More information : Primary Sources:
'On Thursday the 13 Instant, About One of the Clock, taking again their advantage of the Wind and the Tide, they advanced with six men-of-war and five Fire-ships and came up towards Upnor-Castle, but were so warmly entertained by Major Scot, who commanded there, and on the other side by Sir Edward Spragg from the Battery at the Shoare, that after very much Dammage received by them in the shattering of their Ships, in sinking several of their Long Boats manned out of them, in the great Number of their Men kill'd and some Prisoners taken, they were at the last forced to retire, having in this attempt spent in vain two of their Fire-Ships which attempted the ROYAL OAKE but were forced off and burnt down without any effect; but a third had its effect, the two others coming also aboard the ROYALL JAMES and the LOYALL LONDON, which are much injured by the fire but in probability may be again made serviceable, having been sunk before their coming up, and the greater part of them laid under water.' (6)
Sunday 13 June.
'Late at night comes Mr. Hudson, the cooper, my neighbour, and tells me that he come from Chatham this evening at five o'clock, and saw this afternoon the ROYAL JAMES, OAKE and LONDON, burnt by the enemy with their fire-ships . . . ' (11)
June 14. Chatham. Jno. Clapham to Sam. Pepys.
The enemy is expected on the return of the tide. Yesterday the ROYAL JAMES, ROYAL OAK, and LONDON were fired. Saw all three flaming . . . The enemy have lost five or six fire-ships, either by sinking or in executing their employ, and, as conjectured, a considerable number of men by the service of Upnor Castle. [Adm. Paper.] (13)
June 15. London. John Rushworth to Lady—.
The ROYAL CHARLES, STA. MARIA, ROYAL OAK, ROYAL JAMES, LOYAL LONDON, and UNITY, all great ships, are burned by the Dutch in Chatham River, besides two lesser ships, wherein were 500 men, all lost, and 12 more ships sunk in the river's mouth, to prevent the enemy coming in; yet they got over them and the chain too, and did this mischief. (14)
June 15. London. — to Viscount Conway.
. . . The Dutch, after easily beating off Sir Edw. Spragg from Sheerness Fort, which was not in a posture of defence (for which Sir Edward is much blamed), forced the chain, which some say was fastened with cable yarn, and came up. Ten frigates and as many fire-ships burned the AMITY and MATTHIAS. The Royal Charles, having 30 guns mounted, fired on them, but her ammunition was soon spent, so the Dutch took her, and put up their flag. Meanwhile the general caused the next ships, viz., the ROYAL JAMES, ROYAL OAK, LONDON, and two fire-ships, to be sunk, so the Dutch went away, carrying the CHARLES; she stuck, and they could not get her away that tide, but kept men aboard; they returned with Thursday's tide, but being unable to pass the sunken ships, stayed till the tide was half spent, and then burned the upper part of the OAK, JAMES, and LONDON. They made another attempt yesterday, but the general had so well provided that they were beaten off, and the same this morning; so they have left the river, and it is said fired the CHARLES at last. (15)
June 26. Sir Wm. Coventry to the Navy Com[missione]rs.
His Royal Highness has been told that the bottoms of the ROYAL JAMES and LONDON may be built upon, and if freed from their ballast and guns, would float so as to be brought into the Thames: they are to consider thereon, and report. (16)
Sunday 30 June.
'Up about three o'clock, and Creed and I got ourselves ready, and took coach at our gate . . . without any stop, got to Rochester about ten of the clock . . . Thence by barge, it raining hard, down to the chaine; and in our way did see the sad wrackes of the poor ROYALL OAKE, JAMES, and LONDON . . . ' (12)
July 11. Chatham. John Conny to Williamson.
The bottom of the ROYAL JAMES is got afloat, and those of the LOYAL LONDON and ROYAL OAK soon will be so. (17)
Sept. 13. Chatham New Dock.John Brooke to the Navy Com[missione]rs.
The wrecks of the ROYAL JAMES and LONDON set sail to day. Could not send them before for want of pilots, as those to whom he sent the warrants flatly denied coming about with them. Was constrained to send 33 ropemakers in the ships, as the captains could spare but 60 men. Promised to bring the ropemakers back, or to write to their Honours for money to bear their charges. [Adm. Paper.] (18)
Aug. 21. Chatham. Commissioner John Cox to the Navy Commissioners.
. . . The bottom of the ROYAL JAMES is being broken up; if the plank is not disposed of, you might buy it for laying the ropeyard, which must be repaired, otherwise there will not be much cordage laid next winter, and there are some of the largest cables to lay. (19)
Aug. 29. Chatham.Commissioner John Cox to the Navy Commissioners.
I will finish the answer to your queries this week, and send it to the surveyor. There is not much timber to be had at Chatham . . . The yard is very bare of timber and plank, and the new ship is delayed for want of it; if she is not suddenly finished, it will hinder the repairs of other ships, and we have not another we can dock astern of her, but what is too long. . . . as I fear there will not be enough plank in her [the DEFIANCE] to complete the floor of the ropeyard, I desire that some of the ROYAL JAMES's may be sent. (20)
Sept. 10. Chatham Dock.John Brooke and Wm. Rand to the Navy Com[missione]rs.
Particulars of operations on the VANGUARD and other sunk ships in the river, and clearing away the moorings of the chain. The captain of the SUCCESS can spare 40 and the SIGNET 20 men. Must put some ropemakers on the JAMES and LONDON, to help them about. [Adm. Paper.] (22)
Sept. 10. Chatham Dock.William Rand and John Brooke to the Navy Com[missione]rs.
The ROYAL JAMES and LONDON being ready to sail, sent a warrant to Thos. Streton to take charge of the LONDON. He came and threw the paper at them, and refused to go, and Robt. Samson, who had a warrant for the JAMES, will not go either. No other pilots are to be had there, and their boatswains will not take the charge on themselves. [Adm. Paper.] (23)
The poet Andrew Marvell included the action on the Medway in his poem "Last Instructions to a Painter":
'Each doleful day still with fresh loss returns:
The LOYAL LONDON now the third time burns,
And the true ROYAL OAK and ROYAL JAMES,
Allied in fate, increase, with theirs, her flames.
Of all our navy none should now survive,
But that the ships themselves were taught to dive,
And the kind river in its creek them hides,
Fraughting their piercèd keels with oozy tides.' (9)
Pictorial sources:
In a topographical view of the attack, with a key, the ROYAL JAMES is marked 26, "the Admiral of the White Flag" [sic], and depicted on the Upnor side opposite Chatham. She is the westernmost of the group of three English ships sunk west of Upnor Castle, the LOYAL LONDON being in the centre, and the ROYAL OAK nearest the Castle. (21)
Secondary Sources:
Ex. RICHARD.
14-JUN-1667. The final day of the raid on the Medway ports saw the Dutch consolidating their triumph. Those great ships they could not take away were destroyed.
Found by the Dutch lying below Chatham partly sunk in shallow water, she was set on fire and burnt to the waterline. Her remains were ordered to be taken to Woolwich, but little could be salved and the wreck was broken up AUG-1670. (1)
Tonnage given as 1119 tons. (1)
The account in (1) is followed by (2).
A discussion of a list of the Royal Navy by Pepys with further information from his diary:
'RICHARD, alias ROYAL JAMES...This ship would appear to have been burned by the Dutch in their raid on Chatham, June 1667 (Diary, 13 June), but quaere [sic] if this were not the JAMES, another second rate mentioned in the list as built in 1633, for in the copy of an old map descriptive of this disaster, given in Bright's edition of Pepys, iv, 363, "the old JAMES" is marked as destroyed.' (3)
RICHARD 3rd rate of 70 guns and 1108 tons builder's measurement, built at Woolwich in 1658. Renamed the ROYAL JAMES in 1660. Destroyed 13.6.1667 by the Dutch at Chatham. (4)
RICHARD of 70 to 82 guns, built 1658, at Woolwich, and renamed the ROYAL JAMES in 1660. Burnt by the Dutch 1667. Dimensions: 124 feet length x 41 feet beam, 1119 tons. (5)
On Monday 10 June soldiers were put aboard the ROYAL CHARLES and the ROYAL JAMES in Gillingham Reach. The following day the ROYAL JAMES was taken further up the river to a position just above Upnor Castle.
A description and sketch of the chain of defences given by the diarist John Evelyn:
John Evelyn the diarist made a sketch on the hill above Gillingham, near the church, and which he sent to Pepys at the latter's request, [in which] the names and positions of the ships were recorded in detail. The sketch was entitled: "A Scheme of the Posture of the Dutch Fleete and action at Sherenesse and Chatham 10th, 11th, and 12th of June 1667, taken upon the place by J.E." It showed the chain, with the UNITY moored on the Gillingham side, just below it and with the CHARLES V and MATTHIAS just above it. The MONMOUTH lay beyond them in Gillingham Reach, and then above her, stretching as far as Rochester Bridge, the ROYAL CHARLES, MARY [SANCTA MARIA], ROYAL OAK, LOYAL LONDON, ROYAL JAMES, CATHERINE, PRINCESS, OLD JAMES, GUIDEN RYTER [GELDERSE RUYTER] TRIUMPH, RAINBOW, UNICORN, HENRY, HELVERSON [HILVERSUM] and VANGUARD.
The ROYAL JAMES and the other men of war, near Upnor, were 'the obvious targets for a fresh attack' but the Dutch anchored as the tide ebbed, postponing the attack until Thursday 13 June.
The Duke of Albemarle decided on Wednesday 12 June that the three men-of-war should be moved to the 'Upnor bank of the Medway till they grounded in the shallow water. He then ordered that holes should be cut in their hulls so that it would be impossible for the Dutch, should they reach the ships, to move them'. This was then successfully executed before the end of the day.
Meanwhile, on the Dutch side de Ruyter, de Witt and van Ghent planned the attack on the men-of-war blockships. They decided that four men-of-war and three armed yachts should sail up to Upnor to engage in a gun duel with the castle, while five fireships following them should engage the three sunken men-of-war.
This plan was executed, with the ROTTERDAM grappling the LOYAL LONDON, with two other fireships following, one each setting the ROYAL OAK and ROYAL JAMES on fire. However, the LOYAL LONDON and ROYAL JAMES proved more resistant to fire than the ROYAL OAK, so the Dutch sent in two more fireships in the same way, one to each vessel.
'Edward Gregory, Clerk of the Check at Chatham, wrote to Pepys:
"The destruction of these three stately and glorious ships of ours [he said] was the most dismal spectacle my eyes ever beheld, and it certainly made the heart of every true Englishmen bleede, to see such three Argos' lost." '
By contrast, Engel de Ruyter, Admiral de Ruyter's son, described the burning of the three vessels as " . . . a joy to see."
The ROYAL JAMES, ROYAL OAK, and LOYAL LONDON were burnt to the waterline. However, there is no record of casualties on any of these vessels, excepting Captain Douglas on the ROYAL OAK, probably because of desertion.
James Norman, Clerk of the Survey at Chatham, wrote to Pepys on 17 August 1667 (Rawlinson MS A.195, ff.106-7) assessing the financial cost of the damage done. He did not attempt to estimate the value of the ROYAL CHARLES, ROYAL JAMES, ROYAL OAK, and LOYAL LONDON, deferring to Pepys, although he estimated the value of stores destroyed on the ships at £1,000 at the least.
On 19 July it was decided that the ROYAL JAMES, ROYAL OAK and LOYAL LONDON could be moved to the Thames to be rebuilt; on 15 September the ROYAL JAMES was taken into dry dock at Woolwich. However, the cost of rebuilding her, at £9,800, was considered too great, and her fate was considered: perhaps to become a hulk. Ultimately, however, she was broken up at Chatham in August 1670. (7)
'After the raid it was necessary to clear up the debris of battle. A survey showed that the ROYAL JAMES and the LOYAL LONDON could be salvaged. Having been scuttled they had burnt down to approximately the lower gun-ports. With half of each hull remaining it was decided to rebuild them. At this time the facilities were not available at Chatham, and it was necessary to move them, one to Deptford and the other to Woolwich. Even this was not accomplished without incident and drama.
'In September, when the hulks had been jury-rigged and were ready to start, the crews mutinied and refused to trust themselves "on board two burnt-out wrecks". The Navy Commissioner reported to Whitehall: "The ROYAL JAMES and the LOYAL LONDON being ready to sail, we sent a warrant to Thos. Streton to take charge of the LONDON. He came and threw it at us and refused to go, and Robert Sansum who had a warrant for the JAMES will not go either."
'Eventually fresh crews were found by drafting sixty seamen from ships just come in from sea and together with thirty-three dockyard ropemakers, the remains of the ROYAL JAMES and the LOYAL LONDON set off for the Thames on the 13th September.' (8)
Built as Second Rate RICHARD, reclassed as First Rate 1660. Present at the Battle of Lowestoft (1665), Four Days' Battle and St. James's Day Fight (1666). (10)
Built: 1658 (1)(2)(4)(5)(10)
Where Built: Woolwich (1)(2)
Armament: 82 guns (1)(2); 70 (4); 70 - 82 guns (5)
Owner: Royal Navy [all sources]
Date of Loss Qualifier: Actual date of loss |