1666] The division of the fleet 183 The strain of the war was English defeat in the " Four Days' Battle." beginning to tell on the ill-managed finances of England, nor was it till the end of May that Monck and Rupert, the new "Generals at Sea," were able to put out; and, even then, they had only some eighty fighting ships under them, although, in order to concentrate all available force against the principal enemy, it had been found necessary to recall the squadron under Sir Jeremy Smyth, which had recently taken the Levant "trade" out to the Mediterranean. Could this squadron have been left in the Straits of Gibraltar, it would have held the French at Toulon in check, and have prevented de Beaufort from joining the Brest ships under Duquesne or coming to the aid of the Dutch. But, after recalling Smyth's squadron in order to concentrate, it was an inexcusable blunder to divide the main fleet by detaching Rupert with twenty of the best ships to attempt the destruction of the French at Belleisle. To fix the responsibility for this blunder is not easy. The evidence on the point is inadequate and conflicting. On the one hand, in the account which he gave to the Commons after the war, Monck states most explicitly that the fleet was divided "by order from above"; and he declares that he had been surprised by the proposal and had pointed out the risks which would be incurred. That the final decision as to the movements of the fleet rested not with the commanders but with the King and Council seems clear from the language of the State Papers of the period, while Rupert, in his version of the affair, speaks of "sailing in pursuance of the orders he had duly received from the Duke of York." According to Pepys, not an impartial witness against the rival who had superseded his patron, Sandwich, the step was in the first instance suggested "from the fleet." Sir William Coventry, the informant on whom he relied, had an excellent reason for wishing to fix the blame on the admirals, for according to Monck it was Coventry who had first come to the Nore to submit the proposal to Monck and Rupert. If the evidence is not enough to warrant us in definitely ascribing the plan to the Duke of York, whose secretary Coventry was, Monck's seems the more credible of the two statements. But whoever was really at fault, the result was disastrous. Barely had Rupert sailed (May 29) than Monck received orders to move from the Downs to the Gunfleet; and, in obeying these, he fell in with the Dutch between the North Foreland and Dunkirk (June 1). Retreat would perhaps have been the most prudent course, for the Dutch had eighty sail to his fifty-four; but many of his fleet were "heavy sailers," and even retreat might not have averted a battle. Moreover, Monck had the wind (S. W.) in his favour, while the Dutch were much scattered, the majority being far to leeward, and consequently badly placed for assisting the windwardmost squadron, Cornelis Tromp's, which Monck hastened to attack with his whole force. Tromp had to cut his cables and to bear away S. E., while de Ruyter and Evertsen strove to 184 The "Four Days' Battle" [1666 come to his help. But, before Monck could reap the fruits of his tactics, the rapidly shoaling water forced him to tack to escape the sands, and in standing back to the north-westward he could not avoid engaging the Dutch centre and rear. Through these he fought his way gallantly, first standing N. E., then tacking and working back W. "through the body" of the hostile fleet, after which nightfall ended the engagement. Though the shoals had intervened to mar the success of his stroke at Tromp, Monck had given a brilliant example of tactical insight and daring, and he might fairly claim to have had none the worst of the day. The flag-ship of the Vice-Admiral of the White, Sir William Berkeley, was missing, and two or three other vessels had been lost, apparently being cut off through failing to keep the line; but the Dutch had suffered as much damage as they had inflicted, and two at least of their ships had been sunk or fired. Next morning (June 2) found the indefatigable Monck plying to windward (S.S. W.) to renew the fight, the precision and order of his line exciting the admiration of a French eye-witness in the Dutch fleet. Having gained the wind, thanks to superior manoeuvring and to more weatherly vessels, he "bore up round on" the enemy, and engaged "more hotly than before." For some time the English had by no means the worst of the action, dividing the enemy's fleet, and pressing very hotly upon "the leewardmost part of them." However, numerical inferiority prevented the English from profiting by their superior discipline and smarter manoeuvring; and, when about 2 p.m. Monck, making a final "pass," tacked back to the west, weathering most of the Dutch fleet, and drew his ships together, he found it impossible to continue the contest. In the course of the day some sixteen sail had reinforced de Ruyter, while many of Monck's captains had gone off to repair damages without waiting to obtain permission, so that he was left with less than forty ships, and these much injured in masts and rigging. Retreat was therefore imperative, but it was carried out with order and skill, the sixteen most effective vessels being formed into a line abreast in the rear to cover their more crippled consorts, some of the worst of which, Dutch prizes and other "slugg ships," Monck destroyed there and then. The Dutch followed the retreating squadron; but, when next morning (June 3) they attempted to press home the pursuit, they were so hotly received that they sheered off to a more respectful distance. About three in the afternoon ships were sighted to the southward, which, to Monck's relief, soon proved to be Rupert's squadron returning to their comrades' aid in response to the orders which had reached them at St Helen's. The course was promptly altered to W.S. W.; but, before a junction could be effected, several vessels ran on the Galloper Sand, among them the Prince, the flag-ship of Sir George Ayscue, which, failing to get off, surrendered somewhat tamely, and was burnt by her captors. However, though the Dutch detached a squadron to intercept Rupert, 1666] End of the "Four Days' Battle" 185 the attempt failed, and the reunited English stood to the northward to clear the Galloper, the Dutch standing away to gain the wind (S.S.E.). Next morning (June 4), the English hastened to renew the engagement, the Dutch lying-to to windward (S. W.) to await the attack, which was led by Rupert's vessels. As the enemy showed a disinclination to come to close quarters, the English on the starboard tack bore down upon them, and forced their way through the Dutch line, with the result that the Dutch fleet seems to have become divided into two groups, one to leeward and a larger one to windward, between which the English "stood backward and forward" several times, exchanging broadsides. At length, as the English pressed heavily upon the leewardmost group, the Dutch to windward bore up to their comrades' aid, thereby allowing Rupert and several supporters to weather them. But, as Rupert tacked again, meaning to bear down to help Monck, on whose division the Dutch were now pressing, some of his damaged masts fell and left him crippled. Monck, likewise too much disabled to tack, was forced to bear away, and failed to prevent the capture of two or three of the "lamed ships" in his rear. The Dutch were, however, in little better plight, and, so soon as Monck and Rupert had rejoined, "made no further after them," but stood away homeward, "as glad to be quit of us as we of them." but a Pyrrhic victory they could claim. Without reckoning several fire-ships which they had expended, they seem to have lost four or five ships at least; and, in view of the English practice of reserving their fire for close quarters and "levelling most at the hulls," whereas the Dutch fired high, disabling masts and rigging rather than doing execution among the crews, it would be unreasonable to put the Dutch casualties lower than the English, of which latter 3000 killed and wounded, with 1500 prisoners, seems an approximately correct estimate. The twenty or thirty English ships usually alleged to have been lost or taken come down, on investigation of the official lists of the fleet before and after the battle, to ten exclusive of fire-ships. And, if the English discipline had not been strong enough to prevent the speedy quitting of the action by some faint-hearted captains, the tenacity and endurance displayed by most of the vanquished fairly entitles them to a share of the honours. It was with some justice that the sailors cursed the division of the fleet as the cause of the disaster; they had been outnumbered, not outfought, and all they asked for was another chance on more equal terms. Indeed, the real reason for calling the battle a Dutch victory was that de Witt's strenuous exertions enabled the Dutch to be at sea again by June 28 (O.S.), three weeks earlier than their rivals. However, they made little use of this period. The French failed to appear, and without French aid an invasion could not be contemplated. Their presence on the English coast does not seem to have very seriously impeded commerce; while, by the time the Dutch put out, "the buoy at the Nore," where the fleet was assembling, was "beginning to fill and to look proudly 184 The "Four Days' Battle [1666 come to his help. But, before Monck could reap the fruits of his tactics, the rapidly shoaling water forced him to tack to escape the sands, and in standing back to the north-westward he could not avoid engaging the Dutch centre and rear. Through these he fought his way gallantly, first standing N. E., then tacking and working back W. "through the body of the hostile fleet, after which nightfall ended the engagement. Though the shoals had intervened to mar the success of his stroke at Tromp, Monck had given a brilliant example of tactical insight and daring, and he might fairly claim to have had none the worst of the day. The flag-ship of the Vice-Admiral of the White, Sir William Berkeley, was missing, and two or three other vessels had been lost, apparently being cut off through failing to keep the line; but the Dutch had suffered as much damage as they had inflicted, and two at least of their ships had been sunk or fired. Next morning (June 2) found the indefatigable Monck plying to windward (S.S. W.) to renew the fight, the precision and order of his line exciting the admiration of a French eye-witness in the Dutch fleet. Having gained the wind, thanks to superior manoeuvring and to more weatherly vessels, he "bore up round on" the enemy, and engaged "more hotly than before." For some time the English had by no means the worst of the action, dividing the enemy's fleet, and pressing very hotly upon "the leewardmost part of them." However, numerical inferiority prevented the English from profiting by their superior discipline and smarter manoeuvring; and, when about 2 p.m. Monck, making a final "pass," tacked back to the west, weathering most of the Dutch fleet, and drew his ships together, he found it impossible to continue the contest. In the course of the day some sixteen sail had reinforced de Ruyter, while many of Monck's captains had gone off to repair damages without waiting to obtain permission, so that he was left with less than forty ships, and these much injured in masts and rigging. Retreat was therefore imperative, but it was carried out with order and skill, the sixteen most effective vessels being formed into a line abreast in the rear to cover their more crippled consorts, some of the worst of which, Dutch prizes and other "slugg ships," Monck destroyed there and then. The Dutch followed the retreating squadron; but, when next morning (June 3) they attempted to press home the pursuit, they were so hotly received that they sheered off to a more respectful distance. About three in the afternoon ships were sighted to the southward, which, to Monck's relief, soon proved to be Rupert's squadron returning to their comrades' aid in response to the orders which had reached them at St Helen's. The course was promptly altered to W.S. W.; but, before a junction could be effected, several vessels ran on the Galloper Sand, among them the Prince, the flag-ship of Sir George Ayscue, which, failing to get off, surrendered somewhat tamely, and was burnt by her captors. However, though the Dutch detached a squadron to intercept Rupert, 1666] End of the "Four Days' Battle' 185 the attempt failed, and the reunited English stood to the northward to clear the Galloper, the Dutch standing away to gain the wind (S.S.E.). Next morning (June 4), the English hastened to renew the engagement, the Dutch lying-to to windward (S. W.) to await the attack, which was led by Rupert's vessels. As the enemy showed a disinclination to come to close quarters, the English on the starboard tack bore down upon them, and forced their way through the Dutch line, with the result that the Dutch fleet seems to have become divided into two groups, one to leeward and a larger one to windward, between which the English "stood backward and forward" several times, exchanging broadsides. At length, as the English pressed heavily upon the leewardmost group, the Dutch to windward bore up to their comrades' aid, thereby allowing Rupert and several supporters to weather them. But, as Rupert tacked again, meaning to bear down to help Monck, on whose division the Dutch were now pressing, some of his damaged masts fell and left him crippled. Monck, likewise too much disabled to tack, was forced to bear away, and failed to prevent the capture of two or three of the "lamed ships" in his rear. The Dutch were, however, in little better plight, and, so soon as Monck and Rupert had rejoined, "made no further after them," but stood away homeward, "as glad to be quit of us as we of them." It was but a Pyrrhic victory they could claim. Without reckoning several fire-ships which they had expended, they seem to have lost four or five ships at least ; and, in view of the English practice of reserving their fire for close quarters and "levelling most at the hulls," whereas the Dutch fired high, disabling masts and rigging rather than doing execution among the crews, it would be unreasonable to put the Dutch casualties lower than the English, of which latter 3000 killed and wounded, with 1500 prisoners, seems an approximately correct estimate. The twenty or thirty English ships usually alleged to have been lost or taken come down, on investigation of the official lists of the fleet before and after the battle, to ten exclusive of fire-ships. And, if the English discipline had not been strong enough to prevent the speedy quitting of the action by some faint-hearted captains, the tenacity and endurance displayed by most of the vanquished fairly entitles them to a share of the honours. It was with some justice that the sailors cursed the division of the fleet as the cause of the disaster; they had been outnumbered, not outfought, and all they asked for was another chance on more equal terms. Indeed, the real reason for calling the battle a Dutch victory was that de Witt's strenuous exertions enabled the Dutch to be at sea again by June 28 (O.S.), three weeks earlier than their rivals. However, they made little use of this period. The French failed to appear, and without French aid an invasion could not be contemplated. Their presence on the English coast does not seem to have very seriously impeded commerce; while, by the time the Dutch put out, "the buoy at the Nore," where the fleet was assembling, was "beginning to fill and to look proudly |