486 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE SEA 



and as he took no notice of it, Ossory gave him another 

 and " placed it in him." Sir Robert Holmes, in the St Michael, 

 treated Captain Adrian de Haas, who commanded the convoy, 

 in the same way, and when the latter sent his lieutenant 

 on board the St Michael to ascertain the cause of shooting, 

 he was promptly clapped into the hold, "having, it seems," 

 as the English official account says, " given some saucy language 

 to Sir Robert." 1 The St Michael then poured in a broad- 

 side and the fight began. It continued until night, and was 

 resumed on the following day, when Holmes was reinforced 

 by three other ships, and on the day after that, as the Dutch 

 fleet made its way up the Channel, defending itself with 

 the greatest valour. The English were hopelessly outnumbered. 

 They sank one Dutch man - of - war and captured another, 

 with four or five of the merchant vessels, but all the others 

 safely reached port. The English ships which were beaten 

 off were so terribly battered and cut up that they could 

 scarcely make their way back to the Downs. On the St 

 Michael alone thirty -four men were killed and fifty -six 

 wounded, as well as "a great many" missing. 



Charles was deeply disappointed at losing the booty on 

 which he had calculated. He was further annoyed when 

 he found he could not confiscate the whole of the cargoes 

 actually taken, and which Holmes with vainglorious exagger- 

 ation boasted "would give him credit for 200,000 at least." 

 When the question came to be decided whether the captured 

 ships were lawfully good prize, Holmes and his officers showed 

 the greatest reluctance to be examined. Included in the 

 cargoes were goods belonging to Spaniards and subjects of 

 other nations, but notwithstanding this the Council wished 

 to confiscate everything. Sir Leoline Jenkins, Judge of the 

 High Court of Admiralty, opposed this design with great 

 energy. The confiscation of Dutch ships and property in 

 time of peace might be colourably made under the pretence 

 that the owners refused to strike their flag and were the 

 aggressors. But to condemn neutral goods on board as lawful 

 prize would be, Sir Leoline said, to introduce "a new law 

 of war, not so honourable for us to endure from others when 



1 The account was brought to Court by Lieutenant Churchill, afterwards the 

 great Duke of Marlborough, who was serving under Lord Ossory. 



