The allies, continuing to withdraw, were next morning nearly out of
sight, and further pursuit was abandoned.

Thus ended this almost forgotten affair, which in its day occasioned to
an unusual degree the popular excitement and discussion which always
follow marked disaster, and but rarely attend success. Besides the
particular missteps of Lestock and the individual captains, which have
been mentioned, Mathews's conduct was marked by serious failures in
professional competency. The charge preferred against him which seems
most to have attracted attention, and to have been considered most
damaging, was taking his fleet into action in a confused and disorderly
manner. It is significant of professional standards that this should
have assumed such prominence; for, however faulty may have been his
previous management, the most creditable part of his conduct was the
manner of his attack. He did not wait for a pedantically accurate line,
but by a straightforward onslaught, at a favorable moment, upon a part
of the enemy,--and that the rear,--set an example which, had it been
followed by all who could do so, would probably have resulted in a
distinct and brilliant success. He was justified--if he reasoned at
all--in expecting that Lestock could get into action as soon as the
French van; or, at the least, before it could reverse the conditions
which would have ensued from a vigorous encounter upon the lines of
Mathews's attack. It is most doubtful, indeed, whether the French van
would have ventured to engage, in the case supposed; for the French
admiral, writing to the French ambassador in Spain, used these words:
"It is clear, in the situation I was in, it could not be expected that a
French admiral should go to the assistance of the Spaniards; neither
could the vanguard of the fleet do it without running the hazard of
being surrounded by the vanguard of the English, which had the wind of
them; but _as soon as the English left me_ I drew together all the ships