my duty to engage the leading ship of the French fleet, as this signal disannulled all former ones relative to the mode of attack.”  The word “abreast,” critically used, would imply that the fleets were abreast, ship to ship, van to van; but there appears no reason to question Rodney’s statement of the facts made to Carkett himself:  “Forgetting that the signal for the line was only at two cables length distance from each other, the van division was by you led to more than two leagues distance from the centre division, which was thereby exposed to the greatest strength of the enemy, and not properly supported.”  Rodney, in short, meant by opposite the enemy’s ship opposite at the moment the signal was made; and he also expected that the movements of his ships would be further controlled by the words of the 21st Article, “preserve the distance assigned by the signal for the line,” which distance was to be taken from the centre; or, as sometimes worded in the Instructions, “the distance shall be that between the admiral and the ships next ahead and astern of him.”  Carkett conceived that he was to attack the ship opposite him in numerical order, that is, the leader of the enemy, and that the remaining British would take distance from him.

Why the rest of the van should also have been led thus astray can be explained only on the ground that Carkett’s general views were shared by the divisional commander, a rear-admiral, who, as was proved a year later, possessed high courage of the pure game-cock order, but was wholly thoughtless of gaining an unfair advantage, two against one, by tactical ingenuity.  The result was that the van as a body left the centre to itself, and thereby not only wrecked the concentration at which Rodney aimed, but was out of hand to support his flag and his division, when badly battered by the enemy’s fire.  This was the great tactical blunder which brought to nought Rodney’s patient, wary manoeuvres of the past six hours.  To it especially, but not to it alone, he referred in the stinging words of his despatch:  “’T is with concern inexpressible, mixt with indignation, that the duty I owe my sovereign and country obliges me to acquaint their Lordships that, during the action with the French fleet on the 17th instant [and] His Majesty’s, the British flag was not properly supported.”  To the specific error of the van was added a widespread disregard of the order for close action, despite the example of the commander-in-chief, who pressed the enemy so hard that towards the end his flag-ship was to leeward of De Guichen’s wake.  “Perceiving several of our ships engaging at a distance, I repeated the signal for close action.  With truth, but sorrow, I must say it was little attended to.”  It is noticeable that one of the ships thus censured, the Cornwall, next ahead of Rodney, lost as heavily in killed and wounded as did the flag-ship herself; one of many instances showing that distance lessened efficiency without increasing safety.  The forwardness of Rodney’s flag on this occasion proves clearly enough his consciousness that tactics, to succeed, must be more than a veil for timidity; that hard hitting is as essential as skilful leading.