Saturday 3 June 1665

Up and to White Hall, where Sir G. Carteret did go with me to Secretary Morris, and prevailed with him to let Mr. Hater be released upon bail for his appearance. So I at a loss how to get another besides myself, and got Mr. Hunt, who did patiently stay with me all the morning at Secretary Morris’s chamber, Mr. Hater being sent for with his keeper, and at noon comes in the Secretary, and upon entering [into] recognizances, he for 200l., and Mr. Hunt and I for 100l. each for his appearance upon demand, he was released, it costing him, I think, above 3l.. I thence home, vexed to be kept from the office all the morning, which I had not been in many months before, if not some years. At home to dinner, and all the afternoon at the office, where late at night, and much business done, then home to supper and to bed.

All this day by all people upon the River, and almost every where else hereabout were heard the guns, our two fleets for certain being engaged; which was confirmed by letters from Harwich, but nothing particular: and all our hearts full of concernment for the Duke, and I particularly for my Lord Sandwich and Mr. Coventry after his Royall Highnesse.

32 Annotations

First Reading

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"upon entering [into] recognizances"

"In British, Canadian and American law, the term recognizance is usually employed to describe an obligation of record, entered into before some court or magistrate duly authorized, whereby the party bound acknowledges (recognizes) that s/he owes a personal debt to the government or Crown, with a defeasance, i.e. subject to a condition that the obligation to pay shall be avoided if he shall do some particular act, as if s/he shall appear at the assizes, keep the peace, or the like.

"Recognizance is most often encountered regarding bail in criminal cases. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reco…

Glyn  •  Link

So the court needed 2 people to stand bail, and Mr Hunt was the other one? Is he a colleague of Hayter's or a friend?

I can understand that Hayter had to pay 200 pounds for himself (or at least pledge it, it's a lot of money) but why did this cost him as much as 3 pounds? Was that for general court costs, or something to do with his 200 pounds?

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"it costing him, I think, above 3l.."

Glyn, I assumed this was a fee paid to "the Secretary" for processing Hayter's release -- a processing fee analogous to the sort that Pepys had earned (for Downing?!) at one time as a clerk at the Exchequer.

Robert Gertz  •  Link

The first great battle... Perhaps all Sam's daillances with "fairest flowers" this week was simply a desperate attempt to vent a little of his panic and seek a little peace while Bess is busy with Mum. His career, possibly his freedom, is after all, on the line now. If the fleet loses, his head will figure prominently among those that may roll.

***

The Hayter affair... This ought to look good on Sam's resume when he runs for a seat in Parliament.

Imagine how this would be spun nowadays. Of course substitute your own favorite political enemy for Quaker-Socialist, Fascist, Communist, Black Panther, Islamist, etc

"Samuel Pepys was an employer and personal friend of Quaker radical Thomas Hayter, once arranging bail for him during an infamous Quaker attempt to seize gunpowder and acquire arms for a bloody religious uprising. When questioned, Mr. Pepys' only comment was 'Mr. Hayter is a fine clerk and an upright employee of the Naval Office and there is no evidence for these charges'. We'll have more on the darkside of candidate Pepys' naval office career from Lou Dobbs at six when he interviews someone who dislikes Pepys for some reason but knows nothing about him. And hear the inside story of Pepys' secret trip to Holland in 1660 and more of his association with Quaker radicals. That's tonight on 'Commentary Barely Pretending to be Journalism'."

dirk  •  Link

Evelyn's diary: POW mission accomplished!

"Through Roch: Sittingb: Graveend, & the Fleete being just now Engaged gave special orders for my Officers to be ready to receive the Wounded & Prisoners: returned late home by boate:"

----------
Anybody any idea what the "Sittingb:" stands for?

dirk  •  Link

The first great battle...

Yes, this is the Battle near Lowestoft
(13 June continental calendar)

The Dutch had sighted the British fleet on 11 June (1 June Engl.cal.), but a windstill prevented them from attacking till the night of 12/13 June. The Dutch had 135 ships, the British 100. The Dutch had specific orders to try and capture ships rather than destroy them.

In a first "charge" the Dutch fleet cut clean through the English line, and one ship fell in Dutch hands (the Charity). After regrouping into opposing lines, a regular gunfight followed. Montague's squadron, in the centre of the line, then broke through the Dutch line and effectively cut the Dutch fleet in two. Part of the the Dutch line was now exposed to fire from both back and front. At that moment the Dutch Admiral Ship (the Eendracht) exploded (accident or direct hit in the powder room?), killing most of its crew, and the Dutch commander (Lt-Adm & General van Wassenaar-Obdam). Some Dutch vessels started to withdraw. Then Lt-Adm Egbert Meeuwsz Kortenaer was also killed, and his vessel withdrew from the line, followed by most of the other ships. It was an orderly retreat however, with a skillfully organized rearguard defence.

The battle was over. Most Dutch vessels remained intact and returned safely to Holland, but the British had won an important tactical victory (only tactical, as the enemy fleet was not destroyed or disabled).

source:
http://www.marine.nl/historie/mar…
(in Dutch)

picture:
http://www.maritiemdigitaal.nl/ph…
(the first pic)

dirk  •  Link

More about the Lowestaft battle

The Dutch fleet: 81 man-o-wars, 11 merchant vessels (VOC),9 frigates, 6 "other" vessels
= 7 squadrons = 21,500 crew

(These are other figures than in the annotation above: 107 ships, and not 135 - I don't know who's right. Possibly some minor vessels were not counted?)

The Duke of York had received information (through spies) about the Dutch order to capture ships rather than destroy them, which gave him a clear advantage as the British fleet had no such orders...

8 Dutch ships were sunk and 9 were taken by the British. The Duke of York's fleet lost one single ship.

andy  •  Link

Also tonight in this special edition of ‘Commentary Barely Pretending to be Journalism": She said she would, he said he would, she did, with him, but did he? More after the break.”

Michael Robinson  •  Link

Drawings of the Battle by Van de Velde, the Elder

Van de Velde made a numbered series of drawings showing the Dutch fleet in the days before the Battle of Lowestoft, he was with the fleet and viewed the battle itself from a galliot:

The Dutch fleet in light airs 1 June 1665
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/…
The Dutch fleet before the Battle of Lowestoft, May-June 1665
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/…
The day before the battle of Lowestoft, 2-12 June 1665
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/…

[The British Museum hold three related drawings, not illustrated on the web but available for view by appointment: Croft-Murray, Edward; Hulton, Paul, Catalogue of British Drawings in the British Museum, XVI and XVII centuries, London, BMP, 1960.#8 (The Dutch Fleet before the Battle of Lowestoft, 11 June 1665; ships include the 'Zevenwolden' and the 'Amsterdam', and the commander-in-chief was Admiral van Wassenaar Obdam); #9 (The Dutch Fleet on the eve of the Battle of Lowestoft. 12 June 1665); #10, (The Battle of Lowestoft, 13 June 1665; the English fleet passing to windward of the Dutch, Van de Velde's galliot on the right)]

Drawings of the battle executed later, probably as tapestry designs:
The Battle of Lowestoft, 3-13 June 1665, executed c. 1674
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/…
The Battle of Lowestoft, 3 June 1665, after the blowing up of the 'Eendracht' executed c. 1674
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/…

Portraits of the Dutch flagship:
A portrait of the ‘Eendracht’ viewed from before the port beam.(circa 1665)
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/…
Portrait of the ‘Eendracht’, viewed from slightly abaft the port beam (1665)
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/…

Robert Gertz  •  Link


And of course there would be the tabloids...

"Candidate Pepys-His affairs, his women. The fights with Elisabeth. (Picture caption with arrow at Bess' Xmas shiner-'Is this a black eye?') The scandal that nearly ended his marriage. Former servant of Pepys tells of his wild rages ''E once kicked me in front of the neighbor's boy'. Inquiring people with lots of time in the supermarket line and no magazines with sports, TV listings, or pictures of film stars or models available in the racks want to know.

And former Pepys family servant, Wayneman Birch, tells how Pepys had him shipped off to Barbados to keep him quiet about his abusive affair. 'I was Pepys' love boy.' Page four."

While my favorite, sadly now out of circulation I believe, tabloid the Wacky...er Weekly World News reports "Candidate and Naval Office Pepys a Papist Space Alien?" (Photo of Pepys in periwig and suit looking bug-eyed standing next to smiling bug-eyed gray-skinned space alien and evil-looking Pope in saucer ship flying over Vatican)

San, you are a very lucky man in so many ways.

Wim van der Meij  •  Link

The Dutch certainly lost the Battle of Lowestoft. The English might have done more damage if they had continued the chase after the fleeing Dutch ships. Maarten Tromp, the commander of the rearguard, was one of the few officers who kept his squadron organised. The English called off the pursuit during the night. Some historians claim that James's wife, in order to protect the Duke of York, had urged Henry Brouncker, who gave the order to the captain of the flagship to stop the pursuit. He himself said that the order came from James himself.
A detailed account is in: "The Second Anglo-Dutch War" by Gijs Rommelse.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"His career, possibly his freedom, is after all, on the line now. If the fleet loses, his head will figure prominently among those that may roll."

RG, you are right: the Wikipedia explains why the head of flower-child Pepys may be shaky at the moment.

"The Dutch were desperate to prevent a second English blockade of their ports after the first was broken off by the English for lack of supplies."

jeannine  •  Link

Battle of Lowestoft

Here’s a spoiler for the sake of art and it will appear in the Diary at a future date. After the battle James, DOY, is so pleased with this major win for the English that he has Peter Lely paint the portraits of the ‘Flagmen of Lowestoft”. The link below goes to that collection of portraits and gives an idea of the ‘cast of characters’ that Sam often refers to during his writing about Naval ship activity.

From Lely’s bio as quoted from the website for the National Maritime Museum”

“In 1660 Charles II appointed Lely his Principal Painter in Ordinary. He was naturalized in 1662. Although his works vary in quality, and in some he was greatly assisted by his pupils, he is regarded as a leading artist of the Restoration. Lely was a master colourist, his style best manifested in exquisite draperies. His portraiture flatters sitters. The ‘Windsor Beauties’, a series of painted ladies at Hampton Court, show voluptuous and dreamy figures while the ‘Flagmen of Lowestoft’, of which the majority are now in the National Maritime Museum, London, display his talent in portraying characters at its best. These show 12 of the admirals and senior captains who fought under James, Duke of York, at the first action of the second Anglo-Dutch War in 1665. Two, of Prince Rupert and the original of ‘Sir John Lawson’ (copy at Greenwich), remain in the Royal Collection, from which the others were presented to the Naval Gallery of Greenwich Hospital by George IV in 1824. Lely was knighted shortly before his death.”

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/mag/pages/mn…

(At one time I wanted to do an article about this for our site, but, like so many other things these days-not enough time!)

Sjoerd  •  Link

On the wikipedia pages on Van Obdam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaco… ) and Kortenaer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egbe… ) it is interesting to compare the two dutchmen who died this day to their adversaries.
Lord Van Obdam was an ex-cavalry officer, put forward by the "Staten" for political reasons and not a sailor. Second-in-command Kortenaer was a typical "tar" with already one eye and a hand missing but considered to be too much on the hand of the "Orange party". As was Tromp, who distinguished himself fighting in the rear.
It seems that Van Obdam was aware of his inexperience but made up by reading the handbook by Admiral Blake "Sailing and Fighting Instructions". Which maybe was not the best source for a creative approach.

Pedro  •  Link

Battle of Lowestoft

There are detailed accounts of the Battle of Lowestoft such as Wikipedia quoted by Glyn. Another is in the Memorials to Sir William Penn by his grandson Granville Penn on the site below, this being by Roger L’Estrange. (Probably a copy of an account by letter from Coventry to Monck)

Start around page 326…

http://books.google.com/books?id=…

In the site given by JWB, Mahan says the formation of battle in line is generally credited to the Duke, but this would be greatly disputed by Granville Penn who credits it to his grandfather. The Duke had very little naval experience and chose Penn to be Commander in Chief on his ship. Others credit the formation to Monck and some to Sandwich.

To many it is puzzling why the Dutch did not take advantage the day before as Sandwich had reported in his Journal that the “enemy had the weather guage on us, but did not bear up on us”. (Naval experts to explain).

The site quoted by Dirk says that the Dutch had specific orders to try and capture ships rather than destroy them. This contrasts to Wiki where they say that Johan de Witt ordered Van Wassenaer to attack the English aggressively during a period of stable eastern winds which would have given the Dutch the weather gage.

Pedro  •  Link

The Eighth Squadron.

Also from Granville Penn (page 318) there appears to have been an 8th Dutch squadron, over 1100 men, which put to sea on the 1st of June but did not go near the fleet.

Pedro  •  Link

On this day...

De Ruyter reaches Cape Race where soundings had to be made along the coast, and dangers existed from numerous icebergs. A few English merchantmen were easily captured and he sailed into St. John's Bay. The 300 English sailors were given 3 small boats to sail to England or the Colonies, while he took provisions and sailed homeward on the 10/20 June.

Pedro  •  Link

Which way did the wind blow?

From Glyn’s Wikipedia reference to the battle…

“Most English historians have assumed Van Wassenaer (who on the 12 June had sent all of his silverware and other valuables home as to show how much confidence he had in himself) made a sudden dash to the west, trying to regain the weather gage, and the English beat him to it. If so, the wind must have been blowing from the southwest — otherwise there was no gain in this manoeuvre — but this makes it difficult to explain how the English fleet, sailing to the south, could be swifter than the Dutch. An alternative interpretation, more in accordance with the Dutch sources, would be that the wind was blowing from the northwest and Van Wassenaer tried to engage the English from a defensive leeward position, his favorite tactic…”

For the record Sandwich in his Journal says…

“This morning (wind at SSW, then SWbS, a fine chasing gale) we had the weather guage of the enemy…”

Allin confims that the wind was SW.

Pedro  •  Link


Sandwich gives a detailed account in his Journal of his part in the battle, but one incident is worth a mention.

Kuyper seems to have tried to hinder the English in the chase of the Dutch fleet in retreat…

“…but I left them to the ships in the rear who might have preserved and secured them, but one Gregory in a fireship of Prince Rupert’s squadron went and set fire on them and they were all destroyed but 100 saved in a boat and some few taken up out of the water. The cruel fact was most detested by us and not beseeming Christians and HRH ordered the Judge Advocate to examine the matter, in order to have the judgement of a Court Martial thereupon…”

(Info from the Journal of Montagu edited by Anderson)

Michael Robinson  •  Link

The Eendracht in happier days

Jeronimus van Diest, mid C 17th.
A portrait of the ship 'Eendracht' shown in the foreground to the left, flying the Dutch flag, with a crest on her stern, and firing a salute.
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/…

Willem van de Velde, the Younger
A portrait of the ‘Eendracht’ viewed from before the port beam, c. 1665
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/…

Second Reading

Terry Foreman  •  Link

The Flagmen of Lowestoft are a collection of thirteen paintings by Sir Peter Lely, painted in the mid-1660s. They were originally part of the Royal Collections, though most were given to Greenwich Hospital in the nineteenth century, and are now in the care of the National Maritime Museum. The paintings are of prominent naval officers, most of them of flag rank, who had fought at the Battle of Lowestoft in 1665. Lely at the time was Principal Painter to King Charles II. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fla…

Terry Foreman  •  Link

This won't see print until (sometime) next year, but it might as well go here:

A panegyrick to His Highnesse the Duke of York on his sea-fight with the Dutch June 3d, 1665 by the honourable Edward Howard.
Howard, Edward, fl. 1669.
London: Printed for Henry Herringman, 1666.
Early English Books Online [full text]
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/…

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"All this day by all people upon the River, and almost every where else hereabout were heard the guns, our two fleets for certain being engaged; which was confirmed by letters from Harwich, but nothing particular: "

The letters are probably those from Batten (2, 3 June) summarized in CSPD 164-5, pp. 403, 405. For the battle (of Lowestoft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat… and see https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
The sound of the gunfire was probably reflected by the stratosphere; hence it was possible for guns firing in a s.w. gale 120 miles to the n.e. to be heard in London. Cf. Dryden's account : Essays (ed. Ker), p. 28. For reports of guns heard at Cambridge and The Hague, see Diary Sam. Newton (ed. Foster), pp. 12-13: BM, Harl. 7010, f. 284r. For the view that the noise was thunder, see N. & Q. , 12 May 1951, pp. 204+. (L&M note)

Sasha Clarkson  •  Link

Again, I must protest: Robert Gertz' insistence on calling Hayter a Quaker rests upon evidence which is flimsy to non-existent - unless there is evidence outside the diary of which I am unaware. See my annotation of yesterday. I am concerned that young history students using the online diary as a resource might be misled by Robert's, undoubtedly entertaining,, fantasies.

Evidence, or the lack of it, is important.

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"I am concerned that young history students using the online diary as a resource might be misled"

I agree Sasha. I can't count the number of times I've emailed Phil Gyford asking him to remove a post in which I've made a mistake, so I can post the correct info. in the right place.
phil@gyford.com enables us to be responsible ... something they couldn't do 10 years ago.

History students: Read all the annotations before you decide on the best information.

It is fun following the process, though, while remembering some of the assumptions are questionable, as in Sasha's objection above.

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Hayer's presumably back at his desk today. I wonder if there was any follow-up to this plot:

"Another letter also come to me from Mr. Hater, committed by the Council this afternoon to the Gate House, upon the misfortune of having his name used by one, without his knowledge or privity, for the receiving of some powder that he had bought.
L&M The charge was one of embezzling powder from the King's stores. On the payment of bonds, Hayter was released on 3 June, and five others on 25 June. Those involved were Philip Jones, of Winchester, grocer; Nathaniel Whitfield of London, gent.; Hugh Sallisbury and Thomas Browne, of Portsmouth, gentlemen; and John Daniels, of Portsmouth, widow. PRO, OC 2/58, ff. 81v, 88v, 93r."

Log in to post an annotation.

If you don't have an account, then register here.