argument of the vice-admiral. Without entering here into a technical
discussion, the Court's ruling, briefly stated, was that the second
signal superseded the first, so that, if the vice-admiral was in the
wrong place, it was not his duty to get into the right before stopping;
and that this was doubly the case because an article of the Night
Signals (7) prescribed that, under the conditions of the alleged
offence, "a fleet sailing before the wind, or nearly so, if the admiral
made the signal for the fleet to bring-to, the windward ships should
bring-to first." Therefore, if Lestock was to windward, as the charge
read, it was his duty to bring-to first and at once. It is evident,
however, that even the Sailing Instructions, cast-iron as they were,
contemplated a fleet in order, not one in process of forming order; and
that to bring-to helter-skelter, regardless of order, was to obey the
letter rather than the spirit. Muddle-headed as Mathews seems to have
been, what he was trying to do was clear enough; and the duty of a
subordinate was to carry out his evident aim. An order does not
necessarily supersede its predecessor, unless the two are incompatible.
The whole incident, from Lestock's act to the Court's finding, is
instructive as showing the slavish submission to the letter of the
Instructions; a submission traceable not to the law merely, but to the
added tradition that had then fast hold of men's minds. It is most
interesting to note that the unfortunate Byng was one of the signers of
this opinion, as he was also one of the judges that sentenced Mathews to
be dismissed from the navy, as responsible for the general failure.

During the night of the 21st the allies, who had stopped after dark,
appear again to have made sail. Consequently, when day broke, the
British found themselves some distance astern and to windward--
northeast; the wind continuing easterly. Their line, indifferently
well formed in van and centre, stretched over a length of nine