Islands. The damages should have been repaired _en route_. A few
topmasts carried away and other casualties in a gale of wind are
everyday occurrences. The great evil of our Navy is that the men who
command it are unused to all the risks of command." This indictment is
to a large extent deserved, and had his fleet been out in the Atlantic
or outside the limits of the vigilance of Nelson's ships, the putting
back to Toulon or anywhere to refit the topmasts, sails, or rigging
would have been highly reprehensible. But in any case, I question
whether the British would have shown the white feather or lack of
resource under any circumstances. On a man-of-war they were supposed
to have refits of everything, and men, properly qualified, in large
numbers to carry out any prodigious feat. On the other hand, the
British have always excelled in their nautical ability to guard
against deficiency in outfit, which was not overtested unless there
were sufficient cause to demand such a risk. This applies especially
to the sailing war vessels in Nelson's time. I think there can be no
question that the French vessels were both badly officered and manned
with incapable sailors and that the damage which led them back to
Toulon was caused by bad judgment in seamanship. What they called a
severe gale would have been regarded by an Australian clipper or
Western Ocean packet-ship in the writer's early days as a hard
whole-sail breeze, perhaps with the kites taken in. It was rare that
these dashing commanders ever carried away a spar, and it was not
because they did not carry on, but because they knew every trick of
the vessel, the wind, and the sea. It was a common saying in those
days when vessels were being overpowered with canvas, "The old lady
was talking to us now," i.e. the vessel was asking to have some of the
burden of sail taken off her. I have known topmasts to be carried
away, but it generally occurred through some flaw in a bolt or unseen
defect in the rigging. So much depends on the security of little