THE INTRODUCTION OF ARTILLERY, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF WARSHIPS TO THE
APPLICATION OF STEAM FOR NAVIGATION
Sails having proved their superiority over oars as a means of
propulsion, and sailing ships with seaworthy qualities being fairly
numerous, the world was ready for a great revolution in naval warfare.
The warriors also were about equally divided in the matter of
attack and defence in hand-to-hand encounter. When man first became
dissatisfied with his own strength for hurling weapons at his foes
he set to work to devise a means of overcoming this difficulty. His
earliest weapon for this purpose was most likely the sling. Bows and
arrows held their own in land and sea warfare for many centuries.
Various forms of catapults were introduced by the Romans and others,
and remained in use for some hundreds of years for hurling heavy stones
into the partly decked ships of their opponents to sink them. The
mysterious liquid known as Greek fire, the use of which has already
been explained, was, in the method of its employment, a form of
artillery. It was to the naval warfare of those days what the explosive
shell is to modern warfare.
The Moors are credited with having introduced firearms into Western
Europe at the siege of Saragossa in 1118 A.D., when they had artillery
of some sort; and they are stated to have used the agency of fire to
throw stones and darts in their defence of Niebla at a later date.
The nature and origin of the firearms and fire machine have not been
ascertained definitely. Did the Moors derive their knowledge from
the East? They had Eastern connections. Mortars were used in China in
the eighth century, which fired large stone balls, and by the twelfth
century the Chinese had “wall pieces” or siege guns. They employed
explosives in war before the Christian era. These events were certainly
long before Western Europe discovered how to make gunpowder.
Cannon, as the term is now understood, was introduced about 1330.
Edward III. is credited with having possessed cannon in 1338, but
historians differ as to whether he employed cannon of any kind at the
battle of Sluys, in 1340, or in any of his later naval engagements.
Arrows and stones were the chief missiles; the English relied on their
famous cross-bows, and the French upon machines for hurling stones. The
latter sent several English ships to the bottom.
The battle of La Rochelle, in 1372, when a combined Spanish and French
force defeated the English, is probably the first naval battle in which
cannon were used, as some of the Spanish vessels are said to have
carried a few. Artillery was certainly used at sea shortly after the
middle of the fourteenth century by the Mediterranean countries. The
Venetians found it effective against the Genoese in 1377, and its use
became very rapidly general from the Levant to Spain.
[Illustration: SIXTEENTH-CENTURY FRENCH SHIPS. _From an Old Print._]
The earliest guns were simply tubes, not cast, but built of strips of
iron or wood held together by rings. They were breech-loaders, the
charge being placed in a loosely-fitting chamber. How the chamber was
secured and the gun fired are still undecided. The guns were usually
innocent of trunnions and were fastened lengthwise upon wooden beams
which could be propped up to give them the desired elevation. It has
been recorded that in one of the earliest siege operations at which
this primitive artillery was employed, both sides were so interested
in the operation of firing that they ceased exchanging missiles
and defiance, and even stopped their personal combats, until after
the discharge, when, being much relieved that the stone bullet had
inflicted no damage on the assailed castle wall and had wounded no one,
they resumed hostilities in the old-fashioned way. In those days one
discharge per gun per diem was regarded as sufficient. It was customary
to load the piece overnight and fire it in the morning, from which it
may be surmised that its moral effects were greater than the material
destruction caused. Artillery would have to be in a more advanced
stage to justify its use at sea, for no vessels could afford to carry
guns which could only be used so infrequently. Nevertheless, the moral
effects of gunfire were so evident, especially when weapons were made
more powerful and able to inflict serious material damage, that the
adoption of the new arm for naval war could not be long delayed, and
the time soon arrived when both national and private vessels of any
size carried one gun or more. By the middle of the fifteenth century
guns on board ship had become common.
The illustration of the model[14] of a ship of the period 1486-1520
gives a very good idea of what the warships of that time were like.
Although the vessel carried guns, the bow and arrow were still relied
upon. The archer’s panier on the mast had given place to the deep
circular top. Castles, however, were provided fore and aft for the
archers, and were useful alike for affording them protection and
accommodation and a place of vantage whence to discharge their arrows.
The vessel is of the same type as the Spanish caravel of the early
sixteenth century. From this it may be inferred that the Spaniards went
to the north for the designs of their hulls, but preferred to retain
the rig with which they were most familiar, the Spaniards depending
largely on lateen yards and sails, whereas the model is square-rigged
but without the top-sails she ought to carry.
A feature of the sea-going Atlantic vessels of this time was
their great beam in proportion to their length. They also had an
extraordinary amount of “tumble home,” or sloping of the sides above
the water line towards each other. Ships of the type represented by
the model were much in advance of those upon which artillery was first
carried.
Galleys were the first to be equipped with guns, the weapons being upon
the upper deck and fired above the bulwarks. Some galleys, particularly
in the Mediterranean, carried only one gun forward, a bow chaser. The
desire to carry more guns and to fire them over the sides led to the
raising of the sides of the vessel; and in order to avoid the strain
to the ship’s structure when the guns were fired, the weak point
apparently being the connection between the sides and beams, the sides
were given an inclination inboard, or tumble home, the connecting beams
being thus shortened. The practice was carried to such an absurd extent
that the beam of a Venetian galleon--as such vessels now began to be
called--at the deck might be only half that of the vessel at the water
line. The narrower deck space left less room on which to place the
stern castle, which instead of being an addition became a structural
part of the ship, provided with three and sometimes four decks, all
carrying cannon.
[Illustration: A MEDITERRANEAN WAR GALLEY. _From an Old Print._]
[Illustration: SHIP OF WAR, 1486-1520. _From a Model in the Museum of
the Royal United Service Institution._]
On the Atlantic coasts the problem of cannon was solved in its own
way. Guns were placed broadside and fired over the bulwark. But the
disadvantages of this method were so obvious, especially when an enemy
returned the fire, that portholes in the bulwarks were devised through
which the guns could be discharged. A French shipbuilder at Brest,
named Decharges, is said to have been the inventor of portholes,
and also to have designed some other improvements. His portholes,
however, were so small that the muzzles of the guns could only just
protrude. It was impossible to give them any traverse, that is, to
train or aim them.
The general adoption of artillery led to numerous modifications in the
shape of the ships; they were built of greater dimensions, were more
fully masted and rigged, and could show a considerable press of sail.
It was also considered advisable that ships should be built especially
for war purposes, the French taking the lead after the battle of La
Rochelle.
If Henry V.’s warlike enterprises proved harmful to the development
of English commerce, there is no denying that shipbuilding made some
progress in his reign, though very little is known of the details of
the construction of the vessels. From lists of the ships employed in
his expeditions, it appears that his fleets included “Great Ships,”
the largest of which was the _Jesus_ of 1,000 tons, the others being
the _Holigost_, 760 tons; _Trinity Royal_, 540 tons, and _Christopher
Spayne_, 600 tons; there were also “cogs,” which were rather smaller;
carracks, which were probably foreign built and were prizes of war, the
construction of these vessels not having been then begun in England;
ships, barges, and ballingers, the last being barges. The last three
classes were no doubt impressed merchant vessels, ranging from 500
tons in the case of the ships to 80 tons in the ballingers. In regard
to the “Great Ships,” it is reported[15] that Henry, observing the
superiority of the Castilian and Genoese ships, caused some very large
vessels, called “dromons,” to be built at Southampton, “such as were
never seen in the world before,” says an old writer erroneously, “three
of which had the names of the _Trinity_, _Grace de Dieu_, and _Holy
Ghost_.” Although called dromons it does not follow that they were
similar to the dromons in earlier or contemporary use in the eastern
Mediterranean. The name was given to the latter because of their size
and speed, and it is very likely that Henry V.’s vessels were so named
for similar reasons. Long galleys, called ramberges, were also used
about this time, and the English are said to have become very expert in
their management.
Most of the large English armed ships of the middle of the fifteenth
century were Spanish or Genoese built. A ship was then in existence
carrying four guns on the broadside, fired apparently through ports in
the bulwarks. She was fitted with four masts and a bowsprit, and had
a high forecastle similar to that provided in Italian ships of that
period, but seemingly more a part of the structure of the ship than
was that of the latter. The mainsail bears the arms of the Earl of
Warwick.[16]
A remarkable ship in the history of naval building was the _Great
Harry_, sometimes confounded with the _Henry Grace de Dieu_. The _Great
Harry_ was commenced for Henry VII., and is regarded by many as the
first ship of the British Royal Navy. No doubt the fact that Henry
lived for many years in Brittany, which was then remarkable for its
maritime activity, gave him a greater interest in shipping than most of
his predecessors on the throne professed.
It was a proud day for England, had he but known it, when, in the
year 1488, he ordered the _Great Harry_, for she marked the first
serious attempt of an English sovereign to render the state not wholly
dependent upon the merchants and the ports whenever he decided upon
an expedition abroad, by providing a vessel which should be at the
disposal of the state whenever required. For the first time in the
history of England, for the building of a national ship, the axes
swung as the trees were felled, and the blows resounded through the
forests; the forges roared for the formation of the iron bolts and
nails, and the hammers on the anvils rang as they beat them into shape;
the tools of the carpenters hissed as they fashioned the knees and ribs
and beams and planks; the looms whereon the sailcloth was woven hummed
in the industrial chorus; for this was the first ship of England a
nation, the first sign that Britannia was really awaking at last to the
fulfilment of her maritime destiny. He did not live to see this vessel
completed, and she was finished in Henry VIII.’s reign. Henry VII. also
ordered the _Regent_ and the _Sovereign_. The _Great Harry_ is said to
have been the first two-decked vessel built in England, and the only
ship with three masts in the whole squadron. She was accidentally burnt
at Woolwich in 1553.[17]
The _Regent_ was about 1,000 tons, and carried two hundred and
twenty-five small guns, called serpentines. She had four masts and
a bowsprit, and was launched at Rotherhithe. She was not of English
design, but, like a few before her and many since, was modelled after
a French vessel. The _Sovereign_, a somewhat smaller ship, carried one
hundred and forty-one serpentines. The year 1512 saw the end of the
_Regent_. She was the flagship of the English in a notable battle, and
was opposed by the great French ship, _Marie de la Cordeliere_, which
was provided at the expense of Anne of Brittany, then Queen of France.
This ship is stated to have carried one thousand two hundred fighting
men, exclusive of mariners; at this time there were nine hundred on
board, according to Derrick, who probably bases his statement on the
report that she foundered with all hands numbering nine hundred.
An English description of the engagement states that, “All things
being ... in order, the Englishmen approached towards the Frenchmen,
which came fiercely forward ... and when they were in sight they shot
ordnance so terribly that all the sea coast sounded of it.” One of the
English ships “bowged,” or rammed, the _Cordeliere_, and when at last
the _Cordeliere_ was boarded, “a varlet gunner, being desperate, put
fire in the gunpowder.”[18] The French writer, Guerin, also quoted
by the same authority, in his version, says: “In the midst of this
general French attack there was to be noted above all others a large
and beautiful carrack, decorated superbly and as daintily as a queen.
She of herself had already sunk almost as many hostile vessels as all
the rest of the fleet, and now found herself surrounded by twelve of
the principal English ships.... From the top of a hostile vessel there
was flung into her a mass of fireworks. Then, sighting the _Regent_,
she, like a floating volcano, bore down, a huge incendiary torch, upon
her, pitilessly grappled her, and wound her in her own flaming robe.
The powder magazine of the _Regent_ blew up, and with it the hostile
ship ... while the _Cordeliere_, satisfied, and still proud amid the
disaster, and a whirl of fire and smoke, vanished beneath the waves.”
The English version, if less vivid, is also less imaginative.
[Illustration: EMBARKATION OF HENRY VIII. ON THE “GREAT HARRY.” _From
the Painting by Volpe at Hampton Court Palace. Photograph by W. M.
Spooner & Co._]
To replace the _Regent_, and to emulate Francis I. of France, who had
built a ship called the _Caracon_ (afterwards burnt at Havre), carrying
one hundred guns, Henry ordered the _Henry Grace de Dieu_, of the same
tonnage, 1,000 tons, but carrying one hundred and twenty-two guns.
It is disputed whether she was built at Erith, as usually stated, or
whether she was launched at Deptford and completed at Erith. Her launch
took place in 1515. Historians differ as to what became of this vessel.
One version is that she rolled incessantly and steered badly, and,
having been built rather for magnificence than use, only made one
voyage and was disarmed at Bristol and suffered to decay. If this be
so, it affords an explanation of the discrepancies in the illustrations
of the _Henry Grace de Dieu_, as it is permissible to suppose that
another vessel bearing that name was constructed to take its place and
that the newcomer afterwards became known as the _Edward_. The _Henry
Grace de Dieu_ was sometimes called the _Great Harry_, but must not be
confused with Henry VII.’s ship bearing that name. The _Henry Grace
de Dieu_ was renamed the _Edward_ after the accession of the next
monarch. She had four pole masts; the foremast was placed almost over
the stem, an arrangement which must have made her pitch deeply and
recover slowly; the mainmast was at the break of the after deckhouse or
sterncastle; the mizen or third mast was midway between the mainmast
and the stern, and the fourth, or second mizen, was at the extreme
stern, as far aft as it was possible to place it. Her forecastle
overhung her bows by 12 feet or so, an arrangement which must have made
her very uncomfortable in anything like a sea. She is asserted to have
been the first four-masted vessel. There was also a fifth mast, if it
may so be called, which slanted forward like an immense bowsprit. The
first, second, and third masts had two round tops each, and the fourth
mast one top, these being for the archers. Her sails and pennants were
of damasked cloth of gold. Her armament comprised twenty-one heavy
brass guns, and numerous smaller pieces of various types; but when she
passed into the possession of Edward VI. she had nineteen brass guns
and one hundred and one of iron.
[Illustration: GREAT SHIP OF HENRY VIII. (_From a drawing by Holbein._)]
As already stated, the great majority of the ships built for mercantile
purposes were intended to be able to give a good account of themselves
if they should be assailed by a hostile vessel, a contingency which
was not at all unlikely in the days when ships roved the seas under
the protection of letters of marque and made “mistakes” as to the
nationality of the prize when the prospective booty might be held
to justify the error. Before the nations took to building vessels
especially for war every merchant was liable to have his traders
requisitioned for war purposes, and even up to the end of the
nineteenth century the inclusion of armed merchantmen in national
forces was not uncommon. Letters of marque were permits granted to ship
owners whose vessels had been despoiled by the subjects of another
nation to recoup themselves at the cost of any vessels belonging to
that nation which they could capture, and to continue to do so until
the losses were made good. Naturally they found this profitable, much
more so indeed than ordinary trading, and did not hesitate to set
a low value upon all captures when casting about to find an excuse
for another expedition. Piracy, too, was rife, and as at sea every
shipmaster was a law unto himself unless there was someone at hand to
enforce a change of views, the shipmaster or merchant turned pirate
usually nourished exceedingly until captured red-handed, when his
shrift was like to be a short one.
As an instance of the license to which this liberty was extended,
may be mentioned the Barton family who, in the fifteenth century,
had granted to them letters of marque to prey upon the Portuguese
in retaliation for the murder of John Barton, who was captured and
beheaded by Portuguese. His sons conducted the enterprise with such
thoroughness that they were able to pay their Scottish Royal master so
well that they were never interfered with by him, and when he entrusted
them with the task of reducing the Flemish pirates who levied toll on
Scottish commerce, they sent him a few barrels filled with pickled
human heads to show that they were not idle. The fame of this Scottish
family became world wide, for they had now a powerful fleet and traded
and fought and captured where they would, so that the reputation of
the Scottish navy was great. One of the ships of the Barton family,
the _Lion_, was second in size and armament only to the _Great Harry_
itself. The death of Sir Andrew Barton is commemorated in a well-known
ballad.
When vessels with two and more decks were constructed, the lower
ports were cut so near the water that when the vessel heeled, or even
a moderate sea was running, the guns could not be worked. The ports
of the _Mary Rose_, which was the next largest ship to the _Regent_,
at one time, and had a tonnage variously stated at 500 and 660 tons,
though afterwards surpassed by the _Sovereign_, 800 tons, _Gabriel
Royal_, 650 tons, and _Katherine Forteless_, or _Fortileza_, were
but 16 inches above the water. She was lost, in 1545, through the
water entering her lower ports when going about off Spithead, and her
commander and six hundred men went down with her; the _Great Harry_ had
a narrow escape from a similar disaster at the same time.
A report on the Royal Navy in 1552 makes interesting reading. The
fleet was overhauled, and twenty-four “ships and pinnaces are in good
case to serve, so that they may be grounded and caulked once a year to
keep them tight.” This is endorsed, “To be so ordered, By the King’s
Command.” Other seven ships were ordered to be “docked and new dubbed,
to search their treenails and iron work.” The _Mrs. Grand_, a name
which no longer adorns the “Navy List,” a vessel carrying a crew of
two hundred and fifty men, and having one brass gun and twenty-two
iron guns, lying at Deptford, was recommended to be “dry-docked--not
thought worthy of new making”; so she was ordered “To lie still, or
to take that which is profitable of her for other Ships.” Six others
were stated in the report--a document seemingly the work of a naval
reform party--to be “not worth keeping,” but they were ordered “To be
preserved, as they may with little charge.”
Queen Elizabeth, whose patriotism and naval enthusiasm were about
equally in evidence, was careful of her men and ships, raised the pay
of her officers and seamen, and took steps generally to have the navy
and the naval resources strengthened and conserved. She seems to have
had twenty-nine vessels in 1565. She also encouraged merchants to build
large vessels, which could be converted into warships as occasion
required. The exigencies of trading over sea, however, were such that
many of the vessels required little to be done to them in the way of
conversion. Vessels were also rated at from 50 to 100 tons more than
they measured.
[Illustration: BREECH-LOADING GUN RECOVERED FROM THE WRECK OF THE “MARY
ROSE.” _In the Museum of the Royal United Service Institution. A spare
chamber is shown in the front._]
“The Queen’s Highness,” a contemporary historian writes,[19] “hath at
this present already made and furnished, to the number of One Hundred
and Twenty Great Ships, which lie for the most part in Gillingham Road.
Beside these, her Grace hath other in hand also; she hath likewise
three notable Galleys, the _Speedwell_, the _Tryeright_, and the _Black
Galley_, with the sight whereof, and the rest of the Navy-Royal, it is
incredible to say how marvellously her Grace is delighted. I add, to
the end that all men should understand somewhat of the _great masses
of treasure_ daily employed upon our Navy, how there are few merchant
ships of the first and second sort, that being apparelled and made
ready to sail, are not worth one thousand pounds, or three thousand
ducats at the least, if they should presently be sold. What then shall
we think of the Navy-Royal, of which some one vessel is worth two of
the other, as the shipwright has often told me.”
Queen Elizabeth had, in 1578, twenty-four ships ranging from the
_Triumph_, of 1,000 tons, built in 1561, to the _George_, of under 60
tons.
When the Spanish Armada arrived in the Channel in 1588, the British
fleet, which numbered one hundred and ninety-seven vessels, included
thirty-four belonging to the state. The remainder were ships of
various kinds and sizes, mostly small, hired by the state or provided
by private owners, and fitted out hastily for war purposes by their
owners or the ports. The Cinque Ports, it should be remembered, which
furnished a considerable number, were obliged by Henry VIII., in
return for certain privileges, to supply him with fifty-seven ships,
each containing twenty-one men and a boy, for fifteen days once a year
at the ports’ expense, and it often happened that the ports had to
find a greater number of vessels. After the fifteen days they received
state pay. A similar arrangement held good at the time of the Armada.
The largest ships in the English force are sometimes stated to have
carried fifty-five or sixty guns, and one may have carried sixty-eight
guns. The armament of the _Triumph_, which was the heaviest armed
English vessel, comprised four cannon, three demi-cannon, seventeen
culverins, eight demi-culverins, six sakers, and four small pieces. The
_Elizabeth Jones_, of 900 tons, built in 1559, carried fifty-six guns,
and the _Ark Royal_, Lord Howard’s flagship, launched in 1587, had
fifty-eight guns and a crew of four hundred and thirty men, her tonnage
being 800. The principal royal ships and the number of guns they
carried were, as far as can be ascertained accurately: _Ark Royal_,
fifty-five guns; _Lion_, thirty-eight; _Triumph_, forty-two; _Victory_,
forty-two; _Bonaventure_, thirty-four; _Dreadnought_, thirty-two;
_Nonpareil_, thirty-eight; _Rainbow_, forty; _Vanguard_, forty; _Mary
Rose_, thirty-six; _Antelope_, thirty; and _Swiftsure_, forty-two. The
Spanish ships were rather floating fortresses packed with soldiers, and
desiring to come to close quarters so that the fight should be of the
hand-to-hand description to which they were accustomed. The English
ships were smaller, and though more numerous, of little more than half
the total tonnage of the Armada, and were, on the whole, more lightly
armed. Still, a large number of the English vessels carried what were
long, heavy guns for those days, and they used them at short range
when they assumed a windward position and attacked the Spanish rear,
inflicting great damage and throwing the enemy into confusion. This
defeat definitely established the cannon as the principal weapon for
warfare afloat, and inaugurated a new era in the history of the world’s
fighting navies.
[Illustration: THE “ARK ROYAL,” THE ENGLISH ADMIRAL’S FLAGSHIP. _From a
Contemporary Print._]
Of the merchant ships engaged, the largest were the _Leicester_,
sometimes called the _Galleon Leicester_, and the _Merchant Royal_,
each of 400 tons. The great galleys and galleasses of the Armada
were not the largest ships afloat by a great deal, for they were far
exceeded in size by many contemporary merchantmen in the Mediterranean.
The Queen’s ships were sometimes employed upon peaceful and
ambassadorial errands. The voyage of the _Ascension_ to Constantinople
shows a definite attempt to spread English prestige in distant seas
by means of English trade openings, instead of by the diplomacy of
the day, a prominent feature of which was the discovery of means and
opportunities of raiding a state having much portable riches and not
sufficient power to protect them.
The _Ascension_, in which Queen Elizabeth sent her second present
to the Sultan of Turkey, left London in March, 1593, and arrived
in August, 1594. She was “a good shippe very well appointed, of
two hundred and three score tunnes (whereof was master one William
Broadbanke, a provident and skilfull man in his faculties).” Some days
after the arrival when the wind suited, “our shippe set out in their
best manner with flagges, streamers, and pendants of divers coloured
silke, with all the mariners, together with most of the Ambassador’s
men, having the winde faire, and came within two cables’ length of this
his moskyta,[20] where (hee to his great content beholding the shippe
in such bravery) they discharged first volies of small shot, and then
all the great ordinance twise over, there being seven and twentie or
eight and twentie pieces in the shippe.”[21]
The early part of the seventeenth century, when James I. was king,
saw a remarkable advance in shipbuilding, thanks to Phineas Pett,
who dropped the somewhat haphazard rule-of-thumb methods of ship
construction and introduced a more or less scientific system of
measurement and estimate of weights. In 1610, the _Prince_, or _Prince
Royal_, of 1,400 tons, and mounting sixty-four guns, was launched. She
is described as “Double-built,” which has been supposed to mean that
she had an outer and inner skin and an additional number of beams, etc.
This may afford a partial explanation of the fact that though seven
hundred and seventy-five loads of timber were estimated to be necessary
for her construction, one thousand six hundred and twenty-seven loads
were used. Also, as the ship only lasted fifteen years, a possible
further explanation of the discrepancy may be found in the suggestion
that much of the timber supplied and included in the larger amount was
unfit for use. The _Prince Royal_ was “most sumptuously adorned, within
and without, with all manner of curious carving, painting and rich
gilding, being in all respects the greatest and goodliest ship that
was ever built in England.” In 1624 this ship had two cannon-petro,
six demi-cannon, twelve culverins, eighteen demi-culverins, thirteen
sakers, and four port-pieces.
[Illustration: THE “SOVEREIGN OF THE SEAS.” _From the Model in the
Royal Naval College Museum, Greenwich._]
[Illustration: THE “PRINCE ROYAL.” Designed by Phineas Pett. _By
permission of the Elder Brethren of Trinity House._]
Good sea fighters as the English had proved themselves to be, they
yet were behind the Dutch and French as naval architects. Sir Walter
Raleigh, an outspoken critic of the King’s ships and of English
merchant vessels, comparing the latter with those of the Dutch,
nevertheless admitted that some progress had been made in English
shipping. “In my own time,” he writes, “the shape of our English
ships hath been greatly bettered. It is not long since the striking
of the topmast hath been devised. Together with the chain pump, we
have lately added the Bonnet and Drabler.... To the courses we have
devised studding sails, top-gallant sails, spritsails and topsails. The
weighing of anchors by the capstan is also new. We have fallen into
consideration of the length of cables, and by it we resist the malice
of the greatest winds that can blow. We have also raised our second
decks.” The last improvement was one of the most important, for the
space between the decks was cramped, and the lower deck was not much
above the water level. The raising of the decks gave the ships more
freeboard and increased their seaworthiness, rendered the lower tier
of guns more effective by enabling them to be used with less danger
from water entering the ports, and gave the men working the guns on the
lower tier more head room.
A list of the ships of King Charles, dated 1633, is of more than usual
interest, says Derrick, “this being the earliest list of the Navy I
have met with, wherein any part of the ships’ principal dimensions are
inserted.... This is the first list in which any nice regard seems
to have been paid to the tonnage of the Ships. Previous to 1663, the
tonnage of almost every Ship seems to have been rather estimated than
calculated, being inserted in even numbers.”
A natural development of the _Prince Royal_ was the _Sovereign of the
Seas_. These two vessels may be regarded as marking the first and
second stages in the final period of transition from the old style of
warship to the wooden walls. She was a remarkable vessel in national as
well as naval history, for she played not a small part in the agitation
over the question of ship-money, which had such a tremendous influence
on the nation’s development.
“This famous vessel,” Heywood states in his publication addressed to
the King, “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 thirty ports for cannon and demi-cannon,
middle tier thirty for culverines and demi-culverines, third tier
twenty-six for other ordnance, forecastle twelve, and two half-decks
have thirteen or fourteen ports more within board, for murdering
pieces, besides ten pieces of chace-ordnance forward and ten right
aft, and many loop-holes in the cabin for musquet-shot. She had eleven
anchors, one of 4,400 pounds weight. She was of the burthen of 1,637
tons.... 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 or 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
bulkhead, 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.”
The _Sovereign of the Seas_ was the largest vessel yet built in
England, and though she was intended as much for show as use, she
became, when she was reduced a deck and a lot of this ornamental
flummery was removed, one of the best fighting ships in the navy, and
was in nearly all the chief engagements in the war with Holland, and
proved herself a very serious opponent, as the navy records show.
It was about this time that ships were first rated or classified
according to their size and efficiency as fighting units. About this
time also, a new type of vessel, the frigate, was introduced into the
navy. The frigate is not a British invention, but, so far as this
country is concerned, was copied from the French by Peter Pett, son
of Phineas Pett, who saw one in the Thames. He built, in 1649, the
_Constant Warwick_ to the order of the Earl of Warwick, who intended
her for a privateer, but sold her.
According to Pepys, the Dutch and French, in 1663 and 1664, built
two-decked ships with sixty to seventy guns, and lower decks four feet
above the water. The English frigates were narrower and sharper, and
their lower gun ports were little more than three feet above the sea.
It was therefore decided that the English ships should have their gun
ports about four and a half feet from the water. The French and Dutch
three-deckers were usually about 44 feet in the beam, as compared with
the 41 feet of some of the English third rates, and the _Henry_, built
in 1656, and the _Katherine_, in 1674, to mention only two of many,
were useless until they were girdled, and after 1673 the three-decked
second raters were ordered to be 45 feet in the beam.
In the seventeenth century the _Royal Louis_ was built at Toulon,
carrying 48-pounders on its lower deck, 24-pounders on the middle deck,
and 12-pounders on the upper deck. The French, indeed, were taking
the lead in naval construction at this period, and their superiority
was recognised by the English who captured and imitated them whenever
possible. Thus the _Leviathan_, built at Chatham, was a copy of the
_Courageux_ of seventy-four guns, and the _Invincible_, captured by
Lord Anson during the Seven Years War, served as model for many more.
During a French visit to Spithead in 1673, the _Superbe_, seventy-four
guns, attracted special attention. She was 40 feet broad and had her
lowest tier of guns higher from the water than the English frigates.
Accordingly the _Harwich_ was built by Sir Henry Deane as a copy, and
gave such satisfaction that she was adopted as a pattern for second and
third rates. Besides the six rates of fighting ships, other classes
were included in the navy list, these being, in Charles II.’s reign,
thirteen sloops, one dogger, three fireships, one galley, two ketches,
five smacks, fourteen yachts, four hoys, and eight hulks.
The dimensions determined upon in 1677 for ships of one hundred, ninety
and seventy guns were sometimes exceeded; and in 1691 another set of
dimensions, for ships of sixty and eighty guns, was established. In the
following year an appropriation for “bomb vessels” was sanctioned; and
about 1694, a revival of the fireships was tried. These vessels were
called internals, possibly on account of their contents, which included
“loaded pistols, carcasses (filled with grenadoes), chain shot, etc.,
and all manner of combustibles.” Their revival, or invention in this
form, is attributed to an engineer named Meesters, who directed the
operations against Dunkirk, without achieving any success with them.
[Illustration: LINE OF BATTLESHIP, 1650. _From a Model in the Museum of
the Royal United Service Institution._]
Prior to the battle of La Hogue, in 1692, five advice boats appear in
the navy list for the first time; they carried from forty to fifty men
each and were deputed to acquire information of the enemy’s movements
at Brest.
Complaints were made in 1744-5 that the British vessels compared
unfavourably with those of other nations in scantlings, seaworthiness,
and armament. This induced the adoption of another set of rules,
and the ships built according to them proved to be good sea boats,
carrying their guns well, and standing up stiffly under sail, but they
had the objection of being too full in the after part of their under
body, which retarded their speed somewhat. After ten years’ trial this
establishment was modified, the faults complained of were remedied, and
the ships were increased in size, and from this time onward fifty-gun
ships were seldom classed as ships of the line of battle. There has
been some misconception in regard to the frigates of the period, as
many small vessels carrying eighteen guns, or less, were so called, but
were afterwards included among the sloops.
The real frigate was a vessel constructed to cruise in all weathers,
and able to show a good turn of speed; she had an armament which was
fairly heavy for her size, and it was carried on one deck, with the
exception of a few guns which might be disposed about the poop or
forecastle. For over two hundred years vessels of this type were held
in the highest esteem, until, indeed, they were superseded, in common
with all other sailing warships, when steam was adopted. The career of
the steam frigate was brought to an early close by the adoption of the
ironclad.
The frigate itself underwent considerable development during its
two centuries’ career. The earlier frigates carried twenty-four or
twenty-eight 9-pounders, and a crew of about one hundred and sixty
men; these vessels were about 500 tons burthen, or a little more, with
a gundeck length of 113 feet and a length of 93 feet on the keel.
Their rig marked a curious transition stage from the Mediterranean
influence to that of the modern square rig, as, although they carried
square sails on the fore and main masts, lateens were still carried
on the mizen. The frigate of thirty-two 12-pounders appeared shortly
afterwards, the first of this size being the _Adventure_, launched in
1741; and six years later the _Pallas_ and _Brilliant_, thirty-six-gun
frigates, were added to the navy; but, while admittedly excellent
fighting cruisers, they were inferior to the French thirty-six-gun
frigates built about that time.[22] The frigates played a most
important part in the world’s naval history of the latter part of the
eighteenth century and the early years of the nineteenth century.
[Illustration: THE “DREADNOUGHT,” 1748. _From a Model in the Museum of
the Royal United Service Institution._]
[Illustration: THE “JUNO,” 1757. _From the Model in the Victoria and
Albert Museum._]
Tougher antagonists than the French frigates, however, were the seven
frigates the Americans built when matters became strained between
the United States and this country; they were the _United States_,
_Constitution_, _President_, _Constellation_, _Congress_, _Chesapeake_,
and _Essex_. The first-named was the largest, with a tonnage of 1,576,
and the smallest the _Essex_, 860 tons. The American navy consisted
only of about a dozen vessels altogether on which reliance could be
placed, but these were among the best of their kind afloat; there were
a few others of little or no fighting value. The frigates carried
batteries of carronades supplemented by long guns, 12-pounders. It
was the custom to give the American ships more guns than they rated.
Thus the forty-four-gun frigate had thirty long 24-pounders on the
main deck, two long bow chasers on the forecastle, and twenty or
twenty-two 32-pounder carronades, as in the _Constitution_, while the
carronades of the _President_ and _United States_ were 42-pounders.
The armament of the _Constellation_, _Congress_, and _Chesapeake_ was
twenty-eight long 18-pounders on the main deck, two similar guns on
the forecastle, and eighteen 32-pounder carronades. The “ship-sloops,”
of which the greater part of the rest of the American naval force
consisted, carried 32-pounder carronades, and long 12-pounders for bow
chasers. The “brig-sloops” were equipped with carronades. The Americans
claim to have been the first to employ the heavy frigate effectively,
notwithstanding that the cannon balls their guns fired were of less
weight in some instances than the projectiles discharged from the
corresponding weapons in the British or French navies, and the shot
would also appear to have been really lighter than they were supposed
to be by as much as two to ten per cent. These frigates were remarkable
for the series of duels they fought with British warships, winning six
in succession, by superior seamanship and better sailing qualities, to
some extent, but mostly by superior gunnery, until the final duel was
won by the _Shannon_ in her memorable encounter with the _Chesapeake_.
The series of American victories was inaugurated by the _Constitution_,
otherwise “Old Ironsides,” the British victim being the _Guerrière_.
In considering the development of the warships of other types, it is
necessary to go back a few years. The British dockyards were unequal to
the demands upon them for the wars of the latter part of the eighteenth
century, and a greater number of warships than ever before was built by
contract at privately owned yards.
It is interesting to note that one firm of shipbuilders which built
ships for the navy in those days and even a century earlier, on Thames
side, is still in existence, and in spite of limited liability company
laws and the introduction of new partners, is still known as Green’s
yard, at Blackwall, and is still managed by bearers of the name.
Twenty-six sail of the line and eighty-two smaller vessels were
launched from private yards during the war ending in 1762, and
twenty-four sail of the line and twelve smaller ships were launched
at the King’s yards between the declaration of war in 1756 and the
proclamation of peace seven years later. This is of importance as
showing the resources of the country even at that time in warship
building, and the assistance the government was glad to receive from
the private builders at times of emergency.
During this war it was decided that no more eighty-gun three-deckers
or seventy-gun or sixty-gun ships should be built. In place of the
first-named, ships of seventy-four and sixty-four guns were ordained,
and fifty-gun ships with a roundhouse were ordered to replace the
latter. The first seventy-fours and sixty-fours were too small for the
weight of the guns they had to carry, and their successors of that
class were larger. No eighty-gun ship with three decks was built after
1757, and no seventy-gun ship after 1759. The _Cæsar_ was the first
English eighty-gun ship with two decks; she was built in 1793.
Towards the end of 1778 many of the second rates were given eight
additional guns on the quarter deck, which virtually raised them to
ninety-eight-gun ships. An important constructional improvement in 1783
was the adoption of copper fastenings in all classes of ships below the
water-line; iron bolts had been found to corrode under the influence of
the salt water.
Ships continued to increase in size and power of armament. The _Ville
de Paris_, of one hundred and ten guns and 2,332 tons, and her sister
ship, the _Hibernia_, ordered in 1790, were the first of their class.
Before the latter was finished she was lengthened and her tonnage
raised to 2,508 tons. Another new class, introduced about that time,
comprised three ships of 776 tons each, carrying thirty-two guns, the
main deck armament consisting of 18-pounders; they did so well that
several others were added.
About 1783 a greater length in proportion to beam was adopted, which
made the ships faster sailers and better sea-boats, and several vessels
of the higher classes were altered, and many others had their bottoms
specially thickened to withstand stranding. The 42-pounder guns of the
largest ships were found difficult to handle and of less rapidity of
fire than the 32-pounders, and were removed from the main deck battery
of the _Royal Sovereign_ and other ships in favour of the 32-pounders.
The _Commerce de Marseilles_, of 120 guns, was one of the French
vessels which accompanied under compulsion the combined English and
Spanish squadron from Toulon in 1793. She was considered to be the
largest ship in the world. Her gun-deck was 208 feet 4 inches in
length, and her keel for tonnage 172 feet 0⅛ inch. Her depth of hold
was 25 feet 0½ inch, and her extreme breadth 54 feet 9½ inches, her
tonnage being 2,747 tons. She was not a very valuable acquisition,
however, for her timbers were in such a state that she was not worth
repairing; she was accordingly taken to pieces in 1802. Probably, like
many more vessels built in those strenuous times, she was constructed
of unseasoned timber, or had a quantity of immature or soft wood put
into her in order that she might be got ready for war as quickly
as possible, for warships were wanted in such a hurry that it was
more necessary that they should be available for use at the earliest
opportunity than that they should be expected to last for very long.
Both the British and French fleets had a number of these “green” ships.
If the French could have a vessel of such gun power and dimensions
there was no reason why the English should not, so the _Caledonia_,
of 2,602 tons, was ordered in 1794, and was to be the largest and
most powerful yet built in England. Her main deck guns were to be
32-pounders, because of the greater ease with which they could be
handled. On her lower deck she had thirty-two of these guns, on the
middle deck thirty-four 24-pounders, on the main deck thirty-four
18-pounders, on the quarter deck sixteen 12-pounders, and on the
forecastle four 12-pounders. Her officers and crew numbered eight
hundred and seventy-five. Her length was 205 feet, breadth 54 feet 6
inches, and depth of hold 23 feet 1 inch. She was the favourite ship
of Lord Exmouth. At first she had a square stern, but when the rounded
sterns were shown to be better in every way she was altered to the new
mode, and her armament was revised. She afterwards became the hospital
ship at Greenwich under the name of the _Dreadnought_. The model of
her at South Kensington shows that her rigging was probably unique.
Her royal masts were fidded, that is, built above the topgallant masts
instead of forming one long pole with them, as is the custom, and there
were also peculiarities in the arrangement of some of her running
rigging. This ship was launched at Devonport in 1808.
[Illustration: THE “CORNWALLIS,” 1812. _From a Model in the Museum of
the Royal United Service Institution._]
The defeat of the Danes at Copenhagen, the battle of the Nile, the
“glorious first of June,” the battle of Trafalgar, the duels of the
American War, and the battle of Navarino, united to give a splendid
termination to the career of the wooden warship as a fighting unit.
That of Trafalgar was the last in which great fleets of the best
“wooden walls” that human skill could devise opposed each other in
manœuvre and counter-manœuvre. That of Navarino, fought in a bay,
almost in a dead calm, with the ships hardly moving and some even at
anchor, was the last conflict in the world’s history in which the
wooden battleships of the East and the West lay alongside each other
and blazed away with every available weapon at a range so close at
times that they could not possibly miss.
Constructionally, wooden battleships had about attained the limit
of size. Already they revealed unmistakable signs of longitudinal
weakness, and it had been a problem, which the builders up to that time
had been unable to solve, how to stiffen the hulls so that they would
withstand the hogging and sagging strains. It was not until Sir Robert
Seppings introduced his system of ship construction that the difficulty
was overcome, but the increase in the deadweight of the ship was great.
Still, had it not been for his system it would have been impossible to
construct some of the later vessels which left the ways before steam
was introduced and iron was adopted for ship construction. Very few
vessels were built larger than those which fought in Trafalgar Bay,
though several were designed. The improvements made were rather in the
form of the underbody in order to increase the speed and sea-going
qualities of the ships. One of the largest old-style battleships ever
proposed was the _Duke of Kent_, which was to have been a four-decker
carrying one hundred and seventy guns, and having a tonnage of 3,700.
She was to have been given a length of 221 feet 6 inches on the
gun-deck, an extreme breadth of 64 feet, and a depth of hold of 26
feet. On the lower deck she was to have had thirty-six 32-pounders, and
a similar complement on the lower middle deck; thirty-six 24-pounders
on the middle deck; thirty-eight 18-pounders on the upper deck; ten
12-pounders and six 32-pounder carronades on the quarter-deck; and
four 12-pounders and four 32-pounder carronades on the forecastle.
Though she never progressed beyond the paper stage, these particulars
are interesting as showing what the naval architects of a hundred years
ago were prepared to design.
The _Queen_ of one hundred and ten guns, the first three-decker
launched after Queen Victoria’s accession, the _Vernon_ of fifty
guns, and _Pique_ of forty guns, and others of various classes were
designed by Sir W. Symonds, who, during his fifteen years’ surveyorship
to the Admiralty, was responsible for no fewer than one hundred and
eighty vessels. The finer lines he gave them increased their speed,
and they were broader, loftier, and roomier between decks than their
predecessors, and were better ships all round. They may be regarded as
embodying the highest degree of excellence to which the sailing wooden
warship attained.
Reference has been made to the guns used on shipboard at various times,
and to the establishment of dimensions or rates to be observed in
building the ships employed in the British Navy. The guns about to be
described were used in all navies; the establishments referred to are
peculiar to the British Navy, though the vessels themselves differed
but little from those belonging to other nations. It must also be
remembered that though the names of the guns were retained through
century after century, very little is known of the earliest weapons,
and that their names came to be applied to guns which had little in
common.
The establishments, as they were called, were adopted to secure
uniformity in types, and it is well to bear these details in mind, or
at least to refer to them, in studying the history of the achievements
of the British Navy in order that an approximately correct idea may be
obtained of the ships and weapons used by and against Great Britain
which have had so great an influence on the world’s history.
The principal establishments were ordered in 1677, 1691, 1706, 1719,
and 1745, and certain proposals were also made in 1733 and 1741, which
were not of quite so far-reaching a character as the others. The
establishment of 1745 was not adhered to for many years, and there
has been no cut-and-dried establishment since, the requirements of
modern warfare and the inventiveness of all nations having militated
against adherence to a rigid standard. Ships of one hundred guns were
in length on the gun-deck in 1677, 165 feet; in 1719, 174 feet; in
1745, 178 feet; their extreme breadth was 46 feet in 1677, and 51 feet
in 1745, and the burthen increased from 1,550 tons in the first-named
year, to 2,000 in the last. The ships of ninety guns had lengths on
the gun-deck of 158 feet, 164 feet, and 170 feet in the three years
respectively; their extreme breadth was 44 feet, 47 feet 2 inches, and
48 feet 6 inches, and their tonnage 1,307, 1,569, and 1,730 tons. The
three-deckers of eighty guns first appear in the 1691 establishment;
they were 156 feet on the gun-deck, 158 feet in 1719, and 165 feet in
1745; their extreme breadths at the three dates were 41 feet, 44 feet 6
inches, and 47 feet, and their burthens 1,100, 1,350, and 1,585 tons.
Seventy-gun ships increased from 150 feet in length in 1677, to 160
feet in 1745, their breadth from 39 feet 8 inches to 45 feet, and their
burthens from 1,013 tons to 1,414 tons. Ships of sixty guns were 144
feet in length in 1691, and 150 feet in 1745, with respective breadths
of 37 feet 6 inches, and 42 feet 8 inches, and tonnages of 900 and
1,191 tons. Fifty-gun ships appear in the ratings of 1706 with a length
of 130 feet, and in 1745 of 144 feet; then-respective breadths being
38 feet and 41 feet, and tonnages 704 and 1,052 tons. In the same year
also, 40-gun ships are recorded with a length of 118 feet, an extreme
breadth of 32 feet, and a tonnage of 531 tons; these dimensions had
risen in 1745 to 133 feet, 37 feet 6 inches, and 814 tons. Ships of
twenty guns were rated in 1719 with a length of 106 feet, breadth 28
feet 4 inches, and tonnage 374; increased by 1745 to 113 feet, 32 feet,
and 508 tons.
In regard to their complements, a 100-gun ship in 1677 carried seven
hundred and eighty men; in 1733, eight hundred and fifty; and in 1805,
eight hundred and thirty-seven men. Ships of ninety and ninety-eight
guns had, in 1677, six hundred and sixty men; in 1706, six hundred and
eighty men; in 1733, seven hundred and fifty men; and in 1805, seven
hundred and thirty-eight men. An 80-gun ship carried in 1692, four
hundred and ninety men; in 1706, five hundred and twenty; in 1733, six
hundred; in 1745, six hundred and fifty; and in 1805, seven hundred and
nineteen men. A 74-gun large class ship had in 1762, six hundred and
fifty men; and in 1805, ten less; a 74-gun common class ship had, in
1745, six hundred men; in 1762, six hundred and fifty men; in 1783, six
hundred; and in 1805, five hundred and ninety men. A 70-gun ship had
in 1677, four hundred and sixty men; in 1706, four hundred and forty;
in 1733, four hundred and eighty; and in 1745, five hundred and twenty
men. A 64-gun ship in 1745 had four hundred and seventy men; in 1762,
five hundred; and in 1805, four hundred and ninety-one men. A 60-gun
ship had in 1692, three hundred and fifty-five men; in 1706, three
hundred and sixty-five men; in 1733, four hundred; and in 1745, four
hundred and twenty. A 50-gun ship had in 1706, two hundred and eighty
men; in 1733, three hundred; in 1745, three hundred and fifty; and in
1805, three hundred and forty-three. A 44-gun ship carried in 1733, two
hundred and fifty men; in 1745, two hundred and eighty; in 1783, three
hundred men; and in 1805, two hundred and ninety-four men.
Very little indeed is known of the earliest types of firearms carried
afloat. The crudeness of the methods of manufacture, and the absence
of any standard for pattern or size, left the makers free to produce
whatever weapons they fancied. The _Christopher of the Tower_, in June,
1338, is said to have had three iron cannon with five iron chambers.
The guns were breechloaders, and the chambers contained the charge and
perhaps the projectile. She also had a hand-gun, which, though fired
from the shoulder, had the barrel supported by a rest standing on the
deck, after the manner of the hand-guns in use ashore. The _Mary of the
Tower_ was equipped with an iron cannon provided with two chambers,
and a brass gun with one chamber. None of the weapons yet discovered
show how the chambers were fastened in the guns of this period. It is
known that they fitted loosely and that the chambers could be fired, if
necessary, without the guns.
The early naval guns were called “crakys of war.”[23] They included
cannon-paviors, or guns which threw round stone shot, and appropriately
named murtherers, which were smaller weapons and were loaded with
anything that could be fired out again.
An inventory of the _Great Barke_ as “vyeuwyd” in the twenty-third year
of King Henry VIII., is preserved in the Cotton Library at the British
Museum. The following are extracts:--
“Hereafter followeth the ordinances pertayning to the sayde shype,
item, in primis, two brazyn pecys called kannon pecys on stockyes which
wayith The one 9 c. 3 q. 11 lb., the other 10 c. 1 q. 17 lb., whole
weight 20 c. 28 lb.: Item 2 payer of shod wheeles nyeu: item two ladyng
ladells.
“Starboard side. Item oon port pece of yeron cast with 2 chambers: item
a port pece of yeron, with one chamber. Item a spruyche slyng with one
chamber.
“Larboard side. Item oon port pece with 2 chambers: Item another port
pece, with oon chamber, whyche chamber was not made for the sayd pece.
“In the forecastell. Item a small slyng with 2 chambers. Item another
pece of yeron with two chambers, the oon broken.”
Even in Queen Elizabeth’s day much of the artillery had to be imported
from Germany. It was not until about 1531 that iron guns were first
cast in England, and brass guns were cast three or four years later.
Guns were made of greater weight and bore when it was discovered how
to cast them instead of building them, and muzzle-loaders gradually
superseded the old breechloaders. The change, however, was slow, and
was probably retarded by the reluctance of those ship owners who
had breechloaders to discard them while they could yet be fired, a
reluctance which no doubt extended, owing to the paucity of weapons, to
the rulers of the various states.
The guns of the sixteenth century were extraordinarily varied.
The largest was the cannon-royal of rather more than 8½ inches
diameter,[24] 8 feet 6 inches in length, and weighing about 8,000 lb.;
its charge of powder was about 30 lb., and its shot weighed 74 lb.
The cannon was 8 inches diameter, weighed about 6,000 lb., and with a
charge of 27 lb. threw a shot of 60 to 63 lb. The cannon-serpentine
was of 7 inches diameter, weighed 5,500 lb., and with a charge of 25
lb. threw a shot of 42 lb. The bastard-cannon was of about the same
length as the cannon-serpentine, but a lighter weapon, and though the
charge of powder was 5 lb. less, the weight of the shot was the same.
The demi-cannon varied from a little under 6½ inches diameter to 6¾
inches, and was about 11 feet in length and weighed about 4,000 lb.,
and with a charge of 18 lb., threw a projectile weighing from 31 to 33½
lb. The bore of the cannon-pedro, or petro, was 6 inches, its weight
about 3,800 lb., its shot, usually of stone, whence its name, from 24
to 26 lb. The diameter of the culverin was from 5¼ inches to 5½ inches,
its length was close upon 11 feet, its weight 4,840 lb., it received
a 12 lb. charge, and fired an 18 lb. shot. The basilisk was slightly
shorter and lighter, and its 14 lb. shot required 9 lb. of powder. The
diameter of the demi-culverin was 4 inches, its weight 3,400 lb., its
charge was 6 lb., and its shot 8 to 9½ lb. The culverin-bastard seems
to have been of half an inch larger bore, about 8½ feet long, but to
have been 400 lb. lighter than the demi-culverin, and to have fired
an 11 lb. shot with a charge of 5¾ lb. The saker, or sacar, was a far
smaller weapon, being less than 3¾ inches diameter, under 7 feet in
length, and weighing about 1,400 lb.; its charge was 4 lb., and its
shot 4 to 6 lb. The minion, slightly smaller in all respects, threw a 3
lb. to 4 lb. shot. The falcon was of 2½ inches diameter, 6 feet long,
weighed 680 lb., and fired a 2 lb. shot with a charge of a little over
1 lb. of powder. The falconet was a smaller edition of the falcon. The
serpentine was of 1½ inches diameter, weighed 400 lb., and fired a
½-lb. shot; and the rabinet, or robinet, was an even lighter weapon.
For loading, canvas or paper cartridges were used, but an iron ladle
for the powder was preferred. The following list of commands in the
gun-drill contrasts oddly with what would pass in the turret of, say, a
modern super-Dreadnought:--
“Search your piece; sponge your piece; fill your ladle; put in your
powder; empty your ladle; put up your powder; thrust home your wad;
regard your shot; put home your shot gently; thrust home your last wad
with three strokes; gauge your piece.”
Some curious guns were invented when the ordnance industry was in its
infancy. The Scots in a southern raid in 1640 used guns of leather at
their passage of the Tyne--which says more for the strength of the
leather than of the powder. A composite affair called the “kalter” gun,
introduced in the time of Gustavus Adolphus, of Sweden, is described:--
“A thin cylinder of beaten copper screwed into a brass breech, whose
chamber was strengthened by four bands of iron, the tube itself being
covered with layers of mastic, over which cords were laid firmly round
its whole length and equalised by a layer of plaster, a coating of
leather, boiled and varnished completing the piece.”[25]
Another peculiar weapon was a twin gun, in shape something like a
stumpy tuning-fork, with parallel barrels and one touch-hole; another
was a gun which could be fired at either end, the cavity in which the
chambers were placed being in the middle. It must have been an awkward
piece to handle. Hand grenades, used sometimes preparatory to boarding,
were introduced in 1689 during William III.’s reorganisation of the
artillery.
Even when the ships were provided with guns, opinion was by no means
unanimous as to the extent to which the weapons should be employed, or
the range at which they would be most effective. The method in vogue
on the Atlantic was to shoot as soon as it was thought the enemy could
be seriously damaged. A gentleman named Gibson, who reported on the
condition of the British Navy in 1585-1603, is quoted by Charnock as
saying:--
“Be sure it is your enemy before you shoot, and that you are in halfe
gunnshott of your ennemy before you shoot. It is direct cowardice to
shoot at greater distance, unless he is running away. British gunns
being for the most part shorter, are made to carry a bigger shot than
a French gun of like weight, therefore the French gunns reach further,
and those of Britain make a bigger hole. By this the French have the
advantage to fight at a distance, and we yard-arm to yard-arm. The
like advantage we have of them in shipping (although they are broader
and carry a better saile) our sides are thicker and the better able
to resist their shott. By this they are more subject to bee sunk by
gunnshott than wee are.”
[Illustration: GUNS OF THE FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES. _In the
Tower of London._]
[Illustration: ANCIENT DOUBLE GUN. _In the Museum of the Royal United
Service Institution._]
The Mediterranean custom was different. The Marquis of Villafranca,
whose advice was sought by Don John of Austria, thought there should
not be more than two discharges before the galleys close, that the
arquebussiers should not fire the second time until the blood of the
man hit should splash back in their faces, and that the noise of the
discharge should coincide with the ramming of the hostile vessel. But
all the guns employed in the Mediterranean sea-fights were not of this
order. In the tremendous struggle between the Cross and the Crescent
much heavier artillery was used. One siege gun is said to have thrown
a shot of 160 lb. During this struggle the Knights of Malta, after
the capture of St. Elmo by the Turks, when the latter dishonoured the
bodies of the slain knights, retaliated by beheading their Turkish
prisoners and firing the heads back into the camp of the besieging
Turks. The Knights combined unswerving fidelity to their principles and
their masters, when they acknowledged any, with the utmost bravery,
ferocity, and cruelty. There was little to choose between the leaders
on either side, but the palm must be given to the Mohammedan leaders
for their fertility of resource in extricating themselves from
apparently hopeless situations. The chief of these were the brothers
Barbaroussa, one of whom made himself King of Algiers, and they and
others of the band were the greatest of the Barbary pirates, dreaded
from one end of the Mediterranean to the other. The elder Barbaroussa
and his worthy successor, Dragut Reis, became the chief admirals of the
Turkish forces, the latter being killed in that terrible struggle at
Malta in which St. Elmo fell, a fate which was only averted from the
whole fortress by the remarkable genius of the greatest commander the
knights ever possessed. By way of commemorating the services of the
brothers Barbaroussa, the present Turkish government has named after
them the two second-hand German warships it recently bought.
In the latter part of the seventeenth century the cannon were
probably 42-pounders, the demi-cannon 32-pounders, and the culverins
18-pounders. Before an effort was made to systematise the armament
of ships, hardly any two vessels carried the same number of guns. It
was proposed in 1677 that a first-rate should carry twenty-six cannon
with eight men to each; twenty-eight culverins, with five men to each;
twenty-eight sakers on the upper deck, four on the forecastle, and
twelve on the quarter deck, with three men to each saker; and two
3-pounders with two men each. A second-rate should carry twenty-six
demi-cannon, with six men to each; twenty-six culverins; twenty-six
sakers on the upper deck and ten on the quarter deck; and two
3-pounders, with the same number of men to the guns as a first-rate. A
third-rater should carry twenty-six demi-cannon, twenty-six 12-pounders
with four men to each; four forecastle and ten quarter deck sakers, and
four 3-pounders. The remainder of the complements was to consist of
two hundred and ninety-six men, two hundred and sixty-two men, and
one hundred and sixty-two men for the three rates respectively, giving
grand totals of seven hundred and eighty men, six hundred and sixty
men, and four hundred and seventy men.
[Illustration: THE CARRONADE AND ITS CARRIAGE. _From Drawings supplied
by the Carron Co._]
About the beginning of the seventeenth century the practice was
introduced and has been retained ever since--with the exception of the
later guns, which are indicated by their weight or the diameter of
their calibre--of describing the guns by the weight of their shot.
A remarkable advance in the science of gun-making was shown when the
carronade was introduced by the Carron Company. Briefly, this weapon
may be described as a short heavy gun, carrying a heavy shot, and using
a moderate charge of powder. It was a wonderfully destructive weapon
at short range, and as a broadside gun held its own well into the
middle of the nineteenth century. A favourite carronade was that of six
diameters, one of which is here illustrated; that is, the length of the
bore was six times the diameter of the calibre at the gun’s mouth.
These guns were made in two or three patterns. One was the familiar
swivel, another had the trunnions below the gun centre so that the
gun rested upon them, and the third and most common was that with the
trunnions at the sides. The carriages, too, were exceedingly ingenious,
being devised to permit of meeting the recoil as well as adding to the
facility of handling the weapon, and the sighting arrangements did not
leave the gunner much opportunity of going wrong provided he obeyed the
instructions.
It was customary to fire a round, solid iron shot from these guns.
On one occasion a very different missile was employed. An armed
merchantman was overtaken by a privateer, and being short of cannon
balls, the cargo was broached. The first missile hit the side of the
privateer and smashed. The second hit a mast, dented it, and flew to
pieces. Another missile smashed itself and a privateersman’s head
at the same time, and the enemy then hauled off, wondering what new
projectile had now been discovered. The merchant ship had defended
itself with round Dutch cheeses--a testimony alike to the ingenuity of
her commander and the strength of the missiles.
The East India Company had several vessels built in the Far East, and
great was the outcry at the proposal that Indian-built ships should
be included in the British Navy. However, the success which attended
the armed ships of the Company, such, for instance as the _Grappler_,
launched at Bombay, in 1804, was responsible for the launch of a
“beautiful frigate” at Bombay, called _The Pitt_, the first ever built
in India for His Majesty’s service.[26] A picture of her is in the
Guildhall Museum, London.
The merchant vessels of the East in the seventeenth century were
usually built of teak and well armed, and if they were not particularly
fast sailers--some were particularly slow--they were usually able to
withstand the shot of all but the heaviest guns which the pirates and
privateers carried who infested those seas. Some of the greatest French
naval heroes were men who were dreaded from one side of the Indian
ocean to the other.
One of the vessels constructed in those days and still afloat is the
sailing ship _Success_, which, after an eventful career, was one of the
“floating hells” in which convicts were imprisoned near Melbourne for
some years, then became a coal hulk, was somehow saved from destruction
when her equally evil companion ships were ordered to be broken up,
was turned into an exhibition ship showing her as a prison ship, was
scuttled in Sydney harbour, raised again, and has since toured the
world. She saw active service about a hundred years ago, and still
bears on her tough sides the marks of the enemy’s cannon balls. She is
probably the last of her type afloat. The East Indiamen and the West
Indiamen of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries invariably carried
guns, and needed them.
It is strange to think how recently the policing or safety of the seas
has been secured, for the Liverpool newspapers contained, even in times
of peace, advertisements that vessels would sail with the convoy, and
that such and such a warship would act as escort.
Even along the British coasts the Carron Company armed its schooners,
and offered special inducements to those passengers who were willing
and able to assist the crew to repel a possible attack.