To face p. [276].
PRIMROSE—MARLBOROUGH: CLOSE.
The enemy thereupon hauled off to repair damages; and Captain Bull, examining the injury which his own ship had received, found that a 32–pound shot had passed between wind and water, that there were already three feet and a half of water in the hold, and that the leak was increasing fast. The carpenter was sent below to endeavour to stop it, and the pumps were being actively worked, when, at nine o’clock, the enemy ran down and renewed the action at close quarters. The fire of her heavy guns had by this time reduced the “Duke of Marlborough” to a mere wreck. The running and standing rigging was cut and torn in every direction; the Packet was almost unmanageable, and in a half-sinking state. Her lantern was twice shot away; but a fresh one was prepared, and for greater security lashed fast to the main-boom. No less than eleven of Captain Bull’s men had been wounded; one of them had lost both arms, and several others were seriously hurt. Lieutenant Andrews, of the 60th Regiment, a passenger on his way to Lisbon, was killed after showing great bravery throughout the action. Notwithstanding these losses, however, and the manifest superiority of the enemy, the Cornishmen were quite prepared to fight it out; and when, after another close contest of fifty minutes, resulting in no obvious advantage to either side, the enemy hailed them, asking, “What ship is that?” Captain Bull, not choosing to own his inferiority of force, replied, “His Majesty’s brig ‘Vixen,’” demanded the name of the other, and must have doubted his ears when he received the answer, “His Majesty’s brig ‘Primrose.’” There was a pause; then another hail was heard from the “Primrose,” asking again with what ship she had been contending. To this question, there being now no object in evasion, Captain Bull replied by stating the name and service of his vessel; and was desired to make the private signal, which he did. It was at once answered; and the captain of the “Primrose” thereupon requested Captain Bull to come on board. Being informed that the “Duke of Marlborough’s” boat had been cut away, he sent his own; but Captain Bull allowed no one except the lieutenant in command to come on deck until he had satisfied himself that the vessel he had to do with was really an English cruiser. When he was convinced of this he went on board the “Primrose”; and on returning to his own vessel found that five 32–pound shot had gone through her side close to the water’s edge; so that he was obliged to get immediate assistance from the carpenters of his late antagonist.
That the “Duke of Marlborough” was much shattered in this action is not surprising. What is really extraordinary is that she was not blown out of the water at an early stage of the affair. The “Primrose” carried sixteen 32–pound carronades, one 12–pound carronade on the forecastle, and two long 6–pounders. Her crew consisted of one hundred and twenty-five men. The “Marlborough” carried twelve guns, mostly 6–pounders, and none heavier than nine, with thirty-two men and boys. She had also on board seven male passengers; but it is not stated that any of these took part in the action, except Lieutenant Andrews, who was unfortunately killed.
On the arrival of the “Duke of Marlborough” at Lisbon, the passengers, feeling grateful to Captain Bull not only for his gallantry, but also for his kind treatment of the ladies who were on board, presented him with a sword, and distributed four hundred dollars among the crew.
The account of this action given by James (Naval History, Vol. VI., page 278, ed. 1837) is not written with the evident desire to be fair which that historian usually evinced. The story as told by him suggests that Captain Bull was solely, or at least chiefly to blame; and as the Post-Office came to a totally different conclusion, while the Admiralty itself censured Captain Phillott, and made no complaint concerning Captain Bull, it cannot be presumptuous to question the accuracy of Mr. James’ conclusion. In an earlier edition of his history it appears that an account more favourable to Captain Bull appeared; but in the edition of 1837 this account was revised; and the author states that when the former one was written, he had not seen the minutes of the court-martial on Captain Phillott. As reference is thus pointedly made to the court-martial, it would have been more candid to notice the fact that the finding of that court imputed negligence to Captain Phillott. The sentence of the court, held at Plymouth on April 16th, 1814, was in the following words: “The Court is of opinion that the circumstance of the ‘Duke of Marlborough’ being in moderate weather without any lower studding sails, and with her royal masts down, appears to have left the Prisoner, Captain Phillott, and the officers of the ‘Primrose,’ under an impression that she was a merchant vessel; and the very small size of the flag and pendant used by the Packet in making the private signal, and the topgallant sail being close up to the masthead, may reasonably account for not seeing the signal; and the night private signal made by the Packet, viz., two false fires, appears not to have been seen on board the ‘Primrose.’ But the Court is of opinion that when the Packet was found to be an armed vessel, by firing a stern chase gun, it was the duty of the Prisoner to have made the private signal. And the Court laments that the then near approach of the vessel induced Captain Phillott to prefer hailing the Packet; and this Court doth therefore judge the said Captain Phillott to be admonished to be more circumspect in future.” This is the whole sentence, the preamble only being omitted. It will be observed that while the circumstances favourable to Captain Phillott are duly brought forward, no word is said in condemnation of Captain Bull. If anything had been elicited at the court-martial which cast blame on the Packet, the Admiralty, which was never very favourably disposed towards the Post-Office Service, would at once have forwarded a copy of the pleadings to the Postmaster General, with a request that Captain Bull might be punished. Nothing, however, was heard at the Post-Office of the result of the court-martial until ten days had passed, when Mr. Freeling wrote and asked for it. It was then sent to him, with a short covering letter, which contained absolutely no comment whatever.
Probably it is not necessary to go beyond these indisputable facts in defence of Captain Bull; but a few comments upon the account given by James may not be misplaced. His unfavourable verdict on the “Duke of Marlborough” appears to be based on four circumstances: (1) that she had no lower studding sails or royals set when the “Primrose” first sighted her; (2) that no one on board the Packet, except the gunner, knew the difference between a blue light and a false fire; (3) that whereas Captain Phillott hailed once, and his second lieutenant (who had a loud voice) twice, the hail was answered only by a broadside; (4) that the flags used by the Packet were only half the established size. The first of these points was carefully investigated by the Court of Inquiry at Falmouth, which obtained from Captain Bull a written statement of his reasons for having his royal masts on deck. The explanation was perfectly natural and clear; and whereas it was admitted that Captain Phillott, not knowing the circumstances, might have been misled, Captain Bull pointed out that the square rig of the “Duke of Marlborough” ought to have shown that she was no merchantman. The second point is of no value. It is not probable that so experienced an officer as Captain Bull was ignorant of any detail connected with the private signals which were so important to the safety of his ship. Even Mr. James admits that the gunner had proper knowledge on the subject. If the night signal had been made in an improper manner, the court-martial would have adduced that fact in support of Captain Phillott. A signal was certainly made on the Packet, whether with blue lights or false fires. The officers of the “Primrose” alleged that they did not see it. That could scarcely be the case; since the vessels were so near at the time that Captain Bull, who assisted in making the signal, distinctly saw the match put to a gun on board the sloop of war. No hail was heard on board the Packet, until the action had lasted more than two hours, as already described. It is difficult to believe that the “Primrose” really hailed three times before opening fire. There were upon the Packet many persons who had an interest in avoiding an engagement; there was not one who had the slightest motive for forcing one. Several passengers were on board; two of them were accompanied by their wives. If these gentlemen had heard English voices hailing them, can it be supposed that they would not have interfered, and done all in their power to stop the fight? So far, however, from showing the least dissatisfaction with Captain Bull’s conduct, even when they learned with what vessel he had been contending, they united in an address of gratitude to him, in which they used the following terms: “No words which we can make use of can sufficiently convey to you an idea of our admiration of your conduct and that of your gallant crew....” They marked this admiration by presenting the captain with a sword of honour. These were the persons chiefly injured by negligence on the part of Captain Bull, if any such charge could be sustained; and this is how they estimated his conduct, being in the best possible position for judging of it. As for the fourth point, the ensign and pendant were produced at the Court of Inquiry at Falmouth. The pendant was thirty feet long; the ensign was nine feet four inches by four feet six inches, and was larger than was usual in the Packet Service.
To face p. [282].