Talos

Totally meant to post this earlier with the discussion about sparing. I found this table in a 19th century book on rigging (I have to go back and look it up again to see which one. I realized that the measurements listed for hull length were that of the Cruizer and Cherokee.

Here are my thoughts.
 
The Epervier was a new fast sloop, built to the latest designs, launched in 1812, and she was constructed of oak. She had a complete battery of sixteen 32-pounder carronades, plus two 18-pounder trunioned carronades, and a complete crew with no vacancies, and no missing officers.
 
Although the officers claim the the crew was indifferent, most of them had been in the sloop since her first days, with the same captain and most of her officers. It was the officers duty to train and inspire them.
 
The crew may have been sick due to the cold weather in Halifax the previous year, they had been in the tropics for several months, more than enough time for all cold weather maladies to cure themselves. 
 
They may have only had 31 real sailors on board, but that was more than enough to sail a brig of her size. The rest were only needed to haul the ropes and work the guns. If they were not a strong, smart crew, then it was the officers's duty to train them properly, as they had been together a year and a half, much longer than the Peacock's had her's.
 
The defects in the fighting bolts would have been spotted long before, if all the guns have been tested with powder and ball, which they were not, only one was, and the problem could have been fixed. Given the little damage to the Peacock, the British carronades were aimed too high, and the downward recoil might have caused the problem. If the guns had been aimed flat for the enemy's hull, they may not have popped out.
 
The breeching bolts pulled out probably because, while underwater at Halifax, water soaked into the breach bolt holes, and after six months of rotting, the wood couldn't stand the repeated recoil of the guns, and let the bolts pass through. The sloop probably lay aground, partially submerged on her larboard side.
 
It is surprising that they didn't try wearing around to bring their starboard guns to bear, as some had suggested. So if they were too close to the enemy, and had fallen on board, as they had feared, then they could have tried boarding the Peacock, since they still had over one hundred hands unhurt, including all sixteen of her marines, and apparently nobody had fired their muskets yet.

The British still had no qualms about fighting in the Lee gauge. Heck, often they even did it to cut off a fleeing French ship. There were plenty of times when it was more advantageous than the weather gauge.

The British still had no qualms about fighting in the Lee gauge. Heck, often they even did it to cut off a fleeing French ship. There were plenty of times when it was more advantageous than the weather gauge.

While British doctrinw preferred the weather gauge, the lee gauge had advantages too, particularly that you could slip away and break off the engagement a lot easier. That might have been in his mind engaging a heavier opponent.

While British doctrinw preferred the weather gauge, the lee gauge had advantages too, particularly that you could slip away and break off the engagement a lot easier. That might have been in his mind engaging a heavier opponent.

"Lieutenant John Harvey, second lieutenant of His Majesty's late sloop Epervier was called in and sworn.
 
 
Q:  Did you hear the narrative delivered by Captain Wales and read to the court?
 
A:  Yes.
 
Q:  Are the contents of it, as far as comes within your knowledge, correct and true?
 
A:  Yes.
 
Q:  How long have you been in the Epervier previous to the action?
 
A:  Three months.
 
Q:  Where were you quartered?
 
A:  At the five foremost guns.

Q:  Did the fighting bolts of the carronades come out, and the slides unship on firing the guns?
 
A:  One of the starboard side of my quarters, none on the larboard side.
 
Q:  Did any of the breeching bolts draw?
 
A:  Yes, the third gun from forward, on the larboard side, the bolts drew.
 
Q:  Do you know if the fighting bolts came out at the after guns?
 
A:  Yes. But I do not know how many. Because they were shipped again immediately on their being unshipped.
 
Q:  At what distance was the enemy's ship from the Epervier during the greater part of ht e action?
 
A:  About a third of a cable's length, to the best of my judgement.
 

Q:  What damage did the Epervier sustain during the action?
 
A:  The second broadside from the enemy, the main boom was shot away by the jaws, and to the best of my knowledge, not a brace or bow line left.  Shortly afterwards, one of the guns on the larboard side was dismounted by an enemy's shot, and towards the close of the action, two others were dismounted, and a fourth gun was rendered useless by a ring bolt and an eye bolt both being torn away by shot, and this time, the fore mast was cut nearly three fourths through, both topsail yards on the cap, Jibb haulyards and jibb sheet pendants shot away, the main topmast fell just as we were about to strike the colours, to the best of my knowledge there were forty five shot holes through the hull, eleven of them below the cills of the port. A consultation was held by the captain and the officers to get the starboard guns to bear, but it was thought impracticable, the captain asked if we were of the opinion that we could carry the enemy by boarding, and the officers were of the opinion that it was impossible, the colours were then ordered to be struck by the captain, we were about half a cable's length from the enemy.
 
Q:  How many of the Epervier's men were killed and wounded?
 
A:  Six men killed and nine wounded, to the best of my knowledge.
 
Q:  How many of them were at your quarters?
 
A:  Three killed and two wounded.
 
Q:  Were the Epervier's men, generally speaking, expert on the exercise of the great guns?
 
A:  They were, considering the strength of the men, they were not strong men, and [had] the appearance of unhealthy men.
 

Q:  Were they frequently exercised at the great guns?
 
A:  Every evening when the weather would permit, for an hour.
 
Q:  When at sea, had they been exercised with powder and shot?
 
A:  Once, one gun only?
 
Q:  Were there opportunities or their being exercised or of firing at the mark?
 
A:  The weather would frequently permit.
 
Q:  Were the men from different guns brought to the one gun that was fired?
 
A:  No. It was to try the cross breechings that had just been fixed.
 

Q:  Were many of the ships company practical seamen?
 
A:  Not more than twenty. Not more than ten thorough seamen, to the best of my knowledge.
 
Q:  Was every arrangement made previous to the action, and proper encouragement given by Captain Wales to the ships company during the action?
 
A:  Yes.
 
Q:  Do you know of any want of exertion, activity or zeal, on the part of any officers, petty officers, seamen and marines, belonging to the Eperviier during the action, or on that occasion.
 
A:  Nothing that came within my knowledge respecting the officers, but as to the men, James Lochan, John Peters, William Smith, George Elkinson, and John Sheldon deserted their quarters. At my own quarters, it came to my knowledge that  George Elkinson and John Sheldonboth stated themselves to be Americans after the action, and entered into the American service. I think I heard that Elkinson stated himself to have been an American before the action. Lochan, Peters  and Smith were distributed to different ships in the West Indies and North American stations.
 
Q:  Do you know of any circumstances relative to Charles Manly's conduct during the action?
 
A: I mustered the men at my quarters, and I understand from Mr. Evans, a midshipman,  who is not here,  that Charles Manly and Peter Meak were unable to come to their guns.
 

Q:   Can you account to the court for the breeching bolts of the guns giving way. Was it a defect of the iron, or the ships sides giving way?
 
A:  I suppose they had not been properly clinched, as they came through with out the bolts being in the least injured.
 
Q:  How did the ships company altogether behave with the exceptions you have already made?
 

A:  The greater part of them were never in action before, and before the commencement, seemed to be rather confused.
 
Q:   Was it possible for you to get on board the enemy at the time the officers consulted on that point?
 
A:  No. It was not possible.
 
Q:  Was every pains taken to discipline the crew of the Epervier when you were in her?
 
A:  Yes.
 
Q:  Could the Epervier have been defended longer with hopes of success?
 
A:  No.
 
Q:  Was there a possibility of pulling her head round to have got your starboard guns to bear?
 
A:  No. I do not think it was possible, as we might have pulled her head round, but her stern would have been to the enemy's broadside.
 
Q:  Was the enemy to the windward or the leeward of you at the close of the action?
 
A:  To the windward of us, but a very little.
 

Q:  What was the state of the enemy's ship at the close of the action?
 
A:  The fore yard was shot away in the slings, the sails very much cut, but no other apparent damage.
 
Q:  Did the enemy fire musketry?
 
A:  Yes.
 
Q:  Was any of your people killed or wounded by it?
 
A:  No.
 
Q:  Did it come to your knowledge that the powder was properly reduced during the action?
 
A:  I had a cartridge in my had just before we struck, and I could perceive no sensible difference in the full charge.
 

Q:  Did the Epervier roll much?
 
A:  No.
 
Q:   Did you see any of the shot rollout of the guns?
 
A:  No.
 
Q:  What shots were put into the guns at your quarters?
 
A:  Two round shot the first broadsides at my quarters, I saw them put in myself and afterwards we put in round and grape alternately.
 
Q:  By who's orders did you put two round shot into the guns at the first broadsides?
 
A:  I received the orders from aft, I supposed from the captain or first lieutenant.
 

Q:  Were any of your guns disabled by the firing of them?
 
A:  No. Not by being overcharged, but by the enemy's shots.
 
Q:  Did you know the size of the Peacock? 
 
A: Five hundred and nine tons by the American tonnage, as they acknowledged, which I supposed was nearly five hundred and sixty tons English. One hundred and eighty six men, they had on board, and three boys.
 
Q:  Could you ascertain the loss she sustained?
 
A:  No.
 
Captain Wales asked:
 
Q:  Did you at any time during the action see Charles Manly handing up powder?
 
A:  Yes.
               

Very interesting stuff. I've always been fascinated by Epervier as the USN's short-lived example of a Cruizer-class brig. A shame she was lost so soon after, though after getting some American modifications (enlarged gunports, headrails, and increase rake of her masts). I did notice the mention of the captain on the quarterdeck and the tiller on the deck, which would imply to me it was not one of the Cruizers with the aft platform. In those there was very little headroom, the main boom passes over the platform, and the tiller is mounted on top (above the bulwarks) in a lot of them too.
 
This makes me want to finish my drawing of her from Chappelle, and do the American modifications too. I also have a vague idea of doing the ship rig too, and a modified exploration vessel in the same vein as HMS Beagle's modifications to the smaller Cherokee-class.
 
(the other ship in the drawing is Chappelle's take on Cyane, but it's incorrect. He was sent the Bittern-class Cyane plans instead of the Brazen-class and he dressed it up with War of 1812-style bulwarks and such. Hmm, if you continue doing these after-action reports...)
 
EDIT: Threw together a quick size comp of Peacock and Epervier. They're alligned at the aft perpendicular to show the length difference better.

Very interesting stuff. I've always been fascinated by Epervier as the USN's short-lived example of a Cruizer-class brig. A shame she was lost so soon after, though after getting some American modifications (enlarged gunports, headrails, and increase rake of her masts). I did notice the mention of the captain on the quarterdeck and the tiller on the deck, which would imply to me it was not one of the Cruizers with the aft platform. In those there was very little headroom, the main boom passes over the platform, and the tiller is mounted on top (above the bulwarks) in a lot of them too.
 
This makes me want to finish my drawing of her from Chappelle, and do the American modifications too. I also have a vague idea of doing the ship rig too, and a modified exploration vessel in the same vein as HMS Beagle's modifications to the smaller Cherokee-class.
 
(the other ship in the drawing is Chappelle's take on Cyane, but it's incorrect. He was sent the Bittern-class Cyane plans instead of the Brazen-class and he dressed it up with War of 1812-style bulwarks and such. Hmm, if you continue doing these after-action reports...)
 
EDIT: Threw together a quick size comp of Peacock and Epervier. They're alligned at the aft perpendicular to show the length difference better.

Very interesting stuff. I've always been fascinated by Epervier as the USN's short-lived example of a Cruizer-class brig. A shame she was lost so soon after, though after getting some American modifications (enlarged gunports, headrails, and increase rake of her masts). I did notice the mention of the captain on the quarterdeck and the tiller on the deck, which would imply to me it was not one of the Cruizers with the aft platform. In those there was very little headroom, the main boom passes over the platform, and the tiller is mounted on top (above the bulwarks) in a lot of them too.
 
This makes me want to finish my drawing of her from Chappelle, and do the American modifications too. I also have a vague idea of doing the ship rig too, and a modified exploration vessel in the same vein as HMS Beagle's modifications to the smaller Cherokee-class.
 
(the other ship in the drawing is Chappelle's take on Cyane, but it's incorrect. He was sent the Bittern-class Cyane plans instead of the Brazen-class and he dressed it up with War of 1812-style bulwarks and such. Hmm, if you continue doing these after-action reports...)
 
EDIT: Threw together a quick size comp of Peacock and Epervier. They're alligned at the aft perpendicular to show the length difference better.

Very interesting stuff. I've always been fascinated by Epervier as the USN's short-lived example of a Cruizer-class brig. A shame she was lost so soon after, though after getting some American modifications (enlarged gunports, headrails, and increase rake of her masts). I did notice the mention of the captain on the quarterdeck and the tiller on the deck, which would imply to me it was not one of the Cruizers with the aft platform. In those there was very little headroom, the main boom passes over the platform, and the tiller is mounted on top (above the bulwarks) in a lot of them too.
 
This makes me want to finish my drawing of her from Chappelle, and do the American modifications too. I also have a vague idea of doing the ship rig too, and a modified exploration vessel in the same vein as HMS Beagle's modifications to the smaller Cherokee-class.
 
(the other ship in the drawing is Chappelle's take on Cyane, but it's incorrect. He was sent the Bittern-class Cyane plans instead of the Brazen-class and he dressed it up with War of 1812-style bulwarks and such. Hmm, if you continue doing these after-action reports...)
 
EDIT: Threw together a quick size comp of Peacock and Epervier. They're alligned at the aft perpendicular to show the length difference better.

Very interesting stuff. I've always been fascinated by Epervier as the USN's short-lived example of a Cruizer-class brig. A shame she was lost so soon after, though after getting some American modifications (enlarged gunports, headrails, and increase rake of her masts). I did notice the mention of the captain on the quarterdeck and the tiller on the deck, which would imply to me it was not one of the Cruizers with the aft platform. In those there was very little headroom, the main boom passes over the platform, and the tiller is mounted on top (above the bulwarks) in a lot of them too.
 
This makes me want to finish my drawing of her from Chappelle, and do the American modifications too. I also have a vague idea of doing the ship rig too, and a modified exploration vessel in the same vein as HMS Beagle's modifications to the smaller Cherokee-class.
 
(the other ship in the drawing is Chappelle's take on Cyane, but it's incorrect. He was sent the Bittern-class Cyane plans instead of the Brazen-class and he dressed it up with War of 1812-style bulwarks and such. Hmm, if you continue doing these after-action reports...)
 
EDIT: Threw together a quick size comp of Peacock and Epervier. They're alligned at the aft perpendicular to show the length difference better.

The following describes the fight between the American Ship-Sloop USS Peacock, of 22 guns, and the British Brig-Sloop, HMS Epervier, of 18 guns, fought off the coast of present day Cape Canaveral, Florida. Both sloops of war were armed primarily with 32-pounder carronades, and this engagement has always been considered to be a fair fight, even though the Americans, as usual, had an advantage in the number of men and guns.
 
The British court martial for the loss of the Epervier was held on board HM Ship Gladiator in Portsmouth Harbor, on January 20th, 1815.  The PRO [in Kew] reference number is ADMI/5447 - XC20479.
 
Interesting note: One of the twelve Royal Navy  officers serving on this court martial was Captain Peter Haywood, RN, one of the Bounty's mutinous midshipmen! He had been arrested in Tahiti, survived the Pandora's wreck, stood trial, was acquitted, forgiven, reinstated, and moved up the ranks to captain by 1815.
 
 
 
Statement of HM Brig Epervier's Captain, Richard Wales:
 
"To the right honorable president and members of the court:
 
The Narrative of R.W. Wales, Commander of His Majesty's Late Sloop Epervier, from the 14th day of April, until the 29th of the same month, on which day the said sloop was captured by the United States Ship of War Peacock, in Latitude about 27 degrees 47" North and  Longitude 80 degrees 07" West.
 
Having received orders from Rear Admiral Brown, then Commanding at Jamaica, to give instructions to ships bound to the Havannah, Bermuda and Nova Scotia, also to any others which may be bound to the northward as far as our courses lay together, I sailed on the morning of the 14th of April from Port Royal, it being the day appointed for our sailing, with seven sail in company, three of which separated on the 16th and 20th ultimo for their destinations. At the 24th PM, arrived off Havannah, and having seen the ships bound there safe in, and the vessel being bound toward Bermuda being in want of water, I anchored the Epervier at the entrance of the harbor my orders being to wait there 24 hours for any vessel that might be bound to the northward, having made the same known to the merchants, and that my orders were limited, I weighed the following morning at daylight, and made convoy signal for ships bound to the northward, and remained off the harbor mouth the greater part of the day. When not perceiving any other vessel come out to join me, I made sail with the one only bound to Bermuda, nothing particular occurred until the 29th instant, when at daylight, two sail appeared ahead, the wind being about ESE, and our course about N by E. At 7.30 AM spoke to one of the strangers under Russian colours, who was from the Havannah bound to Boston, who informed us, the other sail, under Spanish colors, was bound there also. Soon after, saw a sail in the SW quarter.
 
At 6.30 AM, observed the stranger to be a square rigged vessel, and apparently, a man of war in chase of us, by her closing very fast. We then shortened sail, and at 9 AM hauled our wind on the larboard tack, finding the wind veered around to the southward, and made sail, so as to get between the convoy and the stranger. At 9.20 AM made the private signal, which was not answered by the stranger , but shortly after by a blue English ensign and pendant hoisted, which I considered as suspicious, and made the signal to the convoy for an enemy, and to provide for her safety. Beat to quarters and cleared the ship for action, at 9.40 observed the stranger to haul down the English ensign and pendant, and hoist an American at the peak, and another on the fore topmast head, ay 9.50, being within half gunshot of the enemy, observed her to keep away, as i supposed to bring her broadside to bear on us, which we avoided by putting the helm up also, and keeping before the range of her guns, , and then rounding too, firing our starboard guns at tthe enemy's bow, when three of the carronades unshipped, by the fighting bolts jumping out of the chocks, which were again shipped,  and when abaft the range of the enemy's guns, we tacked and hauled up the main sail, during which period the enemy appears to have luffed up to bring her guns to bear, several of which were fired, but without doing us any material injury, in doing this, she got into the wind, as a I apprehended,  as their head yards appear to have been [illegible] a-box, by which maneuver, and the Epervier falling round off, brought us immediately to close action again, when we stood, with the wind about abeam, the enemy then directing his fire chiefly at our sails, and rigging. I am sorry to say they succeeding in completely dismantling us, in cutting away our sails and running rigging with their star and bar shot, and shot away the jaws of the main boom. 
 
At 10.30 AM, observed the enemy's fore yard droop. We cheered. Soon after this, several of the larboard carronades unshipped, by the fighting bolts, coming out of their places, shipped them again, and continued firing, some of them continued to unship when fired. At 10.40 AM, the boom topping lift gave way, and the boom fell on the wheel, from which the head sails being shot away, through the Epervier in a situation to be raked, but the enemy not immediately perceiving it and the brig having headway, we succeeded in bringing our broadside towards the opponent again, without receiving three or four shot, while in that position, after this, the enemy fired chiefly at our hull, and disabled three guns in the waist, and several shot in the hull below. At this time, several of the crew had fallen, amongst whom was the first lieutenant. At 10.55 AM the breeching bolts having drawn, I consulted the master to get the Epervier around, so as to engage the opposite side, the larboard broadside being totally disabled, with the exception of one 18-pounder which was now the only gun we had to return the enemy's fire. But this was thought to be too impracticable from being to near the enemy, and rather advanced before her helm, without putting onboard of her, I then ordered the officers aft, and asked if they were of the opinion that we should succeed by boarding, but this was considered impossible from the enemy's apparent superiority, and that nothing more could be done. At 11 AM the main topsail fell, and the foremast tottering being much crippled by shot, and all the larboard rigging being shot away, and the Epervier in a defenseless state, the carpenter reported her making water, and there was four feet and a half in the hold. To prevent the loss of any more men, the convoy having escaped, I was under the mortifying necessity of ordering the colours to be hauled down, when the enemy soon took possession of us, and sending a strong party of seamen and carpenters on board, the weather being very moderate and smooth,   water, they succeeded in stopping the shot holes and securing the fore mast, and got her safe into Savannah.
 
I hereby annex, for the information of the court, the effective force of the crew on board H. Majesty's late sloop under my command at the commencement of the action, viz.
 
Officers - Nine
Petty Officers - 26
Able seamen - 13
Ordinary seamen - 18
Marines  - 16
Boys - 15
Landsmen - 20
Supernumerary - one
 
 
Total - 118.
 
[signed ] R. W. Wales."
 
I will edit out the boring legalese in the following testimony ...

"The Judge Advocate asked Captain Wales:
 
Q: Have you any complaint to make against the surviving officers or men as to their conduct in or subsequent to the action?
 
A:  Yes, against Boatswain Joseph Deane, there was a want of activity and exertion in him during the action. In part of the ships company, there was also a want of activity and exertion, as near as I can guess, about twenty of them.
 
Q:  Name them.
 
A:  The greater part of the ship's company being sent to the West Indies, and distributed amongst the shipping at Halifax, I cannot name them, There is one here, Charles manly, a seaman,  who was not forthcoming at the first part of the action under the pretense of a bad knee, but afterwards rendered himself serviceable in handing up powder.
 
To the officers and men present:
 
Q:  Have you any complaints to make against Captain Wales as to his conduct during the action?
 
A:  None.
 
 
Q:  How long had you commanded the Epervier?
 
A:  About fifteen months.
 
Q:  How long have the greater part of the crew been in her?
 
A:  About nearly the same time.
 
 
Q:  Where was she manned?
 
A:  At Sheerness, in the Nore.
 
Q:  Were the crew, generally speaking, expert in the use of the great guns?
 
A:  They were frequently exercised, but there were many who were not so expert as I thought they ought to have been.
 
 
Q:  You stated in your narrative, that the carronades were unshipped in consequence of the fighting bolts coming out of their places two or three times. Describe how they were fastened.
 
A:  They were drop bolts, with a shoulder at the bottom, and no forelock.
 
Q: In what way did you attempt to make them secure during the action?
 
A:  They were merely replaced. I knew of no other way to secure them.
 
 
Q:  Did the bolts ever come out of their places in the similar manner when the guns were exercised?
 
A:  No.
 
Q:  What damage did the enemy sustain?
 
A:  The sails and rigging were a good deal cut, the fore yard wounded by shot, I never could ascertain whether any of her men were killed, which they would not acknowledge. But I saw five men in their cots who had been severely wounded.
 
 
Q:  Do you know in what manner the fighting bolts of the carronades of the enemy were secured and fastened?
 
A:  The carronade slide was shipped in the port cill, with a drop bolt and a forelock right through the ships side, then with a small forelock through the end of it.
 
Q:  State the names of the officers, that acquainted you that some of the men had not exerted themselves so much, as they ought to have.
 
A: Lieutenants hacket and Harvey.
 
 
Q:  At what distance were you at the greater part of the action, from the enemy's ship?
 
A:  Sometimes we were in a quarter of a cable's length, at other times at a greater distance, wen the enemy yawed occasionally.
 
Q:  What shot did you use in the great gun principally?
 
A:  Round and grape and canister.
 
 
Q:  Do you know if the powder was regularly reduced, according to instructions?
 
A:  , My directions to the gunner, who is a careful and attentive man, in his situation were to pay particular attention to that part of his duty, and I have reason to believe he did so.
 
Q:  Was musketry used?
 
A:  I did not think from the height of the bulwarks of the enemy and of our own also, that the marines could be so well employed there, as at the great guns, not being able to see an object to fire at.
 
Q:  Was the enemy to windward, or to leeward?
 
A: To leeward.
 
Q:  You stated in the narrative, that in the latter part of the action, the breeching bolts drew. How many of them, or the side you engaged, drew?
 
A:  The bolts at five guns drew.
 
 
Q: How were they secured?
 
A:  Through the side, and clinched.
 
Q:  You stated in the narrative, that the yards and the head sails, were so damaged that the brig could not be got around, was any attempt made by sweeps or otherwise to effect that object?
 
A:  No. I consulted with the master, who was of the same opinion as myself,, that from the nearness that we were to the enemy at the tie, that her head could not be got round, without getting on board her.
 
Q:  Had you sights on the carronades?
 
A:  No. We were lately been on shore in the hurricane in Halifax, where the brig lay ten days under water, by which means the small efforts we made towards having anything of the kind were destroyed, and I had not the time or means of getting anything of the kind done.
 
Q:  Where is the surgeon?
 
A:  He is at Halifax.
 

Q:  Do you know if the prisoner, Charles Manly, had been on the sick list prior to the action?
 
A:  Yes, he had, and the day before the action, he was reported by the surgeon to be able to come on deck if required, but not go aloft.
 
Q:  Who reported to you, that he did not come on deck at the beginning of the action?
 
A:  I understand, after the action, in a conversation with some of the officers, that he had been absent from his quarters during the action, as also a man by the name of Peter Meak, who is, I think at Halifax, on which referring to the second lieutenant, , he said,  that they were reported sick to him.
 
Q:  At what period of the action was Lieutenant Hackett wounded?
 
A:  I think about a third of the action, but I did not know,  of his being wounded until some short time afterwards, when the carpenter came on deck, and told be of it.
 
Q:  How does the prisoner, Charles Manly, stand on the ships books?
 
A:  As Ordinary Seaman. I think he came on board in the first draught from the Namur, at Sheerness, I think he is of England.
 

Q:  How many men had you on the sick list at the time?
 
A:  To the best of my recollection, none others than Charles Manly, and Peter Meak.
 
Q:  Were the ship's company, in general, healthy men?
 
A:  They were tolerably so at this time,but had suffered a great deal from the severity of the weather at Halifax, and in the Bay of Fundy, during the winter.
 
Q:  How long previous to the action was it, that the Epervier was on shore, and under water, at Halifax Harbour?
 
A:  She drove on shore in the hurricane at Halifax, on the twelfth November, proceeding.  The action was on the 29th of April.
 
Q:  Was the Epervier's tiller on decK?
 
A:  Yes.
 

Q:   You said in your narrative, that the topping lifts of the main boom fell on the wheel. Were the tiller ropes cut in consequence of this?
 
A:  No. They were not. The tiller being very near the deck, that a man could not readily steer it, as with the wheel,  that I considered the clearing of the main boom off the wheel to be less trouble, than steering by the tiller, which was done very soon.
 
Q:  How long did the Epervier remain in a situation to be raked by the enemy, in consequence of the wheel being disabled?
 
A:  I think about six or seven minutes.
 
Q:  Do you know if two round shot were fired from the carronades during the action?
 
A:  No. I do not know if two round shot were fired. But I believe a round, and a grape or canister, were.
 
Q:  Did the enemy vessel appear to sail better than the Epervier?
 
A:  From the manner in which she approached us, I thought she sailed very fast, and during the time I was on board the Peacock being chased, by the Majestic as I believe, she left her very fast, and from her trial one day, with one of their schooner privateers to windward, I think she would have come up with the Epervier."
 
[Note: The Peacock was to leeward, initially, so Wales means that eventually, the Peacock would have gotten to weather of her, crossing her wake. The ship that later chased them was HMS Majestic, 58 guns, a recently razeed 74 gun ship.]
 
 

"Q: What was the tonnage of the Peacock?
 
A:  I cannot say exactly her tonnage, but I think she is five hundred tons at least.
 
Q:  Were the bolts you used the ones you took out in England?
 
A:  Yes, they were.
 
Q:  Do you know if Charles Manly volunteered to hand up powder, or that he did not do so until ordered?
 
A:  I cannot say whether he did it voluntarily, or not, but I understand, in the event, of a man being killed between decks, and he handed up powder in his stead.
 
Q:  From whom did you understand it?
 
A: from Gardner, the carpenters-mate, that he saw him handing up powder, and I believe Mr. Harvey also saw him.
   
 
     
   

"Lieutenant John Hackett ... was called in, and sworn.
 
 
Q:  Did you hear the narrative delivered by Captain Wales and read to the court? Are the contents of it correct and true as it came within your knowledge? 
 
A:  Yes.
 
Q:  How long had you been in the Epervier?
 
A:  I joined her in the January before.
 
Q:  Did you make any report to Captain Wales, respecting the carronade slides having unshipped in consequence of the fighting bolts coming out of their places?
 
A:  On the first broadside, the fighting bolts of three after guns, on the quarter deck got out of their places, and the after gun got nearly halfway out the port. Captain Wales himself was on the quarterdeck at the time, for which reason I made no report to him, as he saw it himself, and I busied myself in shipping the bolts., and the guns again, as soon as possible.
 
Q:  How are those bolts secured?
 
A:  By dropping down and turning. There was a groove in the bolt that generally was turned by hand, and there was a small ketch in the head of the bolt.
 

Q:  Did the same circumstance ever occur when the guns were examined?
 
A:  No. As we never exercised with powder, and I conceive it was from the concussion of the guns.
 
Q:  From the time of your joining Epervier, to the day of the action, was the weather frequently such as to have allowed your exercising with powder, and frequently at a mark?
 
A:  After we went to sea, (I think the latter end of January, or the beginning of February)there was so much to do from the brig being fitted out that we were obliged to take every opportunity of putting the rigging in order during the first cruize. When we went out the second time with convoy for Bermuda, and the West Indies, during that passage, after losing the convoy, we frequently had opportunities of firing at a mark, although the ship was in a bad state from the bowsprit and the heel of the fore mast being sprung.
 
Q:  Were the men well acquainted with the use of the great guns?
 
A:  They were.
 
Q:   How often were they exercised without powder?
 
A:  Every morning for an hour, when the weather would permit.
 

Q:  At what period of the action were you wounded?
 
A:  By the first broadside, three of the fingers of my left hand were taken off, about a quarter of an hour, or twenty minutes afterwards, I received two wounds in the hip, and my elbow was shot off, and when I fell, and endeavored to regain the quarterdeck, I found myself unable to walk, and was carried below.
 
Q:  Had any of the breeching bolts drawn previous to your being carried below?
 
A:  Not that I know of.
 
Q:  Do you know anything of the conduct of Charles Manly, or anything relative to it?
 
A:  I recollect his being on the sick list, but not so as to incapacitate him from coming to his quarters, and I knew nothing of his absence until many days after  the action. He was quartered at some of the waist guns, at the second lieutenants quarters. I heard he was handing up shot at the fore hatchway, and afterwards, when the man stationed to hand up powder at the main hatch way was shot, Manly took his place.
 
Q:  State the distance the vessels were from each other, during such part of the action, as you were on deck?
 
A:  We exchanged our first broadsides in passing, about half pistol shot from each other, after tacking, and during the time I was on deck, we were at no time further than pistol shot.
 

Q:  Taking into consideration, the physical strength and practical skill of the Epervier's crew, how would you say she was manned?
 
A:  Very badly. I do not conceive there were twenty men in the ship who had been in action before, and they were a weak crew, and not bred as seamen.
 
Q:  Was every proper arrangement made previous to coming into action, and encouragement given to the crew by Captain Wales?
 
A:  Yes.
 
Q:  Do you know of any want of exertion, activity or zeal, on the part of any of the officers, petty officers, seamen or marines belonging to the Epervier during the action,or on that occasion?
 
A:  The conduct of the officers, with the exception of the boatswain, was every way in which officers should show themselves, the Conduct of the Boatswain, Mr. John Deane, John Caroll Captain of the forecastle, nathaniel Brown, George Elkinson, two seamen, was cowardly, in stowing themselves under the forecastle. i drove them out myself, after I drove them out the first time, I did not see Caroll or Brown in the same situation again, but the Boatswain and Elkinson, I drove out twice, I am confident and I believe three times from the same place. brown and Caroll were stationed in the fore rigging, and not at the guns, and when I sent them over to the guns, I did not see them afterwards under the forecastle, and I concluded they obeyed my orders, as I saw them cross over the fore gratings, before I went on to the quarterdeck again. Elkinson gave himself up as an American; he stated his name in America was George Force.
 
Q:  Was any officer with you at the time you drove them out?
 
A:  No.
 

Q:   Were the three carronades that were unshipped on firing the first broadside replaced, and ready to fire, by the time the Epervier got alongside the enemy?
 
A:  They were, we replaced them while tacking.
 
Q:  During the time you was on deck, did it appear to you that with the exception of the men that you have already mentioned, that the men fought their guns with the usual spirit of British seamen in action?
 
A:  The after guns were fought with the spirit of British seamen, the foremost guns were not. I observed them very weak, and went forward to know the reason and found the guns weakly manned, the chief part of the men who had fallen were at the foremost guns.
 
Q:  Previous to those men having fallen, were those foremost guns fought with the spirit of British seamen?
 
A:  They were.
 
Captain wales asked:
 
Q:  Would any delay for the purpose at firing at the mark with great guns while on the passage out to Jamaica have made our passage longer in the crippled state she was in?
 
A:  Certainly.
 

Q:  Were any of the guns fired with powder while running down the south side of St. Domingo?
 
A:  I do not recollect. I think two guns were fired when there was a vessel in sight to windward.
 
Q:  Were they fired in exercising them, or otherwise?
 
A:  The men quartered at the after guns fired them.
 
Q:  Was the boldness of the ships company such, in the opinion of the Americans, that they did not endeavor to seduce more than five or six of them after our capture, to enter the American service?
 
A:  I heard they endeavored to seduced Whittle the armorer, Latham the captain's coxswain, and Hemp captain of the fore castle, who are dead, and one or two of the quartermasters, Pearson is one of them, who is here, but they did not succeed.
 
 
     

All that and you didn't include Bainbridge's un-razeeing of the John Adams...

All that and you didn't include Bainbridge's un-razeeing of the John Adams...

All that and you didn't include Bainbridge's un-razeeing of the John Adams...

All that and you didn't include Bainbridge's un-razeeing of the John Adams...

All that and you didn't include Bainbridge's un-razeeing of the John Adams...

All that and you didn't include Bainbridge's un-razeeing of the John Adams...

All that and you didn't include Bainbridge's un-razeeing of the John Adams...

When, in 1812, the crew of the Constitution learned that Captain Hull was leaving the ship, and Captain Bainbridge was replacing him, the crew nearly rioted and requested to be released from their service on the ship. Cooler heads prevailed, and the crew grudgingly stood down and remained on board.
 
Bainbridge was also the first US captain to haul down his ship's colors, while in command of the USS Retaliation in 1798, to a pair of french frigates that he mistook for british. Strike One.
 
During the Barbary Wars, he commanded the USS George Washington, and mistakenly anchored his ship under the guns of the great fort of Algiers. The Dey of Algiers demanded that Bainbridge use his ship to ferry the Algerian ambassador and tributary gifts to Constantinople and that he fly the Algerian flag during the journey, or her would sink his ship.  This was an insult of the first order, but Bainbridge agreed, and sailed his ship, as told, under foreign colors. Bainbridge got in a lot of trouble for this, and he should have lost his job for bowing to this blatant national insult. Strike Two.
 
Then there was the Philadelphia blunder. Strike Three.
 
Bainbridge was considered to be a Jonah, which was why Connie's crew nearly mutinied. Bainbridge was the most  hated captain in the fleet. After the War of 1812, Bainbridge helped fan the flames of an old feud between two brother officers, that ended in a duel that killed Bainbridge's old nemesis, Stephen Decatur. Bainbridge hated Decatur because the latter had gotten his fleet to sea first in 1815 and had defeated the Algerian Navy before Bainbridge could get his own fleet to sea and join him. Decatur had promised to wait until all the combined ships of both fleets could sail together and share the glory.  
 
It was Bainbridge's meddling that ruined the USS Independence, 74, altering her design so badly, against the protests of the builder, Samuel Hardt of Boston, that the ship couldn't open her lower deck ports in anything but calm weather. She was the only US 74-gun ship that had to be razeed down into a frigate. The navy was unable to make the USS Independence seaworthy because her lower deck port cills were so low, which was the real reason for Bainbridge's delay, and they eventually had to calk all the lower deck ports closed to be able to safely cross the Atlantic. Sister-ships USS Washington and USS Franklin, unaltered by Bainbridge, did not share this problem. Strike Four.
 
After Bainbridge's death, his daughters burned most of his private papers, because they knew that if the public knew all the shenanigans that her father had been up to, particularly those involving the Decatur-Barron duel, history would not have looked kindly upon him. Some historian go so far as claiming that Bainbridge murdered Decatur, because his manipulations of Barron was so masterful and complete. Bainbridge was loathed by his contemporaries. 
 
Today, Bainbridge is remembered solely as the great hero who took the Java.

In my random trawling of the NH&HC site today, I found this beautiful shot of the USS St Louis, the last surviving member of the Boston-class sloops from the 1820s. She was a sistership of both the rebuilt USS John Adams and the famous globetrotting USS Vincennes. There were three designs used for that class, ones by Humphreys, Doughty, and Barker. I might be seeing things, but she reminds me more of the Barker plan than the others. You can see the three designs marked as such in the attachment. Another thing is the number of gunports on the side (filled in with windows). The original ship had a dozen plus bridle ports per side. This has eight, plus bridles. I wonder when she got refitted, because her Civil War armament was 18 guns (4 x 8" shell guns, 12 x 32-pounders and 2 x 20-pounder Parrotts), which would fit that port arrangement exactly.

 
Also a gorgeous picture of St. Mary's. Such a handsome vessel.

You can see the typical American obsession with speed in these ships too, especially with the shallowness of their hulls and the massive sail plans (seriously, Truxton's is scary-huge).
 
With Lawrence it was the extreme V-shape of her hull. She was the most extreme clipper (as in Baltimore clipper) design ship the US Navy ever built. It was a combination of the stern being way deeper than any other brig (at least as deep as a large sloop of war), and an inability to wedge enough supples in the hull for an overseas deployment that caused the ship to be retired after just a few years. With the other brigs, it was just a general comment on their shallow, sharp hulls and big rigs, especially compared to the previous, deeper USS Dolphin.
 
Cyane had increased length and tonnage that allowed the designer to give her much finer and better lines than the very blunt Bostons. There's a second set of finer hull lines on her plans, it's possible that at the last minute Humphey decided to push a little harder for more speed. She (and Levant) were both faster and better sailors and able to carry their armament even better than the sloops of the 1820s. It's certainly a matter of balance between effectiveness and costs, along with quality versus quantity. If you cheapen out on the ship enough, does it matter if it's not going to stand up to an enemy warship in action?
 
The Navy at the time was also adopting a "peacetime armament" idea, where a ship lands a couple guns in peacetime, usually the chasers.
 
@frolick: Philadelphia carried sixteen 32-pounder carronades as her upper-deck armament in 1803. Before that she carried 9-pounders in her upper works. I had noticed that carronade in back too! The 9-pounder is probably a chase gun.