Cruising near the Little Basses Reef on the Southern coast of Ceylon, the 34-gun privateer Bellone was sighted by the 16-gun British brig HMS Rattlesnake, which began chasing the larger French vessel.

Although Bellone would normally be much faster than the large British warship, the light winds and Rattlesnake's determined pursuit prevented the privateer from escaping and at 17:00, Powerful was close enough to open fire.

One such ship was the Bellone, which carried 34 guns, a crew of nearly 200 men and was commanded by Captain Jacques François Perroud, a notorious privateer who had caused significant damage to British trade in the Indian Ocean.

One solution tried in 1806 was to disguise Royal Navy warships as the East Indiamen they superficially resembled in the hope of luring French ships into attacking them, unaware of their true identity.

Duckworth was concerned that Willaumez might attempt to pass the Cape of Good Hope and operate in the Indian Ocean, and so despatched one of his ships to augment Rear-Admiral Sir Edward Pellew's small squadron at Madras.

Although Bellone was much larger than the British warship, Captain Perroud was unwilling to risk his vessel in an unprofitable confrontation with Rattlesnake and seemed to be making an effective withdrawal when, at 15:15, a large ship came within sight directly ahead.

[10] Although faced with overwhelming opposition, Perroud did not surrender, maintaining a steady cannonade on the approaching ship of the line with Bellone's own stern chasers and occasionally turning to release a full broadside.

[11] The variable winds prevented Rattlesnake joining the battle and also delayed Powerful's approach; Bellone succeeded in causing casualties on Plampin's deck but failed to damage the ship of the line's rigging or sails, which would have facilitated her own escape.

[3] Historical reaction to the engagement has focused on two aspects: Perroud's bravery in attempting to combat a vastly superior British force and the inaccuracy of Plampin's gunnery.

[12] Later historian William Laird Clowes, writing in 1900, agreed with James' assessment, commenting that "This action serves to again illustrate the lamentable decline in British gunnery".