Nelson’s account of the proceedings of the “Captain” on the 14th of February, having been published not long afterwards, apparently by his authority, was challenged as incorrect by Vice-Admiral William Parker, commanding the van, whose flag was on board the third British ship, the “Prince George.”  Parker claimed that the latter, with the “Blenheim” and “Orion,” had been much closer to the “Captain” and “Culloden” than was implied in Nelson’s narrative by the words, “For near an hour, I believe, (but do not pretend to be correct as to time,) did the Culloden and Captain support this apparently, but not really, unequal contest; when the Blenheim, passing between us and the enemy, gave us a respite.”  Parker labored under the misfortune of a singularly involved and obscure style, while in two separate papers he contradicted himself more than once on points of detail; but the tone of his letter to Nelson was temperate and dignified, and he asserted that, “so different to your statement, very soon after you commenced your fire, you had four ships pressing on [Culloden, Blenheim, Prince George, and Orion], almost on board of each other, close in your rear; but”—­and the admission following must be noted as well as the charge—­“ships thus pressing upon each other, and the two latter not far enough ahead to fire with proper effect,[49] besides having none of the enemy’s ships left in the rear for our succeeding ships, at forty-three[50] minutes past one I made the signal to fill and stand on.”  Parker had also stated, in his log of the action, that the brunt fell upon the “Captain,” the “Culloden,” and the “Blenheim,” but more particularly the two former, “from their being more in the van.”

It appears to the writer probable that Nelson over-estimated the period that he and Troubridge remained unsupported; time would seem long to the bravest man, when opposed to such heavy odds.  Parker seems to have reckoned it to be about fifteen minutes, and he admits that it was impossible for him to open fire with proper effect for some time, although close on the heels of the “Captain” and the “Culloden,” because he could not get abreast of the enemy.  All the ships—­Spanish and British—­were moving ahead, probably at not very different rates of speed.  The “Prince George” certainly became in the end actively and closely engaged, much of the time with the “San Josef,” a ship of force superior to her own.

Nelson’s account is a simple, if somewhat exultant, narrative of the facts as they passed under his observation; and, except in the statement to which Parker objected, they do not even inferentially carry an imputation upon any one else.  There was a reflection, though scarcely intended, upon the van ships, which should have been, and Parker says were, close behind the “Culloden;” but the attack was upon the extreme rear of the enemy, and Nelson probably forgot that readers might not understand, as he did, that the ships behind him must need some time to get up, and that his own position, abreast the enemy’s rear, was in itself an obstacle to their reaching a place whence their batteries could bear, with the limited train of broadside guns in those days.