“I could wish to convey, in some adequate manner, the merits of the chief personages in this glorious engagement; but the praise of those who were most conspicuous will, after all, be best collected from this faithful narrative of their actions:  to express it, is far above the power of my pen.  I confess, the admiration with which I viewed their conduct, would not permit me to be silent; or to suppress the strong feelings excited in my mind, by all the glories of that memorable day—­if it were not for a real despair of reaching the extraordinary merits of some, and for a sincere apprehension of doing injustice even to those whom I might name, as well as to those whom I might, from ignorance, omit.  Certain it is, that while the admiral, and some distinguished actors in this scene, are covered with never-fading laurels—­if others of the squadron had not the same important share in the transactions of the day, it was owing to circumstances not dependent on themselves, and to no want of ardour or personal exertion.

“If I may be permitted to hazard an opinion, the whole squadron have gained immortal honour; for the victory of the 14th of February stands, in all it’s circumstances, first and unparalleled in naval history.

“The time mentioned in the narrative is taken from the minutes kept on board the Victory.  Some difference occurs between them and those kept on board other ships; but I have thought proper to follow the former, conceiving them to be the most correct.”

Such is the account of this glorious victory, as described by Colonel Drinkwater; who not only had the best possible view of the transactions in general, but was favoured with many particulars from some of the most intelligent officers who commanded or served on board the respective ships.

The official letter of the commander in chief, as addressed, on this occasion, by Sir John Jervis, to Evan Nepean, Esq.  Secretary of the Admiralty, and published in the London Gazette, it has been frequently observed, was remarkable for not containing a single syllable of individual praise.  This circumstance has been differently accounted for, by different persons, as they have been swayed by their prejudices, their partialities, or their imaginations; few, however, appear to have been very solicitous about the truth.  Indeed, there are no inconsiderable number of writers, and of readers too, who would be rather mortified than pleased to discover any positive verity which might overthrow, or even oppose, their own preconceived notions, however unjust or erroneous.

That the omission to mention names was the result of design, and not of accident, in the public letter of the commander in chief, is certainly true; and the Earl of St. Vincent need never blush at avowing the motive by which he was laudably actuated to avoid mentioning the names of individuals.  He had seen an instance of the fatal consequences of such selections, in the then recent example of Lord Howe; who, with the best intentions, had thus unfortunately excited the most cruel pangs in the bosoms of many brave commanders.  He resolved, therefore, with the most humane and benevolent view, to speak only, to the public, in terms of general approbation.