As to the date at which these three 'Further Instructions' were first drawn up there is some difficulty. It is possible that they were not entirely new in 1672, but that their origin, at least in design, went back to the close of the Second War. In Spragge's first 'Sea Book' there is another copy of them identical except for a few verbal differences with those in the second 'Sea Book.' In the first 'Sea Book' they appear on the back of a leaf containing some 'Sailing Instructions by the Duke of York,' which are dated November 16, 1666, and this is the latest date in the book. Moreover in this copy they are headed 'Additional Instructions to be observed in the next engagement,' as though they were the outcome of a previous action. Now, as Wren died on June 10 (o.s.), and the battle of Solebay, the first action of the Third War, was fought on May 28 (o.s.), it is pretty clear that it must have been the Second War and not the Third that was in Spragge's mind at the time. Still if we have to put them as early as November 1666 it leaves the question much where it was. Besides the idea of containing the main body of the enemy after cutting off part of his fleet, the death penalty for firing over the line is obviously designed to meet certain regrettable incidents known to have occurred in the Four Days' Battle. Nor is there any evidence that they were used in the St. James's fight of July 25, and as this was the last action in the war fought, the 'next engagement' did not take place till the Third War. It is fairly clear therefore that we must regard these remarkable orders as resulting from the experience of the Second War, and as having been first put in force during the Third one.
After the battle of Solebay these supplementary articles were incorporated into the regular instructions as Articles 27 to 29. This appears from a MS. book belonging to Lord Dartmouth entitled 'Copies of instructions and other papers relating to the fleets. Anno 1672' It contains a complete copy of both Sailing and Fighting Instructions, with a detailed 'order of sailing' for the combined Anglo-French fleet, dated July 2, 1672, and a corresponding 'order of battle' dated August 1672. It also contains the flag officers' reports made to the Duke of York after the battle.
Instructions for the 'Encouragement for the captains and companies of fireships, small frigates, and ketches,' now appear for the first time, and were repeated in some form or other in all subsequent orders.
Finally, it has been thought well to reprint from Granville Penn's Memorials of Penn the complete set of articles which he gives in Appendix L. No date is attached to them; Granville Penn merely says they were subsequent to 1665, and has thereby left an unfortunate impression, adopted by himself and almost every naval historian, both British and foreign, that followed him, that they were used in the campaign of 1666, that is, in the Second Dutch War. From the fact however that they incorporate the 'Further Instructions for Fighting' countersigned by Wren, we know that they cannot have been earlier than 1667, while the newly discovered MS. of Lord Dartmouth makes it practically certain they must have been later than August 1672. We may even go further.
For curiously enough there is no evidence that these orders, on which so much doubtful reasoning has been based, were ever in force at all as they stand. No signed copy of them is known to exist. The copy amongst the Penn papers in the British Museum which Granville Penn followed is a draft with no signature whatever. It is possible therefore that they were never signed. In all probability they were completed by James early in 1673 for the coming campaign, but had not actually been issued when, in March of that year, the Test Act deprived him of his office of lord high admiral, and brought his career as a seaman to an end. What orders were used by his successor and rival Rupert is unknown.
Of even higher interest than this last known set of the Duke of York's orders are certain additions and observations which were subsequently appended to them by an unknown hand. As it has been found impossible to fix with certainty either their date or author, I have given them by way of notes to the text. They are to be found in a beautifully written and richly bound manuscript in the Admiralty Library. At the end of the volume, following the Instructions, are diagrammatic representations of certain actions in the Third Dutch War, finely executed in water-colour to illustrate the formation for attack, and to every plan are appended tactical notes relating to the actions represented, and to others which were fought in the same way. The first one dealt with is the 'St. James's Fight,' fought on July 25, 1666, and the dates in the tactical notes, as well as in the 'Observations' appended to the articles, range as far as the last action fought in 1673. The whole manuscript is clearly intended as a commentary on the latest form of the duke's orders, and it may safely be taken as an expression of some tactician's view of the lessons that were to be drawn from his experience of the Dutch Wars.
As to the authorship, the princely form in which the manuscript has been preserved might suggest they were James's own meditations after the war; but the tone of the 'Observations,' and the curious revival of the word 'general' for 'commander-in-chief,' are enough to negative such an attribution. Other indications that exist would point to George Legge, Lord Dartmouth. His first experience of naval warfare was as a volunteer and lieutenant under his cousin, Sir Edward Spragge, in 1665. Spragge was in fact his 'sea-daddy,' and with one exception all the examples in the 'Observations' are taken from incidents and movements in which Spragge was the chief actor. One long observation is directed to precautions to be taken by flag officers in shifting their flags in action, so as to prevent a recurrence of the catastrophe which cost Spragge his life. Indeed, with the exception of Jordan, Spragge is the only English admiral mentioned. Dartmouth was present at all the actions quoted, and succeeded in constituting himself a sufficient authority on naval affairs to be appointed in 1683 to command the first important fleet that was sent out after the termination of the war. These indications however are far too slight to fix him with the authorship, and his own orders issued in 1688 go far to rebut the presumption.[2]
Another possible author is Arthur Herbert, afterwards Lord Torrington. He too had served a good deal under Spragge, and had been present at all the battles named. This conjecture would explain the curious expression used in the observation to the seventh instruction, 'The battle fought in 1666.' There was of course more than one battle fought in 1666, but Herbert was only present in that of July 25th, the 'St. James's Fight,' represented in the manuscript—and it was his first action. But here again all is too vague for more than a mere guess.
But whoever was the author, the manuscript is certainly inspired by someone of position who had served in the last two Dutch Wars, and its undeniable importance is that it gives us clearly the development of tactical thought which led to the final form of Fighting Instructions adopted under William III, and continued till the end of the eighteenth century. The developments which it foreshadows will therefore be best dealt with when we come to consider those instructions. For the present it will be sufficient to note the changes suggested. In the first place we have a desire to simplify signals and to establish repeating ships. Secondly, for the sake of clearness the numbering of the articles is changed, every paragraph to which a separate signal is attached being made a separate instruction, so that with new instructions we have thirty-three articles instead of James's twenty-four. Thirdly, we have three new instructions proposed: viz., No. 5, removing from flag officers the right to divide the enemy's fleet at their discretion without signal from the admiral; No. 8, giving a signal for any squadron that has weathered part of the enemy by dividing or otherwise to bear down and come to close action; and No. 17, for such a squadron to bear down through the enemy's line and rejoin the admiral. All of these rules are obviously the outcome of known incidents in the late war. There are also suggested additions or alterations to the old articles to the following effect: (1) When commanders are in doubt or out of sight of the admiral, they are to press the headmost ships of the enemy all they can; (2) When the enemy 'stays to fight' they are to concentrate on his weathermost ships, instead of his headmost, as under the old rule; (3) Finally, while preserving the line, they are to remember that their first duty is 'to press the weathermost ships and relieve such as are in distress.'
It is this last addition to the Duke of York's sixteenth article that contains the pith of the author's ideas. All his examples are chosen to show that the system of bearing down together from windward in a line parallel to that of the enemy is radically defective, even if all the advantages of position and superior force are with you, and for this reason—that if you succeed in defeating part of the enemy's line you cannot follow up your success with the victorious part of your own without sacrificing your advantage of position, and giving the enemy a chance of turning the tables on you. Thus, if your rear defeats the enemy's rear and follows it up, your own line will be broken, and as your rear in pressing its beaten opponents falls to leeward of the enemy's centre and van it will expose itself to a fatal concentration. His own view of the proper form of attack from windward is to bear down upon the van or weathermost ships of the enemy in line ahead on a course oblique to the enemy's line. In this way, he points out, you can concentrate on the ships attacked, and as they are beaten you can deal with the next in order. For so long as you keep your own line intact and in good order, regardless of your rear being at first too distant to engage, you will always have fresh ships coming into action at the vital point, and will thus be able gradually to roll up the enemy's line without ever disturbing your own order. Fortifying himself with the reflection that 'there can be no greater justification than matter of fact,' he proceeds to instance various battles in the late wars to show that this oblique form of attack always led to a real victory, whereas whenever the parallel form was adopted, though in some cases we had everything in our favour and had fairly beaten the Dutch, yet no decisive result was obtained.