This incident of refusing to see the signal has become as hackneyed as a popular ballad, and in its superficial aspect, showing Nelson as the mere fighting man, who, like a plucky dog, could not be dragged off his antagonist, might well now have been dismissed with the shortest and most summary mention.  Of late years doubt has been cast over the reality of Nelson’s disobedience, for the reason that Otway, whose mission has already been noted, carried a verbal message that the order was to be understood as permissive, leaving Nelson the liberty to obey or not.  From Otway’s biography, however, it appears that the signal was hoisted before he reached the “Elephant.”  Parker’s Secretary, Mr. Scott, has also stated distinctly, that “it was arranged between the admirals, that, should it appear the ships which were engaged were suffering too severely, the signal for retreat would be made, to give Lord Nelson the option of retiring, if he thought fit."[34]

On the other hand, without affirming positively, it should be said that Nelson’s own impressions do not seem to have agreed with Scott’s.  Not only did he say, some hours after the fight, “Well, I have fought contrary to orders, and I shall perhaps be hanged; never mind, let them,”—­which might pass as a continuation of the quarter-deck drama, if such it was,—­but his account of the matter to Lord Minto is not consistent with any clear understanding, on his part, that he had such liberty of action.  Nearly a year later, in March, 1802, Minto writes:  “Lord Nelson explained to me a little, on Saturday last, the sort of blame which had been imputed to Sir Hyde Parker for Copenhagen; in the first place, for not commanding the attack in person, and in the next place for making signals to recall the fleet during the action; and everything would have been lost if these signals had been obeyed.”  If Nelson understood that the signal was to be construed as permissive only, it was extremely ungenerous, and most unlike Nelson, to have withheld an explanation which extenuated, if it did not excuse, one of the most dangerous and ill-judged orders that ever was conveyed by flags; nor is it probable that Parker, if the understanding had been explicit, would not have insisted with the Admiralty upon the fact, when he was smarting under the general censure, which had led to talk of an inquiry.  It seems, also, unlikely that Nelson, having such a contingency in view, would have failed to give explicit instructions that his ships should not withdraw (as Riou’s frigates did) unless he repeated; nor is it easy to reconcile the agitation noted by Stewart with a previous arrangement of the kind asserted.