recommended, in that book. The copy, it will always be remembered, on which these Notes are written, bears openly on the title-page the date of 1st January 1782-so that the noble admiral could not fail to see that the manœuvre had been not only conceived, but fully investigated, and deeply considered, long before he himself sailed from England, and years probably before he carried it into effect in April 1782. Still less could he possibly imagine that the author had borrowed the idea from him. If he had been conscious, therefore, that there had been two independent discoveries of this same manœuvre, and had found out, for the first time, upon looking into the Naval Tactics, that he had been anticipated by a learned civilian, in the most brilliant conception and achievement of his whole professional life, is it to be conceived that be should sit down quietly to write annotations and remarks upon the author's various speculations, without once noticing this miraculous coincidence, and taking the opportunity, if the fact had been so, of asserting his own separate originality, and collecting the evidence of what was otherwise so obvious to suspicion? Considering that this gallant admiral was as far as possible from despising, or being indifferent to the fame he had so justly and hardly earned, and that he was, on the contrary, almost as sensitive on that subject, and as much delighted with the glory of his great exploits, as his heroic successor Lord Nelson himself-we do submit that his silence, in these commentaries on this record of Mr Clerk's prior discovery, is the most conclusive proof that could be imagined of his being conscious that he himself had no claim to the enviable distinction there unequivocally asserted by another, and by that very silence, allowed and acquiesced in by himself. Even if the noble admiral, therefore, had maintained the same silence as to Mr Clerk's claims, in his conversation, which he appears to have done in these annotations on his work, we should have said that this was the only rational interpretation which could have been put on his silence; though, while it indicated clearly his own renunciation of any share in the discovery, it might have given rise to a suspicion, that he yielded with some grudging and jealousy what he yet felt he could not justly dispute, and was willing at least that the merits of the landsman should not be unnecessarily blazoned on the records of nautical distinction. But now that we know that he was actually above this somewhat unworthy, though not unnatural jealousy,-when it appears, that in frequent, open, and familiar conversation-at Mr Drummond's-at Sir John Dalling's, to Lord Melville, to General Ross, to Mr Fordyce, to General Fullarton, to Lord Cranstoun, to Lord Had

dington, to all, in short, with whom he seems ever to have spoken on the subject, he gave the full credit that was due to his instructor, and that freely, heartily, and loudly,-from the first anticipating glimpse he seems to have caught of its importance, and before he had reduced it so gloriously to practice, down to his generous and exulting cheer on his death-bed-it does seem to us to be nothing less than ridiculous to endeavour to spell out and infer, from the omission of any repetition of this acknowledgment in the Notes, that it had never been distinctly made, or was, upon farther consideration, ultimately grudged and retracted. Unless seven or eight men of unimpeachable honour have put their hands to a deliberate falsehood, for which they had no motive, the fact of Lord Rodney's acknowledgment of Mr Clerk's discovery, and of his being indebted for all he knew in April 1782 to that discovery having been previously communicated to him, must be held to be incontestably established: And if the noble admiral was conscious, when he wrote the Notes in question, probably in 1788 or 1789, that this acknowledgment had been so publicly made, both before he sailed in 1782, while looking for the enemy at sea, and after his return, what occasion could he suppose there was to insert a needless repetition of it in the Notes which he afterwards privately amused himself by writing on particular passages of the Naval Tactics? These Notes, it will be observed, were not intended for publication, and do not embody, or profess to embody, any connected view of his own systematic opinions, and far less any historical account of the sources from which they were derived, or the occasions on which they were adopted. They are mere scattered remarks on the particular paragraphs or positions to which they are severally appended-for the most part of a correctory or practical character; and consequently not leading naturally to any general remarks, either on the originality of the suggestions, or of his own obligation to them in the course of his professional career. If the noble admiral's avowal of those obligations, had been such as to leave any doubt as to his feelings and conviction, we have already said, that no interpretation could have been put on his silence in those Notes, but one conclusive in Mr Clerk's favour; but, taken along with the proofs we have already exhibited, of the uniform frankness and generosity with which that avowal was made, the idea of any other interpretation is not only untenable, but palpably ridiculous and absurd.

This, then, or something like this, is the case for Mr Clerk: And if the evidence on which it rests be unimpeachable, neither of the other competitors can have any case. With regard to Lord Rodney, indeed, there is not a word to be said. He, it

will be observed, speaking through the mouths of so many honourable friends, is the chief witness for Mr Clerk; and honours himself almost as much as his instructor, by the noble frankness and generosity of his testimony. Not a scrap of writing, or a remembered word of his, has yet been produced to the public, to impeach that testimony of inconsistency or variation. Lord Rodney, in short, not only never claimed this discovery for himself, but uniformly, promptly, and vehemently, ascribed it to Mr Clerk exclusively.

But if this be so, what case can there be for Sir Charles Douglas?-for Sir Charles Douglas, who never claimed the discovery for himself, but only for his chief, who has disclaimed it ?-for Sir Charles Douglas, to whom the personal communications of Mr Clerk are brought home much more directly than to Lord Rodney; and to whom, at all events, that discovery could not have been unknown, if any part of the evidence fastening down the knowledge on Lord Rodney is allowed to be true? If Lord Melville is to be believed, when he says that the admiral was fully aware of that discovery before he sailed in January 1782, and was resolved to put it to the test on the first opportunity-if Mr Cumberland is to be believed, when he makes a statement precisely to the same effect-if General Ross, and Mr Fordyce, and Lord Cranstoun are to be believed, when they say that he expressly stated to them that he was indebted for his success on that great day to his previous knowledge of Mr Clerk's demonstrations-is it to be imagined, first, that he should not communicate this resolution, of which he spoke openly to Lord Melville, and to all the guests at the table of Lord George Germain, to his confidential and trusted friend and hourly adviser, Sir Charles Douglas, the captain of his fleet, and his necessary coadjutor in the execution of the projected manœuvre? and, second, that he should be startled and offended, when this adviser, having suddenly discovered for himself that manœuvre, so long meditated and suppressed in the bosom of his commander, (for that is the Douglas hypothesis,) earnestly urged him to adopt it, and experienced the greatest difficulty in overcoming his reluctance to it, as a new and hazardous experiment? The supposition is palpably monstrous; but such as it is, it is entirely excluded, if faith is to be given to the testimony of Lord Cranstoun, who reported to his cousin, on the very day he reached England with the news of the victory, not only that Sir Charles Douglas had first learned the manœuvre in conversation with Mr Clerk, a considerable time before, but that, previous to the action, it had been repeatedly the subject of conversation and discussion at the admiral's table on board the 'Formidable.'

1

We will not repeat here what we have already stated, as to the miraculous coincidence which must have occurred, if either Sir Charles Douglas or his admiral had escaped Mr Clerk's pertinacious attempts to imbue them with his doctrine in 1780, and yet had, alone of all mortals, spontaneously come to an intuitive knowledge of it in April 1782, and also attained on the instant such an unlimited confidence in it, without time or means for calculation, or deliberation of any kind, as to have ventured at once to put it in execution, under the tremendous responsibility which such acting inferred. All these considerations not only apply as strongly to Sir Charles Douglas as to Lord Rodney; but apply to him with an incalculable addition of force, if his case is to be separated from that of the admiral, and it is to be supposed that he knew nothing of Mr Clerk's discovery on the morning of that day, while it is conceded, as perforce it now must be, that it was known at that time to his commander. Such a supposition, indeed, is so full of extravagance and absolute absurdity, that we are persuaded that even Sir Howard Douglas will not adopt it. If Sir Charles Douglas was ignorant of the discovery till it flashed upon his own mind in the middle of the action, it is absolutely necessary, we take it, to assume, that Sir George Rodney was equally ignorant of it-and the case of Sir Charles Douglas, indeed, is, as we understand it, that it was from him, and in that critical moment, that his commander first received the conception. If this be so, however, then all the evidence that goes to show that Rodney was previously aware of it, and well knew by whom it had been invented, is evidence directly conclusive against Sir Charles Douglas, and applicable to him, indeed, with infinitely greater force. But upon the sufficiency of that evidence we should now think it superfluous to say any thing.

But what, it may be asked, are we prepared to say to that great mass of evidence, which Sir Howard Douglas has so industriously collected, and beyond all dispute from the highest and most honourable sources, to show that the idea of breaking the line did seem to be suddenly taken up on that memorable 12th of April -that, after ranging for a considerable time along the enemy's line, on the old system of tactics, Sir Charles Douglas, on perceiving a small shift of the wind, and a casual opening of more than usual extent in the hostile array, did suddenly and eagerly suggest to the admiral, that he should take advantage of these circumstances, and lead through the enemy's line with his own ship -that the admiral was at first unwilling to hazard the experiment-that a sort of altercation ensued, during which contradictory orders were given to the man at the helm by those two gal

lant officers-and that Sir George at last gave way to the noble urgency and apparent confidence of his captain--and that the decisive measure was, thereupon, for the first time adopted, with the success of which every one is aware-What, it may be asked, do we say to this evidence? and to the great body of relative testimony, that it was the general opinion and impression of those who witnessed this extraordinary scene, and of his brother officers, both in the flag-ship and throughout the fleet, that this brilliant idea had occurred at the time to the gallant captain, and that the merit of the original suggestion rested entirely with him?

These, we admit, are fair and natural questions-and we are bound fairly and directly to answer them. We must distinguish, however, between what is properly evidence, and what is mere inference or opinion-between facts which the witnesses saw or heard, and impressions or conclusions derived from those facts. With the latter it is our province to deal-upon a much fuller and more complete view of the facts than was before those witnesses-though, as to the former their authority must be paramount. We say, then, in reference to this great body of evidence, not, as our brother of the Quarterly has said, that it relates to very ancient transactions, and is chiefly derived from the mouths of persons who were of very tender age at the time-that it involves some contradictions, and many great improbabilities—and is, on the whole, very little to be relied on, and, in fact, not to be believed. We never, we confess, saw any reason for such scepticism; and are of opinion, after considering the farther evidence produced by Sir Howard Douglas in his Additional Statement, that there is not a shadow of doubt in the case. We answer then, directly and plainly, that we give entire and implicit faith to the whole of this evidence, in so far as it relates to facts actually observed; and perfectly believe every thing to have happened as the witnesses describe it, and as the preceding summary of their testimony imports. But we are humbly of opinion, that this does not in the least touch the question at issue, nor bear at all upon the only matter now properly under discussion.

That question is, whether Mr Clerk's admitted discovery had been communicated to Sir Charles or Lord Rodney before the action of 12th April, and was, in fact, what suggested to them the manœuvre they then adopted? But the evidence in question plainly refers, not to the fact of their previous knowledge of that manœuvre, but to the question, which of them first conceived that the time and circumstances were such as to justify them in then carrying it into operation—or which had, in those