As to the authorship of the articles, it must be remembered that the mere fact that they were issued by Russell is not enough to attribute them to him.  He had had practically no previous experience as a flag officer, and in all probability they followed more or less closely those used by Lord Torrington in the previous year.  Torrington was first lord of the admiralty in 1689, and commander-in-chief of the main fleet in 1690.  It was not till after his acquittal in December of that year that he was superseded by Russell.  The instructions moreover seem generally to be designed in close accordance with all we know of Torrington’s tactical practice, and it is scarcely doubtful that they are due to his ripe experience and not to Russell.

That the point cannot be settled with absolute certainty is to be the more lamented because henceforth this set of Fighting Instructions, and not those of Rooke in 1703, must be taken as the dominating factor of eighteenth-century tactics.  Rooke’s instructions, except for the modification of a few articles, are the same as Russell’s, and consequently it has not been thought necessary to print them in full.  For a similar reason it has been found convenient to print such slight changes as are known to have been made in the standing form after 1703 as notes to the corresponding articles of Russell’s instructions.

FOOTNOTES: 

[1] See Introductory Note to Rooke’s Instructions of 1703, p. 197.

[2] Types of Naval Officers, p. 15.

[3] This plan of attack bears a strong resemblance to that which Nelson intended to adopt at Trafalgar.  ‘Nelson,’ says Captain Mahan, ’doubtless had in mind the dispositions of Tourville and De Ruyter.’—­Life of Nelson, ii. 351.  Hoste, however, it would seem, though a devout admirer of both Tourville and De Ruyter, gives the credit to Lord Torrington.  It was not introduced officially into the British tactical system until Lord Howe adopted it in 1792.  It was retained in the subsequent Signal Books and Instructions.

[4] This proviso was added to the signal in the edition of 1799, and a corresponding explanatory instruction (No. 24) was provided.  See post, p. 262.

[5] It should be remembered that neither the Dutch nor the English accounts of the action at all endorse this view of D’Estrees’s behaviour.  See also the Admiralty MS., p. 153, note 1.

[6] See post, pp. 245-9.

[7] Ante, p.152, note 1.

[8] Printed in 1798.  A MS. note says ’These instructions were written in 1780 and afterwards very much curtailed, though the general plan is the same.’

[9] Lacour Gayet, La marine militaire de la France sous Louis XV, 1902, pp. 214-5.

ADMIRAL EDWARD RUSSELL, 1691.

[+From a printed copy in the Library of the United Service Institution+.]