nting are
summed up in the results. The French had fourteen ships engaged. They
lost eighty-two killed and two hundred and fifty-five wounded. Of this
total, sixty-four killed and one hundred and seventy-eight wounded, or
three fourths, fell to three ships. Two of these three lost their main
and mizzen masts and foretopmast; in other words, were helpless.

This was a repetition on a larger scale of the disaster to two of
Hughes's ships on the 12th of April; but on that day the English
admiral, being to leeward and in smaller force had to accept action on
the adversary's terms, while here the loss fell on the assailant, who,
to the advantage of the wind and choice of his mode of attack, added
superiority in numbers. Full credit must in this action be allowed to
Hughes, who, though lacking in enterprise and giving no token of
tactical skill or _coup d'oeil_, showed both judgment and good
management in the direction of his retreat and in keeping his ships so
well in hand. It is not easy to apportion the blame which rests upon
his enemies. Suffren laid it freely upon his captains.[191] It has
been rightly pointed out, however, that many of the officers thus
condemned in mass had conducted themselves well before, both under
Suffren and other admirals; that the order of pursuit was irregular,
and Suffren's signals followed each other with confusing rapidity; and
finally that chance, for which something must always be allowed, was
against the French, as was also the inexperience of several captains.
It is pretty certain that some of the mishap must be laid to the fiery
and inconsiderate haste of Suffren, who had the defects of his great
qualities, upon which his coy and wary antagonist unwittingly played.

It is noteworthy that no complaints of his captains are to be found in
Hughes's reports. Six fell in action, and of each he speaks in terms
of simple but evidently sincere appreciation, while on the survivors
he often bestows particular as well as general commendation. The
marked contrast between the two leaders, and between the individual
ship-commanders, on either side, makes this singularly instructive
among naval campaigns; and the ultimate lesson taught is in entire
accordance with the experience of all military history from the
beginning. Suffren had genius, energy, great tenacity, sound military
ideas, and was also an accomplished seaman. Hughes had apparently all
the technical acquirements of the latter profession,