diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-02 21:00:55 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-02 21:00:55 -0800 |
| commit | 96f9ed8346446ea35bdc63d59b78f67e4ef3e905 (patch) | |
| tree | f21d4cc6b7febd88625fd8f9204a2a58effce1cd /old/68713-0.txt | |
| parent | 1e264035aede554df85415b0982f02a84683deaa (diff) | |
Diffstat (limited to 'old/68713-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68713-0.txt | 23976 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 23976 deletions
diff --git a/old/68713-0.txt b/old/68713-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 4717330..0000000 --- a/old/68713-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,23976 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of A history of the administration of the -Royal Navy and of merchant shipping in relation to the Navy, by Michael -Morris Oppenheim - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: A history of the administration of the Royal Navy and of merchant - shipping in relation to the Navy - From MDIX to MDCLX, with an introduction treating of the - preceding period - -Author: Michael Morris Oppenheim - -Release Date: August 8, 2022 [eBook #68713] - -Language: English - -Produced by: MWS and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at - https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images - generously made available by The Internet Archive/American - Libraries.) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HISTORY OF THE -ADMINISTRATION OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND OF MERCHANT SHIPPING IN RELATION TO -THE NAVY *** - - - - - - - A HISTORY OF THE ADMINISTRATION - OF THE ROYAL NAVY - - VOLUME I - - MDIX-MDCLX - - - - - A HISTORY OF THE ADMINISTRATION - OF THE ROYAL NAVY - AND OF MERCHANT SHIPPING - IN RELATION TO THE NAVY - - BY M. OPPENHEIM - - VOL I - MDIX-MDCLX - - JOHN LANE THE BODLEY HEAD - LONDON AND NEW YORK - MDCCCXCVI - - - - -[Illustration] - - - - - A HISTORY OF THE ADMINISTRATION - OF THE ROYAL NAVY - AND OF MERCHANT SHIPPING - IN RELATION TO THE NAVY - FROM MDIX TO MDCLX WITH - AN INTRODUCTION TREATING - OF THE PRECEDING PERIOD - - BY M. OPPENHEIM - - [Illustration] - - JOHN LANE THE BODLEY HEAD - LONDON AND NEW YORK - MDCCCXCVI - - J. MILLER AND SON, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH - - - - -CONTENTS - - - PAGE - - _LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS_ viij - - _PREFACE_ ix - - _INTRODUCTION_—THE NAVY BEFORE 1509 1 - - HENRY VIII, 1509-1547 45 - - EDWARD VI, 1547-1553 100 - - MARY AND PHILIP AND MARY, 1553-1558 109 - - ELIZABETH, 1558-1603 115 - - JAMES I, 1603-1625 184 - - CHARLES I, 1625-1649, _PART I_—THE SEAMEN 216 - - —— _PART II_—ROYAL AND MERCHANT SHIPPING 251 - - —— _PART III_—THE ADMINISTRATION 279 - - THE COMMONWEALTH, 1649-1660 302 - - _APPENDIX A_—INVENTORY OF THE _HENRY GRACE À DIEU_ 372 - - —— _B_—THE MUTINY OF THE _GOLDEN LION_ 382 - - —— _C_—SIR JOHN HAWKYNS 392 - - —— _D_—A PRIVATEER OF 1592 398 - - INDEX 401 - - - - -LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS - - - PAGE - - _THE TIGER_ (OF HENRY VIII). HAND-COLOURED IN FACSIMILE - OF A PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL MS. IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, - (_Add. MSS._, 22047) _FRONTISPIECE_ - - WYARD’S MEDAL, 1650. FROM ONE OF THE FOUR REMAINING - MEDALS (BRITISH MUSEUM) _TITLE PAGE_ - - THE SEAL OF THE NAVY OFFICE xiij - - AN ELIZABETHAN MAN-OF-WAR. FROM A CONTEMPORARY DRAWING IN - THE BODLEIAN LIBRARY, OXFORD, (_Rawlinson MSS._, A 192, 20) 130 - - THE _MEDWAY_ ANCHORAGE (_TEMP._ ELIZABETH). HAND-COLOURED IN - FACSIMILE OF A PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL MS. IN THE BRITISH - MUSEUM, (_Cott. MSS._, Aug. I, i, 52) 150 - - - - -PREFACE - - -Of the following pages the Introduction and the portion dealing with the -period 1509-1558 are entirely new. The remainder originally appeared in -the _English Historical Review_, but the Elizabethan section has been -rewritten and much enlarged in the light of fresh material found since it -was first printed, and many additions and alterations have been made to -the other papers. Of the four Appendices three are new. - -Sixteen years ago the _doyen_ of our English naval historians, Professor -J. K. Laughton, wrote, - - ‘Every one knows that according to the Act of Parliament, it is - on the Navy that “under the good providence of God, the wealth, - safety, and strength of the kingdom chiefly depend,” but there - are probably few who have realised the full meaning of that - grave sentence.’[1] - -Since those words were penned, a more widely diffused interest in naval -matters has permeated all classes of society, and there is, happily, a -vastly increased perception of what the Navy means for England and the -Empire.[2] The greater interest taken in naval progress has caused a -new attention to be bestowed on the early history of the Navy, and there -is little apology required for the plan—however much may be needed for -the execution—of a work dealing with the civil organisation under which -the executive has toiled and fought. Whole libraries have been written -about fleets and expeditions, but there has never yet been any systematic -history of the organisation that rendered action on a large scale -possible, or of the naval administration generally, and although its -record does not appear to the writer to be a matter for national pride, -it has its importance as a corollary of—and if only as a foil to—that -of the Navy proper. This work as a whole, is therefore intended to be a -history of the later Royal Navy, and of naval administration, from the -accession of Henry VIII until the close of the Napoleonic wars, in all -the details connected with the subject except those relating to actual -warfare. - -The historical evolution of many of the great administrative offices of -the state, as they exist now, can be, in most cases, observed through -the centuries and the course and causes of their growth traced with -sufficient exactness. Originally a delegation of some one or more -of the functions of the monarch, they have developed from small and -obscure beginnings in the far off past and increased with the growth of -the nation. The naval administration of to-day has no such dignity of -antiquity. It will be for the readers of these volumes in their entirety -to decide whether it has earned that higher honour which comes of loyal -service performed with justice to the subordinates dependent on it, -and with honesty to the British people who have entrusted it with such -important duties. - -The Board of Admiralty came into power subsequent to the period at which -this volume ends. It dates, properly from 1689, or, at the utmost, -reaches back to 1673, but its forerunner, the modern administration which -is the subject of the present volume, sprang full grown into life in 1546 -when the outgrown mediæval system ended. The Admiralty Board is in the -place, and administers the duties, of the Lord Admiral, but that officer -although the titular head of the Navy never had any very active or -continuous part in administration, nor was the post itself a very ancient -one. James, Duke of York, afterwards James II, was the first Lord Admiral -who really took actual charge of domestic naval affairs and the Admiralty -succeeded him, and to his powers, thus overshadowing the Navy Board. -Between 1546 and 1618, the Navy was governed by the Principal Officers, -controlling the various branches of naval work, who constituted the Navy -Board; between 1618 and 1689 we have a transitional period when the Navy -Officers, Commissioners of the Admiralty, Parliamentary Committees, Lord -Admiral, and the King, were all at different times, and occasionally -simultaneously, ruling and directing. The Admiralty now more nearly -represents in function and composition the old Navy Board, abolished -in ignominy in 1832, than the Board of the seventeenth or eighteenth -centuries with which, except in the power still retained by the First -Lord, it has little in common but name. - -Our subject then in this volume, is the Navy Board as the predominant -authority between 1546 and 1660. Although a history of the modern -administration should in exactness, therefore, begin in 1546, an academic -preciseness of date would be obtained at the expense of historical -accuracy since Henry VIII remodelled the Navy, before he touched the -administration. The year of his accession has therefore been chosen -as the starting point. But it should be borne in mind that there is -very much less difference between the great and complex administration -of to-day, and the Navy Board or—as it was then sometimes called—the -Admiralty, of 24th April 1546, than between the Board of 24th April and -what existed the day before. Within the twenty-four hours the old system -had been swept away and replaced; its successor has altered in form but -not in principle. - -The sources of information are sufficiently indicated by the references. -The great majority of them being used for the first time, subsequent -inquiry may modify or alter some of the conclusions here reached. Unless -a date is given in a double form (_e.g._ 20th February 1558-9) it will be -understood to be new or present style, so far as the year is concerned. -Few attempts have been made to give the modern equivalents of the -various sums of money mentioned during so many periods when values were -continually fluctuating. With one exception all the MS. collections known -to the writer, likely to be of value, have been fully examined, but there -are also many papers not available for research in the possession of -private owners. The one exception referred to is the collection of Pepys -MSS., at Magdalene College, Cambridge. An application to examine these -was refused on the ground that a member of the university was working at -them. It is to be hoped that this ingenuous adaptation of the principles -of Protection to historical investigation will duly stimulate production. - -There remains the pleasant duty of thanking those from whom I have -received assistance. To Mr S. R. Gardiner, and Professor J. K. Laughton, -I am obliged for various suggestions on historical and naval questions; -to Professor F. Elgar for information on the difficult subject of tonnage -measurement. I have to thank Mr F. J. Simmons for assistance in the task -of index compilation and proof-reading. - -As this is the first opportunity I have had of publicly acknowledging my -indebtedness to Mr E. Salisbury of the Record Office, I am glad to be now -able to express my sincere gratitude to that gentleman for constant and -cordially given help in many ways during the five years this book has -been in preparation. - -_September 1896._ - -[Illustration] - - - - -INTRODUCTION - -THE NAVY BEFORE 1509 - - -[Sidenote: The Modern Navy.] - -The creation of the modern Royal Navy has been variously attributed to -Henry VII, to Henry VIII, and to Elizabeth. Whichever sovereign may be -considered entitled to the honour, the statement, as applied to either -monarch, really means that modification of mediæval conditions, and -adoption of improvements in construction and administration, which -brought the Navy into the form familiar to us until the introduction of -steam and iron. And in that sense no one sovereign can be accredited -with its formation. The introduction of portholes in, or perhaps before -the reign of Henry VII, differentiated the man-of-war, involved radical -alterations in build and armament, and made the future line-of-battle -ship possible; the establishment of the Navy Board by Henry VIII, -made the organisation of fleets feasible and ensured a certain, if -slow, progress because henceforward cumulative and, in the long run, -independent of the energy and foresight of any one man under whom, as -under Henry V, the Navy might largely advance, to sink back at his death -into decay. Under Elizabeth the improvements in building and rigging -constituted a step longer than had yet been taken towards the modern -type, the Navy Board became an effectively working and flourishing -institution, and the wars and voyages of her reign founded the school -of successful seamanship of which was born the confidence, daring and -self-reliance still prescriptive in the royal and merchant services. - -[Sidenote: The origin of the Navy:—William I.] - -It is not the purpose of this work to deal with the history, of the -Navy previous to the accession of Henry VIII, but no real line of -demarcation can be drawn in naval more than in other history, and it will -be necessary to briefly sketch the conditions generally existing before -1509, and in somewhat more detail, those relating to the fifteenth -century.[3] In the widest sense the first Saxon king who possessed -galleys of his own may be said to have been the founder of the Royal -Navy; in a narrower but truer sense, the Royal Navy as an appanage of -imperial power, and an entity of steady growth, really dates from the -Norman conquest. The Saxon navy although respectable by way of number, -was essentially a coast defence force, mustered temporarily to answer -momentary needs, and lacking continuity of existence and purpose. There -is but one instance of a Saxon fleet being employed out of the four -seas, that which Canute used in the conquest of Norway, and in it the -Scandinavian element was probably larger than the Saxon. With the advent -of William I, the channel, instead of remaining a boundary, became a -means of communication between the divided dominions of one monarch, and -a comparatively permanent and reliable naval force, both for military -transport and for command of the passage between the insular and -continental possessions of the Crown, became a necessity of royal policy. -For nearly two centuries this duty was mainly performed by the men of -the Cinque Ports who, in return for certain privileges and exemptions, -were bound, at any moment, to place fifty-seven ships at the service of -the Crown for fifteen days free of cost, and for as much longer time as -the king required them at the customary rate of pay.[4] These claims, -practically constituting the Cinque Ports fleet a standing force, were -ceaselessly exercised by successive monarchs, and, at first sight, such -demands might seem to be destructive of that commercial progress which -is the primary basis of the growth or maintenance of shipping. But the -methods of warfare in those ages were more profitable than commerce, and -the decay of the Ports was not due to poverty caused by the calls made -upon their shipping for military purposes. The existence of the Cinque -Ports service was indirectly a hindrance to the growth of a crown navy, -since it was obviously cheaper for the king to order the Ports to act -than to man and equip his own vessels; it was not until ships of larger -size and stronger build than those belonging to the Ports were required, -that the royal ships came into frequent use. - -[Sidenote: Results of the Conquest:—Growth of Trade and Shipping.] - -As well as mobilising the Cinque Ports fleet, the sovereign was able to -issue writs to arrest the ships of private owners throughout the kingdom, -together with the necessary number of sailors, when rival fleets had to -be fought or armies to be transported. The Normans, descendants of the -Vikings, must have been better shipbuilders and better seamen than the -Saxons, and the large number of nautical words that can be traced back to -Norman French bear witness to improvements in rigging and handling due to -them. The Crusades must have reacted on the English marine by bringing -under the observation of our seamen the construction of ships belonging -to the Mediterranean powers, then far in advance of the North in the art -of shipbuilding. And during the century which followed the Conquest, the -foreign trade, which is the nursery of shipping, was steadily growing. -Under the Angevin kings the whole coast line of France, from Flanders to -Bayonne, was, with the exception of Brittany, subject to English rule, -and the inter-coast traffic that naturally followed was the greatest -stimulus to maritime enterprise this country had yet experienced. The -result was seen in the Crusade of 1190, when the fleet of Richard I -for the Mediterranean was made up of vessels drawn from the ports of -the empire, but many of them doubtless belonging to the continental -possessions of the crown; and as John certainly possessed ships of his -own, it may be inferred that Richard, and his predecessors also had some. -When a general arrest was ordered, foreign ships were seized as well -as English, and this practice continued as late as the first years of -Elizabeth. Richard I issued, in 1190, regulations for the government of -his fleet. These regulations doubtless only methodised customs already -existing, and as they dealt with offences against life and property bear -the mark of their commercial origin. Offences against discipline must -have been punished by military law and military penalties, and required -no new code. - -[Sidenote: John:—The Clerk of the Ships.] - -During the reign of John we meet the first sign of a naval administration -in the official action of William of Wrotham, like many of his successors -a cleric, and the first known ‘Keeper of the king’s ships.’ This -office, possibly in its original form of very much earlier date and -only reconstituted or enlarged in function by John, and now represented -in descent by the Secretaryship of the Admiralty, is the oldest -administrative employment in connection with the Navy. At first called -‘Keeper and Governor’ of the king’s ships, later, ‘Clerk of the king’s -ships,’ this official held, sometimes really and sometimes nominally, -the control of naval organisation until the formation of the Navy Board -in 1546. His duties included all those now performed by a multitude of -highly placed Admiralty officials. If a man of energy, experience, and -capacity, his name stands foremost in the maintenance of the royal fleets -during peace and their preparation for war; if, as frequently happened, -a merchant or subordinate official with no especial knowledge, he -might become a mere messenger riding from port to port, seeking runaway -sailors, or bargaining for small parcels of naval stores. Occasionally, -under such circumstances, his authority was further lessened by the -appointment of other persons, usually such as held minor personal -offices near the king, as keepers of particular ships. This was a method -of giving a small pecuniary reward to such a one, together with the -perquisites he might be able to procure from the supply of stores and -provisions necessary for the vessel and her crew. - -In the course of centuries the title changed its form. In the fifteenth -and sixteenth centuries the officer is called ‘clerk of marine causes,’ -and ‘clerk of the navy;’ in the seventeenth century, ‘clerk of the -acts.’ Although Pepys was not the last clerk of the acts, the functions -associated with the office, which were the remains of the larger powers -once belonging to the ‘Keeper and Governor,’ were carried up by him to -the higher post of Secretary of the Admiralty. - -[Sidenote: Henry III.] - -With the reign of Henry III we find the royal ships large enough to -become attractive to merchants, who hired them from the king for freight, -perhaps at lower rates than could be afforded by private owners. There -is hardly a reign, down to and including that of Elizabeth, in which -men-of-war were not hired by merchants, and the earlier trading voyages -to Italy and the Levant during the last quarter of the fifteenth -century were nearly all performed by men-of-war let out for the voyage. -The Navy was mainly made up of sailing vessels even before the reign -of Henry III, and by that period many of them possessed two masts, -each carrying a single sail. The conversion of a merchantman into a -fighting-ship was accomplished by fitting it with temporary fore and -after castles, which became later the permanent forecastle and poop, the -addition of a ‘top castle’ or fighting top, and the provision of proper -armament. Doubtless the king’s own ships were more strongly built, and -better adapted by internal arrangements for their work, than the hired -merchantmen. The supreme government of the Navy in the thirteenth and -fourteenth centuries was in the hands of the King’s Council, who ordered, -equally, the preparation and fitting of ships and the action of the -admirals commanding. These officers, known during the greater part of -the thirteenth century as keepers or governors of the sea, were usually -knights or nobles in command of the soldiers. While holding commission -they appear to have had jurisdiction in the matter of discipline on -board their fleets, but not of law suits or maritime causes until 1360; -before that date such causes were dealt with at common law.[5] There -were usually two, one having charge of the East, the other of the South -Coast, but occasionally, an officer had a particular section placed under -his care, such as the coasts of Norfolk and Suffolk. Their period of -service was commonly short and often only for a special employment. The -maintenance of a fleet was a part of the King’s Household expenses; in -the Wardrobe Accounts for 1299-1300 are the amounts paid for fifty-four -vessels and their crews hired for the conveyance of stores for the Scotch -war. - -[Sidenote: Galleys.] - -Galleys, although frequently mentioned, were at no time a chief -portion of our fleets. Large fleets were mainly composed of impressed -merchantmen, and galleys are expensive and useless for trading purposes -compared with sailing ships; the natural home of the galley was the -landlocked Mediterranean, and even there its utility was limited to -the summer months, so that it was still less suitable for Northern -latitudes. But the great difficulty was in manning them. Forced labour by -captives taken in the continual warfare normal amongst the states on the -Mediterranean littoral solved that problem for them, but here the cost -of the free oarsman, to whom the drudgery was in any case distasteful, -was prohibitive. We shall see that, down to the close of the sixteenth -century, attempts were at various times made to form such a service, but -always unsuccessfully, and the supreme moment of the galley service, so -far as it ever existed here, was the reign of Edward I.[6] This king -steadily increased the strength of the Navy. In 1294 and 1295 galleys -were built by him at York, Southampton, Lynn, Newcastle and Ipswich, -of which at least two pulled 120 oars apiece. Perhaps the experiment -was conclusive for, neither as regards number or size do such ever -occur again. Although Edward III had one or two built, most of those he -employed were temporarily hired from the Genoese or from Aquitainean -ports, and the total number bore a very small proportion to the sailing -vessels in his fleets. The records of the first years of Edward II show -that the crown possessed at least eleven vessels, all sailing ships, but -the circumstances of the reign were not conducive to the growth of a -Royal Navy, although there seem to have been ten ships in 1322. - -[Sidenote: Edward III:—Relative estimation of Army and Navy.] - -A far-seeing statesmanship in relation to the political value of -sea-power has been attributed to Edward III on the strength of the -victories of 1340 and 1350, and of two lines of a poem, written nearly -a century later, referring to the gold noble of 1344.[7] This view -assigns to Edward a knowledge, in the modern sense, of ‘the influence of -sea-power on history’ greater than that possessed by such a statesman as -Edward I, and a policy in connection with maritime matters of which the -results, at anyrate, were directly the opposite of his intentions. The -claim to be lord of the narrow seas was not a new one, and was as much -and merely a title of dignity as any other of the sovereign’s verbal -honours, not following the actual enforcement of ownership but consequent -to the fact of the channel lying between England and Normandy.[8] And it -was a title also claimed by France. There is no sign in the policy of -the early kings of any perception of the value of a navy as a militant -instrument like an army, or any sense of the importance of a real -continuity in its maintenance and use. Society was based on a military -organisation, but there was no place in that organisation for the Navy -except as a subsidiary and dependent force. Fleets were called into being -to transport soldiery abroad, to keep open communications, or to meet -an enemy already at sea, but the real work of conquest was always held -to be the duty of the knights and archers they carried from one country -to another. There is no understanding shewn of the ceaseless pressure -a navy is capable of exercising, and the disbandment of all, or the -greater part, of the fleet was usually the first step which followed the -disembarkation of troops or a successful fleet action. In an age when -the land transit of goods was hampered by innumerable disadvantages, -the position of England, dominating the natural way of communication -between the prosperous cities of the north and their customers, was -one of splendid command had its far-reaching political possibilities -been realised. That they did not comprehend a function only understood -many generations later cannot be made a subject of censure, but it has -a distinct bearing on the question of Edward’s superiority in this -matter to his predecessors and successors. In the same way as theirs the -methods of Edward III were directed to conquests by land, and, once the -troops were transported or an opposing fleet actually in existence was -crushed, the Channel was left as bare of protection to merchantmen, and -as destitute of any power capable of enforcing the reputed sovereignty of -the narrow seas, as it remained down to the days of the Commonwealth. -Beyond the fact that in 1340 and 1350 Edward commanded in person, where -his predecessors had been represented by deputies, his action in relation -to the Royal Navy differs in no respects from theirs. The gold noble of -1344, into which so much meaning has been read, was struck in combination -with the people of Flanders for political and trading purposes, and in -connection with Edward’s intrigues to obtain their financial and military -support. It is noteworthy that in December 1339, six months before the -battle of Sluys, Flanders, Brabant, and Hainault, agreed that a common -coinage should be struck, and this, in all probability, marks the first -inception of the noble when Edward realised the purposes to which a -common coinage for England and the Low Countries might be made to work. -In 1343 the Commons petitioned for a gold coin to run equally in England -and Flanders and thus strengthened the king’s purpose. But the ship on -this coin, the noble, was obviously an afterthought since the florin, the -first issue of the same year, called in on account of its unpopularity, -bore the royal leopard on the whole and half noble and the royal crest on -the quarter one; if therefore the king meant all that is supposed to be -implied by the device it occurred to him very suddenly and subsequent to -the first, and deliberately thought out, issue.[9] All that the writer of -the _Libel of English Policie_ says is that, in 1436, the noble proves to -him four things. Further reasons, in relation to other passages of the -poem, will be adduced on a later page to show that his work is only one -more instance among the many in which individual and unofficial thinkers -have been in advance of the statesmanship of their age and whose views, -ignored by their contemporaries have become the accepted opinions of a -subsequent period. - -[Sidenote: Edward III:—Commercial policy in relation to shipping.] - -The commercial policy of Edward III was emphatically not one of -protection to English shipping, being a nearer approach to free trade -than existed for centuries after his death. During the greater part of -his reign the needs in ships for his campaigns were supplied from the -accumulations of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, the second of -which was not necessarily disastrous to commerce. But when these were -exhausted it was found that a system which had aimed merely at obtaining -a highest possible yearly revenue for the purpose of supporting armies -had, whether or not in itself, fiscally praiseworthy resulted in the -ruin of English shipping. In 1372 and 1373, the Commons complained of -the destruction of shipping and the decay of the port towns, and it is -collateral evidence of Edward’s real lack of insight into the value of a -marine—its slow creation and its easy loss—that some of the causes to -which they attributed these circumstances were directly due to a reckless -indifference to, or ignorance of, the only conditions which could render -a merchant marine, subject to conscription, possible.[10] Vessels, -they said, were pressed long before they were really wanted, and until -actually taken into the service of the crown, ships were idle and seamen -had to be paid and supported at the expense of the owners; the effect of -royal ordinances which had driven many shipowners to other occupations, -and the decrease in the number of sailors due to these and other causes, -formed further articles of remonstrance.[11] - -The year which saw the decease of the ‘Lord of the Sea,’ was marked -by the sack of Rye, Lewes, Hastings, Yarmouth, Dartmouth, Plymouth, -Folkestone, Portsmouth, and the Isle of Wight, a sufficient commentary -on the title, and an adequate illustration of the system which had left -absolutely no navy, royal or mercantile, capable of protecting the coasts. - -[Sidenote: Payment of hired ships.] - -In 1378 the Commons again attributed the defenceless state of the kingdom -not so much to the late king’s impressment of ships as to the losses and -poverty caused by non-payment, or delay in payment for their use, and -lack of compensation for waste of fittings and stores. Every meeting -of Parliament was signalised by fresh representations, and that of -1380 obtained a promise that owners should receive 3s 4d a ‘ton-tight’ -for every three months, commencing from the day of arrival at the port -of meeting; in 1385 this allowance was reduced to two shillings, and -remained at that rate, notwithstanding frequent petitions for a return to -the older amount, for at least half a century.[12] It is not known when -the payment of 3s 4d a ton was first introduced, nor on what principle -it was calculated, but, in 1416, the Commons said that it ran ‘from -beyond the time of memory.’ The following petition, undated, but probably -belonging to one of the early years of Henry IV, shows that it was older -than the Edwards, and, incidentally, yields some interesting information: - - ‘To the very noble and very wise lords of this present - Parliament very humbly supplicate all owners of ships in this - kingdom. That whereas in the time of the noble King Edward - and his predecessors, whenever any ship was commanded for - service that the owner of such a ship took 3s 4d per ton-tight - in the three months by way of reward for repair of the ship - and its gear, and the fourth part of any prize made at sea, - by which reward the shipping of this kingdom was then well - maintained and ruled so that at that time, 150 ships of the - Tower were available in the kingdom;[13] and since the decease - of the noble King Edward, in the time of Richard, late King - of England, the said reward was reduced to two shillings the - ton-tight, and this very badly paid, so that the owners of such - ships show no desire to keep up and maintain their ships, but - have them lying useless; and by this cause the shipping of this - kingdom is so diminished and deteriorated that there be not in - all the kingdom more than 25 ships of the Tower.’[14] - -They then beg a return to the old rates. We may gather from this document -that, at some time during the reign of Edward III there were one hundred -and fifty large fighting ships available, and there is some reason to -believe that, both in number and size, the fourteenth and fifteenth -century navy has been too much underrated when compared with that of the -sixteenth century. At least one merchantman of the time of Edward III was -of three hundred tons, others were of two hundred, and it will be shown -that, in the middle of the fifteenth century, the number and tonnage of -merchant vessels will compare favourably with any subsequent period up -to, and in fact later, than the accession of Elizabeth. - -[Sidenote: The close of the xiv century:—The French Navy.] - -While, under Richard II, the guard of the seas was maintained with -chequered success by hired ships, the French, under the able rule of -Charles V, not only possessed a navy but had founded a dockyard at Rouen -completely equipped according to the ideas of the age.[15] Thirteen -galleys and two barges are mentioned in this account, with all the tools, -fittings, and armament necessary for building, repairing, and equipment, -and constituting a complete establishment such as did not exist in -England until more than a century later. The accession of Charles VI, -and the internal dissensions which culminated in Azincourt, determined -an essay not again attempted on the Northern or Western coasts until the -ministry of Richelieu. - -[Sidenote: Richard II and Henry IV.] - -The first Navigation Act,[16] ‘to increase the Navy of England which is -now greatly diminished,’ by making it compulsory for English subjects to -export and import goods in English ships, with a majority of the crews -subjects of the English crown, can only be regarded as a suggestion of -future legislation. In fact, it was practically annulled by a permissive -amendment the following year. More disastrous to merchants than the -losses due to warfare were the operations of the pirates who swarmed on -the Northern Coasts of Europe during these centuries, and who appear to -have become unbearably successful during the reign of Henry IV. This -king appears to have cared little for his titular sovereignty of the -seas, ignored every petition of Parliament for redress of the especial -grievances affecting shipowners, and used such fleets as he got together, -as his predecessors had used them, simply as a means of transporting -troops to make weak and useless attacks at isolated points. Tunnage and -poundage had been first levied by an order of Council in 1347, and year -by year following, by agreement with the merchants; from 1373 it became -a parliamentary grant of two shillings on the tun of wine, and sixpence -in the pound on merchandise, for the protection of the narrow seas and -the support of the Navy.[17] The tunnage and poundage now given was, if -applied at all to naval purposes, not used with the least success. It -was then, in May 1406, together with the fourth part of a subsidy on -wools, handed over to a committee of merchants, who undertook the duty of -clearing the seas for a period of sixteen months. The arrangement between -the king and the committee was quite an amicable one, but in October -of the same year Henry withdrew from the agreement, and it is doubtful -whether the members of the committee ever received any portion of their -outlay. - -[Sidenote: Growth of Trade and Shipping.] - -If the Norman Conquest gave the first great impulse to English over-sea -trade, the events of the close of the fourteenth and first half of the -fifteenth centuries may be held to mark the second important era in the -development of merchant shipping by the opening up of fresh markets. -Hitherto the products of the countries of the Baltic had been mainly -obtained through the agency of the merchants of the Hansa, who had their -chief factory in London, with branches at York, Lynn, and Boston. In -the same way English exports found their way to the north only through -Hansa merchants and in Hansa ships. For two centuries they had held a -monopoly of the purchase and export of the products of the north, by -virtue of treaties with, and payments made to, the northern powers, and -an unlicensed, but very effective, warfare waged on all ships which -ventured to trade through the Sound. But the war against Waldemar III of -Denmark, the depredations of the organised pirate republic known as the -Victual brothers, followed by the struggle with Eric XIII of Sweden, were -times of disorder lasting through more than half a century, from which -the Hansa emerged nominally victorious but with the loss of the prestige -and vigour that had made its monopoly possible. While it was fighting -to uphold its pretensions the Dutch and English had both seized the -opportunity of forcing their way into the Baltic, and when, in 1435, the -Hansa extorted from its antagonists a triumphant peace the real utility -of the privileges thus obtained had passed away for ever. - -Coincidently with these events economic changes were taking place at -home which, by favouring the accumulation of capital, had also a direct -influence on the demand for shipping. The temporary renewal of possession -in the coast line of France was a spur to trade with it in English -bottoms. The growth of the towns, the necessity the townsmen experienced -for the profitable use of surplus capital, and the slow change, -which commenced under Edward III, in the national industry from wool -exportation to cloth manufacture, were all elements which found ultimate -expression in increased export and import in native shipping.[18] -Possibly the most important factor in the change was the commencing -manufacture of English cloth, instead of selling the wool to foreign -merchants and buying it back from them in the finished state.[19] During -the reign of Henry V, English ships were stretching down to Lisbon and -the coast of Morocco, and British fishermen were plying their industry -off Iceland. Not long afterwards the first English trader entered the -Mediterranean, and the numerous entries in the records relating to -merchant vessels show the flourishing state of trade. By example, and -doubtless by persuasion, Henry himself assisted in the renewal. - -[Sidenote: Henry V:—The Royal Ships.] - -Under Henry’s rule the crown navy was increased till in magnitude it -exceeded the naval power of any previous reign; the character of the -vessels, bought or built, shows that they were provided for seagoing -purposes rather than the mere escort or transport of troops which had -been the object of preceding kings, and which object would have been -equally well served by the hired merchantmen that had contented them. The -king himself hired at various times many foreign vessels, but purely for -transport purposes. - -The following, compiled from the accounts of Catton and Soper, -successively keepers of the ships, is a more complete list of Henry’s -navy than has yet been printed:—[20] - - +------------------------------------+-------+-------+------+ - | SHIPS | Built | Prize | Tons | - +------------------------------------+-------+-------+------+ - | _Jesus of the Tower_ | | | 1000 | - | _Holigost of the Tower_ | 1414 | | 760 | - | _Trinity Royal of the Tower_ | 1416 | | 540 | - | _Grace Dieu of the Tower_ | 1418 | | 400 | - | _Thomas of the Tower_[21] | 1420 | | 180 | - | _Grande Marie of the Tower_ | | 1416 | 420 | - | _Little Marie of the Tower_ | | | 140 | - | _Katrine of the Tower_ | | | | - | _Christopher Spayne of the Tower_ | | 1417 | 600 | - | _Marie Spayne of the Tower_ | | 1417 | | - | _Holigost Spayne of the Tower_ | | 1417 | 290 | - | _Philip of the Tower_ | | | | - | _Little Trinity of the Tower_ | | | 120 | - | _Great Gabriel of the Tower_ | | | | - | _Cog John of the Tower_ | | | | - | _Red Cog of the Tower_ | | | | - | _Margaret of the Tower_ | | | | - +------------------------------------+-------+-------+------+ - | CARRACKS | Built | Prize | Tons | - +------------------------------------+-------+-------+------+ - | _Marie Hampton_ | | 1416 | 500 | - | _Marie Sandwich_ | | 1416 | 550 | - | _George of the Tower_ | | 1416 | 600 | - | _Agase of the Tower_ | | 1416 | | - | _Peter of the Tower_ | | 1417 | | - | _Paul of the Tower_ | | 1417 | | - | _Andrew of the Tower_ | | 1417 | | - +------------------------------------+-------+-------+------+ - | BARGES | Built | Prize | Tons | - +------------------------------------+-------+-------+------+ - | _Valentine of the Tower_ | 1418 | | 100 | - | _Marie Bretton of the Tower_ | | | | - +------------------------------------+-------+-------+------+ - | BALINGERS | Built | Prize | Tons | - +------------------------------------+-------+-------+------+ - | _Katrine Breton of the Tower_ | | 1416 | | - | _James of the Tower_ | 1417 | | | - | _Ane of the Tower_ | 1417 | | 120 | - | _Swan of the Tower_ | 1417 | | 20 | - | _Nicholas of the Tower_ | 1418 | | 120 | - | _George of the Tower_ | | | 120 | - | _Gabriel of the Tower_ | | | | - | _Gabriel de Harfleur of the Tower_ | | | | - | _Little John of the Tower_ | | | | - | _Fawcon of the Tower_ | | | 80 | - | _Roos_ | | | 30 | - | _Cracchere of the Tower_ | | | 56 | - +------------------------------------+-------+-------+------+ - -It will be noticed that there is no galley in this list; one is referred -to in the accounts, but had apparently ceased to exist, her fittings -being used for other ships. Oars occur among the equipments, but probably -in most cases, for the ‘great boat’ which with a ‘cokk’ was attached -to each vessel. Few cannon were carried—if the schedules represent the -full armament—the _Holigost_ six, the _Thomas_ four, the _George_ and -_Grace Dieu_ three each, the _Katrine_ and _Andrew_ two. The inventories -of stores at this date show very little difference from the preceding -century in the character of tackle and gear, nor is there any great -alteration for some two centuries from 1350. English vessels were, on an -average, smaller at this time than either Italian, Spanish, or German. -The tomb of Simon of Utrecht, a Hansa admiral who died in 1437, has a -sculpture of a three-masted vessel; if any of Henry’s were three-masted -they were certainly the first of that class in our service. The statement -of Stow, however, that the vessels captured in 1417 ‘were of marvellous -greatnesse, yea, greater than ever were seen in those parts before that -time,’ is, if patriotic, as absurdly incorrect as some other of his naval -information. The payments for hired ships show that vessels of 400 and -450 tons, belonging to Dantzic and other ports, were taken up for the -transport of troops and, putting aside the tonnage of some of the English -ships, there is no reason to suppose that the North German traders were -the largest of their kind. The prizes of 1416 were Spanish and Genoese -carracks in French pay, captured by the Duke of Bedford in the action of -15th August off the mouth of the Seine;[22] those of 1417 by the Earl of -Huntingdon in that of 25th July. - -The tonnage of the English built ships shows that there was now a well -marked tendency to increase in size, probably due to Henry’s initiative. -The usual measurement, in the fifteenth century, of a barge was about -sixty or eighty tons, and of a balinger[23] about forty. But a man-of-war -balinger might be much larger as in the _Nicholas of the Tower_, the -_George_, and the _Ane_. There is very little information as to the -conditions under which Henry’s ships were built. The _Trinity Royal_, -_Grace Dieu_, _Holigost_ and _Gabriel_ were certainly constructed at -Southampton, the two last named under the supervision of William Soper, -then merely a merchant of the town, who remained many years unpaid the -money advanced by him for that purpose; in April 1417 he was given an -annuity of twenty marks a year, doubtless by way of reward.[24] The -_Thomas of the Tower_ was rebuilt at Deptford in 1420; the _Jesus_, and -the _Gabriel Harfleur_ were rebuilt at Smalhithe, in Kent, but in years -unknown. The hulls of several of the ships were sold or given away before -the end of the reign. - -At one time the king seems to have commenced building abroad. There is -a letter of 25th April 1419 from John Alcetre, his agent at Bayonne, -describing the slow progress of the work upon a ship there and the sharp -practices of the mayor and his associates who appear to have undertaken -the contract. Alcetre anticipated that four or five years would elapse -before its completion, and it is quite certain that it was never included -in the English navy. The most noteworthy points in the details given, -are the lengths over all and of the keel—respectively 186 and 112 -feet—so that the fore and aft rakes, together, were 74 feet, just about -two-thirds of the keel length. - -[Sidenote: Henry V:—The Grace Dieu.] - -The only one of Henry’s ships of which the name is still remembered -is the _Grace Dieu_, and she was, if not the largest, probably the -best equipped ship yet built in England. She was not constructed -under the superintendence of either Catton, the official head of the -administration, or of Soper, and with two balingers, the _Fawcon_ and -the _Valentine_, and some other work cost £4917, 15s 3½d.[25] Besides -other wood 2591 oaks and 1195 beeches were used among the three vessels -and for the various details mentioned, and it is to be remarked that, -although the _Grace Dieu_ must have represented the latest improvements, -she, like the others, appears to have had only one ‘great mast’ and -one ‘mesan,’[26] but two bowsprits. These carried no sails and were -probably more of the nature of ‘bumpkins’ than spars. She was supplied -with six sails and eleven bonnets, but their position when in use is -not described, and some of them were perhaps spare ones. The order to -commence her was placed in Robert Berd’s hands in December 1416, when -Catton was still keeper and Soper was engaged in naval administration. It -would appear to be entirely subversive of discipline and responsibility -to distribute the control among three men, each of whom possessed -sufficient position and independence to ensure friction, and we can only -guess that the motive was pecuniary. - -[Sidenote: The Administration.] - -The first keeper of the ships under Henry V was William Catton by Letters -Patent of 18th July 1413, who from the third to the eighth year of the -reign of Henry IV had been bailiff of Winchelsea, and who subsequently -held the bailiffship of Rye conjointly with his naval office. He was -succeeded from 3rd February 1420 by the before-mentioned William Soper. -Berd’s name only occurs in connection with the _Grace Dieu_. The river -Hamble, on Southampton water, was then, and down to the close of the -century, the favourite roadstead for the royal ships lying up, and -was defended at its entrance by a tower of wood which cost £40,[27] a -storehouse with a workshop[28] was also built at Southampton, and one -existed in London near the Tower. If the vessels were not built in royal -yards or by royal workmen we may infer the control of a crown officer -from the fact of a pension of fourpence a day having been granted, when -broken down in health, to John Hoggekyns, ‘master-carpenter of the king’s -ships,’ and builder of the _Grace Dieu_, the first known of the long line -of master shipwrights reaching down to the present century. - -The fittings of ships do not differ materially from those quoted by Sir -N. H. Nicolas under Edward III; we find a ‘bitakyll’[29] covered with -lead, and pumps were now in use. Cordage was chiefly from Bridport, but -occasionally from Holland, and Oleron canvas was bought abroad. Flags -were of St Marie, St Edward, Holy Trinity, St George, the Swan, Antelope, -Ostrich Feathers, and the king’s arms. The _Trinity Royal_ had a painted -wooden leopard with a crown of copper gilt, perhaps as a figure head. -The largest anchor of the _Jesus_ weighed 2224lb. The balingers, besides -being fully rigged, carried sometimes forty or fifty oars, twenty-four -feet long apiece, for use in calms or to work to windward. But even a -vessel like the _Trinity Royal_ had forty oars and a large one called -a ‘steering skull,’ to assist the rudder we may suppose. The fore and -stern stages were now becoming permanent structures. Two ‘somerhuches’ -were built on the _Holigost_ and _Trinity Royal_. Somerhuche was the -summer-castle or poop of the early sixteenth century, and the cost, £4, -11s 3d, equivalent now to some £70, seems too great for a mere timber -staging.[30] Sails were sometimes decorated with the king’s arms or -badges, but probably only in the chief ships and for holiday use. - -[Sidenote: Henry VI:—The Sale of the Navy.] - -After the death of Henry V one of the first orders of the Council was -to direct the sale of the bulk of the Royal Navy.[31] Modern writers -who hold that the spirit of the ‘Libel of English Policie’ was that -representing the ideas of the time must explain this startling contrast -between fact and theory. The truth is that the ‘Libel’ described, not -existing conditions, but those that the writer desired should exist; the -whole poem is a lament over past glories and an exhortation to retrieve -the maritime position of the country, but the poet did not look at what -lay behind a couple of victories at sea and the capture of Calais.[32] -After the real triumphs of Henry V and the memories associated with -Edward III, the state of things in the Channel doubtless appeared very -evil, although they were hardly worse during the reign of Henry VI than -was usual, and not nearly so bad as under James I and Charles I. The poem -was really an attempt to obtain continuity in naval policy, a thing of -which the meaning is, even now, scarcely understood, and which in 1436, -when the man-at-arms was the ideal fighting unit, had as little chance -of being accepted and carried out as though it had preached religious -toleration. - -[Sidenote: Changed character of the Keeper’s appointment.] - -By Letters Patent of 5th March 1423, William Soper, merchant of -Southampton, a collector of customs and subsidies at that port, and mayor -of the town in 1416 and 1424, was again appointed ‘Keeper and Governor’ -of the King’s ships, under the control[33] of Nicholas Banastre, -comptroller of the customs there; no such clause existed in the patent of -1420. For himself and a clerk Soper was allowed £40 a year, but Banastre -was not given any salary. The appointment is noteworthy for more than one -reason. It is the first, and apparently the only, instance in which a -keeper of the ships acted under the supervision of another officer little -his superior in the official hierarchy, and it, with the previous patent -of 1420, marks the commencement of a custom frequent enough afterwards -of naming well-to-do merchants to posts in the administrative service of -the navy. Besides greater business capacity such a man was useful to the -government in that he was expected to advance money, or purchase stores, -on his own credit when the crown finance was temporarily strained. -There is little doubt that Soper’s appointment was of this character, -and that his salary, was really by way of interest on money advanced by -him for the construction of the _Holigost_ and _Gabriel_, and for other -purposes, years before. The first named ship was built in 1414, the -other perhaps later, but it was not until 1430 that he received the sum -which represented the final instalment of their cost.[34] By the will of -Henry V the whole of his personal possessions were ordered to be sold -and the proceeds handed over to his executors to pay his debts. They -received, in 1430, one thousand marks from the sale of the men-of-war, -the remainder of the money obtained from this source being retained by -Soper in settlement of his claims dating from 1414. - -[Sidenote: The Navy a personal possession of the King.] - -The transaction is interesting both as showing that the Council did not -consider the men-of-war—if compulsorily put up to auction under the -will—of sufficient importance to buy in, and as illustrating the fact -that the royal ships were personal possessions of the sovereign in which -the nation had no interest of ownership. Tunnage and poundage had been -granted for ‘the safe keeping of the sea,’ but the application of the -money was at the discretion of the king. He might use it to pay hired -merchantmen or he might build ships of his own with it, or with the -revenue of the crown estates to fulfil the same purpose; in neither case -had Parliament any voice in the employment of the money. While calling -upon the Cinque Ports to fulfil the conditions of their charters and -impressing merchant ships throughout the country, he might keep his -own navy idle; there was no national right to profit by its existence. -The tunnage and poundage grant did not interfere with the king’s title -to seize every ship in the kingdom, and was only an attempt to secure -payment to owners, and the wages and victualling of the crews; it in no -way placed upon him the responsibility of providing ships, the supply -of which was ensured by the unrestricted exercise of the prerogative, -and that prerogative was not used any less frequently because of the -existence of the tunnage and poundage. As years passed on and the power -of the trading classes increased, and the need for specialised fighting -ships grew greater, they made their ethical right to the use of the -navy for ordinary purposes felt in practice and implicitly recognised -by the crown. Hence the distinction became less and less marked but the -note of possessive separation between the ‘King’s Navy Royal’ and the -trading navy which was, legally, also the king’s and is so referred to -in sixteenth century papers, is to be traced to as late as 1649. Since -that date the title ‘Royal Navy,’ although associated with our proudest -national memories is, historically, a misnomer as applied to the navy of -the state. - -[Sidenote: Piracy.] - -In 1425, Parliament raised tunnage and poundage to three shillings on -the tun of wine and one shilling in the pound on merchandise, at which -rate it continued. Probably very little of it was applied to the specific -purpose for which it was given, the struggle for the crown of France -absorbing every available item of revenue for the support of armies; in -1450 one of the articles against the Duke of Suffolk was that he had -caused money given for the defence of the realm and safety of the sea -to be otherwise employed. There still remains a sufficient number of -complaints and petitions to show to what little purpose our maritime -forces were used. In 1432, the Commons formally declared that Danish -ships had plundered those of Hull, to the amount of £5000, and others -to £20,000 in one year, and requested that letters of reprisal might -be issued.[35] Such attempts to clear the Channel as the government -recognised sometimes bore a suspicious resemblance to piracy legalised -by success. In 1435, Wm. Morfote of Winchelsea petitioned for a pardon, -having been, as he euphemistically put it, ‘in Dover Castle a long time -and afterward come oute as wele as he myghte,’ and then, ‘of his gode -hertly intente,’ had been at sea with 100 men to attack the king’s -enemies. He found it difficult to obtain provisions which seems to have -been his only motive in asking for a pardon. The answer to the petition, -while granting the pardon for ‘an esy fyne,’ more plainly calls him an -escaped prisoner.[36] He was member for Winchelsea in 1428. - -Although Parliament was continually complaining of foreign piracy there -can be no doubt that English seamen had nothing to learn, in that -occupation, from their rivals. ‘Your shipping you employ to make war upon -the poor merchants and to plunder and rob them of their merchandise, -and you make yourselves plunderers and pirates,’ said a contemporary -writer.[37] By a statute[38] of Henry V, the breaking of truce and safe -conduct was made high treason, and a conservator of safe conducts, who -was to be a person of position enjoying not less than £40 in land by the -year, was to be appointed in every port. Under Henry VI, safe conducts -were freely granted to neutrals to load goods in enemies’ ships, and -protests were made by the Commons about their number and that they were -not enrolled of record in the court of chancery and so led to loss and -litigation. - -[Sidenote: Henry VI:—Merchant Shipping.] - -Notwithstanding the normal drawbacks of piracy and warfare, the over-sea -trade of the kingdom seems to have been steadily expanding. A branch -of traffic which employed many vessels, and must have been a valuable -school of preparation for the longer voyages of the next generation, was -what may be called, the pilgrim transport trade. The shrine of St James -of Compostella was then the favourite objective of English external -pilgrimage and there are innumerable licenses to shipowners to carry -passengers out and home. In 1427-8 twenty-two licenses were granted, and -in 1433-4 the number reached 65;[39] in 1445, 2100 persons were carried -there and back.[40] Some of the licenses were granted to Soper, who was -engaged in the business as well as in ordinary trade to Spain, and it -is to be remarked that they were sometimes issued during the winter -months—January, February, March,—showing that English seamanship was -outgrowing the tradition of summer voyages. In 1449 we have the first -sign of the bounty system on merchant ships of large size which, in the -next century, systematised into five shillings a ton for those of 100 -tons and upwards. John Taverner of Hull, had built the _Grace Dieu_, and -in that year, was allowed certain privileges in connexion with lading the -vessel in reward for his enterprise.[41] The document seems to imply that -she was a new ship, but in 1444-5, she was exempted from the harbour dues -at Calais because drawing too much water to enter the harbour,[42] and is -probably referred to in 1442.[43] - -There are two most valuable papers still existing which enable us to -form some idea of the number and size of the merchantmen available -for the service of the crown. The first of June 1439[44] is a list of -payments for ships taken up for the transport of troops to Aquitaine, -and is unfortunately mutilated in some places. Its contents may be thus -classified:— - - +----------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ - | |Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons| - | | 100| 120| 140| 160| 200| 240| 260| 300| 360| - | +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ - | London | | | 2 | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | - | Hull | | 2 | | | | | 1 | | 1 | - | Saltash | | | | | | | 1 | | | - | Plymouth | | | | | 1 | | | | | - | Exeter | | | | | 1 | | | | | - | Fowey | | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | | | | - | Bideford | 1 | | | | | | | | | - | Bristol | | 2 | | | | | | | | - | Penzance | | 1 | | | | | | | | - | Barnstaple | | | 1 | 1 | | | | | | - | Southampton | | | 1 | | | | | | | - | Winchelsea | 1 | | | | | | | | | - | Ipswich | | | 1 | | | 1 | | | | - | Ash | | | | 2 | | | | | | - | Lynn | | | | 1 | | | 1 | | | - | Boston | | | | 1 | | | | | | - | Teignmouth[45] | | 1 | | | | | | | | - | Unknown[46] | | | 1 | 2 | | 2 | | | | - +----------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ - -Twenty-two other vessels are of eighty tons, twenty of sixty, and six are -under forty tons; in two cases the tonnage is not given, nine more are -foreign including two from Bayonne, then an English possession, and ten -entries are nearly altogether destroyed. - -The next list, of 1451,[47] is also one of vessels impressed for an -expedition to Aquitaine:— - - +---------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ - | |Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons| - | | 100| 120| 140| 160| 180| 200| 220| 260| 300| 350| 400| - | +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ - | London | | | | | | | 1 | | 3 | 1 | | - | Bristol | | | | | | | | 1 | | | | - | Southampton | 2 | | | | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | | - | Dartmouth[48] | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | 2 | 1 | | | | 1 | - | Plymouth | | 2 | | 2 | | 1 | | | | | | - | Lynn | | | | | | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | | - | Fowey | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | | | - | Looe | 1 | | | | 1 | | | | | | | - | Weymouth | | 1 | | | 1 | | | | | | | - | Penzance | | | | | | | | 1 | | | | - | Falmouth | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | - | Portsmouth | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | - | Winchelsea | | | 1 | | | | | | | | | - | Ash | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | - | Hoke | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | - | Calais | 1 | | | | | 2 | | | | | | - +---------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ - -One vessel of one hundred and forty, one of two hundred, and one of -two hundred and twenty tons belong to places unnamed, and there are -twenty-three ships of from fifty to ninety tons. - -There are, then, at least thirty-six ships in the 1439, and fifty in the -1451, list of one hundred tons and upwards. It must be remembered that -they are not schedules of the total available reserves drawn up during -a naval war, with an enemy’s fleet at sea, or under the pressure of a -threatened invasion, but merely represent the number of vessels required -to transport a certain military force, and form only a proportion—whether -large or small we know not—of the maritime strength of the country. -Certainly the numbers for Bristol did not represent the total resources -of that city, and Newcastle and Yarmouth, to name only two flourishing -ports, do not occur in either list. Assuming the method of tonnage -measurement to have been the same during the fifteenth and sixteenth -centuries we have here registers which will compare favourably, both in -number and size of vessels, with those of the earlier twenty years of -the reign of Elizabeth,[49] and imply a naval force superior in extent -to anything existing during the greater part of the sixteenth century. -There is contemporary evidence from a French author, one therefore not -likely to be more than just to England, as to the flourishing condition -of the merchant marine during the reign of Henry VI.[50] The author makes -the English herald claim that his countrymen ‘are more richly and amply -provided at sea, with fine and powerful ships than any other nation of -Christendom, so that they are kings of the sea, since none can resist -them; and they who are strongest on the sea may call themselves kings.’ -The answer of the French herald, too long to quote, after admitting that -‘you have a great number of fine ships,’ is only devoted to showing that -France possesses all the natural advantages which go to the formation of -maritime power, and that the French king, ‘when he pleases,’ would become -supreme at sea. Obviously down to the time of the loss of the English -conquests in France, and the outbreak of the wars of the Roses, the wave -of prosperity which commenced with the century had not altogether spent -its force. - -Great or small, the progress was, at anyrate, not a bounty-fed one, since -shipowners were experiencing the usual difficulties in obtaining payment -merely for the use of their vessels. The bill for ships provided in 1450, -came to £13,000, nearly one fourth of the yearly revenue of the crown, -but the Treasury, exhausted by the ceaseless demands made upon it by the -garrisons in France could not pay.[51] The king, therefore, appealed to -his creditors and has left it on record that as £13,000 was a sum - - ‘Wyche myght not esely be perveyed at that tyme wherefore - we comauded oure trusty and welbelovid Richard Greyle of - London and others to labour and entrete the seyd maistres, - possessores, and maryners for agrement of a lasse sume, the - wych maistres, possessores, and maryners by laboar and trete - made with hem accordyng to our seid comaundement agreed hem to - take and reseve the sume of £6,200 in and for ful contentacyon - of their seid dutees; and bycause the seid £6,200 myght not at - that tyme esely be ffurnysshed in redy mony we graunted to ye - seid maistres and possessores by oure several letters patentes - conteynyng diveise sumys of money amountyng to the sume of - £2,884 that they, their deputees or attornies shold have to - reseyve in theire owne handes almaner of custumes and subsidies - of wolle, wollefell and other merchaundises comyng into dyverse - portes.’[52] - -This was perhaps all they obtained of the £13,000, and such incidents, of -which this was doubtless only one, explain the discontent of the trading -classes with the house of Lancaster. Shipowners and merchants might be -trusted, in the long run, to take care of their own interests, but the -seamen were more helpless, and it may be supposed that if employers had -to accept less than a fourth of their dues the men did not fare better -if as well. Their protests were sometimes neither tardy nor voiceless. -The murder of Bishop Adam de Moleyns at Portsmouth on July 9, 1450, is -directly attributed to an attempt to force sailors to accept a smaller -amount than they had earned, and the bias towards the house of York, -shown by the maritime population generally, may be ascribed to this cause. - -[Sidenote: Henry VI:—The Royal Ships hired out.] - -Henry V had not considered it beneath the dignity of the crown to hire -out his ships to merchants for voyages to Bordeaux and elsewhere when -they were not required for service; the Council of Regency, therefore -did not hesitate to follow the same course. In 1423 the _Holigost_ was -lent to some Lombard merchants for a journey to Zealand and back for -£20; and the _Valentine_ from Southampton to Calais for £10.[53] As the -_Holigost_ was of 760 tons a rate of £300, in modern values, or about -eight shillings a ton for a voyage probably occupying nearly two months, -cannot be considered excessive, and does not imply any great fear of sea -risks, whether from man or the elements. - -[Sidenote: And sold.] - -In the meantime, in virtue of the Council order of March 3, 1423, the -destruction of a navy progressed merrily. During 1423 the following -vessels were sold to merchants of London, Dartmouth, Bristol, -Southampton, and Plymouth, and, from the prices, many of them must have -been in good condition[54]:— - - _George_ (Carrack), £133 6 8 - _George_ (Balinger), 20 0 0 - _Christopher_, 166 13 4 - _Katrine Breton_ (Balinger), 20 0 0 - _Thomas_, 133 6 8 - _Grande Marie_, 200 0 0 - _Holigost_ (Spayne), 200 0 0 - _Nicholas_, 76 13 4 - _Swan_, 18 0 0 - _Cracchere_, 26 13 4 - _Fawcon_, 50 0 0 - -Anchors and other stores were sold and, in 1424, the storehouse and -forge at Southampton went for £66, 13s 4d; if there were to be no ships -there was certainly no reason to keep up any establishment for their -repairs. In the same year eight other vessels, mostly described as -worn out, followed their sisters. They were sold for very low prices -and the description of their state may be exact, although two at least -were nearly new, and what we know of administrative methods in later -times does not warrant an implicit faith, especially under a Council of -Regency. When a 550 ton ship, like the _Marie Sandwich_, brought only -£13, it must be assumed that she was almost worthless even for breaking -up, or that the proceedings were not devoid of collusion. - -[Sidenote: Henry VI:—Subsequent Naval Administration.] - -We have no record of the expenditure for the first years of Henry’s reign -but, from 31st August 1427 to 31st August 1433, the sum of £809, 10s 2d -was spent by Soper for naval purposes, being an average of £134, 18s 4d -a year.[55] The _Trinity Royal_, _Holigost_, _Grace Dieu_, and _Jesus_ -were still in existence, but dismantled and unrigged at Bursledon. -Apparently there were no officers attached to them, or at Southampton, -of sufficient experience to assume responsibility, since Peter Johnson, -master mariner of Sandwich, was paid for coming to superintend the -removal of the masts of the _Grace Dieu_. The _Trinity Royal_ was so far -unseaworthy and useless as to be imbedded in the mud of the river Hamble, -and fifteen Genoese and other foreign master mariners were employed about -dismasting her. There seems at this time to have been some purpose of -rebuilding the _Jesus_, because she was taken to a dock lately prepared -at Southampton, and, of the whole amount before mentioned, £165, 6s 10d -was laid out in unrigging her, towing to Southampton, expenses of dock, -etc. As the sails and stores of the vessels sold in 1423-4 were still -under Soper’s care, a new storehouse, 160 feet long and 14 feet broad, -was built at Southampton. That at London had not been closed in 1423, -possibly because it may have been within the precincts of the Tower, and -much of the equipment of the four great ships still remaining was kept in -it. - -During the four years ending with the 31st August 1437, £96, 0s 2½d was -received from the Exchequer and £72, 1s 6d from the sale of cordage, -etc., belonging to the ships;[56] the expenditure was £143, 6s 5¾d. For -the two years ending 31st August 1439, the outlay on the Royal Navy was -£8, 9s 7d. The ‘Libel of English Policie,’ which is now held to have -represented the views of the governing statesmen was therefore given to -the world when the estimates for the crown navy averaged £4, 4s 6½d a -year. - -Economy had been further exercised by the discharge of the shipkeepers -as superfluous, and possibly one of the results of this careful thrift -was the destruction of the _Grace Dieu_ by fire, while lying on the mud -at Bursledon, during the night of the 7th January 1439.[57] Some loose -fittings were saved and 15,400lbs. of iron recovered from the burnt -wreck. Soper’s next account, from 31st August 1439, ends on 7th April -1442, during which time he received £3, 10s from the Exchequer and £3, 0s -11¾d for 1222lbs. of lead from the ships. The disbursements were £4, 16s -4d, chiefly incurred in breaking up the cabins[58] on the _Trinity Royal_ -and _Holigost_ and taking away the timber; the _Jesus_ appears to have -been too far perished to experience even this fate.[59] - -From 7th April 1442, Soper was succeeded by Richard Clyvedon, a yeoman -of the crown[60] by Letters Patent, dated 26th March 1442, but at the -smaller fee of one shilling a day which had been received by Soper’s -predecessors. In all probability Soper’s salary was very irregularly, if -at all paid, and an official outlay which averaged some £1, 10s a year, -offered few opportunities in the way of perquisites to a prosperous -merchant. For five years and ninety days, from 7th April 1442 until 6th -July 1447, the receipts were £61, 2s 7d, all from the sale of stores -originally belonging to the vessels sold in 1423-4; no expenses of any -sort had to be met since the bare hulks of the _Jesus_, _Trinity_, and -_Holigost_, still existing were left to take care of themselves.[61] The -next and last accounts continue for the following four years and nine -months to the 7th April 1452, when they cease. The amount received was -£73, 11s 4½d, again altogether from the sale of stores; the expenditure -was £16, 12s 10d, mostly referable to the cost of a chain fixed across -the Hamble.[62] As only the rotting hulls of the _Trinity_ and _Holigost_ -now remained, it is difficult to estimate its value so far as they were -concerned, but for the first time for nearly forty years, there were now -fears of French reprisals. - -[Sidenote: Henry VI:—The Substitutes of the Navy.] - -It must not, however, be supposed that because the Royal Navy was not -kept up, no measures were taken to protect maritime interests. The -predecessors of Henry V had employed a combination of royal and impressed -ships; Henry V apparently intended to increase the crown navy until -it was powerful enough to enable him to rely on it for every purpose -but that of transport. Rightly or wrongly the Protector and Council -adopted a different system and one which was continued through all the -political changes of the reign. Instead of keeping up a royal force, or -of pressing ships and placing them under the crown officers, indentures -were entered into now and again with certain persons supposed to be -competent to provide under their own command an agreed number of ships -and men to keep the sea for a specified time. In favour of this plan it -was perhaps argued that it was cheaper than any other, and that it should -prove sufficiently effective as the coast of France was either in English -occupation or belonged to a neutral or ally in the Duke of Brittany, -and that an expensive Royal Navy was unnecessary when a French navy was -impossible and only the ordinary rovers of the sea had to be met and -destroyed. Against it might be urged that, besides the delay inevitable -to the process of collecting merchantmen at a given _rendezvous_, it was -the object of the persons undertaking the work to make a profit on the -bargain and that they would probably minimise effort, time, and expense, -as much as practicable. So far as the scanty evidence enables us to judge -it is possible that, until the loss of the French coastline, the plan, -had it been carried on under the authoritative supervision of an able -and honest crown official, might have worked successfully. Doubtless the -economy promised was the final argument because, once the Royal Navy -had been suffered to perish, there was never throughout the reign any -financial possibility of restoring it. By 1433 the royal expenses were -nearly double the revenue; and the Lord Treasurer, Cromwell, told the -King, ‘nowe daily many warrantis come to me of paiementes ... of moche -more than all youre revenus wold come to thowe they wer not assigned -afore; whereas hit aperith by your bokes of record which have been -showed that they have been assigned nygh for this eleven yeere next -folowyng.’[63] - -As many of the debts of Henry V for hire of ships and men’s wages were -still unpaid, the conditions were evidently not favourable to the direct -action of the crown either in replacing its own navy or taking ships into -pay. An intermediary of recognised position to whom a payment was usually -at once made on account, doubtless inspired more confidence in owners and -men. Although not the first in point of time, the commission of Sir John -Speke by an agreement of 2nd May 1440, is noticeable in that the service -was apparently the first in which the men were paid and victualled at a -weekly rate, one and sixpence a week wages and the same for victuals.[64] -For at least two centuries the rate had been threepence a day, with -usually an additional sixpence a week ‘reward,’ and this reduction of -pay seems to imply that there were plenty of men to be obtained. In -1442 the Commons themselves arranged the period—2nd February to 11th -November—during which a fleet was to be at sea, and even designated the -ships which were to serve, together with the allowances to officers and -men.[65] There were to be eight ships, all merchantmen, manned by 1200 -men, and each of the eight was to be attended by a barge and balinger -having respectively 80 and 40 men apiece. There were also four pinnaces. -One of the ships is the _Nicholas of the Tower_ of Bristol. ‘Of the -Tower’ was the man-of-war mark, and this is the only one found in the -lists of merchantmen of the century. The _Nicholas of the Tower_ of Henry -V was sold to some purchasers belonging to Dartmouth, but may have passed -into Bristol ownership. It was the crew of this vessel, usually described -as a man-of-war, who seized and executed the Duke of Suffolk on his -passage to Flanders when exiled in 1450. - -The seamen’s pay, two shillings a month, if not an error of entry, -can only be explained by the expectation of a liberal division of -prize-money, one half of which was to be shared among masters, -quartermasters, soldiers and sailors. The other half was divided -into thirds, of which two went to the owners and one to the captains -and under-captains. The victualling was now one and twopence a week. -The captains and under-captains were military officers; there was no -ship-captain in the modern sense although the master, whose pay was -sixpence a day, was his nearest equivalent. The conditions were beginning -to slowly change during this century, but hitherto the fighting had been -done on board ship by the soldiers embarked for the purpose. The duty -of the sailors, whether officers or men, was only to handle the vessel -at sea or in action. The fleet does not appear to have put to sea till -August, although the undertakers, Sir William Ewe, Miles Stapylton, and -John Heron, were receiving money for its preparation in June.[66] In 1445 -the charges for the passage of Margaret of Anjou when she came to share -the crown do not show the same tendency to lower wages; masters were -still paid sixpence a day, but the men received one and ninepence a week -and their sixpence ‘reward,’ and pages (boys) one and three halfpence -a week.[67] During the winter of 1444-5 a Cinque Ports squadron was -in commission from September to the following April, and this must be -almost the last instance of the performance of the ancient service of the -ports in a complete manner. Twenty-six vessels were provided—four from -Hastings, seven from Winchelsea, four from Rye, Lydd, and Romney, two -from Hythe, three from Dover, five from Sandwich, and one from Faversham, -numbers which perhaps indicate the relative importance of the towns at -this time. The whole cost of the fleet was only £672, 9s 1½d, while -Margaret’s journey was considered worth £1810, 9s 7½d.[68] The tonnage -of the Cinque Ports vessels is not given, but that they were of no great -size may be inferred from the small number of men in each. - -In 1449 Alexander Eden and Gervays Clifton, afterwards Treasurer of -Calais, were entrusted with the care of the Channel and, although their -deeds have left no mark in history, they were considered so satisfactory -at the time that, in the following year, Clifton was granted a special -reward of four hundred marks for his good service. In 1450 Clifton and -Eden were again performing the same duty and, in 1452, Clifton and -Sir Edward Hull. Certainly there was now every reason for redoubled -vigilance. Between 1449 and 1451 the English Conquests in France had -gone like a dream; only Calais was left, and that was considered to be -imminently threatened. Notwithstanding loans, mortgages of revenues, and -money obtained by pawning the crown jewels, the government owed £372,000, -while the receipts from the crown estates were not more than £5000 a -year, and the yearly charge of the household alone was £23,000. If we -add to these facts a saintly king, and an inefficient government, the -first mutterings of the storm of civil war, and a foe, exhausted it is -true, but eager for vengeance, we are able to partly picture the extent -of the losses in honour and prosperity which made one of the first acts -of the Duke of York, when created Protector on 27th March 1454, the -appointment of a fresh commission to guard the seas. On the following -3rd April, the tunnage and poundage for three years was assigned to the -Earls of Salisbury, Shrewsbury, Wiltshire, Worcester, and Oxford, the -Lords Stourton and Fitzwalter, and Sir Robert Vere, for that purpose.[69] -That immediate action might be taken a loan of £1000 was raised in the -proportions of London £300, Bristol £150, Southampton £100, Norwich and -Yarmouth £100, Ipswich, Colchester and Malden £100, York and Hull £100, -New Sarum, Poole and Weymouth £50, Lynn £50, Boston £30, and Newcastle -£20, to be repaid out of the tunnage and poundage.[70] - -[Sidenote: Henry VI:—The Civil War.] - -In 1455, the first battle of St Albans was fought and there was no -further question of naval matters until Edward IV was on the throne. -Naval power appears to have had but little influence on the result of -the wars of the Roses, nor, except at one moment, is the command of the -sea shown to be a factor of any great importance in the struggle. Such -as it was the Yorkists possessed it, as owners and seamen both affected -the white Rose, but the Lancastrians seem never to have experienced -any difficulty in obtaining necessary shipping, when in power on land, -during the years of war. In 1459, however, when York fled to Ireland, -and Warwick to Calais, the attachment the seamen generally felt for -the latter enabled him to hold his own there and in the Channel, which -perhaps had no inconsiderable influence on the final issue. The naval -weakness of the Lancastrians compelled them, instead of protecting the -English coasts off the French ports, to issue commissions to array the -_posse comitatus_ in the maritime counties to repel invasion, and the -sack of Sandwich in 1457, by the Seneschal de Brézé was an outcome of the -changed conditions. But Warwick’s fight on 29th May 1458, with a fleet of -Spanish ships of more than double his strength, and his capture of six -of them, though little better than open piracy, was a sharp reminder that -English seamen had not lost the spirit which animated their fathers, and, -under the right conditions could still emulate their deeds.[71] - -Unless the merchant marine had degenerated very rapidly there must have -still been plenty of seagoing ships available in English ports, but -the subjoined Treasury warrant perhaps indicates the difficulty the -Lancastrians experienced in chartering ships and obtaining men. On 5th -April 1460, Henry was once more king and his adversaries in exile, and an -order of that date directs the officials of the Exchequer that ‘of suche -money as is lent unto us by oure trewe subgittes for keping of the see -and othire causes ye do paye to Julyan Cope capitaigne of a carake of -Venise nowe beinge in the Tamyse £100 for a moneth, and to Julyan Ffeso -capitayne of a nother carrake of Jeane[72] being at Sandwich £105 for a -moneth the which two carrakes be entretid to doo us service.’ This is -of course not conclusive because foreign vessels were at times hired by -all our kings although English ships were available. But in June 1460 -the Lancastrian Duke of Exeter, with a superior force, met Warwick at -sea, but did not venture to attack him, being unable to trust his men. -If, therefore, the men were not reliable there was good reason for the -employment of foreigners. - -[Sidenote: Henry VI:—Results of the Contract System.] - -Administering the navy by contract had been tried and found wanting; it -had never been resorted to before and was never used again. It had proved -expensive and ineffective. There can be little doubt that had one half -the money wasted in spasmodic efforts been devoted to the maintenance of -a small but efficient royal force, always ready for action, the results, -if less profitable to the intermediaries, would have been better for the -nation. But before all and above all, whatever plan was adopted, there -was necessary the hand to control and the brain to govern. The military -organisation had been systematised for centuries and would go on working -more or less easily whatever the personal qualities of the ruler. The -Navy was not yet to the same extent an organised and permanent force, and -its strength in any reign was still dependent on the initiative of the -sovereign. Henry obtained canonisation at the expense of the lives and -prosperity of his subjects, of his followers, and of his son. It had been -better for them if he had possessed more of the sinful strength of a man -and less of the flaccid virtue of a saint. - -[Sidenote: Henry VI:—Docks, etc.] - -There is nothing known positively of any improvements in the form or -equipments of ships during this reign. There are no inventories in detail -between the time of Henry V and the first years of Henry VII. But while -in the first quarter of the fifteenth century we find that men-of-war -possess, at the most, two masts and two sails, carry three or four guns, -and one or two rudimentary bowsprits, at the close of the same century -they are three or four masters with topmasts and topsails, bowsprit and -spritsail, and conforming to the characteristics and type which remained -generally constant for more than two centuries. It is quite certain that -no sudden transition occurred; the changes came slowly with the passing -years, but they have left no traces in the records. Whether docks were -used in England before the fifteenth century may be doubtful, but the -word is in common use in the reign of Henry V, although it did not denote -what we now understand by such a structure. Its derivation from the Low -Latin _Diga_ a ditch, more exactly indicates its character, but the word -was employed in more than one sense, and even after the construction -of the first dry dock at Portsmouth in 1496, we find in the sixteenth -century an arrangement of timber round a ship in the Thames, to protect -her from the ice, called a dock. The _Nomenclator Navalis_ of 1625 -describes a wet dock as ‘any creek or place where we may cast in a ship -out of the tideway in the ooze, and then when a ship hath made herself -(as it were) a place to lie in we say the ship hath docked herself,’ a -description which much more nearly portrays the dock of the fifteenth -century than the dry dock of to-day. The following details of a dock for -the _Grace Dieu_ in July 1434 are perhaps the fullest to be found, and -are taken from Soper’s accounts for that year:—[73] - - ‘And in money paid Thomas at Hythe, and 29 men labourers, for - working about, making and constructing anew[74] of a fence - called a hedge,[75] by the advice and ordinance of discreet and - wise mariners, that is to say on the Wose,[76] near Brisselden - aforesaid for the safe keeping and government of the King’s - ship, and to the putting out and drying up of the sea water - strongly running from the said King’s ship because the same - is weak: and also that the said King’s ship may be kept more - safely and easily in its said bed[77] called dok within the - said enclosure; taking for this work made and built by the - said ——[78] by agreement with him made in gross for the King’s - advantage the said month of July 12th year xxviiiˢ viᵈ. And - in money paid John Osmond, mariner, working about towing and - bringing timber and branches with his two boats for the service - of the same fence called an hegge[79] and there about the same - employed iiˢ. And in money paid to the said Thomas at Hythe - and to 29 other men his fellows for labouring and watching in - the said ship of the King’s about towing and conducting the - same from the same Brisselden where first she was in mooring - and in rode to the said enclosure called Dok, and there to the - placing, directing and guarding of the said ship of the King’s - within its bed called Dok, and to the attending on the safe - custody and superintendence of the same for three days, working - day and night, besides expenses of victualling, taking for this - work and occupation for the time aforesaid by agreement with - him in that cause made in the King’s service in gross the month - and year aforesaid xˢ.’ - -It may be inferred from this that the ship was brought to a suitable spot -at a spring tide, possibly hauled still further aground by mechanical -means, and when she had bedded herself, surrounded by timber and -brushwood, perhaps puddled with clay. It will be seen[80] that in 1496 -a drydock, the first known to have been made in England was constructed -at Portsmouth, but we are without knowledge of the intermediate steps, -or whether there were no intervening improvements, and the dock at -Portsmouth copied in its completeness from one already existing abroad. - -[Sidenote: Measurement of Tonnage.] - -It has been pointed out that the value of the comparison between -fifteenth and sixteenth century ships depends greatly on the method of -measuring tonnage, and on that subject we have unfortunately but little -information. The Bordeaux wine trade was the earliest, and for two -centuries one of the most important branches of English maritime traffic; -ships were therefore measured by their carrying capacity in Bordeaux -cask. The first arithmetical rule for calculating a ship’s tonnage was -devised in 1582, and that rule made the net or cask tonnage nearly the -same as the average cargo. The unit of measurement was therefore the -tun of wine in two butts of 252 gallons which in 1626 were estimated to -occupy 60 cubic feet of space. The ancient wine gallon occupies 231 cubic -inches and a tun measures strictly therefore only 33¹¹⁄₁₆ cubic feet, -but the reckoning is by butts, and much waste of space must be allowed -for in view of the usual shape of a cask. In 1626 certain experiments -described on a later page were carried out on the _Adventure_ of Ipswich, -and it was found that while her burden in Bordeaux cask was 207 tons net, -and 276 gross,[81] her tonnage by the Elizabethan rule was again almost -exactly the same. If, in the fifteenth century, the shipper allowed 60 -cubic feet for two butts of wine, and the allowance of 1626 was doubtless -the outcome of long experience, there could have been but little -difference between the ship of Henry VI, and indeed of earlier reigns, -and that of the period of Elizabeth. - -[Sidenote: Edward IV:—General Policy.] - -There is even less material for the naval history of the reigns of Edward -IV and Richard III than for that of Henry VI; if, as is probable, a naval -administration existed, no records have come down to us. Edward seized -the crown on 4th March 1461, but it was not until after the battle of -Tewkesbury in 1471 that he could consider himself really and indubitably -king. The uncertainty of his position during the intervening ten years -must have prevented the systematic organisation of a naval department, -but he was not remiss in, so far as was possible, holding the command -of the Channel. Doubtless his experience with Warwick at Calais in 1459 -had taught him its importance. Not long after Towton, an English fleet -under the command of the Earls of Essex and Kent ravaged the coast of -Brittany in revenge for the sympathy shown to Margaret by the reigning -Duke. In 1462 another fleet was at sea, but we have no details of its -action, although it was no doubt fitted for service to anticipate or deal -with Margaret’s landing at Bamborough in October. An agreement dated 1st -February 1462, placed naval affairs under the control of the Earl of -Warwick for three years, the Earl’s salary being £1000 a year.[82] If -Edward’s experience in 1459 had instructed him in the significance of -the command of Calais and the fleet, he may not have willingly appointed -his powerful subject to a position which made the latter practically -independent of the crown; it may be, however, that he had little choice, -and that Warwick’s power in the country, and his popularity with the -seamen made his nomination almost a matter of necessity. - -Notwithstanding this indenture made with Warwick we find that in -July 1463 the Earl of Worcester was in charge of naval matters, and, -in August, that nobleman is described as ‘captain and keeper of the -sea.’[83] Warwick may have resigned or may have constituted Worcester -his deputy. A later paper[84] tells us that Worcester acted by Letters -Patent of 30th June 1463. This would not clear Warwick’s term of office -but in any case these appointments of Warwick, or of Worcester, or of -both, appear to have been the last survivals of the custom of putting the -safeguard of the seas out to contract. And the survival was more due to -political conditions than to any intention or desire of renewing the old -system. The name of Richard Clyvedon, who succeeded Soper as clerk of the -ships in 1442, disappears after a few years; as no payments were made -even for his salary, it may be assumed that he either died, resigned, or -was dismissed, and the post was not filled up. Under the circumstances -there was no use for a clerk of the ships as the contractors who engaged -to provide ships and men would prefer to employ their own servants to -manage the details. In 1465 Piers Bowman is referred to as ‘clerk of our -shippes,’ but his patent is not to be found nor any payments by way of -salary, and the document in question[85] is the only one in which his -occupancy of the office is mentioned. Three years later, in 1468, Sir -John Howard, afterwards Duke of Norfolk, was entrusted with the payments -due for the passage of Edward’s sister Margaret on her marriage with -Charles of Burgundy. Howard possessed ships of his own, and on 27th -August 1470, received twenty marks on account of the victualling of two -ships which he had equipped ‘to take certaine rovers that lie in the -Tamyse mouth or there aboute, and robbe bothe the kinges subgittes and -frendes.’ This was little more than a fortnight before Warwick landed at -Dartmouth and shows how little Edward feared the Earl, for he made no -preparation to intercept his passage, and his care, even in his uncertain -position, of the commercial interests of his subjects.[86] All through -the second civil war, Warwick retained the command of the Channel, nor -does Edward, whether from indifference or inability, appear to have -made any attempt to wrest it from him. He relied for assistance chiefly -on the Burgundian navy, of which Philip de Comines says that it was so -powerful that ‘no man durst stir in the narrow seas for fear of it.’ By -a navy, however, De Comines must be understood as meaning the general -shipping strength of the state. Even after Tewkesbury Edward was once -more reminded that supremacy on land was only possible to the ruler who -controlled the sea. The bastard of Fauconberg,[87] Warwick’s subordinate -and in command of his fleet, seized the Thames and raised Kent and Essex; -had there been any Lancastrian power able to support him Edward’s newly -regained crown would have been once more in jeopardy. - -[Sidenote: Edward IV:—The Keeper of the Ships.] - -By Letters Patent of 12th December 1480, the office of clerk of the -ships was once more reconstituted in the person of Thomas Rogers, with -a salary of one shilling and sixpence a day for himself and a clerk, -and two shillings a day for travelling expenses, when employed on the -king’s service. In later patents Rogers is described as a citizen and -fishmonger, and as a merchant of London, and as having been purser of -a king’s ship. He so successfully trimmed his opinions to the varying -political currents, as to retain his office during the reigns of Richard -III and Henry VII, until his death in 1488. - -[Sidenote: The Royal Ships.] - -The re-appointment of a keeper of the ships was the natural corollary of -the new formation of a crown navy which was going on slowly throughout -the reign. As early as July 1461 the _Margaret_ of Orwell, or of Ipswich, -is spoken of as ‘our great ship,’ and was doubtless a merchantman bought -by the crown. Without collateral evidence, however, the expression -‘our ship’ does not always prove crown ownership; the phrase seems to -have been often used in writing of ships pressed for special service. -The _Margaret’s_ equipment included 200 bows at eighteenpence apiece, -600 sheaves of arrows at eighteenpence the sheaf, bow strings at five -shillings a gross, 200 spears at sixteenpence each and 1000 darts £5. As -it also comprised 600 ‘gunstones’[88] at ten shillings the hundred and -1000 lbs. of powder at fivepence a lb., she must have carried cannon as -well as the more primitive weapons.[89] In 1463, a caravel of Salcombe -was bought for £80, and the shares of the _John Evangelist_ of Dartmouth -purchased from the joint owners in that and the following year.[90] In -1468 the _Mary of Grace_ was bought from Sir Henry Waver[91] and in July -1470 250 marks were given for a Portuguese ship, the _Garse_, obtained -from John de Poinct of Portingale.[92] An order on the Exchequer did not -however necessarily mean prompt payment unless money was plentiful, and -just a year later another warrant was made out for John de Poinct as he -was still unpaid; not long after there is mention made of the _St Peter_, -a Spanish ship bought for £50 which sum had also long been owing. - -In 1473 the _Grace Dieu_ once more occurs among the names of men-of-war. -Marcus Symonson of Causere was paid £62, 8s 2d for pitch, tar, masts, -and other necessaries supplied by him for the ‘new making of our -shippe called the _Grace Dieu_.’[93] Unless she was one of the vessels -previously bought rebuilt and renamed, she must have been a new ship -but there are no other particulars concerning her. In 1472 there is a -grant of an annuity of £20 a year to this Mark Symonson, owner of the -_Antony_ of Causere,[94] for the good services he had done and would -do; this large reward, equal to at least £200 a year now, points to the -possibility of his having been captain and owner of the vessel which -brought Edward over to Ravenspurn in 1471. Another Spanish ship, the -_Carycon_ was purchased in 1478 for £100 and in the same year William -Combresale, who afterwards succeeded Rogers as clerk of the ships, is -referred to as master of the king’s ship _Trinity_, another new name. -Carycon or Carraquon was simply old French for a large carrack, and the -ship, shortly afterwards, became the _Mary of the Tower_.[95] With the -_Carycon_ and the _Trinity_ there is found, ‘the king’s ship called the -_Fawcon_,’ and in 1483 Rogers was ordered ‘to repaire and make of the -newe our shippe the _Mary Ashe_,’ possibly the older _Mary of Grace_. The -last purchase is at the close of the reign in January 1483, when 100 -marks was paid to Roger Kelsale, collector of customs at Southampton for -his share in a bark of Southampton lately bought. - -[Sidenote: Edward IV:—Naval and Commercial Policy.] - -It is obvious from this list that Edward had set himself to reverse the -practice of the preceding forty years, and had determined to restore the -Navy. He must have taken a certain pride in it and in the appearance of -the men, since, for the first time, we find a payment on one occasion for -‘jackettes’ for the sailors.[96] His interest in the men did not extend, -however, to arresting the tendency to lower wages which were now one -shilling and threepence a week, while the victualling was reckoned at one -shilling and a halfpenny.[97] He had been granted in 1465, tunnage and -poundage for life and therefore always had at command money to be devoted -to naval purposes. Nor was he indifferent to the commercial interests -of the kingdom. In 1464 a navigation act, the first consented to by the -Crown since the reign of Richard II came into force, and although it -was allowed to lapse at the end of three years was an earnest of future -and more effective legislation. He is said to have himself engaged in -trade, and the commercial treaties with Burgundy, Brittany and Castile, -show that he understood the sources of national wealth. Some of Edward’s -business transactions were with the Italian cities, and that the field -of trade was generally enlarging is shown by the appointment in 1484 of -a consul at Florence, because ‘certain merchants and others from England -intend to frequent foreign parts, and chiefly Italy with their ships and -merchandise.’ The old custom of hiring out men-of-war for trading voyages -was soon revived and, shortly before Bosworth field, the _Grace Dieu_ was -lent to two London merchants for a Mediterranean journey but was finally -kept back for the protection of the coasts. - -The short and troubled reign of Richard III did not allow that monarch -much time for naval development, but the crown service was not allowed -to retrogress and some fresh ships were purchased. In January 1485 the -_Nicholas_ of London was bought from Thos. Grafton, a London merchant, -for 100 marks, and the _Governor_ from Thos. Grafton and two others -for £600.[98] There seems to have been no attempt during the reigns of -Richard and his brother, to form any centre for naval equipment and for -stores, such as had existed at Southampton and Bursledon under Henry -V, and at other places in the preceding centuries. Ships were fitted -at Erith, or in the Orwell, or wherever they happened to be lying when -required for service. - -[Sidenote: Henry VII:—The Royal Ships.] - -In popular belief Henry VII shares with his son and grand-daughter, -the credit of founding the modern navy. This view is so far unfounded, -that, although its strength did not recede during his reign, and he -prepared the way for further progress, he did not increase the force and -reorganise the administration as did Henry VIII, nor use it with effect -as did Elizabeth. Henry VII still relied on hired merchantmen to form the -bulk of his fleets, an assistance his son almost succeeded in renouncing -for squadrons of the same strength. In 1590 out of eighteen vessels at -sea only two were men-of-war. There are no accounts extant for the whole -reign of the expenditure on the navy, but the amount for the first three -years was £1077,[99] and for 1495-8 £2060[100] exclusive of the cost of -the two large ships, the _Regent_ and _Sovereign_, built by his orders. -At any rate these sums represent a much more acute appreciation of the -necessity for sea power than that shown by his immediate predecessors. - -The following is an attempt, perhaps imperfect, at the navy list of this -reign: - - _Grace Dieu_ - _Mary of the Tower_ - _Governor_ - _Martin Garsya_ - _Sovereign_ - _Regent_ - _Le Prise_ or _Margaret_ of Dieppe - _Bonaventure_ - _Fawcon_ - _Trinity_ - _Sweepstake_ - _Mary Fortune_ - _Carvel of Ewe_ - -Of these the _Grace Dieu_, _Mary of the Tower_, _Governor_, _Martin -Garsya_, _Fawcon_, and _Trinity_ were obtained with the crown, the -_Margaret_ was captured in 1490. Only the _Regent_, _Sovereign_, _Carvel -of Ewe_, _Sweepstake_ and _Mary Fortune_ were new, the two latter being -small vessels built at a charge of £231.[101] The _Carvel of Ewe_,[102] -after having been in the royal service by hire, was bought at some -period of the reign. The name of the _Bonaventure_ only occurs once as -‘our ship called the _Bonaventure_ ... William Nashe, yeoman of our -crown hath in his rule and governance,’[103] a reference which appears -to point unmistakeably to a royal ship; she may have been the bark of -Southampton bought by Edward IV, or one of Richard’s purchases. The -_Martin Garsya_ was given to Sir Richard Guldeford in December 1485, -the _Governor_ disappears after 1488, and the _Mary of the Tower_ after -1496; the _Fawcon_, _Trinity_, and _Margaret_, after 1503. In 1486 Henry -commissioned a trusted officer, Sir Richard Guldeford, Master of the -Ordnance, to superintend the construction of a large ship, afterwards -called the _Regent_, at Reding on the river Rother, in Kent.[104] An -Exchequer warrant of 15th April 1487 directs the Treasurer to pay the -money necessary ‘for the building of a ship of which he[105] has the -oversight in the county of Kent of 600 tons, like unto a ship called -the _Columbe_ of France.’ Nothing is now known of the _Columbe_, which -Henry had perhaps seen when at Rouen, and which had evidently impressed -him. Payments on account of the _Regent_ to the amount of £951, 7s 10d -can still be traced, but this sum doubtless does not represent the -whole cost. While the _Regent_ was on the stocks the _Grace Dieu_ was -delivered to Sir Reginald Bray to be broken up and the material employed -in building a new vessel, the _Sovereign_.[106] In neither instance had -Rogers, the official head of the administration, anything to do with the -construction of these ships. Both Guldeford and Bray were men of rank -and credit near the king’s person, and the work may have been assigned -to them as a mark of confidence and as a cheap way of conferring some -pecuniary advantages on them. - -The chronicler Stow says, under the year 1503, ‘the same King Henry made -a ship named the _Great Harry_, which ship with the furniture cost him -much.’ Naval historians have successively accepted this statement, but -all that can be said is that there is no trace of such a ship in the -State Papers. Stow’s naval details are frequently more than doubtful. -Under 1512 he writes of ‘the _Regent_ or _Sovereign_’ of England; the -_Regent_ was never called the _Sovereign_ which has an individual -existence down to 1525, but he may have meant the sovereign, or greatest -ship. - -[Sidenote: Henry VII:—The Clerk of the Ships.] - -When Rogers died in 1488, he was a man of substance and a landed -proprietor in Hertfordshire. He was succeeded by William Comersall or -Cumbresale, of whom we know nothing except that he had held executive -rank at sea during the reign of Edward IV, as master of the _Trinity_. -He appears to have been content with a position of minor importance, -and during his term of office payments in connection with the _Regent_ -and the _Sovereign_ were frequently made through other persons. From -19th May 1495, Robert Brygandine was appointed, and while held by this -man, practically, although not nominally the last of the mediæval clerks -or keepers, the post regained some of its former dignity. Brygandine -was a ‘yeoman of the crown,’ that is to say in the personal service -of the sovereign, and, on one occasion, mentions that he had received -certain orders from the king _vivâ voce_. In 1490 he had been granted an -annuity of £10 a year, besides other favours, and altogether seems to -have belonged to a higher class socially than his predecessors, and was -therefore better able to maintain the independence of his office. - -[Sidenote: General Policy—The Bounty.] - -Although Henry VII, during a reign of twenty-four years, added only five -or six vessels to the navy, it cannot be said that he was indifferent -to the maritime strength of the country, or to that of the navy proper. -The political conditions did not require fleets at sea as they had done -in the fourteenth, and again did in the succeeding century. The objects -sought by Louis XI, Charles VIII, and Louis XII did not necessitate -strength at sea, at anyrate in the Channel, and when Henry VII did act -abroad English ships were only engaged in the unopposed transport of -troops. The existence, however, of a Royal Navy did not prevent Perkin -Warbeck’s attempted landing in Kent, nor impede his sailing about the -narrow seas, subsequently, unmolested and apparently at his own pleasure. -Nevertheless Henry recognised that, as fleets were then constituted, -the naval strength of the crown was, in the end, dependent on that of -the country generally, and acted upon that view in a way that was new -in English history. He commenced giving the bounty on the construction -of large ships which remained customary for a century and a half, and -which did much to encourage the production of vessels fit for war -service. Perhaps some similar reward may have been given by earlier kings -although the instance of Taverner’s _Grace Dieu_, previously noticed, is -the only one which supports that view. If such rewards had been given -they could have been only occasional but Henry made the encouragement -much more frequent and a part of his policy. On the other hand the plan -may have been copied from the usage of a foreign power, and if so that -power was Spain. We know the reverential admiration Henry felt for the -Spanish monarchs and their methods; in 1494, 1495, and 1498 Ferdinand -and Isabella issued ordinances which promised large rewards of 60,000 -to 100,000 maravedis, to the builders of ships of from 600 to 1000 -tons.[107] These were probably not the first of such regulations, and -the service they did may well have been forced on Henry’s notice when an -exile. Certainly the Spanish marine at this time was in a flourishing -condition. The fleet of 1496, which carried Dona Juana to Middleburgh -consisted of 120 seagoing vessels, and in the same year a royal order -directed the preparation of two ships each of 1000 tons, two of 500, two -of 400, six of 300, four of 200, and four caravels.[108] - -The first warrant for the payment of a bounty is dated in 1488,[109] and -orders £26, 13s 4d to be allowed to Nicholas Browne of Bristol on the -customs of the first voyage, made by a new ship of 140 tons built by -him. This is nearly three shillings and tenpence a ton. The next of 16th -May 1491,[110] is again in favour of three Bristol men who have built -a 400 ton ship, and, ‘we calling to our remembrance the great cost and -charge they have sustained about the same ... to encourage them and such -others,’ allow five shillings a ton on the customs. Although 400 tons was -not an unknown tonnage in the merchant marine, it was as yet exceptional, -and when the bounty, a century later, was most vigorously worked, its -tendency was to induce the construction of medium ships, somewhat over or -under 200 tons, rather than especially large ones. Sir William Fenkyll, -an alderman of London, had 100 marks conceded him in the same way as the -others, ‘for the encoragyng of othr our true subgetts the rather to apply -themself to the makyng of shippes.’[111] By a warrant of 7th January -1502, Robert and William Thorne and Hugh Elyot of Bristol, having bought -a French ship of 120 tons and as ‘with the same ship the said merchants -offre to doo unto us service at all tymes at our commaundement,’ had -£20 allowed them. The sovereign by whose directions these expressions -were used was neither ignorant of the importance, nor indifferent to the -growth, of the merchant marine although he may have seen no reason for -departing from his native prudence in matters of action. - -[Sidenote: Henry VII:—Hire of English and Foreign Ships.] - -Henry’s caution seems to have calculated on the possibility of his -future dependence on a foreign fleet, and he was anxious to make a good -impression among shipowners abroad. There is a curiously worded order in -1486[112] for the payment of three hired Spanish vessels ‘withoute any -part deteyning or abbrigging as that they may have cause to make goode -reporte of our deling with them in these parties and as they may be -encouraged and welewilled to serve us semblably hereafter.’ As a matter -of fact the king frequently hired Spaniards while the royal ships were -unemployed, and when the services demanded certainly threw no strain -on native resources; he may have seen in such a course a minor way of -knitting more closely the mercantile and other ties which were connecting -Spain and England. These Spanish ships were hired at two shillings a -ton per month, a rate which was double that obtained by English owners. -Sometimes Henry tried to buy a Spanish vessel, but with little success, -for Ferdinand and Isabella were making stringent regulations against the -sale abroad of vessels owned by their subjects. - -One reason explaining Henry’s propensity for foreign ships may perhaps -be found in a hint we have of difficulties about the rate of hire of -English ones. In 1487 special sums were granted to some English owners, -‘to the entent that noe president shall be taken by us for the waging of -the same aftre the portage of every tonne.’[113] According to this they -desired to be paid a fixed sum and not hired by the ton, perhaps because -the crown estimate of a ship’s tonnage may have differed considerably -from the owner’s. If this were so it is the only suggestion we have of -dissatisfaction with the normal way of payment, and it was a contention -in which the crown soon and finally gained the victory. - -[Sidenote: Henry VII:—Portsmouth Dock.] - -If Henry VII built few ships he laid the foundation of a permanent -establishment for building and repairs in a way hitherto unknown. We -have seen that Henry V had storehouses at London and Southampton, and a -workshop in the last named town, and that a dock in the fifteenth century -meant only a temporary arrangement by which a ship was laid ashore at -a suitable place. Such primitive appliances were the completest yet -attained. Henry proceeded much further, and in June 1495, Brygandine was -ordered to superintend the construction of a dry dock at Portsmouth, the -first known to have been built in England. If one existed previously no -reference to it has survived, and we may suppose that the new departure -was the result of foreign superiority in such matters rather than of -native enterprise. No foreigner however was employed in the work, and -Brygandine, so far as we know, had had no training as an engineer. The -undertaking was completed without accident and without any delay caused -by unforeseen difficulties. The total cost was £193, 0s 6¾d; it was -built of wood except the dockhead, which was ‘fortifyed’ with stone and -gravel, of which 664 tons were used, and although it is not so stated, -it may be assumed that the timber walls were backed with stone. During -1495-7 forty-six weeks were spent in the work, operations being suspended -between November 1495 and February 1496, and between April of the latter -year and July 1497. When the _Sovereign_ came out of this dock twenty -men were at work for twenty-nine days ‘at every tide both day and night -weying up of the piles and shorys and digging of ye clay and other -rubbish between the gates.’ From this it may be conjectured that the -gates did not meet in closing, but that the structure was of this form -[Illustration] an arrangement doubtless due to fear of the pressure of -the water outside when the one ‘ingyn’ employed for the purpose had -succeeded in emptying the dock. The expression ‘as well for ye inner as -ye uttermost gate,’ also bears out this view. The dock itself occupied -twenty-four weeks, the gates and dockhead twenty-two weeks, the number -of men paid each week varying between twenty-eight and sixty. Carpenters -received from fourpence to sixpence a day, sawyers fourpence and -labourers threepence. Four tons of iron at £3 14s and £4 a ton were used, -besides large quantities of nails, spikes and other iron work.[114] - -From 1485 a storehouse was hired at Greenwich for the use of the ships -lying in the river, at a yearly rental of £5, but down to 1550-60 -Portsmouth, in virtue of its dock and the subsidiary establishments -which grew up round it, remained the predominant naval port. Few of the -townspeople, however, seem to have been able to supply any necessaries, -stores having to be sent from London or bought at Southampton; wood was -the only thing obtained plentifully in the neighbourhood. When Deptford, -Woolwich, and Chatham were founded its one advantage of lying in the -Channel did not serve it against the greater facilities they offered in -other respects. - -[Sidenote: Henry VII:—Character of Shipping.] - -The ships of Henry VII are found to resemble in equipment and fittings -those of his successors rather than the mediæval type, but that may be -because we have no inventories of the time of Edward IV and the later -years of Henry VI. Improvement must have been continuous although there -is no trace of the successive steps. The _Regent_ and the _Sovereign_ -were respectively four- and three-masters, with fore and main topmasts; -although the topmasts were separate spars it is probable that they were -fixed and that a method of striking them had not yet been introduced. -These two ships must have differed much less in appearance from a sailing -ship of 1785 than from one of 1385 or even of 1425. They were fitted -with a forecastle, poop, and poop royal, with a bowsprit and spritsail, -and the fixed and running gear were, generally, much the same as now. -As a detailed inventory of the _Henry Grace à Dieu_ of not many years -later, and varying but little in type, is given in this volume it is not -necessary to describe them in detail.[115] - -The introduction of portholes is usually attributed to Decharges, a -French inventor of Brest and the date given is 1501. They were certainly -known long before[116] but their adaptation to the purpose of broadside -fire was doubtless one of the improvements of the sixteenth century. -Still the date of their general acceptation must be before 1501 and -earlier than is generally supposed, since the _Regent_ and _Sovereign_ -have their poops and forecastles pierced for broadsides, and there is no -suggestion that there was anything novel in such a plan. It need hardly -be pointed out that the presence of a large number of guns along the -sides brought about a complete alteration in shipbuilding. Not only had -vessels to be more strongly built to meet the greater weight and strain, -but the ‘tumble home’ tendency of the topsides was increased to bring the -ordnance nearer the keel line. - -The _Mary Fortune_ and the _Sweepstake_ were much smaller vessels but -were also three-masters, with a main topmast and sixty and eighty -oars respectively for use on board. Vessels of this type, which were -frequently called galleys by those who used them, have been erroneously -supposed by later writers to denote the real galley, to which they bore -not the least resemblance, or to represent a modified type peculiar to -the English service. They were ordinary ships differing in no respect -but size from their larger sisters, but small enough to permit the use -of sweeps when necessary. The serpentine weighing, without any carriage, -about 250 lbs. was the usual ship gun, and the _Regent_ carried 151 of -these in iron and 29 in brass in 1501.[117] Of course bows and arrows -and all the older armament were still carried. The ships’ sides were -lined with pavesses or wooden shields painted in various colours and -glittering with coats of arms and devices. For painting the _Regent_ -and _Mary Fortune_, and doubtless other ships, vermillion, fine gold, -russet, bice,[118] red lead, white lead, brown, Spanish white, verdigris, -and aneral[119] were employed.[120] The favourite Tudor colours, white -and green, with the cross of St George, flew out in the standards and -streamers which were of ‘linen cloth’ or of say.[121] - -[Sidenote: Henry VII:—Officers and Men.] - -The pay of the men was one shilling a week as shipkeeper in harbour, -and one shilling and threepence when on active service. Victualling at -first cost one shilling and a halfpenny a week, but subsequently rose -to one shilling and twopence, and shipwrights, sawyers, labourers, and -all others employed about the ships received food as well as pay. The -jackets noticed under Edward IV, which perhaps signified some sort of -uniform, were still provided. One hundred, at one shilling and fourpence -apiece, were bought for the same number of men sent from Cornwall to -Berwick to join the fleet acting in conjunction with Surrey’s army -against Scotland in 1497.[122] The sea captain was still non-existent, -that rank being confined to the leadership of the soldiers on board; the -master, the highest executive naval officer, received three shillings and -fourpence a week, the purser and boatswain one shilling and eightpence, -quartermasters one shilling and sixpence, the steward and cook one -shilling and threepence.[123] These were harbour rates; at sea the pay -appears to have been much higher. When the _Sovereign_ was brought from -the Thames to Portsmouth, a voyage which occupied thirty-one days, the -master obtained £2 10s, the purser 14s 8d, the quartermasters 10s each, -the boatswain 16s 8d, the steward 8s, and the cook 10s.[124] - -Of the condition, habits, and manner of thought among the men we know -nothing. Ferdinand’s ambassador, De Puebla wrote to him that, ‘the -English sailors are generally savages,’ but he was not the last envoy -whose delicate diplomatic sense they have outraged by plain speaking. -This sensitive gentleman lodged, however, in a house of ill-fame in -London from motives of economy. - -[Sidenote: Henry VII:—Commercial Policy.] - -In commercial matters Henry followed those methods dictated by the -political economy of his age, which seemed likely to increase the trade -and shipping of the country. A navigation act of the first year of his -reign, and this time meant seriously, forbade the importation of foreign -wines in any but English, Irish, or Welsh owned ships. Three years later -it was enacted[125] - - ‘That where great minishing and decay hath been of late time of - the navy of this realme of England and idleness of the mariners - within the same, by the which this noble realm within short - space of time, without reformation be had therein shall not be - of ability, nor of strength and power to defend itself.’ - -No wines or Toulouse woad were to be imported except in ships owned by -English subjects and, ‘most part’ manned by native crews. The punishment -for disobedience was the forfeiture of one half the cargo to the king, -and one half to the informer; under the same penalty exportation of goods -in foreign vessels was forbidden if English ships could be obtained. -Yet notwithstanding the desponding tone of this preamble, trade was -now travelling far afield. The consul at Florence of 1484 had now an -associate at Pisa, and a treaty of commerce in 1490 with Denmark shows -that we possessed establishments there and in Norway and Sweden, and that -the trade was carried on in English bottoms. The king frequently let out -his men-of-war on hire for distant voyages, and if merchants found it -profitable to take a ship of the size of the _Sovereign_ for a voyage -to the Levant the Mediterranean trade must have been already of some -importance. - -Edward IV, by a commercial treaty of 1467 with Burgundy, granted free -fishing round the English coasts to the subjects of that power. This -was confirmed by the treaties of 1496 and 1499 but withdrawn by that -of 1506, called therefore by the Flemish the _Intercursus Malus_. It -is possible that Henry recognised the value of the fishing industry as -a nursery of seamen, but more probable that he was impelled by purely -political motives. - -[Sidenote: The New Discoveries.] - -The discovery of America and the passage round the Cape of Good Hope -must have impressed the king intellectually even though his imagination -was untouched by the wonders daily opened to the old world, but there is -little evidence that he wished England to join directly in the search -for new sources of wealth. The half-hearted assistance given to the -Cabots, and the licences without assistance granted to Elliot, Ashurst, -and others of Bristol, were not aids of a nature to win success in new -and doubtful undertakings. This course of action is usually ascribed to -Henry’s parsimony, but it may well be that he feared to be brought into -political antagonism with Spain and Portugal, and that he was dubious -of the ability of his subjects to keep up profitable communication -between countries separated by vast distances of sea. England possessed -comparatively little floating capital, and capital is as essential to -colonisation as to smaller businesses. We know that intercourse with the -West completely changed the character of the Spanish marine in causing -it to be replaced by ships of a larger and more commodious type, a -change which alone postulates the waste and subsequent investment of a -relatively enormous sum. But Spain, even before the voyage of Columbus, -was a much wealthier country than England, and it seems that if any -profitable discoveries had been due at this time to English explorers -they would soon have been found to have been made for the benefit of -stronger and wealthier powers. Moreover the political risk was not an -imaginary one and might have induced the condition of things existing -under Elizabeth when the country was much less able to hold its own. -There is an illustration of this in the orders given by the Spanish -monarchs in 1501 to Alonso de Hojeda to impede the progress of English -discoveries on the transatlantic coast.[126] - -That Henry had not forgotten the traditions of the past and realised the -value of a national marine is shown by his maintenance of the navy, by -the formation of a royal dockyard, by his navigation acts, and, above -all, by the inauguration of the bounty system on ocean-going ships. In -this, as in other things, he moved slowly, but the progress in the end -was none the less complete because in the beginning it had not been -unduly stimulated by encouragements not warranted by either the needs -or capabilities of the country. The crown, instead of being controlled -by nobles indifferent to, or despising commerce, was now influenced by -the commercial classes and found its profit in aiding their development. -These classes were now replacing the capital destroyed in the wars of -the fifteenth century, eager for fresh markets, and with no maritime -adversary to fear. For the moment English mercantile effort took a -direction that did not bring it into conflict with larger interests, but -when the natural expansion of trade and shipping brought the country -into collision with other powers the struggles of centuries, which had -shaped and hardened a skilful and dauntless maritime population, bore -their natural fruit in a school of seamen able to use and direct the -instruments which the increasing wealth and ambition of the nation placed -in their hands. - - - - -HENRY VIII - -1509-1547 - - -[Sidenote: The New Policy and its Causes.] - -Henry VII had been chiefly occupied in securing the permanence of his -dynasty, and although sometimes drawn into action abroad, had avoided any -serious entanglement in continental politics. His son’s policy was the -reverse of this, and his reign presents a series of unsuccessful attempts -to make England the centre round which European politics were to revolve. -These views necessitated the maintenance and employment of an armed -force, and although the army was still considered the effective weapon of -offence the growing opinion that the navy was essentially the national -arm ensured a proper solicitude being bestowed upon it, although its real -predominance was not yet recognised; ‘when we would enlarge ourselves let -it be that way we can and to which it seems the eternal Providence hath -destined us,’ was, we are told, the argument of those who were opposed -to an invasion of France by land.[127] The use of such reasoning as this -shows that the epoch of maritime expansion was not far distant. - -But besides deduction from past experience there were other causes -working to induce a natural and, it may be said, almost automatic -increase in the navy of the crown. In the past centuries ‘our ancient -adversary’ of France had been the only enemy really within touch, and no -systematic attack by sea from France had been practicable for more than a -hundred years. But the consolidation of that kingdom, and the accession -of Francis I, a monarch by no means indifferent to the supremacy of -the sea, one of whose first acts was to order the construction and -fortification of the Port of Havre in 1516-17, and who built ships and -brought round fleets from the Mediterranean to contest the command of -the channel, necessarily compelled a corresponding activity on the -English side. Another circumstance enforcing increased naval strength -was the union of Brittany with the French crown. This event was regarded -by contemporary Englishmen somewhat in the light that we should now -look upon the domination of the coastlines of Holland and Belgium by -Germany and France. The marriage of Anne of Brittany to Charles VIII, -in December 1491, gave France its most valuable arsenals and ports, and -the command of a race of fine seamen. Henry VII, perhaps recognising -that the subjection of the province could only at most be deferred and -not prevented, made but perfunctory efforts, either by war or diplomacy, -to hinder it. Hitherto, except for the customary practice of piracy, -the Breton ports had been neutral or friendly, and the Breton seamen -indifferent to the dynastic or national quarrels of the two great powers. -In the future the ports were to be the chief source of danger to English -maritime supremacy, and the men the mainstay of the navy which carried on -a prolonged and doubtful contest with England for more than a century. - -With Spain, notwithstanding isolated ship and fleet actions occasionally -occurring, warfare had never been serious or continuous, nor had the -political interests of the two countries been of such a nature as -to bring them into conflict. The union, however, under the sway of -Charles V, of the Empire, of Spain, and of the Netherlands, altered, -in view of the new attitude assumed by Henry VIII, the pre-existing -situation, and here again, besides the Imperial troops, Spanish fleets -had to be reckoned with. Although those fleets were never in reality so -powerful as they appeared to contemporary observers, the necessities of -Trans-Atlantic voyages and the practice of ocean navigation had given -experience to officers and men and improved the build of the ships, -so far at anyrate as size and apparent power were concerned.[128] -Accommodation had to be supplied for larger crews and for numerous -passengers, but the science of shipbuilding was not sufficiently advanced -to meet these requirements except by methods which gave bigness at the -expense of seaworthiness. But whatever the actual combatant value of the -Spanish navy, or its power of mobilisation at any required moment and -place, it was a factor to be considered in the counsels of the Emperor’s -possible enemies and was another reason for the strengthening of the -English navy. That that navy occupied a strategically advantageous -position on the line of communication between the peninsular and northern -possessions of the Empire was a fact not likely to be forgotten by the -advisers of either Henry or Charles. - -In the north a comparatively long peace with Scotland, and the -distractions caused by the Wars of the Roses, had enabled that power to -extend its commerce and obtain a prosperity reflected in the existence -of a navy, for the first and only time strong enough to attract the -attention of foreign observers. In 1512 James IV had three agents in -France especially retained to arrange a supply of naval stores and -ships,[129] and Lord Darcy informed Henry that the king of Scotland, who -spent much of his time on board the ships, possessed some sixteen or -twenty men-of-war. The _Great Michael_ recently built, and perhaps the -actual instigation of the _Henry Grace à Dieu_, was one of the wonders -of the country and reputed to be the largest and strongest vessel yet -launched in northern latitudes. That ‘Jack Tarrett, a Frenchman,’ was her -shipwright pointed to the ever present danger of the old alliance between -France and Scotland, a danger much intensified if Scotland was to take a -place as a naval power. - -Without, therefore, attributing to Henry VIII an exceptional -foresight, the conditions were such as to compel an increase in the -navy commensurate with the larger aims of the royal policy and the -wider duties the execution of such a policy involved. The navy was not -relatively larger than it had been under some of the preceding kings, -notably Henry V, the main distinction being that under Henry VIII it was -slowly tending towards its future position as a principal instrument -of offence instead of acting as a mere auxiliary. This, again, was as -much, or more, due to the changed circumstances of land warfare as to -any definite intention. The English army was still a militia; the troops -of France and the Empire were now standing armies, highly trained and -veterans in war. For most of the western countries the age of feudal -levies was over, but England had not yet clearly acknowledged the new -era. The troops sent under the Marquis of Dorset in 1512 to invade -Guienne, in conjunction with Ferdinand’s Spaniards, returned home _en -masse_ in defiance of their commander’s and of Henry’s orders and -threats. ‘The world was breathless with astonishment at such a flagrant -act of insubordination.’[130] An English army was not yet composed -of ragged losels pressed from the gutter, but the ancient feudal tie -which knit together knight and retainer was almost destroyed. Armies of -this type could not possibly match themselves against the professional -continental soldiers. But the country could not have afforded nor would -it have permitted a permanent military force, therefore either its claims -to exercise a powerful mediatory position were to be forsaken or that -peculiar genius for the sea, which had hitherto been of secondary use -but which had always been implicitly recognised as the especial heritage -of the race, was to replace the mere ability to fight it shared with -many other nations. But for the singular skill of the English archer -the change would have come long before; improvements in artillery and -musketry at last compelled it. The effects were not plainly seen till the -reign of Elizabeth, but the militant history of Henry VIII is a series -of steps—whether due to a sagacious recognition of the altered situation -or to a mechanical compliance with it—towards an increase in the power -and use of the Navy, and improvements in its administration, although, as -the traditions of centuries are not lightly set aside, armies were still -levied to fulfil their ancient _rôle_ in France. - -There was also another and personal element which doubtless had its -influence. Henry was, if not a born sailor, at least something more than -a yachtsman. He was continually inquiring about the merits of new ships, -and requiring reports on their sailing qualities in a way that implied -some technical knowledge, and showed a real interest beyond the political -one in sea affairs. He is said to have been himself the designer of a new -model. Sometimes he acted as an amateur master or pilot and dressed the -character, of course in cloth of gold. On one occasion when present at -the launch of a vessel he wore vest and breeches of cloth of gold, and -scarlet hose, with a gold chain and whistle.[131] This was a factor which -helped the progress of events, but which could have had little influence -had the royal inclination been contrary to the tendency of the time. - -[Sidenote: Royal Navy List.] - -The following list of the men-of-war of the reign, has for convenience -been thrown into a tabular form, which, however, gives it a fuller and -more final appearance than it is intended to claim. The records are not -sufficiently complete or detailed to enable the inquirer to be certain in -all cases of the exact year of building, rebuilding or purchase, and a -further element of uncertainty is introduced by the changes of name which -occurred, and continuity of name in what may be supposed to be new ships, -but of whose building there is no distinct evidence. The dates printed in -heavier type may be taken as exact; the others can only be regarded as -likely to be correct, and the tonnage varies at different times in nearly -every ship. From the preceding reign came the _Regent_, _Sovereign_, -_Mary and John_, (or _Carvel of Ewe_), _Sweepstake_ and _Mary Fortune_. - - +---------------------------+------+------+-------+------+-------+ - | |Built |Bought|Rebuilt|Prize |Tonnage| - | +------+------+-------+------+-------+ - |_Sovereign_[132] | | |=1509= | | 600 | - |_Peter Pomegranate_[133] |=1509=| | 1536 | | 450 | - |_Mary Rose_[134] |=1509=| | 1536 | | 500 | - |_Gabriel Royal_[135] | | 1509 | | | 700 | - |_Mary James_[136] | | 1509 | 1524 | | 300 | - |_Mary George_[137] | | 1510 | | | 300 | - |_Lion_[138] | | | |=1511=| 120 | - |_Jennet Pyrwin_[139] | | | |=1511=| 70 | - |_John Baptist_[140] | |=1512=| | | 400 | - |_Great Nicholas_[141] | |=1512=| | | 400 | - |_Anne Gallant_[142] | | 1512 | | | 140 | - |_Dragon_[143] | 1512 | | | | 100 | - |_Christ_[144] | | 1512 | | | 300 | - |_Lizard_[145] |=1512=| | | | 120 | - |_Swallow_ |=1512=| | 1524 | | 80 | - |_Kateryn Fortileza_[146] | |=1512=| | | 700 | - |_Great Bark_[147] | 1512 | | | | 400 | - |_Less Bark_[148] | 1512 | | | | 160 | - |_Kateryn Galley_[149] |=1512=| | | | 80 | - |_Rose Galley_[150] |=1512=| | | | | - |_Henry Galley_[151] |=1512=| | | | | - |_Lesser Barbara_[152] | | 1512 | | | 160 | - |_Great Barbara_[153] | | 1513 | | | 400 | - |_Black Bark_[154] | | 1513 | | | | - |_Henry of Hampton_[155] | | 1513 | | | 120 | - |_Great Elizabeth_[156] | |=1514=| | | 900 | - |_Henry Grace à Dieu_[157] |=1514=| | 1540 | | 1000 | - |_Mary Imperial_[158] | 1515 | | 1523 | | 120 | - |_Mary Gloria_[159] | |=1517=| | | 300 | - |_Kateryn Plesaunce_[160] |=1518=| | | | 100 | - |_Trinity Henry_[161] |=1519=| | | | 80 | - |_Mary and John_[162] | | 1521 | | | | - |_Mawdelyn of Deptford_[163]| 1522 | | | | 120 | - |_Great Zabra_[164] | 1522 | | | | 50 | - |_Lesser Zabra_[165] | 1522 | | | | 40 | - |_Fortune or Hulk_[166] | 1522 | | | | 160 | - |_Bark of Morlaix_[167] | | | | 1522 | 60 | - |_Mary Grace_[168] | | | | 1522 | | - |_Bark of Boulogne_[169] | | | | 1522 | 80 | - |_Primrose_[170] |=1523=| | 1536 | | 160 | - |_Minion_[171] |=1523=| | | | 180 | - |_New Bark_[172] |=1523=| | | | 200 | - |_Sweepstake_[173] | 1523 | | | | 65 | - |_John of Greenwich_[174] | | | | 1523 | 50 | - |_Mary Guildford_[175] | 1524 | | | | 160 | - |_Lion_[176] | 1536 | | | | 160 | - |_Mary Willoby_[177] | 1536 | | | | 160 | - |_Jennet_[178] | 1539 | | | | 200 | - |_Mathew_[179] | | 1539 | | | 600 | - |_Sweepstake_[180] | 1539 | | | | 300 | - |_Less Galley_ | | 1539 | | | 400 | - |_Great Galley_[181] | | 1539 | | | 500 | - |_Salamander_ | | | |=1544=| 300 | - |_Unicorn_[182] | | | |=1544=| 240 | - |_Pauncye_[183] | 1544 | | | | 450 | - |_Mary Hambro_[184] | | 1544 | | | 400 | - |_Jesus of Lubeck_[185] | | 1544 | | | 600 | - |_Struse of Dawske_[186] | | 1544 | | | 400 | - |_L’Artique_[187] | | 1544 | | | 100 | - |_Swallow_[188] | 1544 | | | | 240 | - |_Dragon_[189] | 1544 | | | | 140 | - |_Fawcon_[190] | 1544 | | | | 100 | - |_Galley Subtylle_[191] |=1544=| | | | 300 | - |_Marlion_[192] | | | | 1545 | 70 | - |_Mary Thomas_[193] | | | | 1545 | 100 | - |_Mary James_[194] | | | | 1545 | 120 | - |_Mary Odierne_[195] | | | | 1545 | 70 | - |_Hind_[196] | 1545 | | | | 80 | - |_Grand Mistress_[197] | 1545 | | | | 450 | - |_Anne Gallant_[198] | 1545 | | | | 400 | - |_Greyhound_[199] | 1545 | | | | 200 | - |_Saker_[200] | 1545 | | | | 60 | - |_Brigandine_[201] | 1545 | | | | 40 | - |_Less Pinnace_[202] | 1545 | | | | 60 | - |_Hare_[203] | 1545 | | | | 30 | - |_Roo_[204] | 1545 | | | | 80 | - |_Morian_[205] | | 1545 | | | 400 | - |_Galley Blancherd_[206] | | | |=1546=| | - |_Christopher_[207] | | 1546 | | | 400 | - |_George_[208] | | 1546 | | | 60 | - |_Phœnix_ | | 1546 | | | 40 | - |_Antelope_[209] | 1546 | | | | 300 | - |_Tiger_ | 1546 | | | | 200 | - |_Bull_ | 1546 | | | | 200 | - |_Hart_ | 1546 | | | | 300 | - |_13 Rowbarges_[210] | 1546 | | | | 20 | - +---------------------------+------+------+-------+------+-------+ - -We are accustomed to the general statement that Henry VIII enlarged the -navy, but the foregoing list shows a much more extensive increase than -is implied by a general expression and, if so far as number is concerned -it errs at all, it errs on the side of omission. A little indulgence in -admitting names could have extended it considerably. No foreign purchased -merchantman has been inserted without the authority of a definite -statement, or unless it appears in lists later than the reign under -consideration; but there are foreign ships omitted as only temporarily -hired which may really have belonged to the crown. Other vessels which -occur in almost indistinguishable fashion among men-of-war have been -left out in view of the custom which frequently obtained of describing -hired ships as king’s ships while they were in the royal service, and -in some cases it has been found impossible to satisfactorily trace -particular vessels. For instance, during the first half of the reign a -‘great galley’ of 600 or 800 tons, flits in a most puzzling way through -some, but not the most reliable, of the papers. I take it to have been an -indefinite designation applied at various times to various ships,[211] -but that opinion may be altogether wrong and it may be the actual name -of a large vessel which has left no other indication of its existence. -Again, the Earl of Southampton, for four years Admiral of England, -bequeathed Henry his ‘great ship’ by his will dated September 1542. The -Earl died in 1543, but which is the ship in question, or whether it -appears at all in the foregoing list, cannot be determined. - -[Sidenote: Activity in Construction and Purchase of Ships.] - -Exclusive of the thirteen rowbarges, there are eighty-five vessels, -and of these forty-six were built, twenty-six purchased, and thirteen -were prizes. The periods of greatest activity synchronise with war with -France 1512-14, war with France and Scotland 1522-5, with the possibility -in 1539 of a general alliance on religious grounds against England, -and with war against France and Scotland in 1544-6. But allowing for -uncertainty of dates, possibility of omissions, and our almost entire -ignorance of the repairs and rebuildings which must have been progressing -uninterruptedly, there is no cessation of vigorous action throughout the -reign. The existing dockyards could have hardly been equal to the demands -on them for repairs alone, and this is doubtless one reason for the large -number of ships purchased, a course which was also probably cheaper for -the moment. All Henry’s foreign purchases seem to have been Italian or -Hanseatic. During 1511-14 he hired several Spaniards and tried to buy -some, but his desires were vain in face of the strict Spanish navigation -laws. In 1513 the Spanish envoy, de Quiros, was instructed to inform the -king that the sale of Spanish ships abroad was forbidden under heavy -penalties, and that his government could not permit them to be sold even -to Henry.[212] In fact we find from another source that the sale of ships -was forbidden to foreigners even though they were naturalised Spanish -subjects, and as, from October 1502, a bounty of 100 maravedis a ton was -given up to 1500 tons it is hardly surprising that their sale to aliens -was sternly interdicted.[213] In 1513 Knight wrote to Henry that the -whole of a Spaniard’s goods had been confiscated for selling a carrack to -him. Under these circumstances the king had to buy in the North German -ports, and, judging from the small number of years most of them remained -in the effective, many must have been built for the purpose of sale to -him. - -[Sidenote: Royal Ships:—Build and Rigging.] - -The vessel which has the chief place in popular memory is the _Henry -Grace à Dieu_, but she probably differed little in size, form, or -equipment, from others nearly as large. Her total cost, with the three -small barques built with her, was £8708 5s 3d, but out of the 3739 tons -of timber used 1987 cost nothing being presented by several peers, -private persons, and religious bodies. According to the accounts she -was constructed under the supervision of William Bond, but if a nearly -contemporary letter may be trusted Brygandine, the clerk of the ships -designed and built her.[214] Bond’s connection with her may have been -merely financial and confined to payments of money. Fifty-six tons of -iron, 565 stones of oakum and 1711 lbs of flax were other items. She -was a four-master and possibly a two-decker with fore, main and mizen -top-gallant sails, but with only two sails on the other masts, and -with two tops on each of the three principal masts.[215] All ships but -the very smallest had four masts, the two after ones being called, -respectively, the main and bonaventure mizens. There was nothing -exceptional in the _Henry’s_ fittings, top-gallant sails being known to -have been used in the previous reign, and, as at that time, the topmasts -were not arranged for lowering. An equivalent to the ease given a -labouring ship by striking the topmasts was obtained by lowering the fore -and main yards to the level of the bulwarks. As most of the guns were -carried in the poop and forecastle ships must have been ‘built loftie’ -on the Spanish model and presented a squat and ungainly appearance. -Vessels were now mostly carvel built, and those clench, or clinker, -built, were regarded as too weak to stand the shock of collision when -boarding was intended. Speaking of some foreign ships brought into -Portsmouth, Suffolk wrote that some of them were ‘clenchers, both feeble, -olde, and out of fashion,’ and therefore not to be taken up for service -with the fleet.[216] - -Spritsails were now coming into more common use and, with the spanker on -the bonaventure mizen or fourth mast and sometimes with another on the -main mizen, served the purpose of the later fore-and-aft sails. Vessels -were now, although still slowly and clumsily, able to work more closely -to windward. There is one entry which runs ‘eight small masts at 6s 8d -the pece ymploied in the _Great Bark_ and other the Kynges shipps for -steddying saills.’[217] It can only be said that there is no mention in -the inventories, or any sign in the drawings of ships of this century, of -what are now called studding sails. - -[Sidenote: Royal Ships:—Armament.] - -An ordinary vessel appears to have been armed along the waist, in her -forecastle of two or three tiers, and in her summer castle or poop, -also divided into decks. For some of these ships we still have the -armament:—[218] - - +---------------------------+----------------------------------------+ - | |Single Serpentines | - | | |Double Serpentines[219] | - | _Great Elizabeth_[224] | | |Slings[220] | - | | | | |Half Slings | - | | | | | |Stone Guns[221] | - | | | | | | |Murderers | - | | | | | | | [222] | - +---------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----------+ - | { Upper Deck[223]| | | | | | 2 | - |Fo’c’stle { Middle Deck | 16 | | | | | | - | { Nether Deck | 12 | | | | 8 | | - | Waist | | | | | | | - | Stern | | | | 2 | 1 | | - | { Upper Deck | 12 | | | 2 | | | - | Poop { Middle Deck | 41 | | | | | | - | { Nether Deck | 3 | | | 2 | 16 | 6 | - +---------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----------+ - - +-----------------------+---------------------------------------------+ - | |Falcons | - | | |Single Serpentines | - | | | |Double Serpentines | - | _Great Barbara_ | | | |Slings | - | | | | | |Half Slings | - | | | | | | |Stone Guns | - | | | | | | | |Murderers| - +-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---------+ - | { Upper Deck | | 7 | | | | | 2 | - |Fo’c’stle { Middle Deck| | | | | | | | - | { Nether Deck| | 7 | | | | | 2 | - | Waist | | 6 | | | | 2 | | - | Stern | | | | | | | | - | { Upper Deck | 6 | | | | | | | - | Poop { Middle Deck| 2 | | | | | | 2 | - | { Nether Deck| | | | | | | 4 | - +-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---------+ - -Ships like the _Henry_, _Sovereign_, and _Mary Rose_ carried also -heavier pieces than these, the commencement of the change to fewer but -more powerful guns, which progressed rapidly during the middle of the -century. The _Mary Rose_ had 79 guns (besides six in her tops), of which -33 were serpentines, 26 stone guns, and 10 murderers, but she also -had five brass curtalls and five brass falcons.[225] The _Sovereign_, -when rebuilt in 1509, was given four whole and three half curtalls of -brass, three culverins, two falcons, and eleven heavy iron guns among -her 71 guns.[226] The curtall, or curtow, was a heavy gun of some 3000 -lbs., hitherto only used as a siege piece on land, and its transference -to maritime use marks a revolution in ship armament which deserves -attention. The _Mary Rose_ and _Sovereign_ were in 1509, the two most -powerfully armed ships which had yet existed in the English navy, perhaps -the most powerfully armed ships afloat anywhere that year, and it is -curious to notice that the _Peter Pomegranate_ built with them was fitted -in the old style, with innumerable serpentines which could have been of -little more effect than toy guns, appearing almost as though the contrast -was an intentional experiment. At any rate with the heavier armaments -of the _Sovereign_ and _Mary Rose_, commences the long struggle between -the attack and defence still going on, for hitherto there had been -practically no attack so far as a ship’s sides were concerned. - -The system was extended as the reign progressed, and in 1546, we find -comparatively small ships like the _Grand Mistress_ carrying two demi -cannons and five culverins, the _Swallow_ one demi cannon and two demi -culverins, out of a total of eight heavy guns; the _Anne Gallant_ -four culverins, one curtall, and two demi culverins; the _Greyhound_ -one culverin, one demi culverin, and two cannons petro,[227] besides -their other smaller pieces.[228] Even the _Roo_ of 80 tons has two -demi culverins and three cannons petro. To measure the full extent of -the change we must compare these vessels with the _Henry_, of three or -four times their tonnage, which in 1514, carried only one bombard, two -culverins, six falcons and one curtow, in addition to 126 serpentines and -47 other guns of various but probably light weights, seeing that most of -them were used with chambers. - -To whom was this innovation due? It commenced with Henry’s accession, and -if not owing to his direct initiative, he has the merit of recognising -its value and persistently putting it into execution. But we know from -other non-naval documents that he had some knowledge of artillery and -took an active personal interest in such matters, and it may very well be -that the improvement was his own. In any case it was one in which England -took and kept the lead, and which gave the country an incalculable -advantage in the contest with Spain during the close of the century. - -[Sidenote: Royal Ships:—Ordnance Stores.] - -From other papers we can ascertain with sufficient completeness the -character of the weapons and stores for offensive purposes carried on -board. There is a state paper of July 1513, coincident with the invasion -of France which gives the following details[229]:— - - +-------------------------+--------+-------+-------+----+-------+-------+ - | | | | | | |Sheaves| - | | | | | | Bow- | of | - | |Soldiers|Sailors|Gunners|Bows|strings|Arrows | - | +--------+-------+-------+----+-------+-------+ - |_Henry Grace à Dieu_[232]| 400 | 260 | 40 |2000| 5000 | 4000 | - |_Gabriel Royal_ | 350 | 230 | 20 | 500| 1500 | 1200 | - |_Mary Rose_ | 200 | 180 | 20 | 350| 700 | 700 | - |_Sovereign_ | 400 | 260 | 40 | 500| 1500 | 1200 | - |_Kateryn Fortileza_ | 300 | 210 | 40 | 350| 700 | 700 | - |_Peter Pomegranate_ | 150 | 130 | 20 | 300| 600 | 600 | - |_Great Nicholas_ | | 135 | 15 | 250| 500 | 500 | - |_Mary James_ | 150 | 85 | 15 | 200| 500 | 400 | - |_Mary and John_ | 100 | 100 | | 200| 500 | 400 | - |_Great Bark_ | 150 | 88 | 12 | 200| 500 | 500 | - |_John Baptist_ | 150 | 135 | 15 | 250| 500 | 500 | - |_Lizard_ | 60 | 32 | 8 | 80| 200 | 160 | - |_Jennet_ | 10 | 44 | 6 | 60| 150 | 120 | - |_Swallow_ | 20 | 46 | 4 | 60| 150 | 120 | - |_Sweepstake_ | | 66 | 4 | 60| 150 | 120 | - +-------------------------+--------+-------+-------+----+-------+-------+ - - +-------------------------+-----+-----------+------+---------+-------+ - | | | | | | | - | | | |Stakes| |Harness| - | |Bills|Morrispikes|[230] |Gunpowder| [231] | - | +-----+-----------+------+---------+-------+ - |_Henry Grace à Dieu_[232]| 1500| 1500 | 2000 | 5 lasts | 500 | - |_Gabriel Royal_ | 500| 500 | 400 | 2 ” | 300 | - |_Mary Rose_ | 300| 300 | 200 | 3 ” | 220 | - |_Sovereign_ | 500| 500 | 500 | 2 ” | 300 | - |_Kateryn Fortileza_ | 300| 300 | 200 | 3½ ” | 220 | - |_Peter Pomegranate_ | 250| 250 | 200 | 8 brls | 180 | - |_Great Nicholas_ | 200| 200 | 160 | 6 ” | 160 | - |_Mary James_ | 160| 160 | 160 | 6 ” | 130 | - |_Mary and John_ | 160| 160 | 160 | 6 ” | 90 | - |_Great Bark_ | 200| 200 | 160 | 6 ” | 130 | - |_John Baptist_ | 200| 200 | 160 | 6 ” | 160 | - |_Lizard_ | 60| 60 | 50 | 3 ” | 50 | - |_Jennet_ | 50| 50 | 50 | 3 ” | 35 | - |_Swallow_ | 50| 50 | 40 | 3 ” | 35 | - |_Sweepstake_ | 50| 50 | 40 | 3 ” | 35 | - +-------------------------+-----+-----------+------+---------+-------+ - -The reader will remark the small number of gunners allowed. The -_Sovereign_ had 70 or 80 pieces and the proportion here does not allow -even one gunner to a piece on a broadside. Perhaps the soldiers manned -the guns, but it is more likely that the seamen were beginning to take a -combatant part instead of confining themselves to working the ship. Bows -and arrows still formed an important part of the equipment, but although -we have no similar list for shot the amount of powder shows the reliance -now placed on artillery and musket fire. Incidentally, among remains of -stores, we find ‘200 harquebus shot,’ 900 serpentine shot, 1350 iron -‘dyse,’ 8 darts for wildfire, to set the sails of an enemy’s ship on -fire, and two chests of wildfire with quarrels.[233] Also ‘300 small and -grete dyse of iern,’ 420 stone and 1000 leaden shot, 120 shot of iron -‘with cross bars,’ 22 ‘pecks for to hew gonstones’[234] and 74 arrows of -wildfire.[235] - -[Sidenote: Ships, Galleys and Galleasses.] - -The well known picture of the embarkation of Henry VIII at Dover, on his -way to the interview with Francis I in 1520, represents the _Henry Grace -à Dieu_ as the chief ship in the fleet. This was inherently improbable as -the _Henry_ drew too much water to enter either Dover or Calais harbours, -but it can be proved to be incorrect from documentary evidence. The -squadron consisted of the _Great Bark_, _Less Bark_, _Kateryn Plesaunce_, -_Mary and John_, and two rowbarges.[236] The interview was originally -proposed for 1519 and a year previously on 22nd May 1518, the _Kateryn -Plesaunce_ was commenced for the express purpose of carrying the King -and Queen across the Channel.[237] She cost £323, 13s 9d, including -the victualling and lodging expenses of the men working upon her, and -required 80 tons of ballast.[238] In none of the accounts relating to -men-of-war are there any details of extrinsic decoration, if it existed, -and even in the _Kateryn_, intended for a royal pleasure trip there is -only one charge of ten shillings for painting and gilding the ‘collere.’ -House carpenters were employed for ‘the makynge of cabons and embowynge -of wyndows,’ and although the chief cabin was wainscoted and lighted by -112 feet of glass, the Queen’s own cabin was cheaply furnished with a -dozen ‘joined stools’ at tenpence apiece. - -The _Kateryn_ was sometimes called a bark and sometimes a galley and this -leads us to the question of the classification of the royal vessels. If -we accept without inquiry that of the list of 5th January 1548,[239] we -find ships like the _Anne Gallant_, _Unicorn_, _Salamander_, _Tiger_, -_Hart_, _Antelope_, _Lion_, _Dragon_, _Jennet_, _Bull_ and _Greyhound_, -described as galleys. But in Anthony’s list of 1546 the same vessels -are called galleasses; obviously therefore the two words did not define -particular types as rigidly as they do among naval archæologists to-day, -or even as they did towards the end of the sixteenth century. The -_Kateryn_ galley of 1512 was a three masted vessel with bowsprit and -fore and main topmasts, as was also the _Rose_ another ‘galley’ of the -early years of the reign.[240] Both were supplied with oars—thirty—as -was usual with small vessels long after this date when the name galley -had fallen into disuse. Another, the _Sweepstake_ (of Henry VII), had a -mizen mast,[241] and a sprit mast on the bowsprit,[242] so that it may -be assumed that she also was a three-master although elsewhere she is -described as ‘the king’s rowbarge called the _Sweepstake_.’[243] - -In 1546 the _Hart_, _Antelope_, _Tiger_, and _Bull_ are four-masted -flush-decked ships, apparently pierced on a lower gun deck for nine -pieces a side; the _Anne Gallant_ and _Grand Mistress_ four-masters, -of 450 tons, with forecastle and poop, carrying guns on the upper and -on a lower deck; the _Greyhound_, _Lion_, _Jennett_, and _Dragon_, are -similar well-decked vessels with the addition of great stern and quarter -galleries extending nearly the whole length of the poop and nearly -one-third of the length of the vessel. The contradictions we have to -face can be best exemplified by one example, the _Greyhound_, which in -the 1548 list is called a galley, in a 1546 list said to be a copy of -Anthony’s,[244] a galleass, and in that portion of Anthony’s manuscript -remaining in the Museum, a ship.[245] This last authority, a series -of original drawings, calls only the _Greyhound_, _Lion_, _Jennett_, -and _Dragon_, ‘ships’ and the only point in which they seem to differ -from the ordinary type is in the possession of the stern and quarter -galleries. If these drawings are accurate, and they so far differ from -each other as to lead us to suppose that they were intended to portray -individual ships, it is impossible that any one of them can have been -impelled by oars, although sweeps may have been occasionally and -temporarily used for a particular purpose. They may have been worked from -the gun-ports, in which case the _Grand Mistress_ could only have used -eight a side. The conclusion therefore is that the term galley did not -imply an oared vessel of the Mediterranean type, such as we now associate -with the word, but was applied first to light ships small enough to -use sweeps when necessary, and later to an improved model, possibly -built on finer lines than the heavy, slow moving hulks of the beginning -of the reign, and expected to bear, to the ponderous 600 or 1000 ton -battle ship, the same relation in speed that the real galley bore to a -mediæval sailing vessel. A fleet formation of 1545 was of course based -on that customary in an army and we have Van, Battle or main body, and -Wing, arranged for. In that year some of the vessels just mentioned were -not yet afloat, but the _Salamander_, _Swallow_, _Unicorn_, _Jennett_, -_Dragon_, and _Lion_ were included in the Battle. The Wing, composed of -‘galliasses and ships with ores,’ comprised among others, the _Grand -Mistress_, _Anne Gallant_, and _Greyhound_. That they should have been -classed with ‘the ships with ores,’ does not show that they were of the -same order, but only that they were supposed to be sufficiently handy -under sail to act with them. - -There was therefore a certain number of ships, large and small, vaguely -and uncertainly called galleys, possessing certain modifications on the -normal type, and there is some reason to believe that the innovation, -whatever may have been the particular change in form or structure, was -due to Henry himself. He sometimes appears to have had his own designs -carried out; a prize was to be altered ‘so as she now shall be made in -every point as your Grace devised.’[246] In 1541 Chapuys wrote to the -emperor: - - ‘The King has likewise sent to Italy for three shipwrights - experienced in the art of constructing galleys, but I fancy - that he will not make much use of their science as for some - time back he has been building ships with oars according to a - model of which he himself was the inventor.’[247] - -Chapuys must have been referring to the earlier _Rose_, _Kateryn_, and -_Swallow_ type, and possibly to others not now to be traced; but to the -presence of the Italian shipwrights was undoubtedly owing the launch of -the _Galley Subtylle_ in 1544. ‘Subtylle’ was not an especial name, but -was applied to a class more lightly built and quicker in movement than -the ordinary galley. This was the only real galley built by him since -it differed in no respect from the standard Mediterranean pattern, but -in 1546 thirteen ‘rowbarges’ of twenty tons apiece were added to the -Navy. These were rowing vessels, and unless intended for scouting or -for towing and to give general assistance, it is difficult to see their -utility as they were too small to engage with any chance of success. In -the result they were sold within a year or two of Henry’s death. The -sixteenth century galley service, such as it was, was forced on the -English government by the action of Francis I in bringing his own and -hired galleys round from the Mediterranean. It was always repugnant to -the national temperament and soon languished when the exciting cause was -removed. Although three or four galleys were carried on the navy list -until 1629 the last years in which any served at sea were 1563 and 1586. - -These various attempts at evolving a new type, which should combine -the best points of the galley and the sailing vessel, show that Henry -recognised at least some of the faults of the man-of-war of his day. He -failed because the solution was not within the scientific knowledge of -his time, and perhaps also because the work of the galley benches must -have been abhorrent to the hereditary instincts and traditions of the -English sailor. But he was the first English king who gave the Navy some -of that forethought and effort at improvement that had hitherto been -devoted wholly to the army. His experiments left so little visible trace -in the one direction that in 1551 Barbaro could write to the Seigniory, -‘They do not use galleys by reason of the very great strength of the -tides,’[248] but, in another, the drawings of the last ships launched, -the four of 1546, one of which, the _Tiger_, is reproduced in the -frontispiece—comparatively low in the water, little top-hamper, neat and -workmanlike in appearance—show a very great advance on anything before -afloat, and indicate a steady progression towards the modern type. - -[Sidenote: Royal Ships:—Decoration and sailing qualities.] - -If we are to judge of the decoration of ships by the references to -ornament in the naval accounts, we should have to conclude that it was -entirely absent. Unquestionably it was to a certain extent present, since -its absence would have been contrary to the instincts of humanity and the -customs of every nation that has had a navy. But it could not have been -as extensive as it afterwards became, nor have taken any very expensive -form. The hulls were doubtless painted as in the previous reign, but the -bows and stern seem to have been quite devoid of carving or gilding. The -tops, which were large enough to hold heavy guns, were ornamented with -‘top-armours’ of red, yellow, green, or white kersies lined with canvas. -The _Sovereign_ had copper and gilt ornaments on the end of the bowsprit, -and gilt crowns for the mast heads had been an embellishment used for -centuries. The _Unicorn_ and _Salamander_ have representative figures on -their beakheads,[249] but as they were prizes no deduction can be drawn -as to English custom. The English built ships have no figurehead, but the -beakhead sometimes ends in a spur, implying the idea of ramming. This -spur, however, points upward and is much too high to have been of any use -for that purpose. The ships’ sides were still surrounded with pavesses, -now only light wooden shields and decorations, but which were survivals -of the real shields of knights and men-at-arms in ancient vessels, ranged -round the sides of the ship until needed for fighting. A hundred years -later the cloth weather protection round the oarsmen of a Mediterranean -galley was still called the _pavesade_. These pavesses seem to have -sometimes taken the place of bulwarks, not always present. In 1513 Sir -Edward Echyngham, captain of a ship then at sea wrote that he had fallen -in with three Frenchmen, - - ‘Then I comforted my folk and made them to harness, and because - I had no rails upon my deck I coiled a cable round about the - deck breast high, and likewise in the waist, and so hanged upon - the cable mattresses, dagswayns,[250] and such bedding as I had - within board.’[251] - -The form of expression suggests that the absence of rails was unusual. - -Of the rate of sailing attained by these ships and their weatherly -qualities we know hardly anything. On 22nd March 1513 Sir Edward Howard -wrote to Henry, evidently in answer to a royal command to make a report -on the subject, describing the merits of the squadron he had been trying, -apparently between the Girdler and the North Foreland.[252] The _Kateryn -Fortileza_ sails very well; the _Mary Rose_ is ‘your good ship, the -flower I trow of all ships that ever sailed;’ the _Sovereign_, ‘the -noblest ship of sail is this great ship at this hour that I trow be in -Christendom.’ Some time, but not long, before 1525 the _Sovereign_ was -in very bad condition, and her repair was urged because ‘the form of -which ship is so marvellously goodly that great pity it were she should -die.’[253] Her name however does not subsequently occur and she was -probably broken up. In 1522 Sir William Fitzwilliam related in a letter -to the king that the _Henry_ sailed as well or better than any ship in -the fleet, that she could weather them all except the _Mary Rose_, and -that she did not strain at her anchors when it was blowing hard.[254] It -seems rather late in the day for a trial of a vessel afloat in 1514, but -some alterations may have been previously made rendering it advisable. -Even when ill and near his end Henry evinced the same interest in the -seagoing qualities of his ships, since we learn from a letter of 1546 -that he had required to be informed whether ‘the new shalupe was hable to -broke the sees.’ - -[Sidenote: Flags and Signals.] - -If carving, gilding, and painting were scant on these ships they shone -bravely with flags and streamers. Those of the _Peter Pomegranate_ were -banners of St Katherine, St Edward, and St Peter, six of the arms of -England in metal;[255] of a Red Lion; four of the Rose and Pomegranate; -two of ‘the castle,’ and eight streamers of St George.[256] The _Henry -Grace à Dieu_ was furnished with two streamers for the main mast -respectively 40 and 51 yards long, one for the foremast of 36 yards, and -one for the mizen of 28 yards; there were also ten banners 3½ yards long, -eighteen more 3 yards long, wrought with gold and silver and fringed with -silk, ten flags of St George’s Cross, and seven banners of buckram, at a -total cost of £67, 2s 8d.[257] Banners mentioned in other papers were, -of England, of Cornwall, of a rose of white and green, of a Dragon, of a -Greyhound, of the Portcullis, of St George and the Dragon, of St Anne, of -‘white and green with the rose of gold crowned,’ of ‘murrey and blue with -half rose and half pomegranate, with a crown of gold,’ and of ‘blue tewke -with three crowns of gold.’[258] White and green were now the recognised -Tudor colours, and there is some indication of their use in that sense -in the reign of Henry VII; the Greyhound was the badge of that king, -the Dragon of his son. The Portcullis referred to the control of the -straits of Dover, the Pomegranate to Catherine of Aragon and Spain; the -constant recurrence of the Rose as a badge and as a ship’s name needs no -explanation. The banner with the representation of a saint upon it was a -survival of the custom existing in earlier times, by which every ship was -dedicated to a saint, under whose protection it was placed and whose name -it usually bore. - -Besides ornament flags had long served the more prosaic purpose of -signalling. Even among merchantmen there seem to have been some -recognised signals, as in 1517 the _Mary of Penmark_, driven into Calais -by bad weather, hoisted ‘a flag in the top,’ for a pilot.[259] This -signal must therefore have long been common to at least two seafaring -peoples. So far as the Royal Navy was concerned, we can only say that -a flag ‘on the starboard buttock’ of the admiral’s ship called his -captains to a council.[260] But a system of day and night signalling had -long been in existence in the Spanish service, and in view of the close -connection between the two countries commercially, and the employment of -Spanish ships and seamen by the crown, it would have been extraordinary -had it not been known and used here. According to Fernandez de -Navarrete[261] a scheme of signals for day and night use was practised in -1430. In 1517 a flag half way up the main mast called the captains to the -flagship; sight of land was announced by a flag in the maintop; a strange -ship by one half way up the shrouds, and more than one strange sail by -two flags placed vertically. A ship requiring assistance fired three -guns, and sent a man to wave a flag in her top, while if the admiral’s -ship showed a flag on her poop, every captain was to send a boat for -orders. A code with guns and lights made the corresponding signals during -darkness and fog.[262] - -[Sidenote: Fleet Regulations.] - -The earliest set of regulations for the government of a fleet in this -reign is contained in an undated paper entitled ‘A Book of Orders for the -War by Se and Land,’ prepared by Thomas Audley by command of Henry.[263] -The articles relating to sea matters, and dealing with the management of -a fleet may be thus summarised:— - - 1. No Captain shall go to windward of his Admiral. 2. - Disobedient captains shall be put ashore. 3. No ship to ride in - the wake of another. 4. If the enemy be met the weather-gage - is to be obtained; only the Admiral shall engage the enemy’s - Admiral, and every ship is, as nearly as possible to attack an - opponent of equal strength. 5. Boarding not to be undertaken - in the smoke, nor until the enemy’s deck had been cleared - with small shot. 6. If a captured ship could not be held the - principal officers were to be taken out of her, the vessel - ‘boulged,’ and ‘the rest committed to the bottome of the sea - for els they will turne upon you to your confusion.’ 7. When - going into action the Admiral is to wear a flag at his fore and - main, and the other ships at the mizen. 8. The Admiral shall - not enter an enemy’s harbour, nor land men without calling a - council. - -From the last regulation it would appear that only limited authority -was left to the admiral, and it was perhaps due to Sir Edward Howard’s -actions of 1512 and 1513, the last of which, an attempt to cut out -galleys, was a defeat, and cost Howard his life. From the second it seems -that little disciplinary power was left in the admiral’s hands, and from -the seventh that it was not customary to fly the colours at sea. It will -be observed, from the methodical way in which the captains were directed -to go into action, that the tendency was still strong to handle a fleet -as troops and companies were handled ashore.[264] - -The next fleet orders show little alteration.[265] - - 1. Every ship shall retain its place in the Van, Battle, and - Wing, and every captain take his orders from the commander of - his own division. 2. In action the Van shall attack the French - Van, Admiral engage Admiral, and every captain a Frenchman of - equal size. 3. The Wing shall always be to windward so that it - may ‘the better beate off the gallies from the great ships.’ 4. - The watchword at night to be ‘God save King Henry,’ when the - other shall answer ‘Long to raigne over us.’ - -This fleet is the first recorded to have been opened into divisions, each -section being distinguished by the position of a flag. The Lord Admiral -flew the royal arms in the main top and the St George’s cross at the -fore, while the other ships of the ‘battaill’ carried the St George at -the main. The admiral commanding the Van wore the St George’s cross at -the fore and main, and the rest of his command the same flag at the fore. -The officer commanding the Wing flew the St George in both mizen tops and -those under him in one. - -[Sidenote: The Lords Admirals.] - -The hour of the professional seamen had not yet come for either admirals -or captains. Like most of Henry’s executive or administrative officers -they were taken from among the men he saw daily round him at court. It -would be unfair to suppose this the cause that the Navy did little during -his reign, for the very existence of a powerful fleet is often reason -enough why its services should not be needed. It was not until 1545 that -the French made any real attempt to contest the command of the sea. In -that year John Dudley, Lord Lisle, afterwards Duke of Northumberland, -commanded the English forces, and, in a position where some of Sir -Edward Howard’s bull like tactics might have been judicious, he failed -to come _aux prises_ with his adversary.[266] If we may believe his own -confessions he distrusted his powers and recognised his incapacity, but -in after years, when the aggrandisement of his family was concerned, he -showed no such hesitating modesty. On one occasion he wrote to Henry -admitting his want of experience but expressing a hope that ‘the goodness -of God’ would serve instead.[267] On another, he said, ‘I do thynck I -shuld have doon his Maiestie better service in some meaner office wherein -to be directed and not to be a director.’[268] If honestly felt this -frame of mind was hardly calculated to inspirit his subordinates. - -Although the office of admiral as a commander of a fleet dates from -the thirteenth century it was for long only a temporary appointment, -obtaining its chief importance from the character of the person holding -it. When several fleets were at sea and the principal command was vested -in one person he became for the time, Admiral of England, laying down -his title with his command. From the beginning of the fifteenth century -this office of ‘Great Admiral of England, Ireland and Aquitaine’ became a -permanent one, carrying with it the control of all the maritime strength -of the crown, and being usually bestowed on a relative of the sovereign. -The first of such patents is of 23rd Dec. 1406, and bears a resemblance, -in the powers and privileges it confers, to the similar ones of the -Admiralship of Castile, that can hardly be accidental.[269] But as far as -the navy was concerned his duties were purely militant, and there is no -trace of his interference in administration. - -The ‘Great Admiral’ also possessed jurisdictive functions, trying, by his -deputy, all maritime causes, civil and criminal. The fees and perquisites -attached to the exercise of these duties made the post valuable in the -fifteenth century, but it does not appear to have ensured any especial -political power to its holder during that troubled time. - -Frequently it became a mere court title of honour; the Earl of Oxford -was Great Admiral during the whole reign of Henry VII, but his name -never occurs in naval affairs. In many instances, during the fifteenth -century, the Admiral of England did not command at sea at all, but during -the reign of Henry VIII the post became one of actual executive control, -and, later, of administrative responsibility. The Lords Admirals of this -reign were mostly men who, before or afterwards, held other important -State or Household appointments and who had no expert knowledge of their -duties. The Earl of Oxford was succeeded by Sir Edward Howard by Letters -Patent of 15th August 1512; his brother, Lord Thomas Howard, son of the -victor of Flodden, was appointed 4th May 1513; Henry, Duke of Richmond, -illegitimate son of the King, 16th July 1525; William Fitzwilliam, Earl -of Southampton, 16th August 1536; John, Lord Russell, 18th July 1540; and -John Dudley, Lord Lisle, 27th January 1543. That most of these men had no -experience whatever of the sea was not considered detrimental to their -efficiency. - -[Sidenote: Royal Ships lost.] - -There were not many men-of-war lost during Henry’s reign, but both -absolutely and relatively, seeing the little active service undergone -by the Navy, the number is much larger than under Elizabeth. The -_Regent_ was burnt in action in 1512. In 1513 a ship commanded by Arthur -Plantagenet, an illegitimate son of Edward IV, sank after striking on -a rock in Bertheaume Bay, near Brest, but we are ignorant whether she -was a man-of-war or a hired merchantman, probably, however, the latter. -Sometime in or before 1514, a small vessel, name unknown, was wrecked at -Rye,[270] but a more important loss was that of the _Great Elizabeth_, in -September 1514, at Sandgate, west of Calais, during the passage of the -Princess Mary to France when 400 men were drowned.[271] The _Christ_, -freighted to the Mediterranean for trade, was, in 1515, captured by -Barbary corsairs and all but thirty of those on board killed. Letters -patent were issued, authorising a national subscription for their ransom. -The next was that of the _Anne Gallant_, in August 1518, on the coast of -Galicia while chartered by some London merchants on a trading voyage. - -In 1545 several foreign hired fighting ships were wrecked by stress -of weather, but the most remarkable loss of the reign was that of the -_Mary Rose_ which capsized off Brading on 20th July 1545, when getting -under way. Ralegh says that her ports were only sixteen inches above the -water line, and attributes the disaster to this circumstance. Beyond the -fact that most of Ralegh’s observations on maritime matters, where not -doubtful or unintelligible, can be shown to be incorrect,[272] there is -the great improbability that after at least fifty years’ experience of -gun-ports they should have been cut so low since she had been rebuilt -in or before 1536. Moreover Anthony’s drawings show them to have been -pierced very much higher in other vessels. A contemporary writer, who -obtained his account from an eye-witness, ascribed it to a different -cause and makes no mention of the ports.[273] - -By the 1st August measures had been taken towards raising her and the -persons who had undertaken the work desired, - - ‘Ffyrst ii of the gretest hulkes that may be gotten, more the - hulk that rydeth withyn the havyn, Item iiii of the gretest - hoys withyn the havyn, Item v of the gretest cables that - may be had, Item x grete hawsers, Item x new capsteynes with - xxᵗⁱ pulleyes, Item l pulleyes[274] bownde with irone Item v - doseyn balast basketts, Item xl lb of talowe, Item xxx Venyzian - maryners and one Venyziane carpenter, Item lx Inglysshe - maryners to attend upon them, Item a greate quantitie of - cordage of all sortes, Item Symonds patrone and maister in the - ffoyst doth aggree that all thynges must be had for the purpose - aforeseid.’[275] - -It appears from this that cables were to be passed through her ports, or -made fast to her, and that by means of the hulks she was to be bodily -hauled up, a course from which rapid success was anticipated. On the 5th -August, her yards and sails had been removed and ‘to her mastes there is -tyed three cables with other ingens to wey her upp and on every side of -her a hulk to sett her uppright.’[276] Two days later the officers at -Portsmouth fully expected that she would be weighed within twenty-four -hours,[277] but on the 9th - - ‘Thitalians which had the doying for the wayeing of the _Mary - Roos_ have been with my Lord Chamberlayn and me to signifie - unto us that after this sourt which they have followed, - hithierto, they can by no meanes recover her for they have - alredye broken her foremast ... and nowe they desyer to prove - another waye which is to dragg her as she lyeth untill she come - into shallowe ground and so to set her upright, and to this - they axe vi days’ proof.’[278] - -The second way proved as fruitless as the first, but we read that 22 tuns -of beer were consumed during the work, which must have made it appear an -enjoyable summer outing to the men.[279] Up to 30th June 1547, the whole -amount expended in the various attempts was £402, 6s 8d[280] and this may -have included £57, 11s 5d to Peter Paul, an Italian, for the recovery -of some of her guns, which was paid within the time for which the total -was made up but appears in other papers.[281] The last reference to the -unfortunate ship is another payment of £50 to Peter Paul for recovering -ordnance and then, after four years of effort, any further hope was -foregone.[282] - -[Sidenote: Royal Ships hired by Merchants.] - -During the greater part of his reign, Henry like his predecessors, -allowed merchants to charter men-of-war for trading voyages. In 1511, -£200 was paid for the _Mary and John_ by two merchants who hired her -to go to the Baltic, a five months’ voyage, but out of this sum the -king paid the wages of the crew and supplied flags and doubtless other -stores.[283] One reason for putting royal officers and men on board may -have been to prevent the ship being used for piratical purposes. In the -same year the _Anne Gallant_ also went to the Baltic,[284] and from there -to Bordeaux before returning to London, and the _Peter Pomegranate_ to -Zealand; in 1515 Richard Gresham freighted the _Mary George_, and Richard -Fermor the _Christ_, to the Mediterranean. For the _Anne Gallant_ the -crown received £300, and for the crew of the _Peter_ 100 ‘jorgnets’ were -provided.[285] When the _Anne Gallant_ was wrecked in 1518 the loss seems -to have been submitted to arbitration, ‘for the copyinge of the byll -of the grosse averies of the same _Anne Gallant_ and the warde of the -arbetrers theruppon made iiˢ,’ but there is no trace of the result.[286] -In 1524, the _Minion_ and _Mary Guildford_ were at Bordeaux, and in 1533, -two other vessels. After that year there is no further instance known of -Henry permitting his ships to be hired by private persons. - -[Sidenote: Convoys.] - -Convoys were provided by the government during war time. In 1513, the -Royal Navy being fully occupied on service, £55 was paid to the owner of -the _Mawdelin_ of Hull for escorting a wool fleet to Calais, and there -are other similar agreements.[287] In the preceding year there was a -guard of the herring fleet afloat, although we have no knowledge of its -strength.[288] In 1522 we have the first sign of an attempt to patrol -the four seas, four vessels were stationed between the Thames and Rye, -four others between Rye and the Channel Islands, and three are assigned -to the somewhat unintelligible location of between the Channel Islands -and the Tweed.[289] Doubtless it was only a temporary measure, but it is -important as showing that it was now understood that the Navy had a more -continuous purpose than mere attack or defence in fleets. - -[Sidenote: Dockyards:—Portsmouth.] - -Portsmouth dockyard, with the storehouses and workshops attached to it, -and said to have been situated at that portion of the present yard known -as the King’s Stairs, was the only one existing in 1509. The enlargement -of the Navy necessitated a corresponding increase in the accommodation -for building and repairs, and naturally the first references are to -Portsmouth. In the first year of the reign there are payments for ‘the -breaking up of the dockhead where the _Regent_ lay—having put the said -ship afloat out of the same dock into the haven of Portsmouth—making -a scaffold with great masts for the sure setting on end of her main -mast,’[290] and £1175, 14s 2d was expended there on the _Sovereign_.[291] -During the first war with France, additions were made to the -establishment,[292] and from a later paper we learn that five of these -were brewhouses, the Lion, Rose, Dragon, White Hart and Anchor,[293] -while some ‘reparrynge and tylinge of the houses att the dokke,’ was also -executed. In other respects the town was cared for, since in 1526, 675 -pieces of ordnance were on the walls and in store, and in the same year -£20 was spent on repairing the dock. - -In 1523, however, the existing dock must have been much enlarged in view -of the charges ‘for making a dock at Portsmouth for the king’s ship -royal,’ the _Henry Grace à Dieu_.[294] She was brought into the dock with -much ceremony, - - ‘the same day that the King’s Ship Royal the _Henry Grace à - Dieu_ was had and brought into the dock at Portsmouth of and - with gentlemen and yeomen dwelling about the country there - which did their diligence and labour there in the helping of - the said ship, and also with mariners and other labourers in - all to the number by estimation of 1000 persons.’[295] - -These assistants consumed during their arduous labours through the -day eight quarters of beef, forty-two dozen loaves of bread and four -tuns of beer. The method of construction was still the same as under -Henry VII, as there are payments for ‘digging of clay for the stopping -up of the same dock head,’ and for breaking up these solid fabrics. -The next event connected with the Portsmouth yard was the purchase of -nine acres of land, in 1527, at twenty shillings an acre; this ground -was surrounded by a ditch and hedge with gates at intervals.[296] The -dockyard however gradually sank in consideration during this reign. -Woolwich and Deptford soon disputed supremacy with it, and the gradual -formation of Chatham yard between 1560 and 1570 completed its decay. Its -last year of importance was 1545, when the fleet collected there, and -when its approaching neglect was so little anticipated that the chain -across the mouth of the harbour was renewed and fresh improvements were -contemplated. But from that year until the era of the Commonwealth it -almost disappears from naval history. - -[Sidenote: Dockyards:—Woolwich.] - -Woolwich, commonly but erroneously called the Mother Dock, grew up round -the _Henry Grace à Dieu_. The accounts[297] show various amounts expended -in the hire of houses and grounds there for purposes associated with the -ship, and some of these were converted into permanent purchases. One such -occurred in 1518 when the king bought a wharf and houses from Nicholas -Partriche, an alderman of London, for £100,[298] but the Longhouse, -and perhaps others had been built in 1512. In 1546 the yard was again -enlarged by the addition of docks and land belonging to Sir Edward -Boughton, which were obtained by means of an exchange of property; these -docks had been leased by the crown for at least seven years previously at -£6, 13s 4d a year.[299] - -In connection with Woolwich we find a description of the office -formalities necessary when a ship was moved from one place to another. In -1518 the _Henry Grace à Dieu_ and the _Gabriel Royal_ were brought from -Barking creek, the first to Erith, and the second to Woolwich, and among -the expenses incurred were payments - - ‘To John Dende scryvenor in Lombarde Strette for certen - wrytyngs and bylls made by hym for the Kyngs lysences to my - office, belongynge, that is to seye, for one warraunte made - to Master Comely, the Kinges attorney, xiiᵈ, and for a letter - to rygge the schippes viiiᵈ, and for a warraunte to have the - schippes owt of Barkyn Creke, viiiᵈ, and for ii comyssions made - to provide all things concernynge the same schippes, iiˢ, and - for divers copyes of the same xviᵈ.’[300] - -It is doubtful however whether a dry dock existed at Woolwich at this -time. In this particular instance there is a payment to John Barton, -‘marshman,’ for the making ‘of the _Gabriel Rialls_ docke the sixteenth -daye of Marche anno dicto in grett when the seid shipp most be browght -apon blokks xxxˡⁱ’.[301] Seventeen men were at work and this cannot refer -to a dry dock which would have required more men and much more money; -it seems to have been a graving place in which the vessel was shored -upon blocks. But when the _Henry_ was being built the charges include -the travelling expenses of men from Southampton and Portsmouth ‘for the -makynge of the dokkehede,’ and ‘to break up the dokhede.’ - -[Sidenote: Dockyards:—Deptford.] - -The formation of Deptford is usually assigned to 1517, when John Hopton, -comptroller of the ships, undertook, for 600 marks, to ‘make and cast a -pond’ in a meadow adjoining the storehouse, and to build - - ‘A good hable and suffycient hed for the same pond and also - certyn hable sleysis through the which the water may have entre - and course into the foresaid ponde as well at spryng tydes as - at nepetydes.’[302] - -It was to be of sufficient size to take the _Great Galley_, _Mary Rose_, -_Great Bark_, _Less Bark_, and _Peter Pomegranate_. There is some -evidence that a pond with an inlet communicating with the river, was in -existence in the thirteenth century, in which case Hopton only adapted -and improved it. The storehouse can be traced back to 1513,[303] but it -is possible that the building hired at ‘Greenwich’ in 1485, by Henry VII -was really at Deptford, seeing that Deptford Strand was sometimes called -West Greenwich; if so its beginnings are older than Portsmouth. Even in -1513 there is a reference to ‘the howse at the dockhede,’ but in 1518, -when the _Great Nicholas_ was brought to Deptford for repair, there are -charges for putting her into the dock, for ‘making the same dockhed,’ -‘for pylinge of the dockhede,’ and for ‘scouring out the dokk at the este -ende of the Kyngis storehouse.’ There was also made ‘a myghty hegge of -grete tesarde and tenets[304] along the seid dockside and the retorne -of the same;’ in the same year a wharf and two sheds were built.[305] -The use made of Deptford grew steadily until by the end of the reign it -had become the most important yard. In 1546-7 more storehouses had to be -hired at a cost of £17, 18s 8d for the year, while £1, 6s 8d covered the -extra payments for the same purpose at Woolwich, and no such temporary -augmentation was required at Portsmouth.[306] - -[Sidenote: Dockyards:—Erith.] - -There seems at one time to have been intention to make Erith a permanent -naval station. By Letters Patent of 12th January 1513-4, John Hopton -was appointed ‘keeper of the new storehouses at Deptford and Erith for -supplying the king’s ships.’ On 18th February £32 was paid to Robert Page -of Erith for - - ‘The purches of a tenement with an orchard and gardeyn and - othir appurtenaunces thereunto belonging, conteigning foure - acres of ground, being and sett in the parish of Erith by us - of hym bought upon the which ground we have newe edified and - bilded a house called a storehouse for the saffe kepyng of - our ordynaunce and habillamentes of warre belonging to our - shippes.’[307] - -In 1521 the fittings, guns, and ground tackle of some of the ships were -kept here, and shortly before that the sills of the doors had been raised -‘for the keepinge owt of the hye tydis for att every tyde affore ther was -ii ffoote depe of water in the seide storrhowsse.’ At this date there -were 88 bolts of canvas, 219 cables and hawsers, 27 masts, and 25 guns -besides powder, pikes, bows and blocks in the house, which must have been -of good size. We do not know the circumstances that led to its disuse, -but long before the end of the reign Erith ceases to be mentioned in -connection with naval affairs. - -If we were to assume that the docks, so frequently spoken of in official -papers, were all dry docks, we should have to conclude that there -were nearly as many in existence then as now. There can, however, be -no doubt that the term was applied indifferently to a complete dock -with gates, to a graving place, and even to a temporary protection of -timber, fitted round a ship afloat to protect it from the ice. At Erith, -in 1512-13 there was ‘a new docke’ made, in which the _Sovereign_ was -placed and repaired, the dock and repairs together occupying only eight -weeks.[308] But in 1526 the construction of a dock at an estimated cost -of £600 was suggested, so that it is certain that one did not exist -there previously.[309] In another instance John Barton and twenty-three -marshmen were paid for _two_ days’ work while they ‘cast and made a dock -for the _Grett Galey_ affore the towne of Depfforde Stronde for the -suer keepinge of her ther owt of the ysse.’[310] Subsequently certain -ships are said to have been brought ‘into their dock’ after they had -been aground for breaming and floated again;[311] in such a case it -seems to have meant only a mooring place. At Portsmouth in 1528 a number -of labourers were ‘working by tide for the making of a dock for the -grounding of the _Mary Rose_, _Peter Pomegranate_, and _John Baptist_,’ -which vessels were ‘wound aground by certain devices.’[312] These -examples show clearly that the word when found in a sixteenth century -paper, must be understood in a far wider sense than is customary to-day. -Nevertheless there are references which seem to imply that there were -other docks than those in the government yards. In 1513 men were engaged -in ‘casting and closing the dockhede with tymber bord and balyste at -Ratcliffe,’ and another one at Limehouse is also mentioned.[313] - -[Sidenote: Shipwrights and Workmen.] - -There was as yet no large resident population of shipwrights and others -at the naval centres chosen by the government. For the _Henry Grace -à Dieu_ workers were brought from districts far afield. Plymouth, -Dartmouth, Bere Regis, Exeter, Saltash, Bradford, Bristol, Southampton, -Bodmin, Exmouth, Poole, Ipswich, Brightlingsea, Yarmouth, Hull, Beverley, -York, and other places furnished contingents. Most of the men came from -the south and west, but of single towns Dartmouth and Ipswich supplied -the largest numbers. While travelling to and returning from the scene -of their employment they received a halfpenny a mile, known as conduct -money, for food and lodging, and the agents sent to press them were paid -one shilling a day.[314] Probably the call to the royal service was not -unpopular as all classes of workmen were boarded and lodged in addition -to their wages; under Henry VII they were victualled, but there is no -mention of free lodging. - -Shipwrights received from twopence to sixpence a day, sawyers, caulkers, -and pumpmakers, twopence to fourpence, smiths twopence to sixpence, and -labourers from twopence to fivepence. The staff at Portsmouth included -a chip-bearer and a chip-gatherer at sevenpence a day, so that at this -time ‘chips’ did not constitute the scandalous perquisite it afterwards -became. Of the carpenters working on the _Henry Grace à Dieu_, 141 were -supplied with ‘coats’ costing from two to five shillings each, but that -was a nearly exceptional expenditure, although 164 were provided for -the men building the _Mary Rose_ and _Peter Pomegranate_. The cost of -victualling averaged twopence halfpenny a day, and they were given bread, -beef, beer, ling, cod, hake, herring, pease, and oatmeal. There were -cooks to prepare their food and a ‘chamberlyn’ to make the beds which -were bought or hired for their use; flockbeds and mattresses cost from -3s 4d to 5s, bolsters 1s and 1s 6d, sheets 2s to 3s, blankets 1s 4d, -and coverlets 1s to 2s.[315] Sometimes flock beds and mattresses were -temporarily procured for twopence, and feather beds for threepence a -week. The beds were made to hold two or three men, and in at least one -instance ten men were packed into three beds. By 1545 wages seem to have -risen somewhat, since at Deptford and Portsmouth that year the pay and -victualling of all classes—carpenters, smiths, labourers, caulkers, and -sawyers—came to ninepence a day. - -The principal designers and master shipwrights were John Smyth, Robert -Holborn, and Richard Bull, who were in 1548 granted pensions on the -Exchequer of fourpence a day ‘in consideration of their long and good -service, and that they should instruct others in their feats.’[316] -James Baker, the only master shipwright whose reputation outlived his -generation, is not mentioned among these men, but he is elsewhere spoken -of as ‘skilful in ships,’[317] and he possessed a pension, also from the -Exchequer, of eightpence a day. In the reign of James I he was still -remembered and said to have been the first who adapted English ships -to carry heavy guns, a survival which, whether exactly correct or not, -testifies to an exceptional skill in his art. In 1546 Baker got into -trouble by being in possession of some forbidden religious books, and it -is likely that only his professional ability saved him. Henry ordered -that he should be examined, but ‘His Maiestie thynketh you shall find -him a very simple man, and therefore wold that without putting him in any -great fear you should search of him as much as you may.’ Evidently the -king knew him well, and had doubtless often discussed shipbuilding with -him. - -The famous Pett family who furnished a succession of celebrated -shipbuilders between the reigns of Mary I and Mary II, were not yet -prominent. In 1523 a Peter Pett is among the shipwrights, pressed from -Essex and Suffolk, who were working at Portsmouth, and there is a yet -earlier mention of a payment of £38, 1s 4d to a John Pett for caulking -the _Regent_ in 1499.[318] A recent writer,[319] in a Pett pedigree, -gives Thomas Pett of Harwich as the father of the first well known Peter -Pett who died in 1589. It is therefore possible, but scarcely probable, -that this was the Peter Pett who was working in 1523 as a boy. - -[Sidenote: Officers and Men:—Pay and Clothing.] - -By the treaty of 1511, between Henry and Ferdinand, the former undertook -to hold the Channel between the Thames and Ushant with 3000 men, of whom -some 1600 were sailors and gunners.[320] For the fleet of 1513, exclusive -of the crews of 28 victualling ships, 2880 seamen were required;[321] in -1514, during the month ending with 22nd May, there were 23 king’s ships, -21 hired merchantmen, and 15 victuallers in commission manned by 3982 -seamen and 447 gunners, exclusive of the soldiers carried as well.[322] -When maritime action in force recommenced in 1545, it was estimated that -5000 men would be wanted which ‘wilbe some dyffycultie.’ Beyond this one -expression there is no hint of any trouble having been experienced in -procuring these men although the numbers were larger than those which -Charles I, a century later, found it almost impossible to obtain. As the -proportion allowed theoretically was two men to a ton[323] the ships were -much more heavily manned than in the seventeenth century, but in practice -the crews do not usually work out at one man to a ton, even including -soldiers. - -Henry’s success was due in a great measure to the fact that the men were -punctually paid and fairly well fed, two elementary incentives to loyal -service neglected during the two succeeding centuries. In his first war -of 1512 he entered into an agreement with the admiral, Sir Edward Howard, -by which the latter, being supplied with ships, men, and money, had the -whole administration placed in his hands, having to pay wages and find -provisions and clothes.[324] In every subsequent expedition the admiral’s -duties were only executive. The rate of pay was five shillings a month, -and at this it remained during nearly the whole reign, but in addition, -a certain number of dead shares, or extra pays, the division of which is -somewhat obscure, were allotted to each ship. They are first met with -during the war with France in 1492, and, at that time, in connection -with the pay of the soldiers serving on board the fleet. Subsequently -the favour was extended to the maritime branch, and was perhaps intended -to replace the ‘reward’ of sixpence a week in addition to their pay, -which had been enjoyed by the seamen in preceding centuries. But if the -dead shares were at any time divided among the sailors they speedily -lost the privilege, and early in the reign we find the shares, reckoned -at five shillings apiece, reserved for the officers. There are a few -apparent exceptions, perhaps due to our ignorance of the exact sixteenth -century meaning of the words used. The wages bill of the _Katherine_ of -London[325] distinctly says that the dead shares are divided between -‘master and mariners,’ and there are some other similar cases, _e.g._ -‘168 dead shares to be divided among the mariners.’[326] But in the vast -majority of references they are seen to be meant for the officers. - -The number of course depended on the size of the ship, and for the _Henry -Grace à Dieu_ they were thus distributed[327]:—Master —; master’s mate, -4; four pilots, 16; four quartermasters, 12; quartermaster’s mates, 4; -boatswain, 3; boatswain’s mate, 1½; cockswain, 1½; cockswain’s mate, -1; master carpenter, 3; carpenter’s mate, 1½; under-carpenter, 1; two -caulkers, 3; purser, 2; three stewards, 3; three cooks, 3; cook’s mates, -1½; two yeomen of the stryks, 2; their mates, 1; two yeomen of the ports, -2; their mates, 1. The officers’ pay was the same as that of the men, -but they received in addition either these dead shares, reckoned at five -shillings each, in the proportion shown here, or ‘rewards’ of so much a -month. The _Peter Pomegranate_ may be taken as a representative ship, -as the _Henry_ carried some officers unknown in the smaller vessels. -In the _Peter_ the master obtained one pound ten shillings a month of -twenty-eight days; the master’s mate and quartermasters ten shillings; -the boatswain twelve shillings and sixpence; master gunner, carpenter, -purser, steward and cook, ten shillings, and gunners six shillings and -eightpence. Surgeons were paid ten shillings and thirteen shillings and -fourpence, and pilots twenty and thirty shillings a month, but neither -were always carried.[328] Within certain limits, however, officers’ wages -vary considerably, depending on the number of dead shares allotted among -them, which, again, was subject to the size of the ship, an indication of -the commencing division into rates. But before Henry’s death the formula -of pay ran ‘dead shares and rewards included’ for an average, exclusive -of captains, of eight shillings a month[329] all round, so that the old -system was beginning to be discarded. - -For many years of the reign some sort of uniform in the shape of ‘coats’ -or ‘jackets’ was supplied to the men, but its exact character is nowhere -described. When the _Mary Rose_ and _Peter Pomegranate_ were brought -round from Portsmouth to the Thames thirty-five coats in green and -white were provided, but as the cost was 6s 8d apiece these could only -have been for the officers.[330] Sir Edward Howard, by his agreement in -1512, had to furnish the sailors with them at 1s 8d each, and he appears -to have charged for 1616 besides 1812 for the soldiers.[331] Masters -and pilots had sometimes coats of damask, every coat containing eight -yards.[332] In 1513, we find references to 1244 mariners’, gunners’, and -servitors’, jackets,[333] and to 638 coats of white and green cloth, 13 -of white and green camlet, 4 of satin, and one of damask.[334] Although -indications of uniform for the men have been noticed under Edward IV and -Henry VII, the provision was much more liberal when Henry ascended the -throne. He had at first an overflowing treasury wherewith to minister to -his love of display and carry out more completely a custom he may also -have thought useful from the point of view of health and of making the -men proud of the royal service. But the allusions to seamen’s clothes are -few after the first years. The system appears to have lasted, although -perhaps not continuously, until his death, since in 1545 the writer of an -estimate of naval charges asks if 1800 seamen are to have coats at two -shillings each.[335] - -[Sidenote: Sick and Wounded Men.] - -Sick men appear to have been kept in pay if landed for that reason, -because when Sir Thomas Wyndham proposed to send such members of his -crew ashore, the council preferred that he should keep them on board as -they would only be receiving pay uselessly on land and might not come -back.[336] Those discharged disabled from wounds sometimes received -a gratuity; in 1513, sixty men of the _Mary James_ sent home in that -condition were given twopence a mile conduct money, the usual rate being -a halfpenny a mile, and a gift of £20 among them.[337] - -Until 1545, there is no record of exceptional disease in fleets, but -in September of that year the plague broke out in the English ships, -although as the French were suffering even more and were eventually -compelled by it to disband their fleet, it did not adversely affect the -result of the operations. In August there were many men sick which was -ascribed ‘to the great hete and the corrupcion of the victuall by reason -of the disorder in the provision and the strayte and warm lying in the -shippes.’[338] On the 28th August Lisle wrote to Paget that there was -much illness, ‘those that be hole be veray unsightlie havyng not a ragg -to hang uppon ther backes.’ On 3rd September, Lisle landed at Treport -in Normandy, and sacked and burnt the town, and it is not until after -that date that the word ‘plague’ is used and the terrible disease raged -virulently. On 4th September there were 12,000 effective men, soldiers -and sailors; on the 13th, 8488, so that in little more than a week 3512 -‘were sick, dead, or dismissed,’[339] By 11th September, Lisle was -back at Portsmouth and wrote to the king that the ships were generally -infected. Although the fleet was then broken up, it seems to have -lingered on in the vessels kept in commission through the winter as there -are references to it in the following April. - -[Sidenote: Captains.] - -The captains of men-of-war were still usually military officers or -courtiers who made no attempt to work the ship. They were for the most -part, persons holding appointments in the household, but towards the -end of the reign, the new feeling that the sea was as important as the -land as a field of national effort had trained officers who were almost -professional seamen. These men belonged to the class who would earlier -have been content to command soldiers during a voyage, but who were now -continuously occupied in commanding ships at sea or in attending to -administrative details ashore. Nominally a captain’s pay was one shilling -and sixpence a day, but there were frequently extra allowances. In 1513, -Walter, Lord Ferrers, captain of the _Sovereign_ received five shillings -and two pence a day ‘by way of reward’ over and above his one shilling -and sixpence,[340] and Sir William Trevilian of the _Gabriel Royal_, -three shillings and fourpence a day. On the other hand captains who -happened to belong to the troop of ‘King’s Spears’ were paid ‘out of the -King’s cofers’ and took nothing from the navy expenses.[341] The King’s -Spears were a troop of Horseguards, fifty in number, formed by Henry -shortly after his accession. Each of them was attended by an archer, -man-at-arms, and servant, ‘they and all their horses being trapped in -cloth of gold, silver, or goldsmith’s work.’ Eventually want of money led -to the disbandment of this force. - -In 1545 the demand for captains exceeded the supply for the smaller -ships, the circumstances perhaps promising neither fame nor prize money. -The official total of men-of-war and armed merchantmen under Lisle’s -command was 104 ships, the strongest fighting fleet as yet sent to sea. -About some of these he wrote, - - ‘As concernynge the meane[342] shippes I know noon other waye - (I meane those that come out of the west parties and such of - London, as were victuallers that want capitaignes) but to place - them with meane men to be their capitaignes as serving men and - yomen that be most mete for the purpose.’[343] - -‘Meane men’[344] here signifies those of moderate social status, and -serving men the confidants or attendants of noblemen, and who were -frequently gentlemen themselves. - -In 1546 a Spaniard was retained as captain of the _Galley Subtylle_ and -a Venetian as its patron, or master, but as they were provided with an -interpreter the crew must have been English.[345] This is a further proof -of the little experience native officers had of galley work; apparently -the English captain of the preceding year had not been found efficient. -Whether the crew were seamen or criminals is not quite certain; the term -‘forsathos’[346] is used but only in connection with the French prize, -the _Galley Blancherd_, which was undoubtedly manned by prisoners, its -original crew. In more ways than one this prize seems to have been a -source of trouble to its captors. To keep the men in condition constant -practice was essential, ‘Richard Brooke ... keptt me company as far as -Gravesend to kepe the forsados in ure and breth as they must contynewally -be otherwyse they wilbe shortly nothing worth.’ Most of the captives -were Neapolitans, with the habits of their class, and Brooke desired new -clothes ‘for all the said forsados who he saith are most insufferable -without any manner of things to hang upon theym. So that I perceyve the -same galley will be some chardge to His Maiestie contynewally, yf His -Highnes do keep her styll with her suit of forsadoes as she ys now.’[347] -Lisle urged that if the _Blancherd_ was restored at the conclusion -of the war the prisoners should be granted their liberty. Perhaps he -may have thought it advisable to get rid of them on any terms, but the -argument he pressed was that such a course would make the French chary, -at any future time, of bringing their galleys near English ports or ships -if the slaves on board knew that surrender meant freedom. - -[Sidenote: Ship Discipline.] - -Yet another diplomatist, Dr William Knight, found ‘the ungodly manners of -the seamen’ not to his liking, and so far as the scanty material permits -us to judge, they appear to have been an unruly and disorderly race. -Discipline in the modern sense was of course unknown, and such restraints -as existed sat but lightly on both royal and merchant seamen. An undated -paper, but which is probably earlier than 1530, discussing the causes -of the decay of shipping, describes the men as ‘so unruly nowadays that -ther ys no merchantman dare enterpryse to take apon hym the orderyng and -governing of the said shippes.’[348] Even the government dealt with them -gently, and when in 1513, the crew of a man-of-war were discontented with -their captain, Sir Weston Browne, the Vice-Admiral was directed, if he -could not pacify them, to replace Browne.[349] Sometimes whole crews went -ashore, and when the French attacked Dover in 1514, the king’s ships in -harbour there lay uselessly at their anchors for want of men. One sailor, -Edward Foster, was examined at Portsmouth in 1539, before the Mayor and -two admiralty officials for saying that ‘if his blood and the King’s were -both in a dish, there would be no difference between them, and that if -the Great Turk would give a penny a day more he would serve him.’[350] -One would like to know what happened to this matter-of-fact physiologist. - -Regulations existed for the maintenance of order on board ship, and -were ‘set in the mayne mast in parchement to be rid as occasion shall -serve.’[351] A murderer was to be tied to the corpse and thrown overboard -with it; to draw a weapon on the captain involved the loss of the right -hand; the delinquent sleeping on watch[352] for the fourth time was to -be tied to the bowsprit with a biscuit, a can of beer, and a knife, -and left to starve or cut himself down into the sea; a thief was to be -ducked two fathoms under water, towed ashore at the stern of a boat, and -dismissed. Only a boat from the flagship was to board a stranger to make -inquiries, as the men ‘would pilfer thinges from oure nation as well -of the kinges dere frends,’ but in a captured ship all plunder, except -treasure, between the upper and lower decks was allotted to them. It is -interesting, as showing Henry’s desire to avoid giving needless offence, -to compare this order, about the manner in which strange ships were to be -visited, with another issued at the end of the reign. It was still more -impressively worded. Neutrals were to be ‘gently’ examined, and if no -enemies’ goods found in them not to be harmed. And ‘the violation of our -pleasure in this behaulf is of such importance as whosoever shalbe found -culpable therein, we shall not faile so to look upon him as shall be to -his demerits.’[353] - -In addition to regulations which, if not new as maritime customs, were -new as a code of discipline we find that crews were now assigned stations -on board ship, an essential towards smartness in work, but one which -so far as we know had no previous existence. The station list—or one -of them—of the _Henry Grace à Dieu_ has come down to us, and although -no similar paper exists for any other ship it cannot be supposed that -an improvement in method and working, of which the advantages must at -once have made themselves felt, could have failed to have been generally -adopted.[354] This list gives:— - - The forecastle 100 men; waist 120 - In the second deck for the main lifts, 20 - In the said deck for the trin and the dryngs,[355] 20 - To the stryks[356] of the mainsail, 8 principal men - To the bonaventure top, 2 - The little top upon the fore top, 2 - For the boat 40; the cok, 20 - Main capstandard[357] and main sheets, 80 - In the third deck to the topsail sheets, 40 - To the bonaventure and main mizen, 20 - To the helm, 4 men - To the main top 12; to the fore top, 6; to the main mizen top, 6 - The little top upon the main top, 2 - The little top upon the main mizen top, 2 - The gellywatte, 10.[358] - -Notwithstanding these signs of orderly training the loss of the _Mary -Rose_ was attributed solely to the insubordination and disorder of those -on board. Her captain, Sir George Carew, being hailed when matters looked -serious answered that ‘he had a sort of knaves whom he could not rule.’ -But these men had been chosen for the Vice-Admiral’s ship as especially -good sailors and therefore ‘so maligned and disdained one the other that -refusing to do that which they should do were careless to do that which -was most needful and necessary and so contending in envy perished in -frowardness.’[359] - -[Sidenote: Victualling.] - -Until very recent times the victualling on board ship was a source of -continual anxiety to the authorities, and of grumbling and vexation to -the men; and even in the time of Henry VIII it appears to have given -more trouble than any of the other details of administration. There was -no victualling department until 1550, and either local men were employed -at the ports where supplies were to be collected or others were sent -from London to make the purchases. Commissions to provide provisions -were given to persons attached to the household, or to highly placed -officials with sufficient influence to obtain them. In 1496 John Redynge, -clerk of the Spicery, was victualling both the land and sea forces on -service.[360] In July 1512, Sir Thomas Knyvet, Master of the Horse, was -supplying the fleet and undertaking the responsibility of transport; -in October, John Shurly, Cofferer of the Household, and John Heron, -Supervisor of the London Customhouse.[361] Between 1544-7 numerous agents -were employed and were subject to no central control, unless a reference -to the Lord Chamberlain, Lord St John, afterwards Marquis of Winchester, -as ‘a chief victualler of the army at the seas’ may be held to imply his -general superintendence. - -In 1512 the cost of provisioning each man stood at one shilling and -threepence a week. There were some complaints that year, but in 1513 -Sir Edward Howard, like many a later admiral, was begging earnestly -for stores, ‘let provision be made, for it is a well spent penny that -saveth the pound.’ A captain, William Gonson, finding that he was running -short, wrote to the Council that unless he received fresh supplies for -his men, ‘I cannot keep them in order, for if we lack victuals and wages -at anytime as well Spaniards as Englishmen shall murmur.’ That also was -an experience many later captains were to find commonplace. Most of the -victualling difficulties in subsequent reigns were due to want of money -or to absolute knavery, but the embarrassments at this date seem to have -been as much caused by lack of organisation due to want of experience -in the supply of large fleets longer at sea than formerly. There is, -however, a letter of Howard’s, belonging to 1512 or 1513, which shows -that roguery was already at work: ‘they that receved ther proportion for -ii monthes flesche cannot bryng about for v weekes for the barelles be -full of salt, and when the peecis kepith the noumbre wher they shulde -be peny peces they be scante halfpeny peces, and wher ii peces shulde -make a messe iii will do but serve.’[362] Short measure was therefore a -frequent experience. In April 1513 a convoy reached the fleet off Brest -just in time, ‘for of ten days before there was no man in all the army -that had but one meal a day and one drink.’ After Howard’s death, when -the captains of the fleet returned to Dartmouth, and they were asked why -they had come back, ‘they all replied for default of victuals not having -three days allowance.’[363] The pursers, a class who move through naval -history loaded with the maledictions of many generations of seamen, were -already condemned. It is doubtless in connection with the return of the -fleet that two officials wrote on the same day, ‘I fear that the pursers -will deserve hanging for this matter,’ and ‘an outrageous lack on the -part of the pursers.’[364] It may have been the experiences of 1512 and -1513 that led to an order in September of the latter year, of which there -is no previous example that the vessels named for winter service should -be provisioned for two months at the time.[365] They were directed ‘to -victual at Sandwich from two months to two months during four months.’ -Although the regulation remained in force, Surrey complained in 1522 -that some of his ships had only supplies for eight days instead of -two months.[366] In 1545 the French were said to carry two months’ -stores.[367] - -Victualling stores and requisites were obtained by purveyance, and there -was not consequently much eagerness displayed to sell to the crown. -There is a proclamation of 1522 ordering, under penalty of £5, every -one possessing casks to put them out of doors that the King’s purveyor -might take them at ‘a reasonable price,’ one, that is to say, to be fixed -by him. The prices paid for provisions, are, therefore, no absolute -indication of the market rates, but the following are some for this -period.[368] - - Biscuit (1512) 3s 6d and 5s a cwt. - Do. (1554) 7s 6d a cwt. - Salt beef (1512) £1, 11s a pipe - Do. (1544) £3, 12s a pipe - Beer (1512) 13s 4d a tun - Do. (1547) 16s and 21s a tun - Red Herring (1513) 5s the cade - Do. (1547) 9s 6d and 11s the cade - White Herring (1513) 10s a barrel - Do. (1547) 21s a barrel - -By 1545 the rate had run up to eighteenpence a week per man, or perhaps -more,[369] and two months’ provisions were estimated to occupy 83 tons -of space in 100 ton ship with a complement of 200 soldiers and sailors. -A pound of biscuit and a gallon of beer a day were allowed to each man, -and ‘200 pieces of flesh’ to every hundred men on four days of the -week. Beer was the recognised right of the sailor, and the exigencies of -warfare had to yield to his prerogative. After Surrey captured Morlaix -in 1522, he announced his intention of going on a cruise and of not -returning ‘as long as we have any beer, though in return we should drink -water.’[370] Evidently it was considered out of the question to remain -at sea without beer, and again when Lisle was off the French coast in -1545 he gave pointed expression to the fear that if the victuallers did -not arrive ‘a good meynye of this fleet may happen to drynck water.’ The -payments for provisions from September 1542 until the death of Henry in -January 1547, amounted to £65,610 10s 4½d,[371] and we can still trace -the proceedings of the various agents at Sandwich, Lowestoft, Portsmouth, -Yarmouth, and Southampton. ‘Necessary money,’ an allowance to the -pursers for candles, wood, etc., was in operation according to the ‘old -ordinance’ at the rate of twopence a man per month.[372] - -[Sidenote: The new Administration.] - -The increase in the navy and the additional work caused by the -mobilisation of fleets necessitated an augmentation from the first on -the administrative side of the department though no systematic and -permanent change was made until the close of the reign. Brygandine -remained clerk of the ships till about 1523; in that year he was granted -a release—a customary proceeding—for all embezzlements or misdemeanours -committed while in office, and this probably means that he resigned -then or shortly afterwards.[373] But although he had been the chief -administrative officer, he was now by no means the only one even during -his term of service, though it is not easy to define the exact duties -and responsibilities of his associates. The fleets of 1513-14 carried a -‘Treasurer of the Army by Sea,’ in the person of Sir Thomas Wyndham,[374] -who was also allowed one shilling and fourpence a day for two clerks, and -Brygandine had nothing to do with payments made for stores or wages in -these ships. - -In 1513 John Hopton, a gentleman usher of the chamber was given charge -of the fleet conveying troops to Calais,[375] and from that time until -his death Hopton was closely connected with naval affairs. In 1514 he -was made keeper of the storehouses at Erith and Deptford, with a fee of -one shilling a day, and as such received under his charge the fittings -of the ships dismantled and laid up that year; it has been noticed that -he contracted for the work required for the formation or enlargement of -the pond at Deptford in 1517. He was an owner of ships and sold at least -one to the king, and, in the same year, he is called ‘clerk comptroller -of the ships.’ His duties must have been mainly clerical and financial, -for we have many separate series of payments made by him to Brygandine -who seems to have retained the active direction of executive work, and -certain passages in the records known as the _Chapter House Books_, -seem to imply that they were written under his supervision. Hopton held -a definite appointment, but there are others mentioned as employed in -purchasing stores, travelling for certain purposes, or in charge of -ordnance taken out of the ships, who can only have held temporary and -subordinate situations. There were sometimes local clerks of the ships, -as at Portsmouth when Thomas Spert was given ‘the rule of all the forsaid -ships, maisters, and maryners with the advise of Brygandine.’[376] Here, -however, the whole control was really in the hands of the customers of -Southampton who were ordered to provide the money requisite, muster -the men once a week, and exercise a general oversight. Again, in 1529, -Edmund More, of whom nothing is known beyond this single reference, was -acting as clerk of the ships at Portsmouth. When there was only one naval -centre the clerk of the ships resided there, but after the foundation -of Woolwich and Deptford his place was in London, and the local clerk -represented the later Commissioner in charge of a dockyard. - -Hopton died in or before July 1526,[377] and had been succeeded from -1524 by William Gonson, also a gentleman usher of the king’s chamber, as -keeper of the storehouses at Erith and Deptford.[378] Although in 1523 -Thomas Jermyn was the recognised Clerk of the Ships,[379] and in 1533 -Leonard Thoreton,[380] Gonson, who also commanded ships at sea, soon -became the dominant official. He is found equipping men-of-war, directing -their movements and making payments for wages, victualling, and the -purchase of necessaries, but notwithstanding the extent of his authority -he does not seem to have held any titular rank. In 1538 Sir Thomas Spert -was Clerk of the Ships,[381] but appears to have had very little to do -unless Gonson happened to be suffering from gout. Spert was followed by -Edmund Water, another gentleman usher of the chamber, who held his office -by patent, neither Jermyn, Thoreton nor Spert acted under Letters Patent, -and in the absence of an enrolled appointment, they were doubtless -considered merely acting officials. - -Large payments to Gonson can be traced down to 1545. Then for the first -time we have the titles of ‘Treasurer of the See,’ ‘Paymaster of the -See,’ and ‘Treasurer of the See Maryne Causes’[382] as describing John -Winter, who, however, died in less than a year. It was possibly the -loss of William Gonson’s practised experience, and dissatisfaction with -his successors, which helped to move Henry to make in 1546, the most -important change in naval administration that had yet occurred. In one -day the naval organisation was revolutionised. By Letters Patent of the -24th April 1546, Sir Thomas Clere was constituted Lieutenant of the -Admiralty, with a fee of £100 a year, ten shillings a day for travelling -expenses when engaged on the business of his office, £10 a year for boat -hire and twentypence a day for two clerks; Robert Legge, ‘Treasourer of -our maryne causes’ with 100 marks a year, six shillings and eightpence -a day for travelling expenses, eight pounds a year for boat hire, and -sixteenpence a day for two clerks; William Broke, ‘Comptroller of all our -shippes,’ with £50 a year, four shillings a day for travelling expenses, -eight pounds for boat hire, and sixteenpence a day for two clerks; -Benjamin Gonson,[383] ‘Surveyor of all our shippes,’ with £40 a year, -the same travelling allowance and boat hire as the comptroller, but only -eightpence a day for one clerk; Richard Howlett, Clerk of the Ships, -with £33, 6s 8d a year, three shillings and fourpence a day travelling -expenses, and six pounds for boat hire. William Holstock and Thomas -Morley were granted annuities of one shilling a day without specific -duties, but they were both employed in assisting the other officers. All -these fees were paid from the Exchequer. By another patent of the same -day, the supply of guns, powder, and other ordnance necessaries for the -Navy was placed under the direction of Sir William Woodhouse, called -‘Master of the Ordnance of the ships,’ at a fee of 100 marks a year, six -shillings and eightpence a day travelling expenses, eight pounds a year -for boat hire, and two shillings and fourpence a day for three clerks. -The stores were still kept at the central office in the Tower, and became -separate from, if subordinate to, the old Ordnance Office, remaining so -until 1589. - -It would be of great interest to know exactly the motives moving Henry to -the formation of—to use a later name—the Navy Board. Beyond discontent -with the administration in 1545, the accessions of 1546 suggest that it -was his intention to still further strengthen the Navy, and experience -had doubtless shown that the old organisation was too inelastic for -more than a limited number of ships acting within a restricted sphere. -Hitherto fleets had carried troops, landed them, and returned home; or -gone to sea, fought the enemy, and returned home; but now the era of -long cruises was commencing, and the transition necessarily involved -additional administrative work with which the clerk of the ships or the -comptroller could not alone cope. Another subject of inquiry is the -model on which the board was formed. It was not derived from any foreign -power, for the organisation was then, and long afterwards, superior to -and unlike, anything existing abroad. The similarity of many of the -titles and of their corresponding duties suggests that it was copied -from the constitution of the Ordnance Office, which Henry had also -remoulded to suit the altered conditions of warfare. The Lieutenant of -the Admiralty, acting under the Admiral of England, as the Lieutenant of -the Ordnance acted under the Master General, was intended to be the most -important member of the board. But after the death of Clere’s successor, -Sir William Woodhouse, the post was not filled up and the Treasurership -exercised by an expert official like Benjamin Gonson, or a great seaman -like Hawkyns, speedily became the chief administrative office. Another -cause of the Treasurer’s ascendancy is to be found in the fact that he -had to be a man of some capital, able and willing to advance money to -the crown. He was to have allowance for all moneys laid out if his books -were signed ‘by two or three’ of the other officers.[384] Originally -this may only have been intended to apply to all moneys received from -the Exchequer and expended by him, but the yearly accounts show that it -soon became a normal condition for the crown to be indebted to him for -advances. - -Two other officers found their positions altered by the new development. -The Lord Admiral had been till now only a combatant officer; from this -date he interfered more or less frequently and directly in matters of -administration for which he was nominally responsible. But while the -members of the Navy Board were men of weight and reputation his action -mainly took the course of agreeing with the advice given him. Under -the new arrangement the Clerk of the Ships became a very subordinate -officer. More than a century later Pepys claimed that the clerk possessed -from former times a consultative and equal voice with the other -officers. It would be difficult to disprove it, and it is true that the -signature of the clerk appears sometimes—but only sometimes—attached to -documents with those of his colleagues. In 1600, however, his duties are -distinctly said to be confined to registering the resolutions of the -board generally.[385] At especially busy periods he shared the active -work of superintendence but ordinarily only the Treasurer, Comptroller, -and Surveyor, are found to be exercising authority, and the gradual -alteration of his title from Clerk of the Ships to Clerk of the Acts is -itself a sign that his functions had become purely secretarial. - -[Sidenote: Hired Ships.] - -Besides English vessels, Henry hired Spanish during the earlier years -of his reign and Hanseatic during the later ones, England being on -much more friendly terms with Spain in 1509 than in 1547. One or two -‘Arragoseys,’ _i.e._ Ragusans were in pay, that republic being a -maritime power of some importance in the fifteenth century. The English -ships taken up for the crown were mostly employed as victuallers and -tenders, and were therefore not required to be large and do not afford -any measure of the magnitude of the merchant navy. In April 1513 there -were thirty-nine impressed of 2039 tons, and of these the largest was -140 tons; twenty-eight of them were serving as victuallers, one being -usually attached to each of the largest men-of-war.[386] The rate of -hire was one shilling a ton per month, for both victuallers and fighting -ships, and the wages, victualling, and dead shares were the same as on -king’s ships; jackets were frequently provided for the crews as for -men-of-war’s men. Another account gives a list of twenty-two English -vessels of 3040 tons, and six Spanish of 1650 tons as having served.[387] -The Spaniards were manned by 289 Spanish and 181 English seamen, with 869 -English soldiers and a majority of English officers. Henry had to pay a -hiring rate of fifteenpence a ton for them, and 7s 1d a month to Spanish -seamen, 4s 9d to gromets, and 2s 5d to pages, while the dead shares -allotted to the foreigners were at six shillings each instead of the -five shillings of the Englishmen. The difference of pay must have caused -a great deal of jealousy but the king’s attempts to obtain Spaniards at -the standard rate had failed.[388] The _Mary of Bilboa_ was taken up at -fifteenpence-farthing and a half-farthing a month, terms which imply a -good deal of higgling.[389] In 1514 there were twenty-one hired fighting -ships and fifteen victuallers engaged. The former measured 2770 tons, and -included one of 300, one of 240, one of 200, and three of 160 tons.[390] - -In 1544 twenty-two foreign ships, now mostly Hanseatic, of 1465 tons were -still obtaining fifteenpence a ton, and 379 men in them seven shillings -and sixpence a month, while the English pay remained at five shillings, -and thirty-five hired English vessels received their one shilling a -ton.[391] In the same year the expedition against Scotland required 117 -transports of which London furnished 6, Calais 2, Amsterdam 1, Dordrecht -1, Antwerp 4, Hamburg 5, Lubeck 2, Ipswich 31, Yarmouth 31, Newcastle 6, -Hull 6, and Lynn 4.[392] English owners did not show themselves eager to -send their ships to join the royal fleet and it was necessary to issue a -circular letter in August 1545, to the mayors of the various ports which -ran:— - - ‘Fforasmuch as I understand that dyvers and many of the - adventurers that are appointed for Portsmouth ... do slacke - and drawe back from the same being rather gyven to spoyle - and robberye than otherwise to serve His Maiestie and making - ther excuses for lack of necessaries do showe themselves not - wyllynge to serve the kyng’s Maiestie according to their - diewties’ - -they were ordered to go to Portsmouth immediately on pain of death.[393] -Their disinclination to be shackled by the discipline of a fleet can be -understood when we find Lisle writing to Paget that ‘nother Spanyard, -Portugell, nor Flemynge that cometh from by south but they be spoylid -and robbid by our venturers.’ The successful privateering of 1544, when -300 French prizes were taken,[394] was assuredly joyously remembered and -similar good fortune hoped for. If there is no exaggeration in Stow’s -account the event is remarkable as the first instance of our sweeping -the Channel on an outbreak of war, and signifies the steady growth of a -marine able to perform the work. - -[Sidenote: The Merchant Navy.] - -The materials for an estimate of the strength of the merchant navy are -scanty, but we find in this reign a commencement of the plan largely -extended under Elizabeth, of obtaining returns of the vessels belonging -to various ports. Henry, moreover, followed the example of his father -in granting a bounty on large ships. In 1520 an allowance of four -shillings a ton was ordered on the customs due for the first voyage -of the _Bonaventure_ of London of 220 tons; in 1522 five shillings a -ton on the _Antony_ of Bristol, of 400 tons, because she was good for -trading purposes and ‘also to doo unto us service in warre.’[395] The -wording of the warrant rather implies, however, that the _Antony_ was a -purchase from a foreign owner. In 1521 four shillings a ton was paid on -the _John Baptist_ of Lynn of 200 tons, and in 1530 five shillings a ton -on the _John Evangelist_ of Topsham of 110 tons. If there was any rule -regulating the apportionment of the bounty it is impossible to define -it now. In 1544 there is a payment of five shillings a ton on the _Mary -James_ of Bristol of 160 tons ‘to corage othre our subgetts to like -makyng of shippes.’[396] There were doubtless many more similar grants -but which were not issued in a form which ensured their survival in the -records. - -In 1513 Bristol had nine vessels of 100 tons and upwards ready to join -the royal fleet. Of these one was of 186 tons, one of 120, one of 130, -three of 110 and three of 100 tons.[397] It is significant of the little -reliance that can be placed on statements of tonnage that, in another -paper, the one of 186 tons is given as of 160, one of 110 as 140 and the -one of 120 as of 100. In the case of merchantmen the discrepancies may -perhaps be attributed to the fact that it was to the interest of the -owner of a hired merchantman to measure his ship at as high a tonnage as -possible, as he was paid by the ton, while the navy authorities acting -in the interest of the crown desired to rate it as low as they could. In -the case of men-of-war the tonnage, unless they had actually performed a -trading voyage and stowed goods, could only have been by estimate, which -would explain a difference of 100 or 150 tons in the supposed measurement -of a large ship. - -In 1528, there were 149 vessels engaged in the Iceland fishery all -which, with the exception of 8 from London, belonged to the east coast -ports. Yarmouth sent 30, Cley, Blakeney, and Cromer 30, and Dunwich, -Walderswick, Southwold, and Covehithe 32. To the herring fishery in the -North Sea went 222, of which the Cinque Ports sent 110 and the east coast -the remainder. Trading to Scotland were 69 ships of which only 6 sailed -from London.[398] This return was used years afterwards to show the -prosperous condition of these trades as compared with a later period when -the number of vessels employed had greatly fallen off; except that it is -endorsed in Cecil’s handwriting the date of the comparison is unknown. -For 1533, there is a certificate of the ships returned from Iceland that -year, 85 in number, of which 6, of from 50 to 100 tons, belonged to -London; 10, of from 35 to 95 tons to Lynn; 14, of from 40 to 95 tons to -Yarmouth; 7, of from 60 to 150 tons to Orwell haven; and 17, of from 30 -to 90 tons to Wells and Blakeney.[399] Unless they were trading vessels, -used on occasion for the Iceland fishery, the average tonnage seems -very high for North Sea fishing boats of that century. Nearly 700 sail -were reputed to enter Calais harbour every year and ‘at the least’ 340 -foreign herring boats also traded there.[400] These figures point to a -flourishing local trade round the coasts and in the fisheries, but there -are only three returns relating to ships of larger size and they do not -give particulars for more than a few ports;—[401] - - +-------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ - | |Tons |Tons |Tons |Tons |Tons |Tons | - | | 100 | 110 | 120 | 130 | 140 | 160 | - | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ - | Minehead | 1 | | | | | | - | Burton[402] | | | 1 | | | | - | Lynn | 1 | | | | | | - | Cley | 1 | 1 | | | | | - | Yarmouth | 6 | | | | 1 | | - | Lowestoft | 1 | | 3 | | | | - | Aldborough | 1 | | | | | | - | Hull | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | - | Newcastle | 7 | | | 1 | | 1 | - +-------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ - -There were 99 other vessels of from 40 to 100 tons also sailing from -these ports; but if the table were complete and included London, -Bristol, Southampton, and Dartmouth—to name no others—we should infer a -surprisingly large total from the 32 belonging to these towns. Foreign -observers, men representing a maritime state like Venice, considered the -sea strength of England much greater than would be assumed from the few -sources of information we possess. In 1531, the Venetian representative -reported that Henry could arm 150 sail;[403] in 1551, Barbaro thought -that the crown could fit out 1500 sail of which ‘100 decked’[404] and in -1554, Soranzo remarked that there were ‘great plenty of English sailors -who are considered excellent for the navigation of the Atlantic.’[405] -These Venetians paid especial attention to the English marine and in no -instance do they write of it depreciatingly. - -[Sidenote: Trade and Voyages.] - -Commerce does not appear to have progressed in a ratio corresponding -to its growth during the close of the fifteenth century. Trade had -been then recovering the position lost through the unsettled political -state previously existing, and had benefited under a king who made its -expansion the keynote of his policy. Half a century had brought it -relatively into line with that of other countries, and thenceforward its -increase was no longer a question of regaining a standard already once -attained, but of competition with other powers whose trade was marked -out on definite lines. This accounts for the comparatively stationary -condition of commerce under Henry, and until new factors came into play -under different circumstances. According to Hakluyt voyages to the -Levant were frequent until 1534 but then fell off.[406] In that year -Richard Gonson, son of William Gonson the naval official, undertook a -Mediterranean trading voyage, which occupied a year, the usual time -allowed for the passage out and home. In the same way English merchants -traded with the Canaries and northern ports, but we have no details -bearing on the extent of the traffic. William Hawkyns of Plymouth, -father of Sir John Hawkyns, made three voyages, of which the last was -in 1532, to Brazil and Guinea. From a remark, however, made by Chapuys, -in a despatch to the emperor, voyages to Brazil could not have been -uncommon.[407] - -In 1517 there is said to have been an exploring expedition sent out under -the command of Thomas Spert, who had been master of the _Henry Grace à -Dieu_ and other ships, and who possessed Henry’s confidence then and -afterwards.[408] He was a yeoman of the crown, and by Letters Patent -of 10th November 1514, enjoyed an annuity of £20 a year. In 1527 John -Rut, another man-of-war officer, left England in June with two vessels -for Newfoundland, one, the _Mary Guildford_, being a king’s ship. Rut -returned in her without having effected anything; the other was lost at -sea. Two other attempts at discovery are also assigned to this year.[409] -In 1536 Hore, with the _Trinity_ and the _Minion_, reached Cape Breton -Island, and a further voyage was intended in 1541. These enterprises show -Henry’s desire to extend English commerce, and a further illustration of -the fact is to be found in his endeavour in 1541 to obtain permission -for some Englishmen to sail in the next Portuguese fleet for India, ‘to -adventure there for providing this realm with spices.’[410] - -Doubtless the religious revolt had for the time an injurious influence -on our trade, seeing that Englishmen were regarded as heretics by some -of their best customers, and that the whole influence of the Roman -Church was employed in Spain, and elsewhere, to the detriment of the -country. The reaction born of intellectual freedom, and of the moral and -material strength which was its natural product, did not make itself -felt till later. Moreover as long as England acknowledged the Roman rule -she was bound by the division of the new discoveries made by the Popes, -a division which fatally hampered her attempts to share the riches of -the golden West. When that dividing line was no longer recognised, -and individual enterprise or greed had free play, the conditions which -brought her into antagonism with other maritime powers were also those -which stimulated the growth of national vigour and self reliance. In that -sense the Reformation considered as a liberation from restraining ties, -was an important factor in the development of English sea power. - -There were two statutes, in 1532 and 1539, confirming the navigation act -of 1490. In 1540 it was enacted that whoever should buy fish at sea from -foreign fishermen to sell on shore, should be subjected to a fine of £10, -a statute which seems to point to the commencing decay of the native -fishing industry. The cable and hawser manufacture, long associated with -Bridport, was protected by the parliament of 1529, and Henry is said -to have expended immense sums in the endeavour to make Dover a safe -harbour.[411] Another act for the preservation of Plymouth, Dartmouth, -Teignmouth, Falmouth, and Fowey havens, from the injury caused by the -gravel brought down from the tin works, was passed in 1532. In 1513 a -license for the formation of a guild, afterwards the Trinity Corporation, -was granted for the ‘reformation of the navy lately much decayed by the -admission of young men without experience, and of Scots, Flemings, and -Frenchmen as lodesmen;‘[412] in 1536 the Trinity guild of Newcastle was -founded.[413] ‘Navy’ is here used in its original sense, meaning the -shipping and seamen of the kingdom generally, and not the ‘King’s Navy -Royal.’ During the sixteenth century the Trinity House had no connection -with the Royal Navy; during the greater part of the seventeenth century, -it had an occasional consultative, but no direct connection. It has never -had any actual share in the administration of the Navy, nor that close -association with it that, trading on the loss and destruction of its -early documents, it has claimed. - -[Sidenote: Coast Defences.] - -Allied to the defence of the kingdom by sea was the protection of the -seaboard by the forts or castles, on the south and east coasts, some -of which still exist. The initial motive was the threatening political -outlook of 1539 when a European coalition against England appeared -probable. During the next few years upwards of £74,000, from the spoil of -the suppression, was spent for this purpose,[414] and this perhaps does -not include £17,498 devoted to the fortifications of Hull. ‘A book of -payments,’ made to the garrisons in 1540, enumerates seventeen of these -defences, but more were afterwards built. - -[Sidenote: Naval Expenditure.] - -There is, of course, no chronological series of papers relating to -the naval expenditure of the reign. Only isolated accounts for those -years when active service was undertaken are to be found. The general -disbursements for 1513 came to £699,000,[415] and the naval expenses, -from 4th March to 31st October, were £23,000, but this seems to have been -almost entirely for wages and hire of ships, only £291, 17s 9½d having -been spent on repairs, and neither victualling, ordnance stores, nor the -cost of preparation being included.[416] Detailed accounts were strictly -kept although so few have survived. In one book it is stated that two -copies of the accounts were to be made; one to be retained by the person -charged with making payments, the other to be kept ‘in oure owne custodie -for oure more perfytte rememberaunce in that behalf.’[417] The first kept -as his acquittance by Sir John Daunce, is now in the Record Office, and -bears Henry’s signature in numerous places, showing the close personal -attention he gave to naval affairs. When William Gonson was acting as -paymaster, he received between 21st August 1532 and 25th August 1533, -£4169, 10s, from 16th December 1534 to 11th December 1535 £7093, 17s -9½d, and from 4th April 1536 to 29th June 1537, £3497, 3s 2d.[418] As a -whole, on these years, the crown was indebted, beyond the money paid out -to Gonson, £1487, 12s 9d, and the expenditure was almost entirely for -dockyard work and stores, although there must also have been the cost of -ships in commission, not here entered. - -During the years of warfare between 1544-7 the amounts expended became -very large. Richard Knight, who describes himself as ‘servant’ of Lord St -John, received between 12th February 1544-5 and 30th June 1547, £101,127, -and of this £84,000 was devoted to seamen’s wages and victualling.[419] -Of the total sum £40,000 came from the Exchequer, £20,500 from the -Court of Augmentation, £1600 benevolence money in Norfolk, and £8000 -from the court of Wards and Liveries. Coincidently many thousands of -pounds were paid through William Gonson, John Wynter, and his successor, -Robert Legge, and doubtless through other persons. The new system of -administration did not at first work altogether successfully as far as -bookkeeping was concerned. From the following letter of Lisle’s we find -that Sir William Paget, a Secretary of State, had written to him making -inquiries, and he answers - - ‘You write unto me that the Tresawrer of thadmyralltie being - called to accompt his reckoning is so illfavoridly mad that - there semith a want of £2000 wich you cannot well se what is - become of hit.’ - -and goes on to explain a series of transactions, but both Legge and -Wynter appear to have been performing the duties of Treasurer which may -be a reason for the entanglement of figures.[420] It was stated that -during 1544-5, the crown had expended £1,300,000,[421] and the naval -expenses from September 1542 to the end of the reign are fully detailed -in a later paper.[422] - - Cordage, timber, and other stores, £45,230 18 8 - Coat and conduct money, 2,415 13 2 - Wages of seamen, soldiers, shipwrights, dockyards, etc., 127,846 10 7 - Victualling, 65,610 10 4½ - Ordnance and ammunition, 19,276 13 10½ - Furniture[423] of ships, 1582 14 7 - Hire of docks, storehouses, riding and posting charges, 502 4 6 - -[Sidenote: Piracy and Privateering.] - -Great stress has been laid on the prevalence of piracy in the sixteenth -century as the chief school of English seamanship. Of course it was -practised during this reign to an extent that would now be thought -monstrous, but it did not attain the proportions of a few years later, -nor were English seamen dependent on its development for a knowledge -of their art. When religious and political motives impelled them to a -guerilla warfare, they became pirates because they were already good -seamen, with the training of centuries behind them, and the sea was their -natural field of action. The succession of conflicts between France and -the Empire induced an internecine maritime war between those powers, in -the shape of privateering, which sometimes smouldered but never died -out. Convoys for the Spanish American fleets were instituted in 1522 on -account of the depredations of French privateers. The despatches of the -Imperial ministers show that France, during the reign of Henry and his -immediate successors, was, much more than England, a source of injury -to Spanish trade. The success of French privateering, together with the -voyages for purposes of discovery and settlement, of Verazzani in 1523, -of the brothers Parmentier in 1529, of Jacques Cartier and Roberval in -1534 and 1549, of Villegagnon 1555, of Bois-le-Compte in 1556, of Jean -de Ribaut in 1562, and of René de Laudonnière in 1564, a succession of -efforts which only closed with the outbreak of the wars of religion, -seemed to point to France rather than to England as destined to challenge -Spanish maritime supremacy. In 1551 France sent a fleet of 160 sail to -Scotland, and it is doubtful whether England could have collected one of -equal strength to act at a similar distance. - -Englishmen, however, joined in the game to a sufficient extent even -now. In 1540 the Emperor was informed that a Spaniard, with gold and -amber on board, had been seized by two English ships, and a few such -successful and profitable incidents must have acted as a strong incentive -to ventures which promised large profits on a moderate outlay. There was -very little police of the seas, nor could the guardians themselves be -trusted in face of temptation. In 1532 some captains sent out on this -service plundered Flemish merchantmen they met.[424] As early as 1515 a -commission of Oyer and Terminer was issued to the Earl of Surrey and two -others to hear and decide piratical offences[425]; in one case eighteen -soldiers serving on a man-of-war stole a boat with the intention of -seizing a ship at sea. The French had, during the first quarter of the -century, a reputation for fair play, and Wolsey in 1526, wrote to Henry -that ‘though many English have been taken at sea by the French, they -have always made full restitution,’[426] but when the Scotch began to -interfere in the trade, proceedings became embittered by competition. By -1532 the narrow seas were said to be full of Scotch privateers and the -customary ransom of prisoners was twenty shillings for a sailor and forty -for a master.[427] Both Spaniards and Frenchmen attacked each other in -English ports, which, until 1539, were mostly unarmed and plunder was -openly sold in the coast towns. That from a Portuguese ship was purchased -by the mayor and others of Cork, and in 1537 the owners had been for -three years vainly endeavouring to obtain redress.[428] - -Ordinary merchantmen, sailing with cargo, took advantage of any -favourable chance without necessarily acting on a premeditated plan. One -vessel, crossing the Channel, met three Bretons and it then occurred to -the owner and master that they had lost £60 by Breton pirates and could -obtain no redress. Not to lose the opportunity they captured one and sold -the cargo at Penryn.[429] Piracy had not yet taken the savage character -with which a few more years were to see it imbued; the theological -bitterness was as yet wanting. Cases of bloodshed were very rare, and -so far at any rate as Englishmen were concerned, the pirate was also -sometimes a respectable tradesman on shore.[430] In 1543 the prisons were -said to be full of pirates and the Council adopted the plan of requiring -sureties before issuing letters of marque. The port towns flourished, -at least some of them, then and long afterwards far more on the traffic -with pirates, who visited them and sold the proceeds of robbery to the -inhabitants, than by legitimate trade. Consequently no victim could rely -on obtaining assistance even from the civic authorities. A French ship -was ransacked in Plymouth Roads in August 1546—peace with France had -been signed on 7th June—notwithstanding her captain’s appeal for help -in the town, which seems to imply that the work was very leisurely and -thoroughly done. The Council ordered that unless the goods were recovered -and the pirates captured the inhabitants of Plymouth were to be made -pecuniarily liable for the damage.[431] The wording of the Council order -suggests that the Frenchman was boarded from the town, in which case the -refusal of the mayor to interfere is still more significant. - -Only one statute relating to piracy was passed by Henry. Before 1535 -offenders frequently escaped because, if they did not confess, it was -necessary to prove the crime by the evidence of disinterested witnesses -and this was usually an impossibility. A fresh act therefore rendered -them liable to be tried before a jury under the same conditions as -ordinary criminals.[432] - -[Sidenote: Ordnance, Powder and Shot.] - -Soon after Henry’s accession he gave large orders for ordnance to foreign -makers, chiefly at Mechlin, but the guns so obtained seem to have been -for land service. There is only one paper which gives us the weight of -the ship serpentine as used in 1513, and here it works out at 261¼ lbs. -exclusive of the chamber or loading piece which weighed 41 lbs.;[433] -the chamber contained the powder only, not the shot.[434] These were -made by Cornelius Johnson ‘the king’s iron gunmaker,’ and who was one of -the twelve gunners attached to the Tower with a fee of sixpence a day; -as king’s gunmaker he also received eightpence a day. The sling, one -of the heavier ship guns, weighed with its two chambers 8½ cwt. and 27 -lbs., and there were also half and quarter slings; but there does not -appear to have been any standard weight for these or other guns.[435] The -serpentines bought in Flanders, for field use, weighed from 1060 lbs. to -1160 lbs. each. Guns were mounted on two or four-wheeled carriages, or, -sometimes, on ‘scaffolds’ of timber; leaden shot and ‘dyse’ of iron were -used with serpentines and iron shot with curtalls. In one instance 200 -iron dice weighed 36 lbs., and they seem to have usually been one and a -half inch square. The Artillery Garden at Houndsditch was granted for -practice with ‘great and small ordinance,’ and persons with such English -names as Herbert, Walker, and Tyler are noticed as gunfounders early in -the reign, although, according to Stow, cast iron guns were not made in -England till 1543. Some writers assert that they were used in Spain in -the fourteenth century; if so it is probable that they were made here -before the date given by Stow. - -Serpentine powder cost from £4, 13s 4d to £6, 13s 4d and ‘bombdyne’ -£5 a last; corn powder tenpence a pound.[436] Serpentine was a fine -weak powder and probably midway in strength between bombdyne and corn. -During 1512-13, 51 lasts, 12 barrels, 12 lbs. were used at sea, and 37 -lasts during the succeeding year. For saltpetre we were dependent on -importation, and between 1509-12 there are two contracts for quantities -costing £3622, at sixpence a pound, with John Cavalcanti and other -Italian merchants who were the usual purveyors, but gunpowder was made -at home. Shot, whether of stone or iron, were called gunstones, round -shot of iron costing £4, 10s to £5, 10s a ton, and of stone 13s 4d a -hundred. Cross bar shot were in common use, _e.g._ ‘gun stones of iron -with cross bars of iron in them.’[437] There are ‘ballez of wyldfyre with -hoks of yron,’ and ‘bolts of wyldfyre’ both, like the arrows of wildfire, -to set the enemy on fire. ‘Tampons’ were wads, sometimes of wood, and -not the tompions now known: 16,000 were bought for the _Henry Grace à -Dieu_ at ten and twenty shillings the thousand.[438] From an entry ‘for -two sheepskins to stop the mouths of the guns,’ we may infer that they -were stuffed into the muzzles, or tied over them. Sheepskins were also -used for gun sponges, and ‘cartouche’ or cartridge cases were made of -canvas.[439] - -In 1536 there were only 39 lasts, 11 barrels of powder in the Tower, -33,000 livery arrows,[440] ‘decayed,’ all the bows in the same condition, -and the morrispikes wormeaten.[441] But the construction of the forts -round the coastline in 1539-40, and the events that followed, gave an -impetus to the demand for war material. - -[Sidenote: Stores.] - -In 1546 the Council querulously complained that ‘the general rule is -whenever the King’s Maiestie shuld bye al is dere and skase, and whenever -he shuld sel al is plentye and good chepe,’ an experience not confined -to sovereigns. Stores such as timber, pitch, tar, oakum, ironwork, etc., -necessary for building or repairs were mostly obtained from tradesmen at -or near the dockyard towns. One reason for the adoption of Portsmouth is -perhaps to be found in its nearness to Bere Forest and the New Forest, -but nearly everything but timber, if not to be obtained at Southampton, -had to be sent from London. Naval officials, like Gonson, sold -necessaries to the crown, while acting as its representatives, and such -transactions appear in the accounts as quite legitimate and customary. -About 1522 oak timber from Bere was costing one shilling a ton rough -and unhewed, one and eightpence seasoned, and three and fourpence ready -squared. Ash was one shilling and beech sixpence.[442] Carriage cost -twopence a ton per mile, and the work of felling and preparing the wood -was performed by the king’s shipwrights who were sent into the forests -for that purpose. Iron was £4 to £5, 10s a ton, the Spanish being of a -better quality than the English and costing the higher price. Cables -were used up to seventeen inches in circumference, ordinarily described -as Dantzic, but sometimes from Lynn and Bridport, and bought of both -English and foreign merchants. The price averaged about £12 a ton. The -establishments did not, in 1515, possess any means of weighing cordage -delivered, and there is a charge of 3s 4d for scales ‘hyrede of a belle -ffundere dwellynge at Hondise Diche,’ and sent down to Deptford to -weigh purchased cables. The following are the prices of miscellaneous -requisites:— - - { Olron[443] (1515), 14s 4d and 15s a bolt[444] - Canvas { do. (1518), 10s a bolt - { Vitery[445] (1515), £4, 13s 4d the balet[446] - { Poldavys[447] (1515), 18s a bolt - - Hemp (1523), 9s per cwt. - Lead (1513), 6s per cwt. - Rosin (1523), 10s per cwt. - Do. (1544), 8s per cwt. - Raw Tallow (1523), 6s per cwt. - Purified Tallow (1523), 9s per cwt. - Tallow (1544), 7s and 10s per cwt. - Flax (1513), 8s per cwt. - Do. (1523), 10s and 12s per cwt. - Oakum (1523), 8s to 14s per cwt. - Pitch (1514), 4s a barrel - Do. (1523), 6s a barrel - Do. (1544), 8s a barrel - -[Sidenote: Henry VIII and the Navy.] - -It is of course beyond the scope of this work to enter into the vexed -question of Henry’s merits or demerits as a ruler, in its widest sense. -But the arming of his kingdom was an important part of the office of a -sixteenth century king, and the views on which it was planned, and the -way in which it was carried out, must form a weighty element in the final -judgment of his fitness for his post. So far as the Navy is concerned -there is little but unqualified praise to be awarded to Henry. That his -action was due to a settled policy and not the product of a momentary -vanity or desire for display is shown by the fact that it commenced -with his accession and was still progressing at his decease. For almost -thirty-eight years nearly every year marked some advance in construction -or administration, some plan calculated to make the Navy a more effective -fighting instrument. So far as numbers went he made it the most powerful -navy in the world, remembering the limited radius within which it was -called upon to act. He revolutionised its armament and improved its -fighting and sailing qualities, he himself inventing or adapting a type -thought fit for the narrow seas. He enlarged the one dockyard he found -existing and formed two others in positions so suitable for their purpose -that they remained in use as long as the system of wooden ships they -were built in connection with. Regulations for the manœuvring of fleets -and the discipline of their crews were due to him. He discarded the one -mediæval officer of the crown and organised an administration so broadly -planned that, in an extended form, it remains in existence to-day. He -built forts for the defence of the coasts, a measure that might now be -criticised as showing ignorance of the strategical use of a fleet, but a -criticism which is inapplicable to the middle of the sixteenth century -when the Navy had yet to fight its way not only to supremacy but to -equality. It may be said that events pointed to, and almost enforced, -the new direction given to national endeavour and the new value attached -to the naval arm. Allowing due weight to the altered conditions the fact -remains that Henry accepted them and carried out the innovations they -involved with an energy and thoroughness akin to genius. The maritime -systems of France and Spain, whether in details of shipbuilding or the -larger methods of administration, remained unchanging and inelastic, -ignoring the mutations of a century remarkable for activity and progress. -Spain tried to hold the command of the sea in the sixteenth century with -an organisation little altered from that found sufficient in the previous -one. Circumstances brought England into conflict with her and not with -France, and she had to pay for her blunder of pride or sluggishness with -the ruin of her empire. - -In these changes history gives no sign of there being any extraneous -influence acting through the king. Ministers might come and go but -the work of naval extension, done under his personal supervision and -direction, went on methodically and unceasingly. He trod a path that -some of his predecessors had indicated but none had entered. The errors -he committed were those inevitable to a new scheme, a plan which was not -an enlargement but a reconstruction, and in which he was a pioneer. His -mistakes were those of the scientific ignorance and feudal spirit of his -age; his successes were of a much higher order and informed with the -statesmanship of a later time. - - - - -EDWARD VI - -1547-1553 - - -[Sidenote: Changes in the Navy List.] - -It is usually said that during the reigns of Edward VI and Mary the -Navy was neglected. As a generalisation this is incorrect, although -it is true that the number of ships fell off and that the results of -naval undertakings were not commensurate with the efforts made, or -the money expended upon them. But the administration of both reigns -will compare favourably with that of long periods of the seventeenth -century. Considering the tardy acceptance of new ideas it would have been -marvellous had Henry’s policy been at once consistently and continuously -carried on. The factious struggles which occupied the reign of Edward -and the religious difficulties of that of Mary were not conducive to -perseverance in any settled design, but at least the Regency did not make -it their business to at once sell off the Navy. Moreover many of the -disappearances from the Edwardian navy lists are of the purchased vessels -of the later years of Henry’s reign, and of the small rowbarges he had -built from his own design and for a special purpose. The former, we may -be certain, had not been constructed with the strength and solidity -characterising English ships, and some were perhaps old when bought into -the service for which they were momentarily desirable. - -The earliest navy list subsequent to Henry’s death is of 5th Jan. -1548.[448] This contains 32 large vessels, having an aggregate of 10,600 -tons, besides the _Galley Subtylle_, 13 rowbarges of 20 tons each, and 4 -barks of 40 tons. Of other ships belonging to the last reign the _French -Galley_ or _Mermaid_ is omitted, but was in the service then and long -afterwards, the _Artigo_ had been sold by an order of 14th April 1547, -and the _Minion_ had been given to Sir Thomas Seymour. Comparing this -with the next list of 22nd May 1549[449] we find that not only are all -the large vessels of 1548 still carried in it but that it is increased -by the presence of the _Mary Willoby_, recaptured in 1547, two French -prizes of 200 tons each, and ‘the three new pinnaces unnamed,’ and -evidently just built.[450] Eleven ships were cruising in the North Sea -and eighteen in the Channel, which does not give the impression of a -cessation of activity notwithstanding the intrigues of Somerset, Seymour, -and Northumberland, Kett’s rising, and similar distractions. During 1548 -and 1549 ten of the rowbarges, being doubtless found useless, were sold -for £165, 4s.[451] The next list is of 26th August 1552[452]; of the -before-named 32 vessels the _Murryan_ had been sold in December 1551 -for £400, the _Struse_ for £200, the _Christopher_ and _Unicorn_ are -ordered to be sold, the _Grand Mistress_ is considered worthless, and -the _Less Bark_, _Lion_, and _Dragon_ are to be rebuilt. The remainder -are still serviceable, or require only slight repair, while the names -of the _Primrose_ and _Bark of Bullen_ reappear attached to new ships -and the _Mary Willoby_ has been rebuilt.[453] A French prize, the _Black -Galley_, captured in 1549, is not found in this list, and the _Lion_, -a Scotch man-of-war taken by the _Pauncye_, was lost off Harwich. In -January 1551 a fleet of twelve vessels was at sea, and in 1552 at least -eight vessels were in commission, so that altogether up to 1552 there was -no great reduction in the effective strength or want of energy in its -use. There were now three galleys belonging to the crown and they were -not favourably regarded. In 1551 a note of the debts incurred in relation -to them was required and the crews were to be discharged as the vessels -were very expensive and ‘serve indede to lytle purpose.’[454] This was -followed by a warrant on 30th March for £231, 12s to pay them off, and -£55 ‘to be divided equallie amonge the Forsares nowe disarmed.’ - -[Sidenote: Gillingham.] - -Edward died on 6th July 1553, therefore it is not strange that there is -no later navy list of his reign than that of August 1552. Not only was -there no deterioration during his short rule, but two important steps -were taken in furtherance of the work of organisation that was Henry’s -legacy. The commencement of the great Chatham yard, and the formation of -the Victualling into a separate and responsible department, were due to -the action of the Council. The Medway anchorage was then, and for some -years afterwards, called Gillingham, or Jillingham, Water, and the first -order for its use is of 8th June 1550, when the Council directed that all -the ships laid up were to be, after the discharge of their officers and -crews, ‘herbarowed’ there.[455] On 14th August they further ordered that -the men-of-war at Portsmouth were to be brought round to Gillingham, and -on 22nd August William Wynter, then ‘Surveyor of the Ships,’ was sent -down to superintend their removal.[456] This of course could have been no -sudden determination, but there is no hint of the discussions that must -have preceded it. Considerations that may have favoured the measure were -the limited anchorage space afforded by Woolwich and Deptford, and the -distance of Portsmouth from the centre of government and the merchants -supplying stores, of which nearly all had to be sent from London. Another -reason was the ease with which the work of grounding and graving could -be carried on in the Medway with its banks of mud and large tidal rise -and fall; this, in fact, is the only one given in the Council order of -14th August 1550. Years were yet to elapse before the beginning of the -dockyard appears, and the victualling storehouses for the men employed -were at Rochester. That there were a large number of men there is shown -by the victualling accounts between 28th June 1550 and 29th September -1552. Rochester stands for £6137 of the total, while Woolwich and -Deptford cost £8382, Portsmouth £2407, and Dover £646.[457] The Admiralty -branch, represented by the Treasurer, spent, up to 24th October 1551 -£6600, at Gillingham in wages and necessaries. Portsmouth, however, only -slowly lost its comparative pre-eminence although it was now far less -important than Deptford; in 1556 there were still more vessels laid up -there than at Gillingham, and its victualling charges, the only test -remaining, were £2472, against £1526 at Gillingham. The choice of the -Medway was followed by an order, on 16th January 1551, to build a bulwark -at Sheerness for its defence.[458] - -[Sidenote: Naval Expenditure.] - -The only accounts of the Navy Treasurer which have survived for this -reign are from 25th December 1546 to 25th December 1547, and from 29th -September 1548 to 24th October 1551.[459] During the first period his -expenses were nearly £41,000, of which sea-charges (wages) were £6926, -Deptford £18,824, Woolwich £3439, Gillingham £4167, Harwich £1631, -Colne £484, and Portsmouth £1211. It will be noticed that there are -heavy payments in relation to Gillingham nearly three years before the -action of the Council, in 1550. There is no obvious explanation of -this; the body of the account does not show what particular work was -carried on there but it may have been done by way of experiment. In the -second period the Treasurer received £65,809 and spent £66,250. Of this -sum sea-charges were £14,400, press and conduct money £2900, Deptford -£30,300, Woolwich £2054, Gillingham £6600, and Portsmouth £1157. Edward -VI inherited his father’s interest in maritime affairs and appears to -have been continually at Deptford. There is a charge of £88, 6s 2d for -paving ‘the street,’ presumably the High Street, which was ‘so noysome -and full of fylth that the Kynges Maiestie myght not pass to and fro to -se the buylding of his Highnes shippes.’[460] Deptford, it is seen, was -now the leading dockyard, a position it retained for the remainder of the -century. - -All such improvements as seemed beneficial were adopted that the service -might be rendered more efficient. A warrant for £70, 11s was issued to -pay for ‘bringing over certain Bretons to teach men here the art of -making polldavies.’ From another document we find that two of these -Bretons were attached to Deptford. Lead sheathing was newly applied to -English ships in 1553, but had been since 1514 in use in the Spanish -marine.[461] - -There can be little doubt that Henry VIII had intended the formation -of a Victualling Department, and that the Council only executed a set -purpose already fully discussed and resolved upon. To a man with Henry’s -clear perception of the needs of the growing Navy, and his liking for -systematic and responsible management, the haphazard method of a dozen -agents acting independently and uncontrolled by any central authority, -must have been peculiarly hateful. Edward Baeshe who, until 1547, had -been merely one of the many agents employed, was chosen in that year to -act with Richard Wattes, the two being appointed ‘surveyors of victuals -within the city of London,’ with power to press workmen, seamen, and -ships, and with a general superintendence over their local subordinates. -They supplied not only the fleet but the troops acting against Scotland. -This was a tentative movement onwards, but by Letters Patent of 28th June -1550, Baeshe alone was appointed ‘General Surveyor of the Victuals for -the Seas,’ with a fee of £50 a year, three shillings and fourpence a day -for travelling expenses, and two shillings a day for clerks. Provisions -were obtained by exercising the crown prerogative of purveyance, and the -money required was received from the Treasurer of the Navy and included -in his estimates, although Baeshe also kept separate accounts which -were examined and signed by not less than two of the Admiralty officers. -Between 1st July 1547, and 29th September 1552, £51,500 passed through -his hands and his inferior officers were acting under his directions -wheresoever ships were stationed. - -[Sidenote: Admiralty Officers.] - -Death and other accidents soon altered the arrangement of the Navy Board -as appointed by Henry VIII. Robert Legge, the first Treasurer by patent, -died some time in 1548, and his accounts determined on 29th September. He -was succeeded by Benjamin Gonson, although Gonson’s Letters Patent bear -the date of 8th July 1549. William Wynter, son of John Wynter the first -Treasurer, and who was making a name as a seaman, succeeded Gonson as -Surveyor by Letters Patent of the same date. William Holstock, formerly -an unclassified assistant, became keeper of the storehouses at Deptford -by patent of 25th June 1549, at a salary of £26, 13s 4d a year and £6 for -boat hire. Sir William Woodhouse, originally Master of the Ordnance of -the Navy, succeeded Sir Thomas Clere as Lieutenant of the Admiralty by a -patent of 16th December 1552, and on the same day Thomas Windham replaced -Woodhouse as Master of the Ordnance of the Navy. From the date of the -institution of the Admiralty the post of Lord Admiral, hitherto one of -dignity and occasional high command, became an office necessitating work -of a more everyday character. Although there is no precise order bearing -on the subject it is evident that its holder was at the head of the Board -and decided questions referred to him by the inferior officers. Thomas, -Lord Seymour of Sudeley, was appointed on 17th February 1547, and was -beheaded on 20th March 1549. John Dudley, Earl of Warwick, who, under his -earlier title of Lord Lisle had held the post under Henry VIII was again -nominated for a short time from 28th October 1549, but from 4th May 1550 -Edward, Lord Clynton, became High Admiral. - -[Sidenote: Piracy and Privateering.] - -Strangely as it may read, there was for the moment a direct connection -between this great office of the crown and piracy, for Lord Seymour -was implicated in several nefarious transactions of the kind. But the -government itself, while publicly denouncing pirates and equipping ships -to apprehend them, was secretly encouraging acts which were only to be -faintly distinguished from open robbery. In August 1548 certain vessels -were sent out against the Scots and pirates, but private instructions -were given to the captains that, because we were on very doubtful terms -with France, they were to seize French ships, ‘saying to them that they -have been spoyled before by frenchemenne and could have no justice, or -pretending that the victualles or thinges of munition found in any such -frenche shippes weare sent to ayde the Scottes or such lyk.’[462] It -is true that if peace continued all such cargoes were to be restored -and the captors’ expenses discharged by the government, but in face of -such teaching it cannot be a matter for surprise that the generality of -owners and captains bettered their instructions and failed to draw the -line at the exact point marked for them. One of the articles against -Seymour at his trial included accusations that goods taken by pirates -were seen in his house and distributed among his friends; that when -plunder had been recaptured from the freebooters the captors were sent -to prison, and that pirates taken and committed to prison were set -free. As a rule the charges made in an indictment of a fallen minister -require to be very closely scanned, but for these there is a good deal -of corroborative evidence. As early as 20th September 1546, the Council -were hearing the complaint of ‘oon that sueth against a servant of Sir -Thomas Semars for a pyracie.’ After his death the Council awarded £40 to -a Frenchman in compensation for losses sustained through ‘the ministres -of Lord Seymour.’[463] There is a distinct statement that when pressed -for money after the death of his wife, the Dowager Queen, he was, among -other things, in partnership with many pirates and received half the -booty.[464] Although some of the details of the complaints made against -him may be inexact there can be no doubt that the charges as a whole -were well founded, and it is significant that the Council dealt with the -trouble more successfully after his execution. - -In view of the proceedings of the government and the Lord Admiral, it -is not surprising that piracy advanced in popularity. Ships, either of -the Navy or hired, were being continually sent to sea to keep order; -sometimes the latter joined in the business themselves[465] and the -former often gave but half-hearted service. As many of the company of a -man-of-war might, a month before, have been members of a pirate’s crew, -and perhaps expected at their discharge to again tread a rover’s deck, -no great ardour was to be expected from them. At times they seem to have -been unable even to wait for their discharge. When Tyrrel and Holstock -were serving in the Channel, their men, when they boarded foreigners -for inquiry, robbed them of property and provisions.[466] The superior -officers had to be spurred on to their duty. On one occasion it was -necessary to order the Admiral commanding in the Channel to attend to -his business, ‘and not lye in the haven at Dover idlye as the Navye -doth.’[467] When a leader of the fraternity was caught, the haul usually -proved expensive and useless, as he was speedily free again; £300 was -granted to the captors of Cole, a well-known name about this time, but -Cole is soon found to be at work once more. Strangeways who later died -in Elizabeth’s service at Havre, Thomson, and Thomas and Peter Killigrew -were others whose names were too familiar to the Council. English, Irish, -and Scotch pirates swarmed in the narrow seas, a fleet of twenty sail -were on the Irish coast, and the Scotch seem to have been particularly -active. - -These adventurers, whether licensed or unlicensed, were usually gallant -enough and thought little about odds. A privateer of 95 tons and 28 -officers and men fell in with a fleet of 27 Normans and Bretons returning -from Scotland where they had served for six months. Nothing daunted, -‘althugh our powr were litle yet as pore men desyrus to do our dewtye,’ -they closed with one and drove it ashore where they left it ‘rolling -uppon the terrabile waves,’ then drove two others ashore and captured a -fourth. The French fleet carried 120 guns and 1100 men.[468] The incident -is remarkable as showing the careless indifference, born of centuries of -struggle with the sea and the enemies it carried, with which our seamen -regarded superior strength, long before the outburst of successful piracy -on a large scale, which is supposed to have taught them their peculiar -faculty. - -[Sidenote: The Salute to the Flag.] - -In other ways the members of the Regency showed themselves desirous of -upholding the honour of their country. There is no especial reference -during the previous reign to the claim to the salute, but it was now -stringently enforced when possible. It was not yielded however without -protest, ‘the Fleming’s men-of-war would have passed our ships without -vailing bonnet, which they seeing, shot at them and drove them at length -to vail the bonet.’[469] A year later they were more tractable, since -the Flemings riding at Dieppe lowered the sail to an English man-of-war -which came into the port.[470] With France the question was less easily -settled. When Henry Dudley and the Baron de la Garde were both at sea, -the former, having the weaker fleet, desired instructions about the -salute. The Council wrote that ‘in respect of thamitie and that the sayd -Baron is stronger upon the sees sume tymes yelde and sume tymes receyve -thonnour.’[471] - -[Sidenote: Rewards and Peculations.] - -There was no change in the pay or position of the seamen, but they appear -to have been liberally treated. The crew of the _Minion_, 300 in number, -were given £100 among them for capturing a Frenchman, probably the -_Black Galley_,[472] William Wynter, Surveyor of the Navy, commanded the -_Minion_ on this occasion, and neither now nor afterwards did the duties -of their posts prevent the four principal Officers commanding at sea, -sometimes for long periods. - -We do not find any mention of embezzlements and thefts during the reign -of Henry VIII, not, probably, because they did not occur, but because the -Navy papers are comparatively scanty and mostly financial accounts made -up in their final form. With Edward VI they begin to appear, and grow -rapidly in number subsequently. It was found necessary to pass an act -forbidding the Lord Admiral, or any of his officers, to exact payments -of money or fish from the Newfoundland or Iceland fishermen under pain -of a fine of treble the amount levied.[473] It was said to be a practice -of ‘within these few years now last past,’ but abuses usually have to be -of long existence before they attain the honour of an Act of Parliament -for their suppression. A victualling agent, Henry Folk, was committed -to the Fleet prison for embezzling money received for navy victualling, -‘which he hath not answered againe to the poore men but converted the -money otherways and suffered them to remayne unpayed and in exclamacion,’ -The ‘poore men’ here referred to are more likely to have been persons -from whom provisions had been purchased than seamen. The decline of the -fishing industry was attributed, among other causes, to the action of the -crown purveyors in seizing quantities of fish at nominal prices. - -[Sidenote: Merchant Shipping and Trade.] - -There is no return of merchant shipping for this period, but the bounty -of five shillings a ton on new vessels was paid in several cases. Lord -Russell, the Lord Privy Seal, received it on the _Anne Russell_ of 110 -tons and there are other similar warrants. There is, however, a paper -calendared under the next reign which gives a list of merchantmen of 100 -tons and upwards, ‘decayed’ between 1544-5 and 1553. It names seventeen -belonging to London of 2530 tons, thirteen of Bristol of 2380 tons, and -five owned in other ports.[474] This does not necessarily mean that the -merchant navy had decreased to the extent of thirty-five such ships but -may refer to those worn out by age and service and possibly replaced. -Royal ships were still chartered by merchants for trading purposes; £1000 -was paid for the _Jesus of Lubeck_ and another, for a voyage to the -Levant in 1552.[475] Later in the reign two of the navy officers, Gonson -and Wynter, were indulging in similar speculation, and obtained the -_Mathew_ valued at £1208, for which they were required to give sureties. - -A commercial treaty with Sweden was on foot in 1550, but as the King of -Denmark was urgently complaining of the English pirates who infested the -Sound it was not likely to be of much advantage. The formation of the -Russia company in 1553, although it was not incorporated until 1555, -marked the inception of the great trading companies which did much, -directly and indirectly, to increase both the number of ships and their -size. Attention was given to the fishing trade and its growth stimulated -by an enactment[476] which made Fridays, Saturdays, and Ember days, fish -days, under penalty of ten shillings fine, and ten days’ imprisonment for -the first, and double for the second and every following offence. - -[Sidenote: The circumstances under which the Navy was maintained.] - -All through the reign regard was paid to naval requirements under -financial conditions which, during many other periods, would have ensured -their relegation to a future time. On the 4th November 1550, the Officers -of the Navy appeared before the Council and brought books with them, one -relating to the docking and repair of certain ships, a second ‘concerning -things necessary to be done,’ and a third containing an estimate of -stores required. The money wanted for these purposes was £2436, and the -department was already in debt to the amount of £4800. Two years later -the crown owed £132,372 abroad and £108,826 at home, of which only £5000 -was due by the Admiralty.[477] The naval expenses from January 1547 to -September 1552 are tabulated as:—[478] - - Cordage, timber, etc., £51,152 11 5 - Coat and conduct money, 5070 1 5 - Wages of soldiers, sailors, dockyards, shipwrights, etc., 78,263 3 8½ - Furniture of ships and carriage, 2451 14 10 - Riding and posting charges, hire of docks and storehouses, 1609 4 6 - Victualling, 64,844 17 3½ - Ordnance and ammunition, 10,445 16 8½ - -These were very large amounts, taken with those of the last years of -Henry VIII,[479] for the England of 1552, and we know that the public -debt of £241,000 was the result of heavy borrowings at home and abroad. -Some progress however was made towards the liquidation of the debt, -since it had sunk to £180,000 at the accession of Mary. But as, in this -financial situation, the Navy was not allowed to materially retrogress -the imputation usually made against the Regency of indifference to its -strength is one certainly not justified by facts. - - - - -MARY AND PHILIP AND MARY - -1553-1558 - - -[Sidenote: The Royal Ships.] - -There is no complete navy list for the reign of Mary therefore the -changes that took place in the royal ships can only, in most cases, -be ascertained by comparison with earlier and later lists. There is, -however, a record of the sale of certain ships in 1555; the _Primrose_ -for £1000, the _Mary Hambro_ £20, the _Grand Mistress_ £35, the _Hind_ -£8, the _Christopher_ £15, the _Unicorn_ £10, and four of the smallest -pinnaces or rowbarges.[480] The prices obtained show that, with the -exception of the _Primrose_, they must have been in very bad condition. -The _Bark of Bullen_ was delivered in 1553 to Jeffrey Coke, on condition -of his carrying the Lord Deputy and the royal despatches to and from -Ireland when necessary.[481] The _Henry Grace à Dieu_ was burnt by -accident at Woolwich on 25th August 1553.[482] Comparing the first -complete navy list of Elizabeth with the Edwardian of 26th August 1552, -we find that, besides the above mentioned vessels, only the _Pauncye_, -_Mathew_, and _Less Bark_, are wanting of the larger ships. On the other -hand the _Sacrett_, a French prize of 160 tons, a new _Mary Rose_ of -500 tons in 1555, the _Philip and Mary_ in 1556 of 450 tons, the _Lion_ -rebuilt in 1557, a new _Bark of Boulogne_, and the _Brigantine_ replace -these deficiencies. When we read that Henry VIII left a fleet of 53 -vessels, and that it rapidly diminished after his death, it must be -remembered that thirteen of them were twenty-ton rowbarges immediately -cast off as useless, and that only twenty-eight, excluding the galleys, -were of 100 tons and upwards. A navy list of February 1559 names -twenty-five of this class, serviceable and unserviceable, and the next, -of 24th March 1559, twenty. Accepting the last, as affording the most -unfavourable comparison, it does not warrant the severe condemnation of -the naval administration of Mary’s reign to which we are accustomed. -Moreover many of the men-of-war dated from the years 1544-6, and were -now approaching the time when they required rebuilding. The long ‘life’ -of wooden as compared with iron ships has become proverbial but did not -apply to sixteenth, and hardly to seventeenth century vessels. Doubtless -the absence of proper sheathing, and the bad adjustment of weights, which -caused excessive straining in a seaway, had much to do with it, but -whatever the cause men-of-war are found to need rebuilding within, at the -most, every twenty-five years during the Tudor and Stewart reigns. - -There is an Elizabethan paper of 1562[483] which, if it can be even -partially trusted, shows that the closing months of Mary’s reign were -characterised by great dockyard activity. The _Hart_, _Antelope_, -_Swallow_, _New Bark_, _Jennett_, _Greyhound_, _Phœnix_, and _Sacar_ are -assigned to 1558 as new ships, that is to say as rebuilt, for in these -early documents distinction is seldom drawn between one really new and -one merely rebuilt. Mary died on 17th November 1558, and if the year were -reckoned by the New Style there would be no question but that they must -have been begun during her lifetime and finished at least shortly after -her death. But at this time the year ended on 24th March, and the unknown -writer of the paper in the _Cecil MSS._ when he assigns these vessels -to 1558 means a period ceasing on 24th March 1559, when Elizabeth had -been nearly four-and-a-half months on the throne. It is known that the -dockyards were working busily shortly after Elizabeth’s accession, but -assuming the 1562 writer to be correct in his dates, and as a whole there -is some corroborative evidence of his general accuracy, it seems quite -impossible that these eight ships could have been rebuilt between 17th -November 1558, and 24th March 1559. That being so Mary’s government must -be allowed the credit of recognising the decline in the effective force -and of the measures taken for its renewal. - -There is another test that can be applied to the question of the activity -or inactivity of the government, and that is the number of ships sent to -sea during these years. In 1554 twenty-nine men-of-war, manned by 4034 -men, were in commission;[484] during 1555-6 thirty-eight, several of -them of course twice or thrice over;[485] in 1557 twenty-four, and in -December eight others were in preparation.[486] Yet, again, if we take -the squadrons especially sent out pirate catching, we find that during -1555-6 eight vessels were equipped to search for Cole and Stevenson, two -well known adventurers, and there are many other references to men-of-war -commissioned with the same object. In another way the naval history of -this reign is noteworthy. Although it was not unknown for ships to be at -sea in winter it was as yet exceptional, but we now find it occurring -more frequently during these few years than through the whole reign of -Henry VIII. No fewer than eight were cruising during the first four -months of 1556;[487] in October 1557, ten;[488] and ten in February and -March of the same year.[489] - -[Sidenote: Admiralty Officers and Administration.] - -Lord Clynton was still Lord Admiral at the death of Edward VI. He was -then unfortunate enough to be on the wrong side, and his influence with -the men seems to have been small, as the crews of six vessels, sent -to the Norfolk coast to prevent the flight of Mary, went over to her -side. Clynton was replaced by William, Lord Howard of Effingham, from -26th March 1554. The first named, however, regained the Queen’s favour -by the efficient aid he gave in Wyatt’s rising and was reappointed on -10th February 1557; thenceforward he retained the office till his death -on 16th January 1585. The only other change among the chief officers -was the nomination of William Wynter to be Master of the Ordnance of -the Navy from 2nd November 1557;[490] he was already Surveyor and now -held both offices for the rest of his life. The salary of the conjoined -appointments was £100 a year, with the usual 6s 8d a day travelling -expenses, 2s 4d a day for clerks, and £8 a year for boat hire. The -management of the Admiralty was, if not exactly reformed, subjected to -close scrutiny. In 1556 Lord Howard was ordered ‘to repayre himself -forthwith on receipte hereof,’ without the knowledge of the other -officers, and take ‘a secret muster’ of the men on board the ships, to -search the ships for concealed men and victuals, and to arrange for a -monthly muster on the cruisers in the narrow seas.[491] Regulations -were also established for the supply of stores and provisions and their -economical use, and a first attempt was made to check the waste of -ammunition in saluting by an order that it was not to be consumed in -‘vayne shot.’[492] - -A year later a further alteration followed, which took the form of -allowing a fixed yearly sum for ordinary naval expenses, a rule which -remained long in force. There may also have been other reasons for some -additional changes made. Clynton may not have been entirely trusted, or -some suspicion, perhaps, was taking shape concerning the provident or -honest conduct of the Officers. The order ran:— - - ‘Wheare heretofore the Quenes Maiestie hath ben sundrie tymes - troubled with thoften signing of warrantes for money to be - defraied about the necessarie chardges of her Highnesses navie - and being desierouse to have some other order taken for the - easyer conducting of this matter heareaftyr: Dyd this daie upon - consultacion had with certayn of my lords of the Counsell for - this purpose desyere the Lord Treasurer[493] with thadvise of - the Lord Admyrall to take this matter upon hym who agreinge - thareunto was content to take the chardge thereof with theis - conditions ffollowinge; ffirst, he requyred to have the some of - £14,000 by yere to be advaunced half yerely to Benjamyn Gonson - Threasarer of Thadmyraltie to be by hym defrayed in such sort - as shalbe prescribed by hym the sayed Lord Threasowrer with - thadvise of the Lorde Admyrall.’ - -For which sum the Lord Treasurer will - - ‘cause such of her Maiesties shippes as may be made servicable - with calkeinge and newe trymmynge to be sufficiently renewed - and repaired Item to cause such of her Highnes saied shippes as - must of necessitie be made of newe to be gone in hand withall - and newe made with convenyent speede Item he to see also all - her Highnes saied shippes furnysshed with sailles, anchors, - cables, and other tackell and apparell sufficientlye Item he - to cause the wagis and victuallinge of the shipp keepers and - woorkmen in harborough to be paied and dischardged Item he to - cause a masse of victual to be alwayes in redynes to serve for - 1000 men for a moneth to be sette to the sea upon eny sodeyne - Item he to cause the saied shippes from tyme to tyme to be - repaired and renewed as occasion shall requiere Item whenn - the saied shippes that ar to be renewed shalbe newe made and - sufficientlie repaired and the hole navie furnyshed of saylles, - anckers, cables, and other tackell then is the saied Lord - Treasowrer content to contynue this servis in fourme aforesaied - for the some of £10,000 yerely to be advaunced as is aforesaied - Item the saied Benjamyn Gonson and Edward Bashe Surveyor of the - Victuells of the shippes shall make theare severall accomptes - of the defrayment of the saied money and of theare hole doinges - herein once in the yere at the least and as often besydes as - shall be thowght convenyent by my Lordes of the Counsell.’ - -Any surplusage was to be carried forward towards the next year’s -expenses; the division of the money was, by estimation, £2000 for stores, -£1000 for rigging, £6000 for harbour wages and victualling, and £5000 -for the building and repair of ships.[494] By 1558 the allowance was -reduced to £12,000 a year, but even the proposed minimum of £10,000 was -much above anything allowed by Elizabeth during the greater part of her -reign. Moreover, the large scheme of rebuilding outlined in this paper -indirectly confirms the statement of the writer in the _Cecil MSS._[495] -in assigning numerous new, _i.e._ rebuilt, ships to 1558. Obviously the -circumstance of the Queen being overworked was not by itself any reason -why the real control should be taken from the Lord Admiral and other -Officers and given to the Lord Treasurer. The fact that payment was -now to be made in gross to Gonson of so many thousands a year instead -of, as formerly, by warrant for each separate matter, will explain the -necessity for some new check on the Navy Treasurer, but will not explain -the practical supersession of the Lord Admiral. As long as Burleigh was -Lord Treasurer he also remained the final authority on naval matters, -practically exercising the authority of a First Lord of the Admiralty of -the present day. The system of accounts now adopted endured, with some -modifications, for nearly a century, and to the order which prescribed -the rendering of a full statement once a year we owe the series of -_Audit_, or _Pipe Office Accounts_, an invaluable source of information -for naval history. - -[Sidenote: Expenditure and Establishments.] - -The average of wages all round had risen to 9s 4d a month ‘dead shares -and rewards included;’ this, judging from the early years of the next -reign, meant 6s 8d a month for the seamen. The custom of providing the -men with coats and jackets was dying out. There are no references to -these articles in the naval papers of the reign, but in a semi-official -expedition, that of Willoughby and Chancellor in 1553, the instructions -direct that the ‘liveries in apparel’ were only to be worn by the sailors -on state occasions. At other times they were to be kept in the care of -the supercargoes and ordinary clothes were to be sold to the crews at -cost price.[496] - -The one return of expenses remaining shows an extremely heavy naval -expenditure.[497] Between 1st January 1557 and 31st December 1558 -£157,638 was spent, of which victualling took £73,503, Deptford £22,120, -Woolwich £4048, Gillingham £408, Portsmouth £7521, and wages of men at -sea £43,492. Stores, such as timber, pitch, tar, cordage, etc., absorbed -nearly £20,000, included under the dockyard headings. From this account -it also appears that Legge when Treasurer, probably therefore in the -reign of Henry VIII, had advanced £100 to two Lincolnshire men for seven -years in order to assist the creation of another centre of the cordage -industry. The experiment was not successful and the item is carried -over formally in each successive account until dropped as a bad debt. -Victualling storehouses for the government had been built or bought at -Ratcliff, Rochester, Gillingham and Portsmouth; ordnance wharves at -Woolwich, Portsmouth and Porchester. Portsmouth was momentarily regaining -favour, and the Council recommended that ships should be laid up there -because the harbour afforded better opportunity for rapid action in the -Channel than did the Thames. The chief shipwright was now Peter Pett who -was receiving a fee of one shilling a day from the Exchequer in addition -to the ordinary payments made to him by the Admiralty. - -[Sidenote: Disease on Shipboard.] - -War was declared with France on 7th June 1557, but the operations of 1558 -were nullified by an outbreak of disease in the fleet as severe as that -of 1545. In 1557 Howard informed the Council that he could not obtain at -Dover ‘in a weke so moche victulls as wold victull ii pynnesses,’ and -although the complaint is a year earlier the character of the supplies -and the hardships it connotes, are very likely the key to the visitation -of the following summer. From the 5th to 17th August Clynton lay at St -Helens with the fleet, having returned from the capture and destruction -of Conquet. On the 18th he put to sea, and on the 20th was near the -Channel Islands, when so sudden an outburst occurred ‘that I thinke -the lieke was never syne ffor ther wer many ships that halfe the men -wer throwen downe sick at once.’[498] After holding a council with his -captains, which the masters of his ships also attended, he returned to -Portsmouth. - -[Sidenote: Privateering and Piracy.] - -Privateering was encouraged by a proclamation of 8th July 1557, -permitting any one to fit out vessels against the royal enemies, and -allowing possession to be retained of all ships and goods captured -‘withoute making accompte in any courte or place of this realme,’ and -without payment of any dues to the Lord Admiral or any other officer. -This entire abrogation of control increased the tendency to illegal -acts even among the more honest adventurers; while Carews, Killigrews, -Tremaines, and the ubiquitous Strangways, and Thomson, industriously -working for themselves, the government had always with them. Thomson was -off Scilly in 1556, with three ships, and was taken. When tried only -he and four others were condemned and the Council loudly complained -of the partiality of the jury, a partiality which better explains the -prevalence of piracy during these years than the accepted explanation -of the inefficiency of the Navy. The two Killigrews, Thomas and Peter, -were, if not the worst, the most successful offenders and in 1556 were -sufficiently enriched by their plunder to think of retiring to ‘some -island’ for the winter. They were frequently chased into French ports, -but to keep them there was beyond the power of the men-of-war, and the -French authorities treated them with a neutrality more than benevolent. - -When we find a privateer belonging to the Lord Privy Seal attacking -neutral vessels, and man-of-war officers boarding and robbing a Flemish -merchantman at Tilbury, it seems wonderful, in view of the excesses -such incidents suggest among the majority with no sense of legal -responsibility, that commerce could have been carried on at all. - - - - -ELIZABETH - -1558-1603 - - -[Sidenote: The Naval Policy of Elizabeth.] - -Her subjects were occupied, during the greater portion of Elizabeth’s -reign, in teaching their Queen the use of a navy, instruction that -she was the first English sovereign to put into practice on strategic -principles. Yet study of the forty-five years of glorious naval history -on which her renown is mainly based, leaves the impression that more -might and should have been done with the Navy. That she preferred -diplomacy to force would have been a merit had the choice been founded -on an ethical detestation of the cruelty of war, instead of an ingenuous -belief in her own skill and the obtuseness of her antagonists. Under -conditions more favourable to ascendancy at sea than have ever existed -for England, before or since, the successes of the Navy itself, as -distinguished from the expansion of the commercial marine, were, although -relatively great, limited by the hesitation with which the naval arm -was employed, the way in which the service was pecuniarily starved, and -the settled doctrine underlying her maritime essays that an expedition -should be of a character to return a profit on the outlay. And perhaps -the severest comment on her government lies in the fact that she was more -liberal in her treatment of the Navy, than of any other department of the -State. In February 1559 she possessed twenty-two effective ships of 100 -tons and upwards, in March 1603, twenty-nine; practically, therefore, she -did little more than replace those worn out by efflux of time, for only -two were lost in warfare. If Henry VIII created a navy under the stimulus -of a possible necessity it requires little imagination to conceive his -course when the time had come, as it never came for him, to put forth -every effort in using it for the preservation of England. - -When Elizabeth succeeded to the throne, the possession of a fleet and -an organised administration, the French royal navy, only a few years -before an apparently serious competitor, had ceased to exist; the rivalry -of Holland had not yet begun, and it is hardly an exaggeration to say -that a Spanish royal navy had never existed, in the sense of an ocean -going service organised on a basis enabling it to act vigorously and -effectively in any direction.[499] The opportunity had come therefore -to a power with maritime ambition, the only one possessing an efficient -fleet and naval control, and incited by religious differences and -commercial emulation. The altered situation brought to the front a -band of men who, in the preceding century, would have been military -adventurers in France, but who now, half traders, half pirates, handled -their ships with the same strategic and tactical skill their ancestors -exercised on land, and who, if they had been allowed a free hand, would -have brought Spain down in ruin instead of merely reducing her to a -condition of baffled impotence. They were not allowed a free hand. When -acting for themselves they had the knowledge that if it suited the royal -policy of the moment repudiation of their deeds might mean, if not loss -of life, at least loss of property and reputation. When in command of -royal fleets they were kept in touch with the government, hampered by -voluminous and contradictory instructions, and, above all, their efforts -and successes rendered nugatory by the parsimony which kept the depots -always on the brink of exhaustion. - -In naval, as in other matters, Elizabeth tried to make her subjects do -the work of the crown and therefore she frequently confined her action -to taking a share with several ships in a privateering expedition, -prepared by private individuals for their own profit. Such expeditions -swell the list of ships employed at sea, and privateering as a source -of injury to an enemy has its value, but such enterprises when forming -the whole effort of the State for a particular year show an insufficient -acquaintance with the character of the operations required. Privateers -were equipped not with large objects but to secure profits for owners -and crews. It sometimes happened that this purpose was at issue with -the wider views of the admiral in command, and the voyage became -ineffective where a similar number of men-of-war subject to discipline -might have done important service. The enormous increase in the merchant -marine which, it will be shown, characterised the reign, was in one way -disadvantageous since it induced the government to rely more on a _guerre -de course_ than on the sustained and systematised action of the Royal -Navy. Even when a great fleet was sent out the light in which Elizabeth -regarded it is instructively shown in a letter to Nottingham, after the -Cadiz voyage of 1596, when he had asked for money to pay the men’s wages: - - ‘though we have already written you divers letters to prevent - the inconvenience which we suspected would follow this journey - that it would be rather an action of honour and virtue against - the enemy and particular profit by spoil to the army than any - way profitable to ourself yet now we do plainly see by the - return of our whole fleet that the actions of hope are fully - finished without as much as surety of defraying the charge past - or that which is to come.[500] - -The blow to Spanish power and prestige, or an ‘action of honour and -virtue,’ counted for nothing if a fleet did not pay its expenses and make -some profit over and above. - -It may be asked then in what respect was Elizabeth personally deserving -of praise? The answer is that it fell to her to use for the first time -an untried weapon—untried in the sense that never before had England -relied on it as the right arm of attack or defence. For centuries the -defence of the country had depended on the mail-clad horseman and the -yeoman archer; from the first days of her accession she recognised that -the enemies of England were to be fought at sea, a doctrine which is a -commonplace now, but was then being only slowly evolved in minds even yet -dazzled by memories of invasions of France. She accepted and proved the -truth of the theory on which the policy of Henry VIII was grounded, and, -if she failed to carry it out fully, it was perhaps more from ignorance -of the might of the weapon in her hand than from want of statesmanship. -Notwithstanding her niggardliness, which nearly ruined England in 1588, -she expended money—for her lavishly—on the Navy, while the military and -other services were remorselessly starved. Sooner or later the naval -authorities obtained at least part of their requirements, in striking -contrast to the fortune of other officials who thought, and whose -contemporaries probably thought, their needs of equal or more importance. -If she did not use the fleet as some of the great seamen who served her -would have had her use it, she at anyrate extended its field of action -in a manner hitherto unknown, and sealed the direction of future English -policy. - -The following abstract, compiled from the pay and victualling lists and -the State Papers, will show the number of vessels of the Royal Navy in -commission each year, that it was used continuously as never before, -but also that it was seldom used up to its possible capacity. In every -case there were hired merchantmen as well if a fleet was engaged in an -over-sea expedition, but unless there was a prospect of plunder the brunt -of the work always fell on the men-of-war. As an arbitrary division, for -the purpose of the table, first-rates are taken as those above 600 tons; -second-rates from 400 to 600 tons; third-rates from 200 to 400 tons; -fourth-rates from 100 to 200 tons; fifth-rates from 50 to 100 tons; and -sixth-rates under 50 tons. Owing to technical difficulties connected with -the lists used it is probably not exactly correct but is sufficiently so -to give a just impression:— - - +-----------+---+---+---+---+---+---+--------+ - | |1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|6th|Galleys.| - +-----------+---+---+---+---+---+---+--------+ - | 1559 | | | | 2 | 4 | | | - | 1560[501] | | | | | | | | - | 1561 | | | 1 | 1 | 2 | | 1 | - | 1562 | | 2 | 4 | 1 | 5 | | | - | 1563 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 3 | - | 1564 | | | 1 | 2 | 3 | | | - | 1565 | | | | 2 | | | | - | 1566 | | | | 1 | 2 | | | - | 1567 | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | | - | 1568 | | | 2 | 1 | 1 | | | - | 1569 | | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | | | - | 1570 | | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | | | - | 1571 | | | | 2 | 1 | | | - | 1572 | | | | 2 | 2 | | | - | 1573 | | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | | | - | 1574 | | | | 2 | 1 | | | - | 1575 | | | | 2 | 1 | | | - | 1576 | | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | | | - | 1577 | | 1 | 2 | 2 | | | | - | 1578 | | 2 | 3 | 1 | | | | - | 1579 | | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | | | - | 1580 | | 1 | 6 | 2 | 1 | | | - | 1581 | | | 2 | 5 | 1 | | | - | 1582 | | | 1 | 2 | 1 | | | - | 1583 | | | | 2 | 1 | 1 | | - | 1584 | | | | 2 | 1 | 1 | | - | 1585 | | 1 | 2 | 4 | | | | - | 1586 | | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 1 | - | 1587 | | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 6 | | - | 1588[502] | 5 |10 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 1 | - | 1589 | | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | | - | 1590 | | 8 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 5 | | - | 1591 | | 8 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | | - | 1592 | | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | | - | 1593 | | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | | - | 1594 | | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4 | | - | 1595 | | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | | - | 1596 | 4 | 9 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | | - | 1597 | 6 |11 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 2 | | - | 1598 | | 5 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 4 | | - | 1599 | 6 |10 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 1 | - | 1600 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 5 | | - | 1601 | 2 |11 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | | - | 1602 | 3 | 9 | 5 | | 1 | 1 | | - +-----------+---+---+---+---+---+---+--------+ - -From this it is evident that vessels of from 400 to 600 tons were the -favourites; they were handier, better seaboats, and represented the -latest improvements in shipbuilding. Of the eleven first-rates on the -navy list in 1603, two were Spanish prizes of 1596, four dated from the -beginning of the reign, while the remaining five were of 1587 and later -years; it was these latter that were used from 1596 onwards. The four -earlier ones, built before Hawkyns came into office, were of an old type -and seem never to have been commissioned unless the services of the -whole Navy were required. The _Victory_, for instance was only at sea -in 1563, 1588, and 1589, although she is not entered in the foregoing -table under 1589, because lent to the Earl of Cumberland for a private -venture. The stress of the work fell therefore on the smaller vessels. -The _Bonaventure_, for instance, was at sea every year from 1585 to 1590 -inclusive. During the greater part of 1591 she was in dock at Woolwich -for repairs, but at Portsmouth in October, and then sent to sea. Again -in 1592, 5, 6, 7, and 1599. The _Dreadnought_, launched in 1573, was -commissioned during each of the six years 1575-80, and in 1585, 7, 8, and -1590. She was then, for nearly a year, in dry dock, recommencing service -in 1594, continuing it in 1595, 6, 7, 9, 1601, 2, and 1603. It must also -be noted that many of these years included more than one commission. -Excluding the fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-rates, which were serviceable -for privateering purpose, but could not take a place in any form of -attack requiring ships of force, it will be seen by how very few vessels -the naval warfare was really carried on, and that a succession of serious -descents on the Spanish coasts and transatlantic settlements, such as -were urged on Elizabeth, would have necessitated very large additions to -the Royal Navy. - -Shortly after the Queen’s accession she possessed, according to one -account thirty-five,[503] and according to another thirty-two[504] -vessels of all classes and in good and bad condition. Some ships had been -under repair before Mary’s death,[505] but the dockyards were working -with redoubled vigour since Elizabeth’s succession. At Deptford, in -March, 228 men were at work on five ships; at Woolwich 175 men on eight -others, and at Portsmouth 154 men on nine more.[506] Some of these were -rebuildings, others could have been but trifling repairs, but the list -shows with what energy Elizabeth and her Council applied themselves -to the maintenance of the fleet. From that time the yards, with the -exception of a few years, were kept fully occupied, and the following is -a list of the new ships built at them or otherwise added to the Navy. The -dates are New Style:— - - +-----------------------+----+---------+-----------+-------+------+-----+ - | Built| At | By |Rebuilt|Bought|Prize| - | +----+---------+-----------+-------+------+-----+ - |_Elizabeth Jonas_[507] |1559|Woolwich | |1597-8 | | | - |_Hope_[508] |1559| | |1602-3 | | | - |_Victory_[509] | | | | | 1560 | | - |_Primrose_[510] | | | | | 1560 | | - |_Minion_[511] | | | | | 1560 | | - |_Galley Speedwell_[512]|1559| | | | | | - |_Galley Tryright_[513] |1559| | | | | | - |_Triumph_[514] |1561| | |1595-6 | | | - |_Aid_[515] |1562| | | | | | - |_Galley Ellynor_[516] | | | | | |1563 | - |_Post_[517] |1563| | | | | | - |_Guide_[517] |1563| | | | | | - |_Makeshift_[517] |1563| | | | | | - |_Search_[517] |1563| | | | | | - |_White Bear_[518] |1564| | |1598-9 | | | - |_Elizabeth | | | | | | | - | Bonaventure_[519] | | | | 1581 | 1567 | | - |_Foresight_[520] |1570| | | | | | - |_Bull_[521] | | | | 1570 | | | - |_Tiger_[522] | | | | 1570 | | | - |_Swiftsure_[523] |1573|Deptford |Peter Pett | 1592 | | | - |_Dreadnought_[524] |1573| do. |Math. Baker| 1592 | | | - |_Achates_[525] |1573| do. |Peter Pett | | | | - |_Handmaid_[526] |1573| do. |Math. Baker| | | | - |_Revenge_[527] |1577| do. | | | | | - |_Scout_[528] |1577| do. | | | | | - |_Merlin_[529] |1579| | | | | | - |_Antelope_[530] | | | | 1581 | | | - |_Golden Lion_[531] | | | | 1582 | | | - |_Brigantine_[532] |1583| | | | | | - |_Nonpareil_[533] | |Deptford | | 1584 | | | - |_Galley Bonavolia_[534]| | | | 1584 | | | - |_Greyhound_[535] |1585| | Wm. Pett | | | | - |_Talbot_[536] |1585| |R. Chapman | | | | - |_Cygnet_[537] |1585| |Tho. Bowman| | | | - |_Makeshift_[538] |1586|Limehouse| Wm. Pett | | | | - |_Spy_[539] |1586| do. | do. | | | | - |_Advice_[540] |1586|Woolwich | M. Baker | | | | - |_Trust_[541] |1586| | | | | | - |_Sun_[542] |1586|Chatham | M. Baker | | | | - |_Seven Stars_[543] |1586| | | | | | - |_Tremontana_[544] |1586|Deptford |R. Chapman | | | | - |_Moon_[545] |1586| do. |Peter Pett | | | | - |_Charles_[546] |1586|Woolwich | M. Baker | | | | - |_Vanguard_[547] |1586| do. | do. | 1599 | | | - |_Rainbow_[548] |1586|Deptford |Peter Pett | 1602 | | | - |_Ark Royal_[549] |1587| do. |R. Chapman | | | | - |_Popinjay_[550] |1587| | | | | | - |_Nuestra Señora del | | | | | | | - | Rosario_[551] | | | | | |1588 | - |_Mary Rose_[552] | | | | 1589 | | | - |_Merhonour_[553] |1590| | M. Baker | | | | - |_Garland_[554] |1590| |R. Chapman | | | | - |_Defiance_[555] |1590| | P. & Jos. | | | | - | | | | Pett | | | | - |_Answer_[556] |1590| | M. Baker | | | | - |_Quittance_[557] |1590| | do. | | | | - |_Crane_[558] |1590| |R. Chapman | | | | - |_Advantage_[559] |1590| | P. & Jos. | | | | - | | | | Pett | | | | - |_Lion’s Whelp_[560] |1590| | | | | | - |_Primrose Hoy_[561] |1590| | | | | | - |_Black Dog_[562] | | | | | |1590 | - |_French Frigott_[563] | | | | | |1591 | - |_Flighte_[564] |1592| | | | | | - |_Mercury_[565] |1592|Deptford | M. Baker | | | | - |_Eagle_[566] | | | | | 1592 | | - |_Adventure_[567] |1594|Deptford | M. Baker | | | | - |_Mynikin_[568] |1595| | | | | | - |_Warspite_[569] |1596|Deptford |E. Stevens | | | | - |_Due Repulse_[570] |1596| | | | | | - |_St Mathew_[571] | | | | | |1596 | - |_St Andrew_[571] | | | | | |1596 | - |_Lion’s Whelp_[572] | | | | | 1601 | | - |_Superlativa_[573] |1601|Deptford | | | | | - |_Advantagia_[573] |1601|Woolwich | | | | | - |_George Hoy_[574] |1601| | Adye | | | | - |_Gallarita_[575] |1602|Limehouse| | | | | - |_Volatillia_[575] |1602|Deptford | | | | | - +-----------------------+----+---------+-----------+-------+------+-----+ - -In number this is an imposing array but exclusive of galleys, prizes, -six pre-existing vessels rebuilt, and the numerous small vessels, -only twenty-nine men-of-war of 100 tons and upwards were added to the -establishment between 1558 and 1603, notwithstanding the amount of work -thrown upon the Navy. It has been noticed that the term rebuilding, as -used in the official papers, is extremely vague and it is only when the -cost per ton can be ascertained that it can be known with certainty -whether a ship was renewed or repaired; it is quite possible that, with -the exception of the _Philip and Mary_, the rebuilt vessels were in -reality only subjected to more or less complete repair. Again, of these -twenty-nine only twenty-one were of 300 tons and upwards and suited -for distant expeditions; of the twenty-one the _Elizabeth_, _Hope_, -_Victory_, _Triumph_, and _White Bear_, were not liked—too big, too -expensive, or too unhandy—and were never used unless a fleet of great -strength was required. The names of a few ships recur, therefore, year -after year as forming the main strength of the squadrons, made up with -armed merchantmen, sent out for various purposes. Had Spain been able -to offer any real resistance at sea the destructive results of even -victorious action would have soon compelled the replacement of these -ships and a large increase in the navy list. - -[Sidenote: Various Ships.] - -The _Elizabeth Jonas_ varies as to tonnage between 855 and 1000 tons in -different papers. The _Victory_ oscillates between 694 and 800 tons, the -_Triumph_ between 955 and 1200, and a smaller vessel, the _Foresight_, is -given in three lists, within six years, as of 300, 350, then of 260 tons, -and in a fourth list of 1592 as of 450 tons. Before 1582 measurement -must have been usually a matter of opinion and comparison; after that -year when Baker’s rule had come into use there is more uniformity. But -such variations entirely vitiate dogmatic comparisons of the strength -of opposing ships or squadrons. The _Elizabeth_ was, ‘in new making’ at -Woolwich in December 1558,[576] and was therefore commenced before Mary’s -death. There is a singular story told of the origin of the name. - - ‘The shipp called the _Elizabeth Jonas_ was so named by her - Grace in remembrance of her owne deliverance from the furye - of her enemyes from which in one respect she was no lesse - myraculously preserved than was the prophet Jonas from the - belly of the whale.’[577] - -This occurs in a commonplace book kept by Robert Commaundre, Rector -of Tarporley, Chester, who died in 1613, and among some other naval -information wholly incorrect. It is a fact that Elizabeth christened the -ship herself but Commaundre’s version is probably country gossip made to -explain the name. If, however, it should be true it throws a more vivid -light on Elizabeth’s real feeling towards her unhappy sister than is shed -by many volumes of State Papers. - -The first occurrence of the famous name of the _Victory_ in an English -navy list is of great interest but unfortunately cannot be dated with -certainty. The earliest mention known is of the victualling accounts -of the quarter ending with September 1562.[578] On 14th March 1560, -the _Great Christopher_, of 800 tons, was bought of Ant. Hickman and -Ed. Castlyn, two London merchants. The tonnage corresponds with that -assigned to the _Victory_ in early papers, and the year corresponds with -that assigned to the _Victory_ in the State Paper quoted in the table. -The name _Great Christopher_ is only found down to 1562, when it is -immediately succeeded by that of _Victory_; in fact the _Christopher_ -is named in October and then ceases, to be replaced by the _Victory_ in -November.[579] Unless we suppose that a new 800-ton ship, one of the two -largest in the Navy, disappeared without leaving a trace of the cause it -must be assumed that the name was changed, a not unusual occurrence, and -if so, the _Victory_ is its only possible representative. The name was -quite new among English men-of-war; it may have been taken from that of -Magellan’s celebrated ship. - -The _Primrose_ and the _Minion_ had for some years previously been -employed among the hired London merchantmen; from 1560 they appear on -the navy lists, which points to their purchase. The _Minion_, in which -Hawkyns escaped from San Juan de Ulloa in 1568, was condemned in 1570; -the _Primrose_ was sold in 1575, again rejoining the merchant service, -to which she still belonged in 1583.[580] The galleys _Tryright_ and -_Speedwell_ disappear after 1579; and the _Bonavolia_ from 1599; of the -four later galleys the _Gallarita_ and _Volatillia_ were presented by -the city of London. The _Mercury_, another vessel of the galley type was -however furnished with masts and sails, and afterwards converted into a -pinnace. - -Returning to the large ships, the _Aid_ was condemned in 1599, the -_Elizabeth Bonaventure_, purchased from Walter Jobson for £2230, the -_Bull_ was broken up in 1594, and the _Revenge_ captured by a Spanish -fleet in 1591. The _Tiger_, _Scout_, and _Achates_, were cut down into -lighters and, in 1603, were supporting Upnor chain. The _Ark Royal_, -or _Ark Ralegh_, seems to have been built originally for Sir Walter -Ralegh,[581] although constructed in a royal yard and by a government -shipwright, who, later, received a pension for this among other services. -Some £1200 was spent in 1598 on the repairs of the _St Mathew_ and _St -Andrew_; they only served under the English flag, however, in the Islands -voyage of 1597. Some of the small pinnaces disappear from the lists -during these years without assigned cause, but the only two vessels known -to have been lost by stress of weather during the reign were the earlier -_Greyhound_ of Henry VIII, wrecked off Rye in 1562, and the _Lion’s -Whelp_ in 1591. - -[Sidenote: Table of General Details.] - -The following table of 1602 furnishes many curious details:—[582] - - +-------------+------------------------------------------------------+ - | |Length of keel | - | | |Beam | - | | | |Depth of hold | - | | | | |Rate forward | - | | | | | |Rate aft | - | | | | | | |Burden | - | | | | | | | |Ton and Tonnage | - | | | | | | | | |Weight of masts | - | | | | | | | | |and yards | - | | | | | | | | | |Weight | - | | | | | | | | | |of | - | | | | | | | | | |rigging | - | | | | | | | | | |tackle | - | | | | | | | | | | |Canvas - | | | | | | | | | | |for - | | | | | | | | | | |sails - | | | | | | | | | | |in - | | | | | | | | | | |bolts, - | | | | | | | | | | |¾ths - | | | | | | | | | | |of a - | | | | | | | | | | |yd. - | | | | | | | | | | |broad - | | | | | | | | | | |and 28 - | | | | | | | | | | |yds. - | | | | | | | | | | |long - | +----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+---------+-----+--+ - | |feet|feet|feet|feet|feet |tons|tons|ton. cwt.|lbs. | | - |_Elizabeth_ | 100| 38| 18|36 |6 | 684| 855| 22.8 |17000|85| - |_Triumph_ | 100| 40| 19|37 |6 | 760| 955| 24.17 |18000|95| - |_White Bear_ | 110| 37| 18|36 |6.6 | 732| 915| 24 |17000|88| - |_Merhonour_ | 110| 37| 17|37 |6.6 | 691| 865| 22.13 |17000|87| - |_Ark Royal_ | 100| 37| 15|33.6|6 | 555| 692| 18.4 |15300|84| - |_Victory_ | 95| 35| 17|32 |5.10 | 555| 694| 18.4 |16200|78| - |_Repulse_ | 105| 37| 16| | | 622| 777| 20.7 |17000|78| - |_Garland_ | 95| 33| 17|32 |5.8 | 532| 666| 17.7 |14600|66| - |_Warspite_ | 90| 36| 16| | | 518| 648| 17 |14400|62| - |_Mary Rose_ | 85| 33| 17|30.6|5 | 476| 596| 15.12 |13000|62| - |_Hope_ | 94| 33| 13|31.6|5.7 | 416| 520| 13.14 |11500|66| - |_Bonaventure_| 80| 35| 16|28 |4.10 | 448| 560| 14.14 |12300|70| - |_Lion_ | 100| 32| 14|31.6|5.10½| 448| 560| 14.14 |12300|70| - |_Nonpareil_ | 85| 28| 15|29 |5 | 357| 446| 11.7 | 9800|56| - |_Defiance_ | 92| 32| 15|31 |5.6 | 441| 552| 14.9 |12300|60| - |_Vanguard_ | 108| 32| 13|32 |5.8 | 449| 561| 14.14 |12300|70| - |_Rainbow_ | 100| 32| 12|33.6|6 | 384| 480| 12.11 |10500|67| - |_Dreadnought_| 80| 30| 15|31 |5.4 | 360| 450| 11.16 | 9800|52| - |_Swiftsure_ | 74| 30| 15|26 |4.6 | 333| 416| 9.18 | 9600|47| - |_Antelope_ | 87| 28| 14|29.6|5.3 | 341| 426| 11.3 | 9500|50| - |_Foresight_ | 78| 27| 14|27 |4.8 | 294| 306| 9.12 | 8300|47| - |_Adventure_ | 88| 26| 12| | | 274| 343| 8.7 | 7300|44| - |_Crane_ | 60| 26| 13|23 |3.10 | 202| 253| 6.12 | 5400|40| - |_Quittance_ | 64| 26| 13|24 |4 | 219| 274| 7.5 | 5800|42| - |_Answer_ | 65| 26| 13|24 |4 | 219| 274| 7.5 | 5800|42| - |_Advantage_ | 60| 24| 12|22 |3.10 | 172| 216| 5.13 | 4600|36| - |_Tremontana_ | 60| 22| 10| | | 132| 165| 4.6 | 3500|31| - |_Charles_ | 63| 16| 7|15 |3 | 70| 80| 2.4 | 2000|20| - |_Moon_ | 50| 17| 7|15 |2.8 | 59| 74| 1.17 | 1600|19| - |_Advice_ | 50| 14| 6|12 |2.6 | 42| 52| 1.4 | 1100|15| - |_Spy_ | 50| 14| 6|12 |2.6 | 42| 52| 1.4 | 1100|15| - |_Sonne_ | 50| 13| 6|11 |2.2 | 39| 48| 1.2 | 1100|13| - +-------------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+---------+-----+--+ - - +-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+ - | |Anchors | - | | |Cables | - | | | |Weight of Ordnance | - | | | | |Men in harbour | - | | | | | |Men at sea | - | | | | | | |Mariners | - | | | | | | | |Gunners | - | | | | | | | | |Soldiers | - | | | | | | | | | | Cost per | - | | | | | | | | | |month at sea:| - | | | | | | | | | | wages and | - | | | | | | | | | | victualling | - | +---+-----+---+-----+----+--+---+---+--+---+-------------+ - | |No.|lbs. |No.|lbs. |tons| | | | | | £ s d | - |_Elizabeth_ | 7 |15000| 7|31000|61 |30|500|340|40|120|758 6 8 | - |_Triumph_ | 7 |15000| 7|32500|68 |30|500|340|40|120|758 6 8 | - |_White Bear_ | 7 |15300| 7|30000|63 |30|500|340|40|120|758 6 8 | - |_Merhonour_ | 7 |15000| 7|30000|63 |30|400|268|32|100|606 13 4 | - |_Ark Royal_ | 7 |13500| 7|24000|50 |17|400|268|32|100|606 13 4 | - |_Victory_ | 7 |13000| 7|24000|50 |17|400|268|32|100|606 13 4 | - |_Repulse_ | 7 |14400| 7|26300|54 |16|350|230|30| 90|530 16 8 | - |_Garland_ | 7 |12700| 7|22800|47 |16|300|190|30| 80|455 0 0 | - |_Warspite_ | 7 |13000| 7|22800|40 |12|300|190|30| 80|455 0 0 | - |_Mary Rose_ | 7 |13000| 7|20000|43 |12|250|150|30| 70|379 3 4 | - |_Hope_ | 6 | 9200| 6|17800|37 |12|250|150|30| 70|379 3 4 | - |_Bonaventure_| 6 | 9600| 6|19000|40 |12|250|150|30| 70|379 3 4 | - |_Lion_ | 6 | 9600| 6|19000|40 |12|250|150|30| 70|379 3 4 | - |_Nonpareil_ | 6 | 9600| 6|15000|32 |12|250|150|30| 70|379 3 4 | - |_Defiance_ | 7 |12200| 7|19000|41 |12|250|150|30| 70|379 3 4 | - |_Vanguard_ | 6 | 9600| 6|19100|40 |12|250|150|30| 70|379 3 4 | - |_Rainbow_ | 6 | 9000| 6|16600|35 |12|250|150|30| 70|379 3 4 | - |_Dreadnought_| 6 | 8200| 6|15400|32 |10|200|130|20| 50|303 6 8 | - |_Swiftsure_ | 5 | 7100| 5|14100|29 |10|200|130|20| 50|303 6 8 | - |_Antelope_ | 5 | 7300| 5|14000|30 |10|160|114|16| 30|242 13 4 | - |_Foresight_ | 5 | 7300| 5|12600|26 |10|160|114|16| 30|242 13 4 | - |_Adventure_ | 4 | 6000| 4|11000|24 |10|120| 88|12| 20|182 0 0 | - |_Crane_ | 4 | 4500| 4| 8500|18 | 7|100| 76|12| 12|151 13 4 | - |_Quittance_ | 4 | 4500| 4| 9400|19 | 7|100| 76|12| 12|151 13 4 | - |_Answer_ | 4 | 4500| 4| 9400|19 | 7|100| 76|12| 12|151 13 4 | - |_Advantage_ | 4 | 3700| 4| 7400|15 | 7|100| 76|12| 12|151 13 4 | - |_Tremontana_ | 4 | 3200| 4| 5600|11 | 6| 70| 52| 8| 10|106 3 4 | - |_Charles_ | 4 | 1800| 4| 3000| 7 | 5| 45| 32| 6| 7| 68 5 0 | - |_Moon_ | 3 | 1800| 3| 2600| 5 | 5| 40| 30| 5| 5| 60 13 4 | - |_Advice_ | 3 | 1600| 3| 2000| 3½ | 5| 40| 30| 5| 5| 60 13 4 | - |_Spy_ | 3 | 1600| 3| 2000| 3½ | 5| 40| 30| 5| 5| 60 13 4 | - |_Sonne_ | 3 | 1500| 3| 1700| 3¼ | 5| 30| 24| 4| 2| 45 10 0 | - +-------------+---+-----+---+-----+----+--+---+---+--+---+---+--+-+----+ - -In consequence of the existence of a formula, to be presently noticed, -for calculating tonnage, we have in the preceding table for the first -time an attempt at exactness instead of the former round numbers. The -keel and other measurements given can only be taken as approximate -seeing that they differ in nearly every paper. And some of the other -particulars, such as the number of anchors and cables, represent only -a theoretical equipment; the inventories show that vessels frequently -carried more than the seven anchors and seven cables assigned to the -large ones here. On the other hand the strength of the crews rarely -reached the proportions in the list, it may safely be said never, if a -large fleet was prepared. - -The great Portuguese carrack, the _Madre de Dios_, captured in 1592 and -regarded as the largest ship afloat, had a keel length of 100 feet, -an extreme breath of 46 feet 10 inches, and an extreme length of 165 -feet.[583] The keel length of the _Rainbow_ being 100 feet, her extreme -length was 139 feet 6 inches and she had only 32 feet of beam. Moreover -the carrack would be hampered by tiers of cabins built up on her poop -and forecastle; a comparison of these proportions will help to explain -the better weatherly and sailing qualities of the English ships. If for -further illustration we compare the _Elizabeth Jonas_ carrying 55 heavy -guns,[584] with a 52 gun ship of 1832 we find that the ordnance of the -latter weighed 125 tons 4 cwt.; cables (iron and hempen), 56 tons 1 cwt.; -anchors 12 tons 10 cwt. 2 qrs.; masts and yards 74 tons 5 cwt.; and fixed -and running rigging 51 tons 9 cwt.[585] - -This table also explains why galleys, never much in favour, were rapidly -falling out of use. In 1588 the _Bonavolia_ served for two months as a -guardship in the river at a total cost of £1028,[586] that is to say £514 -a month. In 1589 there is an estimate, in the handwriting of Hawkyns, -for the same galley but 150 ‘slaves’ are now allowed for, and ‘there may -be for every bank[587] a soldier with his piece if the service require -it.’ He adds ‘there is no dyett spoken of for the slaves for that we are -not yett in the experyence.’[588] We cannot now tell whether Hawkyns had -his early merchandise of negroes in his mind or whether ‘slaves’ was the -pleasant Elizabethan way of describing criminals and vagrants.[589] The -reference however, to ignorance in the matter of diet seems rather to -imply that negroes were in question. Doubtless the cost of free oarsmen -had been found to be too great. It will be observed that a large cruiser -like the _Dreadnought_ could be kept at sea throughout the year at a -charge of £303 a month while the almost useless galley, only doubtfully -available in summer, cost very much more. The galley service was only -possible among the Mediterranean states, and then only when, like Venice, -they bought surplus human stock by the thousand from the Emperor. The -four galleys of 1601-2 were never once engaged in active service, and -were probably only used for purposes for which steam tugs are now -employed; perhaps also in pageants, men from the royal ships or ordinary -watermen being put in them for the particular service. - -[Sidenote: Types of Ships.] - -The lines of ships had begun to vary according to the purpose for which -they were designed. There had formerly been no difference between -merchantmen and men-of-war except that the latter were perhaps more -strongly built. But a paper by William Borough, Comptroller of the Navy, -now describes three orders:—[590] - - 1. The shortest, broadest, and { To have the length by the keel - deepest order. { double the breadth amidships and the - { depth in hold half that breadth. - - This order is used in some merchant ships for most profit. - - 2. The mean and best proportion { Length of keel two or two and a - for shipping for merchandise, { quarter that of beam. Depth of hold - likewise very serviceable for { eleven-twentyfourths that of beam. - all purposes. - - 3. The largest order for galleons { Length of keel three times the - or ships for the wars made for { beam. Depth of hold two-fifths of - the most advantage of sailing. { beam. - -If the figures in the preceding table are trustworthy it will be seen -that the keel length is very seldom three times the breadth although the -later ships show a drift towards that proportion. The short keel, not -sufficiently supported in a head sea must have made the vessel pitch -tremendously, and one object of the beakhead and great forward rake was -to shatter the seas and prevent them breaking on board. Probably these -ships were but little worse sailers than the ordinary merchantmen of the -beginning of this century, at least before the wind. They could not sail -on the wind within at least eight points; fore and aft sails were not yet -known, and the top-hamper of lofty sides and built up poop and forecastle -levered the vessel off to leeward. - -[Sidenote: Improvements and Inventions.] - -Many improvements however were introduced. A method of striking topmasts, -‘a wonderful ease to great ships,’ and a system of sheathing by double -planks, having a layer of tar and hair between them, were two of the most -important. Both were due to Hawkyns, and the sheathing process remained -in use for more than a century after his death. The finest Elizabethan -men-of-war, the fastest sailers and best seaboats then afloat were built -from his plans; and from the time of his appointment as Treasurer of -the Navy dates the change to the relatively low and long type that made -the English ships so much more handy than their Spanish antagonists. On -Ralegh’s testimony the chain pump, the use of the capstan for weighing -the anchor, bonnets and drablers, sprit, studding, top, and top-gallant -sails were all new.[591] Ralegh is usually accepted as an authority, but -some of these statements are surprisingly inaccurate, considering that -he was a shipowner, and had himself been to sea. The bonnet, which laced -on to the foot of the ordinary sail, was in use at least as early as the -fourteenth century: the drabler laced on to the bonnet, and if the name -was new the thing itself was doubtless old. Top, top-gallant, and sprit -sails, can be traced back to the close of the preceding century, and -there is no reference to studding sails in the inventories. In view also -of the ‘main,’ ‘forecastle,’ and ‘lift’ capstans found on a ship like the -_Sovereign_ in 1496 it seems incredible that they should not have been -earlier applied to weighing the anchor. - -The chain pump was brought into use by Hawkyns; a patent log was invented -by Humphrey Cole but it does not appear to have superseded the ordinary -log line. The lower ports were now some four feet above the water line, -and there was a tendency to decrease the deck superstructures. Ralegh is -emphatic in his disapproval of deck cabins: ‘they are but sluttish dens -that breed sickness in peace, serving to cover stealths, and in fight are -dangerous to tear men with their splinters.’ Nevertheless others thought -differently, and in view of the large crew of a man-of-war and crowded -narrow quarters some deck accommodation was perhaps absolutely essential. -Both poop and forecastle were barricaded and the bulkheads pierced for -arrow and musketry fire. In ships ‘built loftie’ there was a second, -and perhaps even a third tier over the poop and forecastle of similarly -defended cabins. The waist was partly open on the upper deck, while on -the lower deck were again loop-holed bulkheads running transversely, so -that if a ship were boarded her assailants found themselves exposed to a -galling cross-fire from the defenders. - -Gravel ballast only was used and for such crank vessels a large quantity -was necessary. It was seldom changed and becoming soaked with bilgewater, -drainings from beer casks, and the general waste of a ship, was a source -of injury to the vessel and of danger to the health of the men. The -‘cook-room,’ a solid structure of bricks and mortar, was built in the -hold on this ballast, and in that position, besides making the ship hot -and spoiling the stores, was a frequent cause of fire. Moreover ballast -and cook-room being practically immovable nothing could be known of the -condition of the timber and ironwork below. Sir William Wynter advocated, -in 1578, the use of stone ballast and the removal of the cooking galley -to the forecastle, but neither proposal was generally adopted.[592] In -the squadron commanded by Hawkyns and Frobisher in 1590 the _Mary Rose_, -however, Hawkyns’ flagship, had her cook-room especially removed from -the hold to the forecastle, ‘as well for the better stowinge of her -victualles as also for better preserving her whole companie in health -during that voyadge beinge bounde to the southwardes.’ We may therefore -take it that the opinion of Hawkyns coincided with that of Wynter on this -point. But the alteration in the _Mary Rose_ was an isolated occurrence, -and even as late as the beginning of the eighteenth century the galley -was still sometimes in the hold. The large amount of space occupied by -the ballast, cables, ammunition, and other necessaries left but little -room for other things, and a ship had only provisions on board for three -or four weeks, although theoretically she was expected to carry more. The -presence of a fleet of transports was therefore necessary with all naval -expeditions. - -The attention given to maritime matters bore fruit in other inventions, -many of them far in advance of their time. Centre board boats, -paddlewheels, a diving dress, and fireships, were all recommended and -perhaps used.[593] Gawen Smith proposed to erect a beacon and refuge, -capable of holding twenty or thirty persons, on the Goodwin sands -such as was actually tried, unsuccessfully, in the first half of this -century.[594] - -[Sidenote: Cost and Construction of Ships.] - -There is no detailed statement of the whole cost of a ship complete. Most -were built by contract, and payment to the master shipwright responsible -appears to be only for the hull, masts and spars. For an early vessel, -probably the _Triumph_, there is a fuller account[595] and here the total -is £3788, of which the timber cost £1200, spars and ironwork £700, and -wages £1888; this does not include sails, fittings, etc. Building by -contract seems to have commenced with the accession to office of Hawkyns -in 1578. The _Lion_ was rebuilt in this manner in 1582 for £1440, the -_Nonpareil_ for £1600, the _Hope_ ‘brought into the fourme of a galease’ -£250,[596] and the _Cygnet_, and _Greyhound_ built for £93, 18s 1d and -£66, 13s 4d each.[597] The _Victory_ was ‘altered into the forme of a -galleon’ for £500, and the _Vanguard_ and _Rainbow_ built for £2600, -apiece.[598] The _Merhonour_, _Garland_, and _Defiance_, cost £5, 2s, -£5, 19s 5d, and £6, 7s 4d a ton,[599] and the price was based on the -net tonnage. These rates do not however correspond with the amounts in -the naval accounts which are £3600 for the _Merhonour_, £3200 for the -_Garland_, and £3000 for the _Defiance_. - -The earliest details we have of construction are in connection with these -three vessels. A committee consisting of Howard, Drake, Hawkyns, Wynter, -Borough, Ed. Fenton, Rich. Chapman, and Mathew and Christopher Baker, -settled the plans.[600] The three were very similar, and it was decided -that the one to be built by Peter Pett (the _Defiance_) should have a -keel length of 92 feet, a beam of 32 feet, and be 15 feet deep ‘under the -beame of the maine overloppe.’ Eight feet above the keel ten beams were -to be placed on which ‘to lay a false overloppe so far as neede shall -require,’ and under the ten beams ten riders were to be set; the riders -at the footwales were to have two ‘sleepers on every side fore and afte,’ -and pillars to be sufficiently bolted to them. The pillars supporting the -lower deck had been newly adopted,[601] and as riders were put into the -_White Bear_ twenty years after she was built they also were possibly a -recent improvement. The main, or lower deck, of the _Defiance_ was to -have twelve beams, with side knees and standards, every knee having four -bolts and the deck itself was of three-inch plank. The upper deck was of -two-and-a-half inch plank, but three inches in the waist; on this deck -were the poop and forecastle. From the keel to the second wale four-inch -plank was to be used, thence to the ‘quickside or waist,’ three-inch, -and above that two-inch ‘rabbated to the railles to be inbowed to goe -to the shippes side,’ On the orlop deck there were to be cabins for -the boatswain, surgeon, gunner, and carpenter; the ship’s company were -berthed on the main deck. - -The _Merhonour_, and _Garland_, differed only in details, therefore these -vessels, one of which was the third largest in the Royal Navy, were not -even two-deckers in the modern sense. Three-deckers were unknown in -the English service and, beyond the existence of a print, diagrammatic -in character, in the British Museum, which is said, on insufficient -authority, to represent the _Ark Royal_, there is no ground for supposing -that two-deckers were in use. The _Warspite_, of 648 tons, had possibly -only one ordnance deck but certainly not more than one-and-a-half; -‘having an overloppe and deck before and after, and a half deck abaft -the main mast.’[602] She was ‘planked between the two lower walles and -from the lower walle down to the keele with four-inch plank, and from -the second walle upwards to the cheyne walle with three-inch plank, and -from the cheyne walles to the railes upwards on the waste with two-inch -plank.’ The _Warspite_ was one of the few shipbuilding failures of the -reign. In 1598, although a nearly new ship, she cost £712 for repairs and -further sums were spent on her in the succeeding years. - -The illustration of an Elizabethan man-of-war, reproduced from a drawing -in a Bodleian MS., shows some marked differences from the _Tiger_ of -Henry VIII. She is probably a vessel of the earlier portion of the reign; -perhaps the _Bull_ or _Tiger_ of 1570. So far as the hull is concerned, -there is distinct retrogression in that the keel is relatively shorter to -the extreme length, and that the poop is built up to a disproportionate -and unseaworthy extent. This last may be explained by the fact that the -earlier _Tiger_ was not expected to be called upon to serve outside the -four seas, while the later ship had a wider cruising scope. The extended -field of service called for larger crews, and as the orlop deck was not -introduced till late in the reign, the increased accommodation necessary -was obtained by the provision of more deck structures. In the matter of -heavier masts and spars, possibly finer under water lines, larger sail -area, and the multiplication of appliances for more rapid handling, there -was an undoubted advance on the earlier ship. - -[Illustration] - -[Sidenote: Decoration of Ships.] - -Philip’s ambassador told him in 1569 that ‘they expect to be able to -repel any attack by means of their fleet,’ and this confidence found -natural expression in an inclination to decorate and adorn the weapons -on which they relied. At any rate we now find specific payments for -these purposes made with a frequency new in naval history. The ‘carving -of personages in timber,’ and painting and colouring of ships in 1563 -cost £121, 13s 8d and ‘painting and colouring red the great new ship -called the _White Bear_‘[603] £20. Three ‘great personages in wood for -the garnishing and setting forth’ of the same vessel were £1, 15s each. -The upper works of the _Bonaventure_ were painted black and white,[604] -and the _Lion_ in ‘timber colour;’ as the _White Bear_ was red, and the -_Revenge_ and _Scout_, green and white there was evidently no regulation -colour. The _Bonaventure_ had a dragon on her beakhead, the royal arms -on her stern, and two lions and two dragons in gilt and paint on her -galleries. The _Foresight_ carried the Queen’s arms, a rose and a _fleur -de lis_, on her stern, and in 1579 £2, 13s 4d was paid for carving a -Saturn and a Salamander for the _Swallow_. Figure heads were usual. The -_Nonpareil_, _Adventure_, _Dreadnought_ and _Hope_, had a dragon; the -_Charles_, _Defiance_, _Rainbow_, _Repulse_ and _Garland_ a lion; the -_Mary Rose_, a unicorn, and the _Swiftsure_ a tiger. When the _White -Bear_ was rebuilt the carvings included, - - ‘an image of Jupiter sitting uppon an eagle with the cloudes, - before the heade of the shippe xiˡⁱ; twoe sidebordes for the - heade with compartments and badges and fruitages xˡⁱ; the - traynebord[605] with compartments and badges of both sides - viiˡⁱ; xvi brackets going round about the heade at xiiˢ the - pece; xxxviii peces of spoyle or artillarie round about the - shippe at xivˢ the pece; the greate pece of Neptune and the - Nymphes about him for the uprighte of the Sterne viˡⁱ xˢ.’[606] - -The whole cost of carving was here £172, and of painting and gilding -£205, 10s, but these appear to have been exceptional amounts. Painting -the _Bonaventure_ cost £23, 6s 8d, the _Dreadnought_ £20, the _Vanguard_ -£30, and the _Merhonour_ £40, and these sums more nearly represented the -ordinary expenditure. On the _Elizabeth_ however £180 was spent in 1598 -for - - ‘newe payntinge and guildinge with fine gold her beake heade - on both sides with Her Maiesties whole armes and supporters, - for payntinge the forecastle, the cubbridge heades[607] on the - wast, the outsides from stemme to sterne, for like payntinge - and newe guildinge of both the galleries with Her Maiesties - armes and supporters on both sides, the sterne newe paynted - with divers devices and beastes guilte with fine gold; for newe - payntinge the captens cabbon, the somer decke[608] as well - overhead as on the sides, the barbycan, the dyninge roome and - the studdie.’[609] - -The _Rainbow’s_ lion figure head was gilt and on her sides were ‘planets, -rainbows, and clouds’ with the royal arms on the upper, middle, and lower -counter, but the whole charge was only £58, 6s. Cabins were painted and -upholstered in the favourite Tudor colour of green and ‘Her Maiesties -badge’ was painted in green and red. The _White Bear_ and the _Elizabeth_ -are the only two instances in which comparatively large sums are found to -be spent in ornament, and it does not appear that there was as yet more -than a bent towards general embellishment. The smaller vessels are never -mentioned in this connexion. The opinion of a contemporary was that, both -for work and appearance, - - ‘our navy is such as wanteth neither goodly, great, nor - beautiful ships who of mould are so clean made beneath, of - proportion so fine above, of sail so swift, the ports, fights, - coines, in them so well devised, with the ordnance so well - placed, that none of any other region may seem comparable unto - them.’[610] - -[Sidenote: Tonnage Measurement.] - -The new method of building by contract, and the large number of -merchantmen upon which the bounty was now paid, necessitated a more exact -measurement of tonnage than had hitherto obtained. In 1582 a rule was -devised which remained in use for nearly half a century and was said to -have been due to Mathew Baker, son of the James Baker shipwright to Henry -VIII, and himself one of the principal government shipwrights. The writer -says:[611] - - ‘By the proportion of breadth, depth, and length of any ship - to judge what burden she may be of in merchant’s goods and - how much of dead weight of ton and tonnage. The _Ascension_ - of London being in breadth 24 feet, depth 12 feet from that - breadth to the hold, and by the keel 54 feet in length doth - carry in burden of merchant’s goods (in pipes of oil or - Bordeaux wine) 160 tons, but to accompt her in dead weight, or - her ton and tonnage may be added one third part of the same - burden which maketh her tonnage 213⅓. After the same rate these - proportions follow: - - +-----------------------+----------+---------+---------+-------+-------+ - | | | | |Burden | | - | |Breadth at| Depth | |in cask| Dead | - | | midship |from her | Keel |of oil |weight | - | | beam | breadth | |or wine|tonnage| - | +----------+---------+---------+-------+-------+ - | A Ship of | 20 ft. | 10 ft. | 42 ft. | 86½ | 115 | - | A Ship of | 21 ” | 10½ ” | 45 ” | 102⅒ | 136⅛ | - | _Prudence_ of London | 24 ” | 12 ” | 51½ ” | 150½ | 202⅔ | - | _Golden Lion_ | 32 ” | 12 ” | 102 ” | 403 | 537 | - | | |or 14 | |or 461 |or 614⅔| - | _Elizabeth Jonas_[612]| 40 ” | 18 ” | 100 ” | 740 | 986⅔ | - +-----------------------+----------+---------+---------+-------+-------+ - - To find the burden of any ship proportionately to the - _Ascension_ before specified multiply the breadth of her by her - depth, and the product by her length at the keel, the amounting - sum you shall use as your divisor. If 15,552, the solid cubical - number for the _Ascension_ do give 160 tons, her just burthen, - what shall 8400, the solid number of a ship 20 feet broad, 10 - feet deep, and 42 feet keel. Work and you shall find 86³⁴⁄₈₁ - tons of burden while if you add one-third you shall find your - tonnage 114 almost.’ - -This formula made theory square with fact since the result corresponded -with the tuns of Bordeaux wine experience had shown a ship to be able -to carry. But strictly, ‘burden’ and ‘ton and tonnage,’ as used here do -not correspond with our net and gross tonnage, since burden is used in -connexion with lighter material occupying more space than a heavy cargo, -such as coal, that would be represented by ton and tonnage. The Spanish -system of measurement in 1590 was to multiply half the breadth by depth -of hold and the result by the length over all.[613] From this 5% was -deducted for the entry and run, and the remainder divided by eight, gave -the net tonnage; 20% was added to obtain the gross tonnage.[614] - -[Sidenote: The Seamen.] - -As early as 1561 the Venetian Resident considered England superior to its -neighbours in naval strength,[615] but he may not have included Spain -among the neighbours. The Spaniards officially in England kept Philip -fully acquainted with the character and equipment of the fleet. He was -always apprised of any preparations, and in such detail that we find -him told on one occasion that twelve or fourteen ships were of from 400 -to 700 tons ‘with little top-hamper and very light, which is a great -advantage for close quarters, and with much artillery, the heavy pieces -being close to the water.’[616] Eight years earlier his ambassador, -De Silva, recommended him to have ships built in England instead of -continuing the chartering system in vogue in Spain as ‘certainly the -ships built here are very sound and good.’[617] These intimations -probably did not stand alone, but neither then nor later did they lead -to any change in the type affected in the Peninsula. English seamen did -not favourably impress the Spaniards. One of Philip’s correspondents, in -writing to him that four men-of-war had been prepared for sea, added, -‘the men in them are poor creatures.’[618] Six months later he was -informed that although Elizabeth possessed twenty-two large ships she -had only been able to fit eleven for sea, and would find it impossible -to equip more, and that ‘the men on the fleet although they appear -bellicose are really pampered and effeminate different from what they -used to be.’[619] The estimate appears the more extraordinary because -English seamen were at this time giving daily proof, at the expense of -Spanish and other commerce, of the wild energy animating them. As late -as 1586, Mendoza wrote that four ships were in commission and others in -preparation, but of these latter, only four were seaworthy, ‘all the rest -being old and rotten.’[620] If Philip was continuously misinformed as to -the number of ships available, the difficulties in furnishing them, and -the fighting value of the men, it may help to explain the confidence he -showed later. - -As a matter of fact, there are very few complaints throughout the -reign about embarrassments due to want of crews. The semi-piratical -expeditions preferred by the government were better liked than would have -been a more regular warfare that would have meant harder fighting and -fewer chances of plunder. Hatred of Spain and Popery, conjoined with the -hoped for pillage of Spanish galleons, formed an inducement that never -failed to bring a sufficient number of men together, notwithstanding -that, as privateering speculations, most of the voyages were, -pecuniarily, failures, although they served their purpose in destroying -Spanish commerce and credit. The proportion of men on board a man-of-war -was three to every five tons, of gross tonnage; one-third being -soldiers, one-seventh of the remainder, gunners; and the rest seamen. -In merchantmen the ratio was one man to every five tons of net tonnage, -one-twelfth being gunners and the rest seamen.[621] But in practice the -strength of a crew depended on the number of men required and the success -of the impress authorities. - -[Sidenote: The Seamen:—Pay and Rewards.] - -Until 1585 the wages remained at 6s 8d a month, to which it had been -raised in 1546 or very shortly afterwards. In 1585, the sailor’s pay -was raised to ten shillings a month, through the action of Hawkyns. -There must have been some dissatisfaction with the quality of the -men hitherto serving, and the breach with Spain doubtless made an -improvement necessary. Hawkyns coated the pill for Elizabeth by assuring -her that fewer men would be required, of the standard to be attracted -by the higher rate, and, ‘by this meane her Maiesties shippes wolde be -ffurnyshed with able men suche as can make shyfte for themselves, kepe -themselves clene withoute vermyne and noysomeness which bredeth sycknes -and mortalletye.’[622] Moreover, ships could then carry more stores and -continue longer at sea. Hawkyns was one of the few commanders of his age -who recognised a claim to consideration in his inferiors, and made some -attempt to secure their health and comfort. In 1589 he took care to have -his stores ‘of an extraordinary price and goodnes to keep men in health’; -in 1595 he took out clothes for his men and a new kind of ‘lading -victuells, a kind of victuells for sea service devised by Mr Hughe -Platte.’[623] Hammocks were introduced in 1597, when a warrant authorises -payment for 300 bolts of canvas ‘to make hanging cabones or beddes ... -for the better preservation of their health.’[624] In 1590, a suggestion, -which did not, however, take practical shape till long afterwards, was -made for the benefit of the merchant sailor. John Allington, a draper of -London, proposed the creation of a special office for the registration -of contracts between merchants, owners, and masters of ships. This would -have led to something equivalent to the present ‘signing on’ enforced by -the Board of Trade, and would have regulated the position of the seamen -and simplified the enforcements of his rights, too often sacrificed to -an unscrupulous use of legal forms.[625] Allington, like most of the -projectors and schemers of his day, was no philanthropist. He offered to -pay £40 a year for permission to establish such an office, and apparently -expected to obtain five shillings apiece from 500 or 600 ships a year. - -No especial provision was made on board men-of-war for the sick or -wounded sailor; if the ship went into action he was placed in the cable -tier or laid upon the ballast as being the safest places. If he survived -the medical science of his time, and was landed disabled, he was supposed -to be passed to his own parish. Sometimes he was permitted to beg. A -printed licence from Howard, as Lord Admiral, under date 1590, still -exists empowering William Browne, maimed in 1588, to beg for a year -in all churches.[626] By 35 c. 4 and 39 c. 21 of Elizabeth relief was -afforded to hurt men; these were both repealed by 43 c. 3 which enacted -that parishes were to be charged with a weekly sum of not less than -twopence or more than tenpence to provide help, the pension however in no -case to exceed ten pounds for a sailor or twenty pounds for an officer. -Gratuities were sometimes given. In 1593 Hawkyns was ordered to pay -two shillings a week, for twenty weeks, to 29 injured men, and William -Storey, having lost a leg, received £1, 13s 4d, apparently in settlement -of all claims.[627] - -Such gifts, in view of the number we can still trace, were probably -more frequent than would be expected from the character of Elizabeth. -In 1587 a month’s extra pay was awarded to the crews of three pinnaces -for their good service in capturing Spanish prizes. For 1588 £5, was -divided among 100 men who manned the fireships sent into Calais Roads, -£80, among the wounded of the fleet generally, and £7 to sick men in -the _Elizabeth_.[628] In 1591 six months’ pay was given to the widows -of the men killed in the _Revenge_, and in 1594 there is a gift of £61, -19s 6d to Helen Armourer, widow of John Armourer of Newcastle, ‘in -consideration of his good and faithful services,’ although the name is -quite strange in naval affairs.[629] Merchant seamen were also remembered -in these benefactions. On one occasion forty marks were paid to five -men ‘having been lately lamentably afflicted in Naples by pryson and -other punyshments by thinquisition of Spayne as we are informed and by -secret escape savid their lyves.’[630] On another ‘in consideration -of the valiantnes done in Turkey by our welbeloved subiecte John Ffoxe -of Woodbridge in our county of Suffolk, gunner by whose meanes 266 -Christians were released out of miserable captivity,’ an assuredly nobly -earned pension of one shilling a day was conferred upon him.[631] When -it cost the Queen nothing directly she was sometimes still more liberal. -To Robert Miller, a master mariner, £200, was allowed out of forfeited -goods in consideration of his services and losses at sea; George Harrison -received £800, in the same way and for the same reasons. Sometimes -seamen’s wives, whose husbands were prisoners in Spain, petitioned the -Council for help. In one instance the merchants owning the ships were -ordered to assist the women; in another their landlords were directed not -to press them for rent. - -We can know little of the internal economy of a merchantman in those -days. The vessels were relatively as crowded, and probably as unhealthy, -as men-of-war; the victualling was of the same, and at times even worse -quality, seeing that the owners of merchant vessels were expected to -buy government provisions if the victualling department found itself -overstocked. In 1596 there is a letter directing the Lord Mayor to -forbid the city butchers to sell meat to ships until the government -stores of salt beef were sold out. This is followed by an order from the -Council to the Serjeant of the Admiralty not to allow any outward bound -trader to pass down the river unless a certificate of such purchase was -produced.[632] - -[Sidenote: Mortality on Shipboard.] - -We have no means of estimating the mortality from disease on board -merchant ships, but we know that in men-of-war it was very great. ‘In -the late Queen’s time many thousands did miscarry by the corruption as -well of drink as of meat,’ says a seventeenth century writer;[633] and -Sir Richard Hawkyns thought that, in twenty years, 10,000 men died from -scorbutic affections. The length of the voyages now undertaken rendered -larger crews necessary; the accommodation was narrow and ill-ventilated, -the requirements of sanitation unknown, and the food was usually scanty -and bad, so that the sailor was placed under conditions that made him -fall an easy victim to disease. In Drake’s voyage of 1585-6 out of 2300 -men nearly 600 died from disease. In the expedition of 1589, out of -12,000 men employed, nearly one-half perished, mainly from sickness and -want of food, and every enterprise, small or great, suffered more or -less largely in the same way. Usually the hope of plunder sustained the -men through all such trials, and there is only one serious case of the -mutiny of a crew because of ‘the weakness and feebleness they were fallen -into through the spare and bad diet.’ But in this instance sympathy with -their captain may have had much to do with their action.[634] - -The pages of Hakluyt relate much of the suffering endured by our seamen -abroad from disease and privation, but there is one historic illustration -at home of the miseries borne by the men and the callousness or scanty -resources of the authorities. On 10th August 1588 Howard wrote to -Burghley: - - ‘Sicknes and mortallitie begin wonderfullie to growe amongste - us ... the _Elizabeth_, which hath don as well as eaver anie - ship did in anie service, hath had a great infectione in her - from the beginning soe as of the 500 men which she carried out, - by the time she had bin in Plymouth three weeks or a month - there were ded of them 200 and above, soe as I was driven to - set all the rest of her men ashore, to take out the ballast and - to make fires in her of wet broom 3 or 4 daies together, and - so hoped therebie to have cleansed her of her infectione, and - thereuppon got newe men, verie tall and hable as eaver I saw - and put them into her; nowe the infectione is broken out in - greater extremitie than eaver it did before, and they die and - sicken faster than ever they did, soe as I am driven of force - to send her to Chatham ... Sir Roger Townsend of all the men - he brought out with him hath but one left alive ... it is like - enough that the like infectione will growe throughout the most - part of the fleet, for they have bin soe long at sea and have - so little shift of apparell ... and no money wherewith to buy - it.’ - -On the 22nd August he writes to the Queen that the infection is bad, -that men sicken one day and die the next but, in courtly phrase, that -‘I doubt not that with good care and God’s goodnes which doth ever bles -your Maiestie it wyll quenche againe.’ But on the same day he tells -the Council more plainly, ‘the most part of the fleet is grievouslie -infected and die dailie ... and the ships themselves be so infectious -and so corrupted as it is thought to be a verie plague ... manie of -the ships have hardly men enough to waie their anchors.’[635] And as -illustrating the infection and its probable cause comes a complaint from -him to Walsingham that, although the beer in the fleet has been condemned -as unfit for use, it is still served out to the men, and ‘nothing doth -displease the seamen more than sour beer.’ - -This sickness is usually said to have been the plague or typhus. But -Howard and his captains, who had lived to middle age in a country where -the plague was endemic and who must have known its symptoms well, -obviously thought ‘the infectione’ something different. In the passage -quoted above he compares it to the plague and in another letter he -writes, ‘The mariners who have a conceit (and I think it true and so -do all the captains here) that sour drink hath been a great cause of -this infection amongst us.’[636] The plague was familiar to them all but -this was something they could not easily name. The same arguments apply, -although perhaps not so closely, against typhus which in its general -form and symptoms was familiar under various names to sixteenth century -observers. But 1588 was not a particularly unhealthy year on land and -there is no record of any sudden outbreak of epidemic disease either -before or after that occurring on the fleet. Moreover though typhus -occasionally kills within a few hours it has never been known to kill -numbers in the rapid fashion suggested by Howard. It is probable that the -complaint was an acute enteritis, caused by the beer, acting on frames -enfeebled by bad and insufficient food, and still further weakened by the -scorbutic taint to which all classes, but especially seamen, were subject -in the middle ages. - -On the whole the position of the sailor was now steadily deteriorating. -In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries his pay had been relatively -very high, and as he was only called upon to serve round the coasts, or, -at furthest, to Bordeaux or the Baltic, his health was not affected by -conditions to which he was only exposed for a short time. But towards the -end of the sixteenth century the wages, in consequence of the general -rise in prices, were relatively less than they had been, and less than -those of the artisan classes on shore. In an epoch when the increase in -the number of distant voyages set his services in commercial demand he -was required to serve in the royal fleets for longer periods than had -been before known. He was exposed to a merciless system of impressment, -cheap for the State because he had to indirectly bear the cost. And -the length of the cruises, their extension into tropical climates, and -the character of the provisions, unsuited to the new conditions, made -themselves felt in outbreaks of disease to which his ancestors, assembled -chiefly for Channel work, had been strangers. Morally the general tone -among the men cannot have been high if we may judge them from a phrase -used by the officials sent down to examine into the plunder of the _Madre -de Dios_ in 1592, ‘we hold it loste labor and offence to God to minister -oathes unto the generallitie of them.’[637] - -[Sidenote: Seamen’s Clothing.] - -It will have been noticed that in his letter of 10th August Howard says -that the men have no money wherewith to buy clothes; in another he -suggests that a thousand marks’ worth of apparel should be sent down. -But the custom of providing crews with coats or jackets at the expense -of the crown had quite ceased, and even if necessaries were supplied -to the men they had to pay for them. The supply was usually a private -speculation on the part of some Admiralty official. In 1586 Roger -Langford, afterwards paymaster of the Navy furnished men with canvas -caps, shirts, shoes, etc., a piece of business by which he lost £140. In -1580 the government sent over clothes for the men on the Irish station, -the cost of which was to be deducted from their wages. The articles -included, ‘canvas for breches and dublettes’—‘coutten for lyninges, and -petticoates,’ stockings, caps, shoes, and shirts.[638] Hawkyns with the -forethought always characterising his action as an admiral, took out with -him in 1595 ‘calico for 200 suits of apparel,’ 400 shirts, woollen and -worsted hose, linen breeches and Monmouth caps.[639] There is a sketch in -a contemporary treatise on navigation of a seaman, apparently an officer. -He wears a Monmouth, or small Tam o’ Shanter, cap, a small ruff round -the neck, a close-fitting vest, and long bell-mouthed trousers.[640] In -1602 there is a payment in the Navy accounts of £54, 19s 8d for clothing -for Spanish prisoners. Canvas shirts, cotton waistcoats, caps, hose, and -‘rugge’ for gowns were provided and the articles were doubtless of the -same kind and quality as those worn by the men. - -[Sidenote: Royal Ships Lent.] - -During the earlier years of her reign the Queen, like her predecessors, -frequently allowed her ships to be hired for trading voyages. In -1561 the _Minion_, _Primrose_, _Brigandine_ and _Fleur de Lys_, were -delivered to Sir William Chester and others for a voyage to Africa. In -this case Elizabeth shared the risk. For her ships, and for provisions -to the value of £500, she was to receive one-third of the profits. The -hirers undertook to ship at least £5000 of goods, pay wages and all -other expenses, and each enter into a bond of 1000 marks to carry out -the conditions.[641] In 1563 the _Jesus of Lubeck_ was lent to Dudley -and others, to trade to Guinea and the West Indies, for which they paid -£500.[642] She was then, after having been in the Royal Navy nearly -twenty years, valued at £2000 for which amounts the hirers had to give -their bonds. She returned in 1565, was at Padstow in October, and ‘cannot -be brought to Gillingham till spring of next year.’ The adventurers -could not have procured a 600 ton vessel, for two years, for £500 from -any owner but the State. And as she had to remain at Padstow during the -whole winter it may be inferred that she returned in a very unseaworthy -condition, for Elizabethan seamanship was certainly equal to taking a -ship up Channel during the winter months. She was hired by Hawkyns in -1568 and was then the first of the only two men-of-war lost to Spain -during the entire reign. When a convoy was furnished a full charge was -levied for the protection; £558 was received in 1569 from the Merchant -Adventurers’ Company for men-of-war serving on this duty, and again £586 -in 1570.[643] As private owners built more and bigger ships the demand -for men-of-war for trading voyages grew less, but the Queen often lent -them for privateering ventures in which she was pecuniarily interested, -assessing their estimated value as a portion of the money advanced by her -and on which she would receive a dividend. Under these circumstances her -representatives did not err on the side of moderation when valuing the -ships thus temporarily lent. When Drake took the _Bonaventure_ and the -_Aid_ in 1585 they were appraised at £10,000, an obviously extravagant -estimate. Nominally Elizabeth advanced £20,000, of which these two ships -stood for half; she got her ships back, £2000 for the use of them, and -the same dividend on £20,000 as the other persons who had taken shares. -Those others lost five shillings in the pound; she must have made a -profit. - -[Sidenote: The Victualling Department.] - -In consequence of the greater activity of the Royal Navy the victualling -department experienced a corresponding enlargement. In 1560 the buildings -at Tower Hill, formerly the Abbey of Grace, and granted in 1542 to Sir -Arthur Darcy, were purchased from him for £1200, and £700 expended in -repairing them.[644] Other storehouses were hired at Ratcliff and St -Katherines, the latter from Anthony Anthony, Surveyor of the Ordnance, -who seems to have taken great interest in naval matters, and to whom we -are indebted for the coloured drawings of ships previously referred to. -For his storehouse he was paid £16 a year; another at Rochester cost £5, -6s 8d a year. By a patent of 24th December 1560, William Holstock was -joined with Baeshe as Surveyor of the Victuals; this was surrendered and -replaced by another of 30th October, 1563 in which John Elliott took -Holstock’s place. Neither Holstock nor Elliott had any actual position, -the new patents only giving them the chance of succeeding Baeshe. An -agreement with him of 13th April 1565, but which did not cancel the title -and fees granted to him by his Letters Patent, instituted a considerable -reform inasmuch as it did away with purveyance, or forced purchase, at -rates fixed by the officers of the crown. Henceforth Baeshe was to be -paid fourpence halfpenny a day for each man in harbour and fivepence a -day at sea. For this he was to provide, per head, on Sundays, Mondays, -Tuesdays and Thursdays, 1 lb of biscuit and 1 gallon of beer, and 2 lbs -of salt beef, and on the other three days, besides the biscuit and beer, -a quarter of a stockfish,[645] one-eighth of a pound of butter, and one -quarter of a pound of cheese. Fourpence a man per month at sea, and -eightpence in harbour he was to allow for purser’s necessaries, such as -wood, candles, etc., and he was to pay the rent of all hired storehouses -and the wages of his clerks. He undertook not to use the right of -purveyance unless ordered to victual more than 2000 men suddenly, and -agreed to always keep in hand one months provisions for 1000 men. The -agreement could be terminated by six months’ notice on either side, and -until it ceased the crown advanced him £500 without interest to be repaid -within six months of the cessation of his contract. He was given the use -of all the crown buildings belonging to his department, subject to his -keeping them in repair, and was permitted to export 1000 hides in peace -time and as many as he should slaughter oxen during war.[646] The weight -of purveyance was felt chiefly in the home counties, and Elizabeth may -have felt it good policy to do away with a ceaseless source of popular -irritation which was really of very little advantage to the crown. -From this date payments were made to Baeshe direct from the Exchequer -and no longer through the Navy Treasurer. Isolated payments relating -to storehouses, of no general interest, recur in the accounts, but the -growing importance of Chatham is shown by the removal, in 1570, of -buildings at Dover, and their re-erection at Rochester, at a cost of £300. - -In 1569 an additional £1000 was advanced to Baeshe without interest, and -in 1573, the harbour rate was raised to fivepence halfpenny per man, -and the sea rate to sixpence. All this assistance, for probably further -sums were lent to him without interest, does not seem to have enabled -him to carry on his work without loss. In 1576 he petitioned the Queen -to be forgiven the first £500 advanced to him and to be permitted to pay -off the balance at £1000 a year. He based his claim to consideration on -the fact that he had saved her 1000 marks a year by his contract and -had acted without recourse to purveyance, ‘no small benefit to the hole -realme.’ He had lost £500 a year, for four years, by the embargo on trade -with the Low Countries, which prevented his exportation of hides, and £ -240 by the fire at Portsmouth. And:— - - ‘finally what my service hath bin from tyme to tyme as well to - her most noble ffather, brother, and sister, as to her Maiestie - I do referre the same to the report of my Lord Tresorer and - my Lord Admirall and yet hitherto I never receyved from her - Maiestie any reward for service but only her Maiesties gracious - good countenance to my comfort.’[647] - -The petition does not appear to have obtained anything beyond a -continuance of these unsubstantial favours, but Baeshe struggled on till -6th May 1586 when he gave six months’ notice to determine his contract. -He then anticipated a loss of £534 on victualling eight or ten ships, -‘which I am not able to beare.’[648] He must have been a very old man -and anxiety perhaps hastened his death, which occurred in April 1587. In -the interval, however, the rate had been raised, from 1st November 1586 -to 31st March 1587 to sixpence a day per man in harbour, and sixpence -halfpenny at sea, and from 1st April 1587 to 31st October to sixpence -halfpenny in harbour and sevenpence at sea, ‘on account of the great -dearth.’ The Armada was already expected, but on 30th June 1587, when -the stores were handed over to Baeshe’s successor there were only 6020 -pieces[649] of beef, and 2300 stockfish in hand. - -By Letters Patent of 27th November 1582 James Quarles ‘one of the -officers of our household’[650] had been granted survivorship to Baeshe, -and he now took his place from 1st July 1587, at the same fees and -allowances as had been originally given by the patent of 18th June 1550. -The rate was maintained at sixpence halfpenny and sevenpence ‘untill it -shall please Almightie God to send such plentie as the heigh prises and -rates of victuall shalbe diminished’. The quantity and quality of the -food provided for the men in 1588 has long been a source of disgrace to -Elizabeth and her ministers. An apology for them has been attempted on -the ground that the mechanism at work was new and not capable of dealing -with large numbers of men, and that the failure was mainly due to the -suddenness of the demand. So far as the first statement is concerned it -is sufficient to answer that the victualling branch had been organised -for nearly forty years, and found no difficulty in arranging for 13,000 -men in 1596, and 9200 men in 1597 after timely notice. The last reason -may excuse the victualling department but will not relieve the statesman -in responsible direction. The government had had long notice of the -coming of the Armada, but even as late as March Burghley was occupied -with niggling attempts at making 26 days’ victuals last for 28 days.[651] -In 1565 Baeshe had undertaken to keep always one month’s victuals for -1000 men in store, but in June 1587 there was not even so much. The -point therefore is that if the ministry had thus early recognised the -necessity for a reserve, and that two or three months were requisite -for the collection and preparation of provisions for a large force, and -if with the knowledge that such provisions were certain to be required, -and in spite of the warnings of those best able to judge, they neglected -the preparations and continued a supply which was merely from hand to -mouth, they must be held guilty of the sufferings inflicted on the men -by their miserable policy. When the moment of trial came Quarles and his -superiors did their best, but the accusation against the latter is that -had they exercised the foresight supposed to be one of the qualifications -for their dignified posts no such sudden and almost ineffective efforts -would have been necessary. The spirit in which they or the Queen dealt -with the matter is shown by the necessity Howard was under of paying out -of his own pocket for the extra comforts obtained for the dying seamen at -Plymouth.[652] - -How far Elizabeth was herself answerable is a moot point. There is no -direct evidence that the delay in obtaining provisions was due to her -orders. On the other hand we know that the postponements in equipping -the ships, and the hesitating action and inconsistent directions and -suggestions that characterised the early months of 1588, were due to her, -and there is a strong probability that much of the shame should rest with -her rather than with ministers who perhaps had to carry out commands to -which they had objected in Council. Moreover very few things, especially -those involving expense, were done without the knowledge and approval of -Elizabeth. It was a personal government and there is no reason to suppose -that this particular branch was beyond her cognisance. With the fatality -that has usually dogged English militant endeavour the fleet did not even -obtain the benefit, at the right time, of the stores provided. Frequently -victuallers were blundering about for weeks looking for it, while the -admirals were sending up despairing entreaties for supplies. In April, -Drake wrote to the Queen ‘I have not in my lifetime known better men and -possessed with gallanter minds than your Majesty’s people are for the -most part.’ Whether the cause was incompetence or a criminal parsimony -their fate, after having saved their country, was to perish in misery, -unheeded and unhelped except by the officers who had fought with them. In -the conceit of Elizabeth and her like they were only ‘the common sort.’ - -During the forty years that Baeshe had served the crown he had never been -charged with dishonesty and he died poor. Quarles however had at once -serious malpractices imputed to him as having occurred within his first -year of office.[653] His accuser, a subordinate, as usual offered to do -his work for 1000 marks a year less, and on examination of the charges it -seems likely that some were untrue and that other defaults occurred in -consequence of the orders given to him. - -From 1589 the rate again fell to fivepence-halfpenny and sixpence, in -harbour and at sea; but for 1590 and 1591 Quarles was allowed £2355, on -account of the dearth still existing. He had petitioned that he had -suffered a loss of £3172, between April 1590 and April 1591, being the -difference between the rates paid to him and the cost per head of the -victuals.[654] He died in 1595 and was succeeded by Marmaduke Darell, his -coadjutor, ‘clerk of our averie.’[655] Till 1600 the rate remained the -same although heavy extra allowances were made each year to Darell; then -it was raised to sixpence halfpenny and sevenpence. In this year £738 -was spent on repairs to Tower Hill where there were separate houses for -beef, bacon, ling, etc., ‘the great mansion being the officers lodgings.’ -The storehouses and brewhouses at Portsmouth, built by Henry VIII, still -existed under the names originally given them and were repaired at a cost -of £234. - -One ton and a half of gross tonnage, or one of stowage, was allowed on -board ship, for one month’s provisions for four men, of which the beer -occupied half, wood and water a quarter, and solid food the remainder of -a ton.[656] There is no reason to suppose that either Baeshe, Quarles, or -Darell were either dishonest or incompetent. The terrible outbreaks of -disease that occurred during nearly every long voyage were not confined -to the English service and were the natural result of salt meat and fish, -and beer that could not be prevented from turning sour. They could only -do their best with the materials at command but which were not suitable -to the larger field in which the services of English sailors were now -required. - -[Sidenote: The Administration.] - -Benjamin Gonson was Treasurer of the Navy when Elizabeth came to -the throne and held the post until his death in 1577. The number of -vessels added to the Navy during his term of office shows that he was -not inactive, and he was certainly a competent public servant. John -Hawkyns[657] was his son-in-law, and the relationship doubtless inspired -Hawkyns with the hope of succeeding him, and perhaps enabled him to -infuse some of his own spirit into the management of the Navy, while -Gonson was still its official head. But mere relationship, although it -had its influence would not alone have sufficed, had not Hawkyns already -made his name as a seaman and as an able commander. In 1567 he received -a grant of the reversion to the office of Clerk of the Ships, a post -he could only have looked upon as a stepping-stone, and which he never -took up. In 1577, when Gonson was ill, Hawkyns petitioned the Queen, -probably, although it is not specifically mentioned, for the reversion to -his post, and drew up a long catalogue of unrecompensed services.[658] -Gonson died in the course of a year, a landed proprietor in Essex, and -a successful man, but he had told his son-in-law, when the latter was -trying to obtain the reversion, that, ‘I shall pluck a thorn out of my -foot and put it into yours.’ Hawkyns lived to realise the truth of the -kindly warning. He commenced his duties from 1st January 1577-8, acting -under Letters Patent of 18th November 1577, by which he was granted the -survivorship to Gonson. For seventeen years, during the most critical -period of English history, he was, in real fact, solely responsible for -the efficiency of the Navy, and he, more than any other man may be said -to have ‘organised victory’ for the English fleets. His duties included -not only the superintendence of the work at the dockyards, but that of -building, equipping, and repairing the ships, of keeping them safely -moored and in good order, of the supply of good and sufficient stores, -and apparently of every administrative detail except those connected with -the ordnance, and of victualling and pressing the men. The technical -improvements he himself invented or introduced have already been noticed. -In the administration he made others, which may or may not have been -advantageous, but which touched the interests of subordinates, and which -resulted in his having to stand alone and carry on his work impeded by -the sullen enmity of his colleagues and his inferiors. - -Hawkyns owed his knighthood to Howard rather than the Queen; his reward -after 1588 was to be allowed a year wherein to unravel his intricate -accounts. In fact few of Elizabeth’s officials escaped her left-handed -graces. Baeshe died in poverty after forty years of honest service, and -Hawkyns was continually struggling to clear himself from suspicions -that were kept hanging over him, but from which he was given no proper -opportunity to free himself. Elizabeth’s favours and bounties were -reserved for court gallants of smoother fibre than were these men. In -1594, shortly before his last unhappy voyage, Hawkyns founded a hospital -at Chatham for ten poor mariners and shipwrights. He, with Drake, -established the ‘Chatham Chest,’ for disabled seamen, and it should be -remembered to his honour that, in an age when little care was bestowed on -inferiors if they had ceased to be of any utility, he never relaxed his -efforts until his craft had rescued from Spanish prisons the survivors -of those under his command in 1568 whom he had been compelled to leave -ashore after escaping from San Juan de Ulloa. - -Charges of peculation against persons connected with maritime affairs -were rife on all sides. The shipwrights quarrelled among themselves and -with Hawkyns, and two of the former, Chapman and Pett, were moreover -accused by outsiders of gross overcharges.[659] Captains were said to -dismiss pressed men for bribes, to retain wages, and keep back arms;[660] -pursers to steal provisions, to make false entries by which they obtained -payments for money never advanced to the men, and to remain ashore while -their ships were at sea.[661] Pursers, cooks, and boatswains, bought -their places: the cooks had the victuals in their care and recouped -themselves at the expense of the seamen; boatswains stripped a ship of -movable fittings, on her return home, and stole rigging and cordage.[662] -According to the evidence of a witness, in the inquiry of 1608, these -abuses, if they did not commence, took fresh and vigorous life after -the death of Hawkyns. In 1587 he recognised the theft going on and his -inability to completely suppress it; ‘I thincke it wolde be mete their -weare a provost marshyall attendante upon ye Lord Admirall and Offycers -of the Navye to doe suche present execucyon aboorde the shippes uppon -the offenders as shulde be apoynted.’[663] Accusations were not wanting -during Gonson’s lifetime but the increased activity of the Navy after -his death gave a wider scope both to suspicion and to actual peculation. -Hawkyns was not the only one of the Principal Officers whose conduct was -impeached, but in virtue of his position the brunt of attack fell upon -him. There was hardly one of his duties which at some time or another did -not give occasion for a charge of dishonesty.[664] - -Hawkyns, if we may judge by the letters remaining in the Record Office, -was more frequently in communication with Burghley, explaining his -intentions and desires, than with his official chief the Lord Admiral. -Either therefore Burghley was satisfied with his conduct—and there is one -letter that directly supports this view—or the Lord Treasurer allowed a -man whose honesty he doubted to remain in a responsible office without -removing him, or adopting any new measure of supervision. The quality of -the cordage had been a common cause of complaint and, in 1579, Hawkyns -wrote that he had taken measures, of which he doubted not the success, -to remedy this and other evils, and that he had a memorandum ready -proposing a course to be followed, ‘wherebye the offyce wolld not onelye -flourysshe but within a few yers be bountyfullye provyded of all maner -of provycion without extra charge to her Maiestie.’[665] Subsequent -events show that the suggestions he was here about to make were accepted -and, as a consequence of his new methods, the clamour raised against -him grew so loud that in January 1583-4 a commission sat to inquire -into the condition of the ships and the conduct of the office. Nothing -is known of their report but it was evidently not of a character fatal -to his reputation. In another letter to Burghley shortly afterwards he -attributes his success in carrying out reforms to the aid he had received -from the minister’s skill, - - ‘in the passinge of theis greate thinges thadversaries of the - worke have contynewallye opposyd themselves against me ... and - their slawnders hathe gone verye farr ... onlye to be avenged - of me and this servis which doth discover the corruption and - ignoraunce of the tyme past.’[666] - -By 1587 he had begun to share Gonson’s weary disgust of his surroundings, -and intimated that the work was too much for any one man and should be -done by a commission. Howard’s high opinion of him was expressed freely -in his letters during 1588, and shown practically by the knighthood he -conferred. Notwithstanding his services, so fully tested in that year, -he does not appear to have won the shy confidence of Elizabeth, but that -he had succeeded in convincing Burghley is I think clearly proved by the -following letter:—[667] - - ‘My bownden dewtie in humble manner rememberyd unto your good - lordshipe; I do perseve hir Maiestie ys not well sattysfied - concernyng the imploymentes of the great somes of mony that - have byne reseaved into thoffice of the navye although your - Honour dyd very honourably bothe take payne and care to se - the strycte and orderly course that ys used in thoffice and - thereupon delyver your mynd playnely to her Maiestie as your - lordship found yt for which I shall ever acknowlege myself - dewtyfully bownd to honour and serve your lordshipp to the - uttermost of my abillytie: and whereas her Highnes pleasure ys - to be farther sattysfied in myne accomptes ther hathe nothyng - byne more desyred nor cold be more wellcome or acceptible to - me and when yt shalbe hir Maiesties pleasure to nomynate the - persons that I shall attend upon I wyll brieffly shew the - state of every yeres accompt suffycyently avouched by boockes - to the last day of Desember 1588 which is XI yeres.... If any - worlldly thynge that I possesse cold free me of this mystrust - and importyble care and toyle I wold most wyllyngley depart - with yt for as the case stondeth I thynke ther ys no man - lyvinge that hathe so carefull so myserable so unfortunate and - so dangerous a lyfe; onlye I se your lordship with care and - trewthe dothe serche into the trew order the sufficiency and - valyditye of the course that ys caryed in the office whiche - otherwyse I wold even playnely gyve over my place and submyt - myselfe to her Maiesties mercye thogh I lyvid in pryson all the - dayes of my lyffe; the matters in thoffice growe infenyte and - chargeable beyond all measure and soche as hardly any man can - gyve a reason of the innumerable busynesses that dayly grow; - yet the mystrust ys more trobelsome and grievous then all the - rest for with the answerynge of thone and towle of thother - there ys hardly any tyme left to serve God or to sattysfie man. - The greater sort that serve in this office be growen so proud - obstinate and insolent nothynge can sattysfie them[668] and - the commen sort very dysobedyent so as a man that must answere - the immoderate desyre of all these were better to chuse to dye - than so lyve. The paynfull place that your lordship dothe holde - and the imoderate demaunds that comes before you havyng with - the favour of her Maiestie the hellp of an absolute power to - bynd and lose may eselye demonstrate the borden that so meane - a man as I am dothe here (which must passe every thynge by - petycon and mystrust), to sattysfie the multytude of demaundes - that are in this office and although they be many and as well - satysfied as in any office in all Ingland yet few are contentyd - but go away with grudging and mormoure. It were a great vanytie - for me to comend myne owne service neyther do I go abowt to - acumyllatte to myself any comendacon for that I thought I - performyd my dewtie suffycyentlie but yf the estate of thoffice - be consyderyd what yt was when I came into yt and what yt ys - now ther wilbe found greate oddes wherein I have traveyled as - carefully as I cold and as my creddytt cold obtayne meane to - reduce the state of thoffice shipes and there furnyture into - good and perfitt ordre; in recompense whereof my onely desyre - ys that yt may please hir Maiestie some course may be taken - wherein hir Maiestie may be sattysfied that a playne and honest - course hathe byne taken and caryed in thoffice and then to - dyspose of my place to whome yt shall please hir Highnes and I - shalbe reddy to serve hir Maiestie any other way that I shalbe - appoynted wherein my skyll or abyllytie will extend and so I - humbly take my leve from Deptford the 16th April 1590.’ - -The writer of this letter was either a master hypocrite so skilful in -roguery that he feared neither the investigations of his superiors nor -the denunciations of envious and hostile subordinates, or an honest -man who had nothing to dread from inquiry. He had convinced Howard and -Burghley, of whom the first was a seaman who had proved his work by the -tests of war and storm, and the second no guileless innocent, but a -politician grown grey among surroundings of fraud and intrigue. Only the -penetrating Elizabeth refused to be deceived. - -In 1592 and 1594 he again expressed his wish to resign, but the -government had apparently no desire to lose his services.[669] On -Clynton’s decease Charles, Lord Howard of Effingham became Lord -Admiral,[670] and held the office till 1618. His name is indissolubly -connected with the maritime glories his support of Hawkyns and his clear -judgment as a commander helped to bring about. Howard was the first Lord -Admiral who transferred some of the privileges of his office. In 1594 -he gave over to the Trinity House the management of buoys and beacons -along the coasts and the rights of ballasting in the Thames.[671] This -marks the first practical connection the Corporation had with maritime -affairs. Hawkyns died at sea on 12th November 1595, and the Treasurership -was not immediately filled up. Roger Langford, long an office assistant, -and his deputy during his absence, was made ‘General Paymaster of the -Marine Causes,’ but simply worked at the accounts without authority in -administrative business.[672] In 1598 Fulke Grevill, afterwards Lord -Brooke, was appointed Treasurer with full powers.[673] Grevill is said, -by a modern writer, to have possessed ‘a dignified indolence of temper,’ -and ‘a refinement in morality which rendered him unfit for the common -pursuits of mankind.’ These were not qualifications peculiarly fitting -him for the rough surroundings of naval affairs in 1598 and the real -control passed into the hands of his colleagues. - -Till his death in 1589 Sir Wm. Wynter, from 1557 Surveyor of the Ships -and Master of the Ordnance of the Navy, was, after Hawkyns, the most -influential officer. He was succeeded by Sir H. Palmer,[674] who held the -post until he became Comptroller in 1598,[675] when he was replaced as -Surveyor by John Trevor.[676] After Wynter’s death there was no longer -a separate ordnance department for the Navy. Richard Howlet, the former -Clerk of the Ships, died in 1560, and George Wynter, a brother of Sir -William Wynter was appointed.[677] In 1580 George Wynter was succeeded by -William Borough,[678] who, in 1588 was followed by Benjamin Gonson, son -of the former Treasurer,[679] who, in turn, was succeeded by Peter Buck -in 1600. William Holstock became Comptroller from 12th December 1561, in -succession to Brooke, and in 1589 William Borough succeeded him until -1598. Nearly all these men commanded ships or squadrons at sea at various -times, in addition to their duties as members of the naval board. There -is a draft document existing[680] which shows that in January 1564 it was -intended to add another officer as ‘Chief Pilot of England,’ on the model -of the ‘Pilot Major’ of Spain. Stephen Borough was the person chosen, and -in consequence of the losses of shipping through the ignorance of pilots -and masters no one was to act in such a capacity in vessels of forty -tons and upwards, without a certificate of competence from him, under a -penalty of two pounds. Masters’ mates, boatswains, and quartermasters -were to be similarly examined and certified. This plan, however, was not -carried into execution. - -[Sidenote: Dockyards.] - -Concerning the dockyards the most noteworthy feature is: the rise into -importance of the Chatham yard. For 1563 the expenses of Deptford were -£19,700, while those of Gillingham, chiefly for the wages and victuals -of shipkeepers, were £3700. In 1567 it is first called Chatham, a house -rented for the use of the Board, and the cost of Chatham and Gillingham -£6300. Next year the ground on which Upnor Castle was to be built was -bought for £25,[681] and in 1574 a fort was ordered for Sheerness which -replaced the bulwark built in the reign of Edward VI. In 1571 more -ground was rented at Chatham, and in 1574 the fairway through St Mary’s -Creek, by which the anchorage could be taken in flank, was blocked by -piles.[682] Deptford, however, was still in considerable use, especially -for building and repairs of ships, and in the same year the dock was -reconstructed. In 1578 a new pair of gates for the Deptford dock cost -£150, and in the following year most, if not all, of the dockyards -were fenced round with hedges.[683] Small additions in the shape of -wharves and storehouses, were being continually made to Chatham; one -of the former, built in 1580, was 378 feet Long, 40 feet broad, and -cost five shillings a foot. Various other improvements of the same kind -were carried out in connection with Woolwich and Deptford, and as no -drydock was constructed at Chatham during this reign, all the building -and repairs of the big ships was done at the former places. Portsmouth -was hardly used at all. In 1586 a new wharf was made, and sundry small -expenses were at various times incurred for keeping the dock in order, -but sometimes for years in succession the only expenses relating to it -are the salaries of the officers in charge. The yard was nearly destroyed -by a fire on 4th August 1576, and was probably not fully restored. -It was, moreover, contemned by the chief officers, who considered it -expensive and defenceless.[684] For a few years, from 1601, the Hansa -steelyard was handed over to the Admiralty and used for storage purposes. - -In early times the Bridport district had supplied most of the cordage -used in the English service; in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries -it had mostly come from abroad. In 1573 there was an attempt to secure -independence in this respect, and £800 which he was to repay by £100 a -year, was advanced to Thomas Allen to build ropehouses at Woolwich.[685] -Allen was ‘Queen’s merchant,’ _i.e._, crown purchaser, for Dantzic -cordage. The experiment was probably a failure, since there is no other -reference to it, and was not renewed until the next reign. - -[Illustration] - -In addition to the forts at Upnor and Sheerness the ships lying in the -Medway required some further protection, as relations with Spain became -more critical and rumours of plots to fire the vessels frequent. This -was given by means of a chain, an old and well known form of defence. In -a letter to Burghley, of March 1585, Hawkyns suggested the chain with -two or four pinnaces stationed by it, and the _Scout_ and _Achates_ at -Sheerness to search everything passing.[686] In October the work was -nearly completed; it had been ‘tedyous and cumbersome but now stretched -over the river in good order yt dothe requyre many lyghters for the -bearynge of it which are in hand.’[687] One end was fixed to piles, the -other worked round ‘two great wheels to draw it up;’ it was supported by -five lighters, and pinnaces were stationed at each shore end. The Council -ordered, as well, that whereas Her Majesty was ‘advertysed that some -practyce and devyce ys taken in hande to bourne and destroye the navye,’ -the principal officers were to sleep on board at the anchorage in turn, -for a month at the time, and see that the shipkeepers did their duty. - -The Elizabethan drawing of the Medway and surrounding district, partly -reproduced in this volume, does not show the chain at Upnor and is -probably therefore of a date between 1568-85. It is seen that the ships -are moored athwart stream in three groups, from Upnor towards Rochester, -the larger ones being at Upnor. They must have been moored across -stream from considerations of space; and the accuracy of the placing is -corroborated by a much later drawing of 1702 which shows vessels in the -same position, and by the fact that we know from other sources that the -first-rates were nearest Upnor. These latter carried lights at night[688] -and the whole were in the especial charge of the principal masters of -the Navy of whom, after 1588, there were six and who were allowed three -shillings a week for their victualling. The first sign of the dockyard is -possibly shown between Chatham Church and St Mary’s creek. The vessels -are shown dismantled as would have been actually the case. - -[Sidenote: Shipwrights.] - -In 1559 shipwrights’ wages were from eightpence to a shilling, and in -1588 from a shilling to seventeenpence a day; they were also provided -with free lodging, or lodging money at the rate of a shilling a week, -with three meals a day and as much beer ‘as shall suffice them,’ and, -between 25th March and 8th September, an afternoon snack of bread, -cheese, and beer.[689] From 1st November to 2nd February, they worked -from daylight till dark; for the rest of the year from five o’clock, -in the morning till 7 at night, and, on Saturdays till 6 o’clock. They -were allowed one hour at noon, and work was started and stopped by bell; -anyone ringing it except by order of the master shipwright was fined a -day’s pay and put into the stocks.[690] The three principal constructors, -or master shipwrights were Peter Pett, Mathew Baker, and Richard -Chapman. Pett died in 1589 and was succeeded by his son Joseph, and then, -in 1600, by his better known younger son Phineas, who had been sent to -Cambridge but who did not think it unbecoming his university standing to -start in life as a carpenter’s mate on a Levant trader. Although Pett -has the greater reputation, at least one officer of the Admiralty well -qualified to judge—William Borough—considered Baker his superior. John -Davis, the explorer, also specially speaks of him as, ‘Mr Baker for -his skill and surpassing grounded knowledge in the building of ships -advantageable to all purpose hath not in any nation his equal.’[691] -Baker became master shipwright by Letters Patent of 29th August 1572, and -by virtue of the patent, received a fee of one shilling a day for life -from the Exchequer. Peter Pett already held a similar patent, Richard -Chapman obtained one in 1587 and Joseph Pett in 1590. Little is known of -Chapman beyond the fact that from the ships he built his reputation must -have been equal to that of the others, and practically all the important -building of the reign was done by these three men. - -[Sidenote: Ships’ Officers and Pay.] - -There are but few notices of the ships’ officers of this period. In all -ranks the majority seem to have been disposed to add to their pay by -irregular methods. Some of the accusations made against them have been -noticed, and on service, whether the prize was a captured town or a small -merchantman, discipline was at an end until all, from captains downwards -had taken their fill of pillage. At sea captains obeyed or disobeyed, -deserted or remained with their admiral, without usually being afterwards -called to account for their conduct. In only one case was a captain, -William Borough, tried for insubordination in 1587, and as this is the -first instance of a court martial the proceedings are here printed in -full.[692] If Drake intended to disgrace Borough he failed, for no result -followed, and the delinquent, two years later, became Comptroller of -the Navy. Until 1582 the old system of paying the officers the wages of -a ‘common man’ per month, and adding to this by a graduated proportion -representing the dead shares and rewards, still continued. However -when wages were raised in that year the dead shares and rewards were -abolished, except as a form of expression, and each officer had a fixed -sum per month, according to the rate of his ship.[693] But sometimes -the scale of pay depended not upon the rate, but was ‘according to the -greatness of his charge,’ _i.e._, on the nature of the work for which the -vessel was commissioned.[694] Wages were again raised about 1602,[695] -and the two scales of payment are thrown together in the following -table:— - - +------------------+---------------------+---------------------+ - | | First-rates | Second-rates | - | +----------+----------+----------+----------+ - | | 1582 | 1602 | 1582 | 1602 | - | +----------+----------+----------+----------+ - | | £ s. d.| £ s. d.| £ s. d.| £ s. d.| - |_Master_ | 2 1 8| 3 2 6| 2 0 0| 3 0 0| - |_Master’s Mate_ | 1 1 8| 1 10 0| 0 16 8| 1 5 0| - |_Boatswain_ | 1 1 8| 1 10 0| 0 16 8| 1 5 0| - |_Boatswain’s Mate_| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| - |_Quartermaster_ | 0 16 8| 1 5 0| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| - |_Do. Mate_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 9 2| 0 13 9| - |_Purser_ | 0 16 8| 1 0 0| 0 11 8| 0 16 8| - |_Master Carpenter_| 0 16 8| 1 5 0| 0 16 8| 1 5 0| - |_Carpenter’s Mate_| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| - |_Master Gunner_ | 0 10 0| 0 15 0| 0 10 0| 0 15 0| - |_Gunner’s Mates_ | 0 7 6| 0 11 3| 0 7 6| 0 11 3| - |_Surgeon_ | 0 15 0| 1 0 0| 0 15 0| 1 0 0| - |_Pilot_ | 1 0 0| 1 10 0| 1 0 0| 1 5 0| - |_Cook_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| - |_Yeomen of the }| | | | | - |Tacks and Jeers_ }| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 14 0| - |_Cockswain_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| - |_Trumpeter_ | 0 15 0| 1 0 0| 0 15 0| 1 0 0| - |_Steward_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| - +------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ - - +------------------+---------------------+---------------------+ - | | Third-rates | Fourth-rates | - | +----------+----------+----------+----------+ - | | 1582 | 1602 | 1582 | 1602 | - | +----------+----------+----------+----------+ - | | £ s. d.| £ s. d.| £ s. d.| £ s. d.| - |_Master_ | 1 16 8| 2 10 0| 1 11 8| 2 5 0| - |_Master’s Mate_ | 0 16 8| 1 5 0| 0 11 8| 1 0 0| - |_Boatswain_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| - |_Boatswain’s Mate_| 0 9 2| 0 13 9| 0 9 2| 0 13 9| - |_Quartermaster_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| - |_Do. Mate_ | 0 9 2| 0 13 9| 0 9 2| 0 13 9| - |_Purser_ | 0 11 8| 0 13 4| 0 11 8| 0 13 4| - |_Master Carpenter_| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| - |_Carpenter’s Mate_| 0 9 2| 0 13 9| 0 9 2| 0 13 9| - |_Master Gunner_ | 0 10 0| 0 15 0| 0 10 0| 0 15 0| - |_Gunner’s Mates_ | 0 7 6| 0 11 3| 0 7 6| 0 11 3| - |_Surgeon_ | 0 15 0| 1 0 0| 0 15 0| 1 0 0| - |_Pilot_ | 0 16 8| 1 5 0| 0 16 8| 1 0 0| - |_Cook_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| - |_Yeomen of the }| | | | | - |Tacks and Jeers_ }| | 0 14 0| | | - |_Cockswain_ | 0 9 2| 0 17 6| | | - |_Trumpeter_ | 0 15 0| 1 0 0| 0 15 0| 1 0 0| - |_Steward_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| - +------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ - - +------------------+---------------------+---------------------+ - | | Fifth-rates | Sixth-rates | - | +----------+----------+----------+----------+ - | | 1582 | 1602 | 1582 | 1602 | - | +----------+----------+----------+----------+ - | | £ s. d.| £ s. d.| £ s. d.| £ s. d.| - |_Master_ | 1 6 8| 2 0 0| 1 1 8| 1 7 0| - |_Master’s Mate_ | 0 11 8| 1 0 0| 0 11 8| | - |_Boatswain_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| - |_Boatswain’s Mate_| 0 9 2| 0 13 9| | | - |_Quartermaster_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| - |_Do. Mate_ | | | | | - |_Purser_ | 0 11 8| 0 13 4| 0 9 2| 0 13 4| - |_Master Carpenter_| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| - |_Carpenter’s Mate_| 0 9 2| 0 13 9| | | - |_Master Gunner_ | 0 10 0| 0 15 0| 0 10 0| 0 15 0| - |_Gunner’s Mates_ | 0 7 6| 0 11 3| 0 7 6| 0 11 3| - |_Surgeon_ | 0 15 0| 1 0 0| | 1 0 0| - |_Pilot_ | 0 15 0| 1 0 0| | | - |_Cook_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 9 2| 0 17 6| - |_Yeomen of the }| | | | | - |Tacks and Jeers_ }| | | | | - |_Cockswain_ | | | | | - |_Trumpeter_ | 0 15 0| 1 0 0| 0 15 0| 1 0 0| - |_Steward_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 9 2| 0 17 6| - +------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ - - +------------------+---------------+ - | | Seventh-rates | - | +---------------+ - | | 1602 | - | +---------------+ - | | £ s. d. | - |_Master_ | 1 0 0 | - |_Master’s Mate_ | | - |_Boatswain_ | 0 13 9 | - |_Boatswain’s Mate_| | - |_Quartermaster_ | | - |_Do. Mate_ | | - |_Purser_ | | - |_Master Carpenter_| | - |_Carpenter’s Mate_| | - |_Master Gunner_ | 0 13 4 | - |_Gunner’s Mates_ | | - |_Surgeon_ | | - |_Pilot_ | | - |_Cook_ | 0 13 9 | - |_Yeomen of the }| | - |Tacks and Jeers_ }| | - |_Cockswain_ | | - |_Trumpeter_ | | - |_Steward_ | 0 13 9 | - +------------------+---------------+ - -Harbour pay was from 40% to 50% below these rates. There is nothing -known of the reasons moving the government to the relatively enormous -increase of the end of the reign, marked by a liberality contrary to the -traditions of nearly half a century. The relative pays would now, in some -cases, be considered extraordinary; surgeons and trumpeters are put on -the same footing, and sixth-rates of 1602 are given the option between -them but are not allowed both. A captain’s pay varied between 2s 6d and -6s 8d a day, and he was allowed two servants for every fifty men of his -crew, and if he were a knight four men. This really meant that he was -licensed to draw pay and rations, or the value in money of rations, for -the permitted number of servants whether or no they were actually on -board. In 1588 lieutenants at £3, and corporals at 17s 6d a month were -carried in some of the ships. - -Although in 1564 it had been intended to nominate a pilot major to insure -a knowledge of seamanship and navigation in those responsible for the -safety of ships, further experience may have brought more efficient men -to the front and rendered it unnecessary. There are very few signs that -such a step could have been requisite, judging from the accounts of the -voyages of these years. Men seem to have handled their ships skilfully in -all conditions and under all difficulties, and in navigation landfalls -were made with accuracy, landmarks known and recorded, and the Channel -soundings as minutely mapped out and acted upon as now. The case was very -different with Spanish seamen. From 1508 there had been a great school -of cosmography and navigation at Seville, under the superintendence -of the Pilot Major of Spain, but it does not appear to have succeeded -in turning out competent officers. The records of the Spanish voyages -show how frequently gross errors in navigation occurred, and travellers -communicated their impressions to the same effect. One of these, writing -in 1573, says, - - ‘How can a wise and omnipotent God have placed such a difficult - and important art as navigation into such coarse and lubberly - hands as those of these pilots. You should see them ask one - another, “How many degrees have you got?” One says, “Sixteen,” - another “About twenty,” and another “Thirteen and a half.” - Then they will say, “What distance do you make it to the - land?” One answers, “I make it 40 leagues from land,” another - “I a hundred and fifty,” a third, “I reckoned it this morning - to be ninety-two leagues;” and whether it be three or three - hundred no one of them agrees with the other or with the actual - fact.’[696] - -[Sidenote: Ordnance and Ship Armament.] - -In 1558 there were ordnance wharves and storehouses, connected with the -Navy at Woolwich, Portsmouth, and Porchester; Gillingham was shortly -after added to these. In her youth Elizabeth appears to have been fond -of fireworks as the ordnance accounts bear £130, 4s 2d expended, between -1558-64, to amuse her in that way. The report drawn up in 1559[697] -tells us that there were 264 brass and 48 iron guns, of all calibres -down to falconets, on board the ships, and 48 brass and 8 iron in store. -To these could be added upwards of 1000 small pieces, whole, demi, and -quarter slings, fowlers, bases, portpieces, and harquebuses.[698] Eleven -thousand rounds of cannon shot, 10,600 of lead, 1500 of stone and 692 -cross bar shot, supplied the guns; other weapons were 3000 bows, 6300 -sheaves of arrows, 3100 morrispikes, and 3700 bills. The heaviest piece -used on shipboard was the culverin of 4500 lbs., throwing a 17⅓ lbs. -ball with an extreme range of 2500 paces;[699] the next the demi cannon -weighing 4000 lbs., with a 30⅓ lbs. ball and range of 1700 paces; then -the demi culverin of 3400 lbs., a 9⅓ lb. ball and 2500 paces, and the -cannon petroe, or perier, of 3000 lbs. 24¼ lb. ball and 1600 paces.[700] -There were also sakers, minions, and falconets, but culverins and demi -culverins were the most useful and became the favourite ship guns. The -weights given differ in nearly every list found and were purely academic. -A contemporary wrote, ‘the founders never cast them so exactly but that -they differ two or three cwt. in a piece,’ and in a paper of 1564 the -average weights of culverins, demi culverins, and cannon periers are -respectively 3300 lbs., 2500 lbs., and 2000 lbs. - -The equipment of a first-rate like the _Triumph_ (450 seamen, 50 -gunners, and 200 soldiers) in small arms, was 250 harquebuses, 50 bows, -100 sheaves of arrows, 200 pikes, 200 bills, 100 corselets, and 200 -morions.[701] There were 750 lbs. of corn, and 4470 of serpentine, -powder on board. The _Victory_ had 200 harquebuses, 40 bows, 80 sheaves -of arrows, 100 pikes, 180 bills, 80 corselets, and 160 minions; she -carried 600 lbs. of corn powder, and 4347 of serpentine. Twenty-four -was the number of ships usually taken as the standard to be prepared in -the numerous estimates of the equipment necessary for fleets; in 1574 -there were 45 demi cannon, 37 cannon periers, 89 culverins, 142 demi -culverins, 183 sakers, 56 minions, and 66 falcons on board 24 vessels in -June of that year.[702] The first list giving the armament of the ships -individually is of 1585 and is as follows:[703] - - +-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+ - | |Demi Cannon | - | | |Cannon Periers | - | | | |Culverins | - | | | | |Demi Culverins | - | | | | | |Sakers | - | | | | | | |Minions | - | | | | | | | |Fawcons | - | | | | | | | | |Fawconets | - | | | | | | | | | |Portpieces | - | | | | | | | | | | |Fowlers | - | | | | | | | | | | | |Bases| - + +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+ - |_Elizabeth_ | 9 | 4 | 14 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 8 | | 4 | 10 | 12 | - |_Triumph_ | 9 | 4 | 14 | 7 | 6 | 2 | | | 4 | 10 | 12 | - |_White Bear_ | 11 | 6 | 17 | 10 | 10 | 4 | 4 | | 4 | 10 | 12 | - |_Victory_ | 6 | 4 | 14 | 8 | 2 | | 4 | | 6 | 10 | 12 | - |_Hope_ | 4 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 1 | | 4 | 6 | 12 | - |_Mary Rose_ | 4 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 8 | | | | 2 | 6 | 4 | - |_Nonpareil_ | 4 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 12 | 1 | 1 | | 4 | 6 | 12 | - |_Lion_ | 4 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 6 | | 2 | | 4 | 6 | 12 | - |_Revenge_ | 2 | 4 | 10 | 6 | 10 | | 2 | | 2 | 4 | 6 | - |_Bonaventure_| 4 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 2 | | 4 | 6 | 12 | - |_Dreadnought_| | 2 | 4 | 10 | 6 | | 2 | | 2 | 8 | 8 | - |_Swiftsure_ | | 2 | 4 | 8 | 8 | | 4 | | 2 | 6 | 8 | - |_Antelope_ | | 2 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 2 | | 4 | 4 | 10 | - |_Swallow_ | | 2 | | 4 | 8 | 2 | 6 | | 4 | 4 | 10 | - |_Foresight_ | | | 4 | 8 | 8 | 4 | | | 2 | 2 | 8 | - |_Aid_ | | | | 2 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 8 | - |_Bull_ | | | | 6 | 8 | 2 | 1 | | | 4 | 4 | - |_Tiger_ | | | | 6 | 10 | 2 | 2 | | | 4 | 4 | - |_Scout_ | | | | | 8 | 2 | 6 | 2 | | 2 | 6 | - |_Achates_ | | | | | 2 | 4 | 10 | | | 2 | 4 | - |_Merlin_ | | | | | | | 6 | 2 | | 2 | 2 | - +-------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+ - -This appears to have been the existing or intended provision, ‘according -to Sir William Wynters proporcion of 1569,’ The system of heavily arming -ships, introduced by Henry VIII, had grown in favour with the lapse of -time. From a chance allusion we know that the _Victory’s_ waist was -ordinarily 20 feet above the water line; she only had a lower gun-deck, -therefore, the lower tier must have been more than the four feet above -the water allowed by Ralegh. - -In only one paper have we any information as to the distribution of the -guns; from a schedule of October 1595, of iron ordnance to be provided -for the ‘lesser ship now building’ (probably the _Warspite_) we are able -to note their arrangement and the tendency to limit the varieties in -use.[704] But it differs considerably from the armament of the _Warspite_ -as given in the next table. - - For the sides on the lower overloppe, 12 Culverins - For the stern and prow on the lower overloppe, 4 do. - For the capstan deck on the sides, 8 Demi Culverins - For the stem and prow on the sides, 4 do. - For the waist fore and aft, 6 Sakers - For the half deck 2 do. - -The next list drawn up two months after Elizabeth’s death, gives the -armament of the whole Navy.[705] Upnor Castle possessed, in brass, 1 -demi cannon, 3 culverins, 1 minion, 3 fawcons and 4 fowlers; in iron, 4 -culverins, 5 demi culverins and 1 saker. The ships: - - +------------------+-------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+ - | | Demi |Cannon | | Demi | | - | |Cannon |Periers | Culverins | Culverins | Sakers | - | +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ - | |Brass | Brass | Brs | Irn | Brs | Irn | Brs | Irn | - | +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ - |_Elizabeth_ | 2 | 3 | 18 | | 13 | | 19 | | - |_Triumph_ | 3 | 4 | 19 | | 16 | | 13 | | - |_White Bear_ | 6 | 2 | 21 | | 16 | | 12 | | - |_Merhonour_ | 4 | | 15 | | 16 | | 4 | | - |_Ark Royal_ | 4 | 4 | 12 | | 12 | | 6 | | - |_Garland_ | | | 16 | | 12 | 2 | 2 | 2 | - |_Due Repulse_ | 3 | 2 | 13 | | 14 | | 6 | | - |_Warspite_ | 2 | 2 | 14 | | 10 | | 4 | | - |_Defiance_ | | | 14 | | 14 | | | | - |_Mary Rose_ | 4 | | 10 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 4 | | - |_Bonaventure_ | 2 | 2 | 11 | | 14 | | 4 | | - |_Nonpareil_ | 3 | 2 | 7 | | 8 | | 12 | | - |_Lion_ | 4 | | 8 | | 12 | 2 | 9 | | - |_Victory_[708] | | | | | | | | | - |_Rainbow_ | 6 | | 10 | | 7 | | 1 | | - |_Hope_ | 4 | 2 | 9 | | 12 | | 4 | | - |_Vanguard_ | 4 | | 14 | | 16 | | 4 | | - |_St Mathew_ | 4 | 4 | 16 | | 10 | 6 | 2 | 2 | - |_St Andrew_[709] | | 2 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 14 | 4 | 4 | - |_Antelope_ | | | 4 | | 5 | 8 | 4 | 4 | - |_Adventure_ | | | 4 | | 11 | | 7 | | - |_Advantage_ | | | | | 6 | | 8 | | - |_Crane_ | | | | | 2 | 4 | 2 | 5 | - |_Tremontana_ | | | | | | | 12 | | - |_Quittance_ | | | | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | - |_Answer_ | | | | | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | - |_Moon_ | | | | | | | 5 | | - |_Charles_ | | | | | | | 4 | | - |_Advice_ | | | | | | | 4 | | - |_Superlativa_[710]| | | 1 | | 2 | | 2 | | - |_Mercury_ | | | 1 | | | | | 2 | - |_Merlin_ | | | | | | | | | - |_Lion’s Whelp_ | | | | | | | 2 | | - +------------------+-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ - - +------------------+-----------+-----------+---------+------------+ - | | | | Fowlers | Portpieces | - | | Minions | Fawcons | [706] | [707] | - | +-----+-----+-----+-----+---------+------------+ - | | Brs | Irn | Brs | Irn | Brs | Brs | - | +-----+-----+-----+-----+---------+------------+ - |_Elizabeth_ | 1 | | | | 2 | | - |_Triumph_ | | | | | 4 | | - |_White Bear_ | | | | | | | - |_Merhonour_ | | | | | 2 | | - |_Ark Royal_ | | | | | 2 | 4 | - |_Garland_ | | | | | 2 | 2 | - |_Due Repulse_ | | | | | 2 | 2 | - |_Warspite_ | | | | | 4 | 2 | - |_Defiance_ | | | | | 2 | 2 | - |_Mary Rose_ | | | | | | 4 | - |_Bonaventure_ | 2 | | | | 2 | 2 | - |_Nonpareil_ | | | | | 4 | 4 | - |_Lion_ | | 1 | | | 8 | | - |_Victory_[708] | | | | | 7 | | - |_Rainbow_ | | | | | 4 | | - |_Hope_ | | | | | 2 | 4 | - |_Vanguard_ | 2 | | 2 | | | | - |_St Mathew_ | 3 | 1 | 2 | | | | - |_St Andrew_[709] | 1 | 1 | | | 4 | | - |_Antelope_ | | | 1 | | 2 | 2 | - |_Adventure_ | | | | | 2 | | - |_Advantage_ | 2 | | 4 | | | | - |_Crane_ | 6 | | | | 2 | | - |_Tremontana_ | 7 | | 2 | | | | - |_Quittance_ | | 4 | 2 | | 2 | | - |_Answer_ | 2 | 4 | 2 | | 2 | | - |_Moon_ | 6 | | 2 | | | | - |_Charles_ | 2 | | 2 | | | | - |_Advice_ | 2 | | 3 | | | | - |_Superlativa_[710]| | | | | 2 | | - |_Mercury_ | | | | | 2 | | - |_Merlin_ | 2 | | 6 | | | | - |_Lion’s Whelp_ | 7 | | 2 | | | | - +------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+---------+------------+ - -Comparing this with the preceding list of 1585 it is noticed that there -is a large decrease in cannon and a corresponding increase in culverins, -demi culverins and sakers, which strained a ship less, were served more -quickly and by fewer men, and permitted a heavier broadside in the same -deck space. They were mounted on four-wheeled carriages and may have been -fitted with elevating screws, the latter probably recently introduced -as they are mentioned among Bourne’s _Inventions_. The length of a -cannon carriage was 5½ ft., and of a demi cannon carriage 5 ft., costing -respectively £1, 3s 4d and 19s 9d.[711] A ship’s anchors and guns had her -name painted on them.[712] - -William Thomas, master gunner of the _Victory_, drew attention in 1584 -to the lack of trained gunners he thought he perceived, nor was he the -only person who detected the same deficiency. The Spaniards who were, -under the circumstances, perhaps better judges thought differently, and -one of their Armada captains relates that the English fired their heavy -guns as quickly as the Spaniards did their muskets.[713] The grant of -the artillery ground by Henry VIII as a place of practice has already -been mentioned, and, in 1575, it is again brought into notice by an order -that sufficient powder and shot should be allowed to train ‘scollers’ -there.[714] Until Wynter’s death in 1589 the supply of ordnance stores -for the Navy remained under his control, and the absence of remark shows -that the business progressed smoothly. It then became a part of the -ordinary work of the Ordnance Office, and that department did not belie -the unsavoury reputation it has always held. By 1591 outcry against it -ran high, and in 1598 and 1600 its corrupt and lax administration called -forth various projects of reform. The superior departmental officers -gave themselves allowances and, through brokers, sold to themselves -as representing the crown; the inferior clerks were in league with -the gunners in embezzlement.[715] With such encouragement it is not -surprising to find that - - ‘the master gunners who do usually indent for the provision - of ships and fortified places do commonly return unreasonable - waste of all things committed to their charge, which waste - grows not by any of Her Majesty’s service but by the gunners - themselves in selling Her Majesty’s powder and shot and other - provisions, sometimes before they go to sea and most usually - upon their return from the sea.’ - -Usually the captain shared the proceeds with the gunner and the clerks of -the Ordnance department, and the transaction leaves no mark. Occasionally -a captain refused and then we have the incident put on record as in the -case of the master gunner of the _Defiance_, who, when she returned from -sea in 1596 offered his commander £100 for permission to steal half the -powder remaining on board.[716] The patentee for iron shot was a prisoner -for debt and forced to sublet his contract; sometimes he bought shot sold -by the gunners, ‘so that Her Majesty buyeth her own goods and payeth -double for the same.’ When the pursuit of the flying Armada ceased want -of ammunition was as much a reason as want of provisions. But if the -deposition of John Charlton, who lived in a house adjoining to that of -Hamon, a master gunner of the _Ark Royal_, is to be credited, that ship, -at any rate, did not lack powder. Charlton informed Howard that he had -daily seen much powder taken into Hamon’s dwelling. Hamon confessed, -but according to Charlton, very incompletely, for, ‘where it was set -downe but iiii barrels I will aprove that after the fight there came to -his house fortie barrels which was to her Maiestie in that fighte greate -hinderance.’ It is significant that a labourer in the employ of the -Ordnance Office acknowledged that he had been hired to pick a quarrel -with Charlton and maim or kill him.[717] - -The cost of cast iron ordnance was, between 1565 and 1570, from £10 to -£12 a ton; in 1600 it had fallen to £8 and £9 a ton. Brass ordnance was -from £40 to £60 a ton. The reputation of our founders stood so high that -the Spaniards were prepared to pay £22 a ton for iron guns and to give -a pension to the man who could smuggle them over.[718] The exportation -of ordnance was strictly prohibited, but an extensive underhand trade -went on notwithstanding the efforts of the government. In February 1574 -all gunfounders were called upon to give bonds to £2000 apiece not to -cast ordnance without licence and not to sell it to foreigners. The seat -of the industry was Kent and Sussex and the requirements of the kingdom -exclusive of the Royal Navy and of the royal forts, were then estimated -at 600 tons a year.[719] There seem to have been only some six or seven -founders in the business, and in the following June, the Council ordered -that no one should enter into it without permission; that all guns should -be sent to the Tower wharf, there to be sold to English subjects who were -to give sureties not to sell abroad out of their ships; and that all -founders were to send in a yearly return to the Master of the Ordnance of -the number of guns sold, and to whom.[720] These orders were repeated in -1588 and 1601, but a founder estimated that 2500 tons of ordnance were -cast a year, being three times as much as could be used in England, and -it was supposed that, previous to 1592, out of 2000 tons yearly made 1600 -were secretly sent abroad. - -Although the saltpetre had been obtained from the continent powder had -long been made in England as well as bought abroad. In 1562 three persons -who had erected powder mills, tendered to supply it on a large scale—200 -lasts a year—at £3, 5s a cwt. (of 100 lbs.) for corn powder, and £2, 16s -8d for serpentine powder.[721] This offer does not seem to have been -accepted although in 1560 the crown was paying £3, 5s 2d, the cwt. (of -112 lbs.) for serpentine powder, and in 1570, still higher prices. In -November 1588 there was ‘a reasonable store’ of round shot in hand and 55 -lasts of powder; 100 tons of shot and 100 lasts of powder were required -to make good deficiencies, but in view of the amount remaining in stock -only the fatal blundering which has always characterised the departments -can explain the constant prayer for supplies that came, vainly, from the -fleet.[722] Wynter, whose province it was to attend to naval requirements -in these matters, was himself on service from 22nd December 1587 until -15th September 1588, in command of the _Vanguard_ and the _Ark Royal_. -How the business of his office was carried on in his absence we do not -know with certainty, but from some entries in the Privy Council Register -for 1588, it would appear to have been handed over to the Ordnance -Office. The cost of the powder was here estimated at £100 a last, but -in 1589 a tender from George Evelyn, John Evelyn, and Richard Hills, to -deliver 80 lasts a year for eleven years at £80 was accepted. In 1603 -they, with some other partners, were still acting and furnishing 100 -lasts a year. Round shot, from cannon down to fawcon, was obtained at an -average of £8 a ton; ‘jointed shot,’ and cross-bar shot were dear, from -2s 6d to 8s apiece, according to the size of the gun. Stone shot were -still used and cost from sixpence to two shillings each conformable to -size.[723] - -[Sidenote: Naval Expenditure.] - -The naval expenses, especially during the last fifteen years of her -reign, must have seemed appalling to Elizabeth and would have excused her -parsimony had she not been so lavish to herself. From the _Audit Office -Accounts_ we are enabled to give on the next page the amounts for which -the Treasurer of the Navy was answerable, but these by no means included -all the expenditure of the crown in various expeditions. The total cost -of the Cadiz and Islands voyages, for instance, of 1596 and 1597 is given -as £172,260 and this is only partly represented below.[724] If the Queen -took a share in an adventure the money she advanced was paid from the -Exchequer and is not borne on the Navy accounts. - -The £12,000 a year allotted to Gonson, under Mary, for the working of -the naval establishments during peace was reduced from 1st January -1564 to £6000 a year, of which he was to pay Baeshe £165, 2s a month -for harbour victualling.[725] Of course war, or preparation for war, -upset all calculations of economy, but the attempt was steadily made -to keep the normal, everyday, expenses of the department separate from -the exceptional ones, and to reduce the former to as low a sum as -practicable. Gonson must have found the £6000 a year impossible, for in -1567 it was raised to £7695, 6s 2d. The economy could have been only -nominal, for on the same date as this new order[726] there is a warrant -to Gonson for £10,200 extra for stores and ship repairs which would have -formerly been included in the £12,000 a year. By a statement of 1585 the -average for these years was £10,946 yearly, when building, repairs, and -stores purchased were included.[740] From 1571 commences the division -into ordinary and extraordinary, which doubtless had a further saving -for its object, although how the process was to work, except as tending -towards clearer bookkeeping, is not now manifest. - - +---------+--------+-----------+----------------------------------------+ - | | | | Dockyards | - | | | +--------+---------+---------+-----------+ - | | Total |Victualling| | | | | - | |received| [727] |Chatham |Deptford |Woolwich |Portsmouth | - +---------+--------+-----------+--------+---------+---------+-----------+ - | | £ | £ | £ | £ | £ | £ | - |1559 } | 106000| 43300 | 5157 | 26800 | 1400 | 2726 | - |1560 } | | | | | | | - |1561 | 19757| 3200 | 2164 | 19528 | 866 | 265 | - |1562[731]| | | | | | | - |1563[732]| 53790| 19208 | 3701 | 19707 | 944 | 2529 | - |1564 | 18000| 4492 | 2038 | 2912 | 14 | 268 | - |1565 | 5318| 2149 | 4350 | 445 | 32 | 294 | - |1566 | 5178| 1843 | 3612 | 247 | 10 | 77 | - |1567 | 13129| 1999 | 6257 | 484 | 12 | 66 | - |1568 | 12062| 2718 | 5843 | 1854 | 21 | 100 | - |1569 | 17015| 7484 | 2653 | 343 | 12 | 50 | - |1570 | 15138| 7162 | 3133 | 985 | 12 | 266 | - |1571 | 8580| 2403 | | | | | - |1572 | 12300| 2765 | | | | | - |1573 | 8934| 2686 | | | | | - |1574 | 14157| 2964 | | | | | - |1575 | 6802| 2969 | | | | | - |1576 | 9957| 4449 | | | | | - |1577 | 12977| 3871 | | | | | - |1578 | 14276| 5032 | | | | | - |1579 | 8400| 4918 | | | | | - |1580 | 5829| 11932 | | | | | - |1581 | 9532| 3356 | | | | | - |1582 | 8388| 3230 | | | | | - |1583 | 6694| 2274 | | | | | - |1584 | 8020| 2615 | 3680 | | | | - |1585 | 12934| 5786 | | | | | - |1586 | 25691| 8636 | | | | | - |1587 | 46300| 29563 | | | | | - |1588 | 80666| 59221 | 5387 | | | | - |1589 | 52317| 15949 | 3864 | | | | - |1590 | 61168| 20379 | 2257 | | | | - |1591 | 35626| 13198 | 7046 | | | | - |1592 | 29937| 11657 | 7442 | | | | - |1593 | 26000| 9872 | | | | | - |1594 | 49000| 16241 | | | | | - |1595[735]| 59700| 14665 | 12328 | 5631 | | | - |1596[736]| 37421| 16387[737]| | | | | - |1597 | 64705| 28630 | | | | | - |1598 | 69000| 22100 | | | | | - |1599 | 67116| 32426 | | | | | - |1600 | 37780| 21355 | | | | | - |1601 | 56500| 28866 | | | | | - |1602 | 62457| 40945 | | | | | - +---------+--------+-----------+--------+---------+---------+-----------+ - - +---------+-----------+-----------+--------+----------+---------------+ - | | | | | | | - | | Sea | | | | | - | | Charges | Total | Stores | Ordinary | | - | | [728] | Spent | [729] | [730] | Extraordinary | - +---------+-----------+-----------+--------+----------+---------------+ - | | £ | £ | £ | £ | £ | - |1559 } | 23380 | | | | | - |1560 } | | | | | | - |1561 | | 27485 | | | | - |1562[731]| | | | | | - |1563[732]| 16021 | 63290 | | | | - |1564 | 1497 | 21471 | | | | - |1565 | | 7844[733]| | | | - |1566 | | 6244 | | | | - |1567 | | 19000 | | | | - |1568 | 743 | 15115 | | | | - |1569 | 2820 | 17800 | 6354 | | | - |1570 | 2332 | 17527 | 3834 | | | - |1571 | | 8598 | | 5752 | 2846[734] | - |1572 | | 8559 | | 5646 | 2913 | - |1573 | | 10686 | | 5940 | 4746 | - |1574 | | 12877 | | 6143 | 3776 | - |1575 | | 6893 | | | | - |1576 | | 10660 | | 5631 | 5029 | - |1577 | | 12899 | | | | - |1578 | | 14956 | | 5712 | 8727 | - |1579 | 1351 | 8100 | | 3849 | 1481 | - |1580 | 4110 | 14602 | | 3833 | 6172 | - |1581 | | 11902 | | | | - |1582 | | 8663 | | 4015 | 4624 | - |1583 | | 7486 | | | | - |1584 | | 8515 | | 3934 | 4581 | - |1585 | | 11602 | | | | - |1586 | 8905 | 29391 | | | | - |1587 | 7355 | 44000 | | | | - |1588 | | 90813 | | 2283 | 88530 | - |1589 | 12650 | 47836 | | 4756 | 43057 | - |1590 | 16109 | 60370 | 3248 | | | - |1591 | 4141 | 31000 | | 6172 | 24868 | - |1592 | 6789 | 28585 | | 5554 | 23031 | - |1593 | 5400 | 22269 | | 4974 | 17224 | - |1594 | | 49300 | | | | - |1595[735]| 15293 | 59000 | | 10425 | 48588 | - |1596[736]| 21204[738]| 38379 | | 10363 | 27935 | - |1597 | 40680[739]| 76513 | | 14906 | 60702 | - |1598 | 9229 | 53300 | 18000 | 14203 | 39000 | - |1599 | 15749 | 66665 | | 7137 | 59504 | - |1600 | 14039 | 35200 | 8600 | 8170 | 19028 | - |1601 | 14166 | | 22910 | 7047 | 45326 | - |1602 | 26270 | 60832 | 20104 | 6976 | 53840 | - +---------+-----------+-----------+--------+----------+---------------+ - -In October 1579 ‘bargains’ were made between the Queen and Hawkyns, and -with Pett and Baker.[741] Twenty-five vessels of all classes were named -in the agreement and Hawkyns undertook to provide their moorings, to keep -spare cables and hawsers on board, and to furnish other cordage necessary -for ordinary harbour and sea use, for £1200 a year, the contract being -terminable at six months’ notice. He was not to be called upon to account -for the £1200 and therefore evidently expected, and was at liberty, to -make a profit. The agreement with Pett and Baker was to the effect that -they should ground and grave the ships at least every first, second, or -third year, according to size; that they should repair or replace all -faulty masts and yards that became defective in harbour, except the lower -masts and yards of the sixteen largest vessels; that they were to pay -wages, victualling and lodging of the men they employed and provide all -materials and tools; they were to supply carpenters’ stores to vessels -in commission, and pay all carriage and hire of storehouses. For this -they were to have £1000 a year. It was these two contracts that brought -such a storm of obloquy on Hawkyns. On the one hand, the other officers -found the greater part of their occupation gone, and their interference -in some of the most important transactions an unwarrantable intermeddling -with agreements approved by the government. On the other Hawkyns and -the shipwrights expected to make a profit, and circumstances seem to -suggest that the way in which Hawkyns insisted on the work being done -did not leave Pett and Baker that margin they anticipated. These two men -subsequently became his bitter enemies, and in 1588 sent in a report -on his management, to which events at that time were daily giving the -lie. The effect of the new arrangement was to make Hawkyns supreme in -all the branches of administration, and therefore every contractor or -middleman, with whose arrangements he interfered, swelled the outcry. The -result of the commission of inquiry of January 1584 was not to displace -him, but apparently it did abrogate these contracts, and in 1585 a new -one was entered into with Hawkyns alone. For £4000 a year he defrayed -the repair of ships in harbour, found moorings, paid shipkeepers and -the garrison of Upnor, repaired wharves and storehouses, finding in -all cases materials, victuals, and lodgings for the workmen.[742] The -object of this and the preceding agreement was to get the ordinary done -for £4000 a year, devoting the money saved to the purchase of cordage, -masts, etc., which had formerly been extra. Hawkyns maintained that he -had performed it successfully; his opponents denied it. It was the last -contract, from which they were excluded, that Pett and Baker reported -upon. He gave notice to terminate it at Christmas 1587 in consequence of -the great increase in naval operations, and no third bargain was engaged -in. From 1st January 1589 the amount allowed for the ordinary was raised -to £7268[743] which then only restored it to the standard of 1567; in -January 1599 it was increased to £11,000 a year.[744] - -The year to which the reader will turn with most interest is 1588, and -the figures here given, representing the payments of Hawkyns only, deal -with the expenditure through him and probably do not represent the whole, -even of the naval expenses. A document printed by Murdin[745] makes the -naval disbursements, between the beginning of November 1587 and the end -of September 1588, exclusive of victualling and the charges borne by -London and other ports, reach the much larger sum of £112,000. Powder and -shot were used to the value of £10,000, while £20,000 was required to -replace stores and put the fleet in seaworthy condition again. Another -estimate puts the expenses of the year at £92,370.[746] It gives the cost -by fleets: the Lord Admiral’s £31,980; Seymour’s £12,180; coasters and -volunteers £15,970; Frobisher’s £840; Drake’s £21,890, etc. Finally we -have the items stated in a different way[747]: wages £52,557; conduct and -discharge money £2272; tonnage (hire of) £6225; other expenses £15,003; -extraordinary allowances and rewards £854. The compensation paid for -the eight vessels converted into fireships and sent among the Spaniards -during the anxious night of 28-29th July was £5111, 10s, perhaps the -cheapest national investment that this country has ever made.[748] Two of -them were of 200 tons apiece, in all they measured 1230 tons. - -[Sidenote: Preparation and Cost of Fleets.] - -There were in pay during the struggle in the Channel 34 Queen’s ships -and 163 merchantmen, but all through the year merchantmen had been taken -up or discharged, and men-of-war put in and out of commission as the -need seemed more or less urgent. There were 8 admirals, 3 vice-admirals, -126 captains, 136 masters, 26 lieutenants, 24 corporals, 2 ensign -bearers, 2 secretaries, 13 preachers, and 11,618 soldiers, sailors, and -gunners.[749] Other authorities give a larger number of men, in one -instance 15,925; and only 95 merchantmen appear in the _Audit Office -Accounts_ as paid by the Treasurer. In this case the in and out working -must have puzzled the authorities considerably, but ordinarily experience -had enabled them to calculate with fair accuracy the probable cost of -sending a fleet to sea. In October 1580—Drake had returned in September -and Mendoza was vapouring—such an estimate was prepared for twenty -men-of-war, to be manned by 4030 seamen and gunners, and 1690 soldiers. -The press and conduct money of the seamen amounts to £1410, 10s, that of -the soldiers and their coat money to £676; sea stores of ships £800, and -wages of officers and crews for one month £2669, 6s 8d. The discharge -money for both soldiers and sailors is £1462, and one month’s provisions -£4004. In all the charges make a total of £11,449 for the first month. -As there would be no cost of preparation, nor press, conduct, coat, or -discharge money to be reckoned in the following months, the cost for the -second and succeeding months would be £6773 each. For another £12,000 -twenty-two armed merchantmen, of 5200 tons and 2790 men, could be joined -with the men-of-war for three months. The last years in which foreign -ships appear to have been ‘stayed’ by the authority of the crown for -service with its fleets were 1560, 1561, and 1569. There is a payment of -£300 in 1560 for ‘putting the Venetian’s hulk and ship that be staied for -our service in warre in like order and sorte.’[750] In 1569 another £300 -was paid by Gonson to two Ragusan masters whose ships were stayed but do -not appear to have been used.[751] Some other foreign vessels are also -referred to but their names do not occur in any naval paper. - -The expenses of the semi-private, semi-royal, expeditions of various -years are not borne on the navy accounts and the references to them in -the State Papers are frequently incomplete and contradictory. That of -Frobisher, in 1589, cost upwards of £11,000, of Frobisher and Hawkyns in -1590, £17,000,[752] and of Lord Thomas Howard in 1591, £24,000.[753] The -outlay attendant on Essex’s fleet in 1596 was £78,000,[754] and that of -the Drake-Hawkyns venture in 1595, £42,000.[755] Here the Queen provided -six men-of-war and, according to one statement,[756] was to have had -one-third of the booty, but it is difficult to disentangle the actual -facts from the several discrepant versions. The voyage was a disastrous -failure financially, treasure to £4907 only being brought home; worse -still it cost the lives of Drake and Hawkyns. The lower ranks, however, -did not fare so badly; it was said that £1000 was embezzled from the sale -of powder alone, and some of the men, being drunk, ‘showed a great store -of gold’ on their return. - -[Sidenote: Division of Prize Money.] - -In the seventeenth century Monson noticed that, notwithstanding the -destruction they brought on Spanish commerce nationally, the majority -of the Elizabethan adventurers not only made no fortunes but ruined -themselves by their enterprises. So far as pecuniary receipts were -concerned there were only two really great captures during the Queen’s -reign. Her share of the _St Philip_, taken by Drake in 1587, was £46,672; -Drake’s own, £18,235; the Lord Admiral’s, £4338; and private adventurers, -£44,787.[757] A still richer haul was made in the _Madre de Dios_, taken -in 1592, which, by the account of her purser, carried 8500 quintals of -pepper, 900 of cloves, 700 of cinnamon, 500 of cochineal, and 450 of -other merchandise, besides amber, musk, and precious stones to the value -of 400,000 crusados, and some especially fine diamonds.[758] In this case -there was only one Queen’s ship among the ten entitled to share, and the -services rendered by that one were questioned, but Her Majesty demanded -the lion’s share of the proceeds. If the men were not paid wages the -usual arrangement for the division of prize money was that if ships were -cruising, and ‘thirds’ were agreed upon, the spoil was to be divided into -three parts, viz., tonnage (_i.e._, owners), one part, the victuallers -the second part, and the men the remaining third. But if ships joined in -‘consortship,’ their takings were to be first divided ton for ton, and -man for man, then each vessel’s proportion was to be joined and divided -into shares as before.[759] By the second mode ships belonging to the -squadron, but absent from a particular capture, would still share the -pillage. The captain took ten shares, the master seven or eight, and -most of the remaining officers three to five each; if the cruiser was -a privateer the Lord Admiral received a tenth from each of the thirds. -For the twelve years 1587-98 Nottingham’s tenths amounted to upwards of -£18,000.[760] The following computation shows the proportions due on this -system of division assuming the value of the carrack’s cargo to have been -£140,000.[761] - - _Foresight_ Tonnage 450, £8092 9 8½ } - (Queen’s Ship) Men 170, 7505 10 4 } £23103 10 4½ - Victualling as for men, 7505 10 4 } - - _Roebuck_ Tonnage 350, 6294 3 1½ } - (Sir W. Ralegh) Men 160, 7064 0 4½ } 20422 3 10½ - Victualling as for men, 7064 0 4½ } - - _Dainty_ Tonnage 300, 5394 19 9½ } - (Sir J. Hawkyns) Men 100, 4415 0 2½ } 14225 0 2½ - Victualling as for men, 4415 0 2½ } - - Five Ships Tonnage 1235, 22209 7 6½ } - (Earl of Cumberland) Men 500, 22075 1 1½ } 66359 9 9½ - Victualling as for men, 22075 1 1½ } - - Two Ships Tonnage 260, 4675 13 2 } - of London Men 127, 5607 1 3½ } 15889 15 9 - Victualling as for men, 5607 1 3½ } - -There was thus a total of 2595 tons. One third of £140,000 is £46,666, -13s 4d and this, divided by 2595, gives a unit of £17, 19s 6d a ton. For -the _Foresight_ 450 times £17, 19s 6d yields roughly the £8092, 9s 8½d -to which her tonnage entitles her; the same formula gives the shares of -the other ships, and of the men, substituting in the latter case 1057 -for 2595. The Earl of Cumberland, one of the most persistent and one of -the most unlucky of the private adventurers of his day got only £36,000, -and in the end, after much bickering, Elizabeth took nearly £80,000 of -the plunder. There is no doubt that the fleet was in ‘consortship,’[762] -but it did not suit her interests to allow that form of division. The -official belief, and one apparently well founded, was that enormous theft -went on, both among officers and men, before the prize was brought into -port. Robert Cecil, who had been sent into Devonshire to make inquiries, -wrote to his father that, approaching Exeter, he ‘cold well smell them -almost such has been the spoils of amber and musk among them ... there -never was such spoil.’ Officers and men pillaged first, the captains took -what they could from them, and when the admiral, Sir John Burroughs, -came up, he plundered the captains. Among other items the Commissioners -found that an emerald cross three inches long, 62 diamonds, and 1400 -‘very great’ pearls had been stolen. It is not known what became of the -_Madre de Dios_, but possibly an offer from the mayor and burgesses of -Dartmouth to pay £200 and build a hospital for the poor in return ‘for yᵉ -carrick’ may refer to it.[763] - -[Sidenote: Merchant Shipping and Trade.] - -In 1584 Hawkyns wrote to Burghley ‘I ame perswydyd that the substance of -this reallme ys treblyd in vallew syns her Maiesties raygne.’ So far as -the carrying trade, as exemplified in the increase of merchant ships, -was concerned, the statement was more than justified. The legislation -that had long been directed in a more or less perfunctory manner to the -encouragement of English merchant shipping by protective enactments was -enforced more stringently. Such enactments were varied or renewed by the -1st, 5th, 13th, 23rd, 27th and 39th of Elizabeth. The coast fisheries -were assisted by permission being granted to export fish in English -bottoms, free of custom, subsidy, or poundage,[764] while the internal -consumption was increased by the more rigid exaction of the observance -of fish days. The coasting trade was confined to English owned ships, -and the earlier statutes bearing on exportation or importation in -foreign vessels were put into active operation. These measures were not -fruitless. For 1576 is a list of fifty-one ships built in the preceding -five years and attributed, rightly or wrongly, to the statute ordering -abstinence from flesh on Wednesdays.[765] In 1581 the authorities of the -Trinity Corporation sent in a certificate showing a large increase in -the number of fishing boats, there being in a short time, an addition -of 114 on the east and south-east coasts alone between Newcastle and -Portsmouth.[766] - -The bounty of five shillings a ton, for vessels of 100 tons and upwards, -only paid occasionally during preceding reigns is now of common -occurrence. The Exchequer warrants name 162 ships on which it was given -during the reign, and the series is probably far from complete. Certain -names frequently recur in these entries; the Hawkyns family of Plymouth; -Olyff Burre, a coppersmith of Southwark, who obtained the bounty on 790 -tons of shipping in two years; the Fenners of Chichester; Philip and -Francis Drake; and William Borough. Sometimes seamen were both owners -and masters but more frequently the owners are described as merchants. -Towards the later years of the century, when the volume of ocean trade -had greatly increased, the bounty payments become almost continuous, and -then owners had to give surety not to sell their ships to foreigners. -Between 1581 and 1594 there had been built—or rather had received the -premium—46 such vessels of which 25 belonged to London, 7 to Bristol, 2 -to Southampton, 3 to Dartmouth, and 1 each to Hull and Liverpool.[767] -The _Galleon Ughtred_ of Southampton, built by John Ughtred of Netley, -was of 500 tons, and when she was sent to sea under Fenton was valued at -£6035, fitted, victualled, and munitioned.[768] - -It is perhaps indicative of the results of the years 1587-8-9 that while -only 46 such vessels had been built in thirteen years, there were, -between 1592 and 1595, 48 large ships of 10,622 tons receiving a sum -of £2683, 5s. In one year—1593—London owners were paid on 16 ships of -3248 tons; Dartmouth, as in the preceding century, is ahead of the other -southern ports with seven vessels of 1460 tons.[769] From September 1596 -to September 1597 the bounty was paid on 57 ships of 11,160 tons; two -were of 400 tons, four of 320, two of 310, thirty-two of between 200 and -300 tons, and the general increase in the tonnage of individual ships is -another noticeable fact in the growth of the shipping industry.[770] - -But probably the bounty was not always paid. At the foot of a list of -merchantmen for the years 1572-9, the owners of which had given bond that -they should not be sold to the subjects of a foreign power, the clerk -writes: ‘whether all these or how many of them have had any allowance of -Her Majesty I cannot tell for that there is no record of the allowance -in this court.’[771] The total is 70 ships of 12,630 tons; the largest -are, one of Bristol of 600 tons, one of London of 450, and one of -Dartmouth of 400 tons. One entry, on 9th July, 1577, is that Francis -Drake of Plymouth gives bond for the _Pelican_ of 150 tons.[772] Very -often the five shillings a ton was not paid but allowed on the customs, -as in 1595, when 636 crowns were granted to three London merchants ‘to -be allowed on the customs of merchandise brought by the said ships.’ It -was of course to the interest of the owner to have his vessel rated at -the highest possible tonnage, both for the bounty and for service with -the royal fleets. For the latter the hire remained at one shilling a ton -till about 1580 when it was raised to two shillings and even then the -measuring officers, we are told, usually allowed the Queen to be charged -for a third more than the real tonnage.[773] - -Besides the stimulus of general trade and the requirements of the crown -for ships to serve with the fleets, there was a further encouragement -to building in the action of the great chartered associations then -in possession of so much of the over sea trade. The Russia Company, -chartered in 1555, traded to Russia, Persia, and the Caspian, and, late -in the century, commenced the whale fishery; the Turkey, or Levant -Company, founded in 1581, to the dominions of the Sultan, the Greek -Archipelago, and, indirectly, to the East Indies; the Eastland Company -trading through the Sound to Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark; -the Guinea Company to the west coast of Africa, and the Merchant -Adventurers along the northern coast of continental Europe. Many of the -largest ocean-going ships either belonged to, or were hired by, these -corporations, and owners who had entered into the prevalent spirit of -shipbuilding felt that they had a right to have their vessels hired by -the companies. Olyff Burre, the speculative owner before mentioned, -petitioned the Council in 1579 to the effect that he had obtained a -living for forty years ‘cheefely by the maynteyninge of shippinge and -the navygacon,’ that he now had a number of vessels unemployed, and that -he trusted they would order the Spanish Company to hire his ships.[774] -In 1581 the Levant Company possessed fourteen ships varying in size from -200 to 350 tons; they complain, in a petition, that the new import duties -levied by the Venetians are destroying their trade, and that their ships -are too big to be employed in any other work.[775] In the five years -1583-7 this company employed nineteen vessels and 787 men in twenty-seven -voyages, and paid £11,359 in customs. In 1600 they owned thirteen of 2610 -tons and hired seventeen of 2650 tons. Their agent at Constantinople -cost £1000 a year, besides presents to the Turks, and in 1591 they -calculated that, first and last, they had been compelled to spend £40,000 -in maintaining agents, consuls, etc.[776] The profits made by these -companies were sometimes enormous and their risks were fewer than those -of individual owners, for their large, well-armed and manned ships were -less exposed to the dangers of navigation and piracy, the latter a factor -to be always reckoned with. - -Notwithstanding piracy, warfare, and the risks of navigation in little -known seas, the returns show a steady increase in the size and number of -English vessels. The necessities of distant trading explain the increase -in size both in view of a relatively smaller cost of working and a larger -number of partners interested in the cargo, and the results of successful -maritime war were shown in a carrying trade which it may almost be held -to have founded. But an extension of commerce was sometimes thrust -unwillingly on the English merchants. Some of them petitioned in 1571 -that the trade with Portugal was of more value than that with the East -Indies, and that an agreement should be come to with the King of Portugal -by which Englishmen would undertake not to trade with the East if a free -opening were given by that monarch in his European dominions. They said -that the traffic to the East Indies ‘often attempted hath taken small -effect,’ that in fifteen years no merchants had made any profit, ‘except -such as being spoiled there have made great gain by the recompense -here.’[777] They did not foresee the future subjects of spoliation, -but although trade was progressing it moved onwards tentatively and -with hesitation; and but for the cessation of trade with Portugal the -formation of the East India Company might have been long deferred. - -If a merchantman escaped the ordinary risks of the sea as they were -understood in the sixteenth century, risks that included much more than -is comprised in the expression to-day, the owner’s troubles were by no -means over. Commerce with the East could only be carried on by constant -bribery; if he traded to Spain he had to reckon with the suspicious -bigotry of Church and State, and when returned to England he had to deal -with the more selfish dishonesty of custom-house officials, and sometimes -of persons of higher rank. Three victims of Spanish procedure petition -Burghley:— - - ‘In this moste wofull manner sheweth unto your Honour your - suppliantes John Tyndall and Robert Frampton of Bristowe and - William Ellize of Alperton ... late marchants and the Quenes - Maiesties naturall subjectes late in case right good to - live and nowe in state most miserable. That where your said - suppliantes did trade into Spayne in the way of marchandise—soe - it is Right Honourable that besydes longe and miserable - imprisonment besydes the intollerable torment of the Strappadoe - there susteyned by the authoritie of the Inquisition of Spayne - your said suppliantes are there spoyled of all their goodes to - the vallew of ˡⁱ2228 10ˢ 6ᵈ, to their utter undoing.’[778] - -Their ship was seized and they were tortured because a Cato in English -was found on board—Spain and England being at peace. They go on to ask -that they may have restitution out of Spanish goods in England. In 1588, -of the crew of a Scotch ship just arrived at St Lucar, ‘accused to be -protestantes and fleshe eaters on dayes prohibite,’ three were burnt and -the rest sent to the galleys, upon accusation, without any trial.[779] -As the knowledge of these and other stories spread, one does not wonder -at the massacres of Smerwick and Connaught; it is only a matter for -surprise that any Spanish prisoner received quarter. - -It was a usual clause in a charter-party that a merchantman should carry -ordnance and small arms. In the peaceful Bordeaux fleet of 1593, the -three largest vessels carried from 17 to 21 guns, and all the others -have from 3 to 16 pieces of various sizes. Owners whose vessels had -escaped the perils of the voyage had to be prepared for trickery at -home. Accusations of dishonesty were general against the officers of -the customs; ‘they alter their books leaving out and putting in what -pleases them’; the wages of the waiters were £12, 16s a year, but some of -them kept large establishments, the officers were said to attend about -two-and-a-half hours daily, and the chief ones seldom came at all. These -latter, says the writer, appointed clerks who grew rich the same way, and -these again took under clerks who made a living out of the merchants; -the chief posts were sold at high prices, while, in the country, the -Queen was defrauded of half the customs.’[780] Another person, writing to -Robert Cecil in 1594, says ‘there has been transported out of Rye within -twelve months not less than £10,000 of prohibited wares. The customs -officers not only connive but help.’[781] Other examples might be cited -to show that there had not been much improvement in these years, although -the service had been reorganised in 1586 when the Customer, Sir Thos. -Smith, who farmed some of the imposts, had been compelled to disgorge -a portion of his profits. The revenue from the customs was £24,000 in -1586, in 1590 £50,000, and £127,000 in 1603. If the merchant escaped the -extortions of the custom house he might find that persons of the highest -rank did not disdain to avail themselves of the organised chicane of the -law. In 1586 Leicester sent a cargo to Barbary, and in the return lading, -the factor thought it safer, on account of pirates and other enemies, to -mark all his employers’ goods with Leicester’s mark. On the arrival of -the ship Elizabeth’s favourite claimed the whole cargo and, the law being -on his side, the owners were compelled to compound with him for their own -property.[782] - -[Sidenote: Returns of Merchant Ships and Seamen.] - -There are more detailed lists of merchant ships for the period under -review than for any other reign. By these lists, equivalent to a return -of vessels now built to Admiralty requirements, the government knew, from -time to time, how many ships could be relied on as fighting auxiliaries -and how many could be used as tenders and transports. They also enabled -the Council to judge whether the measures taken for the protection and -encouragement of native shipping were successful. The first of these -returns is for March 1560 and is incomplete since there is no entry for -such a port as Bristol, and Somerset and the Welsh counties are also -omitted:—[783] - - +----------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ - | |Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons| - | | 100| 120| 140| 160| 180| 200| 260| 300| - | +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ - | London | 1 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | - | Saltash | | | 1 | | | | | | - | Fowey | 1 | | | | | | | | - | Northam | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | | | | - | Plymouth | 2 | 1 | | 1 | | | | | - | Salcombe | 1 | | | | | | | | - | Dartmouth | | 1 | 3 | | | 1 | | | - | Cockington | 1 | | | | | | | | - | Kingswear | | 2 | 1 | 1 | | | | | - | Southampton | | | 1 | | | | | | - | Christchurch | | 1 | | | | | | | - | Sandwich | | | 1 | | | | | | - | Brightlingsea | 1 | | 1 | | | | | | - | Walderswick | 2 | | | | | | | | - | Southwold | 1 | | 1 | | | | | | - | Cley | | | 1 | | | 1 | | | - | Wells | | | 2 | | | | | | - | Grimsby | 1 | | | | | | | | - | Scarborough | | | 1 | | | | | | - | Hull | 4 | 1 | 1 | | | | | | - | Newcastle | 12 | | 1 | | | | | | - | Chester | 1 | | 1 | | | | | | - +----------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ - -Here there are seventy-six ships and although some towns, such as -Southampton, may not have their full complement given, there was probably -no other port, with the exception of Bristol, possessing vessels of 100 -tons or upwards. During the early years of the reign the country was -impoverished and the people little inclined to effort. Mary left the -crown deeply indebted and, concurrently with an increase of national -expenditure, there was, for the moment, a general decline of commerce, -and a shifting of the centres of commercial distribution, especially -felt by some of the older seaports. Yarmouth petitioned in 1559 for -relief from payment of the tenths and fifteenths on account of loss of -trade; their harbour had cost them £1000 a year and was not yet finished, -the town walls £100 a year, and the relief of their poor yet another -hundred.[784] In 1565 Yarmouth had 553 householders; 7 seagoing ships, -of which the largest was 140 tons; 25 smaller ones, and 81 fishing boats -together with 400 seamen.[785] Doubtless the burgesses did not minimise -their calamities but similar complaints came in from all quarters. Hythe -had, from 80 vessels and fishing boats sunk to 8; Winchilsea, ‘there -is at this present none, and the town greatly decayed.’[786] Between -1558 and 1565 Dartmouth owners had lost four and sold eleven ships, -and seemingly had no intention of replacing fifteen others worn out by -service. The complaints of Chester are chronic in the same sense; its -merchants had lost £22,000 in seven years from piracies and shipwrecks; -and Hull in a shorter period had lost £23,000 from the same causes. - -The next list, of 1568,[787] gives seventy-three vessels of 100 tons -or more but from this many important places, such as London, Bristol, -Hull, and others are wanting so that it may be assumed that a marked -improvement had already commenced. There are many isolated certificates -of ships belonging to various ports scattered through the State Papers, -and from one of them we find that ‘Hawkyns of Plymouth’ possessed, in -1570, thirteen of 2040 tons; one of them was of 500 and another of 350 -tons. There is a certificate of vessels trading between September 1571 -and September 1572,[788] which gives eighty-six of 100 tons and upwards, -including forty-nine of 6870 tons belonging to London, but this is not a -complete list of ships owned in the various ports, but only of those that -had been engaged in trade. For February 1577 there is a full return which -yields the following results:—[789] - - +-----------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - | |Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton| - | |100|110|120|130|140|150|160|180|200|220|240|260|300|350|500| - | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - |London | 10| 6| 7| 4| 4| 1| 3| | 4| 2| 1| | 1| 1| | - |Bristol | 1| | 1| | 2| 1| 1| | 1| | | | | | 1| - |Chester | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - |Newport | 2| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - |Chepstow | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - |Barnstaple | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - |Fowey | 1| | 1| | | | 1| | | | | | | | | - |Looe | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - |Plymouth | 2| 1| 1| 1| 1| | | | | | | | | | | - |Dartmouth | 1| | 1| | | | 1| | | | | | | 1| | - |Exmouth | 3| | | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | - |Weymouth | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - |Poole | 2| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - |Southampton| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - | & | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - | Portsmouth| 1| 1| 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | - |Dover | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - |Harwich and| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - | Ipswich | 7| | 2| | 1| 1| | | | | | | | | | - |Woodbridge | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - |Orford and | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - | Aldborough| 3| 1| | | 5| | | | | | | | | | | - |Walderswick| 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - |Yarmouth | 4| | | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | - |Lynn | 2| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - |Hull | 3| 1| 3| | | 2| | | 1| | | | | | | - |Newcastle | 6| 1| 3| | 2| | 1| | 1| | | | | | | - +---------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - -The total is 135 and the report says that there are 656 more between 40 -and 100 tons besides ‘an infinite number’ of small barks. Yet this return -can hardly be complete as it does not correspond, in many instances, with -the tonnage measurements of a list of March 1576 which is a schedule of -such vessels built since 1571.[790] This list is of value as showing the -rapid progress now being made in the construction of comparatively large -vessels, a progress which could only be the result of a demand caused by -increasing trade:— - - +-------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ - | |Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons| - | | 100| 120| 130| 140| 150| 160| 170| 180| 200| 240| 260| - | +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ - |London | | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | | 2 | - |Lee | | | 2 | 1 | | | | | | | | - |Exmouth | 1 | | | 1 | | | | | | | | - |Kingsbridge | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | - |Bristol | | 1 | | | | 1 | | | 1 | | | - |Plymouth | | | | 1 | | | | 1 | 1 | | | - |Hull | | | 1 | | 1 | | | 2 | | | | - |Newcastle | | | 2 | 1 | | | | | | | | - |Southwold | | | | | | | 1 | | | | | - |Cley | | 2 | | | | | | | | | | - |Yarmouth | 2 | | | | | 1 | | | | | | - |Orwell | | | | | 1 | | | | | | | - |Chester | | | | 1 | | | | | | | | - |Ipswich | | 2 | | | | 1 | | | | | | - |Looe | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | - |Fowey | | | | | | | | | | 1 | | - |Aldborough | | | | 2 | | | | | | | | - |Harwich | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | - |Wells | | | | 1 | | 1 | | | | | | - +-------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ - -In the year ending with Easter 1581 there were 413 English ships, of -20 tons and upwards ‘coming from ports beyond seas’ and discharging in -London, but no doubt many of the smaller of these, making short voyages, -were reckoned more than once.[791] - -The authorities encouraged merchants and shipowners not only by -legislation but with that personal interest to which the human heart -responds more promptly than to legal enactments however profitable -the latter may promise to be. When the Levant Company was founded its -promoters were called before the Council, thanked and praised for -building ships of suitable tonnage for the trade, and urged to go forward -‘for the kingdom’s sake.’ The Levant Company returned at first 300% -profit to its shareholders but in the sixteenth century ‘the kingdom’s -sake’ was a factor, always more or less present, in the action of the -merchant class, nor was the commendation of the lords of the Council -considered a matter of small importance. In a national as well as in a -private sense it was fortunate that most of these chartered Companies -were originally successful. The next certificate is of 1582 and gives:— - - +-----------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Between| - | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |80 | - | |Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|and| - | |100|110|120|130|140|150|160|180|200|220|240|250|300|500|100| - | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - |London | 10| 5| 11| 7| 14| 1| 6| 3| 2| | 3| | | | 23| - |Harwich | 6| | | | 1| | | | | | | | | | 1| - |Lee | 2| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2| - |Cley | 2| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1| - |Wiveton | 4| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2| - |Blakeney | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2| - |Lynn | 1| | | | 1| | | | | | | | | | 1| - |Yarmouth | 3| | | | | | | | 1| | | | | | 2| - |Wells | 2| | | | | | 1| | | | | | | | 3| - |Aldborough | 4| | 3| | 1| 1| 3| 1| 2| | | | | | 4| - |Ipswich | 8| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 6| - |Southampton| 3| | | | 1| | | | 1| | 1| | 1| 1| 2| - |Bristol | 2| | 2| | | 1| 1| | 1| | | 1| 1| | 2| - |Hull | 2| 2| 1| 2| 2| | | 1| | 1| | | | | 7| - |Newcastle | 1| | | 2| 6| 3| 1| 2| 1| 1| | | | | 8| - |Poole | 2| | 2| 1| 1| | | | | | | | | | 1| - |Topsham | | | | | | | | | | | | 1| | | | - |Southwold | | | | | 1| | 1| | | | | | | | 2| - |Orford | | | | | 1| | | | | | | | | | | - |Fowey | | | 3| | | | | | | | | | | | | - |Exmouth | | | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | - |Kenton | | 1| 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | - |Cockington | | | | 2| | | | | | | | | | | 1| - |Northam | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - |Weymouth | | | 1| | 1| 1| | | | | | | | | | - +-----------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - -The number of vessels of 100 tons and upwards is therefore 177, a very -respectable increase from 1577, allowing for wrecks and other sources -of loss. Besides the 70 vessels between 80 and 100 tons there are 1383 -measuring from 20 to 80 tons. Another return, a year later, is made out -on the same system as regards division of tonnage, but by counties; it -will be observed that the results do not altogether coincide:—[792] - - +---------------+--------+--------+--------+ - | |100 tons|Between |Between | - | | and | 80 and | 60 and | - | |upwards |100 tons|80 tons | - | +--------+--------+--------+ - |London | 62 | 25 | 44 | - |Essex | 9 | 40 | 145 | - |Norfolk | 16 | 80 | 145 | - |Suffolk | 27 | 14 | 60 | - |Cornwall | 3 | 2 | 65 | - |Yorkshire | 11 | 8 | 36 | - |North Parts | 17 | 1 | 121 | - |Lincolnshire | 5 | | 20 | - |Sussex | | | 65 | - |Devonshire | 7 | 3 | 109 | - +---------------+--------+--------+--------+ - - +---------------+--------+--------+--------+ - | |100 tons|Between |Between | - | | and | 80 and | 20 and | - | |upwards |100 tons|80 tons | - | +--------+--------+--------+ - |Dorsetshire | 9 | 12 | 51 | - |Bristol | 9 | 12 | 327 | - |Isle of Wight | | | 29 | - |Southampton | 8 | 7 | 47 | - |Kent | | | 95 | - |Cinque Ports | | | 220 | - |Cumberland | | | 12 | - |Gloucestershire| | | 29 | - |Lancaster } | | | | - |and Chester } | | | 72 | - +---------------+--------+--------+--------+ - -There is a certificate, said to be of 1588,[793] but it bears too close a -resemblance to the _Harleian MS._ to be considered trustworthy. The 1582 -list and the _Harleian MS._ differ somewhat but they are sufficiently -alike in classification and totals to show that they belong to nearly the -same period; the _Cottonian MS._ is the same in form and almost exactly -the same in results, and must be wrongly dated. There is no other list of -ships belonging to this reign, but there are occasional references which -show that the subject was not neglected. For February 1589 there is a -note of large merchantmen at sea during that month; thirteen of 2940 tons -are ‘in the Straights,’ five in ‘Barbaria’ and three bound there, five -for Bordeaux, eleven for Middleburgh, and six at sea ‘adventuring.’[794] -The total tonnage is 7220. Evidently the government was kept well -informed of the position of the trading vessels it might possibly require -for transport or warfare. Notwithstanding the various encouragements -to native owners the foreign carrying trade was by no means destroyed -for, in the year ending September 1596, no fewer than 646 ‘strangers’ -ships’ came to London.[795] In Jan. 1597 there were 197 vessels entered -inwards at London; two were from Stade, two from Tripoli, one from -Venice, six from Spain, twenty-six from Bordeaux, ten from Dantzic, three -from Hamburg, one from Scotland, and most of the others from the Low -Countries.[796] - -With the certificates of ships there was sometimes a return of the men -available to man them. It has been noticed that there was seldom much -difficulty in obtaining crews, and the table below points to a growth of -the maritime population commensurate with the increase of shipping:— - - +-----------------+----------+-----------+----------+----------+ - | | 1560[797]|1565-6[798]| 1570[799]| 1582[800]| - | +----------+-----------+----------+----------+ - |Cornwall | 1703 | | 1064 | 1918 | - |Devon | 1268 | | 1264[801]| 2165 | - |Dorset | 255 | 347 | 318 | 645 | - |Hampshire | 296 | 167 | 342 | 470 | - |Sussex | 400 | | 321 | 513 | - |Cinque Ports | 396 | 1024 | | 952 | - |Essex | 565 | 1549 | 385 | 693 | - |Suffolk | 415 | 1161 | 1156 | 1282 | - |Norfolk | 178 | 975 | 1112 | 1670 | - |Lincolnshire | 229 | 234 | | 449 | - |Kent | | | | 243 | - |Yorkshire | 542 | | 505 | 878 | - |Cheshire[802] | 135 | | | 324 | - |Gloucestershire | 203 | | | 220 | - |Pembrokeshire | 392 | | | | - |Northumberland | 37 | | | 851 | - |Somerset | | | 63 | 512 | - |London and }| | | | | - |River of Thames }| | | | 2286[803]| - |Cumberland | | | | 212 | - +-----------------+----------+-----------+----------+----------+ - -The certificate from which the last column is taken shows that in 1582 -there were 1488 masters, 11,515 seamen, 2299 fishermen, and 957 London -watermen available for service. A fleet of 24 Queen’s ships required -about 3700 seamen; an auxiliary fleet of 24 armed merchantmen about -3000, so that except when exposed to the strain of a year like 1588 the -resources of the country in men were fully equal to any demand likely to -be made upon them. - -[Sidenote: Piracy and Privateering.] - -During the reign of Elizabeth piracy appears to have almost attained the -dignity of a recognised profession, and some notice of its extent is -necessary to enable us to recognise the difficulties amid which commerce -was extending. In 1563 there were some 400 known pirates in the four -seas; and men of good family, who subsequently acquired official rank -in the royal service—Champernounes, Killigrews, Careys, Horseys, and -Oglanders—had made their earliest bids for fortune as Channel rovers. -Occasionally, when an important personage was inconvenienced, a spasmodic -effort was made and dire punishment followed. In 1573, the Earl of -Worcester, while travelling to France as the bearer of a christening -present from Elizabeth to the infant daughter of Charles IX, was attacked -between Dover and Boulogne and, although he saved the gold salver he -was entrusted with, eleven or twelve of his attendants were killed and -wounded and property stolen to the value of £500. This led to steps that -resulted in the capture of some hundreds of pirates, but only three -were hanged. On the whole, Elizabeth made fewer efforts to deal with -the evil than either her sister or brother did; sometimes ships were -sent to sea for the purpose but there were no continuous endeavours -such as they made. And although pirates were frequently taken few were -executed, and their aiders and abettors on shore, a class that included -merchants, country squires, and government officials, were always let -off with a fine. In truth the English rover was more than half patriot; -if he injured English commerce he did infinitely more hurt to that of -France and Spain, and he only differed in degree from the semi-trading, -semi-marauding expeditions on a large scale, in which the Queen herself -took a share, and for which she lent her ships. - -At first Elizabeth sent out even fewer ships than her predecessors had -commissioned to clear the Channel; she tried, as usual, to make those -principally interested do the work of the crown. Commissions were -granted to merchants to equip vessels to catch pirates, their reward -taking the form of a permission to recoup themselves out of captured -cargo. But even if pirate plunder was recaptured the owners were little -better off as the men were commonly serving ‘for the spoyle onely without -any wagies allowed them by hir Hignes,’ and the spoil seldom covered -their wages. In 1574 both Hull and Bristol were authorised to equip -ships at their own expense to deal with the scourge, and as late as 1600 -petitioners were cynically informed that Royal ships could not be spared -for convoy duty and that the merchants interested should get together -ten or twelve vessels ‘by voluntary contributions from subjects.’[804] -Proclamation followed proclamation without effect and it was not until -1577 that a really serious attempt was made to crush the freebooters; -Palmer and Holstock were sent to sea with a squadron, and searching -inquiries were instituted to ascertain the persons who dealt with them -ashore and helped them. Southampton was a flourishing centre; not only -did the mayor release captured men, but there were brokers in the town -who made a business of negotiation between owners and pirates for the -return of ships and merchandise taken by the latter.[805] Among the -persons fined for dealing with pirates we find the mayor of Dartmouth, -the lieutenant of Portsmouth, the deputy searcher of the customs there; -the deputy of the Vice-Admiral of Bristol trading with them and taking -bills from them,[806] the sheriff of Glamorganshire, and Wm. Wynter, a -relative of the Surveyor of the Navy. Wm. Hawkyns, brother of the Navy -Treasurer, and Rich. Grenville, the famous captain of the _Revenge_, -were both up before the Council for piracy.[807] A well-known pirate, -Atkinson, escaped from Exeter gaol, it was supposed with the connivance -of the mayor; the mayor accused the sergeant of the Admiralty, and the -evidence seems to show that they were both involved. Sometimes a pirate -cargo must have been very valuable; one was made up of 434 ‘elephants’ -teeth,’ cochineal, wine, and ‘Spanish aquavitæ.’ If in need of supplies -the pirate captain could always reckon on sympathy and assistance ashore, -and Cardiff was a recognised headquarters where necessaries could be -obtained. If caught by weather and in distress he could usually rely on -local help. One vessel, being driven ashore, was deserted by her crew, -a proceeding which, if due to fear, was unnecessarily hasty. A local -magnate, Sir Rich. Rogers, got assistance, refloated the vessel, and -restored her to the captain, accepting a tun of wine and a chest of -sugar in acknowledgment.[808] Yet the government dealt tenderly with -these men. Of the many names of pirate captains continually recurring -in the Elizabethan papers there is not one known to have been executed -although some were captured. - -In 1584 it was said that ‘wee and the French are most infamous for -our outrageous, common, and daily piracies,’ and naturally the State -Papers are full of petitions for redress and compensation, and with -commissions of inquiry issued to the various local authorities. Claim and -counterclaim from Englishman, Scotchman, Frenchman, Dane, and Hamburger, -follow in endless confusion. In 1586 a correspondent wrote to Burghley ... - - ‘being at St Malo last month he heard that sixteen of their - ships had been rifled or taken by Englishmen ... and that their - hatred of the English was such that our merchants dared not - walk about in public ... men in authority to recover their - unthriftiness sell their lands, buy ships, and command the - captain and company not to return without assurance of a very - great sum.’[809] - -On the other hand, Bristol, in 1574, had formally complained of St Malo -in that ‘by common consent’ they had set forth seven vessels to prey upon -Bristol commerce. The court of Admiralty had granted Bristol merchants -permission to seize St Malo ships and goods, which perhaps explains the -letter to Burghley just quoted.[810] In 1584 the French ambassador stated -that in the preceding two years English pirates had plundered Frenchmen -of merchandise to the value of 200,000 crowns; the only answer given was -the general statement that Englishmen had lost more by French pirates. -There is a list, 47 pages long, of piracies committed by the English on -Portuguese subjects alone. - -Between 1564 and 1586 Englishmen had spoiled the Scotch—who were said to -‘take it unkindly’—of goods valued at £20,717, and restitution had been -made to the amount of £3483. But between 1581-5, the Scotch had plundered -the English to the sum of £9268, and had restored only £140; from this -proportion it may be concluded that the Scot was more successful than -the Frenchman in adapting himself to the fashionable pursuit of the -time.[811] Nor were the injured persons exposed only to the loss of -their property. A Bayonne ship was captured by a Bristol privateer in -1591 and the owners came to England to obtain redress, but after vainly -expending 500 crowns they were, ‘fain to leave off their suit and return -to France and save their lives.’ But the Englishman did not fare better -in France. In 1572 the _Pelican_ of London, belonging to alderman Wm. -Bond and others, was seized by French pirates, the master and crew, -twenty-three in number, murdered, and goods valued at £4000 taken with -her. The thieves and the receivers were both well known and the owners -commenced a suit in the parliament of Brittany; but after fruitlessly -expending £1000 prefer to ‘leave all in the hands of God rather than -prosecute any more suits in France.’[812] Frequently there was little -disguise about ownership. In 1580 three Hamburg merchants petition that -their ships were despoiled by ‘one called the _Henry Seckforde_ whereof -is owner, Henry Seckforde, Esq., one of the gentlemen of your Majesty’s -privy chamber.’[813] If business at sea was languishing, the pirate did -not disdain to vary his methods; some Dunkirkers planned, and nearly -succeeded in carrying out, the abduction of Sir John Spencer, known as -‘rich Spencer’ on his way to his country house at Islington. - -Occasionally, but very rarely, the pirate changed his allegiance. -Nicholas Franklin deposes:—[814] - - ‘A year ago was with Captain Elliott when they took a flyboat - of which captain Elliot made a man-of-war: they went to - Helford in Cornwall and brought in a Dieppe prize.... John - Killigrew, captain of the castle there, warned them to be off - as he was expecting the _Crane_ one of the Queen’s ships; - thereupon Elliott gave him nine bolts of Holland cloth and a - chest and they sailed to Cork ... thence back to the Channel - and took four Scotch and Irish ships, thence to the Isles of - Bayonne.’[815] - -Here they met some Spaniards, and his crew wanted to fight, but Elliot -and his officers drew their swords and forced the men to surrender. -Elliot was given the command of a Spanish galleon and, from another -paper, it appears that he was afterwards the cause of some Englishmen -being racked. - -If letters of marque were given they only faintly veiled the real -character of the proceedings. In 1586 letters of reprisal were granted -to Diggory Piper in the _Sweepstakes_ of London, an appropriate name for -a privateer. He was authorised to attack Spanish and Portuguese ships; -he commenced with some Flemings, continued with two French traders, -and finished with a Dane having goods worth £3000 on board.[816] In -view of the fact that at various times letters of reprisal to the -amount of £140,000 were issued to only a few places,[817] the amount of -unlicensed robbery done under cover of such letters can be imperfectly -imagined. Sometimes the proceedings were straightforward enough and, as -an illustration of their manner of dealing with Spanish ships and the -privateersman’s contempt for odds, a relation of one of these encounters -is given subsequently.[818] - -[Sidenote: Stores.] - -In 1579 the stores, such as canvas, cordage, masts, anchors, etc., at -Deptford and on board the ships were valued at £8000, and it was only -considered necessary to replenish the stock up to £14,000.[819] For some -time whatever was used in any given year was replaced the following -year; thus stores to £1662, 11s 8d and £831, 11s 1d were used in 1580 -and 1581, and were ordered to be made good in 1581 and 1582. The heavy -expenses caused by the war upset this arrangement, and in 1589 we find a -payment of £8921, 8s 8d for the balance, still owing, of stores bought in -1587. In 1602 there were at Deptford, 551 cables and hawsers, 26 bolts -of canvas, 45 masts and 660 spars, 31,220 ft. of timber, 36 barrels of -pitch and tar, besides compasses, flags, etc. Chatham had only 10 cables -but 54 bolts of canvas, 124 masts and 1076 spars; Woolwich had timber -only.[820] Masts were obtained from the Baltic and varied in length -from twelve to thirty-four yards, the latter size being twenty-eight -hands in circumference at the partners, and eighteen and two-thirds at -the top end. Anything under six hands at the partners was accounted a -spar.[821] In 1588 masts of twenty-nine and thirty yards were £26, and -£31. In the year of Elizabeth’s accession Dantzic cordage cost £13, 6s -8d a ton. Subsequently cables were chiefly purchased from the Russia -Company and went up in price until in 1597 Russian cordage ‘of perfect -good stuff’ was costing £23, 10s a ton.[822] For the heaviest anchors -the rule was to give a half inch in the circumference of the cable for -every foot of beam; a ship with thirty-eight feet of beam would therefore -have some cables nineteen inches in circumference. The length was 100 -fathoms, and the weight of one fourteen inches round was 34 cwt. 3 qrs. -14 lbs. in white, and 43 cwt. 35 lbs. tarred. A large number of cables, -cablettes and hawsers were carried. Although in the preceding table on p. -124 the _Merhonour_, like the other big ships, is allowed seven cables, -there were ordered for her in 1589, two of 18 inches circumference -weighing five tons; four of 17 inches weighing nine tons; two of 16 -inches weighing four tons; and one of 12 inches weighing one ton and a -quarter.[823] - -Until about 1585 the custom of the principal Officers themselves to -sell the Queen minor stores, such as canvas, tar, etc., if it excited -comment or suspicion, does not seem to have been stopped; from Burghley’s -notes on the subject it appears from that time to have been no longer -allowed.[824] Nevertheless in 1589 Hawkyns and Borough were accused of -still selling to the crown through third persons, but the force of the -charge is vitiated by the usual proposal of the informer, that he should -act as an inspector of canvas, of course with a salary.[825] The heaviest -anchor made was of 30 cwt., but they were usually much smaller; the -_Merhonour_ had one of 25 cwt., four of 22 cwt., three of 20 cwt., and -one of 12 cwt.[826] The price of these was £1 10s per cwt. as against £1 -2s in the beginning of the reign. The following is an abstract of the -prices of other stores but there were many different qualities in each -article which explains large variations in the price:— - - { Polldavy (1558) 40s a bolt - { English Midrenex (1569) 28s a bolt - Canvas { British[827] do. (1569) 33s 4d a bolt - { British do. (1581) 28s a bolt - { English do. (1581) 30s a bolt - { Ipswich canvas (1590) 29s a bolt - - { Compass and straight } (1567) 8s and - { Oak and elm } 9s a ton - Timber { Oak (1587) 18s a load - { Elm (1594) 18s a load - { Oak knee (1594) 20s a load - { do. (1598) 22s to 27s a load - - Spanish Iron (1567) £13 a ton - English do. do. £10 a ton - Spanish do. (1572) £14 a ton - - Rosin (1567) £8 a ton - do. (1590) £8 a ton - - Tar (1567) £4 and £5 a last[828] - do. (1592) £6 a last - do. (1598) £8 a last - - Train oil (1567) £11, 10s & £14 a ton - do. (1587) £20 a ton - do. (1590) £17 a ton - - { 12 inch (1571) 1s per 100 - Tree-nails { 36 inch (1571) 3s per 100 - { 36 inch (1590) 4s 6d per 100 - -[Sidenote: Flags, etc.] - -Men on deck were sheltered by waistcloths of canvas above the bulwarks -which were painted in oil colours; the _Merhonour_ required 542 yards. -Sometimes the waistcloths were used for the forecastle and poop while -the waist itself was protected by nettings.[829] Men-of-war alone seem -to have been entitled to wear a flag at the main, ‘the earl’s ship after -the taking of the carrack very undutifully bore his flag in the main top -which no subject’s ship ought to presume to do.’ The St George’s cross -was generally used; the flag shown on the ensign staff of the Elizabethan -man-of-war is of green and white, the Tudor colours, and is one that was -in common use during the sixteenth century. In 1592 the Levant Company -was permitted to use ‘the armes of Englande with the redd crosse in -white over the same as heretofore they used.’[830] Representations of -saints on flags had ceased but other emblems were still in use; falcons, -lions, the royal arms, and ‘her Maiesties badges in silver and gold,’ are -mentioned. We have ‘sarcenets of divers colours’ for ensigns, red and -blue say for banners, red say for streamers, and red and white cloth for -flags.[831] The Cadiz fleet of 1596 had four large flags, one white, one -orange tawney, one blue, and one crimson, ‘which were appointed to be so -made for the distinguishing of the four squadrons of the flete.’[832] -This appears to have been the earliest distinction of squadrons by flags, -afterwards shown by the red, white, and blue. The salute to the flag was -upheld under circumstances where it might have been more diplomatic to -escape the necessity of claiming it. When Anne of Austria was expected to -travel by sea to Spain to marry Philip, De Guaras wrote, ‘although it is -quite incredible it is generally affirmed that when our fleet passes, the -English fleet will force it to salute. This absurdity sounds like a joke -but it is asserted by persons of weight who assure us that the admiral -bears orders to do all manner of wonderful things if our fleet does not -salute.’ It is said, however, that they had to salute. - -It speaks sufficiently for the courage of the Elizabethan sailor that -during the whole of the reign only two English men-of-war were captured -by Spain, and then only after desperate fighting against overwhelming -superiority of force.[833] It speaks equally well for his seamanship -afloat and the skill and good workmanship of shipwrights ashore that, -with the exception of the small _Lion’s Whelp_, no dockyard built ship -was lost by stress of weather, by fire, or by running aground. During the -same years, and sometimes during the same gales, that the English ships -weathered successfully, whole Spanish fleets foundered at sea. - - - - -JAMES I - -1603-1625 - - -[Sidenote: The Condition of the Navy.] - -On 24th March 1603 the weapon forged by Henry VIII, and wielded by -Elizabeth, fell into the feeble hand of James Stewart. Elizabeth left -England supreme at sea; the Royal Navy bequeathed by the Queen to her -successor was by far the finest fleet of men-of-war then afloat, for it -was not until the close of the sixteenth century that Spain and Holland -commenced to build ships for purely fighting purposes.[834] The men who -manned it were renowned for hardihood, daring, and smart seamanship; and -its organisation as controlled by the great seamen of her reign was more -efficient and smoother in its working than any other of the departments -of state.[835] Even in 1558 the days were in reality long past when -Spanish fleets were to be feared, and when the Bay of Biscay could be -proudly called ‘the Spanish Sea’; but it was due to Elizabeth’s sagacity -that the weapon which was to slay the Goliath threatening European -civilisation was at once recognised and unhesitatingly used. Until 1558 -the supremacy even of the Channel, often hardly contested, had been -only occasionally gained. Elizabeth was the first of English sovereigns -throughout the whole of whose reign the national flag flew supreme and -triumphant in the English Channel. That she was aided by the legacy of -a fleet, by the helplessness of France, by changing economic conditions -at home, by the revolt of the United Provinces abroad, and possibly by -the wisdom of far-seeing advisers, may have made her task easier, but -these things do not detract from the praise due to her discernment. The -student, perhaps too often reasoning with a knowledge of results, may -sometimes feel anger with Elizabeth but hardly contempt. James arouses -no qualification of emotion. He commenced his reign with a fleet ‘fit -to go anywhere and do anything;’ he allowed it to crumble away while -spending on it more money during peace than Elizabeth did during war; -he chose the most unfit men to manage it at home and command it abroad, -and the results of his weak and purposeless rule were seen in the -shameful fiasco of 1625 and the degradation of English prestige. Had not -Buckingham reorganised the Admiralty in 1618 there would shortly have -been no Navy to rouse the jealousy of foreign powers. The Regency of 1423 -deliberately destroyed the Navy either from ignorance or from motives -now unknown; James followed the same course with the best intentions and -could doubtless have justified all his actions in choice Latinity. It -will be seen that he took an even keener personal interest in the Navy -than did Elizabeth, but the lack of controlling capacity so disastrously -shown in other affairs was equally fatal to naval administration. The -naval records of his reign are but a sorry collection of relations of -frauds, embezzlements, commissions of inquiry, and feeble palliatives. - -The first wish of the new monarch was to obtain peace with Spain, a -desire for which modern historians have unanimously praised him, although -it may be at least a matter for debate whether the continuance of war -until Spain was bled to death would not have been ethically justifiable, -politically expedient, and commercially profitable. On 23rd June 1603, -a proclamation was issued recalling all vessels which had been sent -out with hostile intent, and thus ending the lucrative privateering -speculations which, when undertaken on a small scale, had so long -provided occupation and profit for English sailors and merchants. The -last important prize taken by the Queen’s ships was the _St Valentine_, a -Portuguese carrack captured by Sir R. Leveson in 1602, and its cargo was -sold in 1604 for upwards of £26,000.[836] - -[Sidenote: Shipbuilding.] - -The improvements in construction that marked the close of the sixteenth -century have already been noticed and first, among these may be placed -the increase in length and decrease in height above water attributed to -Sir John Hawkyns. But the greater demand for faster and more seaworthy -ships had not produced models satisfactory to the more critical experts -of this generation. Shipbuilding was not yet a science and seemed in -some respects to have even retrograded from the standard of the last -years of Henry VIII. The subsequent tendency to overload ships, however -small, with towering poop and forecastle structures, although it can be -explained by the necessity for providing increased accommodation, can -scarcely be considered an improvement on the earlier type. Captain George -Waymouth, who appears to have been considered an authority on the theory -and practice of shipbuilding and navigation, and who was several times -called to report independently on the workmanship displayed on the royal -ships, was very severe on his professional contemporaries, and writes -that he - - ‘Yet could never see two ships builded of the like proportion - by the best and most skilful shipwrights though they have - many times undertaken the same ... because they trust rather - to their judgment than their art, and to their eye than their - scale and compass.’[837] - -He says that they are too high out of the water, crank, and cannot carry -their canvas or work their guns in a seaway; that they will not steer, -and sometimes ‘their sides are not of equal proportion the one to the -other,’ Waymouth, among other improvements, suggested a turret on the -upper deck, moving on swivel and armed with ‘murtherers.’ In another -paper he says that ‘the shipwrights of England and Christendom build -ships only by uncertain and traditional precepts and by deceiving aim -of their eye,’ and the resulting vessels, ‘cannot bear sail nor steer -readily ... for want of art in proportioning of the mould and fitting of -the masts and tackling.’[838] - -It must, however, be borne in mind that for at least a quarter of a -century English men-of-war had outsailed their antagonists, had weathered -gales and fought actions, just as successfully as though they had been -built on the most scientific modern principles. Waymouth himself was -not successful as a commander at sea; perhaps he knew too much. But he -was not alone in his criticisms. Ralegh, in his ‘Observations on the -Navy,’ addressed to Prince Henry, says that there are six principal -things required in a man-of-war, viz.: that she should be strongly built, -swift, stout-sided, carry out her guns in all weathers, lie-to in a -gale easily, and stay well. None of these things did the King’s ships -do satisfactorily and ‘it were also behoofeful that his Majesty’s ships -were not so overpestered and clogged with great ordnance ... so that -much of it serves to no better use but only to labour and overcharge -the ship’s sides.’ As a practical illustration of the shipwrights’ -loose methods of calculation it may be mentioned that when the _Prince -Royal_, the largest vessel of the reign, was built, Phineas Pett and -Bright estimated that 775 loads of timber would be required, whereas 1627 -loads were actually used, and the general increase in her cost by this -error of judgment was £5908.[839] These laments did not lead to any -great improvements in construction. Only a few of the vessels were in -any way sheathed; in 1624 Dutch men-of-war could, literally, sail round -English ones,[840] and their crankness was only imperfectly remedied by -furring or girdling,[841] a method says the writer of the _Nomenclator -Navalis_,[842] which is ‘a loss to owners and disgrace to builders and -deserves punishment.... In all the world there is not so many furred as -in England.’ That the advance was slow may be judged from the fact that -in 1635 the _Merhonour_ of 1589, and rebuilt in 1613, was still regarded -as one of the fastest sailers in the Navy. The desire for more scientific -construction and the growing importance of the shipbuilding industry may -however be inferred from the incorporation of the Shipwrights’ Company -in 1605. The association had existed as a fraternity from, at least, the -fifteenth century, and was now of sufficient consequence to obtain a -charter. - -[Sidenote: The Seamen.] - -An onlooker[843] said that the English were ‘good sailors and better -pirates.’ Whatever their quality as seamen, or however doubtful their -maritime morality, no greater care was taken now to preserve their health -or improve their morals than had formerly been the case. It is true that -the first article in every commission laid stress on the performance of -divine service at least twice a day, while the singing of psalms at a -change of watch was an old custom, but such humanising details as the -punctual payment of wages,[844] a supply of eatable provisions, hospitals -for the sick, and suitable clothes, had not yet recommended themselves to -the authorities as modes either of obtaining men or of keeping them in -the service. Ralegh writes, ‘They go with as great a grudging to serve -in his Majesty’s ships as if it were to be slaves in the galleys.’ James -I made no use of the Navy beyond fitting out the Algiers expedition -of 1620, and commissioning a few ships, year by year, to serve in the -narrow seas; but for these few vessels it was found equally difficult to -obtain men and to retain them when caught, now that the incitements of -Spanish prizes were wanting, while the mortality afloat was equal to that -of the worst days of Elizabeth. The only occasion when a large number -of men were required was for the fleet preparing in 1625, before the -death of James, and then the Navy Commissioners wrote to Buckingham that -‘the pressed men run away as fast as we send them down.’[845] Captain -Christian of the _Bonaventure_, almost a new ship, serving on the east -coast, in 1623, wrote of ‘the weak, and I may truly say miserable state -of this ship ... of 160 men there are but 70 persons of all sorts that at -present is either fit or able to do the least labour in the ship.’[846] -There was also a great infection and mortality on board the _Garland_. -Captain Christian complains too of the quality of the men pressed; ‘of -all the whole company when they are at the best there are not twenty -helmsmen and but three that can heave a lead.’ - -These instances belong to the end of the reign but matters had not -changed: they had only continued. In 1608 it was said that ‘the navy -is for the greatest part manned with aged, impotent, vagrant, lewd, -and disorderly companions; it is become a ragged regiment of common -rogues.’[847] In the Algiers fleet one ship put ashore ninety-two sick -men at Malaga at one time. A hospital ship, the _Goodwill_, accompanied -this fleet but she was afterwards ‘commanded for other purposes’ and the -invalids thrust ashore on the cold charity to be found in a Spanish port. -But of course statistics of sickness and death are everywhere rarely -referred to in comparison with salutes, state visits, and other affairs -of personal dignity. - -Although the sailor was not properly fed and paid even if he behaved -well, he suffered sufficiently severe penalties for bad conduct. Flogging -was so common that ‘some sailors do believe in good earnest that they -shall never have a fair wind until the poor boys be duly ... whipped -every Monday morning.’ Ducking, keelhauling, tongue-scraping, and tying -up with weights hung round the neck ’till heart and back be ready to -break’ were common punishments. ‘These will tame the most rude and -savage people in the world,’ says Monson. If these punishments were -older than Elizabeth they were semi-illegal customs and if connived at -were not publicly recognised. They were now part of ordinary discipline -and mark the downward progress of the sailor in self-respect and social -estimation. They were easier and cheaper to apply than good government -but they bore their Nemesis in the next reign. The old custom of -lashing to the bowsprit a sailor who had four times slept on watch, -and letting him drown or starve still existed.[848] Small wonder that -the men ‘abhorred’[849] the employment of the crown, and that in 1625 -the shipkeepers at Chatham included weavers, barbers, tailors, bakers, -shoemakers, etc., ‘most of whom had never been to sea.’[850] - -[Sidenote: The Administration:—The Navy Officers.] - -The disorganisation of a service commonly presses most hardly on its -weakest members; those of higher rank have usually sufficient influence -to preserve their rights or, if unscrupulous, to help themselves to -unlicensed gains in the general scramble. Nottingham was still at -the head of the Navy as Lord Admiral, a post he retained till 1618. -Englishmen will always remember him with respect as the commander -of 1588, but a perusal of the various papers relating to the naval -administration of this period compels one to conclude that while -always ready to do his duty _en grand seigneur_, to command fleets, -and to accept responsibility and decide when referred to, he took but -a fingertip interest in those details of which successful organisation -consists, while his implicit confidence in his subordinates was a -disastrous weakness. Moreover he was now growing very old and had -doubtless lost much of his former clearness of mental vision. During -the lifetime of Hawkyns and under the keen supervision of the Queen and -her ministers this neglect mattered little, but from 1596 onwards the -conduct of the Navy Office degenerated rapidly. Langford had possessed no -authority and Grevill, if weak, had not been Navy Treasurer long enough -to do much good or harm, although signs were not wanting during the -closing years of Elizabeth’s life that the able control that had made the -Navy so terrible to England’s foes was relaxing. But the appointment in -1604[851] of Sir Robert Mansell was most unfortunate. Mansell, who was -an indifferent seaman and an incapable and dishonest administrator, and -whose only claim to the place was his relationship to, and favour with, -Nottingham, remained in office until 1618, and the greater portion of -this section is practically a record of his unfitness for his important -charge. - -Under a different Treasurer the other officers might have performed -their duty sufficiently well. As it was they fell in with the prevailing -spirit. Trevor remained Surveyor until 1611 when he was replaced by Sir -Richard Bingley and in the same year Sir Guildford Slingsby succeeded -Palmer. In the victualling branch Marmaduke Darell, now a knight, -surrendered his former patent and received a fresh one, on 16th August -1603, directed to him and Sir Thomas Bludder. As the fee still remained -at its original £50 a year the profit came out of the provisions and -was unwillingly provided by the men. In 1612 this patent was in turn -surrendered and replaced by one of 31st January appointing Sir Allen -Apsley in conjunction with Darell. By this new patent all the storehouses -and other buildings at Tower Hill, the dockyards, and elsewhere were -henceforth attached to the department; hitherto they had been held by -the crown and only lent at pleasure. Marmaduke Darell died in 1622, and -a new patent of 8th January 1623 nominated his son Sampson Darell to act -with Apsley. There was no change in the victualling rate until 1623, when -it reached sevenpence halfpenny and eightpence, for harbour and sea rates -respectively. - -In 1617, shortly before they were superseded, the functions of the -officers were thus defined. The Comptroller’s duties were to check the -accounts of the Treasurer, and Surveyor of victualling, to inspect stores -and storekeepers’ books. The Surveyor to inspect ship, wharves, houses, -chain, and ships on return from sea, and draw out indents for ships’ -stores. The Clerk to keep minutes of resolutions and attend the yearly -general survey. The Treasurer’s duties were financial and involved a -general superintendence.[852] - -Mansell’s delinquencies can be best treated separately, but both he and -Nottingham dealt liberally with officers employed at sea or ashore. -Nottingham himself obtained in 1609 and 1611 two pensions from James -I, during the supremacy of the Howard faction with the king, amounting -together to £2700 a year; and it is characteristic of James that -the larger of these pensions, of £1700 a year, was granted when the -commission of 1608 was sitting and when its disclosures must have been -well known. As though all ranks knew what was coming the festivities -commenced with the death of Elizabeth. High festival was held on the -ships and the pursers petitioned for an allowance of £200, being the -cost of general entertainment given by the captains for a month to all -who came on board.[853] When Mansell went to sea, he gave himself, as -rear-admiral, thirty shillings a day, although Sir Fulke Grevill, when -discharging the same office in 1599, received only sixteen and eightpence -a day. Admirals were appointed for the north, south, east, and west -coasts, for the narrow seas, and for Ireland, all at liberal rates of -pay. In one year, when only seven ships were in commission, there were -three admirals and four vice-admirals serving, ‘so that the navy was like -an army of generals and colonels.’[854] In 1602, with twenty-six vessels -at sea the pay of the superior officers was less than during any one of -the four or five years before the storm burst on Mansell and Nottingham -in 1618. Again, ‘we find ... that these admirals and vice-admirals with -their twenty shillings and ten shillings per diem, together with the -allowance of their retinue and other advantages, are ... so contented -on land that they cannot brook the seas and get captains under them as -substitutes in their absence.’[855] - -Lavish travelling expenses were allowed, and even some of the inferior -officers were generously permitted to benefit by the stream of wealth -circulating among the higher officials. Worn out ships were put in -commission both to use up stores and to provide appointments for the -dependants of those in place; the only result being that they lay in -harbour as a ‘safe sanctuary for loose persons.’ The cost of piloting the -thirteen ships which took the Princess Elizabeth over to Flushing was -£208, and thereon it is remarked that the whole piloting charges for 286 -ships during the last five years of Elizabeth did not amount to more. The -Comptroller of the Navy, when he went from London to Chatham, charged £9, -9s 11d for travelling expenses, and the Surveyor required £19, 16s for -the same journey, ‘it being the duty of his place,’ the Commissioners -indignantly annotate, while even a deputy took £8 or £10 when he went. -Mansell himself was almost sublime; he afterwards claimed £10,000 for -travelling expenses during his term of office.[856] New posts were -freely created and equally freely paid. Besides the various admirals who -did nothing, there were a captain-general and two vice-admirals of the -narrow seas, a storekeeper at Woolwich at £54, ‘while the store not worth -forty shillings,’ and a surveyor of tonnage whose duty it was to survey -merchant ships of 100 tons and upwards claiming the bounty, and who was -accused on all sides of embezzling half the sums paid by the crown to the -merchants. - -[Sidenote: The Administration:—Sir Robert Mansell.] - -When Mansell resigned, he sent in to the Commissioners of 1618, only an -uncertified abstract of his payments for the preceding five years. The -Commissioners remarked that ‘they being noways vouched or subscribed by -the officers we can give no satisfaction of the state of his accounts, -being only his own assertions,’[857] and the criticism fairly generalises -Mansell’s system of financial control even where not tainted with -absolute fraud. Notwithstanding his defiance of the abortive order for -inquiry issued in 1613, and his consequent temporary imprisonment, he was -sufficiently in favour three years later to receive a present of £10,000 -from the king on the occasion of his marriage.[858] Proved dishonesty or -incapacity barred no one from the favour of James I, provided the culprit -was sufficiently good-looking or had influential friends; and although -the evidence laid before the Commission of 1608 and the Commissioners’ -report thereon should have amply sufficed to send Mansell to the Tower, -his ascendancy with Nottingham enabled him to continue in office for a -further ten years. Shortly after his appointment he and Sir John Trevor, -the Surveyor of the Navy took steps to provide all the requisite stores -themselves, thus making large gains on the articles sold by them to the -king, and in direct contempt of the rules made by Burleigh twenty years -before. Not only was timber ordered three or four times over for the -same purpose,[859] but on that item alone Mansell was accused of making -a fraudulent profit of £5000 in some four years, and, in conjunction -with Sir John Trevor, of obtaining upwards of £7000 in the same time by -the differences between the prices paid for pitch, tar, masts, etc., and -those charged to the crown.[860] He, Pett, and Trevor, were joint owners -of a ship built of government materials and furnished with government -stores, which was hired to the king as a transport to go to Spain when -Nottingham went there as ambassador in 1605, and for which the State -paid, but ‘the same ship was at that time employed in a merchant’s voyage -and so entered in the custom-house books.’[861] - -Hawkyns had introduced the practice of paying over money at once to -merchants supplying the various requisites for the Navy on deduction of -threepence in the pound, an allowance they were well pleased to make in -view of the prompt payment, while he had to wait long for his accounts -to be settled. Mansell still deducted the threepence but did not pay. -He stopped sixpence a month from the seamen’s wages for the Chatham -Chest, but ‘falls presently into raging passions and pangs when they call -for it.’[862] But Mansell was by no means the only one of the superior -officers who helped himself out of this fund. Charges of embezzlement, -in its crudest form, were made against him in that he certified for -more wages than were actually paid—£1000 in one year alone—and that he -retained the proceeds of such government stores as were sold.[863] It -must be remembered that these accusations were not anonymous attacks, -such as were made against Hawkyns, but charges deliberately formulated -by a court of inquiry which he never dared to face. It may be truer -to say that he was indifferent; it is possible that a portion of his -ill-earned fortune went in purchasing immunity. And it is an argument in -favour of this view that his dismissal from office did not destroy his -influence at court. He was chosen to command the expensive and resultless -Algiers expedition of 1620-21, and his subsequent disgrace was due to -causes independent of his failure as a seaman or his dishonesty as an -administrator. - -[Sidenote: The Administration:—Abuses and Remedies.] - -Norreys, writing to Sir John Coke about the Navy in 1603, says ‘To say -truth the whole body is so corrupted as there is no sound part almost -from the head to the foot; the great ones feed on the less and enforce -them to steal both for themselves and their commanders.’[864] Abuses -unknown during the lifetime of Hawkyns had sprung into existence shortly -after his death, although they might have been then easily checked had -Grevill been succeeded by one determined to destroy them. Delay in -paying off ships, to the discontent of the men and extra expense of the -government, combinations between captains, pursers, and victuallers -to return false musters, and the practice of selling appointments to -minor posts were all, according to reliable evidence begun about 1597 -or 1598.[865] We know that theft was prevalent enough under Elizabeth, -but it occurred in the shape of peddling offences, committed by the -delinquents at their peril, that the authorities did their best to crush, -instead of an organised system in which the latter took the lion’s share. -Under James ‘the chief Officers bear themselves insolently, depending on -powerful friends at court;’ and ‘the shipwrights and others are ordered, -commanded, and countermanded in their work by chief Officers who know -nothing about it, so that the meanest merchantman is better rigged -and canvassed than the royal ships.’ The insolence and ignorance here -described speak of conditions very different from those that had obtained -under the iron hand of Elizabeth. In 1608 the scandal caused by these -and other circumstances was so great as to compel inquiry, whether the -determining cause was the contrivance of Sir Robert Cotton or of others. -A commission was issued to the Earls of Nottingham and Northampton, Lord -Zouch, Sir Ed. Wotton, Sir Julius Cæsar, Cotton, and others, of whom -only Nottingham was an experienced seaman, and he never attended their -meetings.[866] The sittings of the commission extended from May 1608 -until June 1609; they commenced with an ‘elegant’ speech from the Earl of -Northampton, a voluminous report was compiled, and the only punishment -the culprits experienced was that of suffering ‘an oration’ from James, -in which he trusted that the guilty persons would behave better in -future, and with that patient and saintly hope the proceedings ended. How -some of his hearers must have longed for one hour of the dead Queen. - -Among the malpractices examined into at some length by the commissioners -was the sale and purchase of places, already referred to. Hugh Lidyard -was made clerk of the checque at Woolwich by Sir John Trevor, for which -he was to pay Trevor £20 yearly and a hogshead of wine; another witness -deposed that ‘of late years the general way of preferment is by money and -few that he knoweth ... come freely to their places.’ Pursers paid from -£70 to £120 for their posts, boatswains £20, and cooks £30. Robert Hooker -gave Edward Masters, of Nottingham’s household, £130 for the pursership -of the _Repulse_, this he sold for the same amount and bought that of -the _Quittance_ for £100. His profit he made by victualling the men for -sixpence a day, and he admitted that at least ten more men were carried -on the books than were on board. Naturally, as promotion went by length -of purse, - - ‘the officers put in and keep in whom they list though they be - never so unfit, and put out whom they list though never so fit, - and woe be to him that taketh exception to any man though he - be never so unruly ... it breaketh the hearts of them that are - worthy.’ - -It was equally natural that men who had paid heavily for their -employments were unscrupulous in recouping themselves. ‘The captains -being for the most part poor gentlemen did mend their fortunes by -combining with the pursers,’ who were in league with the victuallers to -send in returns of more men than were on board the ships. Boatswains -and gunners sold their stores, shipwrights stole timber, and captains -sheltered and took bribes from pirates, or turned their vessels into -merchantmen to enable owners of goods to evade payment of customs. The -Surveyors of victualling were accused of overcharging and of frauds to at -least £4000, in four years. - -[Sidenote: The Reorganisation of 1618.] - -James had every reason to sharply check the waste going on, for the crown -debt, which was only £400,000 at his accession, had mounted to £1,000,000 -in 1608, while the deficit in revenue was £70,000 a year.[867] But ‘an -oration’ in broad Scotch from the lips of the conceited pedant staggering -under the weight of the Tudor crown did not prove an effective method of -reform. The old knaveries continued even as though James had not made a -speech. In 1613 Cotton attempted, through the intervention of Northampton -and Rochester, to obtain another inquiry; but his efforts failed through -the influence of Nottingham and the intrigues of Mansell. In 1618 -the naval administration was worse than ever, and other departments -were equally corrupt; ‘the household was one mass of peculation, and -extravagance.’[868] Even now Sir Lionel Cranfield, who was the moving -spirit in the endeavour to purify the public service, might have failed -had not Buckingham himself desired to occupy the post of Lord Admiral. -Nottingham at last retired with a gratuity of £3000 and another pension -of £1000 a year. Mansell was succeeded, from the 10th May 1618, by Sir -William Russell, a merchant, who paid him for his place and who was -wealthy enough to advance subsequently £30,000 towards fitting out the -Cadiz expedition of 1625.[869] It is probable that, from his lack of -technical knowledge, Russell’s direction, if more honest than Mansell’s, -would have been as unsuccessful had he been entrusted with control, but -his duties were financial only and confined to the keeping of accounts. -The other officers were ‘sequestered from their posts’ and their business -entrusted to a board of Navy Commissioners, appointed for five years -and responsible to the Lord Admiral. Of the Commissioners, Sir John -Coke was the leading spirit and received £300 a year; one was in charge -of Chatham, with a salary of £200 a year; another, William Burrell, -a shipbuilder, was placed at Deptford to supervise all building and -repairs, for which he received £300 a year; and Thomas Norreys acted as -Surveyor with £200 a year.[870] Immediate benefit was obtained from the -reform; the fleet and dockyards were kept in repair, theft was checked, -and two new ships a year were built in five consecutive years, all for -less money than Mansell had squandered in doing nothing efficiently. -Buckingham appears, also, to have not only given his subordinates a loyal -support but to have been honestly anxious to obtain the best men for -the service, and to render officers and sailors contented. The chronic -emptiness, however, of the treasury, for which he was largely answerable, -made his endeavours in this last direction of less avail. - -[Sidenote: The Navy Commissioners.] - -The new Commissioners,[871] on entering office, sent in a report -of the state of affairs they found existing in the various naval -departments;[872] all the frauds of 1608 were still flourishing, with -some new ones due to the lapse of time. Places were still sold, and -at such high prices that the buyers ‘profess openly that they cannot -live unless they may steal’; the cost of the Navy had of late been some -£53,000 a year, ‘that could not keep it from decay.’ For building a new -ship in place of the _Bonaventure_ £5700 had been allowed but, although -£1700 had been paid on account of it, no new vessel had been commenced, -and though this same ship ‘was broken up above seven years past yet the -King hath paid £63 yearly for keeping her.’ Further, ‘the _Advantage_ was -burnt about five years since and yet keepeth at the charge of £104, 9s -5d; the _Charles_ was disposed of in Scotland two years since and costeth -£60, 16s 10d for keeping.’ For repairing the _Merhonour_, _Defiance_, -_Vanguard_, and _Dreadnought_, £23,500 had been paid - - ‘for which eight new ships might have been built as the - accounts of the East India Company do prove; yet all this while - the King’s ships decayed and if the _Merhonour_ were repaired - she was left so imperfect that before her finishing she begins - again to decay.’ - -In nine years £108,000 had been charged for cordage, and the -Commissioners express their intention of reducing the expenditure on this -item by two-thirds. - -At a later date some of the Commissioners themselves did not escape -suspicion. In 1623 Sir John Coke, still the leading member, wrote to -Conway that all went well until the Algiers voyage, but that he then -suspected that some of his colleagues were selling their own wares to the -government. They, of course, denied the allegation when Coke was frank -enough to openly tax them with it, but ‘ever since I carried a watchful -eye over them and employed fit persons to discover their dealings.’[873] -A man like Coke was probably not popular even among those with whom he -was associated, still less with the gang whose deceits and illicit gains -he had greatly helped to terminate. We may read something of the temper -and feelings of the discarded Navy Officers in his appeal for protection -against Sir Guilford Slingsby, a year later, who had threatened that, -unless he was restored to office by Lady day, Coke should not outlive -that date.[874] Slingsby was reappointed Comptroller by Charles I and -then again gave evidence of his peculiar qualifications for the exercise -of authority over others. But there is no doubt that the administration -of the Commissioners was pure enough compared with that of Mansell. Their -failures were due to causes they were unable to deal with, such as want -of money and the bad treatment of the men. So far as the latter were -concerned the Commissioners did not—and probably had no power to—reverse -the disposition to employ landsmen of influence as captains who were -out of sympathy with their men and had no care for their feelings or -interests. It was in this and the succeeding reign that there grew up -that bitter hatred and contempt for gentlemen captains, to which seamen -so often gave expression for a century afterwards, and of which traces -are to be found in the present century. - -At the close of their first five years of office the Commissioners sent -in a report of the work done by them.[875] They said that whereas they -found in 1618 twenty-three serviceable and ten unserviceable ships, of -altogether 15,670 tons, four decayed galleys and four hoys, costing -£53,000 a year, they have now thirty-five serviceable vessels of 19,339 -tons, besides the hoys and galleys, and the expense has been little more -than £30,000 a year, including the charges for building ten new ships. - -[Sidenote: Naval Expenditure.] - -This last amount does not coincide with those given in the table below, -from the _Pipe Office Accounts_, but that may be from the inclusion -in the latter of extraneous expenses, such as the Algiers expedition, -considered by the Commissioners to be outside the range of their -comparison:—[876] - - +----+--------+-------+-----------+-----------+------+----------+-------+ - | | Amount |Victua-| Sea | Total |Stores|Ordinary |Extra- | - | |received| lling | Charges | spent | | ordinary| - +----+--------+-------+-----------+-----------+------+----------+-------+ - |1603| £42619 |£32920 |£13247 |£42271 | | | | - |1604| 24000 | 12469 | 6248 | 24002 |£9616 |£6789 | | - |1605| 29000 | 16042 | 9760 | 28672 | 7312 | |£22493 | - |1606| 22100 | 10156 | | 18984 | | | | - |1607| 21000 | 9452 | 2896 | 25200 |11000 | 5242 | 19900 | - |1608| 38424 | 12103 | 6859 | 36554 | | | | - |1609| 42400 | 10200 | | 43396 | | | | - |1610| 36607 | 10432 | | 36358 | | | | - |1611| 42300 | 8670 | 3428 | 40153 |25520 | 8143 | 31921 | - |1612| 34200 | 8672 | 3934 | 33930 | | 8867 | | - |1613| 50355 | 19625 | 8814 | 55987[877]|25000 |10100 | 45786 | - |1614| 48463 | 15275 | 7996 | 56848 | | | | - |1615| 45643 | 15387 | 7764 | 57968 |16295 | 8313 | | - |1616| 40515 | 12886 | 7800 | 41269 |15268 | 4625 | | - |1617| 31213 | 13716 | | 25548 | | | | - |1618| | 10465 | 5165 | 27489 | 8000 | | | - |1619| 31606 | 6324 | | 32610 | 2355 | 5789 | | - |1620| 38300 | 14680 | 2960[878]| 35872 | 5936 | | | - |1621| 54264 | 23369 | 2945[879]| 51000 | |10723 | | - |1622| 52385 | 11143 | 7765 | 45450 | |13011[880]| | - |1623| 59200 | 23414 | 24000 | 62000[881]| | | | - |1624| 26529 | 6430 | 3079 | 31125 | | | | - +----+--------+-------+-----------+-----------+------+----------+-------+ - -Seamen’s wages remained unchanged till the end of the reign when the -rate reached fourteen shillings a month, and the pay of the officers -was raised in 1618. Not only was it difficult to keep the men on board -the ships, but the expensive and wasteful system of impressment made -the eventual outlay even heavier. In 1624 an estimate was drawn up of -the expenses for fitting out a fleet of twelve men-of-war: 3000 men -were required, of which number the river was to supply 800 at press and -conduct money of 2s 6d a man, the remaining 2200 being obtained from -‘remote places’ at a cost of eight shillings a man. At their discharge -one shilling and seven shillings a man conduct money respectively, for -the river and country districts would again have to be paid. The total -estimate for twelve men-of-war for five months, and fifty merchantmen for -six months, was, £94,874, a sum which shows the great increase in prices -since the days of Elizabeth, and partly explains the rise in the yearly -expenditure.[882] - -[Sidenote: Piracy.] - -Piracy, though still a school for seamanship, was no longer the -flourishing business it had been under Elizabeth; the trade, to use a -modern phrase, was ‘cut up.’ Spanish commerce was almost destroyed in -northern latitudes, and the Dutch was well able to protect itself, while -new competitors were found in the Mediterranean rovers who hovered round -the English coasts and even stretched out into the North Atlantic, and in -the fast sailing Dunkirk privateers who swarmed in the Channel. In 1605 -Hannibal Vivian wrote from the west country, ‘let it not offend you that -I inform you from time to time of the piracies and depredations daily -committed on this coast.’ However repugnant piracy may have been to some -of the officials it commended itself still to many natives of the western -counties. Out of one pirate crew, thirty-five in number, seventeen -belonged to Dartmouth and Kingswear, and the mayor and others of Plymouth -were accused of buying the stolen goods and favouring the escape of the -men. The government appeared helpless; if they sent ships to sea the -captains ‘pretend to pursue, and when well away in some distant port -write up that a leak had been sprung, obtain warrants to repair in port, -and so remain for the captain’s benefit.’ Sometimes they even took the -pirates’ goods on board and sheltered the criminals themselves. If any -of the corsairs were caught the general opinion among them that they -were only liable ‘to a little lazy imprisonment,’ was usually justified -by results. Ireland was said to be ‘the nursery and storehouse of -pirates,’[883] for, besides providing its own quota of sea-rovers it -offered the hospitality of its ports to those vessels belonging to the -Barbary corsairs that required repair.[884] - -In 1616 the weakness of the Crown was shown by a warrant being granted -to two London merchants to prepare a ship to go pirate hunting with -permission to retain for themselves three-fourths of the goods -seized.[885] About this time there was a fleet of thirty Turkish ships -in the Atlantic, and another Salleeman had recently been captured in -the Thames;[886] between 1609 and 1616 the Algerines had captured 466 -British ships and reduced their crews to slavery,[887] and in the latter -year Sir Francis Cottington wrote to Buckingham that their strength -and boldness exceeded all previous experience. Mansell’s voyage of -1620-21 cost at least £34,000, and probably much more, but ‘such was the -misgovernment of those ships,’[888] that within a few weeks of his return -an Algerine fleet was at work again in the narrow seas. The inhabitants -of Swanage seem to have been especially nervous since they petition -for a block-house, ‘the Turks being grown exceedingly audacious.’ -Matters grew even worse towards the close of the reign. Some Weymouth -merchants desired to fit out ships of their own to deal with the incubus -terrorising commerce, but permission was refused, mainly because it was -injurious to the Lord Admiral’s profits and ‘dishonourable to the King.’ -Others, however, of the Weymouth tradesmen dealt with the robbers, and -the local Admiralty officers were supposed to connive at the traffic.[889] - -The Lizard light was objected to because ‘it will conduct pirates,’ and -to most people it will read strangely now that it was forbidden at the -instance of the Trinity Corporation. The Newfoundland Company, in asking -for assistance, said that since 1612 damage to the amount of £40,000 had -been committed by the marauders, and that over 1000 men had been forced -or persuaded to join them.[890] One of the freebooters was admiral of -a large pirate fleet. In 1624 the Navy Commissioners were desired to -certify how many men-of-war would be required to clear the southern and -western coasts, just as they had often enough before been required to -certify; the process seldom proceeded further. - -[Sidenote: The Merchant Marine.] - -That ‘merchantmen dare hardly sail’ was scarcely a condition of things -conducive to commercial enterprise. Piracy was becoming a more serious -drawback than formerly because ships were bigger and more costly, the -network of commerce more sensitive and complex, and losses could no -longer be recouped by successful privateering on a small scale. Little -can be said of the merchant shipping of these years, as the returns of -available ships, so frequently occurring among the Elizabethan papers, -are entirely absent for this period. But all the notices of trade met -with, are invariably characterised by lamentation. The Dutch were said -to be obtaining the carrying trade owing to the greater cheapness with -which their vessels were built and worked, the difference in their favour -being as much as one-third of the English owner’s demand for freight. -In 1620 it was stated that the number of London-owned ships had fallen -to one-half of that of former years, and, as accounting for part of the -decrease, we have a certificate for 1618 of vessels belonging to the -river but lately sold for want of employment.[891] The list in question -shows an enormous depreciation in value, since none of them could have -been very old:— - - +-----------------+----+----+------+--------+ - | |Tons|Guns| Cost |Sold for| - | | | | £ | £ | - | +----+----+------+--------+ - |_Neptune_ | 500| 30 | 5000 | 1500 | - |_Paragon_ | 280| 24 | 3200 | 1000 | - |_Martha_ | 250| 20 | 2400 | 500 | - |_Industry_ | 350| 26 | 4500 | 2000 | - |_Clement and Job_| 300| 24 | 3600 | 1000 | - +-----------------+----+----+------+--------+ - -The building price here almost certainly does not include the cost of -ordnance, while it is probable that the sale price does, and it will -be noticed that these merchantmen are nearly as strongly armed as -men-of-war. Complaints came from all quarters: the Muscovy Company had -employment for only two instead of seventeen ships, as in former days, -and the Norway trade was ‘in pawn to the Dutch’; the Levant Company found -its trade destroyed by piracy, and still more by the competition of the -Dutch, who now sent one hundred ships a year to the Mediterranean. The -greater portion of the Newcastle coal traffic was carried on in foreign -bottoms; there were some twenty vessels trading to Spain and Portugal, -and fifty or sixty to the North German ports, but in both cases the Dutch -trade was now far greater than ours; and the fisheries in English waters -were entirely in the hands of the Hollanders who were reputed to make a -profit of £1,000,000 a year from that which under a stronger sovereign -would have been held for England. The Newfoundland and Iceland fisheries, -which employed 150 and 120 sail respectively, were still chiefly in -English hands, but the Greenland, to which fifteen sail were sent, had to -face the ubiquitous Dutch competitor.[892] - -During this reign the most flourishing association was the East India -Company, although its profits were not so large as were those of its -Dutch rival.[893] In twenty years it had despatched eighty-six ships, -of which eleven had been seized by the Dutch, and fourteen had been -wrecked or worn out, and the estimation in which it was held is shown -by its being more heavily assessed towards the expenses of the Algiers -expedition than was any other company. This association attempted, in -1613, to start iron and shipbuilding works near Cork, but was forced, -by the hostility of the natives, to discontinue the enterprise. The -largest merchantman built during the reign of James, the _Trade’s -Increase_ of 1100 tons, was constructed for the East India Company. -With a smaller ship, the _Peppercorn_ of 250 tons, it was launched in -January 1610, and there are some curious notes by the captain of the -_Peppercorn_ describing the event.[894] On Saturday, 30th December the -king came down to name the two ships, but every attempt to launch them -failed, and continued efforts on the Sunday, ‘God made fruitless that -day.’ On 1st Jan. the _Peppercorn_ was launched, and it was only then -found that the dockhead was too narrow to let the _Trade’s Increase_ -pass. On the Wednesday, however, she was got clear and the captain of the -_Peppercorn_ complains that ‘on this ship was all the Company’s pride -set; she was altogether regarded, tended and followed while the other, -the _Peppercorn_ was left in manner desolate.’ The _Trades Increase_ -was wrecked in 1613 on her first voyage. The hire of merchantmen taken -up for government service was still two shillings a month per ton; and -the bounty of five shillings a ton on new and suitable vessels ceased in -1624, only to be renewed early in the next reign for similar ships. - -Merchants, generally, were liable to the exactions and dishonesty of the -officials of the Customs department as much as in the previous reign. But -by this time the two formerly antagonistic interests seem to have come to -a working arrangement. We are told that merchants and the farmers of the -customs were now in partnership, and that goods were cleared on payment -of little or no duty. The importation or exportation of prohibited wares -was only a matter of terms; and, altogether, the king was frequently -defrauded of 75% of the customs.[895] The collection of light dues was -placed in the hands of the customs’ farmers, and, when a licence to build -a lighthouse at Dungeness was granted to Sir Edward Howard in 1615, they -had to receive the one penny a ton payable from all ships passing it. -At Winterton there was also another light, and the receipts were £1000, -of which, £350 went in expenses.[896] As the Trinity House claimed the -control of the coast lights as a part of its privileges, there was a good -deal of litigation on the subject during the reign. - -[Sidenote: The Navy List.] - -In the following list[897] certain vessels, the _Defiance_, -_Dreadnought_, _Merhonour_, and _Repulse_ have been admitted as rebuilt -and new, although it is quite possible that, notwithstanding the large -sums spent upon them, they were only more or less badly repaired. - - +----------------------+-----+-----+------+-------+----+----+-----+-----+ - | |Built| Re- |Burden|Ton and|Guns|Keel|Beam |Depth| - | | |built| |Tonnage| | ft.| ft. | ft. | - | +-----+-----+------+-------+----+----+-----+-----+ - |_Nonsuch_[898] | | 1603| | 636 | 38 | 88|34 | 15 | - |_Assurance_[899] | | 1603| | 600 | 38 | 95|33 | 14.6| - |_Speedwell_[900] | | 1607| | 400 | | | | | - |_Anne Royal_[901] | | 1608| | 800 | 44 | 103|37 | 16 | - |_Lion’s Whelp_ | | 1608| | 90 | | | | | - |_Red Lion_[902] | | 1609| | 650 | 38 | 91|35.2 | 16 | - |_Due Repulse_ | | 1610| | 700 | 40 | 97|37 | 15 | - |_Prince Royal_ | 1610| | | 1200 | 55 | 115|43.6 | 18 | - |_Phœnix_ | 1612| | | 250 | 20 | 70|24 | 11 | - |_Primrose_ | | 1612| | | | | | | - |_Merhonour_[903] | | 1612| | 800 | 44 | 104|38 | 17 | - |_Dreadnought_ | | 1612| | 450 | 32 | 84|31 | 13 | - |_Defiance_ | | 1612| | 700 | 40 | 97|37 | 15 | - |_Vanguard_ | | 1615| | 650 | 40 | 102|35 | 14 | - |_Seven Stars_ | 1615| | | 140 | 14 | 60|20 | 9 | - |_Convertine_[904] | 1616| | | 500 | 34 | | | | - |_Desire_ | 1616| | | 80 | 6 | 66|16 | 6 | - |_Rainbow_[905] | | 1618| | 650 | 40 | 102|35 | 14 | - |_Antelope_ | | 1618| | 450 | 34 | 92|32 | 12.6| - |_Happy Entrance_ | 1619| | 437 | 582 | 32 | 96|32.6 | 14 | - |_Constant Reformation_| 1619| | 564 | 752 | 42 | 106|35.6 | 15 | - |_Victory_ | 1620| | 656 | 875 | 42 | 108|35.9 | 17 | - |_Garland_ | 1620| | 512 | 683 | 34 | 93|33 | 16 | - |_Swiftsure_ | 1621| | 650 | 887 | 42 | 106|36.10| 16.8| - |_Bonaventure_ | 1621| | 506 | 675 | 34 | 98|33 | 15.8| - |_St George_ | 1622| | 671 | 895 | 42 | 110|37 | 16.6| - |_St Andrew_ | 1622| | 671 | 895 | 42 | 110|37 | 16.6| - |_Triumph_ | 1623| | 692 | 922 | 42 | 110|37 | 17 | - |_Mary Rose_ | 1623| | 288 | 394 | 26 | 83|27 | | - +----------------------+-----+-----+------+-------+----+----+-----+-----+ - -Two other third-rates, the _Mercury_ and _Spy_, were built in 1620 by -Phineas Pett—who went as captain of one of them—for some London merchants -to go with the Algiers fleet. By a warrant of August 1622 they were -ordered to be taken into the Navy, but their names do not appear in any -list of James or Charles. - -Of the nineteen vessels added to the Navy during Mansell’s term of office -two were commenced before his appointment, one was bought, two of the -five new ones were mere pinnaces, and of the remainder most were very -expensive repairs rather than rebuildings. - -[Sidenote: The New Ships.] - -In 1603 James had resolved to have three ships built, but the _Nonsuch_ -and _Assurance_, both ordered before his accession, were the only quasi -new ones. Although no real accessions were made for some years James -took sufficient pride in his fleet to be eager to show it to visitors; -in 1606 he ordered all the available vessels ‘to be rigged and put in -warlike order’ preparatory to a visit from himself and the King of -Denmark, which took place in August. In 1610 the Prince of Brunswick -came to see the Navy. In 1608 the _Ark Royal_, Nottingham’s flagship in -1588, was rebuilt, and her name which should have lived in popular memory -with that of the _Golden Hind_, changed to the _Anne Royal_, in honour -of the commonplace Queen. She was rechristened by Sir Oliver Cromwell. -The _Swiftsure_, rebuilt and renamed the _Speedwell_, is noteworthy as -being the first important English man-of-war lost by misadventure at sea -since the _Mary Rose_ foundered in 1545. She went ashore near Flushing -in November 1624, a mischance that her captain—Chudleigh—attributed to -a drunken pilot.[906] He, at any rate, lost all control over his crew, -whose discipline seems to have been quite unequal to the sudden strain of -an unexpected accident. Of Mansell’s rebuildings the most striking points -are the amounts spent—nearly £60,000 can be traced in the _Pipe Office -Accounts_—and the time taken, ships being usually two, three, or four -years in hand. - -It was probably due to the express desire of James that on 20th October, -1608 the keel was laid of the _Prince Royal_ of 1200 tons, the largest -ship yet designed for the Navy. Under the new rules of measurement in -force in 1632, she was certified as of 1035 net, and 1330 gross tonnage. -Her construction was assigned to Phineas Pett, and many intrigues, -reaching even the Court, centred round her. The other shipwrights were -both jealous and critical, and openly expressed their disapprobation -both of the material used and the manner in which it was employed. In -1609, Baker, now an old man of seventy-nine years, but still in active -employment, William Bright, Edward Stevens, and some other shipwrights, -with Waymouth as an unofficial expert, were ordered to report on the -execution of the work. Pett did not like Waymouth, whom he describes in -his autobiography as ‘great kilcow Waymouth,’ and ‘a great braggadocio, -a vain and idle fellow.’ Baker, and perhaps some of the others must have -been chosen on the governmental principle of setting personal enemies to -inspect each other’s performances, seeing that he had not long before -stated on oath that he thought both the Petts ‘simple’ and quite unfit -to be entrusted with the production of a large ship.[907] Pett naturally -had little love for Baker, although he had years before attempted to be -friendly with the veteran, begging him not to so easily credit malicious -reports, and ascribing all his knowledge of his art, ‘if I have any,’ to -the elder man.[908] But the system that made it to each man’s pecuniary -interest to obtain as many ships as possible to build and repair, and to -exert all his personal influence to that end, converted the dockyards -into nests of intrigue. - -Pett was protected by Nottingham and Mansell, and ‘he is reported to be -their right hand and they cannot do without him,’ said Bright, another -of Pett’s competitors, and who was therefore chosen to sit in judgment -upon him. Nottingham, Suffolk and Worcester were then appointed to make -further inquiry, and their report being satisfactory, and therefore -displeasing to Northampton, the latter desired another investigation, -which the King acceded to by naming a day when he would examine the -vessel and hear the conflicting evidence himself. He and Prince Henry -came to Woolwich on 8th May 1609, and after a long day of scrutiny and -discussion, Pett emerged triumphant from the ordeal. Time, however, was -on the side of the objectors. The _Prince Royal_ was never subjected to -any serious work, but in 1621 the Commissioners wrote to Buckingham that -she was then only fit for show, that she cost in the first instance, -£20,000, and would require another £6000 to make her fit for service, and -that she was built of decaying timber and green unseasoned stuff.[909] -These were the very points on which Baker and his fellows had insisted, -and on which they had been defeated in 1609. She attracted universal -attention when building. The King, the Prince of Wales, Princess -Elizabeth, and the French ambassador came several times to visit her when -approaching completion, and ‘nobles, gentry, and citizens from all parts -of the country round,’ resorted to Woolwich. An attempt to launch her -was made on the 24th September 1610, the whole of the Royal family being -present, but, as in the case of the _Trades Increase_, the dockhead was -too narrow to permit her to pass. A second essay was more successful. - -The _Prince Royal_ was the first three-decker built for the English -Navy.[910] She was gorgeously decorated, according to the taste of the -time, with carvings and ‘curious paintings, the like of which was never -in any ship before.’ She was double-planked, ‘a charge which was not -formerly thought upon, and all the butt-heads were double bolted with -iron bolts.’[911] There is one payment of £868 for her painting and -gilding, work done by Robert Peake and Paul Isackson, the latter of whom -belonged to a family for several generations employed in decorating -men-of-war. The four upper strakes were ornamented with gilt and painted -badges, arms and ‘mask heads,’ and the Prince’s cabin was ‘very curiously -wrought with divers histories.’ Carving cost £441, and included fourteen -‘great lions’ heads for the round ports.’[912] - -[Sidenote: The Commissioners’ Improvements.] - -It was possibly the result of Cotton’s abortive effort in 1613 to procure -a further inquiry into the administration, that several of the old ships -were rebuilt about that time, but, as the Commissioners subsequently -remarked, at prices that would have more than provided new ones in their -stead. It was not until the Navy Commission took control in 1618 that the -systematic production of new ships was commenced. It will be seen from -the preceding list that from that date they carried out for five years -their expressed intention of adding two ships a year to the Navy. They -also made certain recommendations, to be kept in view by themselves and -their successors, that embodied improvements, perhaps the result of the -trenchant criticisms of the beginning of the reign.[913] - -The fleet was to average thirty seagoing ships, and building was -to be confined to Deptford, where two vessels could be worked upon -simultaneously. The length of keel was to be treble the breadth, ‘but not -to draw above sixteen feet because deeper ships are seldom good sailors,’ -besides, ‘they must be somewhat snug-built, without double galleries and -too lofty upperworks, which overcharge many ships and make them loom -fair but not work well at sea.’ It is no reproach to the Commissioners, -who could but act on the best professional advice obtainable, to have to -remark that their ships were nearly as crank as their predecessors, and -all required to be furred or girdled to make them at all trustworthy in a -seaway; and at a later date, even the smaller stern galleries given them -excited much adverse criticism. - -They continue, - - ‘For strengthening the ship we subscribe to the new manner of - building—1st, making three orlops, whereof the lowest being - placed two feet under water, strengtheneth the ship though her - sides be shot through; 2nd, to carry this orlop end to end; - 3rd, the second or main deck to be sufficiently high to work - guns in all weathers.’ - -From this it is evident that the orlop deck as built in the _Merhonour_, -_Garland_, and _Defiance_ of 1589 did not run the whole length of the -ship, and that if the ‘new manner’ is to be accepted literally, even the -_Prince Royal_ was not a two-decker. Cooking galleys were to be placed in -the forecastle, as the weights carried at each end with a comparatively -empty midship section caused ‘hogging,’ besides wasting valuable stowage -space and producing other inconveniences. Wynter had recommended this -forty years before, but the new regulation remained inoperative for some -time longer. The lower ports were now to be at least four and a half feet -above the water line. Most of the Commissioners’ ships were built with -three decks, but with smaller and lower superstructures on the upper deck -than had been previously customary. Bad as they were they seem to have -been steadier than their predecessors. - -An undated State Paper, calendared under 1627, but which from its -arguments in favour of a third deck—a question finally closed long before -1627—more probably belongs to this period, gives us some particulars of -the internal arrangements of a man-of-war. The lowest deck was to carry -the bread and other store-rooms, the cables and officers’ cabins, besides -a certain number of the crew who were also to be berthed upon it. The -second deck was to be laid five and a half or six feet above this, and -in a ship like the _Lion_ was to be pierced for nine ports a side, and -four chase-ports fore and aft. The ports were to be at least two feet -three inches square, ‘and that there be built between every two ports -hanging cabins to fold up to the decks for the lodging of men.’ Otherwise -this deck was to be kept clear instead of being hampered by the cables -stowed upon it in two-decked ships. Readers desirous of technical details -relating to the position and dimensions of floor, timbers, riders, butts, -carlings, clamps, foot and chain waling, standing and running rigging, -etc., will find much exact information in the State Papers of the next -reign dealing with the surveys taken of most of the new and old ships in -1626 and 1627. - -The Commissioners ordered that the _Elizabeth_ and _Triumph_ should be -sold; £600 is entered in the accounts as received for their hulls in -1618, although as late as 1615, £537 had been spent in repairing them. -The _Mercury_ had been sold in Ireland in 1611, the _Foresight_ condemned -in 1604, the _Quittance_ and _Tremontana_ were to be broken up, and -the hulls of the _Garland_ and _Mary Rose_ were to be used for a wharf -in conjunction with a proposed new dock at Chatham. The _Bonaventure_, -_Charles_, and _Advantage_ had long ceased to exist, and the _St Andrew_ -and _St Matthew_ had been given to Sir John Leigh in 1604 as being then -no longer servicable. The _Victory_ is said to have been rebuilt into -the _Prince Royal_, but the connection is not altogether clear. In one -paper[914] of 1610, there is a distinct, and apparently conclusive -statement, occurring twice over, ‘The _Victory_ now named the _Prince -Royal_.’ On the other hand Cotton, in his report of 1608,[915] writes, in -discussing the waste and embezzlement of material, - - ‘Thus did the _Victory_ for the transportation, dockinge, and - breaking uppe stand the King in fower or five hundred poundes - and yet noe one parte of her serviceable to any use about the - buildinge of a new as was pretended for a coulour. To conclude, - though we set her at the rate of 200ˡⁱ yet it had been better - absolutely for the King to have given her away to the poor than - to have bin put to the charge of bringing her from Chattam to - Wollich noe other use having bin made of her than to furnish - Phinees Pette (that was the only author of her preservation) - with fewell for the dyette of those carpenters which he - victualled.’ - -This also appears conclusive. A possible explanation lies in the fact -that, the _Victory_ having ceased to exist, the _Prince Royal_ may -have been laid down in that name, and afterwards changed to the later -appellation. - -The four galleys were a source of constant expense, one or the other -being in continual need of repair, rebuilding, or shed protection from -the weather. They were never used, and in 1629, having ‘been long laid -aside as useless vessels’ were ordered to be sold. The new _Antelope_ -and _Rainbow_ of 1618 were not claimed by the Commissioners as among -the vessels of which they should have the credit although they were -both completed after their entry into office. The _Happy Entrance_ and -_Constant Reformation_ were launched in the presence of the King at -Deptford, and were named by him with intent to commemorate Buckingham’s -accession to his post and the good effects to be expected from it. In -1624 no new vessels were built and the last Navy list of James I is as -follows:—[916] - - +--------------+-----------------+------------------+---------------+ - | First rank | Second rank | Third rank | Fourth rank | - +--------------+-----------------+------------------+---------------+ - | _Prince_ | _Repulse_ | _Dreadnought_ | _Phœnix_ | - | _Bear_ | _Warspite_ | _Antelope_ | _Seven Stars_ | - | _Merhonour_ | _Victory_ | _Speedwell_ | _Charles_ | - | _Anne Royal_ | _Assurance_ | _Adventure_ | _Desire_ | - | | _Nonsuch_ | _Convertine_ | | - | | _Defiance_ | _Happy Entrance_ | | - | | _Lion_ | _Bonaventure_ | | - | | _Vanguard_ | _Garland_ | | - | | _Rainbow_ | _Mary Rose_ | | - | | _Constant | | | - | | Reformation_ | | | - | | _Swiftsure_ | | | - | | _St George_ | | | - | | _St Andrew_ | | | - | | _Triumph_ | | | - +--------------+-----------------+------------------+---------------+ - -There were also the four galleys and some hoys; eleven of the vessels -were noted as needing more or less substantial repairs and most of the -old ones were broken-backed. The ten new ships cost £6 a ton for the -larger and £5, 6s 8d for the smaller ones, against £16 a ton under -Mansell’s improvident management, but these prices were for the hulls -and spars alone.[917] According to the _Pipe Office Accounts_ the cost -of the _Happy Entrance_ and _Constant Reformation_ was £8850; of the -_Victory_ and _Garland_ £7640, which included masts and spars, carving -and painting; of the _Swiftsure_ and _Bonaventure_ £9969, and here an -additional £1169 was paid for sails, anchors, and fittings; of the _St -George_ and _St Andrew_ £9632, and £1306 more for fittings down to boats -and flags; and £8106 for the _Triumph_ and _Mary Rose_. Taking them from -Deptford to Chatham varied between £73 and £418, doubtless depending on -the number of men employed and the time occupied. Burrell’s contracts for -1619 were at £7, 10s and £8 a ton, and the £5, 6s 8d and £6 quoted above -were only due to the fact that the ten ships measured 1899 tons more than -was expected which reduced the average.[918] He apparently had to bear -the loss; no alteration was made in the way of calculating tonnage during -the reign. - -There is little to be said about any improvements in rigging or canvas -during this period. Fore and aft sails are still absent; studding sails -and booms are spoken of in the _Nomenclator Navalis_,[919] but are not -alluded to in any naval document. It may be of interest to quote from the -same manuscript the rules governing the proportions of masts and yards. - - Mainmast three times four-fifths of the beam. - Foremast four-fifths of mainmast. - Bowsprit do. do. - Mizenmast one-half of mainmast. - Topmasts half the length of lower masts. - Main yard five-sixths of length of keel. - Fore yard four-fifths of mainyard. - Top yard three-sevenths of mainyard. - Cross-jack yard four-fifths of mainyard. - Spritsail yard do. do. - -[Sidenote: Shipwrights.] - -Baker, Pett, and Burrell were the three chief shipwrights of the -reign; Ed. Stevens, John Adye, Wm. Bright, Clay, Hen. Goddard, and -Maryott were less known men. Baker died on 31st August 1613 at the age -of eighty-three. As a boy and man he had seen the rise of the modern -Navy, and had himself largely helped by his skill to produce the type -of ship that was found sufficient for that age. That during the whole -of his long life he appears, so far as existing records show, to have -quarrelled with, or spoken ill of, equals, inferiors, and superiors may -be charitably attributed rather to the unfortunate conditions governing -a shipwright’s position than to any natural bent of character. The -writings or utterances of other shipwrights, that have come down to us, -show them to have been in no way superior to Baker in these respects. The -ships built by him represented sound and honest work. He died in harness -while in charge of the repairs of the _Merhonour_ which had been built -under his superintendence twenty-four years previously, and he was long -remembered as ‘the famous artist of his time.’ - -Pett had been favoured by Nottingham and Mansell but does not appear to -have experienced the same partiality from the Commissioners. They chiefly -employed Burrell, who had previously been master shipwright to the East -India Company, but during the next reign Pett came again into favour, and -was made a principal Officer and Commissioner for the Navy shortly after -Burrell’s death in 1630. The master shipwrights received two shillings -a day and lodging money, but all these men had extra allowances, partly -dating from the last reign. Baker had a pension of £40 a year, besides -his Exchequer fee and payments from the Navy Treasurer. Bright had one -shilling and eightpence a day which had been originally given to Richard -Chapman for building the _Ark Royal_, and had been continued in whole or -part to him. Pett’s Exchequer fee had been retained in the family since -it was first granted in the second year of Mary’s reign.[920] Probably -the orthodox scale of wages would not alone have retained these men in -the royal service and the pensions were used to make their posts more -valuable. - -[Sidenote: Dockyards.] - -Deptford was still the principal yard, but Chatham was rapidly coming -into greater importance; Portsmouth is hardly mentioned. In 1610 the dry -dock at Deptford was enlarged and a paling made round the yard,[921] -and in the same year there is a charge of £34, 19s for tools to make -cordage at Woolwich. By 1612 cordage was being made there at £28 a ton, -and in 1614 the ropehouse was extended at a cost of £368, and 305 tons -of cordage made there in the year.[922] It was, however, still far from -supplying the needs of the Navy since in 1617 cordage to £10,400 was -bought. A Dutchman, Harman Branson, superintended the rope factory, at a -salary of £50 a year. In 1619 the wooden fence at Deptford was replaced -by a brick wall; the only reference to Portsmouth is for the cost, in -1623, of ‘filling up the great dock there, and ramming the mouth of the -said dock with rock stones for the better preserving of the yard against -the violence of the sea.’[923] This was the end of the earliest dry dock -in England. A dock had been frequently urged for Chatham, but it was not -until the Commissioners came into power that the matter was seriously -taken up. They at once devoted their attention to the Medway, for which -one reason may have been the great cost attendant on the removal, -backwards and forwards, of ships between Chatham and Deptford. It has -been mentioned that the hulls of the _Garland_ and _Mary Rose_ were used -to support a dock wharf at Chatham; they were joined there by an old -antagonist, the _Nuestra Señora del Rosario_. A sum of £61, 1s 3d was -paid to - - ‘Thomas Wood, shipwright, and sundry other ... employed in - digging out the old Spanish ship at Chatham, near the galley - dock, clearing her of all the stubb ballast and other trash - within board, making her swim, and removing near unto the - mast dock where she was laid, and sunk for the defence and - preservation of the wharf.’[924] - -The old Spaniard, however, was not even yet at rest. In 1622 occurs the -concise entry, ‘The hull of the ship called Don Pedroe broken up and -taken away.’ The men of the seventeenth century were not emotional and -saw no reason in a useless trophy. They did, in 1624, have a new wharf -‘made at Sir Francis Drake’s ship,’ but there were fees attached to the -preservation of that. - -In 1619 and 1620, two mast docks were made at Chatham, each 120 feet -long, 60 feet broad, and five ‘flowers’ deep, and six acres of ground -were enclosed with them.[925] A further great extension followed in the -shape of a lease from Sir Robert Jackson of 70 or 80 acres of land, -called ‘Lordslands,’ on a term of 100 years at £14 a year. Part of this -was used for a new dock, part for a ropehouse now put up, and part for -brick and lime kilns, etc.[926] The dock cost £2342, and a path, 137 rods -long, was made to it from Chatham church.[927] From a new road having -been necessary it would seem to have been quite apart from any previously -existing buildings. In 1623 another dock was building under the direction -of the shipwrights, and the lease of a house on Chatham Hill, for the use -of the Officers, bought from the Dean and Chapter of Rochester.[928] In -1614 the principal Officers were lodged at Winchester House as there is a -charge of £138, 8s 6d for its repair for their use, and a rent of £70 a -year was paid; stores were also kept there. - -The chain, placed by Hawkyns across the Medway at Upnor, is not again -referred to until 1606, when it was partly repaired and partly renewed. -But some time before 1623 it must have become worn out, as in that year -it was replaced by a boom made of sixteen masts and forty-three cwt. of -iron with cordage proportionate, at a cost of £238, 10s 5d; the hulls -of two ships and two pinnaces were also devoted to the strengthening of -the barricade. At the same time the water-way through St Mary’s creek -was again blocked at a cost of upwards of £400.[929] This boom must have -been very light, and its history was short and unfortunate, for in 1624 -it was broken by ice and carried out to sea. It must have been quickly -replaced since, from an incidental reference it existed in 1625, and in -1635 two small vessels, the _Seven Stars_ and the _Moon_, were moored -at each shore end for its protection. In the latter year it was said -to be causing deposits of gravel and closing the fairway, and opinions -oscillated between a new boom and an iron chain. - -The dockyards shared the disorganisation of the other departments; -notwithstanding the exposures of 1608 ten years later the storehouses -at Deptford were said to be ‘full of rotten wood and bad cordage,’ the -scales were light by one pound in the cwt., and while bad materials -were knowingly received, the good were sold to boatswains and other -ships’ officers at low prices. In 1624 Chatham yard remained uninclosed -so that strangers came and took away timber, nails, or any portable -article. In 1604 the stores at Deptford included 210 masts, 322 loads of -timber, 41,000 feet of plank, 171 cables, 499 hawsers, 15 serviceable -and 28 unserviceable anchors, 24 compasses, 40 bolts of canvas, 24,000 -tree-nails, and many other articles down to ‘a decayed pitch pot,’ and -it is likely that they were larger in number and better in quality at -this date than at any time during the succeeding fifteen or sixteen -years.[930] The value of Deptford yard was estimated at £5000, and it was -at one time proposed to remove the whole plant to Chatham.[931] - -So far as the staff were concerned the ‘ordinary’ of a dockyard -included shipkeepers and inferior officers attached to ships lying -up, Upnor Castle (for Chatham), clerical work, rents, watchmen, -clerks, storekeepers, and the superior officers; the ‘extraordinary,’ -shipwrights, carpenters, joiners, pumpmakers, sawyers, sailmakers, and -bricklayers. In 1622 wages, per day, were: shipwrights 1s 2d to 2s; -caulkers 7d to 2s; carpenters 1s 3d to 1s 10d; pumpmakers 1s 6d to -2s; joiners 1s 4d to 1s 8d; sailmakers 1s 8d; sawyers 1s 2d to 1s 4d; -bricklayers 10d to 1s 6d; and labourers 8d or 9d.[932] All these men, -except the labourers, had lodging money, varying from 5s 4d in the case -of the master shipwrights to so small a sum as twopence, and probably as -an allowance by the week. - -[Sidenote: Ordnance and Ship Armament.] - -The armament of ships was still very heavy for their tonnage and -accounted in some measure for their rolling proclivities and the -impossibility of obtaining a comparatively steady gun platform. Sometimes -it was necessary to dismount some of the guns, - - ‘The _Dreadnought_ carries 36, yet four of them for seven - years have been buried in her ballast, as some are also in the - _Answer_ and other ships.’[933] - -This stowage of the guns strained the vessel dangerously and caused -leaks, and, as gravel ballast was still employed, an injury was a very -serious matter from the difficulty in reaching the damaged part. The -following gives the number of guns carried by some of the ships, and -their weights:—[934] - - +----------------------+-------+------+---------+---------+------+ - | | Cannon| Demi | | Demi | | - | |Periers|Cannon|Culverins|Culverins|Sakers| - +----------------------+-------+------+---------+---------+------+ - | | | | | | | - |_Prince Royal_ | 2 | 6 | 12 | 18 | 13 | - |_White Bear_ | 2 | 6 | 12 | 18 | 9 | - |_Merhonour_ | 2 | 6 | 12 | 12 | 8 | - |_Anne Royal_ | 2 | 5 | 12 | 13 | 8 | - |_Victory_ | 2 | 2 | 16 | 12 | 4 | - |_Swiftsure_ | 2 | 2 | 16 | 12 | 4 | - |_Constant Reformation_| 2 | 2 | 16 | 12 | 4 | - |_St George_ | 2 | 2 | 16 | 12 | 4 | - |_St Andrew_ | 2 | 2 | 16 | 12 | 4 | - |_Triumph_ | 2 | 2 | 16 | 12 | 4 | - |_Defiance_ | 2 | 2 | 14 | 12 | 4 | - |_Repulse_ | 2 | 2 | 14 | 12 | 4 | - +----------------------+-------+------+---------+---------+------+ - - +----------------------+-------+----------+-------+--------------------+ - | | | | | | - | |Fawcons|Portpieces|Fowlers| Weight | - +----------------------+-------+----------+-------+--------------------+ - | | | | |Tons cwts. qrs. lbs.| - |_Prince Royal_ | | 4 | | 83 8 0 21 | - |_White Bear_ | | 4 | | 77 9 3 23 | - |_Merhonour_ | | 4 | | 66 16 1 0 | - |_Anne Royal_ | | 4 | | 64 15 2 4 | - |_Victory_ | 2 | | 4 | 42 0 0 25 | - |_Swiftsure_ | 2 | | 4 | 46 8 0 19 | - |_Constant Reformation_| 2 | 4 | | 53 2 0 23 | - |_St George_ | 2 | 2 | 2 | 47 15 2 24 | - |_St Andrew_ | 2 | | 4 | 52 2 3 20 | - |_Triumph_ | 2 | | 4 | 50 10 1 21 | - |_Defiance_ | 2 | 4 | | 55 17 0 25 | - |_Repulse_ | 2 | | 4 | 52 7 0 1 | - +----------------------+-------+----------+-------+--------------------+ - -Comparison of the rebuilt ships with the armament they carried under -Elizabeth is vitiated by the fact that we do not know whether they were -again of the same size. If, as is possible, they were bigger there seems -to have been a tendency to reduce the weight of ordnance—there is also an -inclination towards greater uniformity. - -The price of ordnance was from £12 to £15 a ton, and the manufacture was -still retained in a few hands, its exportation without licence being -strictly forbidden. In 1619 orders were issued that casting was to be -confined to Sussex and Kent, that guns were to be landed at or shipped -from the Tower wharf only, and that East Smithfield was to be the one -market place for their sale or purchase. These were practically the -Elizabethan regulations, now perhaps fallen into neglect, renewed. Guns -could be proved only in Ratcliff fields, and all pieces were to have on -them at least two letters of the founder’s name, with the year and the -weight of the gun. The founders had still to give bond for £1000 as a -surety against illegal exportation, and once a year to send in a report -of the number and description of the guns cast and to whom they had been -sold.[935] These precautions were not unneeded, but did not prevent the -secret sale to foreign buyers any more than similar restrictions had -availed during the reign of Elizabeth. The royal forts themselves were -turned into marts for these and other unlawful transactions. Upnor Castle -is described as ‘a staple of stolen goods, a den of thieves, a vent -for the transport of ordnance.’ The person holding the post of ‘King’s -Gun-founder,’ and therefore licensed purveyor of government ordnance, was -accused of transgressing largely.[936] The method was to require payment -beforehand, the purchaser taking the risk of seizure; the guns were then -shipped under cover of a warrant authorising them to be sent to London, -but once at sea they went to the Continent instead of the river. - -[Sidenote: Salutes and Flags.] - -A few stone shot were still carried and the price of iron shot varied -between £10 and £13 a ton,[937] and its expenditure in saluting was -liberal. It was only about this time that gunners were directed to -fire blank charges in these marks of respect, an order that was long -disregarded. Attempts were made to check the too lavish use of munition -for salutes, the amount of which depended mainly on the goodwill of the -officers and the stores of the ship. Gunners were ordered not to shoot -without the captain’s permission, and they were forbidden to fire at -‘drinkings and feastings.’ They were further directed to ‘salute no -passengers with more than one piece, or three at the most, except the -person be of quality and the occasion very great, and that for volleys -of honour no bullets be spent,’ and the captain was not to fail to lock -up the powder room if he went ashore. These regulations were not very -effective. In 1628 the fleet lying at Plymouth ‘shot away £100 of powder -in one day in drinking healths.’[938] Another writer says that salutes -should be ‘always of an odd number but of no particular number.’ An even -number signified the death of the captain, master, or master gunner at -sea during the voyage. Of a kindred nature to the love of display by -noise was that of display by flags. The _Prince Royal_ was supplied with -eight flags, five ancients, and fifty-seven pennants; these however were -of some use in the primitive attempts at signalling, which, however, -do not appear to have advanced in complexity beyond the point reached -a century before. Night signalling had progressed to a greater extent. -Two lights from the flagship, answered by one from the others, was the -order to shorten sail; three lights astern, placed vertically, to make -sail; a ‘waving’ light on the poop, to lie to; and a ship in distress was -expected to hang out ‘many’ lights in the shrouds.[939] An order of 13th -April 1606 authorised all ships to wear a flag containing the St George’s -and St Andrew’s crosses in the main top; at the fore top the flags of -their respective countries were worn. - -[Sidenote: Men-of-war Crews and Discipline.] - -One great alteration was made in this reign in the manning of men-of-war. -It had always been customary to place soldiers, in the proportion of -one-third of the total complement, on board vessels equipped for service. -This practice no longer obtained; in 1619 the Commissioners wrote:— - - ‘Indeed till the year ‘88 soldiers and mariners were then - usually divided but that and later experience hath taught us - instead of freshwater soldiers (as they call them) to employ - only seamen.’[940] - -This marks the completion of the change from the days when the sailors -were not called upon to be more than spectators of the actual fighting. -The crew as a whole was not reduced, ships being heavily armed and the -spars of a man-of-war being equal to those of a merchantman of much -greater tonnage. - -We have now the ‘station list’ of the _Speedwell_ of thirty guns which -gives the following division of duties in action: eighteen gunners and -forty-eight men for the battery, fifty small arms men, fifty to work -the ship and man the tops, four in the powder room, four carpenters -below, three trumpeters, three surgeons and mate, four stewards, three -cooks, and three boys. Complaint, however, was more than once made that -nearly one-third of a crew were officers or non-combatants. It will be -noticed from this list that the vessel was only prepared to man one -broadside at the time—in this resembling much later practice—and that -the arrangements implied plenty of sea room and a stand-off fight. At -this time English seamen shrank from boarding; memories of the enormous -Spanish galleons with their overpoweringly strong crews, and the tactics -that had defeated them, were too fresh in the mind of the English sailor -to permit him to have that confidence in his ship and himself that he -subsequently obtained. It has already been noticed that when this ship, -the _Speedwell_, was lost there was an utter absence of subordination -among the crew, but this lack of discipline appears to have been more or -less present at all times. In 1625, when we were at war with Spain, the -_Happy Entrance_, _Garland_, and _Nonsuch_ were left lying in the Downs, -with no officers and only a few men on board, because it was Christmas -time and everyone was on shore merrymaking.[941] At an earlier date Coke -said that ships rode in the Downs or put into port while the captains -went to London, or hardly ever came on board, and the men ran away.[942] - -[Sidenote: The Results of the Reign.] - -Fortunately the services of the Royal Navy were never needed in earnest -during the reign of James. How it would have broken down under the -direction of Mansell may be inferred from the steady decrease in the -number of seaworthy ships, and the increasing disorganisation of -every department, during each year of his retention of office. The -administration of the Commissioners was both competent and honest, but -the grievous results of Mansell’s treasurership were too plainly shown -during the earlier years of the next reign, when fleets were once more -sent to sea. Ships might be replaced and open peculation checked, but -the deeper wounds of spirit and discipline caused by fourteen years of -license among the higher officials, and fourteen years of heartless -chicanery suffered by those more lowly placed were not so readily healed, -and bore their fruits for long afterwards in the habitual dishonesty of -officials and workmen, in the disloyalty and half-heartedness of the -seamen, and later, in the shameless knaveries that disgraced the Navy -office at the close of the century, many of which had their origin under -Mansell’s rule. The Commissioners were hampered in their efforts by want -of money, an embarrassment from which Mansell suffered little. - -Nor can the King be absolved from the responsibility of permitting -Mansell’s misdeeds. He knew at least as early as 1608 of the iniquities -daily occurring in every branch of the service, but he contented himself -with making ‘an oration.’ He was ready enough to act as an amateur -arbiter on technical details, to superintend launches, to visit the -ships, and to give them euphuistic names, but that portion of his kingly -office which involved protecting the helpless and punishing the guilty -was sufficiently satisfied by ‘an oration.’ And had not Buckingham -desired to be Lord Admiral, we have no reason to suppose that James I -would have seen any cause for interference merely on behalf of seamen who -were starved and robbed, or of the English people whose chief defence was -being destroyed, and whose money went to enrich a ring of thieves. So far -had the traditions of Plantagenet and Tudor kingliness degenerated into -Stewart ‘kingcraft.’ - - - - -CHARLES I - -1625-1649 - -PART I—THE SEAMEN - - -The life of Charles, Lord Howard of Effingham and Earl of Nottingham, -commander of the English fleet in 1588, and for thirty-three years Lord -Admiral of England, may be regarded as the link between the mediæval -and the modern navy. Born in 1536, and dying in 1624, his era connects -the cogs and crayers, carracks and balingers of the Plantagenets, then -hardly out of use, with the established Royal Navy of James I, a fleet -divided into rates; controlled on present principles, and differing but -little in essentials from that existing up to the introduction of armour -and machine guns. His period of authority included the struggle which -shaped isolated maritime essays into an organised navy, and fashioned a -school of seamanship of which the traditions have never since been lost. -Although we cannot point to any important measure known to be directly -due to his initiative, his influence, during at any rate the earlier -half of his time of office, must, judging by results, have been always -exercised towards the selection of capable men for command, towards the -adoption of any promising invention or improvement, and towards the -encouragement and welfare of the seamen on whom the stress of work and -danger must fall, and for whom he always showed a humane sympathy. At -the time of trial he proved himself equal to his responsibilities; and -that he was so well served by his subordinates of all grades implies a -confidence and respect on their part not given merely to a peer and an -officer of the crown, but to one in whose skill, care, and kindliness, -experience had already taught men of all ranks to confide. Then, as now, -only an able leader had good officers and willing men. He clung too -long to office, and his old age was sullied by an eagerness for money -amounting almost to avarice, and by the unwavering support given to one -as unworthy of it as Mansell; no allegation, however, was ever made -against his own honesty, either of act or purpose, and for the rest his -years are his best excuse. He has a right to be judged by his season of -vigorous manhood, when acting with the other sea heroes of the age of -Elizabeth, among whom he holds an honourable place. - -[Sidenote: The new Political Conditions.] - -The reign of James I may be looked upon as a maritime truce, during which -old antagonisms remained latent while new ones were springing into life. -The contest with Spain was practically terminated, that power having been -vanquished not so much by English superiority of seamanship as by the -national decay due to causes patent to all students of history. But now -other and more dangerous rivals were to be faced in France and the United -Provinces, both wealthier than England, the former temporarily strong -in a centralised monarchy of which the resources were to be wielded by -Richelieu, and in an army reorganised and a navy created by him, the -latter spiritually strong from the same sources as had stirred English -thought, with traditions of mercantile supremacy reaching back to the -dawn of European commerce, and proud of a successful contest with the -greatest of European states. Moreover the fresh strife was to be waged -under less favourable conditions than heretofore. Against Spain England -occupied a position of strategical advantage; her fleets concentrated -at any western port could strike at either the mother country or at the -straggling, disconnected colonies of the new world. Against France and -the Low Countries she was between hammer and anvil, her own harbours -continually threatened, her commerce exposed to constant attack, and her -fleets quite insufficient in strength for their new duties. Nor had the -interval of peace been utilised in view of the approaching conflict, -although it cannot be said that warnings were wanting. The royal ships -were fewer in number and of little greater strength than at the death -of Elizabeth; few improvements had been effected in their construction, -while seamanship had greatly deteriorated, owing to the decay of the -fishing industry, the lack of enterprise and long voyages, and the bad -treatment of the men. England was still greatly dependent on Russia for -cordage and other naval necessaries, an administrative weakness of which -Spain had endeavoured to take advantage in 1597 by negotiating with the -rulers of Russia and Poland for a cessation of such exports to England -and Holland,[943] but a weakness which might have formidable results -with enemies planted on the line of communication. The Dutch had taken -the lesson to heart, for, since that year, they had made their own -cordage.[944] - -[Sidenote: England, France, and Holland.] - -An examination of the comparative wealth and state revenues of the -three countries would show the relative position of England to be still -less favourable. Although the commerce of this country had increased -during the reign of James, the royal revenue, except that drawn from the -customs, had remained nearly stationary, while the administration was -more extravagant than that of Elizabeth, and the salaries of officials -and the prices of materials and labour were higher, owing to the influx -of the precious metals. The wars of France and the Netherlands had -indirectly given room for expansion to English commercial and speculative -activity; but, in the one case, the reign of Henry IV, and, in the other, -the truce with Spain had enabled both countries to meet their rival -on more equal terms. The same causes operated throughout the reign of -Charles, for it may be held that the place of England as a naval power in -1642 was even relatively lower than in 1625; and this without reference -to the question of good or bad government, for any attempt to maintain a -maritime supremacy comparative to the last years of the sixteenth century -would have entailed national bankruptcy. That strength was a temporary -and, in a sense, artificial condition, attributable not to the actual -power or resources of the country, but to the momentary cessation of the -compression of mercantile rivalry and competition, to the stimulus due -to the increase of circulating coin, and in a lesser degree, to the wave -of moral exaltation then moving the Teutonic races.[945] Indeed, it may -be said in favour of the ship-money writs that but for the fleets they -enabled Charles to send to sea, and so present a semblance of power, the -strife with France and Holland might have been precipitated by nearly -half a century. That they had some such intimidating influence was shown -by the care taken by the French fleets, also cruising, to avoid meeting -them, and the efforts of the French court to evade the question of the -dominion of the narrow seas. - -It was fortunate for England that the troubles of the Fronde coincided -with the first Dutch war, for had the strength of France been then -thrown into the balance against fleets and dockyards still organised on -a Tudor scale, which had undergone little expansion during two reigns, -the maritime glory of this country might have had an early end. Even -if Charles had not quarrelled with his parliaments, no grants of theirs -could have kept pace with the rapid growth of French prosperity; in -1609, after paying off an enormous amount of crown debts, the yearly -revenue was 20,000,000 livres,[946] and in 1645 it was £3,560,000.[947] -The ordinary revenue of the English crown in 1610 was £461,000, in 1623 -£539,000, in 1635 £618,000,[948] and for the five years from 1637 to 1641 -it averaged £895,000 a year, exclusive of ship money.[949] It has been -difficult to obtain any statistics for the United Provinces, but, as the -trade and commercial marine on which they relied were greater than those -of England, it is obvious that a contest with France alone would have -overwhelmingly strained our resources during the reign of Charles I, and -that an alliance of the two states would, in all probability, have been -most disastrous to us. M. Lefèvre Pontalis indeed, in the first chapter -of his ‘Vie de Jean de Witt,’ states exactly that the Dutch merchant -marine comprised 10,000 sail and 168,000 men; but, as he gives no -authority and may be referring to any one of the first seventy-five years -of the seventeenth century, the information in that form is valueless for -purposes of comparison.[950] - -[Sidenote: The Cadiz Fleet of 1625] - -The accession of Charles led to a more active prosecution of the war with -Spain, signalised by the Cadiz expedition of 1625, and the administrative -incidents of this voyage enable us to measure the decadence of seamanship -and the utter collapse of the official executive during the twenty years -of peace. Efforts had been made to get the fleet away during the summer, -but owing to want of money, stores, and men, it did not sail till 8th -October, too late in the season to do effective service. Disease raged -among the soldiers and sailors assembled at Plymouth, and not a boat -went ashore but some of its men deserted. Of 2000 recruits sent first to -Holland and then to Plymouth only 1500 arrived at the sea-port, of whom -500 were ill;[951] and the few professional sea captains there, who saw -the unpromising material in men and supplies being collected, continually -warned the Council and Buckingham of the results to be expected from -the quality of the men and provisions and the want of clothing.[952] -When the expedition finally sailed, its equipment appears to have been -rather that of a defeated and disheartened fleet returning home after -long service than of a long planned and prepared enterprise. The ships -were leaky and their gear defective; the _St George_ was fitted with -sails which were used by the _Triumph_ in 1588, while her shrouds were -‘the old _Garland’s_ and all starke rattan.’ The _Lion_ was in such bad -condition that she had to be left behind. The cordage supplied was rotten -but ‘fairly tard ovar.’ An officer writes: ‘There was great wrong done -... by pretending the ships were fit to go to sea.’[953] Even before they -left port the casks were so faulty that beer came up in the ships’ pumps, -so that by November they were reduced to beverage of cider ‘that stinks -worse than carrion, and have no other drink.’ A few days after leaving -Plymouth it was already thought necessary to put five men on four men’s -allowance, and by December they were on half rations which ‘stinks so as -no dog of Paris Garden would eat it.’ Men ill fed and ill clothed, sent -across the Bay in early winter, easily broke down, and when they arrived -off Cadiz, after a twenty-one days’ voyage, and before even seeing the -enemy, one-fourth of the men on six of the men-of-war were on the sick -list.[954] The _Convertine_ had only fifteen men in a watch. In November -‘the sickness is so great that there are not seamen enough to keep the -watches,’[955] and a month later there were not ten men fit for duty on -board the _St George_.[956] - -Sir Edward Cecil, Viscount Wimbledon, the commander-in-chief, was a -soldier of only average capacity accustomed to the methodical Dutch -military discipline, and he was aghast at the ways of his officers, who, -besides being ignorant of their work, shared with their men what plunder -there was. Many of the captains were landsmen who depended on their -subordinates to handle their vessels, and these men, unaccustomed to -large ships and to sailing in comparatively close order, were constantly -in difficulties. If the subordinates were good seamen, they were mostly -contemptuous of their commanders. Sir Thos. Love, captain of the _Anne -Royal_, issued orders to the whole fleet without Cecil’s knowledge; -the master of the _Reformation_ flatly refused to obey his captain’s -commands. It does not seem to have occurred to Cecil or his advisers that -any sailing orders were necessary during the voyage out, and the result -of independent management was that collisions were frequently occurring; -beakheads, galleries, and bowsprits were carried away, and ‘the confusion -was such that some had their starboard when other had their larboard -tacks on board.’[957] Sometimes the ships chased each other, under the -impression that they were enemies, although the differences between the -English and Spanish schools of shipbuilding were almost as great as -those to be observed in a cruiser of the middle of this century and a -merchantman of the same time. Two transports with 300 soldiers on board, -perhaps thinking that they had better prospects of success by themselves -than with Cecil, deserted and turned pirates.[958] - -The flagship was the _Anne Royal_, Nottingham’s _Ark Royal_ of 1588, of -which he lovingly said that she was ‘the odd ship of the world for all -conditions.’ She was handy enough for the Elizabethan seamen who built -her and knew how to work a ship at sea, but she did not win favour in -the eyes of Cecil and his officers, who complained that they could not -make her lie to and that she rolled too much for their dainty stomachs. -Nottingham’s opinion of them might have been even more scathing than -theirs of the _Anne Royal_. More justly Cecil expressed his astonishment -at the amount of theft which prevailed. He could not prevent his captains -pillaging the cargoes of prizes, ‘a thing of such custom at sea that -I cannot see how it will be remedied.’ The men he considers the worst -ever seen; ‘they are so out of order and command and so stupefied that -punish them or beat them they will scarce stir.’[959] Sick and starving -it was not their fault if they were dull and inefficient, but neither -Cecil nor those next him in rank were the men to rouse English sailors -to those efforts which, when well led, they can be moved to make under -circumstances of surpassing distress. - -Perhaps this Cadiz expedition indicates the low water mark of English -seamanship. There have been many previous and subsequent occasions -when fleets were sent to sea equally ill found and ill provided, but -never, before or since, have we such accounts of utter incapacity in -the mere everyday work of a sailor’s duties. The shameful picture -of that confused mass of ships crowded together helplessly, without -order or plan, colliding with each other, chasing or deserting at -their own will, the officers losing spars and sails from ignorance of -the elementary principles of their art, is the indictment against the -government of James I which had allowed the seamanship of Elizabeth -to die out in this generation. It was the first time that the new -system of the commissionership had been tried by conditions of active -service, and on the side of stores and provisions, for which they were -mainly responsible, the breakdown was as complete as on the side of -navigation. Assuming their honesty, which was probable, but of which -some of their contemporaries hint doubts, they were mostly merchants or -court officials, unacquainted with naval matters, and evidently unable -to adapt the routine peace control to which they were accustomed to the -wider requirements of war time. As even the normal method of inspection -was almost nominal, depending mainly on subordinate officials of little -character, capacity, or responsibility, such stores as were now bought, -under the pressure of immediate necessity, usually proved expensive -and bad. Among the higher officials the impression given by the State -Papers, now and afterwards, is that their chief desire was to get money -sent to them on some pretext—purchase of clothes or arms, payment of -wages, etc.—and that they could then trust to their own ingenuity to -account for its expenditure, possibly for the benefit of the service, -certainly for their own. Not even a nominal system of inspection existed -in the victualling department. The two contractors, Apsley and Darrell, -appear, when the Commissioners had once given their orders, to have sent -what provisions they pleased on board the ships, quite independently of -any supervision or of any way of calling them to account, for supplies -infinitely more deadly to our men than the steel and lead of the -enemy.[960] - -[Sidenote: The Disorganisation:—The Return of the Fleet.] - -Naval historians have usually considered the condition of the seaman, -a mere pawn in the game, as of little account compared with graphic -descriptions of sea fights and the tactics of opposing fleets. He had, -however, not only existence but memories, and an examination of his -treatment under the government of Charles I, will systematise scattered -references, and may go far to explain why the Royal Navy ‘went solid’ for -the Parliament in 1642. We have seen that there was little demand for -his services during the reign of James I, though the few men employed -had reason to be mutinous and discontented under their scanty fare and -uncertain wages. With Charles on the throne the seagoing population was -called away from the fisheries and trading voyages to man the royal -fleets, although the attitude of Parliament caused smaller resources -to be available to support their cost. The sailor, being a despised -and inarticulate quantity, soon felt the result. When the ships of the -Cadiz fleet straggled ignominiously home in midwinter, some to Kinsale, -some to Milford, Falmouth, Plymouth, and other western ports, a cry -for help went up from the captains and officials concerned. The _Anne -Royal_ with 130 dead and 160 sick, had scarcely fifteen men in a watch; -a vessel at Milford had not sufficient to man her long boat, and the -dried fish remaining was ‘so corrupt and bad that the very savour thereof -is contagious.’[961] Pennington, who was usually more intelligible than -grammatical, wrote from Plymouth that ‘the greatest part of the seamen -being sick or dead, so that few of them have sufficient sound men to -bring their ships about,’[962] and ‘a miserable infection among them, -and they die very fast.’ St Leger told Conway that it would not be -possible to move the men till they had recovered some strength, ‘they -stink as they go, and the poor rags they have are rotten, and ready to -fall off,’ and that many of the officers were in nearly as bad case as -their men.[963] But the government had expended all its available means -in the preparation, such as it was, of the expedition, and could neither -pay the men off nor provide them with clothes, victuals, or medical aid. -Moreover, the attention of Buckingham was fixed rather on the equipment -of another fleet than on the plight of the men, a condition which he -doubtless regarded as one they should accept naturally, and a detail -unworthy of _la haute politique_ in which he and his master intrepidly -considered themselves such proficients. Pennington had orders to collect -forty sail at Plymouth, but as yet had only four ships.[964] There were -no stores, no surgeons, and no drugs, he reported; and everything on -board the returned vessels would have to be replaced, even the hammocks -being ‘infected and loathsome;’ the mayor of the town would not permit -the sick men to be put ashore, so that contagion spread among the few -healthy remaining. He hints that there is little hope of getting fresh -men to go when they had their probable fate before their eyes. All the -remedy the Council seemed to find was to order the Commissioners to -prepare estimates for fleets of various strengths, while the _Anne Royal_ -and four other ships were lying in the Downs with ‘their companies almost -grown desperate,’ the men dying daily and the survivors mutinous. In -March, Pennington, who was an honest, straightforward man and a good -seaman, and who wrote to Buckingham in an independent and even reproving -way, which reflects some credit on both of them in that servile age, says -that he has twenty-nine ships, but neither victuals, clothes, nor men; -that those sent down run away as fast as they are pressed. ‘I wish you -were a spectator a little, to hear their cries and exclamations; here die -eight or ten daily,’ and, if something is not done ‘you will break my -heart.’[965] Under James the men considered that the galleys were better -than the royal service; thus early in the reign of his son they had come -to the conclusion that hanging was preferable.[966] - -But Buckingham was quite superior to all such particulars. Complaints -had been made to him that merchantmen were chased into the Downs by -Dunkirkers, while the men-of-war lying there did not even weigh anchor. -He sharply censured Palmer, who was in command, but Palmer’s reply was -a variation of the old legal defence; they had not been chased, and if -they had been he was without victuals or necessaries enabling him to -move.[967] As the captain of one of his ships wrote to Nicholas that -he had no sails, and that he could not obtain their delivery without -cash payment, the second portion of his statement was probably true. -The greatest stress, however, fell upon Pennington at Plymouth. It need -hardly be said that there was not yet a dockyard there; but there was not -even a government storehouse, the lack of which mattered less as there -were no stores, such provisions as were procured being urgently needed -for the daily requirements of the crews. In April Pennington heard that -there was £2000 coming down, but he was already indebted £2500 for which -he had pledged his own credit, and his estate ran risk of foreclosure -unless the mortgage was cleared.[968] He adds: ‘I pray you to consider -what these poor souls have endured for the space of these thirteen or -fourteen months by sickness, badness of victuals, and nakedness.’ - -Official routine worked, in some respects, smoothly enough. If some of -the officers and men—like those of the _St Peter_, a prize in the royal -service—petitioned Buckingham direct, begging for their discharge, -saying that they could get neither pay nor food, and would have perished -from want if they had not been supplied by their friends, they were -referred to the Commissioners, who suavely remarked: ‘there are many -other ships in the same predicament.’[969] If others applied direct to -the Commissioners, they were told to go to those who hired them, as the -Navy Board would ‘neither meddle nor make’ with them, ‘which answer of -theirs I find strange,’ says Pennington.[970] One day the crew of the -_Swiftsure_ mutinied and went ashore, intending to desert in a body. He -went after them and persuaded them to return, but ‘their cases are so -lamentable that they are not much to be blamed for when men have endured -misery at sea and cannot be relieved at home in their own country, what -a misery of miseries is it!‘[971] Not all the officers of rank were -as kindly as Pennington; Sir John Watts could only see in the clamour -of ragged and starving men ‘insolent misdemeanours.’ At Harwich the -mutineers vowed that they would no longer shiver on board, but would lie -in the best beds in the town, all the elysium the poor fellows aspired -to. It almost seemed as though the naval service was disintegrating -and that such organisation as it had attained, was to be broken up, -since the shipwrights and labourers at the dockyards were also unpaid, -although they did not find it so difficult to obtain credit. Pennington -was now almost despairing, and said that having kept the men together -by promises as long as he could, only immediate payment would prevent -them deserting _en masse_, and ‘it would grieve any man’s heart to hear -their lamentations, to see their wants and nakedness, and not to be able -to help them.’[972] There is a curious resemblance between these words -and those used nearly forty years before by Nottingham in describing -the condition of the men who had saved England from the Armada, and -who were likewise left to starve and die, their work being done. But -any comparison is, within certain limits, in favour of Charles and -Buckingham. Elizabeth had money, but all through her life held that men -were cheaper than gold. In 1626 the sailors were the first victims of -the quarrel between King and Parliament, a struggle in which, and in its -legacy of foreign wars, they bore a heavy share of the burden, and from -which even to-day they have reaped less benefit than any other class of -the community. - -The original estimate for the Cadiz fleet was under £300,000, but in -1631 it was calculated that altogether, for the land and sea forces, -it had amounted to half a million,[973] and as the government found it -impossible to procure this or any serviceable sum they resorted to the -expedient of nominally raising wages all round.[974] The seaman’s monthly -pay, ten shillings during the reign of James, had been temporarily raised -to fourteen for the attack on Cadiz; in future it was to be permanently -fifteen shillings, subject to a deduction of sixpence for the Chatham -chest, fourpence for a preacher, and twopence for a surgeon, and as the -scale remained in force till the civil war, and was eventually paid with -comparative punctuality, the full list for all ranks, per month may be -appended here:[975] - - _£_ _s_ _d_ _£_ _s_ _d_ - - Captain[976] 4 14 4 to 14 0 0 - Lieutenant[977] 3 0 0 ” 3 10 0 - Master 2 6 8 ” 3 13 9 - Pilot 1 10 0 ” 2 5 0 - Master’s mate 1 10 0 ” 2 5 0 - Boatswain 1 3 4 ” 2 5 0 - Boatswain’s mate 1 0 8 ” 1 6 3 - Purser 1 3 4 ” 2 0 0 - Surgeon 1 10 0 - Surgeon’s mate 1 0 0 - Quartermaster 1 0 0 ” 1 10 0 - Quartermaster’s - mate 0 17 6 ” 1 5 0 - Yeomen of {jeers } 1 1 0 ” 1 5 0 - {sheets } - {tacks } - {halliards } - Carpenter 1 1 0 ” 1 17 6 - Carpenter’s mate 0 18 8 ” 1 5 0 - Corporal[978] 0 18 8 ” 1 10 4 - Gunner 1 3 4 ” 2 0 0 - Gunner’s mate 0 18 8 ” 1 2 6 - Cook 1 0 0 ” 1 5 0 - Master Trumpeter 1 5 0 ” 1 8 0 - Other trumpeters 1 3 4 - Drummer 1 0 0 - Fifer 1 0 0 - Armourer 1 1 0 - Gunmaker 1 1 0 - Seaman 0 15 0 - Gromet 0 11 3 - Boy 0 7 6 - -The purpose in appointing lieutenants was - - ‘to breed young gentlemen for the sea service.... The reason - why there are not now so many able sea-captains as there is - use of is because there hath not been formerly allowance for - lieutenants, whereby gentlemen of worth and quality might be - encouraged to go to sea. And if peace had held a little longer - the old sea captains would have been worn out, as that the - state must have relied wholly on mechanick men that have been - bred up from swabbers, and ... to make many of them would cause - sea service in time to be despised by gentlemen of worth, who - will refuse to serve at sea under such captains.’[979] - -According to this view the original naval lieutenant was equivalent to -the modern midshipman, in which case his pay seems very high, unless -it is to be explained by the tendency to favour social position. The -midshipman, introduced somewhat later, was at first only an able -seaman with special duties. The foregoing extract is in itself a -vivid illustration of the reasons for the loathing, yearly growing -in intensity, the seamen, or ‘mechanick men,’ had for their courtier -captains. - -[Sidenote: The Disorganisation:—Poverty of the Crown.] - -As at the time the crown was making these liberal promises it had not -sufficient money to fit out two ships required for special service on -the Barbary coast, and as vessels were being kept in nominal employment -because even a few hundred pounds could not be raised wherewith to pay -off their crews, it is not surprising that the men showed no renewed -eagerness to die lingeringly for their country, and that the proclamation -of April needed a corollary in the shape of another threatening deserters -with the penalty of death. This was issued on 18th June, and a week -later the crew of the _Lion_ at Portsmouth, 400 or 500 strong, left the -ship with the intention of marching up to London. The officers read the -last proclamation to them and promised to write about their grievances; -but the men, quite unappalled, replied that ‘their wives and children -were starving and they perishing on board.’[980] Wives and children were -neglected factors in the dynastic combinations of Charles and Buckingham, -and husbands and fathers might consider themselves amply rewarded if -their efforts enabled the King to restore the Palatinate to his nephew. -The Commissioners complained despondingly that they were unable to -progress with the new fleet while the back wages were unpaid, and ‘the -continual clamour ... doth much distract and discourage us.’[981] The -_Swiftsure_ at Portsmouth had only 150 instead of 250 men, of whom 50 -were raw boys, and all the other ships there were but half manned. -Palmer, commanding in the Downs, had never suffered such extremity even -in war time, he said, and his men flatly refused to work unless they were -fed, a really justifiable form of strike. At this date there were six -men-of-war and ten armed merchantmen at Portsmouth, but, says Gyffard, -the men ‘run away as fast as they are sent ... all things so out of order -as that I cannot see almost any possibility for the whole fleet to go to -sea in a long time.’[982] The intensity of Captain Gyffard’s feelings -somewhat obscured his clearness of expression. - -The lessons of the previous year appear to have taught nothing; the -victuallers were still sending in provisions of the old bad quality, -and the beef sent to Portsmouth weighed only 2 lbs. the piece, instead -of the 4 lbs. for which the crown was charged. The Chatham shipwrights -threatened to cease work unless they were paid, and Pennington, now -at Portsmouth, wrote that after all the preparations, extending over -some months, there were no hammocks and not even cans or platters to -eat and drink from. All these requests and complaints poured in nearly -daily on Buckingham who should have been an organising genius to deal -with the complex disorder, instead of merely a man of some talent and -much optimism, also troubled by a refractory Parliament, perverse -continental powers scornful of his ingenuous diplomacy, and the varied -responsibilities of all the other departments of the government. In -September the Commissioners pointed out to him that a debt of £4000 a -month was being incurred for want of £14,000 to pay off the men, who were -now reduced to stealing their daily food; those in the river were so -disorderly that the Board could not meet without danger, as the sailors -threatened to break the doors down on them, and the shipwrights from -Chatham had besieged them for twenty days.[983] - -By this time, however, as the result of requiring the coast towns to -provide ships, forced loans, and other measures, Willoughby was at sea -with a fleet, but one which was a third weaker in strength than had been -intended. Before reaching Falmouth he found twenty tuns of ‘stinking -beer’ on his own ship, and the rest of the squadron was as ill off. The -men were ‘poor and mean’ physically, and deficient in number, the stores -generally bad and insufficient, there being only enough provisions to -go to the Straits of Gibraltar and back again, and the excursion being -useless, because too late in the year, when all the enemies’ fleets had -returned home.[984] The complaint of want of men was met by an order that -he should take on board 500 soldiers to help in working the ships; in two -vessels intended for him two-thirds of the men had run away, being too -glad to escape at the cost of forfeiting five months’ wages due to them, -and the Commissioners proposed to fill their places ‘by forcing men to -work with threatenings, having no money to pay them.’[985] The artless -belief of their kind in the efficacy of threats once more placed them in -a foolish position. The crew of the _Happy Entrance_ refused to sail, -saying that they would rather be hanged ashore than starve at sea,[986] -but even the relentless egotism of Charles was not equal to hanging them. - -It may be said for the Commissioners that their situation was not -a happy one, seeing that they were continually ordered to perform -impossibilities. When they were told to provide fresh ships and men, they -retorted that they were already keeping twelve vessels in pay for want of -money to discharge the crews, the wages bill alone running at the rate -of £1782 a month.[987] Other men sent away with tickets, which could not -be paid when presented, congregated round their house whenever they met -for business, shouting and threatening and causing them actual personal -fear. There was £20,000 owing to the victuallers, and they, in December, -refused any further supplies until they had some money, the result -being that, at Portsmouth, ‘the common seamen grew insolent for want of -victuals,’ wrote Sir John Watts, who, in his own person, only suffered -from the insolence of a well-lined belly. Sir Allen Apsley, the chief -victualling contractor, justified himself to the council and pointed out -the serious consequences to be feared:[988] - - ‘By the late mutinous carriage of those few sailors of but - one of H.M. ships the _Reformation_, the humours of the rest - of the fleet may be conjectured.... What disorder, then, may - be feared if twenty times that number, having no promise of - speedy payment, no victuals, fresh or salt, nor ground for - the officers to persuade or control—for alas! say they, when - men have no money nor clothes to wear (much less to pawn), nor - victuals to eat, what would you have them do? Starve? This is - likely to be the condition of the ships now in the Downs and - those at Portsmouth, having not two days’ victuals if equally - divided ... not having any victuals at all but from hand to - mouth upon the credit of my deputies who are able to trust no - longer, so as this great disorder may be seen bearing very near - even to the point of extremity.’ - -About 2200 men were in this plight, and matters must indeed have been bad -when it was no longer to the Victualler’s profit to supply the carrion -beef and fetid beer useless for any other purpose than to feed seamen. -Punishment and promises were becoming equally useless. An officer at -Portsmouth had to confess that punishing his men only made them more -rebellious, and they revenged themselves by cutting his ship’s cable, in -hopes that she might drift ashore; like Apsley, he remarked that they -were only victualled from hand to mouth, but adds, ‘with refuse and old -stuff.’[989] Charles was going to recover the Palatinate by means of -his fleet, but Pennington’s opinion of the armed merchantmen which made -up the bulk of the royal force was not high. He considered that two -men-of-war could beat the fifteen he had with him, as their ordnance was -mostly useless and they had not ammunition for more than a two hours’ -fight.[990] Nor, from incidental references, can the discipline on these -auxiliary ships have been such as to promise success. In 1625 they had -to be forced under fire at Cadiz by threats; in 1628, at Rochelle, they -fired vigorously, but well out of any useful or hazardous range. In this -year the captain of one of them killed, injured, and maltreated his men, -while he and five gentlemen volunteers consumed sixteen men’s allowance -of food every day; and in January 1627, when some of them lying in Stokes -Bay were ordered westward, they mutinied and would only sail for the -Downs. - -[Sidenote: The Disorganisation:—The Remedies.] - -In despair the Council resorted to the expedient of a special -commission[991] to inquire into the state of the Navy, nineteen in number -and including eight seamen, perhaps in the hope of gaining time, but -probably from sheer prescription of routine. While the naval organisation -was crumbling, they took careful measurements of the dimensions of -each ship, and anxiously examined whether Burrell had used his own or -government barges for the conveyance of stores. When they inquired at -what cost ships were built, the answer came in a petition from the -Chatham shipwrights that they had been twelve months, - - ‘without one penny pay, neither having any allowance for meat - or drink, by which many of them having pawned all they can, - others turned out of doors for non-payment of rent, which with - the cries of their wives and children for food and necessaries - doth utterly dishearten them.’[992] - -John Wells, storekeeper to the Navy, had 7½ years’ pay owing to him, and -it may be inferred that, unless he was more honest than his fellows, -the crown, if it did not pay him directly, had to do so indirectly. The -Treasurer of the Navy, like the Victualler, had refused to make any more -advances on his own credit, but when the Chatham men marched up to London -in a body, he promised to settle their claims, a promise which was not -fulfilled. Then the special commissioners had to deal with the crews of -the _Lion_, _Vanguard_, and _Reformation_. The men of the _Vanguard_ -told them that they were in want of food, clothing, firing, and lodging, -‘being forced to lie on the cold decks.’[993] The sailors, like the -shipwrights, came to London in the hope of obtaining some relief, but -with even less success. Their ragged misery was an outrage on the curled -and scented decorum of the court, and Charles perhaps feared that they -might not confine themselves to mere vociferation, and, heroic as he -looks on canvas, had no liking for the part of a Richard Plantagenet in -face of a threatening mob. He confined himself to ordering the Lord Mayor -to guard the gates and prevent them coming near the court, and Apsley, in -his other capacity as lieutenant of the Tower, was directed to ‘repress -the insolencies of mariners’ by ‘shot or other offensive ways.’[994] -Probably death from Apsley’s ‘shot’ was, even if as certain, a less -painful fate than that from his victuals. As for Charles, we may suppose -that the lesson in kingly honour, justice, and responsibility was not -thrown away on those of his seamen who lived till 1642. - -Notwithstanding the financial straits of the government large schemes -relating to the increase of the number of ships and the construction of -new docks were being continually planned. In naval as in other affairs -Buckingham’s vision was fixed on the future, careless of the present. -Such money and supplies as were obtained did not go far towards relieving -the necessities of the sailors. In May, Mervyn found that his own crew -came unpleasantly ‘’twixt the wind and his nobility,’ for, ‘by reason -of want of clothing, they are become so loathsome and so nastily sick -as to be not only unfit to labour but to live.’[995] Among the State -Papers, undated but assigned to this year, occurs the first instance of a -round robin yet noticed; the men signing it refuse to weigh anchor until -provisioned.[996] - -[Sidenote: The Disorganisation:—Its Continuance.] - -Despite all these drawbacks Buckingham had contrived to get together the -Rhé fleet of 1627, by various means, although the pecuniary receipts were -not nearly adequate to the requirements. Some 3800 seamen were employed, -and when they came home were worse off than ever, and the monotonous -sequence of complaints was continued with greater intensity. The crew -of the _Assurance_ deserted in a body; the sailors at Plymouth were -stealing the soldiers’ arms and selling them to obtain bread,[997] and -wages were running on at the rate of £5000 a month, because there was no -money wherewith to pay off the men.[998] By December 500 sailors of the -returned fleet had died at Plymouth, and both there and at Portsmouth the -townspeople refused to have the sick men billeted ashore, for at Plymouth -they professed to have never shaken off the infectious fever spread by -the men of the Cadiz fleet. If we had any statistics at all of the death -and disease on board the fleets of 1625-8, the figures would probably -be ghastly in the terrible mental and physical suffering they would -represent. In this century the ‘wailing-place’ on the quays of Amsterdam, -where the friends and relatives of Dutch sailors bid them farewell, was -well known, but in another sense, and too often for a longer farewell, -every royal ship was a wailing-place for English wives and mothers. -Nicholas, as Buckingham’s secretary, sometimes had franker communications -than were sent to his master. Mervyn wrote to him that the king would -shortly have more ships than men, there being commonly twenty or thirty -fresh cases of sickness every day, and - - ‘the more than miserable condition of the men, who have neither - shoes, stockings, nor rags to cover their nakedness ... all - the ships are so infectious that I fear if we hold the sea one - month we shall not bring men enough home to moor the ships. - You may think I make it worse, but I vow to God that I cannot - deliver it in words.... The poor men bear all as patiently - as they can.... I much wonder that so little care be taken - to preserve men that are so hardly bred. I have used my best - cunning to make the _Vanguard_ wholesome. I have caused her - to be washed all over, fore and aft, every second day; to be - perfumed with tar burnt and frankincense; to be aired ’twixt - decks with pans of charcoal; to be twice a week washed with - vinegar.... Yet if to-day we get together 200 men within four - days afterwards we have not one hundred.’[999] - -Watts, at Portsmouth, who, in the intervals of solicitation of money for -himself and preferment for his son, wrote abusively of men who asked -at least food and clothing in midwinter, was a man after Charles’s -own heart, for he also had arranged with the governor of the town to -use ‘shot,’ if necessary, when the seamen came showing their tattered -clothes and making ‘scandalous speeches.’[1000] Mervyn, in the letter to -Nicholas quoted above, admits that he has overdrawn his pay, but asks -for another advance, and doubtless officers who had friends at court, -or who could afford to bribe, had little difficulty in obtaining their -salaries. Nicholas, for instance, who subsequently developed into a -knight and secretary of state, had an itching palm on occasion. On the -other hand, even in later years, when the pressure was not so great, -if the paymaster or pursers advanced any portion of the wages already -due to the mere sailor, a discount of 20 per cent. was deducted for the -favour. The merchant was also competing with the royal service, owners -paying 30s a month; therefore the need for men caused boys and weakly -adults to be pressed, and during the winter the mortality among them was -great.[1001] In January 1628 Mervyn reported from Plymouth that there -were no hammocks, and - - ‘the men lodge on the bare decks ... their condition miserable - beyond relation; many are so naked and exposed to the weather - in doing their duties that their toes and feet miserably - rot and fall away piecemeal, being mortified with extreme - cold.’[1002] - -A few days later he said that things were worse than ever, that the -vessels were full of sick men, they being refused ashore.[1003] -Notwithstanding the refusal to have them ashore their diseases spread so -rapidly on land that both Plymouth and Portsmouth were ‘like to perish.’ - -A striking feature in this wretched story is the want of sympathy shown -by nearly all the officials, high or low. These extracts are taken -principally from the letters of those officers who felt for their men and -endeavoured to obtain some alleviation of their distress, but many of -the despatches contain only dry formal details or, as in the instances -of Watts and Sir James Bagg—Eliot’s defamer and, from his absorptive -capacity in relation to government money, known as the Bottomless -Bagg—are filled with cowardly gibes and threats directed at men who could -not obtain even their daily bread from the crown. It has long been held a -point of honour with officers to share the dangers and hardships of those -under their command, but in those years the superiors to whom the men -looked for guidance and support left them to suffer alone, ‘the infection -so strong that few of the captains or officers durst lie on board.’[1004] -The sailors in the river were somewhat better off. Perhaps their -proximity to the court, and potentialities of active protest, stirred the -most sensitive portion of Charles’s conscience, and arrangements were -made to billet them on the riverside parishes, at the rate of 3s 6d a -man per week, till money could be provided to pay them. This was a plan -which relieved the crown at the expense of the householder; nor does it -appear to have been very successful, since a proclamation was issued on -17th February to repress the disorderliness of such billeted mariners and -warning them not to presume to address the Commissioners. In March the -pressed men at Plymouth armed themselves, seized the Guildhall, and there -prepared to stand a siege.[1005] The issue is not stated, but although -mutinies were continually happening they usually had little result, for -if the men got away from the ship or town the endeavour to reach their -homes would have been almost hopeless. They were only frantic outbursts -of desperation by isolated bodies of a class which has always lacked the -gift of facile expression, and has never learnt to combine. An official -describes plainly the causes of these mutinies, and his paper is worth -quoting in full:[1006] - - ‘1st. They say they are used like dogs, forced to keep aboard - without being suffered to come ashore to refresh themselves. - 2nd. That they have not means to put clothes on their backs to - defend themselves from cold or to keep them in health, much - less to relieve their poor wives and children. 3rd. That when - they happen to fall sick they have not any allowance of fresh - victuals to comfort them, or medicines to help recover them. - 4th. That some of their sick fellows being put ashore in houses - erected for them are suffered to perish for want of being - looked unto, their toes and feet rotting from their bodies, and - so smelling that none are able to come into the room where they - are. 5th. That some provisions put aboard them is neither fit - nor wholesome for men to live on. 6th. That therefore they had - as lief be hanged as dealt with as they are.’ - -Gorges suggests that some of these complaints are frivolous and some -untrue, and recommends the remedy, dear to the official soul, of a -commission. The commission of 1626 had hardly ceased sitting, and how far -the complaints were frivolous and untrue, can be judged by the evidence -brought forward here. - -[Sidenote: Murder of Buckingham.] - -In April, 1628, Denbigh sailed to relieve Rochelle, and returned without -having effected his purpose. Preparations then went on apace for the -great fleet Buckingham proposed to command himself in August. The -difficulty in obtaining provisions, and their quality, may be inferred -from a petition of Sir Allen Apsley’s addressed directly to the king. He -says that he has sold and mortgaged all his property, and that he and -his friends had pledged their credit to the extent of £100,000.[1007] -These were unpromising conditions under which to engage to supply a fleet -which was intended to be as large as that of 1625, and as the crown could -not suddenly replace the mechanism organised by the Victualler and his -deputies, it was practically dependent on his efforts. It was probably -due to the poverty of Sir Allen Apsley that in this fleet water was, -for the first time, taken from a home port as what may be called a -primary store.[1008] Hitherto, although water had been taken for cooking -purposes, beer, as has been shown, had always been the recognised drink -on ship board. In June the ships were being collected at Portsmouth, -but with the usual troubles. There were two mutinies. ‘God be thanked, -they are quieted,’ writes Coke, but the men ‘have no shift of clothes. -Some have no shirts, and others but one for the whole year.’ There were -few surgeons, and those few ‘haunt the taverns every day.’[1009] In -one party of 150 pressed men sent down in July there were to be found -saddlers, ploughmen, and other mechanics; some were old and weak and the -majority useless. Pettifogging tricks were employed to trap the men. -In one instance Buckingham ordered that certain vessels were not to be -paid off till the _Swiftsure_ and other ships were ready, and that then -Peter White was to be present to at once press the crews for further -service.[1010] Fire ships were required, but Coke found that they could -not be had without £350 in cash, as no one would trust the Crown.[1011] - -Buckingham himself did not intend to share the hardships of the beings -of coarser clay under his command. A transport was fitted to serve as -a kitchen and store ship for him, and the bill for his supplies came -to £1056, 4s. It included such items as cards and dice, £2; wine, -etc., £164; eight bullocks and a cow, £59; eighty sheep, £60; fifteen -goats, £10; ten young porklings, £5; two sows with pig, £3; 980 head -of poultry, £63, 1s.; 2000 eggs, £2, 10s; and pickled oysters, lemons, -damask tapestry, and turkey carpets.[1012] Then came Felton’s knife, and -we may hope that some of the sailors made an unwonted feast on the more -perishable articles of this liberal collection. In any case, Buckingham’s -murder was an unmixed good for them, although had he spared to the men -some of that energy and care he gave, at least with good intention, to -the improvement of the _matériel_ of the navy, the verdict might have -been different. But in his neglect of their rights or welfare he was -not below the standard of his age, in which the feudal feeling remained -without its sense of reciprocal obligation, and in which only a very few -were impelled by conscience to more than the defence of their own rights. - -[Sidenote: Its Results.] - -One result of the shuffling of the political pack which followed -Buckingham’s death was the appointment of Weston as Lord Treasurer. -Weston, Mr Gardiner tells us, was neither honest, nor amiable, nor -popular, but he was at any rate determined to re-introduce some order -into the finances, and the sailors were among the first to reap the -benefit. When the Rochelle fleet, which had sailed under Lindsey, -returned, the men were as surprised as they were delighted to find -that they were to be paid. ‘The seamen are much joyed with the Lord -Treasurer’s care to pay them so suddenly.’[1013] All the same the civic -authorities of Plymouth desired that the ships should be paid off -somewhere else. They wrote to the Council that when the Cadiz expedition -came back, 1600 of the townspeople died of diseases contracted from the -soldiers and sailors, that many also perished after the return of the Rhé -fleet, and that they heard that this Rochelle one was also very sickly, -and if so, ‘it will utterly disable this place.’[1014] Either there was -a relaxation of Weston’s alacrity in paying, or mutinous habits had -become too natural to be suddenly discarded, as in November the crews of -three of the largest of the men-of-war were robbing openly, for want of -victuals, they said. Nevertheless we do not hear of many difficulties in -connexion with the Rochelle fleet, and the work of payment may be assumed -to have progressed with unexpected smoothness. - -[Sidenote: After Buckingham.] - -With the cessation of ambitious enterprises the demand for the services -of the maritime population became less, although the smaller number of -men employed were treated no better than when the government had the -excuse, such as it was, of large expenditure. In 1629, Mervyn, commanding -in the narrow seas, wrote to the Lords of Admiralty: ‘Foul winter -weather, naked bodies, and empty bellies make the men voice the King’s -service worse than a galley slavery.’[1015] It should be remarked that -although hammocks were provided for over-sea service in the proportion of -one for every two men, they were not yet furnished to ships stationed in -home waters, a want which must have affected the health and contentment -of the seamen even when they were properly fed. Again, Mervyn protests:— - - ‘I have written the state of six ships here in the Downs, two - of which, the _Dreadnought_ and 3rd whelp, have neither meat - nor drink. The 10th whelp hath drunk water these three days. - The shore affords soldiers relief or hope, the sea neither. - Now with what confidence can punishment be inflicted on men - who mutiny in these wants?... These neglects be the cause that - mariners fly to the service of foreign nations to avoid his - majesty’s.... His majesty will lose the honour of his seas, - the love and loyalty of his sailors, and his royal navy will - droop.’[1016] - -They were prophetic words, and as another illustration of the methods -which were to secure the sailors’ love and loyalty we find in October, -among the notes of business to be considered by the Lords of the -Admiralty, ‘poor men’s petitions presented above six months, and never -read.’ Mutiny had become merely a form of protest, and captains looked -forward to it as only a sign of dissatisfaction. One of them writes -to Nicholas that his crew are in ‘an uproar’ about their offensive -beer, and that if he finds no fresh supply at Plymouth he is sure of a -mutiny;[1017] another commander was forced to pawn his spare sails and -anchors to buy food for his men.[1018] Apsley died in 1630, leaving -his affairs deeply involved, the crown still owing him large sums. His -coadjutor, and then sole successor, Sir Sampson Darell, did not fare -better at the hands of the government, although his requirements were -so much less. In June 1632 he informed Nicholas that he would be unable -to continue victualling unless he was paid, having raised all the money -he could on his own estate.[1019] If he received anything on account it -was evidently not enough to insure permanent improvement, since a year -later we hear that the cruisers are ‘tied by the teeth’ in the Downs for -want of provisions.[1020] During these years the debts incurred from the -early expeditions of the reign were being slowly discharged, and the -scantiness of the available resources for fresh efforts is shown by the -way Pennington complains that six or seven weeks of preparation were -needed to collect three months’ victuals for four ships.[1021] - -From the absence of references in the State Papers to the non-payment -of wages it would seem as though they were now paid with comparative -regularity, but the expressions of disgust at the quality of the -provisions are as continuous and vigorous as before. Besides methods of -cheating in the quantities served out, for which the victuallers and -pursers were answerable, ‘the brewers’—of course with the connivance of -the victuallers—‘have gotten the art to sophisticate beer with broom -instead of hops, and ashes instead of malt, and (to make it look the -more lively) to pickle it with salt water, so that while it is new it -shall seem to be worthy of praise, but in one month wax worse than -stinking water.’[1022] The same writer says that the English were the -unhealthiest of all ships, in consequence of the practical application -of the proverb that ‘nothing will poison a sailor.’ Then he laments that -English mariners, formerly renowned for patience and endurance, were now -physically weak, impatient, and mutinous—and blames the sailor for the -change. - -[Sidenote: The Ship-money Fleets.] - -The first systematic issue of ship-money writs was in October 1634, and -in the summer of 1635, the resulting fleet was at sea. As usual the -provisions were an unfailing source of indignation, and Lindsey, who was -in command, told the Lords Commissioners that much of the beef was so -tainted that when it was moved ‘the scent all over the ship is enough -to breed contagion.’ The crews were made up with watermen and landsmen -ignorant of their work, and many were weak and sickly; three men-of-war -and several of the hired merchantmen were quite disabled by the sickness -on board them.[1023] A special matter of complaint was the large number -of volunteers and their servants who went for a harmless summer cruise -on Lindsey’s ships. That they were useless and in the way was of less -importance than that officers were aggrieved by finding their cabins -taken from them to house these people in comfort, and that the seamen -were irritated by seeing the idlers given the first choice of food, -having to wait for their own till the visitors were served.[1024] If the -greater part of the beef was fetid, and the officers and volunteers had -right of selection, what could have been left for the men? - -Apparently the sailors had as little liking as ever for the royal -service, since, in 1636, the old difficulties were renewed in obtaining -seamen for the second ship-money fleet under Northumberland. In April -the men were said to be continually running away; in June out of 250 men -turned over from the _Anne Royal_ to the _St Andrew_ 220 deserted.[1025] -When Northumberland returned in the autumn, typhus was rife in his -squadron, and Mervyn reported that the men ‘in this weather fall sick -for want of clothing, most of them barefoot and scarcely rags to hide -their skins.’[1026] Northumberland, not content with merely commanding in -state, attacked the shortcomings of the naval administration furiously -when he came ashore. Many of his strictures relate to subjects to be -noticed, subsequently, but concerning the men he said that they were -incapable both bodily and in their knowledge of seamanship; that out of -260 men in the _James_ not more than twenty could steer, that in the -_Unicorn_ there was hardly a seaman besides the officers, that nearly -one-third of the _Entrance’s_ crew had never been to sea, and that of -150 men in the last-named ship only twelve could take the helm.[1027] -The provisions, he said, were bad and meagre, and the men defrauded of a -fourth or fifth of their allowance. Moreover sick men must either be kept -on board ‘or turned ashore in danger of starving, not to be received into -any house, so as some have been seen to die upon the strand for lack of -relief.’ - -Such was the tender care monarchy by divine right, with its paraphernalia -of Commissioners and Lords of the Admiralty, vouchsafed to that class -of its subjects which happened to be voiceless and helpless. But if the -coming struggle between divine right and capitalist right was to render -the sailor’s assistance valuable, and temporarily improve his position, -the experience of succeeding generations was to show that to him it made -little difference whether life and health were sacrificed under the -stately forms of monarchical procedure, or by the more obviously sordid -processes of mercantile traffic. There was no ‘glorious revolution’ for -men whose welfare depended on a legislature influenced by merchants -and shipowners, and ignoble with the soulless ethics of the eighteenth -century. - -[Sidenote: Victualling.] - -According to official documents the victualler, Sir Sampson Darell, -must have died not long after Apsley, as his accounts for five years -are passed by his executrix.[1028] The absence of professional control -did not probably cause any extra mismanagement; at any rate no murmurs -are heard on that score. It is impossible to say now whether Apsley -was a victim, or only received his deserts, in having claims for -£69,436 in 1626 and £94,985 in 1627 rejected because his books were -signed by only three instead of four Commissioners and on account of -insufficient particulars. As they were not finally refused until 1637 -his representatives were allowed plenty of time to prove their case. In -February 1637 John Crane, ‘chief clerk of our kitchen,’ was made Surveyor -of marine victuals, his appointment dating from 20th Nov. 1635. The -allowance of drink and solid food was the same as in the last century, -and sugar, rice, and oatmeal were medical luxuries theoretically provided -for sick men in the 1636 fleet, on the equipment of which Northumberland -expressed such trenchant criticisms. Crane undertook the victualling at -the rate of eightpence halfpenny a man per day at sea, and sevenpence -halfpenny in harbour, but in March 1638 he gave the necessary year’s -notice to terminate his contract.[1029] He found that during 1636 and -1637 he had lost a penny three farthings a month on each man, and owing -to the general rise in prices, anticipated a further loss of as much as -3s 4¾d a head, per month, in 1638. He entreated an immediate release from -his bargain, or he would be ruined, and he had thirteen children. In all -these memorials one invariably finds that the petitioner possesses an -enormous family. - -In 1637 the Earl of Northumberland was again at sea in what Sir Thomas -Roe expected would be ‘one turn to the west in an honourable procession,’ -and the Earl himself wrote, ‘No man was ever more desirous of a charge -than I am to be quit of mine.’[1030] He was, however, the first competent -admiral among the nobility that Charles had been able to find. From -the absence of any accounts of mutiny and disorder we may take it -that either the men were better treated this year or that the superior -officers were tired of complaining. In 1638 Northumberland was ill, and -all the work the ship-money fleet did was to convoy two powder-laden -vessels through the ships blockading Dunkirk.[1031] - -[Sidenote: Discipline.] - -We have seen that men like Pennington and Mervyn had not the heart to -punish for insubordination under the circumstances of privation which -made their crews seditious and disobedient, and the normal discipline -on a man-of-war was, in all likelihood, sufficiently lax. Some of the -regulations, however, if they were carried out, were strict enough, -although they will compare favourably with the bloodthirsty articles -of war of the succeeding century, and they show some difference from -previous customs. Prayer was said twice daily, before dinner and after -the psalm sung at setting the evening watch, and any one absent was -liable to twenty-four hours in irons. Swearing was punished by three -knocks on the forehead with a boatswain’s whistle, and smoking anywhere -but on the upper deck, ‘and that sparingly,’ by the bilboes. The thief -was tied up to the capstan, ‘and every man in the ship shall give him -five lashes with a three-stringed whip on his bare back.’ This is, I -think, the first mention of any form of cat. The habitual thief was, -after flogging, dragged ashore astern of a boat and ignominiously -dismissed with the loss of his wages. For brawling and fighting the -offender was ducked three times from the yardarm, and similarly towed -ashore and discharged; while for striking an officer he was to be tried -for his life by twelve men, but whether shipmates or civilians is not -said.[1032] If a man slept on watch three buckets of water were to be -poured upon his head and into his sleeves, and any one except ‘gentlemen -or officers’ playing cards or dice incurred four hours of manacles. It is -suggestive to read that ‘no man persume to strike in the ship but such -officers as are authorised.’[1033] - -There was no specially prepared fleet in 1639, but in October Pennington -was in command of a few ships in the Downs, watching the opposed Dutch -and Spanish fleets also lying there. Both he and Northumberland had -pressed the King, but in vain, for instructions as to his course of -action in certain contingencies. At last directions were given him that -in the event of fighting between them he was to assist the side which -appeared to be gaining the day, a manner of procedure which Charles -doubtless thought was dexterous diplomacy, but which most students of -the international history of his time will consider as ignominious as -it was futile. The Dutch attacked the Spaniards as they were taking in -500 barrels of gunpowder, supplied with the connivance of the English -government[1034]—again Charles’s trading instincts were too strong—drove -a score of their vessels ashore, and scattered the remainder. -Unfortunately Pennington, instead of also attacking the Spaniards, fired -into the Dutch, who did not reply.[1035] - -[Sidenote: The Seamen and the Civil War.] - -During 1640 and 1641 Charles was fully occupied with his Scotch and -parliamentary difficulties, and naval business was again falling into -disorder. In July 1641 Northumberland tells Pennington that he does -not see how the insubordination the latter reports is to be remedied, -as there is no money with which to pay wages.[1036] In October Sir -William Russell, one of the Treasurers of the Navy, had been a long -time out of town, and the other, Sir Henry Vane (the younger), ‘seeing -there is no money in the office, never comes near us.’ Perhaps it was -not altogether displeasing to the parliamentary leaders that, in view -of the arbitrament towards which King and Parliament were tending, the -seamen should be rendered discontented and rebellious. In January 1642, -2000 sailors offered their services and protection to Parliament, and -when, in July, the King appointed Pennington, and Parliament Warwick, to -the command of the fleet, the men in the Downs, apparently without any -hesitation, followed Warwick, although the former must have had with them -the influence of a trusted and favourite officer. In several instances -the crews of ships on outlying stations forced their captains to submit, -or put their royalist officers ashore and themselves took charge. It is -difficult to speak with absolute certainty, but an examination of the -data available leads to the conclusion that only one small vessel, the -_Providence_, adhered to the royal cause. - -We need not conclude that this unanimity implied any deep feeling about -the general misgovernment of Charles or the important constitutional -questions at issue. The sailor, contrary to the impression apparently -prevailing among feminine novelists, is usually an extremely -matter-of-fact individual, with the greater portion of his attention -fixed on the subjects of his pay and food. All he could associate with -the crown were memories of starvation and beggary, of putrid victuals -fraught with disease, and wages delayed, in payment of which, when he -at last received them, he found a large proportion stick to the hands -of minor officials. The Parliament paid him liberally and punctually, -and he, on his side, served it honestly and well. For him was not -necessary—perhaps he was not capable of feeling—the curious psychical -exaltation of the ‘New Model,’ but in a steady, unimaginative way, -without much enthusiasm but without a sign of hesitation, he kept his -faith and did more to destroy royalist hopes than historians, with -few exceptions, have supposed. Under the administration of the Navy -Committee there were no recurrences of the confusion and unruliness which -had before existed, and until the Rainsborow mutiny of 1648, speedily -repented, the seamen showed no symptom, for six years, of discontent or -of regret for the part they had chosen. - -[Sidenote: Parliament and the Seamen.] - -Without feeling an indignation which would have been in advance of -their age at the hardships and dishonesty of which the sailor had been -the victim, the position of the parliamentary chiefs compelled them to -treat him with a discreet consideration. He was fed decently; wages -were raised to nineteen shillings a month, and were given in full -from the date of his joining his ship, instead of from that of its -sailing; and an attempt was made to raise a sufficient number of men -without impressment, the officers responsible being only directed ‘to -use their best persuasion.’[1037] Seamen, however, had been too long -accustomed to compulsion to enter into the principles of voluntaryism, -and an act allowing pressing and punishing contumacy with three -months’ imprisonment, must have been received by them as something -they could understand.[1038] The utter absence of difficulties or -remonstrances during the years of the civil war shows how smoothly the -naval administration worked, and Parliament appeared to place even more -reliance on the sailors than on their officers, since on 18th Oct. 1644, -Warwick issued a proclamation ordering that ‘none shall obey the commands -of their superior officers ... if the same commands be tending towards -disloyalty towards the Parliament.’ This was a dangerous power to place -in the hands of the men, unless it was felt that their discipline and -fidelity could be depended upon. - -The late Mrs Everett Green speaks of ‘the inherent loyalty of the sailors -to their King,’[1039] making this remark in connection with, and as -explanatory of, the difficulty experienced by the Council of State in -obtaining men in 1653. I must confess that, notwithstanding the weight -justly attaching to her opinions, I am quite unable to see during these -years any sign of this loyalty. Under the government of Charles they had -been compelled to serve by force, and had lost no opportunity of venting -their anger and discontent; when the occasion came they eagerly and -unanimously fought against the sovereign to whom they were supposed to be -inherently loyal, without one instance of desertion or dissatisfaction -of sufficient mark to be noticed in the State Papers. When a mutiny -did at last occur it was due to circumstances connected not with the -rights of the King, but with the narrower personal jealousies of naval -command; it happened when the fighting was done, and, in all probability, -would not have happened at all under the stress of conflict. During the -Commonwealth they continued to serve the state under conditions of great -strain and trial, which might well have tried men of greater foresight -and self-control than seamen, without, with perhaps one exception, more -than slight and unimportant outbursts of insubordination of a character -which, allowing for the looser discipline of that time, occur to-day -in all large standing forces. Whatever, at any time, their momentary -irritation against the Parliament, it never took the form of loyalty -to Charles II. It may be suggested that a more likely explanation of -the difficulties of 1653 lies in the fact that the estimates required -16,000 men against the 3000 or 4000 sufficient for the fleets of Charles -I.[1040] At the most liberal computation the returns of 1628,[1041] do -not give, allowing for omissions, more than 18,000 men available for the -royal and merchant marine; at least double that number would have been -necessary to supply easily the demands of the two services in 1653. In no -case under the Commonwealth did the men show that despairing recklessness -of consequences which characterised their outbreaks between 1625 and -1642. More significant still is the fact that the savage fighting of -the first Dutch war, against the most formidable maritime antagonist -we have ever faced, was performed in a fashion very different from the -perfunctory and half-hearted service rendered to Charles I. And it is a -further curious illustration of their hereditary loyalty that while they -endured much hardship and privation rather than serve either under Rupert -or Tromp against the Commonwealth, we are told by Pepys that they manned -the Dutch ships by hundreds—perhaps thousands—during the wars of Charles -II. - -If, on the other hand, we are to really believe that ‘inherent loyalty’ -was continuously latent in the English sailor, what words are fitting -for the selfish and reckless indifference to the simplest human rights -which tortured him into twenty years of consistent rebellion? On sea as -on land Charles’s misdeeds followed him home. In his days of power he -had been deaf to the appeals of men who perished that he might attempt -to be great, and to the cries of their suffering wives and children. -In 1642 the sailors were deaf to his commands. What might—in all human -probability would—have been the result after Edgehill if, during the -winter of 1642-3, he had been able to blockade the Thames? - -[Sidenote: Merchant Seamen.] - -Private shipowners have always paid higher wages than the crown, and for -several centuries the latter offered no compensatory advantages. From -various chance allusions the rates of merchant seamen’s wages during -this period are found to vary between 22s and 30s a month. The stores -provided for them could not have been worse than those of a man-of-war; -but they had special difficulties, peculiar to the merchant service, -to expect when in private employment. In 1628 among their grievances -they complained that they were liable to make good any damage done to -cargo, even after it had left the ship, until it was safely stored in -the merchant’s warehouse.[1042] In 1634 they petitioned, in view of the -dulness of trade, that exportation of merchandise in foreign bottoms -should be prohibited,[1043] but a year later a more important matter -occupied their attention. All engagements were made by verbal contract, -and it often happened at the end of the voyage that the owner disputed -the terms, when the sailor was left helpless, having no proof to bring -forward.[1044] Moreover, if, as frequently occurred, he was pressed -out of a homeward bound vessel, his position was still more hopeless, -while if he died at sea there was small chance of his family obtaining -anything. In 1638 it was intended to form a Trinity House fund, on -the plan of the Chatham Chest, for the benefit of merchant seamen and -officers; one shilling a month was to be deducted for this purpose, from -the wages of officers, and fourpence from the pay of the men, except -those belonging to coasters, who were to give sixpence.[1045] The matter -progressed so far that there was a proclamation issued in accordance with -these views,[1046] but the scheme did not come into operation till 1694. -In that year it was enforced in connection with Greenwich Hospital at the -rate of sixpence a man; in 1747 this was raised to one shilling and so -continued until 1834. The whole story belongs to a later volume, but the -merchant sailor never received the least benefit from the levy extorted -from his scanty earnings, and at a moderate computation was robbed of -at least £2,500,000 during that period. But he helped to endow many fat -sinecures and to thus support the Constitution. - -If from one case referred to a court of law we may infer others, the -form and amount of punishment on a trader was left to the discretion of -the captain. On a Virginia ship an insubordinate boy was hung up by his -wrists with 2 cwt. tied to his feet, with what results we are not told. -The boy’s complaint came before Sir H. Martin, judge of the Admiralty -court, who refused any redress, because of the necessary ‘maintenance of -sea discipline.’[1047] But notwithstanding hard fare, hard usage, and -sometimes doubtful wages, the position of the sailor on a merchantman was -infinitely preferable to his fate when compelled to exchange it for a -man-of-war. We meet with no instances of mutiny on merchant ships until -they are hired by the crown, and the traditional hardihood and courage of -the English seaman were always evinced when he was free of the crushing -burden of the royal service. Sir Kenelm Digby, when commanding a squadron -in the Mediterranean in 1628, noticed that while foreigners invariably -ran from him, the English, without knowing his nationality, always -stopped and prepared to fight ‘were they never so little or contemptible -vessels.’[1048] - -[Sidenote: The number available.] - -With proper organisation there were sufficient men available at the -beginning of the reign to have manned both the royal and merchant -marine, as will be seen from the following returns made in 1628, but it -is probable that the numbers did not increase much during subsequent -years:—[1049] - - +-------------------+--------+-----------+ - | | Seamen | Fishermen | - +-------------------+--------+-----------+ - |London | 3422 | 302 | - |Kent | 181 | 231 | - |Cinque Ports | 699 | 193 | - |Essex | 309 | 357 | - |Suffolk | 804 | 326 | - |Norfolk | 600 | 436 | - |Lincoln | 66 | 126 | - |Devon | 453 | 86 | - |Northumberland | 33 | 260 | - |Cumberland | 72 | | - |South Cornwall | 731 | 393 | - |North ” | 154 | 88 | - |South Wales | 753 | | - |Southampton and } | | | - | Isle of Wight } | 321 | 209 | - |Dorset | 958 | 86 | - |Bristol | 823 | | - +-------------------+--------+-----------+ - -There were 2426 watermen in London, also liable to impressment. Of the -seamen two-thirds were at sea, one-third at home, their favourite abiding -place being Ratcliff. Yorkshire, North Wales, Chester, and some parts of -Sussex are omitted, and the figures for Northumberland cannot include the -Newcastle coal traffic, which in 1626 employed 300 colliers;[1050] it may -be, however, that their crews are reckoned in the London total. - -In various ways, during the war time, Parliament showed its satisfaction -with the work done by officers and men, and occasionally rewarded them -by extra gratuities of a month’s pay, or presents of wine. Doubtless -these donations were also in the nature of bribes on the part of a power -without much historic prestige compared with its opponent, and depending -for existence on the goodwill of men who served with a closer regard to -pay than to sentiment; but that the parliamentary authorities considered -their relations with the Navy fairly secure is shown by the fact that -in 1645 they ventured to place the service under martial law.[1051] In -1647 wages, per month, were raised for officers, according to rates, as -follows—[1052] - - £ _s_ _d_ £ _s_ _d_ - Captain 7 0 0 to 21 0 0 - Lieutenant 3 10 0 ” 4 4 0 - Master 3 18 8 ” 7 0 0 - Master’s mate 2 2 0 ” 3 5 4 - Pilot 2 2 0 ” 3 5 4 - Carpenter 1 15 0 ” 3 3 0 - Boatswain 1 17 4 ” 3 10 0 - Gunner 1 15 0 ” 3 3 0 - -[Sidenote: The Chatham Chest.] - -The Chatham Chest, founded by Hawkyns and others in 1590, for the relief -and support of injured or disabled sailors, was not of so much use to -them during these years as it should have been. The original contribution -was sixpence a month from able, and fourpence from ordinary, seamen, -with threepence from boys. In 1619 the gunners joined the fund, and from -1626 all, whether able and ordinary, seamen or gunners, were to pay -sixpence.[1053] The sixpences were unfailingly deducted from their wages, -but the distribution was more irregular. Every formality was employed for -the safe custody of the money, and in 1625 an iron chest with five locks -was ordered for this purpose, the keys to be kept by five representative -officers of different grades, who could only open it when together, -and who were to be changed every twelve months. As an illustration of -the value of these precautions the Treasurer of the Navy, Russell, the -very next year took £2600, out of the Chest with which to pay wages, -subsequently excusing himself by the ‘great clamours’ then being made -and the poverty of the state. He did not commence to return this money -till 1631, and in 1636 £500 of it was still owing. Sir Sackville Crowe, -when Treasurer between July 1627 and December 1629, took out £3000, and -this sum, with the accruing interest, is regularly carried forward as a -good asset till 1644, when there is a gap of ten years in the accounts, -and in 1654 it no longer appears. From the character of the man it is -very unlikely that he ever paid. In 1632 a commission of inquiry issued, -but if any report was ever made it has not come down to us. In January -1636 the Chest had £542 in hand and possessed Chislett farm producing -£160 a year,[1054] but it was said that its narrow resources were further -depleted by money having ‘been bestowed on men that never were at sea.’ - -Sir John Wolstenholme and others were directed, in December 1635, to -inquire into the administration, and their report was sent in by April -1637.[1055] The yearly receipts from land were now £205; since 1617, when -there was £3145 in hand, £2580 had been received in rents and £12,600 -from the sixpences. Out of this £3766 had been expended in purchasing -land and £10,621 in relieving seamen; £159 remained in the Chest, and -£3780 was owing to it. Of the £3780 some of the items went back to -Elizabethan days, and Roger Langford, Sir Peter Buck, some of the master -shipwrights, and two ladies were among the debtors. Between 1621 and -1625, inclusive, there was paid £1722 in gratuities and pensions, and -between 1625 and 1629, £1372;[1056] as the first series were mostly -peace, and the second war years, the men were either very successful -in avoiding injury between 1625 and 1629 or, as is more likely, were -defrauded of the benefits they could rightly claim. The result of the -commission was that fresh rules, signed by Windebank, were shortly -afterwards made, directing the Treasurer of the Navy to pay over the -sixpences within one month of their deduction from wages, to make up the -accounts yearly and ‘publish them to all the governors,’ that no pension -was to exceed £6, 8s 4d a year, although an additional gratuity might be -given, and that the keepers of the keys were to be changed yearly.[1057] -As the last regulation was only a repetition of the one made in 1625, it -is to be presumed that it had been previously ignored. - -Neither now nor afterwards, neither in official papers nor in the sheaves -of ephemeral publications which enlightened this and the succeeding -century, does it seem, with one exception, to have entered into the minds -of those who ruled or those who tried to teach that the cost of providing -for the wants or age of men disabled by service should in justice fall -upon the country they had spent their youth and health in protecting, -instead of on an accident fund maintained from their own meagre earnings. -The one government which in this, as in other matters, had a higher -perception of its duties was that of Cromwell, and even here only in a -limited sense. The host of pamphleteers who in the succeeding reigns -lamented the condition of the royal and merchant marine, or aired their -universal panaceas for its ills, only rang the changes on further methods -for the exploitation of the seaman to the private profit of the shipowner -and the general profit of the state. For him to carry the burden of -empire was to be its own reward. - -The only consecutive accounts preserved for this reign are contained in -two volumes kept in the Museum at Greenwich.[1058] They extend from 14th -April 1637 to 23rd April 1644, and, in round figures, give the following -results:— - - +-------------+-------+--------+--------+-----------+----------------+ - | | Owing |Received|Expended| Received | No. of | - | | to | | | from |Pensioners[1059]| - | | chest | | | land | | - | +-------+--------+--------+-----------+----------------+ - | | £ | £ | £ | £ | | - |1637-8 | 3768 | 1545 | 1361 | 248 | 62 | - |1638-9 | 6215 | 1609 | 1215 | | 59 | - |1639-40 | 5600 | 1849 | 1364 | | 59 | - |1640-1 | 5200 | 2371 | 2019 | | 35 | - |1641-2 | 4800 | 2761 | 2635 | 479 | 55 | - |1642-3 | 4400 | 2108 | 1738 | | 60 | - |1643-4[1060] | 4400 | 1238 | 958 | | 61 | - |1644[1061] | 4400 | 845 | 483 | 321[1062]| | - +-------------+-------+--------+--------+-----------+----------------+ - -We do not know on what principle donations were allowed, but, besides -being slow and uncertain, gratuities were frequently dispensed by favour -rather than by merit. In 1637 a man hurt in 1628 received £2, and Apslyn, -a shipwright, had £5, 3s 4d, being compensation for the loss of his -apprentice’s services during 62 days, a sort of loss certainly never -intended to be indemnified by the founders of the Chest. The majority -of the men on the pension list, had £5 or £6 each, but most of the -payments to injured men were of a donative character not involving any -further responsibility. Medical charges relating to the dockyards were -also met from the Chest, a Chatham surgeon being paid £43, 1s 4d in 1638 -for attending to shipwrights injured while working on the _Sovereign -of the Seas_. The next year has a somewhat belated entry of £3 to Wm. -Adam, barber-surgeon, ‘for sundry hurts and bruises received in Queen -Elizabeth’s service,’ and again we find £33, 11s 4d paid to a Woolwich -medical man for care of shipwrights injured in rebuilding the _Prince_; -in 1640 surgeons were attached to the dockyards whose salaries of £40 -a year were paid from the Chest money. The compensation for a bruise -ranged from £1 to £2. Sometimes widows were granted burial money and a -further small sum for ‘present relief,’ but never, apparently, pensions. -A normally recurring item is a gift of £4, 10s a year to the almshouse -founded by Hawkyns at Chatham, and with equal regularity there is an -annual outlay of some £5 for the governors’ dinners. - -However open to criticism may have been the administration of the Chatham -Chest at this time, it was undoubtedly in a condition of ideal purity -compared with the depths of organised infamy to which it sank during the -eighteenth century. - -[Sidenote: The Rainsborow Mutiny.] - -The reign of Charles I commenced with mutinies; it ended in 1648 with -another which deserves examination, since upon it some writers have -based an inference of general unfaithfulness to the Parliament, while in -reality, whatever conclusions may be deduced, that, so far as the bulk of -the men were concerned, is not one of them. From the days of Elizabeth, -when they were accustomed to be led by captains who were seamen by -vocation and sometimes by descent, often of their own class, and who -understood them and their wants, the men had shown an intense dislike to -the landsmen who by a change of system in later years had been placed -over them, who obtained their posts mainly by rank or influence, were -ignorant of maritime matters, and were associated with a succession of -disasters and years of abject misery. Manwayring, writing in the reign -of James I, says that volunteers usually returned knowing as little as -when they sailed, since the professional seamen hated them, and gentlemen -generally, and would give no instruction. Another seaman attributed the -disasters of the early years of the reign to the appointment of landsmen -as captains and officers.[1063] The experiences of more recent years were -not likely to have lessened that feeling. - -During the war, therefore, the fleet had been commanded chiefly by -admirals and captains who were trained seamen of no exceptional social -position, but, judging from subsequent events, there must have been a -sufficient leaven of landsmen in places of trust to keep alive the old -prejudices. When, therefore, Wm. Batten, an experienced officer of many -years’ standing, who was vice-admiral and commanding in the Channel, and -who had done good service to the state, was displaced in 1647, and his -responsible charge given to Colonel Rainsborow, who began actual control -in January 1648, there was doubtless some murmuring, although no evidence -of it has survived. Nothing occurred during the winter, and in May 1648 -there were forty-one ships in commission, of which only three were -commanded by military officers; but the appointment of Rainsborow may -have been regarded, as it actually proved to be, as the commencement of a -return to the old system. Moreover the Navy, generally, was presbyterian -in feeling, while Rainsborow was a fanatical Independent and, judging -from one of the accusations brought against him, does not appear to have -exercised his authority with tact or discretion. In addition to this a -certain amount of ill-feeling existed between the army and the Navy, the -latter not being inclined to coerce the Parliament to the extent desired -by the army, and Batten, in the ‘Declaration’ which explained his reasons -for desertion, dwelt on the efforts of the army leaders ‘to flood the -ships with soldiers.’ If the accusation was true, it would be a certain -way, in the state of feeling between the two services, to give fresh life -to the latent antagonism existing. We have no details of the workings of -discontent which led up to action any more than we have of the secret -cabals which preceded the Spithead mutiny of 1797, but in each case the -outbreak was equally sudden. Towards the end of May the crews in the -Downs put Rainsborow ashore, giving as their reasons:— - - 1st. The parliament of late grant commissions to the sea - commanders in their own names, leaving out the King. 2nd. - Several land-men made sea commanders. 3rd. The insufferable - pride, ignorance, and insolency of Col. Rainsborow, the late - vice-admiral, alienated the hearts of the seamen.[1064] - -Rainsborow had made his mark as a soldier, but he was not a stranger to -the sea, for he had commanded a man-of-war in 1643. It is noticeable that -no complaints are made about their treatment by the government, about -their pay or victuals, and succeeding events showed how little the great -majority of the fleet were in sympathy with the grandiloquent threats of -the ringleaders on the King’s behalf. Warwick was at once sent to resume -the command of the fleet and adjust the differences existing. Whitelocke -says that the men ‘sent for the Earl of Warwick’ and that ‘the Derby -House Committee, to follow the humour of the revolters,’ directed Warwick -to go, so that at this stage it is evident that having rid themselves of -Rainsborow, they looked to Warwick rather than to Charles. We do not know -what measures the earl took, but, in the last days of June, the crews of -nine ships,[1065] perhaps terrified at finding they received such slight -support from the others and fearing punishment, possibly also influenced -by Batten, went over with him to the Prince of Wales in Holland. That so -long an interval elapsed between the commencement of the revolt and their -desertion shows how little the latter was at first contemplated. - -It has been recently said: ‘While the army was so formidable the navy -scarcely existed. The sailors generally were for the King. Many had -revolted and carried their ships across to Charles II in Holland, while -in the crews that remained disaffection prevailed dangerously.’ It would -be difficult to mass more inaccuracies in so many words. There were -forty-one fighting-ships actually at sea, a larger number than had been -collected since the days of Elizabeth, and immeasurably superior as a -fighting machine to anything which had existed since 1588. The ‘many’ -which had revolted were nine, and of these three were small pinnaces -of an aggregate of 210 tons and 180 men; of the others, one was a -second and the rest third and fourth-rates. If ‘disaffection prevailed -dangerously,’ it is strange that not only did none of the remaining ships -join the revolters, but they were known to be ready to fight them, and -Batten on one occasion avoided an action on account of ‘the very notable -resistance’ to be expected.[1066] Instead of being disaffected, Warwick -found that on board his own ship they prepared for fighting ‘with the -greatest alacrity that ever I saw ... which, as the captains informed me, -was likewise the general temper of the rest of the fleet.’ Finally the -sailors in the Downs, who ‘generally were for the King’ and were actuated -by ‘inherent loyalty,’ concurred in December in the Army Remonstrance, -requiring that Charles I, ‘the capital and grand author of our troubles,’ -should be brought to justice for the ‘treason, blood, and mischief’ he -had caused. The after story of the revolted ships is just as instructive -on the point of their disaffection to the Parliament. No sooner had -they reached Holland than the men commenced to desert. By November five -vessels had been brought back to England, and the ill-will manifested on -the others was so pronounced that it was necessary to place strong bodies -of cavaliers on board to keep the seamen in subjection.[1067] - -The outburst would have been serious had it been general. It was confined -to a small section of the naval force, was due to dissensions relating to -men rather than principles, and gives small countenance to the view that -the Navy repented the part it had taken. The loyalty of the majority and -the speedy penitence of the minority were the best tests of the temper -in which the Parliament was judged by those who upheld it afloat; and if -the disaffected minority loved Rainsborow and his employers little they -showed that they liked Charles Stuart less. - - - - -CHARLES I - -1625-1649 - -PART II—ROYAL AND MERCHANT SHIPPING - - -[Sidenote: The Royal Ships in 1625.] - -When Charles I inherited the crown, his fleet consisted of 4 first, 14 -second, 8 third, and 4 fourth rates;[1068] of these 1 first, 7 second, -6 third, and the 4 fourth rates were comparatively new ships, the -oldest being the _Prince_, launched in 1610. The others were originally -Elizabethan, had been repaired, rebuilt or patched up more or less -effectively at various times, and of them the _Lion_ of 1582 was the most -ancient. The recent accessions were, for reasons previously noticed, more -commodious and better seaboats than their predecessors, but the King had -yet to learn that the mere possession of a naval framework in the shape -of hulls, spars and guns was of little use without efficient crews, and -adequate knowledge and honest effort on the part of the subordinate -officials on whom fell the responsibility of preparation and equipment. -Whether due to a desire to save the royal ships as much as possible, -to want of men to man them properly, or to their generally inefficient -state, the expeditions of 1625-7-8 included a very large proportion of -armed merchantmen. In 1625 there were twelve men-of-war and seventy-three -merchantmen;[1069] in 1627 fourteen of the former, of which three were -small pinnaces and eighty-two of the latter[1070]; and in 1628 the second -Rochelle fleet, which Lindsey commanded, was made up of twenty-nine -King’s ships and thirty-one merchantmen.[1071] But under Lindsey, ten of -the royal ships were of the class known as ‘whelps,’ just built, and -measuring 180 tons each, and ten were pinnaces of 50 tons or under, so -that only nine vessels of the real fighting line were with him. We shall -see that the owners of merchantmen, who could neither escape the calls -made on their ships nor get paid for their services, by no means valued -the honour thus thrust upon them. - -Charles, like his father, felt a keen interest in the Navy. In the case -of James I it was prized more as an imposing appurtenance of his regal -dignity than from any statesmanlike appreciation of its importance; -in that of his son the evidence goes to show that, while vanity was -sometimes a ruling motive,[1072] he was also fully alive to the weight -a powerful fleet gave to English diplomacy. The State Papers show that -he exercised a constant personal supervision in naval affairs, sometimes -overruling the opinions of his officials in technical details of which -he could have possessed no special knowledge. No new vessels were built -during the first years of the reign. Theoretically, with the assistance -of the hired merchantmen available, the Royal Navy was sufficient for -the duties it was called upon to perform. Practically, it was found that -even those that were seaworthy were too slow under sail, as were also the -merchantmen, to deal with the plague of Dunkirk privateers and Moorish -pirates, who swarmed in the narrow seas, and who almost blockaded the -coasts except for large and heavily-armed ships. - -A chief article of accusation brought by the Parliament against -Buckingham was that he had neglected his duty in taking few or no -measures against these enemies, but if all the charges made against him -had as little foundation, his reputation would be higher than it now -stands. The Channel squadron had been increased, two special expeditions -had been sent out after them, and any prizes likely to prove fast sailers -had been taken into the Royal service for the purpose of being so -employed, but as the Turks and Dunkirkers, built for speed, could sail -at least twice as fast as the English, it was only under exceptional -circumstances that one was sometimes captured. In 1624 the Captain of one -of the Commissioners’ new and improved ships indignantly reported that -some Dutch men-of-war he met had deliberately and contemptuously sailed -round him. This was square rig _versus_ square rig. Remembering that the -Turks undoubtedly were lateen-rigged, that the Dunkirkers probably used -some modification of it, and that this is still the most effective spread -of canvas known for light vessels of moderate tonnage, we need not wonder -that the lumbering English third and fourth rates, built for close -action, could never get near them. During the Rhé voyage sixty English -ships chased some Dunkirkers, but only one pinnace could overtake them, -and that of course could not venture to attack.[1073] But there were also -other causes. In 1634 Pennington wrote to the Admiralty that he had just -met a fleet of seventeen Dutch ships, - - ‘all tallowed and clean from the ground, which is a course that - they duly observe every two months, or three at the most ... - which is the only cause which makes them go and work better - than ours; whereas our ships are grounded and graved two or - three months before they come out, and never tallowed, so - that they are foul again before we get to sea with them, and - then they are kept out for eight or ten months, whereby they - are so overgrown with barnacles and weeds under water that it - is impossible that they should either go well or work yarely - ... all men-of-war, of what nation soever, whether Turk or - Christian, keep this course of cleansing their ships once in - two or three months but us.’[1074] - -Therefore the first additions to the navy were small, fast-sailing -vessels, built or bought with this object, and the master shipwrights -were several times called upon to furnish designs of ships especially -adapted for chasing the privateers. Their first suggestion, in December -1625, was for a cruiser whose length, over all, would have been nearly -four-and-a-half times her breadth, and this is noticeable as a marked -step in the tendency now existing to increase the proportion between -length and beam.[1075] Again, in March 1627[1076] they proposed ‘a nimble -and forcible ship of 339 tons to meet the Dunkirkers;’ but in this case -the length was rather less than four times the beam, and eventually -pecuniary necessities compelled the government to be content with vessels -of a smaller model, called ‘whelps,’ contrived for sweeps as well as -sails, and whose length was nearly two-and-a-half times the breadth. -In merchantmen the keel was still only about two and a half times the -beam.[1077] Although English ships were slow, they were strong. Nathaniel -Butler, a naval captain, attributed their sluggishness as compared with -the Dutch to their being ‘so full of timber ... we building ours for -seventy years, they theirs for seven;’ and Northumberland, in 1636, -described some of them as ‘so clogged with timber’ that there was no room -for stores.[1078] Modern builders would probably ascribe their want of -speed to faulty lines rather than to excess of material; but if it was -a defect it was one of which we reaped the full benefit in the first -war with Holland, when the Dutch ships, splendidly as they were fought, -were riven and sunk by the more solid and more heavily armed English -men-of-war long before their crews were beaten. - -[Sidenote: The Navy List.] - -The following vessels were added to the Navy during the reign of Charles, -including such prizes as were taken into the service and remained in it -until useless:—[1079] - - +------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-------+--------+ - | | | | Re- | Keel | Beam | - | |Prize|Built|built| in ft.| in ft. | - | +-----+-----+-----+-------+--------+ - |_St Claude_[1081] |1625 | | | | | - |_St Denis_ |1625 | | | 104 | 32.5 | - |_St Mary_[1082] |1626 | | | | | - |_St Anne_[1082] |1626 | | | | | - |_Espérance_[1083] |1626 | | | | | - |_Henrietta_[1084] | |1626 | | 52 | 15 | - |_Maria_[1084] | |1626 | | 52 | 15 | - |_Spy_[1085] | |1626 | | | | - |_10 Lion’s Whelps_[1086]| |1627 | | 62 | 25 | - |_Fortune_[1087] |1627 | | | | | - |_St Esprit_[1088] |1627 | | | | | - |_Vanguard_ | | |1630 | 112 | 36.4 | - |_Charles_ | |1632 | | 105 | 33.7 | - |_Henrietta Maria_ | |1632 | | 106 | 35.9 | - |_James_ | |1633 | | 110 | 37.6 | - |_Unicorn_ | |1633 | | 107 | 36.4 | - |_Leopard_ | |1634 | | 95 | 33 | - |_Swallow_ | |1634 | | 96 | 32.2 | - |_Swan_[1089] |1636 | | | | | - |_Nicodemus_[1089] |1636 | | | 63 | 19 | - |_Roebuck_ | |1636 | | 57 | 18.1 | - |_Greyhound_ | |1636 | | 60 | 20.3 | - |_Expedition_ | |1637 | | 90 | 26 | - |_Providence_ | |1637 | | 90 | 26 | - |_Sovereign_ | |1637 | | 127 | 46.6 | - |_Lion_ | | |1640 | 108 | 35.4 | - |_Prince_ | | |1641 | 115 | 43 | - |_Crescent_[1090] | | | | | | - |_Lily_[1090] | | | | | | - |_Satisfaction_ | |1646 | | | | - |_Adventure_ | |1646 | | 94 | 27 | - |_Nonsuch_ | |1646 | | 98 | 28.4 | - |_Assurance_ | |1646 | | 89 | 26.1 | - |_Constant Warwick_[1091]| |1646 | | 90 | 28 | - |_Phœnix_ | |1647 | | 96 | 28.6 | - |_Dragon_ | |1647 | | 96 | 30 | - |_Tiger_ | |1647 | | 99 | 29.4 | - |_Elizabeth_ | |1647 | | 101.6| 29.8 | - |_Old Warwick_ |1646 | | | | | - |_Falcon_[1092] | | | | | | - |_Hart_[1092] | | | | | | - |_Dove_[1092] | | | | | | - |_Truelove_[1092] | | | | | | - |_Concord_[1092] | | | | | | - |_Dolphin_[1092] | | | | | | - |_Fellowship_[1092] | | | | | | - |_Globe_[1092] | | | | | | - |_Hector_[1092] | | | | | | - +------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-------+--------+ - - +------------------------+-----------+-------+-------+-----+ - | |Depth[1080]|Draught| Gross | | - | | in ft. | in ft.|tonnage| Guns| - | +-----------+-------+-------+-----+ - |_St Claude_[1081] | | | 300 | | - |_St Denis_ | 11.9 | | 528 | 38 | - |_St Mary_[1082] | | | | | - |_St Anne_[1082] | | | 350 | | - |_Espérance_[1083] | | | 250 | | - |_Henrietta_[1084] | 6.6 | | 68 | 6 | - |_Maria_[1084] | 6.6 | | 68 | 6 | - |_Spy_[1085] | | | 20 | | - |_10 Lion’s Whelps_[1086]| 9 | | 185 | 14 | - |_Fortune_[1087] | | | 300 | | - |_St Esprit_[1088] | | | | | - |_Vanguard_ | 13.10 | | 750 | 40 | - |_Charles_ | 16.3 | 16.8 | 810 | 44 | - |_Henrietta Maria_ | 15.8 | | 793 | 42 | - |_James_ | 16.2 | 17.2 | 875 | 48 | - |_Unicorn_ | 15.1 | 16.3 | 823 | 46 | - |_Leopard_ | 12.4 | 12.9 | 515 | 34 | - |_Swallow_ | 11.7 | 12.3 | 478 | 34 | - |_Swan_[1089] | | | | | - |_Nicodemus_[1089] | 9.6 | | 105 | 6 | - |_Roebuck_ | 6.8 | | 90 | 10 | - |_Greyhound_ | 7.8 | | 126 | 12 | - |_Expedition_ | 9.8 | | 301 | 30 | - |_Providence_ | 9.9 | | 304 | 30 | - |_Sovereign_ | 19.4 | | 1522 |100 | - |_Lion_ | 15.6 | 17.6 | 717 | 52 | - |_Prince_ | 18 | | 1187 | 64 | - |_Crescent_[1090] | | | | | - |_Lily_[1090] | | | | | - |_Satisfaction_ | | | 220 | 26 | - |_Adventure_ | 9.11 | 14 | 385 | 38 | - |_Nonsuch_ | 14.2 | | 389 | 34 | - |_Assurance_ | 11 | 13 | 341 | 32 | - |_Constant Warwick_[1091]| 12 | 12.8 | 379 | 30 | - |_Phœnix_ | 14.3 | | 414 | 38 | - |_Dragon_ | 12 | 15 | 414 | 38 | - |_Tiger_ | 12 | 14.8 | 447 | 38 | - |_Elizabeth_ | 14.10 | | 471 | 38 | - |_Old Warwick_ | | | | 22 | - |_Falcon_[1092] | | | | | - |_Hart_[1092] | | | | 10 | - |_Dove_[1092] | | | | | - |_Truelove_[1092] | | | | 6 | - |_Concord_[1092] | | | | | - |_Dolphin_[1092] | | | | | - |_Fellowship_[1092] | | | | 28 | - |_Globe_[1092] | | | | 24 | - |_Hector_[1092] | | | | 20 | - +------------------------+-----------+-------+-------+-----+ - -The _James_, _Assurance_, _Elizabeth_, _Tiger_, _Nonsuch_, _Swallow_, -and _Henrietta Maria_, were built at Deptford, the first four by Peter -Pett, who also built the _Constant Warwick_ at Ratcliff. The _Sovereign_, -_Prince_, _Leopard_, _Greyhound_, _Unicorn_, _Roebuck_, _Adventure_, -_Phœnix_, and _Charles_, at Woolwich; the _Henrietta Maria_, _Vanguard_, -_Lion_, and _Dragon_, at Chatham. Phineas Pett, who built the _Sovereign_ -and rebuilt the _Prince_, was a son, by a second marriage, of the Peter -Pett, master shipwright in the reign of Elizabeth; his son, Peter Pett, -junior, built the _Nonsuch_, _Adventure_ and _Phœnix_. The Peter Pett of -Deptford was a grandson of the Elizabethan Pett. - -[Sidenote: The Ten Whelps.] - -The first two pinnaces constructed, the _Henrietta_ and the _Maria_, -were, it is expressly stated,[1093] to be ‘carvel built,’ a distinction -which implies that hitherto such small vessels had been clinch or -‘clinker built;’ we have seen that large ones were mostly carvel, or -flush planked, in the reign of Henry VIII.[1094] We do not hear that -they proved satisfactory in either speed or power, and next year the -contract for the ten whelps was divided among nine shipwrights, some of -them private builders, at £3 5s a ton.[1095] They were to be able to use -sweeps, and were square rigged, with three masts, two decks and a round -house, as miniature copies of the large ships; like those also they -were too heavily sparred and ordnanced. Of heavy guns each was intended -to carry four culverins, four demi-culverins, and two brass sakers, -but subsequently two demi-cannon were added, and the strain of this -armament proved too great for both their sailing and seagoing qualities. -Their demi-cannon were mostly stored in hold at sea, instead of being -on deck.[1096] They were afterwards said to have been built in haste, -‘of mean, sappy timber, for particular service,’[1097] and to be weakly -constructed, costing relatively large sums to maintain in serviceable -condition; they were used a good deal for winter service in the four -seas, and only one of them lived into the days of the Commonwealth. Two -were lost returning from Rochelle; and by 1631 the sixth and seventh -whelps had disappeared from the lists, the seventh by the simple process -of sending the gunner into the magazine with a naked light while she was -in action with a Dunkirker. The fifth was lost in July 1637, and her -experience of straining till she took in water through her closed ports, -and opened her seams, was probably that undergone by most of those that -foundered.[1098] The fourth whelp was handed over ‘for a design to be -practised on by a Dutchman’s project,’ and she passes out of the Navy -list.[1099] These whelps were the first representatives, in intention, -although not in form, of the regular sloop and gunboat class afterwards -so largely used for minor police purposes. - -During the years of foreign warfare it was found easier to turn suitable -prizes into men-of-war than to arrive at the money necessary for new -ships, but from 1632 until the commencement of domestic trouble it -will be seen that vessels were added in regular succession. It will be -observed in the preceding list of ships that a keel length of three -times the beam was, roughly, the ratio in favour during the middle of the -reign, while on reference to the Elizabethan Navy list, the proportion -in the majority is seen to be one of about two and a half times the -breadth. Whether the alteration was due to theoretical calculation or to -study of the lines of foreign ships we have no means of deciding, but -the increase in length is still more pronounced in the vessels launched -in 1646 and 1647, their keels being sometimes nearly three and a half -times their beam. According to Pepys this last improvement was due to -Pett’s observation of a French ship lying in the river, in which case -the French designers had already obtained that superiority in the art of -shipbuilding which they held until speed became a matter of engine power. - -[Sidenote: The new Ships.] - -The cost of the _Charles_ and _Henrietta Maria_ was £10,849, and of -launching and taking them from Woolwich to Chatham, £1222; that of the -_James_ and _Unicorn_ came to £12,632,[1100] the increased totals as -compared with the _St George_ and _St Andrew_, of the previous reign, -being attributed to sounder workmanship and higher prices for labour and -materials. A further sum of £4076, was paid on the _James_ and _Unicorn_ -for ‘rigging, launching, furnishing, and transporting’ them from Woolwich -and Deptford to Chatham, work which included 65 tons of cordage at £35 -a ton, 214 cwt. of anchors at £2 per cwt., suits of sails at £225 a -suit, waistcloths and top armours of red cloth for both £132,[1101] and -trumpeters and pipes at their launch, £15.[1102] The King and Queen were -present at the launch of these vessels, and £14, 5s 4d was spent in -sweetmeats for them and their attendants. Pennington wrote to the Lords -of the Admiralty that the _Vanguard_ and the _Henrietta Maria_ were both -good ships, although the latter was ‘extraordinarily housed in aloft;’ -privately, to Nicholas, he said that there had been ‘great abuse both in -materials and workmanship.’[1103] When he had to try the _Unicorn_ he in -that instance gave his unfavourable report directly to the Admiralty. -On joining at Tilbury he found her so crank that she could carry no -sail. Three shipwrights on board—Ed. Boate, who built her, Pett, and -Austin—persuaded him to take in another hundred tons of ballast, and the -extra weight brought her so low that the gun-deck ports had to be caulked -up, as ‘in a reasonable gale of wind’ she would lay them under water. -Pennington was still unwilling to venture out with the ship, ‘but in -regard to the poor man’s disgrace that built her,’ he gave her a trial at -sea, and decides that she ‘is dangerous and unserviceable,’ cannot work -her guns, and will not live in a gale.[1104] - -Under these circumstances the authorities naturally desired to be -informed by the Trinity House experts and the masters of the Shipwrights’ -Company why they had given a certificate approving the _Unicorn_. They -answered that they thought she would be a failure, ‘but rather than -disgrace any workman they put their hands, hoping the ship might prove -well.’[1105] The defence sounds weakly benevolent, but that they were -either too ignorant themselves to judge, or that the ganglionic plexus -of fraud uniting most officials made them unwilling to venture on such -a dangerous novelty as an honest opinion, is much more likely than that -they were actuated by goodwill towards each other, a feeling they always -successfully suppressed where hostile criticism could be safely hazarded. -‘The bruits of this disaster have spread far and wide,’ wrote Edisbury, -and many opinions were obtained as to the best course to take, the -discussion ending in girdling her, a method which increased her stiffness -at the expense of her speed. The _Unicorn’s_ ports were intended to be 5 -feet above the water line, but they proved to be but 3 feet 7 inches from -it. ‘The King’s ships are not built as they should be, nor like merchant -ships,’ Pennington complained.[1106] - -The _Roebuck_ and _Greyhound_ of 1636 were built from the waste of the -_Sovereign_, then on the stocks, and the _Providence_ and _Expedition_ -in 1637 were finished in time to join Rainsborow before Sallee, vessels -of lighter draught than those he had with him, but of some force, being -required. The other accessions of 1636, the _Swan_ and _Nicodemus_ were -both Dunkirk prizes, and added to the Navy as being the fastest vessels -afloat. Pennington recommended that the _Swan_ should be used as a model -by English builders, and the _Nicodemus_ was said to run away from -everything, ‘as a greyhound does from a little dog.’ - -[Sidenote: Shipwrights’ Errors.] - -Noticing the general discrepancies between designs and results in -shipbuilding, Charles II remarked a generation later of Christopher Pett, -when he turned out a successful ship, ‘I am sure it must be God put him -in the way, for no art of his own could ever have done it.’ An observer -of this date, Kenrick Edisbury, who succeeded Sir Thos. Aylesbury as -Surveyor of the Navy, perhaps better qualified to judge, attributed -part of the apparent error rather to self-interest. ‘I never yet knew,’ -he writes to Nicholas, ‘any ship built by day-work but the shipwrights -have made them of greater burden than their warrants mentioned, as you -may discern by this new ship now in building at Deptford, which I am -persuaded will prove 200 tons greater than was appointed.’[1107] Edisbury -was referring to either the _Leopard_ or the _Swallow_, and there is -an instructive paper relating to these two vessels which shows the -lack of exactness, whether due to ignorance or intention. It gives the -measurements as ordered by the King—the shipwrights intrusted with the -work received their instructions from him personally[1108]—and as they -actually were.[1109] - - +--------------------------------+---------+---------+-------------+ - | | | | ‘Dimensions | - | |_Leopard_|_Swallow_| given by | - | | | |his majestie’| - | +---------+---------+-------------+ - | | Feet | Feet | Feet | - |Keel | 95 | 96 | 93 | - |Beam inside the plank | 33 | 32.2 | 31 | - |Depth from upper edge of keel }| | | | - | to diameter of breadth }| 12.4 | 11.7½ | | - |Depth of keel | 1.7 | 1.8 | | - |Rake of stem | 30.6 | 28.4 | 27 | - |Rake of stern post | 4.3 | 4.8 | 4 | - |The flat of the floor | 13 | 13 | 13 | - |Midship draught | 12.9 | 12.3 | 11.6 | - |Distance of lower edge of port }| | | | - | from greatest breadth }| 5 | 4.10½| 5.6 | - |Distance between ports |8.6 and 9| 8 | 8 | - |From deck to lower edge of ports| 2.1 | 2.1 | 2.2 | - |Breadth of ports | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.4 | - |Depth of ports | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.4 | - |From the diameter of breadth }| | | | - | to the top of the waist }| 13.6 | 12.7 | | - |Between decks | 6.6 | 6.7 | 6.8 | - |Gross tonnage | 515 | 478 | 384 | - +--------------------------------+---------+---------+-------------+ - -[Sidenote: Report on the Ships.] - -In January 1626-7 we have a report on the qualities of the new ships -added since 1618, and built under Burrell’s superintendence while he was -the Commissioners’ principal subordinate. The _Constant Reformation_ is -said to be strongly built and seaworthy, but cannot work her lower tier -in a moderate sea; the _Victory_ weakly built and crank, as is also the -_Garland_ which is a slow sailer as well. The _Swiftsure_, _Bonaventure_, -and _Mary Rose_ are all condemned as badly built, crank, or slow under -sail. The _St George_, _St Andrew_, and _Triumph_ are awarded faint -praise. It must, however, be remembered that this survey was made by -Burrell’s professional competitors, of whose envy and jealousy there -is incidental evidence yet remaining, and that at least five of these -vessels, after years of sailing and fighting round half the world, -are to be found still fit for service in the Navy lists of Charles -II. The Commissioners claimed that, with the exception of the earlier -_Bonaventure_, theirs were the first additions to the Navy that could -carry out their guns ‘in all fighting weathers.’ - -[Sidenote: The Sovereign of the Seas.] - -It is unnecessary to describe the _Sovereign of the Seas_, accounts -of which, based on Thos. Heywood’s well-known tract,[1110] have been -several times given in various works. Some details, however, not known -to Heywood, may be given here. The suggestion must have been under -discussion for some time, but the first mention of her is in August -1634, when the masters of the Trinity House, apparently without being -asked for it, volunteered an opinion that such a ship was an impossible -dream.[1111] Their dogmatic statement that a three-decker was a thing -‘beyond the art or wit of man to construct,’ has already been quoted, -but they further insisted that, if built, there was no port, ‘the Isle -of Wight only’ excepted, in which she could ride, and no ground tackle -which would hold her. No notice seems to have been taken of their long -and poetically expressed effusion, and in January 1635 an estimate was -called for of a vessel of 1500 tons, (‘the king with his own hand hath -set down the burden;‘), and in March, Phineas Pett was ordered to prepare -a model of ‘the ship royal,’ and was told that ‘you principally are -appointed by his majesty for the building of the same.’[1112] A month -later Pennington, Mansell, Phineas Pett, and John Wells[1113] met, and -agreed on dimensions, which were substantially those afterwards adopted, -and the gross tonnage was to be by depth 1466 tons, by draught 1661 tons, -and by beam 1836 tons; but no explanation is given of the way in which -these figures are arrived at.[1114] Pett’s estimate of the cost was -£13,680;[1115] perhaps he really did not know, perhaps he did not wish -to frighten Charles, but the amount eventually spent on her, exclusive -of guns, was £40,833 8s 1½d.[1116] Comparing this sum with the £5500 to -£6500 which was the average cost of a forty-gun ship, there must have -been, even allowing for the much larger proportion spent in decoration of -various kinds, great extravagance in some respects. - -Before commencing work Pett desired that the principal officers, who, -he said, had always shown themselves adverse, should neither provide -materials nor make any payments without his signed order. ‘Already -I find certain extraordinary unnecessary charges of new building of -dwelling-houses bestowed and employed in Woolwich yard, which I doubt -not will be brought upon the charge of the ship.’[1117] As this was -occurring while the trees which were to form her frame were yet in leaf -in Chopwell and Brancepeth woods, it gives us an interesting glimpse into -the habits of the chief Officers of the Navy, and the estimation in which -they were held by one who was brought into daily contact with them. The -keel was laid at Woolwich, in the presence of Charles, on 16th January -1636, and she was launched in October 1637. Pett had recommended that -the launching should be deferred till the spring, since the vessel would -grow foul lying in the river through the winter, and would then require -redocking. Pett’s proposal was annotated by the king, ‘I am not of your -opinion.’[1118] Charles had a dull optimism, unshaken by any number of -blunders, in the value of a royal opinion, whether applied to subjects -of general policy or to such a technical matter as the rate at which a -ship’s hull was likely to grow foul.[1119] - -The wages bill on the _Sovereign_ amounted to £20,948, and joining, -painting, and carving to £6691; but in the case of this ship the large -sum spent in decoration has in popular imagination, as expressed in -pictures and descriptions, implied an equivalent expenditure on other -ships which did not really occur. Where details are given of the cost of -men-of-war, or of their repairs, the money spent on ornamental carving -and painting bears a very small proportion to the total; and it is quite -likely that the conventional representations of sixteenth and earlier -seventeenth century vessels are altogether wrong in this respect, and -that men-of-war of these times, at any rate those of the second, third, -and fourth ranks, were little more bedecked than modern merchantmen. -The manner in which the adornments of the _Prince_ and _Sovereign_ are -described and dwelt upon as out of the common points to the probability -that other ships possessed few of these external attractions. The -_Elizabeth_ and _Triumph_, the _Ark Royal_ and _Merhonour_ were as -relatively important in their day as the _Prince_ and _Sovereign_, -but, with the exceptions already noticed under the reign of Elizabeth, -allusion to any special ornamentation is in their case exceptional, -still less, then, would the smaller vessels be much beautified by gold, -colours, and carving. Decoration, perhaps, became much more general -and expensive after the Restoration; but John Holland attributed the -increased expenditure on it that began about now to the absence of -control over the master shipwrights, who were permitted to do much as -they liked and would not be outdone by each other. - -The _Sovereign_ being afloat, the next proceeding was to arm her, and -for this purpose 102 brass guns were required, costing, by estimation, -£24,753, 8s 8d.[1120] They were thus divided:— - - +-----------------------+-----------------------+------+------+---------+ - | | Number |Length|Weight| Total | - | | | each | each | | - | +-----------------------+------+------+---------+ - | | | Ft. | Cwt. |Tons Cwt.| - |_Lower tier_— | | | | | - | Luffs, quarters, and | | | | | - | sides |20 cannon drakes[1121] | 9 | 45 }| | - | Stern chasers |4 demi-cannon drakes |12½ | 53 }| 64 16 | - | Fore chasers |2 ” ” |11½ | 48 }| | - | Bows abaft the chase |2 ” ” |10 | 44 }| | - |_Middle tier_— | | | | | - | Luffs, quarters, and | | | | | - | sides |24 culverin drakes | 8½ | 28 }| | - | Fore chase |2 culverins |11½ | 48 }| 45 4 | - | After chase |4 ” |11½ | 48 }| | - |_Upper tier_— | | | | | - | Sides |24 demi-culverin drakes| 8½ | 18 }| | - | Fore chase |2 demi-culverins |10 | 30 }| 27 12 | - | After chase | ” ” |10 | 30 }| | - |Forecastle |8 demi-culverin drakes | 9 | 20 | 8 0 | - |Half-deck |6 ” ” | 9 | 20 | 6 0 | - |Quarter-deck |2 ” ” | 5½ | 8 | 16 | - |Bulkhead abaft the |2 culverin drakes | 5½ | 11 | 1 2 | - | forecastle | | | | | - +-----------------------+-----------------------+------+------+---------+ - -The first estimate was for 90 guns, and here again we read, ‘His majesty -has since altered his resolution both in respect of the number and nature -of pieces.’ If Pett originally designed the ship for 90 lighter guns, -and Charles raised the number and weight by a stroke of the pen to 102, -trying to ignore, in the plenitude of his royal power, such things as -metacentres and centres of gravity, it is not surprising that she proved -topheavy at sea. It was one of those cases in which ignorance is bliss, -but, without reading modern scientific knowledge into the past, we know -he had professional advisers at hand whose empirical skill was sufficient -to enable them to warn him of the folly of such a change. The guns were -engraved—at a cost of £3 each—with the rose and crown, sceptre and -trident, and anchor and cable. In a compartment under the rose and crown -was the inscription, _Carolus Edgari sceptrum stabilivit aquarum_, ‘being -a scutcheon and motto appointed by his majesty.’[1122] In January 1640 -occurs an estimate for a sister ship to the _Sovereign_; but of this, of -course, nothing more was ever heard.[1123] - -We have no station list for the _Sovereign_, as for the _Henry Grace -à Dieu_ but, as a part of ordinary discipline, divisions or quarters -seem to have been usual. There is a station list of this period for a -vessel of 40 guns and 250 men which may be considered typical.[1124] The -heavy guns required 136 men, and 50 more formed the small arms company. -The boatswain and his mate had 40 under their command to work the ship -under the orders of the master and his mate, who were attended by 2 men. -The carpenter and his mates had 6 men, the cook, steward, and surgeon, -each 2 for assistants, and 4 men were told off to steer, and 4 to remain -with the trumpeters. Finally the captain and lieutenant had 2 men in -attendance. The heaviest guns were allowed 5 men each; and the number -varied down to 5 men between two of the smaller guns. - -Of the eight vessels of 1646 and 1647 there is nothing to say beyond once -more noticing the marked increase in the ratio between length and beam. -There is not to be found, among the Commonwealth papers, any mention in -praise or dispraise of their weatherly and fighting qualities, and from -this silence we may infer that they were found to be, in essentials, all -that was expected. - -Probably a sixteenth or seventeenth century ship was not a particularly -picturesque object. Instead of the graceful, beautifully proportioned -hulls, spars, and sails of to-day, the reader must imagine a short, -squat, hull, round-bowed and square-sterned, enormously high and broad -in comparison with its length, and the sides falling in towards each -other till the upper deck was perhaps only two-thirds of the width on -the water line. The stern was the highest part of the ship, and the bows -the lowest, so that she looked as though she was always premeditating a -plunge forward, and the longitudinal curve of the sides was broken by -huge channels opposite each mast to which were fastened the shrouds. -Above, the stumpy masts and spars must have looked ridiculously out of -proportion to the ponderous hull, although they were in reality usually -too heavy in relation to the badly designed and placed weights below. As -for the gilt and painting, a week of rough weather would have converted -the original tawdry splendour into a forlorn slatternliness. - -[Sidenote: The remaining Elizabethan Ships.] - -Most of the remaining Elizabethan ships passed out of the service. The -hull of the _Bear_ was sold in 1629 for £315, the _Answer_ and _Crane_ -for £101, and towards the end of the reign, the _Dreadnought_, _Due -Repulse_, _Adventure_, and _Assurance_ were broken up. In 1635 Charles, -again exemplifying the very real interference, if not control, he -exercised in naval matters, ordered, against the recommendations of the -Principal Officers, that the _Warspite_ should be cut down into a lighter -for harbour service at Portsmouth. But the most serious loss in this -class was that of the _Anne Royal_, which in April 1636, when fitted as -Northumberland’s flagship, was bilged on her own anchor when bringing -to in the river. The disaster was attributed to the pilot and master -giving contradictory orders, and when she was lying on her broadside and -full of water her officers made matters worse by cutting holes in the -upper side to recover their belongings.[1125] Of course nine members of -the Trinity House at once certified that it was impossible to raise the -_Anne_, just as a year before they had petitioned against the Foreland -lights as ‘useless and unnecessary,’[1126] and just as on every point -referred to them they showed a persistence in being stultified by events, -extraordinary even in a corporation. Two townsmen of Great Yarmouth -offered to float the ship for £2000; the Principal Officers thought they -could do it for £1450, and eventually they did raise her, but with the -customary variation in official calculations, at a charge of £5355.[1127] -She was taken to the East India Company’s dock at Blackwall, and there, -being found to be too severely damaged for repair, broken up. - -Of the later ships, the _Phœnix_ and _Nonsuch_ were sold; the -_Reformation_, _Antelope_, _Swallow_, and _Convertine_ were carried -off by the mutineers of 1648 and lost to the English Navy, and most -of the prizes of the earlier years were subsequently given to private -individuals or to commercial associations. The King had no fleet -after 1642, and seized upon any expedient likely to give him one. In -November 1643 he granted a commission to Jeronimo Cæsar de Caverle as -Vice-admiral, De Caverle contracting to obtain, man, and fit out five -ships for £2000 a month, to be paid out of any prizes he might take from -the supporters of the Parliament.[1128] This, like Rupert’s commission, -was a premium on piracy. - -[Sidenote: The French Navy.] - -Not the least interesting of the papers of this reign are those which -show what a close watch was kept on the growth of the nascent French -navy. In 1625 Louis was compelled to borrow vessels from Charles, but -in 1626 Richelieu bought up or confiscated local or opposing rights and -constituted himself head of the navy, assisted by a _conseil de marine_. -That which must have been the nucleus of his fleet, the purchase of four -vessels built for him in the Low Countries, is duly reported to our -King.[1129] Again in 1627 there are several notices of fresh purchases -from the Dutch, and in September Mervyn was ordered to intercept and -destroy them on their passage to France.[1130] By this time the French -had thirty-three ships before Rochelle, but eighteen of them were under -200 tons each, and probably most were hired merchantmen.[1131] In 1630 -ten ‘dragones’ were being built at Havre in imitation of the whelps, and -a correspondent, writing from Bordeaux, says that there are ‘so many good -ships of the King of France’s navy that unless I had been an eye-witness -thereof I should not have believed it possible.’[1132] There were forty -ships ‘of good force’ there. In 1631 Charles appears to have obtained a -detailed list of the then existing French marine, thus classified:—[1133] - - +--------+----+----+----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+ - | | 900| 700| 600| 500 | 450 | 400 | 300 | 250 | 200 | - | |tons|tons|tons| tons | tons | tons | tons | tons | tons | - | | | | | & | & | & | & | & | & | - | | | | |40 guns|36 guns|34 guns|28 guns|23 guns|18 guns| - +--------+----+----+----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+ - |Brest | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | | 2 | 1 | | 1 | - |Bordeaux| | | | 3 | 3 | 1 | | | 1 | - |Blaye | | | | 1 | | 1 | | | 1 | - |Brouage | | | | | | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | - |St. Malo| | | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | | - |At sea | | | | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 | - +--------+----+----+----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+ - -There were also two of 1400 and 700 tons, respectively, building. It -must be confessed that this force, created within five years and manned -by Breton and Norman seamen, was calculated to give pause to the rulers -of the painfully maintained English Navy. Still more significant was -the fact that only twelve were Dutch-built; Richelieu had soon freed -France from dependence on foreign artisans. The proportion of guns on -French vessels was smaller than that on English vessels of corresponding -tonnage, an excess of metal having been characteristic of our equipment -until the eighteenth century. In 1639 their strength had so far increased -that they had forty sail and ten fireships in the Channel, and there was -also a powerful Dutch fleet, so that Pennington was directed to stop any -suitable merchantmen and add them to his squadron. - -A navy, however, which was not the result of natural growth, but depended -on the energy and will of one man, was predestined to decay. The French -marine, as Professor Laughton has pointed out, really began with -Colbert, and in 1661, when he took office, it was reduced to less than -20 seaworthy vessels, against some 150 carried on the English Navy list. -The rivalry still existing between the two nations commenced very early. -As soon as the _Sovereign_ was built, a similar ship was considered a -necessity for France, but for some reason it was not until 1657 that -their first three-decker was launched.[1134] - -[Sidenote: Tonnage Measurement.] - -Closely connected with shipping was the question of tonnage, and the -discussion which raged between 1626-8 on the methods of calculating it -would require a volume for its full elucidation. The existing rule was -recognised as imperfect, but the science of the time was not able to -formulate anything satisfactory in its place, for exact measurement has -been a matter only of the present century. The following paper, printed -in full, may be regarded as representing the various views existing, and -will at any rate show how little dependence can be placed on any positive -statement of a ship’s tonnage.[1135] - - There are three ways of measuring ships now in use:— - - _Mr Baker’s Old Way_—The old way, which was established in - Queen Elizabeth’s time, and never questioned all King James his - time, is this: The length of the keel, leaving out the false - post, if there be any. Multiply by the greatest breadth within - the plank, and that product by the depth taken from the breadth - to the upper edge of the keel produceth a solid number which - divided by 100 gives the contents in tons, into which add one - third part for tonnage, so have you the tons and tonnage. - - The _Adventure_ of Ipswich - - ft. - Length 63·6 1802 7737 - Breadth 26·2 1417 8037 Within yᵉ plank. - Depth 11 1041 3927 To yᵉ upper edge - of keel. - Divisor 100 70 - Tons 182,80 1261 9701 - One third for tonnage 60,93[1136] - ------ - 243,73 tons and tonnage. - - It is credibly averred by Sir H. Mervyn and Sir H. Palmer that - the old way of measuring was to take the breadth without yᵉ - plank and the depth from the breadth to the lower edge of the - keel. And this was Baker’s way of measuring. - - _Second Way_—The second way is assumed by the shipwrights of - the river to be the old way, but it is not, which makes the - ship to be 28 in the hundred greater than the former, and is - this: The length of the keel taken as before, or ought to be. - The breadth from outside the plank to outside. The depth or - draught of water from the breadth to the bottom of the keel - all multiplied together and divided by 94 (say they) give the - content in tons, into which add one third for tonnage. - - ft. - Length 63.6 1802 7737 - Breadth 26.8 1426 230 Without yᵉ timber - and plank. - Depth 12.3 1088 1361 To yᵉ lower edge - of keel. - Divisor 94 8026 8721 - Tons 220,71 - One third for tonnage 73,57 - ----- - 294,28 tons and tonnage. - - If you divide this by 100 (which is said to be here done by 94) - it is yᵉ true old way, called Baker’s way. - - _Third Way_—The third way was proposed by Mr Gunter, Mr Pett, - Mr Stevens, Mr Lyddiard, and myself, who were required by - warrant from my lord Duke of Buckingham and the commissioners - for the navy (then being) to measure the _Adventure_ of - Ipswich, the greatest bilged ship in the river, and from her - dimensions to frame a rule that in our best judgments might - be indifferently applicable to all kinds of frames. This we - performed and yielded our reasons for it, which, to avoid the - abuse of furred sides and deep keels and standing strakes, - which increaseth the burden but not the hold, was thus: the - length by the keel as the first; the depth in hold from the - breadth to the seeling;[1137] the mean breadth within that - seeling at half that depth multiplied together, and the product - divided by 65, gives the tons, into which add one third part - for tonnage. - - ft. - Length 63.6 1802 7737 - Mean breadth 22 1342 4227 Within the - seeling. - Depth 9.8 985 4265 To the seeling. - Divisor 65 8187 866 - Tons 207,83 2317 7095 - One third for tonnage 69,27 - ------ - 277,10[1138] This increaseth 12 per - 100 above the old rule. - - There is a fourth way, devised by the shipwrights and Trinity - masters, but exploded for the great excess which makes the - ship 30 in the hundred greater than the first, and it is thus: - length of the keel as at first, middle breadth beneath the - greatest, viz. the breadth at the wrunghead, depth to the - outside of the plank, all multiplied together and divided by 70. - - ft. - Length 63.6 1372 5438 - Middle breadth 23.7 1051 1525 Without (_i.e._ - outside) timber - and plank. - Depth 11.3 1802 7737 Without the plank. - Divisor 70 8154 9019 - Tons 240,68 1381 3719 - One third for tonnage 80,22 - ------ - 320,90 - -Although this document is quoted at length as showing the opposing views, -the controversy began in May 1626, when Wells, Stevens, and others sent -in an interesting paper,[1139] which is the one referred to in their -‘third way’ of the preceding, too long to transcribe fully, but from -which some extracts may be given. The main question was whether the depth -and breadth should be taken from within or without board. In the second -case the King paid for more tonnage in a hired ship, especially if she -was furred or girdled, than he actually obtained, but the first was held -to be a direct incentive to owners to build flimsily. The _Adventure_ of -Ipswich was all through the subject of experiment. They say:— - - We consider the ship may be considered three ways—the first in - cask, and so two butts or four hogsheads make a ton; the second - in feet, and so forty feet of timber make a ton, the third in - weight and so twenty hundred weight make a ton.... The first - seems most rational to us.... We therefore first prescribe - the hold of the ship to be the cavity of the vessel contained - between the lines of her greatest breadth and depth withinboard - ... supposing the lower edge of the (deck) beams to be pitched - at the breadth.... We next consider what quantity of cask may - be stowed in this hold first by drawing the bends and the form - of the cask in each several bend; but this way being subject - to error we sought the true contents thereof arithmetically, - allowing 4½ feet to the length of a butt, and 2 ft. 8 in. to - the depth of the first tier, but 2 ft. 4 in. for the rest of - the tiers. This whole body we reduce into feet, and divide the - product thereof by sixty, because we find by calculation that a - ton of cask stowed to the best advantage will take up as much - room as sixty feet solid, and by these means we produce the - whole contents of the _Adventure’s_ hold to be 207 tons. - -They then proceed to frame the rule they used in the ‘third way’ of the -paper of 1627, and notice that practically the _Adventure_ takes a cargo -of about 276 tons of coal, but that this brings her midship port within a -foot of the water line and renders her unfit for any service. In June the -masters of the Trinity House commented on the preceding statement,[1140] -and began by declaring that ‘truly to find the contents of the cavity of -the hold in cask is not possible.’ They strongly maintained that vessels -should be measured from without board, seeing that a furred ship could -carry more than if unfurred, ignoring the fact that one object of the -proposed new rule was to insure more accurate designing and building by -throwing the loss on the owner. ‘The old rule,’ they said, ‘is less true -for lately built ships, which have great floors, but true for old ships -with small floors.’[1141] Their protest evoked a derisive reply from the -government shipwrights, from which it is unnecessary to quote.[1142] -Finally an order was issued, 26th May 1628, that all the King’s ships and -those hired by him should be measured by taking ‘the length of the keel, -leaving out the false post, the greatest breadth within the plank, the -depth from that breadth to the upper edge of the keel,’ multiplying these -and dividing by one hundred.[1143] - -The result of the change was to make vessels apparently smaller, but -whether nearer to, or further from, what we should now consider their -real tonnage we have no means of deciding conclusively. The comparative -measurements of two ships by the old and the new rules may serve as -example of the others:—[1144] - - +-----------------+--------------+-------------+----------+-------------+ - | | Keel | Beam | Depth |Gross tonnage| - +-----------------+--------------+-------------+----------+-------------+ - | |Old New |Old New |Old New | Old New | - | |rule rule |rule rule|rule rule| rule rule | - | | |[1145] [1146]| | | - | | ft. ft. | ft. ft.| ft. ft.| | - |_Henrietta Maria_|106 106 |36.5 35.9|16.6 15.8| 848 793 | - |_Charles_ |106.4 105.2 |36.3 35.7|16.6 16.3| 848 810 | - | | [1147] | | | | - +-----------------+--------------+-------------+----------+-------------+ - -[Sidenote: The Merchant Marine.] - -The extensive use made of hired ships between 1625 and 1628 led -to several lists being drawn up of the available merchant marine. -Before, however, dealing with these, there is another source from -which information may be gained. The Trinity House certificates, from -May 1625 to March 1638, of new ships requiring ordnance, and which -were necessarily sent to London to be armed, have fortunately been -preserved.[1148] These certificates probably include every new vessel of -any considerable size, and in most cases mention the tonnage and place -of construction, and from them, therefore, we can draw fairly reliable -conclusions concerning the relative importance of the shipping centres -where they were built, and the strength of the merchant navy. In these -thirteen years some 380 ships come under notice, inclusive of fifteen -prizes and twenty-two bought, mostly from the Dutch, but whether new or -old is not stated. The following table gives the number each year:— - - 1625, 5 - 1626, 124 - 1627, 23 - 1628, 5 - 1629, 55 - 1630, 37 - 1631, 18 - 1632, 11 - 1633, 12 - 1634, 12 - 1635, 24 - 1636, 25 - 1637, 24 - 1638, 5 (three months) - -The sudden increase of 1626 is probably attributable to the number of -vessels taken up for the royal service, and to the proclamation of 26th -April of that year, by which the bounty of 5s a ton on craft of over -100 tons, and suited for warfare, was renewed. The subsequent falling -off, besides being a natural reaction, may have been also due to the -difficulty owners experienced in obtaining payment for their ships when -hired by the King. An analysis of the places mentioned yields, when the -port of origin is given, the results tabulated below. The expression -‘River of Thames’ comprises those from various ports, but mostly, perhaps -Newcastle colliers sent up for their ordnance; it may also include those -from such a place as Bristol, for which one new ship cannot be a complete -return. Ships of under 300 tons are not classified, and in some instances -the tonnage is not given in the certificate:— - - +----------------+-----+------------------------+ - | |Total| Tons | - | | No. +----+----+----+----+----+ - | | | 500| 450|400 | 350| 300| - +----------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+ - |London | | | | | | | - | Limehouse | 20 | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | - | Wapping | 21 | | | | 1 | 2 | - | Horseleydown | 14 | | | 1 | 2 | 1 | - | Ratcliff | 19 | | | 1 | 3 | 3 | - | Deptford | 2 | 1 | | 1 | | | - | Shadwell | 1 | | | | | | - | Blackwall | 1 | | | | | | - |Ipswich | 48 | | | 1 | | 7 | - |Yarmouth | 26 | | | 1 | | 1 | - |Aldborough | 12 | | | | | 2 | - |Hull | 25 | | | | | | - |Woodbridge | 12 | | | 1 | 2 | 3 | - |Colchester | 7 | | | | | | - |River of Thames | 102 | | | | | | - |Bristol | 1 | | | | | 1 | - |Harwich | 2 | | | | 1 | | - |Dartmouth | 3 | | | | | | - |Dover | 2 | | | | | 1 | - |Southampton | 2 | | | | | | - |Shoreham | 14 | | | | | 5 | - |Plymouth | 1 | | | | | | - |Weymouth | 3 | | | | | 1 | - |Blakeney | 1 | | | | | | - |Exeter | 2 | | | | | | - +----------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+ - -In July 1626, Buckingham was directed to procure returns of the number -and size of the ships belonging to the port towns, and the resulting -list, so far as the reports have survived, is as follows:—[1149] - - +----------------------+----+-------+--------+ - | |No. |Largest|100 tons| - | | |in tons| or | - | | | |upwards | - +----------------------+----+-------+--------+ - |Portsmouth | 5 | 80 | | - |Gosport | 11 | 40 | | - |Isle of Wight | 10 | 70 | | - |Padstow | 3 | 40 | | - |Chester | 21 | 50 | | - |Boston | 12 | 80 | | - |Yarmouth | 97 | 320(2)| 26 | - |Dartmouth and Tor Bay | 65 | 270 | 15 | - |Fowey | 2 | 50 | | - |Sandwich | 30 | 240 | 12 | - |Lynn | 67 | 160 | 15 | - |Wells | 26 | 80 | | - |Burnham | 10 | 50 | | - |Blakeney | 14 | 100 | 1 | - |Plymouth | 40 | 120 | 7 | - |Stonehouse | 6 | 120 | 1 | - |Saltash and vicinity | 24 | 200 | 4 | - |Salcombe | 11 | 50 | | - |E. and W. Looe | 28 | 40 | | - |Penryn | 7 | 180 | 3 | - |Bristol | 32 | 250 | 16 | - +----------------------+----+-------+--------+ - -The principal point which the reader of this list will notice is the -small extent of change in the maritime relation of these places which had -occurred since the days of Elizabeth. In her time Dartmouth, including -Totnes, was the leading southern port, and, although Plymouth and -adjoining towns now run it close, it is hardly yet second. And so far as -the scanty materials for comparison allow us to judge, it does not appear -that the relation between the other ports had altered to any important -degree, although the aggregate of ships belonging to them is much -greater. Notwithstanding the obvious omissions in this roll, it includes -100 vessels of 100 tons and upwards, against 177 in 1588 for the whole of -England. - -In February 1628 there was a survey of such ships in the Thames as were -fit for the royal service.[1150] There were seven East Indiamen[1151] of -4200 tons and 218 guns, the largest being one of 900, one of 800, and two -of 700 tons; besides thirty-four other merchantmen of 7850 tons and 610 -guns, and twenty-two Newcastle colliers of from 200 to 250 tons each. The -largest of the merchantmen were one of 500 and two of 450 tons. A year -later, in February and March 1629, there was another survey of London -and other ports, but only of ships of 100 tons and upwards, and there -were now in the river eight East Indiamen of 5700 tons, one being of 1000 -tons, and forty-seven other merchantmen of 12,150 tons, and 906 guns; -there were also twenty-nine merchantmen of 7060 tons and 556 guns at sea, -thirty Newcastle vessels belonging to London owners, and eighteen other -ships of not more than 120 tons each and unarmed.[1152] The following -list of the remaining towns will complement that of 1626, on which it -shows some variations[1153]:— - - +---------------+--------+-------+ - | |100 tons|Largest| - | | and | | - | |upwards | | - +---------------+--------+-------+ - |South Cornwall | 6 | 200 | - |Plymouth | 8 | 160 | - |Dartmouth | 15 | 200 | - |Weymouth | 1 | 110 | - |Poole | 1 | 150 | - |Southampton | 1 | 100 | - |Sandwich | 6 | 200 | - |Dover | 7 | 260 | - |Malden | 2 | 160 | - |Colchester | 9 | 240 | - |Woodbridge | 17 | 300 | - |Harwich | 11 | 140 | - |Ipswich | 63 | 300 | - |Aldborough | 14 | 300 | - |Lynn | 5 | 120 | - |Yarmouth | 26 | 200 | - |Bristol | 30 | 250 | - |South Wales | 1 | 250 | - +---------------+--------+-------+ - -Including London there were, then, in 1629, more than 350 ships of over -100 tons, while Newcastle is only partly, and Yorkshire, Somerset, -Chester, and Sussex are not at all mentioned; but the writer of the copy -of 1634 remarks that in the five years that had elapsed since the survey -was made, ninety-five more such vessels had been built. - -[Sidenote: The Ports.] - -All the fleets set forth by Charles contained a large proportion of -colliers, as their cost was supposed to be but one-third of that of -merchantmen. The growing importance of the coal trade is shown by the -shipment of 143,000 chaldrons (equal to nearly 200,000 tons) of coal from -Newcastle in 1626.[1154] On the other hand, leaving piracy aside for the -moment, the chances of war and tempest played havoc with the commercial -prosperity of not a few of the coast towns. In 1626 Bristol lost fifty -ships by wreck and capture. When, in 1627, these ports were required to -provide vessels for the King, most of them pleaded inability from these -causes and losses by pirates. By the embargo in France and Spain Poole -had lost £8500, and had to maintain 400 widows and children; Exeter, -from the same cause, had lost £80,000 and ‘in many parishes there is -not one man of ability to a hundred poor people.’ Barnstaple and Totnes -replied that the crown owed them money for billeted soldiers, and that -until payment was made they were powerless. Norwich was ‘in a desolate -and distressed condition,’ as was also Harwich; and Aldborough in three -years had lost thirteen ships, and had three hundred widows and children -to keep. The port of Boston was choked up, and its big ships all sold. -Dartmouth, Penryn, and Lyme Regis professed to be nearly ruined by the -embargo laid on their ships and goods in France and Spain, while most of -their remaining merchantmen were unemployed and they had many poor to -support. Plymouth was ordered to supply two vessels of 200 tons each; -they said they were in a distressed and miserable state, that since 1624 -they had lost by pirates and embargo £44,000, that the crown owed £6000 -in the town, and that the plague was causing ‘infinite misery.’[1155] -Weymouth and Melcombe, called upon to provide the same number as -Plymouth, answered that their losses by embargo came to £6000, besides -the expense of supporting many poor women and children; Colchester had -suffered from the plague for ten months and possessed no 200-ton ship, -and King’s Lynn had lost twenty-five ships to the Dunkirkers, while their -port cost them £350 a year.[1156] Yarmouth, in two years, had lost by -Dunkirkers ‘and sundry other casualties at sea’ £25,000; their port cost -them £600 a year, their haven and piers £1000 a year, and there was a -municipal debt of £2200 on which they paid £140 per annum interest.[1157] - -Against these sorrows we must set the fact that the returns show that -these ruined ports were able to steadily build and increase, year by -year, the number of their large ships, and in at least one instance—that -of Dartmouth—while the townspeople said that they possessed no 200-ton -vessel, the papers of 1626-7 show that they had one of 270 and two -of 200 tons.[1158] The losses by wreck seem at one time to have been -exceptionally heavy; between 1625 and 1628 393 ships, valued at some -hundreds of thousands of pounds, perished at sea, the Eastland Company -losing £100,000 in eighteen months.[1159] But probably neither the -municipal authorities nor the government held themselves compelled to -strict truthfulness in making out a case. As in most generations, owners -appear to have overbuilt at the first sign of prosperous trade; in -1633 the Trinity House petitioned for an enforcement of the navigation -laws, as shipping to the extent of 6000 tons was lying idle in the -Thames.[1160] When in employment, captains did not neglect any chance of -trade. In 1638 the master of a Mediterranean trader took a Turk, and sold -fifteen men of its crew in a Spanish port; on his return he offered ‘the -duty payable to his majesty,’ a tenth of the proceeds.[1161] The rule of -requiring the shipowner to give a bond, before his vessel went to sea, -that it should not be sold abroad had been strictly enforced since 1625; -in fact before sale to a foreign subject could be effected the Lords of -the Admiralty, the Officers of the Navy, and the judge of the Admiralty -Court, had all to give their approval. - -[Sidenote: Payment of Hired Ships.] - -It has been noticed that several of the towns put forward the crown -debts incurred on behalf of the military and naval forces as an excuse -for their want of means when asked for ships in 1627. Private owners who -may have been encouraged to build by the renewal of the bounty and the -demand for hired ships soon found that as regards payment they were as -badly off as the towns in their corporate capacity. They may not have -expected very prompt settlement, but, by August 1627, the owners of ships -taken up for the Cadiz voyage of 1625 were beginning to petition somewhat -impatiently. Ipswich, for instance, had sent twenty-four vessels and had -not yet received anything. In December these and other owners petitioned -again, mentioning that 100 ships had been lost during the year, and -declining the offer of crown lands in liquidation of their demands. -They gave as the reason of their refusal the subdivision of ownership -in a vessel among many members, and that they did not understand land, -adding, ‘To be two years, and many of us three years, without pay -deserveth consideration, many of us undone and many more will be.’[1162] -By February 1628 it was noticed that ships were being purposely built -with less than the regulation space between decks, so that they should be -unfit for the service of the crown;[1163] and later in the year masters -of transports were asking double the ordinary rates, and were even then -so unwilling to serve that threats of impressment had to be used. In -March 1629 one unhappy man complains that he has had a vessel hired for -four years, that he has received in that time a bill[1164] for £200 -which has been for three years dishonoured, and that he goes about in -daily fear of arrest himself. It was not until the receipts from the -ship-money writs brought relief to the treasury that these debts were -paid off. Under the government of Charles the hire of ships remained at -2s a ton per month, but after 1642 the Parliament adopted a different -system, that of paying £3, 15s 6d a month per man, the owner sending his -vessel armed and completely provided for sea; but the state accepted -responsibility in the event of loss. - -[Sidenote: Inventions connected with Shipping.] - -The demand for shipping naturally gave an impetus to the spirit of -invention in connection with maritime matters. In July 1625 Letters -Patent were granted to Wm. Beale for a cement intended to preserve -the hulls of ships from barnacles, the first of a long series of such -contrivances.[1165] In 1626 some one, unnamed, proposed attempting to -propel boats under water,[1166] and in 1630 David Ramseye, who may have -been the David Ramsey of 1618, a similar inventor, designed ‘to make -boats, ships, and barges go against wind and tide.’[1167] Again, in 1632, -Thos. Grent offered ‘an instrument’ for moving becalmed ships, which -he called the ‘Wind’s Majesty’; John Bulmer and Christopher van Berg -invented methods of raising sunken vessels and their cargoes, and in 1637 -and 1640 other patents were taken out for appliances to move vessels -against wind and tide.[1168] In none of these cases was any specification -enrolled. In 1630 Stephen Gibbs was granted the exclusive use, for -fourteen years, of the means devised by him for clearing silted havens -and draining marsh lands.[1169] Perhaps the most useful device was one -which does not seem to have been patented. In July 1634 Edisbury wrote to -Nicholas, ‘There is now an invention found out to moor ships in the river -with iron chains.’[1170] If this was the beginning of the substitution -of iron for cordage in the various conditions where one could replace -the other, it was the commencement of a change which vastly extended the -possibilities of seamanship. - -[Sidenote: Piracy.] - -More deadly foes to the merchant than the chances of war and storm -were the Turkish and Dunkirk pirates, who held command of the Channel, -and for whom these were halcyon years until, in the next generation, -the Commonwealth navy swept the seas. For reasons already touched -upon, neither the ships nor the men in the royal service were capable -of dealing with these freebooters, and the appeals for protection, -which began within a week of the King’s accession, continued until the -strengthened parliamentary naval force was able to secure the coasts. - -At first the Turks—all Mediterranean pirates were inclusively described -as Turks—were the most prominent enemy. In August 1625 they were reported -to have twenty sail on the southern coast, and according to the Mayor of -Poole, threatened that within two years they would not leave the King -sufficient seamen to man his ships. As the Mayor of Plymouth said that -during that year they had captured 1000 sailors, and within the ten days -before his letter, twenty-seven ships and 200 men, there was some force -in the threat.[1171] A year later some of the Navy Commissioners, then at -Plymouth, wrote to the Council that the successes of the Turks were ‘the -shame of our nation. The pitiful lamentations that are made by wives and -children ... is so grievous that we know if your lordships heard it as -we do, we are assured that it would move the same passion and grief in -your noble hearts as it does in us.’[1172] Their culminating success was -the seizure and sack of Baltimore, a thriving village port on the Munster -coast. There they landed on the night of 30th June 1631, and, besides -material spoil, bore off 237 English subjects, men, women and children -into slavery. There were not many vessels in commission that year, but -there was an inspection by the King at Chatham and Portsmouth, for which -the cost of preparation was £1275, an amount which expended in another -way could have saved these victims. - -When any of the Turks were caught, fear of reprisals compelled the -government to treat them tenderly; some prisoners were tried in June, -but private instructions were given that they were not to be put to -death,[1173] and shortly afterwards the relatives of 2000 men, captives -in Sallee, petitioned for some redress, which explains the leniency of -the executive.[1174] Nor was this petition neglected, since, by a Council -order of October, guns were to be exported to Barbary to ransom English -prisoners. It was a poor way of upholding the honour of England, but -since the cruisers could not clear the Channel, and there was no fleet to -spare for a Mediterranean expedition, it was the only one open. - -While the Turks operated in the south, the Dunkirkers, who, in addition -to their other misdeeds, supplied the former with provisions and stores, -practically blockaded the east coast. The Newcastle townspeople wrote -that they were destroying the coal trade, and at Ipswich trade had -altogether ceased, fifty-eight ships being laid up for fear of them, -and shipping to the value of £4000 having been taken in one year.[1175] -In August 1626, when the inhabitants of the coast of Suffolk were asked -for a ‘voluntary gift,’ they answered ‘with loud cries, that their -vessels were fired or taken in their havens before their eyes.’ At Lynn -1000 men, having 3000 women and children dependent upon them, were out -of employment, and here the pirate crews landed and plundered and burnt -houses near the shore. The inhabitants of the Cinque Ports petition -against the ‘force and fury’ of the Dunkirkers, and complain that they -are ‘miserably oppressed by them and dare not go about our voyages to -Scarborough and Yarmouth, or fish in the North Sea.’[1176] - -There were many English sailors among the privateer crews, and the local -knowledge of these men was invaluable in enabling the ships to lie off -the mouths of the harbours or to chase close inshore. Duties of two and -five shillings a chaldron were levied, from February 1628, on all coal -laden at Newcastle or Sunderland, destined respectively for English or -foreign ports, to pay for a guard on the eastern coast, which was an -audacious mode of taxing a particular industry for general protection, -seeing that the tunnage and poundage was especially allotted to naval -purposes. The money thus obtained was probably not applied to naval -preparation at all, or, if it were it had small result, since, exactly a -year afterwards, the London fishmongers protested that nothing could pass -between Yarmouth and the river, and that the city would soon be deprived -of fish. Coincidently with this the Yarmouth people stated that they were -accustomed to send 300 fishing boats to sea, but that the Dunkirkers -were so numerous that they could not go out.[1177] Even when the first -ship-money fleet was cruising in 1635, coasters and Dover packet boats -were stopped and pillaged while the royal fleet was riding in the Downs. -Again, in September 1636, while Northumberland’s vessels were mostly -in the North Sea forcing the Dutch fishermen to take licences, the -shipowners of the western ports petitioned that the Channel was so full -of Turks that they dared not send anything to sea, that seamen refused to -sail or fishermen to fish.[1178] - -Then in 1637 there is a sudden change. In July Nicholas was told, -‘The coast has been free all this summer, and is from all Turks and -pirates,’[1179] the explanation being that, in March, Rainsborow had -sailed on the too long deferred punitive expedition and was still before -Sallee. About this time a Protestant clergyman, who was four years a -captive at Algiers, wrote, ‘During my abode there ... their armadoes -kept an account of 1700 sail of Christian ships they had taken. The -Lord stir up the hearts of Christian princes to root out that nest -of pirates.’[1180] One Christian prince had at last been moved to an -elementary sense of duty, and the expedition of 1637, whereby 300 or -400 Englishmen were rescued from hopeless slavery, was, in design and -execution, the solitary success of Charles’s naval administration.[1181] -But its effect was only temporary, and the last notice in 1640, before -the Parliament took matters in hand, is a letter from the Mayor of Exeter -to the Council, stating that sixty sail of Turks were on the coast, -and that they had landed near Penzance and carried off men, women, and -children.[1182] - - - - -CHARLES I - -1625-1649 - -PART III—THE ADMINISTRATION - - -[Sidenote: The Commissioners.] - -The system, inaugurated in 1618, of governing the Navy by Commissioners, -acting under the Lord Admiral, remained in force until February 1628, -when the four Principal Officers resumed control under Buckingham. -Although the Commissioners’ direction was of course, both in ability and -honesty, immeasurably superior to that of Mansell, they cannot be said -to have risen to any great excellence of administration. In October 1627 -Charles, in writing to the Duke, apologised for the slowness with which -supplies were furnished, ‘the cause whereof is ... the slow proceedings -of the Commissioners of the Navy (which all Commissions are liable -to).’[1183] If King and minister were both of this opinion, it would -account for the supersession which so soon followed. After Buckingham’s -murder the post of Lord Admiral was put into commission, and the new -Lords of the Admiralty[1184] were even more reliant on the capacity of -the Principal Officers than had been their predecessors; but they appear -to have been also suspicious and distrustful of them. - -[Sidenote: Buckingham.] - -Of Buckingham it may be said that, had he possessed less power, he -would have made a better chief. In the ten years he held office[1185] -he practically doubled the effective of the Navy, for the Commissioners -could have done little without his aid. So far as the emptiness of the -treasury would allow he enlarged and repaired docks and storehouses, and, -if he did not discover, he was one of the first to appreciate the true -naval importance of Portsmouth. He provided for the home manufacture of -cordage by inducing Dutchmen to settle here and teach Englishmen their -art; and he increased in number, and made permanent, the ropehouses -attached to English dockyards. He reintroduced lieutenants and corporals -on board ship, and was the first administrator who began systematic naval -and gunnery instruction in the service. It is difficult to apportion the -credit for the reforms which followed 1618 between the Commissioners and -Buckingham. Nicholas[1186] gives it to Buckingham; but Nicholas was his -private secretary, and we know that the Duke had no grasp of detail. On -the other hand he wrote in praise of Buckingham after the Duke’s death, -when he had nothing more to hope from him, and it is certain that the -Commissioners could not have stood for twenty-four hours against the -vested interests they attacked without Buckingham’s consistent support. -Unfortunately for his memory he must be judged, not as head of the -Navy, but as the all-powerful minister, and in that sense history has -pronounced its verdict. - -[Sidenote: The Principal Officers.] - -Since 1618 the duties of the Treasurer of the Navy had become, and -remained in the future, almost entirely financial. His salary was -increased, from 1630, by the grant of the poundage of threepence on all -payments made by him, including wages, instead of, as before, only on -those to merchants supplying stores; as well as a house at Deptford and -other advantages, and in 1634 his fixed fee was raised from £270, 13s 4d -to £645, 13s 4d.[1187] He even received the poundage on the salaries of -the other three Officers, and they were continually petitioning for an -advance in their rate of pay, which had remained unaltered since their -posts were created by Henry VIII. It is suggestive to find that, among -their reasons for the requested increase, they mention that before the -reforms of 1618 they had an allowance of £60 a year from the Treasurer -and Victualler for passing their accounts;[1188] and the Surveyor and -Comptroller estimated the total annual value of their perquisites before -that date at £384 and £430 respectively. This included the allowance -from the Treasurer and Victualler, commissions given by officers on -appointment, and dividends divided among them from the sale of old -stores.[1189] - -In 1637 they appear to have been promised that if they could obtain their -augmentation without going to the royal coffers for it they were welcome -to whatever they could get. Accordingly they point out that in this year -they had prevented fraudulent overcharge on the part of owners of hired -merchantmen to the extent of £1874, and they therefore desired to divide -the whole of this sum.[1190] What advantage this would be to the crown -they omitted to say. They were exceptionally unlucky, seeing that most -officials had only to petition in order to receive. In one case £20 a -year was taken off the salaries of the masters attendant, but, when these -complained, they had each £40 a year added and with less work. Their ill -fortune was, perhaps, due to the disfavour with which the Lords of the -Admiralty seem to have usually viewed them, and it was not until the -era of the Long Parliament, when, from motives of fear, all wages were -raised, that they shared in the general increase. - -None of these Officers was of any historic interest. For two and a half -years, between 1627[1191] and 1629, Sir Sackville Crowe was Treasurer, -but he, to put as favourable a construction as possible on what happened, -got his accounts into confusion to the extent of £1500.[1192] Before and -after Crowe, Sir Wm. Russell was sole Treasurer[1193] till 1639,[1194] -then for two years with the younger Vane,[1195] and again in 1642 by -himself till August, after which Vane alone was reappointed. Russell -was a mere man of affairs, who confined himself to his accounts, and -seems never to have ventured an opinion on anything outside them. Sir -Thos. Aylesbury was the first Surveyor of the Navy in 1628, and he, -when he resigned, was succeeded by Kenrick Edisbury,[1196] perhaps the -most observant and energetic of the chief Officers, who held the post -till his death in 1638, when he was succeeded by Wm. Batten,[1197] who -was appointed ‘during pleasure,’ instead of by patent for life, as in -preceding cases.[1198] Sir Guildford Slingsby had been Comptroller of -the Navy under Mansell, and was again given the same office in February -1628 by Charles. The main incidents of his second tenure which have come -down to us relate to his assaults on his inferiors, and his quarrels with -his brother Officers. Immediately after his appointment, John Wells, the -storekeeper of the Navy, petitioned that, although the other officers had -allotted him lodgings in the Navy Office, Slingsby, to accommodate his -family and servants, ‘hath violently taken his lodgings from him.’[1199] -In 1629 his colleagues complained to the Lords Commissioners that he had -felled with a pocket pistol, and otherwise maltreated, the man in charge -of the Navy Office, and kept him out of the house, notwithstanding their -wish to reinstate him.[1200] Slingsby died in 1632, and Sir H. Palmer -succeeded him. The most notable event in Palmer’s official career was his -excuse for selling government cordage and pocketing the proceeds—‘because -his predecessors had done the like.’ He subsequently amended this defence -by saying that he had spent the money on naval necessaries.[1201] Denis -Fleming and Thos. Barlow[1202] were successively Clerks of the Navy; and -Edward Nicholas, who had been Buckingham’s secretary, became secretary to -the Commissioners of the Admiralty. - -Till 1628 William Burrell was in charge of all shipbuilding and repairs, -and in 1629 Burrell and Phineas Pett were made assistants to the -Principal Officers. Burrell died in 1630, and from January 1631 Pett -became himself a Principal Officer, being three months junior to Sir -Kenelm Digby, who had been appointed in the previous October. Neither -Digby nor Pett had any defined duties, and in Digby’s case the position -seems to have been almost entirely honorary, although at one time he was -treating with Mervyn for the latter’s command in the Channel. Mervyn -asked £5000, his arrears of pay, to his rights in which Digby would -presumably succeed, and the £3000 he had given for his admiralship of -the narrow seas.[1203] It would be a matter of some interest to know to -whom that £3000 was paid, but there had been obviously no secrecy in the -transaction. - -After Buckingham’s death the Lords Commissioners met twice a week, -sometimes at Wallingford House and sometimes in the Council Chamber at -Whitehall. In March 1638 the child Duke of York was made Lord Admiral -for life,[1204] and Algernon Percy, 10th Earl of Northumberland, his -acting substitute during the King’s pleasure;[1205] the Navy therefore, -ceased to be governed by commission from that date. In 1628 the Principal -Officers met at St Martin’s Lane, but in March 1630 some rooms were taken -for them in a house in Mincing Lane at a rental of £30 a year.[1206] -Thenceforward expenses incurred in relation to that house appear in many -of the accounts. It cost £150 for furnishing, twelve months’ beer there -£13, 8s,[1207] yearly water rate £1, 6s 8d, but only 3s 6d for Christmas -gratuities. - -Although in 1628 the four Officers had been reinstated in a portion -of their former authority, they by no means escaped the control of, -and occasionally severe censure from, the Lords of the Admiralty. -Sometimes my Lords considered that their sympathies ran rather with -their subordinates than with the King’s interests, and, as most of them -had been suspended for acts similar to those they were called upon to -condemn in minor officials, the charge was not unfounded.[1208] In the -fleet of 1637 embezzlement of stores by the boatswains had been very -general. There was nothing unusual in this, but the resolve of the -Lords Commissioners to punish the guilty persons appeared to strike the -Principal Officers as both unusual and unfair. Their pleas on behalf of -these men provoked the Commissioners to write, ‘We observe that you are -more apt to intercede for those that are most faulty than to certify -what you find against other boatswains ... it is time by due punishment -to break up this custom of the boatswains’ exorbitant wasting of his -majesty’s stores, the continuance whereof so long with impunity hath, -it seems, made the Officers think it almost lawful.’[1209] On another -occasion they were told, ‘If you were as careful of his majesty’s service -as you are to cast all such unfitting troubles on us, you would gain -much more reputation and esteem to yourselves’;[1210] and, once again, -reference was made to their ‘supine negligence.’ While they were exposed -to these snubs from their superiors, one of their inferiors certainly, -and others probably, expressed opinions of them with the same frankness. -They complained to the Lords that Francis Brooke, storekeeper at -Portsmouth, ‘used many base words of ourselves, calling us loggerheads.’ -Perhaps the Admiralty agreed with him; at any rate it is not found that -Brooke was reprimanded, so that the only consolation left to them was -their salaries. - -Observers who acquitted the Principal Officers of intentional fraud -accused them of incompetence. They were said not to know where their -respective duties began or ended, but the conditions under which they -worked were not favourable to success in management. Each one kept his -books at his own residence, and neither sufficient time nor assistance -was allowed for the various duties of inspection or bookkeeping which -fell to him. Moreover they were compelled to purchase stores from persons -holding patents for the sale of special articles such as iron, canvas, -etc., a necessity sufficient to account for any depth of badness in the -supply. - -[Sidenote: Frauds and Thefts.] - -Whether the confusion was due to neglect or overwork, the effect on -the lower ranks of naval employés was the same. From the first year of -the reign we have a continuous record of carelessness and fraud, which -neither Commissioners nor Lords Commissioners seem to have been able to -stamp out. In 1625, on board the ships at sea, pursers charged on the -full number of men supposed to be mustered, and shared the profits made -on those absent with their captains, while gunners and boatswains each -kept from two to five servants who were rated as seamen, but who were -boys and landsmen, and whose wages were retained by the officers. When -the vessels were laid up the shipkeepers were usually drunk or absent. -Captain Joshua Downing one night rowed down the Medway, and ‘might have -gone on board all ships but three and done any mischief,’ and ‘in these -twenty years last past all the navy hath not bred five able sailors nor -two able gunners.’[1211] Of 330 shipkeepers, in 1634, only 42 were ‘the -King’s own men’; the rest were hired servants or apprentices, their pay -being received by the ship, or dockyard, officers who hired them.[1212] -In 1638 matters were as bad. John Holland, then paymaster of the Navy, -wrote that the shipkeepers and apprentice servants of the officers -were coachmen, tailors, gardeners, etc., and that the apprentices were -dismissed at the end of their term as ignorant as when they joined.[1213] -Robberies were frequent. ‘Generally the watchman is the thief and the -shipkeeper the cabin-breaker;’ but the ship and dockyard officers dared -not prosecute, because such a course would have called attention to -their own delinquencies.[1214] Downing’s experience did not evoke much -attention, since, in the following year, it was reported from Chatham, -‘There are divers that are upon the king’s majesty’s charges both for -victuals and wages, but give no attendance nor do no service; neither -can we take any muster of any man but just at dinner time, for no longer -than they are tied by the teeth are they to be kept on board,’[1215] this -being in the full stress of war time. - -When captains were turning their men-of-war into cargo boats, to enable -merchants to defraud the customs,[1216] we need not be surprised that -their inferior officers allowed themselves license in theft, and the -references to carpenters, gunners, boatswains, and pursers, about the -illicit sale of ships’ stores are innumerable. That fortunes were made -from ‘chips’ taken out of the dock yards is well known. ‘The infinite -abuse and prejudice the king has in all or most of his yards under -colour of chips is intolerable;‘[1217] again, ‘a great quantity of wood -is carried away by workmen when they go to breakfast, at dinner time, -and at night under colour of chips; they cut up good timber and call it -chips;‘[1218] and in some yards the shipwrights built huts in which to -store their plunder. In one case a lighter containing 8000 tree-nails, -said to be made from chips, but more probably stolen from Deptford -yard, was seized, and the destined receiver was found to be one of the -government shipwrights who also owned a private shipbuilding yard. -Some of the dockyard workmen converted the storehouses into lodgings -for themselves and their families, and this abuse continued until the -parliamentary Navy Committee made a clean sweep of them.[1219] - -Of all the subordinate officials, the pursers, as in later times, were -the most acquisitive, having the greatest opportunities. Most places in -the Navy were for sale, but theirs were considered so profitable that -they were eagerly sought. In 1626 Nicholas was informed that a person, -lately mayor of Rochester, would give him £100 for the appointment to -the _Anne Royal_, or £60 for either of two others. As the ex-mayor could -only sell again, the eventual holder must have anticipated a handsome -income. One article on which he would make it was the beer; the brewer -delivered this by beer measure, but the purser served it out by wine -measure, pocketing the value of the difference.[1220] Sometimes he was -a pluralist. One man was cook of the _Bear_ and purser of the _George_, -and executed both places by deputy. Of course pursers like the others, -sold their stores ashore. But one of their particular sources of profit -was the men’s clothes. In 1623 wearing apparel was first ordered to be -provided for the men, and to be sold to them at cost price, subject to a -commission of one shilling in the pound for the purser. In 1628 it was -being sold, when obtained, at £1, 7s a suit, to be deducted from the -wages, but, as occurred with other naval requisites, the contractors -frequently refused to furnish supplies without prepayment. By 1636 the -commissions had increased. The merchant had to pay two shillings in -the pound for entering the clothes on board; the paymaster and purser -took each a further shilling on all articles sold, and of course the -unfortunate sailor had to meet all these extra and illegal perquisites, -the result being that ‘the men had rather starve than buy them.’ The -original purpose of the supply was ‘to avoyde nastie beastlyness by -contynuall wearinge of one suite of clothes, and therebie boddilie -diseases and unwholesome ill smells in every ship.’ The whole of the -clothes served out during the earlier years of the reign was not a -quantity likely to have much improved the unpleasantly suggestive -conditions of this passage. - -In 1641 Northumberland, as Lord Admiral, took the business in hand, and -issued stringent regulations which forbade the sailor to purchase more -than fifty shillings’ worth of clothing a year, at fixed prices, and -reduced the commission to sixpence in the pound, which was to be paid to -the purser by the vendor.[1221] When, as rarely happened, a purser was -honest, he seems to have been assaulted and persecuted by his captain, -and his position on board rendered unbearable. Perhaps the key to the -situation is to be found in their petition of 1639, when many of the -pursers asked for increased pay, saying, ‘We know not how to subsist in -our places without the continuance of what has ever been tolerated, or -else the grant of a competent salary.’[1222] Corroborating this plea we -have Holland’s opinion that wages were too low, ‘most of them being for -want thereof necessitated ... either to live knaves or die beggars, and -sometimes both.’ It was however a sign of the times that when in 1640, -Thomas Smith, Northumberland’s secretary, took £40 for an appointment, -he found himself exposed to the taunts of his equals and had to defend -himself by asserting that he never bargained, but ‘what men voluntarily -give me my conscience assures me that I may take as mere gratuities.’ -It was still no crime but was reaching the stage which precedes legal -condemnation. There is no trace of the sale of places during the -Commonwealth, but the custom was reintroduced with the other fashions of -the Restoration. - -[Sidenote: Captains.] - -Neither in their sense of honour nor in the extent of their professional -knowledge did the Navy captains of this generation favourably impress -their superiors. In August 1630 Mervyn, who was commanding in the -Channel, wrote to Nicholas that he had captains who knew neither how to -command nor how to obey; and a month later he requested that John Mennes -should be given a ship, so that he might at least have one captain who -had ‘passed his a b c.’ Men of such calibre usually owed their position -to, and obtained other advantages from, court influence and family -connections. Of one man who received £3000 as his 3 per cent. commission -on carrying treasure to Dunkirk we read, ‘You may see what a brother -or friend in the bedchamber doth.’ Another captain, his men said, was -‘fearful in oaths,’ plundered merchantmen, and threatened to kill any -one who complained of him; his crew refused to sail, because ‘for his -blasphemous swearing they feared the ship would sink under them.’ Others -were questioned for beating officers and men, but in no case does any -punishment appear to have followed. Another form of fraud which came into -existence now, and lasted till the present century, was the forging and -uttering of seamen’s tickets. The tickets were practically promises to -pay wages due, and in the state of the royal treasury were only saleable -at a heavy discount. Not only did the captains and pursers forge tickets -in the names of men who had never existed, but civilians carried on a -brisk trade in such articles, and, when Crowe was Navy Treasurer, they -were ‘such good merchandise that a penniless wag made out a ticket for -Ball, a dog ... and sold it with a letter of attorney to a man who lodged -seamen.’[1223] - -[Sidenote: Changes during the Civil War.] - -When the civil war commenced most of the non-combatant servants of the -Admiralty remained, like the officers and men, in the service of the -Parliament, which took control by means of committees, whose members -were constantly being changed. Subordinate to the Parliamentary Navy -Committee was a board called the Commissioners of Navy and Customs, whose -work was chiefly financial; and the functions of the Principal Officers, -except the Treasurer’s, were performed by another body known as the -Commissioners of the Navy. The Earl of Warwick was the parliamentary -Lord Admiral, appointed in July 1642, in place of Northumberland; he -resigned in April 1645, to be again appointed on 29th May 1648, when the -news of the Rainsborow outbreak was received. The Navy Commissioners, -during the earlier years of the war, were captains R. Cranley, John -Norris, Roger Tweedy, Wm. Batten, and Phineas Pett. Batten is still -styled Surveyor, but the old division of work was broken up, and the -official papers do not show that a Commissioner was continuously confined -to particular duties. In 1645 Batten was sent on active service, and, in -1646, Thomas Smith, probably Northumberland’s ex-secretary, and Peter -Pett, were added to the other Commissioners. The two Petts were the -Phineas Pett who built the _Sovereign of the Seas_ and Peter Pett his -nephew. - -In one matter the Parliament found itself better off than the previous -administration, for the question of timber had for years been a -difficulty, the royal forests having deteriorated from various causes. -Now, in spite of increased requirements, it was obtained more easily by -the process of seizing the timber on delinquents’ estates. In 1632 a -report was made on the condition of the forests, when that of Dean was -said to be ‘wasted and ruined,’ the New Forest was ‘so decayed’ that -there were not 2000 serviceable trees in it; there were not more in -Waltham Forest and hardly 400 in East Bere.[1224] Much of this wreck was -due to lavish grants made by James and Charles to private individuals; a -further cause was the open theft which went on, sufficient wood to build -ships being sometimes taken away without any attempt at concealment. -Still, in 1633, there were 166,000 trees left in the Forest of Dean of an -average value of twenty shillings a tree.[1225] - -[Sidenote: Ordnance Powder and Shot.] - -John Browne, who held the appointment of ‘King’s gunfounder’ under James -I, continued in that office during the whole of this reign. The price -of ordnance in 1625 was from £13 to £14 a ton, and did not afterwards -materially vary. Many complaints were made about the excessive solidity -and weight of naval guns, which caused much of the straining and rolling -at sea, and they were so unnecessarily strong that when sold abroad the -new owners rebored them for larger shot. In 1626 Browne was granted a -reward of £200 for casting lighter guns which had withstood a double -proof; but, notwithstanding this encouragement, he, like every one else -dealing with the crown, suffered in his purse. By June 1628 upwards of -£11,000 was due to him; and Evelyn, the powder contractor, had £2400 -owing to him, and had refused to furnish anything more for three months -past. Coke thereupon suggested to Buckingham that Evelyn should be -compelled to resume his supplies, ‘but till the ceasing of Parliament -holds it best not to urge him too much,’ which throws an interesting side -light on general history.[1226] Notwithstanding these straits, and the -requirements of his fleets, Charles did not neglect his glorious heritage -in the crown jewels which were pawned to the Dutch, and Burlamacchi was -directed to sell 4000 tons of ordnance abroad and redeem the treasures. -As an appropriate part of the transaction Browne found himself obliged to -export in Dutch vessels, as they were provided with convoy. - -In 1632 there were in store 81 brass and 147 iron pieces, presumably the -reserve behind those in the ships and forts, and 207,000 round and 3000 -cross-bar shot.[1227] Stone shot are no longer mentioned. The allowance -for a second-rate was three lasts of powder, six cwt. of match, 970 -round, 100 cross-bar, 70 double cross-bar shot, and 2000 rounds for small -arms.[1228] The musket trade had been gained from us by Holland since -the preceding reign, and now Sweden was underselling English founders -of big guns; in 1634 Browne, in petitioning the King for payment, said -that he had paid £1200 for a license to export ordnance, but that the -Swedes were now selling at half-price. This Swedish manufacture was -really worked by Dutch capitalists, and within twenty years the price of -English ordnance in the Low Countries had fallen from £36 to £14 a ton. -For the proper equipment of the fleet, exclusive of castles and forts, 96 -lasts of powder were required in 1635, but in that year only 94 were in -store for all purposes; between 1628 and 1635 there had been no powder in -Southsea Castle, and doubtless many less important positions were equally -ill-furnished. Perhaps the crown could not supply the forts, because too -busy in private trade, the sale of gunpowder to merchants and others -being a royal monopoly. A handsome profit was made on it, the cost being -7½d per lb. and the selling price 1s 6d. In 1637 the year’s gains on this -article came to £14,786.[1229] - -The Ordnance Office still retained that evil pre-eminence in sloth and -incapacity it had already earned and has never since lost, and its -situation in 1638 was that of - - the surveyor sick, the clerk restrained of his liberty, one of - his clerks absent, the clerk of the deliveries out of town and - his clerk absent, the master gunner dead, the yeoman of the - ordnance never present, nor any of the gunners attendant, and - the stores for ordnance empty.[1230] - -Outcries, such as we have been also used to hear in this generation, -against their delays in serving the ships with guns and ammunition, -were loud and continuous, and, in 1639, it was proposed to return to the -original arrangement made by Henry VIII, and allow the naval authorities -to supply themselves with these necessaries. It is an illustration of -the meditative and weighty caution with which official wisdom can be -trusted to move onward from change to change that it was not until a few -years ago that the alteration suggested in 1639 was made. Finally we read -that ‘the accountant nor other officers keep no books, and the ancient -officers and clerks are adverse to all new propositions which meet their -inveterate frauds and defects.’[1231] The parliamentary leaders seem -at first to have doubted how far Browne was to be trusted, since on -30th Dec. 1645 it was ordered that his works, which had been managed by -deputies, should be given back to him. - -[Sidenote: Salutes.] - -Besides producing dangerous international friction, the matter of -saluting was a cover for theft and an excuse for waste at home. The Lord -Admiral seems to have been the only person whose reception was according -to distinct forms, and for him the royal standard was to fly at the main, -yards to be manned, and on his approach within musket shot of the ship -the trumpets were to cease, and ‘all who carry whistles are to whistle -his welcome three times, and in the intervals the crew to cheer.’[1232] -Butler notices the fondness of the English for making a noise as a mark -of deference, and the expenditure of powder in this way was described -as the ‘main excuse of gunners’ frauds,’ and as causing the waste of at -least a thousand barrels of powder a year. Every one stood closely on -his honour in the matter of salutes, and in 1631 Pennington was fired on -from Pendennis Castle for not striking his flag. No occurrence was of -too little consequence to be thus signalised. In one gunner’s accounts -we find: One faucon when the master’s wife went ashore.... One minion -the master commanded to be shot off to a ship his father was in.... We -shot two faucons in healths and three when Master Newton went ashore.’ -Of another gunner it was remarked: ‘He cannot write, yet presents the -account here enclosed, in which you see the King’s powder spent in -salutations of ketches and oyster boats.... I shall shortly send far -greater and fouler examples of powder purloined by the last.’[1233] - -The hired merchantmen in the royal pay had as much self-respect on -this question as men-of-war, and saluted towns on entering and leaving -harbour, the captain’s brother, and ‘the captain’s friends for their -farewell’ in orthodox service fashion. The large ones had, in some -respects, the advantage of the smaller men-of-war, since the captain of -one of the latter, in accounting for his consumption of ammunition, said -that ordinary traders ‘scorned to strike to a whelp,’ and he had to force -them to their duty. The result of all this firing was that in the two -and a half years, ending on 30th June 1627, out of 653 lasts of powder -issued to the various forts, there had been 300 used in saluting.[1234] -Nor were these proceedings devoid of danger, since the repeated orders -that guns should be fired with blank charges were still disregarded, and -there are several instances mentioned of persons on shore being struck -from vessels saluting at sea. The admirals were equally sensitive about -their dignity, and when Lindsey commanded the fleet of 1635, the question -of his flags appeared to weigh most on his mind. On 1st May he complained -that he had not enough flags and was not furnished with a standard; the -next day he repeats his wants, adding that he would like a kitchen ship, -and a week afterwards he thinks himself ‘a little maimed,’ still lacking -the standard. In April 1647 the Navy Committee called attention to the -great expense caused by the constant saluting, and ordered that it should -entirely cease among men-of-war except at their first meeting with each -other, or with an admiral. A merchantman’s salute might be answered in -the proportion of one for every three, or three for every five, shots -fired by the trader. If these regulations were obeyed it was only -temporarily. - -Among foreign powers the Dutch were the chief victims to the requirements -of maritime decorum, here complicated by the dispute about the dominion -of the narrow seas. In July 1626 the captain of Deal Castle fired at a -Dutchman which came into the roads with colours flying, and made the -master pay ten shillings, the cost of the shot. In his report of the -affair he says, ‘The rather did I it because I have heard it imputed -that we have lost the jurisdiction of the narrow seas.’ Six years later -a man-of-war having been sent to Calais to fetch the body of Sir Isaac -Wake, her captain had the audacity to force the French to strike their -colours to him.[1235] - -When Lindsey went to sea in 1635, his instructions ran that his -‘principal care’ was to make foreign fleets perform their ‘duty and -homage,’ and if they refused, to make them answer for their ‘high -contempt.’[1236] Remembering the state of Lindsey’s fleet, not only in -the absence of the standard that he deplored so sadly, but in more urgent -essentials, such as men, provisions and stores, it was perhaps fortunate -that Richelieu evaded the trial, and that the Dutch were content—for the -time—to salute all day long if Charles so pleased. Northumberland, the -next year, was told to insist on foreign ships yielding homage in Calais -and other harbours, if out of range of the forts.[1237] Wiser than his -master, if he did more than look into the French ports, he did nothing -to provoke a collision. Moreover Northumberland may have felt that he -was hardly in a situation to enforce compliance. Lindsey mentioned in -his journal that, in two days, eleven ships lost masts and topmasts, -with only ‘strong winds’ blowing, but had not thought the circumstance -deserved comment, although his vice-admiral, the old Elizabethan seaman, -Sir William Monson, was not so reticent. Northumberland’s fleet was -equally ill found, and on his return he charged the Principal Officers -with giving him ships leaky and out of repair, fitted with defective -masts and yards and bad cordage. Some, he said, were too old to be worth -repairing, and the new ones required girdling to make them fit for -sea.[1238] What the Earl thought of his men and stores has been already -related. - -However, English captains continued to carry matters with a high hand, -and in 1637, Stradling meeting a Dutch squadron which did not salute -with sufficient promptness, reported: ‘The captain of the rear-admiral -I have taken out of his ship and sent to Plymouth.’ As time wore on the -Dutch, seeing that Charles had enough to occupy his attention at home, -became more independent, and in 1639 they were searching English ships -and taking Spaniards out of them, a change from their former submissive -attitude. Parliament, however, carried on the claim to the salute. In -1647 a fleet of Swedes, 15 in number, passing down Channel refused to -lower their topsails to Captain Owen in the _Henrietta Maria_. Owen kept -up a running fight until Batten came up, and the Swedish fleet was taken -into Portsmouth. - -[Sidenote: Prize Money.] - -A precarious source of crown revenue was that obtained from the prize -tenths. In the two years ending with May 1626, seventy-three vessels had -been taken and proceeded against in the Admiralty Court, and Bristol paid -£7604 between 1628 and 1631. It was not until the civil war that the -crew of a ship belonging to the state had any fixed proportion of the -proceeds, but by a Council order of October 1626 ‘a competent reward’ was -to be given to the captors. On the other side seventy-seven vessels, of -100 tons and upwards, were taken by the enemy between 1625 and 1628, so -that the balance of profit was hardly with us. In another paper we are -told, the, presumably net, proceeds from Spanish prizes between July 1626 -and August 1639 came to £38,158, 8s.[1239] - -In October 1642 the Parliament announced that henceforth one-third of the -value of a prize was to be divided among officers and crew, in addition -to wages. Its effect was undoubted since from February 1643 to April 1649 -prize goods were sold for £123,200, and this must represent an enormously -higher original value.[1240] But out of this sum officers and men only -got £14,465, while the two collectors, Thomas Smith and John Hall took -£4989, Warwick £5985, and the expenses of storage, lading and unlading, -etc., were £17,000. The delay and deductions in the payment of the thirds -were among the chief causes of the trouble the Commonwealth experienced -with the seamen in its earlier years, and in this account we see quite -extraneous charges borne upon it. The Treasurer of the Navy took £30,000 -from it, Augier, the parliamentary agent in Paris, £610, the secretary -and usher of the committee of foreign affairs their salaries, and it had -to meet various other items which would now go under the head of secret -service money. The Dutch system of rewards for captures was in working -order long before ours, and was liberal enough in amount. Privateers were -allowed, beyond the value of the ship and goods taken, a state reward of -from 8000 to 30,000 guilders, the latter sum being given for any vessel -of more than 100 lasts burden.[1241] If the enemy was sunk at sea instead -of being brought into port, only half these sums were paid. - -[Sidenote: Naval Expenditure.] - -The following table, compiled from the _Audit Office Declared Accounts_ -for the several years, gives the ordinary and extraordinary expenditure -in round figures, as well as that of ship money, of which £1,028,702 was -demanded by writ, and £716,528 was paid over to the Navy Treasurer.[1242] -The estimates for the ordinary and extraordinary are for routine, naval, -and dockyard work and the Channel squadron, and do not include the cost -of the expeditions of the first three years or of any of the later -fleets. The amounts in the last column but one are those actually paid -by Sir William Russell out of tunnage and poundage, anticipated revenue, -and other sources. For instance, in 1625 he spent £170,000, of which he -received £119,000 from the exchequer, £40,000 from tenths, fifteenths, -and subsidies, and ‘from the French king’s agent’ towards fitting out of -_Vanguard_ £4800.[1243] The last column gives the sums paid out of the -ship-money receipts for the corresponding fleets; no doubt much of the -balance went to clear off old debts, to pay for ship building, as in the -case of the _Sovereign_, and other purposes:— - - +----------------+-------------+------------------------------------+ - | |Estimates for| | - | |ordinary and | Dockyard expenditure, ordinary | - | |extraordinary| and extraordinary | - | |navy and +-------+--------+--------+----------+ - | |victualling |Chatham|Woolwich|Deptford|Portsmouth| - +----------------+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+ - | | £ | £ | £ | £ | £ | - | 1625 | 28,000 | | | | | - | 1626 | 28,700 | | | | | - | 1627[1244] | 40,500 | 8445 | 1522 | 1714 | 370 | - | 1628 | 40,800 | 5860 | 704 | 3171 | 359 | - | 1629 | 47,000 | | | | | - | 1630 | 34,700 | 4977 | 185 | 2141 | 1460 | - | 1631 | 34,200 | | | | | - | 1632 | 27,900 | 6700 | 97 | 1025 | 1591 | - | 1633 | 28,600 | 7453 | 100 | 1233 | 1834 | - | 1634 | 31,300 | | | | | - | 1635 | 31,200 | | | | | - | 1636 | 15,500 | 5050 | 625 | 3029 | 3000 | - | 1637 | 14,200 | | | | | - | 1638 | 20,300 | | | | | - | 1639 | 38,100 | | | | | - | 1640 | 38,800 | | | | | - | 1641 | 38,500 | | | | | - | 1642 | 28,700 | | | | | - |13th May 1645 to|} | | | | | - | 31st Dec. 1646 |} | | | | | - | 1647 | | | | | | - |1st Jan 1648 to |} |22,000 | 3414 | 2247 | 5189 | - | 12th May 1649 |} | | | | | - +----------------+-------------+------------------------------------+ - - +----------------+-------+---------+----------+ - | | | | | - | | |Actually |Paid out | - | |Cordage|expended |of | - | | | by |ship-money| - | | |Treasurer| | - +----------------+-------+---------+----------+ - | | £ | £ | £ | - | 1625 | | 170,000 | | - | 1626 | | 117,000 | | - | 1627[1244] | | 63,000 | | - | 1628 | | 110,000 | | - | 1629 | | 57,000 | | - | 1630 | 4805 | 102,000 | | - | 1631 | | 46,000 | | - | 1632 | 4455 | 21,000 | | - | 1633 | 4145 | 69,000 | | - | 1634 | | 48,000 | | - | 1635 | | 85,000 | 88,000 | - | 1636 | 3265 | 58,000 | 136,000 | - | 1637 | | 12,500 | 122,000 | - | 1638 | | 22,000 | 109,000 | - | 1639 | | 58,000 | 47,500 | - | 1640 | | 78,000 | 44,500 | - | 1641 | | 88,000 | | - | 1642 | | 66,000 | | - |13th May 1645 to|} | 392,000 | | - | 31st Dec. 1646 |} | | | - | 647 | | 178,000 | | - |1st Jan 1648 to |} | 336,000 | | - | 12th May 1649 |} | | | - +----------------+-------+---------+----------+ - -The disbursements during the civil war years by no means represented the -whole of the naval expenses, there being always hundreds of thousands -of pounds owing. The authorities, however, took care that the executive -branches should be comparatively punctually paid, owners of hired ships -and purveyors of stores being the principal sufferers by delay. There -is another paper[1245] which gives the amounts for the years wanting in -the official returns, and is perhaps more reliable than them in that it -includes the total expenses, both in money paid and liabilities incurred. -In view of the general belief that this country was vastly weaker in -ships than Holland at the outbreak of the first Dutch war of 1652, the -strength of the parliamentary fleets deserves especial notice:— - - +--------------+-------+--------+-------------+------------+------------+ - | |Men-of-|Armed |Cost of |Cost of |Total[1246] | - | |war |Merchant|Men-of-war |Merchantmen | | - | | |-men | | | | - +--------------+-------+--------+-------------+------------+------------+ - | | | | £ s d| £ s d | £ s d| - |1642 | 19 | 23 |122,988 16 3|74,342 8 0 |204,810 16 3| - | | [1247]| | | | | - | | | | | | | - |1643, S.[1248]| 36 | 32 |133,760 3 0|74,881 11 6}| | - |1643, W.[1249]| 20 | | | }|332,869 15 3| - | | | | | | | - |1644, S. | 36 | 23 |106,349 10 4|49,088 15 0}|246,970 16 4| - |1644, W. | 18 | | | }| | - | | | | | | | - |1645, S. | 34 | 25 | 93,161 3 9|43,947 4 6}| | - |1645, W. | 29 | | | }|256,495 5 0| - | | | | | |[1250] | - |1646, S. | 45 | 20 |138,194 6 4|42,931 8 0}| | - |1646, W. | 26 | | | }|300,356 18 0| - | | | | | |[1250] | - |1647, S. | 43 | 16 |124,395 12 0|44,743 8 0}| | - |1647, W. | 29 | | | }|244,655 0 0| - | | | | | |[1251] | - +--------------+-------+--------+-------------+------------+------------+ - -Vane acted under an ‘ordinance of both houses of 8th August 1642, -concerning subsidy of tunnage and poundage,’ and simply continued the -forms and system used by his predecessors.[1252] - -[Sidenote: Dockyards:—Portsmouth.] - -Among the dockyards the most noticeable change is the steady increase in -the use made of Portsmouth, while Woolwich was almost discarded, part of -it being leased in 1633 to the East India Company at £100 a year.[1253] -The rent was to be expended in building a wall round the yard, and in -the repair of buildings.[1254] It had long been pointed out that it -frequently cost a fleet as much time and trouble to get round from the -Thames to Portsmouth as from that place to the Mediterranean, and under -Buckingham’s administration it came into favour as a rendezvous for the -ships prepared for service. Very soon after the destruction of the old -dock the advisability of replacing it, came under discussion, and in 1627 -the Duke caused estimates to be prepared for the construction of a double -dock, but his death deferred the question.[1255] In 1630 Pett, Sir Thos. -Aylesbury and others were sent down to report on its capabilities, and -they recommended that the men-of-war should ride in Fareham creek, at -the head of the harbour, about a mile and a half from Porchester, and -two miles from the then dockyard, a proposal which was adopted. They did -not advise the making of a dry dock, thinking the rise and fall of the -tide too little, and ‘there is no use of any there;‘[1256] but personal -interests were also in the way, the comfort and pecuniary advantages of -the shipwrights being bound up with the Thames and Medway yards. - -From this date, however, a few ships were always stationed at Portsmouth, -but it was not until January 1638 that a master shipwright was ordered -to reside there permanently; before that time the shipwrights had taken -the duty in turns, and the absence of a dry dock, although several times -intended to have been commenced, was still causing inconvenience and -expense. Russell complained that ‘his Majesty cannot have a pennyworth of -work there done under twopence, in respect the King’s yard and the ships -be so far asunder for transporting materials.’ The dockyard consisted -chiefly of storehouses, and orders had been given that all private -houses near them were to be tiled instead of thatched, the former having -been once already burnt down during the reign of Elizabeth.[1257] It is -difficult to say what extent of ground belonged to the crown at this -time. No additions are known to have been made to the land since the -purchases of Henry VIII but between 1630 and 1640 various new buildings -were erected. - -Another cause of hesitation in the adoption of Portsmouth as a permanent -naval station was the diverse opinions expressed as to the existence of -the _Teredo navalis_ in the harbour. This maritime pest, which begins -to be especially noticed during Elizabeth’s reign, played havoc with -ships mostly unsheathed, and whose sheathing, when it did exist, was ill -adapted to resist its ravages. In 1630 the chief shipwrights reported -that ‘no worm destructive to ships is bred in Portsmouth harbour;’ five -years later some of the same men turned round with, ‘We positively -conclude that there is a worm in that harbour.’ The decision was still -postponed till, in September 1645, a number of shipwrights were sent -down, and it thenceforward rapidly grew in naval importance, although the -dry dock, so often ordered, was not commenced till 1656. - -[Sidenote: Dockyards:—Chatham.] - -Chatham was now the first of English dockyards, and in 1634 contained -the seventy or eighty acres, held on the lease of 1618, which was now -lost. In March 1627 Coke, at the request of the King of Denmark, sent -a Dane named Andersen there with a letter of recommendation to the -officials, desiring them to explain to him their methods of work. The -request was complimentary, but Andersen could hardly have been very -favourably impressed by all he saw and heard. The dockyard service -was as much disorganised as the rest of the administration; the -_Assurance_ had recently been repaired only by the expedient of selling -fifty-four guns to pay the expenses,[1258] and £7740 was owing to the -shipwrights and shipkeepers there, nearly eighteen months’ wages being -over-due.[1259] They had of course freely petitioned, but ‘a letter -to persuade the workmen to go on cheerfully’ had quieted them for the -time. One explanation of their patience may be found in the existence -of a rule under which persons in the naval departments could not be -proceeded against legally until permission was given by the authorities. -Just before Andersen’s visit work had been at a standstill for want of -materials to the value of £400, which the government could not obtain on -credit, and in April the workmen still had fifteen months’ pay due. Both -the Commissioners and Principal Officers confessed their inability in -face of these difficulties, since, if the men were discharged, they came -clamouring and threatening daily for their wages, and if kept on there -were not sufficient stores for them to work with.[1260] Matters did not -improve, and in 1629 Edisbury pointed out that, in addition to all this, -great waste and theft existed, many families living in the dockyards, -and cabins and other parts of the ships being daily ransacked, and the -materials stolen or used for fire wood, ‘every one almost being director -of his own work for want of some able, understanding man to regulate the -inferiors, as it was while the Commissioners had the government.’[1261] -This handsome testimonial to the merits of the Commissioners, lately -relieved, may be considered impartial, for the interests of Edisbury, -then paymaster, but shortly to be himself a Principal Officer, were bound -up with those of the Officers. - -Another writer tells us that the master shipwrights rated their -subordinates according to favour, and that they themselves were -sometimes absent for one or two months at the time at their own private -yards.[1262] In thirteen years’ experience he had never known any -inferior suffer for delinquency, ‘although he had been convicted of -divers stealths.’ At the most they were suspended, and then restored, and -the entries in the State Papers bear out Holland’s assertions. He also -tells us that Fridays, being the Rochester market days, were kept as a -general holiday in the dockyard; the expenditure on ornamental carving -and painting had become four times as great as formerly, because the -amount was left to the master shipwrights who refused to be outdone by -each other; if work was done by contract, a bill was usually sent in -for ‘overworkes’ which exceeded the original contract amount, and, as -result, the shipwrights’ houses were ‘fitter for knights than men of -their quality,’ These houses had back doors opening into the dockyard—for -obvious purposes, the writer hints. - -The almost incredible financial straits of the treasury may be measured -by the fact that some storehouses in Chatham yard having been damaged -by a storm in January 1630 the money necessary for the repairs—only -£20—had to be obtained by selling old cordage.[1263] Large sums, however, -were at various times expended on maintaining, improving, and enlarging -the yards. In 1629 there was spent £2197 on Portsmouth, Deptford, and -Chatham;[1264] and in 1634 there was a further estimate of £2445, for -the same places for additions subsequently carried out, one of them -being a brick wall round part of the yard at Chatham. The barricade -across the Medway at Upnor, although it had been allowed to become almost -useless, was still nominally maintained. It must have been an expensive -defence, since the estimate in 1635 for another, made like the earlier -ones of masts, came to £2305, besides involving a yearly outlay of £624 -to keep it in good order. An iron chain weighing twenty-eight tons, -and held by eleven anchors, was recommended in its place, as costing -only £1500.[1265] It is not known whether either plan was carried out. -The Long Parliament further enlarged the dockyards, and cared for the -shipwrights spiritually as well as physically. In 1644 they ordered that -a lecture should be delivered at Deptford every Wednesday morning on -‘saving truths,’ and the time thus occupied was not to be deducted from -the men’s pay. - -[Sidenote: Stores.] - -In 1637 the stores at Woolwich, Deptford, Chatham, Portsmouth, and on -board the ships in harbour comprised 1446 tons of cables and cordage, -221 tons of anchors, 79 lasts of tar, sails made up to the value of -£4500, canvas not made up to £5000, 167 compasses, 2236 hammocks, 520 -masts, 1200 spars, 3694 loads of timber, and 332,000 tree-nails.[1266] -This was in the full flush of the ship-money receipts, yet both cordage -and timber are far below the minimum considered necessary by either -Principal Officers or Commissioners. As in later years ships lying up -were dismantled, and in 1631 the Lords of the Admiralty ordered that, -instead of sails and rigging being kept in a confused heap at Chatham, a -room, with the ship’s name painted on the door, should be provided for -the belongings of each vessel. In 1637 Hildebrand Pruson died, he and -his father having been sailmakers to the Navy for sixty years. Edisbury -then tried, but in vain, to persuade the Lords Commissioners to have -the sails made at Chatham and save a fifth of their cost. So far from -undertaking fresh responsibilities they desired to transfer some of -those they already bore. They were at the time negotiating with Russell -about an offer he had made to provide the squadron for the narrow seas by -contract at £3 a man per month, that rate to cover all expenses except -those of repairs to the vessels.[1267] They were to be nine months out of -the twelve at sea, and doubtless Russell saw his way to a profit, but the -proposal was not carried into effect. There were few naval improvements -introduced under Charles. Deck ring-bolts for the lashing of ordnance -were first supplied in 1628;[1268] staysails came into use early in the -reign, one of the whelps having two in 1633, and in 1639 there were forty -in store at Portsmouth, but they seem to have been only fitted to the -smaller classes of ships. In 1633 studding sails are included among the -stores at Chatham. - -[Sidenote: Flags.] - -However badly off fleets might be in material necessaries, they should -have been well furnished with the æsthetic refreshment of flags, -judging from the number in store. In 1626 £1280 was spent in providing -them, and in January 1627 there were 415 of various kinds to be had at -Chatham alone, and however low in the future might fall the reserves of -powder every care was taken that the men should not lack this solace. -A proclamation was issued on 5th May 1634 commanding that English and -Scotch merchantmen were no longer to fly the Union flag of St George’s -and St Andrew’s crosses, but to each keep to its own national cross, -men-of-war alone flying the Union.[1269] The parliamentary committees -were just as fond of flags, for in the sixteen months ending with -November 1646 they spent £1178 on these articles, while sailors’ hammocks -for the same period cost of £777. For 1647 their bill for flags was £567, -and for hammocks £307. In February 1649 the parliament ordered that -men-of-war should carry a St George’s cross on a white ground, similar -to the present admiral’s flag, which, although the St George’s cross -had been in general use for many centuries, may be considered to be the -beginning of the present naval ensign in its special form.[1270] - -[Sidenote: Prices.] - -The following prices were paid for naval necessaries at various dates:— - - Cordage (1625), £26, 13s 4d a ton. - ” (1629), £32 a ton. - ” (1631), £30 ” - ” (1640), ” ” - Tar (1631), £8, 10s a last. - ” (1635), £10, a last. - Rosin (1631), £13, a ton. - Train oil (1631), £20 a ton. - Crooked and straight timber (1631), £1, 10s a load. - Knee timber (1631), £2, 10s a load. - Elm ” ” £1 6s ” - ” ” (1640), £1, 12s ” - ” plank (1626), £1, 18s ” - Oak ” ” £2, 2s ” - ” ” (1640), £3, 11s ” - French canvas (1635), £22 a bale. - Ipswich ” (1626), £1, 6s a bolt. - ” ” (1635), £1, 10s a bolt. - Powder (1627), £5 a barrel. - ” (1646), £4, 10s a barrel. - Round shot (1627), £11 a ton. - Musket shot (1627), £14 a ton. - Hammocks (1625), 2s each. - ” (1642), 2s 7d each. - Anchors (1626), £1, 10s to £2 per cwt. - ” (1631), £2 per cwt. - ” (1640), £1, 13s per cwt. - Beer (1635), 28s to 34s the tun. - ” (1646), 38s the tun. - Beef in 4-lb. pieces (1635), 9d and 10d the piece. - Pork in 2-lb. pieces (1635), 5d and 6d the piece. - Codfish (1635), £4, 3s the cwt. - Biscuit ” 13s and 14s the cwt. - Seamen’s clothes (1628):—[1271] - Shirts, 3s 4d each; - caps, 2s each; - cotton breeches, 2s 8d each; - stockings, 1s 4d a pair; - canvas suits, 6s each; - cotton waistcoats, 3s each. - - - - -THE COMMONWEALTH - -1649-1660 - - -[Sidenote: The Events of the Interregnum.] - -Among the many social and political developments which characterised -the era of the Commonwealth the most interesting, to the naval student, -is the sudden expansion of our maritime power and the extension of its -field of action. There was no previous experience to justify our rulers -in supposing that the drain in men and money necessary to the support -of a great navy—equal to that of the combined powers of Europe—could -be borne by a state already exhausted by civil war; and it may well be -that, although the sequence of events showed the maintenance of such a -force not to be beyond the national capacity, the strain on the national -resources between 1649 and 1660 was a large factor in creating the -popular discontent which welcomed the return of the Stewarts. - -Under Charles I the pecuniary resources of the crown were unequal to the -construction of ships during war time, while the launch of one, or at -the most two, a year in the time of peace was thought to be sufficient -cause for legitimate pride and congratulation: under the Commonwealth -they were ordered by tens at the time, and in one year—1654—twenty-two -new men-of-war left the slips, besides the hired merchantmen in pay and -the numerous prizes fitted out for naval service. Under Charles the -preparation of a single fleet for a peaceful summer cruise in the narrow -seas necessitated a previous year of preparation, while the coasts were -supposed to be sufficiently protected by the occasional presence of a few -small vessels: under the Commonwealth, besides a powerful reserve kept -in the Downs ready for immediate action, besides the numerous cruisers -patrolling the coasts, we find for the first time that Mediterranean -station which has played so great a part in English history occupied in -force, a moderately strong West Indian squadron, and the small beginning -of the North American station. The rulers of the Commonwealth only did, -so far as home waters were concerned, what Charles vaguely desired to -do with the Navy; but the wildest dreams of Charles never pictured the -permanent Mediterranean and West Indian fleets. - -It usually happens in statesmanship that administrative or executive -development on any particular line is due rather to circumstances than -intention, and the history of the republican Navy is an illustration -of this rule. At the close of the civil war it was proposed to reduce -the naval establishments, and measures were being already taken to that -effect when the Rainsborow mutiny occurred. The escape of Rupert from -Kinsale with the fleet, of which three of the revolted ships formed the -nucleus, together with the encouragement his presence at sea gave to -individual privateering, necessitated an immediate and large increase in -the Navy, which then had to protect the trade routes as well as chase -or blockade him. Rupert’s career made it obvious that the area of the -civil war had widened, and that henceforth it would be the duty of the -Navy to deal with the enemies of the republic at the circumference of -the circle, its internal foes being helpless without aid from abroad. -How little those in power anticipated the changes a few years were to -effect in our maritime strength, and how doubtfully they regarded the -means available to contend even with Rupert, they themselves frankly tell -us. In June 1649 they congratulated themselves that they had a fleet at -sea such as they scarcely hoped for or their enemies expected, but ‘how -the Commonwealth will be able to continue the same in successive years -is not easy to evidence.’[1272] But the episode of Rupert was followed -by the more expensive Dutch and Spanish wars, both of which required -the existence of large fleets at sea and an ample reserve, and their -sequel in the prolonged visits of Blake and his successor, Stokes, to the -Mediterranean, from which we may date the reappearance of England as a -European power. - -The crucial difficulty of finance, which had wrecked the designs of -Charles I, presented fewer obstacles to Parliament and the Protector. -By means of the monthly assessments, delinquents’ compositions, sale of -lands, excise, and other methods, the sum of £95,000,000 is declared to -have been raised between 1642 and 1660.[1273] This gives an average of -upwards of five and a quarter millions a year, against far less than a -million a year raised by Charles, and, even allowing for the cost of -the army and the debts incurred during the civil war, enables us to -understand the comparative ease with which the heavy naval expenses were -met at first by the government, and why outbreaks of discontent on the -part of the men were few, and at once easily appeased by the payment of -wages which had been allowed to become too long over-due. The financial -system of the Commonwealth was reckless and improvident, inasmuch as it -largely consisted in living on capital by the alienation of private or -corporate property which, if confiscated, should have been held to the -profit of the state; but probably no system of taxation alone could have -met the demands of the army and Navy during those years. Not only the -naval but every other branch of the administration was overwhelmed with -debt in 1660. - -[Sidenote: The Dutch War.] - -By far the most important event of the interregnum was the Dutch War, -since our success in that struggle shaped the future course of English -commercial development and, in its results, caused English fleets to -be henceforward influential factors in continental politics. Although -the conditions were, in reality, not at all unequal, an attack made -on the richest and greatest maritime power in the world by a nearly -bankrupt state which, with the exception of the passable success of -1596, had failed in every important naval enterprise undertaken since -1588, and which in that year had only succeeded—so far as the fruits of -victory were concerned—by the chance of wind and wave and the aid of -the very nation now assailed, must have seemed to many contemporaries -a more than hazardous venture. When success seemed to be definitely -inclining towards this country, the _Weekly Intelligencer_ of 7th June -1653 soberly remarked that ‘our generals ... were the first who have -made it known that the Dutch are to be overcome by sea.’ The relative -position of England and the United Provinces was very similar to that -of England and France at present or recently—on the one hand a country -with a great commerce and a great navy, but a navy which, in the nature -of things, could only bear a percentage relation to the vast pecuniary -interests it was required to protect and the extent of sea it was called -upon to traverse; on the other a power which, with far less at stake -commercially, had for years been expending on its naval establishments a -sum which must have equalled or exceeded the total value of its merchant -marine,[1274] whose fleets had been yearly increased, and whose seamen -had been freshly trained by ten years of warfare. How ruinous the war -was to Dutch commerce may be measured from the fact that between 27th -July 1652 and 8th March 1653 Dutch prize goods were sold, probably much -below the normal market values, for £208,655, 3s 11d.[1275] For Holland -then, as would be the case for England now, it was not sufficient to -merely hold her own, for anything short of absolute maritime supremacy is -ruin to a nation whose existence depends on an unlimited carrying trade -and the unchecked export and import of material. The Dutch did not hold -their own, but their flag was by no means driven off the seas, and the -Dutch navy certainly not incapable of further action, when the miseries -undergone by a teeming population brought the republic to its knees in -1654. - -Many circumstances and conditions coincided in weakening the position -of the United Provinces. Their share in the thirty years’ war, being -almost entirely confined to land operations, had resulted in attention -being devoted to the army at the expense of the navy, which had seen -little real service since the conclusion of the truce with Spain in 1609. -The country was distressed by the economies rendered necessary by the -heavy public debts, and was yet suffering from the results of a great -commercial crisis experienced in 1646-7.[1276] While in England faction -was, for the time, crushed, in Holland the attempts of the stadtholder -William II in 1650 and 1651 to seize supreme power had given rise to -personal and political animosities which had outlived their author, -and which are said to have had a disastrous influence on the way some -of the higher Dutch officers did their duty. But it was on the side of -the _personnel_ and administrative systems of the two countries that a -comparison is so favourable to England. The naval organisation of the -Dutch republic was directed by five distinct admiralty boards, each -exercising separate control, preparing its own ships, appointing its -own officers, and depending for co-ordinate action on the limited, and -frequently disputed, authority of the states-general. As might have been -expected, this system failed even to curb the Dunkirkers, from whom the -Dutch suffered nearly as much as did the English[1277]. - -Never, on the other hand, so far as administration was concerned, had -England been better prepared for war. Instead of officials who, as in -the preceding half-century, owed their posts to court influence, to -purchase, or to seniority, the work was in the hands of men chosen for -business aptitude and who, in most instances, had given proof of higher -qualifications on the field of battle or in parliamentary committees. Of -the latter class was the Admiralty Committee; but the Navy Commissioners, -and especially those Commissioners in charge of the dockyards, on whom -fell most of the duty of organisation, were officers who had been taught -by actual warfare. Prompt, capable, honest, and energetic, sparing -themselves neither in purse nor person, and frequently bringing religious -fervour as a spur to their daily service, they conveyed to war on another -element the same thoroughness and zeal which had made them victorious on -land. - -Victory in the civil war had only been gained when a weak and hesitating -commercialism, scared at its own audacity, and longing for a settlement -that would secure its own liberties at whatever sacrifices of the hopes -and consciences of others, had been steel-edged by Puritan vigour. The -men of that stern mental and moral creed were now in authority throughout -the kingdom and wielding its resources. Pitted against a nation of lower -ideals, sleekly prosperous, whose national genius had for years tended -more and more to take the one groove of trade, unwrought and unpurified -by the searchings of soul that all thinking Englishmen must have gone -through in those years, all the spiritual elements of success were on the -side of England. - -Never, before or since, were the combatant branches of the Navy so well -supported. As a rule our seamen have had to beat the enemy afloat in -spite of the Admiralty ashore, but here they had every assistance that -foresight and earnestness could give. As a result of the political -troubles of 1650 and 1651 many of the oldest and most experienced of -the Dutch captains had been dismissed as adherents of the house of -Orange, and their places filled by men of whose cowardice and incapacity -bitter complaints were made by their admirals. The English captains were -officers practised by years of sea experience, or soldiers who brought -their traditions of hard fighting to bear in a fresh field. The United -Provinces had perhaps four times as many seamen as a reserve to draw -upon; but, ill paid and ill fed,[1278] devoted to peaceful pursuits, and -frequently discontented with the mercantile oligarchy governing them, the -men, although once in action they fought well, did not give that almost -enthusiastic service which characterised the Englishmen. - -The news sheets of 1652-3 usually take the goodwill of the men for -granted, and this silence is itself significant; but occasionally actual -references are made, and these references, even if inventions, may be -taken as indicative of the spirit with which the men were reputed to -be imbued. They had for the Dutch that hatred their fathers felt for -Spaniards, and, for the first time for many years, they found themselves -well treated[1279]—comparatively punctually paid, properly clothed, well -fed, cared for when sick or wounded, and promised advantages in the -shape of prize money never previously allowed. What wonder they served -the Commonwealth, during its earlier years, as the crown had never been -served since the days of Elizabeth? - -In number of ships England, even at the outbreak of the war, was not so -ill-matched as has been supposed. ‘You never had such a fleet as in the -Long Parliament,’ said Haselrig on one occasion,[1280] and political -necessities had as yet prevented any decrease in the strength maintained -up to 1648. During 1649-51 the magazines were kept well supplied and -forty-one new ships were added to the Navy list, practically doubling its -effective; besides these were the hired merchantmen in pay, or recently -discharged, and manned by trained crews accustomed to work together. -According to some accounts the Dutch navy had been allowed to fall to so -low a number as fifty men-of-war, and, although merchantmen were taken -into the service, their crews, hurriedly got together and new to their -surroundings, were no match, so far as skill went, for their opponents. -Throughout the war the Dutch, although they possessed many more ships, -never succeeded in sending to sea any materially larger fleets than ours. -Fifteen hundred prizes are said to have been taken from them during the -war, a number at least double the whole ocean-going merchant marine of -England.[1281] If they possessed more vessels a far larger proportion -of them were unfit for battle, and if ours were slower under sail they -were more solidly built and more heavily armed, advantages which told -in days when tactics were elementary, and when, for the first time for -a century, English seamen tried to fight yardarm to yardarm.[1282] Yet -another circumstance was most fortunate for England; for a greater part -of the year the prevailing winds gave us the weather-gage and the choice -of attack. Dutch merchant fleets returning from the westward had to run -the gauntlet of the south coast, and some of the most desperate actions -of the war were fought on account of—and hampered by—considerations for -the safety of these convoys. If they took the long and dangerous route -round Scotland, they were still liable to capture when almost within -sight of home. It will be seen, if these views are correct, that almost -the sole advantage held by the United Provinces was one of finance, and -that, although it might have caused political difficulties or revolt -under a monarchy, had no immediate influence in a country held down by a -victorious army. - -[Sidenote: Prize Money.] - -Charles I fell, throughout his reign, into the error of supposing that, -if ships and guns were provided, devotion to his person would ensure -loyalty and spontaneous service on the part of the men. He found, in -1642, that seamen are not sentimental, and that their sense of duty -drew them towards the best paymasters. That perception of their own -best interests, which had impelled the Long Parliament throughout the -civil war to treat the seamen liberally, had still stronger reasons for -existence in the years following 1648 when the maintenance, possibly -of the republic, certainly of peace at home, depended on the action of -the fleet. Throughout the history of the Navy any improvement in the -position of the man-of-war’s man is found to bear a direct relation to -the momentary needs of the governing classes, and in 1649 the necessity -of dealing with Rupert at once woke the tender conscience of the Council -to some further improvements that might be made in his condition. Gibson, -who was all through the war, says that ‘from the year 1641 the bread -and beer was of the best for fineness and goodness;’ but fresh orders -were issued by the Council of State to find out and prosecute any agents -supplying victuals of bad quality. Hitherto Lent had been strictly kept, -being pecuniarily advantageous to the crown as well as spiritually -profitable to the men, although physically ‘of much discontent to them;’ -in future its observance was to cease, as was also the abatement of food -on Fridays, ‘being begotten by the covetous desires of the contractors -for victuals, though coloured with specious pretence of abstinence and -religion.’[1283] - -Besides raising their pay the Council also desired that ‘all just -satisfaction be given to seamen, and that they reap all the benefit of -the act passed for their encouragement in distribution of prize goods,’ -and expressed themselves as anxious to appoint persons acceptable to -the men as commissioners of prize goods.[1284] The act referred to, -passed in February 1649, amplified and fixed authoritatively the merely -parliamentary resolution of October 1642, which gave the men, beyond -their wages, one-third of the value of a prize. Directed especially -at Rupert’s squadron and Stewart privateers, the new act gave the -officers and men of a state’s or hired ship one-half the value of a -man-of-war captured; the other half went to a fund for the relief of -sick and wounded and the wives and children of those killed, while if -the enemy was destroyed they were to be paid at the rate of from £12 to -£20 a gun, according to the size of the pieces it had on board. The net -proceeds, after condemnation in the Admiralty Court and sale of goods, -of a merchantman taken by a man-of-war were to be divided into three -parts, of which one went to the officers and men, one to the fund for -sick and wounded, and one to the state. If the merchantman were prize -to a hired ship in the state’s service, two-thirds went, as before, to -the crew and the sick fund, but the remaining third was divided into two -parts, of which one was taken by the owners of the ship, and the other -by the state. The tenths which had formerly been a perquisite of the -Lord Admiral were now to be devoted to rewards and medals; and owners of -English ships recaptured from an enemy had to pay one-eighth of the value -of vessel and cargo as salvage. - -Doubtless both Parliament and the executive intended to work this -enactment loyally, but the needs of the treasury overcame their good -intentions, and the delay in the distribution of prize money was a -chronic source of discontent. Therefore from 1st January 1653 a new -scheme came into operation, which gave ten shillings a ton for every ton -the prize, whether merchantman or man-of-war, measured, and £6, 13s 4d -for every gun she carried; for every man-of-war destroyed, £10 a gun; and -the Lord Admiral’s tenths were to be devoted to the sick and wounded and -the relief of widows and orphans.[1285] These distributions were to be -made by the collectors of prize goods three days after payment of wages, -a regulation which must have savoured of irony to those who were waiting, -sometimes years, for wages. For the moment, however, the sailor was -considered in every possible way, and, in May, Blake and his colleagues -were ordered always to exchange prisoners if possible, ‘as it will tend -much to the satisfaction of the seamen when they see that care is had -of them.’[1286] Matters progressed smoothly enough till the Dutch war -strained our finance desperately, and from 1648 till May 1653 there are -but two instances of insubordination to be found.[1287] - -When the Dutch war broke out the want of men was greater than the want of -ships, and it was decided to press all seamen between fifteen and fifty -years of age, a ticket being given to each man with his three halfpence -a mile conduct money, specifying his physical appearance, and which he -was called upon to present at the port where he joined his ship.[1288] -Attempts were made to keep crews in the service by carrying forward -thirty shillings of each man’s wages when he was paid off; but this, -wrote the Navy Commissioners, caused ‘so much clamour and discontent that -we are scarce able to stay in the office.’[1289] Under James and Charles -the men had been glad to get any pay at all, and they probably strongly -objected to any proceeding which was by way of a return to old customs. -Eventually, however, the government did this and more, for a couple of -years later it was customary to keep three months’ pay in hand if the men -were turned over to another ship. - -[Sidenote: The Articles of War.] - -A long step in advance towards the future discipline of the Navy was -made in 1652, when, on 25th December, the House of Commons enacted the -first articles of war to which the service had ever been subjected, and -which were grounded on some regulations for the government of Warwick’s -fleet passed by the House in March 1648-9.[1290] These articles have -escaped the notice of writers upon naval law, who begin their history -of the subject with those passed in 1661; these latter, however, were -only based upon those previously existing, which are the groundwork of -all subsequent modifications and additions experience has shown to be -necessary down to the present day. They were thirty-nine in number, -and, so far as paper penalties were concerned, were rigorous enough. No -punishment was adjudged for the infraction of the first article relating -to the due performance of divine service; and the thirty-ninth is only a -vague reference to offences not mentioned in the preceding articles, and -which were punishable according to the ‘laws and customs of the sea.’ -Of the remaining thirty-seven thirteen carried the infliction of death -unconditionally, and twelve that of death or lesser punishment, according -to sentence of court-martial, or court of war, as it was then called. - -The parliamentary bark seems to have been much more ferocious than -its bite since, in all the numerous courts-martial mentioned in the -State Papers and elsewhere, there is no instance to be found in which -the death sentence was carried out, and very few in which it was -pronounced. Moreover precautions were taken against the exercise of -tyranny by inferior officers, inasmuch as the promulgation of the code -was accompanied by an order that the accused was only to be tried for -serious offences in the presence of a flag officer, and that no finding -involving life or limb was to be carried out without the approval of the -Generals or the senior officer in command; and as trifling charges were -to be heard before the captain and seven officers of the ship in which -the offence was committed the offender had a fair chance of an impartial -trial. Very soon after the Restoration this regulation fell into abeyance -and prisoners obtained justice—too often Jeddart—at the hands of the -captain alone. Only one case of a really severe sentence on foremast men -is to be found. In December 1653, in the middle of the war, six seamen of -the _Portland_ were found guilty of inciting to mutiny and were sentenced -to death. This was commuted, so far as three were concerned, to thirty -lashes apiece, and for the other three to stand one hour with their -right hands nailed to the mainmast of the flagship with halters round -their necks.[1291] There is no record of the infliction of such severe -punishment by any other court-martial. - -As might be expected in a mercantile community the thirty-fifth article, -relating to convoy duty, was the longest and most explicit. Under Henry -VIII, and later, convoy money had been a legal charge; recently it had -become difficult to obtain convoy protection at all, and when given -owners and captains had been exposed to vexatious and illegal demands. -Now, any man-of-war captains not performing such duty thoroughly and -efficiently, and defending ‘the ships and goods in their convoy without -either diverting to other parts and occasions, or refusing or neglecting -to fight in their defence if they be set upon or assailed, or running -away cowardly, and submitting those in their convoy to peril and hazard,’ -were to make good to the owners any pecuniary loss so caused. As, in the -case of a valuable cargo and a penniless naval captain, such a sentence -might be equivalent to escaping scot-free, death was also added as a -possible punishment. Any captain or officer demanding or receiving a -gratuity was to be cashiered. From 19th October 1649 the House had -resolved that convoy should henceforth be provided without charge, -and in 1650 the east coast fishermen were gratefully acknowledging -the benefits resulting. Matters, however, did not progress altogether -smoothly. Sometimes merchantmen were independent, and when the government -provided men-of-war for the Mediterranean, would not ‘stay half a day’ to -obtain their protection.[1292] But when the owners belonging to Poole, -Weymouth, Dartmouth, and Plymouth united, nine months later, in begging -for a stronger guard than usual to Newfoundland the Council recommended -them to defer sending a fleet till next year, as a convoy could not -be spared.[1293] From other papers the truth seems to have been that, -although a vessel or two could have been found for the work, the Council -desired to obtain for national purposes the men who would have manned the -merchantmen. - -The option of sailing with or without convoy was not always left to the -discretion of owners. In February 1653 the Council sent orders to some -of the eastern ports that no vessel was to sail without protection, for -which preparations were being made; but in July the owners of three ships -destined for the Mediterranean petitioned for leave to send them without -the escort, which had been twice promised during sixteen months of delay, -and of which there was still no sign. Criticism must take into account -the fact that these things were happening during the strain of a great -war and that under ordinary circumstances, or when merely at war with -Spain, there was no want of promptness in the action of the authorities. -On 25th February 1656 Hull petitions for a convoy, and on the 29th it is -ordered; Newcastle on 10th February 1657 obtains an order the same day. -In January 1660 twenty-five ships were on convoy duty, one being sent -down to St Helena to meet the returning East Indiamen (this had been for -some years customary), two to the Canaries, and four to the Mediterranean. - -[Sidenote: Wages.] - -The articles of war seem in this generation to have troubled the -sailors but little, since, in nearly every instance, we find officers -the prisoners before the court. A court-martial would not enable the -Treasurer to pay wages and prize money too long over-due, or silence -men of whom one, who knew them well, said that they were ‘an unruly and -untamed generation,’ and that he found ‘no hope to satisfy them without -their full pay.’[1294] But there are signs that, notwithstanding delays -in payment, the men gave heartier obedience to the Commonwealth than they -had given to the crown under similar circumstances. On one occasion 180 -men were sent down to join the _Fairfax_, but, not finding their raw -shipmates already on board to their liking, announced that they would -not go to sea ‘to do those men and boys’ work for them.’ But instead -of attempting to desert they betook themselves to other ships.[1295] -Three months afterwards the Navy Commissioners received the welcome -news that the men were coming in ‘cheerfully and in great numbers since -the publication of the late encouragement to them,’[1296] and from some -places they were coming up as volunteers. From Dover and Deal came the -information that the new arrangements were ‘much liked,’ and that the -greater number of the men were willing to serve.[1297] Commissioner -Peter Pett reported from Chatham that he found ‘the seamen in general -to be very tractable and complying, and begin to attend to their duties -handsomely.’ - -So far as wages were concerned, the encouragement spoken of related to -the increased pay which took effect from 1st Jan. 1653. During the civil -war the rate had been 19s a month; in the fleets sent against Rupert -it had been raised to 25s for that particular service, and it was now -to be 24s for able seamen (‘fit for helm and lead, top and yard’), 19s -for ordinary, and 14s 3d for gromets,[1298] and 9s 6d for boys. Each -man’s capacity was to be marked on his wages ticket when paid off, the -first sign of the present discharge note. As a further inducement, by an -order of 29th Jan. 1653, 20 men in first-, 16 in second-, 12 in third-, -8 in fourth-, 6 in fifth-, and 4 in sixth-rates were to be rated as -midshipmen, with pay from £1, 10s to £2, 5s a month, according to the -class of ship, and from 14th Dec. 1655 no one was to be so rated unless -able to undertake an officer’s duties, if necessary.[1299] Of course -the increase by the government caused a corresponding rise in merchant -seamen’s wages; and at Ipswich, soon afterwards, the latter were so hard -to come by as to be obtaining master’s pay. - -[Sidenote: Soldiers on board Ship.] - -It was estimated, although the number proved to be insufficient, that -16,000 men would be required in 1653, and many of these were untrained -landsmen and boys, almost useless at sea. The remaining thousands -needed were drawn from the ranks of the army. It has been suggested -that soldiers were sent on board to keep the sailors in subjection, -but, beyond the quite adequate explanation of a war demanding a larger -number of men than the maritime population had ever before been called -upon to supply, there is not the slightest trace of ill-feeling between -soldiers and sailors such as would have inevitably occurred had the -latter understood it as an attempt at intimidation. The expressed purpose -was ‘to perform as far as they are able, all service as seamen, and to -be ordered in like capacity as the rest;’ evidently they were expected -to help in deck work and where no especial training was requisite. -Altogether some 3000 or 4000 soldiers were sent on board the fleet; and -it is significant of the different discipline, or the different spirit, -animating the army and the Navy, that, although the new comers suffered -the same vexations as the seamen in relation to postponed pay and prize -money, in addition to the hardships peculiar to the sudden change in -situation and duties, they do not appear to have troubled the executive -with a single complaint beyond one meek remonstrance about the absence of -hammocks.[1300] - -[Sidenote: Causes of Discontent.] - -The seamen appear to have decided that their duties began and ended -on salt water. Captain Taylor, at Chatham, informed the Admiralty -Commissioners that ships might be sent to sea in half the time and at -one-third of the cost if the men could only be persuaded to help in -their preparation; but ‘not one will help to get out ballast, or take it -in, or do almost anything tending towards dispatch.’ Instead of working -they haunted the beershops, which have always been the curse of their -class. Bourne, the Commissioner at Harwich, had ‘the beginning of an -ugly mutiny,’ attributable to drink; but Bourne eventually succeeded in -putting down the alehouses at Harwich. At Plymouth vested interests were -too strong for Hatsell, the agent there:— - - The men come tippling ashore, and then march away in their mad - fits.... The abominable strong drink brewed in this town is of - more prejudice to the state and to the poor men than the heads - of all the brewers and alehouse keepers here are worth.... The - government here protest they cannot remedy it, as the brewers - have grown so rich they contend with them at law.... This - strong drink is from 26s to 28s a hogshead, and stronger than - sack, and when a sailor has drunk one bowl of it it makes him - half out of his wits.[1301] - -Such a letter explains many of the so-called mutinies. - -The system of payment, again, exposed the men to every temptation, since -a ship might be a year or two at sea and no wages were given or expected -until she was ordered in for repairs or laid up, the result being that -when money was extraordinarily scarce cruisers were kept unnecessarily -in commission to postpone the settling day. Money was sometimes borrowed -when a squadron returned to port, and of £32,000 obtained in this manner -in 1657, £10,200 was still owing in 1659.[1302] There are numerous -expostulations from officers about their long over-due pay, but, read -by themselves, these lamentations are sometimes apt to leave a wrong -impression. Edward Larkin, for instance, gunner of the _Mayflower_, -petitions in 1655 for two and a half years of his ‘dearly earned wages,’ -of which he has only received six months; his wife and family are turned -out of doors, his goods seized, and he himself arrested for debt. This, -taken alone, appears to be a pathetic indictment of the ways of the -administration, but here the corrective is supplied by another paper -which is an account of stores embezzled by the said Edward Larkin. - -There was more difficulty, so far as willingness was concerned, in -manning the fleets during the war with Spain than during the Dutch war. -The men feared tropical climates, and ‘are so afraid of being sent to -the West Indies that they say they would as soon be hanged.’ Moreover as -the years went by the Commonwealth did not pay more promptly. There is -no sign, so far as their debates go, that Parliament, in improving the -position of the men, had ever been moved by other than purely selfish -motives, and it may have been felt that less now depended on the attitude -of the Navy, or that there was less likelihood, under any provocation, of -a serious outbreak. Slight ones frequently occurred and were invariably -attributed, by the officers on the spot, to the non-payment of wages -or prize-money, and were as invariably appeased when these claims were -settled. Sometimes discontent was rather an excuse than a cause; when the -crew of the _Ruby_ refused to sail, alleging that they had no clothes -and that the ship was defective, they were easily persuaded back to duty -when withdrawn from the influence of their landladies, who ‘have been -the greatest instruments to hinder their going on board.’ In the matter -of prize money officers of high rank fared little better in dealing with -the commissioners of prize goods. There are two letters on this subject -addressed in August 1654 to the commissioners. The first is mild in -tone; the second, signed by sixteen captains in the Downs, curtly points -out that their prize money for the three last actions with the Dutch is -still due and that unless it is immediately paid they will appeal to the -Protector.[1303] If captains were compelled to combine and threaten -we may imagine how the sailors raged vainly against official penury or -inertia.[1304] - -Poverty occasionally caused the prize money gained by one section of the -naval force to be applied to the payment of wages due to another; in -October 1655 Blake’s men were partly paid this way, and, vaguely, the -deficiency thus made ‘to be supplied some other way.’ There are hints -that the Admiralty Court itself was not above suspicion. Captain Kendal, -of the _Success_, wrote, in April 1654, that sixteen months previously he -had taken a Dutch ship, still uncondemned; ‘but I suppose the bribes do -appear very large in the Admiralty Court,’ and, ‘I fear there hath been -much corruption in the Admiralty Court.’ - -It is but fair, however, to the prize commissioners to notice that the -difficulties of the position were not altogether due to themselves. In -1654 they wrote to the Admiralty Court stating that they had sold ships -and goods to the value of £70,000, but could not keep the proceeds, -because compelled to meet the sums charged upon them by the Council of -State, notwithstanding the decrees of the Court ordering them to hold -the money. Being uneasy about their position they desired security or -indemnity.[1305] Another source of abuse was the custom by which crews -were allowed to plunder a prize, on or above the gun deck, of all -articles except arms, ammunition, and ship’s stores. English merchantmen -recaptured from an enemy sometimes experienced more loss from the rescuer -than from the original captor. The owners of the _Sarah_, recaptured by -the _Falmouth_, found that while the enemy had done five pounds of damage -the Englishmen had helped themselves to the value of £500, and five or -six other ships were similarly treated.[1306] - -[Sidenote: The Protests.] - -While the majority of the men made protest against their wrongs in the -useless and prejudicial form of riots, there seem to have been a thinking -minority who were able to apply to their own situation the principles -for which they had fought, and which had sent Charles to the block and -Cromwell to Whitehall. These men drew up a petition to the Protector, -which, before being forwarded, was considered, on 17th October 1654, by -a council of two admirals and twenty-three commanding officers, held on -board the _Swiftsure_ in the Downs, at which it was decided that it was -lawful for them to petition and that the grievances stated were real, -except the one relating to foreign service.[1307] It was a sign of the -times that admirals and captains should have acknowledged such a right -in the ‘common sailor,’ and that they did not think themselves warranted -in striking out the portion of which they disapproved; they decided that -it should be ‘so far owned by us’ as to be presented to the Generals. -The petition was as much a remonstrance as a prayer, and, after claiming -that they had done the country good service and borne with hardship, -sickness, and bad food for its sake, went on to remind the Protector -that Parliament had declared its intention of enlarging the liberties of -the people, ‘which we were in great hopes of.’ Their hopes have scarcely -yet, so far as regards seamen, been realised, but it is expressive of -the vast progress the events of a few years had caused in the political -education and self-respect of a class hitherto proverbially debased and -unreflecting, that constitutional declarations and logical applications -of the principles their rulers suited to themselves should have begun to -replace the hopeless, unhelpful turbulence of the last generation. - -They seem to have objected to foreign service mainly because their -families were left without support for a longer period than usual, and -bitterly complained that, in accordance with a Council order of 6th Dec. -1652, they were not permitted to go on shore, nor visitors allowed to -come on board, when in the Downs, and presumably other places, keeping -them ‘under a degree of thraldom and bondage.’ This regulation was -then new to them, but it remained in existence long enough to be one -of the injustices the mutineers of 1797 desired to have redressed. The -conclusion arrived at was a prayer that - - they may be relieved in those grievances and may reap some - fruits of all their bloodshed and hardships, and that they - may not be imprested to serve, they humbly apprehending it to - be inconsistent with the principles of Freedom and Liberty to - force men to serve in military employments, either by sea or - land; and that your petitioners may be as free as the Dutch - seamen, against whom they have been such instruments in the - Lord’s hands for the good of their country; but that if the - Commonwealth have occasion to employ any of your petitioners - they may be hired as the Dutch are, and that they, or their - lawful attorney, may be paid every six months at the furthest, - and that such other encouragement to their relations may be - assured in case they are slain in the service as shall be - agreeable to justice, etc., as their necessity calls for, and - that all other liberties and privileges due to your petitioners - as freemen of England may be granted and secured. - -The Council of State must have felt that the world was indeed moving -when English seamen called themselves freemen, demanded the rights of -freemen, and no longer admitted prescription as sufficient reason for the -continuance of their wrongs. The fact that there is no reference, printed -or manuscript, to this petition does not, of course, prove that it was -not considered and replied to, but it is certain that if any promises -were made not the slightest practical result followed them. There is a -paper assigned to this date which may have had an indirect connection -with the affair.[1308] It is a report from the Admiralty to the Protector -and Council dilating on the state of the naval administration and the -difficulties with which they had to deal. Every sentence of their long -narrative has reference to the want of money, and may be abstracted into -the one particular that while £8000 a week was allowed to the Admiralty -the victualling and stores absorbed more than this amount, leaving -nothing for wages and other expenses. - -Notwithstanding these embarrassments favourite captains and handy -ships seem to have had no difficulty in obtaining crews. Referring -to the _Speaker_ and the _Hind_, an official writes: ‘Men have been -on board seven or eight days in hopes of being entered, which I have -refused to do, having had very much trouble to reduce them to their -complement.’[1309] The _Sapphire_, when commanded by Heaton, was another -vessel in which men were eager to serve, and to such purpose that out of -84 prizes brought into Plymouth between August 1652 and December 1655 -twenty were taken by her.[1310] - -[Sidenote: Confusion after Cromwell’s Death.] - -The death of Cromwell, and the intrigues which followed that event, -intensified the disorder existing in naval affairs, but even before -September 1658 the strong hand which had kept some sort of order seems -to have been losing its grip. In July the Commissioners of the Admiralty -told the Council that ‘the credit of your Navy is so greatly impaired -that, having occasion to buy some necessary provisions, as tallow and -the like, your ministers can obtain none but for ready money,’ and they -complained that out of the customs and excise, nominally set apart for -the Navy, half was diverted to the army, £2000 a week to the Protector, -and judges’ and other salaries taken from it.[1311] The navy debt on 1st -July was returned at £573,474, and of this £286,000 was due for wages, -so that we can understand why some crews had been for two and three -years unpaid. Yet the succession of Richard Cromwell was well received -by the fleet in the Downs, and the officers and crews of vessels on -outlying stations, such as the _Paradox_ at Milford and _Assurance_ at -Scarborough, hastened to announce their satisfaction. When Montagu wrote -to Stokes, commanding in the Mediterranean, for signatures to an address -promising fidelity to Richard, only one officer of that squadron, Captain -Saunders, of the _Torrington_, manifested any hesitation about signing -it.[1312] - -In their address to the new Protector the officers of the fleet, in -expressing their affection for the memory of Oliver, speak of ‘the -indulgence he showed to us who served him in his fleet’; but, unless -they were alluding to the higher scale of pay and the arrangements, to -be presently noticed, made for the care of the sick and wounded, one or -both of which may or may not have been owing to his initiative, it is -difficult to divine what indulgences they had to be especially grateful -to him for.[1313] By June 1659 there was owing for wages £371,930,[1314] -and it may be imagined that if the men, whom it was important to -conciliate, remained unpaid, merchants supplying stores, victualling -agents, and dockyard workmen fared still worse. In September the crew -of the _Marmaduke_ solicited some redress; they said they were abused -by their officers, cheated of their victuals and pinch-gut money,[1315] -and had to go begging about the streets, ‘scoffed and jeered at by other -nations.’ On 1st February 1660 the wages debt was £354,000, some ships -having been four years unpaid,[1316] and these figures, the correlatives -of which existed in every other branch of the administration, form the -best explanation of the equanimity with which the Restoration was viewed -by the seamen and others who may have seen in the return of Charles II -their only chance of payment. - -[Sidenote: Care for the Sick and Wounded.] - -Under the Commonwealth occurs the earliest attempt to afford the men some -of that attention to which, when ill or wounded, they were entitled. The -arrangements made in 1649 and 1652, although sufficient for ordinary -needs, were inadequate to the necessities of the Dutch war; and the -State was compelled to supplement the existing resources for the relief -of disabled men, and to provide additional aid for widows and orphans. -After the action of 28th and 29th September 1652 the Council ordered the -lord mayor to provide space for the wounded in the London hospitals, -and on 18th October £500 was assigned to the mayor of Dover to meet the -expense of the injured landed there. On 15th December the Admiralty -Committee passed a formal resolution that every care was to be taken -of the sick and wounded, both at sea and on shore, and that the London -hospitals were to receive some, and the most suitable port towns the -others. Every ship was to be allowed medical comforts—rice, oatmeal, and -sugar—at the rate of £5 per 100 men, every six months, and, for the first -time, men invalided ashore were continued in pay till death or recovery. -A special hospital was to be provided at Deal, and from 1st January 1653 -half the space in all English hospitals, as they became empty, to be -reserved for the seamen.[1317] - -In February and March 1653, Portsmouth, Deal and Dover were full of -wounded men; surgeons were sent down to these towns, and seven shillings -a week granted for the support of each man. Judging from the returns, the -death-rate among the injured was not so high as might have been expected, -if the conditions existing at Portsmouth also obtained elsewhere. There -the sick were mostly in private or beer houses, which were said to be -small and stifling, besides exposing their occupants to the temptation -of drink; of the town itself the governor, Nath. Whetham, had nothing -good to say, dwelling on ‘the filthy nastiness of this place,’ unpaved, -undrained, and enduring an epidemic of small-pox.[1318] The town must -have been continually full of suffering men, since for two months alone -of 1654 the cost of the sick and hurt there was £2300, of which £580 went -to the surgeons and £325 to the nurses.[1319] - -Knowing that they would be repaid any outlay, the civic authorities of -the coast towns were attentive to the wants of the invalids, and, for a -time, the government spent liberally in this direction. In August 1653 -there were 1600 men at Aldborough, Ipswich, and adjacent villages, whose -charges amounted to some thousands of pounds, cleared in due course, -while smaller sums of £958, £400, and £1366 were sent, on account, to -Dover, Weymouth, and Harwich; at Yarmouth between 3rd August 1653 and -6th February 1655 £2851 was expended in the town for the same purpose. -In some respects the sick men were better off than their able-bodied -fellows. Monk and Deane reproached the Admiralty Commissioners for -paying the former their wages, but not the latter, and ‘we think it -neither in reason nor conscience to employ men who must perish for want -of clothes lost in the service, and whose families are starving, and yet -their pay is due, their tickets signed, and their captains satisfied they -will not run away.’[1320] - -Hitherto all the duty of superintendence had been thrown on the Navy -Commissioners, but, in view of their protests that they were overwhelmed -by their own more special work, a new department was created from 29th -September 1653, consisting of four commissioners at £150 a year each and -fifteen subordinate officers, who divided £1090 a year between them. They -took the title of ‘Commissioners of sick and wounded at Little Britain,’ -where their office was situated, were to supervise the distribution -of invalided men, provide surgeons and medicines, and control the -authorities of the towns. They had also to take charge of prisoners, see -that the convalescent returned to their ships, and were authorised to -grant gratuities up to £10 and pensions up to £6, 13s 4d. - -[Sidenote: Pensions.] - -A pension or gratuity might be augmented by appeal to the Admiralty -Committee, although we may be certain that such a petition was rarely -successful, but the corresponding gifts to officers’ widows were on a -much more liberal scale. To seven captains’ widows sums ranging from -£400 to £1000 were granted in April 1653, and it seems a somewhat uneven -ascent from the seaman’s widow at £10 to the captain’s at £1000. So far -as applicants of inferior rank were concerned, the Commissioners must -have had their time fully occupied if they investigated every case as -closely as that of Susan Cane. They held that £5 was enough for her, -as she had not lived with her husband, led a loose life, and possessed -more than ordinary skill in making stockings. The institution of a new -benefaction caused new rogueries, and soon some of the office clerks -were levying commissions on the donations given to these women and -were in partnership with people who made real or false claims on their -behalf.[1321] In the two years ending with May 1656 some £12,000 had -been disbursed on behalf of men sent on shore ill or injured;[1322] but -it is apparent that, although the Commonwealth procedure compared very -favourably with the indifference which preceded it, the tender anxiety -the government displayed for the sailor’s welfare, when it had urgent -need of him, languished after the Dutch war and died away with the -Spanish one. Later, in the year 1656, the bailiffs of Yarmouth wrote to -the Admiralty Commissioners that the Commissioners at Little Britain were -now careless about paying for the men sent on shore, leaving it to the -bailiffs to spend the town money and get it back how or when they could. -The squadron before Mardike was considered very unhealthy, there being -usually about ten per cent. sick, and when these were sent home they were -simply laid on the ballast and shot about by the pitching and rolling of -the ship;[1323] and another paper mentions the ‘noisome smells’ produced -by the condition of these men. Fleets must, however, have been much -healthier than in earlier times, since on 24th March 1659 the number -of sick in nearly 3000 men under Montagu was only nineteen, and but -seventy-two in 2803 under Goodson.[1324] - -In 1656 independent charities relating to the sick and maimed existed in -the shape of the Chatham Chest, Ely Place, the Savoy Hospital, and the -Commissioners, and it was then suggested that they should be amalgamated, -both on account of economy and the prevention of fraud, but this was -never done. For several years the Treasurer of the Navy paid £735 a week -for the support of pensioners, but in what proportion this was divided -among the foregoing charities is uncertain. - -[Sidenote: The Chatham Chest.] - -Of these institutions the only one of which we have any details is the -Chatham Chest. For the three years 1653-5 the accounts stand:—[1325] - - Revenue[1326] Revenue from Lands[1327] Expenditure - £ £ _s_ _d_ £ _s_ _d_ - 1653 5653 433 6 8 10,065 0 0 - 1654 4000[1328] 433 6 8 4531 18 10 - 1655 4000[1328] 433 6 8 4500 0 0[1329] - -There was thus an excess of outlay over receipts, for these three -years, of more than £4000, and Edward Hayward, then in charge, asks for -assistance from the central authority. He probably obtained it, as on -another occasion, Hutchinson was ordered to lend the Chest £3000.[1330] -In March 1656 a report was drawn up which made the income from land £382, -10s a year, and recommended the removal of the Chest to London to save -expense and the inconveniences experienced by the men. From this report -we learn that officers’ widows were entitled to pensions from it, but not -those of the men.[1331] In June 1657 there were 800 or 900 pensioners, -but half the arrears were unpaid; a year later the situation was worse -and the delay had reduced the men ‘to such extreme misery that I fear -many of them have perished of late,’ the writer, Pett, having been forced -to leave Chatham to escape these outcries. Pett adds, ‘If Rochester -Cathedral were given to the governors to be improved ... it might go -towards paying the arrears.’ - -There are two references in the Commonwealth papers which suggest that -Hayward did not escape suspicion then of having appropriated Chest money -to his own use, but in the inquiry into its management, begun in 1662, -the weight of scrutiny fell upon Pett. Hayward said that he had lost -all the books relating to the years 1648-55, although he afterwards -produced some of them. From the interrogatories addressed to Pett we may -infer that he and captain John Taylor, who was jointly responsible with -him, amicably passed each other’s accounts; that the accuracy of these -accounts was attested by only some of the officers who should have signed -them; that the same travelling expenses were entered three or four times -over; that he and Taylor had taken large sums from the Chest as salary, -no commissioner having ever before charged for his management; and that -such items occurred as £52, 13s 4d for the governor’s dinners, etc., at -one meeting, £10 a year salary to a ‘mathematician,’ and £9 to Taylor -‘for relief for a fall.’[1332] - -[Sidenote: The Victualling.] - -The quality of the food supplied to the men and the honesty of the -victualling agents both steadily deteriorated during the Commonwealth. -Complaints began to be frequent about 1650, and a fresh contract was -then entered into with Colonel Pride and others to undertake the duty at -eightpence per head at sea, and sevenpence in harbour, the government -bearing the cost of transport to fleets on service.[1333] The lax system -in force was not, however, calculated to act as a deterrent; in May 1650 -a victualling office clerk, who had embezzled £137, gave security for it, -and was suspended, but, inferentially, only until the money was refunded. -It may be said that, generally, the object of the Navy authorities, -in cases of fraud and embezzlement by clerks or officers, was not so -much to punish as to obtain restitution. Possibly they found it to be -the most effective form of punishment. During 1652 the pressure caused -by the necessity of supplying an unprecedentedly large number of men -produced more disorders in this branch of the service, and in June the -contractors were called before the Council, told that their explanations -were unsatisfactory, and heard the Admiralty Commissioners directed to -continually watch and inspect the victuals furnished. - -The story of the victualling arrangements during these eleven years -brings out the most striking point of difference between the Commonwealth -administration and those which were antecedent to it, in the fact that -matters affecting the health and comfort of seamen were not ignored -as in previous periods. This, we know, was greatly due to political -necessity, but the letters remaining, written by officials of all ranks, -show that a conscientious recognition of justice due to the sailors, and -of responsibility for their welfare, widely existed. This sentiment is -much more clearly marked among captains, admirals, and commissioners than -among the ruling politicians, although members of the government were -doubtless not unaffected by the prevailing spirit; the financial straits -of the country, however, first cramped, and then destroyed, reforms which -otherwise might have become permanent. - -In 1652 new buildings for the Victualling department were built in -several ports; and from February 1650 the slaughterhouse at Deptford, -standing on ‘the poore’s ground’ and originally devoted to the service -of Greenwich Palace, was taken for that of the state.[1334] In 1653 the -rate rose to ninepence a head, and it may be roughly calculated that the -Victuallers were called upon to provide at least some 7,500,000 lbs. of -bread, 7,500,000 lbs. of beef and pork, and 10,000 butts of beer, besides -cheese, butter, fish, and other necessaries. The mechanism at their -command was little superior to that used by their predecessors under -Charles I, and English agriculture could hardly yet have recovered from -the effects of the civil war. The victualling contracts between September -1651 and December 1652 came to £332,000,[1335] a sum representing a -drain on the food resources of the country difficult to meet, not so -much, perhaps, in quantity as in suddenness, although since 1648 there -had been an unbroken series of years of dearth. Remembering commissariat -experiences of our own, happening under much more favourable conditions -within living memory, the wonder is, not that there should have been -complaints, but that there should have been comparatively so few under -circumstances, which might almost have excused absolute failure. -Pride and his associates were condemned because they were judged by a -higher standard than had previously existed, but under Charles I their -management would have been praised as highly successful. - -When complaints came in they were not officially pigeon-holed but at once -inquired into, and, so far as lay with the Admiralty Committee, the wants -relieved. On 17th May 1653, a captain reported that he had no medical -extras; on the 19th the Navy Commissioners were ordered to examine into -this and remedy it; on 16th June the Generals of the fleet wrote about -the badness of the provisions, and on the 20th the Navy Commissioners -were directed to take the Victuallers to task. The beer was the most -frequent subject of protest, and the difficulty was met by sending water -in its place, to the extent of 500 tuns at a time, the men being allowed -twopence a day to reconcile them to the change. At least one brewer laid -the blame on the prices paid him, and frankly said he could give nothing -better for the money. Beer and other provisions, ‘decayed and unfit for -use,’ were licensed for export free of customs, perhaps in the hope that -such stores would go to Holland. In October 1654 Pride and his colleagues -gave notice of their intention to resign their contract, and, after some -debate, it was decided to constitute the Victualling a department under -the immediate care of the Navy Commissioners, captain Thos. Alderne being -made its head, with a salary of £500 a year.[1336] Alderne died 10th -April 1657, and was succeeded by three of the Navy Commissioners, majors -Robt. Thompson, Neh. Bourne, and Fr. Willoughby, who were thenceforward -styled ‘Commissioners of Navy and Victualling,’ and who received an -additional £250 a year each for their services.[1337] - -Alderne and his successors may or may not have been competent, but they -had little chance of doing well under the financial embarrassments amid -which they worked; they considered themselves fortunate in being able -to continue supplies, of whatever quality, from hand to mouth. In June -1655 bakers and brewers were petitioning the Admiralty Committee, that -although in January they had been promised monthly cash payments, not -one penny had yet been paid them. The whole of one long despatch of -Blake’s[1338] is made up of complaints about the provisions sent out, and -censure of the officials at home. We, who have wider knowledge than Blake -could then have, now know that the defaults were due to the situation -rather than to the men. Orders might be given in London, but the local -contractors were either not properly controlled, or, more probably, were -defiant, knowing that the Admiralty could hardly go on provisioning the -fleets without the credit they gave it. If the seamen protested to those -individuals they obtained scant consideration. Some of the _Tiger’s_ -crew went ashore at Harwich to show the victualling agent their bread -and beer which, their captain agreed, was not fit for food. The agent -sent for the baker and brewer, and the former told the men that they were -‘mutinous rogues,’ that it was good enough for their betters, and next -time should be worse. In another port the local agent told the purser of -the _Maidstone_, whose men had shown provisions absolutely putrid, and to -whom he had promised improvement when they were before him, that the more -they complained the worse they should have. This coming to the ears of -the men, some of the _Maidstone’s_ crew went ashore and wrecked his house. - -As the end of the Commonwealth approached matters became as bad as they -could well be. At Plymouth, in January 1660, the victualler reported -that he had been obtaining stores hitherto on his own credit, but -would do so no longer; that there were six ships in port with starving -crews, and another six expected, and that the only way open to him was -to turn the men ashore to shift for themselves.[1339] In February the -Navy Commissioners warned their chiefs that, unless money was provided -within a week, there would be a failure of provisions everywhere, and -that having done their utmost by persuasion they must be acquitted of -blame. Judging from the number of their letters still existing, the Navy -Commissioners must, about this time, have been pressing the Admiralty -Committee for money nearly every day, either for wages or stores; it -was not their fault if any one remained unpaid. Warrants authorising -revictualling were posted freely, but, as captain Heaton wrote from -Plymouth, nothing was said about the money, without which they were of no -use. Heaton describes graphically the cruel poverty to which some of the -townspeople there, who had trusted the government, were reduced:— - - One cries, ‘For God’s sake spare me £20 to keep me out of - prison;’ another begs for money to buy his family meat to eat, - and to-day I saw a poor women beg of Mr Addis ten shillings of - her due, to buy her four poor children bread, as for alms. Not - long since a baker with sad complaints prevailed with Mr Addis - for £23, and was as glad of it as though the money had been a - free gift.’[1340] - -While this letter was travelling up to London two others, of the same -date, were coming from Hull. One, from the captain of the _Bryer_ to the -Admiralty Committee, says that he has already written nine times to them, -and that his officers are compelled to buy their own food, and his men to -forage for themselves on shore; the other, from the victualling agent at -Hull, acknowledges the receipt of their warrant to furnish the _Bryer_ -and _Forester_, but, before acting on it, desires to know how he is to -be paid. Truly the pious hope of captain Harman, of the _Kentish_, that -Lawson would ‘be an instrument of bringing the victualling to its former -splendour,’ was one not likely to lack fulfilment for want of occasion. - -[Sidenote: Medals and Rewards.] - -It had long been customary to give medals and chains to distinguished -officers, but Parliament, for the first time, extended this form of -distinction to the men. The first reference is a somewhat doubtful one, -being an order of the House of 15th Nov. 1649, for medals for ‘several -mariners’ who had done good service the previous year, but who may -possibly have been officers. About the second, however, there is no -question. In 1650 captain Wyard, of the _Adventure_, a hired merchantman, -fought a gallant action off Harwich against greatly superior force, and -he, his officers, and crew were awarded medals of different values, -ranging from the one of £50 intended for himself down to others worth 5s -for the men, each ‘with the service against five ships engraved on one -side and the arms of the Commonwealth on the other.’[1341] There were at -least 20,000 men employed during 1652-4, but the whole number of medals -for the war was only 169; of these 79 were small ones, and may have -been intended for the seamen, although, as they were all of gold, it is -unlikely. Nine of the larger ones were with chains, the smaller weighed -18dwt. 11gr. each, and the total cost was £2060. One alone had ‘the -service done in the _Triumph_ expressed on it.’[1342] Blake and Monk had -chains worth £300 a piece given them, and Penn one of the value of £100. -The government was never unduly liberal in dealing with naval men. Major -Fr. White, for bringing the news of Dunbar to London, was given £300; -capt. Young, for following the Spanish fleet for a week in 1657, and then -seeking Blake with the information which enabled him to destroy it at -Santa Cruz, was granted £100. - -[Sidenote: Seamen’s Clothing.] - -The sale of clothes to the men was not confined to any one vendor, and -scandals in this department, if they existed, do not appear to have -attracted the attention of the authorities till 1655. Then an order was -issued from the Navy Office that, ‘upon the consideration of the several -abuses done by those that serve the state’s ships with clothes, by -exorbitant prices and bad goods, to the prejudice of the poor seamen,’ -the clothiers were not to send any on board ship without the permission -of the Navy Commissioners.[1343] Two months later prices were fixed as -follows[1344]:— - - _s_ _d_ - Canvas jackets 1 10 each - ” drawers 1 8 ” - Cotton waistcoats 2 2 each - ” drawers 2 0 ” - Shirts 2 9 each - Shoes 2 4 a pair - Linen stockings 0 10 ” - Cotton ” 0 10 ” - -This outfit, if a complete one, does not seem all that could be desired -for winter service in the Channel, although it is a nearer approach -to a uniform than existed much later. The Commissioners were careful -to repudiate any responsibility for the clothes,[1345] though, as we -see, they interfered when they considered it necessary, and allowed a -sum, usually £2, to each man if his kit had been lost in action or by -shipwreck. - -[Sidenote: The Navy List.] - -Compared with the accessions of previous reigns the following list of -new vessels is startling in its magnitude, and the cost of building -and maintenance is another item which helps to account for the chronic -difficulties besetting the Treasurer of the Navy[1346]:— - - +-----------------------+-----+-----+------------+------------+----+----- - | |Prize|Built| At | By |Net |Gross - | | | | | | Tonnage - +-----------------------+-----+-----+------------+------------+----+----- - | | | | | | | - | 1 _Fairfax_ | | 1649|Deptford | | 789| - | 2 _Guinea_(B)[1347] | | 1649| | | 375| 500 - | 3 _Jermyn_* | 1649| | | | | - | 4 _President_[1348] | | 1649|Deptford |P. Pett, sr.| 445| 593 - | 5 _Speaker_ | | 1649|Blackwall |H. Johnson | 778| 928 - | 6 _Old Success_ | 1649| | | | 380| 506 - | 7 _Tiger’s Whelp_* | 1649| | | | | - | 8 _Advice_ | | 1650|Woodbridge |P. Pett, jr.| 516| 690 - | 9 _Amity_(B) | | 1650| | | 354| 472 - | 10 _Assistance_ | | 1650|Deptford |H. Johnson | 521| 694 - | 11 _Concord_(B) | | 1650| | | | - | 12 _Centurion_ | | 1650|Ratcliff |P. Pett, sr.| 531| 690 - | 13 _Dover_ | | 1650|Rotherhithe |Castle | 571| 681 - | 14 _Eagle_ | 1650| | | | | - | 15 _Elizabeth Prize_* | 1650| | | | | - | 16 _Foresight_ | | 1650|Deptford |Shish | 524| 698 - | 17 _Great Charity_ | 1650| | | | 400| 553 - | 18 _Pelican_ | | 1650| |Taylor | | - | 19 _Marigold_ | 1650| | | | | - | 20 _Portsmouth_ | | 1650|Portsmouth |Eastwood | 422| 600 - | 21 _Mary Prize_* | 1650| | | | | - | 22 _Reserve_ | | 1650|Woodbridge |P. Pett, jr.| 513| 688 - | 23 _Antelope_ | | 1651| | | | - | 24 _Bryer_* | 1651| | | | 180| - | 25 _Convertine_ | 1651| | | | 500| 666 - | 26 _Discovery_(B) | | 1651| | | | - | 27 _Fortune_ | 1651| | | | | - | 28 _Gilliflower_(B) | | 1651| | | | - | [1349] | | | | | | - | 29 _Laurel_ | | 1651|Portsmouth | | | - | 30 _Martin Prize_* | 1651| | | | | - | 31 _Mayflower_(B) | | 1651| | | | - | 32 _Mermaid_ | | 1651|Limehouse |Graves | 289| 385 - | 33 _Nightingale_ | | 1651|Horseleydown|Shish | 289| 385 - | 34 _Peacock_ | 1651| | | | | - | 35 _Pearl_ | | 1651|Ratcliff |P. Pett, sr.| 285| 380 - | 36 _Old President_ | 1651| | | | | - | 37 _Little President_ | 1651| | | | | - | 38 _Primrose_ | | 1651| |Taylor | | - | 39 _Sapphire_ | | 1651|Ratcliff |P. Pett, sr.| 442| 589 - | 40 _Tresco_* | 1651| | | | | - | 41 _Worcester_[1350] | | 1651|Woolwich |Russell | 629| 838 - | 42 _Adam and Eve_ | 1652| | | | 200| - | 43 _Advantage_ | 1652| | | | | - | 44 _Arms of Holland_ | 1652| | | | | - | 45 _Convert_ | 1652| | | | | - | 46 _Crow_ | 1652| | | | | - | 47 _Deptford_ | | 1652| | | | - | 48 _Diamond_ | | 1652|Deptford |P. Pett sr. | 547| 740 - | 49 _Dolphin_ | 1652| | | | | - | 50 _Drake_ | | 1652|Deptford |P. Pett | 113| 153 - | 51 _Duchess_ | 1652| | | | | - | 52 _Endeavour_ | 1652| | | | | - | 53 _Falmouth_ | 1652| | | | | - | 54 _Gift Major_ | 1652| | | | 480| 653 - | 55 _Golden Falcon_ | 1652| | | | | - | 56 _Golden Lion_ | 1652| | | | | - | 57 _Heartsease_ | 1652| | | | | - | 58 _Hound_ | 1652| | | | | - | 59 _Hope_ | 1652| | | | | - | 60 _Hopewell_(B) | | 1652| | | | - | 61 _Horseleydown_ | | 1652| | | | - | 62 _Hunter_ | 1652| | | | | - | 63 _Kentish_ | | 1652|Deptford |Johnson | 601| 801 - | 64 _Marmaduke_(B) | | 1652| | | 400| 533 - | 65 _Martin_ | | 1652|Portsmouth |Tippetts | 92| 124 - | 66 _Merlin_ | | 1652|Chatham |Taylor | 105| 141 - | 67 _Middleburgh_ | 1652| | | | | - | 68 _Oak_ | 1652| | | | | - | 69 _Paul_ | 1652| | | | 290| 384 - | 70 _Peter_ | 1652| | | | | - | 71 _Plover_ | 1652| | | | | - | 72 _Princess Maria_ | 1652| | | | | - | 73 _Raven_ | 1652| | | | | - | 74 _Recovery_ | 1652| | | | | - | 75 _Ruby_ | | 1652|Deptford |P. Pett, sr.| 556| 745 - | 76 _Sampson_ | 1652| | | | | - | 77 _Sophia_ | 1652| | | | 300| 400 - | 78 _Stork_ | 1652| | | | | - | 79 _Sun_ | 1652| | | | | - | 80 _Sussex_ | | 1652| | | | - | 81 _Swan_ | 1652| | | | | - | 82 _Violet_ | 1652| | | | | - | 83 _Waterhound_ | 1652| | | | | - | 84 _Welcome_ | 1652| | | | 400| 533 - | 85 _Weymouth_* | 1652| | | | 120| 160 - | 86 _Wildman_ | 1652| | | | | - | 87 _Augustine_ | 1653| | | | 359| 478 - | 88 _Bear_ | 1653| | | | 395| 526 - | 89 _Black Raven_ | 1653| | | | 300| - | 90 _Bristol_[1351] | | 1653|Portsmouth |Tippetts | 532| 680 - | 91 _Cardiff_ | 1653| | | | | - | 92 _Church_ | 1653| | | | 300| - | 93 _Elias_ | 1653| | | | 400| 533 - | 94 _Essex_ | | 1653|Deptford |Ph. Pett | 742| 989 - | 95 _Fairfax_[1352] | | 1653|Chatham |Taylor | 745| 993 - | 96 _Falcon Flyboat_ | 1653| | | | | - | 97 _Fortune_ | 1653| | | | | - | 98 _Golden Cock_ | 1653| | | | | - | 99 _Hare_ | 1653| | | | | - |100 _Half moon_ | 1653| | | | 300| - |101 _Hampshire_ | | 1653|Deptford |Ph. Pett | 481| 594 - |102 _Hector_ | 1653| | | | 150| 200 - |103 _John Baptist_ | 1653| | | | | - |104 _Katherine_ | 1653| | | | | - |105 _King David_ | 1653| | | | | - |106 _Little Charity_ | 1653| | | | | - |107 _Lizard_* | 1653| | | | 100| 133 - |108 _Mathias_ | 1653| | | | 500| 666 - |109 _Marigold Hoy_ | | 1653|Portsmouth |Tippetts | 42| - |110 _Newcastle_ | | 1653|Ratcliff |Ph. Pett | 631| 841 - |111 _Orange Tree_ | 1653| | | | 300| - |112 _Ostrich_ | 1653| | | | | - |113 _Paradox_* | 1653| | | | 120| 160 - |114 _Pelican Prize_ | 1653| | | | | - |115 _Plover_ | 1653| | | | | - |116 _Plymouth_ | | 1653|Woolwich |Ch. Pett | 741| 988 - |117 _Portland_ | | 1653|Wapping |Taylor | 605| 806 - |118 _Redhart_* | 1653| | | | | - |119 _Renown_ | 1653| | | | | - |120 _Rosebush_ | 1653| | | | 300| 400 - |121 _Satisfaction_ | 1653| | | | 220| 293 - |122 _Sparrow_ | 1653| | | | 60| 80 - |123 _Swiftsure_[1353] | | 1653|Woolwich |Ch. Pett | 740| 986 - |124 _Tulip_ | 1653| | | | | - |125 _Westergate_ | 1653| | | | 270| 365 - |126 _Wren_ | 1653| | | | | - |127 _Yarmouth_ | | 1653|Yarmouth |Edgar | 608| 810 - |128 _Adviser_ | | 1654| | | | - |129 _Basing_ | | 1654|Walderswick |Shish | 255| 340 - |130 _Cat_* | 1654| | | | | - |131 _Colchester_ | | 1654|Yarmouth |Edgar | 287| 382 - |132 _Fagons_[1354] | | 1654|Wivenhoe |Page | 262| 349 - |133 _Gainsborough_ | | 1654|Wapping |Taylor | 543| 724 - |134 _Gloucester_ | | 1654|Limehouse |Graves | 755| 1006 - |135 _Grantham_ | | 1654|Lidney |Furzer | 265| 323 - |136 _Indian_ | 1654| | | | | - |137 _Islip_ | | 1654| | | | - |138 _Jersey_ | | 1654|Maldon |Starling | 560| 746 - |139 _Langport_ | | 1654|Horseleydown|Bright | 781| 1041 - |140 _Lyme_ | | 1654|Portsmouth |Tippetts | 769| 1025 - |141 _Maidstone_ | | 1654|Woodbridge |Munday | 566| 754 - |142 _Marston Moor_ | | 1654|Blackwall |Johnson | 734| 978 - |143 _Nantwich_ | | 1654|Bristol |Bailey | 319| 425 - |144 _Newbury_ | | 1654|Limehouse |Graves | 765| 1020 - |145 _Nonsuch Ketch_(B) | | 1654| | | 60| 80 - |146 _Preston_ | | 1654|Woodbridge |Cary | 550| 642 - |147 _Seahorse_ | 1654| | | | | - |148 _Selby_ | | 1654| Wapping |Taylor | 299| 398 - |149 _Sorlings_*[1355] | 1654| | | | 250| 333 - |150 _Taunton_ | | 1654|Ratcliff |Castle | 536| 714 - |151 _Torrington_ | | 1654| ” |Ph. Pett | 738| 984 - |152 _Tredagh_ | | 1654| ” | ” | 771| 1008 - |153 _Winsby_ | | 1654|Yarmouth |Edgar | 607| 809 - |154 _Bridgewater_ | | 1655|Deptford |Chamberlain | 742| 989 - |155 _Cornelian_* | 1655| | | | 100| - |156 _Dartmouth_ | | 1655|Portsmouth |Tippetts | 230| 306 - |157 _Eaglet_ | | 1655|Horseleydown|Huggins | 60| 80 - |158 _Fame_* | 1655| | | | 90| 120 - |159 _Hawk_ | | 1655|Woolwich |Cooper | 60| 80 - |160 _Hind_ | | 1655|Waveney |Page | 60| 80 - |161 _Naseby_ | | 1655|Woolwich |Ch. Pett |1229| 1638 - |162 _Norwich_ | | 1655|Chatham |Ph. Pett | 246| 328 - |163 _Pembroke_ | | 1655|Woolwich |Raven | 269| 368 - |164 _Portsmouth | 1655| | | | | - | shallop_ | | | | | | - |165 _Redhorse Pink_ | 1655| | | | | - |166 _Roe_ | | 1655|Waveney |Page | 60| 80 - |167 _Wexford_* | 1655| | | | 130| 173 - |168 _Accada_(B) | | 1656| | | | - |169 _Beaver_* | 1656| | | | | - |170 _Blackmoor_[1356] | | 1656|Chatham |Taylor | 90| 110 - |171 _Bramble_ | 1656| | | | 112| 160 - |172 _Cheriton_ | | 1656|Deptford |Challis | 194| 261 - |173 _Chestnut_[1356] | | 1656|Portsmouth |Tippetts | 90| 110 - |174 _Dunbar_ | | 1656|Deptford |Challis |1047| 1396 - |175 _Elias_[1357] | 1656| | | | | - |176 _Griffin_* | 1656| | | | 90| 120 - |177 _Harp_ | | 1656|Dublin | | | - |178 _Hunter_* | 1656| | | | 50| 66 - |179 _Jesu Maria_ | 1656| | | | | - |180 _Kinsale_* | 1656| | | | 90| 120 - |181 _Lark_* | 1656| | | | 80| 100 - |182 _London_ | | 1656|Chatham |Taylor |1050| - |183 _Oxford_ | | 1656|Deptford |Challis | 240| 320 - |184 _Raven_* | 1656| | | | | - |185 _Vulture_* | 1656| | | | 100| 133 - |186 _Wakefield_ | | 1656|Portsmouth |Tippetts | 235| 313 - |187 _Wolf_* | 1656| | | | 120| 160 - |188 _Cygnet_ | | 1657|Chatham |Taylor | 60| 80 - |189 _Forester_ | | 1657|Lidney |Furzer | 230| 306 - |190 _Greyhound_* | 1657| | | | 150| 200 - |191 _Hart_ | | 1657|Woolwich |Ch. Pett | 55| 75 - |192 _Lily_ | | 1657|Deptford |Challis | 60| 80 - |193 _Parrot_ | | 1657|Chatham |Taylor | 60| 80 - |194 _Rose_ | | 1657|Woolwich |Ch. Pett | 55| 75 - |195 _Swallow_ | | 1657|Deptford |Challis | 60| 80 - |196 _Bradford_ | | 1658|Chatham |Taylor | 230| 306 - |197 _Cagway_* | 1658| | | | 60| 80 - |198 _Coventry_* | 1658| | | | 200| 266 - |199 _Fox_* | 1658| | | | 120| 160 - |200 _Francis_* | 1658| | | | 90| 110 - |201 _Gift Minor_* | 1658| | | | 120| 160 - |202 _Lichfield_* | 1658| | | | 200| 266 - |203 _Maria_* | 1658| | | | 120| 180 - |204 _Richard_ | | 1658|Woolwich |Ch. Pett |1108| 1477 - |205 _Leopard_ | | 1659|Deptford |Shish | 636| 847 - |206 _Monk_ | | 1659|Portsmouth |Tippetts | 703| - |207 _Towing | | 1659|Chatham |Taylor | | - | Galley_[1358] | | | | | | - +-----------------------+-----+-----+------------+------------+----+----- - - ---+-------+------+-------+--------+----+-------------------------------+ - |Length |Beam | Depth |Draught |Guns| Remarks | - |of keel| |of hold| | | | - +-------+------+-------+--------+----+-------------------------------+ - | Ft. | Ft. | Ft. | Ft. | | | - 1| 116 | 35.8 | 14.6 | 17.6 | 64 |Burnt at Chatham, March 1653. | - 2| 90 | 28 | 14 | | 30 | | - 3| | | | | |Disappears before 1653. | - 4| 102.9 | 29.6 | 12.6 | 15.6 | 42 | | - 5| 116 | 34.9 | 14.6 | 17 | 64 | | - 6| | | | | 34 | | - 7| | | | | |Sold before Nov. 1658. | - 8| 100 | 31.2 | 12.3 | 15.7 | 40 | | - 9| 85 | 28 | 14 | | 30 | | - 10| 102 | 31 | 13 | 15 | 40 | | - 11| | | | | 26 |Sold, Aug. 1659. | - 12| 104 | 31 | 13 | 16 | 40 | | - 13| 100 | 31.8 | 13 | 16 | 40 | | - 14| | | | | 12 |Hulk at Chatham in 1660. | - 15| | | | | |Disappears before 1653. | - 16| 102 | 31 | 13 | 14.6 | 40 | | - 17| 106 | 28.6 | 11.10 | 14 | 38 | | - 18| 100 | 20.8 | 15.4 | | 38 |Burnt at Portsmouth, Feb. 1656.| - 19| | | | | 30 |Sold, 1658. | - 20| 99 | 28.4 | 14.2 | 15 | 38 | | - 21| | | | | 36 |Sold, June 1657. | - 22| 100 | 31.1 | 12.4 | 15.6 | 40 | | - 23| 120 | 36 | 16 | | 56 |Wrecked on coast of Jutland, | - | | | | | | 30th Sept. 1652. | - 24| | | | | 18 | | - 25| | | | | 40 | | - 26| | | | | 20 |Burnt at Jamaica, 1655. | - 27| | | | | |Captured by Dutch, Aug. 1652. | - 28| | | | | 32 |Sold, June 1657. | - 29| 103 | 30.1 | 15 | | 38 |Lost on Newarp Sands, 1657. | - 30| | | | | |Sold before Sept. 1653. | - 31| | | | | 20 |Sold, 1658. | - 32| 86 | 25.2 | 10 | 12 | 22 | | - 33| 86 | 25.2 | 10 | 12 | 22 | | - 34| | | | | |Sold before Nov. 1658. | - 35| 86 | 25 | 10 | 12 | 22 | | - 36| | | | | |Sold, Aug. 1655. | - 37| | | | | 12 |Sold, 1657. | - 38| 86 | 25.2 | 10 | 12 | 22 |Wrecked on the Seven Stones, | - | | | | | | 1656. | - 39| 100 | 28.10| 11.9 | 13.6 | 38 | | - 40| | | | | |Wrecked, 1651. | - 41| 112 | 32.6 | 14 | 16 | 48 | | - 42| | | | | 20 |Sold, June 1657. | - 43| | | | | 26 |Sold, August 1655. | - 44| | | | | 32 |Blew up in West Indies, July | - | | | | | | 1656. | - 45| | | | | 26 |Sold, 1659. | - 46| | | | | 36 |Sold, 1656. | - 47| | | | | 4 |Sold, 1659. | - 48| 105.6 | 31.3 | 3 | 16 | 40 | | - 49| | | | | 30 |Disappears before 1658. | - 50| 85 | 18 | 7 | 9 | 14 | | - 51| | | | | 24 |Sold, 1654. | - 52| | | | | 36 |Sold, 1656. | - 53| | | | | 20 |Sold, 1659. | - 54| 90.8 | 30.8 | 11.6 | 13.6 | 26 | | - 55| | | | | 28 |Sold, 1658. | - 56| | | | | |Sold, 1653. | - 57| | | | | 36 |Sold, 1656. | - 58| | | | | 36 | | - 59| | | | | 26 |Sold, 1657. | - 60| | | | | 20 |Sold, 1656. | - 61| | | | | 4 |Sold, 1655. | - 62| | | | | |Lost in action of July 1653. | - 63| 107 | 32.6 | 13 | 15 | 40 | | - 64| | | | | 32 | | - 65| 64 | 19.4 | 7 | | 14 | | - 66| 75 | 18 | 7.8 | 9 | 14 | | - 67| | | | | 32 |Sold before Nov. 1658. | - 68| | | | | |Lost in action of July 1653. | - 69| 84 | 26 | 9.6 | 10.6 | 22 | | - 70| | | | | 32 |Sold, 1653. | - 71| | | | | 26 |Sunk in action of Feb. 1653. | - 72| | | | | 36 |Wrecked on the Goodwins, 1658. | - 73| | | | | 36 |Recaptured by Dutch, April | - | | | | | | 1654. | - 74| | | | | 26 |Sold, 1655. | - 75| 105.6 | 31.6 | 13 | 16 | 40 | | - 76| | | | | 32 |Sold, 1658. | - 77| | | | | 26 | | - 78| | | | | |Hulk at Deptford in 1660. | - 79| | | | | 12 |Sold, 1654. | - 80| | | | | 46 |Blew up at Portsmouth, 9th Dec.| - | | | | | | 1653. | - 81| | | | | 22 |Sold, 1654. | - 82| 98 | 28 | 11 | 12.6 | 44 |Hulk at Woolwich in 1660. | - 83| | | | | 32 |Sold, 1656. | - 84| | | | | 36 | | - 85| | | | | 14 | | - 86| | | | | 16 |Sold, 1657. | - 87| 100 | 26 | 14 | 14 | 26 | | - 88| 106 | 26.6 | 14.6 | 14.6 | 36 | | - 89| | | | | 38 |Sold, 1654. | - 90| 104 | 31.1 | 13 | 15.8 | 44 | | - 91| | | | | 18 |Sold before Nov. 1658. | - 92| | | | | 30 |Hulk at Harwich in 1660. | - 93| 101 | 27.6 | 11 | 14.6 | 36 | | - 94| 115 | 33 | 13.8 | 17 | 48 | | - 95| 120 | 35.2 | 14.6 | 16.6 | 52 | | - 96| | | | | 24 |Sold, 1658. | - 97| | | | | 26 |Sold, 1654. | - 98| | | | | 24 |Sold, 1656. | - 99| | | | | 12 |Wrecked, 1655. | - 100| | | | | 30 |Sold, 1659. | - 101| 101.9 | 29.9 | 13 | 14.10 | 38 | | - 102| | | | | 30 | | - 103| | | | | 12 |Sold, 1656. | - 104| | | | | 36 |Sold before Nov. 1658. | - 105| | | | | 12 |Sold, 1654. | - 106| | | | | 30 |Sold, 1656. | - 107| | | | | 16 | | - 108| | | | | 38 | | - 109| 32 | 14 | 7 | 7 | | | - 110| 108.6 | 33.1 | 13.3 | 16 | 44 | | - 111| | | | | 26 |Sold, 1655. | - 112| | | | | |Hulk at Portsmouth in 1660. | - 113| | | | | 12 | | - 114| | | | | 34 |Sold, 1655. | - 115| | | | | 26 |Sold, 1657. | - 116| 116 | 34.8 | 14.6 | 17 | 54 | | - 117| 105 | 32.11| 12.10 | 16 | 44 | | - 118| | | | | 6 |Sold, 1654. | - 119| | | | | 20 |Sold, 1654. | - 120| | | | | 34 | | - 121| | | | | 26 | | - 122| | | | | 12 |Sold, 1659. | - 123| 116 | 37.4 | 14.10 | 18 | 60 | | - 124| | | | | 32 |Sold, 1657. | - 125| 86 | 24.6 | 11.6 | 13 | 34 | | - 126| | | | | 12 |Sold, 1657. | - 127| 105 | 33 | 13.3 | 17 | 44 | | - 128| | | | | 8 |Taken by a privateer in 1655. | - 129| 80 | 24.6 | 10 | 12 | 22 | | - 130| | | | | 8 |Retaken by a privateer in 1656.| - 131| 83 | 25.6 | 10 | 12 | 24 | | - 132| 82 | 24.8 | 10 | 12 | 22 | | - 133| 100.10| 31.10| 13 | 15 | 40 | | - 134| 117 | 34.10| 14.6 | 18 | 50 | | - 135| 80 | 25 10| 11.6 | 28 | | | - 136| | | | | 44 |Sold, 1659. | - 137| | | | | 22 |Wrecked near Inverlochy, 24th | - | | | | | | July 1655. | - 138| 102.10| 32.2 | 13.2 | 15.6 | 40 | | - 139| 116 | 35.7 | 14.4 | 17 | 50 | | - 140| 117 | 35.2 | 14.4 | 18 | 52 | | - 141| 102 | 31.8 | 13 | 16 | 40 | | - 142| 116 | 34.6 | 14.2 | 17 | 52 | | - 143| 86.8 | 26.4 | 10.4 | 12.6 | 28 | | - 144| 117 | 35 | 14.5 | 17.6 | 52 | | - 145| 27 | 15.6 | 6 | | 8 |Taken by a privateer, March | - | | | | | | 1659; recaptured by a cruiser| - | | | | | | in the following April. | - 146| 101 | 30 | 13 | 16 | 40 | | - 147| | | | | 26 |Sold, 1655. | - 148| 85.6 | 25.8 | 10 | 12 | 22 | | - 149| | | | | 28 | | - 150| 100.6 | 31.8 | 13 | 16 | 40 | | - 151| 116.8 | 34.6 | 14.2 | 17 | 52 | | - 152| 117.3 | 35.2 | 14.5 | 17 | 50 | | - 153| 104 | 33.2 | 13 | 17 | 44 | | - 154| 116.9 | 34.7 | 14.2 | 17 | 52 | | - 155| | | | | 12 | | - 156| 80 | 25 | 10 | 12 | 22 | | - 157| | | | | 8 | | - 158| | | | | 10 | | - 159| 42 | 16 | 8 | | 8 | | - 160| 42 | 16 | 8 | | 8 | | - 161| 131 | 42 | 18 | 11 | 80 | | - 162| 81 | 25 | 10.6 | 12 | 22 | | - 163| 81 | 25 | 11.6 | 12 | 22 | | - 164| | | | | 4 |Retaken by a privateer, July | - | | | | | | 1655. | - 165| | | | | 10 |Sold, 1658. | - 166| | | | | 8 | | - 167| | | | | 14 | | - 168| | | | | 10 |Wrecked, 1659. | - 169| | | | | 6 |Sold before Nov. 1658. | - 170| 47 | 19 | 10 | | 12 | | - 171| | | | | 14 | | - 172| 76 | 24 | 10 | 11 | 20 | | - 173| 47 | 19 | 10 | | 12 | | - 174| 123 | 46 | 17.2 | 21 | 64 | | - 175| | | | | |Used as hulk at Plymouth in | - | | | | | | 1660. | - 176| | | | | 12 | | - 177| | | | | 8 | | - 178| | | | | 6 | | - 179| | | | | |Used as hulk at Portsmouth in | - | | | | | | 1660. | - 180| | | | | 10 | | - 181| | | | | 10 | | - 182| 123.6 | 41 | 16.6 | 18 | 64 | | - 183| 72 | 24 | 10 | 11 | 22 | | - 184| | | | | 6 |Sold before Nov. 1658. | - 185| | | | | 12 | | - 186| 74 | 23.6 | 9.9 | 11.6 | 26 | | - 187| | | | | 16 | | - 188| | | | | 6 | | - 189| | | | | 22 | | - 190| 60 | 26.6 | 11.6 | | 20 | | - 191| 50 | 14.6 | 5.6 | 5 | 6 | | - 192| | | | 5 | 6 | | - 193| | | | 5 | 6 | | - 194| 50 | 14 | 5.6 | 5 | 6 | | - 195| | | | 5 | 6 | | - 196| 85 | 25.6 | 10 | 12 | 28 | | - 197| | | | | 8 | | - 198| | | | | 20 | | - 199| 72 | 23 | 8.6 | 10 | 14 | | - 200| | | | | 10 | | - 201| | | | | 12 | | - 202| | | | | 20 | | - 203| | | | | 12 | | - 204| 124 | 41 | 18 | 20 | 70 | | - 205| 109 | 33.9 | 15.8 | 17 | 44 | | - 206| 108 | 35 | 13.11 | 16 | 52 | | - 207| | | | | 1 | | - ---+-------+------+-------+--------+----+-------------------------------+ - -Thus 207 new vessels were added to the Navy during these eleven years, -of which 121 were on the active list in 1660; besides 22 others still -remaining of the old Royal Navy and 17 more, originally of the same -era, which had been used but had been sold, wrecked, or lost in action -between 1649 and 1660. We are told that ‘the principal thing the Long -Parliament aimed at was to outsail the Dunkirkers,’[1359] and the -large number of light vessels of twenty-two guns, or under, shows how -earnestly they set themselves to this task. In a few cases the names of -old ships were altered—the _Charles_ to _Liberty_, the _Henrietta Maria_ -to _Paragon_, the _Prince_ to _Resolution_, and the _St Andrew_ and _St -George_ lost their saintship. The _Sovereign_ is, once or twice, called -the _Commonwealth_, but here the proposed change of name never became an -actual one. - -[Sidenote: Alterations and Improvements.] - -In October 1651 the Council of State were considering ‘some encouragement -to be given to Messrs Pett for their success in contriving and building -of frigates.’ The improvements consisted, we may be certain, in moulding -the under-water section on finer lines, and probably in reducing the -height of the hull above water and lengthening the keel by lessening the -rake, fore and aft, and so diminishing the undue proportion the length -‘over all’ bore to the keel. Such alterations would have tended to abate -the pitching, from which these old ships must have suffered terribly, to -have given them a steadier gun platform, and to make them more weatherly, -although from the journal of the _Gainsborough_ it appears that she, -at any rate, was nearly unable to beat to windward.[1360] At first the -new frigates, of whatever class, were built without forecastles, but -experience led to the conclusion that they were advisable in the larger -ships, it being found necessary sometimes to run them up at sea, and -eventually only fifth- and sixth-rates were still built without them. -But this was an advance on the old system, which had constructed the -smallest vessels on exactly the same plan as the largest. Beyond Pett’s -improvements, which really belong to the period of Charles I rather -than to that of the Commonwealth, there was little progress in matters -relating to sails and the better adjustment of weights. Fore and aft -sails are still rarely mentioned, and then only in connection with small -vessels, and there is no record of the introduction of any mechanical -appliances calculated to lighten or quicken the physical work necessary -in handling a ship. The sail area was still small for the tonnage, nor, -in view of the crankness of the ships, did it appear possible to increase -it. The _Sovereign_, cut down in 1652, and then of 100 guns and 2072 -gross tonnage,[1361] carried 5513 yards of canvas in a complete suit of -sails;[1362] in 1844 the regulation equipment for a second-rate of 84 -guns and 2279 tons (the _Thunderer_), was 12,947 yards. Of course the -line-of-battle ship of 1844 would be in reality a much bigger vessel than -the _Sovereign_, but the excess in length and breadth would not alone -explain the ability to bear more than double the extent of canvas. - -As had been customary for at least 150 years, each ship possessed three -boats—long boat, pinnace, and skiff—which were respectively 35 feet, 29 -feet, and 20 feet long in those belonging to second-rates, and 33 feet, -28 feet, and 20 feet in third-rates. In no list of equipments or stores -are davits mentioned. The long boat was apparently still towed astern; -it invariably was in 1625, since the Cadiz fleet of that year lost every -long boat in crossing the Bay of Biscay. How the other boats were now -hoisted to the ship is uncertain.[1363] - -[Sidenote: Shipbuilding.] - -Early in the Commonwealth administration John Holland, one of the Navy -Commissioners, recommended that the service shipwrights should not be -allowed to keep private yards, seeing that if they were dishonest there -was no way of tracing government timber, or other materials, used for -their own purposes, a reason which does not say much for government -methods of supervision. But the state yards were obviously inadequate to -the demands suddenly made upon their capacity, and recourse was necessary -to the yards belonging to government shipwrights and to private builders. -In 1650 and 1651 the _Pelican_, _Primrose_, _Pearl_, _Nightingale_, and -_Mermaid_ were bought in this way, the first at £6, 10s, the others at -£5, 8s a ton.[1364] Vessels built in private yards were subjected to -continual inspection at the hands of the government surveyors, and, in -many cases, the materials were supplied by the Navy Commissioners, who -only desired such prices for them ‘as shall be moderate and fit between -man and man.’ - -During 1651-53 Parliament was continually ordering new frigates to be -commenced, and the master shipwrights who possessed building slips seem -to have tried to get the work placed in their own yards rather than -in the government ones. In April 1652, when two new vessels were to -be commenced, Peter Pett and Taylor recommended that they should be -given out to contract, as there was not enough timber in the government -stores. Whatever may have been the knowledge or sense of duty possessed -by some of their subordinates, the Commonwealth Navy Commissioners -were the wrong men upon whom to try _finesse_, more appropriate to the -preceding or following administrations. All that Pett and Taylor obtained -by their move was an intimation that they, at all events, would not be -allowed to compete, and this was followed by an urgent recommendation -to the Admiralty Committee that, as there was in reality plenty of -timber available, the two men should be ordered to proceed with the -work at once in the state’s yards.[1365] On other occasions the London -shipwrights combined to put pressure on the Admiralty by refusing to -tender below certain rates, and Edmond Edgar, of Great Yarmouth, based -a claim to consideration on the fact that he had cut in and broken down -the combination.[1366] There are several petitions, like this one of -Edgar’s, from shipbuilders, for compensation on account of vessels turned -out from their yards larger than had been specified in the original -contracts, and thereby exposing them to loss. As the Admiralty tried to -be just rather than generous in dealing with contractors, we may suppose -that the miscalculations, like those which occurred under Charles I, -were due really to ignorance rather than to a not very hopeful attempt -to obtain larger profits by deliberately ignoring instructions. Country -builders, moreover, sometimes worked under difficulties they could -scarcely have anticipated when tendering. Bailey, who built two ships at -Bristol, desired the government to authorise him to pay his men more than -two shillings a day, and thus free him from the liability to ten days’ -imprisonment and a £10 fine incurred, according to the city ordinances, -by those who paid more.[1367] - -[Sidenote: Decoration.] - -In accordance with the tendency of the time the decoration of ships was -reduced to a minimum. Until 1655 the use of gilding appears to have -ceased, special orders being in some cases given that vessels under -repair were not to have any gold used upon them, and the cost of carved -work in fifth-rates was fixed at £45, an amount which was not passed -without serious questioning. In 1655 this severe simplicity was, to a -certain extent, relaxed, since, in August, Richard Isaacson undertook -the gilding and painting of two second-rates at £120 each. So far as -the outside was concerned, the figurehead, arms on stern, and two -figures on the stern gallery were to be gilt; the hull, elsewhere, was -to be painted black, picked out in gold where carved.[1368] The Navy -Commissioners held that the decoration ought not to cost more than £80, -being unnecessary and ‘like feathers in fantastic caps.’ Figure heads -were sometimes exuberant in style. The _Naseby’s_ consisted of Oliver on -horseback, ‘trampling upon six nations.’ - -[Sidenote: Relation between Tonnage and Guns.] - -The following table gives the equipment in offensive weapons and stores -for typical vessels of each rate; the scale was not implicitly adhered -to, but it is the first sign of an attempt to establish a permanent -relation between guns and tonnage such as became afterwards almost -invariable. The paper belongs to 1655, but it is not likely that any -material alteration occurred before 1660.[1369] The first establishment -of third-rates was 140, of fourth-rates 130, and of fifth-rates 100 men; -these were subsequently raised to 160, 150, and 110 men respectively:— - - +------------------------+------+------+---------+---------+------+-----+ - | |Cannon| Demi-|Culverins| Demi- |Sakers|Round| - | Vessels |Drakes|cannon| |culverins| |Shot | - | | | | | | | | - +------------------------+------+------+---------+---------+------+-----+ - | _Sovereign_ | | | | | | | - |1st-rates _Resolution_ | 19 | 9 | 8 | 30 | 5 |2580 | - | [1370] _Naseby_ | | | | | | | - | | | | | | | | - | _Triumph_ | | | | | | | - |2nd-rates _Victory_ | | 6 | 0 | 24 | 4 |1900 | - | _Dunbar_ | | | | | | | - | | | | | | | | - | _Speaker_ | | | | | | | - |3rd-rates _Marston Moor_| | 4 | 2 | 26 | 8 |2080 | - | _Fairfax_ | | | | | | | - | | | | | | | | - | _Bristol_ | | | | | | | - |4th-rates _Portland_ | | | 24 | 6 | 8 | 908 | - | _Dover_ | | | | | | | - | | | | | | | | - | _Pearl_ | | | | | | | - |5th-rates _Mermaid_ | | | | 18 | 4 | 660 | - | _Fagons_ | | | | | | | - | | | | | | | | - | _Cat_ | | | | | | | - |6th-rates _Hare_ | | | | | 8 | 240 | - | _Martin_ | | | | | | | - +------------------------+------+------+---------+---------+------+-----+ - - +------------------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+--------+ - | |Double|Barrels|Muskets|Blunder-|Pikes|Hatchets| - | Vessels |headed| of | |busses | | | - | | Shot |Powder | | | | | - +------------------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+--------+ - | _Sovereign_ | | | | | | | - |1st-rates _Resolution_ | 720 | 330 | 300 | 20 | 200 | 100 | - | [1370] _Naseby_ | | | | | | | - | | | | | | | | - | _Triumph_ | | | | | | | - |2nd-rates _Victory_ | 740 | 203 | 120 | 12 | 80 | 40 | - | _Dunbar_ | | | | | | | - | | | | | | | | - | _Speaker_ | | | | | | | - |3rd-rates _Marston Moor_| 670 | 180 | 120 | 10 | 60 | 40 | - | _Fairfax_ | | | | | | | - | | | | | | | | - | _Bristol_ | | | | | | | - |4th-rates _Portland_ | 462 | 100 | 60 | 7 | 60 | 40 | - | _Dover_ | | | | | | | - | | | | | | | | - | _Pearl_ | | | | | | | - |5th-rates _Mermaid_ | 260 | 40 | 0 | 4 | 40 | 20 | - | _Fagons_ | | | | | | | - | | | | | | | | - | _Cat_ | | | | | | | - |6th-rates _Hare_ | 40 | 14 | 0 | 3 | 20 | 12 | - | _Martin_ | | | | | | | - +------------------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+--------+ - -[Sidenote: The Fleets.] - -Of the large number of prizes passed into the service many had not been -built as men-of-war, and, as soon as the immediate need had ceased, were -sold, if only for the momentary relief the money thus obtained gave the -harassed treasury. In one year, ending with October 1654, nine were -sold for £6181. Notwithstanding the enormous increase in the strength -of the Navy the Commissioners found it hardly equal to the provision -of the over-sea fleets, now required, and the fifty or sixty cruisers -in the four seas which replaced the half-dozen small vessels formerly -considered sufficient, and which number, relatively large as it was, -did not succeed in entirely crushing the enterprise of the Dunkirk and -Stewart privateers. The recollection of what commerce had suffered from -piracy must have remained very lively, and, at the close of the civil -war, strong summer and winter ‘guards’ were still maintained; in October -1651 there were thirty-six vessels cruising in home waters.[1371] During -the Dutch war every available ship was needed with the fleets, and the -Channel was sometimes so devoid of protection that two prizes, taken off -the Land’s End in December 1653, were brought up Channel to Flushing -without, during the six days occupied in the voyage, and of which one was -spent in lying to off Dungeness, meeting a single English man-of-war. - -When peace was made with Holland the protective cordon round the coasts -was renewed, and increased rather than decreased in strength during -the last years of the Commonwealth. To illustrate the way in which the -ships were employed one station list for May 1659 may be quoted.[1372] -In the Downs, 12, of 232 guns; watching Ostend, 3, of 70 guns; off the -mouth of the Thames, 2, of 12 guns; between the Naze and Yarmouth, 2, -of 34 guns; off Lynn Deeps, 2, of 20 guns; between Yarmouth Roads and -Tynemouth Bar, 3, of 66 guns; on Scotch coast, 2, of 52 guns; with the -mackerel boats, 2, of 24 guns; with the North Sea boats, 1, of — guns; -in mouth of Channel, 4, of 76 guns; between Portland and Alderney, 2, of -26 guns; on Irish coast, 3, of 50 guns; on convoy service, 8, of — guns; -and 6 others have not their duties specified. The large increase in the -effective of the Navy diminished the necessity for hired merchantmen, and -the need became less as the Dutch prizes were refitted for service. The -caste feeling which divides the professional from the amateur fighter -was beginning to be strongly marked among officers who had gone through -the experiences of the civil war, and who by a succession of events had -been retained in the service of the state instead of being returned to -mercantile pursuits, as had been the case formerly on the cessation -of warfare. Both these causes helped to do away with the use of hired -merchantmen, although at one time thirty or forty were in pay. Blake -desired that not more than two-fifths of the fleets should consist of -hired ships, that they should carry at least twenty-six guns, and be -commanded and officered by approved men. The proportion does not appear -to have risen to this figure even before prizes became plentiful, and so -eager was the government to adapt suitable prizes that it did not always -wait for legal condemnation, and sometimes found itself compelled to make -terms with the injured owners when the ship had been used and sold out -of the service. After long efforts the owners of the _Golden Falcon_, -captured in 1652, obtained, in March 1659, a decree of the Admiralty -Court in their favour; but the vessel had been sold a year before, and -the Navy Commissioners were ordered to pay her appraised value when -taken. Nor is this a solitary instance.[1373] - -[Sidenote: Merchant Shipping.] - -In 1652 there was a survey of merchant shipping throughout the kingdom, -but the resulting reports have not survived. In December 1653 there -appear to have been only sixty-three merchantmen, of 200 tons and -upwards, in the Thames suitable for service; but the size of these does -not show much advance on the tonnage of the previous generation; one was -of 600, four of 500, two of 450, five of 400, twenty-five of from 300 to -400, and the remainder under 300 tons.[1374] According to one (royalist) -writer both the merchant navy and trade decreased under the Commonwealth; -but the customs receipts directly contradict the latter and inferentially -negative the former portion of his statement.[1375] Store ships and -transports were paid for at the rate of £3, 15s 6d a month per man, the -owners sending them completely ready for sea. If a ship was meant to go -into action the state took the risk of loss, paid and provisioned the -men, and supplied powder, shot, and any guns necessary beyond the normal -number. When stores were sent out as part of an ordinary trader’s cargo, -the cost of freight was, to the Straits of Gibraltar, from 40s to 44s a -ton; to Alicante, 50s to 54s; to Leghorn, 60s to 64s; and to Jamaica, -£4.[1376] - -[Sidenote: Privateering.] - -Private enterprise turned naturally towards letters of marque as -a lucrative, if hazardous, speculation. In July 1652 letters were -restricted to owners able to send out vessels of not less than 200 tons -and 20 guns, but it was soon found out that this limitation was almost -prohibitive. Such privateers were further placed under the direct control -of the admirals, and compelled to keep them and the Council informed -of their proceedings.[1377] Afterwards letters of marque were more -charily issued, since it was found that they were competing for men -against the regular service, much to the disadvantage of the latter, -the looser discipline and larger chance of prize money of the privateer -being much more to the sailor’s liking. Frequently ordinary trading -ships sailed with letters of marque among their papers on the chance -of some profitable opportunity occurring; but from 1st August 1655 all -such commissions were, without exception, revoked, in consequence of -the difficulty their possessors seemed often to find in distinguishing -between the ships of enemies and those belonging to friendly states. -Thenceforward, although still at war with Spain, Englishmen acting -under them were to find themselves in the position, and liable to the -punishment, of pirates. - -[Sidenote: Caroline Ships lost or sold.] - -Besides the losses of the Commonwealth Navy in the ships, from 1649 -onwards, noted in connection with their names in the preceding list, the -following vessels of the old Navy were lost or sold; as well as various -prizes dating from the civil war, and merchantmen bought during the same -period, not here entered:— - - _Bonaventure_, lost in action. - _Charles_, wrecked. - _Crescent_, broken up. - _Defiance_, sold. - _Garland_, lost in action. - _Greyhound_, lost in action. - _Happy Entrance_, burnt at Chatham. - _Henrietta_, sold. - _Henrietta Maria_, burnt in West Indies. - _Leopard_, lost in action. - _Mary Rose_, wrecked. - _Merhonour_, sold. - _Nicodemus_, ” - _Roebuck_, ” - _1st Whelp_, ” - _2nd Whelp_, ” - _10th Whelp_, ” - -The _Bonaventure_, _Garland_, and _Leopard_ were lost to the Dutch, but -the two former were burnt and sunk when fighting under the Dutch flag in -July 1653. The _Merhonour_, _Defiance_, and _2nd Whelp_, all three long -laid up as useless, were handed over to Taylor in 1650, at a valuation -of £700, in part payment of his shipbuilding bill; the _1st Whelp_ was -used for some time as a hulk at Deptford, and the _10th Whelp_ remained -in commission till 1654. The _Greyhound_ was blown up in action with two -privateers, in 1656, by her captain, Geo. Wager, when she was boarded and -practically taken by 100 of the enemy, who went up with her.[1378] The -_Henrietta Maria_ and _Happy Entrance_ were burnt by accident in 1655 and -1658; the _Mary Rose_ was wrecked off the coast of Flanders in 1650, and -the _Charles_ off Harwich in the same year. - -Whenever ships were lost on the British coasts the authorities did their -best to recover the stores, and, in the case of the _Charles_, men were -still engaged in 1660 patiently fishing for her guns. At first Bulmer, -a man whose name has been mentioned under Charles I as an inventor in -connection with maritime matters, was employed, but it was not until May -1657, after seven years of search, that he triumphantly announced that -he had discovered her exact position. He was succeeded by Robert Willis, -described as a diver, who was more fortunate in that he did at last -recover at least two brass guns, for which he was allowed 20s a cwt. As -the Admiralty had been for eight years at the expense of a hired hoy and -the wages of the men occupied in work, it might have been cheaper to have -allowed the guns to remain under water. The methods used are not alluded -to, but, as the diving-bell was described by Bacon in the beginning of -the century, it must have been a well-known appliance; and Bourne had -described a diving dress on the modern principle in 1578. - -One other man-of-war, the _Phœnix_, belonging to Badiley’s squadron, was -captured on 7th September 1652 by the Dutch off Leghorn, and gallantly -retaken in November by eighty-two volunteers, under captain Owen Cox, who -boarded her at daybreak while at anchor amidst the enemy’s fleet. Cox -did not disdain to eke out the lion’s with the fox’s skin, since, in the -afternoon, he hired ‘a bumboat or two with good wine to go aboard and -sell it cheap;’ the Dutch were consequently keeping a careless watch, but -fighting continued below for two hours after the ship was under way. Cox -further promised £10 to each man with him, but this was still unpaid in -June 1653, and he then tells the Council of State that the men ‘persecute -him to fulfil his engagement’; and Badiley wrote that ‘since their -exploit they are very turbulent and disorderly.’ Cox was granted £500 for -his good service;[1379] he was killed in the action of July 1653, while -still in command of the _Phœnix_. - -[Sidenote: Piracy.] - -Complaints of piracy, in the strict sense, are very few during this -period, and there is not a single reference to the presence of a Turk -in the narrow seas. In face of the Commonwealth Navy there were no more -of such incidents as the sack of Baltimore. The French, Dutch, and -Spanish privateers, who kept our men-of-war continually on the alert, -and occasionally overpowered a smaller one, sailed under some sort of -commission, either from their own states or the Stewarts, and did not, -therefore, possess that freedom from responsibility which in warfare -soon degenerates into savagery. The owners of the _Constant Cavalier_, -for instance, cruising under a commission from the nominal Charles II, -had to give a bond for £1000 not to injure his allies or his loyal -subjects.[1380] That the Dunkirkers and others found privateering by no -means so easy a road to fortune as it had been in the days of Charles -I is sufficiently shown by the number of their captured ships taken -into the national service, besides the loss of many more not considered -suitable for that purpose. Their best opportunity was during the Dutch -war, when the cruisers were mostly withdrawn to strengthen the fleets: -but even then the government usually managed to provide convoys for the -coasting trade. English, Scotch, or Irish seamen taken in a privateer -were summarily transported to the plantations.[1381] - -In 1656 for some reason, probably the effort to keep the fleets on -foreign service at their full strength, the guard round the coasts seems -to have been temporarily relaxed, and the result was that ‘the Ostenders -and Dunkirkers begin to grow numerous.’ On the east coast they were so -successful for the moment that, dreaming hopefully that the old times -were about to return, they desired some of their released prisoners to -‘tell the Protector that while he is fetching gold from the West Indies -they will fetch his coals from Newcastle.’[1382] Oliver was not a safe -subject for threats, and their spoon was certainly not long enough to -enable them to enjoy in comfort the meal they proposed sharing with him; -at any rate very shortly afterwards the war was carried into the enemy’s -country by the blockade of Ostend and Dunkirk, and there are no more -lamentations about the number of them at sea, or the mischief they were -doing, until the very eve of the Restoration. - -[Sidenote: The Administration:—The Committees.] - -The administrative direction of the Navy was, at the beginning of the -Commonwealth, placed in the hands of (i.) the Admiralty Committee of the -Council of State,[1383] (ii.) the Committee of Merchants of Navy and -Customs, and (iii.) the Commissioners of the Navy. The second Committee -took no practical part in the administration, was early requested to -leave the management to the Navy Commissioners, ‘as formerly,’[1384] and -was dissolved in 1654. Warwick’s second appointment as Lord Admiral was -cancelled by a parliamentary ordinance of 23rd Feb. 1649, and the first -Admiralty Committee of the Council of State took over his duties from -that date for the one year for which the Council of State was only itself -existent. This Committee was renewed yearly until the Protectorate, -when ‘Commissioners of the Admiralty and Navy’ were nominated by act of -Parliament, and the control of the Ordnance department was also given -them.[1385] Their number varied but was seldom less than twelve or -fifteen; they met at first at Whitehall once a week, during the Dutch war -once a day, and, from January 1655, occupied Derby House at a rental of -£100 a year. Following the fall of Richard Cromwell an act was passed, -21st May 1659,[1386] nominally vesting authority in ‘Commissioners for -carrying on the affairs of the Admiralty and Navy,’ but power really -remained in the hands of Parliament to which the Commissioners had to -submit the names of even the captains they appointed. - -[Sidenote: The Administration:—The Navy Commissioners.] - -The brunt of administrative work and responsibility fell, however, on -the Navy Commissioners, who, so far as may be judged from the letters -and papers relating to them and their work, laboured with an attention -to the minutest details of their daily duties, a personal eagerness to -ensure perfection, and a broad sense of their ethical relation towards -the seamen and workmen, of whom they were at once the employers and -protectors, with a success the Admiralty never attained before and has -never equalled since. The earliest Commissioners were John Holland, Thos. -Smith, Peter Pett, Robt. Thompson, and Col. Wm. Willoughby;[1387] the -last-named died in 1651, and was replaced by Robt. Moulton, who himself -died the next year. In 1653, Col. Fr. Willoughby, Ed. Hopkins, and -major Neh. Bourne, who, besides being a soldier had also commanded the -_Speaker_, were added to the first four. In 1654 Geo. Payler replaced -Holland, and from then there was no change till 1657, when Nathan Wright -succeeded Hopkins. All the Navy Commissioners, except Holland, had £250 a -year, a sum for which they gave better value than did the members of the -Admiralty Committee for their £400 a year; but for 1653 each was granted -an extra £150 in consideration of the excessive and continuous toil of -that year. - -From the first they adopted a tone towards the Admiralty Committee -which would hardly have been endurable but that it was excused by an -obvious honesty, and justified by superior knowledge. Early in 1649 -they recommended that the rope-makers at Woolwich should have their -wages increased by twopence a day, but their letter was returned by the -Admiralty Committee, probably with a reprimand. This was not to be borne -in silence, so ‘we have cause to resent that we are so misunderstood -as to be inhibited by you to do our duty.’ If the Committee has not -itself power to make the order it can move Parliament, ‘who will not -see men want, especially as in the sweat of these men’s brows consists -not only their particular living but also that of the republic.... What -interpretation soever may be made of our actions by those that have -the supervision of them we shall not fail to represent the grievances -of those under our charge when they represent them to us.’[1388] -On 22nd May 1649 the admirals and captains at sea were ordered to -address the Commissioners direct on all administrative details, thus -leaving only matters of the highest importance to be dealt with by the -Admiralty Committee. In some ways the relative position of superiors and -inferiors seems to have been reversed, for, on one occasion, we find -the Committee writing to the Commissioners about a course of action the -former had decided on, that, ‘as you disapprove’ of such procedure, it -was not to be adopted; and it frequently happened that the Council of -State communicated directly with the Navy Commissioners, ignoring the -intermediate Admiralty Committee. - -During the Dutch war a Commissioner was stationed in charge of each of -the principal yards—Pett at Chatham, Willoughby at Portsmouth, and Bourne -at Harwich, which last place, in consequence of the operations on the -North Sea and off the Dutch coast, had suddenly sprung into importance. -Monk wrote concerning Bourne: ‘It is strange that twenty ships should be -so long fitting out from Chatham, Woolwich, and Deptford, where there are -so many docks ... when there have been twenty-two or more fitted out from -Harwich in half the time by Major Bourne.’[1389] There is a consensus of -evidence as to the way in which Bourne threw his heart into his work, and -the success he obtained under difficulties due to the want of docks and -materials at Harwich and an insufficient number of men. Notwithstanding -Monk’s depreciatory reference to Chatham, Pett was very well satisfied -with his operations there. A few months before he had reported to the -Admiralty Committee that he had graved nine ships in one spring tide, -without injury to ship or man; ‘truly it makes me stand amazed at the -goodness of God in such unparalleled successes.’ - -Besides their superintendence of the building, repairing, and fitting -out of ships, the purchase and distribution of stores, the control of the -dockyards, and all the diverse minutiæ of administration in war time, the -Commissioners were called upon to maintain the not very rigid discipline -of the service. Hitherto all ranks had been allowed to do much as they -pleased when ships were in port, but henceforth no captain was to leave -his command for more than six hours without the express permission of -either the Admiralty or Navy Commissioners, and during any such absence -the lieutenant, or the master, was to remain on board; for the first -disobedience the penalty was a fine of one month’s pay, for the second -three months’, and for the third to be cashiered. Similar rules applied -to all the officers; and men absent without leave forfeited a month’s -pay. The clerks of the check[1390] were to ‘take an exact account’ how -officers and others performed their duties, and once a week report to the -Navy Commissioners, a regulation which, if loyally obeyed, must have made -the clerks popular. The clerks of the check attached to the dockyards -were to similarly watch the clerks on shipboard, and, in turn, report -on them once a week to the Commissioners.[1391] This system was akin to -that of the sixteenth-century Spanish navy, in which the duties were so -arranged that each officer was a spy on another; admirable in theory, it -did not suit English idiosyncrasies, and these reports never took any -practical shape. - -From 2nd June 1649, the Navy Commissioners had occupied rooms in the -victualling office at Tower Hill, but in 1653 they found the annoyance -caused by the proximity of the victuallers’ slaughterhouses there to -be unbearable. It was not, however, till the next year that Sir John -Wolstenholme’s house in Seething Lane was purchased for them for £2400, -and became the Navy Office for a long period;[1392] the Treasurer’s, -now a quite distinct office, was in Leadenhall Street, and its lease -was renewed in February 1657 for eight years at a rental of £49, 6s 8d -a year and a £700 fine. The next request of the Commissioners was that -their number might be increased, as half the members of the Board were -constantly away in charge of dockyards, and for this they ‘desire timely -remedy or dismissal from our employment.’ It has been noticed that three -new men, of whom certainly two—Bourne and Willoughby—were, in their -sphere, amongst the ablest administrators who have ever served the state, -were in consequence added in 1653. Besides the Commissioners, Thomas -White at Dover, captain Hen. Hatsell at Plymouth, major Richard Elton at -Hull, and major William Burton at Yarmouth, acting as Admiralty agents, -had nearly as much work and responsibility, and executed it as ably, as -their more highly placed colleagues. - -In 1655 the salaries of subordinates at the Admiralty amounted to -£1740, the secretary, Robert Blackborne, receiving £250. The first -secretary of the Admiralty Committee, Robert Coytmore, had £150 a year, -of which £50 was regarded as an extra given on condition that neither -he nor his clerk received fees—a stipulation probably due to a lively -recollection of the habits of Nicholas and his successor, Thomas Smith. -The Navy Commissioners had no secretary, and until September 1653 each -Commissioner was allowed only one clerk, at £30 a year—scanty assistance, -considering the amount of work thrown into their hands. From September -the number was doubled, and two purveyors were appointed to assist them -in purchasing stores. The total annual cost of the Admiralty, the Navy -Office, and the chief officers of the four dockyards was £11,179, 9s -10d.[1393] - -If we may trust a later writer, the sums spent on the Navy Office, which -bore only a trifling proportion to the naval expenses, sometimes reaching -a million and a quarter, were not misapplied. Henry Maydman, who was a -purser under the Commonwealth, and Mayor of Portsmouth in 1710, wrote -long afterwards:— - - In all the wars we had in the time of King Charles’s exile the - Navy Office was so ordered that a man might have despatched - any affair almost at one board ... and with the greatest ease - imaginable, and cheapness too. For their public business was - carried on with all imaginable application, and it was a crime - for any one to absent himself from his post.[1394] - -So far as the intentions and efforts of the Navy Commissioners were -concerned this was doubtless true, but it is to be feared that the -State Papers do not support the implication that money matters were -settled with the same ease as those relating to the routine of daily -management, although that, of course, was an imperfection for which they -were not accountable, and over which they had no control. To the full -extent of their power they watched not only over the public interests, -but also over those of the men who, for the first time, seem to have -looked up to officials of their position as friends and helpers. Some of -the appeals they listened to are embodied in a letter to the Admiralty -Committee.[1395] - - We have complaints daily made unto us by poor seamen pressed - out of merchant ships into the state’s service that they are - grossly abused by their masters and owners in pretending - leakage, damage, or not delivery of their goods, whereby they - keep their pay from them, meanly taking advantage of the poor - men’s forcing away by the state’s press masters and not having - time to get their rights, are by this means defrauded of their - wages. We look upon it as a very great oppression and have - therefore thought good to acquaint your honours therewith. - -Shortly afterwards they had to write on behalf of merchants who had -trusted them[1396]:— - - It is not pleasing to us to fill your ears with complaints, yet - we judge it our duty, while entrusted with so great a share of - the naval affairs, to again remind you of the emptiness of all - the stores.... We have not been wanting in obtaining supplies - by means of fair promises, and now we are hardly thought and - spoken of by those who cannot obtain their money. - -In one instance the ‘fair promises’ resolved themselves into a bill for -£400 on account, which, said the recipient, ‘has hitherto done me no more -good than an old almanac.’ It has been remarked that the position of -all who were in the service of the state became more difficult as time -passed, and money became scarcer and scarcer towards 1660. When, in 1658, -the Navy Commissioners were obliged to pay—or promise—prices from 30 to -50 per cent. above the market standard, it may be supposed that their -situation had its own discomforts.[1397] Besides guarding the material -interests, they had to review the moral conduct, of their subordinates, -and they were evidently shocked to be compelled to report to the -Admiralty Commissioners that captain Phineas Pett, clerk of the check at -Chatham, was the father of an illegitimate child. On another occasion -Willoughby was inquiring whether a boatswain possessed two wives. - -After the resignation of Richard Cromwell Parliament interposed more -directly in naval affairs, and the Commissioners exercised less -authority; on one occasion the agent at Chester, who went on board a -man-of-war to muster the men, was refused an opportunity to perform his -duty, and told, in answer to his threats, that ‘the power of the Navy -Commissioners was not as formerly.’ A fact so plainly put must have been -generally recognised, and accounts for the comparative disappearance of -the Commissioners from the papers of the last year of the Commonwealth. - -[Sidenote: The Administration:—The Navy Treasurer.] - -From 1st January 1651, Richard Hutchinson replaced Vane as Treasurer of -the Navy under circumstances noticed on a previous page. He began with -a salary of £1000 a year, in lieu of all former fees and perquisites, -and the appearance of his name in the State Papers is almost invariably -associated with requests for higher pay, or melancholy wails about the -amount of work thrown upon him by the wars in which we were engaged. -For 1653 he was allowed an extra £1000;[1398] not satisfied with this -he petitioned again in December, and so successfully that, by an order -of the Council, he was to be given, in 1654, £2500, and a further £1000 -for every £100,000 disbursed in excess of £1,300,000.[1399] That this -man, who was merely a glorified clerk, who was never required to act on -his own initiative, and whose work demanded neither energy, foresight, -nor talent, should have received over £2500 a year, while the Navy -Commissioners, to whose organising genius was mainly due the rapid and -complete equipment which enabled the English fleets to be of sufficient -strength at the point of contact, were rewarded with £250 a year, and a -gratuity of £150 for one twelvemonth, is one of those incidents which -interest the impartial student of forms of government. From January 1655 -his pay was fixed at £1500 a year, with £100 commission on every £100,000 -issued above £700,000; a year later he tried to get this commission -doubled, and to have it allowed on his first three years of office, ‘I -having much larger promises at the time.’[1400] A remark like this, the -ease with which he obtained his almost annual increments, and the fact -that he was appointed in spite of Vane’s opposition, taken together, lead -one to suspect that he must have had some potent influence behind him. - -[Sidenote: The Commonwealth Captains.] - -Among officers, captains were the class who gave most trouble throughout -these years, the number tried for, or accused of, various delinquencies -yielding a much higher percentage of the total employed than that -afforded by the men, or by officers of any other rank. This was, perhaps, -largely due to the rapid promotion necessitated by the sudden increase -of the Navy, commanders being chosen mainly for professional capacity, -and, if considered politically safe, few questions were asked about -their religious or moral qualifications. Many, again, had risen from the -forecastle, and possibly brought with them reminiscences of the habits -existing in the Caroline Navy: others had been privateer captains, an -occupation which did not tend to make their moral sense more delicate. -Professional honour was not yet a living force, and, in some orders -issued by Monk to the captains of a detached squadron, the threat of loss -of wages as a punishment for disobedience came after, and was obviously -intended as a more impressive deterrent than, the disgrace of being -cashiered.[1401] - -With one offence, however—cowardice—very few were charged; after 1642 -few men wanting physical courage were likely to force their way to the -front. George Wager, who chose to blow up the _Greyhound_ rather than -strike the English flag, had been a boatswain; Amos Bear, a boatswain’s -boy; Robert Clay, a carpenter; Heaton, a trumpeter’s mate; Badiley, -Sansum, and Goodson, cabin boys; and doubtless close inquiry would -reveal many more examples. Four days before the execution of Charles the -Navy Commissioners wrote to Portsmouth, and presumably to other naval -stations, ‘to entreat’ those in charge to take care that all officers -appointed were well affected to the Parliament, and authorising them -to suspend any suspected ones on their own responsibility.[1402] But -the government was not unforgiving; two of Rupert’s captains, Goulden -and Marshall, commanded state’s ships,[1403] and officers who had -deserted in the mutiny of 1648 were received back into the service of -the Commonwealth. The following list, in all probability by no means -complete, will show the large number of captains whose conduct came under -observation, and the character of their misdemeanours:— - - +---------------+------------------------------+------------------------+ - | Name | Accused of | Result | - +---------------+------------------------------+------------------------+ - |John Taylor }| |{ Ordered to enter into | - |Anth. Young }|Neglect of duty in action |{ recognisances to come | - |Edm. Chapman }| of Nov. 1652 |{ up for judgment if | - |B. Blake }| |{ called upon.[1404] | - |Thos. Marriott |Embezzlement, 1652 | Not known | - |John Mead | ” 1653 | ” | - |John Best |Drunkenness and cowardice, | ”[1405] | - | | 1653 | | - |Wm. Gregory |Embezzlement, 1653 | ” | - |Jon. Taylor |Signing false tickets, 1653 | ” | - |Thos. Harris |Neglect of duty, 1653 | Cashiered | - |Jas. Cadman |Killing one of his crew, 1653 | Suspended for 12 months| - |—— |Neglect of convoy duty, 1653 | Not known[1406] | - |Jas. Peacock |Embezzlement, 1653 | ” | - |Sam. Dickinson | ” 1654 | ” | - |Val. Tatnell | ” 1654 | ” | - |J. Clarke | ” 1655 | Cashiered | - |—— | ” 1655 | Wages suspended | - |Robt. Nixon |Cruelty, 1655 | Not known | - |J. Seaman |Drunkenness, 1655 | ” | - |Fr. Parke |Theft from prizes, 1655 | ”[1407] | - |Alex. Farley |Drunkenness and embezzlement, | ” | - | | 1656 | | - |J. Jefferies |Embezzlement, 1656 | Fined £60[1408] | - |Thos. Sparling | ” 1656 | ” £160 | - |J. Lightfoot |Fraud and violence, 1656 | Not known[1409] | - |J. Smith |Embezzlement and drunkenness, | ” | - | | 1656 | | - |Rich. Penhallow|Making out false tickets, 1656| Amount to be deducted | - | | | from his wages | - |Jas. Cadman |Embezzlement, 1656 | Fined[1410] | - |W. Hannam |Cowardice, cruelty, and | Not known | - | |incapacity, 1656 | | - |John Best |Drunkenness, 1656 | ” | - |Robt. Nixon |Cruelty and embezzlement, | ”[1411] | - | | 1657 | | - |Hen. Powell |Embezzlement, 1657 | Severely admonished | - |—— |Drunkenness and blasphemy, | Not known | - | | 1657 | | - |J. Vasey |Drunkenness, 1658 | Charge withdrawn[1412] | - |— Davis |Selling prize goods, 1658 | To refund | - |Robt. Saunders |Came home without leave, 1658 | Cashiered | - |Thos. Whetstone|Drunkenness and theft, 1658 | Not known | - |Rowland Bevan |Embezzlement and carrying | ” | - | | cargo, 1658 | | - |—— |Carrying cargo, 1659 | ” | - |Pet. Foote. | ” 1659 | ”[1413] | - |Robt. Kirby |Drunkenness and theft, 1659 | ” | - |—— |Carrying cargo, false tickets,| ” | - | | 1660 | | - +---------------+------------------------------+------------------------+ - -It is curious to find that, in 1657, two ex-captains, Mellage and Baker, -were in prison as Quakers. In cases of embezzlement the sentence of a -court-martial, where ascertainable, appears to have been usually confined -to fining the accused the value of the stores stolen, or stopping the -amount from his wages. The custom was commencing of trying commanders, -who lost their ships by misadventure, before a court-martial, instead -of accepting their explanations, or holding an informal investigation -at Whitehall, as had previously been done; and once a captain was sent -before a court because his ship went ashore, although she came off -without damage.[1414] This must be almost the first occurrence of that -form of inquiry. Log books were now compulsory, and were sent up to the -Navy Commissioners on the return of the ship; by an order of 2nd Feb. -1653 an advocate, who conducted prosecutions in courts-martial, was -attached to the fleets. It will be noticed how often drunkenness is an -article in the foregoing charges, and this weakness seems to have been -common in all ranks, from captains down to ships’ boys. Among these -naval papers there are very few indications of the existence of Puritan -fervour or even of ordinary religious feeling; the great mass of men -and officers aimed at pay and prize money, gave strenuous service when -the former was punctual and the latter plentiful, and became heedless -and indifferent when they failed. Sailors have been always much more -interested in their material prosperity in this world than the prospects -of their future welfare in the next. Nor does the rule of the saints -appear to have spiritualised the proverbial hard swearing of the service. - -[Sidenote: Inception of Class Feeling.] - -It is, however, from this period that dates that sense of solidarity -among officers and men which is at once the sign and consequence of an -organised and continuous service. Hitherto the permanent executive force -in peace time had consisted of a few subordinate officers and some 200 -or 300 shipkeepers, many of whom were not even seamen. When a fleet was -prepared, the ships were commanded by captains for whom sea service was -only an episode, and officered and manned by men who came from, and were -immediately sent back to, the merchant service on the completion of their -cruise. But between 1642 and 1660 every available English sailor must -have passed a large portion of those years on the state’s ships; and the -captains and officers were kept in nearly continuous employment, with the -result of the formation of a class feeling, and the growth of especial -manners and habits, characteristic of men working under conditions which -removed them from frequent contact with their fellows. The numerous -notices in Restoration literature of the particular appearance, modes of -expression, and bearing, stamping the man-of-war officer—references never -before made—show how rapidly the new circumstances had produced their -effect. - -[Sidenote: The other Officers.] - -When captains showed themselves so ready to steal it might have been -expected that officers of lower rank would follow, and even improve upon, -the pattern set them, but this did not prove to be the case. Although, of -course, there are many flagrant cases recorded, the number of officers -charged with fraud or theft is not only relatively less, considering -the much larger aggregate employed, than under Charles I, but also -absolutely smaller for any equal series of years. Experience, gained -during the civil war, had led to closer inspection and the introduction -of safeguards which made theft neither so easy nor so free from risk, -and further precautions were taken under the Commonwealth. Embezzlement -by a captain could not be prevented, it could only be punished: but -the regulations which made it easy for him might make it difficult for -his gunner or boatswain. The first step, taken in 1649, was to raise -the wages of those officers who were in charge of stores, a measure -recommended long before by Holland and every other reformer. In 1651 -the Navy Commissioners were directed to consider how the frauds, still -numerous among officers, might be best dealt with, and this was probably -the cause of an order the next year that sureties should be required -from pursers, boatswains, and others for the honest performance of their -duties.[1415] These sureties were usually entered into by two persons, -and were sometimes as high as £600. - -That some such method was necessary, at least with the pursers, is -evident from the following catalogue of their ‘chief’ abuses, drawn up -by the Navy Commissioners in 1651:[1416] (1) They forge their captains’ -signatures; (2) make false entries of men; (3) falsify the time men have -served; (4) sign receipts for a full delivery of stores and compound with -the victualling agents for the portion not received; (5) do not send in -their accounts for one voyage till they are again sailing; (6) charge -the men with clothes not sold to them; and (7) execute their places by -deputy while they stop on shore. The principal reforms suggested by the -Commissioners were that bonds should be required, that stewards should -be employed for the victualling, that pursers should in future sail as -clerks of the check, with limited powers, and that all their papers -should be countersigned by the captain. These measures were all adopted, -but a further recommendation that a pillory should be erected near the -Navy Office for their especial use was not, apparently, acted upon. When -one purser openly declared that he cared not how the seamen starved if -he could ‘make £500 or £600 a year out of their bellies,’ it was full -time to apply to his kind the treatment exercised by governments on such -dangerous idealists as constitutional reformers. - -The Commissioners had set themselves a hard task in the inculcation of -honesty, for that sentiment which still regards lightly cheats on a -government was strongly against them. When Dover was searched, in 1653, -large quantities of stolen cordage, sold from the ships, were discovered, -and Bourne found that ‘these embezzlements are so common that the people -declare that they think it no wrong to the state.’ Still in the long -run they were more successful than their predecessors had been, and the -trials for embezzlement became fewer after 1653. Their treatment of the -pursers had the best results, judging from the small number of those -officers who came up for judgment; these gentlemen did not at all like -the new rules and at first mostly refused to sail as clerks of the check. -For reasons unknown, unless it was that they had become more trustworthy -and that the new system was in some respects cumbrous, the clerks -were abolished in 1655 and the pursers reinstated in their old powers, -pecuniary guarantees in the shape of the bonds still being required -from them.[1417] It must have been a very new and unpleasant experience -to some of these men, who many of them remembered the free hand they -were allowed before 1640, to find themselves before a court-martial for -acts they had come to look upon as natural to their places. One steward -attempted to evade an accusation of embezzlement by declaring that the -rats had eaten his books; he might have improved his defence by producing -some of the victuallers’ ‘salt horse,’ and showing that his books, being -tenderer and more nutritious, were more likely to tempt the rats. In -the trial of another we have some account of the mode of proceeding. -The prisoner, Joshua Hunt, was tried under the twenty-eighth article of -war before Lawson and twelve commanding officers, and was himself sworn -and examined. By the twenty-eighth article the character of the penalty -is left to the decision of the court, and Hunt was given the option of -making restitution or of undergoing punishment. In making his report, -Monk remarked that the prisoner had only been found out in that which -most stewards did, and that he would be sent up to London to give his -friends or sureties the opportunity of making amends; if they failed to -do this he was to be returned to the fleet for corporal punishment at the -decision of a further court-martial.[1418] This form of sentence was very -frequent, and gunners, boatswains, and stewards were ordinarily fined the -value of the stores stolen, and committed to prison until it was paid. - -The wide discretion left to the courts-martial led to great inequality -in the sentences, especially when an example could be made without -losing the stores or their money value. A carpenter was tried for theft; -he confessed to the intention, and partly to the act, but returned the -articles before arrest. He was, however, ordered to be taken from ship -to ship in the Downs, with a paper describing his offence affixed to his -breast, the paper being read at each ship’s side, to be thrice ducked -from the yardarm, and to be cashiered. Obviously it was more profitable -and less dangerous not to stop halfway in theft. In 1653 is found a -rather remarkable sentence: Wm. Haycock, carpenter’s mate of the _Hound_, -was, for ‘drunkenness, swearing, and uncleanness,’ ordered, among other -things, ten lashes at the side of _each_ flagship. Haycock has the -distinction of being the first recorded victim of the form of punishment -which afterwards developed into the devilish torture known as ‘flogging -round the fleet.’ It became comparatively common during the reign of -Charles II. - -At Chatham, in 1655 the authorities appear to have discovered and broken -up a gang of receivers, of whom one had an estate of £5000 obtained -from thefts from the ships and yards. A hoyman, Dunning, confessed to -having conveyed 500 barrels of powder from the men-of-war at Chatham and -Deptford within four years. When pressed for particulars, he exclaimed, -‘Alas! shall I undo a thousand families? Shall I undo so many? I did -not think you would put me upon it to do so!’ Finding that this appeal, -instead of silencing, only whetted his examiners’ curiosity, he had -at last to name eighteen ships whose gunners had given him powder to -remove.[1419] The Admiralty employed detectives of their own to find -out thefts, but on more than one occasion these men turned thieves -themselves. The aforesaid Dunning bought a cable from one of them; -another was found ‘to have unduly abused his trust,’ but a third was -granted £15 for proving the larcenies of captain Cadman. Sometimes, -when the amount was small, the Admiralty, instead of bringing offenders -to trial, deducted the estimated value of their embezzlements from -wages;[1420] evidently punishment was very uncertain in extent, but the -practical impunity of former times could no longer be reckoned on. - -In some few instances the Admiralty had to deal with difficulties of -another nature among the officers. Richard Knowlman, a gunner, and -described as a Quaker, wrote to the Commissioners that he had served by -sea and land from 1641, and was still willing to continue in any other -capacity, since ‘I would be free to act against all deceit ... for I see -most men, especially those in the navy and of most rank and quality, -are corrupted.’ Knowlman could not have expressed less respect for the -average official had he enjoyed access to the State Papers, but on the -whole his was one of the very rare eras when such doubts were unjust. -Another master gunner had, for two months, refused to fire a gun, ‘lest -blood might be spilt,’ and a third insisted on preaching to the crew of -the _Fame_, who by no means appreciated his amateur ministrations. In -three instances chaplains are found accused of drunkenness, but their -presence on board ship was not invariable, and their influence appears to -have been very slight. One was tried for forging Monk’s signature. - -[Sidenote: The Commissioners’ Success.] - -The habits of half a century were not to be at once overthrown, but after -1655 references to thefts became far fewer; and the Navy Commissioners -could congratulate themselves on having done much to extinguish customs -which had gone far to destroy the vitality of the former Royal Navy. -The want of trust, that long experience had shown to be justifiable -in gunners, carpenters, and boatswains, who had been, and were still -to a certain extent, treated as officers, may have been one reason -why lieutenants were now always attached to ships, except fifth- and -sixth-rates. Another may probably be found in the growing demand for -scientific seamanship, an accomplishment the former class had little -opportunity of acquiring. Whatever the cause, the effect was to thrust -the gunners and their compeers lower down in the social scale, to lose -them that respect on shipboard they had hitherto possessed, to lessen -their authority, and so quicken the downward movement. We are told that, -a generation later, it was as usual to strike them as to strike the men, -and that they had to ‘fawn like spaniels’ on the lieutenants to retain -favour or position. The lieutenants must have been found much more -satisfactory; in the whole series of papers relating to this period there -is no instance of one being tried by court-martial, and only one in which -such an officer got into any trouble. His captain put him in irons, but -the reason is not given. Lieutenants were occasionally appointed to the -naval service in the reign of Elizabeth, but the Dutch war may be taken -as the period where their position became permanent. In June 1652, Sir -Wm. Penn, then vice-admiral, writing to Cromwell, gave expression to the -unanimous desire of his colleagues that such a rank should be allowed in -all ships carrying 150 men. - -Another difficulty the Commissioners had to contend with was the -forging of seamen’s tickets, an old form of crime which grew in extent -with the employment of so many more men. The Navy Commissioners, in -advance of their time, recognised that the only legal penalty, death, -was too severe, and practically prevented any punishment.[1421] The -Navy department was not the only one which suffered from these forgers, -who were all more or less connected with each other; in the same -year forgeries of public faith bills to the amount of £115,000 were -discovered. Some of these men were in league with clerks in the Navy -and prize offices, and obtained the necessary papers and information -from them. At a later date one of the gang confessed, when in prison, -that the total of the public faith bill and other forgeries was nearly -£500,000.[1422] In 1656 a new plan was tried: ‘to prevent the many frauds -and deceits formerly practised,’ the Commissioners were ordered to send -the Treasurer, daily or weekly, an abstract of all the bills or tickets -they signed authorising payment of money. Subsequently the Admiralty -Commissioners obtained power to themselves commit offenders to prison. -Nicholas Harnaman, for instance, was sent to Bridewell with hard labour -’till further order,’ for counterfeiting tickets.[1423] - -[Sidenote: Officers’ Pay.] - -Officers’ pay was raised in March 1649, and again in 1653, after which -latter date there was no alteration.[1424] It then stood per month at:— - - +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ - | |1st Rate|2nd Rate|3rd Rate|4th Rate|5th Rate|6th Rate| - +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ - | | £ s d | £ s d | £ s d | £ s d | £ s d | £ s d | - |Captain |21 0 0 |16 16 0 |14 0 0 |10 0 0 | 8 8 0 | 7 0 0 | - |Lieutenant | 4 4 0 | 4 4 0 | 3 10 0 | 3 10 0 | | | - |Master | 7 0 0 | 6 6 0 | 4 13 8 | 4 6 2 | 3 7 6 | [1425] | - |Master’s mate or | | | | | | | - | pilot | 3 6 0 | 3 0 0 | 2 16 2 | 2 7 10 | 2 2 0 | 2 2 0 | - |Midshipman | 2 5 0 | 2 0 0 | 1 17 6 | 1 13 9 | 1 10 0 | 1 10 0 | - |Boatswain | 4 0 0 | 3 10 0 | 3 0 0 | 2 10 0 | 2 5 0 | 2 0 0 | - |Boatswain’s mate | 1 15 0 | 1 15 0 | 1 12 0 | 1 10 0 | 1 8 0 | 1 6 0 | - |Quartermaster | 1 15 0 | 1 15 0 | 1 12 0 | 1 10 0 | 1 8 0 | 1 6 0 | - |Quartermaster’s | | | | | | | - | mate | 1 10 0 | 0 10 0 | 1 8 0 | 1 8 0 | 1 6 0 | 1 5 0 | - |Carpenter | 4 0 0 | 3 10 0 | 3 0 0 | 2 10 0 | 2 5 0 | 2 0 0 | - |Carpenter’s mate | 2 0 0 | 2 0 0 | 1 16 0 | 1 14 0 | 1 12 0 | 1 10 0 | - |Gunner | 4 0 0 | 3 1 0 | 3 0 0 | 2 10 0 | 2 5 0 | 2 0 0 | - |Gunner’s mate | 1 15 0 | 1 15 0 | 1 12 0 | 1 10 0 | 1 8 0 | 1 6 0 | - |Surgeon | 2 10 0 | 2 10 0 | 2 10 0 | 2 10 0 | 2 10 0 | 2 10 0 | - |Corporal | 1 15 0 | 1 12 0 | 1 10 0 | 1 10 0 | 1 8 0 | 1 5 0 | - |Purser | 4 0 0 | 3 10 0 | 3 0 0 | 2 10 0 | 2 5 0 | 2 0 0 | - |Master | | | | | | | - | Trumpeter[1426]| 1 10 0 | 1 8 0 | 1 5 0 | 1 5 0 | 1 5 0 | 1 4 0 | - |Cook | 1 5 0 | 1 5 0 | 1 5 0 | 1 5 0 | 1 5 0 | 1 4 0 | - +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ - -[Sidenote: Guns and Ordnance Stores.] - -When Parliament began the rapid construction of new ships some of its -members may have had misgivings about getting the crews to man them, -but few probably anticipated the future difficulties in procuring the -guns wherewith to arm them. Geo. Browne, for so many years the royal -gunfounder, was still almost the only maker, and his works were unequal -to the increased demands.[1427] In March and April 1652, when war -appeared certain, 335 guns were immediately required to equip only part -of the Navy,[1428] but the authorities were already reduced to such -straits as to be compelled to send searchers about London to try to -find ordnance.[1429] A month later some of the inland strongholds were -disarmed, and 84 brass and 544 iron guns thus obtained; the sale of -ordnance taken in prizes was strictly prohibited, and, in the course of -the year, guns were hired at ten and twelve shillings each a month. In -December the ordnance officials announced that 1500 iron pieces, weighing -2230 tons, at £26 a ton, were required, the same number of carriages -at from 21s to 31s 3d each, 117,000 round and double-headed shot, 5000 -hand grenades at 2s 6d each, 12,000 barrels of corn powder at £4 10s a -barrel, and 150 tons of breechings and tackle at £50 a ton.[1430] To meet -these wants they had in store only 121 guns and 34,000 rounds.[1431] In -February 1653 the contracts were made for these guns, but, very soon -after they were entered into, the officials saw that the deliveries would -be at ‘a vast distance from our pressing occasions,’ for not only was -the Tower empty but the ports were also destitute of munition, and, at -Portsmouth, they were in April ‘at a stand’ for powder and shot. - -All that Browne and Foley could promise was to deliver 140 guns in -October, 190 in February 1654, 254 in June, 230 in October, and 86 in -June 1655; but, as 500 were still to be sent in on old contracts, their -engagements could hardly be relied on. Fifty tons of shot and 5000 hand -grenades they promised for June, 50 tons in September, and 100 more by -March 1654. In the meantime ships intended to serve as armed merchantmen -were actually waiting uselessly for 117 guns, which the Ordnance -department could not procure anywhere.[1432] The immediate outlook for -powder was no better, since there was instant demand for 2780 barrels and -only 500 in store, while the contractors were only bound to supply 660 -barrels a month. Here, however, the further prospect was more favourable, -as there were many powder-makers at work and the government could -purchase quantities at Hamburg. - -The staff of the Ordnance office was very much larger, proportionately, -than that of the Admiralty. It employed, at yearly salaries, a surveyor, -£194; clerk, £215; storekeeper, £216; clerk of the delivery, £166; -master gunner of England, £121; keeper of the small gun office, £66; -messenger, £60; two furbishers, £12 each; and twenty labourers at £21 -each.[1433] Its management had mended considerably since 1640, but the -improvement did not avail to save its independence in 1653 when it became -a department of the Admiralty. In February 1654 matters were so far -better that there were 2359 barrels of powder and 38,000 round and other -shot in hand, but still no guns in reserve. There are no complaints about -the quality of the powder supplied during the Dutch war, but, in 1655 and -1656, accusations against the makers, who were said to ‘use some sleight -to make it Tower-proof on delivery, but it does not long continue good -nor abide change of weather,’ became numerous. All that the authorities -could do was to call upon the manufacturers to make it good, or, if they -preferred, take it back with a licence to export it abroad; 6827 out of -15,098 barrels recently furnished were defective, and, by an order of 2nd -April 1656, the Council gave the contractors the choice between these -courses and being committed to prison. The makers, however, had something -to say on their side. Like most other naval purveyors they had not been -paid, and even to get any money on account were sometimes compelled, -under threats of still longer postponement, to repair Hamburg powder at -17s a barrel when the real price should have been £2, naturally with -unsatisfactory results. Some attributed all the mischief to the Hamburg -importations, but most of them seem to have gone into the business -without any expert knowledge, simply with a view of profiting by the -sudden demand for war material.[1434] - -The form of reparation exacted was manifestly unfair: instead of each -maker being required to substitute good for whatever bad powder he had -sent in they were called upon to replace it in proportion to their -contracts. Thus Josias Devey was made liable for 461 barrels instead of -the 141 which were faulty in the number he had supplied, and apparently -he would have fared just as badly if his powder had been excellent down -to the last pound.[1435] As some of the manufacturers had delivered 50 -per cent., or more, of inferior quality, the probable explanation of -this not very honourable proceeding is to be found in the fear of the -Council that the worst culprits would be pecuniarily unable to make -amends if assessed at their full liability. Wapping seems to have been a -manufacturing district, since, in July 1657, there was an explosion of -powder mills, or stores, there which injured many people and damaged 846 -houses to the extent of £10,000. - -[Sidenote: The Dockyards.] - -The enlargements and improvements of the dockyards were not as -considerable as might have been expected in view of the increased -number of ships, and the space required for their accommodation. These -requirements were partly met by the greater use made of Plymouth, and -making Dover and Harwich stations where ships might obtain provisions -and minor repairs. Harwich, largely used for a few years in the middle -of the sixteenth century, had been found of some service during the -civil war, but the movements of the fleets in the North Sea, and off -the coast of Holland, brought both it and Dover into prominence. The -latter port was not utilised till 1653, and was never very freely used, -although the quarterly accounts sometimes reached £700 or £800; both it -and Portsmouth were supplied with stores from Deptford. Bourne, from -the date of his appointment as Navy Commissioner, took up his residence -at Harwich, and remained there till March 1658. Monk’s testimony to his -ability and success has already been quoted, although he had none of the -appliances available in the older yards. But in 1657 ground was rented -from the corporation, for a permanent government yard and wharf, on a -ninety-nine year lease at £5 a year.[1436] Plymouth was employed mainly -for victualling the ships on the western Channel station, as Dover was -for those eastwards, and, to a certain extent, for repairs, although -its exposed roadstead was no favourite with captains whose vessels were -fit to put to sea. Blake evidently did not like it; ‘the unsafeness and -hazard of this road, which to us is worse than a prison, is enough to -scare us hence.’ - -One way of gauging the relative importance of the dockyards is to compare -the stores in hand at a given date. We are enabled to do this for -February and June 1659, as follows:—[1437] - - +----------------------+-----------+----------+-----------------+ - | | Chatham | Woolwich | Deptford | - +----------------------+-----------+----------+-----------------+ - | Anchors | 108 | | 129 | - | Masts | 356 | 724 | 269 | - | Cables | 106 | 29 | 272 | - | Loads of timber[1438]| 1500 | 322 | 416 | - | Tree-nails | 80,000 | 122,000 | 93,000 | - | Compasses | | 180 | 144[1440] | - | Hemp | 100 tons | 75 tons | | - | Noyals canvas | | | 23,000 yds. | - | Vittery ” | 1800 ells | | 25,000 ells | - | Ipswich ” | | | 272 bolts[1441] | - | English ” | 240 bolts | | | - | Tar and pitch | 30 lasts | | | - | Hammocks | 900 | 1200 | 700 | - +----------------------+-----------+----------+-----------------+ - - +----------------------+-------------+------------+-----------+ - | | Portsmouth | Plymouth | Harwich | - +----------------------+-------------+------------+-----------+ - | Anchors | 62 | 17 | 13 | - | Masts | 498 | 95 | 67 | - | Cables | 70 | 42 | 63 | - | Loads of timber[1438]| 508 | [1439] | 79 | - | Tree-nails | | 2000 | | - | Compasses | | | | - | Hemp | 63½ tons | | | - | Noyals canvas | 10,600 yds. | 2000 yds. | 4850 yds. | - | Vittery ” | | | 380 ells | - | Ipswich ” | | | 5½ bolts | - | English ” | 7650 yds. | 370 yds. | | - | Tar and pitch | 99 barrels | 95 barrels | | - | Hammocks | 2020 | | | - +----------------------+-------------+------------+-----------+ - -Owing to want of money the magazines were very low at this date, but the -relation shown here would doubtless always exist. Harwich and Plymouth -can refit ships which have suffered in spars, fittings, or canvas; -Chatham, Woolwich, and Deptford build or repair, while Portsmouth is -equipped for all purposes. Hitherto all masts had been obtained from the -Baltic, but in 1652 the government tried the experiment of sending two -vessels to New England for them, and the results were so satisfactory -that henceforth a proportion of masts from the colonies is found in all -the lists of dockyard stores. The English canvas is elsewhere described -as west country canvas, and was principally made in Somersetshire; -its manufacture was due to Geo. Pley, afterwards government agent at -Weymouth and governor of Portland, who successfully urged its use upon -the Admiralty. It cost 1s 7d or 1s 8d a yard, and was dearer than French -canvas, but considered better.[1442] - -In 1653 there was a double dry dock at Chatham, Woolwich, and Deptford -respectively,[1443] and one at Blackwall, probably in the East India -Company’s yard; these were the only docks directly belonging to, or -available by, the state. No addition appears to have been made to Chatham -yard except the purchase of a wharf and storehouse adjoining the old -dock in 1656.[1444] In October 1653 a contractor from Chatham was either -repairing an old, or constructing a new, dock at Deptford;[1445] and -in 1657 some wharves were built there along the waterside.[1446] A new -dry dock was ordered for Woolwich in 1653[1447] and completed the next -year;[1448] storehouses were built in 1656;[1449] and two years later -a lease was taken from John Rymill, butcher, of London, of one acre of -land, known as Chimney Marsh, on the east side of Ham Creek, ‘next to -the state’s yard,’ for ten years, at £4 a year.[1450] The sizes of the -yards may, perhaps, be inferred from the number of watchmen attached to -each—Chatham, 32; Deptford, 18; Woolwich, 16; and Portsmouth, 13. - -[Sidenote: Dockyards:—Portsmouth.] - -Portsmouth, if the smallest of the chief yards, became under the -Commonwealth one of the busiest and most important. In June 1649 one -of five new frigates was ordered to be laid down there; this vessel, -the _Portsmouth_, was duly launched in 1650, and, with the doubtful -exception of the _Jennett_, in ‘new making’ at Portsmouth in 1559, was -the first man-of-war of the modern Royal Navy built at that place since -the _Mary Rose_ and _Peter Pomegranate_ of 1509 were first floated in -the harbour.[1451] The dry dock so often recommended and ordered under -Charles I was, however, not yet existent. It was urged that one-third -of the Navy ought to be permanently stationed at the port, but in 1652 -the Commissioner in charge complained that there was not room for the -stores required for the few ships usually there. From a survey of 1653 -we obtain, so far as names go, a statement of the number of buildings in -the dockyard; they are upper and lower storehouses, upper and lower hemp -houses, block loft, old rope-maker’s house, office and nail loft, canvas -room, hammock room, kettle room, iron loft, tar house, oil house, sail -loft, and top-makers’ and boat-makers’ house.[1452] - -Less than twenty years earlier Russell had found that work done at -Portsmouth was 100 per cent. dearer than at the other yards, but -Willoughby had altered that, and now boasted that he could build 20 -per cent. cheaper than elsewhere, although all the skilled artisans -required in naval work had to be sent down, there seeming to be as yet -no population attached to or living on the dockyard. He desired that -five and a half acres of adjoining ground should be purchased, a rope -yard erected, and the whole yard surrounded by a brick wall 73 perches -in length.[1453] Therefore in 1653 and 1654 the Navy Commissioners were -directed to take a lease of an acre and a half of the ground recommended, -to set up a rope-yard, and to build the wall.[1454] In December 1655 -Willoughby put before the Commissioners the difficulty in carrying on the -ordinary work, ‘we wanting the benefit of a dock,’ and at this time the -staff, recently reduced in strength, numbered 180 men. In the following -April Bourne and captain John Taylor, a shipwright of Chatham, were sent -down to consult with Willoughby as to the best position for a dry dock -which was to be ‘forthwith made.’[1455] On their report an order issued -in August that one of sufficient capacity to take third-rates was to -occupy the situation of the existing graving dock, and that it was not -to cost more than £3200, of which the town, presumably in the hope of -attracting trade and inhabitants, was willing to contribute £500.[1456] -In November Taylor was instructed to go to Portsmouth and superintend its -construction, but he energetically protested that he knew nothing about -dock-building and would, under such circumstances, only make himself -ridiculous. It was therefore put in the hands of Nicholas Poirson, who -signed the contract on 24th November, by which he undertook to complete -it by the following 20th July, for £2100, the government providing the -materials and the corporation £500 of this sum.[1457] - -[Sidenote: Shipwrights and Workmen.] - -There were still a sufficient number of abuses in connection with the -dockyards, but the flagrant thefts customary under Charles I had been -largely diminished. Members of the Pett family occupied responsible -positions in the three home yards, and either they used their power to -ill purpose, or their favour with the authorities was no passport to -the love of their subordinates. In 1651 there was what would now be -advertised as a great scandal at Chatham; all the chief officers, and -many of the workmen, were accusing each other of misdeeds in a way which -necessitated a governmental commission of inquiry, empowered to take -evidence on oath. The light in which the Petts were regarded is shown -by a remark made by one man to another that he dared not speak, ‘for -fear of being undone by the kindred ... they were all so knit together -that the devil himself could not discover them except one impeached the -other.’ The result of the inquiry was a resolution that all the accused, -on both sides, should retain their places, a decision more likely to be -due to the impossibility of displacing experienced officers when war was -imminent than to any inability to form an opinion. - -The yearly salary of the master shipwright at Chatham was £103, 8s 4d, -Deptford the same, and Woolwich £70. The building programme of the -government naturally tempted these men to add to their salaries the -profits to be made by having private yards for the construction of -men-of-war. Holland pointed out that this led to the shipwright’s absence -from the state’s yard, to the exchange of good government workmen for bad -of his own, and that usually a frigate turned out from a shipwright’s -yard cost the country twice as much as one from a dockyard.[1458] -Holland commented on another evil, the existence of beerhouses in the -dockyards, ‘necessary at first, now one of the greatest abuses in the -Navy.’ At least one ‘searcher’ was employed to prevent theft from the -dockyards; but, judging from the small number of such cases reported, the -precautions taken or the higher standard induced in the men, had greatly -altered former conditions for the better. In one instance, however, the -want of honesty shown by two men was attributed—it is painful to have -to confess here—to their habit of reading ‘histrye books.’ The wages of -shipwrights and caulkers were raised in April 1650 from 1s 10d to 2s 1d -a day, and again in 1652 to 2s 2d; they appear to have been punctually -paid to a later date than the seamen, but in 1656, when they also were -beginning to suffer from the emptiness of the treasury and their wages -to fall into arrear, the Council, with the dry humour of officialism, -ordered ‘an exact and punctual inspection and examination’ quarterly of -their accounts. By 1658 they had, mostly, twelve months’ wages owing, but -their murmurs were not nearly so loud as those of the seamen. Frequently -during 1659 they were working half-time or less, for want of materials. -In March 1660 there were not 100 yards of canvas remaining at either -Woolwich or Deptford, the contractors would not supply more without -ready money; and we may assume that other necessaries were equally -lacking.[1459] During part of 1659 there was only one forge going at -Portsmouth, John Timbrell, the anchor-smith, having received no money for -two years, and having been compelled to dismiss his men, being unable to -procure iron on credit. Timbrell was mayor of the town in 1662, so that -the Restoration apparently relieved him of his troubles. - -In September 1658 the _Happy Entrance_ was destroyed by fire at Chatham, -a mishap attributed to carelessness on the part of the men at work on -her, and the absence of supervision of the superior officials. This -caused the promulgation of an order the following month that no member -of the superior dockyard staff should absent himself without leave -from the Commissioner, and he only by permission of the Admiralty -or Navy Commissioners, with a general penalty of dismissal for -disobedience.[1460] This order was to be framed and hung up in each yard. -White’s invention of 1634 of iron mooring chains, noticed previously, -was now taken up by the government, and some were laid down at Chatham, -Deptford, and Woolwich for ships to ride at, two to a chain. Mooring -places for the use of merchantmen were granted to White, Bourne and -others at a rental of £5 a year.[1461] The dockyard chains weighed 2 cwt. -2 qrs. 14 lbs. to a fathom, cost fivepence a pound, and were guaranteed -for two years.[1462] In 1658 a boom was ordered to be placed across the -Medway at Upnor, but there is reason to believe that the order was not -carried out. - -[Sidenote: Dean Forest.] - -Among the Commonwealth experiments was that of using the wood and -iron ore of Dean Forest for the manufacture of iron for the supply of -the dockyards and private purchasers. As a ton of iron could be made -there for £3, 10s, and a ton of shot for £4, and sold respectively at -£7 and £9, the enterprise was more profitable than most government -undertakings.[1463] In 1656 the stock in hand was valued at £9446, which -stood as net gain, all expenses being cleared;[1464] but, as Major Wade, -who was in charge, thought that one or two hundred tons of iron thrown -upon the market ‘would surfeit the whole country,’ it was rather a book -profit than an actual one. However, from September 1654 to March 1659 -Dean Forest supplied the Navy with 701 tons of shot and 88 tons of iron -fittings; and from Sept. 1656 to April 1660 with 2300 tons of timber -and 123,000 tree-nails,[1465] the saving thus effected being alone a -sufficient justification of the new department. The plentiful yield of -timber suggested the advisability of building frigates on the spot, and -the _Grantham_ was launched at Lidney in 1654; she was followed by the -_Forester_, and then the _Princess_ remained long in hand, since Furzer, -the master shipwright, was receiving only £2 a week of the £15 necessary -to meet expenses. In October 1659 he wrote to the Navy Commissioners that -instead of attending to his duties he was forced to be away two or three -days in the week trying to borrow money. - -[Sidenote: Naval Expenditure.] - -The following table, drawn up from the _Audit Office Declared Accounts_, -shows the general expenditure for this period in round figures:— - - +-----------+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------------+ - | | | | | | - | | Amounts | | | | - | | received | Already | | | - | |and paid by| owing | Victualling |Deptford[1466]| - | | Treasurer | | | | - +-----------+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------------+ - | | £ | £ | £ | £ | - |1649[1467]}| | | | | - |1650 }| 432,000| 233,500 | 149,000 | 8700[1468]| - |1651 | 446,000| 129,000 | 51,000 | 10,163 | - |1652 | 629,000| 238,000 | 88,000 | 10,900 | - |1653[1469] | 1,445,000| 335,000 | 269,000 | 12,600 | - |1654 | 1,117,000| 450,000 | 230,000 | 11,700 | - |1655 | 587,000| 466,000 | 70,000 | 8700 | - |1656 | 791,000| 473,000 | 209,000[1470]| 8000 | - |1657 | 746,000| 506,000 | | 9000 | - |1658[1472]}| | | | | - |1660 }| 1,442,000| 714,000 | | 11,800 | - |1660 | |1,056,000[1473]| | | - +-----------+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------------+ - - +-----------+--------+-------+----------+-------------+ - | | | | | | - | | | | | | - | | | | | | - | |Woolwich|Chatham|Portsmouth| Wages | - | | | | | | - +-----------+--------+-------+----------+-------------+ - | | £ | £ | £ | £ | - |1649[1467]}| | | | | - |1650 }| 8786| 23,768| 5292| | - |1651 | 7776| 19,089| 3783| | - |1652 | 8381| 22,744| 6860|304,000 | - |1653[1469] | 12,500| 29,000| 13,700|227,000 | - |1654 | 13,500| 22,500| 15,700|225,000 | - |1655 | 7600| 21,800| 7700| | - |1656 | 7000| 20,000| 7000| | - |1657 | 10,300| 19,400| 6200|311,000[1471]| - |1658[1472]}| | | | | - |1660 }| 18,000| 25,000| 9000|447,000 | - |1660 | | | | | - +-----------+--------+-------+----------+-------------+ - -The Commonwealth began its naval administration hampered by a debt of -£233,000, and it will be seen that, with the exception of 1650, during -which year the arrears were partly paid off, it steadily grew in amount. -But comparing the national revenue, which had also to support a standing -army, with the sums devoted to the Navy, the wonder seems to be that -the debt was not larger. For the financial year ending 29th September -1657 the total public income was £1,050,000, and of this £809,000 was -assigned to naval purposes; for 1658 £951,000, of which the Navy took -£624,000.[1474] The receipts for 1659 were put at £1,517,000,[1475] and -the Navy estimates at £848,000[1476]. - -The strain began to be most seriously felt from 1653, when, in September, -the Navy Commissioners warned their chiefs that £1,115,000 was required -before 31st December, without including the cost of the vessels on -the stocks or that of the winter fleet; no provision, they said, had -been made for this and ‘we find it necessary to lay before you the -daily clamours we undergo for want thereof.’[1477] In October 1654 -the Admiralty Commissioners apprised the Protector that the credit -of the Government was so greatly impaired that stores could not be -obtained except for ready money; yet £1,117,000 in cash passed through -the Treasurer’s hands in this year. This sum was procured from many -sources—excise, £262,000; treasurer-at-wars, £424,000; customs, £162,000; -‘profits arising by probate of wills,’ £1163; commissioners for Dutch -prizes, £2029; commissioners for prize goods, £44,000; treasurer at Drury -House, £16,000;[1478] Col. Barkstead,[1479] £44,000; from the exchequer, -£131,000; and defalcations and sale of stores, £31,000. Notwithstanding -these receipts the Admiralty Commissioners wrote in April 1655 to the -Council that they had only been able to pay seamen’s wages, that all -other debts remained unpaid, and that the yards were exhausted of -stores.[1480] Straitened as they were, the Council, two months later, -were not deterred from ordering 2000 Bibles for the soldiers in the West -Indies, although the fact that the commissioners of the treasury had to -‘consider’ how they could be paid for seems to imply that Bibles were -no more to be obtained on credit than cordage. On at least one occasion -Oliver appears to have himself advanced £10,000 to the Navy Office.[1481] - -The debt increased, but the revenue did not show the same elasticity; -all that the Admiralty Commissioners could do, themselves almost daily -invoked by the Navy Commissioners, was to carry on the appeal to the -Council, ‘finding every day a sad increase of the just complaints of -several persons for money long since due.’ This was in 1658, but in -March of the following year they wrote bitterly to the Council that, -while such large debts were contracted and they were struggling with -difficulties, it made them ‘exceeding unhappy’ to see that even their -assignments on the customs were not handed over to them in full.[1482] In -May 1659, among other items, £330,000 was owing for seamen’s and £43,000 -for dockyard wages, and the £735 a week paid by the Navy Treasurer to -the Savoy and Ely House hospitals was six months over-due.[1483] In -September the army commissioners were directed to hand over £60,000 -for naval purposes, although the soldiers’ pay was months in arrear. -When the Commonwealth accounts close on 7th July 1660 the debt was -£1,056,000.[1484] For this large sum every year from 1640 furnished its -quota, thus detailed:—1640-9, £10,200; 1650, £71,000; 1651, £25,000; -1652, £16,000; 1653, £11,000; 1654, £5000; 1655, £50,000; 1656, -£229,000; 1657, £218,000; 1660, £421,000. That the earlier amounts were -not merely book debts carried forward for want of claimants is shown by -the existence of a petition, of April 1658, begging for the settlement -of a bill for freight incurred between 1643 and 1651.[1485] These -liabilities, belonging to only one branch of the public service, help -to explain why many classes of society, not actively royalist, may have -welcomed a restoration which promised a settlement of debts and a more -stable financial system. - -[Sidenote: Flags and The Salute.] - -When the St George’s cross was made the national flag in February 1648-9, -it was also ordered that an escutcheon should be carried on the stern of -each man-of-war, containing a red cross in one compartment and a harp in -another. In 1653 the three Generals at sea used, besides their standards, -a pendant of red, white, or blue, at the main, and their vice- and -rear-admirals their respective colours at the fore and mizen. From 18th -May 1658 the standard of the General of the fleet was to bear the arms of -England, Scotland, and Ireland, ‘with his Highnes’ escutcheon of pretence -according to the great seal of England.’ The jack flag for admirals -was to consist of the arms of England and Scotland united, ‘according -to the ancient form,’ with the harp added, ‘according to a model now -shown.’[1486] All saluting, whether from ships or forts, was strictly -forbidden in 1652, except in honour of ambassadors; but the salute to the -flag from foreigners was firmly upheld under all circumstances. By the -treaty of 5th April 1654, the Dutch formally acknowledged the English -right to the salute in the ‘British seas.’ In 1657 Opdam, with thirty -Dutch sail, passing Dover struck his flag and saluted the castle; shortly -afterwards he met the _Dragon_ and the _Colchester_, whose captains -ordered him again to strike. He refused, saying that he was not expected -to pay this mark of respect to every ship he met, whereupon they replied -that if he did not they would engage him till they sank alongside. Then -‘he struck in a great rage,’ and kept his flag down till out of sight of -the Englishmen. Man-of-war captains sometimes displayed the same feeling -of pride in their position at the expense of English ships. In 1654 a -Virginiaman was run down and sunk in the Channel by the _Ruby_. In the -subsequent inquiry the master of the merchantman held that the _Ruby_ -should have gone astern of his vessel, to which her captain retorted by -asking, ‘How many men-of-war have you known go under a merchantman’s -stern?’ - -[Sidenote: Prices.] - -The prices of naval stores varied greatly, according to the confidence -felt in the treasury and conditions of peace or war; the following are -the rates for some of the principal articles:— - - IRON ORDNANCE - 1650, £20 a ton - 1653, £26 ” - - CANVAS - Noyals, 1652, £15 to £17 a bale[1487] - Noyals, 1654, £19, 7s a bale - Vitery, 1654, 1s a yard - Vitery, 1655, 1s 4d an ell - Ipswich, 1654, £1, 12s a bolt - Ipswich, 1655, £1, 7s 9d a bolt - - HEMP - 1653, £32 a ton (English) - 1655, £38, 10s a ton (Riga) - 1657, £44 a ton (Riga) - 1658, £46 a ton (Riga) - 1658, £33 a ton (English) - 1658, £38 a ton (Russia) - - ANCHORS - 1656, £34 a ton - ” £37 ” - - POWDER - 1650, £3, 16s a barrel - 1652, £4 ” - 1653, £4, 10s ” - - PLANK - 1653, £2, 18s a load - 1655, £3, 7s ” - 1657, £3, 5s ” (oak) - 1659, £3, 15s ” ” - - SMALL ARMS - Snaphaunces, 1658, 11s 6d each - Matchlocks, 1658, 10s 6d each - Carbines, 1658, 11s each - Pistols, 1658, 14s a pair - - BLACK ROSIN - 1655, £10, 10s a ton - 1657, £10 a ton (Mar.) - 1657, £9, 5s ” (Aug.) - - COMPASS TIMBER - 1656, £2, 5s a load - 1658, £3 ” - - CORDAGE - 1649, £30 a ton - 1656, £44 ” - 1657, £48 ” - 1658, £44 ” - - SHOT - 1652, £11, 10s a ton - 1653, £14 a ton - - TAR - 1654, £1, 15s a barrel - 1655, £10, 12s a last - 1656, £12 a last - 1657, £12, 10s a last - 1658, £13 a last - - PITCH - 1654, £1, 16s a barrel - 1655, £15, 5s a last - - BEER - 1654, £1, 15s a tun - 1659, £2, 5s ” - - SPRUTIA[1488] DEALS - 1656, 12s 6d each - 1659, 14s ” - - ORDINARY DEALS - 1657, £4, 3s per 100 of six score - - WHALE OIL - 1659, £26, 15s a ton - - ENGLISH TALLOW - 1658, £2, 3s per cwt. - - LIGNUM VITÆ for blocks - 1656, £6, 15s a ton - -Examples of that incongruity of expression usually associated with -Puritan fervour are not frequent among the Navy papers, but they do -occasionally occur. On one occasion Lawson writes, ‘All that look towards -Zion should hold Christian communion—we have all the guns aboard.’ -Major Robert Sedgwick, starting for the West Indies, asks the Navy -Commissioners, after official details, for ‘your prayers that we may be -sent out with a blessing and be a blessing where we go.’ Major Sedgwick’s -duties were to kill Spaniards, plunder their property, and annex their -territory. These men were too grimly earnest in the work they set their -hands to do to trouble themselves about fine phrases. They lacked humour, -and the court of Charles II was, we are taught, very witty; but when, in -1667, the roar of foreign guns was, for the only time in English history, -heard in London, even that majority which always loves a royal jest must -have begun to appreciate the distinction underlying Stewart wit and -Puritan dulness. - - - - -APPENDIX A - -CHAPTER HOUSE BOOK VOL. XIII - - -Here ensuyth An Inventorie or boke of All such Stuff, tacle, apparell, -Ordynaunce, Artillarie and habillamentes for the warre as Remayned in -our soveraigne lord the kynges shippes the xxvij day of July the vjᵗʰ -yere[1489] of his reign, By a vewe taken by Sir Henry Wyat, Sir Andrewe -Wyndsore, knightes, George Dalyson, and Thomas Tamworth, commissioners -in that behalf appoynted, Whuch Stuff, tacle, apparell, Ordynaunce, -Artillaries, and habillamentes for the warre Was delyvered into the -charge and kepyng of severall persons hereaftyr particlerly named to our -seid soveraigne lord the kynges use by Indentures thereof made and also -billes signed with the handes of the seid commissioners in the custodie -of the seid persones remaynyng, That is to Sey - -The kynges Shippe called the _Henry Grace de Dewe_:—Stuff, Tacle, and -apparell of the seid shippe delyvered by the seid Commissioners into the -charge of John Hopton by Indenture, that is to sey - - ffyrst the foremast of the seid shippe j - Shrowdes to the same xvj - Dedemens hyes[1490] to the same xvj - Tacles to the foremast iiij - Doble polles[1491] with Shyvers[1492] of Brasse iiij - Single polles with Shyvers of Brasse iij - Single polles with a colk[1493] of Brasse j - Swyfters to the foremast vj - Doble polles with colkes of Brasse iij - polles whuth Shyvers of wode iij - polles with v colkes of Brasse and oone of wode vj - Garnettes to the foremast with iiij poles[1494] ij - Garnet with ij polles and shyvers of Brasse j - Garnet with a shever of Brasse and another of tymbre j - Trusses to the foremast ij - Drynges[1495] to the same j - Doble polles for the trusses with colkes of brasse ij - Single poles of tymbre ij - Drynges with a doble pole with a colk of brasse and oone - single pole of wode j - halyers to the foremast ij - Shyvers of Brasse to the brest[1496] of the forecastell iij - Ramehedes with ij shevers of Brasse j - Shetes to the foresayle ij - pollies with shevers of Brasse to the same ij - lyftes to the foresayle ij - Doble polies with shyvers of Brasse to the same ij - Single polies with colkes of Brasse ij - Shetes to the toppe Sayle ij - Single polies with woden pynnes to the same ij - Tackes to the foresayle ij - Stodynges[1497] to the foreyerd ij - pollies to the same with woden pynnes ij - cranelynnes to the foremast j - Single poles with shyver of Brasse j - Bowelynnes to the foreyerd with the poleis and dedemanes - hies and oone doble pole with a shever of brasse j - Stayes to the foreyerd with iiij dedemens heies ij - Sprete sayle yerdes ij - halyers to the same ij - Single poleis with shyvers of Brasse to the same ij - lyftes to the Sprete Sayle with iij single polies and woden - pynnes j - Grapilles[1498] with the cheyne hangyng apon the bowspret with - a pole havyng a colk of brasse j - knyghtes[1499] longyng to the lyftes of the foresayle with ij - shevers of brasse ij - The fore topmast j - Shrowdes to the same xij - halyers with a doble polie and a colk of brasse ij single poleis - with woden pynnes ij - Bowlynes to the foretop Sayle yerd with pawes[1500] and dedemens - hyes to the same ij - Brasses[1501] for the foretop sayle yerd ij Single poles with - pynnes of wode ij - lyftes to the foretopsayle yerd with iiij poleis with wooden - pynnes ij - Shetes to the foretopsayle with ij woden poles ij - Steyes to the foretopmast j - Sayle yerdes to the foretop j - Toppe Galant apon the foretopmast j - mastes to the same j - Shrowdes to the same viij - halyers with ij single poles with woden pynnes ij - Brasses to the same with ij single poleis and wodepynnes - and dedemens hyes to the same ij - Bowlynes to the topgalant yerd the power and dedemens - hies to the same ij - lyftes to the foretopgalant yerd with iiij single polies with - woden pynnes ij - Shetes with ij single poles with woden pynnes ij - Stayes to the foretopgalant mast j - Shevers of Brasse for the cattes in the forecastell iiij - Davettes[1502] with iiij shevers of Brasse ij - Smale davettes with oone shever of Brasse j - The mayne mast[1503] j - Shrowdes with cheynes of yron and dedemenes hies to the same xl - Bote tacles of sterebord syde with iiij doble poles and viii - single poleis with xvj shyvers of Brasse[1504] iiij - Swifters on the same syde with vij doble poleis and vii single - polees with colkes of Brasse and ij poles of tymbes[1505] - pynnes viij - Garnettes with ij single poles with shivers of Brasse j - Garnettes with ij single polies with colkes of Brasse j - Garnettes with oone single pole with a shever of Brasse and - an other pole with a colk of Brasse j - Stodynges with a single polie with a Shever of Brasse j - Bote tacles oon ladbord syde with iiij doble polies and viij - single polies with xvj Shevers of Brasse iiij - Bretayn tacles[1506] with ij single polies and Shevers of Brasse - to the same j - Swyfters with vij doble polies with colkes of Brasse and viij - single poles with colkes of Brasse viij - Garnettes whereof oone with ij single polies and ij shevers - of Brasse an other with ij single poleis with ij colkes - of Brasse and an other with a shever of Brasse iij - Stodynges with a shever of Brasse j - tymber polies for the Shuts[1507] ij - The mayne yerde with the mayne parell j - Single poleis with a shever of Brasse to wynde up the mayne parell j - Trusses with iiij doble polleis and iiij single polies with xij - shevers of Brasse iij - Drynges with ij doble polies and iiij shevers of Brasse ij - Single poleis of tymbre to the same ij - Tyes j payer - Whele Ropes[1508] j - Geers with vj single poleis whereof iiij with shevers of - Brasse and ij of tymbre iij - knyghtes belonging to the same with iij Shevers of Brasse iij - Single poles for the topsayle iiij - Shutes with iiij shevers of Brasse ij - knyghtes with ij shevers of Brasse ij - The mayne yerd j - lyftes with ij doble poleis and ij single with vj Shevers of - Brasse to the same ij - Knyghtes with ij Shevers of Brasse ij - Shutes ij - Tackes ij - bowlynes with Brydelles and Dedemens hies ij - poleis to the mayne Bowlyne with ij Shevers of Brasse j - mayne Stayes with viij dedemens hies iiij - Brasses with ij single poles and colkes of Brasse ij - The mayne top j - The mayne top mast and a coler of yron j - Shrowdes to the same with dedemens hies xiiij - The mayne top Sayle yerd j - Tyes j - halyers with a doble and a single polie with ij shevers of Brasse j - Brases with iiij poles ij - lyftes with iiij polies and colkes of Brasse ij - Cranelynnes with a single pole and a colk of Brasse j - Steyes to the mayne top mast j - bowlynes with dedemens hies ij - The top Galant apon the mayne topmast j - mastes for the same j - Rynges of yron for the same j - Shrowdes to the same with dedemens hies x - Sayle yerdes to the same j - Stayes to the same j - Bowlynes ij - Brases with ij poles to the same ij - Shutes ij - Grabulles with cheynes to the same ij - poleys apon the mayne yerd for the grabulles ij - Spare knyghtes standyng by the mast with ij shevers of Brasse ij - The mayne meson mast j - Shrowdes with xj doble poles and xj single poles, a doble - and single polee with colkes of Brasse xij - Swyftyers with vj doble poles and vj single poles with colkes - of Brasse vj - Tacles with ij doble poles of tymbre ij - Single poles oone of tymbre the other with a colk of Brasse ij - Steyes j - Shutes j - Single poles oon of tre[1509] the other with a colke of Brasse for - the same Shutes ij - cranelynes with a single polie and a colk of Brasse j - Brases with ij single poles ij - Teyes[1510] ij - halyers ij - The Rame hede j - knyghtes with iij Shevers of Brasse j - The yerd to the meson Sayle j - lyftes with iij poles and dedemens hies j - Trusses with a double and a single polie with colkes of Brasse j - Toppe j - Topmast to the same j - Rynges of yron j - Shrowdes with dedemens hies x - The Sayle yerd j - Tyes j - poles to the same ij - lyftes with iij poles and dedemens hies j - The top Galant of the mayne meson j - The mast to the same j - Shrowdes to the same vj - lyftes with iij poleis and dedemens hies j - The Sayle yerd j - Tyes to the same j - halyers j - The boneaventure mast j - Shrowdes with x Doble poles and x syngle poleis x - Sayle yerdes j - Tyes j - halyers with a doble pole ij - knyghtes with iiij Shevers of Brasse j - Shutes with ij poleis to the same j - The boneaventure top j - mastes to the same j - Sayle yerdes j - Shrowdes viij - Steyes j - In the storehouse of the Shipp viij single pendaunt polies - with shevers of Brasse viij - Smale single garnet poleis with shevers of Brasse j - Doble lyft poleis with shevers of Brasse iiij - Doble poleanker[1511] poleis with shevers of Brasse iiii - Snach polleis with gret Shevers of Brasse iiij - Single poleis with Shevers of Wode xiiij - Doble poleis with Shevers of Wode ij - Doble poleis with a colk of Brasse j - Single poleis with a colk of Brasse j - pottes called piche pottes j - ketilles to melt in pyche j - boyes for ankers x - boy Ropes x - Shevers of Brasse without poleis iij - leddern[1512] bokettes xij dossen - love[1513] hokes iiij - lynch[1514] hokes iij - Copper ketill not sett in furnes weying by estimacon ccc[1515] j - CABLES AND CABLETTES OF - xiij ynch compas j - xvij ynch compas ij - xv ynch compas ij - ix ynch compas j - viij ynch compas j - -------------- - vij - HAWSERS OF - iiij ynch compas iiij - vj ynch compas iij - vj ynch di[1516] compas j - v ynch compas j - viij ynch compas j - iiij ynch compas j - iij ynch compas j - v ynch compas j - iiij ynch compas vij - iij ynch compas j - iij ynch di compas j - -------------- - xxij - Smale lyne ij peces - Bygger lyne for lanyers[1517] ij peces - Brayle Ropes with iij poles to the same j - Grete doble Blockes ether of them ij Shyvers of Brasse ij - Single blokes with ij Shevers of Brasse ij - long Ores for the Grete bote lx - Tarre ij barelles - Ores for the Cocke bote xxiij - Standart Staves[1518] lix - Stremers viij - lytle flagges c - Top Armours vii - Targettes xx dossen - large fflagges lx - To the mayne Sayle Acorse[1519] and ij bonettes doble j mayne sayle - mayne topsayles j - Topgalant Sayle j - The meson Sayle j - The boneaventure Sayle j - The foresayle Acorse and a bonet doble and bonet single an other - corse and iij bonettes single in all ij foresayles - The fore topsayle j - The foretopgalant Sayle j - The Bowspret Seyle j - The mayne Sayle for the gret Bote, a corse and ij bonettes single j sayll - The foreseyle acorse and ij bonettes single j - Top Seyle j - The meson Seyle j - The boneaventure Sayle j - An old corse of a hulk Sayle j - ANKERS CALLED - Sterbord bowers ij - ladbord bowers ij - Destrelles[1520] of Sterbord ij - Destrelles on ladbord ij - Shot[1521] ankers j - Caggers[1522] j - Spare ankers ix - -------------- - xix - Trene[1523] platters iiij dossen - Trene cuppes v dossen - Tankerdes iij dossen - lantrons[1524] vj - grete lantrons j - middellantrons ij - Copper ketilles in furnes iij - lede in oone pece by estimacon D[1525] - Grete belles in the seid Ship of Brasse j - The grete botes mayne mast j - Shrowdes to the same xiiij - polles to the same xxviij - Tacles oone with a doble pole and colkes of Brasse the - other with a single pole and a Shever of tymbre ij - Single poles with a shever of Brasse j - mayne yerdis and the parell j - Trusses with ij poleis and Shevers of tymbre j - Tyes j - halyers with a doble pole and Shever of Brasse j - Single poleis on of them with a Shever of brasse and other of tymbre ij - Shutes ij - Tackes ij - bowlynes with a pole and Shever of tymbre ij - lyftes with ij Single poleis ij - Topsayle Shotes with ij single poleis ij - yerde Ropes ij - The meyne Stey with ij doble poleis j - The toppe j - The topmast j - Shrowdes to the same vj - Sayle yerdes j - Tyes j - parell to the sayle yerd j - Bowlynes ij - lyftes ij - Cranelynes j - Brases ij - The foremast j - Shrowdes to the same vj - The Sayle yerd j - The parell j - Teyes j - Syngle halyers with a polie to the same j - Shetes vj - tackes j - lyftes with ij poleys ij - Steyes j - bowlynes with a polie j - Single Trusses with a polie j - Bowspretes j - mayne meson mast j - Shrowdes to the same vj - The Sayle yerd j - the parell to the same j - The Tye j - Single halyers with a pole j - Trusses with ij poles j - lyftes with iij poles j - Brases with ij poles ij - Steys with ij Smale poles j - The boneaventure mast j - Shrowdes to the same iiij - Tyes j - Single halyers with oone pole j - The sayle yerd j - The parell to the same j - Ankers for the said bote iij - Cablettes of v ynch compas ij - Cocke bote j - mastes to the same j - Sayle yerdes j - Shevers of Brasse ij - Ores to the same xij - bote hokes j - The skyff otherwise called Jolywatt j - mastes to the same j - Sayles j - Ores to the same vj - Shevers of Brasse j - Shevers of Brasse called a Wyndyng Shever for the j Rame hede j - hawsers of v ynch compas j - hawsers of vj ynch di compas di hawser[1526] - hawsers of v ynch compas iij - Cables of ix ynch compas j - hawsers of vj ynch compas di hawser - Soundyng ledes vj - -Ordynaunce Artillarie and habillamentes for warr delyvered to the charge -and custodie of Thomas Spert, master, and William Bonython, purser of the -seid shipp by Indenture as aforeseid, that is to sey - - Serpentynes of yron with miches[1527] boltes and forelockes cxxij - Chambers to the same ccxliiij - Stone gonnes of yron Apon trotill wheles and all other Apparell iiij - Chambers to the same iiij - Serpentynes of Brasse apon wheles shod with yron iij - Serpentynes of Brasse apon wheles unshodd j - Grete peces of yron of oon makyng and bygnes xij - Chambers to the same xxiiij - Grete yron gonnes of oone sort that come owt of fflaunders - with myches bolts and forelockes iiij - Chambers to the same viij - Grete Spanysh peces of yron of oone sorte ij - Chambers to the same iiij - Stone gonnes apon Trotill wheles with miches boltes and - forelockes to the same xviij - Chambers to the same xxxiiij - Smale vice peces of Brasse apon shodd wheles of - Symondes makyng j - long vice peces of Brasse of the same makyng iij - ffawcons of Brasse apon Trotill wheles vj - a fayre pece of Brasse of Arragows makyng j - A Slyng of yron Apon Trotill wheles j - Chambers to the same with other apparell j - grete Stone gonnes of yron ij - chambers to the same iiij - Grete culverynes of Brasse apon unshodd wheles of Symondes makyng ij - Grete bumberdes of Brasse apon iiij trotill wheles of - herberd[1528] makyng j - Grete curtalles of Brasse apon iiij wheles and of the same - makyng[1529] j - hakebusshes of yron hole clxxxxiij - hakbusshes of yron broken vjj - Shott of yron of Dyverse Sortes Dclx shott - Stone Shott of Dyverse Sortes in the balist of the ship - A grete nomber not told - In the Grete Bote of the seid ship Remaynyng fyrst - Serpentynes of yron with myches boltes and forelockes viij - Chambers to the same xxv - Serpentynes of Brasse apon shodd wheles j - ffawcons of Brasse apon Shodd wheles ij - In the Storehouse of the shipp - Bowes of Ewe cxxiiij - chestes for the same ij - hole chestes of Arrowes iij - Billys cxliiij - moryspykes lxxx - Backes and Brestes of Almyne Ryvettes of ether cc - Splentes[1530] clxxxxviii payer - Salettes[1531] cc - Standardes of mayle cc - chargyng ladylles for Gonnes with staves vj - staves withowt ladelles viij - Spare miches for Gonnes xiiij - Spare boltes ij - Javelyns ix dossen - Dartes lvij dossen - hamers for Gonnes xiiij - Crowes of yron iiij - Stokepykes of yron xiiij - lynch pynnes iiij - - - - -APPENDIX B - -THE MUTINY OF THE _GOLDEN LION_ - - -On the 19th April 1587, Drake with the _Bonaventure_, _Lion_, -_Dreadnought_, _Rainbow_, and _Spy_, of the Queen’s, and some twenty -armed merchantmen attacked Cadiz, with results disastrous to Spain. -Borough was vice-admiral and in command of the _Lion_. The fleet left -Cadiz harbour on 21st April, and on the 30th Borough addressed a long -and vigorously worded letter to Drake[1532] protesting that the councils -of war called were only nominal consultations where the admiral declared -his will, or else merely entertained his visitors who departed ‘without -any consultacyon or counsell holden.’ Drake’s answer was to supersede -him. All we know further is that on 27th May the _Lion’s_ company put -their new captain, Marchant, on the _Spy_, and sailed away for England -with Borough who afterwards declared that he was in daily fear of his -life, and therefore had no great reason to try and stop their action. If -Borough did not incite them to mutiny the men of the _Lion_ must have -been for some time full of discontent and ready to desert. The chase of -the Bark of Lyme, which took them from under the guns of the rest of -the fleet, gave them their opportunity. On 30th May, Drake constituted -a court-martial on the _Bonaventure_, of himself and the other superior -officers, at which most of the mutineers were condemned to death in their -absence. The account of this inquiry gives a vivid picture of the modes -of thought among the men, and their ideas of their rights and duties. - -Although time has settled the historical perspective in which we view -Drake and Borough, it must be said for the latter that, in 1587, the -admiral was only to him, one of half-a-dozen great seamen with whom -Borough, and doubtless his contemporaries, thought he could claim -equality. He was an experienced commander and one of the four Principal -Officers of the Navy; he was, here, second in command to Drake, and it -was contrary to all the traditions of the service that the admiral should -undertake any enterprise without the advice and consent of his captains. -In this matter Drake was one of the first expedition leaders to strike -out a line of his own, and Borough, tenacious of custom and what he -considered his rights, at once came into collision with him. It was long -before Drake’s principle of accepting sole responsibility was generally -followed. In a private note of farewell to Burghley in 1596, and perhaps -with this incident in his mind, Howard, when leaving for the Cadiz voyage -wrote, - - ‘I have no meaning to ronne any rash or unadvysed course nor to - settell any thyng for Her Maiesties servyce upon my own jugment - but to yeald to those that shall show best reson.’[1533] - -After their return an inquiry was held at which the vice-admiral was -charged with neglect of duty at Cadiz.[1534] No actual result followed, -but Borough came off with the honours of war since he was not disgraced, -and remained one of the chief Officers of the Navy. Burghley appears to -have been on his side, and Borough wrote subsequently an effusive letter -thanking him ardently for his support.[1535] From one passage in this -letter in which he says that he had hoped that after the inquiry his -innocence would be proclaimed, but that ‘I have suppressed my greefe -in respect of the comandment and charge given me,’ it may be inferred -that the finding was actually favourable to Borough but not made public, -perhaps from a desire not to offend Drake. One other point is worth -noticing: if the crew of the _Lion_ voiced the general feeling among -English seamen, Drake was certainly not loved by them. - - ADD. MSS., 12,505, f., 241.[1536] - - =A generall courte holden for the service of her Maᵗⁱᵉ abourde - the _Elizabeth Bonaventure_ the xxxth day of Maye before Sir - Ffrauncis Drake, knighte, generall of Her Maᵗⁱᵉˢ fleete; Thomas - Fennard, Vice-Admirall; Anthony Plotte, Leivetenant-generall; - John Marchant, serjant-major, and the reste of the captaines - and masters of the fleete as followeth,= - - The generall, att this courte, called in question and - judiciallye demaunded of Captayne Merchaunt howe he colde - discharge himselfe to answere the departure of Her Maᵗⁱᵉˢ - shippe the _Golden Lyon_ which he latelye gave him in charge? - - Captayne Marchaunt protestinge, with all earnest affeccon, - his innocencye alledged and declared,—That there was a great - Mutynie growen amonge the Company of the _Lyon_ the 27 of this - month; as sone as we had given over the chase undertaken, - understandinge that she was the Barke of Lyme,[1537] when I - requyred the Master that we mighte lye close by the wynde to - recover our generall, the Master answered, ‘Well, Captaine, - we will.’ But presentely one of the quartermasters came and - delivered me a lettere in the behalfe of the whole company as - followeth:— - - ‘Captayne Marchaunt, Captayne of the _Golden Lyon_ appoynted - by Sir Ffrauncis Drake, generall of this fleete,—Wee, the - Quenes, and yours at this tyme desyre that, as you are a man - and beare the name of a captayne over us, so to weighe of us - like men, and lett us not be spoyled for wante of foode, for - our allowaunce is so smale we are not able to lyve any longer - of it; for when as three or foure were wonte to take a charge - in hande, nowe tenne at the leaste, by reason of our weake - victuallinge and filthie drinck, is scarce able to discharge - it, and yet growe rather weaker and weaker; which suerly if - it be not loked into, will growe to greate dishonour on your - parte, and to a lastinge shame on our sydes, by reason of - the moste worthie and the moste honorable challendge of our - generall at Caste Calleys[1538] in daringe the kinges deputie, - or the kinge himselfe if he were in place, or the proudest - champyon he had to come fourthe and chaunge a Bullett with him; - but none durste once adventure to come forthe unto him, but - the Cowardlike knightes sayde they were not readye for him: a - moste worthye enterprise, deservinge lastinge fame to come to - the gates of his Courte, yea the strongest holde of his lande, - and dare him fourthe. Our hartes were then so boldened and our - stomackes so coragiouslye bente, that if theye had byn Tenne to - one we rather wished to fighte than to goo to dynner. But nowe, - most unfortunate and unluckie chaunce fallen amongest us by - weakeninge of our Lymes, and feblenes of our bodyes, we are not - able to abyde the force of them as nowe, and thoughe they be - but one to one, the more is our greife; for what is a piece of - Beefe of halfe a pounde amonge foure men to dynner or halfe a - drye Stockfishe for foure dayes in the weeke, and nothing elles - to helpe withall—Yea, wee have helpe, a litle Beveredge[1539] - worse than the pompe water. Wee were preste by her Maᵗⁱᵉˢ - presse to have her allowaunce, and not to be thus dealt - withall, you make no men of us, but beastes. And therefore wee - are not determyned to goe any further, but as we broughte the - _Lyon_, with our Master’s helpe, fourth, so wee will carye her - home agayne by the helpe of God, for as the wynde is faire and - home we will. And thus Captayne Marchaunt thinke of us as you - will and lett us have more victualles to bringe us home, for as - longe as it please God this wynde to blowe we will not alter - our corse, but home straighte and so thinck of us as you please. - - The Quenes men and yours homewardes to our powers.’ - - * * * * * - - And there withall came the Master unto me sayinge, That there - was not a man that wolde sett his handes to the saylles. - - Noe Master, quoth I, what is it you can not comaunde them to - doe, beinge Master of the shippe! Strike the sayles, but it - colde not be don for the yeardes weare alonge[1540] before - hande, and the Toppes and Shrowdes manned, and the Master sayde - they wolde doe nothinge for him. - - * * * * * - - To appease this Mutanie I came amonge them myselfe saying, - My masters, what soden Mutaine is this amonge you? colde not - this have byn spoken of when we were neare the generall, yf any - thinge had byn amys there yt had byn redressed; I wolde wishe - you take a better corse then this for yt will not be answered. - Wherewith for the whole company spake one Crowe, that they - wolde not loose the wynde which was fayre and further theye - wolde not goe. - - I showed them also that for theire victualles there was in the - shippe by the confession of the Pursur sufficient for 30 dayes, - assuringe them also on my life that as sone as they came to the - generall they sholde have a monthes victuall put abourde them - presentlye.[1541] But theye cryed alowde they wolde all home, - excepte some xii or xvi gentlemen and officers. - - To perswade them the rather to staye I said moreover unto - them, My Masters, I will nowe imparte unto you a matter which - I thoughte to have secreyted untill another tyme, That there - is an Island of greate ritches promysed to be delivered to our - generall without the losse of one man, I praye you therefore - staye and talke with him, and he will laye you downe such - reason as shalbe to the contentacon of you all. Whereat one - Cornelius one of the gunners said, Well, Captayne, at your - requeste we will staye till nighte to speake with the generall, - for the which I thanked them all hartylie; howbeit they - presentely layde theire heades togither agayne and came with - one voyce sayinge, the wynde is good, we will not staye, we - will awaye, all! all! all! When I sawe the Mutaine so farre - growen I requested Mr Boroughes that he wolde worke a meane - with them to cause them staye, untill they cam to the generall - that they might acknowledge him and departe in good order from - him. They answered presentely that they wolde not staye for the - generall for they knewe what order he wolde take with them. - - In the moste of their mutanie I saide unto them, What! is there - no honest man will acknowledge their generall, and therewith - willed as many as wolde so doe to holde up their hands, which - aboute xii or xvi gentlemen and officers did; the reste cryed, - home! home! - - Then I said, My masters, this plate[1542] hath byn layde before - now by the principalles, not by the common sorte which will not - be answered. Why, quoth Mr Boroughes, howe speake you that, - meane you me? I answered, I wolde I knewe it were you, then - wolde I sone tell you of it, but I am suer it is don by the - principalles. - - Whereupon I requested then I mighte be sett aborde the Quenes - pinnis. They tolde me, Noe, that they colde carye me as safe - into England as Sir Ffrauncis Drake colde. I answered I wolde - never be caryed into England by such a company of unhonest - persons as theye were. - - Then I requested Mr Borughes that he wolde deale with the - Company that I mighte departe for I knewe he might do it. My - masters, said he, what unreasonable men are you, will you - neither staye for the admyrall nor lett the man departe! Lett - him departe for shame or elles staye for the admyrall, doe one - of the two. Then said Crowe, well Captayne, if you saye the - worde you shall goe; with that theye were contente. - - Then once more I requested Mr Borughes as he was a gentleman - and tendred the accon[1543] that he wolde deale once more with - the company, for I knewe he might doe it, and promysed as I was - a Christian that there sholde not one here of theire heddes - perishe, Soe as theye wolde staye and speake with the generall. - - He retorned to me agayne this answere, Captaine Marchaunt I - have talked with them and theire answere is this, They have had - many promises and little performance, therefore they will staye - noe longer. - - When I sawe them so bent I called to Captaine Clifforde who was - in the Quenes pynnis desyringe him to take me in and bringe me - to the generall, for that I wolde not be caried into England by - a company of such unruly persons. - - He cryed unto me that he wolde have me in or elles come abourde - for me himself, but theye manned theire Boate and sett me - aboarde, which, when one of those in the toppe perceaved, he - cryed with an othe, What! will you let him goe! Yf he fetche - up the Admyrall before nighte he will overtake us and then you - shall see what worke he will make with us. - - In the middest of the mutinie I callid the Pursur unto me and - demaunded of him for what cause the company had stinckinge - beveredge to drincke, as there were in the shippe 15 tounes - of beare, sayinge, that if theye had any such theye sholde - have it in thende and drincke the beare as longe as it lasted. - Whereupon the company with one voyce cryed, Yea, Captaine, God - save your life, yt is your will we knowe that we sholde have - it; but we have it not. - - The daye before theis matters brake forthe I ymparted my - mynde to Mr Borughes, tellinge him that scince the generall - is bounde for the Ilandes the next fayre daye that cometh, I - will goe abourde him and geve him to understand in what case - we stande for victualles that we maye be the better provyded - whatsoever befall. Nay, said he, the pursur hath byn with him - and he understandeth it alreadye for that wilbe a meane yf he - be not mynded to goe for the Ilandes to make him goe thither. - And therefore if he will runn into the Indies lett him run, - he knoweth alreadye what we want, never goe to him at all for - any thinge. Then, I said, when the Pursur was with him he was - so busie as he cold not have any leasure and therefore willed - him to resorte unto him at another tyme. He[1544] answered as - he did at the firste. The same tyme that the _Raynebowe_ had - her mayne sayle taken from the yearde by weather the Captaine - of her desired me to beare up with the generall to give him - to understand of his distres. Then quoth Mr Boroughes, The - generall seeth in what case he is and beareth all the sayle he - can and stayeth not for him, let us staye by him and helpe him. - But his desyre is, quothe I, that the generall sholde knowe it - presentlye and that his foremast is spent. Thereto Mr Boroughes - answered, The Captaine is a foole and he knoweth not what - belongeth to it so well as I doe. - - * * * * * - - Captaine Clifford sayth and testifieth that a such tyme as he - came nere the _Golden Lyon_ to take in Captaine Marchaunte he - callid to the master of the same shippe, wishinge him to have - care of himselfe, to bringe backe the shippe to the generall - and to appease the companye, for that he knewe he was a man - colde doe much amonge them, addinge further that he was not - able to answere it at his cominge home. He answered he colde - not doe withall and the company were resolved to goe home. The - master of the same pinnisse spake unto him in like manner, or a - greate deale more. - - Then Captaine Clifforde called to the company and tolde them - that if theye wente awaye with her Maiesties Shippe some of - them wolde be hanged, upon which wordes Captayne Marchaunt hard - them call Capteine Clifforde, Arrant villane. - - * * * * * - - Upon dewe consideracon whereof the generall sayde:—Althoughe - I am not dobtefull what to doe in this case, or yet want any - aucthoritie, but myselfe have from Her Maiestie sufficient - Jurisdiccon to correcte and punnishe with all severitie as - to me in discretion shalbe meete, Accordinge to the Qualitie - of the offences, all those sceditious persons which sholl be - in the whole fleete, yet for the confidence I have in your - discretions, as also to wytnes our agreament in Judgement in - all matters, I praye you lett me heare your severall opynions - touching this facte which hath byn declared in your hearinge - this daye; In my judgement it was as fowle and untollerable a - mutanye as ever I have knowne. Captyne Marchant hath discharged - his dutie faythefull as a true servitor unto her Maiestie; all - the rest of that shippe, exceptinge only those 12 or 16 which - helde up theire handes to wytnes theire wyllingnes to retorne - to our company have deserved a shamfull deathe in that theye - have forsaken her Maiesties standerd and conyssyon and forsaken - her Maiesties Shippes Royal beinge distressed, and as much as - in them lyeth hindreth the service in hande for the honor and - saffetye of her Maiesties realmes and domynyons. And therefore - my fiynall and diffinityve sentence is this—That the master of - the said Shippe, the boteswaine, and Mr Boroughe, and Crowe, - the pryncipall contryvers and workers of this mutanie, shall, - assone as I come by them, wheresoever I find them within my - power, abyde the paynes of Death; yf not theye shall remayne - as deade men in lawe. All the rest shall remayne also at her - Maiesties mercye as accessaryes to this treacherous defection. - And thoughe it shall please her Majestie to looke upon them - with mercye, yett my sentence is theye shall all come to the - Corte gate with halters aboute theire neckes for an example of - all such offendours. The whole Councell approved this sentence - as iuste and necessarye for avoydinge the like hereafter, - which elles muste needes growe to the utter dissolucon of all - her Maiesties service for the sea hereafter. - - God save the Quene. - -The next paper (f. 243, et seq.), is endorsed - - =‘The voluntary confession of William Bigatt, Master of the - _Lion_, under Captain Wm. Burrowes, June 1587.’= - -Bigatt, of course, desired to clear himself and Borough; but the paper -is of interest from the side-lights it throws on naval customs and -discipline. Modern punctuation has been inserted where necessary. - - The xxvii of Maye 1587 beinge Satterdaye assone as yt was - dayelighte wee sawe a sayle a heade of us, which was north - northeaste from us as farr as wee coulde well see her; unto - the which we gave chase by the comaundement of our captaine, - captaine Marchaunte, for that wee thought her to be a Spanierd - or Portingall, the winde beinge at weste southweste, our - generall with those shipps which were with hime beinge then - in sighte of us, and not then farr from us; but the generall - kepinge nearer the winde then wee did, for that wee followed - chase after the sayle which we sawe as aforesayd, wee lost the - sight of the generall with the reste of those that were with - him, then beinge abowte eighte of the clocke in the morninge, - then beinge with us in companie the _Spie_ of her Maiesties, - both of us still followinge the chase. And abowte eleven of the - clock before none, beinge then but three houres after wee had - lost sight of the generall, wee sett up the sayle and spake - with him, yt was one of our owne companie, a Barke of Lyme, but - shee departed from us a five dayes before with others for to - come home for England. - - As sone as wee had spoken with this Barke I called unto - the companye as yt is the use of sea menn for to doe, and - willed them to take in our sprett sayle but they awnswered - me not that I hearde anie thinge att all at that time; but - I thinkinge that it had bin doun according as I willed them - which was that they should gett yt in. A little while after I - came forewardes againe to the mayne maste, and asked, What? - is your sprett seyle in? but none awnswered, neither that yt - was in, nor that it was not in, and John Terrye, beinge one - of our quartermasters, walkinge afore the maste, I called - unto him and willed that the Sprett Sayle shoulde be got in - that wee might kepe our loofe;[1545] he awnswered me that the - companie said theye would not take yt in. No! said I, what is - the cawse? Whoe be they that saye they will not? He awnswered, - they all in generall saye soe; I demaunded, Whie will they not? - he awnswered that the captaine, captaine Marchaunt, knew the - cawse, and that the cawse whie was delivered him in writinge. - Then I went unto the captaine, he, with his lieftenaunte Mr - Nicholls, beinge then readinge the letter which was delivered - the captaine; I also seinge parte of the bill read, wente - forwarde againe to the maste and called unto them and willed - them that they should gett in theire sprett sayle and haile - afte our shoowtes[1546] that wee might goe unto our generall - and the reste of the fflete, but none of them would goe abowte - to doe yt by anie sayinge that I coulde saye unto them. Then I - wente unto the captaine, captaine Marchaunte, and toulde him - that I had willed the companie to gett in the Sprett Sayle - and hale after our showttes, but I could gett none of them - to doe yt by anie meanes; he himself then goinge forwarde to - the mayne maste, demaunded, whie they did not as the master - comaunded them, and, as yt will be proved he comaunded them - in her maiesties name to doe yt. The moste parte of them - awnswered hime that they would not, but that they would goe for - England, for the winde is nowe good, and that they would not - goe backe againe and be starved for wante of victualls; the - captaine awnsweringe them againe sayd, Contente yourselves, - what victualls soever are in the shipp you shall have yt, and - therefore holde yourselves contente untill wee mete with our - generall. They said againe, they have had manye faire woordes, - but nothing performed in dedes. Then I myself, perswaded them - that theye would contente themselves and that they woulde hale - afte the showttes, that wee might tarrye and not goe home, - but that the generall shoulde knowe of theire goinge, and not - for to goe awaye in that sorte, not makinge him acqueinted - of the departure of the shipp, and soe likewise did captaine - Marchaunte requeste them that if theye woulde nedes goe that - they would stay but untill nighte to see yf wee coulde possible - mete with the generall, yf not that then they might doe as - they thought good; and Mr Burrowes did likewise intreate with - them that they, would staye and not goe awaye in that order; - then Cornelius the Gonner intreated with the reste of the - Gonners and parte of the companie to tarrie untill nighte to - see yf wee could mete with the generall, and with mutch adoe - had almoste gott them to staye. And then I willed them to hale - afte our showttes, and willed hime to putt the healme to Lee, - and keep his Loofe, but yt was not donn as I willed them; then - I wente afte to see yf the helme were a Lee as I willed hime - to putt yt, and looked downe at the Skuttle, and there I sawe - one bearinge the helme on the contrarye syde which was on the - weather syde which was one Crowe. Then I called unto him and - willed him to putt on the Lee, but he would not doe yt by anie - meanes; then I called unto him againe and asked him, Whie - doest thou not as I bidd thee, you wilbe Master belike, will - you! said I unto him, whoe awnswered me, Yea, that I will, and - Captaine to for a tyme, untill there be other order taken! so - that neither the helme was putt alee not yet I coulde gett the - showttes haled afte. - - Then I wente and certified the Captaine what awnswer was made - me by Crowe: and then saide the companie we will not staye - to speake with the generall; the cawse was asked by me whie - the would not staye, (of Cornelius the gonner because he did - saye unto the captaine that he would perswade them to tarrye - untill nighte to speake with the General), then Cornelius - awnswered that they said theye would not staye for feare that - the generall would take them owte of the _Lyon_, and shifte - them into other shipps, and then use suche punishemente unto - them as he thought good, and therefore they would not tarrie - but go home for England, for they would rather truste to the - Quenes mercye then unto the curteseye of the generall, and - that they would awnswer yt at home that they had donn. When - Captaine Marchaunte sawe that by no perswasioun they would - alter there mynds he was verye angrye, and said that this was - no newe matter begonn, but that yt bin begoon to have bin - practised before this tyme by somme of the beste and not of the - worste. Then I replied againe and said that I, for my part, - am ignoraunte and never knewe of the matter before this tyme, - nether did I ever knowe whoe did beginn yt, and therefore Sir - I praye you doe not chardge me with anie suche thinge, ffor - tryall whereof I called the companie and certified them of the - woorde that Captaine Marchaunte spake, and they generallie (I - meane those men that were at this broyle) confessed and saide - that as God shoulde iudge them that neither I nor Mr Burrowes - was ever consentinge unto the matter, but that yt was theire - owne doinge and that theye would awnswer yt. - - Then Captaine Marchaunt and I fell to perswadinge them again - to tarrie but by no meanes they woulde at our requeste yelde - unto yt; then the captaine tolde them that he would not goe for - England but that he would rather leape into the sea then goe - home. Then John Tippett standinge by the mayne maste drewe oute - his kniffe and cutt the halliardes of the mayne Toppsayle that - yt might comme downe but theye had slonge the yarde alofte soe - that the sayle coulde not comme downe. Then Captaine Marchaunte - prayed them that yf by noe meanes theye would staye for the - Generall untill nighte that theye would sett him aboorde of - the _Spie_ her Maiesties pinnase who was all this while with - us, and with mutche adoe gott them at the laste to doe yt, and - I myself did offer the captaine to goe with hime aboord the - generall but he was not willinge that I shoulde, and yett I - offered to goe with hime twise. - - And Captaine Clefforde, captaine of the _Spie_ sawe all this - broyle in our shipp; he called unto me and said, Master, have - a care of your creditt; I awnswered him againe, Alack sir! I - am but one mann, I have donn as muche as I can to perswade - them but by noe intreatye can make them to tarrie. Then - Captaine Clefforthe called unto them and saide, Take hede - what you doe for you wilbe hanged all of you! Then one of our - gouners standing uppon our poope awnswered Captaine Clefforthe - againe, and saide, Cutt hose! cutt hose! where were you when - the _Samaritane_ was aground uppon the rock? And one of our - quartermasters did saye, I thancke you Sir for your sharpe - judgmente, yt is a harde fought feeld were none escapethe! And - when our captaine was in the boate at shipp sterne Mr Burrowes - fell to perswadinge them againe to staye untill nighte but - theye would not in anie case staye. Then our captaine, captaine - Marchaunte went aboord of the _Spie_ and soe she went awaye - from us, and wee laye by the Lee for our boate; and in the - meane tyme, whyle the boate was awaye, I said unto them, Sirs, - what have you donn, you have donn you knowe not what, you care - not, but I knowe that I and Mr Burrowes shalbe brought to be - in all the faulte; yf you would have donn thus and goe awaye - in this order, whie did you not tell neither the captaine nor - me the other daye when as we spake with the Generall, that wee - might have given him to understand that you woulde goe for - England, that he might have provided more victualls for you - yf that you shoulde staye, and not thus to goe awaye? But noe - perswasiouns woulde serve but home they would and soe they - haled abowte the sayles and homewards theye came. And this was - not the doinge of one or twoe of them but the consente of them - in generall, or the moste parte of them, as well souldiers as - maryners excepte those that were sicke at that tyme; and this - is the trewithe and nothinge but the trewithe as yt shalbe - proved. - - - - -APPENDIX C - -SIR JOHN HAWKYNS - - -The question whether Hawkyns was dishonest is not in one sense of much -importance, since it is admitted that he was skilful as a seaman, and -efficient as an administrator. In another sense the good or ill fame -of a national worthy is of the highest importance as interwoven with -national history, and therefore a factor in the memories which make -for the self-respect of a nation. As in the _Dictionary of National -Biography_, a work which will be the standard authority for posterity, -Hawkyns is considered to have been guilty, it is fitting that, in a study -of Elizabethan naval administration, the charges should be examined -somewhat minutely. His memory has suffered from his reputed introduction -of the slave trade into English commerce, and from the cumulative effects -of accusations brought against him, which have been accepted without -investigation of their nature or of the character of the accusers. His -reputation has also suffered from the indiscriminate praise lavished upon -him by ill-advised panegyrists. In view of his environment it must be -admitted there is a strong _prima facie_ probability that he or any other -Elizabethan official was a thief; ‘the spacious times of Great Elizabeth’ -included much more than literary excellence, colonising genius, and naval -success. Sufficient evidence has been given in this work to show the low -standard existing among all ranks of naval officials, and more, relating -to other classes of society, could be extracted from the State Papers. -The court was proverbially corrupt, and a recent writer[1547] gives -striking illustrations of the lax morality characterising all grades of -the Elizabethan social system. - -It was said that Hawkyns neither built nor repaired the ships according -to his contract, that he used old cables and rotten oakum, that he -blackmailed shipwrights and workmen, and that he was in partnership -with a private builder, in whose yard he built ships for himself with -government timber, and fitted them out with government stores. If these -things were true the whole naval administration must have been in a state -in which the least strain would have brought it down in ruin, but the -more serious allegations are sufficiently disproved[1548] by the fact -that when the fate of England depended on the condition of the fleet, it -was found, in the hour of need, to be absolutely efficient in all the -many details for which Hawkyns was responsible. If, however, we are to -suppose that he confined his malpractices to matters not likely to injure -the _matériel_ of the Navy, it can only be remarked that they can have -been but very small in extent, and that fraudulent officials are not -usually so considerately and judiciously patriotic. In considering what -may or may not have been true, it is only fair to Hawkyns to emphasise -the fact that these anonymous indictments—and many of those urged against -him were anonymous—were levelled against nearly every person holding an -administrative position in the service of the crown; delation, whether -religious, political, or social, was a recognised occupation requiring -no capital, offering the possibility of large rewards, and welcome to -the government and the Queen. Hawkyns, when he was appointed, made a -clean sweep of many naval abuses of long standing, and had certainly -made enemies in Sir William Wynter[1549] and others, with whom at least -one informer,[1550] who also had personal reasons for disliking the -Treasurer, appears to have been on very friendly terms. - -Hawkyns not only received no help from his brother Officers, but had -to contend with their open or secret hostility.[1551] Wynter was the -person to whom everyone who had a grievance against Hawkyns, went for -help and advice; and if we may judge of Wynter’s hopes and intentions -by his capacity for treachery he must have been a dangerous antagonist. -In 1585, he wrote to Burghley, of Hawkyns and his work, ‘As I desier -compfort in Gods handes there is nothinge in it but cunninge and crafte -to maynteine his pride and ambision and for the better fillinge of his -purse ... he careth not to whom he speaketh nor what he sayeth, blushe -he will not.’[1552] But in 1587, he wrote,[1553] ‘Wee are thorowlye -perswaded in our conscience that he hath for the time since he took that -bargaine[1554] expended a farre greater somme in carpentrie uppon her -Majesties shippes then he hath had eny wage allowance for;’ the moorings, -shipkeepers’, and clerks’ wages, ‘have byn payde and sufficientlye done -by him.’ As a commentary on this last letter, we have a statement of the -same year, not it is true, by Wynter, but by Wynter’s servant, that the -friendship now shown was only a pretence, and that ‘You knowe howe many -wayes my master hath sought against him and could never prevaile and -therefore he closeth with him to catch him at a suer advantage.’[1555] -As Surveyor Wynter was a brother Officer of equal rank, and nearly equal -power, with whom Hawkyns had to work. But putting aside any criticism of -the code of honour here shown, it may fairly be asked why should Wynter -have displayed this eagerness to ruin Hawkyns, at all costs and by any -means. There could be only one of two reasons; either an honest desire to -save the Queen and state from deceit and robbery, or a selfish desire -to regain the position and perquisites of which the reforms initiated by -Hawkyns, and the latter’s masterful personality had deprived him. I do -not think that any student of Elizabethan history will hesitate as to -which reason moved him. As for Borough, he wrote to Burghley, in 1584, -that Hawkyns deserved hanging; but that did not prevent his joining -Wynter in the letter of 1587, doubtless with the same intentions.[1556] -In another paper of 1587, and endorsed by Burghley as being by Thos. -Allen, the writer, after a long arraignment, kindly offers to undertake -Hawkyns’ duties.[1557] It is an extremely important fact that most of -these men obviously hoped to gain some personal advantages by displacing -him. Allen was ‘Queen’s merchant,’ or purchaser of Dantzic cordage -and, according to another informer, had been so friendly with Hawkyns -as to receive a bribe of £60 from him out of the first contract of -1579.[1558] He eventually quarrelled with the other Officers he was now -supporting, and in 1592, complained of them to Burghley. The internal -history of the Navy Office at this period is a perfect maze of intrigue, -and there was not one of these men who, at some time, was not doing -his best to supplant others with whom before and afterwards he was, or -became, friendly, perhaps to quarrel again in due course. No doubt the -appointment of Hawkyns was regarded as a piece of family jobbery, and, -as a fact, was very likely more due to influence than merit. By both -seniority and reputation Wynter had, in 1578, a much better claim to such -an important post. - -That Hawkyns used his official position to obtain discounts, commission -on contracts, and other such emoluments, is quite possible; such things -are not unknown even now, are distinct from deliberate embezzlement, and -would hardly be condemned by public opinion in the sixteenth century. It -can hardly be made an article of accusation against him that he became a -wealthy man, even if there were much left after the expenses were paid -of his last unlucky voyage. The yearly fee of the Treasurer was not -large—£220, 18s 4d, out of which he had to pay his travelling expenses -when on the Queen’s service—and it was expected and permitted, in both -his contracts, that he should keep any outstanding balance as profit, -provided the work was properly done; and there was nothing in the ethics -of his position, as then understood, debarring him from shipping and -other mercantile transactions. The best proof that both Elizabeth and -Burghley were satisfied that his gains were not too great lies in the -fact that both contracts were determined at his own request, and that, -notwithstanding his supposed peculations, their knowledge of them, and -the efforts made to remove him, he held his post till the day of his -death. He is accused of being in partnership with Richard Chapman, the -master shipwright. Chapman appears to have had a private yard, but there -is no warrant for the precise statement beyond the words of another -anonymous writer that he ‘used Richard Chapman’s yard.’[1559] There -is no guide to the year or years in which he is said to have had work -done by Chapman. This man did not become a crown shipwright till about -1582, and it may very well be that Hawkyns employed him before he was -taken into the service of the crown. Another reflection is that in these -transactions with Chapman there must have been witnesses, in the shape -of workmen and others, not one of whom was ever brought forward. In all -these papers we are only given the statements of the writers; there is -never a suggestion of corroborative evidence. The anonymous writer just -quoted says, among many other things, that the ships are in such bad -condition that ‘they are brought to their last end and dangerous state.’ -This was in October 1587, and the events of the next year proved that -to be a peculiarly unfortunate assertion. This particular delator was -ignorant of that necessity for verisimilitude which is one of the first -requirements of his business. He charges Hawkyns with illicit profits -on the remains of victuals returned from sea, not apparently knowing -that the Navy Treasurer had as little connection with, and as little -control over, the victualling as over Westminster Abbey. Again, he goes -on to say, ‘the shipwrights are his instruments to serve his purpose -and cloak for his dissembling,’ and thereupon it is to be observed that -some of these writers represent him as sharing dishonest gain with the -shipwrights, while others pathetically deplore the shipwrights’ hard fate -in being subjected to his terrorism; some represent him as quarrelling -with the men with whom others maintain he was secretly in league for -underhand purposes. We know, however, that Hawkyns possessed vessels of -his own and the circumstance that he had them repaired in a private yard, -when he might have used the government slips is really a strong point in -his favour, although used by his enemies as the basis of truth on which -to build up the liberal superstructure of ‘unjust and deceitful dealings.’ - -It is said that, although there was no formal inquiry made into the truth -of the allegations against Hawkyns, Burghley satisfied himself that they -were not unfounded, and drew up a set of stringent regulations intended -to prevent their recurrence, noting on the rough draft, ‘Remembrance -of abuses past, John Hawkyns was half in the bargain with Peter Pett -and Mathew Baker.’ Nothing exists but this rough draft[1560] which -includes notes relating to the other Officers as well as to Hawkyns, to -shipwrights, and a memorandum on the increased scale of wages recently -come into operation. There is no evidence that any inquiry was held, -other than which took shape in the explanations Hawkyns offered in -his numerous letters to Burghley still existing. Moreover if these -regulations were issued with an especial reference to Hawkyns it is to be -noticed that it would be his duty as the chief administrative Officer of -the Navy to enforce them and apply them to himself. Was Burghley usually -so confiding? - -In January 1587-8 Pett and Baker were called upon to report on the -second contract and how far it had been accomplished.[1561] Their -report was unfavourable, but it will be remembered that, by this second -‘bargain,’ Hawkyns had undertaken, at a cheaper rate, the work they -did under the first one, and reduced them from an independent to a -subordinate position.[1562] Their feeling in the matter is shown by the -way they dealt with the third article, on the repair of ships, which -Hawkyns had taken out of their hands. They remarked that it was done -better before—that is when they were doing it—‘for before the master -shipwrights did direct but now they are to be directed.’ This was the -grievance. Not only were they both displaced competitors, but Baker had -long been connected with the Wynter faction; and Pett and Hawkyns had, -in 1587, fallen ‘at variance upon accomptes.’ In 1585 Pett had joined -Hawkyns in condemning Baker; now his interests brought him into line -with Baker.[1563] Burghley cannot have believed that, in 1587 at any -rate, Hawkyns was in confederacy with these two men, or it is hardly -likely that they would immediately afterwards have been chosen to sit in -judgment upon him, especially as Burghley must have known that Pett was -a new, and Baker an old enemy. Further, there is a curious similarity -between Burghley’s note and a passage in Allen’s attack before referred -to,—‘Mathew Baker sayeth that when Peter Pett and he did the repayringe -of her Maties Shippes Hawkyns would needes be hallfe with them.’ The -resemblance between Burghley and Allen suggests the possibility that the -former paraphrased his note from the latter without independent inquiry; -but, in any case, it may be pointed out that it is an indirect report of -what Baker said, that according to this account Baker permitted himself -to be blackmailed although he had for years been at enmity with Hawkyns, -and that he concealed his woes from all his superiors until he poured -them into the sympathetic ear of Mr Allen. There was nothing to prevent -his petitioning Burghley as everyone else did; and it is still more -strange that, so far as we know, he was never called up and examined on -this statement made to Allen. The two lines in Burghley’s handwriting -comprise in truth the only evidence of any weight against Hawkyns, but -they are mysterious as they stand for they imply that he put himself -in the power of avowed enemies, and we are left quite ignorant of the -proofs—if there were any—on which they are based, or how far Burghley -subsequently modified his opinion. That he did so modify it, or perhaps -altogether change it, is, I think, proved by the letter quoted _supra_ -p. 147. There is significance in the fact that, so far as rivals and -inferiors were concerned, these attacks practically ceased after 1588; it -must have become known that Burghley no longer received them trustingly. - -The supervision Elizabeth exercised over his accounts, the ‘mystrust’ -of which he complained, has been attributed to the good reason she -had for doubting his integrity. That Elizabeth haggled over his -accounts proves nothing by itself, for it would be difficult to name -any one of her officials whose figures were not subjected to the same -suspicions and distrustful scrutiny. But it has yet to be shown that -his contemporaries, other than the subordinates whose perquisites he -had extinguished, and the rivals whom he had displaced, doubted his -integrity. Sir Robert Mansell is quoted as saying that Hawkyns combined -‘malice in dissimulation, rudeness in behaviour, and was covetous in -the last degree.’ Hawkyns may have been rude—he was not so successful -at court as Mansell, though he was more successful at sea. But, without -going into Mansell’s value, as a witness—and he, on evidence of a very -different order, has been shown to have stolen hugely as Treasurer—it -will be noticed that, although moved by evident animus, he makes no -accusation of dishonesty. Again, Sir Robert Cotton in his report (1608) -on the then abuses of naval administration has, in referring to previous -conditions, occasion to mention Hawkyns frequently, and invariably takes -the period of his control as a standard during which the business of the -Navy was well and honestly done. Monson’s opinion is important as that of -an undoubtedly competent and trustworthy observer, and one of unstained -repute as a commander. He commenced his naval career in 1588, so that it -was in part contemporaneous. He desires, when criticising the Navy Office -of the reign of Charles I, to ‘bring it to the state of Hawkyn’s and -Burrough’s time who were perfect and honest men in their places, the one -Treasurer and the other Comptroller.’[1564] There is matter for further -consideration in the circumstance that all the men who depose against -Hawkyns—Peter Pett, Baker, Wynter, Mansell, Sir Peter Buck, the writers -in the State Papers and the _Lansdowne MSS._—are persons of tarnished -honesty, or interested motives, and at least four of them known to have -been his personal enemies; while on the other side we have Cotton, -Monson, Nottingham, and—after 1588—Burghley, witnesses of very different -force. In the absence of a verdict proceeding from a judicial inquiry, -their evidence must be allowed more weight than that made up of the stabs -of anonymous slanderers, jealous rivals, and envious subordinates. - -Hawkyns was doubtless a rough, masterful man, readier with the iron hand -than with the velvet glove, more popular with the seamen whose ranks he -had left than with the officials whose ranks he had joined. He was not -a great man, but his services to England were great, and entitle him to -kindly consideration at the hands of all Englishmen. But, before branding -his memory with the stain of systematic fraud, it is well to examine -closely the doubtful shreds and tatters of scandal on the strength of -which he is to be condemned, or—worse still—offered the contemptuous -charity of condonation. - - - - -APPENDIX D - -A PRIVATEER OF 1592 - - -The two prizes taken by the _Amity_ were the _St Francisco_ of 130, and -the _St Peter_ of 150 tons, laden with 112 tons of quicksilver, and -28 tons of Bulls, 1,458,000 in number, for ‘lyvinge bodyes’ and ‘dead -bodyes,’ which were to be sold in New Spain at two reals apiece. The -ships also carried some wine, and the freightage paid to the owners was -40 ducats a ton. The armament of the _St Peter_ is not given, but was -probably little more than that of the _St Francisco_ which carried[1565] -three iron guns, two copper pieces of 20 quintals[1566] each, and one -of 14 quintals. There were 90 round, and 40 chain shot for these guns -with nine quintals of powder. Twenty muskets, and other arms of offence -and defence, were also carried. Her crew numbered 28 men and two boys -and she was licensed to take twenty passengers; if therefore 126 living -persons were found in the two ships after the action, the _St Peter_ must -have furnished a much larger proportion or there must have been, as was -common enough, a number of unlicensed passengers.[1567] If a loss of two -killed and three wounded, in an action lasting five hours and with two -antagonists, was an ordinary one, fighting at sea cannot be considered, -in view of the normal mortality from disease on shore in the sixteenth -century, to have added materially to the risks of life. - -According to Malyne[1568] these Bulls were laded by Sixtus V. When they -came to England Dr Lopez, the Queen’s physician, who was afterwards -executed on a charge of being concerned in a plot to murder her, obtained -them by purchase or as a gift. He and a partner started them again for -the West Indies but the Pope’s agent stopped their sale, alleging that -they had lost their virtue by having been in heretic possession. The -factor representing Lopez, not to be outdone, said that they had been -miraculously saved, but the speculation was a failure. - - LANSDOWNE MSS., 70-23 - - The ordre and mannour of the takinge of the twoo Shippes laden - with Quicksilver and the Pope’s bulles bound for the West Indas - by the _Amitie_ of London, Master, Thomas Whytte. - - The 26th of July 1592 beinge in 36 degrees[1569] or - thereaboutes, about 4 of the clocke in the morninge, wee had - sight of the said Shippes beinge distaunte ffrom us about 3 - or 4 leagues; by 7 of the cloke we ffeatched them up and were - within goonn shotte whose boldnes (havinge the kinges armes - dysplaide) did make us conceave them rather to be ships of - warr then laden with merchandize. And as yt dothe appeare by - some of theire owne Speeches they made full accompte to have - taken us, and was Question amongst them whyther they should - carrye us to St Lucar or Lishebonn. Wee wayfed eche other - amaine,[1570] they havinge placed themselves in warlyke ordre, - thone a cabolles lenght before thoother, we begonne the fight - in the which we continued so faste as we were able to chardge - and dyschardge the space of fyve houres, being never a cabells - lenght dystaunte eyther of us the one from the other, in which - tyme wee receaved divers shottes both in the hull of our ship, - mastes and sayles, to the number of xxxii greate shotte which - we told after the ffighte, besydes fyve hundreed muskett - shotte and harquebuye acroke[1571] at the least. And for that - wee perceaved they were stoute, we thought good to boorde - the byskaine[1572] which was a heade the other, where lyinge - aboord aboute an houre plyinge our ordenaunce and small shotte - with the which we stowed[1573] all his men; now they in the - flybotte makinge accompte that wee had entreed our menn, bare - Roome[1574] with us, meaninge to have laide us aboorde, and so - to have entrapped us betwene them both, which we perceavinge, - made redy ordenaunce and fytted us, so as wee quitted ourselves - of him, and he boorded his ffelowe, by which meanes they - both fell from us. Then presently we kepte our looffe,[1575] - hoysed our topsayles, and weathered them, and came hard aboord - the flibotte with our ordenaunce prepared, and gave her our - whole broadeside with the which wee slewe divers of theire - menn, so as wee might perceave the bloud to Runne out at the - Scoopers; after that wee caste aboute, and new chardged all our - ordenaunce and came upon them againe and wylled them Amaine, - or else wee would synke them, whereupon the one would have - yelded which was shotte betweene wind and watter, but the other - called him traytour; unto whom we mad answere that if he wold - not yeld presently also we would synke him first. And thereupon - he undrestaundinge our determinacon, presently put out a whyt - fflagg and yelded, howbeyt they refused to stryke theire owne - Sayles, for that they were sworne never to stryke to any - Englishmann. Wee then commaunded the captaines and masters to - come aboorde of us which they dyd and after examinacon and - stowinge them, wee sent aboord them, strooke theire sayles and - manned theire shipps, findinge in them bothe one hundreed and - twenty and six soules lyvinge, and eight deade, besides those - which they themselves had caste overboorde, so yt pleased God - to geve us the victorye, being but 42 menn and a boye, of the - which ther were two killed and three wounded, ffor which good - succeasse wee geve the onely prayse to Allmightye God. - - - - -FOOTNOTES - - -[1] _United Service Magazine_, October 1880. - -[2] But that the public have yet much to learn was shown by the ignorant -complacency, ludicrous if it were not so dangerous, with which the -mobilisation of six ships and six destroyers was received in January, -after twelve days of official and some weeks of unofficial preparation. - -[3] The history of the early navy till 1423, will be found treated -minutely by Sir N. H. Nicolas in the _History of the Royal Navy_, -Lond. 1847, a work of great research. Here, down to that date, points -left somewhat obscure by Nicolas, or upon which more than one view is -possible, are shortly touched upon. - -[4] According to some writers, the organisation of the Cinque Ports dates -from before the Conquest; it was not, however, until after that event -that their services became of national importance. - -[5] R. G. Marsden, _Select pleas of the Court of Admiralty_, Selden Soc. -1894. - -[6] The mention of the word galley in the records is, taken by itself, -often misleading. Frequently it meant a small, but fully rigged, sailing -vessel, supplied with sweeps for occasional use. Sometimes it appears -to have been applied to a sailing ship of particular build, and on one -occasion the _Mary Rose_, a ‘capital ship’ of Henry VIII, is called ‘the -great galley,’ showing how loosely the word was used. - -[7] - - ‘For foure things our Noble sheweth to me - King, Ship, and Swerd, and power of the See.’ - -_Libel of English Policie_, supposed to be by De Moleyns, Bishop of -Chichester, and written in 1436 or 1437. - -[8] That his subjects at one time called him the ‘King of the Sea,’ shows -how the fact of his having been the first English king to command a naval -battle impressed popular imagination; towards the end of the reign the -phrase must have sounded bitter in the ears of the inhabitants of the -coast towns. - -[9] King and sword were not new on coins, and the ship was usual enough -on the seals of the port towns; in them, as doubtless in the noble, it -referred to mercantile traffic. - -[10] ‘The shifty, untrustworthy statecraft of an unprincipled, -light-hearted king, living for his own ends, and recking not of what came -after him.’ (Stubbs, _Const. Hist._ ii, 510). - -[11] _Rot. Parl._ ii, 311, 319. - -[12] The expression ‘ton-tight’ is somewhat obscure, but probably meant -complete or measured tons. (Cf. Holloway, _Dict. of Provincialisms_, s.v. -_tight_, and Halliwell’s _Dictionary_ s.v. _thite_.) In Latin papers it -is rendered by such a form as ships ‘ponderis 80 doliorum;’ in 1430 it -is described as ‘le tonage autrement appelle tounetight,’ (_Exchequer -Warrants for Issues_, 9 Feb). It was not necessarily restricted to ship -measurement since, in 1496, stone and gravel for dock building were being -purchased by the ton-tight. It is therefore possible that it referred to -weight as distinguished from the cubic space occupied by a tun of wine, -the original standard of tonnage capacity. - -[13] At various times, from the thirteenth to the first quarter of the -sixteenth century, the phrases, ‘of Westminster,’ ‘of the Tower,’ and -‘of Greenwich,’ were successively equivalent to the later ‘H.M.S.’ The -meaning, here, is that there were 150 vessels fit for use as men-of-war. - -[14] _Ancient Petitions_, 5477 (R.O.) ‘A tsnobles et tssages seigneurs -diceste present parlement supplient tres humblement toutz les -possessoures des niefs dedens ceste roialme q come en le temps du noble -Roi Edward et ces predecessours q a chescun fois qaunt ascun nief furent -ordeigne de faire ascun viage q le possessour de tiel nief prendrent del -ton-tight 40d en le quart par regard damender la nief a lappaill dicell -et la quart part del prise par eux fait sur la mer par quelle regard -la naveie diceste roialme alors fust bien mayntene et governe si q a -icelle temps furent tondez prestz dens la roialme 150 niefs del Toure et -puis la deces du noble roi Edward en le temps de Richard nadgaiez roi -Dengleterre le dit regard eston demenise jesqs 11s le ton-tight et cci -estee tsmalement paie si q les possessours des tielx niefs mount ils null -volunte de sustener et mayntener lour niefs mais ils onct lesses giser -desolat pur quel cause la navie diceste roialme est ency dimennise et -empeire q ne soienct en tout la roialme outre 25 niefs del Tour.’ - -[15] _Le Compte du Clos des Galées_, 1382-4. Soc. de l’histoire de -Normandie, Mèlanges, Ser. II, Rouen 1893. - -[16] 5 Rich. II, c. 3. - -[17] In view of the difficulty owners of impressed ships experienced -in obtaining payment it may be suggested that it was possibly due to -the influence of that class that it was bestowed for a specifically -named purpose; if so, the hope of obtaining prompter settlement was not -realised. - -[18] For proofs that notwithstanding wars, taxation, feudal rights, and -every other drawback, the towns, as a whole, were steadily growing in -wealth, see Mrs J. R. Green’s, _Town Life in the Fifteenth Century_. - -[19] There was a contemptuous Continental saying, ‘We buy the foxskins -from the English for a groat, and resell them the foxes’ tails for a -guilder,’ which is expressive enough. - -[20] _Exch. Accts._ (Q.R.), Bdle. 49, No. 29, and _Roll of Foreign -Accounts_, No. 8. The tonnage of the _Grace Dieu_ is only mentioned -twice, and, in one of those two mentions, is given as 1400. This must be -a mistake on the part of the Treasury clerk. The 1000 tons of the _Jesus -of the Tower_ seems very suspicious, but as in nearly every instance, the -tonnage is only once given there is no opportunity for collation. - -[21] Rebuilt. - -[22] With the exception of the _Agase_ taken in Southampton water; a -French fleet having visited the English coast in May, before the Duke was -ready for sea. - -[23] Spanish, _ballenere_, long low vessels for oars and sails introduced -in the fourteenth century by the Biscayan builders (Fernandez Duro, _La -Marina de Castilla_ p. 158.) - -[24] _Rot. Pat._ - -[25] _Roll of Foreign Accounts_, No. 8. - -[26] Foremast. French, _mât de misaine_. - -[27] _Exch. Accts._ (Q.R.), Bdle. 49, No. 29. ‘Turris ligni vocat Bulwerk -... super introitu portus de Hamell per salva custodia naves.’ - -[28] ‘Unius fabrice.’ - -[29] Binnacle. - -[30] _Somerhuche_ is derived from old English _Somer_, a bedstead, and -old French _huche_; it was originally, therefore, a sleeping place. - -[31] _Acts of the Privy Council_, 3rd Mar. 1423. Nicolas says -(Introduction, vol. v, cxxxvi), that the whole of the navy was ordered to -be sold, but the wording of the entry does not support this authoritative -statement. The later records prove clearly that they were not all sold; -but whether because no such wholesale clearance had been intended, or -from want of purchasers, there is no conclusive evidence to show. - -[32] - - Where bene our shippes? - Where bene our swerdes become? - Our enemies bid for the shippe sette a shepe, - Allas oure reule halteth, hit is benome; - Who dare wel say that lordeshippe should take kepe? - I will asaye thoughe mine herte ginne to wepe, - To doe thys werke yf wee wole ever the (thrive) - For very shame to kepe aboute the see.’ - -If Adam de Moleyns was the author his death by violence at the hands of -seamen, in 1450, had an especially tragic unfitness. - -[33] ‘Per contrarotulacionem.’ - -[34] _Exch. War. for Issues_, 26th Jan. 1430. - -[35] _Rot. Parl._ iv, 402. - -[36] _Ibid._ iv, 489. - -[37] _Debate of Heralds_, p. 49 Lond, 1870. - -[38] 2 Henry V, c. 6. - -[39] _Rot. Franc._ sub annos. - -[40] _Fœdera_ xi, 77. - -[41] _Fœdera_ xi, 258. - -[42] _Rot. Franc._ 12 Mar. 1444-5. - -[43] _Rot. Parl._ v, 59. - -[44] _Exch. Accts._ (Q.R.), Bdle. 53, No. 23. - -[45] ‘Tenggemouth.’ - -[46] Port of origin not given. - -[47] _Exch. Accts._ (Q.R.), Bdle. 54, No. 14. - -[48] The large ship is the _Trinity_; there was a _Christopher_ of -Dartmouth in 1440 also of 400 tons. - -[49] Considering that the lists of Elizabeth’s reign are much more nearly -complete. - -[50] _The Debate between the Heralds of France and England._ Lond. 1870. -Assigned to 1458-61, and supposed to have been written by Charles, Duke -of Orléans, for twenty-five years a prisoner here and therefore qualified -by opportunity to form an opinion. - -[51] Bishop Stubbs (_Const. Hist._ iii, 268) says ‘The French -administration of the Duke of Bedford was maintained in great measure -by taxing the French, rather than by raising supplies from England.’ -This may be true of the civil administration but there are innumerable -warrants for the whole reign directed to the English Exchequer for the -Payment of English and French captains who undertook to provide bands of -men-at-arms or archers. - -[52] _Roll of Foreign Accounts_, No. xiv. - -[53] _Roll of Foreign Accounts_, No. x. - -[54] _Ibid._ - -[55] _Ibid._ No. x. - -[56] _Roll of Foreign Accounts_, No. x. - -[57] _Ibid._ No. xi. - -[58] ‘Cabanes,’ deck structures. - -[59] _Roll of Foreign Accounts_, No. xi. - -[60] ‘Valecto de corone.’ In 1455 there were twenty-three attached to the -household. The title implied the premiership of that class of society. - -[61] _Roll of Foreign Accounts_, No. xii. - -[62] _Ibid._ No. xiii. - -[63] _Rot. Parl._ iv, 439. - -[64] _Roll of Foreign Accounts_, No. xi. - -[65] _Rot. Parl._ v, 59. - -[66] _Exch. War. for Issues_, 27th June, 1442. - -[67] _Roll of Foreign Accounts_, No. xiii. - -[68] _Ibid._ - -[69] _Exch. War. for Issues_, 28th May 1454. The Rolls of Parliament only -name the first four Earls and Lord Stourton. - -[70] _Rot. Parl._ v, 244. - -[71] ‘And as men sayne ther was not so gret a batayle upon the sea this -xl wyntyr.’ (_Paston Letters_, i, 429, Ed. Gairdner.) - -[72] Genoa. - -[73] _Exch. Accts._ (Q.R.), Bdle. 53, No. 5. - -[74] ‘De novo.’ - -[75] ‘Sepis vocatæ hegge.’ - -[76] Mud. - -[77] ‘Sede.’ - -[78] Blank in MS. - -[79] _Sic._ - -[80] _Infra_, p. 39. - -[81] Or 270 tons burden, and 276 ton and tonnage, that is 207 tons in -cask, or 276 tons of dead weight cargo. - -[82] _Exch. War. for Issues._ - -[83] _Ibid._, 4th Aug. 1463. - -[84] _Ibid._, 7th Feb. 1467. - -[85] _Ibid._, 6th Apr. 1465. - -[86] But the Duke of Burgundy had prepared a fleet to intercept Warwick; -at the critical moment it was dispersed by a storm. (_Grafton’s -Chronicle_, p. 686.) - -[87] Thomas Nevill, illegitimate son of Lord Fauconberg. - -[88] Iron or stone shot. - -[89] _Exch. War. for Issues_, 20th July 1461. - -[90] _Ibid._, 5th July 1463. - -[91] _Ibid._, 14th Dec. - -[92] _Ibid._, 18th July. - -[93] _Ibid._, 27th Ap. 1473. - -[94] Elsewhere she is called a King’s ship, _Fœdera_, xx, 139. - -[95] _Exch. War. for Issues_, 16th Aug. 1480. The then largest ship of -the French navy, burnt by accident at Havre 6th July 1545, was called the -_Carraquon_. - -[96] _Exch. War. for Issues_, 8th June 1468. - -[97] _Ibid._, 17th July 1480, and Devon, _Issues of Exchequer_, p. 500. - -[98] _Ibid._, 31st January. - -[99] _Chapter House Books_, vol. 7. - -[100] _Aug. Office Bk._, No. 316. - -[101] _Aug. Office Bk._, No. 316, f. 147. - -[102] Eu, on the Norman coast. - -[103] _Exch. War. for Issues_, 2nd Dec. 1493. - -[104] Smalhithe, the town for Reding creek, was then tidal and had long -been a shipbuilding port. Men-of-war were built there as late as 1545. - -[105] Sir Rich. Guldeford. - -[106] _Chapt. House Books_, vol. vii, f. 35. - -[107] 60,000 marvedis = 160 ducats of account, that is ducats of 375 -maravedis each. The coined ducat was of 365 marvedis or ten reals -twenty-five maravedis, estimated as equivalent to forty-five reals and -forty-eight maravedis now (Shaw, _Hist. of Currency_). The real of 1492 -contained 51.23 grains of silver (Del Mar, _Money and Civilisation_, p. -93). A century later the Spanish or Portuguese ducat passed for 5s 6d -English (Arber, _An English Garner_, iii, 184). - -[108] Fernandez Duro, _Viajes Regios por Mar_, pp. 36, 63. It is doubtful -however whether any of these ships belonged to the crown or, in fact, -whether there was any Spanish Royal Navy, exclusive of the galley -service, before the commencement of the seventeenth century. - -[109] _Exch. War. for Issues_, 29th Nov. - -[110] _Exch. War. for Issues._ - -[111] _Ibid._, 19th Jan. 1496. - -[112] _Ibid._, 7th Apr. - -[113] _Exch. War. for Issues_, 7th Mar. - -[114] _Aug. Office Bk._, No. 316, ff. 49-64. - -[115] Appendix A. - -[116] Cf. Jal, _Glossaire Nautique_, s.v. _Sabord_ and _Porte_. - -[117] _Aug. Office Bk._, No. 317, f. 15. - -[118] Blue and green. - -[119] Ashen colour. - -[120] _Aug. Office Bk._, No. 317, f. 24. - -[121] A woollen cloth. - -[122] _Tellers’ Rolls_, No. 63. - -[123] _Aug. Office Bk._, No. 316, f. 72. - -[124] _Ibid._, f. 70. - -[125] 4 Hen. VII, cap. 10. - -[126] H. Harrisse, _John Cabot, the Discoverer of North America, and -Sebastian his Son_. Lond. 1896, p. 138. - -[127] Herbert, _Life of Henry VIII_, p. 125, ed. 1870. - -[128] When Charles V sailed from Flushing to Spain in 1517 we read that -the operation of lowering a boat took two hours, (Fernandez Duro, _Viajes -Regios por Mar_, p. 94). The fleet was made up of 52 vessels drawn from -Holland, Zealand and Spain, but this can scarcely refer to the Dutch -vessels. - -[129] _Royal MSS._ 13, B ii, 56. - -[130] Brewer, _Reign of Henry VIII_, i, 21. - -[131] _State Papers Ven._, Oct. 1515, and _Letters and Papers of the -reign of Henry VIII_, 6th Nov. 1515. Among his jewels was ‘a chayne of -golde of threefolde with a whistell and a pece of a unycornes home at it -inclosed in gold,’ (_Cott. MSS. App._ xxviii, f. 29). The whistle was the -badge of the sea officer. - -[132] _Exch. War. for Issues_, 29th Jan. 1510 and _Letters and Papers_, -i, 3422, viii. - -[133] _Ibid._ The pomegranate was a part of the arms of the city of -Granada. The capture of Granada and the destruction of the Moorish -kingdom had resounded through Christendom, and after Katherine of -Aragon’s arrival in England the pomegranate was frequently used as a -badge. - -[134] _Ibid._ The name referred to Mary Tudor, sister of Henry VIII. - -[135] _Roy. MSS._ 14, B xxii A. Doubtless the ‘carrack of Jene called -the _Mary Loret_,’ of _Stowe MSS._ 146, f. 29, and the ‘_Gabriel Royal_ -or Carrack of Genoa,’ of _Letters and Papers_, 15th Dec. 1512. In the -absence of other evidence the authoritative dates given in the _Royal -MS._ must be accepted, but there is no trace in other papers of the -existence between 1509-12, of some of the vessels assigned by it to 1509, -and some of the dates can be shown to be wrong. - -[136] _Roy. MSS._ 14 B xxii A. Perhaps the _James_ of Hull, for which -£260 was paid in July 1512 (_Kings Book of Payments_). Rebuilt about -1524, (_Chapter House Book_, vol. vi). - -[137] _Roy. MSS._ 14, B xxii A. In March 1512 Sir Ed. Howard was paid -£666, 13s 4d for the _Mary Howard_, bought of him (_King’s Book of -Payments_), and probably the same vessel. - -[138] Captured from Barton, the Scotch privateer. - -[139] _Ibid._ - -[140] _Roy. MSS._ 14, B xxii A. The _John Hopton_, or ‘John Hopton’s -Ship’ of 1512. In Jan. 1513 he received £1000 ‘for his great ship bought -by the king’ (_King’s Book of Payments_). - -[141] Bought from Wm. Gonson and others, (_Letters and Papers_, 24th -Apr., 1513). - -[142] Certainly a king’s ship, but whether bought or built only probable -by collation. - -[143] _Ibid._ - -[144] _Ibid._ First called the _Christ_ of Lynn. - -[145] First mention of _Lizard_ and _Swallow_, _Letters and Papers_, 15th -Dec. 1512. Described as new ships, 22nd Mar. 1513 (_Cott. MSS. Calig._ D. -vi, 101). - -[146] _Letters and Papers_, 15th Dec. 1512. A Genoese carrack. - -[147] First mentioned _Letters and Papers_, 15th Dec. 1512. - -[148] _Ibid._ - -[149] _Ibid._ - -[150] _Ibid._ - -[151] _Ibid._ The _Kateryn_, _Rose_, and _Henry_ are described as new in -_Letters and Papers_, 27th March 1513. - -[152] _Letters and Papers_, 15th Dec., 1512, and July 1513, and _Fœdera_ -xiii, 326. - -[153] ‘The _Great Barbara_, before called the _Mawdelyn_.’ First -mentioned July, 1513. - -[154] Elsewhere ‘the _Marc Fflorentyne_, otherwise called the _Black Bark -Christopher_.’ - -[155] Probably ‘the carrack of Hampton’ bought in March 1513 for 6000 -ducats from Fernando de la Sala (_King’s Book of Payments_). - -[156] The _Salvator_ of Lubeck, bought for £2333, 6s 8d, _Letters and -Papers_, 8th Aug. and 25th Oct. 1514; _Exch. Var._ 244/6. - -[157] Commenced 4th Dec. 1512; ‘hallowed’ at Erith 13th June 1514 -(_King’s Book of Payments_). - -[158] Probably the ‘new galley’ of _Letters and Papers_, 6th Nov. 1515, -and replaced or rebuilt, _Roy. MSS._ 14, B xxii A. - -[159] Bought of John Hopton for £500 (_King’s Book of Payments_). - -[160] _Chapter House Book_, vol. xi, f. 72. - -[161] _Roy. MSS._ 14, B xxii A. - -[162] ‘The _Great Mary and John_, the Spaniard Ship,’ (Q.R. _Anc. Misc. -Navy_ 616c, 6), or ‘the great Spaniard that the emperor gave the king’ -(_Letters and Papers_, iii, 3214). The earlier _Mary and John_ had -disappeared by this time. - -[163] _Roy. MSS._ 14, B xxii A. - -[164] _Ibid._ Zabra was used both in Italian and Spanish for pinnace. - -[165] _Ibid._ - -[166] _Ibid._ - -[167] _Ibid._ - -[168] First mentioned _Letters and Papers_ July 1524, also _Aug. Office -Book_, No. 317, but probably the _Mary_ of Homflete, a prize, and taken -into the service. - -[169] According to _Roy. MSS._ 14, B xxii A, dating from 1511, but the -name does not occur in the State Papers before 1522. - -[170] _Roy. MSS._ 14, B xxii A. - -[171] _Cott. MSS. Vesp._ C. ii, and _Letters and Papers_, 12 Apr. 1523. -Rebuilt as a 300 ton ship about 1536 (_Letters and Papers_, x, 1231). - -[172] _Letters and Papers_, 3rd June 1523 and _Q.R. Misc. Navy_ 867/5, -2nd Feb. 1524. - -[173] _Ibid._ - -[174] Occurs in several men-of-war lists from 1523; assigned by _Roy. -MSS._ 14, B xxii A to 1513, in all probability an error. - -[175] _Roy. MSS._ 14, B xxii A. Doubtless named in compliment to the -Guildford or Guldeford family, persons of importance during the first two -Tudor reigns. Both the first and second wives of Sir Henry Guldeford, -Comptroller of the Household to Henry VIII, were named Mary. - -[176] First mentioned _Letters and Papers_, x, 1231. - -[177] This vessel occurs in a list calendared under 1522 (_Letters -and Papers_, iii, 2014), but the date assigned is wrong by at least -twenty-five years. She was built in or before 1536, captured by the -Scotch, and described as English in a Scotch fleet, (_Ibid._ xi, 631); -recaptured by Lord Clynton in Sept. 1547, and resumed her place in the -English navy (Holinshed, p. 989). - -[178] First mentioned _Letters and Papers_, 31st Dec. 1539. - -[179] Or _Mathew Gonson_; first mentioned 10th June 1539. - -[180] First mentioned 10th June 1539; an entirely different vessel from -the preceding of the same name. - -[181] Or _Less Bark_ and _Great Bark_. They were Hamburg ships (_Letters -and Papers_, 15th Nov. 1544), and are first mentioned 10th June 1539. - -[182] The _Salamander_ and _Unicorn_ were captured at Leith in May 1544, -(Holinshed, p. 962). The _Salamander_ (a Salamander was the badge of -Francis I) had been presented to James V of Scotland by the French king -when the former married Madeline of France. - -[183] Or _Pansy_. First mentioned _Letters and Papers_, 18th Apr. 1544. - -[184] First mentioned _Letters and Papers_, 15th Nov. 1544. A Hamburg -ship. - -[185] _Ibid._ - -[186] _Ibid._ Of Dantzic. - -[187] _Ibid._, or _L’Artigo_. Qy. from the French _artichaut_, in -military terminology, a spiked fence. - -[188] First mentioned _Letters and Papers_, 18th Apr. 1544. - -[189] _Ibid._ - -[190] First mentioned _Letters and Papers_, 15th Nov. 1544. - -[191] Probably the true year as there is a payment (_Pipe Office Declared -Accounts_, 2193), to five Venetians for fitting her, as being more -experienced in galley work. According to _Add. MSS._ 22047, she was of -200 tons. - -[192] Or _Merlion_; a prize of 1544 or 1545 (_Letters and Papers_, 19th -Apr. 1545). - -[193] _Ibid._ - -[194] _Ibid._ - -[195] _Ibid._ - -[196] First mentioned _Letters and Papers_, 3rd Aug. 1545. Probably the -‘great shallop’ in building (_Letters and Papers_) 19th Apr. that year. - -[197] _Ibid._ Probably the ‘great galleon’ building at Smalhithe on 19th -April. There was a _Grand Mistress_ in the French navy at this time. - -[198] _Ibid._ Probably the ‘second galleon’ building at Smalhithe on 19th -April. - -[199] _Ibid._ Probably the ‘new gallyot’ building at Deptford 19th April. - -[200] _Ibid._ Probably the ‘middle shallop’ building at Deptford 19th -April. Saker was the name of a piece of ordnance or of the peregrine hawk. - -[201] _Ibid._ Probably the ‘small shallop’ building at Dover on 19th -April. - -[202] _Ibid._ Probably the ‘less Spanish pinnace’ of 19th April. - -[203] _Ibid._ - -[204] _Ibid._ Captured by the French 2nd Sept. 1547 (Stow p. 594). - -[205] _Ibid._ Of Dantzic. - -[206] Captured from the French 18th May (Stow). - -[207] First mentioned _Letters and Papers_, Mar. 1546. Of Bremen. - -[208] The _Phœnix_ and the _George_ are first mentioned as royal ships in -Anthony’s list of 1546; probably merchantmen of those names in the list -of 10th Aug. 1545, and bought into the service. - -[209] The _Antelope_, _Tiger_, _Bull_ and _Hart_ first occur in Anthony’s -list of the navy in 1546; in that year (_Letters and Papers_, Mar. 1546, -uncalendared) there were ‘the four new ships a making at Deptford 1000 -tons,’ with which tonnage these correspond. - -[210] Twenty tons each. - -[211] As in the case of the _Mary Rose_, (_King’s Book of Payments_). - -[212] _State Papers, Spain_, ii, 144. - -[213] Fernandez Duro, _Disquisiciones Nauticas_, Lib. V, 11, 354. The -Spanish ship ton, or ‘tonelada de arqueo,’ was rather smaller than the -English; ‘esta tonelada de arqueo es un espacio de 8 codos cúbicos cada -codo tiene 33 dedos ó pulgadas de 48 que tiene la vara de Castilla,’ -(_Ibid._ p. 161, quoting Veitia). This works out at 53.44 cubic feet -against the 60 cubic feet allowed in the fifteenth and sixteenth century -English ships. The measurement by tonelada was Sevillean, or South -Spanish; the Biscayan builders calculated by the tonel, ten of which -equalled twelve toneladas (Fernandez de Navarrete, _Coleccion de Viages_ -II, 86). - -[214] Lodge, _Illustrations of British History_, i, 14. - -[215] See Appendix A. - -[216] _State Papers_, (1830), 6th Aug. 1545. - -[217] _Chapter House Bks._ vol. vi. - -[218] _Ibid._ vol. xiii. It should be stated that these figures are from -an inventory of stores and fittings remaining on board the ships in 1515, -and do not necessarily represent the full equipment. They may, however, -be taken to indicate its distribution. - -[219] It has been mentioned that the weight of the serpentine was about -250 lbs.; double serpentines were presumably heavier. Serpentines and -other small pieces were fitted with one or two removable chambers for -loading. - -[220] All that is known of slings is that they were ‘bigge peces of ship -ordenance,’ (_Letters and Papers_, uncalendared, 1542). ‘Bigge’ must be -understood relatively as they were fired with chambers. - -[221] The French _Pierrier_, used for stone shot. - -[222] Murderers, half a century later, were small swivel guns, but at -this date perhaps larger. These two are described as ‘two grete murderers -of brasse.’ - -[223] According to another paper (_Letters and Papers_, i, 5721) the -upper forecastle deck carried eight serpentines and eight smaller guns. - -[224] She also had six serpentines and a stone gun in the main and mizen -tops. In the fifteenth century darts were flung from the tops; now most -large vessels carried guns in them. - -[225] _Letters and Papers_, i, 5721. - -[226] _Ibid._ and _Chapt. House Bks._, vol. xiii. Eighty-four guns -according to the latter. - -[227] Low Latin _petra_, stone shot; the name subsequently defined a -particular weight or shape, and remained in use although iron shot were -fired from what was still called a stone cannon. - -[228] _Add. MSS._ 22047, and _State Papers of Henry VIII_, (ed. 1830), -xvii, 736, (old numbering). - -[229] _Letters and Papers_ i, 4379. The soldiers, sailors, and gunners -are from _Letters and Papers_ i, 3977, of April 1513. The soldiers were -obtained and forwarded by various persons responsible, _e.g._, the 350 of -the _Gabriel Royal_ were made up of 100, being the retinue or immediate -followers of Sir Thomas Courtenay and Sir William Cornwall, her captains, -100 from the Bishop of Exeter, 100 from Lord Arundel, and 50 from Lord -Stourton. - -[230] To defend archers in the field. This is the only instance, so far -as is yet known, in which ships carried them as part of their equipment, -and here probably it was only in connection with the invasion of France. - -[231] Armour. - -[232] It should be noticed that when these schedules were drawn up, -the _Henry_ was not yet launched, the figures therefore were purely -conjectural and not requisites shown by experience to be necessary. - -[233] _Letters and Papers_, i, 5276; the _Peter Pomegranate_. Quarrels or -quarreaux were used with crossbows. - -[234] Stone shot. - -[235] _Letters and Papers_, i, 5721. The _Sovereign_, _Great Nicholas_ -and _Kateryn Fortileza_. - -[236] _Chapter House Bks._, vol. ii, f. 102. - -[237] _Ibid._, f. 72. - -[238] _Ibid._, ff. 80, 88. - -[239] _Archæologia_, vi, 218. - -[240] _Chapter House Bks._, vol. xiii. - -[241] _Letters and Papers_, i, 4376, f. 213. - -[242] _Chapter House Bks._, vol. xii, f. 510. - -[243] _Ibid._, f. 306. - -[244] Quoted by Derrick, _Memoirs of the Royal Navy_, p. 303. - -[245] _Add MSS._ 22047. The other vessels drawn he calls galleasses. - -[246] _Letters and Papers_, 17th April 1523. - -[247] _State Papers, Spain_, 16th July. - -[248] _State Papers, Venetian, Report of England._ Also Soranzo’s -_Report_ of 1554, ‘They do not use galleys.’ - -[249] _Add. MSS._ 22047. - -[250] Bed and table covers. - -[251] _Cott. MSS._, Calig. D. vi, f. 107. - -[252] _Ibid._ 101. - -[253] _Cott. MSS._ Otho, E. ix. f. 64. - -[254] _Letters and Papers_, 4th June. - -[255] Heraldically in gold and silver. - -[256] _Letters and Papers_, 28th July 1514. Banners were square or nearly -square, somewhat resembling the Royal Standard of to-day. Standards -were long, narrow, and split at the end. Streamers were still longer -and narrower, now represented by pennants, (N. H. Nicolas, _Excerpta -Historica_, p. 50). - -[257] _Letters and Papers_, 10th April 1514. - -[258] _Ibid._ i, 5721; _Chapter House Bks._, vol. xiii; and _Stowe. MSS._ -146, f. 114. - -[259] _Letters and Papers_, ii, 3549. - -[260] _Harl. MSS._ 309, f. 10. - -[261] _Coleccion de Viages_, i, 412. - -[262] Fernandez Duro, _Viajes Regios por Mar_, p. 128. - -[263] _Harl. MSS._ 309. Audley, afterwards Lord Chancellor and Lord -Audley of Walden was Speaker in 1529 and knighted. In this paper he is -called simply Thos. Audley so that it may be presumed to be earlier than -1532, the year of knighthood. - -[264] Cf. Le Fleming MSS. p. 8, 12th _Report Hist. MSS. Com. App._ Part -vii. - -[265] _State Papers_, (ed. 1830) 10th Aug. 1545. - -[266] Cf. _State Papers_, (ed. 1830), letters of 15th, 16th, and 18th -Aug. 1545. He seems to have been completely outmanœuvred. - -[267] _Ibid._, 12th Aug., 1545. - -[268] _Ibid._, 17th Sept. 1545. - -[269] Cf. Duro, _La Marina de Castilla_, App. No. 26. Patent of Don -Alonso Enriquez. For purposes of reference it may be well to append -a list of the Admirals of England during the fifteenth century: John -Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, 23rd Dec. 1406; Edmund Holland, Earl of Kent, -8th May 1407; Thomas Beaufort, 1st Sept. 1408; John, Duke of Bedford, -26th July 1426; John Holland, Duke of Exeter, 2nd Oct. 1435; William de -la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, 1447 (acting); Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter, -29th July 1450; Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, 1462; William Neville, -Earl of Kent, 30th July 1462; Richard, Duke of Gloucester, 12th Oct. -1462; Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, 2nd Jan. 1471 (defeated and -killed at Barnet and his appointment not recognised by the Yorkists); -John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, 25th July 1483; and John de Vere, Earl of -Oxford, 21st Sept. 1485. - -[270] _Chapter House Books_, vol. v, f. 153. - -[271] Stow, p. 497, and _Chronicle of Calais_, Cam. Soc. p. 16. - -[272] _Infra._ p. 127. - -[273] _Infra._ p. 80. - -[274] Blocks. - -[275] _State Papers_, (ed. 1830) 1 Aug. 1545, Brandon to Paget. - -[276] _Ibid._, Lisle to Paget. - -[277] _Ibid._, 7th Aug., Suffolk to Paget. - -[278] _Ibid._, 9th Aug., Lisle to Paget. - -[279] _Pipe Office Declared Accounts_, 2477. - -[280] _Ibid._, 2587. But £559, 8s 7d, according to _State Papers, Dom. -Ed. VI_, xv, 11. - -[281] _Pipe Office Decld. Accts._, 2588, and _Acts of the Privy Council_, -17th May 1547. - -[282] _Acts of the Privy Council_, 3rd Aug., 1549. - -[283] _Chapter House Bks._, vol. i, ff. 23, 28. - -[284] ‘Estland or parties of Spruse.’ - -[285] _Chapter House Book_, vol. 1, ff. 30, 33, 46. The character of -jorgnet is doubtful; cf. Planché _Cyclopædia of Costume_, s.v. _Jornet_. - -[286] _Chapter House Book_, vol. xi, f. 107. - -[287] _Letters and Papers_, i, 4225 and Q.R. _Anc. Misc. Navy_, 616, c. - -[288] _Letters and Papers_, i, 3445, ‘when divers of the French ships of -war lay there.’ - -[289] _Ibid._, iii, 2296. - -[290] _Ibid._, i, 3422—i. - -[291] _Exch. War. for Issues_, 29th Jan., 1510. - -[292] Leland, _Itinerary_. - -[293] _Letters and Papers_, 18th Jan. 1525. - -[294] _Chapter House Books_, vol. vi. - -[295] _Ibid._, f. 40. - -[296] _Letters and Papers_, 28th Feb., 1527, and _Aug. Office Book_, No. -317, (second part), f. 22. - -[297] _Chapter House Books_, vol. v, f. 133. - -[298] _Rot. Claus._ 10, Henry VIII, m. 6, and _Lansd. MSS._ 16, f. 120. - -[299] _Acts of the Privy Council_, 15th Jan. and 14th Mar. 1546. - -[300] _Chapter House Books_, vol. xi, f. 107. - -[301] _Ibid._, f. 44. The principal men employed about dock construction -are always called ‘marshmen,’ probably persons with special experience of -work in swampy ground, and ‘inning,’ from the Romney Marsh district. - -[302] _Add. Charters_ (B.M.), 6289. - -[303] _Letters and Papers_, i. 4387, (3rd Aug). - -[304] Stakes and brushwood. - -[305] _Chapter House Books_, vol. xi, ff. 9, 14. - -[306] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2588. - -[307] _Q.R. Misc. Navy_, 867/5. According to a modern writer (C. J. -Smith, _Erith_ Lond. 1872, p. 61), the storehouse ‘stood a little -eastward of the point where the road from the railway station meets West -Street at right angles. A considerable portion remains.’ - -[308] _Chapter House Books_, vol. xii, f. 115. - -[309] _Roy. MSS._, 14 B xii D. - -[310] _Chapter House Books_, vol. xi, f. 3. - -[311] _Ibid._, f. 65. - -[312] _Aug. Office Book_, No. 317, (second part), ff. 27, 29. - -[313] _Chapter House Books_, vol. xii, ff. 71, 365. - -[314] _Chapter House Books_, vol. vi, ff. 53, 57. - -[315] _Ibid._, ff. 61-3. - -[316] _Acts of the Privy Council_, 22nd April 1548. - -[317] _Ibid._, 21st August 1545. - -[318] _Tellers’ Rolls_, No. 64. - -[319] N. Dews, _History of Deptford_. - -[320] _Cott. MSS._ Vesp. C. vi, 375. - -[321] _Letters and Papers_, i, 3977. - -[322] _Ibid._, i, 5112. - -[323] _Letters and Papers_, 19th April 1545, (uncalendared). - -[324] _Fœdera_, xiii, 326, 8th April 1512. - -[325] _Letters and Papers_, i, 5017. - -[326] _Ibid._, 25th April 1544, (uncalendared). - -[327] _Exch. Accts._ (Q.R.), Bdle. 57, No. 2. - -[328] The Spanish West Indian fleets were not ordered to have an -apothecary and medicines on board till 1556, (_Real Cedulas_ 29th July -and 9th September 1556). - -[329] _Letters and Papers_, 9th March, 1545-6, (uncalendared), and _State -papers_, (ed. 1830) 12th August 1545. - -[330] _Letters and Papers_, i, 3422—ii. - -[331] _Roy. MSS._ 7 F xiv-75. - -[332] _Cott. MSS._, Galba B iii-137. - -[333] _Chapter House Books_, vol. ii, f. 3. - -[334] _Ibid._, vol. iii, f. 4. - -[335] _Letters and Papers_, 28th May 1545, (uncalendared). - -[336] _Ibid._, i, 5762. - -[337] _Letters and Papers_, i, 4475. - -[338] _State Papers_, (ed. 1830), 2nd August 1545, Lisle to King. The -summer of 1545 was unusually hot. Lisle then described symptoms which -point to dysentery and scurvy, (_Ibid._, 1st August). - -[339] _Ibid._, 15th September 1545, Lisle to Council. Only three men were -killed in what little fighting there was at Treport. - -[340] _Aug. Office Book_, No. 315, f. 1. - -[341] _Chapter House Books_, vol. ii, f. 17. - -[342] The least important. - -[343] _State Papers_ (ed. 1830), 7th Aug. 1545, Lisle to Paget. - -[344] Old French, _meien_. - -[345] _Acts of the Privy Council_, 14th April 1546. - -[346] Spanish, _forsado_. - -[347] _State Papers_ (ed. 1830), 15th July 1546, Lisle to Paget. - -[348] _Roy. MSS._ 14 B xxxiii. - -[349] _Letters and Papers_, i, 5762, Council to Wyndham. - -[350] _Ibid._, 14th Sept. 1539. - -[351] _Harl. MSS._, 309. f. 10. These rules were based on the ordinances -issued by Richard I, themselves grounded on customs reaching back to the -dawn of Mediterranean navigation. - -[352] Probably on ‘look out’ is meant, still the most serious offence of -which a sailor can be guilty. - -[353] _State Papers_ (ed. 1830), March 1546. - -[354] _Exch. Accts._ (Q.R.), Bdle. 57, No. 2. - -[355] Trin from the old English _tryndelle_ or _trendelle_, a wheel; -dryngs are halliards. Both trin and dryngs were used in connection with -the mainsail. - -[356] Ropes. - -[357] Capstan, Spanish, _cabrestante_. - -[358] Great boat, cockboat, and jollyboat. - -[359] Hooker’s _Life of Sir Peter Carew_, pp. 34-5. - -[360] _Tellers’ Rolls_, No. 63. - -[361] _Exch. War. for Issues_, 12th July, 1512, and _Letters and Papers_, -i, 3445. - -[362] Ellis, _Original Letters_, I, 147, Series III. - -[363] _Cott. MSS._ Calig. D. vi, 104-7. - -[364] _Letters and Papers_, 21st May, 1513. Fox and Dawtrey to Wolsey. - -[365] _Ibid._, i, 4474. - -[366] _Ibid._, iii, 2337. Surrey to King. - -[367] _State Papers_ (ed. 1830) 20th Aug., 1545. - -[368] _Letters and Papers_, i, 3445, 5747, and 27th March, 1513. _Chapter -House Books_, vol. vi. _Pipe Office Declared Accounts_, 2193. Prices -varied a great deal, being much higher at Portsmouth for instance than at -Yarmouth. - -[369] _Letters and Papers_ 19th April 1545 (uncalendared) and _State -Papers_ (ed. 1830) 12th Aug., 1545. - -[370] _Letters and Papers_ iii, 2362. Surrey to Wolsey. - -[371] _State Papers, Dom., Ed. VI_, xv, 11. - -[372] _Letters and Papers_, 9th March 1545-6 (uncalendared) and Q.R. -_Anc. Misc. Navy_, 616 d., 2. - -[373] _Rot. Pat._ 14th of Henry VIII, Pt. II, m. 26. ‘Embezzlement,’ in -these pardons, had not the particular meaning attached to the word now. -They were meant to protect the holder against accusations he might not, -from lapse of time, have sufficient evidence to refute. - -[374] _Aug. Off. Bk._ No. 315, f. 3. - -[375] _Letters and Papers_, 26th May 1513. - -[376] _Cott. MSS._, App. xviii, f. 10. Undated, but before 1529, when -Spert was knighted. - -[377] _Letters and Papers_, iv, 2362. - -[378] _Ibid._, 25th Sept. 1524. - -[379] _Ibid._, 2nd March 1526, and _Aug. Office Book_, No. 317 Part ii, -f. 1. - -[380] _Letters and Papers_, 14th July 1533. - -[381] _Arundel MSS._, 97. On Spert’s monument in the chancel of -St Dunstan’s Stepney, he is called ‘comptroller of the navy.’ The -designation was not in use until long after his death, in September 1541, -and the monument itself is a seventeenth century one. - -[382] _State Papers_ (ed. 1830), 8th Jan. 1544-5, and xvi, 441 (old -numbering). - -[383] Son of Wm. Gonson. - -[384] _Letters Patent_, 24th April. - -[385] _Add. MSS._ 9297, f. 13. - -[386] _Letters and Papers_, i. 3977, 3978. Eight were from Topsham, and -eight from Dartmouth. - -[387] _Ibid._, i, 4533, 31st October 1513. - -[388] _Ibid._, 15th May 1513. Dawtrey to Wolsey. - -[389] _Ibid._, 18th July 1513. - -[390] _Letters and Papers_, i, 5112. - -[391] _Ibid._, 25th April 1544 (uncalendared). - -[392] _State Papers_ (ed. 1830), 18th April 1544. - -[393] _Ibid._, xvii, 552 (old numbering). - -[394] Stow, p. 588. War was declared on 3rd August, 1544. - -[395] _Exch. War. for Issues_, 17th July 1522. - -[396] _Ibid._, 7th Feb. 1544. - -[397] _Letters and Papers_, 16th Jan. 1513. - -[398] _Letters and Papers_, iv, 5101. - -[399] _Ibid._, vi, 1380. - -[400] _Letters and Papers_, 1540 (uncalendared). - -[401] _Ibid._, 15th May 1544; March 1545; and 19th April 1545 -(uncalendared). - -[402] Somerset. - -[403] _State Papers, Venetian_, Falier’s Report. - -[404] _Ibid._, Barbaro’s Report. - -[405] _Ibid._, Soranzo’s Report. - -[406] _Voyages_, v, 256. (Ed. 1885). - -[407] _State Papers, Spain_, 2nd January 1541. - -[408] The facts relating to this doubtful voyage are fully discussed -by H. Harrisse in _John Cabot, the Discoverer of North America, and -Sebastian his Son_, London 1896, p. 157 et seq. - -[409] _Ibid._, p. 340. - -[410] Herbert, _Life of Henry VIII._, p. 651, ed. 1870. - -[411] It is said £80,000. - -[412] _Letters and Papers_ 19th March, 1513. - -[413] _Ibid._, xi, 943. - -[414] Gasquet, _Henry VIII and the English Monasteries_, ii, 534-5. - -[415] _Letters and Papers_, Preface to vol. ii, p. 194. - -[416] _Ibid._, i, 4533. - -[417] _Chapter House Books_, vol. i, f. 23. - -[418] _Chapter House Books_, vol. iii, f. 68. Cf. _Letters and Papers_, -xiii, (Pt. 1), 1777, where the dates and amounts differ somewhat. - -[419] _Pipe Office Declared Accounts_, 2587. - -[420] _State Papers_ (ed. 1830), 6th April 1546. - -[421] _Ibid._, xvii, 683 (old numbering), Wriothesley to Council. - -[422] _State Papers, Dom. Ed. VI_, xv, 11. - -[423] Any kind of movable fittings. - -[424] _State Papers, Spain_, 30th January 1532. Chapuys to Emperor. - -[425] _Letters and Papers_, ii, 235. - -[426] _Cott. MSS._ Calig. D., viii, 150. - -[427] _Letters and Papers_, 29th March 1532. - -[428] _Ibid._, xii, 782. - -[429] _Ibid._, xiii, 158. - -[430] _Acts of the Privy Council_, 14th April 1546. - -[431] _Acts of the Privy Council_, 8th August 1546. - -[432] 27 Hen. viii, c. 4. - -[433] _Stowe MSS._ 146, f. 41. - -[434] _Nomenclator Navalis._ - -[435] _Chapter House Books_, vol. xii, f. 91. - -[436] _Letters and Papers_, 23rd Feb. and 25th Nov. 1514, and i, 5024. -The last was 2400 lbs. The prices for serpentine and bombdyne powder are -probably only for manufacture. - -[437] _Chapter House Books_, vol. x, f. 32. - -[438] _Ibid._, vol. v, f. 110. - -[439] _Ibid._, vol. vi, f. 58. - -[440] Arrows of inferior quality. - -[441] _Letters and Papers_, x, 299. - -[442] _Chapter House Books_, vol. vi, f. 41. The ton contained 40 cubic -feet of dry, and 50 of green, timber. - -[443] Probably Olonne (Vendée). - -[444] 28 ells: the English ell is five—the French six-fourths of a yard; -as the canvas was French, the ells are most likely French. - -[445] Probably Vitré (Brittany). - -[446] A bale. - -[447] A Breton canvas. There was a ‘poll davye baye’ on the Breton coast -(_State Papers_, ed. 1830, xiv, 325), and a small village named Poldavid -is situated in Douarnenez Bay. At a later date it is frequently called -‘Dantzic Polldavy’ and then probably means a canvas of Breton type -obtained from Dantzic. - -[448] Printed in full in _Archæologia_, vi, 218. - -[449] _Lansd. MSS._ 2, f. 66. - -[450] Probably the _Moon, Seven Stars, and Swift_. - -[451] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2194. - -[452] _Harl. MSS._, 354, f. 9. Printed in full in Derrick’s _Memoirs of -the Royal Navy_, pp. 16, 17. - -[453] Edward was present at the launch of the _Primrose_ and _Mary -Willoby_ on the 4th July 1551 (_Journal_). - -[454] _Acts of the Privy Council_, 7th February 1551. - -[455] _Acts of the Privy Council._ - -[456] _Ibid._ - -[457] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2355. - -[458] _Acts of the Privy Council._ - -[459] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2194 and 2588. War with France and Scotland -continued until 24th March 1550. - -[460] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2194. - -[461] Hakluyt, _Voyages_, iii, 53 (ed. 1885) and Fernandez Duro _Armada -Espanola_, p. 121. - -[462] _State Papers, Dom. Ed. VI_, iv, 39. - -[463] _Acts of the Privy Council_, 31st January 1552. - -[464] _Chronicle of King Henry VIII_, edited by Major Martin Hume, Lond. -1889, pp. 161-3. - -[465] _Acts of the Privy Council_, 20th November 1552. - -[466] _Ibid._, 22nd September 1551. - -[467] _Ibid._, 18th February 1550. - -[468] _State Papers, Dom. Ed. VI_, 7th Sept. 1548. - -[469] _Journal of Edward VI_, April 1550. - -[470] _Ibid._, 2nd July 1551. - -[471] _Acts of the Privy Council_, 17th May 1552. - -[472] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2194. - -[473] 2 and 3 Ed. VI, c. 6. - -[474] _State Papers, Dom. Mary_ i, 23. Although calendared under the -first year of Mary the return goes on with a list of those ‘decayed since -the death of Edward VI to the present time,’ numbering sixty-two of 9170 -tons. The date assigned to this document cannot therefore possibly be -correct and it probably belongs to the reign of Elizabeth. - -[475] _Journal of Edward VI_, 14th February 1552. - -[476] 2 and 3 Ed. VI, c. 19. - -[477] _State Papers, Dom. Ed. VI_, xv, 41. - -[478] _Ibid._, xv, 11. - -[479] Supra p. 94. - -[480] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2195. According to _State Papers, Dom. -Eliz._, ii, 30, the _Primrose_ had been sold for £1800, but only £1000 -had ever been paid. - -[481] _Acts of the Privy Council_, 4th October 1553. - -[482] Machyn’s _Diary_, Camd. Soc. - -[483] _Cecil MSS._ Cal. Pt. I, No. 846. The credit to be attached to this -paper is discussed in the _English Historical Review_, ix, 711. - -[484] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2356. - -[485] _Ibid._, 2357. - -[486] _State Papers, Dom. Mary_, xii, 36, 65. - -[487] _Exch. War. for Issues_, 23rd April, 2nd and 3rd of Philip and Mary. - -[488] _Ibid._, Oct. - -[489] _Ibid._, 30th March, 3rd and 4th of Philip and Mary. - -[490] _Rot. Pat._ - -[491] _Acts of the Privy Council_, 11th January 1556. - -[492] _Ibid._, 3rd June 1557. - -[493] Paulet, Marquis of Winchester. - -[494] _State Papers, Dom. Mary_, x, 1, 2. - -[495] Supra, p. 110. - -[496] Hakluyt, _Voyages_, iii, 20, ed. 1885. - -[497] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2591. - -[498] _State Papers Dom., Mary_, xiii, 64. - -[499] With the exception of the galley establishments at Seville and -Barcelona there were no royal dockyards in Spain. There was no difference -made, in building, between merchantmen and men-of-war, and in 1584 Martin -de Recalde petitioned to be allowed to fly the royal standard because -without it his fleet would be taken for merchantmen. In return for the -large bounty given and the advances made to builders the crown seized -their vessels on every occasion and for every purpose where, in England, -the royal ships would have been employed. The system was the same as that -by which Edward III had destroyed English shipping. In 1601 the Duke -of Medina Sidonia wrote plainly that the remedy for the impoverishment -fallen on Spanish shipowners was ‘that the King should build the vessels -he required and not take them from private individuals, ruining them.’ -In the fleet of the Marquis of Santa Cruz at Terceira in 1583 only three -belonged to the crown, and in the Armada only twenty-five. Sometimes -contracts were made with admirals who undertook to serve with a certain -number of ships, and at other times with towns who engaged to supply -them. There was no Admiralty as in England. There had been an Admiral -of Castile from the beginning of the thirteenth century, but the civil -portion of his duties was confined to the headship of the courts of -law deputed to hear maritime causes. If a fleet or squadron was to be -equipped officials, who may or may not have had previous experience, -were temporarily entrusted with the duty at the various ports and their -functions ceased with the completion of their work (Fernandez Duro, _La -Armada Invencible_; _Disquisiciones Nauticas_, Lib. V.; _Hist. de la -Marina_). - -[500] _Lives of the Devereux_ I, 375. - -[501] No information available. - -[502] The whole navy except the _Popinjay_ in Ireland. And in this year, -as in many others, the same vessel was sometimes in commission more -than once. This was especially the case with the fourth- fifth- and -sixth-rates and is an unavoidable source of error. - -[503] _State Papers, Dom. Eliz._, 20th February 1558-9. - -[504] _Ibid._, 24th March 1559. - -[505] _Add. MSS._ 9294, f. 1. - -[506] _State Papers, Dom._, iii, 44. - -[507] Machyn’s _Diary_, 3rd July 1559; _State Papers, Dom._, iii, 44, and -xcvi, p. 295. - -[508] _State Papers, Dom._, xcvi, p. 295; _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2358, -and _Cecil MSS._, Cal. No. 846. - -[509] _Exch. War. for Issues_, 14th Mar. 1560; _Pipe Office Accounts_, -2358, and _State Papers, Dom._, xcvi, p. 295. - -[510] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2358. - -[511] _Ibid._ - -[512] _Ibid._ and _Cecil MSS._, Cal. No. 846. - -[513] _Ibid._ - -[514] _Cecil MSS._, Cal. No. 846, and _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2198. - -[515] According to _State Papers, Dom._, xcvi, p. 295, built in 1560, -but she is not mentioned in the accounts till 1563, and was first in -commission in December 1562. - -[516] First mentioned this year and noted as French, probably from Havre. -There were also eleven small French ships taken in the port of Havre -in 1562, and carried on the navy list till 1564, after which year they -disappear. They may have been returned on the conclusion of peace in -April; there was some discussion to that effect. - -[517] Four small brigantines. _Exch. War. for Issues_, 4th July 1563, and -_Pipe Office Accounts_, 2360. - -[518] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2200 and 2361. - -[519] _Ibid._, 2364, and _Exch. War. for Issues_, 12th Aug. 1567. - -[520] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2206 and 2367. - -[521] _Ibid._, 2206 and 2208. - -[522] _Ibid._ - -[523] _Ibid._, 2209 and 2370. - -[524] _Ibid._ - -[525] _Ibid._ - -[526] _Ibid._ - -[527] _Ibid._, 2213 and 2374. - -[528] _Ibid._ - -[529] _Ibid._, 2376. Or _Marlion_. - -[530] _Ibid._, 2217. - -[531] _Ibid._, 2218. - -[532] _Ibid._, 2219. - -[533] _Ibid._, 2220. The _Philip and Mary_, rebuilt and renamed. - -[534] _Ibid._, 2381. The Galley _Ellynor_ rebuilt and renamed. She had a -‘gondello’ as a boat. - -[535] _Ibid._, 2221. - -[536] _Ibid._ - -[537] _Ibid._ - -[538] _Ibid._, 2223 and 2383. - -[539] _Ibid._ - -[540] _Ibid._ - -[541] _Ibid._ - -[542] _Ibid._ - -[543] _Ibid._ - -[544] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2223 and 2383. - -[545] _Ibid._ - -[546] _Ibid._ - -[547] _Ibid._ - -[548] _Ibid._ - -[549] _Ibid._, 2224. Possibly bought of Ralegh, or originally built for -him. - -[550] _Ibid._, 2385. - -[551] Flagship of Don Pedro de Valdes; carried on the effective till 1594. - -[552] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2226. - -[553] _Ibid._, 2227. - -[554] _Ibid._ Or _Guardland_. - -[555] _Ibid._ - -[556] _Ibid._ - -[557] _Ibid._ - -[558] _Ibid._ - -[559] _Ibid._ - -[560] _Ibid._, 2388. Lost at sea, 17th May 1591. - -[561] _Ibid._ - -[562] _Ibid._, 2503. - -[563] _Ibid._, 2228. - -[564] _Ibid._, 2390. - -[565] _Ibid._, and 2229. - -[566] _Ibid._, 2230 and 2390. The _Eagle_ of Lubeck bought for £70, and -‘made into a hulk for taking ordnance out of ships.’ - -[567] _Ibid._, 2231. - -[568] _Ibid._, 2393. - -[569] _Ibid._, 2232 and 2394. - -[570] _Ibid._ Or _Dieu Repulse_. - -[571] Taken at Cadiz. - -[572] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2239. Bought of the Lord Admiral. - -[573] _Ibid._, 2239. Two galleys. - -[574] _Ibid._ - -[575] _Ibid._, 2240. Two galleys. - -[576] _Add. MSS._ 9294, f. 1. - -[577] _Egerton MSS._ 2642, f. 150. - -[578] Found by Mr E. Fraser in a _Rawlinson MS._ at Oxford. - -[579] _Harl. MSS._ 167, f. 1. That in papers kept by different officials -the time of the change of name should not exactly correspond is not -strange. - -[580] _State Papers, Dom._, clx, 60, and _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2211. - -[581] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxlii, 21. - -[582] _Ibid._, cclxxxvi, 36, and _Add. MSS._, 9336, f. 10. - -[583] Hakluyt, _Voyages_, xi, 354, ed. 1885. - -[584] _Infra_ p. 157. - -[585] J. Edye, _Calculations relating to the displacement of ships of -war_, Lond. 1832. - -[586] _State Papers, Dom._ ccix, 85. - -[587] Rowing seat. - -[588] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxxix, 77. - -[589] By 39 Eliz. c. 4. (1597-8) ‘dangerous rogues’ were to be sent to -the galleys, but it is the only statute so directing and does not seem -to have been acted on (Turner, _History of Vagrants and Vagrancy_, p. -129). Nor am I aware of any allusion to an English galley service in the -literature of the time. - -[590] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxliii, 110. - -[591] _Works_, II, 78, ed. 1751. - -[592] _Cecil MSS._ Cal. ii, 222. - -[593] W. Bourne, _Inventions or Devises_, Lond. 1578. Bourne’s book was -possibly the origin of the fireships used at Calais in 1588; it must have -been well known to the leading seamen of the fleet. - -[594] _State Papers, Dom._, cxlvi, 97. - -[595] _Cecil MSS._ Cal. No. 846. - -[596] The Elizabethans called any ship comparatively low in the water a -galleass, or said that she was built ‘galleas fashion,’ irrespective of -oars. - -[597] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2218, 2220, and 2221. - -[598] _Ibid._, 2223. - -[599] _State Papers, Dom._ cclxxvi, 57. - -[600] _Ibid._, ccxxiii, 45. - -[601] Ralegh, _Invention of Ships_. - -[602] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2232. The distinction between overlop -and deck is not always clear. Sometimes overlop appears to mean a deck -running the whole length of the ship, as distinguished from a forecastle -or poop deck, and at other times a slight lower deck not intended to -carry guns. This last became its ultimate meaning, and it is used in this -sense in relation to the _Defiance_ and _Warspite_. - -[603] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2200. - -[604] _Ibid._, 2204. - -[605] Trailboard, a carved board reaching from the stem to the figure -head. - -[606] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2238. - -[607] Bulkheads. - -[608] Poop. - -[609] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2236. - -[610] _Add. MSS._, 20,043. _Treatise concerning the Navy of England_, f. -6. By James Montgomery. - -[611] _State Papers, Domestic_, clii, 19. - -[612] Compare the measurements of the two men-of-war, as given here, with -those on p. 124. - -[613] ‘Esloria,’ _i.e._, the keel length added to the fore and aft rakes. - -[614] Duro, _Dis. Nauticas_, Lib. V, p. 152. If this is tried with the -above ships the feet must first be reduced to cubits; it will be found -that the Spanish method makes the tonnage much heavier, the _Elizabeth_ -is 996 net and 1196 gross. - -[615] _State Papers, Venetian_, Surian’s Report. - -[616] _Calendar of Letters and Papers relating to English affairs at -Simancas_, 10th May 1574. - -[617] _Ibid._, 3rd Aug. 1566. - -[618] _Ibid._, 8th Jan. 1569. - -[619] _Ibid._, 1st June 1569. - -[620] _Ibid._, 30th March 1586. - -[621] _State Papers, Dom._, clii, 19. The Spaniards allowed one seaman to -every five tons of net tonnage. - -[622] _Ibid._, clxxxv, 33, ii. - -[623] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2233. - -[624] _State Papers, Dom._, cclviii, f. 10. - -[625] _Lands. MSS._, 166, f. 198. - -[626] _Ibid._, 144, 53. - -[627] _Ibid._, 73, f. 161. - -[628] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2225. - -[629] _Ibid._, 2228 and 2231. - -[630] _Exch. War. for Issues_, 25th Jan. 1579. - -[631] _Ibid._, 28th Jan. 1580. The story is told in full in Hakluyt, -_Voyages_, xi, 9, et seq. (ed. 1885). - -[632] _State Papers, Dom._ ccxxxvii, ff. 169, 170. - -[633] _State Papers, Dom. Jas. I_, xli, p. 119. - -[634] See Appendix B. - -[635] _State Papers, Dom. Eliz._, ccxv, 41. - -[636] _State Papers Dom._, 26th Aug. 1588. Howard to Walsyngham. - -[637] _Lansd. MSS._, 70, f. 183. - -[638] _Acts of the Privy Council_, 14th Aug. 1580. - -[639] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2233. - -[640] _Harl. MSS._, 167, f. 39. - -[641] _State Papers, Dom. Eliz._ xvii, 43, and xxvi, 43. - -[642] _Ibid._, xxxvii, 61. - -[643] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2205, 2206. - -[644] _Ibid._, 2358 and _Exch. War. for Issues_, 15th Feb. 1560. - -[645] Dried fish. - -[646] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2362. - -[647] _State Papers, Dom._ cix, 37. - -[648] _State Papers, Dom._ clxxxix, 8. - -[649] 12,040 lbs. - -[650] He was chief clerk of the kitchen, (_Lansd. MSS._, 62, f. 132). - -[651] _State Papers, Dom._ ccix, 16. - -[652] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxix, 23. - -[653] _Ibid._, ccxxvi, 85, and ccxxxi, 80. - -[654] _State Papers Dom._, ccxxxix, 109. - -[655] _Rot. Pat._ 8th Nov. 1595. - -[656] _State Papers, Dom._, clii, 19. - -[657] Born in 1532 of a well-known Plymouth mercantile and seafaring -family. He went to sea early, but his voyages of 1562-4-8, and the -diplomatic difficulties to which they led with Spain, first brought him -into prominence. He married Katherine Gonson about 1558. - -[658] _State Papers, Dom._, cxi, 33. - -[659] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxvi, 57. - -[660] _Ibid._, ccxxii, 48. - -[661] _Harl. MSS._, ccliii, f. 6. - -[662] _Ibid._ - -[663] _State Papers, Dom._, ccii, 35, Hawkyns to Burghley. - -[664] Some of these charges are examined in detail in Appendix C. - -[665] _State Papers, Dom._, 28th Oct., 1579. - -[666] _State Papers, Dom._, clxx, 57, April 1584. - -[667] _Ibid._, ccxxxi, 83. - -[668] This probably referred to Borough. Another writer, who was no lover -of Hawkyns, said that Borough did all he could ‘to gett all the keyes to -his owne girdle,’ (_Harl. MSS._ 253, f. 1). - -[669] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxlii, 79 and ccxlvii, 27. - -[670] _Rot. Pat._, 8th July 1585. - -[671] _State Papers, Dom._, 30th May 1594. - -[672] _Rot Pat._, 5th May 1596. - -[673] _Ibid._, 22nd December 1598. - -[674] _Ibid._, 11th July 1589. - -[675] _Ibid._, 20th Dec. 1598. - -[676] _Ibid._ - -[677] _Ibid._, 10th Oct. 1560. - -[678] _Ibid._, 24th Mar. 1580. - -[679] _Ibid._, 6 Nov. 1588. - -[680] _Lansd. MSS._, 116, f. 4. - -[681] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2204. - -[682] _Ibid._, 2210. - -[683] _Ibid._, 2215. - -[684] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxl, 47. - -[685] Hawkyns and Borough to Lord Admiral. _Exch. War. for Issues_, 6th -July 1573. - -[686] _State Papers, Dom._, clxxvii, 26. - -[687] _Add. MSS._ 9294, f. 58. - -[688] ‘Candles spente in nightlie watches of four shippes lying at -Chatham for the better suertie and preservacon of the flete there at -xiiiˢ iiiiᵈ every shippe,’ for the quarter. - -[689] _Harl. MSS._ 253, f. 13. - -[690] _Ibid._, f. 14. - -[691] _Seaman’s Secrets._ - -[692] Appendix B. - -[693] _State Papers, Dom._, clii, 19. - -[694] _Ibid._, clxxxvi, 43. - -[695] _Ibid._, cclxxxvi, 36. - -[696] Quoted by Duro, _Disq. Nauticas_, II, 189. Professor Laughton -considers that the losses of the Armada, in the flight round the west -coasts of Scotland and Ireland, were as much due to bad seamanship as to -the summer gales with which they had to contend. - -[697] _State Papers, Dom._, iii, 44. - -[698] Slings do not again occur in ordnance papers; these were probably -relics of the reign of Henry VIII. - -[699] The ‘pace’ was 5 feet (_Cott. MSS._ Julius F. IV, f. 1, _Arte of -Gunnery_). - -[700] _Lansd. MSS._ 113, f. 177. - -[701] _State Papers, Dom._, xcvi, p. 275 (1577). - -[702] _Ibid._, p. 317. - -[703] _Ibid._, clxxxvi, 34. - -[704] _State Papers, Dom._, ccliv, 43. - -[705] _Royal MSS._ 17 A xxxi. - -[706] With two chambers. - -[707] With three chambers. - -[708] Although the _Victory_ was not rebuilt until some years later she -was not at this date upon the effective. - -[709] Also two curtalls. - -[710] The other three galleys had the same armament. - -[711] _State Papers, Dom._, cvi, 58 (1575). - -[712] _Add. MSS._ 9297, f. 212. - -[713] _La Armada Invencible_, I, 76. - -[714] _State Papers, Dom._, cvi, 14. - -[715] _Ibid._, cclxxv, 40. - -[716] _Ibid._, cclvii, 108. - -[717] _Lansd. MSS._, 65, f. 94. - -[718] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxliv, 116. - -[719] _Ibid._, xcv, 22, 69. - -[720] _Acts of the Privy Council_, 19th June 1574. - -[721] _State Papers, Dom._, xxi, 56. Corn, or large grain, powder was -used for small arms; serpentine for the heavy guns, but the latter was -going out of use at sea. - -[722] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxviii, 35. - -[723] _Ibid._, lxxiv, 3. - -[724] _Ibid._, cclxxxvii, 59. - -[725] _Exch. War. for Issues_, 1st Mar. 1564. - -[726] _Ibid._, 21st Feb. 1567. - -[727] Until, and including, 1564 the money for victualling is paid by the -Navy Treasurer and contained in his totals. - -[728] Comprising wages and tonnage hire. - -[729] Timber, ironwork, pitch, tar, etc., and sometimes included in the -dockyard amounts. - -[730] Ordinary, comprised wages of clerks and shipkeepers, moorings, and -normal repairs of ships. Extraordinary, building and heavy repairs of -ships, building and repair of wharves, storehouses, and docks, purchase -of stores, and ordinary sea wages. - -[731] Accounts wanting. - -[732] In 1560 and 1563 some subsidiary charges at Harwich and other ports. - -[733] The total spent is now exclusive of the victualling. - -[734] Account keeping by dockyards ceases; divided into ordinary and -extraordinary. - -[735] From 1st Jan., 1595, to 24th April, 1596. - -[736] From 6th May to 31st Dec. 1596. - -[737] From 1st Jan. to 31st Dec. exclusive of the Cadiz Fleet. - -[738] Of which Cadiz £14,415. - -[739] Of which Channel £9945, and ocean service £27,263. - -[740] _Add. MSS._ 9294, f. 30. - -[741] _State Papers, Dom._, cxxxii, 41, 42. - -[742] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2221. - -[743] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxviii, 16. - -[744] _Ibid._, cclxx, 26. - -[745] _Burghley Papers_, p. 620. - -[746] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxxxiv, 72, 75. - -[747] _Cott. MSS._ Otho. E IX, f. 192. - -[748] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxvii, 71. - -[749] _Cott. MSS._ Otho E IX, f. 192. - -[750] _Exch. War. for Issues_, 10th May 1560. - -[751] _Ibid._, 13th June 1569. - -[752] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxxxiv, 72. - -[753] _Ibid._, ccxl, 14. - -[754] _Ibid._, cclvi, 107. But see _supra_ p. 160. - -[755] _Pipe Office Accounts_ 2233, but £70,000 according to _State -Papers, Dom._, cclix, 61. - -[756] _State Papers, Dom._, cclii, 107. - -[757] _State Papers, Dom._, cciv, 46. - -[758] _Lansd. MSS._, 70, f. 82. The _Madre de Dios_, the _Bom Jesus_, the -_Santa Cruz_, and the _St. Bartholomeu_, all richly laden left Goa in -company on 10th January 1592. The _Bom Jesus_ was lost in the Mozambique -Channel with all on board, the _Bartholomeu_ parted company about the -same time and was never heard of again, the _Santa Cruz_ was run ashore -and burnt to prevent capture. Nor was the total loss of a Portuguese or -Spanish squadron, from various causes, at all remarkable. The captain -of the _Madre de Dios_, Fernando de Mendoza, had been master of Medina -Sidonia’s flagship in 1588; his maritime interviews with the English must -have become a veritable nightmare to him. The Fuggers of Augsburg, to -whom the cargo was hypothecated, are said to have been the real losers by -the capture, as it was probably not insured. It was difficult to insure -Spanish ships at this time. In 1587 a Spaniard wrote of a vessel in the -West Indies, ‘I have not assured any part thereof and at this present I -do not find any that will assure at any price’ (_Lansd. MSS._, 53, f. -21). The conditions had become much more unfavourable to Spanish seaborne -commerce by 1592. - -[759] _Lansd. MSS._, 73, f. 38. - -[760] _Harl. MSS._, 598. - -[761] _Lansd. MSS._ 73, f. 38. It suited Elizabeth to rate the -_Foresight_ as high as possible, so she now reached her maximum of 450 -tons; she had been as low as 260. - -[762] _Lansd. MSS._ 70, ff. 55, 187. - -[763] _Harl. MSS._, 306, f. 233, 3rd May 1594. - -[764] 5 Eliz. c. 5. - -[765] _State Papers, Dom._, cvii, 68. - -[766] _Ibid._, cxlvii, 21, 22. - -[767] _Ibid._, ccl, 33. This paper bears a note by Burghley, ‘Engl. -shippes allowed money for ther tonag sȳce 22 Eliz.’ It has been shown -that the custom, as a mark of royal approbation, was much older than -Elizabeth, but it may have been made a right from about 1580. - -[768] _Ibid._, cl, 96. - -[769] _State Papers, Dom._, ccliv, 33. - -[770] _Ibid._, cclxii, 126. - -[771] The Admiralty Court. - -[772] _State Papers, Dom._, cxxxvi, 35. When the _Pelican_, or as she -was afterwards called, the _Golden Hind_, returned from her famous -voyage round the world she was placed in a dock, filled in with earth at -Deptford, and remained there as one of the shows of London for nearly a -century. There is an estimate for works to the amount of £370 for this -purpose (_Add. MSS._ 9294, f. 68), but it does not appear that this plan, -which included a brick wall, roof, etc., was ever fully carried out. In -the Navy accounts only £67, 7s 10d for her repairs, £35, 8s 8d for a -wall of earth round her, and £14, 13s 4d for preparing the ship for the -Queen’s visit are entered. - -[773] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxxxviii, 142. - -[774] _State Papers, Dom._, cxxxi, 61. - -[775] _Ibid._, cxlix, 58. - -[776] _Ibid._, ccxxxiii, 13, and ccxxxix, 44. - -[777] _State Papers, Dom._, lxxxiii, 37. - -[778] _State Papers, Dom._, cxx, 54. - -[779] _Lansd. MSS._ 142, f. 182. - -[780] _State Papers, Dom._, cli, 6 (1581). - -[781] _Ibid._, ccxlviii, 80. - -[782] Malyne, _Lex Mercatoria_ p. 200, (ed. 1622). - -[783] _State Papers, Dom._, xi, 27. - -[784] _Ibid._, viii, 36. Eventually £100 was remitted. - -[785] _Ibid._, xxxviii, 8. - -[786] _Ibid._, xxviii, 3. - -[787] _Harl. MSS._, 168, f. 248. - -[788] _State Papers, Dom., Eliz. Add._ xxii. - -[789] _State Papers, Dom._, xcvi, p. 267. London is described as, ‘The -river of Thames wherein is contained Maulden, Colchester, Bricklingsey, -Lee, Feversham, Rochester, and the creekes belonging.’ - -[790] _State Papers, Dom._, cvii, 68. - -[791] _Ibid._, clvi, 45. - -[792] _Harl. MSS._ 4228, f., 45. - -[793] _Cott. MSS._, Otho. E. IX, f., 162. - -[794] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxxii, 57. - -[795] _Lansd. MSS._ 81, f. 88. - -[796] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxii, 21. - -[797] _Ibid._, xi, 27. This is a return of ‘mariners and sailors’ only, -and does not include fishermen. London is omitted, and from the numbers, -_e.g._, Norfolk 178, Northumberland (with Newcastle) 37, is probably only -of men at that time ashore. - -[798] _Ibid._, xxxviii, 8, 9, 14, 23, 28; xxxix, 17. This is also -incomplete but includes fishermen. - -[799] _Ibid._, lxxi, 74 1; lxxiii, 15 1, 48. - -[800] _Ibid._, clvi, 45. Includes seamen, fishermen, and masters of ships. - -[801] And 311 at sea. - -[802] Including Liverpool. - -[803] Including 957 watermen. - -[804] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxiv, Feb. - -[805] _State Papers, Foreign_, 29th Dec. 1568, and _Ibid._ 1573-1279. - -[806] ‘Releasing them for bribes and billes of dette.’ - -[807] _Acts of the Privy Council_, 29th April 1576. - -[808] _State Papers, Dom._, cxxxv, p. 240. - -[809] _State Papers, Dom. Add._, xxix, 126. - -[810] _Lansd. MSS._, 148, f. 13. - -[811] _Add. MSS._, 11405, ff. 91, 103. - -[812] _Lansd. MSS._ 148, f. 1 and _State Papers, Dom._, cv, 18. - -[813] _State Papers, Dom._, cxxxix, 54. In 1603 these owners were still -patiently petitioning James I. - -[814] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxv, 13. - -[815] Near Vigo. - -[816] _Ibid._, cxci, 7. - -[817] _Lansd. MSS._, 115, f. 196. - -[818] Appendix D. - -[819] _State Papers, Dom._, cxxxiii, 7. - -[820] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxxvi, 11. - -[821] _Harl. MSS._, 253, f. 10. - -[822] _Ibid._, 253, f. 18, and _Exch. War. for Issues_, 17th Dec. 1597. - -[823] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxxviii, 1. - -[824] _Cott. MSS._, Otho E., VIII, f. 169. - -[825] _Lansd. MSS._, 61, f. 184. - -[826] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxxvii, 1. - -[827] Breton. - -[828] The last was of 12 barrels of 31½ gallons (old measure). - -[829] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxx. Stow says that Hawkyns introduced -nettings. They went out of use for a time. - -[830] _Harl. MSS._ 306, f. 68. - -[831] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2210, 2212. - -[832] _Ibid._, 2232. - -[833] The _Jesus of Lubeck_ and the _Revenge_. - -[834] Ralegh, _Discourse of Ships_; Monson, _Naval Tracts_; Duro, _Disq. -Nauticas_. - -[835] Monson says that in 1599 a fleet was prepared for sea in twelve -days, and ‘the Queen was never more dreaded abroad for anything she ever -did.’ - -[836] _Add. MSS._ 5752, f. 136. - -[837] _Add. MSS._ 19889; _The Jewell of Artes_, 1604, f. 135 et seq. - -[838] _Harl. MSS._ 309-51. - -[839] _Add. MSS._ 9294, Nov. 1610. - -[840] _State Papers, Dom., Jas. I._, cl, 83, 84. - -[841] Whole or partial external double planking. - -[842] _Harl. MSS._ 2301. - -[843] Paul Hentzner. - -[844] On 20th July 1613 a warrant was issued to pay wages owing since -1608. - -[845] _Add. MSS._ 9302, f. 9. - -[846] _State Papers, Dom._, cl, 20. - -[847] _Ibid._, xl, f. 70. - -[848] _A Dialogical Discourse of Marine Affairs_, by Nath. Boteler, -_Harl. MSS._ 1341. Partly printed in 1685 but of this period. - -[849] _Ibid._ - -[850] _State Papers, Dom._, clxxxii, 29. - -[851] _Rot. Pat._, 26th April. - -[852] _State Papers, Dom._, xc, 98. - -[853] _Ibid._, xxii, 15. - -[854] _Ibid._, cxii, 101. - -[855] _Ibid._ - -[856] _State Papers, Dom._, cxvi, 86. - -[857] _Ibid._, ciii, 104. - -[858] _Ibid._, lxxxix, 33. - -[859] _State Papers, Dom._, xli, f. 17. - -[860] _Ibid._, xl, 87. - -[861] _Cott. MSS._, Julius F. III, f, 15. - -[862] _State Papers, Dom._, xli, f. 25. See also Bishop Goodman’s -description of Mansell’s temper in _Court of King James I_, I, 56. - -[863] _State Papers, Dom._, cxii, 101. - -[864] _Coke MSS._, _Cal. Hist. MSS._, _Com. Report, xii_, App., pt. i, 41. - -[865] _Cott. MSS._, Julius F., III, ff. 98, 249, 250, 252. - -[866] The report of the commissioners will be found in _State Papers, -Dom. Jas. I_, xli; the sworn depositions on which that report was -based are preserved in _Cott. MSS._, Julius F., III. The evidence in -question is of value for to-day, and may be instructively compared with -the reports of the committee of investigation of 1803-5 on the again -astonishing condition of naval administration. It is to be hoped that the -Navy Records Society will print the _Cottonian MS._ - -[867] Gardiner, _History of England_, II, 11. - -[868] Gardiner, _History of England_, III, 200. - -[869] _State Papers, Dom._, clxxxii, 28. - -[870] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2257, 2259, 2260. - -[871] The Commissioners acted by Letters Patent of 12th February 1619. -They were Sir Lionel Cranfield, Sir Thos. Weston, Sir John Wolstenholme, -Sir Thos. Smith, Nicholas Fortescue, John Osborne, Francis Goston, -Richard Sutton, Wm. Pitt, Sir John Coke, Thos. Norreys, and Wm. Burrell. - -[872] _State Papers, Dom._, c and ci, 3. - -[873] _State Papers, Dom._, cli, 35. - -[874] _Ibid._, clx, 43. - -[875] _State Papers, Dom._, clvi, 12. - -[876] There are few separate dockyard amounts for these years. - -[877] Includes £4734 for a naval pageant on the Thames at the marriage of -the Princess Elizabeth. - -[878] Exclusive of Algiers fleet £6446. - -[879] Exclusive of Algiers fleet £17,665. - -[880] Inclusive of £9667 repairs to Algiers fleet. - -[881] A fleet was sent to Spain for Charles, and £9100, owing from 1615, -paid. - -[882] _State Papers, Dom._, clxxv, 85, 3000 hammocks were to be supplied -in this fleet. - -[883] _Cott. MSS._, Otho E, VIII, f, 316. - -[884] _Ibid._ - -[885] _State Papers, Dom._, lxxxvi, 101. - -[886] _Ibid._, xc, 24. - -[887] R. Playfair, _The Scourge of Christendom_, p. 34. - -[888] Monson, _Naval Tracts_. - -[889] _State Papers, Dom._, cli, 21. - -[890] _State Papers, Colonial_, March 1620. - -[891] _State Papers, Dom._, civ, 65. - -[892] _England’s Way to Win Wealth_, Lond. 1614, and _The Trade’s -Increase_, Lond. 1615. - -[893] The Dutch Company is said to have distributed in twenty-one years, -ending with 1622, dividends of 30,000,000 florins on a capital of some -6,000,000 florins, (Irving, _Commerce of India_). - -[894] _Egerton MSS._, 2100. - -[895] _State Papers, Dom._, xxii, 22. - -[896] _Ibid._, cxix, 118, 1 and 121. - -[897] _State Papers, Dom. Jas. I_ cxxxiii, 70; _Ibid._, clviii, 54; -_Ibid., Chas. I_ xiii, 56. _Pipe Office Accounts_; _Add. MSS._, 9294 p. -505; _Ibid._, 9295, Pett’s Autobiography; _Ibid._, 9297, p. 359. As usual -all these dimensions, especially tonnage, differ somewhat in the various -papers. - -[898] The _Nonpareil_ rebuilt and renamed. - -[899] The _Hope_ rebuilt and renamed. These ships were not completed till -1605. - -[900] The _Swiftsure_ rebuilt and renamed. - -[901] The _Ark Royal_ rebuilt and renamed. - -[902] The _Golden Lion_ rebuilt and renamed. - -[903] For convenience the _Merhonour_, _Dreadnought_, and _Defiance_ are -placed under one date, but they were in hand from 1611 till 1614. - -[904] Or _Convertive_. This was the _Destiny_ built for Sir Walter Ralegh -before his last voyage, and afterwards bought or confiscated into the -Navy. - -[905] The _Rainbow_ and _Antelope_ were in dry dock some three years -(_Pipe Office Accounts_). - -[906] _State Papers, Dom._, clxxiv, 56. - -[907] _Cott, MSS._ Julius F. III, f. 293. - -[908] _Ibid._, Otho E., VII, f. 155. Letter, Pett to Baker, 10th April -1603. - -[909] _Coke MSS._, Cal. I, 114. - -[910] In the literal but not later sense of ‘three decker.’ She had two -full batteries besides an upper deck armed. In 1634 the authorities of -the Trinity House, who, through a long series of years appear to have -always chosen the wrong view, wrote, ‘The art or wit of man cannot build -a ship fit for service, with three tier of ordnance.’ Three years later -the first ‘three-decker’ was afloat. - -[911] _Add MSS._, 9294, Nov. 1610. - -[912] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2249. - -[913] _State Papers, Dom._, ci, 4. - -[914] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2248. - -[915] _State Papers, Dom._, xli, f. 39. - -[916] _Ibid._, clxi, 68. The classification is that of the _State Paper_. - -[917] _State Papers, Dom._, clviii, 56. - -[918] _Ibid._, and cviii, 58. - -[919] _Harl. MSS._, 2301. About 1625 or earlier, and by Sir Hen. -Manwayring. It was printed in 1644 under the title of _The Sea-man’s -Dictionary_. There is another MS. copy among the State Papers (_S. P. -Dom., Chas. I_, cxxvii), called _A Brief Abstract ... of all Parts and -Things belonging to a Ship_. The three versions differ but little from -each other. - -[920] _Add. MSS._, 9299, f. 48. - -[921] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2248. - -[922] _Ibid._, 2252. - -[923] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2261. - -[924] _Ibid._, 2256. - -[925] _Ibid._, 2257, 2258. - -[926] _Ibid._, 2260. - -[927] _Ibid._, 2258. - -[928] _Ibid._, 2261, 2262. - -[929] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2262. - -[930] _Add. MSS._, 9297, f. 25. - -[931] _Cott. MSS._, Otho E. VII, ff. 219, 220. - -[932] _State Papers, Dom._, cxxxvi. - -[933] _State Papers, Dom._, cix, 139, 1. - -[934] _Ibid._, cxxxiii, 70. - -[935] _State Papers, Dom., Eliz._ ccxxxvii, f. 119. Although calendared -under Elizabeth many of the papers in this volume are copies of documents -relating to the reigns of James I and Charles I. See also M. A. Lower, -_Contributions to Literature_, for an article on the Kent and Sussex gun -foundries. - -[936] _Cott. MSS._, Otho E, VII, f. 78. - -[937] _State Papers, Dom., Jas. I_, cxxviii, 94. - -[938] Yonge’s _Diary_, Camd. Soc. - -[939] _State Papers, Dom._, xvii, 103. - -[940] _Ibid._, cix, 139, I. - -[941] _Add. MSS._, 9302. f. 9. - -[942] _Coke MSS._, Cal. I, 105. - -[943] _Cott. MSS._, Otho E. VII, f. 263. - -[944] _Cott. MSS._, Otho E. VII, f. 263. - -[945] Mr Del Mar (_Hist. of the Precious Metals_, p. 209), quoting Tooke -and D’Avenant, estimates the stock of gold and silver coin in England and -Wales in 1560 at £1,100,000 and in 1600 at £4,000,000. - -[946] Martin, _Hist. de la France_, X, 446. - -[947] Kolb, _Condition of Nations_, p. 209. - -[948] Gardiner, _Hist. of England_, X, 222. - -[949] _Parl. Debates_, 31st Aug. 1660. - -[950] A writer of the reign of James I estimated that there were 37,000 -Dutch seamen engaged in the North Sea fisheries alone; Ralegh put the -number at 50,000 men. - -[951] _State Papers, Dom., Charles I_, vi, 23. The original purpose had -been to take 2000 English veterans in the service of the States-General, -leaving the recruits in their place; but the men were sent before any -arrangement had been come to with the Dutch, who finally refused to -assent to it. The proceeding was characteristic of Buckingham’s hopeful -belief in the immediate acceptance of his measures. - -[952] ‘The number of lame, impotent, and unable men unfitt for actual -service is very great.’ (Ogle to Conway, 18th June 1625.) - -[953] _Ibid_., ix, 15, Blundell to Buckingham. - -[954] There were twelve king’s ships in the fleet (_Pipe Office -Accounts_, 2425). - -[955] _State Papers, Dom._, ix, 39, Cecil to Conway. - -[956] _Ibid_., xi, 49. - -[957] Levet’s _Relation of Cadiz Voyage_, Coke MSS. - -[958] _State Papers, Dom._, viii, 41, Coke to Buckingham. - -[959] _Voyage to Cadiz in 1625_ (Camden Society). - -[960] Sir Allen Apsley, also lieutenant of the Tower, remained victualler -with Sir Sampson Darrell till 1630. - -[961] _State Papers, Dom._, xviii, 63, 1. - -[962] _Ibid._, 75. - -[963] _Ibid._, xii, 81. - -[964] _Ibid._, xx, 25. February 1626. - -[965] _State Papers, Dom._, xxii. 33, and _Coke MSS._, 4th March 1626. - -[966] _Coke MSS._, 27th February 1626. - -[967] _State Papers, Dom._, xiii, 67 and 73. - -[968] _Ibid._, xxiv, 9, and _Coke MSS._, 12th April 1626. - -[969] _State Papers, Dom._, xxiv, 24. - -[970] _Ibid._, xxv, 45. - -[971] _Ibid._, xxiv, 33. Pennington to Buckingham. - -[972] _State Papers, Dom._, xxiv, 65. - -[973] _Ibid._, cxcvi, 32. - -[974] _Proc._, April, 1626. - -[975] _State Papers, Dom._, xxxv, 19, and _Add. MSS._, 9339, f. 24. Six -rates of vessels are classified. All carry trumpeters, and the first four -drummers and fifers. Both lieutenants and corporals were employed in -1588, but afterwards discontinued; the _Lion_ had a lieutenant in 1587, -and perhaps it was not uncommon for a large ship on war service to carry -an officer of that rank. - -[976] According to rate of ship. - -[977] Only to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rates—‘a place not formerly allowed.’ - -[978] ‘Not formerly allowed’; his duties were akin to those of a musketry -instructor of to-day. - -[979] _Egerton MSS._, 2541, f. 13. - -[980] _State Papers, Dom._, xxx, 48. - -[981] _Ibid._, 75. - -[982] _Ibid._, xxxiii, 27; July 1626. - -[983] _Ibid._, xxxv, 44. - -[984] _State Papers, Dom._, xxxv, 102 and 109, 1, Willoughby to Nicholas. - -[985] _Ibid._, xxxvi, 60. - -[986] _Ibid._, xxxvii, 57. - -[987] _Ibid._, xxxix, 78. - -[988] _Ibid._, xli, 56, (1626). - -[989] _State Papers, Dom._, 8 and 77, Philpott to Nichols. - -[990] _Ibid._, xlii, 100. - -[991] 12th Dec. 1626. - -[992] _State Papers, Dom._, xlii, 137. - -[993] _State Papers, Dom._, xlix, 68; January 1627. - -[994] _Ibid._, liii, 9 and 10; February 1627. - -[995] _Ibid._, lxiv, 76, Mervyn to Buckingham. - -[996] _Ibid._, lxxxviii, 62; 1627. - -[997] _State Papers, Dom._, lxxxv, 61. - -[998] _Ibid._, lxxxvi, 42. - -[999] _Ibid._, lxxxvii, 37; December 1627. - -[1000] _Ibid._, lxxx, 83 and 86. - -[1001] _Coke MSS._, 17th September 1627. - -[1002] _State Papers, Dom._, xc, 38. - -[1003] _Ibid._, 75. - -[1004] _Ibid._, xcii, 73; February 1628. - -[1005] _State Papers, Dom._, xcviii, 26. - -[1006] _Ibid._, 29, March 1628, Gorges to Buckingham. - -[1007] _Ibid._, cv, 80; 1628. - -[1008] _State Papers, Dom._, cv, 85. - -[1009] _Ibid._, cviii, 18. - -[1010] _Add. MSS._, 9297, f. 118. - -[1011] _Coke MSS._, 3rd June 1628. - -[1012] _State Papers, Dom._, cxiv, 48. - -[1013] _State Papers, Dom._, cxx, 27; November 1628. - -[1014] _Ibid._, cxviii, 78. - -[1015] _Ibid._, cxlix, 90; September. - -[1016] _Ibid._, 92. - -[1017] _State Papers, Dom._, clxxii, 42; August 1630. - -[1018] _Ibid._, clxxv, 75. - -[1019] _Ibid._, ccxviii, 52. - -[1020] _Ibid._, ccxlvi, 85. - -[1021] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxii, 58; July 1634. - -[1022] _Ibid._, cclxxix, 106, _Advice of a Seaman_, &c., by Nath. Knott. - -[1023] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxcviii, 5; September 1635. - -[1024] _Add. MSS._, 9301, f. 54. - -[1025] _State Papers, Dom._, cccxxvi, 10. - -[1026] _Ibid._, cccxxxvii, 15. - -[1027] _Ibid._, cccxxxviii, 39. - -[1028] _Aud. Off. Dec. Accounts_, s.v. ‘Navy.’ - -[1029] _State Papers, Dom._, cccliii, f. 95. - -[1030] _Ibid._, ccclxv, 28. - -[1031] The sale of gunpowder was at this time a crown monopoly (_Fœdera_, -xx, 107). Charles’s sad and picturesque dignity of appearance did not -imply such a delicate sense of honour as to prevent him turning a penny -by forcing contraband of war through the fleet of a friendly power and -supplying the privateers who were the scourge of English commerce. - -[1032] In the eighteenth century he would have had a hole-and-corner -trial, undefended and ignorant of the law, before the associates, and -perhaps friends, of the man whom he had assaulted. - -[1033] _State Papers, Dom._, lvi, 101, (1627), and ccccvii, 32, (1638). - -[1034] _State Papers, Dom._, ccccxxxi, 30. - -[1035] With the exception of the Amboyna affair, a case once more of -the ‘prancing proconsul,’ the Dutch showed, throughout this century, -exemplary patience and moderation under a long course of provocation, -in affairs of salutes, right of search, and seizures of ships, several -instances of which there will be occasion to mention. The rulers of the -United Netherlands chose to consider wider aims and more urgent needs -than revenge for insults to their flag, however flagrant, but when the -Navigation Act of 1651 brought matters to a crisis the Dutch must have -felt that they had a long score to settle. - -[1036] _State Papers, Dom._, cccclxxxii, 13. - -[1037] _State Papers, Dom._, ccccxciv, 2nd Jan. 1643. - -[1038] Public Acts, 17th Charles I. - -[1039] Preface to _Calendar of State Papers_, 1652-3, p. xii. In other -prefaces Mrs Green refers to the same point. - -[1040] The number eventually serving that year was nearer 20,000, but -this included some thousands of soldiers. - -[1041] _Infra_ p. 244. - -[1042] _State Papers, Dom._, cii, 72. - -[1043] _Ibid._, cclxiv, f. 33. - -[1044] _Ibid._, cccvi, 87; 1635. In another copy of this paper (_Add. -MSS._, 9301, f. 57), they suggest the sensible remedy of a register at -each custom house, in which agreements might be entered. - -[1045] _State Papers, Dom._, cccxcviii, 23 and 40. - -[1046] _Fœdera_, xx, 278; 25th November 1638. - -[1047] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxi, 12. - -[1048] Digby’s _Voyage_ (Camden Society), p. 9. - -[1049] _State Papers, Dom._, clv, 31 and cclxxxii, 135. - -[1050] _State Papers, Dom._, xviii, 59. - -[1051] But only applicable in port. - -[1052] _Add. MSS._, 18772. - -[1053] _State Papers, Dom._, ccclii, 78. - -[1054] _State Papers, Dom._, cccxii, 90. - -[1055] _Ibid._, ccclii, 78. - -[1056] _Ibid._, 81. - -[1057] _Add. MSS._, 9301, f. 156. - -[1058] I am indebted to the courtesy of Admiral Sir R. Vesey Hamilton, -K.C.B., President of the Royal Naval College, for permission to examine -these books. - -[1059] In receipt of yearly pensions. - -[1060] For eight months ending 4th January 1644. - -[1061] For three and a half months. - -[1062] For a year. - -[1063] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxix, 106. - -[1064] _Reasons_, &c., dated 17th June. The officers who sign threaten, -unless terms are made with the King, to blockade the river. - -[1065] Various authorities give 9, 10, and 11 ships; the discrepancies -may most probably be explained by supposing that one or two of those -which left the Downs turned back before reaching Holland. - -[1066] _Clarendon_, IV, 574, ed. 1888. - -[1067] Warburton, _Memoirs of Prince Rupert_, III, 262. - -[1068] _Supra_ p. 207. The _Speedwell_ was lost in November 1624, after -this list was drawn up. There were also some worn out Elizabethan ships -remaining, the _Crane_, _Answer_, _Moon_, and _Merlin_, which the -compiler did not consider of sufficient importance to include. - -[1069] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2425. - -[1070] _State Papers, Dom._, lxvii, 47. - -[1071] _Pipe Office Accounts_, 2428. - -[1072] E.g. the _Sovereign of the Seas_, which, until she was cut down, -was the largest most ornate, and most useless ship afloat. - -[1073] _State Papers, Dom._, lxxi, 65. These remarks must be read in -conjunction with those relating to the lack of victuals and stores, and -want of competent and willing service on the part of officers and men, -made in Part I, and for which Buckingham’s incapacity was principally -responsible. But his incapacity was, in this matter, not the only nor -even the main factor, since, when in 1627 he applied to Gyffard, Sir -Sackville Trevor, and Hervey for suggestions as to freeing the narrow -seas from pirates, they agreed that the existing vessels were too slow -to catch any but others of their own type (_State Papers, Dom._, liv, 9, -11-13). In October 1625, the Channel squadron consisted of ten English -men-of-war and merchantmen and four Dutch ships, a larger force than had -probably ever been employed before for merely protective duties. The -conditions were as bad or worse, after his death. - -[1074] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxvii, 43. - -[1075] _Ibid._, xi, 62, 63. Assuming in these instances the rake, fore -and aft, to have been about three-eighths of the keel length. - -[1076] _Ibid._, lvi, 56. - -[1077] _Ibid._, lvii, 42. - -[1078] _Ibid._, cccxxxviii, 39. - -[1079] Other prizes, which were nominally King’s ships, but which only -served during one of the big expeditions or for a few weeks in the -Channel, were the _Mary Roan_, _St George_, _St Peter_, _Pelican_, -_Mackerel_, _Nightingale_, _St James_, _Little Seahorse_, and _Hope_. -Where special references are not given, the general authorities are -_State Papers, Dom._, ccxv, 108; ccxxviii, f, 38; ccxliv, 23; ccclxviii, -121; _Add. MSS._, 9294, f, 505; 9300, f, 54; 9336, ff, 63, 64; 18,037 and -18,772. As in previous instances the measurements frequently differ in -these lists, and can only be taken as approximately correct. - -[1080] From greatest breadth to upper edge of keel. - -[1081] _State Papers, Dom._, x, 25. - -[1082] _Ibid._, xxiv, 4. The _St Mary_ was given to Sir John Chudleigh in -1629. - -[1083] _State Papers, Dom._, xxiv, 62. - -[1084] _Ibid._, xxi, 72, and _Aud. Off. Dec. Accounts_, 1699, 64. - -[1085] _Ibid._, xxxvii, 95. - -[1086] Called the 1st, 2nd-10th whelps. Two differed slightly in size -from the others. - -[1087] _Aud. Off. Dec. Accounts_, 1699, 66. - -[1088] A Dutch-built ship bought for Richelieu’s newly created fleet, but -taken in the Texel (_State Papers, Dom._, lxxxiii, 20 and lxxxvi, 64). - -[1089] Captured Dunkirkers. The measurements of the _Nicodemus_, -_Nonsuch_, _Phœnix_, and _Elizabeth_, are from a paper in the _Pepys -MSS._, quoted in Derrick’s _Memoirs of the Royal Navy_. The _Swan_ was -lost off Guernsey in October 1638. - -[1090] Bought in 1642 (_Aud. Off. Dec. Accounts_, 1706, 89). - -[1091] Built in 1646 as a privateer, and employed as such by Warwick -(half share), Pett, Swanley, and others; bought by the Parliament from -20th Jan. 1649, when she was appraised at £2081 (_State Papers, Dom., -Interreg._, xxiii, 119). The dimensions are from _Harl. MSS._, 4161. She -is popularly said to have been the first frigate built in an English -yard, but it will be seen from the above list that four others, of a -still more pronounced frigate type, were launched in the same year. - -[1092] The first seven vessels were prizes captured during the civil -war and taken into the Navy, in which they remained long enough to be -included in the Commonwealth lists; the _Globe_, and _Hector_ were -merchantmen bought into the service. For the names of others see _Aud. -Off. Dec. Accounts_, 1812, 443 A. - -[1093] _State Papers, Dom._, xxi, 72. - -[1094] _Supra_, p. 54. Mr R. C. Leslie (_Old Sea Wings, Ways, and Words_, -p. 49 et seq.) believes all the smaller craft of old, and some large -ones, to have been clinker-built. - -[1095] _State Papers, Dom._, lviii, 25. - -[1096] _Ibid._, cxxi, 41. - -[1097] _Ibid._, ccclxv, 17; 1637. - -[1098] _State Papers, Dom._, ccclxiii, 29. It is difficult even in these -days of mechanical appliances to keep the ports completely water-tight -in heavy weather. Ports were fastened by a bar of wood passed through a -ring on the inside; but this could not have been very effectual, and it -was usual to drive oakum into the seams of the ports when bad weather was -expected (_Nomenclator Navalis_). - -[1099] The Dutchman was probably Cornelius Drebbel, who claimed to have -solved the secret of perpetual motion, and to have invented a submarine -boat. His name occurs several times in the _State Papers_ as receiving -rewards for various inventions and appliances, and in 1628 he was -employed in the preparation of some especial fireships and ‘engines for -fireworks.’ - -[1100] _Aud. Off. Dec. Accounts_, 1703, 73. - -[1101] The original waistcloths of the _Prince_ were of silk; ordinary -waistcloths, the precursors of the later boarding nettings, were still of -red kersey listed with canvas. - -[1102] _State Papers, Dom._, ccliv, 25. - -[1103] _Ibid._, ccxliv, 77, 78. - -[1104] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxvii, 55. Pennington said nothing about -the crew; he was used to such crews. But Sir Hen. Manwayring remarked -that he had never seen a ship so wretchedly manned; that, except the -officers, there was scarcely a seaman on board, and that they were -‘men of poor and wretched person, without clothes or ability of body, -tradesmen, some that never were at sea, a fletcher, glover, or the like,’ -(_Add. MSS._, 9294, f. 489). - -[1105] _Ibid._, cclxviii, 47. - -[1106] _Ibid._, cclxxiii, 49, 1 and 50. - -[1107] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxli, 16; 1633. - -[1108] _Ibid._, ccxxviii, f. 63a. - -[1109] _Ibid._, cclxxviii, 41, I. - -[1110] _A True Description of His Majesty’s Most Royal and Stately Ship_, -etc., 2nd edit., London, 1638. - -[1111] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxiii, 25. - -[1112] _Ibid._, cclxiv, ff. 67 _a_ and 87 _a_. - -[1113] Storekeeper at Deptford; one would suppose a most unlikely person -to be consulted on such a point. - -[1114] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxxvi, 44. - -[1115] _Ibid._, cclxxxvii, 73. - -[1116] _Aud. Off. Dec. Accounts_, 1703-77. - -[1117] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxcviii, 20. - -[1118] _Ibid._, ccclxi, 73. - -[1119] In the _Leopard_ and _Swallow_ he had himself ordered that the -ports should be eight feet apart (_State Papers, Dom._, cclx, 86,) -although Pennington and other practical seamen urged that nine feet was -the minimum space that should be allowed. - -[1120] _State Papers, Dom._, ccclxxiv, 30, and ccclxxxvii, 87. - -[1121] Drakes were fired with full, periers with low, charges of powder. - -[1122] _State Papers, Dom._, ccclxxxvii, 87. - -[1123] _Add. MSS._, 9297, f. 345. - -[1124] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxix, 27. - -[1125] _State Papers, Dom._, cccxix, 4, 15. When ships were in commission -captains were in the habit of cutting windows and scuttles in a vessel’s -side if it suited their convenience. - -[1126] _Ibid._, cclxxxiii, 1. - -[1127] _Aud. Off. Dec. Accounts_, 1703, 78. - -[1128] _State Papers, Dom._, ccccxcviii, 48 and 51. - -[1129] _Ibid._, xxxiii, 108; 1626. - -[1130] _Ibid._, 78. - -[1131] _State Papers, Dom., Elizabeth_, ccxxxvii, f. 60 (list of French -and Spanish ships before Rochelle). There were thirty-six Spaniards, and -eleven of them were of 1000 tons apiece, the others being nearly as large. - -[1132] _State Papers, Dom., Charles I_, clxiv; 9th April 1630. - -[1133] _Ibid._, cxcviii, 84. - -[1134] Barbou, _Hist. de la Marine Française_. - -[1135] _State Papers, Dom._, lv, 39; 1627. By John Wells. I cannot -profess to explain how all the figures here given are obtained. - -[1136] _I.e._, 63½ x 26⅙ x 11 ÷ 100 = 182 burden and 243 ton and tonnage -(Cf. _supra_, p. 30, note 2, and p. 132.) - -[1137] The planks on the inside of a ship’s frame on the floor. - -[1138] This method was adopted during the Commonwealth. - -[1139] _State Papers, Dom._, xxvii, 67. - -[1140] _State Papers, Dom._, xxix, 7. - -[1141] Floor, the bottom of a vessel on each side of the keelson. - -[1142] _State Papers, Dom._, xxix, 10. - -[1143] Other papers relating to this question will be found in _State -Papers, Dom._, xxxii, 119-121; xxxviii, 30, 1; lv, 36; lvii, 92; and lix, -75. - -[1144] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxxvi, 74. By the old rule the _Sovereign_ -was of 1367 net and 1823 gross tonnage (_ibid._, ccclxi, 71). - -[1145] From outside to outside. - -[1146] ‘Withinside the plank.’ - -[1147] Leaving out the false post, _i.e._, a piece bolted to the after -edge of the main stern post. - -[1148] _State Papers, Dom._, xvi, and xvii. - -[1149] _State Papers, Dom._, xxxi, 56; xxxii, 29, 71, 72, 1; xxxiii, 3, -1, 70, 1, 120, 129; xxxiv, 31, 98-110; xxxix, 28, 50, 1. North Wales has -nothing larger than thirty tons, and ‘not six persons who can take charge -of a barque as far as Dublin or the Land’s End.’ - -[1150] _State Papers, Dom._, xcii, 45. - -[1151] The East India Company possessed this year a fleet of twenty-seven -ships, of 12,250 tons (_ibid._, cxviii, 76). - -[1152] _Ibid._, cxxxvii, Feb. 1629. - -[1153] _Ibid._, cxxxii, 19, 20; cxxxviii, 4; cclxxxii, 135, (1634). - -[1154] _State Papers, Dom._, xlvii, 22. - -[1155] _State Papers, Dom._, liii, 62. - -[1156] _Ibid._, lxi, 79, 81. - -[1157] _Ibid._, 85, 1. - -[1158] _Ibid._, lxxx, 77, 1. - -[1159] _Harl. MSS._, 1721, f. 642, and 7018, f. 24. - -[1160] _State Papers, Dom._, cclvii, 29. - -[1161] _Ibid._, cccliii, f. 116. - -[1162] _Add. MSS._, 9302, f. 24. - -[1163] _State Papers, Dom._, xciv, 1. - -[1164] Meaning an order on the Treasurer of the Navy. - -[1165] _State Papers, Dom._, iv, July 21. - -[1166] _Ibid._, xxx, 53. - -[1167] _Specifications relating to Marine Propulsion._ London, 1858. - -[1168] _Ibid._ - -[1169] _Fœdera_, xix, 257. - -[1170] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxii, 72. Perhaps the inventor was a Mr -Philip White (_S. P. D. Interreg._ May 25, 1658), in which case it was -patented for fourteen years from the 10th of Charles I. - -[1171] _State Papers, Dom._, v, 6, 24, 36. As is well known, several -Englishmen of good family joined the Algerines and other states. It must -have been solely their guidance that brought the Mediterranean corsairs -so far north. - -[1172] _Ibid._, xxv, 71. - -[1173] _Ibid._, xxx, 17, (1626). - -[1174] _Ibid._, xliii, 46, (1626). - -[1175] _State Papers, Dom._, xxxiv, 85, (1626); and lvi, 66, (1627). -We have no figures which enable us to even guess at the financial loss -caused by the Dunkirkers during the first half of the seventeenth -century, but M. Vanderest (_Hist. de Jean Bart._ 1844), himself a native -of the town and having access to its archives, estimates the pecuniary -injury they caused to England during forty years of warfare, from 1656, -at 350,000,000 livres. Nor does this computation appear to take into -account the higher value of money during the seventeenth and eighteenth -centuries. - -[1176] _State Papers, Dom._, lxx, 8 and 9. - -[1177] _Ibid._, clxii, 41, 82. - -[1178] _Ibid._, cccxxxi, 7. - -[1179] _State Papers, Dom._, cccxxxiv, 16. Stradling to Nicholas. - -[1180] _Autobiography of the Rev. Devereux Spratt._ London, 1886. It need -hardly be said that the jealousies of Christian princes were a large -factor in causing the immunity in which these barbarian states so long -rejoiced. Spratt was captured while crossing from Cork to Bristol. - -[1181] It does not come within the design of this work to describe the -operations of fleets at sea, but, in this instance, I must venture to -question Mr Gardiner’s depreciatory estimate of William Rainsborow as a -commander. Mr Gardiner considers that such success as was obtained was -due neither to Rainsborow’s skill nor to the efficiency of his men, but -to the existence of civil strife, disorganising what might have been a -united opposition, between the old and new towns of Sallee, situated -opposite each other on the right and left banks of the river Regreb -(_Hist. of England_, viii, 270). When Rainsborow arrived off Sallee on -24th March with four ships, he found that they drew too much water to -close in effectually with the town. Instead of wandering off helplessly -to Cadiz and spending his time in ‘shooting and ostentation,’ as Mansell -did to Malaga under adverse circumstances, Rainsborow, while he sent -to England for lighter vessels, organised a blockade with the boats of -his squadron. So far as I know he was the first of our commanders to -recognise—and almost invent—the possibilities of boat work on a large -scale, in which English seamen afterwards became such adepts, and it -appears rather that his readiness and resource under unexpected and -unfavourable conditions should alone be sufficient to relieve his memory -from the charge of want of skill. That this patrol duty was no child’s -play is shown by the fact that in one night’s work thirty men were killed -and wounded in the boats (John Dunton, _A True Journal of the Sallee -Fleet_. London, 1637). In June he was joined by the _Providence_ and -_Expedition_, which made the task easier; but for the previous three -months, riding on a dangerous lee shore, in a bad anchorage, and exposed -to the heavy Atlantic swell, using the ships by day and the boats by -night, he never relaxed his bulldog grip on the place, in itself a proof -of fine seamanship. That the end came more quickly from the existence of -civil war is very certain, but I think no one who reads Dunton’s account -(he was an officer of the flagship), and Rainsborow’s own modestly -written Journal (_State Papers, Dom._, ccclxix, 72), can doubt that the -result would eventually have been the same, seeing that the blockade grew -closer day by day until at last every vessel which attempted to pass in -or out was captured or destroyed. In August, when the enemy were already -crushed, two more ships joined him, and he was then quite strong enough -to have dealt with both the old and new towns, had they been united, or -to have gone on, as he desired to go on, to settle accounts with Algiers. -It should also be remarked that Rainsborow anticipated Blake in attacking -forts with ships, the _Providence_ being sent in within musket range of -the castle and coming out unscathed from the contest. Looked at from -another point of view, and compared with the French attempts against -Sallee, Rainsborow’s ability and success stand out just as clearly. In -1624 M. de Razilly was sent down with a squadron, but permitted himself -to be driven off by weather; in 1629 he came again, and, after lying -off the port for three months and negotiating on equal terms with these -savages, had to depart without having obtained the release of a single -French captive. A surely significant contrast! - -That Charles was satisfied with Rainsborow does not, perhaps, prove -much, although he offered him knighthood and did give him a gold medal -and chain and make him captain of the _Sovereign_, a post then of -high honour. But Northumberland, a very much better judge was equally -well pleased, and in 1639, strongly recommended him to the burgesses -of Aldborough as their member. Northumberland, not then Lord Admiral, -but paramount in naval affairs, is also entitled to a measure of the -credit of success; for had Rainsborow been dependent on the energy and -intelligence of the Principal Officers of the Navy for the supplies which -enabled him to keep his station he would probably have fared but badly. -And doubtless many of the men who under him worked with such courage and -devotion had formed part of the demoralised and useless crews who were -such objects of scorn to Wimbledon and his officers before Cadiz in 1625. -The only difference was in the commander. - -[1182] _State Papers, Dom._, cccclix, 8, 60. - -[1183] Halliwell’s _Royal Letters_, II, 277. - -[1184] The first Commissioners of the Admiralty acted by Letters Patent -of 20th September 1628. They were Richard, Lord Weston, Lord Treasurer; -Robert, Earl of Lindsey, Great Chamberlain; William, Earl of Pembroke, -Lord Steward; Edward, Earl of Dorset, Lord Chamberlain to the Queen; -Dudley, Viscount Dorchester, Vice-Chamberlain of the Household; and -Sir John Coke, Secretary of State. Powers were granted to them or any -three of them. Although in modern phrase they are called Lords of the -Admiralty, they were in reality a committee of the Privy Council, -carrying out the instructions of the King and Council, who retained -the power and exercised the control of an eighteenth century Admiralty -Board. A fresh commission was issued on 20th November 1632, which -omitted Lords Pembroke and Dorchester, and added Lord Cottington, Sir -Francis Windebank, and Sir Henry Vane (the elder). The third and last -commission was of 16th March 1636 to William Juxon, Bishop of London, -Lord Treasurer, Lords Cottington, Lindsey, and Dorset; and Vane, Coke, -and Windebank. - -[1185] His patent as Lord Admiral was dated 28th Jan. 1619. - -[1186] _State Papers, Dom., Charles I_, ccxli, 85, 86. - -[1187] _Add. MSS._, 9301, f. 110. - -[1188] _State Papers, Dom._, ccciv, 9. - -[1189] _State Papers, Dom., Elizabeth_, ccxxxvii, f. 138. - -[1190] _State Papers, Dom., Charles I_, ccclxxii, 21. - -[1191] _Rot. Pat._, 5th April 1627. - -[1192] It will be remembered that during his treasurership he helped -himself to £3000 from the Chatham Chest, and that the money was still -owing in 1644. After his dismissal from office Crowe was ambassador of -the Levant Company at Constantinople, and, in 1646, nearly ruined that -company by, on the one hand, quarrelling with the Porte, and on the other -imprisoning the members and agents of the association. When he returned -in 1648 he was sent to the Tower, but seems to have escaped scatheless. - -[1193] _Rot. Pat._, 11th Feb. 1626 (a renewal of his patent of James I), -and 21st Jan. 1630. - -[1194] _Rot. Pat._, 12th Jan. 1639. - -[1195] _Ibid._ - -[1196] _Ibid._, 19th Dec. 1632. - -[1197] _Ibid._, 26th Sept. 1638. - -[1198] By an order of 13th Feb. 1637 no place in the Navy or Ordnance -offices was henceforth to be granted for life, but only during pleasure. -Edisbury’s real name was Wilkinson (see Hasted, _Hist. of Kent_, I, 20 -note, ed. Drake, London, 1886). - -[1199] _State Papers, Dom._, cxxxv, 37. - -[1200] _Ibid._, clii, 51. - -[1201] _Add. MSS._, 9301, ff. 121, 133. - -[1202] Barlow lived to contest the place with Pepys in 1660. The date of -his patent was 16th Feb. 1639. - -[1203] _State Papers, Dom._, clxxiii, 6. Mervyn to Nicholas. - -[1204] The Duke of York was ‘declared’ Lord Admiral at a meeting of the -Council on 18th March 1638. There was no patent. - -[1205] _Rot. Pat._, 13th April 1638. - -[1206] _Add. MSS._, 9297, f. 178 - -[1207] The price of beer at this time was about £1, 10s a tun. - -[1208] In 1634 Palmer, the Comptroller, Denis Fleming, Clerk of the Acts, -Phineas Pett, another Principal Officer, and several storekeepers and -masters attendant had all been suspended for selling government stores -for their own profit. - -[1209] _State Papers, Dom._, cccliii, f. 88. - -[1210] _State Papers, Dom._, cccliii, f. 55. - -[1211] _State Papers, Dom._, xiii, 70, (1625), _i.e._, by the system of -servants and apprentices. It was not until 1647 that the shipkeepers -in the Medway were ordered to strike the bell on board every half-hour -through the night (_Add. MSS._, 9306, f. 103). - -[1212] _State Papers, Dom._, cclviii, 30. - -[1213] _Discourse of the Navy_, (_Add. MSS._, 9335). - -[1214] _Discourse of the Navy_ (_Add. MSS._, 9335). - -[1215] _State Papers, Dom._, xxvii, 69. - -[1216] _Ibid._, cli, 33. - -[1217] _Ibid._, cclx, 29. Edisbury to Nicholas. - -[1218] _Ibid._, cclxiii, 19. - -[1219] _Add. MSS._, 9306, f. 119. - -[1220] _State Papers, Dom._, xxiii, 120; 1626. Ten years later -Northumberland still complained about this. There had been no reform. - -[1221] _State Papers, Dom._, cccclxxx, 36. - -[1222] _Ibid._, ccccxxix, 33. - -[1223] It must not, however, be supposed that naval morality was worse -during the reigns of James and Charles than subsequently. Leaving the -eighteenth century out of consideration it was said that at the beginning -of this one the annual public loss from fraud and embezzlement ran into -millions, a sum which may well have almost drawn the shades of Mansell -and hundreds of other pettifogging seventeenth century navy thieves -back to earth. The great difference was that at the later date, whether -from higher principle or stricter discipline, the combatant branches of -the service were honest, the theft and jobbery being confined to the -Admiralty, Navy and Victualling Boards, and dockyard establishments. Lord -St Vincent said of the Navy Board that it was ‘the curse of the Navy,’ -and the methods of the dockyards may be gauged from the fact that while -the (present) _Victory_ cost £97,400 to build, £143,600 were in fifteen -years expended on her repairs. Of the Admiralty there will be much to be -said. - -[1224] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxxix, 114. - -[1225] _Ibid._, ccxlv, 19. - -[1226] _State Papers, Dom._, cviii, 18. - -[1227] _Ibid._, ccxxvii, 1. - -[1228] _Ibid._, cclxix, 67. - -[1229] _Ibid._, ccclxxvi, 160 and ccccxlii, 12. Cf. _supra_, p. 239. - -[1230] _Ibid._, cccxcvii, 37. - -[1231] _State Papers, Dom._, cccclxxvi, 115. - -[1232] _Butler’s Dialogical Discourse_, &c. Of course the guns would be -going all the time; this form of reception appears to have been that -given also to the King or to a general commanding an expedition. - -[1233] _State Papers, Dom._, liii, 40. Heydon to Nicholas. - -[1234] _State Papers, Dom._, lxxxviii, 27. - -[1235] _Ibid._, ccxx, 25. Professor Laughton was the first to suggest -(_Fortnightly Review_, July 1866), that the real origin of the English -claim to the lordship of the narrow seas is to be found in the possession -by our early kings of both shores of the Channel. - -[1236] _Ibid._, 2nd May 1635. - -[1237] _State Papers, Dom._, cccxvii, 102. - -[1238] _Ibid._, cccxxxvi, 13 and cccxxxviii, 39. - -[1239] _Aud. Off. Decl. Accounts_, 1699, 65. - -[1240] _Ibid._, 1812, 443 A. - -[1241] The last of tonnage measurement varied in different places, but -was of about two tons. - -[1242] _State Papers, Dom._, ccccxxxviii, 102. - -[1243] Pennington and his men were paid double wages ‘out of the French -king’s moneys’ (_Aud. Off. Decl. Accounts_, 1698, 63), which throws their -intense abhorrence of their work into still stronger relief. - -[1244] In this year the Navy and Ordnance offices were £251,000 in -arrears (_State Papers_, lxxxvii, 35). - -[1245] _Add. MSS._, 17,503. - -[1246] Includes ‘all incident expenses,’ such as repairs, shipkeepers, -administration, etc.; the difference between the totals of the third and -fourth columns, together, and the fifth is in great part covered by the -cost of the winter fleets. - -[1247] And eight pinnaces. - -[1248] Summer ‘guard,’ or fleet. - -[1249] Winter guard. - -[1250] Includes allowance of twenty shillings a month per man to the -crews of 48 privateers. - -[1251] Includes cost of new ships building. - -[1252] Few historical students admire Charles I, but even such a king as -he is entitled to the justice of posterity beyond that which he obtained -from his contemporaries. Professor Hosmer (_Life of Sir H. Vane the -Younger_, p. 497) says that Vane, ‘had created the fleet out of nothing, -had given it guns and men.’ He appears to think that a naval force, with -its subsidiary manufactures and establishments, could be created in a -few years, but, as a matter of fact, Parliament commenced the struggle -infinitely better equipped at sea than on land, and it was so powerful -afloat that it did not find it necessary to begin building again till -1646, when the result of the struggle was assured. If Mr Hosmer is -referring to a later period, the statement is still more questionable, -since the number of men-of-war had been increased and Vane had ceased -to have any special connexion, except in conjunction with others, with -naval affairs. Allowing for his narrow intelligence and vacillating -temperament Charles showed more persistence and continuity of design -in the government of the Navy than in any other of his regal duties; -for, although relatively weaker as regards other powers, England, as -far as ships and dockyards were concerned, was stronger absolutely in -1642 than in 1625. The use made of the ship-money showed that under no -circumstances could Charles have been a great naval organiser; but he has -at least a right to have it said that he improved the _matériel_ of the -Navy so far as his limited views and disastrous domestic policy permitted. - -Returning to Vane, Mr Hosmer says in one place (p. 148), that the post -of Treasurer was worth £30,000, and in another (p. 376), £20,000 a -year. What Mr Hosmer’s authority (G. Sikes, _The Life and Death of Sir -Henry Vane_), really writes is, ‘The bare poundage, which in time of -peace came to about £3000, would have amounted to about £20,000 by the -year during the war with Holland.’ The poundage in peace years never -approached £3000, and, as Vane ceased to be Treasurer in 1650, and, -from the date of his resignation, a lower scale of payment was adopted, -the second part of the calculation is obviously nothing to the purpose. -Whether the reduction in the Treasurer’s commission was due to Vane, or -whether he resigned on account of it, we have no evidence to show, nor -do vague generalities help to clear the doubt. As bearing testimony to -Vane’s disinterestedness Mr Hosmer quotes Sikes to the effect that he -returned half his receipts, from the date of his appointment as sole -Treasurer, at the time of the self-denying ordinance. Unfortunately -the accounts previous to 1645 are wanting and the question must remain -open, but if the probability may be judged by general tendency it must -be said to be extremely unlikely, since he was Treasurer from 8th Aug. -1642 till 31st Dec. 1650, and during that time received in poundage and -salary for the five-and-a-half years for which the accounts remain the -sum of £19,620, 1s 10d. There is no sign in the audit office papers -that he returned one penny of his legal dues, and, whoever else had -to wait, he seems to have paid himself liberally and punctually. Mr -Hosmer has only indirectly noticed that Parliament, when Vane resigned, -settled a retiring pension on him. Sikes says, ‘some inconsiderable -matter without his seeking, was allotted to him by the Parliament in -lieu thereof’ (_i.e._, of his place). The ‘inconsiderable matter,’ was -landed estate producing £1200 a year. Seeing that he held his post -for only seven and a half years, that during that time he must have -received at least £25,000, and that all previous Treasurers had been, -on occasion, dismissed without any suggestion of compensation, his -disinterestedness may be questioned. When Parliament voted Ireton an -estate of £2000 a year he refused it on account of the poverty of the -country. And Sikes’s version that it was ‘without his seeking’ is not -absolutely beyond doubt. On June 27th, 1650, a petition of Vane’s was -referred to a committee to discuss how the treasurership was to be -managed from Dec. 31st following, and ‘also to consider what compensation -is fit to be given to the petitioner out of that office or otherwise in -consideration of his right in the said office.’ It is no unjustifiable -assumption to infer from this the possibility that the petition at any -rate included a claim for compensation. Sikes, again, tells us that he -caused his subordinate Hutchinson to succeed him, but when, on 10th Oct. -1650, the motion was before the House that the ‘question be now put’ -whether Hutchinson’s appointment should be made, Vane was one of the -tellers for the ‘Noes’ and was beaten by 27 to 18. This was immediately -followed by Hutchinson’s nomination without a division. The incidents -of Hutchinson’s official career imply a much stronger and more lasting -influence than that of Vane, but the only importance of the question is -as affecting the trustworthiness of the latter’s seventeenth century -biographer. Mr Hosmer, like all other writers on Vane, appears to quote -Sikes with implicit faith, but the man evidently wrote only loosely and -generally, making up in enthusiasm what he lacked in exactness; _e.g._, -‘In the beginning of that expensive war he resigned the treasurership of -the Navy.’ Hutchinson succeeded him from 1st Jan. 1650-1, and war with -Holland did not occur till June 1652. There is nothing to show that Vane -was not an honest administrator, but his party, fortunately, produced -many others equally trustworthy. - -[1253] _Add. MSS._, 9302, f. 42. - -[1254] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxxxix, 43. - -[1255] _Add. MSS._, 9297, f. 75. - -[1256] _State Papers, Dom._, clxxiii, 32. - -[1257] _Supra_, p. 150. - -[1258] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxlv, 49; January 1627. - -[1259] _Ibid._, l, 45. - -[1260] _Ibid._, cxxxviii, 66. - -[1261] _Ibid._, cxliii, 37. - -[1262] J. Holland, _Discourse of the Navy_. - -[1263] _Add. MSS._, 9301, f. 135. - -[1264] _Egerton MSS._, 2541, f. 123, Deptford was chiefly used for -building, and Chatham for repairing. - -[1265] _State Papers, Dom._, cccii, 27. - -[1266] _Ibid._, cccliii, f. 67. - -[1267] _State Papers, Dom._, cccxlvii, 85. - -[1268] _Ibid._, xlviii, January 20. This, must, however, refer to some -improvements as ring-bolts for the purpose are mentioned earlier. - -[1269] _Fœdera_, xix, 549. - -[1270] It is possible, too, that the present navy button and cap badge -may be traced back, in inception, to the parliamentary _régime_. -Northumberland’s seal consisted merely of his arms (_reverse_), with -(_obverse_) a figure on horseback with a background of sea and ships; and -although earlier Lords Admirals—Southampton, Lincoln, and Buckingham—had -used the anchor, none of them had combined the coronet, anchor, and -wreath. Warwick’s was one which differs only in the relative proportions -of the details from the button and badge now in use, except that the -anchor is now fouled. If it is only a coincidence it is a curious one. -Popham, Blake, and Deane employed a modification of Warwick’s seal, -omitting the crown; and the Navy Office adopted another, consisting of -three anchors, a large centre one with a smaller on each side, and ‘The -Seale of the Navye Office’ round the edge, so that the device selected -by Warwick seems, in one form or another, to have been soon widely used -and continued. A reproduction of this Navy Office Seal is used on the -binding, and at the foot of the Preface, of the present volume. - -[1271] These prices were paid by the government; the cost to the sailor -depended on the honesty of many intermediaries. - -[1272] _State Papers, Dom., Interreg._, 22nd June 1649; Council to -Generals of fleet. - -[1273] Captain John Stevens, _Royal Treasury of England_, 1725. He gives -no authorities and his figures are very doubtful, but Mr Dowell (_Hist. -of Taxes_) appears to quote him as trustworthy. In any case the revenues -of the republic enormously exceeded those of the monarchy. The anonymous -writer of a Restoration pamphlet (_The Mystery of the Good Old Cause_, -1660) estimates that the Commonwealth raised £3,000,000 a year. - -[1274] The value, in 1894, of the English merchant navy was £122,000,000, -Admiralty expenditure £18,500,000; of the French merchant navy -£10,100,000, Admiralty expenditure £10,500,000. - -[1275] _Add. MSS._, 5500, f. 25. - -[1276] De Witt, _The True Interest of Holland_, p. 227. De Witt notices -the preference given to land operations during the thirty years’ war. - -[1277] _Ibid._, p. 218, et seq. - -[1278] In the Dutch service each captain contracted to provision his own -ship, and the men had meat only once a week. - -[1279] Relatively, that is, judged by a standard of comparison with what -they had endured under the Stewarts. - -[1280] Burton’s _Diary_, III, 57, 3rd February 1658-9. There are several -other references in Burton to the care the Long Parliament bestowed on -the Navy. - -[1281] Gumble, _Life of Monk_, p. 75. Eleven hundred according to a Dutch -life of Tromp. - -[1282] This is, perhaps, not literally correct; a contemporary seaman, -Gibson, tells us that the aim of the English captains was to lie on the -bow or quarter of their antagonists (_Add. MSS._, 11,602, f. 77), but -that was very different from the game of long bowls Englishmen had learnt -to be the best medicine for Spaniards, and had never till now discarded. -Our fleets went into action _en masse_, the only rule being that each -captain should keep as close as possible to the flag of his divisional -commander. The result at times was that while some ships were being -overwhelmed by superior force others hardly fired a gun, and an officer -who had closely obeyed the letter of his instructions might afterwards -find himself charged with cowardice and neglect of duty. - -[1283] _State Papers, Dom._, 19th March 1649. There was theological -bitterness involved as well, since the Navy Commissioners directed that -any man refusing meat in Lent was to be dismissed as refractory, (_Add. -MSS._, 9304, f. 54). - -[1284] _State Papers, Dom._, 12th March 1649, Council to Generals of the -fleet. John Sparrow, Rich. Blackwell, and Humphrey Blake were appointed -on 17th April 1649 to be treasurers and collectors of prize goods; Rich. -Hill, Sam. Wilson, and Robt. Turpin were added from 8th March 1653. - -[1285] _Commons Journals_, 21st Dec. 1652. The ‘medium’ cost of each -man at sea was reckoned at £4 a month, including wages, victuals, wear -and tear of ships, stores, provision for sick and wounded, and other -incidental expenses. _Rawlinson MSS._ (Bodleian Library), A 9, p. 176. - -[1286] _State Papers, Dom._, 12th May 1649, Council to Generals at sea. - -[1287] It is advisable to dwell on this point because the late Mrs -Everett Green (Preface to _Calendar of State Papers_, 1649-50, p. 24), -said, speaking of the Commonwealth seamen generally, that ‘disaffection -and mutiny were frequent among them,’ and writers of less weight have -echoed this opinion. The instances of mutiny were in reality very -few—seven between 1649 and 1660—were not serious, and were, in every -case but one attributable to drunkenness or to wages and prize money -remaining unpaid, the single exception being due to the refusal of a -crew to proceed to sea in what they held to be an unseaworthy ship. -This is a very trifling number compared with the series of such events -occurring during nearly every year of the reign of Charles I. Of -disaffection in the sense of a leaning towards the Stewarts there is not -a trace among the men, and but two or three examples among officers. -The exiles in France and Holland, with that optimism peculiar to the -unfortunate, were continually anticipating that ships and men were -coming over to the royal cause, an anticipation never once verified in -the event. The analogue of the seventeenth century seaman, if he exists -to-day at all, is to be found, not in the man-of-war’s man, who now has -literary preferences and an account in the ship’s savings bank, but -in the rough _milieu_ of a trader’s forecastle, and among men of this -type violence, or even an outbreak of savage ruffianism, by no means -necessarily implies serious ground of discontent, but may be owing to -one of many apparently inadequate causes. There were no such outbreaks -among the Commonwealth seamen, and the punishments for drunkenness and -insubordination were not disproportionate to the number of men employed, -but if that is made an argument it should also be applied to the army; -nearly every page of Whitelocke furnishes us with instances of officers -and men being broken, sentenced, or dismissed for theft, insubordination, -and sometimes disaffection, but no one has yet suggested that the army -yearned to restore the Stewarts. The two most striking examples of these -mutinies usually quoted are those of the _Hart_ in 1650 and the riotous -assemblies in London in 1653. In the case of the _Hart_ what actually -happened was that, the captain and officers being on shore, 28 out of -the 68 men on board seized the ship when the others were below, with the -intention, according to one contemporary writer, of taking her over to -Charles, according to another, of turning pirates, and according to a -third, because they were drunk. Perhaps all three causes were at work, -seeing that the mutineers soon quarrelled among themselves, and the loyal -majority of the crew regained possession of the ship and brought her -back to Harwich. Yet I have seen a serious writer quote the _Hart_ as -an example of desertion to the royalists, an error probably due to the -fact that she was afterwards captured by the Dutch, and eventually sailed -under a Stewart commission until she blew up at the Canaries. In October -1653 there were tumults in London, due entirely to the non-payment of -prize money, and these, it is true, required to be suppressed by military -force. But this riot, extending over two days, was the only instance in -which the government found difficulty in dealing with the men, and does -not warrant a general charge of disloyalty during eleven years. If a -detailed examination of the remaining instances were worth the space, -they could be shown to be equally due to causes remote from politics. -Historically, a mutiny among English seamen has never necessarily -signified disloyalty to the _de facto_ sovereign or government; the -mutineers at Spithead and the Nore in 1797 were especially careful to -declare their loyalty to the crown, and their failure at the Nore was -probably due to the extent to which they carried this feeling. If the -character of the service rendered to the republic is compared with that -given to Charles I, it is difficult to understand how the charge of -disaffection can be maintained. - -[1288] _State Papers, Dom._, 24th May 1652, Council to vice-admirals -of counties. The subject of impressment belongs more fitly to the -eighteenth century. Here it will be sufficient to remark that while in -many cases the government officials reported that the men were coming in -willingly of their own accord, in others the press masters found great -difficulty in executing their warrants, and writers of newsletters in -London describe the seizure of landsmen and forcible entry of houses, -in which seamen were supposed to be hiding, in a fashion which reminds -the reader of the beginning of the present century. The two versions are -not irreconcilable; at all times there has been a remainder, after the -best men had been obtained, difficult to reach and willing to make any -sacrifice to escape a man-of-war. - -[1289] _Add. MSS._, 9306, f. 85. - -[1290] _Thomason Pamphlets_, 684/9 The regulations of 1649 were only -adaptations of the rules made, independently, long before by each Lord -Admiral when in command of a fleet. Mr Gardiner has suggested to me -that the formal enactment of the articles at that particular moment was -possibly directly connected with the defeat off Dungeness in November. -This view is supported by the fact that they were obviously not aimed at -the men, with whose conduct no fault had been found and whose position -was, if anything, improved by them, by the definition of crime and -punishment and the institution of a court of eight officers; while, on -the other hand, the severest clauses are those affecting officers whose -conduct, both in action and when cruising, had in many cases caused great -dissatisfaction. - -[1291] _State Papers, Dom._, 31st Dec. 1653. - -[1292] _State Papers, Dom._, 4th Feb. 1652. - -[1293] _Ibid._, 15th Dec. 1652. - -[1294] _State Papers, Dom._, lx, 135, October 1653; Bourne to Navy -Commissioners. - -[1295] _State Papers, Dom._, xxix, 57; October 1652. - -[1296] _Ibid._, 6th Jan. 1653. - -[1297] _Ibid._, xxx, 84, and xlv, 66. - -[1298] From the Dutch _Grom_, or Low Latin _Gromettus_, one occupied in -a servile office. Gromet is at least as old as the thirteenth century -and then meant a ship’s boy. Later it came to mean ordinary seamen; here -it is applied to a class between ordinary seamen and boys, but probably -nearer, in qualifications, to the former than the latter. - -[1299] The earliest mention of midshipmen yet noticed is in a letter of -7th Feb. 1642-3, in which a Mr Cook writes that he will not undervalue -_himself_ by allowing his son to accept such a place. - -[1300] The pay of the privates was 18s per month; no officer of higher -rank than serjeant was in charge. - -[1301] _State Papers, Dom._, 19th April 1655. Hatsell to Col. John Clerke -(an Admiralty Commissioner). - -[1302] _State Papers, Dom._, ccv, 54. Disborowe lent £5000, which he had -succeeded in getting back; seven aldermen £19,500, of which £11,700 still -remained. - -[1303] _Add. MSS._, 22,546, f. 185, and 18,986, f. 176. - -[1304] The methods of these gentlemen were sometimes directly ancestral -to those of their successors in the prize courts of the beginning of this -century. In one case a ship was condemned and its cargo sold, apparently -on their own sole authority; the Admiralty Court ordered restitution, and -then the Commissioners presented a bill of £2000 for expenses (_State -Papers, Dom._, 26th Feb. 1655). A contemporary wrote, ‘It was nothing -for ordinary proctors in the Admiralty to get £4000 or £5000 a year by -cozening the state in their prizes till your petitioner by his discovery -to the Council of State spoiled their trade for a great part of it,’ (T. -Violet, _A True Narrative, etc._, Lond. 1659, p. 8). - -[1305] _State Papers, Dom._, xc, 2. - -[1306] _Ibid._, 18th March 1654. - -[1307] _Resolutions at a Council of War on board the ~Swiftsure~: -The humble Petition of the Seamen belonging to the Ships of the -Commonwealth._ These two broadsides are in the British Museum under the -press mark 669 f. 19, Nos. 32 and 33, ‘Great Britain and Ireland—Navy.’ - -[1308] _State Papers, Dom._, lxxvi, 81; 1645 (? Oct.). - -[1309] _State Papers, Dom._, clxxiii, 26th Oct. 1657; Morris to Navy -Commissioners. - -[1310] _Add. MSS._, 9304, f. 129. The _Sapphire_ seems to have been the -crack cruiser of her time. The contrast between that which, with all its -faults, was a strong administration, morally stimulating to officers and -men, and the enervating Stewart _régime_ is illustrated in the life and -death—if the expression be permitted—of this ship, and exemplified in the -grim entry in the burial register of St Nicholas, Deptford, under date -of 26th Aug. 1670, ‘Capt. John Pearse and Lieut. Logan shot to death for -loosing ye _Saphier_ cowardly.’ - -[1311] _State Papers, Dom._, clxxxii, 8; 6th July 1658. - -[1312] _State Papers, Dom._, 15th Sept., and 16th Nov. 1658. - -[1313] I have only noticed one instance of direct interference by -Cromwell in minor details. The widow of a seaman, killed by an accident -on the _Fagons_, had petitioned the Commissioners of sick and wounded for -help, and had been refused by them. She then appealed to the Protector, -and her memorial bears his holograph direction to the Commissioners to -reconsider their decision, the case being the same ‘in equity’ as though -the man had lost his life in action (_State Papers_, cxxx, 98; 10th Nov. -1656). If this is the only surviving illustration of the character of his -intervention in questions connected with the well-being of the men it is -gratifying that it should be of such a nature. - -[1314] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxii, 109. The revenue of England for 1659 -was estimated at £1,517,000 (_Commons Journals_). - -[1315] Allowance for short victuals. - -[1316] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxxii, 28. - -[1317] _State Papers, Dom._, 20th Dec. 1652. - -[1318] _Ibid._, 21st and 26th March 1653. - -[1319] _Ibid._, 14th April 1654. - -[1320] _State Papers, Dom._, 5th April 1653. - -[1321] _Ibid._, 31st March 1654. - -[1322] _Ibid._, cxl, 43. - -[1323] _State Papers, Dom._, 17th Dec., 1657. - -[1324] _Add. MSS._, 9304, ff. 133,135. It would not be just to pass from -the subject of the aid afforded to the men in disease and suffering -without some notice of Elizabeth Alkin, otherwise ‘Parliament Joan,’ -who wore out health and life in their service. This woman appears to -have nursed wounded soldiers during the civil war, for which she was in -receipt of a pension, and, in February 1653, volunteered similar help -for the sailors. She was then ordered to Portsmouth, and, in view of the -before noticed condition of the town, must have found very real work to -which to put her hand. If £325 went in one item to nurses there must have -been plenty of a kind to be had; but she gave her heart to her helpless -patients, and in June had spent not only all the government allowance -but also her own money, as ‘I cannot see them want if I have it.’ She -was then sent to Harwich, and on 22nd Feb. 1654 returned, weak and ill, -to London, with only 3s remaining. Of the last £10 given to her she had -spent £6 on the Dutch prisoners at Harwich: ‘Seeing their wants and -miseries so great, I could not but have pity on them though our enemies.’ -A week later she again appeals for at least an instalment of her pension, -or to be sent to a hospital in which ‘to end my days less miserably,’ -having been forced to sell even her bed. In May and September 1654, two -warrants, each for £10, were made out, and her name does not occur again. -Even these few data are sufficient to suggest the outline of a life of -self-sacrifice, illumined by a native kindliness of heart and unsoured by -religious fanaticism, of which there is not a trace in her letters. - -[1325] _State Papers, Dom._, c, 139. - -[1326] From seamen’s wages. - -[1327] By estimation. - -[1328] Average for three years, less taxes. - -[1329] By estimation. - -[1330] _Add. MSS._, 9305, 13th Jan. 1657. - -[1331] _State Papers, Dom._, cxxv, 39, 11. Under Charles I, widows -obtained donations from it, but no pensions. - -[1332] _Add. MSS._, 9317, f. 1 et seq. We have not Pett’s reply, and the -full force of the accusations, as they stand, is vitiated by the fact -that they were made by royalist servants inquiring into the conduct of a -Commonwealth official. The committee of inquiry in 1662 consisted of Sir -J. Mennes, Sir W. Coventry, Sir W. Penn, W. Rider, S. Pepys, and R. Ford. - -[1333] _State Papers, Dom._, 30th Nov. 1650. There were five partners -joined with Pride—John Limbrey, Wm. Beak, Thos. Alderne, Dennis Gauden, -and Rich. Pierce (_Audit Office Dec. Accounts_, 1708-96). The rates, in -1645, had been eightpence three farthings and sevenpence; the Victualling -was then under the supervision of the Treasurer (_Ibid._, 1706-90). - -[1334] _State Papers, Dom._, 12th Jan. 1653, and _Add. MSS._, 9306, f. 2. - -[1335] _State Papers, Dom._, xxx, 10. - -[1336] _State Papers, Dom._, 17th Oct. 1654, 1st, 7th, 14th Aug., and 8th -Sept. 1655. - -[1337] It is said that Alderne’s executors could produce neither vouchers -nor assets for £200,000 imprested to him. But the story rests only on -the authority of a royalist Comptroller of the Navy, Sir R. Slingsby -(_Discourse of the Navy_, f. 58). - -[1338] _Add. MSS._, 9300, f. 330; 19th Nov. 1656. - -[1339] _State Papers, Dom._, 31st Jan. 1660. - -[1340] _State Papers, Dom._, 6th March 1660. - -[1341] _Ibid._, 16th Aug. 1650. This is the medal shown on the title page. - -[1342] _State Papers, Dom._, cxliv, 66, 68, and _Add. MSS._, 9305, f. -155. The _Triumph_ medal was ‘For eminent service in saving ye _Triumph_ -fired in fight w ye Dutch in July 1653.’ - -[1343] _S. P. D._, cxvii, 64; 11th Dec. 1655. - -[1344] _Ibid._, cxxxiv, 64. - -[1345] _Ibid._, cxlv, 47; Sep. 1656. - -[1346] This list is based on that of Dering (_Archæologia_, xlviii), but -corrected where collation with the _State Papers_ and other authorities -points in some cases to the certainty, in others to the probability, of -Dering’s being in error, completed by the insertion of omitted dates, and -enlarged by the addition of all such vessels as were wrecked, captured, -destroyed, or sold out of the service, between 1649 and 1660 and which -the _Archæologia_ list, being only one of ships effective in 1660, does -not profess to supply. Prizes, originally privateers and taken into the -service, are indicated by an asterisk. Being the first attempt at a -complete Commonwealth Navy list, it must almost necessarily contain some -errors, but it is certain that every ship here mentioned was carried on -the Navy list of the state. A few others omitted as doubtful or more than -doubtful may really be entitled to a place in it; some of the prizes -assigned to 1653 may belong to 1652, and, in some instances, continuity -or similarity of name renders the exact date of purchase or capture a -little problematical. It has not been thought necessary to overload this -list with the innumerable references that could be given, especially -as the details seldom exactly agree in the various papers, but no name -has been inserted except on what appears to be sufficient authority. -Dering’s _Dolphin_, _Minion_ and _Pearl Brigantine_, I have been unable -to place; the _Pearl_ is only once mentioned, in 1658, as being ‘for use -as occasion requires.’ The _Diver_ which is also given by him, was not -a man-of-war at all, but a hoy temporarily hired for use in recovering -the guns of wrecked ships, and the _Princess_, of his list, was not -launched till August 1660. Some of the Dutch prizes were converted into -fire ships before being sold. The use of fire ships was not new in -either the English or foreign services, but they now appear to have been -systematically attached to fleets and, on one or two occasions, to have -been used with effect. - -It may be well to remark that the document of April 1660 (_State Papers_, -ccxx, 33), which purports to be a list of ships then existing, is -altogether untrustworthy. - -[1347] The _Guinea_, _Amity_, _Concord_, _Discovery_, _Gilliflower_, -_Mayflower_, _Hopewell_, _Accada_, _Nonsuch Ketch_, and _Marmaduke_, were -bought into the service in the respective years under which they are -placed, and are marked (B). - -[1348] Or _Great President_. - -[1349] The _Gilliflower_, then called the _Archangel_, and the -_Marmaduke_, were two prizes taken by Rupert, recaptured at sea by their -own crews, brought back to England, and taken into the service. - -[1350] Usually said to have been lost in action of July 1653, but can be -traced as the _Dunkirk_ after 1660. - -[1351] There is a model of the _Bristol_ in the museum of the Royal Naval -College of Greenwich. No confirmatory evidence is added to the bare -statements of names and dates on the labels attached to these models, and -the dates assigned to some of them do not inspire a heedless confidence. -However, from the character of the decoration, etc., the model ticketed -_Bristol_ is probably, at any rate, of this period. - -[1352] Rebuilt. - -[1353] Rebuilt. - -[1354] Most of the Commonwealth ships were named after some event of the -civil war. This is probably a derivative of St Fagans, near Llandaff, -where there was a fight in 1647. - -[1355] The _Royal James_, a Stewart privateer, commanded by captain -Beach, afterwards admiral Sir Richard Beach, of the Royal Navy, who -during the exile gave the state’s ships much trouble. Renamed from the -French Les Sorlinges, near which she was taken. - -[1356] The _Blackmoor_ and _Chestnut_ were especially designed for -service on the coast of Virginia (_State Papers, Dom._, cxli, 127). - -[1357] A Spanish prize; the earlier _Elias_ was Dutch, and remained in -the effective as a cruiser. - -[1358] For use in the Medway, and carrying one bow gun. - -[1359] _Add. MSS._, 11,602, f, 49. - -[1360] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxiii, 81. - -[1361] Dering’s list. - -[1362] Ed. Hayward, _The Sizes and Lengths of Rigging for all His -Majesty’s Ships_, 1660. Although not printed till 1660 this was written -in 1655. - -[1363] The absence of all allusion to davits is stranger from the fact -that they are found referred to, evidently as well known and in common -use, in navy papers of 1496. They were then used for the anchors. It -seems singular that in the intervening century and a half the principle -had not been applied to hoisting in the boats. In the _Nomenclator -Navalis_ of 1625 (really Manwayring’s _Dictionary_) he speaks of boat -tackles ‘wch stand one on the main mast shrowds the other on the fore -mast shrowds to hoise the boat,’ and this plan was identical with that in -use in 1514 (see Appendix A). - -[1364] _Audit Office Accounts_, 1707-94. - -[1365] _Add. MSS._, 9306, f. 68. - -[1366] _State Papers, Dom._, lxxxv, 73. - -[1367] _Ibid._, lxxxii, 13. The Admiralty was paying shipwrights 2s 2d a -day. - -[1368] _Add. MSS._, 9306, f. 132. When the _Prince_ was rebuilt in -1640-1, £2571 was spent on gilding and £756 on carving (_Add. MSS._, -9297, f. 351). - -[1369] _State Papers, Dom._, ciii, 94. - -[1370] The _Sovereign_, was however of 100, and the _Resolution_ and -_Naseby_ were of 80 guns. The armament of the _London_, a second-rate of -1656, was: lower tier, 12 demi-cannon and 12 culverins; middle tier, 12 -culverins and 12 demi-culverins; forecastle 6, waist 4, and quarter-deck -6 demi-culverins (_State Papers, Dom._, cl, 170). - -[1371] _Add. MSS._, 22546, f. 42. - -[1372] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxii, 115. - -[1373] _Add. MSS._, 9302, f. 81. - -[1374] _State Papers, Dom._, xxx, 77. But possibly there were others at -sea, although the contracts for hired ships do not show any large tonnage. - -[1375] Sir R. Slingsby, _Discourse of the Navy_. - -[1376] _Add. MSS._, 9306, ff. 130, 160; 1655-7. Until about this period -‘the Straits’ was the general term for the whole of the Mediterranean; -‘the Straits’ mouth,’ and ‘the bottom of the Straits’ respectively -describing the western and eastern portions. The increase of commerce now -necessitated more specific descriptions of locality. - -[1377] _State Papers, Dom._, 10th July 1652. - -[1378] _Add. MSS._, 11,684, f. 3. - -[1379] _State Papers, Dom._, 9th Dec. 1653. - -[1380] _Add. MSS._, 9299, f. 171. - -[1381] _State Papers, Colonial_, 19th Oct. 1654. - -[1382] _State Papers, Dom._, 26th Feb. 1656; Elton to Admiralty -Commissioners. It is very likely that the message did reach Cromwell. - -[1383] The Parliamentary Navy Committee, which had managed matters -throughout the civil war, existed for some time contemporaneously with -the Admiralty Committee. But it soon lost all authority. - -[1384] _State Papers, Dom._, 12th March 1649. - -[1385] The first Commissioners of the Admiralty and Navy were Generals, -Robert Blake, George Monk, John Disborowe, and Wm. Penn; Colonels, Philip -Jones, John Clerk, and Thos. Kilsey; Major Wm. Burton, and John Stone, -Edward Horseman and Vincent Gookin, Esquires. They acted from 3rd Dec. -1653. - -[1386] _Commons Journals_, 1st June 1659. - -[1387] Holland, Smith, Pett, and Willoughby, were appointed by order of -the House on 16th Feb. 1649; Thompson was added later in place of captain -Roger Tweedy, who had been a Commissioner during the civil war, and who -was again proposed but rejected on 16th February. On 21st of February the -House ordered that Holland, like Batten called Surveyor, was to have £300 -a year; the others £250 a year. - -[1388] _State Papers, Dom._, 9th May 1649. This letter is signed by -Holland, Smith, and Thompson. The tone of Holland’s _Discourse of the -Navy_ (1638), is one of fulsome adulation of the Monarchy and the -principles it represented; but the _Discourse_ was not in print and he -had had time to realise the new tendency. Holland was the least active of -the Commissioners, but if he helped to carry out some of the reforms he -recommended in 1638 he did his share of service. - -[1389] _State Papers, Dom._, 20th July 1653, Monk to Admiralty Committee. - -[1390] Substitutes for pursers; see _infra_, p. 356. - -[1391] _State Papers, Dom._, 27th July 1653. - -[1392] _Ibid._, 11th April 1654. - -[1393] _State Papers, Dom._, ciii, 72, 73; 1655. - -[1394] _Naval Speculations and Maritime Politicks_, Lond. 1691. - -[1395] _State Papers, Dom._, cxxxii, 115; 1656. - -[1396] _State Papers, Dom._, cxxi, 16, Navy Commissioners to Admiralty -Committee. - -[1397] _State Papers, Dom._, clxxxii, 8, 111. - -[1398] _State Papers, Dom._, 30th June 1653. - -[1399] _Ibid._, 31st Dec. 1653. - -[1400] _State Papers, Dom._, cxxvi, 99. - -[1401] _Ibid._, 2nd Sept. 1653. - -[1402] _Add. MSS._, 9304, f. 60. - -[1403] _State Papers, Dom._, xlviii, 81. - -[1404] Soon afterwards Taylor and Young were placed in command of armed -merchantmen; Blake subsequently had a man-of-war. John Saltonstall and -John Wadsworth were involved with the four others. Wadsworth certainly -commanded a hired merchantman; Saltonstall’s ship is doubtful. - -[1405] Accused by his crew (_Adventure_), who were prepared ‘to spend our -lives and limbs in this service for the good of our native country of -England and this government.’ He was in trouble again in 1656. - -[1406] Allowed two colliers to be captured, and would not chase because -they were ‘only colliers.’ - -[1407] ‘The prize office commissioners said they thought the devil must -be in that captain to sell all and bring nothing but bare hulls of ships.’ - -[1408] ‘The court did not think it meet to expel him, being an active and -stout-fighting man.’ - -[1409] No result appears to have been arrived at about the captain, but -the court-martial found that the boatswain, he was charged with maiming -had struck him, but they ‘possessed no power to sentence him’—a very -strange conclusion to come to. - -[1410] Second offence. He petitioned that £80 might be accepted in -settlement of the £150 he was fined, as he was very poor and had a large -family. His petition was granted. - -[1411] Second offences of Best and Nixon. - -[1412] According to Montagu, who was dissatisfied with the result, undue -pressure was brought to bear on members of the crew to induce them to -retract. - -[1413] Foote refused to allow the customs officers to search his ship, -saying ‘it would be a dishonour to the state.’ The commissioners of -customs called attention to this as a ‘great and growing evil.’ - -[1414] _State Papers, Dom._, cxiv, 82. - -[1415] _Add. MSS._, 9302, ff. 188, 192. - -[1416] _Ibid._, 9306, f. 36. - -[1417] _State Papers, Dom._, cxiv, 116. From 1st Oct. 1655. Five rates -carried pursers; the captains of sixth-rates also did pursers’ duties. - -[1418] _Ibid._, lxii, 55, 56; 1653. - -[1419] _State Papers, Dom._, cv, 50, 51. - -[1420] _Ibid._, cix, 69 and cx, 73. - -[1421] _State Papers, Dom._, 27th August 1653, Navy Commissioners to -Admiralty Committee. - -[1422] _Ibid._, 9th Jan. 1655. Thirty-one persons were implicated, -including four colonels. - -[1423] _Add. MSS._, 9305, f. 208; 1657. - -[1424] _Commons Journals_, 21st March 1652-3. - -[1425] ‘The captain the master.’ The captain’s pay remained the same as -in 1647. - -[1426] Trumpeters were no unimportant members of a ship’s company. In -1650 Popham and Blake desired the Navy Commissioners to press trumpeters, -and ‘particularly a complete noise’ for their own vessel. It is to be -hoped they got it. - -[1427] Thos. Foley is mentioned with Browne, but he seems to have been -either a partner or subordinate (see _Commons Journals_, 30th Dec. 1645). -A Rich. Pitt is once named as a founder of brass ordnance. - -[1428] _Commons Journals_, 16th April 1652; ‘if of brass £67,200, if of -iron £13,520.’ - -[1429] _State Papers, Dom._, 25th March 1652. - -[1430] _State Papers, Dom._, xxx, 12, 102. - -[1431] _Ibid._ - -[1432] _Ibid._, xl, 14. - -[1433] _Ibid._, xlix, 168. - -[1434] _State Papers, Dom._, 15th April 1656. - -[1435] _Add. MSS._, 9305, f. 112. - -[1436] _State Papers, Dom._, 6th Dec. 1659. - -[1437] _Ibid._, ccix, 49, 67, 68, 71-5, and ccxii, 49, 51, 64. - -[1438] Oak, elm, ash, and beech. - -[1439] Very little timber, but large stores of iron fittings. - -[1440] Two-thirds meridian and one-third ordinary. - -[1441] Thirty-two yards to a bolt, of 27 inches breadth, (_Add. MSS._, -9306, f. 37). - -[1442] _State Papers, Dom._, clxvii, 62, and _Add. MSS._, 9306, ff. 151, -197. - -[1443] _State Papers, Dom._, lviii, 108. - -[1444] _Add. MSS._, 9305, f. 114. - -[1445] _State Papers, Dom._, lx, 12. - -[1446] _Add. MSS._, 9306, f. 175. - -[1447] _State Papers, Dom._, 12th Sept. 1653. - -[1448] _Ibid._, lxxxi, 194. - -[1449] _Ibid._, cxxxv, 17. - -[1450] _Ibid._, clxxx, 170, and _Add. MSS._, 9306, f. 197. - -[1451] ‘New making’ may have only meant repairs. - -[1452] _State Papers, Dom._, xlvi, 36. - -[1453] _State Papers, Dom._, l, 101, April 1653. The reading is doubtful -whether the land and water fronts, or the land front alone, were meant -to be walled in. The nature of the foreshore renders the latter view the -most likely; if the former, the enclosed area must have been very small. - -[1454] _Ibid._, lxii, 24 and lxxix, 57. - -[1455] _Add. MSS._, 9305, f. 119. - -[1456] _Ibid._, f. 155. - -[1457] _Ibid._, 9306, f. 153. I am informed that there is no trace in -the corporation records or in the narratives of local historians of this -agreement. Whether Poirson ever obtained this £500 may be uncertain, but -it is quite certain that the town volunteered the money and that the -government carefully guarded itself from being called upon to pay it. - -[1458] _State Papers, Dom._, 9th Aug. 1652. - -[1459] _Add. MSS._, 9302, f. 99. - -[1460] _State Papers, Dom._, 9th Oct. 1658. - -[1461] _State Papers, Dom._, clxiii, 41; 27th May 1658; and cxcii, 98. - -[1462] _Add. MSS._, 9306, f. 176. - -[1463] _Ibid._, 9305, f. 176, and _State Papers, Dom._, 10th Sept. 1653, -and lxxxi, 4. - -[1464] _State Papers, Dom._, cxxx, 102. - -[1465] _State Papers, Dom._, 8th April 1659, and ccxxiv, 38. - -[1466] The dockyard expenses include the rope yards. - -[1467] Covering the period from 13th May 1649 to 31st Dec. 1650. - -[1468] From 1st Jan. 1649 at Deptford, 24th Aug. at Woolwich, 24th June -at Chatham, and 12th June at Portsmouth. - -[1469] ‘Oliver, in the year when he spent £1,400,000 in the navy, did -spend in the whole expense of the kingdom £2,600,000.’ (Pepys, _Diary_, -iv, 52, ed. Wheatley). - -[1470] Includes many arrears. - -[1471] Amount owing for wages in September (_Add. MSS._, 9300, f. 343). - -[1472] Covering the period from 1st Jan. 1658 to 7th July 1660. - -[1473] Owing on 7th July. - -[1474] _Add. MSS._, 32, 471, ff. 2, 15. - -[1475] _Ibid._, f. 6. - -[1476] _Commons Journals_, 20th May 1659. - -[1477] _State Papers, Dom._, 1st Sept. 1653. - -[1478] Department for the sale of delinquents’ lands. In 1653 £136,000 -was received, by the Navy Treasurer, from this office. - -[1479] Governor of the Tower. - -[1480] _State Papers, Dom._, 2nd April 1655. - -[1481] _Ibid._, cxliv, 140. - -[1482] _Ibid._, 15th March 1659. - -[1483] _Ibid._, ccxii, 24. - -[1484] According to _Commons Journals_ (3rd March 1660) it was £694,000 -to 1st Feb.; the _State Papers_ (ccxxiii, 165) make it £788,000 to March. -But the figures in the Audit Office Accounts are circumstantial and -minute, and the bureaucracy is frequently better informed than Parliament. - -[1485] _Add. MSS._, 9302, f. 66. - -[1486] _I.e._, the old Union Jack with the harp at the centre. - -[1487] There were three qualities of Noyals canvas. A bale contained 282 -yards. - -[1488] Prussia. - -[1489] 1514. - -[1490] Deadeyes. - -[1491] Pulleys, or blocks. - -[1492] The wheel of a pulley or block. - -[1493] Later the bushing of the wheel-pin; here apparently the pin -itself. Cf. ‘colkes of brasse grete and small ... xxviii’—Inventory of -the _Grace Dieu_ in 1486. - -[1494] Pulleys, or blocks. - -[1495] Halliards. - -[1496] Perhaps the main beam or head piece across it (Cf. -_breast-summer_, Halliwell, _Dictionary_). - -[1497] Some sort of rope gear, but the exact use is unknown. - -[1498] Grappling-irons, or hooks. - -[1499] Piece of timber carrying blocks and used with various ropes. - -[1500] See p. 374, where it is written ‘power.’ Probably used in the -sense of ‘bowline bridle’ (See p. 375), and from the old English _powe_, -a claw, or something which holds. - -[1501] Braces. - -[1502] The davit was a movable beam of wood fitted with blocks, and used -to raise the fluke of the anchor. - -[1503] The main mast was a ‘made’ mast, _e.g._ ‘a grete mast to be the -spyndell of the mayne mast to the _Henry Grace à Dieu_.’ - -[1504] The _Sovereign_ had ‘bote tacles of both syds the mast x.’ It -appears therefore to have been customary to hoist one or two out of the -three boats. - -[1505] Timber. - -[1506] Now known as a ‘burton tackle.’ - -[1507] Wooden blocks for the sheets. - -[1508] Used in connection with the main sail. - -[1509] Wood. - -[1510] Tyes. - -[1511] Blocks of a particular kind; from French _palan_, _palanc_, a -combination of pullies, or _palanquer_, to hoist or haul. - -[1512] Leathern. - -[1513] Luff. - -[1514] Or Leche hooks, probably broad hooks, from old French, _leeche_, -_lecsche_. - -[1515] 300 lbs. - -[1516] Six and a half inches. - -[1517] Laniards. - -[1518] Flag staves. - -[1519] The body or main portion of the sail. - -[1520] Perhaps from the Catalan _destre_, to bridle. - -[1521] Sheet anchors. - -[1522] Kedge anchors. - -[1523] Wooden. - -[1524] Lanterns. - -[1525] Five hundredweight. - -[1526] Half a hawser. - -[1527] Linstocks. - -[1528] Herbert. - -[1529] Another document (_Letters and Papers of Henry VIII_, i-4968) -gives the distribution of these guns:—_Forecastle_—33 iron serpentines, -1 brass serpentine, 4 stone guns. _Waist_—29 iron serpentines, 4 great -guns of iron, 2 great Spanish pieces. _By the rudder_—7 iron serpentines. -_Lower deck_—20 iron serpentines. _Second deck_—33 iron serpentines, -3 brass serpentines, 18 stone guns, 4 vice pieces of brass, 6 brass -fawcons, 2 great stone guns of iron, 1 sling of iron, 2 brass culverins, -1 curtow of brass, 1 ‘fryre’ piece; and 9 brass serpentines and 2 fawcons -in the great boat. - -[1530] Armour composed of overlapping plates working on rivets. - -[1531] Headpieces. - -[1532] Printed in full in Barrow’s _Life of Drake_, p. 242. - -[1533] _Lansd. MSS._, 115, f. 22. - -[1534] _State Papers, Dom., Eliz._ cciii, 1. - -[1535] _Ibid._, ccviii, 77. - -[1536] A volume of the Cæsar papers. Modern punctuation has been added, -and contractions are extended. - -[1537] _Infra_, p. 388. - -[1538] Cascaes, near Lisbon. - -[1539] Any abnormally diluted drink, as beer and water, or cider and -water. - -[1540] Peaked or slanted. - -[1541] Immediately. - -[1542] Plot. - -[1543] Regarded the action. - -[1544] Borough. - -[1545] Luff. - -[1546] Sheets. - -[1547] H. Hall, _Society in the Elizabethan Age_. - -[1548] As is admitted by the writer in the _Dictionary_. - -[1549] Cf. _Lansd. MSS._, 113 f. 45. - -[1550] _Lansd. MSS._, 52 f. 117. - -[1551] _State Papers, Dom., Eliz._, clxx, 57, and clxxviii, 12. - -[1552] _Add. MSS._, 9294 f. 60. - -[1553] _State Papers, Dom., Eliz._, ccvi, 15. Wynter and Borough to -Burghley. - -[1554] Of 1585, see _supra_, p. 162. - -[1555] _Lansd. MSS._, 52 f. 117. - -[1556] Hawkyns was more generous to Borough. In 1582 he wrote on -his behalf to Walsyngham, ‘Mr Borough is a man of great virtew and -judgment.’ (_State Papers_, clvi, 34). In fact he very seldom indulged -in recriminations even in the thick of the attacks on himself, usually -contenting himself with defending his procedure. - -[1557] _State Papers, Dom. Eliz._, cciv, 18. Burghley’s usual way -of writing Allen—the name only occurs in one other instance in his -writing—was Ally, with a contraction mark over the last letter. In this -case he omitted the contraction dash but, from internal evidence, there -is no doubt of the identity. - -[1558] _Lansd. MSS._, 52 f. 117. - -[1559] _State Papers, Dom. Eliz._, cciv, 17. - -[1560] _Cott. MSS._, Otho E VIII, f. 169. - -[1561] _State Papers, Dom. Eliz._, ccviii, 18. - -[1562] Cf. p. 162. - -[1563] _State Papers, Dom. Eliz._, clxxviii, 12. - -[1564] Naval Tracts: _Churchill’s Voyages_, III, 371, ed. 1704. - -[1565] _Lansd. MSS._, 70, f. 231. - -[1566] The quintal varied from 101½ to 155 lbs; ordinarily it was the -former. - -[1567] A traveller to the Spanish colonies had to produce satisfactory -evidence that he was a native of the peninsula, a good Catholic, not -only in present belief but by descent, and that he was sailing with the -knowledge and consent of his wife. There was a flourishing trade, at -Seville, in forged certificates to meet these requirements; there was -also a trade in smuggled passengers outwards as well as in smuggled goods -homewards. - -[1568] _Lex Mercatoria._ - -[1569] About the latitude of the Straits of Gibraltar. - -[1570] Spanish, _Amainar las velas_, to lower the sails; the summons to -strike. - -[1571] _Harquebus à croc_, a musket fired from a rest. - -[1572] Biscayan; the _St Francisco_. - -[1573] Silenced their fire or drove them off the deck. - -[1574] Going large from the wind; to leeward. - -[1575] Came up close to the wind. - - - - -INDEX - -_Men-of-war not especially indexed under their names will be found in the -lists of ships of the various periods._ - - - A - - Administration, disorganisation of, 189-194, 222-229. - excellence of, 305, 306. - regulations for, 111, 112, 367. - re-organisation of, 194-197. - - _Adventure_, 328. - - Admiral of England, office of, 65. - - Admirals of thirteenth century, 4. - - Admirals, the Lords, 64-66, 86, 104, 111, 112, 148, 166, 189, 194, - 195, 199, 215, 240, 279, 280 and _n._, 283, 288, 300, 346. - - Admiralty, Commissioners of (of Charles I), 235, 237, 279 and _n._ - (of Commonwealth), 306, 319, 327, 328, 346, 347. - Court of, 317 and _n._ - Lieutenant of, 85, 86, 104. - Secretary of, 3, 4. - - Alderne, Thomas, 324 _n._, 326. - - Alkin, Elizabeth, 323 _n._ - - Allen, Thomas, 150, 394 and _n._, 396. - - Ambassadors, Spanish, reports of, 59, 133. - Venetian, —— —, 60, 90, 133. - - Anchors, 15, 181, 182, 257, 371. - - _Anne Gallant_, 49 and _n._, 66, 68. - - _Anne Royal_, 202, 203, 212, 220, 221, 223, 237, 264. - - _Antelope_ (of Henry VIII), 51, 58. - (of Mary), 110. - (of James I), 202, 264. - - Anthony, Anthony, 56, 58. - - Apprentices, 284. - - Apsley, Sir Allen, 189, 228, 230, 233, 236, 238. - - _Ark Royal_, 121 and _n._, 123, 129, 158, 160, 203, 221. - - Armament, see Ships, armament of. - - Armies, foreign, 47. - - Army, the English, 47. - - Articles of war, 311, 312. - - Artillery, Garden, 96, 158. - - Artillery, Henry VIII and, 56. - - Artisans, 73, 211. - - Aylesbury, Sir Thomas, 258, 281. - - Audley, Sir Thomas, 63 and _n._ - - - B - - Baeshe, Edward, 103, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144. - - Bagg, Sir James, 232. - - Baker, James, 73. - - Baker, Mathew, 132, 151, 152, 162, 163, 203, 204, 208, 209, 266, 267, - 395, 396. - - Ballast, 127, 128, 257. - - Balinger, 13 and _n._, 15. - - Baltimore, sack of, 275. - - Banastre, Nicholas, 16. - - Barges, 13. - - Barlow, Thomas, 282 and _n._ - - Barton, John, 70, 72. - - Batten, William, 249, 250, 281, 288. - - Battles, sea (of 1340 and 1350), 5, 7. - (of 1416 and 1417), 13. - (of 1458), 27. - (of 1512-13), 63. - - Beaufort, John, Earl of Somerset, 65 _n._ - Thomas, 65 _n._ - - Bedford, John Plantagenet, Duke of, 65 _n._ - - Beer, 83, 138, 140, 220, 236, 315, 371. - - Berd, Robert, 14. - - Berg, Christopher van, 274. - - Beverage, 220, 384 and _n._ - - Bigatt, William, 388. - - Bingley, Sir Richard, 189. - - Bitakyll, 15. - - Blake, Robert, 327, 328, 363. - - Bludder, Sir Thomas, 189. - - Boats, 80, 339 and _n._ - - Boat tackles, 339 _n._, 374 and _n._ - - _Bonaventure_ (of Elizabeth), 119, 120 and _n._, 123, 131, 140, 195, - 206. - (of James I), 187, 202, 208, 259, 344. - - Bonnets, 14, 127, 377. - - Borough, Stephen, 149. - William, 126, 129, 149, 152, 167, 382-391, 393, 394, 397. - - Boughton, Sir Edward, 70. - - Bounty system, English, 19, 37, 38, 88, 89, 107, 167, 168, 201, 269. - Spanish, 37 and _n._, 53. - - Bourne, Nehemiah, 315, 326, 347, 348, 349, 363, 365. - - Bowman, Piers, 31. - - Bray, Sir Reginald, 36. - - Brewhouses, 69. - - Bribery, 194, 280, 282, 286, 317. - - _Bristol_, 332 and _n._ - - Brittany, 46. - - Brooke, Richard, 78. - William, 85. - - Browne, John, 213, 288. - Sir Weston, 79. - - Brygandine, Robert, 36, 39, 53, 83. - - Buck, Peter, 149, 246, 397. - - Buckingham, Duke of. See Villiers, George, Duke of Buckingham. - - Build. See Ships, build of. - - _Bull_, 58. - - Bull, Richard, 73. - - Bulmer, John, 274. - - Burghley, William Cecil, Lord, 113, 137, 141, 142, 146-148, 179, - 394-7. - - Burre, Olyff, 167, 169. - - Burrell, William, 195 and _n._, 208, 209, 229, 259, 282. - - Burton, William, 349. - - Butler, Nathaniel, 253. - - - C - - Cabins, 23, 129, 206. - - Cadiz voyage of 1625, 219-222, 225, 251. - - Cannon perier, 54 _n._, 156, 157, 212. - petro, 56 and _n._, 155-157. - - Canvas, 15, 98, 103, 181, 182, 363, 371. - - Capstan, 80 and _n._, 127. - - Captains, 26, 77, 146, 152, 154, 226, 229, 232, 285, 287, 312, - 352-354. - servants of, 154. - - Carew, Sir George, 80. - - Carvel build, 54, 255, 256. - - Cat, the, 239. - - Catton, William, 12. - - Caverle, Jeronimo Cæsar de, 264. - - Cecil, Edward, Viscount Wimbledon, 220. - - Cecil, Sir Robert, 166, 171. - - Channel, English, command of, 2, 16, 18, 31, 32, 37, 68, 101, 105, - 184, 302, 343. - lordship of, 6, 291 _n._ - - Chapman, Richard, 151, 152, 209, 395. - - _Charles_, 254, 257, 269, 338, 344. - - Charles I, political conditions under, 217-219. - and the seamen, 242, 243. - interference of, in naval affairs, 252, 261 and _n._, 263. - as a naval organiser, 295 _n._ - - Chatham Chest, 145, 192, 245-247, 323, 324. - - Chips, 73, 285. - - _Christ_, 49 and _n._, 66. - - Cinque Ports, 2 and _n._, 7, 26. - - Civil War, seamen and the, 240-242. - - Clere, Sir Thomas, 85, 86, 104. - - Clerk of the Ships. See Ships, Clerk of. - - Clerks of the check, 349, 356. - - Clifton, Gervays, 26. - - Clinker build, 54, 255, 256. - - Clynton, Edward, Lord, 104, 111, 148. - - Clyvedon, Richard, 24, 31. - - Coast defences, 92, 289. - line of France, 3, 24, 46. - - Coke, Sir John, 192, 195 and _n._, 196, 234, 279 _n._ - - Colours, Tudor, 41, 62, 182. - - Combresale, Wm., 33, 36. - - Commissions of Inquiry, 147, 162, 191, 193, 229, 246, 324 and _n._ - - Commissioners, see Admiralty, and Navy. - - Commonwealth, increase of Navy under, 302, 303, 338. - finance of, 303 and _n._ - - Conduct money, 72, 164, 197, 311. - - _Constant Reformation_, 202, 207, 208, 228, 230, 259, 264. - - _Constant Warwick_, 255 and _n._ - - Contracts, registration of, 134, 135, 243. - - Convoys, 68, 139, 312, 313, 342. - - Cook-room, 128, 206. - - Cordage, 15, 92, 113, 150, 181, 182, 209, 217, 257, 363, 371. - - Corporals, 154, 225 and _n._, 226. - - Cotton, Sir Robert, 193, 194, 397. - - Council of State, 319, 346, 348. - - Courts-martial, 311 _n._, 312, 354, 357, 382, 391. - - Cox, Owen, 345. - - Crane, John, 238. - - Cranfield, Sir Lionel, 194, 195 _n._ - - Cranley, Richard, 288. - - Crews, character of, 188, 221, 223, 227, 228, 231, 237, 314. - proportions of, 56 and _n._, 124, 134, 214, 341. - - Cromwell, Oliver, 318, 319, 320 and _n._ - Richard, 320. - - Crossbar shot, 57, 289. - - Crowe, Sir Sackville, 245, 281 and _n._ - - Culverins, 55, 155-157, 212, 341, 380. - - Curtalls, 55, 157 _n._, 380. - - Customs Department, 171, 201. - - - D - - Darell, Marmaduke, 144, 189. - Sampson, 190. - - Darts, 57. - - Davis, John, 152. - - Davits, 339 _n._, 374 _n._ - - Dead Shares, 75, 152. - - Dean Forest, 288, 367. - - Debts, Commonwealth, 294, 319, 351, 368, 369, 370. - crown, 21, 27, 108, 194, 227, 228, 236, 288, 294, 298. - - Decoration, see Ships, Decoration of. - - _Defiance_ (of Elizabeth), 121, 129, 131, 158, 344. - - Demi cannon, 55, 56, 155-157, 212, 262, 341. - culverin, 55, 56, 155-157, 212, 262, 341. - - Denbigh, Wm. Fielding, Earl of, 233. - - Desertion, 223, 224, 227, 228, 237, 242. - - Digby, Sir Kenelm, 244, 282. - - Discipline, 3, 79, 188, 214, 220, 221, 229, 239, 307 _n._, 312, 349, - 367. - - Disease, see Fleets, disease on board. - - Docks (under Henry VI), 29, 30. - (under Henry VIII), 68, 72. - Deptford, 14, 285. - Dry, 39, 40, 210, 297, 364, 365. - Southampton, 23. - - Dockyard expenditure, 102, 103, 113, 149, 294, 299, 368. - - Dockyards, - Chatham, 101, 102, 113, 149-151, 209, 210, 297, 298, 299, 348, 364. - Deptford, 70, 71, 102, 103, 113, 119, 149, 150, 209, 299, 364. - Erith, 71, 72. - Harwich, 102, 315, 348, 362, 363. - Portsmouth, 39, 40, 68, 69, 102, 103, 113, 119, 210, 296, 297, 348, - 364, 365. - Rouen, 9. - Woolwich, 69, 70, 102, 103, 113, 119, 150, 209, 297, 364. - - Downing, Joshua, 284. - - _Dragon_, (of Henry VIII), 51, 58, 59, 101. - - Drake, Sir Francis, 129, 136, 140, 143, 145, 164, 165, 167, 168 and - _n._, 382-391. - - _Dreadnought_ (of Elizabeth), 119, 120, 126, 131, 235, 263. - - Drebbel, Cornelius, 256 _n._ - - Dryngs, 80 and _n._, 373. - - Ducat, value of, 37 _n._ - - Dudley, John, Lord Lisle, 64, 66, 77, 93, 104. - - Dudley, Robert, Earl of Leicester, 139, 171. - - Duro, C. Fernandez, referred to, 13 _n._, 37 _n._, 46, 53 _n._, 116 - _n._, 154 _n._ - - Dutch War of 1652-4, 240 and _n._, 242, 304-308. - - Dyse of iron, 57, 96. - - - E - - Echyngham, Sir Edward, 61. - - Eden, Alexander, 26. - - Edisbury, Kenrick, 258, 274, 281. - - Edward III, commercial policy of, 7. - fighting ships under, 9. - general policy of, 5. - gold noble of, 6, 7. - - Edward IV, commercial policy of, 34. - naval policy of, 31. - navy of, 33. - - Edward VI, maintenance of navy under, 100, 108. - - Elizabeth, naval policy of, 115-118. - ships in commission under, 118. - - _Elizabeth Jonas_, 120, 122, 131, 132, 133 and _n._, 135, 137, 206. - - Elton, Richard, 349. - - Elyot, Hugh, 38. - - Embezzlements. See Thefts. - - Enriquez, Alonso, 65 _n._ - - Equipment. See Ships, equipment of. - - Evelyn, George, 160. - John, 160. - - Ewe, Sir William, 26. - - Exeter, Henry Holland third Duke of, 65 _n._ - John Holland, second Duke of, 65 _n._ - - Expeditions under Edward IV, 31. - Henry VIII, 74, 77. - Elizabeth, 117, 136, 137, 140, 160, 164. - James I, 187. - Charles I, 219-222, 228, 231, 233, 251, 277, 278. - - Expenditure, dockyard. See Dockyard. - naval, under Henry VI, 22, 23, 24. - Henry VII, 35. - Henry VIII, 93, 94. - Edward VI, 102, 103, 108. - Mary, 111, 112, 113. - Elizabeth, 117, 160-165. - James I, 195, 197 and _n._ - Charles I, 293-295. - during Interregnum, 303, 304, 368-370. - - - F - - Fauconberg, Bastard of, 32. - - Ferrers, Walter Devereux, Lord, 77. - - Figure heads, 61, 131, 341. - - Fisheries, 42, 89, 92, 107, 108, 167, 200. - - Fitzwalter, Lord, 27. - - Fitzwilliam, Wm., Earl of Southampton, 52, 61, 66. - - Flags, 15, 41, 62 and _n._, 182, 183, 213, 214, 300, 370, 377. - - Fleming, Denis, 282, 283 _n._ - - Fleet, of 1588, cost of, 163. - epidemic in, 137, 138. - formations, 59, 307 _n._ - regulations, 3, 63, 64. - - Fleets, armament of, 155. - Cinque Ports, 2, 26. - contracted for, 24, 27, 28, 31. - cost of, 26, 163, 164, 197 and _n._, 198, 225, 295. - disease in, 77, 114, 136, 137, 183, 219, 220, 228, 231, 235, 237, - 321, 323. - division of, 64, 183, 307 _n._ - during Civil war, 264, 295. - during Commonwealth, 302, 303, 307, 323, 341, 342. - maintenance of, 5. - manning of, 74, 242, 311, 314. - merchantmen in, 35, 118, 163, 251, 295, 342. - of Richard I, 3. - John, 3. - Edward III, 6. - Edward VI, 101. - Mary, 110, 111. - Elizabeth, 164. - James I, 188. - Charles I, 219, 222, 225, 231, 233, 235, 237, 238, 239, 251, 252, - 276, 277. - - _Foresight_ (of Elizabeth), 120, 122, 166 and _n._, 206. - - Forests, 288, 367. - - Foster, Edward, 79. - - France, Navy of, 9, 21, 264-266, 304. - - Freight, cost of, 343. - from Spain to America, 398. - - Frigates, 255 _n._, 338. - - Furring, 187 and _n._ - - - G - - _Gabriel Royal_, 49 and _n._, 70, 77. - - Galleasses, 57, 58, 128 and _n._ - - _Galley Blancherd_, 78. - - Galley oarsmen, 5, 78, 126. - - _Galley Subtylle_, 51 and _n._, 59, 78, 100. - - Galleys, English, 5 and _n._, 12, 41, 57-60, 78, 101, 121, 123, 125 - and _n._, 126, 207. - foreign, 5, 9, 60, 78, 126. - - _Garland_ (of Elizabeth), 121, 129, 131, 205, 206, 210. - (of James I), 188, 202, 208, 344. - - Gibbs, Stephen, 274. - - Gibson, Richard, 307 _n._, 308. - - Gillingham. See Dockyards, Chatham. - - Girdling, 187 and _n._, 258. - - Gloucester, Richard, Duke of, 65 _n._ - - _Golden Hind._ See _Pelican_. - - _Golden Lion._ See _Lion_ (of Elizabeth). - - Gonson, Benjamin, 85, 86, 104, 108, 112, 144, 145. - Junior, 149. - William, 81, 84, 85, 93. - - _Grace Dieu_ (of Henry V), 12 _n._, 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 29. - (of Edward IV), 33, 36. - (merchantman), 19, 37. - - _Grand Mistress_, 51 and _n._, 55, 58, 59, 101, 109. - - _Great Barbara_, 49 and _n._, 55. - - _Great Christopher_, 51 and _n._, 122, 123. - - _Great Elizabeth_, 49 and _n._, 54, 66. - - _Great Michael_, 47. - - _Great Nicholas_, 49 and _n._, 71. - - Green, Mrs J. R., referred to, 11. - - Grenades, 361. - - Grent, Thomas, 274. - - Grevill, Sir Fulke, 149, 189. - - _Greyhound_ (of Henry VIII), 51, 55, 58, 59, 110, 123. - - Greyle, Richard, 21. - - Gromets, 314 and _n._ - - Guldeford, Sir Richard, 35, 36. - - Gun carriages, 96, 157, 361. - - Gun founders, 96, 159, 213, 289, 360 and _n._, 361. - - Gunners, 56, 57, 157-159, 290, 358. - - Gunpowder, 33, 56, 97 and _n._, 155, 158, 159, 160, 239 and _n._, - 240, 288, 289, 361, 362. - - - H - - ‘H.M.S.,’ its equivalents, 9 _n._ - - Hamble, the river, 14, 23. - - Hammocks, 134, 235, 300. - - Hansa League, 11. - Steelyard, 150. - - _Happy Entrance_, 202, 207, 208, 228, 237, 344. - - Harbours, 92. - - _Hart_ (of Henry VIII), 51, 58. - (of Mary), 110. - (of Commonwealth), 310 _n._ - - Hatsell, Henry, 349. - - Hawkyns, Sir John, 91, 129, 134, 135, 144, 145-148, 150, 162-164, - 167, 173, 392-397. - Sir Richard, 136. - William, 91. - - _Henrietta Maria_, 254, 269, 344. - - Henry III, 4. - IV, 10, 11. - V, naval policy of, 11. - ships of, 12. - will of, 16. - VI, naval policy under, 24, 25. - VII, commercial policy of, 42. - general policy of, 37. - VIII, as designer, 48, 59. - as naval organiser, 98, 99. - causes of increase of navy under, 45-48. - embarkation of, at Dover, 57. - personal interest of, in artillery, 56. - in shipping, 48, 60, 62. - - _Henry Grace à Dieu_, 47, 49, 53, 55, 61, 62, 69, 70, 73, 75, 80, 91, - 109. - inventory of, 372-381. - - Heron, John, 26, 81. - - Heywood, Thomas, 260. - - Hoggekyns, John, 15. - - Holborn, Robert, 73. - - _Holigost_, 12, 13, 15, 22, 23. - - Holland, Navy of, 219, 253, 305, 307. - - Holland, Edmund, Earl of Kent, 65 _n._ - Henry. See Exeter, Duke of. - John. See Exeter, Duke of. - 261, 284, 286, 347 and _n._, 348 _n._ - - Holstock, William, 85, 104, 105, 140, 149. - - Hopton, John, 70, 71, 83, 84, 372. - - Hospitals, 321. - - Hospital ships, 188. - - Howard, Lord Thomas, 65. - Sir Edward, 61, 63, 64, 65, 74, 76, 81. - Sir John, 32. - of Effingham, Charles, Lord, 117, 135, 137, 138, 148, 166, 189, - 190, 193, 194, 204, 209, 216, 383, 397. - William, Lord, 111. - - Howlett, Richard, 85, 149. - - Hull, Sir William, 26. - - Hutchinson, Richard, 296 _n._, 351, 352. - - - I - - Impressment, 164, 197, 234, 241, 311 and _n._ - - Improvements and inventions, 128, 274, 367. See also Shipbuilding, - improvements in. - - - J - - _James_, 237, 254, 257. - - James I, Navy at accession of, 184, 185. - retrogression of navy under, 215. - Duke of York, xi, 27, 283 and _n._ - - _Jennet_ (of Henry VIII), 50, 58, 59. - - Jermyn, Thomas, 84. - - _Jesus of the Tower_, 12 and _n._, 14, 23. - - _Jesus of Lubeck_, 51, 107, 139, 183 _n._ - - John, 3. - - Johnson, Peter, 23. - - - K - - _Kateryn Fortileza_, 49 and _n._, 61. - - Keeper of King’s ships, 316. See also Ships, Clerk of. - - Kent, Earl of. See Holland, Edmund. - - Kent, William Neville, Earl of, 65 _n._ - - King’s spears, 77. - - Knight, Richard, 93. - - Knight, Dr William, 79. - - Knyvet, Sir Thomas, 81. - - - L - - Langford, Roger, 148, 189, 246. - - Last, of tonnage, 293 and _n._ - - Laughton, Professor J. K., referred to, ix, 154 _n._, 265. - - Legge, Robert, 85, 93, 94, 104. - - _Libel of English Policie_, 6, 7, 15, 23. - - Lieutenants, 154, 225 and _n._, 226, 359. - - Lighthouses, 199, 201. - - Lindsey, Robert Bertie, Earl of, 236, 251, 279 _n._, 291. - - _Lion_ (of Henry VIII), 50, 58, 59, 101. - (of Elizabeth), 120, 128, 132, 382-391. - (of James I), 202, 206, 220. - - Lisle, John Dudley, Lord. See Dudley, John. - - Loans to the crown, 27. - - Logbooks, 354. - - Lopez, Dr Roderigo, 398. - - - M - - _Madre de Dios_, 125, 138, 165 and _n._, 166, 167. - - Mansell, Sir Robert, 189-192, 195, 196, 202, 204, 209, 215, 260, 397. - - Manwayring, Sir Henry, 208, 258 _n._ - - Maravedis, value of, 37 _n._ - - Margaret of Anjou, 26, 31. - - Marsden, R. G., referred to, 4 _n._ - - Marshmen, 70 and _n._, 72. - - Mary, maintenance of Navy under, 109, 110. - - _Mary Guildford_, 50 and _n._, 68, 91. - - _Mary Rose_ (of Henry VIII), 5 _n._, 49, 52 _n._, 55, 61, 66, 67, 70, - 72, 73, 76, 80. - (of Edward VI), 109. - (of Elizabeth), 121, 128, 131, 206, 210. - (of James I), 202, 208, 344. - - Masts, 4, 13, 14, 40, 53, 58, 126, 208, 299, 363, 374 _n._ - - Maydman, Henry, 350. - - Medals, 278 _n._, 328. - - Medium, the, 309 _n._ - - Medway chain. See Upnor. - ships moored in, 151, 284 and _n._ - - Men-of-war, lists of. See Ships, Lists of. - - Mennes, Sir John, 287. - - Merchant Shipping. See Shipping, merchant. - - _Merhonour_, 121, 129, 131, 181, 182, 187, 196, 201, 202 and _n._, - 205, 344. - - Mervyn, Sir Henry, 231, 235, 239, 267, 282, 287. - - Midshipmen, 226, 314 and _n._ - - _Minion_ (of Henry VIII), 50, 68, 91, 101, 106. - (of Elizabeth), 120, 123, 139. - - Moleyns, Adam de, 16 _n._, 22. - - Monk, George, 321, 328. - - Monson, Sir William, 165, 184 _n._, 292, 397. - - More, Edmund, 84. - - Morfote, William, 18. - - Morley, Thomas, 85. - - Murderers, 54 and _n._ - - Mutinies, 152, 224, 228, 230, 233, 234, 235, 236, 248-250, 310 _n._, - 315, 382-391. - - - N - - Navigation Acts, 10, 34, 42, 167. - - Navy, a personal possession of the King, 17. - a subsidiary force in early reigns, 6. - Board, 104, 111, 189-194, 264, 280-284, 287 _n._, 292, 394. - duties of, 190. - formation of, 86. - salaries of members of, 85, 280, 394. - Burgundian, 32. - Commissioners of, and Customs, 287, 346. - (of Civil War and Commonwealth), 287, 288, 306, 311, 326, 327, - 329, 347 and _n._, 358, 359. - (James I and Charles I), 187, 191, 195 and _n._, 205, 206, 209, - 215, 222, 224, 227, 228, 237, 275, 279, 282, 298. - Committees of Long Parliament, 241, 287, 346, 351. - Comptroller of, 85, 126, 129, 149, 167, 189, 191, 282. - expenses of. See Expenditure. - French. See France, Navy of. - government of, in thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, 4. - under Mary, 111-113. - growing sense of importance of, 45. - increase in, at certain periods, 11, 52, 110, 112. - influence of, on Wars of Roses, 27. - lists. See Ships, lists of. - Master of Ordnance of, 85, 104, 111, 149. - of fourteenth and fifteenth centuries underrated, 9, 20, 21. - Office, 283, 349, 350. - Seal, 300 _n._ - origin of, 1, 2. - modern, 1. - sale of, 15, 17, 22. - Saxon, 2. - ships purchased into, 33, 34, 52, 53, 120, 123, 255, 330 and _n._ - Surveyor of, 85, 104, 149, 189, 191, 258, 281, 288, 347 _n._ - Treasurer of, 85, 86, 104, 112, 144, 145-148, 149, 162, 164, 167, - 173, 189, 191, 192, 195, 240, 245, 280, 287, 295, 349, 351, - 352, 392-397. - - Necessary money, 83, 141. - - Nettings, 182 and _n._ - - Nicholas, Edward, 231, 232, 259, 280, 285. - - _Nicholas of the Tower_, 12, 13, 25. - - Nicolas, Sir N. H., referred to, 2, 15 and _n._, 62 _n._ - - _Nomenclator Navalis_ referred to, 29, 187, 208 and _n._, 339 _n._ - - Norreys, Thomas, 192, 195 and _n._ - - Northumberland, Algernon Percy, tenth Earl of, 238, 239, 240, 278 - _n._, 283, 286, 292. - - Nottingham, Charles Howard, Earl of, see Howard of Effingham, - Charles, Lord. - - _Nuestra Señora del Rosario_, 121 and _n._, 210. - - - O - - Officers, dishonesty of, 82, 146, 187, 191-194, 220, 283-286, 316, - 353-355. - incapacity of, 221, 287. - pay of, 26, 41, 42, 75, 152-154, 226, 360. - professional feeling among, 229, 232, 352, 355. - see also captains. - - Oleron, 98 and _n._ - - Ordnance, improvements in, 288. - office, 85, 86, 158, 289, 290, 361. - price of, 159, 212, 262, 288, 360 _n._, 361. - recovery of, 345. - secret exportation of, 159, 213. - stores, 96, 97, 155-160, 289, 301. See also, Ships, ordnance stores - of. - want of, 360, 361. - - Orlop, 129, 130 _n._, 205. - - Oxford, John de Vere, twelfth Earl of, 27. - thirteenth ——, 65. - - - P - - Paget, Sir William, 93. - - Painting, see Ships, painting of. - - Palmer, Sir Henry, 149, 189. - Jr., 227, 266, 282, 283 _n._ - - Parliament Joan, see Alkin, Elizabeth. - - Partriche, Nicholas, 70. - - Pavesses, 41, 61. - - Paymaster of Marine Causes, 149. - the sea, 85. - - _Pelican_, 168 and _n._, 210. - - Pennington, John, 223-225, 229, 239, 240, 253, 257, 258 and _n._, 261 - _n._ - - Pensions, 25, 247, 322, 324. - - _Peppercorn_, 201. - - _Peter Pomegranate_, 49, 55, 62, 68, 70, 72, 73, 75, 76. - - Petitions, 235, 317, 318, 340. - - Pett, John, 74. - Joseph, 152. - Peter (died 1589), 74, 113, 151, 162, 163, 395, 396. - (son of above), 255. - (nephew of Phineas Pett), 255, 288, 338. - (son of —— ——), 338, 347. - Phineas, 152, 186, 192, 203, 204, 208, 209, 255, 260, 261, 282, 283 - _n._, 288. - Thomas, 74. - - _Phœnix_, 345. - - _Philip and Mary_, 109, 120 _n._, 122. - - Pierriers, see Stone guns. - - Pilgrimage, over-sea, 18. - - Pilot, Chief, of England, 149. - Major, of Spain, 149. - - Piracy, supporters of, on shore, 95, 96, 178, 198. - under Henry IV, 10. - Henry VI, 17, 18. - Edward IV, 32. - Henry VIII, 94, 95, 96. - Edward VI, 104, 105. - Mary, 114. - Elizabeth, 177-180. - James I, 198, 199. - Charles I, 252, 272, 274-276. - Commonwealth, 345, 346. - - Pirates, Turkish, 198, 199, 252, 274, 275, 345. - - Plantagenet, Arthur, 66. - - Plymouth, 219, 223, 231, 235, 363. - - Poldavies, 98 and _n._, 103, 182. - - Pole, William de la, Duke of Suffolk, 17, 26, 65 _n._ - - Pond at Deptford, 70. - - Portholes, 40, 41, 206, 257, 258, 259, 261 _n._, 268. - - Ports, condition of, under Charles I, 271, 272. - - Portsmouth, town of, 69, 297, 321. - - Poundage, 192. - - Pride, Thomas, 324 and _n._ - - _Primrose_ (of Edward VI), 101 and _n._, 109 and _n._ - (of Elizabeth), 120, 123, 139. - - _Prince Royal_, 186, 202, 203, 204, 207, 247, 257 _n._, 261, 338. - - Prisoners, in Sallee, 275, 277. - ransom of, 95. - treatment of, 63, 78, 322, 323 _n._ - - Privateering, English, 104, 105, 106, 114, 140, 180, 181, 343, 344, - 398-400. - French, 94, 179. - Scotch, 179. - - Prize money, 26, 165, 166, 273, 292, 293, 308, 309. - Commissioners of, 309 _n._, 316, 317. - - Prizes, 12, 13, 61, 78, 88, 101, 107, 120, 121, 123, 165, 166, 185, - 254, 305, 307, 330-337, 399. See also Ships, lists of. - - Provisions, price of, 82. See also Victualling. - want of, 81, 82, 83, 142, 143, 220-224, 233, 236, 326-328. - - Pumps, 15, 127. - - Punishments, 79, 188, 221, 228, 229, 239, 244, 312, 349, 352, 353, - 357, 358. - - Purchases of ships. See Navy, ships purchased into. - - Pursers, 41, 42, 82, 146, 194, 285, 286, 356, 357. - - Purveyance, abolition of, 140, 141. - - - Q - - Quarles, James, 142 and _n._ - - Quintal, 398 and _n._ - - - R - - Rainsborow, Thomas, 248-50. - William, 258, 277 _n._ - - Ralegh, Sir Walter, 66, 156, 184 _n._, 186, 187. - - Ramsay, David, 274. - - Redynge, John, 81. - - _Regent_, 35, 36, 40, 41, 66, 68, 74. - - _Revenge_, 120, 130, 135, 178, 183 _n._ - - Revenue, English national, 17, 21, 25, 27, 219, 223, 303, 368 and _n._ - French ——, 219. - - Richard II, 10. - - Richelieu, Cardinal de, 264, 265. - - Richmond, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of, 66. - - Roger, Thomas, 32, 36. - - Ropehouses, 150. - - Roses, wars of, 21, 27. - - Round robin, 230. - - Rupert, Prince, 303, 309, 353. - - Russell, Sir William, 195, 240, 245, 281, 293. - William, Lord, 66. - - - S - - Sails, 4, 13, 14, 40, 53, 54, 127, 208, 257, 299, 338, 377. - - _St Andrew_ (of Elizabeth), 121, 123, 206. - (of James I), 202, 208, 259, 335. - - _St George_, 202, 208, 220, 259, 338. - - St John, William Paulet, Lord, 81, 93. - - St Mary’s Creek, 151, 211. - - _St Matthew_, 121, 123, 206. - - Salisbury, Richard Neville, Earl of, 27. - - Sallee, expedition to, 277 and _n._ - - Saltpetre, 97. - - Salute, claim to the, 106, 183, 291, 292, 307. - - Saluting, 111, 213, 290, 291, 370. - - Sandwich, sack of, 27. - - _Sapphire_, 319 and _n._ - - Scotland, Navy of, 47. - - Seamanship, English, 19, 154. - Spanish, 154. - - Seamen and Commonwealth, 318, 322. - Long Parliament, 240, 242, 250, 308, 314. - clothes of, 34, 41, 68, 76, 113, 138, 139, 223, 229, 230, 234, 286, - 329. - condition of, 21, 42, 74, 79, 138, 187, 222, 238, 318. - English, foreign opinion of, 133, 187. - foreign, 23, 78, 87. - in Wars of Roses, 27. - merchant, 79, 243, 244, 314, 350. - numbers of, available, 74, 176, 242, 244, 314. - pay of, 25, 26, 28, 34, 41, 75, 106, 113, 134, 197, 225, 232, 241, - 314. - delayed, 187 _n._, 226, 228, 231, 240, 316, 320, 368 _n._, 369. - rewards to, 106, 135, 136, 245, 328; see also Medals. - sick and wounded, 76, 77, 135, 137, 188, 221, 223, 224, 231, 235, - 237, 238, 320, 323. - Commissioners of, 322. - unwillingness of, to serve, 187, 188, 237, 316. - - Search, right of, 80. - - Serpentines, 41, 54 and _n._, 96, 379, 380. - - Seymour, Sir Thomas, 101, 104, 105. - - Sheathing, 103, 110, 126, 187. - - Sheerness, 150. - - Shipbuilding abroad, 14. - criticism of (under James I), 185-187. - (under Charles I), 258. - effects of Crusades on, 3. - improvements in, 14, 40, 41, 53, 54, 126, 127, 128 and _n._, 129, - 130, 185, 205, 206, 253, 287, 338. - Norman superiority in, 3. - - Shipkeepers, 23, 188, 191, 284. - - Ship-money, 218, 236, 237, 238. - - Shipping, merchant, destruction of, 7, 271, 272. - lists of, 19, 20, 90, 172-175, 269-271. - under Edward III, 7, 8. - Henry IV, 11. - Henry VI, 18, 19, 20, 21. - Henry VII, 37. - Henry VIII, 88, 89, 90. - Edward VI, 107. - Elizabeth, 167-176. - James I, 199. - Charles I, 269-271. - Commonwealth, 343. - - Ships, appearance of, 263. - armament of, 13, 29, 33, 41, 54 and _n._, 55, 124, 125, 155-157, - 212, 229, 256, 262, 341, 379, 380 and _n._ - arrest of, 2, 3. - build of, 4, 14, 40, 41, 53, 58, 59, 60, 124, 125, 185, 186, 205, - 253, 254, 259, 267, 268, 307, 338. - Clerk Comptroller of, 70, 84. - Clerk of, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 31, 32, 33, 36, 53, 83, - 84-87, 144, 149, 282. - cost of, 128, 129, 195, 196, 204, 208, 256, 257, 260, 261, 339. - decoration of, 15, 41, 57, 60, 130, 131, 204, 205, 261, 340. - early fighting, 4. - English, foreign opinion of, 133. - hired by the crown, 8, 10, 17, 21, 32, 35, 38, 39, 74, 87, 88, - 169, 171, 201, 229, 273, 343. - size of, 4, 13, 124, 270, 271. - equipment of, 13, 14, 29, 40, 41, 53, 54, 124, 257. - foreign, hired by the crown, 12, 13, 27, 38, 39, 87, 88, 164. - size of, 13, 265 and _n._ - hiring, difficulty in, 88, 252, 273. - lists of:— - under Henry V, 12. - Edward IV, 32, 33. - Henry VII, 34. - Henry VIII, 49-51. - Edward VI, 100, 101. - Mary, 109. - Elizabeth, 120, 121, 124. - James I, 202, 207. - Charles I, 254, 255. - Commonwealth, 329-337. - lost during Interregnum, 330, 337, 344, 345. - Master of Ordnance of, 85, 86, 149. - merchant, bought. See Navy, ships purchased into. - names of. See Ships, lists of. - names of, changed, 338. - number of, commissioned each year under Elizabeth, 118. - fighting, under Edward III, 9. - under Commonwealth, 338. - Elizabeth, 115, 119. - Henry VIII, 52. - office expenses in moving, 70. - on seals and coins, 7 and _n._ - ordnance stores of, 33, 56, 124, 155, 213, 289, 341. - painting of, 41, 62, 130, 340. - royal, hired out, 4, 22, 34, 42, 67, 68, 107, 139, 140, 293 _n._ - lost, 66, 67, 68, 80, 123, 254 _n._, 256, 264, 344, 345. See - also, Ships lost during Interregnum. - sailing qualities of, 61, 185-187, 205, 252, 257, 259, 338. - soldiers on board, 26, 41, 56, 134, 214, 314. - various forms of, 57-60, 126, 256, 257, 338. - wooden, life of, 110. - - Shipwrights, 72, 73, 146, 151, 211, 230, 298, 340 and _n._, 366, 369. - foreign, 59. - master, 15, 73, 74, 113, 151, 152, 162, 163, 186, 203, 204, 208, - 209, 257, 266, 267, 268, 298, 340, 365,366, 395, 396. - blunders of, 186, 203, 257-259, 340. - contracts with, 162, 163, 340, 395, 396. - - Shipwrights’ Company, 187, 258. - - Shot, 33, 57, 97, 158, 159, 160, 213, 289, 341, 361, 367, 371, 380. - - Shrewsbury, John Talbot, Earl of, 27. - - Shurly, John, 81. - - Signalling, 62, 63, 213, 214. - - Slings, 54, 96, 155 and _n._ - - Slingsby, Sir Guildford, 189, 196, 282. - Sir Robert, 326 _n._ - - Smalhithe, building at, 14, 35 _n._, 51 _n._ - - Smith, Thomas, 286, 288, 347 and _n._, 348 _n._ - - Smyth, John, 73. - - Somerhuche, 15 and _n._ - - Somerset, John Beaufort, Earl of, 65 _n._ - - Soper, William, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 31. - - Southampton, William Fitzwilliam, Earl of, 52, 61, 66. - - _Sovereign_, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 49, 55, 57, 61, 68, 72, 77, 127. - - _Sovereign of the Seas_, 247, 252 _n._, 255, 260-262, 268 _n._, 338. - - Spain, Navy of, 37, 43, 46 and _n._, 116 and _n._, 349. - peace with, 185. - - _Speedwell_, 202, 203, 214, 251 _n._ - - Speke, Sir John, 25. - - Spert, Sir Thomas, 84 and _n._, 91. - - Stapylton, Miles, 26. - - Station lists (Fleets), 342. - (Ships), 80, 214, 262. - Mediterranean, 303. - North American, 303, 336 _n._ - - Stodynges, 373 and _n._ - - Stone guns, 54, 379, 380. - - Storehouses, 15, 22, 23, 40, 71, 364. - keepers of, 71, 83, 84. - - Stores, prices of, 98, 181, 182, 301, 371. - purchase of, 33, 181. - quantities of, in hand, 71, 181, 211, 299, 363. - sale of, 22, 23, 97. - - Stourton, John, Lord, 27. - - Stow, John, referred to, 13, 36. - - Straits, The, 343 _n._ - - Stryks, 80 and _n._ - - Stubbs, Bishop, referred to, 8, 21 _n._ - - Suffolk, Duke of, see Pole, William de la. - - Summer-castle, 15. - - _Swallow_, (of Henry VIII), 51, 55, 59. - (of Mary), 110. - (of Charles I), 259, 261 _n._, 264. - - _Sweepstake_ (of Henry VII), 41, 58. - - Symonson, Marcus, 33. - - - T - - Tampons, 97. - - Taverner, John, 19, 37. - - Thefts, 107, 146, 158, 166, 167, 191, 192, 193, 194, 211, 213, - 283-286, 290, 291, 316, 324, 325, 353, 354, 358, 359, 366. - - Thompson, Robert, 326, 347 and _n._, 348 _n._ - - Thoreton, Leonard, 84. - - Thorne, Robert, 38. - William, 38. - - Tickets for wages, 228, 287, 359. - - _Tiger_ (of Henry VIII), 51, 58, 60, 130. - (of Elizabeth), 120, 123, 130. - - Tonnage, measurement of, 8, 20, 30, 132, 208, 260, 266-268. - Spanish, 53 _n._, 132, 133. - proportion of men to, 74. - - Ton-tight, 8 and _n._ - - Top-armours, 60. - - Trade, coast, 3, 167. - decline of, 199, 200, 272. - effects of Reformation on, 91, 92. - growth of, 3, 10, 11, 18, 34, 42, 90, 91, 167-170, 273, 343. - - _Trade’s Increase_, 201. - - Trade to Africa, 11, 91, 176. - to America, 91, 92. - to Baltic, 11, 42, 169, 200. - to East Indies, 91, 170, 200 and _n._, 271 and _n._ - to France, 3, 11, 171, 176, 272. - to Iceland, 11, 89. - to Low Countries, 43, 176. - to Mediterranean, 11, 34, 42, 91, 169, 170, 176, 200, 273. - to Spain, 170, 272. - - Trading Companies, 108, 169, 174, 182, 272. - - Treasurer by sea, 83. - - Treaties, commercial, 34, 42, 108. - - Trevilian, Sir William, 77. - - Trevor, Sir John, 149, 189, 192. - - Trin, 80 and _n._ - - Trinity Corporation, 92, 148, 167, 258, 260, 264, 268, 273. - fund, 243. - - _Trinity Royal_ 12, 13, 15, 23. - - _Triumph_ (of Elizabeth), 120, 122, 128, 155, 156, 157, 206. - (of James I), 202, 208, 259, 328 and _n._ - - Tunnage and poundage, 10 and _n._, 17, 34. - - Tweedy, Roger, 288, 347 _n._ - - - U - - _Unicorn_ (of Henry VIII), 50, 58, 59, 101, 109. - (of Charles I), 237, 254, 257, 258. - - Upnor, chain at, 151, 211, 299, 367. - fort at, 150, 156, 211, 213. - - - V - - Vane, Sir Henry (the elder), 279 _n._ - (the younger), 240, 281, 295 and _n._ - - Vere, John de. See Oxford, Earl of. - Sir Robert, 27. - - _Victory_ (of Elizabeth), 119, 120, 122, 123, 129, 155, 156, 157 - _n._, 158, 206, 207. - (of James I), 202, 208, 259. - - Victualling agreement, conditions of, 140, 141, 324. - buildings, 140, 141, 144, 325. - Commissioners of, 324 _n._, 326. - department, 103, 113, 136, 140-144, 189, 222, 233, 324-328, 368. - during Civil war, 308. - frauds in, 81, 107, 143, 146, 194, 227, 236, 237, 325. - rate, 25, 26, 34, 41, 73, 81, 82, 140-144, 190, 238, 324 and _n._ - Surveyors of, 103, 140,142, 144, 222, 236, 238; see also - Victualling, Commissioners of. - under Henry VIII, 81-83. - Mary, 112. - - Victuals, badness of, 77, 81, 82, 137, 138, 142, 143, 220, 223, 236, - 237, 326, 327, 384. - daily allowance of, 82, 140, 238. - special kind of, 134. - stowage of, 82, 144. - want of, 82, 136, 142, 143, 228, 229, 235, 236, 320, 327, 328. - - Villiers, George, Duke of Buckingham, 194, 199, 207, 215, 223, 224, - 227, 231, 233, 234, 252, 253 _n._, 267, 270, 280 and _n._ - - Voyages of discovery, 43, 91, 94. - - - W - - Wager, George, 352. - - Wages. See Seamen, pay of; Officers, pay of. - - Waistcloths, 182 and _n._, 257. - - Wapping, 362. - - _Warspite_, 121, 129, 130, 156, 263. - - Warwick, Richard Neville, Earl of, 27, 28, 31, 32, 65 _n._ - Robert Rich, Earl of, 240, 249, 250, 288, 346. - - Watchword, 64. - - Water, Edmund, 85. - - Watermen, 177 _n._, 244. - - Watts, Sir John, 224, 228, 231. - - Waymouth, George, 186, 203. - - Wells, John, 230, 260 and _n._, 266 _n._, 267, 282. - - Weston, Richard, Lord, 234, 235, 279 _n._ - - Whelps, the ten, 256, 344. - - White, Philip, 274 _n._, 367. - Thomas, 349. - - _White Bear_, 120, 122, 129, 130, 131, 263. - - William I, 1. - - Willoughby, Francis, 326, 347 and _n._, 349, 365. - - Wiltshire, James Butler, Earl of, 27. - - Winchester House, 210. - - Windebank, Sir Francis, 246, 279 _n._ - - Winter cruising, 111. - - Wolstenholme, Sir John, 195 _n._, 246, 349. - - Woodhouse, Sir William, 85, 86, 104. - - Worcester, John Tiptoft, Earl of, 27, 31. - - Wyard, Robert, 328. - - Wyndham, Sir Thomas, 76, 83. - - Wynter, George, 149. - John, 85, 93, 94. - Sir William, 102, 104, 107, 108, 111, 149, 156, 160, 393. - - - Y - - Yards, 208. - - York, Duke of, see James, Duke of York. - - - - - -ERRATA - - - Page 12, line 8, _for_ ‘Sopor,’ _read_ ‘Soper.’ - ” 19, ” 7, _for_ ‘Tavener,’ _read_ ‘Taverner.’ - ” 39, ” 36, _for_ ‘1495-6,’ _read_ ‘1495-7.’ - ” 39, ” 38, _for_ ‘April and July of the latter year,’ _read_ - ‘April of the latter year and July 1497.’ - ” 41, ” 41, _for_ ‘1496,’ _read_ ‘1497.’ - ” 57, side note, _for_ ‘galliasses,’ _read_ ‘galleasses.’ - ” 65, line 38, _for_ ‘the victor of Flodden,’ _read_ ‘son of the - victor of Flodden.’ - ” 135, ” 6, _delete_ quotation mark after ‘forms.’ - ” 138, ” 23, _for_ ‘price,’ _read_ ‘prices.’ - ” 152, ” 30, _for_ ‘1557,’ _read_ ‘1587.’ - ” 155, ” 28, _for_ ‘Triumph,’ _read_ ‘_Triumph_.’ - -Transcriber’s Note: The errata have been corrected. - - - J. MILLER AND SON, PRINTERS - EDINBURGH - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HISTORY OF THE ADMINISTRATION -OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND OF MERCHANT SHIPPING IN RELATION TO THE NAVY *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |