order!"
thus turning the conversation, he entered his cabin, and sent for
Captain Ball.

While Sir James was receiving the congratulations of his brother
captains on being the second in command, no doubt being entertained
among them that the Admiral would make most honourable mention of his
name as such,--_an honour which he so highly deserved_, and which is
usual in similar cases,--Captain Ball came on deck, and interrupted
the conversation by observing, "Nelson says there is to be no second
in command; _we are all to be alike in his despatches_!"[14]

[14] We may here state that, on the preceding day, Captain Ball
had paid a visit to Sir James; and as they were discussing the
various points of the battle, he stated to Sir James, that
"having been the second in command, he would, unquestionably,
receive some mark of distinction on the occasion." Saumarez, in
the enthusiasm of the moment, exclaimed, "We all did our
duty,--there was no second in command!" meaning, of course, that
he did not consider he had done more than other captains; and,
not supposing that this observation would come to the ears of
the Admiral. But, he afterwards thought, Nelson had availed
himself of this conversation, to deprive him of the advantage to
which his seniority entitled him, although he fully exonerated
Captain Ball of having the slightest intention of communicating
to the Admiral anything he could have supposed would be
detrimental to his interest.

We need scarcely say that this was eventually the case; but we may
relate the circumstances which induced Saumarez, without the least
intention to offend, to make the observation at which offence was
taken. It was the custom of Nelson, when in communication or in
company with the captains under his command, to converse with them on
the various modes of attacking the enemy under different
circumstances; and, on one of these occasions, Sir James Saumarez, who
had seen the evil consequences of _doubling_ on the enemy, especially
in a night action, had differed with the Admiral in that plan of
attack, saying that "it never required two English ships to _capture_
one French, and that the damage which they must necessarily do to each
other might render them both unable to fight an enemy's ship that had
not been engaged; and as in this case two ships could be spared to the
three-decker, every one might have his own opponent."

It would perhaps be d