couch, while the memory of his own exploits seemed the only thing that interested his feelings, or afforded a subject for conversation. In this situation he would often break out in praise of the Naval Tactics, exclaiming with great earnestness, 'John Clerk of Eldin for ever.' Generosity and candour seemed to have been such constituent elements in the mind of this gallant admiral, that they were among the parts which longest resisted the influence of decay."
Mr Playfair then details some of the victories of the succeeding war, in which Mr Clerk's system had been pursued. The great action fought by lord Howe, on the 1st of June, 1794, was, in its management, quite conformable to that system, and its success entirely owing to the manœuvre of breaking the line. Mr Playfair mentions, that Mr James Clerk, the youngest son of the author of the essay, and who was a midshipman on board lord Howe's ship, in 1793, had a copy of the recent edition of the work, "which was borrowed by captain Christian, no doubt for the admiral's use." Lord St Vincent, who possessed a copy of the book, also gained the famous battle off the coast of Spain, by breaking the line of the enemy—as did lord Duncan, the more important victory of Camperdown. But the grandest testimony of all to the excellence of Mr Clerk's system, was the battle of Trafalgar, which finally set at rest the dominion of Britain over the sea. Lord Nelson's instructions on that occasion contained some entire sentences out of the "Essay on Naval Tactics." And it must also be mentioned, that, in his splendid victory of the Nile, he had pursued the same system.
We have hitherto pursued the train of demonstration favourable to Mr Clerk, and to the originality and utility of his system; it must now be mentioned that a controversy, menacing the better part of his reputation, has arisen since his decease. The family of Rodney, in a late publication of his memoirs, disavow the claim made by the friends of Mr Clerk, and maintain, that no communication of that gentleman's plan was ever made to their relative, or that he had the least knowledge of any such book or plan as that of Mr Clerk. Immediately after the publication of this disavowal, Sir Howard Douglas, son of the late Sir Charles Douglas, who was Rodney's captain at the time of the victory, came forward, in a pamphlet, supported by authentic documents, to claim the honour on behalf of his father. It would be vain to enter into a full discussion of the controversy which has arisen on this subject; the result seems to be, that Mr Clerk's friends have not proved that lord Rodney adopted the idea of breaking the enemy's line, on the 12th of April, from his system, although there are several reports, by most honourable men, of acknowledgments from his lordship to that effect The testimony of these men would, in ordinary cases, be very good; but in this case it is invalidated by a tache of a very extraordinary nature, which has fallen upon a particular part of professor Playfair's narrative. In contradiction of the assertion that Mr Clerk had frequent interviews with Sir Charles Douglas, for the explanation of his system, previous to the battle; Sir Howard, the son of that officer, brings forward a letter written by his father at St Lucie, March 2, 1783, in answer to some representation of Mr Clerk's claim, which had been set forward by one of his friends. Of this letter Sir Howard gives the following account and extracts:
"After acknowledging the receipt of the letter, communicating Mr Clerk's claim to the honour of having suggested the manœuvre of breaking the line, by which the victory had been gained, my father declares the whole story to be so far-fetched, improbable, and groundless, as not to deserve a serious refutation.' That, in being so near his commander-in-chief, he had a far more experienced instructor to guide and direct him in the execution of his duty, than the author alluded to ; and so entirely positive was he that he had never
