Chapter XI: Introduction: The Navy Before 1509 (9)

The next list drawn up two months after Elizabeth’s death, gives the armament of the whole Navy.[705] Upnor Castle possessed, in brass, 1 demi cannon, 3 culverins, 1 minion, 3 fawcons and 4 fowlers; in iron, 4 culverins, 5 demi culverins and 1 saker. The ships:

+------------------+-------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| | Demi |Cannon | | Demi | |
| |Cannon |Periers | Culverins | Culverins | Sakers |
| +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| |Brass | Brass | Brs | Irn | Brs | Irn | Brs | Irn |
| +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|_Elizabeth_ | 2 | 3 | 18 | | 13 | | 19 | |
|_Triumph_ | 3 | 4 | 19 | | 16 | | 13 | |
|_White Bear_ | 6 | 2 | 21 | | 16 | | 12 | |
|_Merhonour_ | 4 | | 15 | | 16 | | 4 | |
|_Ark Royal_ | 4 | 4 | 12 | | 12 | | 6 | |
|_Garland_ | | | 16 | | 12 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
|_Due Repulse_ | 3 | 2 | 13 | | 14 | | 6 | |
|_Warspite_ | 2 | 2 | 14 | | 10 | | 4 | |
|_Defiance_ | | | 14 | | 14 | | | |
|_Mary Rose_ | 4 | | 10 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 4 | |
|_Bonaventure_ | 2 | 2 | 11 | | 14 | | 4 | |
|_Nonpareil_ | 3 | 2 | 7 | | 8 | | 12 | |
|_Lion_ | 4 | | 8 | | 12 | 2 | 9 | |
|_Victory_[708] | | | | | | | | |
|_Rainbow_ | 6 | | 10 | | 7 | | 1 | |
|_Hope_ | 4 | 2 | 9 | | 12 | | 4 | |
|_Vanguard_ | 4 | | 14 | | 16 | | 4 | |
|_St Mathew_ | 4 | 4 | 16 | | 10 | 6 | 2 | 2 |
|_St Andrew_[709] | | 2 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 14 | 4 | 4 |
|_Antelope_ | | | 4 | | 5 | 8 | 4 | 4 |
|_Adventure_ | | | 4 | | 11 | | 7 | |
|_Advantage_ | | | | | 6 | | 8 | |
|_Crane_ | | | | | 2 | 4 | 2 | 5 |
|_Tremontana_ | | | | | | | 12 | |
|_Quittance_ | | | | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
|_Answer_ | | | | | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
|_Moon_ | | | | | | | 5 | |
|_Charles_ | | | | | | | 4 | |
|_Advice_ | | | | | | | 4 | |
|_Superlativa_[710]| | | 1 | | 2 | | 2 | |
|_Mercury_ | | | 1 | | | | | 2 |
|_Merlin_ | | | | | | | | |
|_Lion’s Whelp_ | | | | | | | 2 | |
+------------------+-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

+------------------+-----------+-----------+---------+------------+
| | | | Fowlers | Portpieces |
| | Minions | Fawcons | [706] | [707] |
| +-----+-----+-----+-----+---------+------------+
| | Brs | Irn | Brs | Irn | Brs | Brs |
| +-----+-----+-----+-----+---------+------------+
|_Elizabeth_ | 1 | | | | 2 | |
|_Triumph_ | | | | | 4 | |
|_White Bear_ | | | | | | |
|_Merhonour_ | | | | | 2 | |
|_Ark Royal_ | | | | | 2 | 4 |
|_Garland_ | | | | | 2 | 2 |
|_Due Repulse_ | | | | | 2 | 2 |
|_Warspite_ | | | | | 4 | 2 |
|_Defiance_ | | | | | 2 | 2 |
|_Mary Rose_ | | | | | | 4 |
|_Bonaventure_ | 2 | | | | 2 | 2 |
|_Nonpareil_ | | | | | 4 | 4 |
|_Lion_ | | 1 | | | 8 | |
|_Victory_[708] | | | | | 7 | |
|_Rainbow_ | | | | | 4 | |
|_Hope_ | | | | | 2 | 4 |
|_Vanguard_ | 2 | | 2 | | | |
|_St Mathew_ | 3 | 1 | 2 | | | |
|_St Andrew_[709] | 1 | 1 | | | 4 | |
|_Antelope_ | | | 1 | | 2 | 2 |
|_Adventure_ | | | | | 2 | |
|_Advantage_ | 2 | | 4 | | | |
|_Crane_ | 6 | | | | 2 | |
|_Tremontana_ | 7 | | 2 | | | |
|_Quittance_ | | 4 | 2 | | 2 | |
|_Answer_ | 2 | 4 | 2 | | 2 | |
|_Moon_ | 6 | | 2 | | | |
|_Charles_ | 2 | | 2 | | | |
|_Advice_ | 2 | | 3 | | | |
|_Superlativa_[710]| | | | | 2 | |
|_Mercury_ | | | | | 2 | |
|_Merlin_ | 2 | | 6 | | | |
|_Lion’s Whelp_ | 7 | | 2 | | | |
+------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+---------+------------+

Comparing this with the preceding list of 1585 it is noticed that there is a large decrease in cannon and a corresponding increase in culverins, demi culverins and sakers, which strained a ship less, were served more quickly and by fewer men, and permitted a heavier broadside in the same deck space. They were mounted on four-wheeled carriages and may have been fitted with elevating screws, the latter probably recently introduced as they are mentioned among Bourne’s _Inventions_. The length of a cannon carriage was 5½ ft., and of a demi cannon carriage 5 ft., costing respectively £1, 3s 4d and 19s 9d.[711] A ship’s anchors and guns had her name painted on them.[712]

William Thomas, master gunner of the _Victory_, drew attention in 1584 to the lack of trained gunners he thought he perceived, nor was he the only person who detected the same deficiency. The Spaniards who were, under the circumstances, perhaps better judges thought differently, and one of their Armada captains relates that the English fired their heavy guns as quickly as the Spaniards did their muskets.[713] The grant of the artillery ground by Henry VIII as a place of practice has already been mentioned, and, in 1575, it is again brought into notice by an order that sufficient powder and shot should be allowed to train ‘scollers’ there.[714] Until Wynter’s death in 1589 the supply of ordnance stores for the Navy remained under his control, and the absence of remark shows that the business progressed smoothly. It then became a part of the ordinary work of the Ordnance Office, and that department did not belie the unsavoury reputation it has always held. By 1591 outcry against it ran high, and in 1598 and 1600 its corrupt and lax administration called forth various projects of reform. The superior departmental officers gave themselves allowances and, through brokers, sold to themselves as representing the crown; the inferior clerks were in league with the gunners in embezzlement.[715] With such encouragement it is not surprising to find that

‘the master gunners who do usually indent for the provision
of ships and fortified places do commonly return unreasonable
waste of all things committed to their charge, which waste
grows not by any of Her Majesty’s service but by the gunners
themselves in selling Her Majesty’s powder and shot and other
provisions, sometimes before they go to sea and most usually
upon their return from the sea.’

Usually the captain shared the proceeds with the gunner and the clerks of the Ordnance department, and the transaction leaves no mark. Occasionally a captain refused and then we have the incident put on record as in the case of the master gunner of the _Defiance_, who, when she returned from sea in 1596 offered his commander £100 for permission to steal half the powder remaining on board.[716] The patentee for iron shot was a prisoner for debt and forced to sublet his contract; sometimes he bought shot sold by the gunners, ‘so that Her Majesty buyeth her own goods and payeth double for the same.’ When the pursuit of the flying Armada ceased want of ammunition was as much a reason as want of provisions. But if the deposition of John Charlton, who lived in a house adjoining to that of Hamon, a master gunner of the _Ark Royal_, is to be credited, that ship, at any rate, did not lack powder. Charlton informed Howard that he had daily seen much powder taken into Hamon’s dwelling. Hamon confessed, but according to Charlton, very incompletely, for, ‘where it was set downe but iiii barrels I will aprove that after the fight there came to his house fortie barrels which was to her Maiestie in that fighte greate hinderance.’ It is significant that a labourer in the employ of the Ordnance Office acknowledged that he had been hired to pick a quarrel with Charlton and maim or kill him.[717]

The cost of cast iron ordnance was, between 1565 and 1570, from £10 to £12 a ton; in 1600 it had fallen to £8 and £9 a ton. Brass ordnance was from £40 to £60 a ton. The reputation of our founders stood so high that the Spaniards were prepared to pay £22 a ton for iron guns and to give a pension to the man who could smuggle them over.[718] The exportation of ordnance was strictly prohibited, but an extensive underhand trade went on notwithstanding the efforts of the government. In February 1574 all gunfounders were called upon to give bonds to £2000 apiece not to cast ordnance without licence and not to sell it to foreigners. The seat of the industry was Kent and Sussex and the requirements of the kingdom exclusive of the Royal Navy and of the royal forts, were then estimated at 600 tons a year.[719] There seem to have been only some six or seven founders in the business, and in the following June, the Council ordered that no one should enter into it without permission; that all guns should be sent to the Tower wharf, there to be sold to English subjects who were to give sureties not to sell abroad out of their ships; and that all founders were to send in a yearly return to the Master of the Ordnance of the number of guns sold, and to whom.[720] These orders were repeated in 1588 and 1601, but a founder estimated that 2500 tons of ordnance were cast a year, being three times as much as could be used in England, and it was supposed that, previous to 1592, out of 2000 tons yearly made 1600 were secretly sent abroad.

Although the saltpetre had been obtained from the continent powder had long been made in England as well as bought abroad. In 1562 three persons who had erected powder mills, tendered to supply it on a large scale—200 lasts a year—at £3, 5s a cwt. (of 100 lbs.) for corn powder, and £2, 16s 8d for serpentine powder.[721] This offer does not seem to have been accepted although in 1560 the crown was paying £3, 5s 2d, the cwt. (of 112 lbs.) for serpentine powder, and in 1570, still higher prices. In November 1588 there was ‘a reasonable store’ of round shot in hand and 55 lasts of powder; 100 tons of shot and 100 lasts of powder were required to make good deficiencies, but in view of the amount remaining in stock only the fatal blundering which has always characterised the departments can explain the constant prayer for supplies that came, vainly, from the fleet.[722] Wynter, whose province it was to attend to naval requirements in these matters, was himself on service from 22nd December 1587 until 15th September 1588, in command of the _Vanguard_ and the _Ark Royal_. How the business of his office was carried on in his absence we do not know with certainty, but from some entries in the Privy Council Register for 1588, it would appear to have been handed over to the Ordnance Office. The cost of the powder was here estimated at £100 a last, but in 1589 a tender from George Evelyn, John Evelyn, and Richard Hills, to deliver 80 lasts a year for eleven years at £80 was accepted. In 1603 they, with some other partners, were still acting and furnishing 100 lasts a year. Round shot, from cannon down to fawcon, was obtained at an average of £8 a ton; ‘jointed shot,’ and cross-bar shot were dear, from 2s 6d to 8s apiece, according to the size of the gun. Stone shot were still used and cost from sixpence to two shillings each conformable to size.[723]

[Sidenote: Naval Expenditure.]

The naval expenses, especially during the last fifteen years of her reign, must have seemed appalling to Elizabeth and would have excused her parsimony had she not been so lavish to herself. From the _Audit Office Accounts_ we are enabled to give on the next page the amounts for which the Treasurer of the Navy was answerable, but these by no means included all the expenditure of the crown in various expeditions. The total cost of the Cadiz and Islands voyages, for instance, of 1596 and 1597 is given as £172,260 and this is only partly represented below.[724] If the Queen took a share in an adventure the money she advanced was paid from the Exchequer and is not borne on the Navy accounts.

The £12,000 a year allotted to Gonson, under Mary, for the working of the naval establishments during peace was reduced from 1st January 1564 to £6000 a year, of which he was to pay Baeshe £165, 2s a month for harbour victualling.[725] Of course war, or preparation for war, upset all calculations of economy, but the attempt was steadily made to keep the normal, everyday, expenses of the department separate from the exceptional ones, and to reduce the former to as low a sum as practicable. Gonson must have found the £6000 a year impossible, for in 1567 it was raised to £7695, 6s 2d. The economy could have been only nominal, for on the same date as this new order[726] there is a warrant to Gonson for £10,200 extra for stores and ship repairs which would have formerly been included in the £12,000 a year. By a statement of 1585 the average for these years was £10,946 yearly, when building, repairs, and stores purchased were included.[740] From 1571 commences the division into ordinary and extraordinary, which doubtless had a further saving for its object, although how the process was to work, except as tending towards clearer bookkeeping, is not now manifest.

+---------+--------+-----------+----------------------------------------+
| | | | Dockyards |
| | | +--------+---------+---------+-----------+
| | Total |Victualling| | | | |
| |received| [727] |Chatham |Deptford |Woolwich |Portsmouth |
+---------+--------+-----------+--------+---------+---------+-----------+
| | £ | £ | £ | £ | £ | £ |
|1559 } | 106000| 43300 | 5157 | 26800 | 1400 | 2726 |
|1560 } | | | | | | |
|1561 | 19757| 3200 | 2164 | 19528 | 866 | 265 |
|1562[731]| | | | | | |
|1563[732]| 53790| 19208 | 3701 | 19707 | 944 | 2529 |
|1564 | 18000| 4492 | 2038 | 2912 | 14 | 268 |
|1565 | 5318| 2149 | 4350 | 445 | 32 | 294 |
|1566 | 5178| 1843 | 3612 | 247 | 10 | 77 |
|1567 | 13129| 1999 | 6257 | 484 | 12 | 66 |
|1568 | 12062| 2718 | 5843 | 1854 | 21 | 100 |
|1569 | 17015| 7484 | 2653 | 343 | 12 | 50 |
|1570 | 15138| 7162 | 3133 | 985 | 12 | 266 |
|1571 | 8580| 2403 | | | | |
|1572 | 12300| 2765 | | | | |
|1573 | 8934| 2686 | | | | |
|1574 | 14157| 2964 | | | | |
|1575 | 6802| 2969 | | | | |
|1576 | 9957| 4449 | | | | |
|1577 | 12977| 3871 | | | | |
|1578 | 14276| 5032 | | | | |
|1579 | 8400| 4918 | | | | |
|1580 | 5829| 11932 | | | | |
|1581 | 9532| 3356 | | | | |
|1582 | 8388| 3230 | | | | |
|1583 | 6694| 2274 | | | | |
|1584 | 8020| 2615 | 3680 | | | |
|1585 | 12934| 5786 | | | | |
|1586 | 25691| 8636 | | | | |
|1587 | 46300| 29563 | | | | |
|1588 | 80666| 59221 | 5387 | | | |
|1589 | 52317| 15949 | 3864 | | | |
|1590 | 61168| 20379 | 2257 | | | |
|1591 | 35626| 13198 | 7046 | | | |
|1592 | 29937| 11657 | 7442 | | | |
|1593 | 26000| 9872 | | | | |
|1594 | 49000| 16241 | | | | |
|1595[735]| 59700| 14665 | 12328 | 5631 | | |
|1596[736]| 37421| 16387[737]| | | | |
|1597 | 64705| 28630 | | | | |
|1598 | 69000| 22100 | | | | |
|1599 | 67116| 32426 | | | | |
|1600 | 37780| 21355 | | | | |
|1601 | 56500| 28866 | | | | |
|1602 | 62457| 40945 | | | | |
+---------+--------+-----------+--------+---------+---------+-----------+

+---------+-----------+-----------+--------+----------+---------------+
| | | | | | |
| | Sea | | | | |
| | Charges | Total | Stores | Ordinary | |
| | [728] | Spent | [729] | [730] | Extraordinary |
+---------+-----------+-----------+--------+----------+---------------+
| | £ | £ | £ | £ | £ |
|1559 } | 23380 | | | | |
|1560 } | | | | | |
|1561 | | 27485 | | | |
|1562[731]| | | | | |
|1563[732]| 16021 | 63290 | | | |
|1564 | 1497 | 21471 | | | |
|1565 | | 7844[733]| | | |
|1566 | | 6244 | | | |
|1567 | | 19000 | | | |
|1568 | 743 | 15115 | | | |
|1569 | 2820 | 17800 | 6354 | | |
|1570 | 2332 | 17527 | 3834 | | |
|1571 | | 8598 | | 5752 | 2846[734] |
|1572 | | 8559 | | 5646 | 2913 |
|1573 | | 10686 | | 5940 | 4746 |
|1574 | | 12877 | | 6143 | 3776 |
|1575 | | 6893 | | | |
|1576 | | 10660 | | 5631 | 5029 |
|1577 | | 12899 | | | |
|1578 | | 14956 | | 5712 | 8727 |
|1579 | 1351 | 8100 | | 3849 | 1481 |
|1580 | 4110 | 14602 | | 3833 | 6172 |
|1581 | | 11902 | | | |
|1582 | | 8663 | | 4015 | 4624 |
|1583 | | 7486 | | | |
|1584 | | 8515 | | 3934 | 4581 |
|1585 | | 11602 | | | |
|1586 | 8905 | 29391 | | | |
|1587 | 7355 | 44000 | | | |
|1588 | | 90813 | | 2283 | 88530 |
|1589 | 12650 | 47836 | | 4756 | 43057 |
|1590 | 16109 | 60370 | 3248 | | |
|1591 | 4141 | 31000 | | 6172 | 24868 |
|1592 | 6789 | 28585 | | 5554 | 23031 |
|1593 | 5400 | 22269 | | 4974 | 17224 |
|1594 | | 49300 | | | |
|1595[735]| 15293 | 59000 | | 10425 | 48588 |
|1596[736]| 21204[738]| 38379 | | 10363 | 27935 |
|1597 | 40680[739]| 76513 | | 14906 | 60702 |
|1598 | 9229 | 53300 | 18000 | 14203 | 39000 |
|1599 | 15749 | 66665 | | 7137 | 59504 |
|1600 | 14039 | 35200 | 8600 | 8170 | 19028 |
|1601 | 14166 | | 22910 | 7047 | 45326 |
|1602 | 26270 | 60832 | 20104 | 6976 | 53840 |
+---------+-----------+-----------+--------+----------+---------------+

In October 1579 ‘bargains’ were made between the Queen and Hawkyns, and with Pett and Baker.[741] Twenty-five vessels of all classes were named in the agreement and Hawkyns undertook to provide their moorings, to keep spare cables and hawsers on board, and to furnish other cordage necessary for ordinary harbour and sea use, for £1200 a year, the contract being terminable at six months’ notice. He was not to be called upon to account for the £1200 and therefore evidently expected, and was at liberty, to make a profit. The agreement with Pett and Baker was to the effect that they should ground and grave the ships at least every first, second, or third year, according to size; that they should repair or replace all faulty masts and yards that became defective in harbour, except the lower masts and yards of the sixteen largest vessels; that they were to pay wages, victualling and lodging of the men they employed and provide all materials and tools; they were to supply carpenters’ stores to vessels in commission, and pay all carriage and hire of storehouses. For this they were to have £1000 a year. It was these two contracts that brought such a storm of obloquy on Hawkyns. On the one hand, the other officers found the greater part of their occupation gone, and their interference in some of the most important transactions an unwarrantable intermeddling with agreements approved by the government. On the other Hawkyns and the shipwrights expected to make a profit, and circumstances seem to suggest that the way in which Hawkyns insisted on the work being done did not leave Pett and Baker that margin they anticipated. These two men subsequently became his bitter enemies, and in 1588 sent in a report on his management, to which events at that time were daily giving the lie. The effect of the new arrangement was to make Hawkyns supreme in all the branches of administration, and therefore every contractor or middleman, with whose arrangements he interfered, swelled the outcry. The result of the commission of inquiry of January 1584 was not to displace him, but apparently it did abrogate these contracts, and in 1585 a new one was entered into with Hawkyns alone. For £4000 a year he defrayed the repair of ships in harbour, found moorings, paid shipkeepers and the garrison of Upnor, repaired wharves and storehouses, finding in all cases materials, victuals, and lodgings for the workmen.[742] The object of this and the preceding agreement was to get the ordinary done for £4000 a year, devoting the money saved to the purchase of cordage, masts, etc., which had formerly been extra. Hawkyns maintained that he had performed it successfully; his opponents denied it. It was the last contract, from which they were excluded, that Pett and Baker reported upon. He gave notice to terminate it at Christmas 1587 in consequence of the great increase in naval operations, and no third bargain was engaged in. From 1st January 1589 the amount allowed for the ordinary was raised to £7268[743] which then only restored it to the standard of 1567; in January 1599 it was increased to £11,000 a year.[744]

The year to which the reader will turn with most interest is 1588, and the figures here given, representing the payments of Hawkyns only, deal with the expenditure through him and probably do not represent the whole, even of the naval expenses. A document printed by Murdin[745] makes the naval disbursements, between the beginning of November 1587 and the end of September 1588, exclusive of victualling and the charges borne by London and other ports, reach the much larger sum of £112,000. Powder and shot were used to the value of £10,000, while £20,000 was required to replace stores and put the fleet in seaworthy condition again. Another estimate puts the expenses of the year at £92,370.[746] It gives the cost by fleets: the Lord Admiral’s £31,980; Seymour’s £12,180; coasters and volunteers £15,970; Frobisher’s £840; Drake’s £21,890, etc. Finally we have the items stated in a different way[747]: wages £52,557; conduct and discharge money £2272; tonnage (hire of) £6225; other expenses £15,003; extraordinary allowances and rewards £854. The compensation paid for the eight vessels converted into fireships and sent among the Spaniards during the anxious night of 28-29th July was £5111, 10s, perhaps the cheapest national investment that this country has ever made.[748] Two of them were of 200 tons apiece, in all they measured 1230 tons.

[Sidenote: Preparation and Cost of Fleets.]

There were in pay during the struggle in the Channel 34 Queen’s ships and 163 merchantmen, but all through the year merchantmen had been taken up or discharged, and men-of-war put in and out of commission as the need seemed more or less urgent. There were 8 admirals, 3 vice-admirals, 126 captains, 136 masters, 26 lieutenants, 24 corporals, 2 ensign bearers, 2 secretaries, 13 preachers, and 11,618 soldiers, sailors, and gunners.[749] Other authorities give a larger number of men, in one instance 15,925; and only 95 merchantmen appear in the _Audit Office Accounts_ as paid by the Treasurer. In this case the in and out working must have puzzled the authorities considerably, but ordinarily experience had enabled them to calculate with fair accuracy the probable cost of sending a fleet to sea. In October 1580—Drake had returned in September and Mendoza was vapouring—such an estimate was prepared for twenty men-of-war, to be manned by 4030 seamen and gunners, and 1690 soldiers. The press and conduct money of the seamen amounts to £1410, 10s, that of the soldiers and their coat money to £676; sea stores of ships £800, and wages of officers and crews for one month £2669, 6s 8d. The discharge money for both soldiers and sailors is £1462, and one month’s provisions £4004. In all the charges make a total of £11,449 for the first month. As there would be no cost of preparation, nor press, conduct, coat, or discharge money to be reckoned in the following months, the cost for the second and succeeding months would be £6773 each. For another £12,000 twenty-two armed merchantmen, of 5200 tons and 2790 men, could be joined with the men-of-war for three months. The last years in which foreign ships appear to have been ‘stayed’ by the authority of the crown for service with its fleets were 1560, 1561, and 1569. There is a payment of £300 in 1560 for ‘putting the Venetian’s hulk and ship that be staied for our service in warre in like order and sorte.’[750] In 1569 another £300 was paid by Gonson to two Ragusan masters whose ships were stayed but do not appear to have been used.[751] Some other foreign vessels are also referred to but their names do not occur in any naval paper.

The expenses of the semi-private, semi-royal, expeditions of various years are not borne on the navy accounts and the references to them in the State Papers are frequently incomplete and contradictory. That of Frobisher, in 1589, cost upwards of £11,000, of Frobisher and Hawkyns in 1590, £17,000,[752] and of Lord Thomas Howard in 1591, £24,000.[753] The outlay attendant on Essex’s fleet in 1596 was £78,000,[754] and that of the Drake-Hawkyns venture in 1595, £42,000.[755] Here the Queen provided six men-of-war and, according to one statement,[756] was to have had one-third of the booty, but it is difficult to disentangle the actual facts from the several discrepant versions. The voyage was a disastrous failure financially, treasure to £4907 only being brought home; worse still it cost the lives of Drake and Hawkyns. The lower ranks, however, did not fare so badly; it was said that £1000 was embezzled from the sale of powder alone, and some of the men, being drunk, ‘showed a great store of gold’ on their return.

[Sidenote: Division of Prize Money.]

In the seventeenth century Monson noticed that, notwithstanding the destruction they brought on Spanish commerce nationally, the majority of the Elizabethan adventurers not only made no fortunes but ruined themselves by their enterprises. So far as pecuniary receipts were concerned there were only two really great captures during the Queen’s reign. Her share of the _St Philip_, taken by Drake in 1587, was £46,672; Drake’s own, £18,235; the Lord Admiral’s, £4338; and private adventurers, £44,787.[757] A still richer haul was made in the _Madre de Dios_, taken in 1592, which, by the account of her purser, carried 8500 quintals of pepper, 900 of cloves, 700 of cinnamon, 500 of cochineal, and 450 of other merchandise, besides amber, musk, and precious stones to the value of 400,000 crusados, and some especially fine diamonds.[758] In this case there was only one Queen’s ship among the ten entitled to share, and the services rendered by that one were questioned, but Her Majesty demanded the lion’s share of the proceeds. If the men were not paid wages the usual arrangement for the division of prize money was that if ships were cruising, and ‘thirds’ were agreed upon, the spoil was to be divided into three parts, viz., tonnage (_i.e._, owners), one part, the victuallers the second part, and the men the remaining third. But if ships joined in ‘consortship,’ their takings were to be first divided ton for ton, and man for man, then each vessel’s proportion was to be joined and divided into shares as before.[759] By the second mode ships belonging to the squadron, but absent from a particular capture, would still share the pillage. The captain took ten shares, the master seven or eight, and most of the remaining officers three to five each; if the cruiser was a privateer the Lord Admiral received a tenth from each of the thirds. For the twelve years 1587-98 Nottingham’s tenths amounted to upwards of £18,000.[760] The following computation shows the proportions due on this system of division assuming the value of the carrack’s cargo to have been £140,000.[761]

_Foresight_ Tonnage 450, £8092 9 8½ }
(Queen’s Ship) Men 170, 7505 10 4 } £23103 10 4½
Victualling as for men, 7505 10 4 }

_Roebuck_ Tonnage 350, 6294 3 1½ }
(Sir W. Ralegh) Men 160, 7064 0 4½ } 20422 3 10½
Victualling as for men, 7064 0 4½ }

_Dainty_ Tonnage 300, 5394 19 9½ }
(Sir J. Hawkyns) Men 100, 4415 0 2½ } 14225 0 2½
Victualling as for men, 4415 0 2½ }

Five Ships Tonnage 1235, 22209 7 6½ }
(Earl of Cumberland) Men 500, 22075 1 1½ } 66359 9 9½
Victualling as for men, 22075 1 1½ }

Two Ships Tonnage 260, 4675 13 2 }
of London Men 127, 5607 1 3½ } 15889 15 9
Victualling as for men, 5607 1 3½ }

There was thus a total of 2595 tons. One third of £140,000 is £46,666, 13s 4d and this, divided by 2595, gives a unit of £17, 19s 6d a ton. For the _Foresight_ 450 times £17, 19s 6d yields roughly the £8092, 9s 8½d to which her tonnage entitles her; the same formula gives the shares of the other ships, and of the men, substituting in the latter case 1057 for 2595. The Earl of Cumberland, one of the most persistent and one of the most unlucky of the private adventurers of his day got only £36,000, and in the end, after much bickering, Elizabeth took nearly £80,000 of the plunder. There is no doubt that the fleet was in ‘consortship,’[762] but it did not suit her interests to allow that form of division. The official belief, and one apparently well founded, was that enormous theft went on, both among officers and men, before the prize was brought into port. Robert Cecil, who had been sent into Devonshire to make inquiries, wrote to his father that, approaching Exeter, he ‘cold well smell them almost such has been the spoils of amber and musk among them ... there never was such spoil.’ Officers and men pillaged first, the captains took what they could from them, and when the admiral, Sir John Burroughs, came up, he plundered the captains. Among other items the Commissioners found that an emerald cross three inches long, 62 diamonds, and 1400 ‘very great’ pearls had been stolen. It is not known what became of the _Madre de Dios_, but possibly an offer from the mayor and burgesses of Dartmouth to pay £200 and build a hospital for the poor in return ‘for yᵉ carrick’ may refer to it.[763]

[Sidenote: Merchant Shipping and Trade.]

In 1584 Hawkyns wrote to Burghley ‘I ame perswydyd that the substance of this reallme ys treblyd in vallew syns her Maiesties raygne.’ So far as the carrying trade, as exemplified in the increase of merchant ships, was concerned, the statement was more than justified. The legislation that had long been directed in a more or less perfunctory manner to the encouragement of English merchant shipping by protective enactments was enforced more stringently. Such enactments were varied or renewed by the 1st, 5th, 13th, 23rd, 27th and 39th of Elizabeth. The coast fisheries were assisted by permission being granted to export fish in English bottoms, free of custom, subsidy, or poundage,[764] while the internal consumption was increased by the more rigid exaction of the observance of fish days. The coasting trade was confined to English owned ships, and the earlier statutes bearing on exportation or importation in foreign vessels were put into active operation. These measures were not fruitless. For 1576 is a list of fifty-one ships built in the preceding five years and attributed, rightly or wrongly, to the statute ordering abstinence from flesh on Wednesdays.[765] In 1581 the authorities of the Trinity Corporation sent in a certificate showing a large increase in the number of fishing boats, there being in a short time, an addition of 114 on the east and south-east coasts alone between Newcastle and Portsmouth.[766]

The bounty of five shillings a ton, for vessels of 100 tons and upwards, only paid occasionally during preceding reigns is now of common occurrence. The Exchequer warrants name 162 ships on which it was given during the reign, and the series is probably far from complete. Certain names frequently recur in these entries; the Hawkyns family of Plymouth; Olyff Burre, a coppersmith of Southwark, who obtained the bounty on 790 tons of shipping in two years; the Fenners of Chichester; Philip and Francis Drake; and William Borough. Sometimes seamen were both owners and masters but more frequently the owners are described as merchants. Towards the later years of the century, when the volume of ocean trade had greatly increased, the bounty payments become almost continuous, and then owners had to give surety not to sell their ships to foreigners. Between 1581 and 1594 there had been built—or rather had received the premium—46 such vessels of which 25 belonged to London, 7 to Bristol, 2 to Southampton, 3 to Dartmouth, and 1 each to Hull and Liverpool.[767] The _Galleon Ughtred_ of Southampton, built by John Ughtred of Netley, was of 500 tons, and when she was sent to sea under Fenton was valued at £6035, fitted, victualled, and munitioned.[768]

It is perhaps indicative of the results of the years 1587-8-9 that while only 46 such vessels had been built in thirteen years, there were, between 1592 and 1595, 48 large ships of 10,622 tons receiving a sum of £2683, 5s. In one year—1593—London owners were paid on 16 ships of 3248 tons; Dartmouth, as in the preceding century, is ahead of the other southern ports with seven vessels of 1460 tons.[769] From September 1596 to September 1597 the bounty was paid on 57 ships of 11,160 tons; two were of 400 tons, four of 320, two of 310, thirty-two of between 200 and 300 tons, and the general increase in the tonnage of individual ships is another noticeable fact in the growth of the shipping industry.[770]

But probably the bounty was not always paid. At the foot of a list of merchantmen for the years 1572-9, the owners of which had given bond that they should not be sold to the subjects of a foreign power, the clerk writes: ‘whether all these or how many of them have had any allowance of Her Majesty I cannot tell for that there is no record of the allowance in this court.’[771] The total is 70 ships of 12,630 tons; the largest are, one of Bristol of 600 tons, one of London of 450, and one of Dartmouth of 400 tons. One entry, on 9th July, 1577, is that Francis Drake of Plymouth gives bond for the _Pelican_ of 150 tons.[772] Very often the five shillings a ton was not paid but allowed on the customs, as in 1595, when 636 crowns were granted to three London merchants ‘to be allowed on the customs of merchandise brought by the said ships.’ It was of course to the interest of the owner to have his vessel rated at the highest possible tonnage, both for the bounty and for service with the royal fleets. For the latter the hire remained at one shilling a ton till about 1580 when it was raised to two shillings and even then the measuring officers, we are told, usually allowed the Queen to be charged for a third more than the real tonnage.[773]

Besides the stimulus of general trade and the requirements of the crown for ships to serve with the fleets, there was a further encouragement to building in the action of the great chartered associations then in possession of so much of the over sea trade. The Russia Company, chartered in 1555, traded to Russia, Persia, and the Caspian, and, late in the century, commenced the whale fishery; the Turkey, or Levant Company, founded in 1581, to the dominions of the Sultan, the Greek Archipelago, and, indirectly, to the East Indies; the Eastland Company trading through the Sound to Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark; the Guinea Company to the west coast of Africa, and the Merchant Adventurers along the northern coast of continental Europe. Many of the largest ocean-going ships either belonged to, or were hired by, these corporations, and owners who had entered into the prevalent spirit of shipbuilding felt that they had a right to have their vessels hired by the companies. Olyff Burre, the speculative owner before mentioned, petitioned the Council in 1579 to the effect that he had obtained a living for forty years ‘cheefely by the maynteyninge of shippinge and the navygacon,’ that he now had a number of vessels unemployed, and that he trusted they would order the Spanish Company to hire his ships.[774] In 1581 the Levant Company possessed fourteen ships varying in size from 200 to 350 tons; they complain, in a petition, that the new import duties levied by the Venetians are destroying their trade, and that their ships are too big to be employed in any other work.[775] In the five years 1583-7 this company employed nineteen vessels and 787 men in twenty-seven voyages, and paid £11,359 in customs. In 1600 they owned thirteen of 2610 tons and hired seventeen of 2650 tons. Their agent at Constantinople cost £1000 a year, besides presents to the Turks, and in 1591 they calculated that, first and last, they had been compelled to spend £40,000 in maintaining agents, consuls, etc.[776] The profits made by these companies were sometimes enormous and their risks were fewer than those of individual owners, for their large, well-armed and manned ships were less exposed to the dangers of navigation and piracy, the latter a factor to be always reckoned with.

Notwithstanding piracy, warfare, and the risks of navigation in little known seas, the returns show a steady increase in the size and number of English vessels. The necessities of distant trading explain the increase in size both in view of a relatively smaller cost of working and a larger number of partners interested in the cargo, and the results of successful maritime war were shown in a carrying trade which it may almost be held to have founded. But an extension of commerce was sometimes thrust unwillingly on the English merchants. Some of them petitioned in 1571 that the trade with Portugal was of more value than that with the East Indies, and that an agreement should be come to with the King of Portugal by which Englishmen would undertake not to trade with the East if a free opening were given by that monarch in his European dominions. They said that the traffic to the East Indies ‘often attempted hath taken small effect,’ that in fifteen years no merchants had made any profit, ‘except such as being spoiled there have made great gain by the recompense here.’[777] They did not foresee the future subjects of spoliation, but although trade was progressing it moved onwards tentatively and with hesitation; and but for the cessation of trade with Portugal the formation of the East India Company might have been long deferred.

If a merchantman escaped the ordinary risks of the sea as they were understood in the sixteenth century, risks that included much more than is comprised in the expression to-day, the owner’s troubles were by no means over. Commerce with the East could only be carried on by constant bribery; if he traded to Spain he had to reckon with the suspicious bigotry of Church and State, and when returned to England he had to deal with the more selfish dishonesty of custom-house officials, and sometimes of persons of higher rank. Three victims of Spanish procedure petition Burghley:—

‘In this moste wofull manner sheweth unto your Honour your
suppliantes John Tyndall and Robert Frampton of Bristowe and
William Ellize of Alperton ... late marchants and the Quenes
Maiesties naturall subjectes late in case right good to
live and nowe in state most miserable. That where your said
suppliantes did trade into Spayne in the way of marchandise—soe
it is Right Honourable that besydes longe and miserable
imprisonment besydes the intollerable torment of the Strappadoe
there susteyned by the authoritie of the Inquisition of Spayne
your said suppliantes are there spoyled of all their goodes to
the vallew of ˡⁱ2228 10ˢ 6ᵈ, to their utter undoing.’[778]

Their ship was seized and they were tortured because a Cato in English was found on board—Spain and England being at peace. They go on to ask that they may have restitution out of Spanish goods in England. In 1588, of the crew of a Scotch ship just arrived at St Lucar, ‘accused to be protestantes and fleshe eaters on dayes prohibite,’ three were burnt and the rest sent to the galleys, upon accusation, without any trial.[779] As the knowledge of these and other stories spread, one does not wonder at the massacres of Smerwick and Connaught; it is only a matter for surprise that any Spanish prisoner received quarter.

It was a usual clause in a charter-party that a merchantman should carry ordnance and small arms. In the peaceful Bordeaux fleet of 1593, the three largest vessels carried from 17 to 21 guns, and all the others have from 3 to 16 pieces of various sizes. Owners whose vessels had escaped the perils of the voyage had to be prepared for trickery at home. Accusations of dishonesty were general against the officers of the customs; ‘they alter their books leaving out and putting in what pleases them’; the wages of the waiters were £12, 16s a year, but some of them kept large establishments, the officers were said to attend about two-and-a-half hours daily, and the chief ones seldom came at all. These latter, says the writer, appointed clerks who grew rich the same way, and these again took under clerks who made a living out of the merchants; the chief posts were sold at high prices, while, in the country, the Queen was defrauded of half the customs.’[780] Another person, writing to Robert Cecil in 1594, says ‘there has been transported out of Rye within twelve months not less than £10,000 of prohibited wares. The customs officers not only connive but help.’[781] Other examples might be cited to show that there had not been much improvement in these years, although the service had been reorganised in 1586 when the Customer, Sir Thos. Smith, who farmed some of the imposts, had been compelled to disgorge a portion of his profits. The revenue from the customs was £24,000 in 1586, in 1590 £50,000, and £127,000 in 1603. If the merchant escaped the extortions of the custom house he might find that persons of the highest rank did not disdain to avail themselves of the organised chicane of the law. In 1586 Leicester sent a cargo to Barbary, and in the return lading, the factor thought it safer, on account of pirates and other enemies, to mark all his employers’ goods with Leicester’s mark. On the arrival of the ship Elizabeth’s favourite claimed the whole cargo and, the law being on his side, the owners were compelled to compound with him for their own property.[782]

[Sidenote: Returns of Merchant Ships and Seamen.]

There are more detailed lists of merchant ships for the period under review than for any other reign. By these lists, equivalent to a return of vessels now built to Admiralty requirements, the government knew, from time to time, how many ships could be relied on as fighting auxiliaries and how many could be used as tenders and transports. They also enabled the Council to judge whether the measures taken for the protection and encouragement of native shipping were successful. The first of these returns is for March 1560 and is incomplete since there is no entry for such a port as Bristol, and Somerset and the Welsh counties are also omitted:—[783]

+----------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| |Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|Tons|
| | 100| 120| 140| 160| 180| 200| 260| 300|
| +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| London | 1 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Saltash | | | 1 | | | | | |
| Fowey | 1 | | | | | | | |
| Northam | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | | | |
| Plymouth | 2 | 1 | | 1 | | | | |
| Salcombe | 1 | | | | | | | |
| Dartmouth | | 1 | 3 | | | 1 | | |
| Cockington | 1 | | | | | | | |
| Kingswear | | 2 | 1 | 1 | | | | |
| Southampton | | | 1 | | | | | |
| Christchurch | | 1 | | | | | | |
| Sandwich | | | 1 | | | | | |
| Brightlingsea | 1 | | 1 | | | | | |
| Walderswick | 2 | | | | | | | |
| Southwold | 1 | | 1 | | | | | |
| Cley | | | 1 | | | 1 | | |
| Wells | | | 2 | | | | | |
| Grimsby | 1 | | | | | | | |
| Scarborough | | | 1 | | | | | |
| Hull | 4 | 1 | 1 | | | | | |
| Newcastle | 12 | | 1 | | | | | |
| Chester | 1 | | 1 | | | | | |
+----------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+

Here there are seventy-six ships and although some towns, such as Southampton, may not have their full complement given, there was probably no other port, with the exception of Bristol, possessing vessels of 100 tons or upwards. During the early years of the reign the country was impoverished and the people little inclined to effort. Mary left the crown deeply indebted and, concurrently with an increase of national expenditure, there was, for the moment, a general decline of commerce, and a shifting of the centres of commercial distribution, especially felt by some of the older seaports. Yarmouth petitioned in 1559 for relief from payment of the tenths and fifteenths on account of loss of trade; their harbour had cost them £1000 a year and was not yet finished, the town walls £100 a year, and the relief of their poor yet another hundred.[784] In 1565 Yarmouth had 553 householders; 7 seagoing ships, of which the largest was 140 tons; 25 smaller ones, and 81 fishing boats together with 400 seamen.[785] Doubtless the burgesses did not minimise their calamities but similar complaints came in from all quarters. Hythe had, from 80 vessels and fishing boats sunk to 8; Winchilsea, ‘there is at this present none, and the town greatly decayed.’[786] Between 1558 and 1565 Dartmouth owners had lost four and sold eleven ships, and seemingly had no intention of replacing fifteen others worn out by service. The complaints of Chester are chronic in the same sense; its merchants had lost £22,000 in seven years from piracies and shipwrecks; and Hull in a shorter period had lost £23,000 from the same causes.

The next list, of 1568,[787] gives seventy-three vessels of 100 tons or more but from this many important places, such as London, Bristol, Hull, and others are wanting so that it may be assumed that a marked improvement had already commenced. There are many isolated certificates of ships belonging to various ports scattered through the State Papers, and from one of them we find that ‘Hawkyns of Plymouth’ possessed, in 1570, thirteen of 2040 tons; one of them was of 500 and another of 350 tons. There is a certificate of vessels trading between September 1571 and September 1572,[788] which gives eighty-six of 100 tons and upwards, including forty-nine of 6870 tons belonging to London, but this is not a complete list of ships owned in the various ports, but only of those that had been engaged in trade. For February 1577 there is a full return which yields the following results:—[789]

+-----------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| |Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|Ton|
| |100|110|120|130|140|150|160|180|200|220|240|260|300|350|500|
| +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|London | 10| 6| 7| 4| 4| 1| 3| | 4| 2| 1| | 1| 1| |
|Bristol | 1| | 1| | 2| 1| 1| | 1| | | | | | 1|
|Chester | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Newport | 2| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Chepstow | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Barnstaple | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Fowey | 1| | 1| | | | 1| | | | | | | | |
|Looe | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Plymouth | 2| 1| 1| 1| 1| | | | | | | | | | |
|Dartmouth | 1| | 1| | | | 1| | | | | | | 1| |
|Exmouth | 3| | | 1| | | | | | | | | | | |
|Weymouth | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Poole | 2| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Southampton| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| & | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Portsmouth| 1| 1| 1| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Dover | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Harwich and| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Ipswich | 7| | 2| | 1| 1| | | | | | | | | |
|Woodbridge | 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Orford and | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Aldborough| 3| 1| | | 5| | | | | | | | | | |
|Walderswick| 1| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Yarmouth | 4| | | 1| | | | | | | | | | | |
|Lynn | 2| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Hull | 3| 1| 3| | | 2| | | 1| | | | | | |
|Newcastle | 6| 1| 3| | 2| | 1| | 1| | | | | | |
+---------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+