During the period this officer resided at the Admiralty, he suggested the plan upon which the Plantagenet, a 74-gun ship, was built. She was launched at Woolwich, Oct. 23, 1801, and considered by judges of naval architecture to be of singularly fine mould, and exquisite proportions. Being without a poop, she passed at a distance for a large frigate. He also, with much labour and close attention, compiled a code of signals for the Navy; no regular one authorized by the Admiralty having been established since the very imperfect Sailing and Fighting Instructions issued by the Duke of York, afterwards James II. In that code the Admiral inserted the list of the ships of the Navy, with numbers against their names, an invention of his own, for the purpose of their making themselves known to each other at sea and on other occasions; with several improvements in the signals and evolutions. He also drew up the ‘General Instructions’ for the direction and guidance of officers in the internal discipline and government of the King’s ships, with the duty of every officer clearly pointed out. This was a work greatly needed, as the old instructions had become obsolete and almost useless, being very deficient and confused.
Nothing material occurred until the month of April, 1809, when a detachment of his Lordship’s fleet, preceded by some fire-ships, attacked a French squadron at their anchorage in Aix Roads, and succeeded in destroying the Ville de Varsovie, of 80 guns, Tonnerre and Aquilon, of 74 guns each, and the Calcutta, of 56 guns; several others, from getting on shore, if not rendered altogether unserviceable, were at least disabled for a considerable time[1].
A difference of opinion respecting the practicability of destroying the remainder of the enemy’s squadron was productive of a serious misunderstanding between the Commander-in-Chief and Lord Cochrane, who had had the direction of the fire-ships; which terminated in a court martial held on the
- ↑ L’Indienne, frigate, was afterwards burnt by her crew.
the proposed honours, for the officers by whom it was accomplished. The policy of the measure was not taken into discussion. The motion was carried without a division in the Lords; in the Commons the proposer had a majority of 100 against 19.
