Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:31:22.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Second Thoughts on the Third Anglo–Dutch War, 1672–1674

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

C. R. Boxer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As the Professor of Modern History at Cambridge observed in his perceptive study of England and the Dutch Wars: ‘The wars themselves demonstrated not a few of the characteristics of modern warfare; there is a foretaste here of the bitter national feeling, the unscrupulous use of propaganda against the enemy, that were to become more familiar later. To some extent these weapons of war were deliberately manufactured and exploited by governments in the time of the Dutch wars, but equally certainly they were sometimes natural and spontaneous phenomena.’ Professor Charles Wilson confined his masterly analysis to the first two Anglo–Dutch wars. In this paper, I propose to consider the same points with reference to the third of these conflicts, and to trace in outline the major shifts and vagaries of public opinion on both sides of the North Sea.

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 19 , December 1969 , pp. 67 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 67 note 1 Wilson, C., Profit and Power: a Study of England and the Dutch Wars (London, 1957), p. 152.Google Scholar

page 67 note 2 Fraser, Peter, The Intelligence of the Secretaries of State and their monopoly of licensed news, 1660–1688 (Cambridge, 1956).Google ScholarCf. also Handover, P. M., A History of the London Gazette, 1665–1965 (London, 1965);Google ScholarMuddiman, J. G., The King's Journalist, 1659–1689 (London, 1923).Google Scholar

page 68 note 1 B. D. Henning (ed.), The Parliamentary Journal of Sir E. Dering, 1670–1673 (1940); Haley, R. H. D., William of Orange and the English Opposition, 1672–1674 (Oxford, 1953);Google ScholarWitcombe, D. T., Charles II and the Cavalier House of Commons, 1663–1674 (Manchester, 1966).Google Scholar The principal foreign sources are listed in Keith Feiling, British Foreign Policy, 1660–1672 (London, 1930),Google Scholar to which may be added Waldemar Westergaard, The First Triple Alliance: the Letters of Christopher Lindenov, Danish envoy to London, 1668–1672 (Yale University Press, 1947), and Calendar of State Papers. Venetian, 1671–72 (1939)Google Scholar; ibid., 1672–75 (1947).

page 68 note 2 The printed gazettes and newspapers are listed in P. Fraser, The Intelligence of the Secretaries of State, pp. 167–69. The foreign manuscript newsletters addressed to Sir Joseph Williamson are filed in S.P. Foreign Newsletters 101/55–101/57.

page 68 note 3 Hollandtse Mercurius, 1650–1690 (41 vols., Haarlem, 1651–1691). The first word of the title is variously spelt Hollandtze, Hollandsche, etc. Each volume was published early in the year succeeding that with which it deals. The editorship was taken over by Abraham Castelyn after his brother's death in 1676.Google Scholar

page 69 note 1 La Gaiette Ordinaire d'amsterdam (Mondays), and La Gaiette d'amsterdam (Tuesdays and Thursdays). Very little is known about La Font, who deserves a more intensive study than he receives in the pioneer (and still standard) work of Eugéne Hatin, Les Gazettes de Hollande et la presse clandestine aux 17e et 18e siècles (Paris, 1865). This book deals only with the French–language Gazettes and is concerned mainly with the eighteenth century.

page 69 note 2 Abraham Castelyn (1628–1681) and Pieter Castelyn (1618–1676) likewise deserve much more research, in order to supplement the meagre information about them and their news–gathering networks in the standard Dutch biographical dictionaries.

page 69 note 3 Knuttel, W. P. C., Catalogus van de Pamfletten–Verzameling berustende in de Koninklijke Bibliotheek, ii, (2), 1668–88 (The Hague, 1895), nos. 9923–10,694. Some of these titles are reprints; but on the other hand, there are a number of pamphlets and broadsides printed in 1672 which are not to be found in Knuttel's Catalogue of those in the Royal Library at The Hague.Google Scholar

page 70 note 1 Sir W. Temple to Sir John Temple, 10 October 1667, apud The Works of Sir William Temple Bart (ed. 1770), i, p. 306.

page 71 note 1 Elias, J. E., De tweede Engelsche Oorlog als het keerpunt in onze betrekkingen met Engeland (Amsterdam, 1930); C. Wilson, Profit and Power, pp. 154–58.Google Scholar

page 71 note 2 Wheatley, H. B. (ed.), Diary of Samuel Pepys, vii (1896), pp. 287, 291, 314. Cf. the Oprechte Rotterdamse Donderdagsche Zee– en Postijdingen, 1 March 1668, under London datelines of 22 and 23 February; Anon., A Free Conference touching the present state of England (1668). Wing F.2112.Google Scholar

page 71 note 3 ‘The rumour has been current here for some time that there is a secret treaty between England and France, under which England is to receive large sums of money from France to carry on war against Holland without the King being obliged to request money from Parliament for the purpose’, as the Danish envoy in London reported on the 27 October 1671 (Westergaard, Waldemar, The First Triple Alliance: the Letters of Christopher Lindenov, Danish envoy to London, 1668–72, Yale University Press, 1947, p. 468).Google Scholar Similar rumours were already circulating in 1669. Cf. Diary of Samuel Pepys (ed. Wheatley, ), viii, pp. 303, 308; Keith Feiling, British Foreign Policy, pp. 297, 315–16; Cal. S.P. Venetian, 1671–1672 (1939), pp. 115–18, 145, 161–62, 167.Google Scholar

page 72 note 1 Vive Oranje (Knuttel, nr. 9687). Despite the title, the writer was a Republican rather than an Orangist.

page 72 note 2 The Present Interest of England stated. By a Lover of his King and Country (London, Printed for D.B., 1671). Wing B.2072. Reprinted 1681 (Wing B.2073). For Slingsby Bethel see the entry in the DNB. Is the London imprint genuine? If not, I suspect this may be one of the ‘seditious pamphlets’ imported from Holland and seized at Newcastle in December 1671. See The Bulstrode Papers, 1667–1675, i, p. 213, letter dated 27 December 1671.Google Scholar

page 74 note 1 The Present Interest of England stated was translated into Dutch and published in the Netherlands shortly after the outbreak of the war, under the title of Engeland's Interest (Knuttel, nr. 10,004). Its publication at Leiden and availability in bookshops at Amsterdam and elsewhere is advertised in the Amsterdamsche Zaterdaghse Courant of the 28 May 1672 and later issues. This Dutch edition is provided with a postscript, ascribed to the same author, denouncing Charles II in trenchant terms for abandoning Holland in favour of a French alliance, and foretelling a disastrous end for him if he does not repent before it is too late (pp. 40–48). It would be interesting to know if this postscript, full of scriptural allusions, was really the work of Slingsby Bethel, the anonymity of the author being retained in the Dutch version.

page 74 note 2 Abbott, W. C., ‘English Conspiracy and Dissent, 1660–1674’, in the American Historical Review, xiv (1908–1909), pp. 503–28, 699–724.Google Scholar Criticism of the Court was not confined to Dissenters. Cf. Lord, G. de Forest (ed.), Poems on Affairs of State. Augustine Satirical Verse, I, 1660–1678 (Yale U.P., 1963), which reflects the widespread uneasiness in all classes.Google Scholar

page 74 note 3 Cf. also the Gazette d'amsterdam of the 12, 18 April, and 5, 9 May; and the Amsterd. Zaterdag. Courant of the 16 April; Cal S.P. Venetian, 1671–72, pp. 178–80, 189.

page 75 note 1 London Gazette of 31 March/10 April, and 11/21 April 1672, for the full text of these proclamations.

page 75 note 2 By and large, the Amsterdam Gazettes seem to have been more informative and outspoken about popular unrest in England than was Castelyn's more cautious (and more objective?) Haerlemse Courant.

page 75 note 3 London Gazette, nr. 669, quoting Hague dispatch of the 16 April 1672.

page 75 note 4 They appear in the English accounts as Zas and Arton, their misadventures being related in Haley, William of Orange and the English Opposition, pp. 67–87. Their proper names were Gerbrand Sas van den Bossche and Willem Arton.

page 76 note 1 Christie, C. B. (ed.), Letters addressed from London to Sir Joseph Williamson, 1673–74 (2 vols., Camden Society, 1874), i, p. 46.Google Scholar

page 77 note 1 Knuttel, nr. 10,008. Reprinted three times in the same year, in addition to a German translation (nrs. 10,009–10,012). The authorship of this anonymous pamphlet was attributed by some contemporaries to Johan de Witt (Colenbrander, H. T. (ed.), Bescheiden uit vreemde archieven omtrent de groote Nederlandsche Zeeoorlogen, 1652–1676, 2 vols., The Hague, 1919, ii, p. 93). Cf. Cal. S.P. Venetian, 1671–72 (1939), pp. 222, 233.Google Scholar

page 77 note 2 An allusion to Sir Edward Spragge's expedition against the Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean, from which he returned at the time of the attack on the Smyrna fleet (Anderson, R. C., Journals and Narratives of the Third Dutch War, Navy Records Society, 1946, pp. 6–9).Google Scholar

page 78 note 1 See the notice on him in the DNB, and sources there quoted.

page 78 note 2 Wing S.6050. The extract which follows is from pp. (9)–(10).

page 79 note 1 Wing S.6046. Stubbe's objective in writing this book is also explained in his letter to Sir Joseph Williamson, dated 8/18 July 1672, calendared in Cat. S.P. Dom., 1672 (1899), pp. 319–20. Cf. also op. cit., p. 284. The book was first published in 1673.

page 80 note 1 A Justification (1672), p. (80). Stubbe explains in his Further Justification (1673), ‘to the Reader’ (no page numeration), that he could not find an accurate copy of St John's speech, so he omitted this and substituted a lengthy [and tendentious] account of the peace negotiations in 1653.

page 80 note 2 A Further Justification (1673), p. (91).

page 80 note 3 For the English reactions to the news of Solebay cf. newsletters of the 30 May/9 June, 1/10, 8/18, 10/20 June calendared in Historical Manuscripts Commission, 12th Report, Appendix, Part VII (1890), Le Fleming MSS., pp. 93–96; Diary of John Evelyn (ed. Beer, E. S. de), iii, 616–20;Google ScholarAnderson, R. C., Journals and Narratives of the Third Dutch War (Navy Records Society, lxxxvi, 1946), pp. 13–22;Google ScholarColenbrander, H. T., Bescheiden, ii, pp. 109–27.Google Scholar

page 81 note 1 ‘I would not neither impeach any man upon general reports and rumours, but however it is observable, that the greatest number of the Dutch commanders are of the opinion, and have often publicly declared, that the French ships were thus kind–used by theirs out of particular respect De Witt's brother had to them’ [P. du Moulin], England's Appeal from the Private Cabal at Whitehall (1673), p. 17. Actually, the very first printed Dutch report of the battle, which emanated from two eye–witnesses in the Zeeland squadron, claimed that ‘the French fought better than the English’ (Broadside Verklaringe, dated the morning of the 9 June 1672, obviously published the same day, probably at Flushing or Middelburg. This item is not in Knuttel, but is in the P.R.O. Library collection of Dutch pamphlets, vol. iv, fl. 763). This version was soon dropped in favour of the allegation that Cornelis de Witt deliberately let the French down lightly, repeated in Knuttel, nrs. 10,282, 10,479, and various contemporary newsletters. Some of the pro–States’ pamphlets contrariwise accused the Orangist Zeelanders and Frisians of Banckert's squadron at Solebay of ‘dragging their feet’ and leaving the Hollanders to do all the fighting (Hollants Venezoen, Knuttel, nr. 10,606, affords a typical example).

page 82 note 1 Knuttel, nrs. 10,455–10,465, for the seven editions of the Worstelinge Jacobs published in 1672. Knuttel, nrs. 10,317–10,391, for some of the vicious anti–De Witt pamphlets published before their murder.

page 82 note 2 For French–occupied Utrecht, see Knuttel, nr. 10,511. The P.R.O. Library collection of Dutch pamphlets, vol. vii, contains an interesting item unrecorded by Knuttel: Waerachtigh Verhael van de Franse Wreedheyt binnen Woerden, onder't beleyt van de Verrader Momba, dated Woerden, 23 September 1672 (Amsterdam, 1672).

page 83 note 1 ‘But I suppose there are very few, but have heard of the wager laid by the Spanish Ambassador in the beginning of the war; and how far the French conduct agreed with his predictions’ (England's Appeal, 1673, p. 17). For the honourable stand taken by the government at Madrid, see Cal. S.P. Venetian, 1671–72 (1939), pp. 173, 190–93.

page 83 note 2 P.(ieter) V.(an) D.(en) B.(erg), Curieuse Beschrijving van verscheyden Oost–Indische Gewesten (Rotterdam, 1677), pp. 133–37.Google Scholar

page 84 note 1 Generale Carga, of ladinge van veertien Oost–Indische Retour–Schepen...den 3 Augusti dezes jaers 1672, alle Godt loff in de Eems voor Delfsyl gerariveert (Amsterdam, 1672). This broadside is not in Knuttel, but is in duplicate in the P.R.O. Library collection of Dutch pamphlets, iv, 1672, nrs. 49 and 50. Cf. also S.P. For. 101/55, newsletters dated 6,9,12 August 1672; Den bedrogen Engelsman (n.p. 1672), for English chagrin at their failure to intercept this fleet, also mentioned in Cal. S.P. Venetian, 1671–72 (1939), pp. 267–68, 274.Google Scholar

page 84 note 2 Oprechte Haerlemse Courant for 27 August (Leiden) and 24 September (Groningen).

page 85 note 1 Haley, K. H. D., William of Orange and the English Opposition, 1672–1674 (Oxford, 1953).Google Scholar

page 85 note 2 Knuttel, nr. 10,909. Wing H.2000. For Joseph Hill see the biographical notice in the DNB. The English edition was printed at Middelburg, the Dutch at Amsterdam, both at the author's expense, as he informs us.

page 86 note 1 The Oprechte Haerlemse Courant of the 25 March 1673 under a London dateline of the 17 March, notes: ‘Ondertusschen zijn eenige bedenckelijcke Schriften, speciaal een dat zeer tegens Vrankrijck spreeckt, aen ‘t Parliament gepresenteert.’ I take this to be a reference to the distribution of England's Appeal. If so, it reinforces the arguments adduced by Haley, op. cit., pp. 98, 105. A French edition, the existence of which is surmised by Haley (p. 101), does in fact exist. There is a copy in the P.R.O. Library collection of Dutch pamphlets, vol. x, 1673, Appel de l'angleterre (Amsterdam, 1673), sm. octavo, 91 pp. A quarto edition of 56 pp. is listed in Knuttel, nr. 10,916.Google Scholar

page 88 note 1 London Gazette, nr. 764, under dateline of Whitehall 4/14 March 1672/73.

page 89 note 1 James Duke of York told Samuel Pepys many years later that De Ruyter was the greatest admiral ‘that ever to that time was in the world, [and] that never reported untruths or spoke less of his enemy than they deserved’ (E. Chappell (ed.), Tangier Papers of Samuel Pepys, 1935, pp. 247, 314).

page 89 note 2 Neither fleet lost a warship in the battle of the Texel (21/31 August 1673) though the English yacht Henrietta was sunk and both sides expended a number of fireships to no purpose.

page 90 note 1 Thus anticipating the action of some of the Spanish prisoners after the battle of Trafalgar, who were so indignant at having been fired on by the French after their badly–battered ships had struck, that they volunteered to serve their English captors when it seemed that the conflict might be renewed—an offer which was accepted, ‘such being the trust that could be placed in Spanish honour’, and they were stationed at the lower–deck gunports.

page 90 note 2 R. Yard to Williamson, 29 August/8 September 1673, in Letters to Sir Joseph Williamson, i, pp. 194–95. Cf. Sir W. Temple to the Earl of Essex, 10/20 September 1673, in Airy, O. (ed.), Essex Papers, i, 1672–1675 (Camden Society, 1890), p. 121.Google Scholar

page 90 note 3 Letters to Sir Joseph Williamson, ii, pp. 1, 9–10, 13–14, 16, 56–57, 59–60.

page 90 note 4 Letters to Sir Joseph Williamson, ii, p. 1. For objective accounts of the naval campaign of 1673 see R. C. Anderson, Journals and Narratives of the Third Dutch War, pp. 27–56, and Bruijn, J. R., De Oorlogvoering ter zee in 1673 in journalen en andere stukken (Groningen, 1966), pp. 21–31.Google Scholar

page 91 note 1 Letters to Sir Joseph Williamson, i, pp. 194–95; op. cit., ii, p. 1.

page 91 note 2 Knuttel, nrs. 10,893–10,898, 11,031–11033, 11,114–11,116; The Haarlem and Amsterdam gazettes for October 1673–March 1674, passim.

page 91 note 3 ‘La Cour, qui est Françoise jusqu'au fagot’, as the Gazette d'amsterdam wrote on the 9 January 1674, under a London dateline of seven days previously. Charles's futile tergiversations and the disintegration of the Cabal ministry can be followed in K. H. D. Haley, William of Orange and the English Opposition, pp. 133–84; D. T. Witcombe, Charles II and the Cavalier House of Commons, pp. 141–65; Cat. S.P. Venetian, 1673–75 (1947), pp. 27–37, 70–71. 100–101, 114, 127–29, 137 et seq.

page 92 note 1 4 or 6,000 copies in a clandestine edition struck off by one London printer, according to a letter dated the 20 January 1674 (apud Haley, op. cit., p. 100). Welle, J. A. Van der, in his excellent study, Dryden and Holland (Groningen, 1962), p. 64, mistakenly argues that Amboina was published on the 26 June/6 July 1673, as that was the date it was entered in the Stationers’ Register. But this entry was only in the nature of staking a claim, and its actual publication is first recorded in the Michaelmas Term Catalogue.Google Scholar

page 92 note 2 Haley, op. cit., pp. 55–57. Many passages in Coffo–Phillo are strikingly similar to others in Carr's An Accurate Description of the United Netherlands (London, 1691),Google Scholar a work first published anonymously under a different title at Amsterdam in 1688, and which had many later editions, down to 1744 at least. Cf. also Carr's Case (Amsterdam, 1670), p. 6. Wing C.147, tentatively identifies Coffo–Phillo as printed at Hamburg, but one of the two copies in the P.R.O. Library (pressmark H.54) has the following autograph note on a flyleaf; ‘This I caused to be printed when I was at Ratesbone and I sent 2 hundred to Hamburg and 3 hundred to Amsterdam to be dispersed.’Google Scholar

page 93 note 1 Apud P. Fraser, The Intelligence of the Secretaries of State, p. 43n. Though dedicated to Sir William Swan, Coffo–Phillo was, somewhat tactlessly, provided with a rather insulting postscript addressed to the States–General.

page 93 note 2 Curran, M. B. (ed.), Dispatches in the P.R.O. of William Perwich, English Agent at Paris, 1669–1677 (London, 1903), p. 215.Google Scholar

page 94 note 1 Partly taken from The Description of the Low Countreys and of the Provinces thereof, gathered into an epitome out of the Historie of Ludovico Guicchardini (London, 1593), and probably from older and fuller editions as well.Google Scholar