he 23rd, but as the French, who had the advantage of the
wind, showed no inclination for battle, the English continued chasing
and manoeuvring to windward for four days. On the 27th, however, a dark
squall brought the two fleets close together off Ushant. The signal
was instantly made to engage. The fleets were then sailing in different
directions, and on contrary tacks, and a furious cannonade was
maintained for nearly three hours, at the end of which time they had
passed each other, and the firing ceased. The loss in killed and wounded
was greatest on the side of the French, but some of the British ships
under Sir Hugh Palliser were so crippled that when Keppel wore round to
renew the engagement they could not obey the signal, and he formed his
line of battle a-head. On their part the French formed their line to
leeward of their antagonists, and Keppel expected that they would try
their force "handsomely with him in the morning;" but in the course of
the night d'Orvilliers edged away for Brest, and claimed the victory,
because he had not been thoroughly beaten. Keppel returned to England to
get new masts and rigging, and on the 18th of August, d'Orvilliers again
set sail to cruise off Cape Finisterre. A few days after, Keppel also
again put to sea, but he stretched further to the westward, to protect
the merchant-ships returning from the two Indies, and to prevent any
portion of the French fleet from reaching America. Every ship sailing
from the Indies arrived safely in England, and our privateers and
cruisers captured many French trading-vessels; but the two fleets did
not again come into collision, and popular indignation, excited by
disappointment, attributed the blame to Keppel and Sir Hugh Palliser,
who served under him. The journals of the day teemed with invectives
against them for not pursuing the French admiral after the battle off'
Ushant; and the opinion was very general that they had not acted with
the required decision when the fleet of the enemy was in their power.
By the court and the admiralty, however, their conduct was viewed
with approbation; and Keppel, at least, would not deign to answer his
anonymous accusers. Sir Hugh Palliser replied to an attack made upon
him in a morning paper, and because Keppel refused to authenticate
his answer or to contradict statements made by an anonymous accuser,
Palliser published his own case, in which he charged his superior
officer with inconsistency, for having app