which gave you an opportunity of observing my conduct, and of seeing objects nearly in the same point of view with myself, I desire you will acquaint the Court of any instance, if you saw and know of any such, in which I negligently performed any part of my duty on the 27th and 28th of July.

A. With great respect to you, and great deference to the Court, I hope I shall be indulged by having that question put by the Court.

The question was altered, and put by the Court as follows:

42 Q. Your station being nearest the admiral during the pursuit of the enemy, and after the action, which gave you an opportunity of observing the admiral's conduct, and of seeing objects nearly in the same point of view with himself, acquaint the Court of any instance, if you saw any such, in which the admiral negligently performed any part of his duty on the 27th and 28th of July.

A. I feel myself bound by the oath I have taken to answer that question; I believe it to be consonant to the general practice of sea courtsmartial. I cannot boast a long acquaintance with Admiral Keppel; I never had the honour to serve under him before; but I am happy in this

opportunity to declare to this Court, and to the whole world, that, during the whole time the English fleet was in sight of the French fleet, he displayed the greatest naval skill and ability, and the boldest enterprise, on the 27th July, which, with the promptitude and obedience of Vice-Admiral Sir Robert Harland, will be subjects of my admiration and of my imitation as long as I live.

43 Q. By the Court. Relate to the Court the defects of your masts, sails, and rigging, after you came out of action.

A. The main-mast had one shot very near through the head of it, between the catharpings and the hounds; it entered on the starboard side, and pierced one of the cheeks of the mast, went through the heart of the mast, and lodged in the other cheek; several other shot in the main-mast, but not of so much consequence as that I have mentioned. The fore-mast had two or three shot in it; the bowsprit had an excavation on the lower side of it to the best of my recollection, about nine inches diameter of the lower side of the bowsprit shot away. The foretop-mast was so much wounded as to oblige us to reef it; the mizen-mast was totally disabled, which was of very little consequence to the Foudroyant; the running rigging was, I

believe, every rope of it cut, some in two or three places; the shrouds were in a great measure demolished; there was no brace or bowline left in the ship - there was scarce a haulyard; the forestay, topmast-stays, and topmast spring stays, topsails, and haulyards; the sails were very much shattered, particularly the topsails.

It being three o'clock, the Court adjourned till ten the next day, February 6, 1779, when the Court again met, and Captain Jervis's examination was proceeded with.

44 Q. By the prisoner. Did you see the French fleet on the 28th of July in the morning?

A. I did not see the French fleet; I saw three sail of the French fleet, and some time afterwards the man at the mast head said he saw eight sail in the S.E.

45 Q. Did you see any signal made to chase the three French ships?

A. To the best of my recollection, I saw the signal made for three sail to chase to the N.E. 46 Q. Was your ship in a condition to have chased?

A. She was not.

47 Q. If I had chased towards Ushant, in the condition the fleet were in as to their masts and yards from the action of the 27th, was there any

probability of our coming up with the fleet of France before they reached the port of Brest? A. There certainly was not the smallest probability.

The prisoner had no farther questions to ask of the witness.

48 Q. By the prosecutor. I think you said, on your examination yesterday, that, on the morning of the 27th, the French showed no more disposition for engaging than on the preceding days. I would ask, if that appeared so to you, why did you think it necessary to take seven of

the vice-admiral of the Blue's division from him to combine them with the centre on that day any more than on any other day?

A. I have stated, in my answer to that question, that the vice-admiral of the Blue and his division were three miles and a half to leeward of the Foudroyant; which would give them, I believe, three miles to leeward of the Victory; they were under a very low sail, the Formidable with her main-sail up, and, to the best of my recollection, going still farther to leeward; and it was absolutely necessary, in my opinion, they should make sail to get to windward. I would add, that, in my judgment, and I believe I made an observation upon it at the time, the vice-admiral of the Blue accepted the meaning

of the signal; for he certainly did make a considerable deal of sail very soon after those ships had made sail in obedience to the signal.

49 Q. If my memory does not deceive me, you alter your account of the position of the vice-admiral of the Blue very different from what you stated it yesterday. If I do not mistake, you then stated the Formidable was upon the Foudroyant's lee-bow three miles' distance; now you convey an idea of her being wholly to leeward, three miles' distance.

A. I do not mean to quibble about an idea, or to convey any thing that was not exactly so. When I said on the lee-bow, I did not say upon what point of the lee-bow; it is a very common expression; but, to the best of my judgment, I was very near the beam of the Victory; I was abaft the beam, but not much. I do not mean, I am sure, to take any advantage of you, or to say any thing in favour of the admiral that was not true. All I wish, by the answer I have given, is to convey to the Court that the Formidable was much farther to leeward than her station in the order of sailing prescribes; and that is perfectly my idea.

50 Q. If those ships had been permitted to remain with their proper admiral, might they not have gone into action with him as he did,