More information : Primary Sources:
It should be noted that at this date the English still retained the Julian (Old Style) Calendar, whereas the Dutch and French had already adopted the Gregorian (New Style) Calendar, which remains current. The discrepancy between the two in the 17th century was 10 days: thus, for example, the battle took place on 30 June, according to the English, 10 July according to the other combatants, and so on.
No.739, 1690, July 5. [numbering as reproduced in this source.]
'A Manchester News Letter . . . Our last advice from the fleet, left them of from Dunagence [sic], on Thursday [3rd/13th], in the afternoon, plying to the eastward, the French fleet tydeing it upon them within two leagues. Two Dutch disabled ships were left at Hastings, and haveing drawn them on shore, soe that the French could not get them of, who sent their boats on shore and burnt them . . .
'Since the before written, we have the following account, (viz.) from Dover, on the 4th instant . . . The Earls of Devonshire and Pembroke were just arrived there and goeing to the fleet at Rye, from which play they write, the 3rd instant, that our fleete came to an anchore neare that place, and the French fleete followed, and came to an anchor two leagues from them, haveing chased two Dutch men of warr on shoare at Hastinges, from which place the women and children were sent, the 3rd instant, with what goods they could carry, feareing the French should land, which they had not at 5 that afternoone, but had sett fire to the two Dutch ships, which were then burneing, and that two other Dutch ships were on the sands by the White Rocks, about a mile to the west of Hastings, at whom the French fired, without much damage, about 60 guns, and the Dutch kept firing at them from one of their ships, the other being left by all their men, and in case they see no hopes of saveing them, they are resolved to sett fire to them to prevent their falling into the French hands, who, it is thought, will come up to them the next tide, which would be about 4 o'clock next morneing. The Dutch Vice-Admirall and his son are buryed there, and about 250 sick and wounded were brought thither, and to Battle. Severall gentlemen have been on the guard all this night, feareing the landing of the French, which as yet have not appeared, and it is thought they have gone of [sic] to sea. The French sent five long boats on shoor at Hastings, but were kept off that place by their great guns. Five of the French men of war came soe nigh, that they fired severall guns on the sands.' (14)
'Whitehall, July 2 . . . The officers killed are, of the Dutch . . . Captain Nordel . . . ' (9)
'On mande de Hasting, que 2 vaisseaux de guerre Hollandois y étoient arrivés pour se faire radouber, aïant été fort maltraités, mais que quelques navires de guerre François les aïant suivis jusqu'à la Rade, les autres s'étoient resolus de bruler leurs vaisseaux plutôt que de les laisser prendre, et après s'être tous sauvés a terre, ils y avoient mises feu.' (10)
['They write from Hastings, that two Dutch men of war arrived there to refit, having suffered greatly, but since several French warships had followed them towards the Roads, the others resolved to burn their ships rather than allow them to be taken, and after all escaping to land, they set fire to them.'] (10)
[NB: The above text appears to be ambiguous. In the light of the item coming from Hastings, and the two Dutch men of war concerned, it could mean that those two were burnt there and then by their compatriots; rather than allow them to be taken; but the description, "the others", could also refer to the other ships being burnt during the retreat, which is consistent with what is known about the aftermath of the battle.] (12)
'Whitehall, July 11. Whereas several Dutch seamen are come on shoar upon the coast of Sussex and Kent, having left the shiips that were disabled in the late fight; those are to advertise them . . . that Her Majesty has given directions that the Commissioners of the Navy . . . do immediately, upon the application of such of them as are not sick or wounded, given them conduct-mony for the carrying them to Chatham.' (11)
Translated from the original Dutch of these sources by compiler:
A letter from Cornelis Evertsen, dated 11th July (New Style) between 'Beachy and Fairlight', and enclosing a list of the order of battle dated 5th July (New Style), made before the action, names her as the ELSWOUT, Captain Noorthey, of 50 guns. (15)
' . . . we saw that the enemy fleet was in earnest to harass us, and therefore in a council of war we resolved to burn or beach the dismasted ships . . . the 12th, 13th and 14th, the wind remaining easterly, the enemy fleet continued from anchorage to anchorage, following us with each ebb and flood, so that some of the most damaged ships kept close to the land under Rye and vainly attempted to make for Portsmouth between the shore and the enemy fleet, but were discovered by two French frigates, and 10 of their warships, that came up with guns firing, prevented them doing so . . . the ship ELSWOUT, commanded by the lieutenant of the deceased Captain Noorthey, was beached on the shore . . . (16)
List of wrecked ('geruineert') and missing ships after the battle:
'Capt. Noorthey, ELSWOUT, 52, on shore.' (16)
Letter from M de Tourville, 15 July 1690 (New Style), “off Rye›
‘Et depuis la dernière lettre que je me suis donné l’honneur de vous écrire . . . les navires que j’avais détachés pour brûler des vaisseaux à la côte y ont réussi, et les ont obligés d’en brûler deux avant-hier et deux hier ; il y en a encore quatre échoués ou près d’échouer auxquels j’ai encore envoyé et dont j’espère le même succès . . . ‘
‘Since my last letter, the ships which I had detached to burn the ships on shore have succeeded in doing so, and have forced them [the Dutch] to burn two of them the day before yesterday, and two more yesterday; there are four other ships wrecked or almost wrecked, to which I have also sent [other ships], of which I hope to have a similar success.’
Letter from M de Villette-Mursay, 15 July 1690 (New Style), at sea:
‘Cinq autres vaisseaux en fort mauvais état et de la même nation ayant passé le cap de Firley et cherchant de doubler celui de Beveziers, m’y trouvèrent posté ; de manière qu’ils en perdirent l’espérance, et, ayant donné à la côte, ils s’y sont brûlés en ma présence ; au moins il y en a quatre dont je vous en assure . . .
‘Five other vessels of the same nation, also in a bad way, having passed Fairlight and seeking to round Beachy, found me posted there, which caused them to lose hope, and having run [their ships] ashore, they burnt them in front of me; four at least I am certain of . . . ‘ (17)
Secondary Sources:
After the Battle of Beachy Head 30-JUN-1690, English and Dutch ships were chased by the French. Captain Tyrell [of the ANNE] had no comfort from the sight of four badly-damaged Dutch ships being scuttled or burnt near Hastings. (1)
'On 30 June, 1690, the English and Dutch, under Lord Torrington, fought Count Tourville off Beachy Head, and lost the battle, the allied fleet being seen in retreat from Rye. A dismasted man-of-war, the ANNE, was run ashore off Pett Level, and fired by her captain to avoid capture, the crew being brought into Rye . . . Two Dutch ships were burnt by the French in Pevensey Bay, and two more were ashore on the White Rocks at Hastings, in which town the Dutch landed 250 wounded.' (2)
The battle took place in the Channel near Beachy Head on 10-JUL-1690 [New Style]. After the battle the combined English and Dutch fleets retreated to the Thames, and of the original 22 ships only 14 made it to the mouth of the Thames. During the battle one of the Dutch ships was burnt by the French, whilst six more were scuttled and burnt by their own crews to prevent capture by the enemy. (Another grounded but was finally recovered.) [Translated from the original Dutch website, which has a contemporary print of the event.] (3)
Seven Dutch ships were lost during the engagement and its aftermath. (4)
Seven Dutch ships were set alight, four of which were sunk by Lieutenant-General de Villette-Mursay. (5)
ELSWOUD, burnt after action 1690. 60 guns and 190 crew in 1688, 136 x 36.5 x 14 feet. (6)
ELSWOUT of 50 guns. (7)(8)
The allied force lost several ships, among them the WAPEN VAN UTRECHT, MAAGD VAN ENKHUIZEN, ELSWOUT and THOLEN. Captain Noortheij was killed. (8)
Translated from the original French:
'On July 13th [New Style] pursued by the French squadron, the WAPEN VAN UTRECHT, Decker, 64 guns, sank; the MAAGD VAN EHKHUISEN, 72 guns, the ELSWOUT, 50 guns, and a fireship were scuttled on the coast.' (13)
ELSWOUD, 60 guns, Captain Noordhey, present at the Battle of Beachy Head, and wrecked 13 July 1690 (New Style). (18)
A note left on this site adds: "disabled and completely rased in the evening of the battle on 10 July 1690 (New Style); chased by Villette-Mursay's division, wrecked and burned 13 July 1690 (New Style)." (18)
Interpretation of the wreck event and location of loss:
Evertsen's letter notes (16) that the scuttling strategy (beaching and/or burning the disabled vessels) was decided in a council of war just before the retreat towards the Thames; that the events of the aftermath took place between the 2nd/12th and the 4th/14th, and that the MAAGD VAN ENKHUIZEN was the first to be run ashore and burnt. This is broadly consistent with M de Tourville's letter dated from Rye, 15th July (17). Both Evertsen in (16) and Villette-Mursay in (17) suggest that the disabled ships had reached as high as Rye by the 3rd/13th and were attempting to slip past the French fleet on a westward course, while hugging the land, but that this ruse was discovered before they had had a chance to round Beachy Head, thus putting their position of loss between Fairlight to the east and Beachy to the west, within which Hastings falls. The Dutch were therefore forced to run their ships ashore and burn them to prevent capture.
Tourville's letter (15) is broadly consistent with Evertsen's, suggesting that two ships had been burnt on 'the day before yesterday', the 3rd/13th, and two 'yesterday', i.e. the 4th/14th. The English in (14) also note the retreating Anglo-Dutch fleet being as high as Rye with the vanguard off Dungeness. In the English account it seems that two Dutch ships had been chased ashore at Hastings on the 3rd/13th, and torched that day, while the other two on the White Rocks were expected to be set alight the following day. This agrees in number and location with Tourville's account (17).
Evertsen suggests that the MAAGD VAN ENKHUIZEN was the first to be beached and set alight, suggesting that her date and place of loss was Hastings on the 3rd/13th, which appears consistent with secondary source (13). The White Rocks "about a mile to the west of Hastings", as referenced in source (14) would appear to correspond with the vicinity of the pier in the modern-day town of Hastings, where to the landward White Rock Road would appear to preserve the name of this feature.
Other than the MAAGD VAN ENKHUIZEN, it is unclear which ships were lost where at Hastings. Source (2) suggests that two were burnt by the French in Pevensey Bay, but the source of this assertion has so far not been traced. Thus, for convenience, all have been indexed with the Hastings named location, without prejudice to whether any were lost on the White Rocks or not, since the White Rocks now appear to be incorporated within the shoreline of the present-day town, rather than to its west. All that seems clear is that two vessels were burnt on the shoreline of the 17th century extent of Hastings on the 3rd/13th, and two further vessels were burnt on the 4th/14th to the west.
The other three appear to be the THOLEN, ELSWOUT and NOORD HOLLAND fireship. This may, however, not be definitive; this location and these identifications are for representative purposes only and further information may come to light which suggests a different sequence of events. Of note is the fact that both Dutch and French accounts have an element of confusion and uncertainty; for example, source (10) is ambiguous, and Evertsen's list of wrecked ('geruineert') and missing ships in (16) contains some duplications and ambiguities.
Similarly, elsewhere in (17) Tourville speaks of a 5th ship on fire, of which all he could see was the smoke, and also refers to a 'small English ship of 40 guns', which seems at odds with the ANNE. There may be some confusion or conflation between the two, and two possible explanations.
Firstly, it is possible that the 5th ship might have been the NOORD HOLLAND fireship, which is consistent with (13) in that a fireship was lost on that day. Evertsen makes reference to the NOORD-HOLLANTSE 'brander' or fireship in (16), which was burnt on the shore. If the 5th ship was a fireship, it may suggest why she gave off so much smoke.
Alternatively, Tourville may have conflated the two vessels. The location of his 5th ship in (17) was 'beyond Fairlight, before (or 'in front of') Rye,' consistent with the ANNE, and the 'small ship with 40 cannon, wrecked on the coast' may have been the fireship. All of this suggests that most of these vessels were lost in the vicinity at least of Hastings, and no further than Rye, given that the ANNE has been located on the Pett Level, and that the vanguard of the combined fleet had reached Dungeness on the 3rd.
The four main ships, MAAGD VAN ENKHUIZEN, THOLEN, ELSWOUT and NOORD HOLLAND, have therefore been recorded as off Hastings, but no decision has been made to assign any to the White Rocks at the present state of knowledge. Similarly, although the MAAGD VAN ENKHUIZEN as the first of the four ships in the vicinity of Hastings to be lost, can be attributed to the 3rd/13th, and the ELSWOUT is also attributed to that date, the other two have been assigned to the date range 3rd-4th/13th-14th, to avoid making an arbitrary assignment of identity which may or may not be correctly located. If correct, however, it may be that the ELSWOUT was one of the ships lost just off the 17th century town on the 3rd, with the other two being lost off the White Rocks. (19)
Built: 1677 (6)
Armament: 50 (7)(13)(15)(16); 52 (16); 60 (6), ranging from 50 to 60 (6); 60 (18)
Commanding Officer: Noordel (9); Noordhey (18); Noortheij (8); Noorthey (15)(16)
Owner: Netherlands [United Provinces] Navy [all sources]
Date of Loss Qualifier: Actual date of loss
Additional sources cited in source (3) [in Dutch]:
J R Bruijn, Varend verleden. De Nederlandse oorlogsvloot in de 17e en 18e eeuw (Meppel, 1998)
T van Gent, 17 zeventiende eeuwse admiralen en hun zeeslagen (Den Haag, 2000)
J C de Jonge, Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche zeewezen, deel 3 (3e druk, Zwolle 1869)
J C Mollema, Geschiedenis van Nederland ter zee, deel 3 (Amsterdam, 1941)
J CM Warnsinck, De vloot van den koning-stadhouder 1689-1690 (Amsterdam, 1934)
J C M Warnsinck, Van vlootvoogden en zeeslagen (3e druk, Amsterdam, 1942) |