Concerning the Frontispiece
On July 27th, 1801, capture was made of a remarkable vessel. There was no fighting, but the ship herself excited a good deal of interest at the time.
We learn from the captain’s log of the British frigate Immortalité that, in the small hours of the morning, a large ship was observed, and sail was made in chase. At daylight the chase proved to be a four-masted vessel, fully rigged upon each mast—a common enough object nowadays, but then almost unique. This was the French privateer Invention, a ship built under the special supervision of the man who commanded her—M. Thibaut. She was brand-new, having sailed upon her first voyage only eight days previously, and had already eluded one of our frigates by superior speed. She was probably a very fast vessel, and might quite possibly have outsailed the Immortalité; but, very unhappily for Captain Thibaut, another British frigate, the Arethusa, Captain W. Wolley, appeared right in her path. Thus beset, Thibaut’s case was hopeless, and so the Invention’s very brief career as a privateer came to an end, the Immortalité—commanded by Captain Henry Hotham—taking possession at eight o’clock.
Captain Wolley, as senior officer, reported the circumstances to the Admiralty:
“She is called L’Invention, of Bordeaux, mounting 24 guns, with 207 men. She is of a most singular construction, having four masts, and they speak of her in high terms, though they say she is much under-masted. I directed Captain Hotham to take her into Plymouth. I should have ordered her up the river for their lordships’ inspection, but I did not choose to deprive Captain Hotham of his men for so long a time.”
The corner of the letter is turned down and on it is written: “Acquaint him that their lordships are highly pleased with the capture of this vessel.”
There is an enclosure giving the dimensions of the vessel, as follows:
| Ft. | In. | |
| Length of keel | 126 | 10 |
| Extreme length | 147 | 4 |
| Breadth of beam | 27 | 1 |
| Depth of hold | 11 | 9 |
| Draft of water | 13 | 9 |
Mention is also made of a sketch enclosed, but this is not now with the letter. It is probable, however, that a small woodcut, on the first page of vol. vii. of The Naval Chronicle, is copied from this sketch, and the frontispiece of this volume is an enlargement and adaptation from the woodcut.
The Invention had less beam in proportion to her length than was usual in those days, and perhaps Captain Thibaut was afraid of masting her too heavily lest she should be “tender” under canvas. Her draft of water is moderate for her other dimensions, which would be an additional occasion of anxiety on this score; but, with a large spread of canvas, she would have been very swift in moderate weather.
There does not appear to be any record to hand as to what became of the Invention, whether she was afterwards sent up the river for the inspection of their lordships, or taken on as a man-of-war; possibly some dockyard archives may contain the information.
On August 25th, 1801, the Navy Board reported to the Admiralty that the Invention had been surveyed, and was a suitable vessel for the Royal Navy, and asked whether her four masts should be retained; and September 1st following they ask that the sketch of the ship may be returned; but there is no reply to be found to either of these letters in the proper place; so the further correspondence must either have been lost or placed among other papers. Possibly the ship was not, after all, taken for the Navy; if she was it would probably be under some other name.
Notes
14 Captain Smith appears, however, to have been very harshly used, through the implications, rather than any specific accusation, of his senior, Captain Osborn; and upon his presenting a memorial to the King (George III.), setting forth the circumstances under which he was tried in the East Indies, the case was referred to the law officers of the Crown and the Admiralty Counsel, who declared that the finding of the court was unwarrantable, and should not be upheld. Captain Smith, who had been dismissed the Service, was thereupon reinstated; but an officer who thus “scores” off his superiors is not readily pardoned, and he was never again employed. It appears to have been a shady business, with some personal spite in the background.