[9] Cf. Sir Phil. Warwick's opinion quoted by Kennett, Hist. iii. p. 217.
[10] Burnet, i. p. 88. There is no trace of Hale's motion in the Journals, but it may have been purposely omitted. Mordaunt in his letter to the king on May 4th seems to be ignorant of what Monk had done, Clar. S. P. iii.
[11] In Egerton MSS., 2618, p. 71. Cf. Hist. MSS. Rep. V., p. 149, and ii. p. 79; Broderick to Hyde, 7th May 1660, Clar. S. P.
[12] Lord Garden says they were from Deane, but this must be a mistake. See his letter to Stirling of Keir, May 24th, 1661, Maxwell MSS., 68, Hist. MSS. Rep. X., i. p. 74.
[13] See Argyle MSS., 80-85, Hist. MSS. Rep. VI., p. 617.
[14] The statement that this action was fought without order rests on a remark which Pepys said was made to him by Penn. Penn had quarrelled with Monk, who was the terror of his party, and he was not present at the action. Jordan wrote him an account of it, but his letter gives the impression of a line carefully following the movements of the admiral (Penn's Life, ii. p. 389; Grumble, p. 423), and this is confirmed by the official account which gives in detail the whole of Monk's elaborate manœuvres, S. P. Dom. clviii. f. 46.
[15] Cf. Watts to Williamson, S. P. Dom. Cal., July 17th, 1667.
[16] London Gazette, April 30th, 1670, by which it also appears that the King intended to raise a magnificent memorial to him.
Transcribers' Notes
Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.