Chapter XXVIII: Appendix: D (3)

Returning to Vane, Mr Hosmer says in one place (p. 148), that the post of Treasurer was worth £30,000, and in another (p. 376), £20,000 a year. What Mr Hosmer’s authority (G. Sikes, _The Life and Death of Sir Henry Vane_), really writes is, ‘The bare poundage, which in time of peace came to about £3000, would have amounted to about £20,000 by the year during the war with Holland.’ The poundage in peace years never approached £3000, and, as Vane ceased to be Treasurer in 1650, and, from the date of his resignation, a lower scale of payment was adopted, the second part of the calculation is obviously nothing to the purpose. Whether the reduction in the Treasurer’s commission was due to Vane, or whether he resigned on account of it, we have no evidence to show, nor do vague generalities help to clear the doubt. As bearing testimony to Vane’s disinterestedness Mr Hosmer quotes Sikes to the effect that he returned half his receipts, from the date of his appointment as sole Treasurer, at the time of the self-denying ordinance. Unfortunately the accounts previous to 1645 are wanting and the question must remain open, but if the probability may be judged by general tendency it must be said to be extremely unlikely, since he was Treasurer from 8th Aug. 1642 till 31st Dec. 1650, and during that time received in poundage and salary for the five-and-a-half years for which the accounts remain the sum of £19,620, 1s 10d. There is no sign in the audit office papers that he returned one penny of his legal dues, and, whoever else had to wait, he seems to have paid himself liberally and punctually. Mr Hosmer has only indirectly noticed that Parliament, when Vane resigned, settled a retiring pension on him. Sikes says, ‘some inconsiderable matter without his seeking, was allotted to him by the Parliament in lieu thereof’ (_i.e._, of his place). The ‘inconsiderable matter,’ was landed estate producing £1200 a year. Seeing that he held his post for only seven and a half years, that during that time he must have received at least £25,000, and that all previous Treasurers had been, on occasion, dismissed without any suggestion of compensation, his disinterestedness may be questioned. When Parliament voted Ireton an estate of £2000 a year he refused it on account of the poverty of the country. And Sikes’s version that it was ‘without his seeking’ is not absolutely beyond doubt. On June 27th, 1650, a petition of Vane’s was referred to a committee to discuss how the treasurership was to be managed from Dec. 31st following, and ‘also to consider what compensation is fit to be given to the petitioner out of that office or otherwise in consideration of his right in the said office.’ It is no unjustifiable assumption to infer from this the possibility that the petition at any rate included a claim for compensation. Sikes, again, tells us that he caused his subordinate Hutchinson to succeed him, but when, on 10th Oct. 1650, the motion was before the House that the ‘question be now put’ whether Hutchinson’s appointment should be made, Vane was one of the tellers for the ‘Noes’ and was beaten by 27 to 18. This was immediately followed by Hutchinson’s nomination without a division. The incidents of Hutchinson’s official career imply a much stronger and more lasting influence than that of Vane, but the only importance of the question is as affecting the trustworthiness of the latter’s seventeenth century biographer. Mr Hosmer, like all other writers on Vane, appears to quote Sikes with implicit faith, but the man evidently wrote only loosely and generally, making up in enthusiasm what he lacked in exactness; _e.g._, ‘In the beginning of that expensive war he resigned the treasurership of the Navy.’ Hutchinson succeeded him from 1st Jan. 1650-1, and war with Holland did not occur till June 1652. There is nothing to show that Vane was not an honest administrator, but his party, fortunately, produced many others equally trustworthy.

[1253] _Add. MSS._, 9302, f. 42.

[1254] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxxxix, 43.

[1255] _Add. MSS._, 9297, f. 75.

[1256] _State Papers, Dom._, clxxiii, 32.

[1257] _Supra_, p. 150.

[1258] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxlv, 49; January 1627.

[1259] _Ibid._, l, 45.

[1260] _Ibid._, cxxxviii, 66.

[1261] _Ibid._, cxliii, 37.

[1262] J. Holland, _Discourse of the Navy_.

[1263] _Add. MSS._, 9301, f. 135.

[1264] _Egerton MSS._, 2541, f. 123, Deptford was chiefly used for building, and Chatham for repairing.

[1265] _State Papers, Dom._, cccii, 27.

[1266] _Ibid._, cccliii, f. 67.

[1267] _State Papers, Dom._, cccxlvii, 85.

[1268] _Ibid._, xlviii, January 20. This, must, however, refer to some improvements as ring-bolts for the purpose are mentioned earlier.

[1269] _Fœdera_, xix, 549.

[1270] It is possible, too, that the present navy button and cap badge may be traced back, in inception, to the parliamentary _régime_. Northumberland’s seal consisted merely of his arms (_reverse_), with (_obverse_) a figure on horseback with a background of sea and ships; and although earlier Lords Admirals—Southampton, Lincoln, and Buckingham—had used the anchor, none of them had combined the coronet, anchor, and wreath. Warwick’s was one which differs only in the relative proportions of the details from the button and badge now in use, except that the anchor is now fouled. If it is only a coincidence it is a curious one. Popham, Blake, and Deane employed a modification of Warwick’s seal, omitting the crown; and the Navy Office adopted another, consisting of three anchors, a large centre one with a smaller on each side, and ‘The Seale of the Navye Office’ round the edge, so that the device selected by Warwick seems, in one form or another, to have been soon widely used and continued. A reproduction of this Navy Office Seal is used on the binding, and at the foot of the Preface, of the present volume.

[1271] These prices were paid by the government; the cost to the sailor depended on the honesty of many intermediaries.

[1272] _State Papers, Dom., Interreg._, 22nd June 1649; Council to Generals of fleet.

[1273] Captain John Stevens, _Royal Treasury of England_, 1725. He gives no authorities and his figures are very doubtful, but Mr Dowell (_Hist. of Taxes_) appears to quote him as trustworthy. In any case the revenues of the republic enormously exceeded those of the monarchy. The anonymous writer of a Restoration pamphlet (_The Mystery of the Good Old Cause_, 1660) estimates that the Commonwealth raised £3,000,000 a year.

[1274] The value, in 1894, of the English merchant navy was £122,000,000, Admiralty expenditure £18,500,000; of the French merchant navy £10,100,000, Admiralty expenditure £10,500,000.

[1275] _Add. MSS._, 5500, f. 25.

[1276] De Witt, _The True Interest of Holland_, p. 227. De Witt notices the preference given to land operations during the thirty years’ war.

[1277] _Ibid._, p. 218, et seq.

[1278] In the Dutch service each captain contracted to provision his own ship, and the men had meat only once a week.

[1279] Relatively, that is, judged by a standard of comparison with what they had endured under the Stewarts.

[1280] Burton’s _Diary_, III, 57, 3rd February 1658-9. There are several other references in Burton to the care the Long Parliament bestowed on the Navy.

[1281] Gumble, _Life of Monk_, p. 75. Eleven hundred according to a Dutch life of Tromp.

[1282] This is, perhaps, not literally correct; a contemporary seaman, Gibson, tells us that the aim of the English captains was to lie on the bow or quarter of their antagonists (_Add. MSS._, 11,602, f. 77), but that was very different from the game of long bowls Englishmen had learnt to be the best medicine for Spaniards, and had never till now discarded. Our fleets went into action _en masse_, the only rule being that each captain should keep as close as possible to the flag of his divisional commander. The result at times was that while some ships were being overwhelmed by superior force others hardly fired a gun, and an officer who had closely obeyed the letter of his instructions might afterwards find himself charged with cowardice and neglect of duty.

[1283] _State Papers, Dom._, 19th March 1649. There was theological bitterness involved as well, since the Navy Commissioners directed that any man refusing meat in Lent was to be dismissed as refractory, (_Add. MSS._, 9304, f. 54).

[1284] _State Papers, Dom._, 12th March 1649, Council to Generals of the fleet. John Sparrow, Rich. Blackwell, and Humphrey Blake were appointed on 17th April 1649 to be treasurers and collectors of prize goods; Rich. Hill, Sam. Wilson, and Robt. Turpin were added from 8th March 1653.

[1285] _Commons Journals_, 21st Dec. 1652. The ‘medium’ cost of each man at sea was reckoned at £4 a month, including wages, victuals, wear and tear of ships, stores, provision for sick and wounded, and other incidental expenses. _Rawlinson MSS._ (Bodleian Library), A 9, p. 176.

[1286] _State Papers, Dom._, 12th May 1649, Council to Generals at sea.

[1287] It is advisable to dwell on this point because the late Mrs Everett Green (Preface to _Calendar of State Papers_, 1649-50, p. 24), said, speaking of the Commonwealth seamen generally, that ‘disaffection and mutiny were frequent among them,’ and writers of less weight have echoed this opinion. The instances of mutiny were in reality very few—seven between 1649 and 1660—were not serious, and were, in every case but one attributable to drunkenness or to wages and prize money remaining unpaid, the single exception being due to the refusal of a crew to proceed to sea in what they held to be an unseaworthy ship. This is a very trifling number compared with the series of such events occurring during nearly every year of the reign of Charles I. Of disaffection in the sense of a leaning towards the Stewarts there is not a trace among the men, and but two or three examples among officers. The exiles in France and Holland, with that optimism peculiar to the unfortunate, were continually anticipating that ships and men were coming over to the royal cause, an anticipation never once verified in the event. The analogue of the seventeenth century seaman, if he exists to-day at all, is to be found, not in the man-of-war’s man, who now has literary preferences and an account in the ship’s savings bank, but in the rough _milieu_ of a trader’s forecastle, and among men of this type violence, or even an outbreak of savage ruffianism, by no means necessarily implies serious ground of discontent, but may be owing to one of many apparently inadequate causes. There were no such outbreaks among the Commonwealth seamen, and the punishments for drunkenness and insubordination were not disproportionate to the number of men employed, but if that is made an argument it should also be applied to the army; nearly every page of Whitelocke furnishes us with instances of officers and men being broken, sentenced, or dismissed for theft, insubordination, and sometimes disaffection, but no one has yet suggested that the army yearned to restore the Stewarts. The two most striking examples of these mutinies usually quoted are those of the _Hart_ in 1650 and the riotous assemblies in London in 1653. In the case of the _Hart_ what actually happened was that, the captain and officers being on shore, 28 out of the 68 men on board seized the ship when the others were below, with the intention, according to one contemporary writer, of taking her over to Charles, according to another, of turning pirates, and according to a third, because they were drunk. Perhaps all three causes were at work, seeing that the mutineers soon quarrelled among themselves, and the loyal majority of the crew regained possession of the ship and brought her back to Harwich. Yet I have seen a serious writer quote the _Hart_ as an example of desertion to the royalists, an error probably due to the fact that she was afterwards captured by the Dutch, and eventually sailed under a Stewart commission until she blew up at the Canaries. In October 1653 there were tumults in London, due entirely to the non-payment of prize money, and these, it is true, required to be suppressed by military force. But this riot, extending over two days, was the only instance in which the government found difficulty in dealing with the men, and does not warrant a general charge of disloyalty during eleven years. If a detailed examination of the remaining instances were worth the space, they could be shown to be equally due to causes remote from politics. Historically, a mutiny among English seamen has never necessarily signified disloyalty to the _de facto_ sovereign or government; the mutineers at Spithead and the Nore in 1797 were especially careful to declare their loyalty to the crown, and their failure at the Nore was probably due to the extent to which they carried this feeling. If the character of the service rendered to the republic is compared with that given to Charles I, it is difficult to understand how the charge of disaffection can be maintained.

[1288] _State Papers, Dom._, 24th May 1652, Council to vice-admirals of counties. The subject of impressment belongs more fitly to the eighteenth century. Here it will be sufficient to remark that while in many cases the government officials reported that the men were coming in willingly of their own accord, in others the press masters found great difficulty in executing their warrants, and writers of newsletters in London describe the seizure of landsmen and forcible entry of houses, in which seamen were supposed to be hiding, in a fashion which reminds the reader of the beginning of the present century. The two versions are not irreconcilable; at all times there has been a remainder, after the best men had been obtained, difficult to reach and willing to make any sacrifice to escape a man-of-war.

[1289] _Add. MSS._, 9306, f. 85.

[1290] _Thomason Pamphlets_, 684/9 The regulations of 1649 were only adaptations of the rules made, independently, long before by each Lord Admiral when in command of a fleet. Mr Gardiner has suggested to me that the formal enactment of the articles at that particular moment was possibly directly connected with the defeat off Dungeness in November. This view is supported by the fact that they were obviously not aimed at the men, with whose conduct no fault had been found and whose position was, if anything, improved by them, by the definition of crime and punishment and the institution of a court of eight officers; while, on the other hand, the severest clauses are those affecting officers whose conduct, both in action and when cruising, had in many cases caused great dissatisfaction.

[1291] _State Papers, Dom._, 31st Dec. 1653.

[1292] _State Papers, Dom._, 4th Feb. 1652.

[1293] _Ibid._, 15th Dec. 1652.

[1294] _State Papers, Dom._, lx, 135, October 1653; Bourne to Navy Commissioners.

[1295] _State Papers, Dom._, xxix, 57; October 1652.

[1296] _Ibid._, 6th Jan. 1653.

[1297] _Ibid._, xxx, 84, and xlv, 66.

[1298] From the Dutch _Grom_, or Low Latin _Gromettus_, one occupied in a servile office. Gromet is at least as old as the thirteenth century and then meant a ship’s boy. Later it came to mean ordinary seamen; here it is applied to a class between ordinary seamen and boys, but probably nearer, in qualifications, to the former than the latter.

[1299] The earliest mention of midshipmen yet noticed is in a letter of 7th Feb. 1642-3, in which a Mr Cook writes that he will not undervalue _himself_ by allowing his son to accept such a place.

[1300] The pay of the privates was 18s per month; no officer of higher rank than serjeant was in charge.

[1301] _State Papers, Dom._, 19th April 1655. Hatsell to Col. John Clerke (an Admiralty Commissioner).

[1302] _State Papers, Dom._, ccv, 54. Disborowe lent £5000, which he had succeeded in getting back; seven aldermen £19,500, of which £11,700 still remained.

[1303] _Add. MSS._, 22,546, f. 185, and 18,986, f. 176.

[1304] The methods of these gentlemen were sometimes directly ancestral to those of their successors in the prize courts of the beginning of this century. In one case a ship was condemned and its cargo sold, apparently on their own sole authority; the Admiralty Court ordered restitution, and then the Commissioners presented a bill of £2000 for expenses (_State Papers, Dom._, 26th Feb. 1655). A contemporary wrote, ‘It was nothing for ordinary proctors in the Admiralty to get £4000 or £5000 a year by cozening the state in their prizes till your petitioner by his discovery to the Council of State spoiled their trade for a great part of it,’ (T. Violet, _A True Narrative, etc._, Lond. 1659, p. 8).

[1305] _State Papers, Dom._, xc, 2.

[1306] _Ibid._, 18th March 1654.

[1307] _Resolutions at a Council of War on board the ~Swiftsure~: The humble Petition of the Seamen belonging to the Ships of the Commonwealth._ These two broadsides are in the British Museum under the press mark 669 f. 19, Nos. 32 and 33, ‘Great Britain and Ireland—Navy.’

[1308] _State Papers, Dom._, lxxvi, 81; 1645 (? Oct.).

[1309] _State Papers, Dom._, clxxiii, 26th Oct. 1657; Morris to Navy Commissioners.

[1310] _Add. MSS._, 9304, f. 129. The _Sapphire_ seems to have been the crack cruiser of her time. The contrast between that which, with all its faults, was a strong administration, morally stimulating to officers and men, and the enervating Stewart _régime_ is illustrated in the life and death—if the expression be permitted—of this ship, and exemplified in the grim entry in the burial register of St Nicholas, Deptford, under date of 26th Aug. 1670, ‘Capt. John Pearse and Lieut. Logan shot to death for loosing ye _Saphier_ cowardly.’

[1311] _State Papers, Dom._, clxxxii, 8; 6th July 1658.

[1312] _State Papers, Dom._, 15th Sept., and 16th Nov. 1658.

[1313] I have only noticed one instance of direct interference by Cromwell in minor details. The widow of a seaman, killed by an accident on the _Fagons_, had petitioned the Commissioners of sick and wounded for help, and had been refused by them. She then appealed to the Protector, and her memorial bears his holograph direction to the Commissioners to reconsider their decision, the case being the same ‘in equity’ as though the man had lost his life in action (_State Papers_, cxxx, 98; 10th Nov. 1656). If this is the only surviving illustration of the character of his intervention in questions connected with the well-being of the men it is gratifying that it should be of such a nature.

[1314] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxii, 109. The revenue of England for 1659 was estimated at £1,517,000 (_Commons Journals_).

[1315] Allowance for short victuals.

[1316] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxxii, 28.

[1317] _State Papers, Dom._, 20th Dec. 1652.

[1318] _Ibid._, 21st and 26th March 1653.

[1319] _Ibid._, 14th April 1654.

[1320] _State Papers, Dom._, 5th April 1653.

[1321] _Ibid._, 31st March 1654.

[1322] _Ibid._, cxl, 43.

[1323] _State Papers, Dom._, 17th Dec., 1657.

[1324] _Add. MSS._, 9304, ff. 133,135. It would not be just to pass from the subject of the aid afforded to the men in disease and suffering without some notice of Elizabeth Alkin, otherwise ‘Parliament Joan,’ who wore out health and life in their service. This woman appears to have nursed wounded soldiers during the civil war, for which she was in receipt of a pension, and, in February 1653, volunteered similar help for the sailors. She was then ordered to Portsmouth, and, in view of the before noticed condition of the town, must have found very real work to which to put her hand. If £325 went in one item to nurses there must have been plenty of a kind to be had; but she gave her heart to her helpless patients, and in June had spent not only all the government allowance but also her own money, as ‘I cannot see them want if I have it.’ She was then sent to Harwich, and on 22nd Feb. 1654 returned, weak and ill, to London, with only 3s remaining. Of the last £10 given to her she had spent £6 on the Dutch prisoners at Harwich: ‘Seeing their wants and miseries so great, I could not but have pity on them though our enemies.’ A week later she again appeals for at least an instalment of her pension, or to be sent to a hospital in which ‘to end my days less miserably,’ having been forced to sell even her bed. In May and September 1654, two warrants, each for £10, were made out, and her name does not occur again. Even these few data are sufficient to suggest the outline of a life of self-sacrifice, illumined by a native kindliness of heart and unsoured by religious fanaticism, of which there is not a trace in her letters.

[1325] _State Papers, Dom._, c, 139.

[1326] From seamen’s wages.

[1327] By estimation.

[1328] Average for three years, less taxes.

[1329] By estimation.

[1330] _Add. MSS._, 9305, 13th Jan. 1657.

[1331] _State Papers, Dom._, cxxv, 39, 11. Under Charles I, widows obtained donations from it, but no pensions.

[1332] _Add. MSS._, 9317, f. 1 et seq. We have not Pett’s reply, and the full force of the accusations, as they stand, is vitiated by the fact that they were made by royalist servants inquiring into the conduct of a Commonwealth official. The committee of inquiry in 1662 consisted of Sir J. Mennes, Sir W. Coventry, Sir W. Penn, W. Rider, S. Pepys, and R. Ford.

[1333] _State Papers, Dom._, 30th Nov. 1650. There were five partners joined with Pride—John Limbrey, Wm. Beak, Thos. Alderne, Dennis Gauden, and Rich. Pierce (_Audit Office Dec. Accounts_, 1708-96). The rates, in 1645, had been eightpence three farthings and sevenpence; the Victualling was then under the supervision of the Treasurer (_Ibid._, 1706-90).

[1334] _State Papers, Dom._, 12th Jan. 1653, and _Add. MSS._, 9306, f. 2.

[1335] _State Papers, Dom._, xxx, 10.

[1336] _State Papers, Dom._, 17th Oct. 1654, 1st, 7th, 14th Aug., and 8th Sept. 1655.

[1337] It is said that Alderne’s executors could produce neither vouchers nor assets for £200,000 imprested to him. But the story rests only on the authority of a royalist Comptroller of the Navy, Sir R. Slingsby (_Discourse of the Navy_, f. 58).

[1338] _Add. MSS._, 9300, f. 330; 19th Nov. 1656.

[1339] _State Papers, Dom._, 31st Jan. 1660.

[1340] _State Papers, Dom._, 6th March 1660.

[1341] _Ibid._, 16th Aug. 1650. This is the medal shown on the title page.

[1342] _State Papers, Dom._, cxliv, 66, 68, and _Add. MSS._, 9305, f. 155. The _Triumph_ medal was ‘For eminent service in saving ye _Triumph_ fired in fight w ye Dutch in July 1653.’

[1343] _S. P. D._, cxvii, 64; 11th Dec. 1655.

[1344] _Ibid._, cxxxiv, 64.

[1345] _Ibid._, cxlv, 47; Sep. 1656.

[1346] This list is based on that of Dering (_Archæologia_, xlviii), but corrected where collation with the _State Papers_ and other authorities points in some cases to the certainty, in others to the probability, of Dering’s being in error, completed by the insertion of omitted dates, and enlarged by the addition of all such vessels as were wrecked, captured, destroyed, or sold out of the service, between 1649 and 1660 and which the _Archæologia_ list, being only one of ships effective in 1660, does not profess to supply. Prizes, originally privateers and taken into the service, are indicated by an asterisk. Being the first attempt at a complete Commonwealth Navy list, it must almost necessarily contain some errors, but it is certain that every ship here mentioned was carried on the Navy list of the state. A few others omitted as doubtful or more than doubtful may really be entitled to a place in it; some of the prizes assigned to 1653 may belong to 1652, and, in some instances, continuity or similarity of name renders the exact date of purchase or capture a little problematical. It has not been thought necessary to overload this list with the innumerable references that could be given, especially as the details seldom exactly agree in the various papers, but no name has been inserted except on what appears to be sufficient authority. Dering’s _Dolphin_, _Minion_ and _Pearl Brigantine_, I have been unable to place; the _Pearl_ is only once mentioned, in 1658, as being ‘for use as occasion requires.’ The _Diver_ which is also given by him, was not a man-of-war at all, but a hoy temporarily hired for use in recovering the guns of wrecked ships, and the _Princess_, of his list, was not launched till August 1660. Some of the Dutch prizes were converted into fire ships before being sold. The use of fire ships was not new in either the English or foreign services, but they now appear to have been systematically attached to fleets and, on one or two occasions, to have been used with effect.

It may be well to remark that the document of April 1660 (_State Papers_, ccxx, 33), which purports to be a list of ships then existing, is altogether untrustworthy.

[1347] The _Guinea_, _Amity_, _Concord_, _Discovery_, _Gilliflower_, _Mayflower_, _Hopewell_, _Accada_, _Nonsuch Ketch_, and _Marmaduke_, were bought into the service in the respective years under which they are placed, and are marked (B).

[1348] Or _Great President_.

[1349] The _Gilliflower_, then called the _Archangel_, and the _Marmaduke_, were two prizes taken by Rupert, recaptured at sea by their own crews, brought back to England, and taken into the service.

[1350] Usually said to have been lost in action of July 1653, but can be traced as the _Dunkirk_ after 1660.

[1351] There is a model of the _Bristol_ in the museum of the Royal Naval College of Greenwich. No confirmatory evidence is added to the bare statements of names and dates on the labels attached to these models, and the dates assigned to some of them do not inspire a heedless confidence. However, from the character of the decoration, etc., the model ticketed _Bristol_ is probably, at any rate, of this period.

[1352] Rebuilt.

[1353] Rebuilt.

[1354] Most of the Commonwealth ships were named after some event of the civil war. This is probably a derivative of St Fagans, near Llandaff, where there was a fight in 1647.

[1355] The _Royal James_, a Stewart privateer, commanded by captain Beach, afterwards admiral Sir Richard Beach, of the Royal Navy, who during the exile gave the state’s ships much trouble. Renamed from the French Les Sorlinges, near which she was taken.

[1356] The _Blackmoor_ and _Chestnut_ were especially designed for service on the coast of Virginia (_State Papers, Dom._, cxli, 127).

[1357] A Spanish prize; the earlier _Elias_ was Dutch, and remained in the effective as a cruiser.

[1358] For use in the Medway, and carrying one bow gun.

[1359] _Add. MSS._, 11,602, f, 49.

[1360] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxiii, 81.

[1361] Dering’s list.

[1362] Ed. Hayward, _The Sizes and Lengths of Rigging for all His Majesty’s Ships_, 1660. Although not printed till 1660 this was written in 1655.

[1363] The absence of all allusion to davits is stranger from the fact that they are found referred to, evidently as well known and in common use, in navy papers of 1496. They were then used for the anchors. It seems singular that in the intervening century and a half the principle had not been applied to hoisting in the boats. In the _Nomenclator Navalis_ of 1625 (really Manwayring’s _Dictionary_) he speaks of boat tackles ‘wch stand one on the main mast shrowds the other on the fore mast shrowds to hoise the boat,’ and this plan was identical with that in use in 1514 (see Appendix A).

[1364] _Audit Office Accounts_, 1707-94.

[1365] _Add. MSS._, 9306, f. 68.

[1366] _State Papers, Dom._, lxxxv, 73.

[1367] _Ibid._, lxxxii, 13. The Admiralty was paying shipwrights 2s 2d a day.

[1368] _Add. MSS._, 9306, f. 132. When the _Prince_ was rebuilt in 1640-1, £2571 was spent on gilding and £756 on carving (_Add. MSS._, 9297, f. 351).

[1369] _State Papers, Dom._, ciii, 94.

[1370] The _Sovereign_, was however of 100, and the _Resolution_ and _Naseby_ were of 80 guns. The armament of the _London_, a second-rate of 1656, was: lower tier, 12 demi-cannon and 12 culverins; middle tier, 12 culverins and 12 demi-culverins; forecastle 6, waist 4, and quarter-deck 6 demi-culverins (_State Papers, Dom._, cl, 170).

[1371] _Add. MSS._, 22546, f. 42.

[1372] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxii, 115.

[1373] _Add. MSS._, 9302, f. 81.

[1374] _State Papers, Dom._, xxx, 77. But possibly there were others at sea, although the contracts for hired ships do not show any large tonnage.

[1375] Sir R. Slingsby, _Discourse of the Navy_.

[1376] _Add. MSS._, 9306, ff. 130, 160; 1655-7. Until about this period ‘the Straits’ was the general term for the whole of the Mediterranean; ‘the Straits’ mouth,’ and ‘the bottom of the Straits’ respectively describing the western and eastern portions. The increase of commerce now necessitated more specific descriptions of locality.

[1377] _State Papers, Dom._, 10th July 1652.

[1378] _Add. MSS._, 11,684, f. 3.

[1379] _State Papers, Dom._, 9th Dec. 1653.

[1380] _Add. MSS._, 9299, f. 171.

[1381] _State Papers, Colonial_, 19th Oct. 1654.

[1382] _State Papers, Dom._, 26th Feb. 1656; Elton to Admiralty Commissioners. It is very likely that the message did reach Cromwell.

[1383] The Parliamentary Navy Committee, which had managed matters throughout the civil war, existed for some time contemporaneously with the Admiralty Committee. But it soon lost all authority.

[1384] _State Papers, Dom._, 12th March 1649.

[1385] The first Commissioners of the Admiralty and Navy were Generals, Robert Blake, George Monk, John Disborowe, and Wm. Penn; Colonels, Philip Jones, John Clerk, and Thos. Kilsey; Major Wm. Burton, and John Stone, Edward Horseman and Vincent Gookin, Esquires. They acted from 3rd Dec. 1653.

[1386] _Commons Journals_, 1st June 1659.

[1387] Holland, Smith, Pett, and Willoughby, were appointed by order of the House on 16th Feb. 1649; Thompson was added later in place of captain Roger Tweedy, who had been a Commissioner during the civil war, and who was again proposed but rejected on 16th February. On 21st of February the House ordered that Holland, like Batten called Surveyor, was to have £300 a year; the others £250 a year.

[1388] _State Papers, Dom._, 9th May 1649. This letter is signed by Holland, Smith, and Thompson. The tone of Holland’s _Discourse of the Navy_ (1638), is one of fulsome adulation of the Monarchy and the principles it represented; but the _Discourse_ was not in print and he had had time to realise the new tendency. Holland was the least active of the Commissioners, but if he helped to carry out some of the reforms he recommended in 1638 he did his share of service.

[1389] _State Papers, Dom._, 20th July 1653, Monk to Admiralty Committee.

[1390] Substitutes for pursers; see _infra_, p. 356.

[1391] _State Papers, Dom._, 27th July 1653.

[1392] _Ibid._, 11th April 1654.

[1393] _State Papers, Dom._, ciii, 72, 73; 1655.

[1394] _Naval Speculations and Maritime Politicks_, Lond. 1691.

[1395] _State Papers, Dom._, cxxxii, 115; 1656.

[1396] _State Papers, Dom._, cxxi, 16, Navy Commissioners to Admiralty Committee.

[1397] _State Papers, Dom._, clxxxii, 8, 111.

[1398] _State Papers, Dom._, 30th June 1653.

[1399] _Ibid._, 31st Dec. 1653.

[1400] _State Papers, Dom._, cxxvi, 99.

[1401] _Ibid._, 2nd Sept. 1653.

[1402] _Add. MSS._, 9304, f. 60.

[1403] _State Papers, Dom._, xlviii, 81.

[1404] Soon afterwards Taylor and Young were placed in command of armed merchantmen; Blake subsequently had a man-of-war. John Saltonstall and John Wadsworth were involved with the four others. Wadsworth certainly commanded a hired merchantman; Saltonstall’s ship is doubtful.

[1405] Accused by his crew (_Adventure_), who were prepared ‘to spend our lives and limbs in this service for the good of our native country of England and this government.’ He was in trouble again in 1656.

[1406] Allowed two colliers to be captured, and would not chase because they were ‘only colliers.’

[1407] ‘The prize office commissioners said they thought the devil must be in that captain to sell all and bring nothing but bare hulls of ships.’

[1408] ‘The court did not think it meet to expel him, being an active and stout-fighting man.’

[1409] No result appears to have been arrived at about the captain, but the court-martial found that the boatswain, he was charged with maiming had struck him, but they ‘possessed no power to sentence him’—a very strange conclusion to come to.

[1410] Second offence. He petitioned that £80 might be accepted in settlement of the £150 he was fined, as he was very poor and had a large family. His petition was granted.

[1411] Second offences of Best and Nixon.

[1412] According to Montagu, who was dissatisfied with the result, undue pressure was brought to bear on members of the crew to induce them to retract.

[1413] Foote refused to allow the customs officers to search his ship, saying ‘it would be a dishonour to the state.’ The commissioners of customs called attention to this as a ‘great and growing evil.’

[1414] _State Papers, Dom._, cxiv, 82.

[1415] _Add. MSS._, 9302, ff. 188, 192.

[1416] _Ibid._, 9306, f. 36.

[1417] _State Papers, Dom._, cxiv, 116. From 1st Oct. 1655. Five rates carried pursers; the captains of sixth-rates also did pursers’ duties.

[1418] _Ibid._, lxii, 55, 56; 1653.

[1419] _State Papers, Dom._, cv, 50, 51.

[1420] _Ibid._, cix, 69 and cx, 73.

[1421] _State Papers, Dom._, 27th August 1653, Navy Commissioners to Admiralty Committee.

[1422] _Ibid._, 9th Jan. 1655. Thirty-one persons were implicated, including four colonels.

[1423] _Add. MSS._, 9305, f. 208; 1657.

[1424] _Commons Journals_, 21st March 1652-3.

[1425] ‘The captain the master.’ The captain’s pay remained the same as in 1647.

[1426] Trumpeters were no unimportant members of a ship’s company. In 1650 Popham and Blake desired the Navy Commissioners to press trumpeters, and ‘particularly a complete noise’ for their own vessel. It is to be hoped they got it.

[1427] Thos. Foley is mentioned with Browne, but he seems to have been either a partner or subordinate (see _Commons Journals_, 30th Dec. 1645). A Rich. Pitt is once named as a founder of brass ordnance.

[1428] _Commons Journals_, 16th April 1652; ‘if of brass £67,200, if of iron £13,520.’

[1429] _State Papers, Dom._, 25th March 1652.

[1430] _State Papers, Dom._, xxx, 12, 102.

[1431] _Ibid._

[1432] _Ibid._, xl, 14.

[1433] _Ibid._, xlix, 168.

[1434] _State Papers, Dom._, 15th April 1656.

[1435] _Add. MSS._, 9305, f. 112.

[1436] _State Papers, Dom._, 6th Dec. 1659.

[1437] _Ibid._, ccix, 49, 67, 68, 71-5, and ccxii, 49, 51, 64.

[1438] Oak, elm, ash, and beech.

[1439] Very little timber, but large stores of iron fittings.

[1440] Two-thirds meridian and one-third ordinary.

[1441] Thirty-two yards to a bolt, of 27 inches breadth, (_Add. MSS._, 9306, f. 37).

[1442] _State Papers, Dom._, clxvii, 62, and _Add. MSS._, 9306, ff. 151, 197.

[1443] _State Papers, Dom._, lviii, 108.

[1444] _Add. MSS._, 9305, f. 114.

[1445] _State Papers, Dom._, lx, 12.

[1446] _Add. MSS._, 9306, f. 175.

[1447] _State Papers, Dom._, 12th Sept. 1653.

[1448] _Ibid._, lxxxi, 194.

[1449] _Ibid._, cxxxv, 17.

[1450] _Ibid._, clxxx, 170, and _Add. MSS._, 9306, f. 197.

[1451] ‘New making’ may have only meant repairs.

[1452] _State Papers, Dom._, xlvi, 36.

[1453] _State Papers, Dom._, l, 101, April 1653. The reading is doubtful whether the land and water fronts, or the land front alone, were meant to be walled in. The nature of the foreshore renders the latter view the most likely; if the former, the enclosed area must have been very small.

[1454] _Ibid._, lxii, 24 and lxxix, 57.

[1455] _Add. MSS._, 9305, f. 119.

[1456] _Ibid._, f. 155.

[1457] _Ibid._, 9306, f. 153. I am informed that there is no trace in the corporation records or in the narratives of local historians of this agreement. Whether Poirson ever obtained this £500 may be uncertain, but it is quite certain that the town volunteered the money and that the government carefully guarded itself from being called upon to pay it.

[1458] _State Papers, Dom._, 9th Aug. 1652.

[1459] _Add. MSS._, 9302, f. 99.

[1460] _State Papers, Dom._, 9th Oct. 1658.

[1461] _State Papers, Dom._, clxiii, 41; 27th May 1658; and cxcii, 98.

[1462] _Add. MSS._, 9306, f. 176.

[1463] _Ibid._, 9305, f. 176, and _State Papers, Dom._, 10th Sept. 1653, and lxxxi, 4.

[1464] _State Papers, Dom._, cxxx, 102.

[1465] _State Papers, Dom._, 8th April 1659, and ccxxiv, 38.

[1466] The dockyard expenses include the rope yards.

[1467] Covering the period from 13th May 1649 to 31st Dec. 1650.

[1468] From 1st Jan. 1649 at Deptford, 24th Aug. at Woolwich, 24th June at Chatham, and 12th June at Portsmouth.

[1469] ‘Oliver, in the year when he spent £1,400,000 in the navy, did spend in the whole expense of the kingdom £2,600,000.’ (Pepys, _Diary_, iv, 52, ed. Wheatley).

[1470] Includes many arrears.

[1471] Amount owing for wages in September (_Add. MSS._, 9300, f. 343).

[1472] Covering the period from 1st Jan. 1658 to 7th July 1660.

[1473] Owing on 7th July.

[1474] _Add. MSS._, 32, 471, ff. 2, 15.

[1475] _Ibid._, f. 6.

[1476] _Commons Journals_, 20th May 1659.

[1477] _State Papers, Dom._, 1st Sept. 1653.

[1478] Department for the sale of delinquents’ lands. In 1653 £136,000 was received, by the Navy Treasurer, from this office.

[1479] Governor of the Tower.

[1480] _State Papers, Dom._, 2nd April 1655.

[1481] _Ibid._, cxliv, 140.

[1482] _Ibid._, 15th March 1659.

[1483] _Ibid._, ccxii, 24.

[1484] According to _Commons Journals_ (3rd March 1660) it was £694,000 to 1st Feb.; the _State Papers_ (ccxxiii, 165) make it £788,000 to March. But the figures in the Audit Office Accounts are circumstantial and minute, and the bureaucracy is frequently better informed than Parliament.

[1485] _Add. MSS._, 9302, f. 66.

[1486] _I.e._, the old Union Jack with the harp at the centre.

[1487] There were three qualities of Noyals canvas. A bale contained 282 yards.

[1488] Prussia.

[1489] 1514.

[1490] Deadeyes.

[1491] Pulleys, or blocks.

[1492] The wheel of a pulley or block.

[1493] Later the bushing of the wheel-pin; here apparently the pin itself. Cf. ‘colkes of brasse grete and small ... xxviii’—Inventory of the _Grace Dieu_ in 1486.

[1494] Pulleys, or blocks.

[1495] Halliards.

[1496] Perhaps the main beam or head piece across it (Cf. _breast-summer_, Halliwell, _Dictionary_).

[1497] Some sort of rope gear, but the exact use is unknown.

[1498] Grappling-irons, or hooks.

[1499] Piece of timber carrying blocks and used with various ropes.

[1500] See p. 374, where it is written ‘power.’ Probably used in the sense of ‘bowline bridle’ (See p. 375), and from the old English _powe_, a claw, or something which holds.

[1501] Braces.

[1502] The davit was a movable beam of wood fitted with blocks, and used to raise the fluke of the anchor.

[1503] The main mast was a ‘made’ mast, _e.g._ ‘a grete mast to be the spyndell of the mayne mast to the _Henry Grace à Dieu_.’

[1504] The _Sovereign_ had ‘bote tacles of both syds the mast x.’ It appears therefore to have been customary to hoist one or two out of the three boats.

[1505] Timber.

[1506] Now known as a ‘burton tackle.’

[1507] Wooden blocks for the sheets.

[1508] Used in connection with the main sail.

[1509] Wood.

[1510] Tyes.

[1511] Blocks of a particular kind; from French _palan_, _palanc_, a combination of pullies, or _palanquer_, to hoist or haul.

[1512] Leathern.

[1513] Luff.

[1514] Or Leche hooks, probably broad hooks, from old French, _leeche_, _lecsche_.

[1515] 300 lbs.

[1516] Six and a half inches.

[1517] Laniards.

[1518] Flag staves.

[1519] The body or main portion of the sail.

[1520] Perhaps from the Catalan _destre_, to bridle.

[1521] Sheet anchors.

[1522] Kedge anchors.

[1523] Wooden.

[1524] Lanterns.

[1525] Five hundredweight.

[1526] Half a hawser.

[1527] Linstocks.

[1528] Herbert.

[1529] Another document (_Letters and Papers of Henry VIII_, i-4968) gives the distribution of these guns:—_Forecastle_—33 iron serpentines, 1 brass serpentine, 4 stone guns. _Waist_—29 iron serpentines, 4 great guns of iron, 2 great Spanish pieces. _By the rudder_—7 iron serpentines. _Lower deck_—20 iron serpentines. _Second deck_—33 iron serpentines, 3 brass serpentines, 18 stone guns, 4 vice pieces of brass, 6 brass fawcons, 2 great stone guns of iron, 1 sling of iron, 2 brass culverins, 1 curtow of brass, 1 ‘fryre’ piece; and 9 brass serpentines and 2 fawcons in the great boat.

[1530] Armour composed of overlapping plates working on rivets.

[1531] Headpieces.

[1532] Printed in full in Barrow’s _Life of Drake_, p. 242.

[1533] _Lansd. MSS._, 115, f. 22.

[1534] _State Papers, Dom., Eliz._ cciii, 1.

[1535] _Ibid._, ccviii, 77.

[1536] A volume of the Cæsar papers. Modern punctuation has been added, and contractions are extended.

[1537] _Infra_, p. 388.

[1538] Cascaes, near Lisbon.

[1539] Any abnormally diluted drink, as beer and water, or cider and water.

[1540] Peaked or slanted.

[1541] Immediately.

[1542] Plot.

[1543] Regarded the action.

[1544] Borough.

[1545] Luff.

[1546] Sheets.

[1547] H. Hall, _Society in the Elizabethan Age_.

[1548] As is admitted by the writer in the _Dictionary_.

[1549] Cf. _Lansd. MSS._, 113 f. 45.

[1550] _Lansd. MSS._, 52 f. 117.

[1551] _State Papers, Dom., Eliz._, clxx, 57, and clxxviii, 12.

[1552] _Add. MSS._, 9294 f. 60.

[1553] _State Papers, Dom., Eliz._, ccvi, 15. Wynter and Borough to Burghley.

[1554] Of 1585, see _supra_, p. 162.

[1555] _Lansd. MSS._, 52 f. 117.

[1556] Hawkyns was more generous to Borough. In 1582 he wrote on his behalf to Walsyngham, ‘Mr Borough is a man of great virtew and judgment.’ (_State Papers_, clvi, 34). In fact he very seldom indulged in recriminations even in the thick of the attacks on himself, usually contenting himself with defending his procedure.

[1557] _State Papers, Dom. Eliz._, cciv, 18. Burghley’s usual way of writing Allen—the name only occurs in one other instance in his writing—was Ally, with a contraction mark over the last letter. In this case he omitted the contraction dash but, from internal evidence, there is no doubt of the identity.

[1558] _Lansd. MSS._, 52 f. 117.

[1559] _State Papers, Dom. Eliz._, cciv, 17.

[1560] _Cott. MSS._, Otho E VIII, f. 169.

[1561] _State Papers, Dom. Eliz._, ccviii, 18.

[1562] Cf. p. 162.

[1563] _State Papers, Dom. Eliz._, clxxviii, 12.

[1564] Naval Tracts: _Churchill’s Voyages_, III, 371, ed. 1704.

[1565] _Lansd. MSS._, 70, f. 231.

[1566] The quintal varied from 101½ to 155 lbs; ordinarily it was the former.

[1567] A traveller to the Spanish colonies had to produce satisfactory evidence that he was a native of the peninsula, a good Catholic, not only in present belief but by descent, and that he was sailing with the knowledge and consent of his wife. There was a flourishing trade, at Seville, in forged certificates to meet these requirements; there was also a trade in smuggled passengers outwards as well as in smuggled goods homewards.

[1568] _Lex Mercatoria._

[1569] About the latitude of the Straits of Gibraltar.

[1570] Spanish, _Amainar las velas_, to lower the sails; the summons to strike.

[1571] _Harquebus à croc_, a musket fired from a rest.

[1572] Biscayan; the _St Francisco_.

[1573] Silenced their fire or drove them off the deck.

[1574] Going large from the wind; to leeward.

[1575] Came up close to the wind.

INDEX

_Men-of-war not especially indexed under their names will be found in the lists of ships of the various periods._

A

Administration, disorganisation of, 189-194, 222-229.
excellence of, 305, 306.
regulations for, 111, 112, 367.
re-organisation of, 194-197.

_Adventure_, 328.

Admiral of England, office of, 65.

Admirals of thirteenth century, 4.

Admirals, the Lords, 64-66, 86, 104, 111, 112, 148, 166, 189, 194,
195, 199, 215, 240, 279, 280 and _n._, 283, 288, 300, 346.

Admiralty, Commissioners of (of Charles I), 235, 237, 279 and _n._
(of Commonwealth), 306, 319, 327, 328, 346, 347.
Court of, 317 and _n._
Lieutenant of, 85, 86, 104.
Secretary of, 3, 4.

Alderne, Thomas, 324 _n._, 326.

Alkin, Elizabeth, 323 _n._

Allen, Thomas, 150, 394 and _n._, 396.

Ambassadors, Spanish, reports of, 59, 133.
Venetian, —— —, 60, 90, 133.

Anchors, 15, 181, 182, 257, 371.

_Anne Gallant_, 49 and _n._, 66, 68.

_Anne Royal_, 202, 203, 212, 220, 221, 223, 237, 264.

_Antelope_ (of Henry VIII), 51, 58.
(of Mary), 110.
(of James I), 202, 264.

Anthony, Anthony, 56, 58.

Apprentices, 284.

Apsley, Sir Allen, 189, 228, 230, 233, 236, 238.

_Ark Royal_, 121 and _n._, 123, 129, 158, 160, 203, 221.

Armament, see Ships, armament of.

Armies, foreign, 47.

Army, the English, 47.

Articles of war, 311, 312.

Artillery, Garden, 96, 158.

Artillery, Henry VIII and, 56.

Artisans, 73, 211.

Aylesbury, Sir Thomas, 258, 281.

Audley, Sir Thomas, 63 and _n._

B

Baeshe, Edward, 103, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144.

Bagg, Sir James, 232.

Baker, James, 73.

Baker, Mathew, 132, 151, 152, 162, 163, 203, 204, 208, 209, 266, 267,
395, 396.

Ballast, 127, 128, 257.

Balinger, 13 and _n._, 15.

Baltimore, sack of, 275.

Banastre, Nicholas, 16.

Barges, 13.

Barlow, Thomas, 282 and _n._

Barton, John, 70, 72.

Batten, William, 249, 250, 281, 288.

Battles, sea (of 1340 and 1350), 5, 7.
(of 1416 and 1417), 13.
(of 1458), 27.
(of 1512-13), 63.

Beaufort, John, Earl of Somerset, 65 _n._
Thomas, 65 _n._

Bedford, John Plantagenet, Duke of, 65 _n._

Beer, 83, 138, 140, 220, 236, 315, 371.

Berd, Robert, 14.

Berg, Christopher van, 274.

Beverage, 220, 384 and _n._

Bigatt, William, 388.

Bingley, Sir Richard, 189.

Bitakyll, 15.

Blake, Robert, 327, 328, 363.

Bludder, Sir Thomas, 189.

Boats, 80, 339 and _n._

Boat tackles, 339 _n._, 374 and _n._

_Bonaventure_ (of Elizabeth), 119, 120 and _n._, 123, 131, 140, 195,
206.
(of James I), 187, 202, 208, 259, 344.

Bonnets, 14, 127, 377.

Borough, Stephen, 149.
William, 126, 129, 149, 152, 167, 382-391, 393, 394, 397.

Boughton, Sir Edward, 70.

Bounty system, English, 19, 37, 38, 88, 89, 107, 167, 168, 201, 269.
Spanish, 37 and _n._, 53.

Bourne, Nehemiah, 315, 326, 347, 348, 349, 363, 365.

Bowman, Piers, 31.

Bray, Sir Reginald, 36.

Brewhouses, 69.

Bribery, 194, 280, 282, 286, 317.

_Bristol_, 332 and _n._

Brittany, 46.

Brooke, Richard, 78.
William, 85.

Browne, John, 213, 288.
Sir Weston, 79.

Brygandine, Robert, 36, 39, 53, 83.

Buck, Peter, 149, 246, 397.

Buckingham, Duke of. See Villiers, George, Duke of Buckingham.

Build. See Ships, build of.

_Bull_, 58.

Bull, Richard, 73.

Bulmer, John, 274.

Burghley, William Cecil, Lord, 113, 137, 141, 142, 146-148, 179,
394-7.

Burre, Olyff, 167, 169.

Burrell, William, 195 and _n._, 208, 209, 229, 259, 282.

Burton, William, 349.

Butler, Nathaniel, 253.

C

Cabins, 23, 129, 206.

Cadiz voyage of 1625, 219-222, 225, 251.

Cannon perier, 54 _n._, 156, 157, 212.
petro, 56 and _n._, 155-157.

Canvas, 15, 98, 103, 181, 182, 363, 371.

Capstan, 80 and _n._, 127.

Captains, 26, 77, 146, 152, 154, 226, 229, 232, 285, 287, 312,
352-354.
servants of, 154.

Carew, Sir George, 80.

Carvel build, 54, 255, 256.

Cat, the, 239.

Catton, William, 12.

Caverle, Jeronimo Cæsar de, 264.

Cecil, Edward, Viscount Wimbledon, 220.

Cecil, Sir Robert, 166, 171.

Channel, English, command of, 2, 16, 18, 31, 32, 37, 68, 101, 105,
184, 302, 343.
lordship of, 6, 291 _n._

Chapman, Richard, 151, 152, 209, 395.

_Charles_, 254, 257, 269, 338, 344.

Charles I, political conditions under, 217-219.
and the seamen, 242, 243.
interference of, in naval affairs, 252, 261 and _n._, 263.
as a naval organiser, 295 _n._

Chatham Chest, 145, 192, 245-247, 323, 324.

Chips, 73, 285.

_Christ_, 49 and _n._, 66.

Cinque Ports, 2 and _n._, 7, 26.

Civil War, seamen and the, 240-242.

Clere, Sir Thomas, 85, 86, 104.

Clerk of the Ships. See Ships, Clerk of.

Clerks of the check, 349, 356.

Clifton, Gervays, 26.

Clinker build, 54, 255, 256.

Clynton, Edward, Lord, 104, 111, 148.

Clyvedon, Richard, 24, 31.

Coast defences, 92, 289.
line of France, 3, 24, 46.

Coke, Sir John, 192, 195 and _n._, 196, 234, 279 _n._

Colours, Tudor, 41, 62, 182.

Combresale, Wm., 33, 36.

Commissions of Inquiry, 147, 162, 191, 193, 229, 246, 324 and _n._

Commissioners, see Admiralty, and Navy.

Commonwealth, increase of Navy under, 302, 303, 338.
finance of, 303 and _n._

Conduct money, 72, 164, 197, 311.

_Constant Reformation_, 202, 207, 208, 228, 230, 259, 264.

_Constant Warwick_, 255 and _n._

Contracts, registration of, 134, 135, 243.

Convoys, 68, 139, 312, 313, 342.

Cook-room, 128, 206.

Cordage, 15, 92, 113, 150, 181, 182, 209, 217, 257, 363, 371.

Corporals, 154, 225 and _n._, 226.

Cotton, Sir Robert, 193, 194, 397.

Council of State, 319, 346, 348.

Courts-martial, 311 _n._, 312, 354, 357, 382, 391.

Cox, Owen, 345.

Crane, John, 238.

Cranfield, Sir Lionel, 194, 195 _n._

Cranley, Richard, 288.

Crews, character of, 188, 221, 223, 227, 228, 231, 237, 314.
proportions of, 56 and _n._, 124, 134, 214, 341.

Cromwell, Oliver, 318, 319, 320 and _n._
Richard, 320.

Crossbar shot, 57, 289.

Crowe, Sir Sackville, 245, 281 and _n._

Culverins, 55, 155-157, 212, 341, 380.

Curtalls, 55, 157 _n._, 380.

Customs Department, 171, 201.

D

Darell, Marmaduke, 144, 189.
Sampson, 190.

Darts, 57.

Davis, John, 152.

Davits, 339 _n._, 374 _n._

Dead Shares, 75, 152.

Dean Forest, 288, 367.

Debts, Commonwealth, 294, 319, 351, 368, 369, 370.
crown, 21, 27, 108, 194, 227, 228, 236, 288, 294, 298.

Decoration, see Ships, Decoration of.

_Defiance_ (of Elizabeth), 121, 129, 131, 158, 344.

Demi cannon, 55, 56, 155-157, 212, 262, 341.
culverin, 55, 56, 155-157, 212, 262, 341.

Denbigh, Wm. Fielding, Earl of, 233.

Desertion, 223, 224, 227, 228, 237, 242.

Digby, Sir Kenelm, 244, 282.

Discipline, 3, 79, 188, 214, 220, 221, 229, 239, 307 _n._, 312, 349,
367.

Disease, see Fleets, disease on board.

Docks (under Henry VI), 29, 30.
(under Henry VIII), 68, 72.
Deptford, 14, 285.
Dry, 39, 40, 210, 297, 364, 365.
Southampton, 23.

Dockyard expenditure, 102, 103, 113, 149, 294, 299, 368.

Dockyards,
Chatham, 101, 102, 113, 149-151, 209, 210, 297, 298, 299, 348, 364.
Deptford, 70, 71, 102, 103, 113, 119, 149, 150, 209, 299, 364.
Erith, 71, 72.
Harwich, 102, 315, 348, 362, 363.
Portsmouth, 39, 40, 68, 69, 102, 103, 113, 119, 210, 296, 297, 348,
364, 365.
Rouen, 9.
Woolwich, 69, 70, 102, 103, 113, 119, 150, 209, 297, 364.

Downing, Joshua, 284.

_Dragon_, (of Henry VIII), 51, 58, 59, 101.

Drake, Sir Francis, 129, 136, 140, 143, 145, 164, 165, 167, 168 and
_n._, 382-391.

_Dreadnought_ (of Elizabeth), 119, 120, 126, 131, 235, 263.

Drebbel, Cornelius, 256 _n._

Dryngs, 80 and _n._, 373.

Ducat, value of, 37 _n._

Dudley, John, Lord Lisle, 64, 66, 77, 93, 104.

Dudley, Robert, Earl of Leicester, 139, 171.

Duro, C. Fernandez, referred to, 13 _n._, 37 _n._, 46, 53 _n._, 116
_n._, 154 _n._

Dutch War of 1652-4, 240 and _n._, 242, 304-308.

Dyse of iron, 57, 96.

E

Echyngham, Sir Edward, 61.

Eden, Alexander, 26.

Edisbury, Kenrick, 258, 274, 281.

Edward III, commercial policy of, 7.
fighting ships under, 9.
general policy of, 5.
gold noble of, 6, 7.

Edward IV, commercial policy of, 34.
naval policy of, 31.
navy of, 33.

Edward VI, maintenance of navy under, 100, 108.

Elizabeth, naval policy of, 115-118.
ships in commission under, 118.

_Elizabeth Jonas_, 120, 122, 131, 132, 133 and _n._, 135, 137, 206.

Elton, Richard, 349.

Elyot, Hugh, 38.

Embezzlements. See Thefts.

Enriquez, Alonso, 65 _n._

Equipment. See Ships, equipment of.

Evelyn, George, 160.
John, 160.

Ewe, Sir William, 26.

Exeter, Henry Holland third Duke of, 65 _n._
John Holland, second Duke of, 65 _n._

Expeditions under Edward IV, 31.
Henry VIII, 74, 77.
Elizabeth, 117, 136, 137, 140, 160, 164.
James I, 187.
Charles I, 219-222, 228, 231, 233, 251, 277, 278.

Expenditure, dockyard. See Dockyard.
naval, under Henry VI, 22, 23, 24.
Henry VII, 35.
Henry VIII, 93, 94.
Edward VI, 102, 103, 108.
Mary, 111, 112, 113.
Elizabeth, 117, 160-165.
James I, 195, 197 and _n._
Charles I, 293-295.
during Interregnum, 303, 304, 368-370.

F

Fauconberg, Bastard of, 32.

Ferrers, Walter Devereux, Lord, 77.

Figure heads, 61, 131, 341.

Fisheries, 42, 89, 92, 107, 108, 167, 200.

Fitzwalter, Lord, 27.

Fitzwilliam, Wm., Earl of Southampton, 52, 61, 66.

Flags, 15, 41, 62 and _n._, 182, 183, 213, 214, 300, 370, 377.

Fleming, Denis, 282, 283 _n._

Fleet, of 1588, cost of, 163.
epidemic in, 137, 138.
formations, 59, 307 _n._
regulations, 3, 63, 64.

Fleets, armament of, 155.
Cinque Ports, 2, 26.
contracted for, 24, 27, 28, 31.
cost of, 26, 163, 164, 197 and _n._, 198, 225, 295.
disease in, 77, 114, 136, 137, 183, 219, 220, 228, 231, 235, 237,
321, 323.
division of, 64, 183, 307 _n._
during Civil war, 264, 295.
during Commonwealth, 302, 303, 307, 323, 341, 342.
maintenance of, 5.
manning of, 74, 242, 311, 314.
merchantmen in, 35, 118, 163, 251, 295, 342.
of Richard I, 3.
John, 3.
Edward III, 6.
Edward VI, 101.
Mary, 110, 111.
Elizabeth, 164.
James I, 188.
Charles I, 219, 222, 225, 231, 233, 235, 237, 238, 239, 251, 252,
276, 277.

_Foresight_ (of Elizabeth), 120, 122, 166 and _n._, 206.

Forests, 288, 367.

Foster, Edward, 79.

France, Navy of, 9, 21, 264-266, 304.

Freight, cost of, 343.
from Spain to America, 398.

Frigates, 255 _n._, 338.

Furring, 187 and _n._

G

_Gabriel Royal_, 49 and _n._, 70, 77.

Galleasses, 57, 58, 128 and _n._

_Galley Blancherd_, 78.

Galley oarsmen, 5, 78, 126.

_Galley Subtylle_, 51 and _n._, 59, 78, 100.

Galleys, English, 5 and _n._, 12, 41, 57-60, 78, 101, 121, 123, 125
and _n._, 126, 207.
foreign, 5, 9, 60, 78, 126.

_Garland_ (of Elizabeth), 121, 129, 131, 205, 206, 210.
(of James I), 188, 202, 208, 344.

Gibbs, Stephen, 274.

Gibson, Richard, 307 _n._, 308.

Gillingham. See Dockyards, Chatham.

Girdling, 187 and _n._, 258.

Gloucester, Richard, Duke of, 65 _n._

_Golden Hind._ See _Pelican_.