hen the
Barfleur came up, and when the French Admiral struck his colours. Sir
Lawrence Halsted, in his letter to us, after giving a brief account of
the capture of the Hector, and of the Canada's previous and subsequent
attack on the Ville de Paris, relates, that the Canada, on seeing some
ships bearing down on the Ville de Paris, of which, he believes, one
was the Russell, "bore up in pursuit of a French Rear-admiral in the
Triomphant 84;" and he concludes, "I trust that that part in Lord de
Saumarez' letter is satisfactorily answered, as it is quite clear that
the Canada was not near the Ville de Paris at the time she
surrendered." Admiral Giffard, in answer to our application, says,

"I am of opinion the Canada was engaged with the Ville de Paris
earlier in the day than the Russell."

Extract of a letter from Capt. G.W.H. Knight, R.N., son of the late
Admiral Sir John Knight, K.C.B., who was captain of the Barfleur on the
12th April, 1782.

"I have never been able to lay my hand on my father's letter, wherein
he gave me some account of the 12th of April 1782, but this I
recollect quite well, that he said, 'he accompanied Sir Samuel
(afterwards Lord Hood) on board Lord Rodney's ship the day before the
battle of the 9th of April, (my father being captain of the Barfleur,
Sir Samuel's flag ship,) and on that occasion not one word was said,
or order given, for any attempt to break through the enemy's line in
the expected engagement, nor was any order afterwards given previous
to the 12th of April. That on the 9th, the van squadron, commanded by
Sir S. Hood, which was most engaged, made no attempt to break the
line, nor did the van or centre (the line being inverted) on the 12th
make any such attempt; and my father attributed the Formidable, and
those that followed her, getting through, to the circumstance of a
change of wind, which brought those ships up with the rest of the rear
of the British fleet, while it broke off the ships in the French line,
and consequently left openings.' He further said, 'that from the
density of the smoke they could see nothing, and that the first
intimation they had (the Barfleur) of passing through the enemy's line
was, from receiving fire on both sides.' He gave another reason for
supposing it was altogether accidental, which was, that no attempt
was made or order given by signal to double on the enemy, and that the
advantage gained by passing through the line was never made use of
whe