No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 December 2011
On 19 May 1692, the English and Dutch fleets decisively defeated the French fleet off Barfleur, and followed up their advantage the next day by destroying fifteen of its ships in the bay of La Hougue. Despite the comparatively small material losses, the battle marked, and was recognized as marking, the turning point in the war at sea. It removed in dramatic form the fear of invasion which had been present, and at times had seemed real, since the French had defeated the allies off Beachy Head in 1690, and offered in its place, and for the first time, the prospect of an offensive unhindered by a superior enemy fleet. The fruits of victory, however, soon turned sour, for its very completeness had set a problem which seemed insoluble. The logical sequence of Barfleur, as was recognized at the time, was a large-scale landing on the northern coast of France; but when this was tried in the summer of 1692 the attempt ended in a public fiasco, with the admirals arguing against the generals and the ministers arguing with both. The 14,000 troops who had been put aboard the transports had to be dispersed, and the only result of the campaign was to secure the dismissal of Admiral Edward Russell as commander-in-chief of the fleet and of his rival Nottingham as the Secretary of State in charge of naval affairs. At the end of the year the future success of large-scale combined operations seemed improbable; but with the French fleet unlikely to seek an encounter in 1693 there was no alternative employment for the English fleet.
I must thank the Trustees of the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, for permission to cite the manuscripts of the Bibliotheca Phillippica now in their possession, and Major J. R. Hanbury and the Historical Manuscripts Commission for the use of the transcript of the Finch manuscripts at present on loan to the Commission.
2 Except where otherwise stated, dates are given in old style throughout, but with the year beginning on i January and not 25 March.
3 Neither Secretary of State was officially responsible for naval affairs, but Nottingham had in effect been managing them since 1689. His removal from their unofficial charge was effected by transferring them to his recently appointed colleague and enemy, Sir John Trenchard.
4 [British Museum] Add. MSS. 37991, f. 26v. The minutes of the conferences where the matter was discussed between the King, the inner Council and the Admiralty at Whitehall, are given in Pfublic] R[ecord] O[ffice] Adm. 1/5248. It is difficult to tell exactly when the decision was taken, but it was probably during December.
5 P.R.O. Adm. 1/5248, 8 and 15 Jan.
6 Ibid. 29 Feb.
7 Add. MSS. 37991, f. 6v.
8 Ibid. f. 26v.
9 P.R.O. Adm. 3/6, 22 May and 24 Aug.
10 Add. MSS. 37991, ff. 11, 12v; Correspondents van Willem III en van Hans Willem Bentinck (ed. Japikse, N., 1927-1937), 1, 369–72Google Scholar.
11 P.R.O. Adm. 8/3, 1 Aug. and 1 Oct.
12 P.R.O. Adm. 3/7, 23 Oct.
13 P.R.O. Adm. 1/5248, 4 and 11 Dec.
14 Ibid. 11 Dec. and 8 Jan.
16 P.R.O. Adm. 3/7, 11 Jan.; 3/8, 18 Dec; 2/383, Secretary of Admiralty to Turkey Company, 1 Feb. 1693.
16 P.R.O. Adm. 3/8, 20 Feb.; [Manuscripts of the] H[ouse] of L[ords], N[ew] S[eries], I, 107-9.
17 H. of L., N.S. I, 110.
18 The Dutch calculated that they had lost 70% of the capital invested in their ships for the voyage, on account of the demurrage which this delay cost them (Add. MSS. 37992, f. 4).
19 H. of L., N.S. I, 129. The delays were caused mostly by weather and shortage of victuals
20 Roncière, Charles de la, Histoire de la Marine française (1899– ), VI, 140–1Google Scholar.
21 There had been earlier rumours of it in England (Cal[endar of] S[tate] P[apers] Dom[estic], 1693, pp. 32, 52), bu t th e allied espionage service, centred at Rotterdam, could not confirm them ([Public Record Office] S[tate] P[apers] For[eign], 84/22, ff. 175-80).
22 Add. MSS. 37991, f-27; 37992, ff. 8, 12v.
23 Add. MSS. 37991, f. 29; Cal. S.P. Dom. 1693, 102-5.
24 H. of L., N.S. I, 129. Three admirals, Killigrew, Delavall and Shovell, had been appointed in joint command of the fleet for the year on the dismissal of Russell.
26 Burchett, [J.], [Memoirs of Transactions at Sea during the War with France] (1703), p. 178Google Scholar.
26 Sir Dalrymple, James, Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland (1771-1773), II, Appendix to pt. II, p. 50Google Scholar.
27 Luttrell, Narcissus, Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs (1851), III, 54.Google Scholar He had ceased to attend Board meetings on 11 Mar. (P.R.O. Adm. 3/8, 11 Mar.).
28 Patent Rolls. Cornwallis probably resigned in January (Camden Miscellany, II, 188; Add. MSS. 17677, NN, f. 38).
29 It may be seen partly in Catalogue of Naval Manuscripts in the Library of the United Ser-vice Institution, pp. 67-74 (compiled by H. Garbett, n.d.), and partly in Cal. S.P. Dom. 1693. The arrangement of the material in H. of L., N.S. I, 107-87 makes it difficult to follow the correspondence included there.
30 Trenchard on occasion even interfered with the latter, to the open annoyance of the Admiralty (e.g. P.R.O. Adm. 3/8, 14 July).
31 Sir Richard Haddock, the experienced Comptroller of the Navy, evidently had a low opinion of its importance in Mar. 1693, when, on being sounded on the possibility of his joining the new Commission, he declined on the ground that’ I know well I am capable of doeing his Majty far greater service as I am, then if I were at that bord’ (British Museum. Egerton 2521, f. 75).
32 Burchett, pp. 36-44.
33 Corbett, Julian S., England in the Mediterranean (1904), 11, 145–6, 158Google Scholar.
34 Add. MSS. 37991, f. 87.
35 [Public Record Office] Finch Transcripts], Nottingham to Russell, II June.
36 Ibid. 14 June.
37 Add. MSS. 37991, ff. 9s, 103, 106. See also Archives de la Maison d'Orange-Nassau, 3rd series (ed. Krämer, F. J. L., 1907-1909), I, 284Google Scholar.
38 Finch Transcr. Nottingham to Russell, II June.
39 Add. MSS. 37991, f. 11; letter of 7 July.
40 Ibid. f. 121V.
41 Ibid. f. 140.
42 Finch Transcr. 19 Aug.
43 Ibid. 23 Aug.
44 Ibid. Nottingham to Blathwayt, 27 Aug. (two letters), 30 Aug.
45 Add. MSS. 37991, f. 153.
46 Add. MSS. 37992, f. 33.
47 S.P. For. 94/73, Stanhope to Nottingham, 17 Jan. and 7 Mar. 1691.
48 Ibid. Stanhope to Nottingham, 2 Apr. and 25 May to 4 June 1692.
49 Ibid. Howell Gwynne's report of 18 Apr. 1692.
50 Clark, G. N., The Later Stuarts (1934), p. 164Google Scholar.
51 H. of L., N.S. I, 107-9.
52 Add. MSS. 37992, f. 33
53 Ibid. f. 7, 15 May.
54 Ibid. f. 30.
55 P.R.O. Adm. 3/8, 22 and 26 May.
56 Catalogue of…Manuscripts…Royal United Service Institution, pp. 76–7.
57 Add. MSS. 37992, f. 30.
58 Catalogue of…Manuscripts…Royal United Service Institution, pp. 77-8.
59 Add. MSS. 37992, ff. 33, 34v, 35.
60 Ibid. f. 35.
61 Ibid.
62 H[istorical] Manuscripts ] C[ommission] Rutland MSS. II, 140.
63 Add. MSS. 37992, f. 14v.
64 Ibid. f. 37.
65 Ibid. f. 37V.
66 The various accounts and reports of the action may be seen in H. of L., N.S. I, 200-6, 215-27. An account from a merchant ship is given in H.M.C. Portland MSS. III, 529-34. This was possibly the last occasion on which an admiral thought of taking merchantmen into his line of battle in an emergency.
67 Ibid, III, 534-5; H.M.C. Hastings MSS. II, 230-1.
68 Wood, A. C., History of the Levant Company (1935), pp. 110–12Google Scholar.
69 N[ational] M[aritime] M[useum, acquisitions from the] Bibl[iotheca] Phill[ippica], VI, ff. 39-40.
70 Ibid. ff. 57-8.
71 Add. MSS. 37992, f. 38V, 7 Aug.
72 N.M.M. Bibl. Phill. VI, ff. 65-6.
73 S.P. For. 94/73, Stanhope to the King, 25 July; Add. MSS. 37992, f. 41.
74 Ibid. f. 42V.
75 N.M.M. Bibl. Phill. VI, ff. 69-70.
76 Add. MSS. 37992, f. 44.
77 N.M.M. Bibl. Phill. VI, ff. 77-80.
78 Add. MSS. 37992, f. 44V. And see Roncière, op. cit. VI, 148.
79 Burchett, p. 201.
80 Add. MSS. 37992, f. 48.
81 Burchett, p. 204.
82 Roncière, op. cit. VI, 148.
83 Burchett, pp. 201-3.
84 P.R.O. Adm. 1/5248, 29 Dec; 2/174, f. 61.
85 P.R.O. Adm. 1/5248, 31 Dec. The results may be seen in P.R.O. Adm. 8/3.
86 P.R.O. Adm. 3/9, 19 Jan. The details of the preparations may be seen in H. of L., N.S. I. 458-74.
87 P.R.O. Adm. 1/5248, 11 Feb.
88 Burchett, p. 204.
89 S.P. For. 94/73, Stanhope to Shrewsbury, 24 Jan. 1694.
60 Burchett, pp. 209-11.
91 H. of L., N.S. 1, 459.
92 Camden Miscellany, 11, 198.
93 Coxe, W., Correspondence of the Earl of Shrewsbury (1821), p. 24.Google Scholar The emergence of the ‘first Ministry’ of 1693, and Russell's part in it, are discussed by Macaulay, History (ed. C. H. Firth, 1913-15), v, 2386-94. Russell took part in the important meeting of the Whig leaders at Althorp in August ( Feiling, Keith, History of the Tory Party, 1603-1714 (1924), p. 295)Google Scholar
94 P.R.O. Adm. 1/5248, 12 Nov. et seq. This authority is concerned only with naval affairs; but it has been generally accepted that Russell was a regular member of the Cabinet from about that time (Feiling, op. cit. p. 289).
95 Cal. S.P. Dom. 1694-5, p. 114. The patent was dated 2 May.
96 They had all actually ceased to act by the end of January: Falkland after being attacked in the Common son a charge of corruption (Anchitell Grey: Debates of the House of Commons (1763), X, 356; H[ouse of] C[ommons] J[oumah], XI, 22, 98), the admirals after being suspended from their duties at the Board during th e debates on their conduct of the previous campaign.
97 Sir Clapham, John, The Bank of England (1944), I, 273–4Google Scholar.
98 Cal. S.P. Dom. 1693, p. 283.
99 Finch Transcr. Russell to Nottingham, 29 July.
100 Trenchard moved to the southern department on Nottingham's resignation.
101 Ranke, L. Von, History of England, Mainly in the Seventeenth Century (1878), VI, 233.Google Scholar In the three main sources for the secretaries’ official activity in naval affairs, Trenchard's signature alone appears on the letters for this period. All the letters of the spring and early summer of 1694 in P.R.O. Adm. 1/4080, ff. 1031-1183 (In-Letters, Secretaries of State) are signed by him, as are all those in S.P. Dom. 204/44, ff. 73-102 for letters from Apr. 1693 to Apr. 1695, and S.P. Dom. 204/45, ff. 1-181 for those from 29 Mar. 1693 to 9 Dec. 1694 (both State Papers Domestic, Entry Books (naval)). Russell corresponded with Trenchard on every subject, but did not always fully state his mind. His letters are largely contained in S.P. Dom. 43/3, and Trenchard's replies in N.M.M. Bibl. Phill. vol. 1.
102 Coxe, , op. cit. pp. 192–3Google Scholar; H.M.C. Buccleugh (Montagu House) MSS. II, pt. I, pp. 65–6Google Scholar.
108 ‘ I could not bring myself to carry ships to sea, and the men unpaid, when hundred of poor women was waiting for their husbands’ money, to support their children and families’ (ibid, II, pt. I, p. 64).
104 Coxe, , op. cit. p. 195Google Scholar.
105 N.M.M. Bibl. Phill. VI, f. 221.
106 Coxe, , op. cit. p. 33.Google Scholar This is the letter which Corbett (op. cit. p. 158) calls ‘one of the leading documents of British naval history’. The relevant passage reads: ‘There can be no longer any doubt that the squadron which left Brest on the 7th of this month [i.e. N.S.] has sailed for the Mediterranean, after joining the ships from Rochfort, so that admiral Russell has no time to lose in following them;"and although it is not in your department, I am well assured that you will use all your endeavours to hasten his departure, and persuade him to leave the squadron, which remains in these parts, the execution of the attempt on Brest.…‘ I cannot see that this says anything that had not been said the year before, or anything that the ministers themselves were not saying independently.
107 Coxe, , op. cit. p. 39Google Scholar.
108 On the 14th (H.M.C. Buccleugh MSS. II, pt. 1, p. 66).
109 Coxe, , op. cit. p. 194.Google Scholar He followed this up with a second letter a few days later in which he quoted the king verbatim ( H.M.C. Buccleugh MSS. II, pt. I, pp. 69–70)Google Scholar.
110 Coxe, , op. cit. p. 196Google Scholar; see also Cal. S.P. Dom. 1693-4, pp. 147-8.
111 H.M.C. Buccleugh MSS. 11, pt. 1, p. 70.
112 Cal. S.P. Dom. 1693-4, p. 157. The attack was a disaster. For accounts of it from the naval point of view, see Caermarthen, Marquis of, Journal of the Brest Expedition (1695)Google Scholar, and Burchett, pp. 215-24.
113 Corbett, , op. cit. pp. 161–2Google Scholar.
114 S.P. For. 94/73, Stanhope to Shrewsbury, 6 and 27 June. See also Add. MSS. 37992, f. 52.
115 Corbett, , op. cit. p. 164Google Scholar.
116 Burchett, pp. 239–41. We possess two authoritative and largely first-hand accounts of the operations of July-November 1694 in the Mediterranean, by Russell's secretary and by his first captain aboard the Britannia. The secretary was Burchett, whose account is incorporated in his Transactions At Sea, pp. 239-63; the first captain was Byng, later Lord Torrington, whose narrative—possibly supplemented by a later hand—is in Memoirs Relating to the Lord Torrington (ed. Laughton, J. K., 1889), pp. 67–71.Google Scholar A third account, which adds nothing to either of these, exists in the propagandist pamphlet, An Exact Journal of the Victorious Expedition of the Confederate Fleet, the last year, under the Command of Admiral Russell… (1695).
117 Coxe, , op. cit. pp. 197–8Google Scholar; Cal. S.P. Dom. 1694–5, p. 207.
118 Coxe, , op. cit. pp. 198–9Google Scholar.
119 Cal. S.P. Dom. 1694-5, pp. 249-50.
120 Add. MSS. 37992, ff. 55, 55V, 56, 57; Blathwayt to Trenchard, 2-19 July.
121 Ibid. f. 57.
122 Dated 6 Aug. (new style).
123 Ibid. f. 58.
124 N.M.M. Bibl. Phill. I, ff. 207-13, dated 2 Aug. According,to Corbett, ‘towards the end of July, the Cabinet was startled by receiving from him [William] a proposal that Russell should remain out all the winter’ (op. cit. p. 165). The first time such a course of action was mentioned by William was on 6 Aug. (old style), after he had received Trenchard's reply which had fully considered the arguments for and against it, and which itself asked for his orders on this question (see text pp. 287-9 infra).
126 This probably indicated that the Queen had not been present at that meeting of the inner Council.
126 Ibid. f. 212.
127 Corbett's description of the ministers’ opinion at this stage as ‘pusillanimous trifling’ (op. cit. p. 169) seems to me unwarranted. In view of the attitude to less dangerous ventures the year before it is remarkably favourable to the plan, and a testimony to the significant effect of the events of 1693 and the first seven months of 1694. But Corbett, of course, was not aware of the arguments of th e previous two years.
128 Mary's letter seems to have disappeared. It is mentioned in Blathwayt's reply to Tren chard's letter, in Add. MSS. 37992, f. s6v. Judging by what Shrewsbury had to say about her attitude in his letter, it was probably much the same as his own.
129 Coxe, op. cit. pp. 65-8.
130 He had expressed his hopes that the fleet could stay abroad at the end of July (ibid, pp. 63-4).
131 Ibid. p. 66. The same letter is reproduced in Cal. S.P. Dom. 1694-5, pp. 250-1.
132 Ibid. p. 68.
133 Add. MSS. 37992, f. 56v.
134 Corbett gives the sequence of events here in reverse. In the first place, he ascribes William's letter to Shrewsbury of 6 Aug. to the 2nd; and secondly, he ascribes the instructions to Russell of the 4th to the 6th, following a minute of the Privy Council for th e latter day (op. cit. p. 169). It is this which leads him to remark that ‘even then [i.e. after receipt of William's letter to Shrewsbury] the nervous ministers could not harden their hearts to send the Admiral a positive order to remain’. I n fact, when the Cabinet's provisional instructions were drafted, William had not yet written his letter of the 6th, nor indeed received Trenchard's reply of the 2nd; and when they were sent, on the 6th, his letter of that date had not yet been received in London.
135 The original draft of these orders, with corrections in Blathwayt's hand, and dated from Mons 7-17 Aug. is contained in N.M.M. Bibl. Phill. I, ff. 243-4.
136 Add. MSS. 37992, f. 59.
137 Endorsements on th e orders, N.M.M. Bibl. Phill. 1, f. 246.
138 Orders to Peter Tom, the messenger; Ibid. ff. 283-4. For William's anxiety over the timely arrival of his orders, see Corbett, op. cit. p. 170.
139 Add. MSS. 37992, f. 59.
140 Article 7 of the Queen's Instructions to Russell (Cal. S.P. Dom. 1694-3, p. 264).
141 N.M.M. Bibl. Phill. I, f. 279.
142 Ibid. ff. 287-8. Th e precis of this letter given in Cal. S.P. Dom. 1694-3, pp. 266-7, is unsatisfactory. Mary was not entirely satisfied that the Cabinet's orders were strict enough for the King's purpose, but after a further meeting the ministers decided that they could not modify them (Ibid. p. 280).
143 N.M.M. Bibl. Phill. I, f. 295.
144 The phrase is Burchett's (p. 243). Corbett calls him ‘“a noble lord” in th e fleet’ (op. cit. p. 166), but Burchett does not say this, and in fact it seems more likely that he was not in the fleet. A copy of Russell's reply to him exists in N.M.M. Bibl. Phill. 1, ff. 199—202, endorsed ‘copie de la lettre que Padmirafl] Russell m’ a escrivé’. Th e first sentence begins, ‘I wish I and the Fleet could come on the coast of Savoy so as to correspond with you more frequently’. This, with the endorsement in French, strongly suggests Galway, then commanding the troops in Savoy. On 3 Aug., also, Russell wrote to Trenchard, ‘I have had no letter from the King; from Lord Galway I have received one, but there is nothing in it, except a wish that I would come upon that coast’ (Cal. S.P. Dom. 1694-5, p. 252).
145 N.M.M. Bibl. Phill. I, ff. 199-202.
146 Coxe, op. cit. pp. 198-9.
147 Ibid. p. 71.
148 Ibid. pp. 70-1.
149 Ibid. p. 200.
150 See n. 146 supra.
151 Coxe, , op. cit. pp. 200–2Google Scholar.
152 Ibid. p. 203. For his letter ‘to the secretary of the Council, see Corbett, op. cit. pp. 172–3.