Chapter XX: Part III: The Administration (3)

There was thus an excess of outlay over receipts, for these three years, of more than £4000, and Edward Hayward, then in charge, asks for assistance from the central authority. He probably obtained it, as on another occasion, Hutchinson was ordered to lend the Chest £3000.[1330] In March 1656 a report was drawn up which made the income from land £382, 10s a year, and recommended the removal of the Chest to London to save expense and the inconveniences experienced by the men. From this report we learn that officers’ widows were entitled to pensions from it, but not those of the men.[1331] In June 1657 there were 800 or 900 pensioners, but half the arrears were unpaid; a year later the situation was worse and the delay had reduced the men ‘to such extreme misery that I fear many of them have perished of late,’ the writer, Pett, having been forced to leave Chatham to escape these outcries. Pett adds, ‘If Rochester Cathedral were given to the governors to be improved ... it might go towards paying the arrears.’

There are two references in the Commonwealth papers which suggest that Hayward did not escape suspicion then of having appropriated Chest money to his own use, but in the inquiry into its management, begun in 1662, the weight of scrutiny fell upon Pett. Hayward said that he had lost all the books relating to the years 1648-55, although he afterwards produced some of them. From the interrogatories addressed to Pett we may infer that he and captain John Taylor, who was jointly responsible with him, amicably passed each other’s accounts; that the accuracy of these accounts was attested by only some of the officers who should have signed them; that the same travelling expenses were entered three or four times over; that he and Taylor had taken large sums from the Chest as salary, no commissioner having ever before charged for his management; and that such items occurred as £52, 13s 4d for the governor’s dinners, etc., at one meeting, £10 a year salary to a ‘mathematician,’ and £9 to Taylor ‘for relief for a fall.’[1332]

[Sidenote: The Victualling.]

The quality of the food supplied to the men and the honesty of the victualling agents both steadily deteriorated during the Commonwealth. Complaints began to be frequent about 1650, and a fresh contract was then entered into with Colonel Pride and others to undertake the duty at eightpence per head at sea, and sevenpence in harbour, the government bearing the cost of transport to fleets on service.[1333] The lax system in force was not, however, calculated to act as a deterrent; in May 1650 a victualling office clerk, who had embezzled £137, gave security for it, and was suspended, but, inferentially, only until the money was refunded. It may be said that, generally, the object of the Navy authorities, in cases of fraud and embezzlement by clerks or officers, was not so much to punish as to obtain restitution. Possibly they found it to be the most effective form of punishment. During 1652 the pressure caused by the necessity of supplying an unprecedentedly large number of men produced more disorders in this branch of the service, and in June the contractors were called before the Council, told that their explanations were unsatisfactory, and heard the Admiralty Commissioners directed to continually watch and inspect the victuals furnished.

The story of the victualling arrangements during these eleven years brings out the most striking point of difference between the Commonwealth administration and those which were antecedent to it, in the fact that matters affecting the health and comfort of seamen were not ignored as in previous periods. This, we know, was greatly due to political necessity, but the letters remaining, written by officials of all ranks, show that a conscientious recognition of justice due to the sailors, and of responsibility for their welfare, widely existed. This sentiment is much more clearly marked among captains, admirals, and commissioners than among the ruling politicians, although members of the government were doubtless not unaffected by the prevailing spirit; the financial straits of the country, however, first cramped, and then destroyed, reforms which otherwise might have become permanent.

In 1652 new buildings for the Victualling department were built in several ports; and from February 1650 the slaughterhouse at Deptford, standing on ‘the poore’s ground’ and originally devoted to the service of Greenwich Palace, was taken for that of the state.[1334] In 1653 the rate rose to ninepence a head, and it may be roughly calculated that the Victuallers were called upon to provide at least some 7,500,000 lbs. of bread, 7,500,000 lbs. of beef and pork, and 10,000 butts of beer, besides cheese, butter, fish, and other necessaries. The mechanism at their command was little superior to that used by their predecessors under Charles I, and English agriculture could hardly yet have recovered from the effects of the civil war. The victualling contracts between September 1651 and December 1652 came to £332,000,[1335] a sum representing a drain on the food resources of the country difficult to meet, not so much, perhaps, in quantity as in suddenness, although since 1648 there had been an unbroken series of years of dearth. Remembering commissariat experiences of our own, happening under much more favourable conditions within living memory, the wonder is, not that there should have been complaints, but that there should have been comparatively so few under circumstances, which might almost have excused absolute failure. Pride and his associates were condemned because they were judged by a higher standard than had previously existed, but under Charles I their management would have been praised as highly successful.

When complaints came in they were not officially pigeon-holed but at once inquired into, and, so far as lay with the Admiralty Committee, the wants relieved. On 17th May 1653, a captain reported that he had no medical extras; on the 19th the Navy Commissioners were ordered to examine into this and remedy it; on 16th June the Generals of the fleet wrote about the badness of the provisions, and on the 20th the Navy Commissioners were directed to take the Victuallers to task. The beer was the most frequent subject of protest, and the difficulty was met by sending water in its place, to the extent of 500 tuns at a time, the men being allowed twopence a day to reconcile them to the change. At least one brewer laid the blame on the prices paid him, and frankly said he could give nothing better for the money. Beer and other provisions, ‘decayed and unfit for use,’ were licensed for export free of customs, perhaps in the hope that such stores would go to Holland. In October 1654 Pride and his colleagues gave notice of their intention to resign their contract, and, after some debate, it was decided to constitute the Victualling a department under the immediate care of the Navy Commissioners, captain Thos. Alderne being made its head, with a salary of £500 a year.[1336] Alderne died 10th April 1657, and was succeeded by three of the Navy Commissioners, majors Robt. Thompson, Neh. Bourne, and Fr. Willoughby, who were thenceforward styled ‘Commissioners of Navy and Victualling,’ and who received an additional £250 a year each for their services.[1337]

Alderne and his successors may or may not have been competent, but they had little chance of doing well under the financial embarrassments amid which they worked; they considered themselves fortunate in being able to continue supplies, of whatever quality, from hand to mouth. In June 1655 bakers and brewers were petitioning the Admiralty Committee, that although in January they had been promised monthly cash payments, not one penny had yet been paid them. The whole of one long despatch of Blake’s[1338] is made up of complaints about the provisions sent out, and censure of the officials at home. We, who have wider knowledge than Blake could then have, now know that the defaults were due to the situation rather than to the men. Orders might be given in London, but the local contractors were either not properly controlled, or, more probably, were defiant, knowing that the Admiralty could hardly go on provisioning the fleets without the credit they gave it. If the seamen protested to those individuals they obtained scant consideration. Some of the _Tiger’s_ crew went ashore at Harwich to show the victualling agent their bread and beer which, their captain agreed, was not fit for food. The agent sent for the baker and brewer, and the former told the men that they were ‘mutinous rogues,’ that it was good enough for their betters, and next time should be worse. In another port the local agent told the purser of the _Maidstone_, whose men had shown provisions absolutely putrid, and to whom he had promised improvement when they were before him, that the more they complained the worse they should have. This coming to the ears of the men, some of the _Maidstone’s_ crew went ashore and wrecked his house.

As the end of the Commonwealth approached matters became as bad as they could well be. At Plymouth, in January 1660, the victualler reported that he had been obtaining stores hitherto on his own credit, but would do so no longer; that there were six ships in port with starving crews, and another six expected, and that the only way open to him was to turn the men ashore to shift for themselves.[1339] In February the Navy Commissioners warned their chiefs that, unless money was provided within a week, there would be a failure of provisions everywhere, and that having done their utmost by persuasion they must be acquitted of blame. Judging from the number of their letters still existing, the Navy Commissioners must, about this time, have been pressing the Admiralty Committee for money nearly every day, either for wages or stores; it was not their fault if any one remained unpaid. Warrants authorising revictualling were posted freely, but, as captain Heaton wrote from Plymouth, nothing was said about the money, without which they were of no use. Heaton describes graphically the cruel poverty to which some of the townspeople there, who had trusted the government, were reduced:—

One cries, ‘For God’s sake spare me £20 to keep me out of
prison;’ another begs for money to buy his family meat to eat,
and to-day I saw a poor women beg of Mr Addis ten shillings of
her due, to buy her four poor children bread, as for alms. Not
long since a baker with sad complaints prevailed with Mr Addis
for £23, and was as glad of it as though the money had been a
free gift.’[1340]

While this letter was travelling up to London two others, of the same date, were coming from Hull. One, from the captain of the _Bryer_ to the Admiralty Committee, says that he has already written nine times to them, and that his officers are compelled to buy their own food, and his men to forage for themselves on shore; the other, from the victualling agent at Hull, acknowledges the receipt of their warrant to furnish the _Bryer_ and _Forester_, but, before acting on it, desires to know how he is to be paid. Truly the pious hope of captain Harman, of the _Kentish_, that Lawson would ‘be an instrument of bringing the victualling to its former splendour,’ was one not likely to lack fulfilment for want of occasion.

[Sidenote: Medals and Rewards.]

It had long been customary to give medals and chains to distinguished officers, but Parliament, for the first time, extended this form of distinction to the men. The first reference is a somewhat doubtful one, being an order of the House of 15th Nov. 1649, for medals for ‘several mariners’ who had done good service the previous year, but who may possibly have been officers. About the second, however, there is no question. In 1650 captain Wyard, of the _Adventure_, a hired merchantman, fought a gallant action off Harwich against greatly superior force, and he, his officers, and crew were awarded medals of different values, ranging from the one of £50 intended for himself down to others worth 5s for the men, each ‘with the service against five ships engraved on one side and the arms of the Commonwealth on the other.’[1341] There were at least 20,000 men employed during 1652-4, but the whole number of medals for the war was only 169; of these 79 were small ones, and may have been intended for the seamen, although, as they were all of gold, it is unlikely. Nine of the larger ones were with chains, the smaller weighed 18dwt. 11gr. each, and the total cost was £2060. One alone had ‘the service done in the _Triumph_ expressed on it.’[1342] Blake and Monk had chains worth £300 a piece given them, and Penn one of the value of £100. The government was never unduly liberal in dealing with naval men. Major Fr. White, for bringing the news of Dunbar to London, was given £300; capt. Young, for following the Spanish fleet for a week in 1657, and then seeking Blake with the information which enabled him to destroy it at Santa Cruz, was granted £100.

[Sidenote: Seamen’s Clothing.]

The sale of clothes to the men was not confined to any one vendor, and scandals in this department, if they existed, do not appear to have attracted the attention of the authorities till 1655. Then an order was issued from the Navy Office that, ‘upon the consideration of the several abuses done by those that serve the state’s ships with clothes, by exorbitant prices and bad goods, to the prejudice of the poor seamen,’ the clothiers were not to send any on board ship without the permission of the Navy Commissioners.[1343] Two months later prices were fixed as follows[1344]:—

_s_ _d_
Canvas jackets 1 10 each
” drawers 1 8 ”
Cotton waistcoats 2 2 each
” drawers 2 0 ”
Shirts 2 9 each
Shoes 2 4 a pair
Linen stockings 0 10 ”
Cotton ” 0 10 ”

This outfit, if a complete one, does not seem all that could be desired for winter service in the Channel, although it is a nearer approach to a uniform than existed much later. The Commissioners were careful to repudiate any responsibility for the clothes,[1345] though, as we see, they interfered when they considered it necessary, and allowed a sum, usually £2, to each man if his kit had been lost in action or by shipwreck.

[Sidenote: The Navy List.]

Compared with the accessions of previous reigns the following list of new vessels is startling in its magnitude, and the cost of building and maintenance is another item which helps to account for the chronic difficulties besetting the Treasurer of the Navy[1346]:—

+-----------------------+-----+-----+------------+------------+----+-----
| |Prize|Built| At | By |Net |Gross
| | | | | | Tonnage
+-----------------------+-----+-----+------------+------------+----+-----
| | | | | | |
| 1 _Fairfax_ | | 1649|Deptford | | 789|
| 2 _Guinea_(B)[1347] | | 1649| | | 375| 500
| 3 _Jermyn_* | 1649| | | | |
| 4 _President_[1348] | | 1649|Deptford |P. Pett, sr.| 445| 593
| 5 _Speaker_ | | 1649|Blackwall |H. Johnson | 778| 928
| 6 _Old Success_ | 1649| | | | 380| 506
| 7 _Tiger’s Whelp_* | 1649| | | | |
| 8 _Advice_ | | 1650|Woodbridge |P. Pett, jr.| 516| 690
| 9 _Amity_(B) | | 1650| | | 354| 472
| 10 _Assistance_ | | 1650|Deptford |H. Johnson | 521| 694
| 11 _Concord_(B) | | 1650| | | |
| 12 _Centurion_ | | 1650|Ratcliff |P. Pett, sr.| 531| 690
| 13 _Dover_ | | 1650|Rotherhithe |Castle | 571| 681
| 14 _Eagle_ | 1650| | | | |
| 15 _Elizabeth Prize_* | 1650| | | | |
| 16 _Foresight_ | | 1650|Deptford |Shish | 524| 698
| 17 _Great Charity_ | 1650| | | | 400| 553
| 18 _Pelican_ | | 1650| |Taylor | |
| 19 _Marigold_ | 1650| | | | |
| 20 _Portsmouth_ | | 1650|Portsmouth |Eastwood | 422| 600
| 21 _Mary Prize_* | 1650| | | | |
| 22 _Reserve_ | | 1650|Woodbridge |P. Pett, jr.| 513| 688
| 23 _Antelope_ | | 1651| | | |
| 24 _Bryer_* | 1651| | | | 180|
| 25 _Convertine_ | 1651| | | | 500| 666
| 26 _Discovery_(B) | | 1651| | | |
| 27 _Fortune_ | 1651| | | | |
| 28 _Gilliflower_(B) | | 1651| | | |
| [1349] | | | | | |
| 29 _Laurel_ | | 1651|Portsmouth | | |
| 30 _Martin Prize_* | 1651| | | | |
| 31 _Mayflower_(B) | | 1651| | | |
| 32 _Mermaid_ | | 1651|Limehouse |Graves | 289| 385
| 33 _Nightingale_ | | 1651|Horseleydown|Shish | 289| 385
| 34 _Peacock_ | 1651| | | | |
| 35 _Pearl_ | | 1651|Ratcliff |P. Pett, sr.| 285| 380
| 36 _Old President_ | 1651| | | | |
| 37 _Little President_ | 1651| | | | |
| 38 _Primrose_ | | 1651| |Taylor | |
| 39 _Sapphire_ | | 1651|Ratcliff |P. Pett, sr.| 442| 589
| 40 _Tresco_* | 1651| | | | |
| 41 _Worcester_[1350] | | 1651|Woolwich |Russell | 629| 838
| 42 _Adam and Eve_ | 1652| | | | 200|
| 43 _Advantage_ | 1652| | | | |
| 44 _Arms of Holland_ | 1652| | | | |
| 45 _Convert_ | 1652| | | | |
| 46 _Crow_ | 1652| | | | |
| 47 _Deptford_ | | 1652| | | |
| 48 _Diamond_ | | 1652|Deptford |P. Pett sr. | 547| 740
| 49 _Dolphin_ | 1652| | | | |
| 50 _Drake_ | | 1652|Deptford |P. Pett | 113| 153
| 51 _Duchess_ | 1652| | | | |
| 52 _Endeavour_ | 1652| | | | |
| 53 _Falmouth_ | 1652| | | | |
| 54 _Gift Major_ | 1652| | | | 480| 653
| 55 _Golden Falcon_ | 1652| | | | |
| 56 _Golden Lion_ | 1652| | | | |
| 57 _Heartsease_ | 1652| | | | |
| 58 _Hound_ | 1652| | | | |
| 59 _Hope_ | 1652| | | | |
| 60 _Hopewell_(B) | | 1652| | | |
| 61 _Horseleydown_ | | 1652| | | |
| 62 _Hunter_ | 1652| | | | |
| 63 _Kentish_ | | 1652|Deptford |Johnson | 601| 801
| 64 _Marmaduke_(B) | | 1652| | | 400| 533
| 65 _Martin_ | | 1652|Portsmouth |Tippetts | 92| 124
| 66 _Merlin_ | | 1652|Chatham |Taylor | 105| 141
| 67 _Middleburgh_ | 1652| | | | |
| 68 _Oak_ | 1652| | | | |
| 69 _Paul_ | 1652| | | | 290| 384
| 70 _Peter_ | 1652| | | | |
| 71 _Plover_ | 1652| | | | |
| 72 _Princess Maria_ | 1652| | | | |
| 73 _Raven_ | 1652| | | | |
| 74 _Recovery_ | 1652| | | | |
| 75 _Ruby_ | | 1652|Deptford |P. Pett, sr.| 556| 745
| 76 _Sampson_ | 1652| | | | |
| 77 _Sophia_ | 1652| | | | 300| 400
| 78 _Stork_ | 1652| | | | |
| 79 _Sun_ | 1652| | | | |
| 80 _Sussex_ | | 1652| | | |
| 81 _Swan_ | 1652| | | | |
| 82 _Violet_ | 1652| | | | |
| 83 _Waterhound_ | 1652| | | | |
| 84 _Welcome_ | 1652| | | | 400| 533
| 85 _Weymouth_* | 1652| | | | 120| 160
| 86 _Wildman_ | 1652| | | | |
| 87 _Augustine_ | 1653| | | | 359| 478
| 88 _Bear_ | 1653| | | | 395| 526
| 89 _Black Raven_ | 1653| | | | 300|
| 90 _Bristol_[1351] | | 1653|Portsmouth |Tippetts | 532| 680
| 91 _Cardiff_ | 1653| | | | |
| 92 _Church_ | 1653| | | | 300|
| 93 _Elias_ | 1653| | | | 400| 533
| 94 _Essex_ | | 1653|Deptford |Ph. Pett | 742| 989
| 95 _Fairfax_[1352] | | 1653|Chatham |Taylor | 745| 993
| 96 _Falcon Flyboat_ | 1653| | | | |
| 97 _Fortune_ | 1653| | | | |
| 98 _Golden Cock_ | 1653| | | | |
| 99 _Hare_ | 1653| | | | |
|100 _Half moon_ | 1653| | | | 300|
|101 _Hampshire_ | | 1653|Deptford |Ph. Pett | 481| 594
|102 _Hector_ | 1653| | | | 150| 200
|103 _John Baptist_ | 1653| | | | |
|104 _Katherine_ | 1653| | | | |
|105 _King David_ | 1653| | | | |
|106 _Little Charity_ | 1653| | | | |
|107 _Lizard_* | 1653| | | | 100| 133
|108 _Mathias_ | 1653| | | | 500| 666
|109 _Marigold Hoy_ | | 1653|Portsmouth |Tippetts | 42|
|110 _Newcastle_ | | 1653|Ratcliff |Ph. Pett | 631| 841
|111 _Orange Tree_ | 1653| | | | 300|
|112 _Ostrich_ | 1653| | | | |
|113 _Paradox_* | 1653| | | | 120| 160
|114 _Pelican Prize_ | 1653| | | | |
|115 _Plover_ | 1653| | | | |
|116 _Plymouth_ | | 1653|Woolwich |Ch. Pett | 741| 988
|117 _Portland_ | | 1653|Wapping |Taylor | 605| 806
|118 _Redhart_* | 1653| | | | |
|119 _Renown_ | 1653| | | | |
|120 _Rosebush_ | 1653| | | | 300| 400
|121 _Satisfaction_ | 1653| | | | 220| 293
|122 _Sparrow_ | 1653| | | | 60| 80
|123 _Swiftsure_[1353] | | 1653|Woolwich |Ch. Pett | 740| 986
|124 _Tulip_ | 1653| | | | |
|125 _Westergate_ | 1653| | | | 270| 365
|126 _Wren_ | 1653| | | | |
|127 _Yarmouth_ | | 1653|Yarmouth |Edgar | 608| 810
|128 _Adviser_ | | 1654| | | |
|129 _Basing_ | | 1654|Walderswick |Shish | 255| 340
|130 _Cat_* | 1654| | | | |
|131 _Colchester_ | | 1654|Yarmouth |Edgar | 287| 382
|132 _Fagons_[1354] | | 1654|Wivenhoe |Page | 262| 349
|133 _Gainsborough_ | | 1654|Wapping |Taylor | 543| 724
|134 _Gloucester_ | | 1654|Limehouse |Graves | 755| 1006
|135 _Grantham_ | | 1654|Lidney |Furzer | 265| 323
|136 _Indian_ | 1654| | | | |
|137 _Islip_ | | 1654| | | |
|138 _Jersey_ | | 1654|Maldon |Starling | 560| 746
|139 _Langport_ | | 1654|Horseleydown|Bright | 781| 1041
|140 _Lyme_ | | 1654|Portsmouth |Tippetts | 769| 1025
|141 _Maidstone_ | | 1654|Woodbridge |Munday | 566| 754
|142 _Marston Moor_ | | 1654|Blackwall |Johnson | 734| 978
|143 _Nantwich_ | | 1654|Bristol |Bailey | 319| 425
|144 _Newbury_ | | 1654|Limehouse |Graves | 765| 1020
|145 _Nonsuch Ketch_(B) | | 1654| | | 60| 80
|146 _Preston_ | | 1654|Woodbridge |Cary | 550| 642
|147 _Seahorse_ | 1654| | | | |
|148 _Selby_ | | 1654| Wapping |Taylor | 299| 398
|149 _Sorlings_*[1355] | 1654| | | | 250| 333
|150 _Taunton_ | | 1654|Ratcliff |Castle | 536| 714
|151 _Torrington_ | | 1654| ” |Ph. Pett | 738| 984
|152 _Tredagh_ | | 1654| ” | ” | 771| 1008
|153 _Winsby_ | | 1654|Yarmouth |Edgar | 607| 809
|154 _Bridgewater_ | | 1655|Deptford |Chamberlain | 742| 989
|155 _Cornelian_* | 1655| | | | 100|
|156 _Dartmouth_ | | 1655|Portsmouth |Tippetts | 230| 306
|157 _Eaglet_ | | 1655|Horseleydown|Huggins | 60| 80
|158 _Fame_* | 1655| | | | 90| 120
|159 _Hawk_ | | 1655|Woolwich |Cooper | 60| 80
|160 _Hind_ | | 1655|Waveney |Page | 60| 80
|161 _Naseby_ | | 1655|Woolwich |Ch. Pett |1229| 1638
|162 _Norwich_ | | 1655|Chatham |Ph. Pett | 246| 328
|163 _Pembroke_ | | 1655|Woolwich |Raven | 269| 368
|164 _Portsmouth | 1655| | | | |
| shallop_ | | | | | |
|165 _Redhorse Pink_ | 1655| | | | |
|166 _Roe_ | | 1655|Waveney |Page | 60| 80
|167 _Wexford_* | 1655| | | | 130| 173
|168 _Accada_(B) | | 1656| | | |
|169 _Beaver_* | 1656| | | | |
|170 _Blackmoor_[1356] | | 1656|Chatham |Taylor | 90| 110
|171 _Bramble_ | 1656| | | | 112| 160
|172 _Cheriton_ | | 1656|Deptford |Challis | 194| 261
|173 _Chestnut_[1356] | | 1656|Portsmouth |Tippetts | 90| 110
|174 _Dunbar_ | | 1656|Deptford |Challis |1047| 1396
|175 _Elias_[1357] | 1656| | | | |
|176 _Griffin_* | 1656| | | | 90| 120
|177 _Harp_ | | 1656|Dublin | | |
|178 _Hunter_* | 1656| | | | 50| 66
|179 _Jesu Maria_ | 1656| | | | |
|180 _Kinsale_* | 1656| | | | 90| 120
|181 _Lark_* | 1656| | | | 80| 100
|182 _London_ | | 1656|Chatham |Taylor |1050|
|183 _Oxford_ | | 1656|Deptford |Challis | 240| 320
|184 _Raven_* | 1656| | | | |
|185 _Vulture_* | 1656| | | | 100| 133
|186 _Wakefield_ | | 1656|Portsmouth |Tippetts | 235| 313
|187 _Wolf_* | 1656| | | | 120| 160
|188 _Cygnet_ | | 1657|Chatham |Taylor | 60| 80
|189 _Forester_ | | 1657|Lidney |Furzer | 230| 306
|190 _Greyhound_* | 1657| | | | 150| 200
|191 _Hart_ | | 1657|Woolwich |Ch. Pett | 55| 75
|192 _Lily_ | | 1657|Deptford |Challis | 60| 80
|193 _Parrot_ | | 1657|Chatham |Taylor | 60| 80
|194 _Rose_ | | 1657|Woolwich |Ch. Pett | 55| 75
|195 _Swallow_ | | 1657|Deptford |Challis | 60| 80
|196 _Bradford_ | | 1658|Chatham |Taylor | 230| 306
|197 _Cagway_* | 1658| | | | 60| 80
|198 _Coventry_* | 1658| | | | 200| 266
|199 _Fox_* | 1658| | | | 120| 160
|200 _Francis_* | 1658| | | | 90| 110
|201 _Gift Minor_* | 1658| | | | 120| 160
|202 _Lichfield_* | 1658| | | | 200| 266
|203 _Maria_* | 1658| | | | 120| 180
|204 _Richard_ | | 1658|Woolwich |Ch. Pett |1108| 1477
|205 _Leopard_ | | 1659|Deptford |Shish | 636| 847
|206 _Monk_ | | 1659|Portsmouth |Tippetts | 703|
|207 _Towing | | 1659|Chatham |Taylor | |
| Galley_[1358] | | | | | |
+-----------------------+-----+-----+------------+------------+----+-----

---+-------+------+-------+--------+----+-------------------------------+
|Length |Beam | Depth |Draught |Guns| Remarks |
|of keel| |of hold| | | |
+-------+------+-------+--------+----+-------------------------------+
| Ft. | Ft. | Ft. | Ft. | | |
1| 116 | 35.8 | 14.6 | 17.6 | 64 |Burnt at Chatham, March 1653. |
2| 90 | 28 | 14 | | 30 | |
3| | | | | |Disappears before 1653. |
4| 102.9 | 29.6 | 12.6 | 15.6 | 42 | |
5| 116 | 34.9 | 14.6 | 17 | 64 | |
6| | | | | 34 | |
7| | | | | |Sold before Nov. 1658. |
8| 100 | 31.2 | 12.3 | 15.7 | 40 | |
9| 85 | 28 | 14 | | 30 | |
10| 102 | 31 | 13 | 15 | 40 | |
11| | | | | 26 |Sold, Aug. 1659. |
12| 104 | 31 | 13 | 16 | 40 | |
13| 100 | 31.8 | 13 | 16 | 40 | |
14| | | | | 12 |Hulk at Chatham in 1660. |
15| | | | | |Disappears before 1653. |
16| 102 | 31 | 13 | 14.6 | 40 | |
17| 106 | 28.6 | 11.10 | 14 | 38 | |
18| 100 | 20.8 | 15.4 | | 38 |Burnt at Portsmouth, Feb. 1656.|
19| | | | | 30 |Sold, 1658. |
20| 99 | 28.4 | 14.2 | 15 | 38 | |
21| | | | | 36 |Sold, June 1657. |
22| 100 | 31.1 | 12.4 | 15.6 | 40 | |
23| 120 | 36 | 16 | | 56 |Wrecked on coast of Jutland, |
| | | | | | 30th Sept. 1652. |
24| | | | | 18 | |
25| | | | | 40 | |
26| | | | | 20 |Burnt at Jamaica, 1655. |
27| | | | | |Captured by Dutch, Aug. 1652. |
28| | | | | 32 |Sold, June 1657. |
29| 103 | 30.1 | 15 | | 38 |Lost on Newarp Sands, 1657. |
30| | | | | |Sold before Sept. 1653. |
31| | | | | 20 |Sold, 1658. |
32| 86 | 25.2 | 10 | 12 | 22 | |
33| 86 | 25.2 | 10 | 12 | 22 | |
34| | | | | |Sold before Nov. 1658. |
35| 86 | 25 | 10 | 12 | 22 | |
36| | | | | |Sold, Aug. 1655. |
37| | | | | 12 |Sold, 1657. |
38| 86 | 25.2 | 10 | 12 | 22 |Wrecked on the Seven Stones, |
| | | | | | 1656. |
39| 100 | 28.10| 11.9 | 13.6 | 38 | |
40| | | | | |Wrecked, 1651. |
41| 112 | 32.6 | 14 | 16 | 48 | |
42| | | | | 20 |Sold, June 1657. |
43| | | | | 26 |Sold, August 1655. |
44| | | | | 32 |Blew up in West Indies, July |
| | | | | | 1656. |
45| | | | | 26 |Sold, 1659. |
46| | | | | 36 |Sold, 1656. |
47| | | | | 4 |Sold, 1659. |
48| 105.6 | 31.3 | 3 | 16 | 40 | |
49| | | | | 30 |Disappears before 1658. |
50| 85 | 18 | 7 | 9 | 14 | |
51| | | | | 24 |Sold, 1654. |
52| | | | | 36 |Sold, 1656. |
53| | | | | 20 |Sold, 1659. |
54| 90.8 | 30.8 | 11.6 | 13.6 | 26 | |
55| | | | | 28 |Sold, 1658. |
56| | | | | |Sold, 1653. |
57| | | | | 36 |Sold, 1656. |
58| | | | | 36 | |
59| | | | | 26 |Sold, 1657. |
60| | | | | 20 |Sold, 1656. |
61| | | | | 4 |Sold, 1655. |
62| | | | | |Lost in action of July 1653. |
63| 107 | 32.6 | 13 | 15 | 40 | |
64| | | | | 32 | |
65| 64 | 19.4 | 7 | | 14 | |
66| 75 | 18 | 7.8 | 9 | 14 | |
67| | | | | 32 |Sold before Nov. 1658. |
68| | | | | |Lost in action of July 1653. |
69| 84 | 26 | 9.6 | 10.6 | 22 | |
70| | | | | 32 |Sold, 1653. |
71| | | | | 26 |Sunk in action of Feb. 1653. |
72| | | | | 36 |Wrecked on the Goodwins, 1658. |
73| | | | | 36 |Recaptured by Dutch, April |
| | | | | | 1654. |
74| | | | | 26 |Sold, 1655. |
75| 105.6 | 31.6 | 13 | 16 | 40 | |
76| | | | | 32 |Sold, 1658. |
77| | | | | 26 | |
78| | | | | |Hulk at Deptford in 1660. |
79| | | | | 12 |Sold, 1654. |
80| | | | | 46 |Blew up at Portsmouth, 9th Dec.|
| | | | | | 1653. |
81| | | | | 22 |Sold, 1654. |
82| 98 | 28 | 11 | 12.6 | 44 |Hulk at Woolwich in 1660. |
83| | | | | 32 |Sold, 1656. |
84| | | | | 36 | |
85| | | | | 14 | |
86| | | | | 16 |Sold, 1657. |
87| 100 | 26 | 14 | 14 | 26 | |
88| 106 | 26.6 | 14.6 | 14.6 | 36 | |
89| | | | | 38 |Sold, 1654. |
90| 104 | 31.1 | 13 | 15.8 | 44 | |
91| | | | | 18 |Sold before Nov. 1658. |
92| | | | | 30 |Hulk at Harwich in 1660. |
93| 101 | 27.6 | 11 | 14.6 | 36 | |
94| 115 | 33 | 13.8 | 17 | 48 | |
95| 120 | 35.2 | 14.6 | 16.6 | 52 | |
96| | | | | 24 |Sold, 1658. |
97| | | | | 26 |Sold, 1654. |
98| | | | | 24 |Sold, 1656. |
99| | | | | 12 |Wrecked, 1655. |
100| | | | | 30 |Sold, 1659. |
101| 101.9 | 29.9 | 13 | 14.10 | 38 | |
102| | | | | 30 | |
103| | | | | 12 |Sold, 1656. |
104| | | | | 36 |Sold before Nov. 1658. |
105| | | | | 12 |Sold, 1654. |
106| | | | | 30 |Sold, 1656. |
107| | | | | 16 | |
108| | | | | 38 | |
109| 32 | 14 | 7 | 7 | | |
110| 108.6 | 33.1 | 13.3 | 16 | 44 | |
111| | | | | 26 |Sold, 1655. |
112| | | | | |Hulk at Portsmouth in 1660. |
113| | | | | 12 | |
114| | | | | 34 |Sold, 1655. |
115| | | | | 26 |Sold, 1657. |
116| 116 | 34.8 | 14.6 | 17 | 54 | |
117| 105 | 32.11| 12.10 | 16 | 44 | |
118| | | | | 6 |Sold, 1654. |
119| | | | | 20 |Sold, 1654. |
120| | | | | 34 | |
121| | | | | 26 | |
122| | | | | 12 |Sold, 1659. |
123| 116 | 37.4 | 14.10 | 18 | 60 | |
124| | | | | 32 |Sold, 1657. |
125| 86 | 24.6 | 11.6 | 13 | 34 | |
126| | | | | 12 |Sold, 1657. |
127| 105 | 33 | 13.3 | 17 | 44 | |
128| | | | | 8 |Taken by a privateer in 1655. |
129| 80 | 24.6 | 10 | 12 | 22 | |
130| | | | | 8 |Retaken by a privateer in 1656.|
131| 83 | 25.6 | 10 | 12 | 24 | |
132| 82 | 24.8 | 10 | 12 | 22 | |
133| 100.10| 31.10| 13 | 15 | 40 | |
134| 117 | 34.10| 14.6 | 18 | 50 | |
135| 80 | 25 10| 11.6 | 28 | | |
136| | | | | 44 |Sold, 1659. |
137| | | | | 22 |Wrecked near Inverlochy, 24th |
| | | | | | July 1655. |
138| 102.10| 32.2 | 13.2 | 15.6 | 40 | |
139| 116 | 35.7 | 14.4 | 17 | 50 | |
140| 117 | 35.2 | 14.4 | 18 | 52 | |
141| 102 | 31.8 | 13 | 16 | 40 | |
142| 116 | 34.6 | 14.2 | 17 | 52 | |
143| 86.8 | 26.4 | 10.4 | 12.6 | 28 | |
144| 117 | 35 | 14.5 | 17.6 | 52 | |
145| 27 | 15.6 | 6 | | 8 |Taken by a privateer, March |
| | | | | | 1659; recaptured by a cruiser|
| | | | | | in the following April. |
146| 101 | 30 | 13 | 16 | 40 | |
147| | | | | 26 |Sold, 1655. |
148| 85.6 | 25.8 | 10 | 12 | 22 | |
149| | | | | 28 | |
150| 100.6 | 31.8 | 13 | 16 | 40 | |
151| 116.8 | 34.6 | 14.2 | 17 | 52 | |
152| 117.3 | 35.2 | 14.5 | 17 | 50 | |
153| 104 | 33.2 | 13 | 17 | 44 | |
154| 116.9 | 34.7 | 14.2 | 17 | 52 | |
155| | | | | 12 | |
156| 80 | 25 | 10 | 12 | 22 | |
157| | | | | 8 | |
158| | | | | 10 | |
159| 42 | 16 | 8 | | 8 | |
160| 42 | 16 | 8 | | 8 | |
161| 131 | 42 | 18 | 11 | 80 | |
162| 81 | 25 | 10.6 | 12 | 22 | |
163| 81 | 25 | 11.6 | 12 | 22 | |
164| | | | | 4 |Retaken by a privateer, July |
| | | | | | 1655. |
165| | | | | 10 |Sold, 1658. |
166| | | | | 8 | |
167| | | | | 14 | |
168| | | | | 10 |Wrecked, 1659. |
169| | | | | 6 |Sold before Nov. 1658. |
170| 47 | 19 | 10 | | 12 | |
171| | | | | 14 | |
172| 76 | 24 | 10 | 11 | 20 | |
173| 47 | 19 | 10 | | 12 | |
174| 123 | 46 | 17.2 | 21 | 64 | |
175| | | | | |Used as hulk at Plymouth in |
| | | | | | 1660. |
176| | | | | 12 | |
177| | | | | 8 | |
178| | | | | 6 | |
179| | | | | |Used as hulk at Portsmouth in |
| | | | | | 1660. |
180| | | | | 10 | |
181| | | | | 10 | |
182| 123.6 | 41 | 16.6 | 18 | 64 | |
183| 72 | 24 | 10 | 11 | 22 | |
184| | | | | 6 |Sold before Nov. 1658. |
185| | | | | 12 | |
186| 74 | 23.6 | 9.9 | 11.6 | 26 | |
187| | | | | 16 | |
188| | | | | 6 | |
189| | | | | 22 | |
190| 60 | 26.6 | 11.6 | | 20 | |
191| 50 | 14.6 | 5.6 | 5 | 6 | |
192| | | | 5 | 6 | |
193| | | | 5 | 6 | |
194| 50 | 14 | 5.6 | 5 | 6 | |
195| | | | 5 | 6 | |
196| 85 | 25.6 | 10 | 12 | 28 | |
197| | | | | 8 | |
198| | | | | 20 | |
199| 72 | 23 | 8.6 | 10 | 14 | |
200| | | | | 10 | |
201| | | | | 12 | |
202| | | | | 20 | |
203| | | | | 12 | |
204| 124 | 41 | 18 | 20 | 70 | |
205| 109 | 33.9 | 15.8 | 17 | 44 | |
206| 108 | 35 | 13.11 | 16 | 52 | |
207| | | | | 1 | |
---+-------+------+-------+--------+----+-------------------------------+

Thus 207 new vessels were added to the Navy during these eleven years, of which 121 were on the active list in 1660; besides 22 others still remaining of the old Royal Navy and 17 more, originally of the same era, which had been used but had been sold, wrecked, or lost in action between 1649 and 1660. We are told that ‘the principal thing the Long Parliament aimed at was to outsail the Dunkirkers,’[1359] and the large number of light vessels of twenty-two guns, or under, shows how earnestly they set themselves to this task. In a few cases the names of old ships were altered—the _Charles_ to _Liberty_, the _Henrietta Maria_ to _Paragon_, the _Prince_ to _Resolution_, and the _St Andrew_ and _St George_ lost their saintship. The _Sovereign_ is, once or twice, called the _Commonwealth_, but here the proposed change of name never became an actual one.

[Sidenote: Alterations and Improvements.]

In October 1651 the Council of State were considering ‘some encouragement to be given to Messrs Pett for their success in contriving and building of frigates.’ The improvements consisted, we may be certain, in moulding the under-water section on finer lines, and probably in reducing the height of the hull above water and lengthening the keel by lessening the rake, fore and aft, and so diminishing the undue proportion the length ‘over all’ bore to the keel. Such alterations would have tended to abate the pitching, from which these old ships must have suffered terribly, to have given them a steadier gun platform, and to make them more weatherly, although from the journal of the _Gainsborough_ it appears that she, at any rate, was nearly unable to beat to windward.[1360] At first the new frigates, of whatever class, were built without forecastles, but experience led to the conclusion that they were advisable in the larger ships, it being found necessary sometimes to run them up at sea, and eventually only fifth- and sixth-rates were still built without them. But this was an advance on the old system, which had constructed the smallest vessels on exactly the same plan as the largest. Beyond Pett’s improvements, which really belong to the period of Charles I rather than to that of the Commonwealth, there was little progress in matters relating to sails and the better adjustment of weights. Fore and aft sails are still rarely mentioned, and then only in connection with small vessels, and there is no record of the introduction of any mechanical appliances calculated to lighten or quicken the physical work necessary in handling a ship. The sail area was still small for the tonnage, nor, in view of the crankness of the ships, did it appear possible to increase it. The _Sovereign_, cut down in 1652, and then of 100 guns and 2072 gross tonnage,[1361] carried 5513 yards of canvas in a complete suit of sails;[1362] in 1844 the regulation equipment for a second-rate of 84 guns and 2279 tons (the _Thunderer_), was 12,947 yards. Of course the line-of-battle ship of 1844 would be in reality a much bigger vessel than the _Sovereign_, but the excess in length and breadth would not alone explain the ability to bear more than double the extent of canvas.

As had been customary for at least 150 years, each ship possessed three boats—long boat, pinnace, and skiff—which were respectively 35 feet, 29 feet, and 20 feet long in those belonging to second-rates, and 33 feet, 28 feet, and 20 feet in third-rates. In no list of equipments or stores are davits mentioned. The long boat was apparently still towed astern; it invariably was in 1625, since the Cadiz fleet of that year lost every long boat in crossing the Bay of Biscay. How the other boats were now hoisted to the ship is uncertain.[1363]

[Sidenote: Shipbuilding.]

Early in the Commonwealth administration John Holland, one of the Navy Commissioners, recommended that the service shipwrights should not be allowed to keep private yards, seeing that if they were dishonest there was no way of tracing government timber, or other materials, used for their own purposes, a reason which does not say much for government methods of supervision. But the state yards were obviously inadequate to the demands suddenly made upon their capacity, and recourse was necessary to the yards belonging to government shipwrights and to private builders. In 1650 and 1651 the _Pelican_, _Primrose_, _Pearl_, _Nightingale_, and _Mermaid_ were bought in this way, the first at £6, 10s, the others at £5, 8s a ton.[1364] Vessels built in private yards were subjected to continual inspection at the hands of the government surveyors, and, in many cases, the materials were supplied by the Navy Commissioners, who only desired such prices for them ‘as shall be moderate and fit between man and man.’

During 1651-53 Parliament was continually ordering new frigates to be commenced, and the master shipwrights who possessed building slips seem to have tried to get the work placed in their own yards rather than in the government ones. In April 1652, when two new vessels were to be commenced, Peter Pett and Taylor recommended that they should be given out to contract, as there was not enough timber in the government stores. Whatever may have been the knowledge or sense of duty possessed by some of their subordinates, the Commonwealth Navy Commissioners were the wrong men upon whom to try _finesse_, more appropriate to the preceding or following administrations. All that Pett and Taylor obtained by their move was an intimation that they, at all events, would not be allowed to compete, and this was followed by an urgent recommendation to the Admiralty Committee that, as there was in reality plenty of timber available, the two men should be ordered to proceed with the work at once in the state’s yards.[1365] On other occasions the London shipwrights combined to put pressure on the Admiralty by refusing to tender below certain rates, and Edmond Edgar, of Great Yarmouth, based a claim to consideration on the fact that he had cut in and broken down the combination.[1366] There are several petitions, like this one of Edgar’s, from shipbuilders, for compensation on account of vessels turned out from their yards larger than had been specified in the original contracts, and thereby exposing them to loss. As the Admiralty tried to be just rather than generous in dealing with contractors, we may suppose that the miscalculations, like those which occurred under Charles I, were due really to ignorance rather than to a not very hopeful attempt to obtain larger profits by deliberately ignoring instructions. Country builders, moreover, sometimes worked under difficulties they could scarcely have anticipated when tendering. Bailey, who built two ships at Bristol, desired the government to authorise him to pay his men more than two shillings a day, and thus free him from the liability to ten days’ imprisonment and a £10 fine incurred, according to the city ordinances, by those who paid more.[1367]

[Sidenote: Decoration.]

In accordance with the tendency of the time the decoration of ships was reduced to a minimum. Until 1655 the use of gilding appears to have ceased, special orders being in some cases given that vessels under repair were not to have any gold used upon them, and the cost of carved work in fifth-rates was fixed at £45, an amount which was not passed without serious questioning. In 1655 this severe simplicity was, to a certain extent, relaxed, since, in August, Richard Isaacson undertook the gilding and painting of two second-rates at £120 each. So far as the outside was concerned, the figurehead, arms on stern, and two figures on the stern gallery were to be gilt; the hull, elsewhere, was to be painted black, picked out in gold where carved.[1368] The Navy Commissioners held that the decoration ought not to cost more than £80, being unnecessary and ‘like feathers in fantastic caps.’ Figure heads were sometimes exuberant in style. The _Naseby’s_ consisted of Oliver on horseback, ‘trampling upon six nations.’

[Sidenote: Relation between Tonnage and Guns.]

The following table gives the equipment in offensive weapons and stores for typical vessels of each rate; the scale was not implicitly adhered to, but it is the first sign of an attempt to establish a permanent relation between guns and tonnage such as became afterwards almost invariable. The paper belongs to 1655, but it is not likely that any material alteration occurred before 1660.[1369] The first establishment of third-rates was 140, of fourth-rates 130, and of fifth-rates 100 men; these were subsequently raised to 160, 150, and 110 men respectively:—

+------------------------+------+------+---------+---------+------+-----+
| |Cannon| Demi-|Culverins| Demi- |Sakers|Round|
| Vessels |Drakes|cannon| |culverins| |Shot |
| | | | | | | |
+------------------------+------+------+---------+---------+------+-----+
| _Sovereign_ | | | | | | |
|1st-rates _Resolution_ | 19 | 9 | 8 | 30 | 5 |2580 |
| [1370] _Naseby_ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| _Triumph_ | | | | | | |
|2nd-rates _Victory_ | | 6 | 0 | 24 | 4 |1900 |
| _Dunbar_ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| _Speaker_ | | | | | | |
|3rd-rates _Marston Moor_| | 4 | 2 | 26 | 8 |2080 |
| _Fairfax_ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| _Bristol_ | | | | | | |
|4th-rates _Portland_ | | | 24 | 6 | 8 | 908 |
| _Dover_ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| _Pearl_ | | | | | | |
|5th-rates _Mermaid_ | | | | 18 | 4 | 660 |
| _Fagons_ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| _Cat_ | | | | | | |
|6th-rates _Hare_ | | | | | 8 | 240 |
| _Martin_ | | | | | | |
+------------------------+------+------+---------+---------+------+-----+

+------------------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+--------+
| |Double|Barrels|Muskets|Blunder-|Pikes|Hatchets|
| Vessels |headed| of | |busses | | |
| | Shot |Powder | | | | |
+------------------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+--------+
| _Sovereign_ | | | | | | |
|1st-rates _Resolution_ | 720 | 330 | 300 | 20 | 200 | 100 |
| [1370] _Naseby_ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| _Triumph_ | | | | | | |
|2nd-rates _Victory_ | 740 | 203 | 120 | 12 | 80 | 40 |
| _Dunbar_ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| _Speaker_ | | | | | | |
|3rd-rates _Marston Moor_| 670 | 180 | 120 | 10 | 60 | 40 |
| _Fairfax_ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| _Bristol_ | | | | | | |
|4th-rates _Portland_ | 462 | 100 | 60 | 7 | 60 | 40 |
| _Dover_ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| _Pearl_ | | | | | | |
|5th-rates _Mermaid_ | 260 | 40 | 0 | 4 | 40 | 20 |
| _Fagons_ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| _Cat_ | | | | | | |
|6th-rates _Hare_ | 40 | 14 | 0 | 3 | 20 | 12 |
| _Martin_ | | | | | | |
+------------------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+--------+

[Sidenote: The Fleets.]

Of the large number of prizes passed into the service many had not been built as men-of-war, and, as soon as the immediate need had ceased, were sold, if only for the momentary relief the money thus obtained gave the harassed treasury. In one year, ending with October 1654, nine were sold for £6181. Notwithstanding the enormous increase in the strength of the Navy the Commissioners found it hardly equal to the provision of the over-sea fleets, now required, and the fifty or sixty cruisers in the four seas which replaced the half-dozen small vessels formerly considered sufficient, and which number, relatively large as it was, did not succeed in entirely crushing the enterprise of the Dunkirk and Stewart privateers. The recollection of what commerce had suffered from piracy must have remained very lively, and, at the close of the civil war, strong summer and winter ‘guards’ were still maintained; in October 1651 there were thirty-six vessels cruising in home waters.[1371] During the Dutch war every available ship was needed with the fleets, and the Channel was sometimes so devoid of protection that two prizes, taken off the Land’s End in December 1653, were brought up Channel to Flushing without, during the six days occupied in the voyage, and of which one was spent in lying to off Dungeness, meeting a single English man-of-war.