was constructed by Mr. Fairfax, the Master of the Fleet, and was used by
the Court as confirmatory of Mr. Stokes’s chart, agreeing with it, in
fact, on nearly every point; a circumstance not at all extraordinary, as
in his examination Mr. Stokes first says that “his _marks_ arose from
the knowledge he gained in sounding in the anchorage of Aix” (_Minutes_,
p. 23), whilst Mr. Fairfax swore that he “GAVE MR. STOKES THE
MARKS.”!![29] A fact subsequently proved by Mr. Stokes, who admitted
that he had “_never sounded there at all._” The credibility of either
witness may be left to the reader’s judgment.
-----
Footnote 29:
I GAVE MR. STOKES THE MARKS!!! and I have all the different angles _in
my pocket_, with the different soundings! (_Mr. Fairfax’s Evidence,
Minutes_, p. 140.) This evidence is truly wonderful. Yet the Court
made no comment! and I was excluded from listening to the evidence!
-----
In one respect, the chart of Mr. Fairfax might have been considered by
those interested to be an improvement on that of Mr. Stokes. The latter
gentleman had narrowed the _two mile_ channel of the French charts to a
_little more than a mile_, but the chart of Mr. Fairfax reduces it to _a
mile_ only!
Mr. Fairfax’s chart was introduced to the Court with the same flourish
as had been that of Mr. Stokes.
MR. FAIRFAX.—“This chart shows the state of the enemy’s ships at
daylight on the 12th of April. _This chart is correct_, except that
the head of the _Calcutta_ is placed by the engraver _too far to the
southward_. It should have been about N.W. by compass, and the head of
the three decker _Ocean_ is to the eastward, but _not sufficiently far
to the northward by compass_.”
Not much correctness here, but abundance of misrepresentation. Mr.
Fairfax is very particular about the positions of the _heads_ of the
grounded ships, but, like Mr. Stokes, not at all particular to a league
or two as to where they lay aground. For instance, he is very sensitive
about the position of the _Ocean’s_ head, yet the _Ocean_ herself is
_not to be found on his chart_!! though the names of other enemy’s ships
aground, not far from where she had lain before her escape, are given,
to mark the care with which the chart had been constructed!
I will not in this place make any further observations upon Mr.
Fairfax’s chart, this being identical with that of Mr. Stokes. The
exposure of the one in the next chapter will serve for the confutation
of the other. The reader will, from what has been stated, be able to
form a pretty correct idea as to why—in, and subsequently to
1809—inspection of these charts was refused to me. At that period it was
in vain that I published explanations, which, without access to the
charts, were incomprehensible to the public; my unsupported
declarations, as has been said, falling to the ground unheeded, even if
they were not the cause of attributing to me malicious motives towards
the commander-in-chief, after his acquittal by sentence of a
court-martial. But for the consideration of his Grace the Duke of
Somerset a stigma must have followed me to the grave. It is now
otherwise, and I am content to leave the matter to the judgment of
posterity. I must, however, remark, that neither the charts of Mr.
Stokes or Mr. Fairfax were shown to me on the court-martial, though
shown to nearly every other witness, one—Capt. Beresford—being told that
he “_must_” base his observations on those charts. Had they been shown
to me, I should in an instant have detected their fallacy.