Chapter V: Introduction: The Navy Before 1509 (3)

If Henry VII built few ships he laid the foundation of a permanent establishment for building and repairs in a way hitherto unknown. We have seen that Henry V had storehouses at London and Southampton, and a workshop in the last named town, and that a dock in the fifteenth century meant only a temporary arrangement by which a ship was laid ashore at a suitable place. Such primitive appliances were the completest yet attained. Henry proceeded much further, and in June 1495, Brygandine was ordered to superintend the construction of a dry dock at Portsmouth, the first known to have been built in England. If one existed previously no reference to it has survived, and we may suppose that the new departure was the result of foreign superiority in such matters rather than of native enterprise. No foreigner however was employed in the work, and Brygandine, so far as we know, had had no training as an engineer. The undertaking was completed without accident and without any delay caused by unforeseen difficulties. The total cost was £193, 0s 6¾d; it was built of wood except the dockhead, which was ‘fortifyed’ with stone and gravel, of which 664 tons were used, and although it is not so stated, it may be assumed that the timber walls were backed with stone. During 1495-7 forty-six weeks were spent in the work, operations being suspended between November 1495 and February 1496, and between April of the latter year and July 1497. When the _Sovereign_ came out of this dock twenty men were at work for twenty-nine days ‘at every tide both day and night weying up of the piles and shorys and digging of ye clay and other rubbish between the gates.’ From this it may be conjectured that the gates did not meet in closing, but that the structure was of this form an arrangement doubtless due to fear of the pressure of the water outside when the one ‘ingyn’ employed for the purpose had succeeded in emptying the dock. The expression ‘as well for ye inner as ye uttermost gate,’ also bears out this view. The dock itself occupied twenty-four weeks, the gates and dockhead twenty-two weeks, the number of men paid each week varying between twenty-eight and sixty. Carpenters received from fourpence to sixpence a day, sawyers fourpence and labourers threepence. Four tons of iron at £3 14s and £4 a ton were used, besides large quantities of nails, spikes and other iron work.[114]

From 1485 a storehouse was hired at Greenwich for the use of the ships lying in the river, at a yearly rental of £5, but down to 1550-60 Portsmouth, in virtue of its dock and the subsidiary establishments which grew up round it, remained the predominant naval port. Few of the townspeople, however, seem to have been able to supply any necessaries, stores having to be sent from London or bought at Southampton; wood was the only thing obtained plentifully in the neighbourhood. When Deptford, Woolwich, and Chatham were founded its one advantage of lying in the Channel did not serve it against the greater facilities they offered in other respects.

[Sidenote: Henry VII:—Character of Shipping.]

The ships of Henry VII are found to resemble in equipment and fittings those of his successors rather than the mediæval type, but that may be because we have no inventories of the time of Edward IV and the later years of Henry VI. Improvement must have been continuous although there is no trace of the successive steps. The _Regent_ and the _Sovereign_ were respectively four- and three-masters, with fore and main topmasts; although the topmasts were separate spars it is probable that they were fixed and that a method of striking them had not yet been introduced. These two ships must have differed much less in appearance from a sailing ship of 1785 than from one of 1385 or even of 1425. They were fitted with a forecastle, poop, and poop royal, with a bowsprit and spritsail, and the fixed and running gear were, generally, much the same as now. As a detailed inventory of the _Henry Grace à Dieu_ of not many years later, and varying but little in type, is given in this volume it is not necessary to describe them in detail.[115]

The introduction of portholes is usually attributed to Decharges, a French inventor of Brest and the date given is 1501. They were certainly known long before[116] but their adaptation to the purpose of broadside fire was doubtless one of the improvements of the sixteenth century. Still the date of their general acceptation must be before 1501 and earlier than is generally supposed, since the _Regent_ and _Sovereign_ have their poops and forecastles pierced for broadsides, and there is no suggestion that there was anything novel in such a plan. It need hardly be pointed out that the presence of a large number of guns along the sides brought about a complete alteration in shipbuilding. Not only had vessels to be more strongly built to meet the greater weight and strain, but the ‘tumble home’ tendency of the topsides was increased to bring the ordnance nearer the keel line.

The _Mary Fortune_ and the _Sweepstake_ were much smaller vessels but were also three-masters, with a main topmast and sixty and eighty oars respectively for use on board. Vessels of this type, which were frequently called galleys by those who used them, have been erroneously supposed by later writers to denote the real galley, to which they bore not the least resemblance, or to represent a modified type peculiar to the English service. They were ordinary ships differing in no respect but size from their larger sisters, but small enough to permit the use of sweeps when necessary. The serpentine weighing, without any carriage, about 250 lbs. was the usual ship gun, and the _Regent_ carried 151 of these in iron and 29 in brass in 1501.[117] Of course bows and arrows and all the older armament were still carried. The ships’ sides were lined with pavesses or wooden shields painted in various colours and glittering with coats of arms and devices. For painting the _Regent_ and _Mary Fortune_, and doubtless other ships, vermillion, fine gold, russet, bice,[118] red lead, white lead, brown, Spanish white, verdigris, and aneral[119] were employed.[120] The favourite Tudor colours, white and green, with the cross of St George, flew out in the standards and streamers which were of ‘linen cloth’ or of say.[121]

[Sidenote: Henry VII:—Officers and Men.]

The pay of the men was one shilling a week as shipkeeper in harbour, and one shilling and threepence when on active service. Victualling at first cost one shilling and a halfpenny a week, but subsequently rose to one shilling and twopence, and shipwrights, sawyers, labourers, and all others employed about the ships received food as well as pay. The jackets noticed under Edward IV, which perhaps signified some sort of uniform, were still provided. One hundred, at one shilling and fourpence apiece, were bought for the same number of men sent from Cornwall to Berwick to join the fleet acting in conjunction with Surrey’s army against Scotland in 1497.[122] The sea captain was still non-existent, that rank being confined to the leadership of the soldiers on board; the master, the highest executive naval officer, received three shillings and fourpence a week, the purser and boatswain one shilling and eightpence, quartermasters one shilling and sixpence, the steward and cook one shilling and threepence.[123] These were harbour rates; at sea the pay appears to have been much higher. When the _Sovereign_ was brought from the Thames to Portsmouth, a voyage which occupied thirty-one days, the master obtained £2 10s, the purser 14s 8d, the quartermasters 10s each, the boatswain 16s 8d, the steward 8s, and the cook 10s.[124]

Of the condition, habits, and manner of thought among the men we know nothing. Ferdinand’s ambassador, De Puebla wrote to him that, ‘the English sailors are generally savages,’ but he was not the last envoy whose delicate diplomatic sense they have outraged by plain speaking. This sensitive gentleman lodged, however, in a house of ill-fame in London from motives of economy.

[Sidenote: Henry VII:—Commercial Policy.]

In commercial matters Henry followed those methods dictated by the political economy of his age, which seemed likely to increase the trade and shipping of the country. A navigation act of the first year of his reign, and this time meant seriously, forbade the importation of foreign wines in any but English, Irish, or Welsh owned ships. Three years later it was enacted[125]

‘That where great minishing and decay hath been of late time of
the navy of this realme of England and idleness of the mariners
within the same, by the which this noble realm within short
space of time, without reformation be had therein shall not be
of ability, nor of strength and power to defend itself.’

No wines or Toulouse woad were to be imported except in ships owned by English subjects and, ‘most part’ manned by native crews. The punishment for disobedience was the forfeiture of one half the cargo to the king, and one half to the informer; under the same penalty exportation of goods in foreign vessels was forbidden if English ships could be obtained. Yet notwithstanding the desponding tone of this preamble, trade was now travelling far afield. The consul at Florence of 1484 had now an associate at Pisa, and a treaty of commerce in 1490 with Denmark shows that we possessed establishments there and in Norway and Sweden, and that the trade was carried on in English bottoms. The king frequently let out his men-of-war on hire for distant voyages, and if merchants found it profitable to take a ship of the size of the _Sovereign_ for a voyage to the Levant the Mediterranean trade must have been already of some importance.

Edward IV, by a commercial treaty of 1467 with Burgundy, granted free fishing round the English coasts to the subjects of that power. This was confirmed by the treaties of 1496 and 1499 but withdrawn by that of 1506, called therefore by the Flemish the _Intercursus Malus_. It is possible that Henry recognised the value of the fishing industry as a nursery of seamen, but more probable that he was impelled by purely political motives.

[Sidenote: The New Discoveries.]

The discovery of America and the passage round the Cape of Good Hope must have impressed the king intellectually even though his imagination was untouched by the wonders daily opened to the old world, but there is little evidence that he wished England to join directly in the search for new sources of wealth. The half-hearted assistance given to the Cabots, and the licences without assistance granted to Elliot, Ashurst, and others of Bristol, were not aids of a nature to win success in new and doubtful undertakings. This course of action is usually ascribed to Henry’s parsimony, but it may well be that he feared to be brought into political antagonism with Spain and Portugal, and that he was dubious of the ability of his subjects to keep up profitable communication between countries separated by vast distances of sea. England possessed comparatively little floating capital, and capital is as essential to colonisation as to smaller businesses. We know that intercourse with the West completely changed the character of the Spanish marine in causing it to be replaced by ships of a larger and more commodious type, a change which alone postulates the waste and subsequent investment of a relatively enormous sum. But Spain, even before the voyage of Columbus, was a much wealthier country than England, and it seems that if any profitable discoveries had been due at this time to English explorers they would soon have been found to have been made for the benefit of stronger and wealthier powers. Moreover the political risk was not an imaginary one and might have induced the condition of things existing under Elizabeth when the country was much less able to hold its own. There is an illustration of this in the orders given by the Spanish monarchs in 1501 to Alonso de Hojeda to impede the progress of English discoveries on the transatlantic coast.[126]

That Henry had not forgotten the traditions of the past and realised the value of a national marine is shown by his maintenance of the navy, by the formation of a royal dockyard, by his navigation acts, and, above all, by the inauguration of the bounty system on ocean-going ships. In this, as in other things, he moved slowly, but the progress in the end was none the less complete because in the beginning it had not been unduly stimulated by encouragements not warranted by either the needs or capabilities of the country. The crown, instead of being controlled by nobles indifferent to, or despising commerce, was now influenced by the commercial classes and found its profit in aiding their development. These classes were now replacing the capital destroyed in the wars of the fifteenth century, eager for fresh markets, and with no maritime adversary to fear. For the moment English mercantile effort took a direction that did not bring it into conflict with larger interests, but when the natural expansion of trade and shipping brought the country into collision with other powers the struggles of centuries, which had shaped and hardened a skilful and dauntless maritime population, bore their natural fruit in a school of seamen able to use and direct the instruments which the increasing wealth and ambition of the nation placed in their hands.

HENRY VIII

1509-1547

[Sidenote: The New Policy and its Causes.]

Henry VII had been chiefly occupied in securing the permanence of his dynasty, and although sometimes drawn into action abroad, had avoided any serious entanglement in continental politics. His son’s policy was the reverse of this, and his reign presents a series of unsuccessful attempts to make England the centre round which European politics were to revolve. These views necessitated the maintenance and employment of an armed force, and although the army was still considered the effective weapon of offence the growing opinion that the navy was essentially the national arm ensured a proper solicitude being bestowed upon it, although its real predominance was not yet recognised; ‘when we would enlarge ourselves let it be that way we can and to which it seems the eternal Providence hath destined us,’ was, we are told, the argument of those who were opposed to an invasion of France by land.[127] The use of such reasoning as this shows that the epoch of maritime expansion was not far distant.

But besides deduction from past experience there were other causes working to induce a natural and, it may be said, almost automatic increase in the navy of the crown. In the past centuries ‘our ancient adversary’ of France had been the only enemy really within touch, and no systematic attack by sea from France had been practicable for more than a hundred years. But the consolidation of that kingdom, and the accession of Francis I, a monarch by no means indifferent to the supremacy of the sea, one of whose first acts was to order the construction and fortification of the Port of Havre in 1516-17, and who built ships and brought round fleets from the Mediterranean to contest the command of the channel, necessarily compelled a corresponding activity on the English side. Another circumstance enforcing increased naval strength was the union of Brittany with the French crown. This event was regarded by contemporary Englishmen somewhat in the light that we should now look upon the domination of the coastlines of Holland and Belgium by Germany and France. The marriage of Anne of Brittany to Charles VIII, in December 1491, gave France its most valuable arsenals and ports, and the command of a race of fine seamen. Henry VII, perhaps recognising that the subjection of the province could only at most be deferred and not prevented, made but perfunctory efforts, either by war or diplomacy, to hinder it. Hitherto, except for the customary practice of piracy, the Breton ports had been neutral or friendly, and the Breton seamen indifferent to the dynastic or national quarrels of the two great powers. In the future the ports were to be the chief source of danger to English maritime supremacy, and the men the mainstay of the navy which carried on a prolonged and doubtful contest with England for more than a century.

With Spain, notwithstanding isolated ship and fleet actions occasionally occurring, warfare had never been serious or continuous, nor had the political interests of the two countries been of such a nature as to bring them into conflict. The union, however, under the sway of Charles V, of the Empire, of Spain, and of the Netherlands, altered, in view of the new attitude assumed by Henry VIII, the pre-existing situation, and here again, besides the Imperial troops, Spanish fleets had to be reckoned with. Although those fleets were never in reality so powerful as they appeared to contemporary observers, the necessities of Trans-Atlantic voyages and the practice of ocean navigation had given experience to officers and men and improved the build of the ships, so far at anyrate as size and apparent power were concerned.[128] Accommodation had to be supplied for larger crews and for numerous passengers, but the science of shipbuilding was not sufficiently advanced to meet these requirements except by methods which gave bigness at the expense of seaworthiness. But whatever the actual combatant value of the Spanish navy, or its power of mobilisation at any required moment and place, it was a factor to be considered in the counsels of the Emperor’s possible enemies and was another reason for the strengthening of the English navy. That that navy occupied a strategically advantageous position on the line of communication between the peninsular and northern possessions of the Empire was a fact not likely to be forgotten by the advisers of either Henry or Charles.

In the north a comparatively long peace with Scotland, and the distractions caused by the Wars of the Roses, had enabled that power to extend its commerce and obtain a prosperity reflected in the existence of a navy, for the first and only time strong enough to attract the attention of foreign observers. In 1512 James IV had three agents in France especially retained to arrange a supply of naval stores and ships,[129] and Lord Darcy informed Henry that the king of Scotland, who spent much of his time on board the ships, possessed some sixteen or twenty men-of-war. The _Great Michael_ recently built, and perhaps the actual instigation of the _Henry Grace à Dieu_, was one of the wonders of the country and reputed to be the largest and strongest vessel yet launched in northern latitudes. That ‘Jack Tarrett, a Frenchman,’ was her shipwright pointed to the ever present danger of the old alliance between France and Scotland, a danger much intensified if Scotland was to take a place as a naval power.

Without, therefore, attributing to Henry VIII an exceptional foresight, the conditions were such as to compel an increase in the navy commensurate with the larger aims of the royal policy and the wider duties the execution of such a policy involved. The navy was not relatively larger than it had been under some of the preceding kings, notably Henry V, the main distinction being that under Henry VIII it was slowly tending towards its future position as a principal instrument of offence instead of acting as a mere auxiliary. This, again, was as much, or more, due to the changed circumstances of land warfare as to any definite intention. The English army was still a militia; the troops of France and the Empire were now standing armies, highly trained and veterans in war. For most of the western countries the age of feudal levies was over, but England had not yet clearly acknowledged the new era. The troops sent under the Marquis of Dorset in 1512 to invade Guienne, in conjunction with Ferdinand’s Spaniards, returned home _en masse_ in defiance of their commander’s and of Henry’s orders and threats. ‘The world was breathless with astonishment at such a flagrant act of insubordination.’[130] An English army was not yet composed of ragged losels pressed from the gutter, but the ancient feudal tie which knit together knight and retainer was almost destroyed. Armies of this type could not possibly match themselves against the professional continental soldiers. But the country could not have afforded nor would it have permitted a permanent military force, therefore either its claims to exercise a powerful mediatory position were to be forsaken or that peculiar genius for the sea, which had hitherto been of secondary use but which had always been implicitly recognised as the especial heritage of the race, was to replace the mere ability to fight it shared with many other nations. But for the singular skill of the English archer the change would have come long before; improvements in artillery and musketry at last compelled it. The effects were not plainly seen till the reign of Elizabeth, but the militant history of Henry VIII is a series of steps—whether due to a sagacious recognition of the altered situation or to a mechanical compliance with it—towards an increase in the power and use of the Navy, and improvements in its administration, although, as the traditions of centuries are not lightly set aside, armies were still levied to fulfil their ancient _rôle_ in France.

There was also another and personal element which doubtless had its influence. Henry was, if not a born sailor, at least something more than a yachtsman. He was continually inquiring about the merits of new ships, and requiring reports on their sailing qualities in a way that implied some technical knowledge, and showed a real interest beyond the political one in sea affairs. He is said to have been himself the designer of a new model. Sometimes he acted as an amateur master or pilot and dressed the character, of course in cloth of gold. On one occasion when present at the launch of a vessel he wore vest and breeches of cloth of gold, and scarlet hose, with a gold chain and whistle.[131] This was a factor which helped the progress of events, but which could have had little influence had the royal inclination been contrary to the tendency of the time.

[Sidenote: Royal Navy List.]

The following list of the men-of-war of the reign, has for convenience been thrown into a tabular form, which, however, gives it a fuller and more final appearance than it is intended to claim. The records are not sufficiently complete or detailed to enable the inquirer to be certain in all cases of the exact year of building, rebuilding or purchase, and a further element of uncertainty is introduced by the changes of name which occurred, and continuity of name in what may be supposed to be new ships, but of whose building there is no distinct evidence. The dates printed in heavier type may be taken as exact; the others can only be regarded as likely to be correct, and the tonnage varies at different times in nearly every ship. From the preceding reign came the _Regent_, _Sovereign_, _Mary and John_, (or _Carvel of Ewe_), _Sweepstake_ and _Mary Fortune_.

+---------------------------+------+------+-------+------+-------+
| |Built |Bought|Rebuilt|Prize |Tonnage|
| +------+------+-------+------+-------+
|_Sovereign_[132] | | |=1509= | | 600 |
|_Peter Pomegranate_[133] |=1509=| | 1536 | | 450 |
|_Mary Rose_[134] |=1509=| | 1536 | | 500 |
|_Gabriel Royal_[135] | | 1509 | | | 700 |
|_Mary James_[136] | | 1509 | 1524 | | 300 |
|_Mary George_[137] | | 1510 | | | 300 |
|_Lion_[138] | | | |=1511=| 120 |
|_Jennet Pyrwin_[139] | | | |=1511=| 70 |
|_John Baptist_[140] | |=1512=| | | 400 |
|_Great Nicholas_[141] | |=1512=| | | 400 |
|_Anne Gallant_[142] | | 1512 | | | 140 |
|_Dragon_[143] | 1512 | | | | 100 |
|_Christ_[144] | | 1512 | | | 300 |
|_Lizard_[145] |=1512=| | | | 120 |
|_Swallow_ |=1512=| | 1524 | | 80 |
|_Kateryn Fortileza_[146] | |=1512=| | | 700 |
|_Great Bark_[147] | 1512 | | | | 400 |
|_Less Bark_[148] | 1512 | | | | 160 |
|_Kateryn Galley_[149] |=1512=| | | | 80 |
|_Rose Galley_[150] |=1512=| | | | |
|_Henry Galley_[151] |=1512=| | | | |
|_Lesser Barbara_[152] | | 1512 | | | 160 |
|_Great Barbara_[153] | | 1513 | | | 400 |
|_Black Bark_[154] | | 1513 | | | |
|_Henry of Hampton_[155] | | 1513 | | | 120 |
|_Great Elizabeth_[156] | |=1514=| | | 900 |
|_Henry Grace à Dieu_[157] |=1514=| | 1540 | | 1000 |
|_Mary Imperial_[158] | 1515 | | 1523 | | 120 |
|_Mary Gloria_[159] | |=1517=| | | 300 |
|_Kateryn Plesaunce_[160] |=1518=| | | | 100 |
|_Trinity Henry_[161] |=1519=| | | | 80 |
|_Mary and John_[162] | | 1521 | | | |
|_Mawdelyn of Deptford_[163]| 1522 | | | | 120 |
|_Great Zabra_[164] | 1522 | | | | 50 |
|_Lesser Zabra_[165] | 1522 | | | | 40 |
|_Fortune or Hulk_[166] | 1522 | | | | 160 |
|_Bark of Morlaix_[167] | | | | 1522 | 60 |
|_Mary Grace_[168] | | | | 1522 | |
|_Bark of Boulogne_[169] | | | | 1522 | 80 |
|_Primrose_[170] |=1523=| | 1536 | | 160 |
|_Minion_[171] |=1523=| | | | 180 |
|_New Bark_[172] |=1523=| | | | 200 |
|_Sweepstake_[173] | 1523 | | | | 65 |
|_John of Greenwich_[174] | | | | 1523 | 50 |
|_Mary Guildford_[175] | 1524 | | | | 160 |
|_Lion_[176] | 1536 | | | | 160 |
|_Mary Willoby_[177] | 1536 | | | | 160 |
|_Jennet_[178] | 1539 | | | | 200 |
|_Mathew_[179] | | 1539 | | | 600 |
|_Sweepstake_[180] | 1539 | | | | 300 |
|_Less Galley_ | | 1539 | | | 400 |
|_Great Galley_[181] | | 1539 | | | 500 |
|_Salamander_ | | | |=1544=| 300 |
|_Unicorn_[182] | | | |=1544=| 240 |
|_Pauncye_[183] | 1544 | | | | 450 |
|_Mary Hambro_[184] | | 1544 | | | 400 |
|_Jesus of Lubeck_[185] | | 1544 | | | 600 |
|_Struse of Dawske_[186] | | 1544 | | | 400 |
|_L’Artique_[187] | | 1544 | | | 100 |
|_Swallow_[188] | 1544 | | | | 240 |
|_Dragon_[189] | 1544 | | | | 140 |
|_Fawcon_[190] | 1544 | | | | 100 |
|_Galley Subtylle_[191] |=1544=| | | | 300 |
|_Marlion_[192] | | | | 1545 | 70 |
|_Mary Thomas_[193] | | | | 1545 | 100 |
|_Mary James_[194] | | | | 1545 | 120 |
|_Mary Odierne_[195] | | | | 1545 | 70 |
|_Hind_[196] | 1545 | | | | 80 |
|_Grand Mistress_[197] | 1545 | | | | 450 |
|_Anne Gallant_[198] | 1545 | | | | 400 |
|_Greyhound_[199] | 1545 | | | | 200 |
|_Saker_[200] | 1545 | | | | 60 |
|_Brigandine_[201] | 1545 | | | | 40 |
|_Less Pinnace_[202] | 1545 | | | | 60 |
|_Hare_[203] | 1545 | | | | 30 |
|_Roo_[204] | 1545 | | | | 80 |
|_Morian_[205] | | 1545 | | | 400 |
|_Galley Blancherd_[206] | | | |=1546=| |
|_Christopher_[207] | | 1546 | | | 400 |
|_George_[208] | | 1546 | | | 60 |
|_Phœnix_ | | 1546 | | | 40 |
|_Antelope_[209] | 1546 | | | | 300 |
|_Tiger_ | 1546 | | | | 200 |
|_Bull_ | 1546 | | | | 200 |
|_Hart_ | 1546 | | | | 300 |
|_13 Rowbarges_[210] | 1546 | | | | 20 |
+---------------------------+------+------+-------+------+-------+

We are accustomed to the general statement that Henry VIII enlarged the navy, but the foregoing list shows a much more extensive increase than is implied by a general expression and, if so far as number is concerned it errs at all, it errs on the side of omission. A little indulgence in admitting names could have extended it considerably. No foreign purchased merchantman has been inserted without the authority of a definite statement, or unless it appears in lists later than the reign under consideration; but there are foreign ships omitted as only temporarily hired which may really have belonged to the crown. Other vessels which occur in almost indistinguishable fashion among men-of-war have been left out in view of the custom which frequently obtained of describing hired ships as king’s ships while they were in the royal service, and in some cases it has been found impossible to satisfactorily trace particular vessels. For instance, during the first half of the reign a ‘great galley’ of 600 or 800 tons, flits in a most puzzling way through some, but not the most reliable, of the papers. I take it to have been an indefinite designation applied at various times to various ships,[211] but that opinion may be altogether wrong and it may be the actual name of a large vessel which has left no other indication of its existence. Again, the Earl of Southampton, for four years Admiral of England, bequeathed Henry his ‘great ship’ by his will dated September 1542. The Earl died in 1543, but which is the ship in question, or whether it appears at all in the foregoing list, cannot be determined.

[Sidenote: Activity in Construction and Purchase of Ships.]

Exclusive of the thirteen rowbarges, there are eighty-five vessels, and of these forty-six were built, twenty-six purchased, and thirteen were prizes. The periods of greatest activity synchronise with war with France 1512-14, war with France and Scotland 1522-5, with the possibility in 1539 of a general alliance on religious grounds against England, and with war against France and Scotland in 1544-6. But allowing for uncertainty of dates, possibility of omissions, and our almost entire ignorance of the repairs and rebuildings which must have been progressing uninterruptedly, there is no cessation of vigorous action throughout the reign. The existing dockyards could have hardly been equal to the demands on them for repairs alone, and this is doubtless one reason for the large number of ships purchased, a course which was also probably cheaper for the moment. All Henry’s foreign purchases seem to have been Italian or Hanseatic. During 1511-14 he hired several Spaniards and tried to buy some, but his desires were vain in face of the strict Spanish navigation laws. In 1513 the Spanish envoy, de Quiros, was instructed to inform the king that the sale of Spanish ships abroad was forbidden under heavy penalties, and that his government could not permit them to be sold even to Henry.[212] In fact we find from another source that the sale of ships was forbidden to foreigners even though they were naturalised Spanish subjects, and as, from October 1502, a bounty of 100 maravedis a ton was given up to 1500 tons it is hardly surprising that their sale to aliens was sternly interdicted.[213] In 1513 Knight wrote to Henry that the whole of a Spaniard’s goods had been confiscated for selling a carrack to him. Under these circumstances the king had to buy in the North German ports, and, judging from the small number of years most of them remained in the effective, many must have been built for the purpose of sale to him.

[Sidenote: Royal Ships:—Build and Rigging.]

The vessel which has the chief place in popular memory is the _Henry Grace à Dieu_, but she probably differed little in size, form, or equipment, from others nearly as large. Her total cost, with the three small barques built with her, was £8708 5s 3d, but out of the 3739 tons of timber used 1987 cost nothing being presented by several peers, private persons, and religious bodies. According to the accounts she was constructed under the supervision of William Bond, but if a nearly contemporary letter may be trusted Brygandine, the clerk of the ships designed and built her.[214] Bond’s connection with her may have been merely financial and confined to payments of money. Fifty-six tons of iron, 565 stones of oakum and 1711 lbs of flax were other items. She was a four-master and possibly a two-decker with fore, main and mizen top-gallant sails, but with only two sails on the other masts, and with two tops on each of the three principal masts.[215] All ships but the very smallest had four masts, the two after ones being called, respectively, the main and bonaventure mizens. There was nothing exceptional in the _Henry’s_ fittings, top-gallant sails being known to have been used in the previous reign, and, as at that time, the topmasts were not arranged for lowering. An equivalent to the ease given a labouring ship by striking the topmasts was obtained by lowering the fore and main yards to the level of the bulwarks. As most of the guns were carried in the poop and forecastle ships must have been ‘built loftie’ on the Spanish model and presented a squat and ungainly appearance. Vessels were now mostly carvel built, and those clench, or clinker, built, were regarded as too weak to stand the shock of collision when boarding was intended. Speaking of some foreign ships brought into Portsmouth, Suffolk wrote that some of them were ‘clenchers, both feeble, olde, and out of fashion,’ and therefore not to be taken up for service with the fleet.[216]

Spritsails were now coming into more common use and, with the spanker on the bonaventure mizen or fourth mast and sometimes with another on the main mizen, served the purpose of the later fore-and-aft sails. Vessels were now, although still slowly and clumsily, able to work more closely to windward. There is one entry which runs ‘eight small masts at 6s 8d the pece ymploied in the _Great Bark_ and other the Kynges shipps for steddying saills.’[217] It can only be said that there is no mention in the inventories, or any sign in the drawings of ships of this century, of what are now called studding sails.

[Sidenote: Royal Ships:—Armament.]

An ordinary vessel appears to have been armed along the waist, in her forecastle of two or three tiers, and in her summer castle or poop, also divided into decks. For some of these ships we still have the armament:—[218]

+---------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| |Single Serpentines |
| | |Double Serpentines[219] |
| _Great Elizabeth_[224] | | |Slings[220] |
| | | | |Half Slings |
| | | | | |Stone Guns[221] |
| | | | | | |Murderers |
| | | | | | | [222] |
+---------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----------+
| { Upper Deck[223]| | | | | | 2 |
|Fo’c’stle { Middle Deck | 16 | | | | | |
| { Nether Deck | 12 | | | | 8 | |
| Waist | | | | | | |
| Stern | | | | 2 | 1 | |
| { Upper Deck | 12 | | | 2 | | |
| Poop { Middle Deck | 41 | | | | | |
| { Nether Deck | 3 | | | 2 | 16 | 6 |
+---------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----------+

+-----------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| |Falcons |
| | |Single Serpentines |
| | | |Double Serpentines |
| _Great Barbara_ | | | |Slings |
| | | | | |Half Slings |
| | | | | | |Stone Guns |
| | | | | | | |Murderers|
+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---------+
| { Upper Deck | | 7 | | | | | 2 |
|Fo’c’stle { Middle Deck| | | | | | | |
| { Nether Deck| | 7 | | | | | 2 |
| Waist | | 6 | | | | 2 | |
| Stern | | | | | | | |
| { Upper Deck | 6 | | | | | | |
| Poop { Middle Deck| 2 | | | | | | 2 |
| { Nether Deck| | | | | | | 4 |
+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---------+

Ships like the _Henry_, _Sovereign_, and _Mary Rose_ carried also heavier pieces than these, the commencement of the change to fewer but more powerful guns, which progressed rapidly during the middle of the century. The _Mary Rose_ had 79 guns (besides six in her tops), of which 33 were serpentines, 26 stone guns, and 10 murderers, but she also had five brass curtalls and five brass falcons.[225] The _Sovereign_, when rebuilt in 1509, was given four whole and three half curtalls of brass, three culverins, two falcons, and eleven heavy iron guns among her 71 guns.[226] The curtall, or curtow, was a heavy gun of some 3000 lbs., hitherto only used as a siege piece on land, and its transference to maritime use marks a revolution in ship armament which deserves attention. The _Mary Rose_ and _Sovereign_ were in 1509, the two most powerfully armed ships which had yet existed in the English navy, perhaps the most powerfully armed ships afloat anywhere that year, and it is curious to notice that the _Peter Pomegranate_ built with them was fitted in the old style, with innumerable serpentines which could have been of little more effect than toy guns, appearing almost as though the contrast was an intentional experiment. At any rate with the heavier armaments of the _Sovereign_ and _Mary Rose_, commences the long struggle between the attack and defence still going on, for hitherto there had been practically no attack so far as a ship’s sides were concerned.

The system was extended as the reign progressed, and in 1546, we find comparatively small ships like the _Grand Mistress_ carrying two demi cannons and five culverins, the _Swallow_ one demi cannon and two demi culverins, out of a total of eight heavy guns; the _Anne Gallant_ four culverins, one curtall, and two demi culverins; the _Greyhound_ one culverin, one demi culverin, and two cannons petro,[227] besides their other smaller pieces.[228] Even the _Roo_ of 80 tons has two demi culverins and three cannons petro. To measure the full extent of the change we must compare these vessels with the _Henry_, of three or four times their tonnage, which in 1514, carried only one bombard, two culverins, six falcons and one curtow, in addition to 126 serpentines and 47 other guns of various but probably light weights, seeing that most of them were used with chambers.

To whom was this innovation due? It commenced with Henry’s accession, and if not owing to his direct initiative, he has the merit of recognising its value and persistently putting it into execution. But we know from other non-naval documents that he had some knowledge of artillery and took an active personal interest in such matters, and it may very well be that the improvement was his own. In any case it was one in which England took and kept the lead, and which gave the country an incalculable advantage in the contest with Spain during the close of the century.

[Sidenote: Royal Ships:—Ordnance Stores.]

From other papers we can ascertain with sufficient completeness the character of the weapons and stores for offensive purposes carried on board. There is a state paper of July 1513, coincident with the invasion of France which gives the following details[229]:—

+-------------------------+--------+-------+-------+----+-------+-------+
| | | | | | |Sheaves|
| | | | | | Bow- | of |
| |Soldiers|Sailors|Gunners|Bows|strings|Arrows |
| +--------+-------+-------+----+-------+-------+
|_Henry Grace à Dieu_[232]| 400 | 260 | 40 |2000| 5000 | 4000 |
|_Gabriel Royal_ | 350 | 230 | 20 | 500| 1500 | 1200 |
|_Mary Rose_ | 200 | 180 | 20 | 350| 700 | 700 |
|_Sovereign_ | 400 | 260 | 40 | 500| 1500 | 1200 |
|_Kateryn Fortileza_ | 300 | 210 | 40 | 350| 700 | 700 |
|_Peter Pomegranate_ | 150 | 130 | 20 | 300| 600 | 600 |
|_Great Nicholas_ | | 135 | 15 | 250| 500 | 500 |
|_Mary James_ | 150 | 85 | 15 | 200| 500 | 400 |
|_Mary and John_ | 100 | 100 | | 200| 500 | 400 |
|_Great Bark_ | 150 | 88 | 12 | 200| 500 | 500 |
|_John Baptist_ | 150 | 135 | 15 | 250| 500 | 500 |
|_Lizard_ | 60 | 32 | 8 | 80| 200 | 160 |
|_Jennet_ | 10 | 44 | 6 | 60| 150 | 120 |
|_Swallow_ | 20 | 46 | 4 | 60| 150 | 120 |
|_Sweepstake_ | | 66 | 4 | 60| 150 | 120 |
+-------------------------+--------+-------+-------+----+-------+-------+

+-------------------------+-----+-----------+------+---------+-------+
| | | | | | |
| | | |Stakes| |Harness|
| |Bills|Morrispikes|[230] |Gunpowder| [231] |
| +-----+-----------+------+---------+-------+
|_Henry Grace à Dieu_[232]| 1500| 1500 | 2000 | 5 lasts | 500 |
|_Gabriel Royal_ | 500| 500 | 400 | 2 ” | 300 |
|_Mary Rose_ | 300| 300 | 200 | 3 ” | 220 |
|_Sovereign_ | 500| 500 | 500 | 2 ” | 300 |
|_Kateryn Fortileza_ | 300| 300 | 200 | 3½ ” | 220 |
|_Peter Pomegranate_ | 250| 250 | 200 | 8 brls | 180 |
|_Great Nicholas_ | 200| 200 | 160 | 6 ” | 160 |
|_Mary James_ | 160| 160 | 160 | 6 ” | 130 |
|_Mary and John_ | 160| 160 | 160 | 6 ” | 90 |
|_Great Bark_ | 200| 200 | 160 | 6 ” | 130 |
|_John Baptist_ | 200| 200 | 160 | 6 ” | 160 |
|_Lizard_ | 60| 60 | 50 | 3 ” | 50 |
|_Jennet_ | 50| 50 | 50 | 3 ” | 35 |
|_Swallow_ | 50| 50 | 40 | 3 ” | 35 |
|_Sweepstake_ | 50| 50 | 40 | 3 ” | 35 |
+-------------------------+-----+-----------+------+---------+-------+

The reader will remark the small number of gunners allowed. The _Sovereign_ had 70 or 80 pieces and the proportion here does not allow even one gunner to a piece on a broadside. Perhaps the soldiers manned the guns, but it is more likely that the seamen were beginning to take a combatant part instead of confining themselves to working the ship. Bows and arrows still formed an important part of the equipment, but although we have no similar list for shot the amount of powder shows the reliance now placed on artillery and musket fire. Incidentally, among remains of stores, we find ‘200 harquebus shot,’ 900 serpentine shot, 1350 iron ‘dyse,’ 8 darts for wildfire, to set the sails of an enemy’s ship on fire, and two chests of wildfire with quarrels.[233] Also ‘300 small and grete dyse of iern,’ 420 stone and 1000 leaden shot, 120 shot of iron ‘with cross bars,’ 22 ‘pecks for to hew gonstones’[234] and 74 arrows of wildfire.[235]

[Sidenote: Ships, Galleys and Galleasses.]

The well known picture of the embarkation of Henry VIII at Dover, on his way to the interview with Francis I in 1520, represents the _Henry Grace à Dieu_ as the chief ship in the fleet. This was inherently improbable as the _Henry_ drew too much water to enter either Dover or Calais harbours, but it can be proved to be incorrect from documentary evidence. The squadron consisted of the _Great Bark_, _Less Bark_, _Kateryn Plesaunce_, _Mary and John_, and two rowbarges.[236] The interview was originally proposed for 1519 and a year previously on 22nd May 1518, the _Kateryn Plesaunce_ was commenced for the express purpose of carrying the King and Queen across the Channel.[237] She cost £323, 13s 9d, including the victualling and lodging expenses of the men working upon her, and required 80 tons of ballast.[238] In none of the accounts relating to men-of-war are there any details of extrinsic decoration, if it existed, and even in the _Kateryn_, intended for a royal pleasure trip there is only one charge of ten shillings for painting and gilding the ‘collere.’ House carpenters were employed for ‘the makynge of cabons and embowynge of wyndows,’ and although the chief cabin was wainscoted and lighted by 112 feet of glass, the Queen’s own cabin was cheaply furnished with a dozen ‘joined stools’ at tenpence apiece.

The _Kateryn_ was sometimes called a bark and sometimes a galley and this leads us to the question of the classification of the royal vessels. If we accept without inquiry that of the list of 5th January 1548,[239] we find ships like the _Anne Gallant_, _Unicorn_, _Salamander_, _Tiger_, _Hart_, _Antelope_, _Lion_, _Dragon_, _Jennet_, _Bull_ and _Greyhound_, described as galleys. But in Anthony’s list of 1546 the same vessels are called galleasses; obviously therefore the two words did not define particular types as rigidly as they do among naval archæologists to-day, or even as they did towards the end of the sixteenth century. The _Kateryn_ galley of 1512 was a three masted vessel with bowsprit and fore and main topmasts, as was also the _Rose_ another ‘galley’ of the early years of the reign.[240] Both were supplied with oars—thirty—as was usual with small vessels long after this date when the name galley had fallen into disuse. Another, the _Sweepstake_ (of Henry VII), had a mizen mast,[241] and a sprit mast on the bowsprit,[242] so that it may be assumed that she also was a three-master although elsewhere she is described as ‘the king’s rowbarge called the _Sweepstake_.’[243]

In 1546 the _Hart_, _Antelope_, _Tiger_, and _Bull_ are four-masted flush-decked ships, apparently pierced on a lower gun deck for nine pieces a side; the _Anne Gallant_ and _Grand Mistress_ four-masters, of 450 tons, with forecastle and poop, carrying guns on the upper and on a lower deck; the _Greyhound_, _Lion_, _Jennett_, and _Dragon_, are similar well-decked vessels with the addition of great stern and quarter galleries extending nearly the whole length of the poop and nearly one-third of the length of the vessel. The contradictions we have to face can be best exemplified by one example, the _Greyhound_, which in the 1548 list is called a galley, in a 1546 list said to be a copy of Anthony’s,[244] a galleass, and in that portion of Anthony’s manuscript remaining in the Museum, a ship.[245] This last authority, a series of original drawings, calls only the _Greyhound_, _Lion_, _Jennett_, and _Dragon_, ‘ships’ and the only point in which they seem to differ from the ordinary type is in the possession of the stern and quarter galleries. If these drawings are accurate, and they so far differ from each other as to lead us to suppose that they were intended to portray individual ships, it is impossible that any one of them can have been impelled by oars, although sweeps may have been occasionally and temporarily used for a particular purpose. They may have been worked from the gun-ports, in which case the _Grand Mistress_ could only have used eight a side. The conclusion therefore is that the term galley did not imply an oared vessel of the Mediterranean type, such as we now associate with the word, but was applied first to light ships small enough to use sweeps when necessary, and later to an improved model, possibly built on finer lines than the heavy, slow moving hulks of the beginning of the reign, and expected to bear, to the ponderous 600 or 1000 ton battle ship, the same relation in speed that the real galley bore to a mediæval sailing vessel. A fleet formation of 1545 was of course based on that customary in an army and we have Van, Battle or main body, and Wing, arranged for. In that year some of the vessels just mentioned were not yet afloat, but the _Salamander_, _Swallow_, _Unicorn_, _Jennett_, _Dragon_, and _Lion_ were included in the Battle. The Wing, composed of ‘galliasses and ships with ores,’ comprised among others, the _Grand Mistress_, _Anne Gallant_, and _Greyhound_. That they should have been classed with ‘the ships with ores,’ does not show that they were of the same order, but only that they were supposed to be sufficiently handy under sail to act with them.

There was therefore a certain number of ships, large and small, vaguely and uncertainly called galleys, possessing certain modifications on the normal type, and there is some reason to believe that the innovation, whatever may have been the particular change in form or structure, was due to Henry himself. He sometimes appears to have had his own designs carried out; a prize was to be altered ‘so as she now shall be made in every point as your Grace devised.’[246] In 1541 Chapuys wrote to the emperor:

‘The King has likewise sent to Italy for three shipwrights
experienced in the art of constructing galleys, but I fancy
that he will not make much use of their science as for some
time back he has been building ships with oars according to a
model of which he himself was the inventor.’[247]

Chapuys must have been referring to the earlier _Rose_, _Kateryn_, and _Swallow_ type, and possibly to others not now to be traced; but to the presence of the Italian shipwrights was undoubtedly owing the launch of the _Galley Subtylle_ in 1544. ‘Subtylle’ was not an especial name, but was applied to a class more lightly built and quicker in movement than the ordinary galley. This was the only real galley built by him since it differed in no respect from the standard Mediterranean pattern, but in 1546 thirteen ‘rowbarges’ of twenty tons apiece were added to the Navy. These were rowing vessels, and unless intended for scouting or for towing and to give general assistance, it is difficult to see their utility as they were too small to engage with any chance of success. In the result they were sold within a year or two of Henry’s death. The sixteenth century galley service, such as it was, was forced on the English government by the action of Francis I in bringing his own and hired galleys round from the Mediterranean. It was always repugnant to the national temperament and soon languished when the exciting cause was removed. Although three or four galleys were carried on the navy list until 1629 the last years in which any served at sea were 1563 and 1586.

These various attempts at evolving a new type, which should combine the best points of the galley and the sailing vessel, show that Henry recognised at least some of the faults of the man-of-war of his day. He failed because the solution was not within the scientific knowledge of his time, and perhaps also because the work of the galley benches must have been abhorrent to the hereditary instincts and traditions of the English sailor. But he was the first English king who gave the Navy some of that forethought and effort at improvement that had hitherto been devoted wholly to the army. His experiments left so little visible trace in the one direction that in 1551 Barbaro could write to the Seigniory, ‘They do not use galleys by reason of the very great strength of the tides,’[248] but, in another, the drawings of the last ships launched, the four of 1546, one of which, the _Tiger_, is reproduced in the frontispiece—comparatively low in the water, little top-hamper, neat and workmanlike in appearance—show a very great advance on anything before afloat, and indicate a steady progression towards the modern type.

[Sidenote: Royal Ships:—Decoration and sailing qualities.]

If we are to judge of the decoration of ships by the references to ornament in the naval accounts, we should have to conclude that it was entirely absent. Unquestionably it was to a certain extent present, since its absence would have been contrary to the instincts of humanity and the customs of every nation that has had a navy. But it could not have been as extensive as it afterwards became, nor have taken any very expensive form. The hulls were doubtless painted as in the previous reign, but the bows and stern seem to have been quite devoid of carving or gilding. The tops, which were large enough to hold heavy guns, were ornamented with ‘top-armours’ of red, yellow, green, or white kersies lined with canvas. The _Sovereign_ had copper and gilt ornaments on the end of the bowsprit, and gilt crowns for the mast heads had been an embellishment used for centuries. The _Unicorn_ and _Salamander_ have representative figures on their beakheads,[249] but as they were prizes no deduction can be drawn as to English custom. The English built ships have no figurehead, but the beakhead sometimes ends in a spur, implying the idea of ramming. This spur, however, points upward and is much too high to have been of any use for that purpose. The ships’ sides were still surrounded with pavesses, now only light wooden shields and decorations, but which were survivals of the real shields of knights and men-at-arms in ancient vessels, ranged round the sides of the ship until needed for fighting. A hundred years later the cloth weather protection round the oarsmen of a Mediterranean galley was still called the _pavesade_. These pavesses seem to have sometimes taken the place of bulwarks, not always present. In 1513 Sir Edward Echyngham, captain of a ship then at sea wrote that he had fallen in with three Frenchmen,