Chapter XII: Part IX: The Last Phase (1)

I. LORD HOWE'S FIRST SIGNAL BOOK

II. SIGNAL BOOKS OF THE GREAT WAR

III. NELSON'S TACTICAL MEMORANDA

IV. ADMIRAL GAMBIER, 1807

V. LORD COLLINGWOOD, 1808-1810

VI. SIR ALEXANDER COCHRANE'S INSTRUCTIONS

VII. THE SIGNAL BOOK OF 1816

THE NEW SIGNAL BOOK INSTRUCTIONS

INTRODUCTORY

The time-worn Fighting Instructions of Russell and Rooke with their accretion of Additional Instructions did not survive the American War. Some time in that fruitful decade of naval reform which elapsed between the peace of 1783 and the outbreak of the Great War they were superseded. It was the indefatigable hand of Lord Howe that dealt them the long-needed blow, and when the change came it was sweeping. It was no mere substitution of a new set of Instructions, but a complete revolution of method. The basis of the new tactical code was no longer the Fighting Instructions, but the Signal Book. Signals were no longer included in the Instructions, and the Instructions sank to the secondary place of being 'explanatory' to the Signal Book.[1]

The earliest form in which these new 'Explanatory Instructions' are known is a printed volume in the Admiralty Library containing a complete set of Fleet Instructions, and entitled 'Instructions for the conduct of ships of war explanatory of and relative to the Signals contained in the Signal Book herewith delivered.' The Signal Book is with it.[2] Neither volume bears any date, but both are in the old folio form which had been traditional since the seventeenth century. They are therefore presumably earlier than 1790 when the well-known quarto form first came into use, and as we shall see from internal evidence they cannot have been earlier than 1782. Nor is there any direct evidence that they are the work of Lord Howe, but the 'significations' of the signals bear unmistakable marks of his involved and cumbrous style, and the code itself closely resembles that he used during the Great War. With these indications to guide us there is little difficulty in fixing with practical certainty both date and authorship from external sources.[3]

In a pamphlet published by Admiral Sir Charles Henry Knowles in 1830, when he was a very old man, he claims to have invented the new code of numerical signals which Howe adopted. The pamphlet is entitled 'Observations on Naval Tactics and on the Claims of Clerk of Eldin,' and in the course of it he says that about 1777 he devised this new system of signals, and gave it to Howe on his arrival in the summer of that year at Newport, in Rhode Island, 'and his lordship,' he says, 'afterwards introduced them into the Channel Fleet.' Further, he says, he soon after invented the tabular system of flags suggested by the chess-board, and published them in the summer of 1778. To this work he prefixed as a preface the observations of his father, Sir Charles Knowles, condemning the existing form of sailing order, and recommending Père Hoste's old form in three columns, and this order, he says, Howe adopted for the relief of Gibraltar in September 1782. He also infers that the alleged adoption of his signals in the Channel Fleet was when Lord Howe commanded it before he became first lord of the admiralty for the second time--that is, before he succeeded Keppel in December 1783. For during the peace Knowles tells us he made a second communication to Howe on tactics, of which more must be said later on. The inference therefore is that when Knowles says that Howe adopted his code in the Channel Fleet it must have been the first time he took command of it--that is, on April 2, 1782.[4]

Now if, as Knowles relates--and there is no reason to doubt this part of his story--Howe did issue a new code of signals some time before sailing for Gibraltar in 1782, and if at the time, as Knowles also says, he had been studying Hoste, internal evidence shows almost conclusively that these folios must be the Signal Book in question. From end to end the influence of Hoste's Treatise and of Rodney's tactics in 1782 is unmistakable.[5]

From Hoste it takes not only the sailing formation in three columns, but re-introduces into the British service the long-discarded manoeuvre of 'doubling.' For this there are three signals, Nos. 222-4, for doubling the van, doubling the rear, and for the rear to double the rear. From Hoste also it borrows the method of giving battle to a superior force, which the French writer apparently borrowed from Torrington. The signification of the signal is as follows: 'No. 232. When inferior in number to the enemy, and to prevent being doubled upon in the van or rear, for the van squadron to engage the headmost ships of the enemy's line, the rear their sternmost, and the centre that of the enemy, whose surplus ships will then be left out of action in the vacant spaces between our squadrons.'

The author's obligations to the recent campaigns of Rodney and Hood are equally clear. Signal 236 is, 'For ships to steer for independent of each other and engage respectively the ships opposed to them in the enemy's line,' and this was a new form of the signal, which, according to the MS. Signal Book of 1782, was introduced by Hood.[6] Still more significant is Signal 235, 'when fetching up with the enemy to leeward, and on the contrary tack, to break through their line and endeavour to cut off part of their van or rear.' This is clearly the outcome of Rodney's famous manoeuvre, and is adopted word for word from the signification of the signal that Hood added. Pigot, it will be remembered, on succeeding Rodney, added two more on the same subject, viz. (1) 'For the leading ship to cut through the enemy's line of battle,' and (2) 'For a particular ship specified to cut through the enemy's line of battle, and for all the other ships to follow her in close order to support each other.' Neither of these later signals is in the code we are considering, and the presumption is that it was drawn up very soon after Rodney's victory and before Pigot's signals were known at home.

Finally there is a MS. note added by Sir Charles H. Knowles to his 'Fighting and Sailing Instructions,' to the effect that in the instructions issued by Howe in 1782 he modified Article XXI. of the old Fighting Instructions (_i.e._ Article XX. of Russell's). 'His lordship in 1782,' it says, 'directed by his instructions that the line [_i.e._ his own line] should not be broken until all the enemy's ships gave way and were beaten.' And this is practically the effect of Article XIV. of the set we are considering. In the absence of contrary evidence, therefore, there seems good ground for calling these folio volumes 'Howe's First Signal Book, 1782,' and with this tentative attribution the Explanatory Instructions are printed below.

As has been already said, these instructions, divorced as they now were from the signals, give but a very inadequate idea of the tactics in vogue. For this we must go to the tactical signals themselves. In the present case the more important ones (besides those given above) are as follows:

'No. 218. To attack the enemy's rear in succession by ranging up with and opening upon the sternmost of their ships; then to tack or veer, as being to windward or to leeward of the enemy, and form again in the rear.' This signal, which at first sight looks like a curious reversion to the primitive Elizabethan method of attack, immediately follows the signals for engaging at anchor, and may have been the outcome of Hood's experience with De Grasse in 1782.

'No. 232. In working to gain the wind of the enemy, for the headmost and sternmost ships to signify when they can weather them by Signal 17, p. 66; or if to windward of the enemy and on the contrary tack, for the sternmost ship to signify when she is far enough astern of their rear to be able to lead down out of their line of fire.'

'No. 234. When coming up astern and to windward of the enemy to engage by inverting the line'--that is, for the ship leading the van to engage the sternmost of the enemy, the next ship to pass on under cover of her fire and engage the second from the enemy's rear, and so on.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The first attempt to provide a convenient Signal Book separate from the Instructions was made privately by one Jonathan Greenwood about 1715. He produced a small 12mo. volume dedicated to Admiral Edward Russell, Earl of Orford, and the other lords of the admiralty who were then serving with him. It consists of a whole series of well-engraved plates of ships flying the various signals contained in the Sailing and Fighting Instructions, each properly coloured with its signification added beneath. The author says he designed the work as a pocket companion to the Printed Instructions and for the use of inferior officers who had not access to them. Copies are in the British Museum and the R.U.S.I. Library.

[2] _Catalogue_, Nos. 252/27 and 252/26.

[3] A still earlier Signal Book attributed to Lord Howe is in the United Service Institution, but it is no more than a condensed and amended form of the established one. Its nature and intention are explained by No. 10 of the 'explanatory observations' which he attached to it. It is as follows; 'All the signals contained in the general printed Signal Book which are likely to be needful on the present occasion being provided for in this Signal Book, the signals as appointed in the general Signal Book will only be made either in conformity to the practice of some senior officer present, or when in company for the time being with other ships not of the fleet under the admiral's command, and unprovided with these particular signals.' It was therefore probably issued experimentally, but what the 'present occasion' was is not indicated. It contains none of the additional signals of 1782-3.

[4] Knowles was of course too old in 1830 for his memory to be trusted as to details. A note in his handwriting upon a copy of his code in possession of the present baronet gives its story simply as follows: 'These signals were written in 1778, as an idea--altered and published--then altered again in 1780--afterwards arranged differently in 1787, and finally in 1794; but not printed at Sir C.H. Knowles's expense until 1798, when they were sent to the admiralty, but they were not published, although copies have been given to sea officers.'

[5] A partial translation of Hoste had been published by Lieutenant Christopher O'Bryen, R.N., in 1762. Captain Boswall's complete translation was not issued till 1834.

[6] Note that the signal differs from that which Rodney made under Article 17 of the Additional Fighting Instructions in his action of April 17, 1780, and which being misunderstood spoilt his whole attack.

_LORD HOWE_, 1782.

[+Admiralty Library 252/27+.]

_Instructions respecting the Order of Battle and conduct of the fleet, preparative to and in action with the enemy_.

Article I. When the signal is made for the fleet to form in order of battle, each captain or commander is to get most speedily into his station, and keep the prescribed distance from his seconds ahead and astern upon the course steered, and under a proportion of sail suited to that carried by the admiral.

But when the signal is made for tacking, or on any similar occasion, care is to be taken to open, in succession, to a sufficient distance for performing the intended evolution. And the ships are to close back to their former distance respectively as soon as it has been executed.

II. In line of battle, the flag of the admiral commanding in chief is always to be considered as the point of direction to the whole fleet, for forming and preserving the line.

III. The squadron of the second in command is to lead when forming the line ahead, and to take the starboard side of the centre when forming the line abreast, unless signal is made to the contrary; these positions however are only restrained to the first forming of the lines from the order of sailing.

For when the fleet is formed upon a line, then in all subsequent evolutions the squadrons are not to change their places, but preserve the same situation in the line whatever position it may bring them into with the centre, with respect to being in the van or the rear, on the starboard or larboard side, unless directed so to do by signal.

Suppose the fleet sailing in line ahead on the larboard tack, the second in command leading, and signal is made to form a line abreast to sail large or before the wind, the second squadron in that case is to form on the larboard side of the centre.

Again, suppose in this last situation signal is made to haul to the wind, and form a line ahead on the starboard tack, in this case the squadron of the third in command is to lead, that of the second in command forming the rear.

And when from a line ahead, the squadron of the second in command leading, the admiral would immediately form the line on the contrary tack by tacking or veering together, the squadron of the third in command will then become the van.

These evolutions could not otherwise be performed with regularity and expedition.

When forming the line from the order of sailing, the ships of each squadron are to be ranged with respect to each other in the line in the same manner as when in order of sailing each squadron in one line; and, as when the second in command is in the van, the headmost ship of his squadron (in sailing order) becomes the leading ship of the line, so likewise the headmost ship of the third squadron (in sailing order) becomes the leading ship of the line, when the third in command takes the van, except when the signal is made to form the line reversed.

Ships happening to have been previously detached on any service, separate from the body of the fleet, when the signal for forming in order of battle is made, are not meant to be comprehended in the intention of it, until they shall first have been called back to the fleet by the proper signal.

IV. When the fleet is sailing in line of battle ahead, the course is to be taken from the ship leading the van upon that occasion; the others in succession being to steer with their seconds ahead respectively, whilst they continue to be regulated by the example of the leading ship.[1]

V. The ships, which from the inequality of their rates of sailing cannot readily keep their stations in the line, are not to obstruct the compliance with the intent of the signal in others; nor to hazard throwing the fleet into disorder by persisting too long in their endeavours to preserve their stations under such circumstances; but they are to fall astern and form in succession in the rear of the line.

The captains of such ships will not be thereby left in a situation less at liberty to distinguish themselves; as they will have an opportunity to render essential service, by placing their ships to advantage when arrived up with the enemy already engaged with the other part of the fleet.

The ships next in succession in order of battle are to occupy in turn, on this and every other similar occasion, the vacant spaces that would be otherwise left in the line; so that it may be always kept perfect at the appointed intervals of distance.

And when the fleet is sailing large, or before the wind, in order of battle, and the admiral makes the signal for coming to the wind on either tack, the ship stationed to lead the line on that tack, first, and the others in succession, as they arrive in the wake of that ship and of their seconds ahead respectively, are to haul to the wind without loss of time accordingly.

And all the signals for regulating the course and motions of the fleet by day or night, after the signal for forming in order of battle has been made, are to be understood with reference to the continuance of the fleet in such order, until the general signal to chase, or to form again in order of sailing, is put abroad.

VI. When the fleet is formed on any line pointed out by the compass signal, the relative bearing of the ships from each other is to be preserved through every change of course made, as often as any alteration thereof together shall be by signal directed.[2]

When, on the contrary, the signal to alter the course in succession has been put abroad, the relative bearing of the ships from each other will be then consequently changed; and any alteration of the course subsequently directed to be made by the ships together will thereafter have reference to the relative bearing last established. The same distinction will take place so often as the alteration of course in succession, as aforesaid, shall in future recur.

VII. If the admiral should observe that the enemy has altered his course, and the disposition of his order of battle, one, two, three, or any greater number of points (in which case it will be necessary to make a suitable change in the bearing of the ships from each other in the British fleet, supposed to be formed in such respects correspondently to the first position of the enemy), he will make the signal for altering course in succession, according to the nature of the occasion. The leading ship of the line is thereupon immediately to alter to the course pointed out; and (the others taking their places astern of her in succession, as they arrive in the wake of that ship and of their seconds ahead respectively) she is to lead the fleet in line of battle ahead on the course so denoted, until farther order.

VIII. When it is necessary to shorten or make more sail whilst the fleet is in order of battle, and the proper signal in either case has been made, the fleet is to be regulated by the example of the frigate appointed to repeat signals; which frigate is to set or take in the sail the admiral is observed to do.

The ship referred to is thereupon to suit her sail to the known comparative rate of sailing between her and the admiral's ship.

Hence it will be necessary that the captains of the fleet be very attentive to acquire a perfect knowledge of the comparative rate of sailing between their own and the admiral's ship, so as under whatever sail the admiral may be, they may know what proportion to carry, to go at an equal rate with him.

IX. When, the ships of the fleet being more in number than the enemy, the admiral sees proper to order any particular ships to withdraw from the line, they are to be placed in a proper situation, in readiness to be employed occasionally as circumstances may thereafter require--to windward of the fleet, if then having the weather-gage of the enemy, or towards the van and ahead, if the contrary--to relieve, or go to the assistance of any disabled ship, or otherwise act, as by signal directed.

The captains of ships, stationed next astern of those so withdrawn, are directly to close to the van, and fill up the vacant spaces thereby made in the line.

When, in presence of an enemy, the admiral or commander of any division of the fleet finds it necessary to change his station in the line, in order to oppose himself against the admiral or commander in a similar part of the enemy's line, he will make the signal for that purpose; and the ships referred to on this occasion are to place themselves forthwith against the ships of the enemy, that would otherwise by such alteration remain unopposed.

X. When the fleet is sailing in a line of battle ahead, or upon any other bearing, and the signal is made for the ships to keep in more open order, it will be generally meant that they should keep from one to two cables' length asunder, according as the milder or rougher state of the weather may require; also that they should close to the distance of half a cable, or at least a cable's length, in similar circumstances, when the signal for that purpose is put abroad.

But in both cases, the distance pointed out to the admiral's second ahead and astern, by the continuance of the flag abroad, as intimated in the Signal Book, is to be signified from them respectively to the ships succeeding them on either part, by signals.

These signals are to be continued either way, onward, throughout the line if necessary.

Notice is to be taken, in the same manner, of any continued deviation from the limited distance; and to commence between the several commanders of private ships respectively, independent of the admiral's previous example, when they observe their seconds ahead or astern to be at any time separated from them, further than the regulated distance kept by the ships next to the admiral, or that which was last appointed.

When the admiral, being before withdrawn from the line, means to resume his station therein, he will make the signal for the particular ships, between which he means to place himself, to open to a greater distance, whether it be in his former station, or in any other part of the line, better suited for his future purpose.

XI. When any number of ships is occasionally detached from the fleet for the same purpose, they are, during their separation from the body of the fleet, to comply with all such signals as shall be made at any time, whilst the signal flag appropriated for that occasion remains abroad.

But the signals made to all ships so appointed, having the commander of a squadron or division with them, will be under the flag descriptive of such commander's squadron or division, whose signals and instructions they are to obey.

XII. Great care is to be taken at all times when coming to action not to fire upon the enemy either over or near any ships of the fleet, liable to be injured thereby; nor, when in order of battle, until the proper signal is made, and that the ships are properly placed in respect to situation and distance, although the signal may have been before put abroad.

And if, when the signal for battle is made, the ships are then steering down for the enemy in an oblique direction from each other, they are to haul to the wind, or to any order parallel with the enemy, to engage them as they arrive in a proper situation and distance, without waiting for any more particular signal or order for that purpose: regard being only had by the several commanders in these circumstances to the motions of the ships preceding them on the tack whereunto the course more inclines, and upon and towards which the enemy is formed for action, that they may have convenient space for hauling up clear of each other.

When our fleet is upon the contrary tack to that of the enemy, and standing towards them, and the admiral makes the signal to engage, the van ship is then to lead close along their line, with a moderate sail, and engage; the rest of the fleet doing the same, passing to windward or to leeward of the enemy, as the admiral may direct.

XIII. When weathering the enemy upon the contrary tack, and signal is made to engage their van, the leading ship is then to bear down to the van ship of the enemy, and engage, passing along their line to windward to the sternmost ship of their van squadron, then to haul off close to the wind, the rest of the fleet doing the same in succession.[3]

XIV. No ship is to separate in time of action from the body of the fleet, in pursuit of any small number of the enemy's ships beaten out of the line; nor until their main body be also disabled or broken: but the captains, who have disabled or forced their opponents out of the line, are to use their best endeavours to assist any ship of the fleet appearing to be much pressed, or the ships nearest to them, to hasten the defeat of the enemy, unless otherwise by signal, or particular instruction, directed.[4]

XV. When any ship in the fleet is so much disabled as to be in the utmost danger and hazard of being taken by the enemy, or destroyed, and makes the signal expressive of such extremity; the Captains of the nearest ships, most at liberty with respect to the state of their opponents in the enemy's line, are strictly enjoined to give all possible aid and protection to such disabled ship, as they are best able. And the captain of any frigate (or fireship) happening to be at that time in a situation convenient for the purpose, is equally required to use his utmost endeavours for the relief of such disabled ship, by joining in the attack of the ship of the enemy opposed to the disabled ship, if he sees opportunity to place his ship to advantage, by favouring the attempt of the fireship to lay the enemy on board, or by taking out any of the crew of the disabled ship, if practicable and necessary, as may be most expedient.

XVI. No captain, though much pressed by the enemy, is to quit his station in time of battle, if possible to be avoided, without permission first obtained from the commanding officer of his division, or other nearest flag officer, for that purpose; but, when compelled thereto by extreme necessity before any adequate assistance is furnished, or that he is ordered out of the line on that account, the nearest ships and those on each part of the disabled ship's station are timely to occupy the vacant space occasioned by her absence, before the enemy can take advantage thereof.

And if any captain shall be wanting in the due performance of his duty in time of battle, the commander of the division, or other flag officer nearest to him, is immediately to remove such deficient captain from his post, and appoint another commander to take the charge and conduct of the ship on that occasion.

XVII. When, from the advantage obtained by the enemy over the fleet, or from bad weather, or otherwise, the admiral hath by signal signified his intention to leave the captains and other commanders at liberty to proceed at their discretion; they are then permitted to act as they see best under such circumstances, for the good of the king's service and the preservation of their ships, without regard to his example. But they are, nevertheless, to endeavour at all times to gain the appointed rendezvous in preference, if it can be done with safety.

XVIII. The ships are to be kept at all times prepared in readiness for action. And in case of coming to an engagement with the enemy, their boats are to be kept manned and armed, and prepared with hand and fire-chain grapnels, and other requisites, on the off-side from the enemy, for the purpose of assisting any ship of the fleet attempted by the fireships of the enemy; or for supporting the fireships of the fleet when they are to proceed on service.

The ships appointed to protect and cover these last, or which may be otherwise in a situation to countenance their operations, are to take on board their crews occasionally, and proceed before them down, as near as possible, to the ships of the enemy they are destined to attempt.

The captains of such ships are likewise to be particularly attentive to employ the boats they are provided with, as well to cover the retreat of the fireships boat, as to prevent the endeavours to be expected from the boats of the enemy to intercept the fireship, or in any other manner to frustrate the execution of the proposed undertaking.[5]

XIX. If the ship of any flag officer be disabled in battle, the flag officer may embark on board any private ship that he sees fit, for carrying on the service: but it is to be of his own squadron or division in preference when equally suitable for his purpose.

XX. The flag officers, or commanders of divisions, are on all occasions to repeat generally, as well as with reference to their respective divisions, the signals from the admiral, that they may be thereby more speedily communicated correspondent to his intentions.

And the purpose of all signals for the conduct of particular divisions is then only meant to be carried into execution when the signal has been repeated, or made by the commanders of such particular divisions respectively. In which circumstances they are to be always regarded and complied with by the ships or divisions referred to, in the same manner as if such signals had been made by the admiral commanding in chief.

XXI. When ships have been detached to attack the enemy's rear, the headmost ship of such detachment, and the rest in succession, after having ranged up their line as far is judged proper, is then to fall astern; and (the ship that next follows passing between her and the enemy) is to tack or wear as engaged to windward or leeward, and form in the rear of the detachment.

XXII. When the fleet is to tack in succession, the ship immediately following the one going in stays should observe to bear up a little, to give her room; and the moment for putting in stays is that when a ship discovers the weather quarter of her second ahead, and which has just tacked before her.

On this and every other occasion, when the fleet is in order of battle, it should be the attention of each ship strictly to regulate her motions by those of the one preceding her; a due regard to such a conduct being the only means of maintaining the prescribed distance between the ships, and of preserving a regular order throughout the line.

XXIII. As soon as the signal is made to prepare for battle, the fireships are to get their boarding grapnels fixed; and when in presence of an enemy, and that they perceive the fleet is likely to come to action, they are to prime although the signal for that purpose should not have been made; being likewise to signify when they are ready to proceed on service, by putting abroad the appointed signal.

They are to place themselves abreast of the ships of the line, and not in the openings between them, the better to be sheltered from the enemy's fire, keeping a watchful eye upon the admiral, so as to be prepared to put themselves in motion the moment their signal is made, which they are to answer as soon as observed.

A fireship ordered to proceed on service is to keep a little ahead and to windward of the ship that is to escort her, to be the more ready to bear down on the vessel she is to board, and to board if possible in the fore shrouds. By proceeding in this manner she will not be in the way of preventing the ship appointed to escort her from firing upon the enemy, and will run less risk of being disabled herself; and the ship so appointed and the two other nearest ships are to assist her with their boats manned and armed.

She is to keep her yards braced up, that when she goes down to board, and has approached the ship she is to attempt, she may have nothing to do but to spring her luff.

Captains of fireships are not to quit them till they have grappled the enemy, and have set fire to the train.

XXIV. Frigates have it in particular charge to frustrate the attempts of the enemy's fireships, and to favour those of our own. When a fireship of the enemy therefore attempts to board a ship of the line, they are to endeavour to cut off the boats that attend her, and even to board her, if necessary.

XXV. The boats of a ship attempted by an enemy's fireship, with those of her seconds ahead and astern, are to use their utmost efforts to tow her off, the ships at the same time firing to sink her.

XXVI. In action, all the ships in the fleet are to wear red ensigns.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] This and Article II. appear to be the first mention of working the fleet by 'guides.'

[2] The original has here the following erasure: 'The same is to be understood of the bearing indicated, though the admiral should shape his course from the wind originally when the signal for forming upon a line of bearing is made.'

[3] It was Nelson's improvement on this unscientific method of attack that is the conspicuous feature of his Memorandum, 1803, but it must be remembered that Howe had not yet devised the manoeuvre of breaking the line in all parts on which Nelson's improvement was founded.

[4] _Cf._ note 1, p. 224.

[5] Howe's insistence on these points both here and in Articles XXII.-XXV. is curious in view of the fact that the use of fireships in action had gone out of fashion. From 1714 to 1763 only one English fireship is known to have been 'expended,' and that was by Commander Callis when he destroyed the Spanish galleys at St. Tropez in 1742. At the peace of 1783 the Navy List contained only 17 fireships out of a total of 468 sail. Howe had two fireships on the First of June, 1794, but did not use them.

THE SIGNAL BOOKS OF THE GREAT WAR

INTRODUCTORY

The second form in which the new Fighting Instructions, originated by Lord Howe, have come down to us, is that which became fixed in the service after 1790; that is, instead of two folio volumes with the Signals in one and the Explanatory Instructions in the other, we have, at least after 1799, one small quarto containing both, and entitled 'Signal Book for Ships of War.' The earliest known example, however, of the new quarto form is a Signal Book only, which refers to a set of Instructions apparently similar to those of 1799. These have not been found, but presumably they were in a separate volume. The Signal Book is in the Admiralty Library labelled in manuscript '1792-3(?),' but, as before, no date or signature appears in the body of it. From internal evidence, however, as well as from collateral testimony, there is little difficulty in identifying it as Lord Howe's second code issued in 1790.

The feature of the book that first strikes us is that, though the bulk of it is printed, all the most important battle signals, as well as many others, have been added in MS., while at the end are the words, 'Given on board the Queen Charlotte, to Capt. ----, commander of his majesty's ship the ----, by command of the admiral.' It is thus obvious that the original printed form, which contains many further unfilled blanks for additional signals, was used as a draft for a later edition. No such edition is known to exist in print, but both the original signals and the additions correspond exactly with the MS. code which was used by Lord Howe in his campaign of 1794. In editing this code for the Society in his _Logs of the Great Sea Fights_, Admiral Sturges Jackson hazarded the conjecture that it had not then been printed, but was supplied to each ship in the fleet in MS. The admiralty volume goes far to support his conjecture, and it is quite possible that we have here the final draft from which the MS. copies were made.

As to the actual date at which the code was completed there is not much difficulty. The Queen Charlotte was Howe's flagship in the Channel fleet from 1792-4, but it was also his flagship in 1790 at the time of the 'Spanish Armament,' when he put to sea in immediate expectation of war with Spain. While the tension lasted he is known to have used the critical period in exercising his fleet in tactical evolutions, in order to perfect it in a new code of signals which he had been elaborating for several years.[1] It is probable therefore that this Signal Book belongs to that year, and that it is one of several copies which Howe had printed with the battle signals blank for his own use while he was elaborating his system by practical experiment. This conjecture is brought to practical certainty by a rough and much-worn copy of it in the United Service Institution. It was made by Lieut. John Walsh, of H.M.S. Marlborough, one of Howe's fleet, and inside the cover he has written 'Earl Howe's signals by which the Grand Fleet was governed 1790, 1791, and 1794.'

It was upon the tactical system contained in this book that all the great actions of the Nelson period were fought. The alterations which took place during the war were slight. The codes used by Howe himself in 1794, and by Duncan at Camperdown in 1797, follow it exactly. A slightly modified form was issued by Jervis to the Mediterranean fleet, and was used by him at St. Vincent in 1797. No copy of this is known to exist, but from the logs of the ships there engaged it would appear that, though the numbering of the code had been changed, the principal battle signals remained the same. In 1799 a new edition was printed in the small quarto form. In this the Signal Book and the Instructions were bound together, and were issued to the whole navy, but here again, though the numbers were changed, the alterations were of no great importance.[2] Reprints appeared in 1806 and 1808, but the code itself continued in use till 1816. In that year an entirely new Signal Book based on Sir Home Popham's code was issued with a fresh set of Explanatory Instructions, or, as they had come to be called, 'Instructions relating to the line of battle and the conduct of the fleet preparatory to their engaging and when engaged with an enemy.'[3] Both these sets of 'Explanatory Instructions' are printed below, but, as we have seen, they throw but little light by themselves on the progress of tactical thought during the great period they covered. They were no longer 'Fighting Instructions' in the old sense, unless read with the principal battle signals, and to these we have to go to get at the ideas that underlay the tactics of Nelson and his contemporaries.

Now the most remarkable feature of Howe's Second Signal Book, 1790, is the apparent disappearance from it of the signal for breaking the line which in his first code, 1782, he had borrowed from Hood in consequence of Rodney's manoeuvre. The other two signals introduced by Hood and Pigot for breaking the line on Rodney's plan are equally absent. In their stead appears a signal for an entirely new manoeuvre, never before practised or even suggested, so far as is known, by anyone. The 'signification' runs as follows: 'If, when having the weather-gage of the enemy, the admiral means to pass between the ships of their line for engaging them to leeward or, being to leeward, to pass between them for obtaining the weather-gage. N.B.--The different captains and commanders not being able to effect the specified intention in either case are at liberty to act as circumstances require.' In the Signal Book of 1799 the wording is changed. It there runs 'To break through the enemy's line in all parts where practicable, and engage on the other side,' and in the admiralty copy delivered to Rear-Admiral Frederick there is added this MS. note, 'If a blue pennant is hoisted at the fore topmast-head, to break through the van; if at the main topmast-head, to break through the centre; if at the mizen topmast-head, to break through the rear.'[4]

This form of the signification shows that the intention of the signal was something different from what is usually understood in naval literature by 'breaking the line.' By that we generally understand the manoeuvre practised by Lord Rodney in 1782, a manoeuvre which was founded on the conception of 'leading through' the enemy's line in line ahead, and all the ships indicated passing through in succession at the same point. Whereas in Lord Howe's signal the tactical idea is wholly different. In his manoeuvre the conception is of an attack by bearing down all together in line abreast or line of bearing, and each ship passing through the enemy's line at any interval it found practicable; and this was actually the method of attack which he adopted on June 1, 1794. In intention the two signals are as wide as the poles asunder. In Rodney's case the idea was to sever the enemy's line and cut off part of it from the rest. In Howe's case the idea of severing the line is subordinate to the intention of securing an advantage by engaging on the opposite side from which the attack is made. The whole of the attacking fleet might in principle pass through the intervals in the enemy's line without cutting off any part of it. In principle, moreover, the new attack was a parallel attack in line abreast or in line of bearing, whereas the old attack was a perpendicular or oblique attack in line ahead.

Nothing perhaps in naval literature is more remarkable than the fact that this fundamental difference is never insisted on, or even, it may be said, so much as recognised. Whenever we read of a movement for breaking the line in this period it is almost always accompanied with remarks which assume that Rodney's manoeuvre is intended and not Howe's. Probably it is Nelson who is to blame. At Trafalgar, after carefully elaborating an attack based on Howe's method of line abreast, he delivered it in line ahead, as though he had intended to use Rodney's method. His reasons were sound enough, as will be seen later. But as a piece of scientific tactics it was as though an engineer besieging a fortress, instead of drawing his lines of approach diagonally, were to make them at right angles to the ditch. When the greatest of the admirals apparently (but only apparently) confused the two antagonistic conceptions of breaking the line, there is much excuse for civilian writers being confused in fact.

The real interest of the matter, however, is to inquire, firstly, by what process of thought Howe in his second code discarded Rodney's manoeuvre as the primary meaning of his signal after having adopted it in his first, and, secondly, how and to what end did he arrive at his own method.

On the first point there can be little doubt. Sir Charles H. Knowles gives us to understand that Howe still had Hoste's Treatise at his elbow, and with Hoste for his mentor we may be sure that, in common with other tactical students of his time, he soon convinced himself that Rodney's manoeuvre was usually dangerous and always imperfect. Knowles himself in his old age, though a devout admirer of Rodney, denounced it in language of characteristic violence, and maintained to the last that Rodney never intended it, as every one now agrees was the truth. Nelson presumably also approved Howe's cardinal improvement, or even in his most impulsive mood he would hardly have called him 'the first and greatest sea officer the world has ever produced.'[5]

As to the second point--the fundamental intention of the new manoeuvre--we get again a valuable hint from Knowles. Upon his second visit to the admiralty, after Howe had succeeded Keppel at the end of 1783, Knowles brought with him by request a tactical treatise written by his father, as well as certain of his own tactical studies, and discussed with Howe a certain manoeuvre which he believed the French employed for avoiding decisive actions. He showed that when engaged to leeward they fell off by alternate ships as soon as they were hard pressed, and kept reforming their line to leeward, so that the British had continually to bear up, and expose themselves to be raked aloft in order to close again. In this way, as he pointed out, the French were always able to clip the British wings without receiving any decisive injury themselves. In a MS. note to his 'Fighting and Sailing Instructions,' he puts the matter quite clearly. 'In the battle off Granada,' he says, 'in the year 1779 the French ships partially executed this manoeuvre, and Sir Charles [H.] Knowles (then 5th lieutenant of the Prince of Wales of 74 guns, the flagship of the Hon. Admiral Barrington) drew this manoeuvre, and which he showed Admiral Lord Howe, when first lord of the admiralty, during the peace. His lordship established a signal to break through the enemy's line and engage on the other side to leeward, and which he executed himself in the battle of the 1st of June, 1794.' The note adds that before Knowles drew Howe's attention to the supposed French manoeuvre he had been content with his original Article XIV., modifying Article XXI. of the old Fighting Instructions as already explained. Whether therefore Knowles's account is precisely accurate or not, we may take it as certain that it was to baffle the French practice of avoiding close action by falling away to leeward that Howe hit on his brilliant conception of breaking through their line in all parts.

No finer manoeuvre was ever designed. In the first place it developed the utmost fire-face by bringing both broadsides into play. Secondly, by breaking up the enemy's line into fragments it deprived their admiral of any shadow of control over the part attacked. Thirdly, by seizing the leeward position (the essential postulate of the French method of fighting) it prevented individual captains making good their escape independently to leeward and ensured a decisive _mêlée_, such as Nelson aimed at. And, fourthly, it permitted a concentration on any part of the enemy's line, since it actually severed it at any desired point quite as effectually as did Rodney's method. Whether Howe ever appreciated the importance of concentration to the extent it was felt by Nelson, Hood and Rodney is doubtful. Yet his invention did provide the best possible form of concentrated attack. It had over Rodney's imperfect manoeuvre this inestimable advantage, that by the very act of breaking the line you threw upon the severed portion an overwhelming attack of the most violent kind, and with the utmost development of fire-surface. Finally it could not be parried as Rodney's usually could in Hoste's orthodox way by the enemy's standing away together upon the same tack. By superior gunnery Howe's attack might be _stopped_, but by no possibility could it be _avoided_ except by flight. It was no wonder then that Howe's invention was received with enthusiasm by such men as Nelson.

Still it is clear that in certain cases, and especially in making an attack from the leeward, as Clerk of Eldin had pointed out, and where it was desirable to preserve your own line intact, Rodney's manoeuvre might still be the best. Howe's manoeuvre moreover supplied its chief imperfection, for it provided a method of dealing drastically with the portion of the enemy's line that had been cut off. Thus, although it is not traceable in the Signal Book, it was really reintroduced in Howe's third code. This is clear from the last article of the Explanatory Instructions of 1799 which distinguishes between the two manoeuvres; but whether or not this article was in the Instructions of 1790 we cannot tell. The probability is that it was not, for in the Signal Book of 1790 there is no reference to a modifying instruction. Further, we know that in the code proposed by Sir Charles H. Knowles the only signal for breaking the line was word for word the same as Howe's. This code he drew up in its final form in 1794, but it was not printed till 1798. The presumption is therefore that until the code of 1799 was issued Howe's method of breaking the line was the only one recognised. In that code the primary intention of Signal 27 'for breaking through the enemy's line in all parts' is still for Howe's manoeuvre, but the instruction provides that it could be modified by a red pennant over, and in that case it meant 'that the fleet is to preserve the line of battle as it passes through the enemy's line, and to preserve it in very close order, that such of the enemy's ships as are cut off may not find an opportunity of passing through it to rejoin their fleet.' This was precisely Rodney's manoeuvre with the proviso for close order introduced by Pigot. The instruction also provided for the combining of a numeral to indicate at which number in the enemy's line the attempt was to be made. No doubt the distinction between manoeuvres so essentially different might have been more logically made by entirely different signals.[6] But in practice it was all that was wanted. It is only posterity that suffers, for in studying the actions of that time it is generally impossible to tell from the signal logs or the tactical memoranda which movement the admiral had in mind. Not only do we never find it specified whether the signal was made simply or with the pennant over, but admirals seem to have used the expressions 'breaking' and 'cutting' the line, and 'breaking through,' 'cutting through,' 'passing through,' and 'leading through,' as well as others, quite indiscriminately of both forms of the manoeuvre. Thus in Nelson's first, or Toulon, memorandum he speaks of 'passing through the line' from to-windward, meaning presumably Howe's manoeuvre, and of 'cutting through' their fleet from to-leeward when presumably he means Rodney's. In the Trafalgar memorandum he speaks of 'leading through' and 'cutting' the line from to-leeward, and of 'cutting through' from to-windward, when he certainly meant to perform Howe's manoeuvre. Whereas Howe, in his Instruction XXXI. of 1799, uses 'breaking the line' and 'passing through it' indifferently of both forms.

All we can do is generally to assume that when the attack was to be made from to-windward Howe's manoeuvre was intended, and Rodney's when it was made from to-leeward. Yet this is far from being safe ground. For the signification of the plain signal without the red pennant over--_i.e._ 'to break through ... and engage on the other side'--seems to contemplate Howe's manoeuvre being made both from to-leeward and from to-windward.

The only notable disappearances in Howe's second code (1790) are the signals for 'doubling,' probably as a corollary of the new manoeuvre. For, until this device was hit upon, Rodney's method of breaking the line apparently could only be made effective as a means of concentration by doubling on the part cut off in accordance with Hoste's method. This at least is what Clerk of Eldin seems to imply in some of his diagrams, in so far as he suggests any method of dealing with the part cut off. Yet in spite of this disappearance Nelson certainly doubled at the Nile, and according to Captain Edward Berry, who was captain of his flagship, he did it deliberately. 'It is almost unnecessary,' he wrote in his narrative, 'to explain his projected mode of attack at anchor, as that was minutely and precisely executed in the action.... These plans however were formed two months before, ... and the advantage now was that they were familiar to the understanding of every captain in the fleet.' Nelson probably felt that the dangers attending doubling in an action under sail are scarcely appreciable in an action at anchor with captains whose steadiness he could trust. Still Saumarez, his second in command, regarded it as a mistake, and there was a good deal of complaint of our ships having suffered from each other's fire.[7]