p 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that year that he was superseded by Russell.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 writt