The Duke of York's fleet sailed in April; Sea-fight cruised for a time upon the Dutch coast; and, not finding an opposing armament, captured a few merchantmen, and then returned to the Gunfleet, to refit. On the 30th of May the fleet sailed again, and on the 1st of June reached Southwold Bay, on the coast of Suffolk, when the Dutch fleet, consisting of 113 ships of war, 11 fire ships, and 7 yachts, the whole under the command of Opdam, was visible to windward. That day and the following each fleet reconnoitred, and prepared for action; and early in the morning of the 3d of June the fight began. After many hours of hot encounter, upon Opdam's ship being blown up, the Dutch fled, and were pursued towards their own coast. The victors lost in killed and wounded about 800 men, among whom were Vice-Admirals Lawson and Sampson, and the Earls of Marlborough, Portland, and Falmouth. The Dutch according to Downing's statement, lost not less than fourteen ships and admitted that there had been 400 men killed in those ships which escaped¹. It was a glorious triumph for the English navy; and much more complete might the success have been if the pursuit had been steadily maintained. Downing informed Clarendon that it was said by the Dutch, "that Tromp, and those ships that fled with him, lay three hours without the Texel, for want of water to get in, so that had the English' pursued their victory close, they must have run their ships on ground or quitted them, and then they should not have been able to have made another fleet, God knows when."²

The cause of this delay is remarkable. During the night, while the Duke slept, Brouncker, his groom of the bed-chamber, pretending orders from the Duke, ordered the lieutenant to shorten sail, by which means (the Duke of York's being the leading ship) he retarded the progress of the whole fleet. That Brouncker should have thus acted of his own accord, through fear for himself or for the safety of his royal master, is, prima facie, more probable than that the Duke of York, who professed a wish to prosecute the war with vigour, and had shown himself, on other occasions, not deficient in personal courage, should have issued such an order. But it is remarkable that (according to the statements in the Life of James, compiled from his own papers) until July, when the fleet was again ready for sail, under the command of Lord Sandwich, "the Duke had not heard one word of his ship having shortened sail!" Still more remarkable is it, that it was not till the meeting of the Parliament, in the autumn, "that the Duke first heard what Brouncker had done, in counterfeiting his orders at sea;"³ but most remarkable that, for nearly two years after this grave offence had come to the knowledge of the Duke, and raised in him no small "indignation," Brouncker, who seems to have been the pandar to his pleasures⁴, remained, unpunished, in his service; and was at length dismissed on another account⁵; and thus, for this most grave offence, received no punishment from the Duke at all⁶. No inquiry appears to have been made respecting the conduct of the Duke of York: but it was opportunely discovered that the command of a fleet in time of war was a situation of peril; - that the Duke of York was presumptive heir to the throne; - and that a life so valuable ought not to be endangered. He was therefore prohibited from serving again, and the command, of the fleet was given to the Earl of Sandwich. It must now be inquired by what foreign alliances tlie English government endeavoured to strengthen itself for that war in which it was so unnecessarily engaged.

Note 1. Downing to Clarendon, June 9, 1665. In the Life of James, the Dutch are stated to have lost 20 ships, and about 10,000 men killed and prisoners. (Life of James I, 418.)

Note 2. Downing to Clarendon, June 9 1665.

Note 3. Life of James I. 421, 422.

Note 4. Pepys, iii. 266. 4

Note 5. J Ibid. iii. 335.

Note 6. The Parliament took up the question after Brouncker had been dismissed from the Duke's service, and expelled him from the House of Commons. It was the circumstance of the Parliament having taken cognisance of the offence which, according to the Life of James, "hindered the Duke from having him try'd by a court martial" more than two years after it had come to his knowledge! It is also singularly stated that, "by length of time the prosecution cool'd so, that Brouncker was only turn'd out of the House, nor could the Duke do anything more at that time than to turn him out of his service," it being neither at that time, nor on that account, that Brouncker was dismissed.