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]