This course was the more ungenerous, because no explanation, or even admission of involuntary wrong done, could have detracted in the least from the abounding credit due and accorded to Nelson for his conduct at St. Vincent, which indeed did not depend upon the length of time he remained unsupported, but upon the rapidity and fearlessness with which he had acted aright at a very critical juncture.  This had been done so openly, under the eyes of all men, that it could by no means be hid.  Collingwood had borne witness to it, in words which have been quoted.  Drinkwater and Elliot had watched the whole from the deck of their frigate.  The latter had written to him:  “To have had any share in yesterday’s glory is honour enough for one man’s life, but to have been foremost on such a day could fall to your share alone.”  The commander-in-chief had come out to greet him upon the quarter-deck of the flagship,—­a compliment naval officers can appreciate,—­had there embraced him, saying he could not sufficiently thank him, and “used every kind expression which could not fail to make me happy.”  Jervis had also insisted upon his keeping the sword of the Spanish rear-admiral who fell on board the “San Josef.”

Before dropping this subject, which has the unpleasantness that attends all contentions between individuals about their personal deserts, it is right to say that Nelson had held from the first that Collingwood, Troubridge, and himself were the only ones “who made great exertions on that glorious day:  the others did their duty, and some not exactly to my satisfaction.”  “Sir John Jervis,” he continued, “is not quite contented, but says nothing publicly.”  He then quotes an anecdote which, if he had it from Jervis, confirms his own opinion about the support given.  “Calder [the Chief of Staff] said, ’Sir, the Captain and Culloden are separated from the fleet, and unsupported:  shall we recall them?’ ’I will not have them recalled.  I put my faith in those ships:  it is a disgrace that they are not supported and [are] separated.’”

In his public letter Jervis refrained alike from praise and from blame.  He mentions but one name, that of Calder, as bearer of despatches, and only incidentally says that he has been useful to him at all times.  In a private letter to the First Lord he was more explicit, yet scarcely adequately so.  Whatever momentary expression of impatience escaped him, when anxious about the “Culloden” and “Captain,” he knew that his own flagship could not get to them in time for efficient support, and he gives as the reason for reticence in his public letter that all had behaved well, and that he was “confident that had those who were least in action been in the situation of the fortunate few, their conduct would not have been less meritorious.”  He then mentions by name Troubridge,—­who led the fleet,—­Nelson, and Collingwood, and five ships (without the names of the captains), “Blenheim,” “Prince George,” “Orion,” “Irresistible,”