A FRENCH OPINION OF TRAFALGAR.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 13948, 3 January 1906, Page 11

A FRENCH OPINION OF TRAFALGAR.

I {By TRIGGER, in the , “ Canterbury f . Times.”) The French journals, during the Trafalgar centenary celebrations, not unr laterally had something to say about he great sea battle. Owing, no doubt, to the very excellent terms upon Jwhich the British and French nations now stand in relation to each other, the criticisms, from a French point of riew, were mild. The “Moniteur de Ja Flotte,” a very influential French naval gives full justice to the excellent spirit in which Great Britain Celebrated the centenary of Trafalgar, >nd rightly says that the French felt eo sentiment antagonistic to the entente cordial©. The “Moniteur” .js gj_ aright in saying that, at least in V France, too little justice has been don© ■ to the officers and men who supported I s , Nelson in all his efforts. The French L have always loyally recognised Nelson’s f high qualities of audacity, decision, tenacity, and grasp of essentials. Unfortunate Villeneuve, says our contemporary, had in his fleet seamen almost untrained and inexperienced, and the admiral is vindicated from the aspersion cast upon him that he was surprised Htby Nelson’s tactics, and made an error to that of Rozjestvensky at Villeneuve could depend very little upon his captains, could entrust them with no innovations, and ~ therefore was compelled to maintain the old single line of battle. But he clearly foresaw what Nelson would do, and had said to his officers, “Lord Nelson will not he content to form a. single line of battle parallel to ours, and thus '• to open his broadsides. He will endeavour to close upon our rear, to cut through the line, and to bear down on those vessels which he will have separ-* i »ted in order to envelop 1 and capture > them.” _ In effect, this was what Nelson (did, while Villeneuve was unable to check him owing to the want of skill In his subordinates. The Spanish and French admirals at Cadiz were well jware of the situation. Villeneuve had also a right to complain of the experience of his gunners, whose efforts had always been directed to dismasting the British ships, with the result that they fired much too high. England’s gunners, on the other hand, poured their fire'into the ships themselves, and raked them when possible. The French gunners were _ also inferior at the Nile, and the disaster at Trafalgar was in a large part attributable to their inferiority. One of Villenouve’s faults was hot to have trained his gunners In,the year "that had elapsed since he was given command, hut the difficulty of ammunition supply might have interfered. The writer concludes that NelK>n approached in two lines perpendicular to the French lines, hut this Js a very disputed matter. Admiral Jurien. de la Graviere said that Britannia was victorious because her men were better trained and her ships better disciplined

than the French ships of the time. This superiority was the work of Jervis and Nelson, and, as the Admiral said, it was the Nelson organising his fleet that must he known if the Nelson who fought with such audacity was to he understood. ,