Chapter XVII: Part II: Royal and Merchant Shipping

[Sidenote: The Royal Ships in 1625.]

When Charles I inherited the crown, his fleet consisted of 4 first, 14 second, 8 third, and 4 fourth rates;[1068] of these 1 first, 7 second, 6 third, and the 4 fourth rates were comparatively new ships, the oldest being the _Prince_, launched in 1610. The others were originally Elizabethan, had been repaired, rebuilt or patched up more or less effectively at various times, and of them the _Lion_ of 1582 was the most ancient. The recent accessions were, for reasons previously noticed, more commodious and better seaboats than their predecessors, but the King had yet to learn that the mere possession of a naval framework in the shape of hulls, spars and guns was of little use without efficient crews, and adequate knowledge and honest effort on the part of the subordinate officials on whom fell the responsibility of preparation and equipment. Whether due to a desire to save the royal ships as much as possible, to want of men to man them properly, or to their generally inefficient state, the expeditions of 1625-7-8 included a very large proportion of armed merchantmen. In 1625 there were twelve men-of-war and seventy-three merchantmen;[1069] in 1627 fourteen of the former, of which three were small pinnaces and eighty-two of the latter[1070]; and in 1628 the second Rochelle fleet, which Lindsey commanded, was made up of twenty-nine King’s ships and thirty-one merchantmen.[1071] But under Lindsey, ten of the royal ships were of the class known as ‘whelps,’ just built, and measuring 180 tons each, and ten were pinnaces of 50 tons or under, so that only nine vessels of the real fighting line were with him. We shall see that the owners of merchantmen, who could neither escape the calls made on their ships nor get paid for their services, by no means valued the honour thus thrust upon them.

Charles, like his father, felt a keen interest in the Navy. In the case of James I it was prized more as an imposing appurtenance of his regal dignity than from any statesmanlike appreciation of its importance; in that of his son the evidence goes to show that, while vanity was sometimes a ruling motive,[1072] he was also fully alive to the weight a powerful fleet gave to English diplomacy. The State Papers show that he exercised a constant personal supervision in naval affairs, sometimes overruling the opinions of his officials in technical details of which he could have possessed no special knowledge. No new vessels were built during the first years of the reign. Theoretically, with the assistance of the hired merchantmen available, the Royal Navy was sufficient for the duties it was called upon to perform. Practically, it was found that even those that were seaworthy were too slow under sail, as were also the merchantmen, to deal with the plague of Dunkirk privateers and Moorish pirates, who swarmed in the narrow seas, and who almost blockaded the coasts except for large and heavily-armed ships.

A chief article of accusation brought by the Parliament against Buckingham was that he had neglected his duty in taking few or no measures against these enemies, but if all the charges made against him had as little foundation, his reputation would be higher than it now stands. The Channel squadron had been increased, two special expeditions had been sent out after them, and any prizes likely to prove fast sailers had been taken into the Royal service for the purpose of being so employed, but as the Turks and Dunkirkers, built for speed, could sail at least twice as fast as the English, it was only under exceptional circumstances that one was sometimes captured. In 1624 the Captain of one of the Commissioners’ new and improved ships indignantly reported that some Dutch men-of-war he met had deliberately and contemptuously sailed round him. This was square rig _versus_ square rig. Remembering that the Turks undoubtedly were lateen-rigged, that the Dunkirkers probably used some modification of it, and that this is still the most effective spread of canvas known for light vessels of moderate tonnage, we need not wonder that the lumbering English third and fourth rates, built for close action, could never get near them. During the Rhé voyage sixty English ships chased some Dunkirkers, but only one pinnace could overtake them, and that of course could not venture to attack.[1073] But there were also other causes. In 1634 Pennington wrote to the Admiralty that he had just met a fleet of seventeen Dutch ships,

‘all tallowed and clean from the ground, which is a course that
they duly observe every two months, or three at the most ...
which is the only cause which makes them go and work better
than ours; whereas our ships are grounded and graved two or
three months before they come out, and never tallowed, so
that they are foul again before we get to sea with them, and
then they are kept out for eight or ten months, whereby they
are so overgrown with barnacles and weeds under water that it
is impossible that they should either go well or work yarely
... all men-of-war, of what nation soever, whether Turk or
Christian, keep this course of cleansing their ships once in
two or three months but us.’[1074]

Therefore the first additions to the navy were small, fast-sailing vessels, built or bought with this object, and the master shipwrights were several times called upon to furnish designs of ships especially adapted for chasing the privateers. Their first suggestion, in December 1625, was for a cruiser whose length, over all, would have been nearly four-and-a-half times her breadth, and this is noticeable as a marked step in the tendency now existing to increase the proportion between length and beam.[1075] Again, in March 1627[1076] they proposed ‘a nimble and forcible ship of 339 tons to meet the Dunkirkers;’ but in this case the length was rather less than four times the beam, and eventually pecuniary necessities compelled the government to be content with vessels of a smaller model, called ‘whelps,’ contrived for sweeps as well as sails, and whose length was nearly two-and-a-half times the breadth. In merchantmen the keel was still only about two and a half times the beam.[1077] Although English ships were slow, they were strong. Nathaniel Butler, a naval captain, attributed their sluggishness as compared with the Dutch to their being ‘so full of timber ... we building ours for seventy years, they theirs for seven;’ and Northumberland, in 1636, described some of them as ‘so clogged with timber’ that there was no room for stores.[1078] Modern builders would probably ascribe their want of speed to faulty lines rather than to excess of material; but if it was a defect it was one of which we reaped the full benefit in the first war with Holland, when the Dutch ships, splendidly as they were fought, were riven and sunk by the more solid and more heavily armed English men-of-war long before their crews were beaten.

[Sidenote: The Navy List.]

The following vessels were added to the Navy during the reign of Charles, including such prizes as were taken into the service and remained in it until useless:—[1079]

+------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-------+--------+
| | | | Re- | Keel | Beam |
| |Prize|Built|built| in ft.| in ft. |
| +-----+-----+-----+-------+--------+
|_St Claude_[1081] |1625 | | | | |
|_St Denis_ |1625 | | | 104 | 32.5 |
|_St Mary_[1082] |1626 | | | | |
|_St Anne_[1082] |1626 | | | | |
|_Espérance_[1083] |1626 | | | | |
|_Henrietta_[1084] | |1626 | | 52 | 15 |
|_Maria_[1084] | |1626 | | 52 | 15 |
|_Spy_[1085] | |1626 | | | |
|_10 Lion’s Whelps_[1086]| |1627 | | 62 | 25 |
|_Fortune_[1087] |1627 | | | | |
|_St Esprit_[1088] |1627 | | | | |
|_Vanguard_ | | |1630 | 112 | 36.4 |
|_Charles_ | |1632 | | 105 | 33.7 |
|_Henrietta Maria_ | |1632 | | 106 | 35.9 |
|_James_ | |1633 | | 110 | 37.6 |
|_Unicorn_ | |1633 | | 107 | 36.4 |
|_Leopard_ | |1634 | | 95 | 33 |
|_Swallow_ | |1634 | | 96 | 32.2 |
|_Swan_[1089] |1636 | | | | |
|_Nicodemus_[1089] |1636 | | | 63 | 19 |
|_Roebuck_ | |1636 | | 57 | 18.1 |
|_Greyhound_ | |1636 | | 60 | 20.3 |
|_Expedition_ | |1637 | | 90 | 26 |
|_Providence_ | |1637 | | 90 | 26 |
|_Sovereign_ | |1637 | | 127 | 46.6 |
|_Lion_ | | |1640 | 108 | 35.4 |
|_Prince_ | | |1641 | 115 | 43 |
|_Crescent_[1090] | | | | | |
|_Lily_[1090] | | | | | |
|_Satisfaction_ | |1646 | | | |
|_Adventure_ | |1646 | | 94 | 27 |
|_Nonsuch_ | |1646 | | 98 | 28.4 |
|_Assurance_ | |1646 | | 89 | 26.1 |
|_Constant Warwick_[1091]| |1646 | | 90 | 28 |
|_Phœnix_ | |1647 | | 96 | 28.6 |
|_Dragon_ | |1647 | | 96 | 30 |
|_Tiger_ | |1647 | | 99 | 29.4 |
|_Elizabeth_ | |1647 | | 101.6| 29.8 |
|_Old Warwick_ |1646 | | | | |
|_Falcon_[1092] | | | | | |
|_Hart_[1092] | | | | | |
|_Dove_[1092] | | | | | |
|_Truelove_[1092] | | | | | |
|_Concord_[1092] | | | | | |
|_Dolphin_[1092] | | | | | |
|_Fellowship_[1092] | | | | | |
|_Globe_[1092] | | | | | |
|_Hector_[1092] | | | | | |
+------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-------+--------+

+------------------------+-----------+-------+-------+-----+
| |Depth[1080]|Draught| Gross | |
| | in ft. | in ft.|tonnage| Guns|
| +-----------+-------+-------+-----+
|_St Claude_[1081] | | | 300 | |
|_St Denis_ | 11.9 | | 528 | 38 |
|_St Mary_[1082] | | | | |
|_St Anne_[1082] | | | 350 | |
|_Espérance_[1083] | | | 250 | |
|_Henrietta_[1084] | 6.6 | | 68 | 6 |
|_Maria_[1084] | 6.6 | | 68 | 6 |
|_Spy_[1085] | | | 20 | |
|_10 Lion’s Whelps_[1086]| 9 | | 185 | 14 |
|_Fortune_[1087] | | | 300 | |
|_St Esprit_[1088] | | | | |
|_Vanguard_ | 13.10 | | 750 | 40 |
|_Charles_ | 16.3 | 16.8 | 810 | 44 |
|_Henrietta Maria_ | 15.8 | | 793 | 42 |
|_James_ | 16.2 | 17.2 | 875 | 48 |
|_Unicorn_ | 15.1 | 16.3 | 823 | 46 |
|_Leopard_ | 12.4 | 12.9 | 515 | 34 |
|_Swallow_ | 11.7 | 12.3 | 478 | 34 |
|_Swan_[1089] | | | | |
|_Nicodemus_[1089] | 9.6 | | 105 | 6 |
|_Roebuck_ | 6.8 | | 90 | 10 |
|_Greyhound_ | 7.8 | | 126 | 12 |
|_Expedition_ | 9.8 | | 301 | 30 |
|_Providence_ | 9.9 | | 304 | 30 |
|_Sovereign_ | 19.4 | | 1522 |100 |
|_Lion_ | 15.6 | 17.6 | 717 | 52 |
|_Prince_ | 18 | | 1187 | 64 |
|_Crescent_[1090] | | | | |
|_Lily_[1090] | | | | |
|_Satisfaction_ | | | 220 | 26 |
|_Adventure_ | 9.11 | 14 | 385 | 38 |
|_Nonsuch_ | 14.2 | | 389 | 34 |
|_Assurance_ | 11 | 13 | 341 | 32 |
|_Constant Warwick_[1091]| 12 | 12.8 | 379 | 30 |
|_Phœnix_ | 14.3 | | 414 | 38 |
|_Dragon_ | 12 | 15 | 414 | 38 |
|_Tiger_ | 12 | 14.8 | 447 | 38 |
|_Elizabeth_ | 14.10 | | 471 | 38 |
|_Old Warwick_ | | | | 22 |
|_Falcon_[1092] | | | | |
|_Hart_[1092] | | | | 10 |
|_Dove_[1092] | | | | |
|_Truelove_[1092] | | | | 6 |
|_Concord_[1092] | | | | |
|_Dolphin_[1092] | | | | |
|_Fellowship_[1092] | | | | 28 |
|_Globe_[1092] | | | | 24 |
|_Hector_[1092] | | | | 20 |
+------------------------+-----------+-------+-------+-----+

The _James_, _Assurance_, _Elizabeth_, _Tiger_, _Nonsuch_, _Swallow_, and _Henrietta Maria_, were built at Deptford, the first four by Peter Pett, who also built the _Constant Warwick_ at Ratcliff. The _Sovereign_, _Prince_, _Leopard_, _Greyhound_, _Unicorn_, _Roebuck_, _Adventure_, _Phœnix_, and _Charles_, at Woolwich; the _Henrietta Maria_, _Vanguard_, _Lion_, and _Dragon_, at Chatham. Phineas Pett, who built the _Sovereign_ and rebuilt the _Prince_, was a son, by a second marriage, of the Peter Pett, master shipwright in the reign of Elizabeth; his son, Peter Pett, junior, built the _Nonsuch_, _Adventure_ and _Phœnix_. The Peter Pett of Deptford was a grandson of the Elizabethan Pett.

[Sidenote: The Ten Whelps.]

The first two pinnaces constructed, the _Henrietta_ and the _Maria_, were, it is expressly stated,[1093] to be ‘carvel built,’ a distinction which implies that hitherto such small vessels had been clinch or ‘clinker built;’ we have seen that large ones were mostly carvel, or flush planked, in the reign of Henry VIII.[1094] We do not hear that they proved satisfactory in either speed or power, and next year the contract for the ten whelps was divided among nine shipwrights, some of them private builders, at £3 5s a ton.[1095] They were to be able to use sweeps, and were square rigged, with three masts, two decks and a round house, as miniature copies of the large ships; like those also they were too heavily sparred and ordnanced. Of heavy guns each was intended to carry four culverins, four demi-culverins, and two brass sakers, but subsequently two demi-cannon were added, and the strain of this armament proved too great for both their sailing and seagoing qualities. Their demi-cannon were mostly stored in hold at sea, instead of being on deck.[1096] They were afterwards said to have been built in haste, ‘of mean, sappy timber, for particular service,’[1097] and to be weakly constructed, costing relatively large sums to maintain in serviceable condition; they were used a good deal for winter service in the four seas, and only one of them lived into the days of the Commonwealth. Two were lost returning from Rochelle; and by 1631 the sixth and seventh whelps had disappeared from the lists, the seventh by the simple process of sending the gunner into the magazine with a naked light while she was in action with a Dunkirker. The fifth was lost in July 1637, and her experience of straining till she took in water through her closed ports, and opened her seams, was probably that undergone by most of those that foundered.[1098] The fourth whelp was handed over ‘for a design to be practised on by a Dutchman’s project,’ and she passes out of the Navy list.[1099] These whelps were the first representatives, in intention, although not in form, of the regular sloop and gunboat class afterwards so largely used for minor police purposes.

During the years of foreign warfare it was found easier to turn suitable prizes into men-of-war than to arrive at the money necessary for new ships, but from 1632 until the commencement of domestic trouble it will be seen that vessels were added in regular succession. It will be observed in the preceding list of ships that a keel length of three times the beam was, roughly, the ratio in favour during the middle of the reign, while on reference to the Elizabethan Navy list, the proportion in the majority is seen to be one of about two and a half times the breadth. Whether the alteration was due to theoretical calculation or to study of the lines of foreign ships we have no means of deciding, but the increase in length is still more pronounced in the vessels launched in 1646 and 1647, their keels being sometimes nearly three and a half times their beam. According to Pepys this last improvement was due to Pett’s observation of a French ship lying in the river, in which case the French designers had already obtained that superiority in the art of shipbuilding which they held until speed became a matter of engine power.

[Sidenote: The new Ships.]

The cost of the _Charles_ and _Henrietta Maria_ was £10,849, and of launching and taking them from Woolwich to Chatham, £1222; that of the _James_ and _Unicorn_ came to £12,632,[1100] the increased totals as compared with the _St George_ and _St Andrew_, of the previous reign, being attributed to sounder workmanship and higher prices for labour and materials. A further sum of £4076, was paid on the _James_ and _Unicorn_ for ‘rigging, launching, furnishing, and transporting’ them from Woolwich and Deptford to Chatham, work which included 65 tons of cordage at £35 a ton, 214 cwt. of anchors at £2 per cwt., suits of sails at £225 a suit, waistcloths and top armours of red cloth for both £132,[1101] and trumpeters and pipes at their launch, £15.[1102] The King and Queen were present at the launch of these vessels, and £14, 5s 4d was spent in sweetmeats for them and their attendants. Pennington wrote to the Lords of the Admiralty that the _Vanguard_ and the _Henrietta Maria_ were both good ships, although the latter was ‘extraordinarily housed in aloft;’ privately, to Nicholas, he said that there had been ‘great abuse both in materials and workmanship.’[1103] When he had to try the _Unicorn_ he in that instance gave his unfavourable report directly to the Admiralty. On joining at Tilbury he found her so crank that she could carry no sail. Three shipwrights on board—Ed. Boate, who built her, Pett, and Austin—persuaded him to take in another hundred tons of ballast, and the extra weight brought her so low that the gun-deck ports had to be caulked up, as ‘in a reasonable gale of wind’ she would lay them under water. Pennington was still unwilling to venture out with the ship, ‘but in regard to the poor man’s disgrace that built her,’ he gave her a trial at sea, and decides that she ‘is dangerous and unserviceable,’ cannot work her guns, and will not live in a gale.[1104]

Under these circumstances the authorities naturally desired to be informed by the Trinity House experts and the masters of the Shipwrights’ Company why they had given a certificate approving the _Unicorn_. They answered that they thought she would be a failure, ‘but rather than disgrace any workman they put their hands, hoping the ship might prove well.’[1105] The defence sounds weakly benevolent, but that they were either too ignorant themselves to judge, or that the ganglionic plexus of fraud uniting most officials made them unwilling to venture on such a dangerous novelty as an honest opinion, is much more likely than that they were actuated by goodwill towards each other, a feeling they always successfully suppressed where hostile criticism could be safely hazarded. ‘The bruits of this disaster have spread far and wide,’ wrote Edisbury, and many opinions were obtained as to the best course to take, the discussion ending in girdling her, a method which increased her stiffness at the expense of her speed. The _Unicorn’s_ ports were intended to be 5 feet above the water line, but they proved to be but 3 feet 7 inches from it. ‘The King’s ships are not built as they should be, nor like merchant ships,’ Pennington complained.[1106]

The _Roebuck_ and _Greyhound_ of 1636 were built from the waste of the _Sovereign_, then on the stocks, and the _Providence_ and _Expedition_ in 1637 were finished in time to join Rainsborow before Sallee, vessels of lighter draught than those he had with him, but of some force, being required. The other accessions of 1636, the _Swan_ and _Nicodemus_ were both Dunkirk prizes, and added to the Navy as being the fastest vessels afloat. Pennington recommended that the _Swan_ should be used as a model by English builders, and the _Nicodemus_ was said to run away from everything, ‘as a greyhound does from a little dog.’

[Sidenote: Shipwrights’ Errors.]

Noticing the general discrepancies between designs and results in shipbuilding, Charles II remarked a generation later of Christopher Pett, when he turned out a successful ship, ‘I am sure it must be God put him in the way, for no art of his own could ever have done it.’ An observer of this date, Kenrick Edisbury, who succeeded Sir Thos. Aylesbury as Surveyor of the Navy, perhaps better qualified to judge, attributed part of the apparent error rather to self-interest. ‘I never yet knew,’ he writes to Nicholas, ‘any ship built by day-work but the shipwrights have made them of greater burden than their warrants mentioned, as you may discern by this new ship now in building at Deptford, which I am persuaded will prove 200 tons greater than was appointed.’[1107] Edisbury was referring to either the _Leopard_ or the _Swallow_, and there is an instructive paper relating to these two vessels which shows the lack of exactness, whether due to ignorance or intention. It gives the measurements as ordered by the King—the shipwrights intrusted with the work received their instructions from him personally[1108]—and as they actually were.[1109]

+--------------------------------+---------+---------+-------------+
| | | | ‘Dimensions |
| |_Leopard_|_Swallow_| given by |
| | | |his majestie’|
| +---------+---------+-------------+
| | Feet | Feet | Feet |
|Keel | 95 | 96 | 93 |
|Beam inside the plank | 33 | 32.2 | 31 |
|Depth from upper edge of keel }| | | |
| to diameter of breadth }| 12.4 | 11.7½ | |
|Depth of keel | 1.7 | 1.8 | |
|Rake of stem | 30.6 | 28.4 | 27 |
|Rake of stern post | 4.3 | 4.8 | 4 |
|The flat of the floor | 13 | 13 | 13 |
|Midship draught | 12.9 | 12.3 | 11.6 |
|Distance of lower edge of port }| | | |
| from greatest breadth }| 5 | 4.10½| 5.6 |
|Distance between ports |8.6 and 9| 8 | 8 |
|From deck to lower edge of ports| 2.1 | 2.1 | 2.2 |
|Breadth of ports | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.4 |
|Depth of ports | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.4 |
|From the diameter of breadth }| | | |
| to the top of the waist }| 13.6 | 12.7 | |
|Between decks | 6.6 | 6.7 | 6.8 |
|Gross tonnage | 515 | 478 | 384 |
+--------------------------------+---------+---------+-------------+

[Sidenote: Report on the Ships.]

In January 1626-7 we have a report on the qualities of the new ships added since 1618, and built under Burrell’s superintendence while he was the Commissioners’ principal subordinate. The _Constant Reformation_ is said to be strongly built and seaworthy, but cannot work her lower tier in a moderate sea; the _Victory_ weakly built and crank, as is also the _Garland_ which is a slow sailer as well. The _Swiftsure_, _Bonaventure_, and _Mary Rose_ are all condemned as badly built, crank, or slow under sail. The _St George_, _St Andrew_, and _Triumph_ are awarded faint praise. It must, however, be remembered that this survey was made by Burrell’s professional competitors, of whose envy and jealousy there is incidental evidence yet remaining, and that at least five of these vessels, after years of sailing and fighting round half the world, are to be found still fit for service in the Navy lists of Charles II. The Commissioners claimed that, with the exception of the earlier _Bonaventure_, theirs were the first additions to the Navy that could carry out their guns ‘in all fighting weathers.’

[Sidenote: The Sovereign of the Seas.]

It is unnecessary to describe the _Sovereign of the Seas_, accounts of which, based on Thos. Heywood’s well-known tract,[1110] have been several times given in various works. Some details, however, not known to Heywood, may be given here. The suggestion must have been under discussion for some time, but the first mention of her is in August 1634, when the masters of the Trinity House, apparently without being asked for it, volunteered an opinion that such a ship was an impossible dream.[1111] Their dogmatic statement that a three-decker was a thing ‘beyond the art or wit of man to construct,’ has already been quoted, but they further insisted that, if built, there was no port, ‘the Isle of Wight only’ excepted, in which she could ride, and no ground tackle which would hold her. No notice seems to have been taken of their long and poetically expressed effusion, and in January 1635 an estimate was called for of a vessel of 1500 tons, (‘the king with his own hand hath set down the burden;‘), and in March, Phineas Pett was ordered to prepare a model of ‘the ship royal,’ and was told that ‘you principally are appointed by his majesty for the building of the same.’[1112] A month later Pennington, Mansell, Phineas Pett, and John Wells[1113] met, and agreed on dimensions, which were substantially those afterwards adopted, and the gross tonnage was to be by depth 1466 tons, by draught 1661 tons, and by beam 1836 tons; but no explanation is given of the way in which these figures are arrived at.[1114] Pett’s estimate of the cost was £13,680;[1115] perhaps he really did not know, perhaps he did not wish to frighten Charles, but the amount eventually spent on her, exclusive of guns, was £40,833 8s 1½d.[1116] Comparing this sum with the £5500 to £6500 which was the average cost of a forty-gun ship, there must have been, even allowing for the much larger proportion spent in decoration of various kinds, great extravagance in some respects.

Before commencing work Pett desired that the principal officers, who, he said, had always shown themselves adverse, should neither provide materials nor make any payments without his signed order. ‘Already I find certain extraordinary unnecessary charges of new building of dwelling-houses bestowed and employed in Woolwich yard, which I doubt not will be brought upon the charge of the ship.’[1117] As this was occurring while the trees which were to form her frame were yet in leaf in Chopwell and Brancepeth woods, it gives us an interesting glimpse into the habits of the chief Officers of the Navy, and the estimation in which they were held by one who was brought into daily contact with them. The keel was laid at Woolwich, in the presence of Charles, on 16th January 1636, and she was launched in October 1637. Pett had recommended that the launching should be deferred till the spring, since the vessel would grow foul lying in the river through the winter, and would then require redocking. Pett’s proposal was annotated by the king, ‘I am not of your opinion.’[1118] Charles had a dull optimism, unshaken by any number of blunders, in the value of a royal opinion, whether applied to subjects of general policy or to such a technical matter as the rate at which a ship’s hull was likely to grow foul.[1119]

The wages bill on the _Sovereign_ amounted to £20,948, and joining, painting, and carving to £6691; but in the case of this ship the large sum spent in decoration has in popular imagination, as expressed in pictures and descriptions, implied an equivalent expenditure on other ships which did not really occur. Where details are given of the cost of men-of-war, or of their repairs, the money spent on ornamental carving and painting bears a very small proportion to the total; and it is quite likely that the conventional representations of sixteenth and earlier seventeenth century vessels are altogether wrong in this respect, and that men-of-war of these times, at any rate those of the second, third, and fourth ranks, were little more bedecked than modern merchantmen. The manner in which the adornments of the _Prince_ and _Sovereign_ are described and dwelt upon as out of the common points to the probability that other ships possessed few of these external attractions. The _Elizabeth_ and _Triumph_, the _Ark Royal_ and _Merhonour_ were as relatively important in their day as the _Prince_ and _Sovereign_, but, with the exceptions already noticed under the reign of Elizabeth, allusion to any special ornamentation is in their case exceptional, still less, then, would the smaller vessels be much beautified by gold, colours, and carving. Decoration, perhaps, became much more general and expensive after the Restoration; but John Holland attributed the increased expenditure on it that began about now to the absence of control over the master shipwrights, who were permitted to do much as they liked and would not be outdone by each other.

The _Sovereign_ being afloat, the next proceeding was to arm her, and for this purpose 102 brass guns were required, costing, by estimation, £24,753, 8s 8d.[1120] They were thus divided:—

+-----------------------+-----------------------+------+------+---------+
| | Number |Length|Weight| Total |
| | | each | each | |
| +-----------------------+------+------+---------+
| | | Ft. | Cwt. |Tons Cwt.|
|_Lower tier_— | | | | |
| Luffs, quarters, and | | | | |
| sides |20 cannon drakes[1121] | 9 | 45 }| |
| Stern chasers |4 demi-cannon drakes |12½ | 53 }| 64 16 |
| Fore chasers |2 ” ” |11½ | 48 }| |
| Bows abaft the chase |2 ” ” |10 | 44 }| |
|_Middle tier_— | | | | |
| Luffs, quarters, and | | | | |
| sides |24 culverin drakes | 8½ | 28 }| |
| Fore chase |2 culverins |11½ | 48 }| 45 4 |
| After chase |4 ” |11½ | 48 }| |
|_Upper tier_— | | | | |
| Sides |24 demi-culverin drakes| 8½ | 18 }| |
| Fore chase |2 demi-culverins |10 | 30 }| 27 12 |
| After chase | ” ” |10 | 30 }| |
|Forecastle |8 demi-culverin drakes | 9 | 20 | 8 0 |
|Half-deck |6 ” ” | 9 | 20 | 6 0 |
|Quarter-deck |2 ” ” | 5½ | 8 | 16 |
|Bulkhead abaft the |2 culverin drakes | 5½ | 11 | 1 2 |
| forecastle | | | | |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+------+------+---------+

The first estimate was for 90 guns, and here again we read, ‘His majesty has since altered his resolution both in respect of the number and nature of pieces.’ If Pett originally designed the ship for 90 lighter guns, and Charles raised the number and weight by a stroke of the pen to 102, trying to ignore, in the plenitude of his royal power, such things as metacentres and centres of gravity, it is not surprising that she proved topheavy at sea. It was one of those cases in which ignorance is bliss, but, without reading modern scientific knowledge into the past, we know he had professional advisers at hand whose empirical skill was sufficient to enable them to warn him of the folly of such a change. The guns were engraved—at a cost of £3 each—with the rose and crown, sceptre and trident, and anchor and cable. In a compartment under the rose and crown was the inscription, _Carolus Edgari sceptrum stabilivit aquarum_, ‘being a scutcheon and motto appointed by his majesty.’[1122] In January 1640 occurs an estimate for a sister ship to the _Sovereign_; but of this, of course, nothing more was ever heard.[1123]

We have no station list for the _Sovereign_, as for the _Henry Grace à Dieu_ but, as a part of ordinary discipline, divisions or quarters seem to have been usual. There is a station list of this period for a vessel of 40 guns and 250 men which may be considered typical.[1124] The heavy guns required 136 men, and 50 more formed the small arms company. The boatswain and his mate had 40 under their command to work the ship under the orders of the master and his mate, who were attended by 2 men. The carpenter and his mates had 6 men, the cook, steward, and surgeon, each 2 for assistants, and 4 men were told off to steer, and 4 to remain with the trumpeters. Finally the captain and lieutenant had 2 men in attendance. The heaviest guns were allowed 5 men each; and the number varied down to 5 men between two of the smaller guns.

Of the eight vessels of 1646 and 1647 there is nothing to say beyond once more noticing the marked increase in the ratio between length and beam. There is not to be found, among the Commonwealth papers, any mention in praise or dispraise of their weatherly and fighting qualities, and from this silence we may infer that they were found to be, in essentials, all that was expected.

Probably a sixteenth or seventeenth century ship was not a particularly picturesque object. Instead of the graceful, beautifully proportioned hulls, spars, and sails of to-day, the reader must imagine a short, squat, hull, round-bowed and square-sterned, enormously high and broad in comparison with its length, and the sides falling in towards each other till the upper deck was perhaps only two-thirds of the width on the water line. The stern was the highest part of the ship, and the bows the lowest, so that she looked as though she was always premeditating a plunge forward, and the longitudinal curve of the sides was broken by huge channels opposite each mast to which were fastened the shrouds. Above, the stumpy masts and spars must have looked ridiculously out of proportion to the ponderous hull, although they were in reality usually too heavy in relation to the badly designed and placed weights below. As for the gilt and painting, a week of rough weather would have converted the original tawdry splendour into a forlorn slatternliness.

[Sidenote: The remaining Elizabethan Ships.]

Most of the remaining Elizabethan ships passed out of the service. The hull of the _Bear_ was sold in 1629 for £315, the _Answer_ and _Crane_ for £101, and towards the end of the reign, the _Dreadnought_, _Due Repulse_, _Adventure_, and _Assurance_ were broken up. In 1635 Charles, again exemplifying the very real interference, if not control, he exercised in naval matters, ordered, against the recommendations of the Principal Officers, that the _Warspite_ should be cut down into a lighter for harbour service at Portsmouth. But the most serious loss in this class was that of the _Anne Royal_, which in April 1636, when fitted as Northumberland’s flagship, was bilged on her own anchor when bringing to in the river. The disaster was attributed to the pilot and master giving contradictory orders, and when she was lying on her broadside and full of water her officers made matters worse by cutting holes in the upper side to recover their belongings.[1125] Of course nine members of the Trinity House at once certified that it was impossible to raise the _Anne_, just as a year before they had petitioned against the Foreland lights as ‘useless and unnecessary,’[1126] and just as on every point referred to them they showed a persistence in being stultified by events, extraordinary even in a corporation. Two townsmen of Great Yarmouth offered to float the ship for £2000; the Principal Officers thought they could do it for £1450, and eventually they did raise her, but with the customary variation in official calculations, at a charge of £5355.[1127] She was taken to the East India Company’s dock at Blackwall, and there, being found to be too severely damaged for repair, broken up.

Of the later ships, the _Phœnix_ and _Nonsuch_ were sold; the _Reformation_, _Antelope_, _Swallow_, and _Convertine_ were carried off by the mutineers of 1648 and lost to the English Navy, and most of the prizes of the earlier years were subsequently given to private individuals or to commercial associations. The King had no fleet after 1642, and seized upon any expedient likely to give him one. In November 1643 he granted a commission to Jeronimo Cæsar de Caverle as Vice-admiral, De Caverle contracting to obtain, man, and fit out five ships for £2000 a month, to be paid out of any prizes he might take from the supporters of the Parliament.[1128] This, like Rupert’s commission, was a premium on piracy.

[Sidenote: The French Navy.]

Not the least interesting of the papers of this reign are those which show what a close watch was kept on the growth of the nascent French navy. In 1625 Louis was compelled to borrow vessels from Charles, but in 1626 Richelieu bought up or confiscated local or opposing rights and constituted himself head of the navy, assisted by a _conseil de marine_. That which must have been the nucleus of his fleet, the purchase of four vessels built for him in the Low Countries, is duly reported to our King.[1129] Again in 1627 there are several notices of fresh purchases from the Dutch, and in September Mervyn was ordered to intercept and destroy them on their passage to France.[1130] By this time the French had thirty-three ships before Rochelle, but eighteen of them were under 200 tons each, and probably most were hired merchantmen.[1131] In 1630 ten ‘dragones’ were being built at Havre in imitation of the whelps, and a correspondent, writing from Bordeaux, says that there are ‘so many good ships of the King of France’s navy that unless I had been an eye-witness thereof I should not have believed it possible.’[1132] There were forty ships ‘of good force’ there. In 1631 Charles appears to have obtained a detailed list of the then existing French marine, thus classified:—[1133]

+--------+----+----+----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| | 900| 700| 600| 500 | 450 | 400 | 300 | 250 | 200 |
| |tons|tons|tons| tons | tons | tons | tons | tons | tons |
| | | | | & | & | & | & | & | & |
| | | | |40 guns|36 guns|34 guns|28 guns|23 guns|18 guns|
+--------+----+----+----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|Brest | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | | 2 | 1 | | 1 |
|Bordeaux| | | | 3 | 3 | 1 | | | 1 |
|Blaye | | | | 1 | | 1 | | | 1 |
|Brouage | | | | | | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
|St. Malo| | | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | |
|At sea | | | | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 |
+--------+----+----+----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

There were also two of 1400 and 700 tons, respectively, building. It must be confessed that this force, created within five years and manned by Breton and Norman seamen, was calculated to give pause to the rulers of the painfully maintained English Navy. Still more significant was the fact that only twelve were Dutch-built; Richelieu had soon freed France from dependence on foreign artisans. The proportion of guns on French vessels was smaller than that on English vessels of corresponding tonnage, an excess of metal having been characteristic of our equipment until the eighteenth century. In 1639 their strength had so far increased that they had forty sail and ten fireships in the Channel, and there was also a powerful Dutch fleet, so that Pennington was directed to stop any suitable merchantmen and add them to his squadron.

A navy, however, which was not the result of natural growth, but depended on the energy and will of one man, was predestined to decay. The French marine, as Professor Laughton has pointed out, really began with Colbert, and in 1661, when he took office, it was reduced to less than 20 seaworthy vessels, against some 150 carried on the English Navy list. The rivalry still existing between the two nations commenced very early. As soon as the _Sovereign_ was built, a similar ship was considered a necessity for France, but for some reason it was not until 1657 that their first three-decker was launched.[1134]

[Sidenote: Tonnage Measurement.]

Closely connected with shipping was the question of tonnage, and the discussion which raged between 1626-8 on the methods of calculating it would require a volume for its full elucidation. The existing rule was recognised as imperfect, but the science of the time was not able to formulate anything satisfactory in its place, for exact measurement has been a matter only of the present century. The following paper, printed in full, may be regarded as representing the various views existing, and will at any rate show how little dependence can be placed on any positive statement of a ship’s tonnage.[1135]

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

_Mr Baker’s Old Way_—The old way, which was established in
Queen Elizabeth’s time, and never questioned all King James his
time, is this: The length of the keel, leaving out the false
post, if there be any. Multiply by the greatest breadth within
the plank, and that product by the depth taken from the breadth
to the upper edge of the keel produceth a solid number which
divided by 100 gives the contents in tons, into which add one
third part for tonnage, so have you the tons and tonnage.

The _Adventure_ of Ipswich

ft.
Length 63·6 1802 7737
Breadth 26·2 1417 8037 Within yᵉ plank.
Depth 11 1041 3927 To yᵉ upper edge
of keel.
Divisor 100 70
Tons 182,80 1261 9701
One third for tonnage 60,93[1136]
------
243,73 tons and tonnage.

It is credibly averred by Sir H. Mervyn and Sir H. Palmer that
the old way of measuring was to take the breadth without yᵉ
plank and the depth from the breadth to the lower edge of the
keel. And this was Baker’s way of measuring.

_Second Way_—The second way is assumed by the shipwrights of
the river to be the old way, but it is not, which makes the
ship to be 28 in the hundred greater than the former, and is
this: The length of the keel taken as before, or ought to be.
The breadth from outside the plank to outside. The depth or
draught of water from the breadth to the bottom of the keel
all multiplied together and divided by 94 (say they) give the
content in tons, into which add one third for tonnage.

ft.
Length 63.6 1802 7737
Breadth 26.8 1426 230 Without yᵉ timber
and plank.
Depth 12.3 1088 1361 To yᵉ lower edge
of keel.
Divisor 94 8026 8721
Tons 220,71
One third for tonnage 73,57
-----
294,28 tons and tonnage.

If you divide this by 100 (which is said to be here done by 94)
it is yᵉ true old way, called Baker’s way.

_Third Way_—The third way was proposed by Mr Gunter, Mr Pett,
Mr Stevens, Mr Lyddiard, and myself, who were required by
warrant from my lord Duke of Buckingham and the commissioners
for the navy (then being) to measure the _Adventure_ of
Ipswich, the greatest bilged ship in the river, and from her
dimensions to frame a rule that in our best judgments might
be indifferently applicable to all kinds of frames. This we
performed and yielded our reasons for it, which, to avoid the
abuse of furred sides and deep keels and standing strakes,
which increaseth the burden but not the hold, was thus: the
length by the keel as the first; the depth in hold from the
breadth to the seeling;[1137] the mean breadth within that
seeling at half that depth multiplied together, and the product
divided by 65, gives the tons, into which add one third part
for tonnage.

ft.
Length 63.6 1802 7737
Mean breadth 22 1342 4227 Within the
seeling.
Depth 9.8 985 4265 To the seeling.
Divisor 65 8187 866
Tons 207,83 2317 7095
One third for tonnage 69,27
------
277,10[1138] This increaseth 12 per
100 above the old rule.

There is a fourth way, devised by the shipwrights and Trinity
masters, but exploded for the great excess which makes the
ship 30 in the hundred greater than the first, and it is thus:
length of the keel as at first, middle breadth beneath the
greatest, viz. the breadth at the wrunghead, depth to the
outside of the plank, all multiplied together and divided by 70.

ft.
Length 63.6 1372 5438
Middle breadth 23.7 1051 1525 Without (_i.e._
outside) timber
and plank.
Depth 11.3 1802 7737 Without the plank.
Divisor 70 8154 9019
Tons 240,68 1381 3719
One third for tonnage 80,22
------
320,90

Although this document is quoted at length as showing the opposing views, the controversy began in May 1626, when Wells, Stevens, and others sent in an interesting paper,[1139] which is the one referred to in their ‘third way’ of the preceding, too long to transcribe fully, but from which some extracts may be given. The main question was whether the depth and breadth should be taken from within or without board. In the second case the King paid for more tonnage in a hired ship, especially if she was furred or girdled, than he actually obtained, but the first was held to be a direct incentive to owners to build flimsily. The _Adventure_ of Ipswich was all through the subject of experiment. They say:—

We consider the ship may be considered three ways—the first in
cask, and so two butts or four hogsheads make a ton; the second
in feet, and so forty feet of timber make a ton, the third in
weight and so twenty hundred weight make a ton.... The first
seems most rational to us.... We therefore first prescribe
the hold of the ship to be the cavity of the vessel contained
between the lines of her greatest breadth and depth withinboard
... supposing the lower edge of the (deck) beams to be pitched
at the breadth.... We next consider what quantity of cask may
be stowed in this hold first by drawing the bends and the form
of the cask in each several bend; but this way being subject
to error we sought the true contents thereof arithmetically,
allowing 4½ feet to the length of a butt, and 2 ft. 8 in. to
the depth of the first tier, but 2 ft. 4 in. for the rest of
the tiers. This whole body we reduce into feet, and divide the
product thereof by sixty, because we find by calculation that a
ton of cask stowed to the best advantage will take up as much
room as sixty feet solid, and by these means we produce the
whole contents of the _Adventure’s_ hold to be 207 tons.

They then proceed to frame the rule they used in the ‘third way’ of the paper of 1627, and notice that practically the _Adventure_ takes a cargo of about 276 tons of coal, but that this brings her midship port within a foot of the water line and renders her unfit for any service. In June the masters of the Trinity House commented on the preceding statement,[1140] and began by declaring that ‘truly to find the contents of the cavity of the hold in cask is not possible.’ They strongly maintained that vessels should be measured from without board, seeing that a furred ship could carry more than if unfurred, ignoring the fact that one object of the proposed new rule was to insure more accurate designing and building by throwing the loss on the owner. ‘The old rule,’ they said, ‘is less true for lately built ships, which have great floors, but true for old ships with small floors.’[1141] Their protest evoked a derisive reply from the government shipwrights, from which it is unnecessary to quote.[1142] Finally an order was issued, 26th May 1628, that all the King’s ships and those hired by him should be measured by taking ‘the length of the keel, leaving out the false post, the greatest breadth within the plank, the depth from that breadth to the upper edge of the keel,’ multiplying these and dividing by one hundred.[1143]

The result of the change was to make vessels apparently smaller, but whether nearer to, or further from, what we should now consider their real tonnage we have no means of deciding conclusively. The comparative measurements of two ships by the old and the new rules may serve as example of the others:—[1144]

+-----------------+--------------+-------------+----------+-------------+
| | Keel | Beam | Depth |Gross tonnage|
+-----------------+--------------+-------------+----------+-------------+
| |Old New |Old New |Old New | Old New |
| |rule rule |rule rule|rule rule| rule rule |
| | |[1145] [1146]| | |
| | ft. ft. | ft. ft.| ft. ft.| |
|_Henrietta Maria_|106 106 |36.5 35.9|16.6 15.8| 848 793 |
|_Charles_ |106.4 105.2 |36.3 35.7|16.6 16.3| 848 810 |
| | [1147] | | | |
+-----------------+--------------+-------------+----------+-------------+

[Sidenote: The Merchant Marine.]

The extensive use made of hired ships between 1625 and 1628 led to several lists being drawn up of the available merchant marine. Before, however, dealing with these, there is another source from which information may be gained. The Trinity House certificates, from May 1625 to March 1638, of new ships requiring ordnance, and which were necessarily sent to London to be armed, have fortunately been preserved.[1148] These certificates probably include every new vessel of any considerable size, and in most cases mention the tonnage and place of construction, and from them, therefore, we can draw fairly reliable conclusions concerning the relative importance of the shipping centres where they were built, and the strength of the merchant navy. In these thirteen years some 380 ships come under notice, inclusive of fifteen prizes and twenty-two bought, mostly from the Dutch, but whether new or old is not stated. The following table gives the number each year:—

1625, 5
1626, 124
1627, 23
1628, 5
1629, 55
1630, 37
1631, 18
1632, 11
1633, 12
1634, 12
1635, 24
1636, 25
1637, 24
1638, 5 (three months)

The sudden increase of 1626 is probably attributable to the number of vessels taken up for the royal service, and to the proclamation of 26th April of that year, by which the bounty of 5s a ton on craft of over 100 tons, and suited for warfare, was renewed. The subsequent falling off, besides being a natural reaction, may have been also due to the difficulty owners experienced in obtaining payment for their ships when hired by the King. An analysis of the places mentioned yields, when the port of origin is given, the results tabulated below. The expression ‘River of Thames’ comprises those from various ports, but mostly, perhaps Newcastle colliers sent up for their ordnance; it may also include those from such a place as Bristol, for which one new ship cannot be a complete return. Ships of under 300 tons are not classified, and in some instances the tonnage is not given in the certificate:—

+----------------+-----+------------------------+
| |Total| Tons |
| | No. +----+----+----+----+----+
| | | 500| 450|400 | 350| 300|
+----------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
|London | | | | | | |
| Limehouse | 20 | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 |
| Wapping | 21 | | | | 1 | 2 |
| Horseleydown | 14 | | | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Ratcliff | 19 | | | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Deptford | 2 | 1 | | 1 | | |
| Shadwell | 1 | | | | | |
| Blackwall | 1 | | | | | |
|Ipswich | 48 | | | 1 | | 7 |
|Yarmouth | 26 | | | 1 | | 1 |
|Aldborough | 12 | | | | | 2 |
|Hull | 25 | | | | | |
|Woodbridge | 12 | | | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|Colchester | 7 | | | | | |
|River of Thames | 102 | | | | | |
|Bristol | 1 | | | | | 1 |
|Harwich | 2 | | | | 1 | |
|Dartmouth | 3 | | | | | |
|Dover | 2 | | | | | 1 |
|Southampton | 2 | | | | | |
|Shoreham | 14 | | | | | 5 |
|Plymouth | 1 | | | | | |
|Weymouth | 3 | | | | | 1 |
|Blakeney | 1 | | | | | |
|Exeter | 2 | | | | | |
+----------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+

In July 1626, Buckingham was directed to procure returns of the number and size of the ships belonging to the port towns, and the resulting list, so far as the reports have survived, is as follows:—[1149]

+----------------------+----+-------+--------+
| |No. |Largest|100 tons|
| | |in tons| or |
| | | |upwards |
+----------------------+----+-------+--------+
|Portsmouth | 5 | 80 | |
|Gosport | 11 | 40 | |
|Isle of Wight | 10 | 70 | |
|Padstow | 3 | 40 | |
|Chester | 21 | 50 | |
|Boston | 12 | 80 | |
|Yarmouth | 97 | 320(2)| 26 |
|Dartmouth and Tor Bay | 65 | 270 | 15 |
|Fowey | 2 | 50 | |
|Sandwich | 30 | 240 | 12 |
|Lynn | 67 | 160 | 15 |
|Wells | 26 | 80 | |
|Burnham | 10 | 50 | |
|Blakeney | 14 | 100 | 1 |
|Plymouth | 40 | 120 | 7 |
|Stonehouse | 6 | 120 | 1 |
|Saltash and vicinity | 24 | 200 | 4 |
|Salcombe | 11 | 50 | |
|E. and W. Looe | 28 | 40 | |
|Penryn | 7 | 180 | 3 |
|Bristol | 32 | 250 | 16 |
+----------------------+----+-------+--------+

The principal point which the reader of this list will notice is the small extent of change in the maritime relation of these places which had occurred since the days of Elizabeth. In her time Dartmouth, including Totnes, was the leading southern port, and, although Plymouth and adjoining towns now run it close, it is hardly yet second. And so far as the scanty materials for comparison allow us to judge, it does not appear that the relation between the other ports had altered to any important degree, although the aggregate of ships belonging to them is much greater. Notwithstanding the obvious omissions in this roll, it includes 100 vessels of 100 tons and upwards, against 177 in 1588 for the whole of England.

In February 1628 there was a survey of such ships in the Thames as were fit for the royal service.[1150] There were seven East Indiamen[1151] of 4200 tons and 218 guns, the largest being one of 900, one of 800, and two of 700 tons; besides thirty-four other merchantmen of 7850 tons and 610 guns, and twenty-two Newcastle colliers of from 200 to 250 tons each. The largest of the merchantmen were one of 500 and two of 450 tons. A year later, in February and March 1629, there was another survey of London and other ports, but only of ships of 100 tons and upwards, and there were now in the river eight East Indiamen of 5700 tons, one being of 1000 tons, and forty-seven other merchantmen of 12,150 tons, and 906 guns; there were also twenty-nine merchantmen of 7060 tons and 556 guns at sea, thirty Newcastle vessels belonging to London owners, and eighteen other ships of not more than 120 tons each and unarmed.[1152] The following list of the remaining towns will complement that of 1626, on which it shows some variations[1153]:—

+---------------+--------+-------+
| |100 tons|Largest|
| | and | |
| |upwards | |
+---------------+--------+-------+
|South Cornwall | 6 | 200 |
|Plymouth | 8 | 160 |
|Dartmouth | 15 | 200 |
|Weymouth | 1 | 110 |
|Poole | 1 | 150 |
|Southampton | 1 | 100 |
|Sandwich | 6 | 200 |
|Dover | 7 | 260 |
|Malden | 2 | 160 |
|Colchester | 9 | 240 |
|Woodbridge | 17 | 300 |
|Harwich | 11 | 140 |
|Ipswich | 63 | 300 |
|Aldborough | 14 | 300 |
|Lynn | 5 | 120 |
|Yarmouth | 26 | 200 |
|Bristol | 30 | 250 |
|South Wales | 1 | 250 |
+---------------+--------+-------+

Including London there were, then, in 1629, more than 350 ships of over 100 tons, while Newcastle is only partly, and Yorkshire, Somerset, Chester, and Sussex are not at all mentioned; but the writer of the copy of 1634 remarks that in the five years that had elapsed since the survey was made, ninety-five more such vessels had been built.

[Sidenote: The Ports.]

All the fleets set forth by Charles contained a large proportion of colliers, as their cost was supposed to be but one-third of that of merchantmen. The growing importance of the coal trade is shown by the shipment of 143,000 chaldrons (equal to nearly 200,000 tons) of coal from Newcastle in 1626.[1154] On the other hand, leaving piracy aside for the moment, the chances of war and tempest played havoc with the commercial prosperity of not a few of the coast towns. In 1626 Bristol lost fifty ships by wreck and capture. When, in 1627, these ports were required to provide vessels for the King, most of them pleaded inability from these causes and losses by pirates. By the embargo in France and Spain Poole had lost £8500, and had to maintain 400 widows and children; Exeter, from the same cause, had lost £80,000 and ‘in many parishes there is not one man of ability to a hundred poor people.’ Barnstaple and Totnes replied that the crown owed them money for billeted soldiers, and that until payment was made they were powerless. Norwich was ‘in a desolate and distressed condition,’ as was also Harwich; and Aldborough in three years had lost thirteen ships, and had three hundred widows and children to keep. The port of Boston was choked up, and its big ships all sold. Dartmouth, Penryn, and Lyme Regis professed to be nearly ruined by the embargo laid on their ships and goods in France and Spain, while most of their remaining merchantmen were unemployed and they had many poor to support. Plymouth was ordered to supply two vessels of 200 tons each; they said they were in a distressed and miserable state, that since 1624 they had lost by pirates and embargo £44,000, that the crown owed £6000 in the town, and that the plague was causing ‘infinite misery.’[1155] Weymouth and Melcombe, called upon to provide the same number as Plymouth, answered that their losses by embargo came to £6000, besides the expense of supporting many poor women and children; Colchester had suffered from the plague for ten months and possessed no 200-ton ship, and King’s Lynn had lost twenty-five ships to the Dunkirkers, while their port cost them £350 a year.[1156] Yarmouth, in two years, had lost by Dunkirkers ‘and sundry other casualties at sea’ £25,000; their port cost them £600 a year, their haven and piers £1000 a year, and there was a municipal debt of £2200 on which they paid £140 per annum interest.[1157]

Against these sorrows we must set the fact that the returns show that these ruined ports were able to steadily build and increase, year by year, the number of their large ships, and in at least one instance—that of Dartmouth—while the townspeople said that they possessed no 200-ton vessel, the papers of 1626-7 show that they had one of 270 and two of 200 tons.[1158] The losses by wreck seem at one time to have been exceptionally heavy; between 1625 and 1628 393 ships, valued at some hundreds of thousands of pounds, perished at sea, the Eastland Company losing £100,000 in eighteen months.[1159] But probably neither the municipal authorities nor the government held themselves compelled to strict truthfulness in making out a case. As in most generations, owners appear to have overbuilt at the first sign of prosperous trade; in 1633 the Trinity House petitioned for an enforcement of the navigation laws, as shipping to the extent of 6000 tons was lying idle in the Thames.[1160] When in employment, captains did not neglect any chance of trade. In 1638 the master of a Mediterranean trader took a Turk, and sold fifteen men of its crew in a Spanish port; on his return he offered ‘the duty payable to his majesty,’ a tenth of the proceeds.[1161] The rule of requiring the shipowner to give a bond, before his vessel went to sea, that it should not be sold abroad had been strictly enforced since 1625; in fact before sale to a foreign subject could be effected the Lords of the Admiralty, the Officers of the Navy, and the judge of the Admiralty Court, had all to give their approval.

[Sidenote: Payment of Hired Ships.]

It has been noticed that several of the towns put forward the crown debts incurred on behalf of the military and naval forces as an excuse for their want of means when asked for ships in 1627. Private owners who may have been encouraged to build by the renewal of the bounty and the demand for hired ships soon found that as regards payment they were as badly off as the towns in their corporate capacity. They may not have expected very prompt settlement, but, by August 1627, the owners of ships taken up for the Cadiz voyage of 1625 were beginning to petition somewhat impatiently. Ipswich, for instance, had sent twenty-four vessels and had not yet received anything. In December these and other owners petitioned again, mentioning that 100 ships had been lost during the year, and declining the offer of crown lands in liquidation of their demands. They gave as the reason of their refusal the subdivision of ownership in a vessel among many members, and that they did not understand land, adding, ‘To be two years, and many of us three years, without pay deserveth consideration, many of us undone and many more will be.’[1162] By February 1628 it was noticed that ships were being purposely built with less than the regulation space between decks, so that they should be unfit for the service of the crown;[1163] and later in the year masters of transports were asking double the ordinary rates, and were even then so unwilling to serve that threats of impressment had to be used. In March 1629 one unhappy man complains that he has had a vessel hired for four years, that he has received in that time a bill[1164] for £200 which has been for three years dishonoured, and that he goes about in daily fear of arrest himself. It was not until the receipts from the ship-money writs brought relief to the treasury that these debts were paid off. Under the government of Charles the hire of ships remained at 2s a ton per month, but after 1642 the Parliament adopted a different system, that of paying £3, 15s 6d a month per man, the owner sending his vessel armed and completely provided for sea; but the state accepted responsibility in the event of loss.

[Sidenote: Inventions connected with Shipping.]

The demand for shipping naturally gave an impetus to the spirit of invention in connection with maritime matters. In July 1625 Letters Patent were granted to Wm. Beale for a cement intended to preserve the hulls of ships from barnacles, the first of a long series of such contrivances.[1165] In 1626 some one, unnamed, proposed attempting to propel boats under water,[1166] and in 1630 David Ramseye, who may have been the David Ramsey of 1618, a similar inventor, designed ‘to make boats, ships, and barges go against wind and tide.’[1167] Again, in 1632, Thos. Grent offered ‘an instrument’ for moving becalmed ships, which he called the ‘Wind’s Majesty’; John Bulmer and Christopher van Berg invented methods of raising sunken vessels and their cargoes, and in 1637 and 1640 other patents were taken out for appliances to move vessels against wind and tide.[1168] In none of these cases was any specification enrolled. In 1630 Stephen Gibbs was granted the exclusive use, for fourteen years, of the means devised by him for clearing silted havens and draining marsh lands.[1169] Perhaps the most useful device was one which does not seem to have been patented. In July 1634 Edisbury wrote to Nicholas, ‘There is now an invention found out to moor ships in the river with iron chains.’[1170] If this was the beginning of the substitution of iron for cordage in the various conditions where one could replace the other, it was the commencement of a change which vastly extended the possibilities of seamanship.

[Sidenote: Piracy.]

More deadly foes to the merchant than the chances of war and storm were the Turkish and Dunkirk pirates, who held command of the Channel, and for whom these were halcyon years until, in the next generation, the Commonwealth navy swept the seas. For reasons already touched upon, neither the ships nor the men in the royal service were capable of dealing with these freebooters, and the appeals for protection, which began within a week of the King’s accession, continued until the strengthened parliamentary naval force was able to secure the coasts.

At first the Turks—all Mediterranean pirates were inclusively described as Turks—were the most prominent enemy. In August 1625 they were reported to have twenty sail on the southern coast, and according to the Mayor of Poole, threatened that within two years they would not leave the King sufficient seamen to man his ships. As the Mayor of Plymouth said that during that year they had captured 1000 sailors, and within the ten days before his letter, twenty-seven ships and 200 men, there was some force in the threat.[1171] A year later some of the Navy Commissioners, then at Plymouth, wrote to the Council that the successes of the Turks were ‘the shame of our nation. The pitiful lamentations that are made by wives and children ... is so grievous that we know if your lordships heard it as we do, we are assured that it would move the same passion and grief in your noble hearts as it does in us.’[1172] Their culminating success was the seizure and sack of Baltimore, a thriving village port on the Munster coast. There they landed on the night of 30th June 1631, and, besides material spoil, bore off 237 English subjects, men, women and children into slavery. There were not many vessels in commission that year, but there was an inspection by the King at Chatham and Portsmouth, for which the cost of preparation was £1275, an amount which expended in another way could have saved these victims.

When any of the Turks were caught, fear of reprisals compelled the government to treat them tenderly; some prisoners were tried in June, but private instructions were given that they were not to be put to death,[1173] and shortly afterwards the relatives of 2000 men, captives in Sallee, petitioned for some redress, which explains the leniency of the executive.[1174] Nor was this petition neglected, since, by a Council order of October, guns were to be exported to Barbary to ransom English prisoners. It was a poor way of upholding the honour of England, but since the cruisers could not clear the Channel, and there was no fleet to spare for a Mediterranean expedition, it was the only one open.

While the Turks operated in the south, the Dunkirkers, who, in addition to their other misdeeds, supplied the former with provisions and stores, practically blockaded the east coast. The Newcastle townspeople wrote that they were destroying the coal trade, and at Ipswich trade had altogether ceased, fifty-eight ships being laid up for fear of them, and shipping to the value of £4000 having been taken in one year.[1175] In August 1626, when the inhabitants of the coast of Suffolk were asked for a ‘voluntary gift,’ they answered ‘with loud cries, that their vessels were fired or taken in their havens before their eyes.’ At Lynn 1000 men, having 3000 women and children dependent upon them, were out of employment, and here the pirate crews landed and plundered and burnt houses near the shore. The inhabitants of the Cinque Ports petition against the ‘force and fury’ of the Dunkirkers, and complain that they are ‘miserably oppressed by them and dare not go about our voyages to Scarborough and Yarmouth, or fish in the North Sea.’[1176]

There were many English sailors among the privateer crews, and the local knowledge of these men was invaluable in enabling the ships to lie off the mouths of the harbours or to chase close inshore. Duties of two and five shillings a chaldron were levied, from February 1628, on all coal laden at Newcastle or Sunderland, destined respectively for English or foreign ports, to pay for a guard on the eastern coast, which was an audacious mode of taxing a particular industry for general protection, seeing that the tunnage and poundage was especially allotted to naval purposes. The money thus obtained was probably not applied to naval preparation at all, or, if it were it had small result, since, exactly a year afterwards, the London fishmongers protested that nothing could pass between Yarmouth and the river, and that the city would soon be deprived of fish. Coincidently with this the Yarmouth people stated that they were accustomed to send 300 fishing boats to sea, but that the Dunkirkers were so numerous that they could not go out.[1177] Even when the first ship-money fleet was cruising in 1635, coasters and Dover packet boats were stopped and pillaged while the royal fleet was riding in the Downs. Again, in September 1636, while Northumberland’s vessels were mostly in the North Sea forcing the Dutch fishermen to take licences, the shipowners of the western ports petitioned that the Channel was so full of Turks that they dared not send anything to sea, that seamen refused to sail or fishermen to fish.[1178]

Then in 1637 there is a sudden change. In July Nicholas was told, ‘The coast has been free all this summer, and is from all Turks and pirates,’[1179] the explanation being that, in March, Rainsborow had sailed on the too long deferred punitive expedition and was still before Sallee. About this time a Protestant clergyman, who was four years a captive at Algiers, wrote, ‘During my abode there ... their armadoes kept an account of 1700 sail of Christian ships they had taken. The Lord stir up the hearts of Christian princes to root out that nest of pirates.’[1180] One Christian prince had at last been moved to an elementary sense of duty, and the expedition of 1637, whereby 300 or 400 Englishmen were rescued from hopeless slavery, was, in design and execution, the solitary success of Charles’s naval administration.[1181] But its effect was only temporary, and the last notice in 1640, before the Parliament took matters in hand, is a letter from the Mayor of Exeter to the Council, stating that sixty sail of Turks were on the coast, and that they had landed near Penzance and carried off men, women, and children.[1182]

CHARLES I

1625-1649