ains two
orders addressed by Rupert to Spragge, April 29 and May 22, 1673, and
a resolution of the council of war held on board the Royal Charles on
May 27, deciding to attack the Dutch fleet in the Schoonveldt and to
take their anchorage if they retired into Flushing.

The orders are not dated, but, as they are signed 'James' and
countersigned 'M. Wren,' their date can be fixed to a time not later
than the spring of 1672, for Dr. Matthew Wren, F.R.S., died on June 14
in that year, having served as the lord admiral's secretary since
1667, when Coventry resigned his commissionership of the navy. They
consist of twenty-six articles, which follow those of the late war so
closely that it has not been thought worth while to print them except
in the few cases where they vary from the older ones.

They are accompanied however in the 'Sea Book' by three 'Further
Instructions,' which do not appear in any previous set. They are of
the highest importance and mark a great stride in naval tactics, a
stride which owing to Granville Penn's error is usually supposed to
have been taken in the previous war. For the first time they
introduced rules for engaging when the two fleets get contact on
opposite tacks, and establish the much-abused system of stretching the
length of the enemy's line and then bearing down together. But it must
be noted that this rule only applies to the case where the fleets are
approaching on opposite tacks and the enemy is to leeward. There is
also a peremptory re-enunciation of the duty of keeping the line and
the order enforced by the penalty of death for firing 'over any of our
own ships.' Here then we have apparently a return to the Duke of
York's belief in formal tactics, and it is highly significant that,
although the twenty-six original articles incorporate and codify all
the other scattered additional orders of the last war, they entirely
ignore those issued by Monck and Rupert during the Four Days' Battle.

We have pretty clear evidence of the existence at this period of two
schools of tactical opinion, which after all is no more than
experience would lead us to suspect, and which Pepys's remarks have
already indicated. As usual there was the school, represented by the
Duke of York and Penn, which inclined to formality, and by pedantic
insistence on well-meant principles tended inevitably to confuse the
means with the end. On the other hand we have the school of Monck and
Rupert, which was inclined a