no new principle, and is obviously based on the time-honoured idea of
group tactics and mutual support. It is true that De Jonghe, the
learned historian of the Dutch navy, regards it as conclusive that the
line was then in use by the Dutch, because, as he says, several Dutch
captains, after the next action, were found guilty and condemned for
not having observed their instructions. But really there is nothing
in it from which a line can be inferred. It is all explained on the
theory of groups. And in spite of De Jonghe's deep research and his
anxiety to show that the line was practised by his countrymen as well
as by the English in the first Dutch War, he is quite unable to
produce any orders like the English instructions of 1653, in which a
line formation is clearly laid down.

But whether or not we can accept De Jonghe's conclusions as to the
time the line was introduced into the Dutch service, one thing is
clear enough--that he never ventured to suggest that the English
copied the idea from his own countrymen. It is evident that he found
nothing either in the Dutch archives or elsewhere even to raise such
an idea in his mind. But, on the other hand, his conspicuous
impartiality leads him to give abundant testimony that throughout
these wars thoughtful Dutch officers were continually praising the
order and precision of the English tactics, and lamenting the
blundering and confusion of their own. It may be added that Dr.
Gardiner's recent researches in the same field equally failed to
produce any document upon which we can credit the Dutch admirals with
serious tactical reforms. Even De Ruyter's improvements in squadronal
organisation consisted mainly in superseding a multiplicity of small
squadrons by a system of two or three large squadrons, divided into
sub-Squadrons, a system which was already in use with the English, and
was presumably imitated by De Ruyter, if it was indeed he who