JAMES I. AND CHARLES I.
AUTHORITIES.--Sir W. Monson's _Naval Tracts_ continue to be the
leading authority for the early years of King James. The narratives
which illustrate the adventures of our seamen with the Algerine
pirates and the expeditions of 1620 have been collected by Lediard in
his _Naval History_. The report of the Commission of 1618 is given
in substance in Charnock's _Naval Architecture_. The original is in
the Record Office. The Navy Record Society has printed Holland's and
Ilyonsbie's _Discourses on the Navy_, edited by Mr. Tanner. For the
later years included in this chapter and for the whole time of the
Civil War and the Commonwealth, the collection of documents miscalled
the Life of Sir W. Penn, by Granville Penn, is of great value.
In the summer of 1604 Sir William Monson was appointed to command the
squadron in the Narrow Seas. In the course of his duty he had occasion
to speak with the officer commanding the Dutch ships then engaged in
the blockade of Dunkirk. "At my coming thither," he writes, "I went
on board the Admiral of Holland, who had been my old and familiar
acquaintance by reason of many actions and services we had been in
together. I told him that after twenty years spent in the wars, I was
now become a watchman with a bill in my hand to see peace kept and no
disorder committed in the Narrow Seas." The image which Monson applied
to himself might, with equal justice, have been used of the Government
he served. After a long and stormy reign, divided into nearly
equal periods of conflict without open war and then of undisguised
hostilities, England had settled down under a sovereign whose dearest
wish it was to see peace kept and no disorders committed in the Narrow
Seas or elsewhere. It could hardly be said that King James was a
watchman with a bill in his hands. This king would, in fact, have been
a more effectual guardian of the peace, if he had taken better care to
have his weapon ready, and shown a greater faculty for using it. Yet he
chose the part of the peacemaker, and his decision inevitably had its
effect on the navy.
With the exception of one deplorably ill-managed expedition against
the pirates of Algiers in 1620, the king's reign was barren of warlike
enterprises at sea; but it is not, on that account, without great
interest in naval history. In the first place, it is during the reign
of King James that we first get a good opportunity of seeing the navy
engaged in its regular work of keeper of the peace, or protector as the
Church Service words it, of all those who go upon the sea upon their
lawful occasions. Then it was a time of great advance in shipbuilding
and of great experiments in naval administration.
The same Sir William Monson, whose name has appeared so often already,
has left an account of his services as admiral in the Narrow Seas,
written for his own justification at a time when he was accused by
the Dutch of showing partiality in the discharge of his office. The
exact merits of this accusation are hardly to be settled now, nor does
it very much matter whether Monson leant too much to one side or the
other, in the chronic disputes between Dutchmen and Spaniards which
were then disturbing the Channel. It would have been beyond the power
of any officer to convince both parties that he was fair, and we have
his word for it that he cordially disliked the Dutch. Even if he had
felt more kindly towards them, it would have been difficult for him
not to come into collision with their officers. There were pretensions
on both sides which it was clearly impossible to reconcile. The King
of England not only claimed the absolute sovereignty of the Four Seas,
but made claims to a general superiority on the ocean which were
irksome to the rising naval power of Holland. The stolid good sense of
the Dutch, who always thought more of substance than of form, and the
sagacity which showed them the folly of quarrelling with England while
their conflict with Spain was not yet ended, could alone have availed
to keep them from resenting pretensions which almost seemed to have
been designed to provoke our neighbours into war. The officers of the
King of England not only claimed the right to exact the salute within
the Four Seas, but they absolutely insisted that no flag was to be
shown in the presence of their own, even far beyond the limits of the
jurisdiction claimed for England. Sir William Monson recalls with pride
how he once rebuked the insolence of a Dutch officer who, after making
the salute, had rehoisted his own flag in Irish waters, by telling him
that it was only out of the condescending politeness of Lord Howard
that the Dutch admiral had been allowed to display his colours in the
expedition to Cadiz.
The Dutch, though they bore the lordly arrogance of England tamely
enough, when all that was at stake was the matter of the salute, were
pertinacious in insisting on their own way on points of material
advantage. Thus, for instance, they insisted upon prohibiting all trade
by English vessels to the ports of Flanders held by the Spaniards,
though they themselves never suspended their lucrative commerce with
Spain at any period during the war. In pursuit of their belligerent
rights, they did not hesitate to attack Spanish vessels, or those
belonging to the Spanish Netherlands, even in English waters. Sir
William Monson recounts the difficulty he found in preventing two
Dutch cruisers from attacking a vessel belonging to Dunkirk, in the
very roadstead of Sandwich. His task was made harder by the fact that
the men of the English seaports sympathised openly with the Dutch. The
hostility to Spain had grown strong during the great queen's reign,
and had not yet given place to the hatred of the Hollander. The great
change produced by the accession of the House of Stuart is forcibly
illustrated by the fact that one of Monson's first duties, during the
reign of King James, was to contrive the smuggling over from Dover to
Flanders of some thousands of Spanish soldiers, who were driven to take
refuge in our ports. They had come up Channel with eight war galleons,
the largest force which by the terms of the new treaty was allowed
free entry to an English harbour. It seems difficult to believe that
the Spaniards would have risked so small a squadron in the Channel in
face of the naval power of Holland, unless they had assurances that it
would not only be protected, but helped to make its way into Flemish
ports. Sir William Monson has not told by what artful management he
contrived to pass the Spaniards, who had taken refuge at Dover, across
the Channel. The story might have cost him some ill-will, and he
thought it better to keep silent. But if the Dutch learned, as they
not improbably did, that he had been giving so much zealous assistance
to an enemy who was endeavouring to conquer their country, it is not
wonderful that they doubted his impartiality. Not the least important
part of his duty consisted in escorting "such princes, ambassadors, and
others, as were entitled to the honour." Of these he convoyed no less
than thirty-two in eleven years, with all their servants and followers,
who, on some occasions, reached the figure of three hundred, all of
whom Sir William had to feed. One of these guests, the Count of Villa
Mediana, was confined for five days by foul weather in Monson's ship,
having with him a train of two hundred persons, who consumed, in all,
ten meals each. The honour of discharging such a dignified function as
that of protector of princes and ambassadors was embittered for Monson,
and indeed for naval officers, as late as Nelson's time, and later, by
the meanness of the Government, which left them to bear the expense of
entertaining these guests of the State. Monson has left it on record
that at the end of his service he was "as yet unsatisfied" for no
less a sum than fifteen hundred pounds spent in this way. Five or six
thousand pounds would probably be the modern equivalent. But Monson,
who took a pension from Spain, had ways of making the loss good. These,
varied by an occasional raid on foreign fishermen engaged in poaching
on our waters, represented the usual duties of the officer commanding
the Channel squadron, or, to use the language of the time, the Winter
and the Summer Guard, in the early seventeenth century.
Sir William Monson had a piece of work to do at the very end of his
active service of a much more lively character than any of these, and
one too characteristic of the time, and the conditions of sea life, to
be passed over.
In 1614 the king's Scotch subjects petitioned him for help against the
pirates who were infesting the coasts. The call was pressing, and was
favourably received by the king. Sir William Monson and Sir Francis
Howard were despatched at once with four ships in such haste that the
"victuals and other things" they needed were to be sent after them.
The little squadron left Margate on the 14th of May, and reached Leith
on the 23rd of the same month. Here Monson applied to the "Lords of
that Realme," for information concerning the pirates, desiring "to be
furnished with able pilots, for His Majesty's ships were of greater
burden and value than usually had been employed on these coasts, and
besides, that the navigation to the northward of that place (Leith) was
not frequented by our nation, and therefore unknown to us." Able pilots
were duly supplied, and information was forthcoming. From the Frith
of Forth Monson sailed to the north, to Sinclair Castle, the house of
the Earl of Caithness, by whom he was informed that the number and
powers of the pirates had been much exaggerated in the petition to His
Majesty. Instead of twenty, there were but two, and they men of "base
condition." From the expression it appears likely that Monson would
have not been much surprised to learn that his pirates were gentlemen
of good birth, and indeed there would have been nothing wonderful in it
at a time when a member of the distinguished Buckinghamshire family of
Verney was a noted leader among the Algerines. Monson's pirates were
very small deer. One of them hardly deserved the name, being only a
trader who had been terrified into joining his captors. This man had
seized the first chance to escape, and had just rendered up himself
and one of the two vessels to the Earl of Caithness. The other pirate
turned out to be one Clarke, who had formerly been a boatswain's mate
with Monson in the Channel. From Caithness the English officer sailed
to the Orkneys in pursuit of Clarke. Here "he found more civil, kind,
and friendly usage than could be expected from such kind of creatures
in show." Leaving Sir Francis Howard to guard the coast, he sailed in
pursuit of the runaway Clarke to Shetland. From Shetland he went on to
the Hebrides, where he intended that his consort should join him. "The
brutishness and uncivility of those people of the Hebrides exceeds the
savages of America," is the rude description given of the islanders by
Sir William Monson. Clarke was not to be found in the Hebrides, but
Monson obtained information of a certain gentleman, Cormat by name,
living in Ireland near Broadhaven, who was known as a favourer and
protector of pirates. To Broadhaven, then, Monson sailed, meeting on
the way with such weather as is "fit only for a poet to describe." In
the great storm and ground seas the squadron was scattered. Of the four
ships Monson had with him, one went down, and the three others were
separated, "and saw one another no more till they met in England."
On the 28th June Monson reached Broadhaven, a place which would have
been unknown to him, if he had not had with him a pirate whom he had
taken out of the hands of the Earl of Caithness. This man guided him
into the haven, and then was of material assistance in carrying out a
stratagem which Monson had devised for the more effectual discovery
and punishment of Cormat (whose real name was probably Cormac) and his
lawless associates.
So fine was the distinction between the lawless and the law-abiding on
the seas at that time, that Monson had no difficulty in picking out
from his crew a number of men who had formerly been pirates. "These men
he sent in his boat to the gentlemen of that place, and took upon him
to be a pirate and the name of Captain Manwaring." The ex-pirate, whom
Monson trusted, acted so as to prove the truth of the adage touching
the wisdom of employing a thief to catch a thief. He entered into the
plot with almost scandalous zest. Mr. Cormac had three daughters, all
of whom, it appears, had pirate sweethearts. "These silly women" were
cruelly deluded with stories to the effect that Captain Manwaring was
very rich with plunder, and very generous, also that he was acquainted
with all their sweethearts. Misled by this fiction, Mr. Cormac and his
belongings were at once consumed with a desire to make the acquaintance
of Captain Manwaring. He put cattle at a convenient place on the coast
with their ears slit, in order that the supposed pirates might take
them in a "warlike manner, that it might appear their cattle were
taken by violence." Next day Monson sent for the cattle, sending fifty
armed men under Captain Chester in a "disorderly manner like pirates."
Captain Chester was civilly received by the Misses Cormac, "whose
desire was to hear of their sweethearts, but all in general coveted
to see Captain Manwaring, who they confidently believed would enrich
them all." In the course of the day Mr. Cormac sent two "ambassadors,"
who "delivered a friendly (though in a rude manner like their country)
message of their love." It was an invitation to a dinner and dance.
Monson now began to put his stratagem in force. He laid the two
messengers by the heels in the hold of his ship, after cruelly asking
them whether they thought she looked like a pirate. Then he landed
himself with more men in a disorderly manner. He was received on the
beach by a large crowd with an effusive welcome. One of the crowd was
an English trader, another was a merchant from Galway. Both of these
made a trade of buying plunder from pirates. A third noted character in
the hospitable mob was Cormac's schoolmaster; for an Irish gentleman,
however lax he might be in the matter of piracy, was never indifferent
to learning. Surrounded by cheers and enthusiasm, the imaginary Captain
Manwaring made triumphant progress to Mr. Cormac's house. A royal
entertainment had been prepared. The harper, a recognised member of
every Irish household, played to welcome him, and the Misses Cormac
proposed a dance. Monson would not himself dance, but he allowed his
followers to amuse themselves. In the meantime he talked with Cormac
and his daughters, "laughing and jeering at their two messengers aboard
who they did not suspect were detained prisoners, but drinking and
frolicking in the ship, as the use was upon the arrival of pirates."
Then he had some talk with the trader, of whom he draws a most engaging
picture. Believing that he had in truth to deal with a pirate, the
man was completely candid. He explained how he treated the sheriffs,
showing "a pass procured upon false pretences from the Sheriff of
that county, authorising him to travel from place to place to make
inquisition of his goods, which he falsely pretended he was robbed of
at sea; he laughed at the cheat he had put upon the Sheriff in getting
his pass, and urged the advantage that might be made of it in sending
to and fro in the country without suspicion.... His antic behaviour was
enough to put the melancholist man in good humour, sometimes he played
the part of a Commanding Sheriff; then he acted his own with many witty
passages as to how he deceived the Sheriff." Sir William Monson pumped
this clever fellow, of whom he was making a dupe, and in particular
got a letter from him to certain mariners in the county who were the
regular associates of pirates.
So soon as he had this useful document in his pocket, Sir William
sprang his mine on this innocent Irish family. He told them who he
was, and that they were all prisoners. "Here was seen the mutability
of the world; their mirth was turned into mourning and their dancing
into lamenting, each bewailing and repenting as is the custom of
offenders." The inexorable Sir William returned on board, leaving them
all under guard, and his carpenter busy in setting up the gallows, but
the end was not tragic for the family of Cormac and their guests. After
giving them "four-and-twenty hours' fright" in irons, and receiving a
solemn promise that they would never connive at pirates again, Monson
pardoned them. He was perhaps the more readily induced to be merciful
by the fact that in the meantime another vessel had turned up outside
Broadhaven, and had at once stood off to sea on finding the anchorage
occupied. Rightly judging that the new-comer was a pirate, Monson
compelled Cormac to give help in bringing him to justice. The old rogue
was perfectly prepared to save his own neck, and wrote letters which
induced the new-comer to remain on the coast and send a large part of
his crew ashore for cattle. Monson, who watched his compulsory allies
with sleepless vigilance, seized the opportunity to board the pirate
while a large part of his crew were on shore. Hauling his boats over
a strip of land between Broadhaven and the place where the pirates
were, he dropped during the night on the deceived malefactors and
captured them without difficulty. His new prisoners were treated with
less tenderness than the Cormacs. "Examining the behaviour of all
the pirates, of many he picked out the worst, who had tasted twice
before of His Majesty's gracious pardon." This time they tasted of His
Majesty's justice, being duly hanged as a terror to evil-doers. If
Monson is to be believed, this severe example cleared the Irish coast
of pirates, but he undoubtedly overrated the efficacy of the remedy.
Years afterwards, when Strafford came to Ireland as Lord Deputy, the
coast was still infested with pirates, and very stringent measures had
been taken to re-establish security for trade.
This story, though it may seem somewhat out of place when told at such
length in a history of the Royal Navy, has appeared to me to be worth
repeating. One concrete example will do more than any number of general
statements to show what the condition of a country was. All through the
reign of Elizabeth and the first two Stuarts piracy was common on the
coast of Great Britain and Ireland. Sir William Monson's experiences
show why it could flourish. The number of ships kept in regular
commission by the king was small, and much of their time was taken up
in carrying princes and ambassadors between England and the Continent.
In outlying districts there were always persons of the stamp of Mr.
Cormac and his "hackney daughters," who were prepared to give the
pirates a friendly welcome in consideration of a share of the booty.
Traders were ready to buy their stolen goods. And it is even obvious,
from Monson's casual mention of members of his crew who had been
pirates, that nobody thought very much the worse of a man for having
followed the trade once in a way. The sea was still very lawless, and
the Royal Navy had hardly yet taken its police duties firmly in hand.
The improvement in shipbuilding which took place in this reign was
mainly the work of the most able member of a remarkable family of
shipwrights, sea-captains, and navy officials who are found engaged in
and about the royal dockyards from the reign of Edward VI. to close
on the end of the reign of Charles II. Phineas Pett, who was born in
1570 and died in 1647, was the son of Peter Pett, master shipwright
at Deptford in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. He received a better
education than had probably been given to any previous member of
his family. After preliminary schooling at Rochester and Greenwich,
he entered the famous Puritan college, the "House of Pure Emanuel,"
at Cambridge in 1586. The death of his father, in 1589, left him
destitute, and Phineas was for some years compelled to pick up a
precarious livelihood in the dockyards or in sea voyages. In 1597 he
entered the service of Lord Howard, which no doubt means his service
as Lord High Admiral, but not in any domestic capacity. His foot being
now well down, Pett kept his place, and very considerably bettered it
before long. Having been employed by Howard to build a miniature ship
for Henry, eldest son of James I., he attracted the favourable notice
of the prince, who in his short life certainly proved that he possessed
a remarkable eye for men of brains and character. Pett's favour drew
upon him a great deal of jealousy in the dockyard, and he was at last
openly accused by his rivals of incompetence. But he stood his ground
stoutly, and finally justified himself in an inquiry held before the
king at Woolwich. James, like all the house of Stuart, had a taste for
clever scientific men. He was mainly a scholar and a theologian, as
his son Charles I. was a judge of pictures and of literature, and as
his grandson Charles II. had a taste for natural science and chemical
experiments. But he could understand the merits of such a question
as was debated before him at Woolwich, and his inclination would be
to support an educated man against the merely practical men who were
accusing him of bungling because he departed from their familiar old
rules of thumb. The whole house of Stuart, indeed, had a liking for
ships and sea affairs, which they showed even before they became kings
of England. Under royal protection, Pett was able to bring about great
improvements in construction by reducing the amount of timber used and
relying on better proportion for strength. The great ship called the
=Prince Royal=, designed by him, and launched in 1610, was the finest
yet built for the Crown, and he surpassed her in the =Sovereign of the
Seas=, launched in 1637, during the reign of Charles I. He established
his family so firmly in the dockyards, that they overran all the
offices in them by the middle of the century.
The labours of this skilful shipbuilder would have been of little
avail but for the exertions of others among the king's servants who in
1618 prevailed over the interested opposition of the Lord High Admiral
to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the state of the
navy. Even in the great queen's reign all had not been perfect in the
dockyards. During her later years, when they had lost the vigilant
supervision of Hawkins, a good deal of corruption had begun to creep
in. Under the lax government of James I., and when there was no longer
a permanent state of war to brace the energies of the admirals and
captains, and to apply a perpetual check on the execution of work, the
naval administration fell rapidly into an inefficient condition. As
early as 1608 there had been talk of an inquiry. But Lord Howard of
Effingham, or, to give him his later title, the Earl of Nottingham,
used his influence to put a stop to the proposal. He no doubt
considered that he was personally insulted when the conduct of the
department under his command was called in question. Yet inquiry was
certainly needed. We cannot believe that the hero who led the English
fleets against the Armada, and was joint commander with Essex in the
triumphant expedition to Cadiz, was himself guilty of corruption. The
truth is, that he looked upon the minute examination of accounts as
work beneath his dignity, and fit only for subordinate officials, whom
he regarded as his servants. He managed the navy, in fact, very much
as a profuse, easy-going noble would have conducted the affairs of his
own house. Of course he was robbed by his servants, and, when they
were accused of misconduct, he resented the interference as implying a
reflection on his judgment. So fraud and peculation flourished under
the protection of his honourable name.
The corruption at the Admiralty was so flagrant that another attempt to
set going an inquiry was made in 1613. It went so far that a Commission
was actually drafted, but Nottingham, thoroughly aroused at this
second insult, consulted lawyers as to the legality of the document,
and threatened a constitutional opposition. Again he succeeded in
staving off inquiry. Four years later, however, a third, and this time
a successful, effort was made to overhaul the Admiralty. The Howard
family were in conflict with the rising favour of George Villiers,
afterwards Duke of Buckingham, and the admiral suffered with the rest.
In this case there can be no question that the interests of the nation
were on the side of Buckingham. The Commission which took the work in
hand contained some excellent men of business. Lionel Cranfield, Earl
of Middlesex, was one, and another was Sir John Coke, a model public
servant, though a somewhat mean-spirited man, who continued in the
service of the Crown far into the reign of Charles I.
The report issued by this body in September 1618 gives a sufficiently
lamentable account of the condition into which the navy had fallen
during the fifteen years since the death of Queen Elizabeth. It was to
little use that Pett was building finer ships, when they were allowed
to go to decay, through mismanagement in the dockyards, from the very
day they were built. As to the scandalous defects which had been
steadily increasing under the lax supervision of Nottingham, there
can be no sort of question. The Commissioners, to begin with, found
that no accounts had been prepared for the last four years, and they
were driven to discover what the expenditure of the navy had been by
the laborious process of going over all the warrants issued during
that period. After what appears to have been a very fair and careful
examination, they came to a decision that the money spent yearly on an
average during the last four years had been £53,004, 7s. 11d. It was
far more than Elizabeth had spent to maintain an efficient sea force
in war-time, and yet it could not keep the navy from decay. Out of a
nominal force of forty-three ships, sixteen were either non-existent
or absolutely rotten. The others, though they were capable of being
repaired, were in so bad a condition as to need a thorough refit, and
this although the cost of the navy had been increasing rapidly. The
report of the Commissioners is a model of good order and explicit
convincing statement. It leaves no doubt on the mind why it was
that the strength of the navy decreased as its expenses grew. The
Commissioners give an account of the administration, which is now of
great historical interest.
First, they draw up a list of the officers to whom the government of
the navy was entrusted, showing us the whole establishment as it stood
in 1618, distinguishing between the old order created by Henry VIII.
and the recent additions:--
The ancient Patentees and their payments are these--
The Lord High Admiral of England £ 133 6 8
The Lieutenants of the Admiralty, which was
not bestowed all Queen Elizabeth's time 322 18 4
The Treasurer of the navy for his fee,
travelling charges, boat hire and clerks 220 13 4
Comptroller of the navy, the like 155 6 8
Surveyor of the navy for the like 145 6 8
Surveyors of victuals for the like 159 10 0
Clerk of the navy for the like 100 3 4
Keeper of the stores-general for the like 78 5 10
Keeper of the stores at Portsmouth 20 0 0
Three assistants to the officers 60 0 0
A master for grounding the great ships 9 2 6
Three master shipwrights (at first but two) 66 18 4
A pilot or master for the black deeps 20 0 0
_____________
Total £1491 11 8
The new erections since His Majesty's reign--
A captain-general of the Narrow Seas for his fee at 20s. per diem, one
clerk at 8d. and sixteen servants at 10d. per mensem--£481, 3s. 4d.
Besides £663, 18s. 8d. paid to him by the Treasurer and victualler of
the navy.
A vice-admiral of the Narrow Seas for his owne fee at 10s. per diem,
and eight servants at 10s. per mensem, the later by Privy Seal only,
£234, 12s. 8d., besides £182, 10s. paid by the Treasurer of the navy.
Another for service at the Narrow Seas at the like rate of 10s. per
diem, £182, 10s. 0d., besides 10s. per diem when he serveth at sea.
A surveyor of tonnage, £18, 5s. 0d. The charge that groweth hereby is
per medium, £1888, 1s. 5d.
A storekeeper at Woolwich, £54, 8s. 4d. The store not worth 40s.
Clearer of the roads, £30. Besides £182, 1s. 8d. paid by the Treasurer
of the navy.
A captain and twenty soldiers in Upnor, £243, 6s.
Total, £1244, 6s. 0d.
Other new patents granted by His Majesty and paid by the Treasurer of
the navy.
A keeper of the outstores at Deptford, a new office, £66, 13s. 4d.
Clerk of the check at Deptford}
Clerk of the check at Woolwich} Old offices and fees.
Clerk of the check at Chatham }
The Commissioners, after pointing out in general and in particular that
the condition of His Majesty's ships was very bad, give nine "causes"
why it was no better. Eight of these are chiefly of the nature of
illustrations of the ninth and last, which in itself is a masterly
summary of the causes and consequences of bad administration.
"We find the chief and inward causes of all disorder to be the
multitude of officers, and poverty of wages, and the chief officers
commit all the trust and business to their inferiors and clerks,
whereof some have part of their maintenance from the merchants that
deliver in the provisions which they are trusted to receive, and these
men are also governed by the chief officers' verbal directions, which
the directors will not give under their hands when it is required;
and which of all is the most inconvenient, they are the warrants and
vouchers for the issuing of all His Majesty's moneys and stores, who
are most interested in the greatness of his expence.
"And therefore the business ever was and is still so carried, that
neither due survey is taken of ought that cometh in, nor orderly
warrant given for most that goeth out, nor any particular account
made, nor now possible to be made, of any one main worke or service
that is done."
The officials could not live on their pay, and were driven to cheat;
and as this was nearly as much the case with the seniors as with the
juniors, there was no supervision. Some of the cheating took the form
of downright lying; thus, of the forty-three ships on the list of the
navy, three were not in existence, even in a rotten condition. The
=Bonaventure= was broken up seven years before the Commission was
formed, and yet the king had continued to pay £63 a year for her keep.
£100, 4s. 5d. was still charged for the =Advantage=, burnt five years
before, and £60, 10s. 10d. for the =Charles=. Small pilferings were
the rule, and the system upon which the men were paid almost invited
fraud. Thus the boatswains, whose regular allowance was £10, 17s.
3d., when engaged as caretakers of the king's ships in harbour, were
allowed to make a profit by buying what were known as "old mucks" and
"brown paper stuff" at a cheap rate. These striking names were applied
to cables, moorings, and cordage generally, which were supposed to be
too worn out for the king's service. Of this refuse the officials were
allowed to make what profit they could. The reader will perceive at
once with what delightful facility this system could be worked at the
king's expense. Much larger quantities of cable were used than were
necessary, and so soon as any part was slightly damaged, the boatswains
were allowed to take the whole as "old mucks" and "brown paper stuff."
Then they resold it at a very handsome profit. If the little men
behaved in this way, it was because their chiefs not only condoned,
but shared their malpractices. The king was charged too dear even for
the stores he did receive, and he was made to pay for articles never
purchased and for work not done for him. As might have been expected,
his establishments swarmed with useless servants, the hangers-on of
his higher officials. A pathetic interest attaches to the names of
some of the useless officials who were detected by the Commissioners.
We read, for instance, of John Austin, master, aged and blind, of John
Avale, boatswain, aged and blind, of Thomas Butler, gunner, aged and
heretofore a man of great service, and may still be an instructor of
others, and of John Causton, gunner, maimed in service. These, we may
safely believe, were aged men, worn out in the wars of Queen Elizabeth,
who were suffered by charity to retain offices for which they were no
longer fit. The Commissioners recommend them for reasonable pensions.
Though such cases as these were pardonable, yet the system was bad.
The fact that one aged seaman or soldier who well deserved a pension
had been suffered to retain a post long after he had become unable
to perform the duties, was sure to be made an excuse for putting in
incompetent persons who had never seen any service at all.
Having drawn this picture of the navy as it was, the Commissioners
went on to draft a scheme by which it could again be put on a
more creditable footing. They undertook to meet the ordinary and
extraordinary expenses for £30,000 a year, to refit the ships which
were still capable of being made serviceable, to build new ones, and to
do the whole work of re-establishing the navy within five years. Their
method was one adopted at all times by administrators who have had to
deal with such a state of affairs as is described above. They dismissed
superfluous officials and raised the salaries of those that were
retained. They set themselves a definite scheme to carry out, and made
a careful calculation of the sums of money required to execute it. The
establishment of the navy, according to the plan of the Commissioners,
was to consist of no more than thirty vessels, but then they were to
be, taken together, larger by three thousand and fifty tons than the
navy of Queen Elizabeth "when it was greatest and flourished most." The
average size of the ships was therefore very much increased. Taking
one with another, they measured a little over five hundred and seventy
tons. By 1624 this scheme had been fully carried out.
The execution of the reform was accompanied, and indeed we may say was
secured, by a change in the administration. It had become impossible
that Nottingham should remain any longer Lord High Admiral. His
retirement in 1619 was soothed by pensions, and he received the sum of
£3000 from his successor as the price of his office. One of the evils
of which the Commissioners had to complain was the sale of offices,
but the practice continued long, especially in the case of the great
men. Nottingham's successor was the showy Duke of Buckingham, one of
the best abused personages in English history. It is, however, to
his credit that under his administration a great deal was done in the
interests of the navy. If he did not do it himself, he at least did not
interfere with Sir John Coke and other hard-working subordinates. Nor
was the change of Lord High Admiral all. A complete organic change was
carried out. The old offices of Treasurer, Comptroller, Surveyor, and
Clerk of the Acts were suppressed, and the members of the committee
were entrusted with the whole administration of the navy, under the
title of Commissioners.
In spite of this vigorous cleansing of the dockyards and the Navy
Office, maladministration was by no means at an end with the navy.
During the reign of Charles some at least of these evils reappeared.
King Charles took a keen interest in his navy, and did much to increase
its strength, but there were permanent conditions during all the
existence of the Stuart dynasty which militated against efficiency.
These kings were always aiming at more than they had the resources to
execute. They were at all times on bad terms with their Parliament,
and so could not raise a great revenue. Thus they were for ever short
of money, and were compelled to connive at malpractices on the part
of servants whom they could not pay. Dishonest men were not satisfied
with robbing the king of just so much as would make good their own
arrears of salary. They repaid themselves with interest, and very often
by defrauding the soldiers and sailors of their food and poor wages.
There was also a defect in the character of the Stuarts which Lord
Dartmouth defined to Pepys very forcibly as they were talking together
before dinner on their way home from Tangier. "He," Pepys writes,
"besides observed something Spragg had said that our masters the King
and Duke of York were good at giving good orders and encouragement to
their servants in office to be strict in keeping good order, but were
never found stable enough to support officers in the performance of
their orders. By which no man was safe in doing them service." This
was not less true of the first James and Charles than of the second,
and therefore it was that in spite of cleverness, of a distinct
understanding of the conditions which made for efficiency, and of the
best intentions, their navy was for ever ill supplied, ill fitted,
and manned by discontented men. The sailor who starved in the king's
service, and saw those who robbed him in the enjoyment of the royal
favour, ended by laying the blame on the king.
If all the promises made to them had been kept, neither men nor
officers would have had reason to complain. The sailors' wages had
risen steadily from the 5s. a month at which they stood at the
beginning of the reign of Henry VIII. They rose to 6s. 8d. under King
Edward, and in 1585 they were increased to 10s. Fourteen shillings
were given to the crews of the ships sent against Algiers in 1620, and
Charles I. fixed 15s. as the regular wage of a sailor. At a time when
the purchasing power of money was greater than it is now, this was
fair pay. The old system of compensating the officers by "dead pays"
disappeared in the reign of Elizabeth. In the reign of Charles I. the
captain received from £4, 6s. 8d. to £14 a month, according to the size
of his ship; the lieutenant, who was only carried in vessels above the
third rate, from £2, 16s. to £3, 10s., and the master from £2, 6s.
8d. to £4, 13s. 9d. Warrant officers were paid from £1, 3s. 4d. to
£2, 4s. The allowance of provisions was ample in quantity. Seven lbs.
of biscuits, four lbs. of beef, two lbs. of pork, one quart of peas,
three pints of oatmeal, six oz. of butter, and twelve oz. of cheese,
besides all the fresh fish which was caught, without any deduction for
it, were supposed to be served out to the men every week. They were
also entitled to an ample allowance of beer. But when a large force was
collected for service during any length of time, it was the common rule
to divide four men's food among six. At all times, too, the quality
of the provisions was liable to be bad. Complaints were particularly
common in regard to the beer. The badness of the stores was often
largely due to the difficulty of keeping them sweet during prolonged
cruises in small wooden vessels, ballasted with sand, into which all
the leakage of the beer-barrels drained, and which was soaked in bilge
water; but the stores were often bad to begin with.
During this reign we first hear of the division of the king's ships
into classes, called rates. At a later period they were classified by
armament, but in the reign of Charles I. the division was made by the
number of the crews. First rates carried 500 and 400 men, second rates
300 and 250, third rates 200 and 160, fourth rates 120 and 100, fifth
rates 70 and 60, and sixth rates 50 and 40.
The long peace which began with the accession of James I. had the
effect of throwing back the development of the navy for some time.
During the later years of Queen Elizabeth, a separate class of sea
officers was beginning to be formed. Sir William Monson, for instance,
was as much a naval officer as Lord Hawke. He went to sea young, he
passed through all grades of the service, he was a trained seaman, and
yet a gentleman who had received the education of his class. Constant
war had begun to teach Englishmen that the business of commanding
a fighting ship at sea required something more than a knowledge of
military discipline and the habit of carrying arms. If King James had
pursued the policy of constant hostility with Spain advocated by the
small party whose best-known representative was Sir Walter Raleigh, it
is probable that a corps of naval officers would soon have been formed
by the mere necessities of the case. But when peace was signed with
Spain, the necessity for maintaining a great naval force came to an
end. The ships were laid up, the crews were disbanded, the officers
either retired into private life, or were employed by the king in other
ways. The seamen among them betook themselves to the service of the
East India Company, to trade, or to colonising ventures in America.
Thus, when the time came again to fit out great fleets, no progress had
been made in the formation of a body of sea officers. In the reign of
James I. and his son, it was not much less the rule than it had been
with Henry VIII., that the captain of a king's ship was a gentleman
with little or no knowledge of sea affairs, and that the seaman was
confined to the inferior position of master. There were exceptions to
this rule. Sir John Pennington, who was much employed by Charles as
admiral in the Narrow Seas, was a seaman bred, but even he was commonly
superseded by some noble whenever the king made a serious effort to fit
out a great fleet.
The one important naval expedition of King James's reign was directed
against the pirates of Algiers in 1620. The despatch of this force
was of the nature of an innovation on the usual policy of James's
Government. It had not hitherto been the custom even to try to afford
English traders effective protection beyond the Narrow Seas. There
was no such permanent naval force as could have done the work, even
if the Government had been disposed to make the attempt. According to
the establishment drafted by the Commission of 1618, the guard to be
maintained at home was to consist of only four vessels, of which the
largest was 120 tons. This trifling squadron was not to be expected
to do more than cope with such pirates "of base condition" as the
ex-boatswain's mate Clarke, whom Sir William Monson hunted in the
Shetlands and the Hebrides. It was utterly unable to afford protection
to English traders beyond the Narrow Seas, nor indeed did they expect
to be protected. Trade to the East and the Levant was conducted by
great privileged companies, who sent their ships out well armed, and
maintained agents at foreign courts. As regards the East Indies,
it was long before a king's ship made its appearance in the waters
frequented by the Company's squadrons. But the Turkish Company, which
traded to the Levant, was less strong, and was also subject to attack
by more formidable enemies. The Algerine pirates were then, in even a
greater degree than was the case later, a standing menace to all ships
trading in the Mediterranean, and even in the more accessible parts
of the Atlantic. On one occasion they carried off a great part of the
population of the Canary Islands, on another they sacked Baltimore in
the south of Ireland. The vessels of the Turkey Company were to a
certain extent able to protect themselves, and on several occasions
they beat off the attacks of the pirates. But the smaller traders
fell easy victims. To the disgrace of Europe, a large proportion of
the pirates were renegades; one of them was an Englishman of the name
of Ward, formerly a boatswain in the navy. The seaports of the time
were full of stories of Englishmen who had been carried off by these
rovers, and had in the majority of cases remained in slavery, unless
they were ransomed by their relations. Now and then some English
sailors who had been taken would escape by turning the tables on their
captors. Thus, for instance, the =Jacob= of Bristol, a ship of 120
tons, was recaptured by four of her men who had been left on board
with the prize-crew. They took the opportunity of a storm, when they
were called upon to help the Moslem pirates, who were clumsy sailors.
As the prize-master was lending a hand to strike the sails, the four
Englishmen deftly gave him "a toss overboard." As he tried to clamber
up again by the help of a rope which was trailing alongside, he was
knocked down "by the handle of a pump." The prize-crew were then
overpowered in detail, and the vessel carried into San Lucar in Spain,
where the captive Mohammedans were themselves promptly sold for slaves.
A somewhat similar story is told of one John Rawlings, skipper of a
small vessel of forty tons, named the =Nicholas= of Plymouth. He was
taken prisoner outside the Straits of Gibraltar and carried to Algiers,
where he was sold as a slave to an English renegade of the name of John
Goodall. Goodall employed him in the crew of one of the various pirate
craft he owned, and Rawlings had the good fortune and dexterity to
organise and carry through a conspiracy among the Christian slaves, who
overpowered the Mohammedan masters and carried the ship into Plymouth.
These, however, were exceptional cases, and of those who fell into the
hands of these pirates there were few who ever saw an end to their
captivity, unless they had friends to ransom them or were prepared to
become renegades.
In 1620 a fleet was at last fitted out against these enemies of the
human race. King James acted at least as much under the influence
of the Spaniards, to whom Algiers was a perpetual menace, as in the
interest of his own subjects. Neither the Spaniard nor the English
trader profited by this solitary example of King James's naval
enterprise. The expedition was too futile to deserve detailed notice in
the history of the English Navy, when so many and such very different
events lie close ahead of us. Yet the constitution of the squadron is
interesting, as showing within a moderate space how the fleets of that
time were composed.
His Majesty's Ships.
Ships. Tons. Men. Brass Guns. Commanders.
=The Lion=, Admiral 600 250 40 Sir Robert Mansel.
=Vanguard=, Vice-Admiral 660 250 40 Sir Richard Hawkins.
=Rainbow=, Rear-Admiral 660 250 40 Sir Thomas Button.
=Constant Reformation= 660 250 40 Captain Arth. Manwaring.
=Antelope= 400 160 34 Sir Henry Palmer.
=Convertine= 500 220 36 Captain Thomas Love.
Merchant Ships.
Iron Guns.
=Golden Phenix= 300 120 24 Captain Samuel Argall.
=Samuel= 300 120 22 Captain Chr. Harris.
=Marygold= 260 100 21 Sir John Fearn.
=Zouch Phenix= 280 120 26 Captain John Pennington.
=Barbary= 200 80 18 Captain Thomas Porter.
=Centurion= 200 100 22 Sir Francis Tanfield.
=Primrose= 180 80 18 Sir John Hamden.
=Hercules= 300 120 24 Captain Eusaby Cave.
=Neptune= 280 120 21 Captain Robert Haughton.
=Merchant-Bonaventure= 260 110 23 Captain John Chidley.
=Restore= 130 50 12 Captain George Raymond.
=Marmaduke= 100 50 12 Captain Thomas Harbert.
The command of the squadron was given to Sir Robert Mansel, an old
officer of the Elizabethan time, who had fought against the Armada, and
had seen much service. He was a cousin of Lord Howard of Effingham, had
been a greedy if not corrupt official, and had taken an active share
in supporting the Lord Admiral in his opposition to the Commission
of 1613. The second in command, Sir Richard Hawkins, was the son
of the more famous Sir John. He had in the former reign been taken
prisoner by the Spaniards in the South Seas after a gallant fight.
During his captivity he had been converted to Roman Catholicism. His
account of his voyage to the South Seas is, next to the _Naval Tracts_
of Sir William Monson, the best contemporary account of the sea life
in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. The Captain John
Pennington who appears among the commanders of the merchant ships, is
the Sir John Pennington of later years. Although not a man of great
ability or considerable achievements, he is interesting as a type.
He belonged to a family of Puritan tradesmen, who came originally
from Henham in Essex, but were settled in London. The seaman did not
share the politics of his family, but was, in the fullest sense of the
word, a king's servant, making it his boast that it was his one rule
to obey his master's orders. He began life as a merchant's skipper,
and sailed in the employment of Raleigh in the last voyage to Guiana.
He had endeavoured to enter the service of the East India Company,
without success, although (if it ought not to be because) he had the
patronage of Buckingham. The same patron probably obtained for him the
command of the =Zouch Phenix= on this voyage. From this time forward
he was regularly in the employment of the Crown, and generally in
command of the Narrow Seas. The qualities which made his fortune lie
on the surface. He was, as has already been said, the king's servant
and nothing more, ready to fight or to run away, to tell the truth or
to lie, even to tell manifestly incompatible lies, upon the order of
anybody whom the king told him to obey. Such a man was invaluable. The
combination of perfect loyalty with a total absence of scruple is never
very common. Charles appreciated Pennington's qualities to the full,
and, when the Civil War was about to break out, even inclined to give
him the great office of Lord High Admiral.
The expedition against the Algerine pirates left England on the 12th
October 1620. In June of the following year it turned homeward, having
done nothing in the interval except make one futile attempt to defraud
the Dey of Algiers, by sending a sham consul, who was, in fact, a
common sailor dressed up for the occasion, and another no less feeble
effort to burn the pirate ships in the harbour. It spent a great part
of its time at Alicante, or in the Balearic Islands. It went aimlessly
to and fro between these places and Algiers. It was in harbour when it
ought to have been cruising against the pirates, and was at sea when
the pirates were safe back in Algiers. It finally returned, having done
much more harm than good by encouraging the Algerines in their belief
of their own strength.
King James died on the 27th of March 1625. The navy which he left his
son was still at the strength fixed by the Commissioners of 1618. As
compared with the navy of Queen Elizabeth, it shows a decrease of
either nine or eleven, for there is some doubt as to the exact number
of the king's ships, and an increase of about 2350 in tonnage. The work
before the navy in the new reign was, to judge by appearances, very
serious. The failure of the negotiations for a Spanish marriage, and
the wounds inflicted on the vanity, both of Charles and of Buckingham,
during their journey to Madrid, had provoked a war. It was not long
before the management of the new favourite added a war with France to
the existing struggle with Spain. Formidable as the task looks, there
is no reason to doubt that the Royal Navy, aided by the levies of
merchant ships always made when a great fleet was fitted out for sea
at that period, would have been amply sufficient. Spain was already
exhausted, and was only too happy to be able to repel attack, while
France had, as yet, no navy at all. But in order that the strength of
England on the sea could be fully exerted, there was need for good
management, a full treasury, and hearty zeal on the part of the nation.
All these three conditions were wanted. Therefore the enterprises
of one kind or other which went on from 1625 to 1629 were little
less languid, and were even more disgraceful, than Mansel's useless
demonstration against Algiers. Their political history is of immense
interest, but it is unnecessary to be told here. The miserable business
of the surrender of the seven English ships to the King of France, to
be used against Rochelle in 1625, tells us much about the character of
Charles, of Buckingham, and of Pennington, who executed his part of a
discreditable transaction stolidly, though not without reluctance; but
it is of no interest in the history of the navy proper.
The expedition to Cadiz in 1625, the despatch of the Earl of Denbigh
with a fleet to cruise in the Channel in 1626, the attack on the Ile
de Rhé in 1627, then the two equally useless cruises of Denbigh in
April and May and of Lindsey in September and October of 1629, were
indeed all either in whole or in part naval undertakings. But they
were so languid, so barren of incident worthy to be remembered, and so
wholly without result, that to do more than mention them very briefly
would be to rob passages of our naval history, which really deserve
to be recorded at length, of their due space. The expedition to Cadiz
was a mere parody of the great foray of Queen Elizabeth's reign. The
fleet was raised in the same way, consisting partly of ships of the
Royal Navy, and partly of vessels levied on the maritime counties. The
command, too, was in the hands of men of the same classes, that is to
say, nobles and soldiers, with their subordinate council of seamen.
But the men and the times and the spirit were very different. The
commander, Sir Edward Cecil, Lord Wimbledon, was a commonplace officer
of the English regiments of the Low Countries, and he had no associate
of marked authority or experience. The young Earl of Essex, son of
Elizabeth's unhappy favourite, and later on the Lord General of the
Parliament in the Civil War, repeated his father's gallantry in the
attack on the fort of Puntal. The rest of the history of the voyage to
Cadiz is made up of divided councils, vacillation, drunkenness, and
failure. The share of the fleet was confined, apart from the attack on
the Puntal fort, to carrying the troops there and bringing them back.
In 1626, when war had broken out with France, we had some success
in capturing French prizes in the Channel, but there was no enemy to
fight, which, as the fleet were very badly equipped, was fortunate.
The expedition to the Ile de Rhé in 1627 was the Cadiz voyage over
again, but worse. Here the fleet had little more to do than to carry
the soldiers out at the end of June, and bring back all that remained
of them at the end of October. In 1629 two fleets were sent to succour
Rochelle, where the Huguenots were making their last stand against
Richelieu. They went out, they came back, and they did nothing.
A large part of the discredit of this four years of failure must be
thrown on the flighty incapacity of Buckingham, but some share of it
is due to the conditions in which the King's Government was working.
Charles I. disagreed with his Parliament from the beginning. Therefore
he never had enough money, and his armaments, fitted out by makeshifts,
were maintained from hand to mouth. Efficiency was hardly to be
expected in such circumstances. The unpopularity of the wars reacted
on the king's forces. The navy was still in a state of transition,
being neither altogether a regular force nor altogether sea militia,
but a combination of the two. A regular navy, properly officered, well
disciplined and paid, will always fight well. A sea militia will,
in favourable circumstances, do very fairly. When there is a great
national enthusiasm, a sense of the need for exertion, the hope of
booty, and capable leaders, it will render good service, as was shown
both in the fighting against the Armada, and at Cadiz in 1597. But in
the early years of Charles I. all these conditions were wanting. The
merchant ships, when pressed for the service, came unwillingly. Their
owners and crews were uncertain of getting their pay from the Crown.
The spirits of the men were damped when they saw the destitution of the
king's soldiers. Their wish was to get through as soon as they could,
to suffer as little damage as might be, and to return at the earliest
possible day to their ordinary peaceful and profitable avocations. At
Cadiz they behaved with actual cowardice, and at the Ile de Rhé they
certainly showed no zeal, whereas the royal ships did the trifling
fighting which had to be done very creditably. The deduction that the
Crown must make itself independent of their feeble aid was obvious,
and, when next England was engaged in a serious naval war, measures
were taken to arm a force solely belonging to the State.
This was not, however, to be done by the Government of Charles I. The
king never had the revenue needed for the maintenance of a really
great navy. His efforts to obtain one were among the causes of the
disasters which finally overwhelmed him. Charles was very conscious of
the need for a fleet. Indeed, a less intelligent man must have seen
the necessity. The naval power of Holland was increasing with great
rapidity, while Richelieu was supplying France with an effective navy.
The relations of England with her neighbours were always uneasy, and at
one time the French and the Dutch were talking of an alliance, which
was to end in dividing the Spanish Netherlands and the sea between
them. In the presence of this danger Charles I. made serious efforts
to raise the strength of the navy. He built no less than 19 vessels.
Ten of these were of about 120 tons each, and were known by the odd
name of the =Whelps=, numbered consecutively from one to ten. The
great =Sovereign of the Seas= was one of the ships built to bring the
navy to its proper strength. In 1633 the navy had reached the figure
of 50 ships of 23,695 or 23,995 tons, carrying in all 1430 guns. When
the Civil War broke out, it numbered 42 ships of 22,411 tons, of
which 5 were first rates, measuring on an average 1060 tons each. The
difference was due to the shedding of small ships.
The means which the king took to find money for all this building are
famous in English history. The constitutional aspects of the writs of
ship-money do not concern our subject. It is of course obvious that
if the king could tax the whole country for the support of the fleet,
if he alone was to be the judge of the amount demanded and of the use
to be made of it, he could raise any revenue he pleased. In view of
the constant attempts made by Charles I. to escape from the control
of his Parliament, it is not wonderful that the Country Party, as the
Opposition was called, suspected him of some such scheme. Yet, as
a matter of fact, it appears that when the king took to calling in
peace on the service of the coast counties, which had as yet only been
demanded in war, when he commuted the actual service of men and ships
for money payments, when he extended the assessments to the inland
counties, he was unaffectedly resolved to spend the fund thus raised on
his fleet. The administrative defects of his reign are undeniable, and
have been pointed out already. Yet, when the Civil War began, the ships
and the guns were there. The service they rendered to his domestic
enemies throughout the Civil War may be taken as satisfactory evidence
that both were good. We possess an elaborate description of the most
famous of the ships built by Phineas Pett for King Charles, written by
Thomas Heywood.
"This famous vessel was built at Woolwich in 1637. She was in length
by the keel 128 feet or thereabout, within some few inches; her main
breadth 48 feet; in length, from the fore-end of the beak-head to
the after-end of the stern, _a prora ad puppim_, 232 feet; and in
height, from the bottom of her keel to the top of her lanthorn, 76
feet; bore five lanthorns, the biggest of which would hold ten persons
upright; had three flush decks, a forecastle, half-deck, quarter-deck,
and round-house. Her lower tier had ... 30 ports for Cannon and
Demi-Cannon,
Middle tier 30 for Culverines and Demi ditto
Third tier 26 for other Ordnance
Forecastle 12
and two half-decks have 13 or 14 ports more within-board, for
murdering pieces, besides 10 pieces of chace-ordnance forward, and
10 right aft, and many loopholes in the cabins for musquet-shot. She
had eleven anchors, one of 4400 pounds weight. She was of the burthen
of 1637 tons. She was built by Peter Pett, Esq., under the direction
of his father, Captain Phineas Pett, one of the principal officers
of the navy. She hath two galleries besides, and all of most curious
carved work, and all the sides of the ship carved with trophies of
artillery and types of honour, as well belonging to sea as land, with
symbols appertaining to navigation; also their two sacred majesties
badges of honour; arms with several angels holding their letters in
compartments, all which works are gilded over, and no other colour but
gold and black. One tree, or oak, made four of the principal beams,
which was 44 feet of strong serviceable timber in length, 3 feet
diameter at the top, and 10 feet at the stub or bottom.
* * * * *
"Upon the stem-head a cupid, or child bridling a lion; upon the
bulk-head, right forward, stand six statues in sundry postures; these
figures represent Concilium, Cura, Conamen, Vis, Virtus, Victoria.
Upon the hamers of the water are four figures, Jupiter, Mars, Neptune,
Eolus; on the stern, Victory, in the midst of a frontispiece; upon the
beak-head sitteth King Edgar on horseback, trampling on seven kings."
According to an ancient custom which at last, when it had outlived its
time, became a nuisance, the =Sovereign of the Seas= was profusely
ornamented. Yet she was a strong ship, and under a variety of names,
dictated by the principles of her successive masters, took part in all
the naval wars of England until she was accidentally burnt at Chatham
in 1696.
The method of administering the navy underwent successive modifications
during the reign of King Charles. When he ascended the throne,
Buckingham held the post of Lord High Admiral, and the work of
administering the navy was done in his name by the members of the
Commission of 1618. When Buckingham was stabbed in the passage of the
little house in the High Street of Portsmouth, which he occupied as his
headquarters in 1628, the king had recourse to a method of governing
his navy curiously similar to the system now in use. He put the office
of Lord High Admiral in Commission. The persons entrusted with the duty
seem to have also discharged the work of the Navy Office. The military
and the civil functions of the navy were, in fact, joined in the hands
of the same body of persons, very much as is the case now. There was,
however, one important difference. The Commissioners appointed by
Charles also held other great offices. They were Jackson, Bishop of
London, who was also Lord High Treasurer; the Earl of Lindsey, the
Great Chamberlain; the Earl of Dorset, Chamberlain to the Queen; Lord
Cottington, Chancellor of the Exchequer; the elder Sir Henry Vane,
Comptroller of the King's Household; and the two Secretaries of State,
Sir John Coke and Sir Francis Windebanke. This Commission, with certain
changes in the persons, held office until 1638.
Under this interregnum it was that the two naval demonstrations known
as the Ship-money Fleets were fitted out in 1636 and 1637. The object
was to make an effective assertion of the King of England's right to
the sovereignty of the seas of Britain. They were to put a stop to
all warlike operations on the part of Spaniards, Dutch, or French, to
compel all fishermen to pay for a licence from the King of England, and
in a general way to produce an effect both imposing and terrifying on
the minds of all foreign rulers. The fleet of 1636 was perhaps in real
power the greatest sent forth by a ruler of England. The command was
given to Algernon Percy, tenth Earl of Northumberland, who succeeded
the Earl of Lindsey on the Commission of the Navy. Northumberland was
a magnificent specimen of a great noble. According to Clarendon, if
he had thought the king as much above him as he thought himself above
all other considerable men, he would have been a good subject. As it
was, he was mainly a great noble who held himself apart, and who lived
through a very stormy time without incurring any serious misfortune--a
feat, perhaps, partly to be accounted for by the fact that at times
of crises he was a little apt to follow the example of the young man
who went away sorrowful because he had great possessions. As admiral
commanding the Ship-money Fleets, Northumberland had little opportunity
to render service. The utmost he could do was to extort the price of
a licence from a few unlucky Dutch herring fishermen. The abuses of
the navy attracted his attention, and he proposed a scheme for their
reform. When it met with no attention, the pride of the noble got the
better of the zeal of the reformer. Northumberland declined to put
himself again in the way of being snubbed, declaring that he would
make no more suggestions till his opinion was asked for. In fact,
the abuses of which he complained arose from the very nature of the
king's government. Charles, by the help of ship-money and the other
devices elaborated by his lawyers, was able to raise money enough to
build ships and equip an occasional fleet, but he had not the revenue
required to maintain a permanent force. His efforts were necessarily
sporadic. His fleets were equipped by fits and starts, and there was no
order or coherence in the efforts. In the confusion, the pilferers of
the dockyards saw their opportunity, and did not fail to take advantage
of it.
In 1638 the king made the second change of his reign in naval
administration. In the March of that year he appointed Northumberland
Lord High Admiral. It had been intended to keep the office vacant for
the little Duke of York, now a boy of five years old. But in 1638 the
difficulties of his position induced Charles, who was anxious to please
a man so powerful in the North of England, to name Northumberland
Lord High Admiral. The commission was, however, only during the good
pleasure of the king, and not for life, as in the case of Nottingham
and Buckingham. The navy now reverted to the old system of government
by an Admiral and the officers of the Navy Board, the Treasurer, the
Comptroller, the Surveyor, and the Clerk of the Navy, with their
subordinate officers.
The administration of Northumberland, which lasted till June 1642, when
he was dismissed by the king in bitter wrath, is of great importance
in the history of England. It contains nearly, if not quite, the most
discreditable incident in naval history. In the September of 1639
the Spaniards sent out a great fleet with reinforcements for their
garrisons in Flanders. It arrived at the mouth of the Channel on the
7th of the month, and was at once attacked by the Dutch. A running
fight took place along the Channel, in which the Dutch, who were
constantly reinforced, soon gained the advantage. The Spanish admiral,
Don Antonio de Oquendo, the son of the Don Miguel de Oquendo who had
served in the Armada, took refuge in the Downs. His Government was
acting by arrangement with the king's, and he had reason to believe
that he would be helped, or would at least be protected from attack,
in English waters. As a matter of fact, King Charles made an effort,
which no Englishman can think of without shame, to turn the necessities
of the Spaniards into ready money, by alternately offering to let the
Dutch destroy them, or to afford them protection, according to which
of the courses he happened to think would prove most profitable.
Northumberland, in London, could not make out what the king would be
at, and said so to Pennington, who was at Dover with a squadron far too
weak to inspire any respect in the Dutch. They, again, were encouraged
by the great French Minister Richelieu, who was now triumphantly
carrying out his anti-Spanish policy, and were commanded by a man for
whose courage no risk was too great, the indomitable Martin Harpertz
(Herbertson) Tromp. The peddling vacillations of the unlucky English
king were all cut short, and his hopes of profit blown to the four
winds of heaven, when Tromp on the 11th of October fell upon the
Spaniards, and destroyed at least three-fourths of them, with the most
absolute and insolent disregard of Pennington's squadron. The great
Ship-money Fleet, for the sake of which the poor king had strained
his prerogative and had forfeited so much of the confidence of his
subjects, had proved totally incapable of defending the honour of
England when it was seriously attacked, though no doubt it had been
able to extort a few fees from the skippers of Dutch herring busses.
Whether the anger which Northumberland undoubtedly felt at being made
to play the poor figure he had cut in this shameful transaction had
anything to do with the course he followed four years later, must
necessarily be a mere matter of guess-work. Certainly, if he meant
to be revenged on his master, he could not well have taken a course
more effectual than that which he actually adopted. It was this
representative of the great feudal house of Percy who did more than any
other single man to seal the king's fate by putting the fleet into the
hands of his domestic enemy. In the Long Parliament, Northumberland
sided with the Opposition. He had been loaded with favours by the king,
and was always profuse in declarations of loyalty. Yet he put the fleet
into the hands of the king's enemies, by an act which no sophistry can
show to have been one of other than deliberate hostility to his master.
When Parliament made its demand on the king for the control of the
"militia," that is to say, of the whole armed force of the nation,
it naturally included the fleet. The command of the sea was vital to
it. If the king could have obtained help from abroad, his position
would have been far stronger than it was. For this very reason, the
king was eager to retain possession of his ships. While they were at
the orders of Northumberland, the king could hope to make little use
of them. The obvious course would have been to dismiss the earl and
put the fleet into trustworthy hands. But in the summer of 1642, on
the very eve of the Civil War, and when the last despairing efforts
were being made to arrange a compromise, this would have been an act
of open hostility against the Parliament. The king shrank from it,
and adopted an alternative which seemed to offer him some reasonable
prospect of obtaining the same practical result without provoking an
immediate conflict. The Lord High Admiral was not necessarily what we
should call the executive officer in command of the fleet. The direct
command of a squadron might be given, and pretty commonly was given,
to a vice-admiral, acting on the commission of the Lord High Admiral.
A devoted vice-admiral would have served the purposes of Charles very
well. There was some talk of selecting the veteran Sir Robert Mansel
for the post, but the king rejected him as too old. The officer whom
he finally decided to direct Northumberland to appoint, was Sir John
Pennington. Parliament in the meantime had called upon the earl to
appoint Robert Rich, the Earl of Warwick. Northumberland referred to
Parliament to ask whether he should obey the king's orders, and was
immediately instructed to appoint the Earl of Warwick. He obeyed,
and the nominee of Parliament was duly accepted by the fleet as its
admiral. The care the king had taken to provide England with a naval
force turned against himself. The loss of the fleet was one of the main
causes of the final defeat of the Crown in the approaching struggle
with Parliament.
There can, of course, be no doubt that this revolutionary measure--for
it was no less--could never have been carried out if the sympathies
of the seafaring classes had not been largely with the Parliament.
There is no question that they were. The bulk of the seamen belonged
to the southern and eastern counties, where the Puritans were strong.
They shared the opinions of their neighbours. The sailors had been
conspicuous in the excited mobs which collected to protect the
privileges of Parliament after the king's futile attempt to arrest the
five members. London was very Puritan, while the baseness of Goring,
who spent his life in disgracing or betraying both sides, had thrown
Portsmouth into the hands of the Parliament. It therefore held actual
possession of the dockyards both in the Thames and Channel. Yet,
in spite of the advantages of its position and the sympathy of the
population, it is very doubtful whether Parliament could have obtained
such complete command of the naval resources of the kingdom if it had
not had the assistance of Northumberland. The evil fortune of King
Charles spared him nothing. He had formed a strong fleet to maintain
his power, and it was made a principal instrument of his ruin. He had,
in his own bitter words, courted Northumberland like a mistress, and
that haughtiest of nobles repaid him by striking him a cruel blow.
When it was too late, the king dismissed Northumberland from his post.
It would have been better for the king if he had thought less of
what Northumberland might do if he chose, and more of what Sir John
Pennington would certainly do when he was ordered, and had named him
Lord High Admiral in 1638.