72

HISTORY OF MARINE ARCHITECTURE.

reigns was extremely likely to create malice and rancour: but, though it cer-tainly argues some mismanagement that a force so confessedly superior should

permit

14. They farther complain, that the grand fleet sailed on the 10th of August from Portsmouth,and did not take any merchant ships under their convoy.

This was in the year 1706, when the admiral of the fleet had instructions to proceed upon servicesnot fit to be made public, which did consequently render it impracticable for him to take merchantships in his company.

15. Another objection they make, that there was an embargo laid, on their trade and convoys.

It is presumed, that by the word cmlargo they mean that there was some little stop put to theirproceedings, until there could be a more certain account of the intelligence received, that there wasa squadron of the enemies ships in the Soundings, which proved afterwards, as they observed, to beDutch homeward-bound merchant ships from the West Indies.

It cannot be imagined that this caution was designed for their prejudice, but rather intirely for theirservice, as well ?s for the safety of her majesty’s ships : and as they own that the Norfolk, Warspite,and Exeter, did sail with their trade, so did they allege that the Nassau did not join them for wantof necessary orders, for that the fleet did not sail till three in the afternoon, and the Nassaucame to Spithead before night. On the contrary, the Nassau passed through the Downs on the 14thof October, 1706 , and got as far Westward as Folkstone, but the wind coming to the Southward, andthere being a likelihood of dirty weather, she bore up for the Downs the 10 th, from whence she'sailedthe 16th, at fix at night, and arrived at Spithead the 20 th, which was two days after the convoysailed. Their lordships may be pleased to take notice that a Dutch convoy sailed in the beginning ofJanuary, 1705-6, in company with several of her majesty’s ships; that the 25th of February, cap-tain Price sailed with five ships of war; that on the 27 th of March following, Sir George Byng sailedwith a squadron ; that on the 2 Sth of June, four^other ships of war sailed thither ; and that, in July,the merchants petitioned for a convoy to go in Auguft, which was appointed, but afterward un-avoidably stopped.

16. They farther declare, that by reason of the insufficiency of this convoy, several merchantships were taken out of the fleet off Portland; and that afterwards, meeting with bad weather in theBay of Biscay, the Warspite and Exeter became disabled ; and that the trade, except some few ships,proceeded to Lisbon with tlie Norfolk only.

The convoy appointed for the trade, were three ships, one of 80, one of 70 , and one of 60 guns;and as this was thought a sufficient strength, so were there not any more ships to reinforce them ;nor could it be foreseen, that two of the ships would have been disabled in their passage, though ac-cidents of that kind have, and frequently may happen.

17* Another subject of complaint is, that great number of merchant ships were in Portsmouth har-bour in the month of December, 1706 , and detained there, for want of convoy to the Downs, till the24th of April following; notwithstanding several of her majesty’s ships were]at Spithead (whichthey have enumerated) and that others came from the West, and did not call for them ; they particu-:larly mention the Suffolk and Bristol.

All