In answer to a letter from Captain Thomas White, which he sent to Lord de Saumarez with a copy of his publication, called "Naval Researches," written in 1836, to defend the gallant Rodney from certain attacks and allegations which had been published, not to give a "full and perfect account of the battle, but," says Captain White, "more particularly that part where your lordship so ably commanded the Russell, which portion of our fleet the tongue of calumny has never ventured to assail," Lord de Saumarez wrote the following letter:
Guernsey, 13th June 1836.
My dear Sir,
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, accompanying your interesting publication, which you have done me the favour to send for my acceptance, and which has been forwarded to me by Lord Amelius Beauclerc.
I regret that you have (inadvertently, I am persuaded) fallen into the same error as some of your predecessors, in detailing the account of Lord Rodney's victory of the 12th of April, by ascribing to the Canada what is alone due to the Russell, which ship I commanded.
I shall for your information briefly state the circumstance to which I allude. After passing the sternmost of the enemy's ships, the America, the ship astern of the Russell, wore to stand after them: I was glad to have the example of an old experienced officer, and wore also; but Captain Thompson, finding there was no signal, shortly after wore again, to join Sir Samuel Drake's division. I stood on, till passing a division of four of the enemy's ships, I exchanged broadsides with them, and finally came up with the Ville de Paris, wore under her stern and engaged her on the quarter for some time, when the Barfleur came up, and the Comte de Grasse hauled down his colours.
Even at this distant period, I have a perfect recollection of the transactions of that day. I shall only add, that I am convinced that no officer who was on board the Canada in the victory of the 12th of April, will assert that she was engaged with the Ville de Paris at the time stated. The present Admiral Giffard was, I believe, one of the lieutenants, to whom I wish to refer you.
I am, &c.
De Saumarez.
Captain White, as well as other officers, is of opinion that Admiral Drake's division should have tacked sooner; and, as circumstances happened, it would doubtless have been better if he had done so; but probably the admiral, in continuing to stand on the same tack, had calculated that the wind would continue in the same direction, or alter to the northward; in either case he would have weathered the whole of the enemy's fleet, besides giving time to his division to repair damages. The wind veering to the southward immediately after his division had wore, had unfortunately the effect of throwing them to leeward; whereas the Russell, which wore as above stated, was by the same change of wind far to windward of his division and nearer the enemy.