1. The fight of Feb. 18/20, when Blake, Deane and Monk defeated Van Tromp and De Ruyter, the battle beginning off Portland and ending near Calais; (2) the fight of June 2 and 3, off the Essex coast, when Monk, Deane (killed), Penn and Blake, again defeated Van Tromp and De Ruyter; (3) the fight of 31st of July off the Texel, in which Monk, Penn and Lawson beat Van Tromp in what was the decisive action of the war. The authorization for these awards will be found recorded in the Journals of the House of Commons (vii. 296, 297), under date Aug. 8, 1653. The medals, all oval, and in gold, were given in three sizes, as described below:—
A (2·2 by 2 in.). Only four of these medals were issued, to Admirals Blake and Monk, each with a gold chain of the value of £300, and to Vice-Admiral Penn and Rear-Admiral Lawson, each with a gold chain of the value of £100. On the obverse is an anchor, from the stock of which are suspended three shields, bearing respectively St George’s cross, the saltire of St Andrew, and the Irish harp, the whole encircled by the cable of the anchor. On the reverse is depicted a naval battle with, in the foreground, a sinking ship. Both obverse and reverse have broad, and very handsome, borders of naval trophies, and on the obverse side this border has imposed upon it the arms of Holland and Zeeland. Of these four medals three are known to be in existence. One, lent by the warden and fellows of Wadham College, Oxford (Blake, it may be noted, was a member of Wadham College) was exhibited at the Royal Naval Exhibition of 1891. A second is in the royal collection at Windsor Castle. The third, with its chain, is in the possession of the family of Stuart of Tempsford House, Bedfordshire. This latter medal is known to have been the one given to Vice-Admiral Penn, an ancestor of the Stuart family. The one at Windsor is presumably Blake’s, as Tancred states “the medal given to Blake was purchased for William IV. at the price of 150 guineas (Tancred, Historical Records of Medals, p. 30). The medal at Wadham was formerly in Captain Hamilton’s collection. He purchased it at a low figure, but secrecy was kept as to the owner, and the original chain that was with it went into the melting-pot: there is therefore nothing to show whether it was Monk’s or Lawson’s, as the chain would have done. It was sold at Sotheby’s in May 1882 for £305.
B (2 by 1·8 in.). Four of these medals were issued, each with a gold chain of the value of £40, to the “Flag Officers,” i.e. to the flag captains who commanded the four flag-ships. The obverse and reverse of this medal are, with the exception of the borders, precisely as in (A). The borders on both sides are a little narrower than those of (A), and of laurel instead of trophies. One of these medals—that given to Captain William Haddock, who was probably Monk’s flag-captain in the “Vanguard,” in the February fight, as he had been in that ship in the previous year, and who commanded the “Hannibal,” (44) in the June battle—is now (1909) in the possession of Mr C. D. Holworthy, who is maternally descended from Captain Haddock.
C (1·6 by 1·4 in.). This medal is precisely the same as (B). but has no border of any kind, and also was issued without the gold chains. It was in all probability one that was issued in some numbers to the captains and other senior officers of the fleet.
Some of these medals have in the plate of the reverse an inscription: FOR EMINENT SERVICE IN SAVING Y TRIUMPH FIERED IN FIGHT WH Y DVCH IN JULY 1653. The medal so inscribed was given only to those who served in the “Triumph,” and commemorates a special service. Blake, incapacitated by wounds received in the fight of February, took no part in this action, but his historic flag-ship, the “Triumph,” formed part of the fleet, and early in the battle was fired by the Dutch fire-ships. Many of the crew threw themselves overboard in a panic, but those who remained on board succeeded by the most indomitable and heroic efforts in subduing the flames, and so saving the vessel.
But undoubtedly the most interesting of all the medals of the Commonwealth period, is that known as the “Dunbar Medal,” authorized by parliament, Sept. 10, 1650, in a resolution of which the following is an extract:—
So came into being, what, in a degree, may be regarded as the prototype of the “war medal” as we know it to-day, for the “Dunbar Medal” is the very earliest that we know was issued to all ranks alike, to the humblest soldiers as well as to the commander-in-chief. It differed however in one very material point from the war medal of to-day—in that it was issued in two sizes, and in several different metals. There is no evidence to show what was the method that governed the issue of this medal; but the medal itself undoubtedly varied in size or metal, or both, according to the rank of the recipient. Of the two sizes in which the medal was issued the smaller, 1 by ·85 in. was apparently intended for seniors in the respective grades, for it was struck in gold, silver and copper. The larger, 1·35 by 1·15 in. was struck in silver, copper and lead (see Mayo. op. cit. i. 20–21).[1], On the obverse of both issues of the “Dunbar Medal” is a left profile bust of Oliver Cromwell, with, in the distance, a battle. The reverse of the larger medal has the parliament assembled in one House with the Speaker; and, on the left, a member standing addressing the chair. The reverse of the smaller medal is the same as that of the larger, except that the member addressing the House is omitted. Cromwell himself expressed a wish to the “Committee of the Army, at London,” in a letter dated the 4th of February 1650/51, that his likeness, to procure which accurately the committee had sent Mr Simon to Scotland, should not appear on the medal. He writes:—
“If my poor opinion may not be rejected by you, I have to offer to which I think the most noble end, to witt, The Commemoracon of that great Mercie att Dunbar, and the Gratuitie to the Army, which might be better expressed upon the Medall, by engraving, as on the one side the Parliament which I hear was intended and will do singularly well, so on the other side an Army, with this inscription over the head of it, The Lord of Hosts which was our Word that day. Wherefore, if I may beg it as a favour from you, I most earnestly beseech you, if I may do it without offence, that it may be soe. And if you think not fitt to have it as I offer, you may alter it as you see cause; only I doe think I may truly say, it will be very thankfully acknowledged by me, if you will spare the having my Effigies in it.”
In spite of this request Cromwell’s “Effigies” is made the prominent feature of the obverse of the medal, to which the representation of the “Army” is entirely subordinated. His wish that the “word” for the day should be commemorated is, however, observed in the legend on the obverse, as is also, on the reverse, his suggestion that on one side of the medal there should be a representation of the parliament.
During the reign of Charles II. the issue of medals was numerous, and though we have it on the authority of Evelyn that many of these were bestowed as “gratuities of respect,” yet many were given as naval awards; and, for the first time, there appears official authorization for the conferring of particular awards on those who had succeeded in the very hazardous service of destroying an enemy’s vessel by the use of fire-ships. In what are probably the earliest “Fighting Instructions” issued—those of Sir William Penn, in 1653, and again in an abridged form in 1655—no allusion to these awards is made, but that the custom of rewarding this special service prevailed, there is a piece of strong indirect evidence to show, in the shape of an amusing letter from a certain Captain Cranwill, of “ye Hare Pinke,” to the Admiralty Committee, dated Feb. 4, 1655:—
- ↑ An excellent reproduction of this medal, both obverse and reverse, is given in Plate 8, figs. 4 and 5, of the same work, and on Plate 9 will be found equally well reproduced facsimiles of the three medals for “Victories over the Dutch, 1653,” figs. 1, 2 and 3 and of the “Medal of the Parliament, for Sea Service, 1649,” fig. 1.
