mpossibilities are not
impossible; before Napoleon and Nelson had made a mock of the word.
His attitude and action had therefore at the time the additional merit
of originality, but his lofty temper was capable of yet higher proof.
Convinced of the necessity of keeping the squadron on its station, he
ventured to disregard not only the murmurs of his officers but the
express orders of the Court. When he reached Batacalo, he found
despatches directing him to return to the Isle of France. Instead of
taking them as a release from the great burden of responsibility, he
disobeyed, giving his reasons, and asserting that he on the spot could
judge better than a minister in Europe what the circumstances
demanded. Such a leader deserved better subordinates, and a better
colleague than he had in the commander of the forces on shore. Whether
or no the conditions of the general maritime struggle would have
permitted the overthrow of the English East Indian power may be
doubtful; but it is certain that among all the admirals of the three
nations there was none so fitted to accomplish that result as Suffren.
We shall find him enduring severer tests, and always equal to them.

In the afternoon of the 5th of July Suffren's squadron came in sight
of the English, anchored off Cuddalore. An hour later, a sudden squall
carried away the main and mizzen topmasts of one of the French ships.
Admiral Hughes got under way, and the two fleets manoeuvred during the
night. The following day the wind favored the English, and the
opponents found themselves in line of battle on the starboard tack,
heading south-southeast, with the wind at southwest. The disabled
French ship having by unpardonable inactivity failed to repair her
injuries, the numbers about to engage were equal,--eleven on each
side. At eleven A.M. the English bore down together and engaged ship
against ship; but as was usual under those conditions, the rear ships
did not come to as close action as those ahead of them (Plate XVI.,
Position I.). Captain Chevalier carefully points out that their
failure was a fair offset to the failure of the French rear on the
12th of April,[185] but fails to note in this connection that the
French van, both on that occasion and again on the 3d of September,
bungled as well as the rear. There can remain little doubt, in the
mind of the careful reader, that most of the French captains were
inferior, as seamen, to their opponents. During this part of the
e