Chapter X: Introduction: The Navy Before 1509 (8)

During the earlier years of her reign the Queen, like her predecessors, frequently allowed her ships to be hired for trading voyages. In 1561 the _Minion_, _Primrose_, _Brigandine_ and _Fleur de Lys_, were delivered to Sir William Chester and others for a voyage to Africa. In this case Elizabeth shared the risk. For her ships, and for provisions to the value of £500, she was to receive one-third of the profits. The hirers undertook to ship at least £5000 of goods, pay wages and all other expenses, and each enter into a bond of 1000 marks to carry out the conditions.[641] In 1563 the _Jesus of Lubeck_ was lent to Dudley and others, to trade to Guinea and the West Indies, for which they paid £500.[642] She was then, after having been in the Royal Navy nearly twenty years, valued at £2000 for which amounts the hirers had to give their bonds. She returned in 1565, was at Padstow in October, and ‘cannot be brought to Gillingham till spring of next year.’ The adventurers could not have procured a 600 ton vessel, for two years, for £500 from any owner but the State. And as she had to remain at Padstow during the whole winter it may be inferred that she returned in a very unseaworthy condition, for Elizabethan seamanship was certainly equal to taking a ship up Channel during the winter months. She was hired by Hawkyns in 1568 and was then the first of the only two men-of-war lost to Spain during the entire reign. When a convoy was furnished a full charge was levied for the protection; £558 was received in 1569 from the Merchant Adventurers’ Company for men-of-war serving on this duty, and again £586 in 1570.[643] As private owners built more and bigger ships the demand for men-of-war for trading voyages grew less, but the Queen often lent them for privateering ventures in which she was pecuniarily interested, assessing their estimated value as a portion of the money advanced by her and on which she would receive a dividend. Under these circumstances her representatives did not err on the side of moderation when valuing the ships thus temporarily lent. When Drake took the _Bonaventure_ and the _Aid_ in 1585 they were appraised at £10,000, an obviously extravagant estimate. Nominally Elizabeth advanced £20,000, of which these two ships stood for half; she got her ships back, £2000 for the use of them, and the same dividend on £20,000 as the other persons who had taken shares. Those others lost five shillings in the pound; she must have made a profit.

[Sidenote: The Victualling Department.]

In consequence of the greater activity of the Royal Navy the victualling department experienced a corresponding enlargement. In 1560 the buildings at Tower Hill, formerly the Abbey of Grace, and granted in 1542 to Sir Arthur Darcy, were purchased from him for £1200, and £700 expended in repairing them.[644] Other storehouses were hired at Ratcliff and St Katherines, the latter from Anthony Anthony, Surveyor of the Ordnance, who seems to have taken great interest in naval matters, and to whom we are indebted for the coloured drawings of ships previously referred to. For his storehouse he was paid £16 a year; another at Rochester cost £5, 6s 8d a year. By a patent of 24th December 1560, William Holstock was joined with Baeshe as Surveyor of the Victuals; this was surrendered and replaced by another of 30th October, 1563 in which John Elliott took Holstock’s place. Neither Holstock nor Elliott had any actual position, the new patents only giving them the chance of succeeding Baeshe. An agreement with him of 13th April 1565, but which did not cancel the title and fees granted to him by his Letters Patent, instituted a considerable reform inasmuch as it did away with purveyance, or forced purchase, at rates fixed by the officers of the crown. Henceforth Baeshe was to be paid fourpence halfpenny a day for each man in harbour and fivepence a day at sea. For this he was to provide, per head, on Sundays, Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, 1 lb of biscuit and 1 gallon of beer, and 2 lbs of salt beef, and on the other three days, besides the biscuit and beer, a quarter of a stockfish,[645] one-eighth of a pound of butter, and one quarter of a pound of cheese. Fourpence a man per month at sea, and eightpence in harbour he was to allow for purser’s necessaries, such as wood, candles, etc., and he was to pay the rent of all hired storehouses and the wages of his clerks. He undertook not to use the right of purveyance unless ordered to victual more than 2000 men suddenly, and agreed to always keep in hand one months provisions for 1000 men. The agreement could be terminated by six months’ notice on either side, and until it ceased the crown advanced him £500 without interest to be repaid within six months of the cessation of his contract. He was given the use of all the crown buildings belonging to his department, subject to his keeping them in repair, and was permitted to export 1000 hides in peace time and as many as he should slaughter oxen during war.[646] The weight of purveyance was felt chiefly in the home counties, and Elizabeth may have felt it good policy to do away with a ceaseless source of popular irritation which was really of very little advantage to the crown. From this date payments were made to Baeshe direct from the Exchequer and no longer through the Navy Treasurer. Isolated payments relating to storehouses, of no general interest, recur in the accounts, but the growing importance of Chatham is shown by the removal, in 1570, of buildings at Dover, and their re-erection at Rochester, at a cost of £300.

In 1569 an additional £1000 was advanced to Baeshe without interest, and in 1573, the harbour rate was raised to fivepence halfpenny per man, and the sea rate to sixpence. All this assistance, for probably further sums were lent to him without interest, does not seem to have enabled him to carry on his work without loss. In 1576 he petitioned the Queen to be forgiven the first £500 advanced to him and to be permitted to pay off the balance at £1000 a year. He based his claim to consideration on the fact that he had saved her 1000 marks a year by his contract and had acted without recourse to purveyance, ‘no small benefit to the hole realme.’ He had lost £500 a year, for four years, by the embargo on trade with the Low Countries, which prevented his exportation of hides, and £ 240 by the fire at Portsmouth. And:—

‘finally what my service hath bin from tyme to tyme as well to
her most noble ffather, brother, and sister, as to her Maiestie
I do referre the same to the report of my Lord Tresorer and
my Lord Admirall and yet hitherto I never receyved from her
Maiestie any reward for service but only her Maiesties gracious
good countenance to my comfort.’[647]

The petition does not appear to have obtained anything beyond a continuance of these unsubstantial favours, but Baeshe struggled on till 6th May 1586 when he gave six months’ notice to determine his contract. He then anticipated a loss of £534 on victualling eight or ten ships, ‘which I am not able to beare.’[648] He must have been a very old man and anxiety perhaps hastened his death, which occurred in April 1587. In the interval, however, the rate had been raised, from 1st November 1586 to 31st March 1587 to sixpence a day per man in harbour, and sixpence halfpenny at sea, and from 1st April 1587 to 31st October to sixpence halfpenny in harbour and sevenpence at sea, ‘on account of the great dearth.’ The Armada was already expected, but on 30th June 1587, when the stores were handed over to Baeshe’s successor there were only 6020 pieces[649] of beef, and 2300 stockfish in hand.

By Letters Patent of 27th November 1582 James Quarles ‘one of the officers of our household’[650] had been granted survivorship to Baeshe, and he now took his place from 1st July 1587, at the same fees and allowances as had been originally given by the patent of 18th June 1550. The rate was maintained at sixpence halfpenny and sevenpence ‘untill it shall please Almightie God to send such plentie as the heigh prises and rates of victuall shalbe diminished’. The quantity and quality of the food provided for the men in 1588 has long been a source of disgrace to Elizabeth and her ministers. An apology for them has been attempted on the ground that the mechanism at work was new and not capable of dealing with large numbers of men, and that the failure was mainly due to the suddenness of the demand. So far as the first statement is concerned it is sufficient to answer that the victualling branch had been organised for nearly forty years, and found no difficulty in arranging for 13,000 men in 1596, and 9200 men in 1597 after timely notice. The last reason may excuse the victualling department but will not relieve the statesman in responsible direction. The government had had long notice of the coming of the Armada, but even as late as March Burghley was occupied with niggling attempts at making 26 days’ victuals last for 28 days.[651] In 1565 Baeshe had undertaken to keep always one month’s victuals for 1000 men in store, but in June 1587 there was not even so much. The point therefore is that if the ministry had thus early recognised the necessity for a reserve, and that two or three months were requisite for the collection and preparation of provisions for a large force, and if with the knowledge that such provisions were certain to be required, and in spite of the warnings of those best able to judge, they neglected the preparations and continued a supply which was merely from hand to mouth, they must be held guilty of the sufferings inflicted on the men by their miserable policy. When the moment of trial came Quarles and his superiors did their best, but the accusation against the latter is that had they exercised the foresight supposed to be one of the qualifications for their dignified posts no such sudden and almost ineffective efforts would have been necessary. The spirit in which they or the Queen dealt with the matter is shown by the necessity Howard was under of paying out of his own pocket for the extra comforts obtained for the dying seamen at Plymouth.[652]

How far Elizabeth was herself answerable is a moot point. There is no direct evidence that the delay in obtaining provisions was due to her orders. On the other hand we know that the postponements in equipping the ships, and the hesitating action and inconsistent directions and suggestions that characterised the early months of 1588, were due to her, and there is a strong probability that much of the shame should rest with her rather than with ministers who perhaps had to carry out commands to which they had objected in Council. Moreover very few things, especially those involving expense, were done without the knowledge and approval of Elizabeth. It was a personal government and there is no reason to suppose that this particular branch was beyond her cognisance. With the fatality that has usually dogged English militant endeavour the fleet did not even obtain the benefit, at the right time, of the stores provided. Frequently victuallers were blundering about for weeks looking for it, while the admirals were sending up despairing entreaties for supplies. In April, Drake wrote to the Queen ‘I have not in my lifetime known better men and possessed with gallanter minds than your Majesty’s people are for the most part.’ Whether the cause was incompetence or a criminal parsimony their fate, after having saved their country, was to perish in misery, unheeded and unhelped except by the officers who had fought with them. In the conceit of Elizabeth and her like they were only ‘the common sort.’

During the forty years that Baeshe had served the crown he had never been charged with dishonesty and he died poor. Quarles however had at once serious malpractices imputed to him as having occurred within his first year of office.[653] His accuser, a subordinate, as usual offered to do his work for 1000 marks a year less, and on examination of the charges it seems likely that some were untrue and that other defaults occurred in consequence of the orders given to him.

From 1589 the rate again fell to fivepence-halfpenny and sixpence, in harbour and at sea; but for 1590 and 1591 Quarles was allowed £2355, on account of the dearth still existing. He had petitioned that he had suffered a loss of £3172, between April 1590 and April 1591, being the difference between the rates paid to him and the cost per head of the victuals.[654] He died in 1595 and was succeeded by Marmaduke Darell, his coadjutor, ‘clerk of our averie.’[655] Till 1600 the rate remained the same although heavy extra allowances were made each year to Darell; then it was raised to sixpence halfpenny and sevenpence. In this year £738 was spent on repairs to Tower Hill where there were separate houses for beef, bacon, ling, etc., ‘the great mansion being the officers lodgings.’ The storehouses and brewhouses at Portsmouth, built by Henry VIII, still existed under the names originally given them and were repaired at a cost of £234.

One ton and a half of gross tonnage, or one of stowage, was allowed on board ship, for one month’s provisions for four men, of which the beer occupied half, wood and water a quarter, and solid food the remainder of a ton.[656] There is no reason to suppose that either Baeshe, Quarles, or Darell were either dishonest or incompetent. The terrible outbreaks of disease that occurred during nearly every long voyage were not confined to the English service and were the natural result of salt meat and fish, and beer that could not be prevented from turning sour. They could only do their best with the materials at command but which were not suitable to the larger field in which the services of English sailors were now required.

[Sidenote: The Administration.]

Benjamin Gonson was Treasurer of the Navy when Elizabeth came to the throne and held the post until his death in 1577. The number of vessels added to the Navy during his term of office shows that he was not inactive, and he was certainly a competent public servant. John Hawkyns[657] was his son-in-law, and the relationship doubtless inspired Hawkyns with the hope of succeeding him, and perhaps enabled him to infuse some of his own spirit into the management of the Navy, while Gonson was still its official head. But mere relationship, although it had its influence would not alone have sufficed, had not Hawkyns already made his name as a seaman and as an able commander. In 1567 he received a grant of the reversion to the office of Clerk of the Ships, a post he could only have looked upon as a stepping-stone, and which he never took up. In 1577, when Gonson was ill, Hawkyns petitioned the Queen, probably, although it is not specifically mentioned, for the reversion to his post, and drew up a long catalogue of unrecompensed services.[658] Gonson died in the course of a year, a landed proprietor in Essex, and a successful man, but he had told his son-in-law, when the latter was trying to obtain the reversion, that, ‘I shall pluck a thorn out of my foot and put it into yours.’ Hawkyns lived to realise the truth of the kindly warning. He commenced his duties from 1st January 1577-8, acting under Letters Patent of 18th November 1577, by which he was granted the survivorship to Gonson. For seventeen years, during the most critical period of English history, he was, in real fact, solely responsible for the efficiency of the Navy, and he, more than any other man may be said to have ‘organised victory’ for the English fleets. His duties included not only the superintendence of the work at the dockyards, but that of building, equipping, and repairing the ships, of keeping them safely moored and in good order, of the supply of good and sufficient stores, and apparently of every administrative detail except those connected with the ordnance, and of victualling and pressing the men. The technical improvements he himself invented or introduced have already been noticed. In the administration he made others, which may or may not have been advantageous, but which touched the interests of subordinates, and which resulted in his having to stand alone and carry on his work impeded by the sullen enmity of his colleagues and his inferiors.

Hawkyns owed his knighthood to Howard rather than the Queen; his reward after 1588 was to be allowed a year wherein to unravel his intricate accounts. In fact few of Elizabeth’s officials escaped her left-handed graces. Baeshe died in poverty after forty years of honest service, and Hawkyns was continually struggling to clear himself from suspicions that were kept hanging over him, but from which he was given no proper opportunity to free himself. Elizabeth’s favours and bounties were reserved for court gallants of smoother fibre than were these men. In 1594, shortly before his last unhappy voyage, Hawkyns founded a hospital at Chatham for ten poor mariners and shipwrights. He, with Drake, established the ‘Chatham Chest,’ for disabled seamen, and it should be remembered to his honour that, in an age when little care was bestowed on inferiors if they had ceased to be of any utility, he never relaxed his efforts until his craft had rescued from Spanish prisons the survivors of those under his command in 1568 whom he had been compelled to leave ashore after escaping from San Juan de Ulloa.

Charges of peculation against persons connected with maritime affairs were rife on all sides. The shipwrights quarrelled among themselves and with Hawkyns, and two of the former, Chapman and Pett, were moreover accused by outsiders of gross overcharges.[659] Captains were said to dismiss pressed men for bribes, to retain wages, and keep back arms;[660] pursers to steal provisions, to make false entries by which they obtained payments for money never advanced to the men, and to remain ashore while their ships were at sea.[661] Pursers, cooks, and boatswains, bought their places: the cooks had the victuals in their care and recouped themselves at the expense of the seamen; boatswains stripped a ship of movable fittings, on her return home, and stole rigging and cordage.[662] According to the evidence of a witness, in the inquiry of 1608, these abuses, if they did not commence, took fresh and vigorous life after the death of Hawkyns. In 1587 he recognised the theft going on and his inability to completely suppress it; ‘I thincke it wolde be mete their weare a provost marshyall attendante upon ye Lord Admirall and Offycers of the Navye to doe suche present execucyon aboorde the shippes uppon the offenders as shulde be apoynted.’[663] Accusations were not wanting during Gonson’s lifetime but the increased activity of the Navy after his death gave a wider scope both to suspicion and to actual peculation. Hawkyns was not the only one of the Principal Officers whose conduct was impeached, but in virtue of his position the brunt of attack fell upon him. There was hardly one of his duties which at some time or another did not give occasion for a charge of dishonesty.[664]

Hawkyns, if we may judge by the letters remaining in the Record Office, was more frequently in communication with Burghley, explaining his intentions and desires, than with his official chief the Lord Admiral. Either therefore Burghley was satisfied with his conduct—and there is one letter that directly supports this view—or the Lord Treasurer allowed a man whose honesty he doubted to remain in a responsible office without removing him, or adopting any new measure of supervision. The quality of the cordage had been a common cause of complaint and, in 1579, Hawkyns wrote that he had taken measures, of which he doubted not the success, to remedy this and other evils, and that he had a memorandum ready proposing a course to be followed, ‘wherebye the offyce wolld not onelye flourysshe but within a few yers be bountyfullye provyded of all maner of provycion without extra charge to her Maiestie.’[665] Subsequent events show that the suggestions he was here about to make were accepted and, as a consequence of his new methods, the clamour raised against him grew so loud that in January 1583-4 a commission sat to inquire into the condition of the ships and the conduct of the office. Nothing is known of their report but it was evidently not of a character fatal to his reputation. In another letter to Burghley shortly afterwards he attributes his success in carrying out reforms to the aid he had received from the minister’s skill,

‘in the passinge of theis greate thinges thadversaries of the
worke have contynewallye opposyd themselves against me ... and
their slawnders hathe gone verye farr ... onlye to be avenged
of me and this servis which doth discover the corruption and
ignoraunce of the tyme past.’[666]

By 1587 he had begun to share Gonson’s weary disgust of his surroundings, and intimated that the work was too much for any one man and should be done by a commission. Howard’s high opinion of him was expressed freely in his letters during 1588, and shown practically by the knighthood he conferred. Notwithstanding his services, so fully tested in that year, he does not appear to have won the shy confidence of Elizabeth, but that he had succeeded in convincing Burghley is I think clearly proved by the following letter:—[667]

‘My bownden dewtie in humble manner rememberyd unto your good
lordshipe; I do perseve hir Maiestie ys not well sattysfied
concernyng the imploymentes of the great somes of mony that
have byne reseaved into thoffice of the navye although your
Honour dyd very honourably bothe take payne and care to se
the strycte and orderly course that ys used in thoffice and
thereupon delyver your mynd playnely to her Maiestie as your
lordship found yt for which I shall ever acknowlege myself
dewtyfully bownd to honour and serve your lordshipp to the
uttermost of my abillytie: and whereas her Highnes pleasure ys
to be farther sattysfied in myne accomptes ther hathe nothyng
byne more desyred nor cold be more wellcome or acceptible to
me and when yt shalbe hir Maiesties pleasure to nomynate the
persons that I shall attend upon I wyll brieffly shew the
state of every yeres accompt suffycyently avouched by boockes
to the last day of Desember 1588 which is XI yeres.... If any
worlldly thynge that I possesse cold free me of this mystrust
and importyble care and toyle I wold most wyllyngley depart
with yt for as the case stondeth I thynke ther ys no man
lyvinge that hathe so carefull so myserable so unfortunate and
so dangerous a lyfe; onlye I se your lordship with care and
trewthe dothe serche into the trew order the sufficiency and
valyditye of the course that ys caryed in the office whiche
otherwyse I wold even playnely gyve over my place and submyt
myselfe to her Maiesties mercye thogh I lyvid in pryson all the
dayes of my lyffe; the matters in thoffice growe infenyte and
chargeable beyond all measure and soche as hardly any man can
gyve a reason of the innumerable busynesses that dayly grow;
yet the mystrust ys more trobelsome and grievous then all the
rest for with the answerynge of thone and towle of thother
there ys hardly any tyme left to serve God or to sattysfie man.
The greater sort that serve in this office be growen so proud
obstinate and insolent nothynge can sattysfie them[668] and
the commen sort very dysobedyent so as a man that must answere
the immoderate desyre of all these were better to chuse to dye
than so lyve. The paynfull place that your lordship dothe holde
and the imoderate demaunds that comes before you havyng with
the favour of her Maiestie the hellp of an absolute power to
bynd and lose may eselye demonstrate the borden that so meane
a man as I am dothe here (which must passe every thynge by
petycon and mystrust), to sattysfie the multytude of demaundes
that are in this office and although they be many and as well
satysfied as in any office in all Ingland yet few are contentyd
but go away with grudging and mormoure. It were a great vanytie
for me to comend myne owne service neyther do I go abowt to
acumyllatte to myself any comendacon for that I thought I
performyd my dewtie suffycyentlie but yf the estate of thoffice
be consyderyd what yt was when I came into yt and what yt ys
now ther wilbe found greate oddes wherein I have traveyled as
carefully as I cold and as my creddytt cold obtayne meane to
reduce the state of thoffice shipes and there furnyture into
good and perfitt ordre; in recompense whereof my onely desyre
ys that yt may please hir Maiestie some course may be taken
wherein hir Maiestie may be sattysfied that a playne and honest
course hathe byne taken and caryed in thoffice and then to
dyspose of my place to whome yt shall please hir Highnes and I
shalbe reddy to serve hir Maiestie any other way that I shalbe
appoynted wherein my skyll or abyllytie will extend and so I
humbly take my leve from Deptford the 16th April 1590.’

The writer of this letter was either a master hypocrite so skilful in roguery that he feared neither the investigations of his superiors nor the denunciations of envious and hostile subordinates, or an honest man who had nothing to dread from inquiry. He had convinced Howard and Burghley, of whom the first was a seaman who had proved his work by the tests of war and storm, and the second no guileless innocent, but a politician grown grey among surroundings of fraud and intrigue. Only the penetrating Elizabeth refused to be deceived.

In 1592 and 1594 he again expressed his wish to resign, but the government had apparently no desire to lose his services.[669] On Clynton’s decease Charles, Lord Howard of Effingham became Lord Admiral,[670] and held the office till 1618. His name is indissolubly connected with the maritime glories his support of Hawkyns and his clear judgment as a commander helped to bring about. Howard was the first Lord Admiral who transferred some of the privileges of his office. In 1594 he gave over to the Trinity House the management of buoys and beacons along the coasts and the rights of ballasting in the Thames.[671] This marks the first practical connection the Corporation had with maritime affairs. Hawkyns died at sea on 12th November 1595, and the Treasurership was not immediately filled up. Roger Langford, long an office assistant, and his deputy during his absence, was made ‘General Paymaster of the Marine Causes,’ but simply worked at the accounts without authority in administrative business.[672] In 1598 Fulke Grevill, afterwards Lord Brooke, was appointed Treasurer with full powers.[673] Grevill is said, by a modern writer, to have possessed ‘a dignified indolence of temper,’ and ‘a refinement in morality which rendered him unfit for the common pursuits of mankind.’ These were not qualifications peculiarly fitting him for the rough surroundings of naval affairs in 1598 and the real control passed into the hands of his colleagues.

Till his death in 1589 Sir Wm. Wynter, from 1557 Surveyor of the Ships and Master of the Ordnance of the Navy, was, after Hawkyns, the most influential officer. He was succeeded by Sir H. Palmer,[674] who held the post until he became Comptroller in 1598,[675] when he was replaced as Surveyor by John Trevor.[676] After Wynter’s death there was no longer a separate ordnance department for the Navy. Richard Howlet, the former Clerk of the Ships, died in 1560, and George Wynter, a brother of Sir William Wynter was appointed.[677] In 1580 George Wynter was succeeded by William Borough,[678] who, in 1588 was followed by Benjamin Gonson, son of the former Treasurer,[679] who, in turn, was succeeded by Peter Buck in 1600. William Holstock became Comptroller from 12th December 1561, in succession to Brooke, and in 1589 William Borough succeeded him until 1598. Nearly all these men commanded ships or squadrons at sea at various times, in addition to their duties as members of the naval board. There is a draft document existing[680] which shows that in January 1564 it was intended to add another officer as ‘Chief Pilot of England,’ on the model of the ‘Pilot Major’ of Spain. Stephen Borough was the person chosen, and in consequence of the losses of shipping through the ignorance of pilots and masters no one was to act in such a capacity in vessels of forty tons and upwards, without a certificate of competence from him, under a penalty of two pounds. Masters’ mates, boatswains, and quartermasters were to be similarly examined and certified. This plan, however, was not carried into execution.

[Sidenote: Dockyards.]

Concerning the dockyards the most noteworthy feature is: the rise into importance of the Chatham yard. For 1563 the expenses of Deptford were £19,700, while those of Gillingham, chiefly for the wages and victuals of shipkeepers, were £3700. In 1567 it is first called Chatham, a house rented for the use of the Board, and the cost of Chatham and Gillingham £6300. Next year the ground on which Upnor Castle was to be built was bought for £25,[681] and in 1574 a fort was ordered for Sheerness which replaced the bulwark built in the reign of Edward VI. In 1571 more ground was rented at Chatham, and in 1574 the fairway through St Mary’s Creek, by which the anchorage could be taken in flank, was blocked by piles.[682] Deptford, however, was still in considerable use, especially for building and repairs of ships, and in the same year the dock was reconstructed. In 1578 a new pair of gates for the Deptford dock cost £150, and in the following year most, if not all, of the dockyards were fenced round with hedges.[683] Small additions in the shape of wharves and storehouses, were being continually made to Chatham; one of the former, built in 1580, was 378 feet Long, 40 feet broad, and cost five shillings a foot. Various other improvements of the same kind were carried out in connection with Woolwich and Deptford, and as no drydock was constructed at Chatham during this reign, all the building and repairs of the big ships was done at the former places. Portsmouth was hardly used at all. In 1586 a new wharf was made, and sundry small expenses were at various times incurred for keeping the dock in order, but sometimes for years in succession the only expenses relating to it are the salaries of the officers in charge. The yard was nearly destroyed by a fire on 4th August 1576, and was probably not fully restored. It was, moreover, contemned by the chief officers, who considered it expensive and defenceless.[684] For a few years, from 1601, the Hansa steelyard was handed over to the Admiralty and used for storage purposes.

In early times the Bridport district had supplied most of the cordage used in the English service; in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries it had mostly come from abroad. In 1573 there was an attempt to secure independence in this respect, and £800 which he was to repay by £100 a year, was advanced to Thomas Allen to build ropehouses at Woolwich.[685] Allen was ‘Queen’s merchant,’ _i.e._, crown purchaser, for Dantzic cordage. The experiment was probably a failure, since there is no other reference to it, and was not renewed until the next reign.

In addition to the forts at Upnor and Sheerness the ships lying in the Medway required some further protection, as relations with Spain became more critical and rumours of plots to fire the vessels frequent. This was given by means of a chain, an old and well known form of defence. In a letter to Burghley, of March 1585, Hawkyns suggested the chain with two or four pinnaces stationed by it, and the _Scout_ and _Achates_ at Sheerness to search everything passing.[686] In October the work was nearly completed; it had been ‘tedyous and cumbersome but now stretched over the river in good order yt dothe requyre many lyghters for the bearynge of it which are in hand.’[687] One end was fixed to piles, the other worked round ‘two great wheels to draw it up;’ it was supported by five lighters, and pinnaces were stationed at each shore end. The Council ordered, as well, that whereas Her Majesty was ‘advertysed that some practyce and devyce ys taken in hande to bourne and destroye the navye,’ the principal officers were to sleep on board at the anchorage in turn, for a month at the time, and see that the shipkeepers did their duty.

The Elizabethan drawing of the Medway and surrounding district, partly reproduced in this volume, does not show the chain at Upnor and is probably therefore of a date between 1568-85. It is seen that the ships are moored athwart stream in three groups, from Upnor towards Rochester, the larger ones being at Upnor. They must have been moored across stream from considerations of space; and the accuracy of the placing is corroborated by a much later drawing of 1702 which shows vessels in the same position, and by the fact that we know from other sources that the first-rates were nearest Upnor. These latter carried lights at night[688] and the whole were in the especial charge of the principal masters of the Navy of whom, after 1588, there were six and who were allowed three shillings a week for their victualling. The first sign of the dockyard is possibly shown between Chatham Church and St Mary’s creek. The vessels are shown dismantled as would have been actually the case.

[Sidenote: Shipwrights.]

In 1559 shipwrights’ wages were from eightpence to a shilling, and in 1588 from a shilling to seventeenpence a day; they were also provided with free lodging, or lodging money at the rate of a shilling a week, with three meals a day and as much beer ‘as shall suffice them,’ and, between 25th March and 8th September, an afternoon snack of bread, cheese, and beer.[689] From 1st November to 2nd February, they worked from daylight till dark; for the rest of the year from five o’clock, in the morning till 7 at night, and, on Saturdays till 6 o’clock. They were allowed one hour at noon, and work was started and stopped by bell; anyone ringing it except by order of the master shipwright was fined a day’s pay and put into the stocks.[690] The three principal constructors, or master shipwrights were Peter Pett, Mathew Baker, and Richard Chapman. Pett died in 1589 and was succeeded by his son Joseph, and then, in 1600, by his better known younger son Phineas, who had been sent to Cambridge but who did not think it unbecoming his university standing to start in life as a carpenter’s mate on a Levant trader. Although Pett has the greater reputation, at least one officer of the Admiralty well qualified to judge—William Borough—considered Baker his superior. John Davis, the explorer, also specially speaks of him as, ‘Mr Baker for his skill and surpassing grounded knowledge in the building of ships advantageable to all purpose hath not in any nation his equal.’[691] Baker became master shipwright by Letters Patent of 29th August 1572, and by virtue of the patent, received a fee of one shilling a day for life from the Exchequer. Peter Pett already held a similar patent, Richard Chapman obtained one in 1587 and Joseph Pett in 1590. Little is known of Chapman beyond the fact that from the ships he built his reputation must have been equal to that of the others, and practically all the important building of the reign was done by these three men.

[Sidenote: Ships’ Officers and Pay.]

There are but few notices of the ships’ officers of this period. In all ranks the majority seem to have been disposed to add to their pay by irregular methods. Some of the accusations made against them have been noticed, and on service, whether the prize was a captured town or a small merchantman, discipline was at an end until all, from captains downwards had taken their fill of pillage. At sea captains obeyed or disobeyed, deserted or remained with their admiral, without usually being afterwards called to account for their conduct. In only one case was a captain, William Borough, tried for insubordination in 1587, and as this is the first instance of a court martial the proceedings are here printed in full.[692] If Drake intended to disgrace Borough he failed, for no result followed, and the delinquent, two years later, became Comptroller of the Navy. Until 1582 the old system of paying the officers the wages of a ‘common man’ per month, and adding to this by a graduated proportion representing the dead shares and rewards, still continued. However when wages were raised in that year the dead shares and rewards were abolished, except as a form of expression, and each officer had a fixed sum per month, according to the rate of his ship.[693] But sometimes the scale of pay depended not upon the rate, but was ‘according to the greatness of his charge,’ _i.e._, on the nature of the work for which the vessel was commissioned.[694] Wages were again raised about 1602,[695] and the two scales of payment are thrown together in the following table:—

+------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| | First-rates | Second-rates |
| +----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | 1582 | 1602 | 1582 | 1602 |
| +----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | £ s. d.| £ s. d.| £ s. d.| £ s. d.|
|_Master_ | 2 1 8| 3 2 6| 2 0 0| 3 0 0|
|_Master’s Mate_ | 1 1 8| 1 10 0| 0 16 8| 1 5 0|
|_Boatswain_ | 1 1 8| 1 10 0| 0 16 8| 1 5 0|
|_Boatswain’s Mate_| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6|
|_Quartermaster_ | 0 16 8| 1 5 0| 0 11 8| 0 17 6|
|_Do. Mate_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 9 2| 0 13 9|
|_Purser_ | 0 16 8| 1 0 0| 0 11 8| 0 16 8|
|_Master Carpenter_| 0 16 8| 1 5 0| 0 16 8| 1 5 0|
|_Carpenter’s Mate_| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6|
|_Master Gunner_ | 0 10 0| 0 15 0| 0 10 0| 0 15 0|
|_Gunner’s Mates_ | 0 7 6| 0 11 3| 0 7 6| 0 11 3|
|_Surgeon_ | 0 15 0| 1 0 0| 0 15 0| 1 0 0|
|_Pilot_ | 1 0 0| 1 10 0| 1 0 0| 1 5 0|
|_Cook_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6|
|_Yeomen of the }| | | | |
|Tacks and Jeers_ }| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 14 0|
|_Cockswain_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6|
|_Trumpeter_ | 0 15 0| 1 0 0| 0 15 0| 1 0 0|
|_Steward_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6|
+------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

+------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| | Third-rates | Fourth-rates |
| +----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | 1582 | 1602 | 1582 | 1602 |
| +----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | £ s. d.| £ s. d.| £ s. d.| £ s. d.|
|_Master_ | 1 16 8| 2 10 0| 1 11 8| 2 5 0|
|_Master’s Mate_ | 0 16 8| 1 5 0| 0 11 8| 1 0 0|
|_Boatswain_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6|
|_Boatswain’s Mate_| 0 9 2| 0 13 9| 0 9 2| 0 13 9|
|_Quartermaster_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6|
|_Do. Mate_ | 0 9 2| 0 13 9| 0 9 2| 0 13 9|
|_Purser_ | 0 11 8| 0 13 4| 0 11 8| 0 13 4|
|_Master Carpenter_| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6|
|_Carpenter’s Mate_| 0 9 2| 0 13 9| 0 9 2| 0 13 9|
|_Master Gunner_ | 0 10 0| 0 15 0| 0 10 0| 0 15 0|
|_Gunner’s Mates_ | 0 7 6| 0 11 3| 0 7 6| 0 11 3|
|_Surgeon_ | 0 15 0| 1 0 0| 0 15 0| 1 0 0|
|_Pilot_ | 0 16 8| 1 5 0| 0 16 8| 1 0 0|
|_Cook_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6|
|_Yeomen of the }| | | | |
|Tacks and Jeers_ }| | 0 14 0| | |
|_Cockswain_ | 0 9 2| 0 17 6| | |
|_Trumpeter_ | 0 15 0| 1 0 0| 0 15 0| 1 0 0|
|_Steward_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6|
+------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

+------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| | Fifth-rates | Sixth-rates |
| +----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | 1582 | 1602 | 1582 | 1602 |
| +----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | £ s. d.| £ s. d.| £ s. d.| £ s. d.|
|_Master_ | 1 6 8| 2 0 0| 1 1 8| 1 7 0|
|_Master’s Mate_ | 0 11 8| 1 0 0| 0 11 8| |
|_Boatswain_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6|
|_Boatswain’s Mate_| 0 9 2| 0 13 9| | |
|_Quartermaster_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6|
|_Do. Mate_ | | | | |
|_Purser_ | 0 11 8| 0 13 4| 0 9 2| 0 13 4|
|_Master Carpenter_| 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 11 8| 0 17 6|
|_Carpenter’s Mate_| 0 9 2| 0 13 9| | |
|_Master Gunner_ | 0 10 0| 0 15 0| 0 10 0| 0 15 0|
|_Gunner’s Mates_ | 0 7 6| 0 11 3| 0 7 6| 0 11 3|
|_Surgeon_ | 0 15 0| 1 0 0| | 1 0 0|
|_Pilot_ | 0 15 0| 1 0 0| | |
|_Cook_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 9 2| 0 17 6|
|_Yeomen of the }| | | | |
|Tacks and Jeers_ }| | | | |
|_Cockswain_ | | | | |
|_Trumpeter_ | 0 15 0| 1 0 0| 0 15 0| 1 0 0|
|_Steward_ | 0 11 8| 0 17 6| 0 9 2| 0 17 6|
+------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

+------------------+---------------+
| | Seventh-rates |
| +---------------+
| | 1602 |
| +---------------+
| | £ s. d. |
|_Master_ | 1 0 0 |
|_Master’s Mate_ | |
|_Boatswain_ | 0 13 9 |
|_Boatswain’s Mate_| |
|_Quartermaster_ | |
|_Do. Mate_ | |
|_Purser_ | |
|_Master Carpenter_| |
|_Carpenter’s Mate_| |
|_Master Gunner_ | 0 13 4 |
|_Gunner’s Mates_ | |
|_Surgeon_ | |
|_Pilot_ | |
|_Cook_ | 0 13 9 |
|_Yeomen of the }| |
|Tacks and Jeers_ }| |
|_Cockswain_ | |
|_Trumpeter_ | |
|_Steward_ | 0 13 9 |
+------------------+---------------+

Harbour pay was from 40% to 50% below these rates. There is nothing known of the reasons moving the government to the relatively enormous increase of the end of the reign, marked by a liberality contrary to the traditions of nearly half a century. The relative pays would now, in some cases, be considered extraordinary; surgeons and trumpeters are put on the same footing, and sixth-rates of 1602 are given the option between them but are not allowed both. A captain’s pay varied between 2s 6d and 6s 8d a day, and he was allowed two servants for every fifty men of his crew, and if he were a knight four men. This really meant that he was licensed to draw pay and rations, or the value in money of rations, for the permitted number of servants whether or no they were actually on board. In 1588 lieutenants at £3, and corporals at 17s 6d a month were carried in some of the ships.

Although in 1564 it had been intended to nominate a pilot major to insure a knowledge of seamanship and navigation in those responsible for the safety of ships, further experience may have brought more efficient men to the front and rendered it unnecessary. There are very few signs that such a step could have been requisite, judging from the accounts of the voyages of these years. Men seem to have handled their ships skilfully in all conditions and under all difficulties, and in navigation landfalls were made with accuracy, landmarks known and recorded, and the Channel soundings as minutely mapped out and acted upon as now. The case was very different with Spanish seamen. From 1508 there had been a great school of cosmography and navigation at Seville, under the superintendence of the Pilot Major of Spain, but it does not appear to have succeeded in turning out competent officers. The records of the Spanish voyages show how frequently gross errors in navigation occurred, and travellers communicated their impressions to the same effect. One of these, writing in 1573, says,

‘How can a wise and omnipotent God have placed such a difficult
and important art as navigation into such coarse and lubberly
hands as those of these pilots. You should see them ask one
another, “How many degrees have you got?” One says, “Sixteen,”
another “About twenty,” and another “Thirteen and a half.”
Then they will say, “What distance do you make it to the
land?” One answers, “I make it 40 leagues from land,” another
“I a hundred and fifty,” a third, “I reckoned it this morning
to be ninety-two leagues;” and whether it be three or three
hundred no one of them agrees with the other or with the actual
fact.’[696]

[Sidenote: Ordnance and Ship Armament.]

In 1558 there were ordnance wharves and storehouses, connected with the Navy at Woolwich, Portsmouth, and Porchester; Gillingham was shortly after added to these. In her youth Elizabeth appears to have been fond of fireworks as the ordnance accounts bear £130, 4s 2d expended, between 1558-64, to amuse her in that way. The report drawn up in 1559[697] tells us that there were 264 brass and 48 iron guns, of all calibres down to falconets, on board the ships, and 48 brass and 8 iron in store. To these could be added upwards of 1000 small pieces, whole, demi, and quarter slings, fowlers, bases, portpieces, and harquebuses.[698] Eleven thousand rounds of cannon shot, 10,600 of lead, 1500 of stone and 692 cross bar shot, supplied the guns; other weapons were 3000 bows, 6300 sheaves of arrows, 3100 morrispikes, and 3700 bills. The heaviest piece used on shipboard was the culverin of 4500 lbs., throwing a 17⅓ lbs. ball with an extreme range of 2500 paces;[699] the next the demi cannon weighing 4000 lbs., with a 30⅓ lbs. ball and range of 1700 paces; then the demi culverin of 3400 lbs., a 9⅓ lb. ball and 2500 paces, and the cannon petroe, or perier, of 3000 lbs. 24¼ lb. ball and 1600 paces.[700] There were also sakers, minions, and falconets, but culverins and demi culverins were the most useful and became the favourite ship guns. The weights given differ in nearly every list found and were purely academic. A contemporary wrote, ‘the founders never cast them so exactly but that they differ two or three cwt. in a piece,’ and in a paper of 1564 the average weights of culverins, demi culverins, and cannon periers are respectively 3300 lbs., 2500 lbs., and 2000 lbs.

The equipment of a first-rate like the _Triumph_ (450 seamen, 50 gunners, and 200 soldiers) in small arms, was 250 harquebuses, 50 bows, 100 sheaves of arrows, 200 pikes, 200 bills, 100 corselets, and 200 morions.[701] There were 750 lbs. of corn, and 4470 of serpentine, powder on board. The _Victory_ had 200 harquebuses, 40 bows, 80 sheaves of arrows, 100 pikes, 180 bills, 80 corselets, and 160 minions; she carried 600 lbs. of corn powder, and 4347 of serpentine. Twenty-four was the number of ships usually taken as the standard to be prepared in the numerous estimates of the equipment necessary for fleets; in 1574 there were 45 demi cannon, 37 cannon periers, 89 culverins, 142 demi culverins, 183 sakers, 56 minions, and 66 falcons on board 24 vessels in June of that year.[702] The first list giving the armament of the ships individually is of 1585 and is as follows:[703]

+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| |Demi Cannon |
| | |Cannon Periers |
| | | |Culverins |
| | | | |Demi Culverins |
| | | | | |Sakers |
| | | | | | |Minions |
| | | | | | | |Fawcons |
| | | | | | | | |Fawconets |
| | | | | | | | | |Portpieces |
| | | | | | | | | | |Fowlers |
| | | | | | | | | | | |Bases|
+ +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+
|_Elizabeth_ | 9 | 4 | 14 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 8 | | 4 | 10 | 12 |
|_Triumph_ | 9 | 4 | 14 | 7 | 6 | 2 | | | 4 | 10 | 12 |
|_White Bear_ | 11 | 6 | 17 | 10 | 10 | 4 | 4 | | 4 | 10 | 12 |
|_Victory_ | 6 | 4 | 14 | 8 | 2 | | 4 | | 6 | 10 | 12 |
|_Hope_ | 4 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 1 | | 4 | 6 | 12 |
|_Mary Rose_ | 4 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 8 | | | | 2 | 6 | 4 |
|_Nonpareil_ | 4 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 12 | 1 | 1 | | 4 | 6 | 12 |
|_Lion_ | 4 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 6 | | 2 | | 4 | 6 | 12 |
|_Revenge_ | 2 | 4 | 10 | 6 | 10 | | 2 | | 2 | 4 | 6 |
|_Bonaventure_| 4 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 2 | | 4 | 6 | 12 |
|_Dreadnought_| | 2 | 4 | 10 | 6 | | 2 | | 2 | 8 | 8 |
|_Swiftsure_ | | 2 | 4 | 8 | 8 | | 4 | | 2 | 6 | 8 |
|_Antelope_ | | 2 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 2 | | 4 | 4 | 10 |
|_Swallow_ | | 2 | | 4 | 8 | 2 | 6 | | 4 | 4 | 10 |
|_Foresight_ | | | 4 | 8 | 8 | 4 | | | 2 | 2 | 8 |
|_Aid_ | | | | 2 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 8 |
|_Bull_ | | | | 6 | 8 | 2 | 1 | | | 4 | 4 |
|_Tiger_ | | | | 6 | 10 | 2 | 2 | | | 4 | 4 |
|_Scout_ | | | | | 8 | 2 | 6 | 2 | | 2 | 6 |
|_Achates_ | | | | | 2 | 4 | 10 | | | 2 | 4 |
|_Merlin_ | | | | | | | 6 | 2 | | 2 | 2 |
+-------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+

This appears to have been the existing or intended provision, ‘according to Sir William Wynters proporcion of 1569,’ The system of heavily arming ships, introduced by Henry VIII, had grown in favour with the lapse of time. From a chance allusion we know that the _Victory’s_ waist was ordinarily 20 feet above the water line; she only had a lower gun-deck, therefore, the lower tier must have been more than the four feet above the water allowed by Ralegh.

In only one paper have we any information as to the distribution of the guns; from a schedule of October 1595, of iron ordnance to be provided for the ‘lesser ship now building’ (probably the _Warspite_) we are able to note their arrangement and the tendency to limit the varieties in use.[704] But it differs considerably from the armament of the _Warspite_ as given in the next table.

For the sides on the lower overloppe, 12 Culverins
For the stern and prow on the lower overloppe, 4 do.
For the capstan deck on the sides, 8 Demi Culverins
For the stem and prow on the sides, 4 do.
For the waist fore and aft, 6 Sakers
For the half deck 2 do.