168 Major General Sir Howard Douglas 



was gained, and had declined to avow the obligations. This, 

 Sir H. Douglas has effectually done, by proving that the book 

 hy ivhich it has heeii alleged they were taught^ did not contain 

 any such directions ; a7id that those remarks upon the method 

 of breaking the line practised on that day^ were inserted in an- 

 other edition of the book published in 1790, or eight years cifter 

 the battle was fought and won, 



" The (Edinburgh) reviewer admits," (sajs Sir Howard Douglas, Naval 

 Evolutions, page 2), " that I have proved bejond all possibility of doubt, by 

 a general mass of evidence collected from the highest and most honourable 

 sources, the facts of execution to have been as I have asserted in the state- 

 ments bound up with the Naval Gunnery ; that I have triumphantly vindi- 

 cated my father's claim to the honour of being the immediate adviser of the 

 grand operation by which the battle was gained, and but for his promptitude, 

 energy, and decision, the enemy's line would not, in all probability, have been 

 broken, nor the victory gained ; that this distinguished officer and this great 

 service were unduly overlooked in the distribution of honours on that occa- 

 sion ; and that it was fitting for the son, even at this distance of time, to re- 

 claim for the father the honours that had been so long withheld." 



From the proofs, therefore, which Sir Howard Douglas had 

 formerly produced, the (Edinburgh) reviewer has been com- 

 pelled to acknowledge that Sir Charles Douglas was undoubt- 

 edly the originator of the manoeuvre which decided the victory ; 

 and, from evidence now before us in the tract under considera- 

 tion, it is with equal certainty proved that Mr Clerk cannot lay 

 any claim, to the honour of being his instructor. 



Though the Edinburgh reviewer has made ample acknow- 

 ledgment of Sir Charles Douglas' right to the honour of being 

 the immediate adviser of the grand operation by which the bat- 

 tle was gained, yet it has been alleged by the writer of an ar- 

 ticle in the London Quarterly Review, that to Sir George Rod- 

 ney is alone due the honour of suggesting the manoeuvre of 

 breaking the line on that glorious day. The evidence of Sir 

 Howard Douglas to disprove this insinuation is equally decisive. 

 The letters in the Appendix from those distinguished officers. 

 Sir Charles Dashwood, Sir Joseph Yorke, Sir Frederick The- 

 siger, Sir David Milne, Sir Gilbert Blane, &c-, incontestibly 

 prove that, had it not been for the urgent advice and strenuous 

 exertions of Sir Charles Douglas, in opposition even to the views 

 of his Admiral, it is certain advantage would not have been 



