PART II—ROYAL AND MERCHANT SHIPPING_A history of the administration of the Royal Navy and of merchant shipping in relation to the Navy from MDIX to MDCLX, with an introduction treating of the preceding period

[Sidenote: The Royal Ships in 1625.]

When Charles I inherited the crown, his fleet consisted of 4 first, 14

second, 8 third, and 4 fourth rates;[1068] of these 1 first, 7 second,

6 third, and the 4 fourth rates were comparatively new ships, the

oldest being the _Prince_, launched in 1610. The others were originally

Elizabethan, had been repaired, rebuilt or patched up more or less

effectively at various times, and of them the _Lion_ of 1582 was the most

ancient. The recent accessions were, for reasons previously noticed, more

commodious and better seaboats than their predecessors, but the King had

yet to learn that the mere possession of a naval framework in the shape

of hulls, spars and guns was of little use without efficient crews, and

adequate knowledge and honest effort on the part of the subordinate

officials on whom fell the responsibility of preparation and equipment.

Whether due to a desire to save the royal ships as much as possible,

to want of men to man them properly, or to their generally inefficient

state, the expeditions of 1625-7-8 included a very large proportion of

armed merchantmen. In 1625 there were twelve men-of-war and seventy-three

merchantmen;[1069] in 1627 fourteen of the former, of which three were

small pinnaces and eighty-two of the latter[1070]; and in 1628 the second

Rochelle fleet, which Lindsey commanded, was made up of twenty-nine

King’s ships and thirty-one merchantmen.[1071] But under Lindsey, ten of

the royal ships were of the class known as ‘whelps,’ just built, and

measuring 180 tons each, and ten were pinnaces of 50 tons or under, so

that only nine vessels of the real fighting line were with him. We shall

see that the owners of merchantmen, who could neither escape the calls

made on their ships nor get paid for their services, by no means valued

the honour thus thrust upon them.

Charles, like his father, felt a keen interest in the Navy. In the case

of James I it was prized more as an imposing appurtenance of his regal

dignity than from any statesmanlike appreciation of its importance;

in that of his son the evidence goes to show that, while vanity was

sometimes a ruling motive,[1072] he was also fully alive to the weight

a powerful fleet gave to English diplomacy. The State Papers show that

he exercised a constant personal supervision in naval affairs, sometimes

overruling the opinions of his officials in technical details of which

he could have possessed no special knowledge. No new vessels were built

during the first years of the reign. Theoretically, with the assistance

of the hired merchantmen available, the Royal Navy was sufficient for

the duties it was called upon to perform. Practically, it was found that

even those that were seaworthy were too slow under sail, as were also the

merchantmen, to deal with the plague of Dunkirk privateers and Moorish

pirates, who swarmed in the narrow seas, and who almost blockaded the

coasts except for large and heavily-armed ships.

A chief article of accusation brought by the Parliament against

Buckingham was that he had neglected his duty in taking few or no

measures against these enemies, but if all the charges made against him

had as little foundation, his reputation would be higher than it now

stands. The Channel squadron had been increased, two special expeditions

had been sent out after them, and any prizes likely to prove fast sailers

had been taken into the Royal service for the purpose of being so

employed, but as the Turks and Dunkirkers, built for speed, could sail

at least twice as fast as the English, it was only under exceptional

circumstances that one was sometimes captured. In 1624 the Captain of one

of the Commissioners’ new and improved ships indignantly reported that

some Dutch men-of-war he met had deliberately and contemptuously sailed

round him. This was square rig _versus_ square rig. Remembering that the

Turks undoubtedly were lateen-rigged, that the Dunkirkers probably used

some modification of it, and that this is still the most effective spread

of canvas known for light vessels of moderate tonnage, we need not wonder

that the lumbering English third and fourth rates, built for close

action, could never get near them. During the Rhé voyage sixty English

ships chased some Dunkirkers, but only one pinnace could overtake them,

and that of course could not venture to attack.[1073] But there were also

other causes. In 1634 Pennington wrote to the Admiralty that he had just

met a fleet of seventeen Dutch ships,

‘all tallowed and clean from the ground, which is a course that

they duly observe every two months, or three at the most ...

which is the only cause which makes them go and work better

than ours; whereas our ships are grounded and graved two or

three months before they come out, and never tallowed, so

that they are foul again before we get to sea with them, and

then they are kept out for eight or ten months, whereby they

are so overgrown with barnacles and weeds under water that it

is impossible that they should either go well or work yarely

... all men-of-war, of what nation soever, whether Turk or

Christian, keep this course of cleansing their ships once in

two or three months but us.’[1074]

Therefore the first additions to the navy were small, fast-sailing

vessels, built or bought with this object, and the master shipwrights

were several times called upon to furnish designs of ships especially

adapted for chasing the privateers. Their first suggestion, in December

1625, was for a cruiser whose length, over all, would have been nearly

four-and-a-half times her breadth, and this is noticeable as a marked

step in the tendency now existing to increase the proportion between

length and beam.[1075] Again, in March 1627[1076] they proposed ‘a nimble

and forcible ship of 339 tons to meet the Dunkirkers;’ but in this case

the length was rather less than four times the beam, and eventually

pecuniary necessities compelled the government to be content with vessels

of a smaller model, called ‘whelps,’ contrived for sweeps as well as

sails, and whose length was nearly two-and-a-half times the breadth.

In merchantmen the keel was still only about two and a half times the

beam.[1077] Although English ships were slow, they were strong. Nathaniel

Butler, a naval captain, attributed their sluggishness as compared with

the Dutch to their being ‘so full of timber ... we building ours for

seventy years, they theirs for seven;’ and Northumberland, in 1636,

described some of them as ‘so clogged with timber’ that there was no room

for stores.[1078] Modern builders would probably ascribe their want of

speed to faulty lines rather than to excess of material; but if it was

a defect it was one of which we reaped the full benefit in the first

war with Holland, when the Dutch ships, splendidly as they were fought,

were riven and sunk by the more solid and more heavily armed English

men-of-war long before their crews were beaten.

[Sidenote: The Navy List.]

The following vessels were added to the Navy during the reign of Charles,

including such prizes as were taken into the service and remained in it

until useless:—[1079]

+------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-------+--------+

| +-----+-----+-----+-------+--------+

|_St Claude_[1081] |1625 | | | | |

|_St Denis_ |1625 | | | 104 | 32.5 |

|_St Mary_[1082] |1626 | | | | |

|_St Anne_[1082] |1626 | | | | |

|_Espérance_[1083] |1626 | | | | |

|_Henrietta_[1084] | |1626 | | 52 | 15 |

|_Maria_[1084] | |1626 | | 52 | 15 |

|_Spy_[1085] | |1626 | | | |

|_10 Lion’s Whelps_[1086]| |1627 | | 62 | 25 |

|_Fortune_[1087] |1627 | | | | |

|_St Esprit_[1088] |1627 | | | | |

|_Vanguard_ | | |1630 | 112 | 36.4 |

|_Charles_ | |1632 | | 105 | 33.7 |

|_Henrietta Maria_ | |1632 | | 106 | 35.9 |

|_James_ | |1633 | | 110 | 37.6 |

|_Unicorn_ | |1633 | | 107 | 36.4 |

|_Leopard_ | |1634 | | 95 | 33 |

|_Swallow_ | |1634 | | 96 | 32.2 |

|_Swan_[1089] |1636 | | | | |

|_Nicodemus_[1089] |1636 | | | 63 | 19 |

|_Roebuck_ | |1636 | | 57 | 18.1 |

|_Greyhound_ | |1636 | | 60 | 20.3 |

|_Expedition_ | |1637 | | 90 | 26 |

|_Providence_ | |1637 | | 90 | 26 |

|_Sovereign_ | |1637 | | 127 | 46.6 |

|_Lion_ | | |1640 | 108 | 35.4 |

|_Prince_ | | |1641 | 115 | 43 |

|_Satisfaction_ | |1646 | | | |

|_Adventure_ | |1646 | | 94 | 27 |

|_Nonsuch_ | |1646 | | 98 | 28.4 |

|_Assurance_ | |1646 | | 89 | 26.1 |

|_Constant Warwick_[1091]| |1646 | | 90 | 28 |

|_Phœnix_ | |1647 | | 96 | 28.6 |

|_Dragon_ | |1647 | | 96 | 30 |

|_Tiger_ | |1647 | | 99 | 29.4 |

|_Elizabeth_ | |1647 | | 101.6| 29.8 |

|_Old Warwick_ |1646 | | | | |

+------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-------+--------+

+------------------------+-----------+-------+-------+-----+

| +-----------+-------+-------+-----+

|_St Claude_[1081] | | | 300 | |

|_St Denis_ | 11.9 | | 528 | 38 |

|_St Anne_[1082] | | | 350 | |

|_Espérance_[1083] | | | 250 | |

|_Henrietta_[1084] | 6.6 | | 68 | 6 |

|_Maria_[1084] | 6.6 | | 68 | 6 |

|_Spy_[1085] | | | 20 | |

|_10 Lion’s Whelps_[1086]| 9 | | 185 | 14 |

|_Fortune_[1087] | | | 300 | |

|_Vanguard_ | 13.10 | | 750 | 40 |

|_Charles_ | 16.3 | 16.8 | 810 | 44 |

|_Henrietta Maria_ | 15.8 | | 793 | 42 |

|_James_ | 16.2 | 17.2 | 875 | 48 |

|_Unicorn_ | 15.1 | 16.3 | 823 | 46 |

|_Leopard_ | 12.4 | 12.9 | 515 | 34 |

|_Swallow_ | 11.7 | 12.3 | 478 | 34 |

|_Nicodemus_[1089] | 9.6 | | 105 | 6 |

|_Roebuck_ | 6.8 | | 90 | 10 |

|_Greyhound_ | 7.8 | | 126 | 12 |

|_Expedition_ | 9.8 | | 301 | 30 |

|_Providence_ | 9.9 | | 304 | 30 |

|_Sovereign_ | 19.4 | | 1522 |100 |

|_Lion_ | 15.6 | 17.6 | 717 | 52 |

|_Prince_ | 18 | | 1187 | 64 |

|_Satisfaction_ | | | 220 | 26 |

|_Adventure_ | 9.11 | 14 | 385 | 38 |

|_Nonsuch_ | 14.2 | | 389 | 34 |

|_Assurance_ | 11 | 13 | 341 | 32 |

|_Constant Warwick_[1091]| 12 | 12.8 | 379 | 30 |

|_Phœnix_ | 14.3 | | 414 | 38 |

|_Dragon_ | 12 | 15 | 414 | 38 |

|_Tiger_ | 12 | 14.8 | 447 | 38 |

|_Elizabeth_ | 14.10 | | 471 | 38 |

|_Old Warwick_ | | | | 22 |

|_Hart_[1092] | | | | 10 |

|_Truelove_[1092] | | | | 6 |

|_Fellowship_[1092] | | | | 28 |

|_Globe_[1092] | | | | 24 |

|_Hector_[1092] | | | | 20 |

+------------------------+-----------+-------+-------+-----+

The _James_, _Assurance_, _Elizabeth_, _Tiger_, _Nonsuch_, _Swallow_,

and _Henrietta Maria_, were built at Deptford, the first four by Peter

Pett, who also built the _Constant Warwick_ at Ratcliff. The _Sovereign_,

_Prince_, _Leopard_, _Greyhound_, _Unicorn_, _Roebuck_, _Adventure_,

_Phœnix_, and _Charles_, at Woolwich; the _Henrietta Maria_, _Vanguard_,

_Lion_, and _Dragon_, at Chatham. Phineas Pett, who built the _Sovereign_

and rebuilt the _Prince_, was a son, by a second marriage, of the Peter

Pett, master shipwright in the reign of Elizabeth; his son, Peter Pett,

junior, built the _Nonsuch_, _Adventure_ and _Phœnix_. The Peter Pett of

Deptford was a grandson of the Elizabethan Pett.

[Sidenote: The Ten Whelps.]

The first two pinnaces constructed, the _Henrietta_ and the _Maria_,

were, it is expressly stated,[1093] to be ‘carvel built,’ a distinction

which implies that hitherto such small vessels had been clinch or

‘clinker built;’ we have seen that large ones were mostly carvel, or

flush planked, in the reign of Henry VIII.[1094] We do not hear that

they proved satisfactory in either speed or power, and next year the

contract for the ten whelps was divided among nine shipwrights, some of

them private builders, at £3 5s a ton.[1095] They were to be able to use

sweeps, and were square rigged, with three masts, two decks and a round

house, as miniature copies of the large ships; like those also they

were too heavily sparred and ordnanced. Of heavy guns each was intended

to carry four culverins, four demi-culverins, and two brass sakers,

but subsequently two demi-cannon were added, and the strain of this

armament proved too great for both their sailing and seagoing qualities.

Their demi-cannon were mostly stored in hold at sea, instead of being

on deck.[1096] They were afterwards said to have been built in haste,

‘of mean, sappy timber, for particular service,’[1097] and to be weakly

constructed, costing relatively large sums to maintain in serviceable

condition; they were used a good deal for winter service in the four

seas, and only one of them lived into the days of the Commonwealth. Two

were lost returning from Rochelle; and by 1631 the sixth and seventh

whelps had disappeared from the lists, the seventh by the simple process

of sending the gunner into the magazine with a naked light while she was

in action with a Dunkirker. The fifth was lost in July 1637, and her

experience of straining till she took in water through her closed ports,

and opened her seams, was probably that undergone by most of those that

foundered.[1098] The fourth whelp was handed over ‘for a design to be

practised on by a Dutchman’s project,’ and she passes out of the Navy

list.[1099] These whelps were the first representatives, in intention,

although not in form, of the regular sloop and gunboat class afterwards

so largely used for minor police purposes.

During the years of foreign warfare it was found easier to turn suitable

prizes into men-of-war than to arrive at the money necessary for new

ships, but from 1632 until the commencement of domestic trouble it

will be seen that vessels were added in regular succession. It will be

observed in the preceding list of ships that a keel length of three

times the beam was, roughly, the ratio in favour during the middle of the

reign, while on reference to the Elizabethan Navy list, the proportion

in the majority is seen to be one of about two and a half times the

breadth. Whether the alteration was due to theoretical calculation or to

study of the lines of foreign ships we have no means of deciding, but

the increase in length is still more pronounced in the vessels launched

in 1646 and 1647, their keels being sometimes nearly three and a half

times their beam. According to Pepys this last improvement was due to

Pett’s observation of a French ship lying in the river, in which case

the French designers had already obtained that superiority in the art of

shipbuilding which they held until speed became a matter of engine power.

[Sidenote: The new Ships.]

The cost of the _Charles_ and _Henrietta Maria_ was £10,849, and of

launching and taking them from Woolwich to Chatham, £1222; that of the

_James_ and _Unicorn_ came to £12,632,[1100] the increased totals as

compared with the _St George_ and _St Andrew_, of the previous reign,

being attributed to sounder workmanship and higher prices for labour and

materials. A further sum of £4076, was paid on the _James_ and _Unicorn_

for ‘rigging, launching, furnishing, and transporting’ them from Woolwich

and Deptford to Chatham, work which included 65 tons of cordage at £35

a ton, 214 cwt. of anchors at £2 per cwt., suits of sails at £225 a

suit, waistcloths and top armours of red cloth for both £132,[1101] and

trumpeters and pipes at their launch, £15.[1102] The King and Queen were

present at the launch of these vessels, and £14, 5s 4d was spent in

sweetmeats for them and their attendants. Pennington wrote to the Lords

of the Admiralty that the _Vanguard_ and the _Henrietta Maria_ were both

good ships, although the latter was ‘extraordinarily housed in aloft;’

privately, to Nicholas, he said that there had been ‘great abuse both in

materials and workmanship.’[1103] When he had to try the _Unicorn_ he in

that instance gave his unfavourable report directly to the Admiralty.

On joining at Tilbury he found her so crank that she could carry no

sail. Three shipwrights on board—Ed. Boate, who built her, Pett, and

Austin—persuaded him to take in another hundred tons of ballast, and the

extra weight brought her so low that the gun-deck ports had to be caulked

up, as ‘in a reasonable gale of wind’ she would lay them under water.

Pennington was still unwilling to venture out with the ship, ‘but in

regard to the poor man’s disgrace that built her,’ he gave her a trial at

sea, and decides that she ‘is dangerous and unserviceable,’ cannot work

her guns, and will not live in a gale.[1104]

Under these circumstances the authorities naturally desired to be

informed by the Trinity House experts and the masters of the Shipwrights’

Company why they had given a certificate approving the _Unicorn_. They

answered that they thought she would be a failure, ‘but rather than

disgrace any workman they put their hands, hoping the ship might prove

well.’[1105] The defence sounds weakly benevolent, but that they were

either too ignorant themselves to judge, or that the ganglionic plexus

of fraud uniting most officials made them unwilling to venture on such

a dangerous novelty as an honest opinion, is much more likely than that

they were actuated by goodwill towards each other, a feeling they always

successfully suppressed where hostile criticism could be safely hazarded.

‘The bruits of this disaster have spread far and wide,’ wrote Edisbury,

and many opinions were obtained as to the best course to take, the

discussion ending in girdling her, a method which increased her stiffness

at the expense of her speed. The _Unicorn’s_ ports were intended to be 5

feet above the water line, but they proved to be but 3 feet 7 inches from

it. ‘The King’s ships are not built as they should be, nor like merchant

ships,’ Pennington complained.[1106]

The _Roebuck_ and _Greyhound_ of 1636 were built from the waste of the

_Sovereign_, then on the stocks, and the _Providence_ and _Expedition_

in 1637 were finished in time to join Rainsborow before Sallee, vessels

of lighter draught than those he had with him, but of some force, being

required. The other accessions of 1636, the _Swan_ and _Nicodemus_ were

both Dunkirk prizes, and added to the Navy as being the fastest vessels

afloat. Pennington recommended that the _Swan_ should be used as a model

by English builders, and the _Nicodemus_ was said to run away from

everything, ‘as a greyhound does from a little dog.’

[Sidenote: Shipwrights’ Errors.]

Noticing the general discrepancies between designs and results in

shipbuilding, Charles II remarked a generation later of Christopher Pett,

when he turned out a successful ship, ‘I am sure it must be God put him

in the way, for no art of his own could ever have done it.’ An observer

of this date, Kenrick Edisbury, who succeeded Sir Thos. Aylesbury as

Surveyor of the Navy, perhaps better qualified to judge, attributed

part of the apparent error rather to self-interest. ‘I never yet knew,’

he writes to Nicholas, ‘any ship built by day-work but the shipwrights

have made them of greater burden than their warrants mentioned, as you

may discern by this new ship now in building at Deptford, which I am

persuaded will prove 200 tons greater than was appointed.’[1107] Edisbury

was referring to either the _Leopard_ or the _Swallow_, and there is

an instructive paper relating to these two vessels which shows the

lack of exactness, whether due to ignorance or intention. It gives the

measurements as ordered by the King—the shipwrights intrusted with the

work received their instructions from him personally[1108]—and as they

actually were.[1109]

+--------------------------------+---------+---------+-------------+

| +---------+---------+-------------+

|Keel | 95 | 96 | 93 |

|Beam inside the plank | 33 | 32.2 | 31 |

|Depth from upper edge of keel }| | | |

| to diameter of breadth }| 12.4 | 11.7½ | |

|Depth of keel | 1.7 | 1.8 | |

|Rake of stem | 30.6 | 28.4 | 27 |

|Rake of stern post | 4.3 | 4.8 | 4 |

|The flat of the floor | 13 | 13 | 13 |

|Midship draught | 12.9 | 12.3 | 11.6 |

|Distance of lower edge of port }| | | |

| from greatest breadth }| 5 | 4.10½| 5.6 |

|Distance between ports |8.6 and 9| 8 | 8 |

|From deck to lower edge of ports| 2.1 | 2.1 | 2.2 |

|Breadth of ports | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.4 |

|Depth of ports | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.4 |

|From the diameter of breadth }| | | |

| to the top of the waist }| 13.6 | 12.7 | |

|Between decks | 6.6 | 6.7 | 6.8 |

|Gross tonnage | 515 | 478 | 384 |

+--------------------------------+---------+---------+-------------+

[Sidenote: Report on the Ships.]

In January 1626-7 we have a report on the qualities of the new ships

added since 1618, and built under Burrell’s superintendence while he was

the Commissioners’ principal subordinate. The _Constant Reformation_ is

said to be strongly built and seaworthy, but cannot work her lower tier

in a moderate sea; the _Victory_ weakly built and crank, as is also the

_Garland_ which is a slow sailer as well. The _Swiftsure_, _Bonaventure_,

and _Mary Rose_ are all condemned as badly built, crank, or slow under

sail. The _St George_, _St Andrew_, and _Triumph_ are awarded faint

praise. It must, however, be remembered that this survey was made by

Burrell’s professional competitors, of whose envy and jealousy there

is incidental evidence yet remaining, and that at least five of these

vessels, after years of sailing and fighting round half the world,

are to be found still fit for service in the Navy lists of Charles

II. The Commissioners claimed that, with the exception of the earlier

_Bonaventure_, theirs were the first additions to the Navy that could

carry out their guns ‘in all fighting weathers.’

[Sidenote: The Sovereign of the Seas.]

It is unnecessary to describe the _Sovereign of the Seas_, accounts

of which, based on Thos. Heywood’s well-known tract,[1110] have been

several times given in various works. Some details, however, not known

to Heywood, may be given here. The suggestion must have been under

discussion for some time, but the first mention of her is in August

1634, when the masters of the Trinity House, apparently without being

asked for it, volunteered an opinion that such a ship was an impossible

dream.[1111] Their dogmatic statement that a three-decker was a thing

‘beyond the art or wit of man to construct,’ has already been quoted,

but they further insisted that, if built, there was no port, ‘the Isle

of Wight only’ excepted, in which she could ride, and no ground tackle

which would hold her. No notice seems to have been taken of their long

and poetically expressed effusion, and in January 1635 an estimate was

called for of a vessel of 1500 tons, (‘the king with his own hand hath

set down the burden;‘), and in March, Phineas Pett was ordered to prepare

a model of ‘the ship royal,’ and was told that ‘you principally are

appointed by his majesty for the building of the same.’[1112] A month

later Pennington, Mansell, Phineas Pett, and John Wells[1113] met, and

agreed on dimensions, which were substantially those afterwards adopted,

and the gross tonnage was to be by depth 1466 tons, by draught 1661 tons,

and by beam 1836 tons; but no explanation is given of the way in which

these figures are arrived at.[1114] Pett’s estimate of the cost was

£13,680;[1115] perhaps he really did not know, perhaps he did not wish

to frighten Charles, but the amount eventually spent on her, exclusive

of guns, was £40,833 8s 1½d.[1116] Comparing this sum with the £5500 to

£6500 which was the average cost of a forty-gun ship, there must have

been, even allowing for the much larger proportion spent in decoration of

various kinds, great extravagance in some respects.

Before commencing work Pett desired that the principal officers, who,

he said, had always shown themselves adverse, should neither provide

materials nor make any payments without his signed order. ‘Already

I find certain extraordinary unnecessary charges of new building of

dwelling-houses bestowed and employed in Woolwich yard, which I doubt

not will be brought upon the charge of the ship.’[1117] As this was

occurring while the trees which were to form her frame were yet in leaf

in Chopwell and Brancepeth woods, it gives us an interesting glimpse into

the habits of the chief Officers of the Navy, and the estimation in which

they were held by one who was brought into daily contact with them. The

keel was laid at Woolwich, in the presence of Charles, on 16th January

1636, and she was launched in October 1637. Pett had recommended that

the launching should be deferred till the spring, since the vessel would

grow foul lying in the river through the winter, and would then require

redocking. Pett’s proposal was annotated by the king, ‘I am not of your

opinion.’[1118] Charles had a dull optimism, unshaken by any number of

blunders, in the value of a royal opinion, whether applied to subjects

of general policy or to such a technical matter as the rate at which a

ship’s hull was likely to grow foul.[1119]

The wages bill on the _Sovereign_ amounted to £20,948, and joining,

painting, and carving to £6691; but in the case of this ship the large

sum spent in decoration has in popular imagination, as expressed in

pictures and descriptions, implied an equivalent expenditure on other

ships which did not really occur. Where details are given of the cost of

men-of-war, or of their repairs, the money spent on ornamental carving

and painting bears a very small proportion to the total; and it is quite

likely that the conventional representations of sixteenth and earlier

seventeenth century vessels are altogether wrong in this respect, and

that men-of-war of these times, at any rate those of the second, third,

and fourth ranks, were little more bedecked than modern merchantmen.

The manner in which the adornments of the _Prince_ and _Sovereign_ are

described and dwelt upon as out of the common points to the probability

that other ships possessed few of these external attractions. The

_Elizabeth_ and _Triumph_, the _Ark Royal_ and _Merhonour_ were as

relatively important in their day as the _Prince_ and _Sovereign_,

but, with the exceptions already noticed under the reign of Elizabeth,

allusion to any special ornamentation is in their case exceptional,

still less, then, would the smaller vessels be much beautified by gold,

colours, and carving. Decoration, perhaps, became much more general

and expensive after the Restoration; but John Holland attributed the

increased expenditure on it that began about now to the absence of

control over the master shipwrights, who were permitted to do much as

they liked and would not be outdone by each other.

The _Sovereign_ being afloat, the next proceeding was to arm her, and

for this purpose 102 brass guns were required, costing, by estimation,

£24,753, 8s 8d.[1120] They were thus divided:—

+-----------------------+-----------------------+------+------+---------+

| +-----------------------+------+------+---------+

| | | Ft. | Cwt. |Tons Cwt.|

| sides |20 cannon drakes[1121] | 9 | 45 }| |

| Stern chasers |4 demi-cannon drakes |12½ | 53 }| 64 16 |

| Fore chasers |2 ” ” |11½ | 48 }| |

| Bows abaft the chase |2 ” ” |10 | 44 }| |

| sides |24 culverin drakes | 8½ | 28 }| |

| Fore chase |2 culverins |11½ | 48 }| 45 4 |

| After chase |4 ” |11½ | 48 }| |

| Sides |24 demi-culverin drakes| 8½ | 18 }| |

| Fore chase |2 demi-culverins |10 | 30 }| 27 12 |

| After chase | ” ” |10 | 30 }| |

|Forecastle |8 demi-culverin drakes | 9 | 20 | 8 0 |

|Half-deck |6 ” ” | 9 | 20 | 6 0 |

|Quarter-deck |2 ” ” | 5½ | 8 | 16 |

|Bulkhead abaft the |2 culverin drakes | 5½ | 11 | 1 2 |

+-----------------------+-----------------------+------+------+---------+

The first estimate was for 90 guns, and here again we read, ‘His majesty

has since altered his resolution both in respect of the number and nature

of pieces.’ If Pett originally designed the ship for 90 lighter guns,

and Charles raised the number and weight by a stroke of the pen to 102,

trying to ignore, in the plenitude of his royal power, such things as

metacentres and centres of gravity, it is not surprising that she proved

topheavy at sea. It was one of those cases in which ignorance is bliss,

but, without reading modern scientific knowledge into the past, we know

he had professional advisers at hand whose empirical skill was sufficient

to enable them to warn him of the folly of such a change. The guns were

engraved—at a cost of £3 each—with the rose and crown, sceptre and

trident, and anchor and cable. In a compartment under the rose and crown

was the inscription, _Carolus Edgari sceptrum stabilivit aquarum_, ‘being

a scutcheon and motto appointed by his majesty.’[1122] In January 1640

occurs an estimate for a sister ship to the _Sovereign_; but of this, of

course, nothing more was ever heard.[1123]

We have no station list for the _Sovereign_, as for the _Henry Grace

à Dieu_ but, as a part of ordinary discipline, divisions or quarters

seem to have been usual. There is a station list of this period for a

vessel of 40 guns and 250 men which may be considered typical.[1124] The

heavy guns required 136 men, and 50 more formed the small arms company.

The boatswain and his mate had 40 under their command to work the ship

under the orders of the master and his mate, who were attended by 2 men.

The carpenter and his mates had 6 men, the cook, steward, and surgeon,

each 2 for assistants, and 4 men were told off to steer, and 4 to remain

with the trumpeters. Finally the captain and lieutenant had 2 men in

attendance. The heaviest guns were allowed 5 men each; and the number

varied down to 5 men between two of the smaller guns.

Of the eight vessels of 1646 and 1647 there is nothing to say beyond once

more noticing the marked increase in the ratio between length and beam.

There is not to be found, among the Commonwealth papers, any mention in

praise or dispraise of their weatherly and fighting qualities, and from

this silence we may infer that they were found to be, in essentials, all

that was expected.

Probably a sixteenth or seventeenth century ship was not a particularly

picturesque object. Instead of the graceful, beautifully proportioned

hulls, spars, and sails of to-day, the reader must imagine a short,

squat, hull, round-bowed and square-sterned, enormously high and broad

in comparison with its length, and the sides falling in towards each

other till the upper deck was perhaps only two-thirds of the width on

the water line. The stern was the highest part of the ship, and the bows

the lowest, so that she looked as though she was always premeditating a

plunge forward, and the longitudinal curve of the sides was broken by

huge channels opposite each mast to which were fastened the shrouds.

Above, the stumpy masts and spars must have looked ridiculously out of

proportion to the ponderous hull, although they were in reality usually

too heavy in relation to the badly designed and placed weights below. As

for the gilt and painting, a week of rough weather would have converted

the original tawdry splendour into a forlorn slatternliness.

[Sidenote: The remaining Elizabethan Ships.]

Most of the remaining Elizabethan ships passed out of the service. The

hull of the _Bear_ was sold in 1629 for £315, the _Answer_ and _Crane_

for £101, and towards the end of the reign, the _Dreadnought_, _Due

Repulse_, _Adventure_, and _Assurance_ were broken up. In 1635 Charles,

again exemplifying the very real interference, if not control, he

exercised in naval matters, ordered, against the recommendations of the

Principal Officers, that the _Warspite_ should be cut down into a lighter

for harbour service at Portsmouth. But the most serious loss in this

class was that of the _Anne Royal_, which in April 1636, when fitted as

Northumberland’s flagship, was bilged on her own anchor when bringing

to in the river. The disaster was attributed to the pilot and master

giving contradictory orders, and when she was lying on her broadside and

full of water her officers made matters worse by cutting holes in the

upper side to recover their belongings.[1125] Of course nine members of

the Trinity House at once certified that it was impossible to raise the

_Anne_, just as a year before they had petitioned against the Foreland

lights as ‘useless and unnecessary,’[1126] and just as on every point

referred to them they showed a persistence in being stultified by events,

extraordinary even in a corporation. Two townsmen of Great Yarmouth

offered to float the ship for £2000; the Principal Officers thought they

could do it for £1450, and eventually they did raise her, but with the

customary variation in official calculations, at a charge of £5355.[1127]

She was taken to the East India Company’s dock at Blackwall, and there,

being found to be too severely damaged for repair, broken up.

Of the later ships, the _Phœnix_ and _Nonsuch_ were sold; the

_Reformation_, _Antelope_, _Swallow_, and _Convertine_ were carried

off by the mutineers of 1648 and lost to the English Navy, and most

of the prizes of the earlier years were subsequently given to private

individuals or to commercial associations. The King had no fleet

after 1642, and seized upon any expedient likely to give him one. In

November 1643 he granted a commission to Jeronimo Cæsar de Caverle as

Vice-admiral, De Caverle contracting to obtain, man, and fit out five

ships for £2000 a month, to be paid out of any prizes he might take from

the supporters of the Parliament.[1128] This, like Rupert’s commission,

was a premium on piracy.

[Sidenote: The French Navy.]

Not the least interesting of the papers of this reign are those which

show what a close watch was kept on the growth of the nascent French

navy. In 1625 Louis was compelled to borrow vessels from Charles, but

in 1626 Richelieu bought up or confiscated local or opposing rights and

constituted himself head of the navy, assisted by a _conseil de marine_.

That which must have been the nucleus of his fleet, the purchase of four

vessels built for him in the Low Countries, is duly reported to our

King.[1129] Again in 1627 there are several notices of fresh purchases

from the Dutch, and in September Mervyn was ordered to intercept and

destroy them on their passage to France.[1130] By this time the French

had thirty-three ships before Rochelle, but eighteen of them were under

200 tons each, and probably most were hired merchantmen.[1131] In 1630

ten ‘dragones’ were being built at Havre in imitation of the whelps, and

a correspondent, writing from Bordeaux, says that there are ‘so many good

ships of the King of France’s navy that unless I had been an eye-witness

thereof I should not have believed it possible.’[1132] There were forty

ships ‘of good force’ there. In 1631 Charles appears to have obtained a

detailed list of the then existing French marine, thus classified:—[1133]

+--------+----+----+----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

| | 900| 700| 600| 500 | 450 | 400 | 300 | 250 | 200 |

| | | | | & | & | & | & | & | & |

+--------+----+----+----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

|Brest | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | | 2 | 1 | | 1 |

|Bordeaux| | | | 3 | 3 | 1 | | | 1 |

|Blaye | | | | 1 | | 1 | | | 1 |

|Brouage | | | | | | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |

|St. Malo| | | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | |

|At sea | | | | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 |

+--------+----+----+----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

There were also two of 1400 and 700 tons, respectively, building. It

must be confessed that this force, created within five years and manned

by Breton and Norman seamen, was calculated to give pause to the rulers

of the painfully maintained English Navy. Still more significant was

the fact that only twelve were Dutch-built; Richelieu had soon freed

France from dependence on foreign artisans. The proportion of guns on

French vessels was smaller than that on English vessels of corresponding

tonnage, an excess of metal having been characteristic of our equipment

until the eighteenth century. In 1639 their strength had so far increased

that they had forty sail and ten fireships in the Channel, and there was

also a powerful Dutch fleet, so that Pennington was directed to stop any

suitable merchantmen and add them to his squadron.

A navy, however, which was not the result of natural growth, but depended

on the energy and will of one man, was predestined to decay. The French

marine, as Professor Laughton has pointed out, really began with

Colbert, and in 1661, when he took office, it was reduced to less than

20 seaworthy vessels, against some 150 carried on the English Navy list.

The rivalry still existing between the two nations commenced very early.

As soon as the _Sovereign_ was built, a similar ship was considered a

necessity for France, but for some reason it was not until 1657 that

their first three-decker was launched.[1134]

[Sidenote: Tonnage Measurement.]

Closely connected with shipping was the question of tonnage, and the

discussion which raged between 1626-8 on the methods of calculating it

would require a volume for its full elucidation. The existing rule was

recognised as imperfect, but the science of the time was not able to

formulate anything satisfactory in its place, for exact measurement has

been a matter only of the present century. The following paper, printed

in full, may be regarded as representing the various views existing, and

will at any rate show how little dependence can be placed on any positive

statement of a ship’s tonnage.[1135]

There are three ways of measuring ships now in use:—

_Mr Baker’s Old Way_—The old way, which was established in

Queen Elizabeth’s time, and never questioned all King James his

time, is this: The length of the keel, leaving out the false

post, if there be any. Multiply by the greatest breadth within

the plank, and that product by the depth taken from the breadth

to the upper edge of the keel produceth a solid number which

divided by 100 gives the contents in tons, into which add one

third part for tonnage, so have you the tons and tonnage.

The _Adventure_ of Ipswich

ft.

Length 63·6 1802 7737

Breadth 26·2 1417 8037 Within yᵉ plank.

Depth 11 1041 3927 To yᵉ upper edge

of keel.

Divisor 100 70

Tons 182,80 1261 9701

One third for tonnage 60,93[1136]

------

243,73 tons and tonnage.

It is credibly averred by Sir H. Mervyn and Sir H. Palmer that

the old way of measuring was to take the breadth without yᵉ

plank and the depth from the breadth to the lower edge of the

keel. And this was Baker’s way of measuring.

_Second Way_—The second way is assumed by the shipwrights of

the river to be the old way, but it is not, which makes the

ship to be 28 in the hundred greater than the former, and is

this: The length of the keel taken as before, or ought to be.

The breadth from outside the plank to outside. The depth or

draught of water from the breadth to the bottom of the keel

all multiplied together and divided by 94 (say they) give the

content in tons, into which add one third for tonnage.

ft.

Length 63.6 1802 7737

Breadth 26.8 1426 230 Without yᵉ timber

and plank.

Depth 12.3 1088 1361 To yᵉ lower edge

of keel.

Divisor 94 8026 8721

Tons 220,71

One third for tonnage 73,57

-----

294,28 tons and tonnage.

If you divide this by 100 (which is said to be here done by 94)

it is yᵉ true old way, called Baker’s way.

_Third Way_—The third way was proposed by Mr Gunter, Mr Pett,

Mr Stevens, Mr Lyddiard, and myself, who were required by

warrant from my lord Duke of Buckingham and the commissioners

for the navy (then being) to measure the _Adventure_ of

Ipswich, the greatest bilged ship in the river, and from her

dimensions to frame a rule that in our best judgments might

be indifferently applicable to all kinds of frames. This we

performed and yielded our reasons for it, which, to avoid the

abuse of furred sides and deep keels and standing strakes,

which increaseth the burden but not the hold, was thus: the

length by the keel as the first; the depth in hold from the

breadth to the seeling;[1137] the mean breadth within that

seeling at half that depth multiplied together, and the product

divided by 65, gives the tons, into which add one third part

for tonnage.

ft.

Length 63.6 1802 7737

Mean breadth 22 1342 4227 Within the

seeling.

Depth 9.8 985 4265 To the seeling.

Divisor 65 8187 866

Tons 207,83 2317 7095

One third for tonnage 69,27

------

277,10[1138] This increaseth 12 per

100 above the old rule.

There is a fourth way, devised by the shipwrights and Trinity

masters, but exploded for the great excess which makes the

ship 30 in the hundred greater than the first, and it is thus:

length of the keel as at first, middle breadth beneath the

greatest, viz. the breadth at the wrunghead, depth to the

outside of the plank, all multiplied together and divided by 70.

ft.

Length 63.6 1372 5438

Middle breadth 23.7 1051 1525 Without (_i.e._

outside) timber

and plank.

Depth 11.3 1802 7737 Without the plank.

Divisor 70 8154 9019

Tons 240,68 1381 3719

One third for tonnage 80,22

------

320,90

Although this document is quoted at length as showing the opposing views,

the controversy began in May 1626, when Wells, Stevens, and others sent

in an interesting paper,[1139] which is the one referred to in their

‘third way’ of the preceding, too long to transcribe fully, but from

which some extracts may be given. The main question was whether the depth

and breadth should be taken from within or without board. In the second

case the King paid for more tonnage in a hired ship, especially if she

was furred or girdled, than he actually obtained, but the first was held

to be a direct incentive to owners to build flimsily. The _Adventure_ of

Ipswich was all through the subject of experiment. They say:—

We consider the ship may be considered three ways—the first in

cask, and so two butts or four hogsheads make a ton; the second

in feet, and so forty feet of timber make a ton, the third in

weight and so twenty hundred weight make a ton.... The first

seems most rational to us.... We therefore first prescribe

the hold of the ship to be the cavity of the vessel contained

between the lines of her greatest breadth and depth withinboard

... supposing the lower edge of the (deck) beams to be pitched

at the breadth.... We next consider what quantity of cask may

be stowed in this hold first by drawing the bends and the form

of the cask in each several bend; but this way being subject

to error we sought the true contents thereof arithmetically,

allowing 4½ feet to the length of a butt, and 2 ft. 8 in. to

the depth of the first tier, but 2 ft. 4 in. for the rest of

the tiers. This whole body we reduce into feet, and divide the

product thereof by sixty, because we find by calculation that a

ton of cask stowed to the best advantage will take up as much

room as sixty feet solid, and by these means we produce the

whole contents of the _Adventure’s_ hold to be 207 tons.

They then proceed to frame the rule they used in the ‘third way’ of the

paper of 1627, and notice that practically the _Adventure_ takes a cargo

of about 276 tons of coal, but that this brings her midship port within a

foot of the water line and renders her unfit for any service. In June the

masters of the Trinity House commented on the preceding statement,[1140]

and began by declaring that ‘truly to find the contents of the cavity of

the hold in cask is not possible.’ They strongly maintained that vessels

should be measured from without board, seeing that a furred ship could

carry more than if unfurred, ignoring the fact that one object of the

proposed new rule was to insure more accurate designing and building by

throwing the loss on the owner. ‘The old rule,’ they said, ‘is less true

for lately built ships, which have great floors, but true for old ships

with small floors.’[1141] Their protest evoked a derisive reply from the

government shipwrights, from which it is unnecessary to quote.[1142]

Finally an order was issued, 26th May 1628, that all the King’s ships and

those hired by him should be measured by taking ‘the length of the keel,

leaving out the false post, the greatest breadth within the plank, the

depth from that breadth to the upper edge of the keel,’ multiplying these

and dividing by one hundred.[1143]

The result of the change was to make vessels apparently smaller, but

whether nearer to, or further from, what we should now consider their

real tonnage we have no means of deciding conclusively. The comparative

measurements of two ships by the old and the new rules may serve as

example of the others:—[1144]

+-----------------+--------------+-------------+----------+-------------+

+-----------------+--------------+-------------+----------+-------------+

| | |[1145] [1146]| | |

|_Henrietta Maria_|106 106 |36.5 35.9|16.6 15.8| 848 793 |

|_Charles_ |106.4 105.2 |36.3 35.7|16.6 16.3| 848 810 |

| | [1147] | | | |

+-----------------+--------------+-------------+----------+-------------+

[Sidenote: The Merchant Marine.]

The extensive use made of hired ships between 1625 and 1628 led

to several lists being drawn up of the available merchant marine.

Before, however, dealing with these, there is another source from

which information may be gained. The Trinity House certificates, from

May 1625 to March 1638, of new ships requiring ordnance, and which

were necessarily sent to London to be armed, have fortunately been

preserved.[1148] These certificates probably include every new vessel of

any considerable size, and in most cases mention the tonnage and place

of construction, and from them, therefore, we can draw fairly reliable

conclusions concerning the relative importance of the shipping centres

where they were built, and the strength of the merchant navy. In these

thirteen years some 380 ships come under notice, inclusive of fifteen

prizes and twenty-two bought, mostly from the Dutch, but whether new or

old is not stated. The following table gives the number each year:—

1625, 5

1626, 124

1627, 23

1628, 5

1629, 55

1630, 37

1631, 18

1632, 11

1633, 12

1634, 12

1635, 24

1636, 25

1637, 24

1638, 5 (three months)

The sudden increase of 1626 is probably attributable to the number of

vessels taken up for the royal service, and to the proclamation of 26th

April of that year, by which the bounty of 5s a ton on craft of over

100 tons, and suited for warfare, was renewed. The subsequent falling

off, besides being a natural reaction, may have been also due to the

difficulty owners experienced in obtaining payment for their ships when

hired by the King. An analysis of the places mentioned yields, when the

port of origin is given, the results tabulated below. The expression

‘River of Thames’ comprises those from various ports, but mostly, perhaps

Newcastle colliers sent up for their ordnance; it may also include those

from such a place as Bristol, for which one new ship cannot be a complete

return. Ships of under 300 tons are not classified, and in some instances

the tonnage is not given in the certificate:—

+----------------+-----+------------------------+

| |Total| Tons |

| | No. +----+----+----+----+----+

| | | 500| 450|400 | 350| 300|

+----------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+

| Limehouse | 20 | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 |

| Wapping | 21 | | | | 1 | 2 |

| Horseleydown | 14 | | | 1 | 2 | 1 |

| Ratcliff | 19 | | | 1 | 3 | 3 |

| Deptford | 2 | 1 | | 1 | | |

| Shadwell | 1 | | | | | |

| Blackwall | 1 | | | | | |

|Ipswich | 48 | | | 1 | | 7 |

|Yarmouth | 26 | | | 1 | | 1 |

|Aldborough | 12 | | | | | 2 |

|Hull | 25 | | | | | |

|Woodbridge | 12 | | | 1 | 2 | 3 |

|Colchester | 7 | | | | | |

|River of Thames | 102 | | | | | |

|Bristol | 1 | | | | | 1 |

|Harwich | 2 | | | | 1 | |

|Dartmouth | 3 | | | | | |

|Dover | 2 | | | | | 1 |

|Southampton | 2 | | | | | |

|Shoreham | 14 | | | | | 5 |

|Plymouth | 1 | | | | | |

|Weymouth | 3 | | | | | 1 |

|Blakeney | 1 | | | | | |

|Exeter | 2 | | | | | |

+----------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+

In July 1626, Buckingham was directed to procure returns of the number

and size of the ships belonging to the port towns, and the resulting

list, so far as the reports have survived, is as follows:—[1149]

+----------------------+----+-------+--------+

| | |in tons| or |

+----------------------+----+-------+--------+

|Portsmouth | 5 | 80 | |

|Gosport | 11 | 40 | |

|Isle of Wight | 10 | 70 | |

|Padstow | 3 | 40 | |

|Chester | 21 | 50 | |

|Boston | 12 | 80 | |

|Yarmouth | 97 | 320(2)| 26 |

|Dartmouth and Tor Bay | 65 | 270 | 15 |

|Fowey | 2 | 50 | |

|Sandwich | 30 | 240 | 12 |

|Lynn | 67 | 160 | 15 |

|Wells | 26 | 80 | |

|Burnham | 10 | 50 | |

|Blakeney | 14 | 100 | 1 |

|Plymouth | 40 | 120 | 7 |

|Stonehouse | 6 | 120 | 1 |

|Saltash and vicinity | 24 | 200 | 4 |

|Salcombe | 11 | 50 | |

|E. and W. Looe | 28 | 40 | |

|Penryn | 7 | 180 | 3 |

|Bristol | 32 | 250 | 16 |

+----------------------+----+-------+--------+

The principal point which the reader of this list will notice is the

small extent of change in the maritime relation of these places which had

occurred since the days of Elizabeth. In her time Dartmouth, including

Totnes, was the leading southern port, and, although Plymouth and

adjoining towns now run it close, it is hardly yet second. And so far as

the scanty materials for comparison allow us to judge, it does not appear

that the relation between the other ports had altered to any important

degree, although the aggregate of ships belonging to them is much

greater. Notwithstanding the obvious omissions in this roll, it includes

100 vessels of 100 tons and upwards, against 177 in 1588 for the whole of

England.

In February 1628 there was a survey of such ships in the Thames as were

fit for the royal service.[1150] There were seven East Indiamen[1151] of

4200 tons and 218 guns, the largest being one of 900, one of 800, and two

of 700 tons; besides thirty-four other merchantmen of 7850 tons and 610

guns, and twenty-two Newcastle colliers of from 200 to 250 tons each. The

largest of the merchantmen were one of 500 and two of 450 tons. A year

later, in February and March 1629, there was another survey of London

and other ports, but only of ships of 100 tons and upwards, and there

were now in the river eight East Indiamen of 5700 tons, one being of 1000

tons, and forty-seven other merchantmen of 12,150 tons, and 906 guns;

there were also twenty-nine merchantmen of 7060 tons and 556 guns at sea,

thirty Newcastle vessels belonging to London owners, and eighteen other

ships of not more than 120 tons each and unarmed.[1152] The following

list of the remaining towns will complement that of 1626, on which it

shows some variations[1153]:—

+---------------+--------+-------+

| |100 tons|Largest|

| | and | |

| |upwards | |

+---------------+--------+-------+

|South Cornwall | 6 | 200 |

|Plymouth | 8 | 160 |

|Dartmouth | 15 | 200 |

|Weymouth | 1 | 110 |

|Poole | 1 | 150 |

|Southampton | 1 | 100 |

|Sandwich | 6 | 200 |

|Dover | 7 | 260 |

|Malden | 2 | 160 |

|Colchester | 9 | 240 |

|Woodbridge | 17 | 300 |

|Harwich | 11 | 140 |

|Ipswich | 63 | 300 |

|Aldborough | 14 | 300 |

|Lynn | 5 | 120 |

|Yarmouth | 26 | 200 |

|Bristol | 30 | 250 |

|South Wales | 1 | 250 |

+---------------+--------+-------+

Including London there were, then, in 1629, more than 350 ships of over

100 tons, while Newcastle is only partly, and Yorkshire, Somerset,

Chester, and Sussex are not at all mentioned; but the writer of the copy

of 1634 remarks that in the five years that had elapsed since the survey

was made, ninety-five more such vessels had been built.

[Sidenote: The Ports.]

All the fleets set forth by Charles contained a large proportion of

colliers, as their cost was supposed to be but one-third of that of

merchantmen. The growing importance of the coal trade is shown by the

shipment of 143,000 chaldrons (equal to nearly 200,000 tons) of coal from

Newcastle in 1626.[1154] On the other hand, leaving piracy aside for the

moment, the chances of war and tempest played havoc with the commercial

prosperity of not a few of the coast towns. In 1626 Bristol lost fifty

ships by wreck and capture. When, in 1627, these ports were required to

provide vessels for the King, most of them pleaded inability from these

causes and losses by pirates. By the embargo in France and Spain Poole

had lost £8500, and had to maintain 400 widows and children; Exeter,

from the same cause, had lost £80,000 and ‘in many parishes there is

not one man of ability to a hundred poor people.’ Barnstaple and Totnes

replied that the crown owed them money for billeted soldiers, and that

until payment was made they were powerless. Norwich was ‘in a desolate

and distressed condition,’ as was also Harwich; and Aldborough in three

years had lost thirteen ships, and had three hundred widows and children

to keep. The port of Boston was choked up, and its big ships all sold.

Dartmouth, Penryn, and Lyme Regis professed to be nearly ruined by the

embargo laid on their ships and goods in France and Spain, while most of

their remaining merchantmen were unemployed and they had many poor to

support. Plymouth was ordered to supply two vessels of 200 tons each;

they said they were in a distressed and miserable state, that since 1624

they had lost by pirates and embargo £44,000, that the crown owed £6000

in the town, and that the plague was causing ‘infinite misery.’[1155]

Weymouth and Melcombe, called upon to provide the same number as

Plymouth, answered that their losses by embargo came to £6000, besides

the expense of supporting many poor women and children; Colchester had

suffered from the plague for ten months and possessed no 200-ton ship,

and King’s Lynn had lost twenty-five ships to the Dunkirkers, while their

port cost them £350 a year.[1156] Yarmouth, in two years, had lost by

Dunkirkers ‘and sundry other casualties at sea’ £25,000; their port cost

them £600 a year, their haven and piers £1000 a year, and there was a

municipal debt of £2200 on which they paid £140 per annum interest.[1157]

Against these sorrows we must set the fact that the returns show that

these ruined ports were able to steadily build and increase, year by

year, the number of their large ships, and in at least one instance—that

of Dartmouth—while the townspeople said that they possessed no 200-ton

vessel, the papers of 1626-7 show that they had one of 270 and two

of 200 tons.[1158] The losses by wreck seem at one time to have been

exceptionally heavy; between 1625 and 1628 393 ships, valued at some

hundreds of thousands of pounds, perished at sea, the Eastland Company

losing £100,000 in eighteen months.[1159] But probably neither the

municipal authorities nor the government held themselves compelled to

strict truthfulness in making out a case. As in most generations, owners

appear to have overbuilt at the first sign of prosperous trade; in

1633 the Trinity House petitioned for an enforcement of the navigation

laws, as shipping to the extent of 6000 tons was lying idle in the

Thames.[1160] When in employment, captains did not neglect any chance of

trade. In 1638 the master of a Mediterranean trader took a Turk, and sold

fifteen men of its crew in a Spanish port; on his return he offered ‘the

duty payable to his majesty,’ a tenth of the proceeds.[1161] The rule of

requiring the shipowner to give a bond, before his vessel went to sea,

that it should not be sold abroad had been strictly enforced since 1625;

in fact before sale to a foreign subject could be effected the Lords of

the Admiralty, the Officers of the Navy, and the judge of the Admiralty

Court, had all to give their approval.

[Sidenote: Payment of Hired Ships.]

It has been noticed that several of the towns put forward the crown

debts incurred on behalf of the military and naval forces as an excuse

for their want of means when asked for ships in 1627. Private owners who

may have been encouraged to build by the renewal of the bounty and the

demand for hired ships soon found that as regards payment they were as

badly off as the towns in their corporate capacity. They may not have

expected very prompt settlement, but, by August 1627, the owners of ships

taken up for the Cadiz voyage of 1625 were beginning to petition somewhat

impatiently. Ipswich, for instance, had sent twenty-four vessels and had

not yet received anything. In December these and other owners petitioned

again, mentioning that 100 ships had been lost during the year, and

declining the offer of crown lands in liquidation of their demands.

They gave as the reason of their refusal the subdivision of ownership

in a vessel among many members, and that they did not understand land,

adding, ‘To be two years, and many of us three years, without pay

deserveth consideration, many of us undone and many more will be.’[1162]

By February 1628 it was noticed that ships were being purposely built

with less than the regulation space between decks, so that they should be

unfit for the service of the crown;[1163] and later in the year masters

of transports were asking double the ordinary rates, and were even then

so unwilling to serve that threats of impressment had to be used. In

March 1629 one unhappy man complains that he has had a vessel hired for

four years, that he has received in that time a bill[1164] for £200

which has been for three years dishonoured, and that he goes about in

daily fear of arrest himself. It was not until the receipts from the

ship-money writs brought relief to the treasury that these debts were

paid off. Under the government of Charles the hire of ships remained at

2s a ton per month, but after 1642 the Parliament adopted a different

system, that of paying £3, 15s 6d a month per man, the owner sending his

vessel armed and completely provided for sea; but the state accepted

responsibility in the event of loss.

[Sidenote: Inventions connected with Shipping.]

The demand for shipping naturally gave an impetus to the spirit of

invention in connection with maritime matters. In July 1625 Letters

Patent were granted to Wm. Beale for a cement intended to preserve

the hulls of ships from barnacles, the first of a long series of such

contrivances.[1165] In 1626 some one, unnamed, proposed attempting to

propel boats under water,[1166] and in 1630 David Ramseye, who may have

been the David Ramsey of 1618, a similar inventor, designed ‘to make

boats, ships, and barges go against wind and tide.’[1167] Again, in 1632,

Thos. Grent offered ‘an instrument’ for moving becalmed ships, which

he called the ‘Wind’s Majesty’; John Bulmer and Christopher van Berg

invented methods of raising sunken vessels and their cargoes, and in 1637

and 1640 other patents were taken out for appliances to move vessels

against wind and tide.[1168] In none of these cases was any specification

enrolled. In 1630 Stephen Gibbs was granted the exclusive use, for

fourteen years, of the means devised by him for clearing silted havens

and draining marsh lands.[1169] Perhaps the most useful device was one

which does not seem to have been patented. In July 1634 Edisbury wrote to

Nicholas, ‘There is now an invention found out to moor ships in the river

with iron chains.’[1170] If this was the beginning of the substitution

of iron for cordage in the various conditions where one could replace

the other, it was the commencement of a change which vastly extended the

possibilities of seamanship.

[Sidenote: Piracy.]

More deadly foes to the merchant than the chances of war and storm

were the Turkish and Dunkirk pirates, who held command of the Channel,

and for whom these were halcyon years until, in the next generation,

the Commonwealth navy swept the seas. For reasons already touched

upon, neither the ships nor the men in the royal service were capable

of dealing with these freebooters, and the appeals for protection,

which began within a week of the King’s accession, continued until the

strengthened parliamentary naval force was able to secure the coasts.

At first the Turks—all Mediterranean pirates were inclusively described

as Turks—were the most prominent enemy. In August 1625 they were reported

to have twenty sail on the southern coast, and according to the Mayor of

Poole, threatened that within two years they would not leave the King

sufficient seamen to man his ships. As the Mayor of Plymouth said that

during that year they had captured 1000 sailors, and within the ten days

before his letter, twenty-seven ships and 200 men, there was some force

in the threat.[1171] A year later some of the Navy Commissioners, then at

Plymouth, wrote to the Council that the successes of the Turks were ‘the

shame of our nation. The pitiful lamentations that are made by wives and

children ... is so grievous that we know if your lordships heard it as

we do, we are assured that it would move the same passion and grief in

your noble hearts as it does in us.’[1172] Their culminating success was

the seizure and sack of Baltimore, a thriving village port on the Munster

coast. There they landed on the night of 30th June 1631, and, besides

material spoil, bore off 237 English subjects, men, women and children

into slavery. There were not many vessels in commission that year, but

there was an inspection by the King at Chatham and Portsmouth, for which

the cost of preparation was £1275, an amount which expended in another

way could have saved these victims.

When any of the Turks were caught, fear of reprisals compelled the

government to treat them tenderly; some prisoners were tried in June,

but private instructions were given that they were not to be put to

death,[1173] and shortly afterwards the relatives of 2000 men, captives

in Sallee, petitioned for some redress, which explains the leniency of

the executive.[1174] Nor was this petition neglected, since, by a Council

order of October, guns were to be exported to Barbary to ransom English

prisoners. It was a poor way of upholding the honour of England, but

since the cruisers could not clear the Channel, and there was no fleet to

spare for a Mediterranean expedition, it was the only one open.

While the Turks operated in the south, the Dunkirkers, who, in addition

to their other misdeeds, supplied the former with provisions and stores,

practically blockaded the east coast. The Newcastle townspeople wrote

that they were destroying the coal trade, and at Ipswich trade had

altogether ceased, fifty-eight ships being laid up for fear of them,

and shipping to the value of £4000 having been taken in one year.[1175]

In August 1626, when the inhabitants of the coast of Suffolk were asked

for a ‘voluntary gift,’ they answered ‘with loud cries, that their

vessels were fired or taken in their havens before their eyes.’ At Lynn

1000 men, having 3000 women and children dependent upon them, were out

of employment, and here the pirate crews landed and plundered and burnt

houses near the shore. The inhabitants of the Cinque Ports petition

against the ‘force and fury’ of the Dunkirkers, and complain that they

are ‘miserably oppressed by them and dare not go about our voyages to

Scarborough and Yarmouth, or fish in the North Sea.’[1176]

There were many English sailors among the privateer crews, and the local

knowledge of these men was invaluable in enabling the ships to lie off

the mouths of the harbours or to chase close inshore. Duties of two and

five shillings a chaldron were levied, from February 1628, on all coal

laden at Newcastle or Sunderland, destined respectively for English or

foreign ports, to pay for a guard on the eastern coast, which was an

audacious mode of taxing a particular industry for general protection,

seeing that the tunnage and poundage was especially allotted to naval

purposes. The money thus obtained was probably not applied to naval

preparation at all, or, if it were it had small result, since, exactly a

year afterwards, the London fishmongers protested that nothing could pass

between Yarmouth and the river, and that the city would soon be deprived

of fish. Coincidently with this the Yarmouth people stated that they were

accustomed to send 300 fishing boats to sea, but that the Dunkirkers

were so numerous that they could not go out.[1177] Even when the first

ship-money fleet was cruising in 1635, coasters and Dover packet boats

were stopped and pillaged while the royal fleet was riding in the Downs.

Again, in September 1636, while Northumberland’s vessels were mostly

in the North Sea forcing the Dutch fishermen to take licences, the

shipowners of the western ports petitioned that the Channel was so full

of Turks that they dared not send anything to sea, that seamen refused to

sail or fishermen to fish.[1178]

Then in 1637 there is a sudden change. In July Nicholas was told,

‘The coast has been free all this summer, and is from all Turks and

pirates,’[1179] the explanation being that, in March, Rainsborow had

sailed on the too long deferred punitive expedition and was still before

Sallee. About this time a Protestant clergyman, who was four years a

captive at Algiers, wrote, ‘During my abode there ... their armadoes

kept an account of 1700 sail of Christian ships they had taken. The

Lord stir up the hearts of Christian princes to root out that nest

of pirates.’[1180] One Christian prince had at last been moved to an

elementary sense of duty, and the expedition of 1637, whereby 300 or

400 Englishmen were rescued from hopeless slavery, was, in design and

execution, the solitary success of Charles’s naval administration.[1181]

But its effect was only temporary, and the last notice in 1640, before

the Parliament took matters in hand, is a letter from the Mayor of Exeter

to the Council, stating that sixty sail of Turks were on the coast,

and that they had landed near Penzance and carried off men, women, and

children.[1182]

CHARLES I

1625-1649

A history of the administration of the Royal Navy and of merchant shipping in relation to the Navy from MDIX to MDCLX, with an introduction treating of the preceding period · 第 2 / 6 章