Page:History of England (Macaulay) Vol 3.djvu/546

This page needs to be proofread.

there is but too good reason to believe that Torrington was base enough to lay his plans in such a manner that the danger and loss might fall almost exclusively to the share of the Dutch. He bore them no love; and in England they were so unpopular that the destruction of their whole squadron was likely to cause fewer murmurs than the capture of one of our own frigates.

It was on the twenty-ninth of June that the Admiral received the order to fight. The next day, at four in the morning, he bore down on the French fleet, and formed his vessels in order of battle. He had not sixty sail of the line, and the French had at least eighty; but his ships were more strongly manned than those of the enemy. He placed the Dutch in the van and gave them the signal to engage. That signal was promptly obeyed. Evertsen and his countrymen fought with a courage to which both their English allies and their French enemies, in spite of national prejudices, did full justice. In none of Van Tromp's or De Ruyter's battles had the honour of the Batavian flag been more gallantly upheld. During many hours the van maintained the unequal contest with very little assistance from any other part of the fleet. At length the Dutch Admiral drew off, leaving one shattered and dismasted hull to the enemy. His second in command and several officers of high rank had fallen. To keep the sea against the French after this disastrous and ignominious action was impossible. The Dutch ships which had come out of the fight were in lamentable condition. Torrington ordered some of them to be destroyed: the rest he took in tow: he then fled along the coast of Kent, and sought a refuge in the Thames. As soon as he was in the river, he ordered all the buoys to be pulled up, and thus made the navigation so dangerous, that the pursuers could not venture to follow him.[1]

  1. Report of the Commissioners of the Admiralty to the Queen, dated Sheerness, July 18, 1690; Evidence of Captains Cornwall, Jones, Martin and Hubbard, and of Vice Admiral Delaval; Burnet, ii. 52, and Speaker Onslow's Note; Mémoires du Maréchal de Tourville; Memoirs of Transactions at Sea by Josiah Burchett, Esq., Secretary to the Admiralty, 1703; London Gazette, July 3; Historical and Political Mercury for July 1690; Mary to William, July 2; Torrington to Caermarthen, July 1. The account of the battle in the Paris Gazette of July 15, 1690 is not to be read without shame: "On a sçeu que les Hollandois s'estoient très bien battus, et qu'ils s'estoient comportez en cette occasion en braves gens, mais que les Anglois n'en avoient pas agi de même." In the French official relation of le battle off Cape Bevézier, — an odd corruption of Pevensey, — are some passages to the same effect: "Les Hollandois combattirent avec beaucoup de courage et de fermeté; mais ils ne furent pas bien secondez par les Anglois." "Les Anglois se distinguèrent des vaisseax de Hollande par le peu de valeur qu'ils montrèrent dans le combat."