessels Keppel discovered that the enemy had thirty-two sail of the line and twelve frigates ready for sea in Brest harbour. This determined him to return to Portsmouth for reinforcements. These reinforcements, however, were either not ready or were not there, and while he was waiting for them the Brest fleet had put out to sea under the command of the Count d’Orvilliers, and had captured a frigate which Keppel had left to watch the movements of the enemy. This was on the 9th of July, and on the very same day, Keppel, whose fleet had been augmented to thirty sail of the line, departed in quest of d’Orvilliers. He fell in with the French admiral on the 23rd, but as the French, who had the advantage of the wind, showed no inclination for battle, the English continued chasing and manoeuvring to windward for four days. On the 27th, however, a dark squall brought the two fleets close together off Ushant. The signal was instantly made to engage. The fleets were then sailing in different directions, and on contrary tacks, and a furious cannonade was maintained for nearly three hours, at the end of which time they had passed each other, and the firing ceased. The loss in killed and wounded was greatest on the side of the French, but some of the British ships under Sir Hugh Palliser were so crippled that when Keppel wore round to renew the engagement they could not obey the signal, and he formed his line of battle ahead. On their part the French formed their line to leeward of their antagonists, and Keppel expected that they would try their force “handsomely with him in the morning;” but in the course of the night d’Orvilliers edged away for Brest, and claimed the victory, because he had not been thoroughly beaten. Keppel returned to England to get new masts and rigging, and on the 18th of August, d’Orvilliers again set sail to cruise off Cape Finisterre. A few days after, Keppel also again put to sea, but he stretched further to the westward, to protect the merchant-ships returning from the two Indies, and to prevent any portion of the French fleet from reaching America. Every ship sailing from the Indies arrived safely in England, and our privateers and cruisers captured many French trading-vessels; but the two fleets did not again come into collision, and popular indignation, excited by disappointment, attributed the blame to Keppel and Sir Hugh Palliser, who served under him. The journals of the day teemed with invectives against them for not pursuing the French admiral after the battle off’ Ushant; and the opinion was very general that they had not acted with the required decision when the fleet of the enemy was in their power. By the court and the admiralty, however, their conduct was viewed with approbation; and Keppel, at least, would not deign to answer his anonymous accusers. Sir Hugh Palliser replied to an attack made upon him in a morning paper, and because Keppel refused to authenticate his answer or to contradict statements made by an anonymous accuser, Palliser published his own case, in which he charged his superior officer with inconsistency, for having approved his conduct in a public despatch, and now refusing to vindicate his character. Keppel, however, acted the more nobly: anonymous accusations are beneath the notice of a high-minded and honourable man, and he who replies to such, dignifies a character which is little superior to a midnight assassin, and should be treated with mortifying contempt. That accuser who will not face the accused, places himself out of the pale of the laws and usages of society.