THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAILING SHIP FROM THE TIME OF HENRY VII. TO
THE DEATH OF QUEEN ELIZABETH (1485-1603).
We enter now upon a period that will always be memorable for the
impetus given to maritime matters, and the consequent improvement
that took place in sailing ships of all kinds. In the history of
the latter there are two centuries that have witnessed the greatest
developments in the production of that most beautiful of all things
that man ever set himself to fashion out of wood or iron. The first
of these eras was the sixteenth century, and the other was the
nineteenth. But before we begin to consider the sixteenth, let us
briefly sum up all that had been effected by the end of the fifteenth.
We have seen how the early type that prevailed so long in England
was that of the Vikings, whilst in the Mediterranean the galley
and carack were collateral kinds of craft. Whilst it is true that
after the Crusades England did eventually begin to build real ships,
yet long before this time out of the ports of Venice, Genoa and
Barcelona were sailing big carrying ships of three decks and of
several hundred tons burthen. Of enormous freeboard, the carack and
caravel were more able to encounter bad weather and to remain in
commission both winter and summer. Able, too, to carry considerable
quantities of merchandise and large numbers of passengers with a
fair chance of making port in safety, they were from the first
destined to become the ideal ship for the trader in preference to
the galley. In war-time the galley was more handy because she could
be manœuvred quickly with oars. But the carack and caravel, when
guns were introduced, instantly exercised an undisputed superiority
in another respect, for they could carry larger and more numerous
cannon, and had the commanding advantage of height, though they
were in comparison with the galleys decidedly cumbrous. Slow in
stays, top-heavy and decidedly uncomfortable, pitching into every
sea, they were far from the ideal. Thus the galley (or its cousin
the galleass) remained in existence for fighting, as distinct from
merchant service, side by side until after the Armada. An effort was
made to re-introduce the galley in the English Navy under Charles
II., but though the galley flourished in the Mediterranean until the
eighteenth century, it was doomed in England gradually but surely
from the beginning of the fourteenth century.
The Viking-like ships of England had gradually undergone important
changes. Alfred had tried the experiment of building them of greater
displacement, and this increase in size had gone on steadily after
the time of William the Conqueror. Moreover, as we have seen, the
development of the forecastle and sterncastle had prepared the
English sailors for the logical outcome of these—the ship with two
or three decks. At first a mere light scaffolding, castellated at
the top and capable of being affixed to a merchant ship on the
declaration of war, these castles had in the march of time assumed
a more permanent character. Instead of being mere supports lashed
together, the framework became more solid, and the design of the
ship was adapted to suit these structures—the sweep of the hull, as
we have seen, coming up to meet the platform, which steadily became
lower and lower and projected less forward until both fore- and
stern-castle were essential portions of the vessel.
But besides the knowledge that our forefathers had gained through
studying the ships in the Mediterranean at the time of the Crusades
and after, owing to the large carrying trade, some of the big ships
from the three Mediterranean ports just mentioned were in the habit
of coming into English waters with their merchandise of gold,
silks and spices. Their stay here would not be too short for our
shipwrights to study their build and architecture. Here was a new
kind of ship that but few had ever seen. Their cargo capacity and
high freeboard, and the fact that they held a crew numerous enough
to fight pirates on even terms would instantly appeal to those who
had eyes to see. As soon as ever peace at home gave a sufficient
encouragement, shipbuilding was bound to go ahead on these larger
lines. Henry V., too, had actually in his navy some Genoese ships
of this type, and by the middle of the fifteenth century merchant
ships of 100 tons were not rare, and some of even 300 tons were in
existence, and trading to the Mediterranean, the Baltic and Iceland.
The galley was fast disappearing, and instead of the one-masted ship,
by the end of the fifteenth century a big vessel of 800 tons with
four masts and a bowsprit began to be built.
The evolution of the number of masts was on this wise. When the
single mast was multiplied two things happened. In the Mediterranean
the additional mast forward of the mainmast had become the _mât de
misaine_ (Italian _mezzana_ = foresail), or foremast. In Northern
Europe the mast was added aft, but nevertheless called mizzen—still
another instance of the confusion that has existed in nautical
nomenclature. We know from the illustrations on old manuscripts of
this period that vessels possessed as many as three and four masts,
and this is further confirmed by the inventories still extant of
Henry VII.’s ships. The same evidence proves the introduction by
now of topmasts as fixed though separate spars. There is even one
instance of a topgallant mast. Instead, therefore, of the old rig
consisting of one large sail on the one mast there is—reckoning from
forward to the stern—a spritsail on the bowsprit, a squaresail on
the fore and main masts with one small topsail on each of these two
masts, and a lateen or triangular-shaped sail on a yard, but with
no boom of course, hoisted up the mizzen-mast. The spritsail was a
squaresail on a yard lowered from the end of the bowsprit. If the
reader will look at the illustration in Fig. 46 he will see a badly
drawn, but none the less interesting, illustration of a carack of
the beginning of the sixteenth century. The ship in the foreground
is the _Cordelière_. Though much of the bow end is not shown, there
is sufficient to indicate how the fore- and stern-castles have come
down to be part of the hull, and how the latter has been increased in
length. The three masts will also be seen, though the bowsprit is not
shown. The castellated structures have become large, roomy cabins.
Guns will be seen on both the lower and main decks. It was about the
end of the fifteenth century, also, that portholes were introduced,
and the tiers in forecastle and poop reached as many as three. The
guns in the ships of Henry VII. were serpentines, breach-loading,
using lead, stone or iron ball. From the tops, picked men still
hurled javelins or shot arrows from their bows on to the enemy’s
decks below.
When Henry VII. ascended the English throne, the first real effort
in the direction of an adequate national navy was made. It was a
critical moment. The country’s finances had been drained by the
long-drawn out Wars of the Roses, so that her navy had been utterly
and grievously neglected. Notwithstanding that under Henry V. it
had increased to unprecedented strength—including as it did as
many as thirty-eight vessels ranging from 400 to 600 tons—yet on
the death of this fifth Henry the thirty odd ships that remained
were, disgraceful to relate, sold out of the service, and by 1430
the English Navy comprised only two or three dismantled hulks.[60]
It is true that Henry V. had been at great pains to build ships, and
Southampton Water and Hamble, the pretty little village on the river
of the same name, were in those days as interested in his ships of
war as to-day they are in the industry which yachting brings to both
of these places. It is true, also, that Edward IV. had at various
times during his reign bought some ships, including the _Grace à
Dieu_ and _Mary of the Tower_, and the _Martin Garsia_, and that his
successor, Richard III., had added to these three by the purchase of
the _Governor_. These four indeed came into the possession of Henry
VII. on his accession, but though the administration in his reign
represented an effort rather than a complete reorganisation, yet it
marked an important advance. He prepared the way for his successor
Henry VIII., and showed his keen interest in the navy and maritime
matters generally. But his especial good deed consisted in the
building of two warships which were a considerable advance on any
the country had previously possessed. Of these the _Regent_, of 600
tons, was inspired by French naval architecture. She was built on
the Rother about 1490 and carried 225 serpentines. These guns were
not of much avail in penetrating the enemy’s sides, but they would
be efficacious in destroying his sails and rigging and in sending
a sweeping fire over his decks. She had a foremast, foretopmast,
mainmast, main-topmast and main topgallant mast, main mizzen and
bonaventure mizzen.[61] Both mizzen-masts, having lateen-sails, were
without topmasts. From the bowsprit, as already described, there
was a spritsail. This, as we saw in Chapter III., had its origin
in the Roman ships. I think there can be little doubt but that the
spritsail was the lineal descendant of the artemon. It was scarcely
very wonderful that it survived so long, seeing that the galleys had
remained but little altered since classical times. We must not forget
that the rig of the squaresail-ship originated in the Mediterranean,
so that the spritsail would come most naturally to the aid of the
ship for her head canvas. Similarly the lateen, being everywhere seen
on the Mediterranean and Nile—on feluccas and dhows alike—would be
found at hand for the after canvas. The preference for a lateen sail
for the mizzen was based on the reason that such a sail will hold
a better wind—will sail at least a point closer to the breeze. Its
position in the stern was to facilitate the steering. The _Regent’s_
topmasts and topgallant mast were separate spars fixed to the
lower mast but could not be lowered or raised. The topgallant mast
had a sail but no yard. It was not till many years after that the
topgallant sails had yards. Mr. Masefield states that the topgallant
sail began like a modern moonraker, _i.e._ a triangular piece of
canvas, setting from truck to the yard-arm of the topsail yard
immediately below.[62]
The _Sovereign_ was of a similar type, though smaller. She had
two decks in the forecastle, two in the summercastle, and in the
topgallant poop. What the summercastle exactly was cannot be
discovered, but Mr. Oppenheim suggests the very probable theory that
it was the poop royal. At any rate it commanded an all-round fire
and carried many guns. We shall see as we proceed how strong the
tendency was in the sixteenth century to raise the poop to enormous
heights. The _Sovereign_ had no main topgallant mast as the _Regent_
possessed. All the armament of both ships was carried in the waist,
in the decks of the summercastle and poop, but there was no real
gun-deck. With all this top-hamper, there is no wonder that the
_Santa Maria_, Columbus’ ship, pitched so terribly. But in spite of
the guns, a considerable part of the fighting was entrusted to the
archers. Mr. Oppenheim mentions that the _Sovereign_ had on board 200
bows and 800 sheaves of arrows, and but small quantities of gunpowder
and lead.
When the _Regent_ and _Sovereign_ were launched at the end of the
fifteenth century the sensation which they caused can scarcely have
been inferior to that in our own times made by the launch of the
_Dreadnought_ and _Bellerophon_. The country had never produced such
ships before in size and equipment. But just as it would have been
impossible for our builders or designers to have suddenly brought
a _Dreadnought_ into being, so in the case of the _Sovereign_ and
the _Regent_ what was seen was the result of gradual progress. The
fifteenth century shipwrights and architects had step by step been
feeling their way to higher achievements, and had the Wars of the
Roses never occurred there can be little doubt but that these big
ships would have been launched in an earlier reign.
The standards flown by the ships of this period were of white linen
cloth, with red crosses of “say” (_i.e._, woollen cloth). The
streamers with which they were wont to decorate their vessels in
a somewhat profuse manner were also of linen cloth or “say.” The
_Regent_ had no gilding or carving, except a gilt crown. Nor was any
great expense made on the score of paint, for we find a record of the
painting of the _Regent_ and another ship called the _Mary Fortune_.
The whole job was done by contract for the sum of £2 19_s._ 10_d._
The davits, both of this period and for many years after, were used
not for hoisting the ship’s boats aboard—which was done by means
of tackles with poles and sheaves of brass—but for getting up the
anchors. There were both fixed davits and movable ones that could be
used in different parts of the ship. Most of the timber came from the
New Forest and Bere Forest, not far from Portsmouth. Iron was bought
by the ton and worked up at the royal forge into nails and spikes, &c.
In 1497 two smaller men-of-war, named respectively the _Sweepstake_
and the _Mary Fortune_, were built. But these were much smaller than
the other two, and carried three lower masts, a main topmast, as
well as a spritsail on the bowsprit. The _Grace à Dieu_, which Henry
had inherited on his accession to the throne, was renamed the _Harry
Grace à Dieu_. She is said to have cost £14,000, to have had four
pole masts, each with a circular top, a bowsprit, a built-up poop and
forecastle, as well as two complete and two partial tiers of guns
mounted in ports.[63] The late Sir W. Laird Clowes inclined to the
belief that the drawing of the _Harry Grace à Dieu_ in the Pepysian
Library, Cambridge, represents not the ship of the same name built in
the reign of Henry VIII., but that of which we are now speaking. By
the beginning of Henry VIII.’s reign she had either disappeared or
was known under a new name.
It was for a long time the custom of English monarchs in times of
peace to let out on hire the royal ships to merchants. Nor did
Henry VII. break away from this practice. Apart altogether from the
importance which big ships possessed from a naval point of view, it
was a profitable speculation to build large vessels. Merchants were
glad to hire them, since it saved the necessity of having to build
for themselves or of keeping them in commission when their voyages
were ended. The larger the tonnage of the ship the more popular were
they to the hirers, for the reason that they not only held more cargo
and were less likely to succumb to pirates, but that they could
voyage to virgin fields where trade could be established. Henry, in
addition to the ships he had inherited and built, also hired some
himself, both from his subjects and the Spanish. He even went so far
as to purchase some vessels from the latter, but Spain eventually
legislated to prevent Spanish-owned ships from being sold to foreign
Powers.
We find references in the naval accounts of this reign to caulking
with “ocum”; also to the “crane line,” which led from the sprit
mast to the forestay, and steadied the former. Among the details
preserved to us concerning the _Grace à Dieu_ we find that she had
three bonnets for the mainsail, the lacing that secured the bonnet
to the foot of the sail (after the manner adopted by the Vikings)
being called “latchetes.” There is a considerable similarity between
the nautical terms of this period and of our own time. Corks were
used for buoying anchors; “deadmen’s eyes” (dead-eyes, as we now
call them, through which the lanyards of the shrouds are passed),
“painters” (Mr. Oppenheim derives this familiar word from the old
French _pantiere_, meaning a noose); hawse, used in its old sense,
to mean the bows of a vessel—hence our modern expression “athwart
hawse,” meaning across the bows—these, as well as others, were in
daily use among sailormen. We find mention of the fact that the
_Grace à Dieu_ had “a shefe (_i.e._, a sheave or pulley-wheel) of
brasse in the bootes halse.” There were not always bulwarks or rails
to ships of this age, and sometimes before going into action a cable
was coiled round about the deck breast high in the waist, bedding and
mattresses being also requisitioned as protection against the enemy’s
fire.
[Illustration: FIG. 43. A CARAVEL OF THE END OF THE FIFTEENTH
CENTURY.]
As to other details of equipment, we have mention of these ships
possessing running glasses, _i.e._ sand glasses for the use of the
log which time has not even now wholly abolished in spite of the
patent log on sailing ships. Outriggers, or as they were called,
“outliggers,” “bitakles,” (_i.e._, binnacles), “merlyng irens,”
(_i.e._, marlin spikes) were also in use. By 1514 at any rate, the
usual length of a sounding line appears to be forty fathoms. There
were winches apparently on the _Sovereign_, for we find mention of
the “wheles for to wynde up the Mayne Sayle.” In order that the
large square sails should set as flat as possible, bowlines played
an important part during this century and after. In the case of very
large sails, the weight on the tack was relieved to some extent by
adding luff hooks and chains. As will be remarked in the illustration
of the _Cordelière_, in Fig. 46, _pavesses_, or wooden shields
bearing the devices or coats of arms, were placed along the ship’s
waist, and sometimes too, on the forecastle and poop. The reader will
recognise them as being survivals from the times when the Viking
sea-chiefs hung their shields along the bulwarks. At a later stage we
shall see these shields giving way to the waist cloth as a protection
for this part of the ship.
It was under Henry VII. that the bounty system for encouraging
shipbuilders was introduced. It was during his reign, too, that
Portsmouth Dockyard was founded, and that at this port the first dry
dock was built in England, and the _Sovereign_ was the first ship
known to have gone into it. We find among the Naval Accounts of Henry
VII., a record that on the tenth of October in the first year of his
reign, the _Grace à Dieu_ was docked at Hamble, or, as it was then
known, Hamill. But Mr. Oppenheim points out that this docking here
meant merely getting the ship high and dry on to the mud and then
surrounding her with a fence of brushwood. The popularity which,
during the fifteenth century, Hamble had shared with Southampton,
was decreasing as soon as ships of the size of the _Regent_ and
_Sovereign_ were built. Perhaps it was owing to the lack of water in
this river that the Portsmouth dry dock was made.
[Illustration: FIG. 44. A FIFTEENTH-CENTURY CARAVEL.]
All the time the unhappy Wars of the Roses had been wasting England’s
energy and finances, the people in the south-west corner of Europe
were prospering exceedingly. Whilst England was at a standstill as
regards development, Spain and Portugal were going rapidly ahead in
maritime matters. They had acquired an immense amount of nautical
knowledge from the Venetians and Genoese, and until the time came
for England to wake up and set her house in order, Portugal was
taking the lead in voyages of exploration. When Columbus set forth
in 1492 on the voyage that led to the discovery of the West Indies,
his fleet comprised his flagship, the _Santa Maria_, and two other
caravels named respectively the _Nina_ and the _Pinta_. We find
that the _Santa Maria_ proved to be “a dull sailer and unfit for
discovery.”[64] This statement is entirely borne out by Captain D. V.
Concas.[65] For from historical data, a replica of the _Santa Maria_
was built at Carraca by Spanish workmen in 1893, for the Chicago
Exhibition. She was sailed across the Atlantic on her own bottom the
same year with a Spanish crew. The course taken was exactly that
followed by Columbus on his first voyage. The time occupied was
thirty-six days, and the maximum speed obtained was about 6½ knots.
Captain Concas, who was in charge of her, reported that she pitched
horribly. The illustration in Fig. 43 represents a caravel of this
period, and will give the reader a general idea of the ships of this
time. This is from a photograph of a model made by Mr. Frank H.
Mason, R.B.A., and exhibited in the Franco-British Exhibition of
1908. It has since been presented by Lloyd’s to the South Kensington
Museum. The colouring of the underbody is quite correct, for we
find mention of the “white bellies” of the Spanish ships of the
sixteenth century being seen coming over the billows. The yard on
the bowsprit for the spritsail should not be shown as a fixture for
another hundred years later. The yards of the lower courses will be
observed, and two topsails with fighting-tops and the lateen yard
will be noticed aft. The rest of the rigging, including the stays and
braces, are so clear as to need little comment further, except that
the forestay should be provided with crane-lines as in Fig. 45. The
_cresset_ or lantern is shown in its correct place over the stern. A
cresset was, strictly speaking, a hollow vessel for holding a light,
and carried upon a pole. The light was produced from a wreathed rope
smeared with pitch or rosin. The development now reached by the
forecastle, and the tendency to exaggerate the height of the poop
which became in Spanish galleons even higher still, are worthy of
the reader’s attention. Fig. 44 is from a photograph of the caravel
model in the Royal United Service Museum, Whitehall. This is by no
means an accurate model and is only put forward as an interesting
representation of the manner of mounting the guns in these days, and
showing how tubby in proportion to their length such ships sometimes
were. It shows fairly accurately the proportion also to which the
sides of the hull just above the water-line projected as compared
with the narrow beam on deck. Whereas we saw in the illustration
of the _bucco_ in Fig. 35 a fighting-top of slender basket-work,
we have now a much more solid structure. No topsails are shown
here, but Columbus’s ship carried a main-topsail. Mr. Mason’s model
shows a fore-topsail which was certainly carried on ships of this
time, though not on the _Santa Maria_. The Whitehall model should
not carry the heavy figurehead, and a bowsprit should of course be
shown. The topmasts are also too long. Falconer’s “Marine Dictionary”
derives the caravel from the Spanish word _caravela_ as “a light,
round, old-fashioned ship with a square poop, formerly used in Spain
and Portugal.”[66] Levi derives the word as from either _carabos_,
meaning a kind of lobster, or from _cara-bella_, meaning a beautiful
shape, in reference, of course, to the lines of her hull.[67]
[Illustration: FIG. 45. COLUMBUS’S FLAGSHIP, THE “SANTA MARIA.”]
In Fig. 45 will be found a reproduction of what is probably the only
accurate model of the _Santa Maria_ in existence. This has been
constructed by Captain C. E. Terry, who has made it his hobby for
some years to gather together every item of information in connection
with Columbus’s ship. For this purpose he has searched all through
Southern Europe in order to collect every detail, and through his
courtesy I am enabled for the first time to show this interesting
little ship, which the reader may regard as approaching as nearly to
accuracy as possible at this late date. The sails with the Papal and
Maltese crosses, the flag of Ferdinand and Isabella flying above,
the crucifix over the stern, the crane-lines, the braces, sheets and
other gear may be taken as reliable. The bonnet and drabbler will
be found on the mainsail. On deck the brick-made cooking-galley,
and the capstan, though not decipherable from the photograph, have
been correctly placed. A careful examination of the lead of the gear
will explain the rigging more quickly than by detailing every rope
individually.
Not all the Spanish ships were rigged with square-sails. Indeed,
the lateen sail in the Mediterranean gave way reluctantly to the
rectangular shape, as is only natural in the seas so dominated by
the felucca rig. Columbus’s ship, which was reconstructed according
to every known source of information, had of course a lateen
mizzen. She was three-masted, having a square mainsail with topsail
of much smaller size, but “goaring” out considerably from a small
yard. On the foremast was a square course but no topsail, while from
the bowsprit was carried a square spritsail. In Mr. Filson Young’s
work already referred to, the interesting fact is mentioned that
after Columbus and his three ships had set forth they had to put into
Grand Canary for a new rudder to be made for the _Pinta_, and that
while they were waiting for this to be done the rig of the _Nina_ was
changed from lateen to squaresail like that of the _Santa Maria_, so
that the _Nina_ might be able to keep up with the others. For a ship
that was about to cross the wide ocean of the Atlantic no sailorman
nowadays would dispute this wise proceeding on the part of Columbus.
As to the relative size of these ships the _Santa Maria_ was of
about one hundred tons burthen, 90 feet long and 20 feet beam. Other
accounts make her slightly larger, and she carried a crew numbering
fifty-two. The _Nina_ was a much smaller ship of about forty tons.
Inasmuch as we are studying not so much the history of voyages as
of the ships that actually carried the voyagers there is not here
the scope to enter into a discussion of the reasons that prompted
Columbus to go West. But it may not be out of place to point to the
fact that it was no mere haphazard undertaking. We mentioned in an
earlier chapter that the Vikings who colonised Iceland in a previous
century also sailed further on from there to the American Continent.
Now Columbus had visited Iceland and may in all probability have
heard of the tradition that there was land to the far west across the
seas. As Lord Dunraven mentions, Columbus knew that the world was
more or less round, and that consequently the more he sailed West
the nearer he would come to the well-known regions of the East. We
must remember, too, that for some time the Portuguese and Spaniards
had been applying themselves to the study of charts and the science
of navigation. Columbus, himself, was a mapmaker, and a man with a
scientific mind. But besides all this there was the story of the
“unknown pilot,” whose ship having been blown from Spain or Portugal
across the Atlantic had reached new land. Taking these considerations
in conjunction with an age almost bursting with energy, that was
thirsting for knowledge only to be obtained through adventure
and perseverance, it was inevitable that the New World should be
discovered.
As to the navigational instruments Columbus had with him a compass
divided into 360° and 32 points as to-day, although the points were
named somewhat differently. Nor was he prevented through lack of
knowledge from taking observations of the sun. He had a cross-staff,
a quadrant and a sea astrolabe. The voyage five years later of John
Cabot, an Italian, to the mainland of America with a Bristol ship and
Bristol sailors; of Vasco de Gama doubling the Cape of Good Hope _en
route_ to India, and of other enterprising and courageous navigators
could only have the effect of influencing the subsequent building of
ships of greater tonnage and seaworthiness.
[Illustration: FIG. 46. THE FRENCH SHIP “CORDELIÈRE” IN THE
FOREGROUND, WITH THE ENGLISH “REGENT” IN THE BACKGROUND, ON FIRE OFF
BREST.]
One of the largest ships of this time was the French _Cordelière_
in Fig. 46. Although it is not quite safe to rely too much on the
reported tonnage of these mediæval vessels, hers has been assessed
at 700 while the _Regent_ and the _Sovereign_ have been estimated at
1000 each. Another famous contemporary French ship was the _Grand
Louise_ of 790 tons. The latter was a four-master. She had pavesses
around her like those on the _Cordelière_. Cannon were carried on her
deck. Her mainsail was decorated with a shield device, whilst the
main-mizzen and the bonaventure mizzen carried lateen-sails. In the
illustration just mentioned the _Cordelière_ is in the foreground,
the ship behind being the _Regent_. While the latter was attacking
the French ship off Brest at the beginning of Henry VIII.’s reign
both vessels caught fire and became a total loss. Our illustration,
which is taken from a MS. in the Bibliothèque Nationale, shows this
mournful incident depicted.
Not entirely had the galley disappeared yet. In a warrant dated
January 29, 1510,[68] we find mention of caracks, galleys,
row-barges, hulks, barks (great barks and “lesse barks”), ships
and crayers. The latter were victualling ships. Thus when the
_Sovereign_ sailed from Portsmouth she had with her the _Trinity
of Wight_ (80 tons), the _James of London_ (80 tons) and the
_Katherine Pomegranate_ as her victuallers. We find in this warrant
also mentioned “twyne, merling (marlin), ropes, cables, cabletts
(these were used for the mainstay), boyes (buoys), lynes, tacks,
lists, toppe-armers, stremers, standards, compasses, ronnyng glasses
(sand-glasses for the log), lanterns, shevers of bras, poleys,
shrowdes” and other “taclyng.” The same warrant directs the building
of the _Mary Rose_ of 400 tons and the _Peter Pomegranate_ of 300
tons. The former foundered at Spithead in the year 1545.
It was in 1514 that the famous _Henri Grace à Dieu_, commonly known
as the “Great Harry,” was built. The custom having recently grown up
of passing on the name of an obsolete ship to her successor, and of
reserving special names for the largest class and still further of
embodying in it the name also of the ruling sovereign, it was but
natural that this great “Harry” should be so named. Of the available
illustrations of this ship that shown here in Fig. 47 and reproduced
from Holbein’s painting in Hampton Court Palace, is perhaps the most
reliable. The incident depicted is the embarkation of Henry VIII.
from Dover, on May 31, 1520, to meet Francis I. at the Field of the
Cloth of Gold. Besides this picture there exists another which hung
for many years in Canterbury Cathedral, and is supposed to represent
this vessel. It was afterwards presented by the Dean to Sir John
Norris, Admiral of the Fleet, who died in 1749. In 1750 an engraving
was made by Allen, and a copy is to be found in the Print Room of the
British Museum. The original of Allen’s engraving has been ascribed
to Holbein, but it seems pretty certain that this print depicts, not
the “Great Harry” of the reign of Henry VIII., but a ship of later
date. Nor, as we have mentioned above, does it seem probable that the
_Henri Grace à Dieu_ in the Pepysian Library represents this vessel.
[Illustration: FIG. 47. THE EMBARKATION OF HENRY VIII. FROM DOVER IN
1520, SHOWING THE “HENRI GRÂCE À DIEU.”
_Photo. W. M. Spooner & Co._]
The _Henri Grace à Dieu_ of the time of Henry VIII. had four masts
with two decks and topgallant sails on fore, main and main-mizzen
masts. On the bonaventure mizzen she carried a topsail above the
lateen but no topgallant. The fore and main masts had topsails as
well. Happily her inventory is still extant and will be found in Mr.
Oppenheim’s volume on the administration of the Navy of the reign
of Henry VIII.[69] Her tonnage was 1500, and she represents still
another advance in the construction of big ships. Her launching one
day in the middle of June had been a memorable ceremony, in the
presence of the Court, the ambassadors of both the Emperor and the
Pope, as well as a distinguished crowd of bishops and nobles. Her
armament, according to her existing inventory of 1514, included 184
pieces of ordnance, of which 126 were brass and iron serpentines.
Two more of Henry VIII.’s ships will be seen in Figs. 48 and 49.
Both have been photographed from the coloured drawings of “The
Rolle declaryng the Nombre of the Kynges Maiestys owne Galliasses”
by Anthony Anthony in the Pepysian Library of Magdalene College,
Cambridge. The date of the roll is 1546, one part being now in the
British Museum and the other half in the Pepysian Library, as
stated. Originally, both rolls belonged to Samuel Pepys. Quaint as
these representations are, they are contemporary records and of some
real interest to us. The _Murrian_, in Fig. 48, was brought into the
Royal Navy in 1545 and sold out in 1551. Her tonnage was 500, and
she had 300 men, 10 brass guns and 53 iron guns. The reader will
notice the manner of stowing the spritsail which is correctly shown.
Along the waist of the vessel the pavesses can just be discerned. The
netting spread over the ship’s deck was as a protection against the
enemy’s missiles dropped from the fighting-tops. Astern the ship’s
biggest boat is seen towing, as was the custom when at sea, except in
bad weather, “much as one may see a brig or a topsail schooner to-day
with a dinghy dragging astern.”[70] The boat’s coxswain stayed in her
as she towed, keeping her clean, fending her off, and looking out
for any of the crew who happened to tumble overboard. The _Struse of
Dawske_ (_i.e._ Danzig) in Fig. 49, had been purchased in 1544, and
was sold out of the service the same year as the _Murrian_. She was
very similar to the other ship but slightly smaller. Her tonnage was
450, she carried 250 men, 39 iron guns, but none of brass.
[Illustration: FIG. 48. THE “MURRIAN.”]
[Illustration: FIG. 49. THE “STRUSE.”
TWO OF HENRY VIII.’S SHIPS.]
Another ship in this roll called the _Jesus of Lubeck_, being of 700
tons, having been purchased by Henry VIII. from the merchants of
Lubeck in 1544, shows steel sickle-shaped bill-hooks affixed to the
yard arms, so that in battle she could sail alongside the enemy and
tear his rigging to pieces, but it was inevitable that the aggressor
would injure himself scarcely less than his foe, and these hooks had
disappeared before the end of the century, though their origin was of
great antiquity. (See also Fig. 56.)
From a delightful volume[71] of this reign entitled the “Book of War
by Sea and by Land,” by Jehan Bytharne, Gunner in Ordinary to the
King, and bearing date 1543, we are able to verify the truth of the
vain display of flags seen in the illustrations of the _Murrian_ and
_Struse_. There is so much interesting matter contained in this work
respecting contemporary ships that I make no apology to the reader
for dealing with its contents at some length. Although the earliest
code of signals belonged to about 1340 and was given out for the
guidance of the fleets at Sluys, yet we have now much more elaborate
directions.
Bytharne tells us just what we want to know about the decoration of
the ships of his time. The external ornamentation from the mainwale
to the top of the castles ought to be painted, he says, with the
colours and devices of the admiral. Likewise the forecastle and
after-castle were to be decorated as splendidly as possible. All the
shields—as we saw in the _Cordelière_—round the upper part of the
castles were to be emblazoned with the admiral’s arms and devices
also. Above the forecastle on a staff inclining forwards was to be
a (pennon) of the admiral’s colours and devices, as also at the two
corners of the castle. Amidships there should be two square banners,
emblazoned with the admiral’s arms, and on the after-castle high
above the rudder he was to have a large square banner larger than
any of the others. From the maintop a broad swallow-tailed standard
was to be flown, of such a length as to reach to the water, and
emblazoned with the admiral’s arms and devices also.
For celebrating a triumph the ship was to be covered in and curtained
with rich cloth and draped. “You may also paint your sails with such
devices and colours as you choose, or with the representation of a
saint if you prefer it.” Then follow the signals to be employed for
summoning the captains of the ships to come aboard the flagship. If
a strange ship were espied, this was to be signalled by putting a
square banner in a weft in the shrouds half-way up on that side
on which the strange ship was seen. At sunset all the ships of the
fleet were to pass ahead of the admiral’s ship and to shout three
times, one after the other, and if they had trumpets they were to be
sounded. At the third shout the master of the admiral’s ship was to
return the salute “causing all those of your ship to shout and the
trumpets and drums to sound.” And each ship as she made the salute
was to ask for the watchword for the night and what course to steer.
These having been given, the ships were all to drop astern again, and
not pass ahead of the flagship during the night on pain of severe
punishment.
Nor to any one gifted with imagination and a love of the beautiful
can the following picture make an ineffectual appeal. For, after the
above instructions had been carried out, the admiral was to cause to
be sung the evening hymn to our Lady before her image, after which
all lights were to be put out except those in the cabins of the
gentlemen, who may have lamps trimmed with water covered with oil,
but neither candles nor any other kind of light, owing to the risk of
fire. The grandeur of these old ships with their plentiful freeboard
towering high above water, pitching backwards and forwards to the
swell of the sea, their highly coloured hulls lit up by the last
rays of a glowing sunset, and the strong rough voices of the crew
singing their solemn plain-chant as the freshening breeze wafted it
to leeward—such an incident would have impressed itself on our minds
scarcely less forcibly than the massive _Mauretania_ to-day racing
over the Atlantic eastward with the sun sinking astern, her masthead,
port and starboard lights showing, while the rich notes of a grand
piano come floating out from the luxurious drawing-room.
The admiral was further to appoint persons who should see that all
the crew not kept up on duty were to retire—soldiers and officers
alike. At the stern of the ship a cresset with flaming combustibles
was to burn so that every one might recognise the admiral’s ship and
follow, no other vessel being allowed to carry such a fire. But if
the fleet contained a vice-admiral, he was allowed to carry just such
a light, but the admiral must then carry two instead of one. The ship
was also to carry a large lantern in which were three or four great
lamps with great lights to make a powerful illumination. The use of
this lantern in place of the cresset was when the wind was blowing
hard or from astern, and it became necessary to put out the cresset
lest the ship should catch fire. At break of day the “two nimble
ships” which sailed some distance ahead of the fleet were to come
back and salute the admiral as at nightfall. They were then to take
their orders for the day, go on ahead again and keep just in sight.
At sunrise a fanfare was to be sounded on the trumpets, the other
ships to salute as at sunset, the admiral’s ship keeping under easy
sail until they had done so. Then “at such hour of the morning as
shall please you your chaplain” is to say a dry Mass.[72]
For his interest in the Navy, England owes a debt to Henry VIII.
Under him it became a separate, organised force instead of being
a mere auxiliary of the army. About eighty vessels and thirteen
row-barges of twenty tons were added during his reign to the ships
inherited from his predecessor. Many were purchased from the
Venetians and the Hanseatic League, who were the great merchant
seamen of this time. Some also were prizes taken from the enemy,
but about forty odd were actually built during this reign, among
which may be mentioned the _Tiger_, which was flush-decked without
any superstructures and heavily armed; and the _Ann Gallant_.
Whereas clinker-built vessels had been almost universal from the
times of the Vikings, carvel-built ships were now being used, as
being both stronger and faster. Coloured cloths were put round the
fighting-tops, and the hulls, besides being carved and gilded,
were painted various colours. Sometimes the Tudor colours of green
and white were seen, but ash and timber shafts became common under
Elizabeth. In the ships of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
the yellow colour above the waterline of our ships was more
pronounced. The crews of Henry VIII.’s ships wore the Tudor colours
of white and green also, cloth being used for the sailors and satin
or damask for the officers.[73]
Under Edward VI. the power of the Hanseatic League began gradually to
wane, and consequently the superiority which in respect of ships it
had possessed over those of our nation became less marked. Perhaps
no maritime incident of this reign is more interesting than the
preparation, the setting out, and the partial accomplishment of the
voyage from our shores to discover a passage by way of Archangel
to China. Those who know their Hakluyt will agree that few yarns
written nowadays by either professional or amateur sailormen are
so absorbingly interesting as this record: those who have still to
read this record will enjoy it thoroughly. It is not possible here
to give even a summary of this lengthy voyage, in which Sir Hugh
Willoughby and his crew perished of cold and starvation, though
Richard Chancellor reached as far as Archangel. But there are some
details given in the account that are pertinent to our inquiry of
the sailing ship. Among the instructions given to the voyagers were
that the fleet should keep together as far as possible. A log was to
be kept by day and night, “with the points and observation of the
lands, tides, elements, altitude of the sunne, course of the moon
and starres.” The fleet comprised the _Bona Esperanza_, flagship,
of 120 tons, “having with her a pinnesse and a boate,” the _Edward
Bonaventure_, 160 tons, and the _Bona Confidentia_, 90 tons, the
last two ships having the same number of boats as the first. Their
progress down the Thames was not rapid, for it took them from the
tenth of May till the twenty-second to get from Ratcliffe to Hole
Haven. They could not sail nearer to the wind than seven points, for
the statement is made that “the wind veared to the West, so that we
could lie but North and by West.”[74] Approaching a strange harbour,
they would first send forth the ship’s “pinnesse” before entering.
They were not long in discovering that “the land lay not as the Globe
made mention.” The “Confidence being troubled with bilge water, we
thought it good to seeke harbour for her redresse.”
The cost of purchasing these three ships was £6000 according to
another account also included in Hakluyt, and written by one, Clement
Adams, who praises very highly the “very strong and well seasoned
plankes for the building,” as well as the skill of the shipwrights
who “calke them, pitch them, and among the rest they make one most
stanch and firme, by an excellent and ingenious invention.” This
invention is that “they cover a piece of the keele of the shippe with
thin sheetes of leade, for they had heard that in certaine parts of
the Ocean a kinde of wormes is bredde, which many times pearceth
and eateth through the strongest oake that is.” The reader will
recollect that this “invention” was known to the inhabitants of the
Mediterranean for many hundreds of years before this.[75] The same
writer states that when they departed from Ratcliffe “upon the ebbe”
“with the turning of the water” the “greater shippes” were “towed
downe with boates, and oares, and the mariners being apparelled in
watchet or skie coloured cloth, rowed amaine.” The Court being at
Greenwich they fired a salute while “one stoode in the poope of the
ship, and by his gesture bids farewell to his friendes ... another
walkes upon the hatches, another climbes the shrowds, another stands
upon the maine yard, and another in the top of the shippe.” When they
arrived at Harwich, to Chancellor’s dismay, part of the victuals were
found to be “corrupt and putrified” “and the hoggesheads of wine also
leaked, and were not stanch.”
During the reign of Mary the fishing and coasting traffic flourished,
but it is when we enter upon the reign of Elizabeth that we find the
greatest encouragement given. It was she who repealed all existing
restrictions in connection with navigation laws, so that merchants
were allowed to use whatever ships they possessed, whether foreign
or English-built. More sensible and far-sighted than some of our
modern legislators, she was wise enough to restrict the coasting
trade to British ships. In this reign, too, telescopes were invented,
Mercator’s chart of the world completed, the art of navigation
developed, hydrography taken up seriously, the harbours of England
and estuaries well surveyed, pilotage and buoyage systematised and
placed under the care of the corporation of Trinity House. The
variation of the compass had been already observed by Columbus and
Cabot, but under Elizabeth the matter was given serious study.
The carrying trade, which for so long a time between England and the
Mediterranean had been the monopoly of ships belonging to Venice
or Genoa or Spain, now belongs exclusively to English vessels. Our
shipwrights, too, were building craft of finer lines and longer
on the keel. Hawkins, perhaps the ablest shipbuilder of the reign
and a practical seaman who had roved over the seas as pirate and
slave-hunter too, was foremost in designing ships on what were then
new principles. He it was who recognised that the enormously high
poops and forecastles of the prevailing type were as unnecessary as
they were unwieldy. These were cut down considerably, and the reader
will notice the changes effected if he will compare the illustration
of the _Ark Royal_ in Fig. 50 with that of a Spanish galleon in Fig.
55. Practical test was made of the new type as soon as the Armada
came sailing up the English Channel in July of 1588, with the usual
south-west wind blowing. Howard’s ships sailed close-hauled out of
Plymouth, succeeded in getting to windward of the Spanish craft, and
keeping out of range of their guns, his own ordnance being of much
longer range, poured a terrific fire into the enormous freeboard
of the enemy, who found themselves at once both outsailed and
outcannoned.
By adding also to the draught of water the Elizabethans were making
their ships more weatherly and less likely to roll in a seaway. Among
other advantages arising from this would be better marksmanship than
could ever be obtained on a galleon pitching her head into every
sea and making good gunnery almost impossible except in calms. An
interesting comparison is possible when we mention that the new
English ships possessed a length three and a half times their beam;
nevertheless, the galley had been about seven times the breadth.
Besides the green and white colours, Elizabethan ships were also
painted outside black and white, red, or the timber-colour previously
mentioned. Figureheads, consisting of a dragon or a lion, were in
vogue, and carved figures of men and beasts decorated also the
interior. Cabins were painted and upholstered in green and white,
whilst at the stern the royal arms were displayed in gold and
colours. Sir Walter Raleigh in his “Judicious and Select Essayes
and Observations,” printed in London in 1650, refers to the recent
invention of topmasts, which could be lowered or raised instead of
being kept permanently fixed as hitherto had been the custom. He
describes these as being “a wonderfull great ease to great ships,
both at sea and harbour.”[76] He also mentions as recent innovations
chain pumps, studding sails, topgallant sails and the weighing of the
anchor by means of the capstan, and the introduction of the bonnet
on the lower courses. But as to these last two items he is quite
incorrect. The bonnet had existed at least from the Viking times, and
we saw it on some of the seals. But below the bonnet was now laced on
another called a drabbler. Instead of reefing as nowadays by taking
in the foot of the sail, the drabbler would be unlaced, for one or
two reefs, and the bonnet removed for a close reef. The yard would
then be lowered away some distance from the mast. The same authority
refers to the practice which had come into fashion of using long
cables by which “we resist the malice of the greatest winds that can
blow.”
He tells us also how the _Marie Rose_ of Henry VIII.’s time was lost
when getting under way. She heeled over, and the water rushing in
through her ports, which were only sixteen inches above the water,
she sank. Raleigh goes on to say that they were now making such
improvements in their ships as would prevent such a catastrophe
occurring again; but we know that more than one instance of this kind
of calamity happened in later times owing to the same cause, notably
the case of the _Royal George_. Royal ships, he tells us, were being
strengthened by pillars fastened from keelson to the beams of the
second deck and so keeping them from giving way in bad weather. He
rejoices over the improvement of the lines in the new ships mentioned
above “whereby they never fall into the sea after the head and shake
the whole body, nor sinck a sterne, nor stoope upon a wind.” He
gives the following essentials for the building of a good ship:
That she be strong, swift, stout-sided, able to carry her guns in
all weathers, be seaworthy and stay well when boarding and turning
on a wind. He advises that in order to make her sail well the ship
should be given a long run forward and not sink into the water, but
lie clear above it. He suggests, too, that her lowest tier of guns be
four feet above water, and in order to be a good sea-boat she have
a good draught of water and not be overcharged with towering poops,
“which commonly the king’s ships are.” This “overcharging” compelled
the ships in bad weather to “lie at trye” (_i.e._, heave-to, hence
the derivation of the word try-sail), under main-course and mizzen.
In protesting against this excessive overcharging of poops and decks
he adds, “two decks and a half is sufficient to yield shelter and
lodging for men and mariners and no more charging at all higher, but
only one low cabbin for the master.”
Large ships had two decks, an upper one and a gun-deck underneath.
Towards the end of the sixteenth century, a third deck, called a
false orlop was laid in the hold to carry cabins and stores. The ship
was divided transversely on both upper and lower decks by means of
bulkheads where the forecastle and poop ended. Gravel ballast was
used to such an extent that but little room was left for stores. A
large portion of the space left in the hold of the ship in the waist
was taken up by the cooking-galley which was a solid structure of
bricks and mortar. Raleigh[77] complains of the heat “that comes from
the cook roome” as well of the risk of fire which it afforded, and
of the unsavoury smells which emanated from this part of the ship.
He therefore recommends that the “cook roomes” be placed in the
forecastle instead, as was the custom already adopted by many of the
merchant ships.
When Elizabeth came to the throne, the _Henri Grace à Dieu_ had
been accidentally burnt five years before. Apart from the _Jesus
of Lubeck_ (700 tons), the _Triumph_ was the largest English ship
afloat. Built in 1561, her tonnage was over a thousand, and her
crew numbered 500. Until the launching of the _Prince Royal_ in
1610, she was the finest English ship afloat. But though there were
improvements going on in regard to the building of the ships, the lot
of the sailor was not entirely a happy one. Musty rations, want of
clothes, and the harmful effects of the bilge water collecting in the
bottom of the ship and emitting an unwholesome stench, caused scurvy
and dysentery; and the sailors of both the English ships and the
Spanish Armada suffered terribly from these. But on the other hand,
we find that as early as the year 1601, Lancaster, during his first
voyage for the East India Company, kept the crew of his flagship in
comparatively good health by serving out lime-juice.[78]
[Illustration: FIG. 50. THE “ARK ROYAL,” ELIZABETH’S FLAGSHIP. BUILT
IN 1587.]
The illustration in Fig. 50 is of the _Ark Royal_, from a
contemporary print in the Print Room of the British Museum. Built
for Sir Walter Raleigh in 1587, she was sold while on the stocks
to Queen Elizabeth for £5000. Her name was to have been the _Ark
Ralegh_, but on being purchased it was changed as above. Her name
was, after the end of this reign, changed to the _Anne Royal_, and
in 1625, while returning from Cadiz, she began to leak like the
proverbial lobster-pot and only reached home with difficulty. In
1636, while lying in the Thames, she bilged on her own anchor and
sank. It was this _Ark Royal_ that was Elizabeth’s flagship of the
fleet that defeated the Armada, and for this reason, if for no other,
she is deserving of a more complete consideration than we have room
to devote to other ships of this period. Sir William Monson,[79]
who was already a captain by 1587, gives her tonnage as 800, and
the number of her crew as 400. Happily the complete inventory of
the _Ark Royal_ is still in existence, and the reader is referred
to the “State Papers Relating to the Defeat of the Spanish Armada,
anno 1588.”[80] It was compiled in September 1588 after the _Ark
Royal_ had come in for a survey, having been out in the Channel in
the memorable victory. All the tackle and spars and sails, every
item of the inventory down to the kettles for the cooking-room is
mentioned. From this list we find that the spritsail, besides its
yard, had clew lines, braces, sheets, halyards, and “a false tye.”
Sir Henry Manwayring, who also fought in the fleet against the
Armada, in his “Seamen’s Dictionary” defines ties as four-strand
ropes, hawser-laid, being the ropes by which the yards hang. But the
spritsail yard having no ties, was made fast by a pair of slings to
the bowsprit. Among the items of the rigging of the foremast are
included the “fore pennants,” and both the falls and pennants of the
“swifters.” Referring to Manwayring’s “Dictionary,” we find that
“swifters doe belong to the maine and foremast, and are to succour
the shrowdes and keep stiffe the mast. They have pendants, which are
made fast under the shrowdes at the head of the mast with a double
block, through which is reeved the swifter.” Mention must be made of
the “forebolings” and main bowlines. Our ancestors made great use of
these bowlines in order that these great square sails might set quite
flat. Until the triangular head sails came in about the middle of the
eighteenth century, the foremast was stepped very far forward, for
the spritsail was only used off the wind and when getting under way.
The manner in which the spritsail in this illustration of the _Ark
Royal_ is shown in the head stowed is quite correct.
The inventory mentions also the clew-garnets and martnets
(leech-lines) of the foresail, and the “fore-puttocks” (_i.e._,
futtock shrouds) of the foretopmast. The fall of the martnets of
the topsails led down into the fighting-top where it was hauled,
and the expression “top the martnets” was the order for hauling the
martnets up. The yards were hoisted by jeers or halyards. Manwayring
defines “jeere” as a hawser, made fast to the main or fore yard close
to the ties of great ships only. It came through a block which was
seized close to the top and led down to another block at the bottom
of the mast close to the deck. Great ships had one on either side
of the ties. Apart from the use of the jeer to hoist or lower the
yards, it was especially serviceable for taking some of the weight
off the ties, and to hold the yard from falling down if the ties
should break. In fights, when the sickle-shaped shear-hooks already
mentioned were used by the enemy, the opponent would sling his yards
in chains “for feare least the ties should be cut, and so the yards
fall downe, and these chaines are called slings” (Manwayring). The
lateen yards on the mizzen and bonaventure-mizzen had parrals to
secure them to the masts.
The _Ark Royal_ carried three bower anchors of 20 cwt. as well
as three others and a grapnel. She had fifty fathoms of 15-inch
cable, three compasses, four running glasses, three flags of St.
George and two of the Queen’s arms, as well as a silk ensign. In
the illustration before us the St. George’s flags will be noticed
flying at the fore and bonaventure mizzen; at the main is the royal
standard, and at the main-mizzen the Tudor Rose. From the spritsail
yard flies a pennant surcharged with a St. George’s cross, from the
foretop a pennant bearing a foul anchor, being the pennant of the
Lord High Admiral. This flag will also be noticed on the foremast of
the ship of Charles II.’s time of the frontispiece. In fact, as the
reader is probably aware, this is still used as the Admiralty’s flag.
From the fore topgallant yard is a streamer bearing a lion rampant,
of Lord Howard of Effingham, Lord High Admiral of England; from the
maintop another streamer, striped, whilst at the waist is a large
banner with Howard’s arms thereon. The inventory includes ballast
baskets for carrying the gravel on board, or in which it would be
stowed; netting for the forecastle, the waist and the half-deck, as
well as cloths for the waist and top armours for the mizzen top, but
we shall refer to these later.
Touching the sails of the _Ark Royal_, she had a bonnet to her
spritsail laced on in the manner adopted to-day by the wherry-man of
the Norfolk Broads. The mainsail and foresail and main mizzen also
had the bonnet, but the others had not, although a topsail bonnet
was found rarely. The foresail had a double bonnet with a single
drabbler, likewise the mainsail. In the case of the main mizzen the
bonnet was a double one. The inventory only includes one topgallant
sail, although three are shown in this engraving. This fact is
certainly an argument for those who assert that the illustration
represents not the _Ark Royal_, although the rest of the evidence
is against this assertion. Much more likely is it that the other
topgallant sails were added at a later date.
The inventory includes a sail for the ship’s boat, and two for the
pinnesse. A longboat with a brass sheave in the head and supplied
with oars, a pinnesse and a “cocke” (derived from the French _coque_)
which was a ship’s boat, as well as an older pinnesse, were carried
on board the _Ark Royal_. During the survey at Chatham it was decided
to have her overlop in the waist made less curved and more level for
the sake of placing the guns in better position, a lesson that had
been impressed on them even more forcibly by the ill-success of the
fire of the Spaniards. In our illustration it will be noticed that
the curve has disappeared. I therefore conclude that this engraving
was made after the ship had been altered at Chatham. It seems very
probable that it was during this overhaul that the other topgallant
sails were added, in which case the argument against the veracity of
this engraving is rebutted.
Elizabeth’s own royal ships were undoubtedly fine able vessels for
their time. They were seaworthy, and at any rate during the time of
the Armada did not suffer from leaks. But the same statement cannot
be made of the merchant ships that joined the royal fleet from the
various English ports. These were far from sound and leaked badly.
In a letter from Howard to Walsyngham[81] we find that the merchants
besought the former that he and the rest of Her Majesty’s fleet would
carry less sail for they could not endure it, while “we,” writes
Howard, “made no reckoning of it.” This inferiority is confirmed also
by Seymour, who writes to say that the merchant ships in the English
fleet were not as good sea-boats as the Queen’s.
Before we leave the _Ark Royal_, let us call to the reader’s
attention a detail that, if he is a sailorman, he will have already
noticed. The furling of the sails, correctly shown here, is very
clumsy and bungling. The custom was when the sails were furled to
bind them to the yard with rope yarns, and these yarns were cut to
loose the sail when getting under way. Thus Sir William Wynter,
writing on February 28, 1587, concludes his letter: “Written aboard
the Vanguard, being in the Downs, ready to cut sail.”[82]
Centuries ago, when England had only her Viking-like craft, she had
bravely claimed for herself the Sovereignty of the Seas. It was to
the foreigner an insolent, arrogant boast. She had fought for the
distinction many times. Spain had grown up to be the first maritime
nation of the world, but just as in after years the Dutch and
the French had, not without a severe tussle, to be prevented from
usurping this distinction, so England had to smash the Armada—the
greatest aggregation of naval power the world had ever seen on one
sea—and with this defeat England was again, for a time at least, the
mistress of the sea. Drake’s voyage round the world with a squadron
of five ships, the largest of which did not exceed 100 tons, set the
final seal on the abilities of English seamanship and navigation. The
victory over the Armada settled their superiority in ships, strategy
and shooting.
Before we pass from the story of the fight that never grows old—and
there is no more stirring reading than the plain narrative included
in Hakluyt—let us not forget that capable as were the royal ships
of Elizabeth, they could never have been victorious had not the
West countrymen of England come to help with their ships and their
crews. The former may have been leaky, the latter may have been not
as skilled as Howard’s men in the finer arts of war, but they did
their duty, in spite of a thousand drawbacks, and did it well. Where
had they learned their seamanship? How was it that they had even
such good ships as they possessed but a hundred years after Henry
VII. had come to the throne? As Mr. Blackmore points out,[83] ever
since the discovery of Newfoundland the men of Cornwall and Devon had
gone forth year after year to fish for cod off the Banks. Kipling,
Connolly, and others, have sung the epic of the brave fishermen
who to-day race out to the same banks from Gloucester, U.S.A. Most
readers of fiction know that cruising about there is no latitude for
a fair-weather sailor, yet three hundred years before them, when
the arts of shipbuilding and navigation were not what they are now,
Englishmen in ships built at Dartmouth and elsewhere were making
regular voyages across the broad Atlantic to those fishing banks.
Big vessels and brave capable seamen were essential for these trips.
Both, at the summons of necessity, had gradually evolved from the
West Country, and, at the hour of need, placed themselves at the
service and in the defence of their fatherland.
[Illustration: FIG. 51. ELIZABETHAN MAN-OF-WAR.]
What were the kinds of ships that sailed in English waters during
the reign of Elizabeth? As far as historical research will suffer us
let us try and obtain a general idea as to their rig and appearance.
Fig. 51, which is taken from the Rawlinson MSS. in the Bodleian,
affords an excellent example of an Elizabethan man-of-war. The flags
flying are the green and white Tudor colours on the ensign staff and
the St. George at the main, which was the national flag, but it was
men-of-war only that were allowed to fly it at the main. According
to Manwayring the Elizabethan ships, when running before a wind or
with the wind on the quarter in the case of a fair fresh gale, often
unparralled the mizzen lateen yard from the mast, and launched out
the yard and sail over the quarter on the lee side, fitting guys at
the further end to keep the yards steady. A boom also appears to have
been used in this case. If a ship gripe too much, says Manwayring,
then the mizzen was stowed, for otherwise “she will never keep out of
the wind.” The mizzen was sometimes used when at anchor to back the
ship astern in order to keep her from fouling her anchor on the turn
of the tide.
Perhaps in the mind of the general reader the one type of ship
of this age that he has any vague knowledge of is the galleon.
He associates her with the Armada and with the Spanish nation
exclusively. He has not forgotten that he learned in the days of
his youth that the ships of the Armada were of enormous size, and
that the English ships were victorious because they were small and
nimble. It is perfectly true to say that our vessels were light and
comparatively handy, but we must not omit to throw into the balance
the superiority of our seamanship and gunnery, as we pointed out just
now. The English had a natural taste for the sea; the Spaniards, in
spite of all their trading and exploring across the ocean, had for
it an equal distaste. They were admittedly bad seamen.[84] I am not
expressing an opinion but asserting a fact, and this was as much the
cause of their defeat as anything else. But the English ships were
not particularly small. At least seven were of between 600 and 1100
tons. There were in the whole Spanish Armada only four ships larger
than our _Triumph_, whilst of the English merchantmen the _Leicester_
and the _Merchant Royal_ were each of 400 tons.
Nor did the word “galleon” necessarily denote a Spanish ship. It is
perfectly true that the Spanish Armada contained a number of cumbrous
galleons, but it must not be inferred from this that a galleon was
necessarily clumsy. In point of fact, Spain was the last of the great
maritime nations to adopt the galleon. In England the galleon denoted
a vessel built expressly for war, as distinguished from the adapted
merchantmen. She was essentially a ship built with finer lines, and
in every way smarter than the ordinary vessel. The type had been
first introduced into the English service by Henry VIII. long before
Spain had adopted it, although, as we mentioned earlier, there was
considerable confusion as to the actual names. Thus Henry VIII.’s
ships were classed as “great ships,” “galleasses,” and “galleys,”
while for a long time, both in England and France, the galleon was
called indifferently “galleon,” “galleasse,” “galley,” and “galliot.”
By the outbreak of the Spanish war practically all the men-of-war in
our country were galleons, and were thus described by foreigners.
Nevertheless, as Mr. Corbett points out,[85] English seamen
never took kindly to the word galleon. They continued to confuse
“galleasse” and “galleon” in describing the ships of foreigners. But
for all that English shipwrights understood perfectly the technical
characteristics, and in official building programmes after the
middle of Elizabeth’s reign the three terms “galleon,” “galleasse,”
and “galley” appear correctly. The galleon, as Mr. Masefield well
describes her, was roughly the prototype of the ship of the line,
the galleasse the prototype of the frigate, and the pinnace of the
sloop or corvette. The galleon was low in the waist with a square
forecastle and a high quarter-deck just abaft the mainmast, rising
to a poop above the quarter-deck. Reckoning upwards, the two decks,
according to Manwayring, were called lower orlop or first orlop, and
the next the second orlop. But if a ship had three decks they never
called the uppermost—the third—by the name of orlop, but simply
“upper deck.” The wooden bulkheads that separated the stern from the
waist were pierced with holes for small quick-firing guns.
The length of the galleon was three times that of her beam, whereas
the ordinary merchantman was only twice her own beam, thus preserving
the old distinction that we saw in classical time existing between
the long ship and the round ship. Yet the newer class of Elizabethan
merchantman was getting longer, influenced by the experience gained
on the long voyages across the Atlantic. It had been in Italy, the
great home of maritime matters in earlier days, that the galleon had
first been built. The galleon was in fact the child of necessity.
The Mediterranean possessed the galley-type from very early times
as we have already seen; she had, as we have also seen, the “round”
merchant type. But as time went on a demand arose for a compromise
between the two. Able to hold as much cargo, and more, than the old
rounships, yet not utterly helpless like them in calms and narrow
waters, the galleons were yet to be of such a kind as to be capable
of acting with the galleys in war time. So they were made not as
long but with more beam than the galleys, with a built-up structure
fore and aft and—let us note this carefully—though they were sailing
ships they had at first auxiliary oar-propulsion. The smaller English
galleons also retained their oars for a long time.
[Illustration: FIG. 52. THE SPANISH ARMADA COMING UP CHANNEL.]
The immediate ancestor of the English galleon was the Italian
merchantman that traded between Venice and London. This had three
masts with a square sail on the foremast, but lateen on the main and
mizzen. She carried also oars as auxiliaries. Afterwards, by degrees
the oars were dispensed with, so that by the end of the sixteenth
century the galleon was a purely sailing vessel with sometimes two
and sometimes three decks, while the galleasse had oars as well. Her
special claim was that she was both faster and more weatherly than
the older type of warship. English shipwrights understood a galleasse
to be similar to a galleon but with more length in proportion to her
beam, though strictly speaking the galleasse should designate a large
ship with high freeboard, using oars as well as sails. The ships,
however, that fitted this description were known to them by the name
of “bastard galleasses.” The galleasse was sometimes flush-decked
and minus both poop and forecastle and never so highly charged
(_i.e._, with such high decks at stern and bow) as the galleon. A
good illustration will be found in the foreground of Fig. 52, which
contains two of these with their oars out. This picture represents
the Spanish Armada coming up channel when first sighted off the
Lizard. The illustration has been taken from one of the plates in
“The Tapestry Hangings of the House of Lords,” engraved by John
Pine, London, in 1739. If the reader will pardon a short digression
it may not be out of place to say a few words in explanation of these
engravings.
After he had defeated the Armada in 1588, Lord Howard of Effingham,
later raised to an earldom, determined to commemorate the victory by
depicting the scenes he had so recently passed through. Accordingly
Hendrik Corneliszoon Vroom, who had at this time obtained a European
reputation as a marine artist, was invited from Haarlem to paint the
pictures. From these Francis Speiring, an eminent craftsman, wove
the designs into tapestry. Howard, or, as he now was, the Earl of
Nottingham, sold them in his old age to James I., who hung them in
the precincts of the House of Lords. When, during the Commonwealth,
the House of Lords was abolished, the tapestries were fitted into
brown wooden frames and hung on the walls of the chamber which had
been used for the Upper House. Here they remained until the House was
burned down in 1834, when the ten tapestries perished. Fortunately,
however, even in the inartistic eighteenth century, an artist, John
Pine, and a friend of Hogarth, had the inspiration to reproduce them
by engraving, But for this we should lack what is a most valuable
record. It is so easy to fall into inaccuracies a century after an
event, but since Pine copied from the tapestries, and the tapestries
were executed under Howard’s own supervision, there cannot be much
room left for anything incorrect in respect of the ships. Howard had
fought against the Spanish ships night and day in that memorable
month of July, and had every opportunity of noting the rigging and
lines of his enemy’s vessels, so that when he had left the sea and,
not unnaturally, devoted his attention to his own memorial, he would
be the ideal person to see that accuracy was insisted upon. These
engravings are still to be picked up occasionally in some of the
London print-sellers, but the illustration here given is from the
collection in the Print Room of the British Museum.[86]
The reader who is familiar with Elizabethan literature must have
found considerable confusion existing in his mind as to what a
“pinnesse” really was. Let us say at once, then, that the name was
indiscriminately given to two distinct classes of craft. One class
was a kind of galleasse, only smaller; that is to say, she relied on
both oars and sails. She was a sea-going ship and decked. Under this
heading came also row-barges, and at various times also galleots,
galleys, frigates, and shallops. The point to notice is that this
class comprised really big craft. The other “pinnesses” were ships’
boats. The modern use of the word pinnace expresses pretty clearly
its relation to the mother ship. The greatest critics are unable to
define exactly what a “bark” was, but from an early Venetian print I
gather that she was smaller than the prevailing Mediterranean galley.
At the same time the word seems to have included also vessels ranging
from fifty, to a hundred and fifty tons. Thus they were sometimes
small ships, and sometimes large pinnaces. Whilst Elizabethan seamen
included all sailing vessels fit to take their place in the line of
battle under the generic term of ship, the shipwrights divided them
according to their design into “ships,” “galleons,” “galleasses”;
“barks” being a convenient term for vessels of smaller ability.
[Illustration: FIG. 53. THE “BLACK PINNESSE,” WHICH BROUGHT HOME THE
BODY OF SIR PHILIP SIDNEY.]
The “brigandine” or “brigantine” was a Mediterranean type of small
galley, rowed by its own fighting crew and without slaves. Sometimes
she was classed as a “pinnesse” and sometimes as a bark, but never
as a galley. Whether or not she possessed sails she was primarily a
rowed boat. The illustration in Fig. 53 represents a big sea-going
pinnesse as distinct from the ship’s boat. This was the vessel
that carried home the body of Sir Philip Sydney, and is taken from
“Sequitur celebritas et pompa funeris...” (of Sir Philip Sydney)
by Thomas Lant, printed in 1587. The Elizabethan deep-sea pinnaces
were from eighty to fifteen tons. The present illustration shows
the vessel with her waist-cloths rigged up to prevent boarding, and
with nettings[87] drawn over the waist to intercept the missiles
dropped from the fighting-tops of the enemy. Mr. Masefield says that
this cloth was of canvas two bolts (three feet six inches) deep. It
was gaily painted with designs of red, yellow, and the Tudor green
and white. It was of no protection against the enemy’s guns, yet it
helped the sail trimmers on board from being aimed at. But against
the enemy’s arrows sent from the tops it was efficacious, for though
they penetrated the texture they were caught. We have already called
attention to the additional protection of the shields or pavesses
that ran around the outside of the deck.
[Illustration: FIG. 54. A GALLEON OF THE TIME OF ELIZABETH.]
The illustration in Fig. 54 shows a galleon with decorated sails, a
practice that died out about the close of Elizabeth’s reign.[88] This
decoration was effected by stitching on to the canvas cut-out pieces
of cloth with twine. Most of the sails were woven in Portsmouth
on hand looms, and the stuff was of good quality. But during the
reign of James II. when the Huguenots took refuge in England, among
the many new trades which the settlers brought over was that of
the manufacture of sail-cloth. A French refugee, Bonhomme, who had
settled down at Ipswich, taught the secret of its manufacture.
Previously, England had imported her sail-cloth from France. The
new factory was assisted in every possible way, but was finally
destroyed by French agents, who bribed the artisans to return once
more to France. Another factory was set up in London during the reign
of William III., but as late as the time of George I. sail-cloth was
imported from abroad.
As to the rigging of Elizabethan ships: the shrouds of the fore and
main masts led outside the ship to chains to which they were made
fast. The platforms in the “chains” of the ships of this time were of
no small size as we shall see when we come to consider the Spanish
vessels. The shrouds of the mizzen and bonaventure were set up
usually from inside the bulwarks on deck. The fighting-tops were of
elm, being entered through a lubber’s hole in the floor. Contemporary
prints show sheaves of arrows projecting from the tops. At a later
date light guns were placed here, but as this necessitated the use
of lighted matches there was always the risk of setting fire to the
sails. The shrouds and stays were of thick nine-stranded hemp. We see
from old prints of this time that those parts, as for instance where
the foresail came into contact with the bowsprit, which were liable
to suffer from chafing were protected by matting made of rope or
white line plaited, and then tarred. Masts were made of pine or fir.
In dirty weather the fore-yard and fore-topsail yard could be sent
on deck. Parrals of course kept the yard to the mast. There is not
so very much difference between the sailor language of Elizabeth’s
time and that in use on board a modern sailing ship. Mr. Bullen in
an essay on “Shakespeare and the Sea” reminds us that “Elizabethan
England spoke a language which was far more studded with sea-terms
than that which we speak ashore to-day.” In such plays as _Twelfth
Night_, _Comedy of Errors_, _Macbeth_, _King Henry VI._, and _The
Tempest_, we have instances of this. Thus in Act III. Scene I. of
the latter the first sailor commands the other to “slack the bolins
there.” Modern bowlines are slight ropes leading from forward to
keep the leach or weather edge of the courses flat and rigid in
light winds when on a wind. But in olden times the bowline was of
far greater importance, as we have seen, and led well out on to the
bowsprit. Not merely the lower course, but topsail and topgallant
sails possessed them.
When the English fleet opposed the Armada it consisted of 197 vessels
made up as follows: 34 of Elizabeth’s own royal ships, 34 merchant
vessels, 30 ships and barks paid by the City of London, 33 ships
and barks (with 15 victuallers not reckoned in the total number),
23 coasters varying from 160 to 35 tons, 20 other coasters and 23
voluntary ships. Of the merchant ships the _Galleon Leicester_ and
the _Merchant Royal_ are each given as of 400 tons and carrying 160
men. The smallest was the small caravel of 30 tons with 20 men. But
we have spoken at some length of the English ships. Let us now turn
to consider the ships of other nations of this period.
The Armada consisted of 130 vessels if we add up the list given in
Hakluyt. This number was made up of the following types: galleons,
patasses or pataches, galleasses, zabras, galleys and hulks. Besides
these there were 20 “caravels rowed with oares, being appointed
to Performe necessary services unto the greater ships,” making a
total of 150. The tonnage of the fleet came to 60,000. There were
64 galleons “of an huge bignesse” and “so high that they resembled
great castles,” but in attacking ability “farre inferiour unto the
English and Dutch ships, which can with great dexteritie weild and
turne themselves at all assayes.” It was this “bignesse” and the
high castles at bow and stern that caused the prevailing fallacy to
arise that the Armada ships were far larger than ours. The former
were very high but very short on the keel, and in consequence equally
unseaworthy. Ours were, as we pointed out above, long on the keel
and not highly “charged” with castles. The Hakluyt account says the
upperworks of the galleons were so thick and strong as to resist
musket shot. The lower part of the hull and its timbers also were
“out of measure strong, being framed of plankes and ribs foure or
five foote in thicknesse, insomuch that no bullets could pierce them,
but such as were discharged hard at hand: which afterward prooved
true, for a great number of bullets were founde to sticke fast within
the massie substance of those thicke plankes. Great and well-pitched
cables were twined about the masts of their shippes, to strengthen
them against the battery of shot.”
The galleasses “were of such bigness, that they contained within them
chambers, chapels, turrets, pulpits, and other commodities of great
houses. The galliasses were rowed with great oares, their being in
eche one of them 300 slaves for the same purpose, and were able to
do great service with the force of their ordinance.[89] All these
together with the residue aforenamed were furnished and beautified
with trumpets, streamers, banners, war-like ensignes, and other such
like ornaments.” The various vessels also carried 12,000 pipes of
fresh water and plentiful supplies of bacon, cheese, biscuit, fish,
rice, beans, peas, oil, vinegar and wine. Among their stores were
candles, lanterns, hemp, ox-hides and lead sheathing to be used to
stop the holes that should be made by the enemy’s guns.
The Spanish ships had been built unnecessarily strong by very heavy
scantlings. They were, according to Mr. Oppenheim,[90] of light
draught with broad floors and were both crank and leewardy. The
seams opened in spite of the strength with which they had been put
together. They were bolted with iron spikes and it was not long
before these ships became “nail-sick.” Their masts and spars were too
heavy and their standing rigging too weak; in fact, whilst the demand
had to be met for big ocean-going ships, the Spanish shipwrights and
naval architects were not sufficiently advanced at this time to deal
with such enormous masses of material.
[Illustration: FIG. 55. SPANISH GALLEONS.]
We have mentioned above that Spain was the last of the great
maritime Powers to adopt the galleon. In Fig. 55 the reader will
see a representation of her galleons. It was not till about 1550,
Mr. Oppenheim states, that the great galleon was introduced. The
print here reproduced is in the British Museum, and the date the
authorities assign to it is about 1560, so that we have every reason
for supposing that this illustration is a correct one. The reader
will at once notice the high-charged stern immediately abaft the
mainmast. The Spanish ships were notorious for their wall-like sides;
and for the height to which the bowsprit was “steeved,” both of which
details will be noticed in the illustration before us. We mentioned
in this chapter that in her origin the galleon owed something to the
galley. Now, one of the chief characteristics of the galley type was
the ram which was handed down from ancient times. Here, then, in this
picture will be seen the survival of the ram affixed to the galleon.
But it is here no longer entirely for the purpose of attacking the
enemy’s ships but for boarding the fore-tack when by the wind. The
bowlines are clearly seen on the vessel to the right of the print,
leading from both the foresail to the bowsprit and from the mainsail.
On both the fore and main courses, the martnets or leach lines are
shown very clearly in the print; it is a little difficult to indicate
these so clearly in reproduction. Notice, too, that both foresail
and main have got both bonnet and drabbler laced on. Below the
bowsprit is seen the spritsail. The main-mizzen topsail is stowed,
and the bonaventure does not carry a topsail above her lateen. The
under portion of the hull of these Spanish ships was painted white,
but ochre was frequently used for the stern. They had lids to their
portholes, nettings and waist-cloths, and “blinders” to avert the
arrows and musket fire. The armament of the Spanish merchantman was,
in the case of vessels of 100 tons, four heavy iron guns and eight
hand guns aside as well as eight other hand guns; but after about
1550 the armament became heavier.
[Illustration: FIG. 56. SPANISH TREASURE-FRIGATE OF ABOUT 1590.]
We pass now to speak of the Spanish treasure-frigates. These were an
important class of vessel during the last quarter of the sixteenth
century. The length on their upper deck was nearly four times the
beam, and they possessed considerable speed. They were not properly
cargo ships, but built in order to carry the valuable treasures from
the Spanish Main across the Atlantic to Spain. Specially designed
by Pero Menendez Marquez about the year 1590, to get across from
the West Indies with the utmost despatch, they carried 150 men with
soldiers and marines. Hakluyt[91] contains “certaine Spanish letters
intercepted by shippes ... containing many secrets touching” South
America and the West Indies. The extremely interesting drawing in
Fig. 56 was sent home by an English spy and is now preserved in the
Records Office, by whose permission it is reproduced here. This
illustration shows very clearly that she had evolved from a galley.
She has three masts of which the main and mizzen are seen to possess
topmasts that lower. These two masts also have topsails. The yards
of the mainsail and foresail have also affixed to their extremities
crescent-shaped shear-hooks for tearing the enemy’s rigging. The
forestay and foretopmast stay are well indicated. The mizzen has
a lateen as usual, and the ram still survives. The artist has also
shown the netting mentioned just now. As to the hull, we see from
the spy’s handwriting that she was “104 foote by the keele” and “34
foote in breadth.” She has three tiers of guns, these being mounted
also forward, so as to be able to fire straight ahead. She appears
to have as many as six decks aft—main, upper, spar and four poop
decks. The greatest precaution was taken by the Spanish government
to ensure seaworthiness in the ships leaving their shores for the
West Indies. Three times they had to be inspected before being
allowed to set forth: once when empty, then when laden, and lastly,
immediately before departure. No cargo was allowed to be carried on
deck except water, provisions and passengers’ luggage. In the huge
“channels” which were mentioned above were stowed such commodities as
wool, small casks of water, and straw. Mr. Oppenheim mentions that
an ancient “Plimsoll” mark was ordered by the inspectors in the year
1618, although the Genoese statutes had ordained this as early as
1330.
When in 1592 the English captured the “huge carak” called the
_Madre de Dios_ belonging to Portugal, there were found stowed in
her capacious channels about 200 tons of goods. This will give some
idea of the extent to which these channels grew in size. Hakluyt
contains a long and detailed account of the capture and dimensions
of this carack, which was the largest the English seamen had yet
encountered. She was 1600 tons, having between 600 and 700 souls
aboard, besides her rich cargo of jewels and spices and silks and
other goods. She was eventually brought into Dartmouth, and is said
never again to have left the harbour. When surveyed, Hakluyt says
that she measured from beak-head to the stern, 165 feet, extreme
beam, 46 feet 10 inches. Her draught when laden had been 31 feet,
which, being about the draught of one of the largest modern liners,
would seem exaggerated did not the account definitely state that the
survey was exactly made by “one M. Robert Adams, a man in his faculty
of excellent skill.” When, after being lightened, she was taken into
Dartmouth, she drew only 26 feet, which is still enormous. Her decks
at the stern comprised a main orlop and three closed decks. At the
bows she had a forecastle and a spar-deck “of two floors apiece.” The
length of her keel was 100 feet, of the mainmast 121 feet, while the
circuit at the partners was 10 feet 7 inches, the main yard being
106 feet long. The following year another enormous carack was fired
and sunk by the English. Her name was _Las Cinque Llagas_ (“The Five
Wounds”), and she is said by some to have been bigger even than the
_Madre de Dios_.
[Illustration: FIG. 57. MEDITERRANEAN GALLEY.]
One of the most memorable of naval battles was that which was fought
on the Adriatic Sea in 1571. On the one side were the allied forces
of Venice, Spain, and the Papal States: on the other, the Turks who
were defeated. Galleys and galleasses played an important part in
obtaining this victory. To what development the galley had attained
since the times of the early Greeks and Romans will be seen in Figs.
57 and 58. But in spite of all that history had added to them, it
is surprising how little they differ in essentials. Fig. 57 has
been sketched from a model in the South Kensington Museum. It is
quite old, and is said to have belonged to the Knights of Malta.
Her dimensions if built to scale would work out at about 165 feet
long, by 22 feet beam, with extreme beam from gunwale to gunwale,
31 feet. The depth would be 9·9 feet, and the number of sweeps 44.
In the United Service Museum there is also an instructive Maltese
galley model of a large size which, though of the eighteenth century,
differed so little as to be closely similar to the excellent
illustration which we give in Fig. 58. This has been taken from
an important publication, of the beginning of the seventeenth
century, by Joseph Furttenbach, entitled “Architectura Navalis,”
printed at Ulm in 1629. As will be seen, each oar is still worked by
a gang of men. At the stern the captain sits with his knights by his
side, while at the extreme stern is the pilot. Along the _corsia_
or gangway down the ship walk two men with long poles with which to
beat the lazy oarsmen. The principal armament was carried in the bows
and so was unable to be used for broadside fire. Notice also the
survival of the trumpeters. The length of this vessel was 169 feet
from beak to stern, with an extreme beam of about 20 feet. The word
_antennæ_ is still found at this time as applied to the yards. In
spite of the handiness of the galley and her consequent popularity
in the Mediterranean, she was thoroughly despised by Elizabethan
seamen. Much more after their own heart was the _nave_ or ship shown
in Fig. 59, and also taken out of Furttenbach. The reader will notice
a wise restriction of high-charged structures. This vessel, in fact,
shows a steady improvement in naval architecture. Thus, besides the
lateen mizzen she carries a square topsail above, while in addition
to the spritsail seen furled to its yard on the bowsprit, there has
now been added a sprit topsail whose yard is seen to hoist up a sprit
topmast. When we compare this vessel with the wooden walls of the
eighteenth century, she will be seen to be wonderfully modern. The
last traces of crude mediævalism are disappearing. Science in design
has fast begun to supplant rule of thumb and guess-work based only on
ignorance. Skill has taken the place of inexperience in the work of
the shipwright, and both design and construction have been based on
the knowledge obtained not only in long and tedious voyages, but in
the brisk fighting between nation and nation and privateer against
treasure ship and trader. In the same volume of Furttenbach a useful
plan of the lines of this ship is given, from which we see that
whilst the mainmast is stepped at the keelson, the fore and mizzen
are stepped on the main deck.
[Illustration: FIG. 58. AN EARLY SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY GALLEY.]
A favourite vessel with the Turkish pirates who infested the
Mediterranean at this time was the _carramuzzal_, classed as a
brigandine. Her sail, says Hakluyt, consisted of “a misen or
triangle” sail, that is of course a lateen. She is shown in
Furttenbach purposely without rigging or sails so as to indicate
clearly her method of firing. The _tartana_, with her lateen sail,
sometimes seen in contemporary prints, was a Mediterranean fishing
vessel.
[Illustration: FIG. 59. A FULL-RIGGED SHIP OF THE EARLY SEVENTEENTH
CENTURY.]
In spite of the great interest manifested by England and other
nations recently in Arctic exploration, let us not forget that the
first true polar voyage was undertaken during the reign of Elizabeth
by Dutchmen. Their object was to find the North-East passage to
China, and terrible were the privations and perils endured. The
reader who has become familiar with Franklin’s, McClintock’s,
Nansen’s, Scott’s, Shackleton’s, and other explorers’ travels to the
poles, is advised to compare the experiences which these Dutchmen
endured. Many of them have their counterpart in the accounts written
by modern explorers. Thus one of the ships was tilted over to a
dangerous angle, though ultimately righted. Once one of the ships was
caught in a driving pack of ice, and suddenly freeing herself three
of her crew who were on the ice had barely time to be drawn quickly
up the ship’s sides and saved from drowning. These and the other
incidents mentioned here are all delightfully illustrated in “A true
account of the three new unheard of and strange journeys in ships
... in the years 1594, 1595 and 1596,” by Levinus Hulsius, printed
at Frankfort in 1612. The type of ship used for this expedition
appears to be the galleon. The rigging and sails, the lacing holes
for the drabbler and bonnet, the topsails “goared” out to the clews,
and the bowlines, are all shown. One illustration proves that when
close-hauled these ships stowed both spritsail and sprit topsail.
Unhappily for the navigators, but luckily for us, their big ship
stuck fast in the ice and remained there. Anxious, therefore, to
return to Holland with the approach of summer, they determined to
attempt the journey in open boats. Now much as we sympathise with
the sufferings of these brave men, this unfortunate incident of an
abandoned ship has given us a picture of the men engaged in adding
raised gunwales to their small boats and afterwards sailing across
the sea. Hitherto in this history of the sailing ship, except when we
spoke of the lateen, we have always had in mind the squaresail rig.
Its virtues never grow old when utilised for big ships and deep-sea
sailing. But for small craft and for handiness there is nothing to
beat what is known as the fore and aft rig. Just exactly when the
fore and aft rig originated is not possible to determine, although
its rise and influence have been since very powerful, especially
in the modern yacht and fishing vessel. But it may be taken as
practically certain that the sloop rig (by which I mean a vessel
with a peaked mainsail and a triangular headsail), like many other
good points of ship development, came from the Low Countries during
the first half of the sixteenth century. In a map[92] sent in 1527
from Seville, in Spain, by M. Robert Thorne to Doctor Ley we see a
Dutch-like sloop depicted. A map of Ireland of 1567 contains two
vessels of this rig. H. C. Vroom, whom we referred to above as the
designer of the House of Lords tapestries, painted a picture entitled
_The Arrival at Flushing of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester_, 1586.
The date of Vroom’s birth was 1566. Now this picture shows about
half a dozen small vessels rigged exactly like the small boat given
in Hulsius. This rig consists of a triangular sail hoisted up the
forestay, and with a mainsail having no boom or gaff, but a large
sprit across; in fact, exactly resembling the rig of the Thames
“stumpey” barge to-day. It was only at a later date that the jib was
added to the foresail and a topsail to the sprit mainsail. The other
small boat given in Hulsius is shown square-rigged, with one course
on her main and the same on her fore, but the latter mast is stepped
very far forward and right at the bows. The design of the latter
boat’s hull shows the remnant of the Viking influence, which is not
obliterated even in the modern Dutch schuyt. It should be mentioned
also that the cutter-rigged boat in Hulsius just alluded to has a
yard-tackle coming down from the top of the mast to about the middle
of the sprit, while from the peak of the sail two vangs lead down
aft, just as in the modern barge.
Before we close this eventful period we must not omit to mention the
East India Company, which ranks after the Armada and the Battle of
Lepanto as the most important item to be reckoned with in connection
with the development of the sailing ship. Formed by a company of
merchant-adventurers to trade to the East Indies, Elizabeth granted
its charter in 1600: its first fleet consisted of the _Red Dragon_
(600 tons and 200 men), the _Hector_ (300 tons and 100 men), the
_Ascension_ (200 tons and 80 men), and the _Susan_ (240 tons and 80
men), together with a deep-sea pinnesse of 100 tons with 40 men.
The Tudor period had seen the most wonderful innovations and
developments in connection with the sailing ship. Under no period had
it altered so much or in so short a space of time. Not, indeed, until
we come to the middle of the nineteenth century did the sea witness
such original craft voyaging across its surface. But let us see now
what happened during the reigns of the Stuarts and their successors.