James Saumarez.
Lord Rodney's Victory.—Canada's Log, 12th April 1782.
April 12th, at daylight, six, moderate and cloudy. Quarter past seven the Admiral made the signal to call in all cruisers. At twenty-five past seven he made the signal for the line of battle ahead a cable's length asunder. The enemy formed a line of battle ahead on the larboard tack, standing to the south, and we formed the line of battle ahead on the starboard tack, and stood to the northward. At eight the Admiral made the Russell's signal to get into her station; at five past eight, he made the signal to close. At fifty past seven, the van of our fleet began to engage, as did all the other ships as they came abreast of enemy. There was a great interval in the enemy's line; our fleet cut through to windward about twelve ships of them. At twenty past eight the enemy's ships, as they passed, began firing at us; at twenty-five past eight we began to engage. At twenty past nine one of the enemy's ship's main and mizen-masts went over the stern just as she got abreast of our quarter, and soon after our fore-mast and bowsprit went also. At twenty-five past nine, having passed the enemy's fleet, some of whom went to leeward of us, the Admiral made the signal to tack. At thirty-eight past ten he hoisted signal for the commander of the third post to make more sail; observed the Duke's main topmast go over the side. At fifty past ten, observed the Prince George with her fore topmast gone. We ceased firing, as did most of the ships on both sides, except Sir S. Hood and some of the squadron who were to windward, who exchanged a good many shots with the enemy, as he bore down. At eleven, observed that the Admiral had hauled down the signal for the line; at five past eleven the Admiral made the signal to tack; wore at three quarters past eleven. We fired several shots at the enemy, to try the distance, but finding they did not reach, ceased firing. At fifty past eleven the Admiral made the Conqueror's signal to tack, and made and shortened sail occasionally. Wind, E. p.m. E.S.E. 13th (at noon) p.m., moderate and clear, inclinable to calm. At five p.m. the Admiral made the Endymion's signal to stay by a disabled ship in the N.W. At ten p.m. one of our ships ahead fired a good many shots at a frigate, which had a disabled ship of the enemy in tow; and soon after the frigate cast her off. We fired several shots, at times, to try the distance. At twenty-three, p.m. the Admiral made the signal that the van were at too great a distance from the centre; the ships astern exchanged a good many shots with the enemy as they came up with them. At fifty p.m. the Admiral made the Alcides and Marlborough signal to make more sail; at fifty-three, p.m. to engage close; fired several shots, at times, to try the distance. At a quarter past one, two of our ships to windward exchanged a good many shots with the enemy. At half-past one the Admiral made our signal to close; twenty-five past one, we began to engage; at fifty past one the Admiral made the signal to the Monarch to get into her station. At twelve past two he made the Alert signal to come within hail; half-past two he made the Royal Oak's signal to take the ship in tow that had struck her colours. At twenty-two past two the Admiral made the Resolution signal to tack, and we discontinued engaging. At twenty-three past two some of our ships upon our larboard beam began firing, as did the rest of the ships as they came up with the enemy. At three quarters past three the Admiral made the Repulse and Alcides signal to bear down. At four the Admiral made the signal to veer; at seven past four the Admiral made the Torbay signal to veer; at twenty past four a French line-of-battle ship struck to us after engaging her eighteen minutes. At a quarter past four the Admiral made the Repulse and Resolution signals to make more sail; at three quarters past, Sir S. Hood steering after some enemy's ships to the N.W. About this time the firing ceased on both sides. At fifty past four the Admiral made the signal for the first ships to bear down. At five we began to engage; at a quarter past five our ships engaging as they came up; at fifty-five past five observed another French line-of-battle ship had struck her colours. At five past six the Admiral made the signal to the Princess and Bedford to get into their stations. At thirty-five past six observed that the Ville de Paris had struck her colours. At forty past six discontinued the engagement. At seven beat the retreat. At nine, saw a ship on fire, and another soon after blow up, all without the main topsail. Wind, E.S.E.
(A true copy.) J. Ross.
Although in the above logs, and in several others which we have examined at the depôt, by permission from the Lords of the Admiralty, it does appear that the Canada was engaged with the Ville de Paris, yet we have no doubt of the fact, having the testimonies of Sir L. Halsted and Admiral Giffard, who were in the Canada on the 12th of April, extracts of whose letters we subjoin, which also prove that the Canada was not the ship that was engaging the Ville de Paris when the Barfleur came up, and when the French Admiral struck his colours. Sir Lawrence Halsted, in his letter to us, after giving a brief account of the capture of the Hector, and of the Canada's previous and subsequent attack on the Ville de Paris, relates, that the Canada, on seeing some ships bearing down on the Ville de Paris, of which, he believes, one was the Russell, "bore up in pursuit of a French Rear-admiral in the Triomphant 84;" and he concludes, "I trust that that part in Lord de Saumarez' letter is satisfactorily answered, as it is quite clear that the Canada was not near the Ville de Paris at the time she surrendered." Admiral Giffard, in answer to our application, says,
"I am of opinion the Canada was engaged with the Ville de Paris earlier in the day than the Russell."
Extract of a letter from Capt. G.W.H. Knight, R.N., son of the late Admiral Sir John Knight, K.C.B., who was captain of the Barfleur on the 12th April, 1782.
"I have never been able to lay my hand on my father's letter, wherein he gave me some account of the 12th of April 1782, but this I recollect quite well, that he said, 'he accompanied Sir Samuel (afterwards Lord Hood) on board Lord Rodney's ship the day before the battle of the 9th of April, (my father being captain of the Barfleur, Sir Samuel's flag ship,) and on that occasion not one word was said, or order given, for any attempt to break through the enemy's line in the expected engagement, nor was any order afterwards given previous to the 12th of April. That on the 9th, the van squadron, commanded by Sir S. Hood, which was most engaged, made no attempt to break the line, nor did the van or centre (the line being inverted) on the 12th make any such attempt; and my father attributed the Formidable, and those that followed her, getting through, to the circumstance of a change of wind, which brought those ships up with the rest of the rear of the British fleet, while it broke off the ships in the French line, and consequently left openings.' He further said, 'that from the density of the smoke they could see nothing, and that the first intimation they had (the Barfleur) of passing through the enemy's line was, from receiving fire on both sides.' He gave another reason for supposing it was altogether accidental, which was, that no attempt was made or order given by signal to double on the enemy, and that the advantage gained by passing through the line was never made use of when my father took possession of the Ville de Paris, and received Count de Grasse's sword, and afterward conveyed him to his Admiral; no remark was made upon any circumstance having taken place different from the usual practice. These are the heads of what I recollect."