ick-planked, in order to bear their artillery; hence also with sides
not easy to be pierced by the weak ordnance of that time. They were in a
degree armored ships, though from a cause differing from that of to-day;
hence much "drubbing" was needed, and the prolongation of the drubbing
entailed increase of incidental injury to spars and rigging, both their
own and those of the enemy. Nor was the armor idea, directly, at all
unrecognized even then; for we are told of the _Real Felipe_ in
Mathews's action, that, being so weakly built that she could carry only
twenty-four-pounders on her lower deck, she had been "fortified in the
most extraordinary surprising manner; her sides being lined four or five
foot thick everywhere with junk or old cables to hinder the shot from
piercing."

It has been said that the conduct of one captain fell under Hawke's
displeasure. At a Council of War called by him after the battle, to
establish the fitness of the fleet to pursue the convoy, the other
captains objected to sitting with Captain Fox of the _Kent_, until he
had cleared himself from the imputation of misbehavior in incidents they
had noticed. Hawke was himself dissatisfied with Fox's failure to obey a
signal, and concurred in the objection. On the subsequent trial, the
Court expressly cleared the accused of cowardice, but found him guilty
of certain errors of judgment, and specifically of leaving the _Tonnant_
while the signal for close action was flying. As the _Tonnant_ escaped,
the implication of accountability for that result naturally follows. For
so serious a consequence the sentence only was that he be dismissed his
ship, and, although never again employed, he was retired two years after
as a rear-admiral. It was becoming increasingly evident that error of
judgment is an elastic phrase which can be made to cover all degrees of
faulty action, from the mistakes to which every man is liable and the
most faithful cannot always escape, to conduct wholly incompatible with
professional efficiency or even manly honor.

The case of Fox was one of many occurring at about this period, which,
however differing in detail between themselves, showed that throughout
the navy, both in active service before the enemy, and in the more
deliberate criteria of opinion which influence Courts-Martial, there was
a pronounced tendency to lowness of standard in measuring officer-like
conduct and official responsibility for personal action; a misplaced