If however, in consequence of any circumstance, the rear ships should not be able to cut through in their assigned places, the captains of those ships, as well as of the ships that are deprived of opponents in the enemy's line by this mode of attack, are to act to the best of their judgment for the destruction of the enemy, unless a disposition to the contrary has been previously made.
'It will be seen that by breaking the line in this order the enemy's van ships will not be able to assist either their centre or rear without tacking or wearing for that purpose.' This from cover to cover of the Signal Book is the sole trace to be found of the great principles for which Nelson had lived and died.

That Lord Keith or anyone else could have believed that it adequately represented the teaching of Trafalgar is almost incredible.
To begin with, the wording of the note contains an inexplicable blunder.

The last paragraph shows clearly that the idea of the signal is an attack on the rear and centre, as at Trafalgar; yet the ships of each column as they come successively into action are told to engage the enemy's ship _ahead_ of the point where their leaders broke through, a movement which would resolve itself into an attack on their centre and van, and leave the rear free to come into immediate action with an overwhelming concentration on the lee division.
That so grave an error should have been permitted to pass into the Signal Book is bad enough, but that such a signal even if it had been correctly worded should stand for Nelson's last word to the service is almost beyond belief.

The final outcome of Nelson's genius for tactics lay of course in his memorandum, and not in the form of attack he actually adopted.

Yet this remarkable signal ignores the whole principle of the memorandum.