on Naval Tactics. 167 



them off, so as tJtey might make a double, atul weather Sir Cloudesly Shovel^ and 

 tire on him on both siden.** 



Neither, therefore, has Clerk the merit of the discovery of 

 cutting off a portion of the van of au enemy's fleet, and destroy- 

 ing it by a superior force before assistance can be sent to its sup- 

 port. Hence the assertion of Professor Playfair, that, before 

 Clerk'^s system was promulgated, " the method of bringing a 

 whole fleet against a part of that of the enemy was never done,*" 

 is completely erroneous, as these quotations inconlestibly prove. 

 More proofs have been produced by Sir Howard Douglas, but 

 for these we must refer to the book itself. Though Mr Clerk 

 did not himself assert that he had invented much new, yet the 

 reviewer still holds that his client was " the inventor of the ma- 

 noeuvre of breaking the line, for Mr Clerk had never seen or 

 heard of Paul Hoste's work."" We must confess that this is a 

 singular assertion, when it is notorious, that a Treatise on Naval 

 Tactics, by Paul Hoste, a professor of that science, was trans- 

 lated from French into English by Lieutenant Christopher 

 O'Brien, R. N. in 1762, just twenty years before Clerk's first 

 tract, which was distributed among his friends, was printed ! 



Sir Howard Douglas proceeds, page 50, to observe, that — 



" My object, in giving the reader so much matter to wade through, is to 

 enable him to try the case asserted for Mr Clerk. 



" First J By the matter actually contained in the tract printed in 1782, and 

 by what Mr Clerk has subsequently published. 



" Secondly, By the actual tactical circumstances of the case. 



** Thirdly, By the evidence of living witnesses. 



" Fourthly, By the evidence of the code of signals then in use, and those 

 actually made ; and by reference to log-books, journals, and other authentic 

 records. 



" Fifthly, By epistolary and declaratory testimony rather than my father's, 

 so that by not making him an evidence in his own case, I might explain and 

 establish it on proof, which the other party could neither object to nor cavil at." 



Sir Howard gives a fac-simile of a private letter from his father 

 to his father's sister, which contains a pointed denial of his ever 

 having derived any advantage, either directly or indirectly, from 

 Mr Clerk or his writings. The same conclusion is also grounded 

 on letters from several naval officers. This is a most important 

 point, because it would reflect dishonour on Sir Charles Douglas, 

 if, by Mr Clerk's writings, he had been instructed in that ma- 

 noeuvre, by which the decisive victory on the 12th of April 1782 



