uss frolick

Well, Beef W's log on his Snake model shows the Gannett's framing plan, and that shows the square tuck frame, so I'm guessing now that they all had them? (But why?) The answer to your question Charlie is, I don't know of any specifically. I just assumed that small oak ships were built according to the same rules of the larger ones. Why didn't the Swan/Pegasus Class Sloops have had them, since they were even smaller?

Thanks for the enlargement, Charlie! Lyon's pic is small. Is that the fashion piece shown on the body plan? It's very feint, but it looks like something is there. I'm leaning the other way now too. But why would an oak ship need one? Only six of the hundred or so brigs were built of fir ... The Scout's framing plan would be more decisive.

The square tuck appears flat from the side. That dark vertical line, about two feet long, at the back of the waterline, which is part of a narrow triangle, denotes one. Irene/Grasshopper has one too. Curious. Petrajus says, on page 62-3: "The Irene, together with a number of brig-sloops and ship-sloos and even frigates of the time, was not only built of fir, but had what was called a 'square-tuck' besides. It was a curious step back in history, which may have had something to do with the necessity for the Admiralty to have a great many plain, but serviceable ships built in the shortest amount of time. Normally, the connection between the transom piece and the stern post was achieved between athwartship timbers, called 'transoms '. The principle one was the 'wing transom'. It formed the base for the 'counter timbers', and the hooding ends of the planking were fastened to it, inasmuch as they could not be brought into the stern post rabbet. The lowest transom was generally short and sharp, like the letter 'V', the top one approached the shape of the beam, while the intermediate transoms formed a transition between these extremes. The transoms were dovetailed into the fashion pieces and let in on the stern post, besides being bolted to them. The did the same service to the planking of the stern as the frames did to that of the sides. The closing of the counter and the stern was affected by a frame of cross beams and stanchions, arranged in accordance with the number of windows, ports, etc. As already pointed out, the construction of the Irene's stern frame was unusually simple. 'Fayed' upon the fore side of the main post was a sort of inner post, on top of the rested the transom, let in on the stern post. Just as in the 17th century, the fashion pieces served to accommodate the hooding ends of the bottom planking as well as the planking of the tuck. There was only this difference that they were let now let into the rabbets, cut in the fashion pieces, so that these timbers remained visible for their greater part. That this was so, appears from the clause in the contract for the Raven, relating to the matter, and the expansion plan, mentioned before." The Raven's contract given in appendix 1, page 271, notes: "FASHION PIECES: To be sided 11 inches, rabbeted, on the outside, to receive the plank of the bottom, and on the aft side, to receive the plank of the tuck." According to David Lyon, in The Sailing Navy List, page 142, Raven is listed as one of only six fir built brigs. They are: Beagle, Elk, Harrier, Raven, Reindeer, and Saracan. Victor and Zebra were built in Bombay out of native teak. There are separate plans of for the oak, fir and teak versions. The plans of the Scout, of 1804, to which nearly all were built, shows, on page 140, no square tuck stern ... ! But Grasshopper was an oak brig. Did Petrajus make the Irene fit the wrong draught and contract? So I guess I was right the first time? Now I am really confused!

You may well be right. All fir vessels were square tuck, but oak ones could be too, I suppose. Was this a nod towards economy? The cruisers were built in private yards. Why would they all have such a old fashioned stern if built of oak? If their frames were lightly built, then would the stronger square tuck have been a precaution? But a square tuck places the plank end seams very close to the water, and this promoted rot and leaks. The round tuck placed those ends up much higher. Now I'm confused.

Nope. You got it backwards. All fir-built ships in the RN had anachronistic square-tuck sterns. Fir timber was too weak to form a modern round tuck, so the RN builders resorted to an ancient, much stronger type last seen on The Sovereign of the Seas! The area under a rounded stern was very high stress structurally. The fir frigates Leander and Newcastle, built of fir, and designed to catch the Constitution Class ships, show square tucks on their framing plans. England was running out of oak in 1812. The Sloop Levant, which fought the Constitution in 1815, and her dozen stablemates built in 1813-4, had square-tucks too, and she was built of fir. The famous Reindeer, which fought the Wasp in 1814, was fir, and her plans also show a square tuck. The Frigate Shannon model in Annapolis shows a square tuck stern, but she is actually a model of the Eurotas, later altered to represent the oak-built Shannon. HMS Eurotas was an 1812-built fir copy of the Leda Shannon Class. The problem was that fir tended to splinter much worse than oak when struck by shot. When Leander fought at The Battle of Algiers in 1816, she suffered 135 casualties I think teak was ok for the round tuck, but definitely not fir.

Notice that the above model wears a square tuck stern. HMS Reindeer and only five other fir-or-teak-built Cruiser-brigs did. Grasshopper did not.

Yep, I think so, just enough room for a vicious looking epervier - or sparrow-hawk.

British ships were not without decoration, but the styles were different, more subdued. Gone were the clunky allegorical figures of Truth, Liberty, etc., and in their places came modern scroll and vine-work, in the French fashion. The problem was that the scrolls, flora and intertwined hawsers were too fine to be represented in 1/48 scale, and so they no longer appeared on the draughts. Instead, separate drawing were made for both bow and stern carvings in 1/2 inch scale, where the detail could be better shown. The problem is that hardly any of those detailed little drawing survive. But some do, like the prize Frigates Imperious (Spanish ex-Fama) and Chlorinde (French), drawn in 1809 and 1810 respectively, following their extensive rebuilds. A brig much smaller than the Cruisers, HMS Boxer, was captured by the USS Enterprize in 1813, but not bought by the US Navy because she was too small. (She was a gun-brig, not a brig-sloop, because she lacked a continuous berth deck, instead having only fore and aft platforms.) Boxer was purchased by a Maine merchant, who used her for years afterwards as a coastal trading vessel. When she was finally broken up, her figurehead - a small lion bust - and her corresponding stern coat-of-arms-thingy were saved, and are now in a maritime museum in Maine. I saw pictures of them both a long time ago, but I can't recall the source.

Thanks for the information! Patrick O'Brian sometimes mentioned the Trabaccolo in his novels, and I wondered what they were!

The Irene book is a rare classic. You were lucky to score one.

When I read this thread title, I wasn't wearing my glasses. I initially thought it said "In Praise of Liquor".

Got it. Just started reading it last night, and it is really informative on 19th century US Navy life. Several gems so far. Mostly about life on board ship, and very little about the exotic flora and fauna of ports ashore - unlike most journals of the time. The Constellation contacts the school-ship USS Plymouth off the Azores on her 1859 training cruise, and she is crewed by 400 Annapolis midshipmen! Had she wrecked, there would have been no Civil War Navies! A fun read.

I just bought a used hardcover copy on e-bay for $11.32 with free shipping! Thanks for the heads up, Paul!

If you can find it, Loquat wood is the very best. It is pear colored, it is uniform, it takes a boxwood-like cut, and it bends without complaint. There is no other wood like it. It was planted here in South Florida by retirees over the course of many decades. Sadly, younger people are having them cleared out. It has light grey bark, and small clusters of grape sized fruit. Roman Barzana, modeler-extraordinaire of Tampa, enlightened me about Loquat.

The run of your hull planking is just wonderful, especially so, since they gave you a minimum of bulkhead stations to secure to. Really beautiful!

William James, in his "Naval History of Great Britain", Vol. 5, page 45-6, says: "...The French 16-gun Brig Corvette Nisus, Captaine de fregate Jacques-Gabriel La Netrel, was observed lying at an anchor, under the protection of a fort ...the Nisus had sailed from Lorient on the 30th of October with a cargo of flour, had arrived at the Hayes on the 1st of September, and, when captured, was agin ready for sea with a cargo off coffee. Being a fine brig of 337 tons, the Nisus was added to the British Navy, under the appropriate name of Guadeloupe ..." If James says "16-guns" then she probably mounted that number, as he was usually very accurate about such things.

Often, fitting out had much to do with proper internal accomidations. Many "foreign" brigs lacked a full berth deck, having only a fore and aft platform. (The technical difference between a "brig-sloop" and a "gun-brig" in British service is the presence of a full berth deck.) French vessels, even public navy ones, did not have the proper, permanent cabins and bulkheads below ships. One of the things that the RN changed at the first opportunity, was adding proper gun-deck and berth deck knees. The French just dove-tailed the beams into oversized clamps, and dispensed with most of the knees. This saved weight to gain speed, but did not make them strong or durable. The RN put proper knees in, because they had some hard-grinding blockading to do . The draught above does show gun-ports made for carronades, as they have no upper cills, the sides just mortised into the bottom of the cap rail. This was done to gain height, so the fully elevated carronade would clear. Did she have carronades when taken, or long guns?

For a comprehensive and well written history of the Epervier, one must read: McCleary, J.R., "Lost By Two Navies: HMS Epervier, A Most Unfortunate Ship", Part 1, Nautical Research Journal, Vol. 41, N0. 2, page 81-87, June 1996, and Part 2, NRJ, Vol. 41, No. 3, September 1996, page 131-141. Mr. McCleary did not have access to the above court martial proceedings, so with that in mind, it should be a fun re-read!

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.

Dr. Maturin: "What is the weather gauge?" Capt. Aubrey: "Shall I explain it again, Stephen?"

"The court was cleared, and agreed that the cause of the capture of His Majesty's late Sloop Epervier, was the very superior force of the enemy, the insecure manner in which the fighting bolts of the Epervier were fitted, and the breeching bolts drawing, from being badly clinched, and the inefficiency of her crew, that the said Captain Richard Wales took the Epervier into action in a very skill full manner, and together with the officers and the other ships company (except Joseph Deane, the Boatswain, John Carroll, captain of the forecastle, Nathaniel Brown, George Elkinson, Thomas Lochan, John Peters, William Smith and John Sheldon, seamen, who appear to have deserted their quarters) exerted themselves with gallantry and zeal, during the action, particularly John Hackett, the first lieutenant, in remaining on deck after the loss of three fingers, until he was completely disabled by receiving three other wounds, and did adjudge the said Captain Richard Wales, and the other officers and sloops company (except the other ships company before mentioned to have deserted their quarters) to be full and honorably acquitted."

"William Gardner, Carpenter's mate of His Majesty's late Sloop Epervier was called in and sworn. Q: Did you hear the narrative of Captain Wales and read to the court? A: Yes. Q: Are the contents of it,as far as it came to your knowledge, true? A: Yes, as far as I can understand it. Q: Where were you quartered? A: Between the decks, along with the carpenter. Q: Were you wounded? A: Yes, about the third broadside. Q: What water was in the hold when she struck? A: Four feet six inches. Q: Did you know anything about the conduct of prisoner Manly during the action? A: Yes. I saw him at the fore hatchway, I believe handing up shots. I saw him below when the action began before I was wounded. I believe he was handing shot up. William Pearson, quarter gunner of His Majesty's late Sloop Epervier, was called in and sworn. Q: Did you hear the narrative delivered by Captain Wales read to the court? A: Yes. Q: Are the contents of it, as far as it came to your knowledge, true? A: Yes. Q: How long have you been in the Epervier before you was captured? A: About three months. Q: Where were you stationed during the action? A: At the aftermost gun but one. Q: Was that, or any other gun disabled by the enemy's shot, or any other cause? A: Three different ones in the waist were disabled by the enemy's shot. My gun was disabled by the bolts drawing, the breeching went. I do not know of the others. Q: Were the crew of the Epervier expert on the use of the great guns? A: No, I believe not. Several of those at my gun did not perform the business properly. Q: Were they frequently exercised? A: Yes, every night when the weather permitted. Q: How do you account for their not being so expert? A: I believe it was for the want of a headpiece! Q: Were the crew of the Epervier generally speaking, strong and healthy men, or a weak ship's company? A: They were a very indifferent ships company. Q: Do you know of any misconduct on the part of any officers or men in the action? A: None of the officers, and none particular of the men, by my knowledge. Q: Were there any steps taken by the Americans to go into their service? A: I was asked by the governor of the prison if I would go into their service. there was a privateer fitting out there. I told him no, not if I stayed seven years there! Q: How long have you been in the King's service? A: Nine years. I was pressed in the East Indies. James Boyd, quartermaster of His Majesty's late Sloop Epervier was called and sworn. Q: Did you hear the narrative delivered by Captain Wales and read to the court? A: Yes. Q: Was the Contents of it, as far as it came to your knowledge, true? A: Yes. Q: Where were you stationed during the action? A: At the wheel. Q: How near were the two ships together? A: As nigh as I can guess, about a quarter of a mile from each other. Q: How long have you been at sea? A: About thirty years, about fifteen of it in the Kings service. Q: Were you ever in action before? A: Never. Q: Did the main boom come down on the wheel? A: The jaws of the main boom were shot away, and it came down on the wheel. It was cleared in about four or five minutes. Q: was much was the Epervier disabled in her sails and rigging? A: Yes, very much. Q: Was she defended as long as she could be with any prospect of success? A: Yes, but if we had been well manned, we would have taken her, I think. Q: What was the state of the enemy when you struck? A: A very little hurt, only her fore yard carried away. Q: How do you think the Epervier was manned? A: Very poorly, very few seamen. Q: Were they frequently exercised? A: Yes they were? Q: Do you know of any misconduct on the part of the officers and men? A: No. Captain Wales and all the officers encouraged the men most courageously. I saw none of the men behave improperly. Captain Wales asked: Q: Do you remember our firing at a rock, when off St. Bartholemews at a mark? A: Yes. Charles Manly said he was handing up shot, that he was not able to come to his quarters, that a midshipman came down and the surgeon said he was not able to go to quarter, but might hand shot along, which he did. That he was very bad in prison with his knee for some time, he had a swelling on it, and had been on the doctors list for three or four days before the action. James Leath, a seaman belonging to His Majesty's late Sloop Epervier was brought in and sworn. The prisoner Charles Many asked: Q: Did you see me handing up shot during the action? A: Before the action I was down for a box of shot, and he lent me a hand up with it as far as the fore ladder. I did not see any more of him, til the latter part of the action, a boy, who was at my gun went down and stayed there too long, and I was sent to the scuttle to see if he was there. the boy was there and Charles Manly was giving him powder. The court asked: Q: Do you know if the man was ill? A: Yes. He had a bad knee and a piece of flannel wound round it. I saw him sitting on the berth deck several days before. He walked very lame. On the day of the action, he told me he could not stoop to lift up a box.

"Mr. Davis Golan, Master 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 true and correct, as far as it came within your knowledge? A: Yes Q: How long had you been master of the Epervier, previous to the action? A: About fifteen months. Q: Where were you quartered during the action? A: On the poop. Q: What damage did the Epervier receive during the action? A: She suffered very much in both the standing and running rigging, and also in the hull and sails. There was every gun on the larboard side, but one, dismounted, three of which were knocked off their slides by shot, the others by the bolts being drawn out of the slides, three or four of the fighting bolts jumped out of their places several times, and were replaced.I do not know anything about the foremost guns, other than what I heard. Q: Do you know of the wheel being prevented from working? A: Yes. There was a shot which took away the main boom close by the jaws, the brig was then right before the wind, and the boom amidships, the boom then hanging on the topping lifts. It then flew forward, with a strain being on the topping lefts, run clear of the poop and fell upon the wheel, the after end of it. Q: Was the tiller at end? A: We had relieving tackles, but they were not wanted, the hands hove the boom off. Q: Do you know what damage the enemy received? A: She was very much cut up in her rigging and sails, and her fore yard was wounded, and some shots in her hull. Q: Was the fore mast of the Epervier wounded? A: Yes, she had four or five shots in it Q: Did the Epervier's main top go, just before you struck? A: Yes. About ten minutes before. Q: Was the Epervier's fore mast, spars, and rigging so much damaged as to prevent your getting round, and bringing your starboard guns to bear? A: Yes. Q: Did a consultation take place with the captain and officers, of the propriety of making further resistance, or the possibility of boarding the enemy? A: Yes. About two minutes before we struck the colours, I said it was impossible to wear clear of the Peacock, she was on our larboard beam, within a quarter of a cable's length, the wind being then on the starboard quarter, we could neither get ahead, nor astern, of her without running on board her. I told Captain Wales it was impossible to get clear of the Peacock, either to wear clear of her, or haul off from her, every brace bowline haul yard, and the clue of the top sail shot away, and the jib stay and jib, all to pieces. I told Captain wales it was impossible to board her. I could see all her people, on deck, and ours, most of them, too weak. Q: Were the crew of the Epervier frequently exercised with the great guns? A: Yes, an hour every night, when the weather would permit, and sometimes an hour in the forenoon. Q: Were they expert on the use of the great guns? A: Yes, but rather weak. Q: Do you remember their being exercised with powder and shot at any time? A: Yes, twice. Q: Do you know what water was in the ship when she struck? A: Yes. I heard the carpenter come up and report to Captain Wales, that there was four and a half feet of water in the hold, about nearly the time we struck, and that she was making water fast, and there was one shot hole in the larboard bow, which could not be got at. Q: How was the Epervier manned? A: Very poorly indeed. I never saw a worse crew in my life, in every respect. Q: Where was she manned? A: At the Nore. Q: Was every necessary preparation, previous to the action made, and due encouragement give by Captain Wales to the sloops crew during the action? A: Yes. Q: Do you know of anything improper of the conduct of the other officers or sloops crew, during the action? A: No. I did not see any cowardice on the quarterdeck, amongst the officers and men, I only heard of it as to others. Q: Could the Epervier have been defended longer, with the most distant prospect of defense? A: No. Q: Do you know of any circumstances relative to the prisoner Manly? A: Manly was on the doctors light list previous to the action. I know nothing further of it, than what I have heard. Q: What sail had the Peacock set when the Epervier struck? A: She had her fore and main topsails set, her mizen topmast being banded, her fore sail spanker and jib topsail and jib set. Q: If you had determined to board her, the Peacock could have avoided it, if they chose? A: Yes. Q: What are the dimensions of the Peacock? A: I think five hundred and nine tons American . She was laid down for six hundred tons, as I was told by a relation in America. She was much larger that the Epervier. Q: Do you know what the loss of the Peacock was? A: I was told by a gentleman at Savannah, who made an enquiry, that their loss was three killed and seven wounded. Q: Do you know how long the Epervier's guns had been loaded, before the action? A: I think about two or three days."

"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.

"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.