Stanhope

[modernknight1]

First post here and about time. I have used your site for research for years, love it, and have recommended it to others!

I need help in identifying any information on a specific ship. This ship seems like a ghostship almost because it's completely elusive to historical record within my extensive research library. It is definitely NOT an RN ship because it would have been listed in Rif Winfield's books if it were. I also have an old book in Spanish which lists late 17th century and early 18th century Spanish ships and she is not there either. This ship may have been renamed after capture but there is no mention of it's original name in the Spanish resources I have. I have been pointed to a Spanish archive that may be of some help and was planning to visit anyway for some other research I am doing. However, I thought I should query this forum before proceeding.

This ship is mentioned in unverifiable secondary and tertiary commentary with no original sources cited to back up claims either way - as either a 70 gun English East India Company ship or a 20 gun English merchantman. Perhaps I should refer to her as British, but in regard to the action she was captured in having occurred after 1707 and before 1714 I always err on the 1714 delineation when categorizing English and British designation.

I find myself favoring the Spanish narrative because there are many listed captures of common English merchantmen throughout the 17th century and into the early 18th. However, capture of a larger ship of 70 guns is extraordinary because that just never (or rarely) occurred for the Spaniards. Also numerous Spanish 17th century naval victories have been virtually ignored or omitted from English historical record. It could be exaggeration however, and that is what I am trying to determine. In addition, I have a hard time believing that a small merchantman would carry the name of Lord Stanhope whose actions of the time were extremely notable. Early on in his military career he enjoyed some interesting and notable military achievements abroad, but then a string of embarrassing defeats. In the end, he was victorious again capturing Minorca and the naval base there for England. He is a controversial figure however because of his debauched private life which was made very public. He was popular with many people however and was a unionist. So in this I can see a private vessel being named after him by a "fan" or by the EIC. I am entering an excerpt of biography below for those who may be interested. Any information on this ship - its building, career, and cited reliable historical/archival source, etc... would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. MK a.k.a. Aaron R. Shields (LTC, US Army retired)

Stanhope’s early life is a bit of a mystery, owing mainly to the paucity of information about his father, Alexander, who has usually been identified as a gentleman of the bedchamber to Queen Catherine of Braganza. However, in November 1673 Sir Joseph Williamson* reported that ‘Mrs Price is to be married to Mr Stanhope, the Queen’s servant’, evidence at odds with Stanhope’s birth that year in Paris where Alexander Stanhope was on a diplomatic mission. After spending some time at Oxford, Stanhope visited his father, now serving as William III’s envoy in Madrid, before embarking on a military career as aide-de-camp to the Duke of Schomberg, then in the employ of the Duke of Savoy. Having fought at Marsaglia in 1693, he returned to England in the hope of securing preferment. His father used his contacts in London, such as William Blathwayt*, secretary at war, and his relatives, particularly the Marquess of Halifax (Sir George Savile†), whose daughter in 1692 had married Lord Stanhope, heir to the 2nd Earl of Chesterfield. Effusive letters to Halifax followed, and eventually in August 1694 Stanhope left England to serve as a volunteer in Flanders. Stanhope’s precocity and bravery (he was wounded at the siege of Namur) brought him to the King’s attention, prompted no doubt by Alexander Stanhope’s solicitations, so that even with the loss of Halifax as a patron he became a lieutenant-colonel in the foot guards. On 22 Jan. 1696, Stanhope, technically an alien on account of his birth in France, attended the Commons to take the oaths preparatory to the introduction of his naturalization bill, which passed the House in February. The end of hostilities saw Stanhope in Flanders engaged in a series of debauched social events, with such future MPs as Thomas Coke*, and then falling foul of the Earl of Portland while part of the latter’s retinue as ambassador to Paris in 1698. His faults included ‘the most extravagant profanation of the Christian religion’ and ‘writing a book for disbanding the army’, sentiments not likely to find favour with William III. However, others were impressed by the young man, John Methuen* informing Alexander Stanhope in May 1698 that he ‘is the gentleman of greatest hope in England and I believe no man of his age hath by his own personal merit, made himself so many friends and rendered himself so universally acceptable’.3

In 1698 Stanhope appears to have made an attempt to enter the Commons for a constituency in Devon, the failure of which cost him £20. By March 1701 Stanhope was residing in Bloomsbury and possibly hoping for a diplomatic posting, John Macky around this time recording that he was ‘very learned, with a great deal of wit. King William designed to send him to the court of Sweden; and he is certainly fit for any negotiation.’ Meanwhile Stanhope had settled on a Whig grandee, the Duke of Somerset, as a new patron and it was on Somerset’s interest that he fought and lost a by-election in February 1702 at Cockermouth. However, even before a petition against his defeat was presented on 14 Mar. Stanhope had been returned for Newport, Isle of Wight, with the aid of Lord Cutts (John*) who had chosen to sit for Cambridgeshire and had placed the military payroll vote at Stanhope’s disposal. Characteristically, Stanhope did not wait long to make his first recorded intervention in the House, and spoke on 19 Mar. in favour of a union as the most acceptable solution to the problem of Scotland and one much preferable to keeping them in check with an army of occupation, with its attendant dangers to English liberties. The speech made a favourable impression on the House, resulting in Stanhope’s inclusion on the committee to bring in a bill enabling the Queen to appoint commissioners to negotiate a union. King William’s death having put an end to his ‘Swedish project’, Stanhope eventually served as a volunteer on the Duke of Ormond’s staff in Spain during the 1702 campaign. Lord Stanhope had thought it unnecessary for Stanhope to volunteer as ‘you have now a rent charge of £400 a year in England’. The Earl of Huntingdon (possibly the source of the £400 p.a.) put Stanhope’s dilemma more bluntly in November when he pondered whether it was the correct course to ‘stay a brigadier in Spain or be a senator this winter in town’. Stanhope obviously agreed that his parliamentary talents should be utilized in London, residence in the capital also serving the purpose of allowing him to advance his claims to a diplomatic post.4

On his return from Spain, therefore, Stanhope played a full part in the Commons. In the 1702 Parliament he cannot always be differentiated in the Journals from Thomas Stanhope* (although James was often referred to as ‘colonel’). He voted on 13 Feb. for agreeing to the Lords’ amendments to the bill enlarging the time for taking the oath of abjuration and acted as a teller on the 19th against adjourning the committee of the whole on the Lords’ bill for supporting the war in the West Indies. Stanhope had clearly made no small impact on public affairs since the author of an attack on the Whigs entitled The Golden Age Revers’d included the following ditty:

Stanhope, that offspring of unlawful lust,
Begot with more than matrimonial gust,
Who thinks no pleasure like Italian joy,
And to a Venus arms prefers a pathetick boy,
Shall thunder in the Senate and the field,
And reap what fame, or arts or arms can yield.

Writing from Vienna in April George Stepney found this very amusing, but thought ‘a man of Colonel Stanhope’s fire ought hardly to put up with’. Back in Flanders for the 1703 campaign, Stanhope continued to lobby for a diplomatic posting, thinking firstly of an appointment to Turin, or as minister attending on the Archduke Charles when he landed to claim his Spanish kingdom. The Duke of Marlborough (John Churchill†) referred Stanhope to Secretary Nottingham (Daniel Finch†), the Duke preferring Lord Galway for the position on offer in Spain. Stanhope persevered, however, soliciting the aid of Somerset, ‘as my best and indeed only patron’, and his father. Nothing came of these efforts and it seemed that the best Stanhope could hope for was leave to be in England during the 1703–4 parliamentary session while preparing his regiment for service in Portugal.5

Stanhope was thus in London before the beginning of the session, and indeed on 28 Oct. 1703 wrote to Robert Walpole II* on behalf of a group of Whigs, to come up to Westminster before Christmas, noting that ‘I fancy we shall have some sport before the king of Spain can sail’. Henry Maxwell writing from Dublin on 23 Nov. felt moved to congratulate Stanhope for the ‘generous reply you made to some grave gentlemen . . . who would have had no particular notice taken in your address of thanks to the Queen’s speech for her conduct in relation to Portugal, Savoy and the circle of Swabia’, a reference to a Tory motion promoted by Sir Edward Seymour, 4th Bt., to make only a general address of thanks. On 25 Nov. Stanhope both spoke and acted as a teller against the motion for leave to bring in a bill against occasional conformity. Having left for Spain, he wrote to Somerset from Plymouth on 16 Jan. 1704 recounting the five days he had spent at sea before a storm had driven them back to port.6

Stanhope and his regiment did eventually escort the Archduke Charles into Spain for the 1704 campaign, but Stanhope himself fell ill and was left behind in Lisbon. His regiment was then captured by the French, so Stanhope returned to England. Sir John Cropley, 2nd Bt.*, writing in September, referred to Stanhope as ‘a skeleton’ when he first came back, but added that he was now recovered and demonstrating a renewed sense of purpose: ‘the Parliament is his mistress, so you may be sure he is under a very strict conduct and will be a perfect example of sobriety’. Stanhope was thus in England when the Commons sat to do business. On 14 Nov. 1704 he ‘spoke to admiration’ against granting leave for an occasional conformity bill. He had been forecast as an opponent of the Tack and did not vote for it on 28 Nov. Despite this useful service to the Court, he found his prospects of promotion to brigadier-general blocked, at least for the moment. On 20 Dec. he was appointed to the committee drafting the bill to naturalize the wife of his fellow officer William Cadogan*. The following day he acted as a teller in favour of giving a second reading the day after the Christmas recess to the Lords’ bill appointing commissioners to treat for a union with Scotland. Stanhope was not always a partisan figure in the Commons, Alan Brodrick† in a letter from Ireland noting that both Walpole and Stanhope had been ‘moderating the heats of politics . . . in the matter of Mr [John] Toke’s being questioned for what passed from him to the Speaker [Harley]’. As might be expected, on matters affecting the army his stance was pro-Court (even when it rejected safeguards for the liberty of the subject), as when he told on 7 Feb. 1705 against bringing up a clause that those who voluntarily enlisted should declare their consent before a justice or head constable. However, he was much more of a Country Whig on the issue of placemen. Thus on 13 Feb. Sir William Simpson wrote that Stanhope and Peter King*, ‘like novices of Whigs, have been very zealous in procuring a bill to pass the House of Commons for disabling men in offices erected since the year ’84 to be members’, a reference to a bill which subsequently lapsed after heavy amendment by the Lords. His indiscretion on this point ‘made it doubtful whether he should be turned out of the post he was in or preferred to a better’, but through the ‘mediation’ of Somerset it was reported that he would secure his promotion to brigadier. The death of his ‘bosom friend’, the Earl of Huntingdon, also in February, saw Stanhope confirmed in his windfall of £400 p.a. to ‘defend the liberty and laws of his country, and the rights of the people’. On 14 Mar. he acted as a teller against agreeing to an amendment to the Lords’ bill preventing the growth of popery that all who took the oaths of allegiance and supremacy and subscribed the declaration in the Act should also declare themselves to be members of the Church of England.7

In April 1705, Stanhope wrote his father an illuminating self-assessment of his parliamentary role:

During all the last sessions I was generally thought to have done the Court as much service as any man in my station, for which not the least countenance or disposition to accept of my last endeavours was ever shown; towards the latter end came on the place bill which I was indeed in opinion always for, and I had met with no usage from those in power to engage me to make them a compliment, so that I appeared strenuously for it and had during the time it was depending some occasions of mortifying the Speaker. In short I may venture to say that I carried it through our House.

In the course of this Stanhope had fallen foul of Speaker Robert Harley* and blamed him for the difficulties with his promotion. However, if Cunningham’s, admittedly rather jaundiced, view is correct in attributing to Stanhope a role in which he

would seldom do any of the courtiers’ dirty work, but pressed to have a clear account of the public money, the succession of the crown as by law established, and the liberties of the people maintained, and everything to be openly and fairly transacted, in order to acquire for himself the reputation of a great patriot . . . and courageously turned the edge of his speech against men who pretended to the name of Whigs, but were staunch courtiers, though he was one of these himself,

then clearly active service abroad was most acceptable to the Court as it would ‘promote my being sent from Parliament’. Re-elected in 1705, he appears to have sold his regiment to John Hill* and served during the summer in Spain under the Earl of Peterborough. Sent home with the news of the capture of Barcelona, he arrived too late for the division on 25 Oct. over the choice of a Speaker, but attended a Cabinet meeting on 25 Nov. wherein it was decided to communicate to the Commons the contents of the Spanish king’s letter in a speech from the throne, which praised Stanhope for his ‘great zeal, attention, and most prudent conduct’. Classed as a placeman on a parliamentary list of 1705, he was also described as a ‘High Church courtier’, a patently absurd characterization. On 7 Dec. he was named to a conference with the Lords on the upper chamber’s resolution that the ‘Church was not in danger’, and on the 15th to draft a bill for paying and clearing the debts of three army officers. On the 19th he spoke in support of the second reading of the regency bill, noting that the specific rules governing the summoning of a Parliament could be dealt with in a committee and drawing a parallel with events in Spain and the failure to provide such a bill preparatory to the demise of Carlos II.8

In the new year, on 17 Jan. 1706, Stanhope acted as a teller in favour of the question that Sir Willoughby Hickman, 3rd Bt.*, was not duly elected for East Retford. More importantly, he was very prominent in the continuing debates on the regency bill: in committee on 10 Jan. he warned (possibly from his own preference for uninhibited debate) that ‘warm expressions may drop in company’, and so advised that widening the definition of treason to include merely ‘speaking, preaching and teaching’ such tenets as that Anne was not Queen, or that Parliament could not alter the succession, should be removed from the bill. Other interventions included speeches on 15 and 19 Jan. on the proposal for a regency; first of all he considered the powers of the regents and the need to avoid an interregnum, and on the latter date the composition of the regency, when he argued that the regents should be named during the Queen’s lifetime and be nominated by her successor, thereby reducing the possibility of any major threat to the succession. Most of these speeches can be interpreted as broadly in favour of the Court. However, Stanhope’s major contribution in these debates was on the provisions relating to placemen, which set a group of Whigs against both their Junto leaders and the Court. On 12 Jan. the House voted to instruct the committee of the whole on the bill to receive a clause explaining the place clause in the Act of Settlement (1701). The tone of Stanhope’s three recorded interventions was in favour of clarifying the legislation. Simpson, writing on the 15th, was already referring to a ‘schism’ among the Whigs, with Sir Richard Onslow, 3rd Bt.*, heading ‘a company of angry Whigs’, including Stanhope, who had been heard to say ‘he hoped to see the day when the Court should not have two negatives to an Act of Parliament, meaning that the officers in the House amounted to one negative’. Stanhope spoke twice when the committee of the whole discussed the ‘whimsical’ clause on 21 Jan. Having passed the committee by 56 votes, the clause was agreed by the House on 24 Jan. and the whole bill passed to the Lords on the following day. The Lords then amended the Commons’ amendments and Stanhope was appointed on 4 Feb. to the committee to draw up reasons why the Commons wished to adhere to one of theirs. The deadlock between the Houses had still not been resolved when around 7 Feb. Stanhope was forced away from Westminster to embark for Spain. Thus, on 17 Feb. he wrote from Plymouth to Cropley about the prospects for the place clause, using the authority of the Greeks to justify his position:

I have learnt from Demosthenes that the . . . sure preservative which a free people can have against the encroachments of tyrants is an eternal mistrust and jealousy. This argument, however unfit to be used in the House, or at a conference, ought to be inculcated to all who mean to preserve themselves freemen.

Stanhope thus was absent from the vital divisions on 18 Feb. over the place clause, but was still at Plymouth on 24 Feb. when he was able to inform Cropley of his surprise and concern at events. He felt that the Lords ‘have granted too much or too little . . . If they had taken our clause . . . it might have secured the administration under this reign from anything of that kind, whereas they have now made a substantial precedent to alter even in this reign’. Further, he regretted ‘how I have sauntered away ten days here. I heartily lament my not having attended our clause to the last.’ Before he set sail, Stanhope had the encouraging news from Cropley that he was seen as a leader of the Whigs on the matter: ‘the remnant of the faithful we are preserving to put in your hands’. Stanhope’s position as a Country Whig at odds with the Court prompted much comment in the following months (while he was away). First of all, there was the very fact of his going as envoy to Spain, a matter Stanhope’s mother had expressed doubt about as late as 12 Jan. Then there were the possible political repercussions: Somerset was reported on 26 Mar. to be ‘dissatisfied on your part in the clause’ which Cropley felt would jeopardize his return for Cockermouth at the next election; furthermore, friends such as Walpole, finding their appeals to Stanhope to desist in pressing the clause unheeded, were opposed to his re-election. However, only a month later, Simpson was reporting that both Somerset and the Duke of Newcastle (John Holles†) were disenchanted with the Junto, ‘out of the cabal and set up for patrons of the virtuous Whigs such as Molesworth [Robert*] and Stanhope’. Some historians have expressed surprise at Stanhope’s role in promoting the ‘whimsical’ clause, but it would seem consistent with his views of the legislature inspired by Greek literature, and as before it was to his personal advantage to let his real views come to the surface. After all, he was spirited out of the country with a plum military and diplomatic posting.9

Having arrived in Spain, Stanhope immediately pressed to be promoted to major-general, a compromise being reached whereby he would receive a commission from Charles III which would have no force when he returned home and thus would not cause uneasiness to officers serving elsewhere. However, as early as July 1706 Stanhope was writing of his ‘daily wish to be discharged from having anything more to do’ with the Spanish administration, and in October wrote of his ‘mortification to see a sure game thrown away’, a feeling of uselessness made worse by the news of his father’s rapidly deteriorating health and the consequent need to return to England to sort out family affairs. The apparent futility of his presence in Spain, plus the attendant expense, saw Stanhope renew his request to come home in December, lest he lose his parliamentary seat by spending another year abroad. Cropley also tempted him by news of prospective land purchases which carried parliamentary interest with them, although he thought the ministry might trump this attraction by offering Stanhope greater powers in Spain. In the new year Stanhope’s requests for a recall again failed to bear fruit, his secretary Horace Walpole and Somerset both apparently convinced that Stanhope was merely using this as a tactical ploy or that he was indispensable at that time. Worse still, the friction between Stanhope and his erstwhile friend Peterborough, which had been evident in 1706, was exacerbated by the defeat of the allies in April 1707 at Almanza. In response, Peterborough wrote to Marlborough concerning the 1707 campaign: ‘Mr Stanhope’s politics have proved very fatal, having produced our misfortunes and prevented the greatest successes’. Paradoxically, the defeat at Almanza increased the likelihood of Stanhope’s recall owing to his potential usefulness in rebutting Peterborough’s criticism of the ministry. With a treaty of commerce successfully negotiated in July 1707, Joseph Addison*, for one, felt Stanhope’s presence in London ‘perhaps necessary in case a certain Earl [Peterborough] should raise any uneasiness in the House of Lords’. Horace Walpole concurred in thinking that the likely Tory attack in the Lords might be better repulsed with the help of Stanhope’s insights. With his father now dying and the death of George Stepney opening up the possibility of a post in Holland (although Stanhope could not realistically be in place quickly enough), a return to England became more urgent. Having been recalled by Sunderland (Charles, Lord Spencer*) in a letter dated 21 Oct., Stanhope reported that he was about to sail for England on 12 Jan. 1708 N.S.10

After his arrival, Stanhope plunged almost immediately into parliamentary battle. On 24 Feb. 1708, with the Tories seeking to exploit the shortfall of troops at Almanza by blaming the debacle on the shortage of recruits, Stanhope and Thomas Erle* gave ‘some account of Spanish affairs that were then in dispute and said it very handsomely’, and thus helped the ministry to defeat a motion critical of their conduct. On 11 Mar. Stanhope ‘made a motion . . . to pass an Act that all vassalages of Scotland whose lords shall rise in rebellion, that if they quit their service and come in to us shall be entitled to whatever lands or tenements they hold under them’, being then named to the drafting committee for the bill. He managed the introductory stages of the bill, chairing the committee of the whole on the 13th. But on reporting the bill from committee on the 15th, news of Sir George Byng’s* success in chasing away the invasion fleet caused Members to adjourn, ‘being so pleased with the news that they could not go on with the debate’. Byng’s success effectively put paid to Stanhope’s ‘project’ which lapsed after being ordered to be engrossed. Stanhope also had a role to play in the political intrigues surrounding Harley’s attempted coup against Lord Godolphin (Sidney†). Probably by virtue of his involvement in the Spanish theatre of the war, Stanhope was in contact with Godolphin over the tactics to be employed in the Almanza debates. On 19 Feb. he told Cropley that ‘our ministers should be supported here’, and showed resentment that Marlborough had almost sacrificed the lord treasurer and joined with Harley’s new scheme. As matters were patched up between the duumvirs, so Stanhope’s own future became clearer. On 2 Mar. he had written to his brother Philip of his determination not to accept a post until he had received payment of his father’s arrears, half of which dated from William III’s reign. Having divided his father’s estate of £4,000 among his siblings, the £6,000 owed his father was to be Stanhope’s own share. However, three weeks later he had been satisfied in this particular and was appointed envoy and commander-in-chief in Spain. He duly set off for the Continent at the end of March.

Stanhope was classed as a Whig in a list of early 1708, and was returned at the 1708 election while abroad. In informing him of his victory, Somerset expressed the hope that Stanhope would be able to return home in time for the parliamentary session. Cropley was more forthright in warning Stanhope that Lord Wharton’s (Hon. Thomas*) manoeuvrings at Cockermouth might eventually threaten his position. However, if previous conflict with the Junto left some Whigs suspicious of Stanhope, the Earl of Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley, Lord Ashley*) could describe him in July as the ‘one truly good man and great man coming up in the world’. Furthermore, for the mainstream Whigs, the Earl of Sunderland felt constrained to write in September of the Queen’s hope that Stanhope would be in England in the winter ‘thinking your presence in the Parliament would be of great use to her service’, and leaving it to his discretion as to whether he could be spared from Spain. In the event, following his victorious capture of Minorca and its valuable naval base at Port Mahon, Stanhope remained abroad for almost the whole of 1709, receiving letters concerning his investments in the Bank and complaining himself about his expenses. Fortunately for his reputation, the difficulties of the Spanish campaign were imputed ‘entirely to that wretched court of Barcelona, and not at all to Mr Stanhope, who seems to me [Godolphin] to have done his part there very well’. As early as November 1709 Shaftesbury was wishing Stanhope at home, and James Craggs II* informed Stanhope that the ministry would be attacked over the failure of its Spanish policy ‘and are persuaded you are the properest person to justify them and put ’em in a good light’. Given this, Stanhope wrote from Genoa on 12 Dec. N.S. to Secretary Sunderland of his intention to come to England.

[Cy]

The only Stanhope I am aware of is an HEIC ship active between 1714 and 1727. So probably not the same ship given the dates.

It's listed, with very limited information, on the EICships site. https://eicships.threedecks.org/ships/s ... shipID=760

[AvM]

With friends we have scanned the complete documentation of Rowan Heckmann
and there is his book "Ships of India Company"

There is only one Stanhope listed by Cy.

[modernknight1]

Thanks very much for the responses. I have been able to find a little more out but not much. This is a badly translated Spanish historical blog: http://abcblogs.abc.es/espejo-de-navegantes/2014/11/18/blas-de-lezo-una-revision-historica/

In addition I found this:

The 20-gun Stanhope...

...according to the English archives it was the 20-gun Stanhope, a merchant frigate with a complement of 40 men. John Combes's letter of marque is dated on 22 November 1710._"http://abcblogs.abc.es/espejo-de-navegantes/2014/11/18/blas-de-lezo-una-revision-historica/" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.37.211.145 (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: on 20 March 1707 in the Mediterranean the HMS Resolution (70 guns) , under heavy attack by a French squadron, was set ablaze by her own crew to avoid capture. One of the British frigates escorting the "Resolution" was the HMS "Milford", under captain Philip STANHOPE, general Stanhope's brother. Captain Philip Stanhope was killed in action on 17 September 1708 off or on Minorca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.198.144 (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I have began researching Captain Combes and am actually finding quite a lot of information as this family is very much into genealogy and record keeping. I wish they had listed which archive because I would very much like to get a copy of whatever source dates his Letter of Marque to 22 November 1710.

I won't bother this forum further on the subject. It is quite amusing that the capture of the Stanhope seems to have been so blown out of historical proportion with several prominent Spanish paintings recording as an event that did not happen even close to the level they so proudly illustrate.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/49225014@ ... ed-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/49225014@ ... ed-public/

If you're wondering, I am performing an in depth survey of Spanish/Portuguese naval victories from the 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries for an index that will appear at the end of a book I have been working on for some years now. This started with a pre-conceived notion I had that the Dutch were nearly undefeated against the Spanish during the 17th century and from a good functional base knowledge of the better known battles I believed their victories to be at the 90 percent plus mark. After six months of digging up every shred I could, they are now setting at between the 65 to 70 percent victory mark. Its amazing how so many of these battles (especially those in the far east) have been almost lost to record.

MK

[Cy]

Letter of Marque for the Stanhope is available at the National Archives

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/browse/r/h/C12751537

HCA 26/15/65 1710 November 22
Commander: John Combes.
Ship: Stanhope Frigate.
Burden: 310 tons.
Crew: 40.
Owners: Thomas Foster and Charles Wilkinson of London, merchants.
Lieutenant: Samuel Atkinson.
Gunner: Richard Hoare.
Boatswain: John Symonds.
Carpenter: Andrew Whitehead.
Cook: Thomas Andrews.
Armament: 20 guns.
Folio: 68

I've now added her to Threedecks and for what it's worth Philip Stanhope's page is here https://threedecks.org/index.php?displa ... n&id=13521