Chapter IX: Introduction: The Navy Before 1509 (7)

In number this is an imposing array but exclusive of galleys, prizes, six pre-existing vessels rebuilt, and the numerous small vessels, only twenty-nine men-of-war of 100 tons and upwards were added to the establishment between 1558 and 1603, notwithstanding the amount of work thrown upon the Navy. It has been noticed that the term rebuilding, as used in the official papers, is extremely vague and it is only when the cost per ton can be ascertained that it can be known with certainty whether a ship was renewed or repaired; it is quite possible that, with the exception of the _Philip and Mary_, the rebuilt vessels were in reality only subjected to more or less complete repair. Again, of these twenty-nine only twenty-one were of 300 tons and upwards and suited for distant expeditions; of the twenty-one the _Elizabeth_, _Hope_, _Victory_, _Triumph_, and _White Bear_, were not liked—too big, too expensive, or too unhandy—and were never used unless a fleet of great strength was required. The names of a few ships recur, therefore, year after year as forming the main strength of the squadrons, made up with armed merchantmen, sent out for various purposes. Had Spain been able to offer any real resistance at sea the destructive results of even victorious action would have soon compelled the replacement of these ships and a large increase in the navy list.

[Sidenote: Various Ships.]

The _Elizabeth Jonas_ varies as to tonnage between 855 and 1000 tons in different papers. The _Victory_ oscillates between 694 and 800 tons, the _Triumph_ between 955 and 1200, and a smaller vessel, the _Foresight_, is given in three lists, within six years, as of 300, 350, then of 260 tons, and in a fourth list of 1592 as of 450 tons. Before 1582 measurement must have been usually a matter of opinion and comparison; after that year when Baker’s rule had come into use there is more uniformity. But such variations entirely vitiate dogmatic comparisons of the strength of opposing ships or squadrons. The _Elizabeth_ was, ‘in new making’ at Woolwich in December 1558,[576] and was therefore commenced before Mary’s death. There is a singular story told of the origin of the name.

‘The shipp called the _Elizabeth Jonas_ was so named by her
Grace in remembrance of her owne deliverance from the furye
of her enemyes from which in one respect she was no lesse
myraculously preserved than was the prophet Jonas from the
belly of the whale.’[577]

This occurs in a commonplace book kept by Robert Commaundre, Rector of Tarporley, Chester, who died in 1613, and among some other naval information wholly incorrect. It is a fact that Elizabeth christened the ship herself but Commaundre’s version is probably country gossip made to explain the name. If, however, it should be true it throws a more vivid light on Elizabeth’s real feeling towards her unhappy sister than is shed by many volumes of State Papers.

The first occurrence of the famous name of the _Victory_ in an English navy list is of great interest but unfortunately cannot be dated with certainty. The earliest mention known is of the victualling accounts of the quarter ending with September 1562.[578] On 14th March 1560, the _Great Christopher_, of 800 tons, was bought of Ant. Hickman and Ed. Castlyn, two London merchants. The tonnage corresponds with that assigned to the _Victory_ in early papers, and the year corresponds with that assigned to the _Victory_ in the State Paper quoted in the table. The name _Great Christopher_ is only found down to 1562, when it is immediately succeeded by that of _Victory_; in fact the _Christopher_ is named in October and then ceases, to be replaced by the _Victory_ in November.[579] Unless we suppose that a new 800-ton ship, one of the two largest in the Navy, disappeared without leaving a trace of the cause it must be assumed that the name was changed, a not unusual occurrence, and if so, the _Victory_ is its only possible representative. The name was quite new among English men-of-war; it may have been taken from that of Magellan’s celebrated ship.

The _Primrose_ and the _Minion_ had for some years previously been employed among the hired London merchantmen; from 1560 they appear on the navy lists, which points to their purchase. The _Minion_, in which Hawkyns escaped from San Juan de Ulloa in 1568, was condemned in 1570; the _Primrose_ was sold in 1575, again rejoining the merchant service, to which she still belonged in 1583.[580] The galleys _Tryright_ and _Speedwell_ disappear after 1579; and the _Bonavolia_ from 1599; of the four later galleys the _Gallarita_ and _Volatillia_ were presented by the city of London. The _Mercury_, another vessel of the galley type was however furnished with masts and sails, and afterwards converted into a pinnace.

Returning to the large ships, the _Aid_ was condemned in 1599, the _Elizabeth Bonaventure_, purchased from Walter Jobson for £2230, the _Bull_ was broken up in 1594, and the _Revenge_ captured by a Spanish fleet in 1591. The _Tiger_, _Scout_, and _Achates_, were cut down into lighters and, in 1603, were supporting Upnor chain. The _Ark Royal_, or _Ark Ralegh_, seems to have been built originally for Sir Walter Ralegh,[581] although constructed in a royal yard and by a government shipwright, who, later, received a pension for this among other services. Some £1200 was spent in 1598 on the repairs of the _St Mathew_ and _St Andrew_; they only served under the English flag, however, in the Islands voyage of 1597. Some of the small pinnaces disappear from the lists during these years without assigned cause, but the only two vessels known to have been lost by stress of weather during the reign were the earlier _Greyhound_ of Henry VIII, wrecked off Rye in 1562, and the _Lion’s Whelp_ in 1591.

[Sidenote: Table of General Details.]

The following table of 1602 furnishes many curious details:—[582]

+-------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| |Length of keel |
| | |Beam |
| | | |Depth of hold |
| | | | |Rate forward |
| | | | | |Rate aft |
| | | | | | |Burden |
| | | | | | | |Ton and Tonnage |
| | | | | | | | |Weight of masts |
| | | | | | | | |and yards |
| | | | | | | | | |Weight |
| | | | | | | | | |of |
| | | | | | | | | |rigging |
| | | | | | | | | |tackle |
| | | | | | | | | | |Canvas
| | | | | | | | | | |for
| | | | | | | | | | |sails
| | | | | | | | | | |in
| | | | | | | | | | |bolts,
| | | | | | | | | | |¾ths
| | | | | | | | | | |of a
| | | | | | | | | | |yd.
| | | | | | | | | | |broad
| | | | | | | | | | |and 28
| | | | | | | | | | |yds.
| | | | | | | | | | |long
| +----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+---------+-----+--+
| |feet|feet|feet|feet|feet |tons|tons|ton. cwt.|lbs. | |
|_Elizabeth_ | 100| 38| 18|36 |6 | 684| 855| 22.8 |17000|85|
|_Triumph_ | 100| 40| 19|37 |6 | 760| 955| 24.17 |18000|95|
|_White Bear_ | 110| 37| 18|36 |6.6 | 732| 915| 24 |17000|88|
|_Merhonour_ | 110| 37| 17|37 |6.6 | 691| 865| 22.13 |17000|87|
|_Ark Royal_ | 100| 37| 15|33.6|6 | 555| 692| 18.4 |15300|84|
|_Victory_ | 95| 35| 17|32 |5.10 | 555| 694| 18.4 |16200|78|
|_Repulse_ | 105| 37| 16| | | 622| 777| 20.7 |17000|78|
|_Garland_ | 95| 33| 17|32 |5.8 | 532| 666| 17.7 |14600|66|
|_Warspite_ | 90| 36| 16| | | 518| 648| 17 |14400|62|
|_Mary Rose_ | 85| 33| 17|30.6|5 | 476| 596| 15.12 |13000|62|
|_Hope_ | 94| 33| 13|31.6|5.7 | 416| 520| 13.14 |11500|66|
|_Bonaventure_| 80| 35| 16|28 |4.10 | 448| 560| 14.14 |12300|70|
|_Lion_ | 100| 32| 14|31.6|5.10½| 448| 560| 14.14 |12300|70|
|_Nonpareil_ | 85| 28| 15|29 |5 | 357| 446| 11.7 | 9800|56|
|_Defiance_ | 92| 32| 15|31 |5.6 | 441| 552| 14.9 |12300|60|
|_Vanguard_ | 108| 32| 13|32 |5.8 | 449| 561| 14.14 |12300|70|
|_Rainbow_ | 100| 32| 12|33.6|6 | 384| 480| 12.11 |10500|67|
|_Dreadnought_| 80| 30| 15|31 |5.4 | 360| 450| 11.16 | 9800|52|
|_Swiftsure_ | 74| 30| 15|26 |4.6 | 333| 416| 9.18 | 9600|47|
|_Antelope_ | 87| 28| 14|29.6|5.3 | 341| 426| 11.3 | 9500|50|
|_Foresight_ | 78| 27| 14|27 |4.8 | 294| 306| 9.12 | 8300|47|
|_Adventure_ | 88| 26| 12| | | 274| 343| 8.7 | 7300|44|
|_Crane_ | 60| 26| 13|23 |3.10 | 202| 253| 6.12 | 5400|40|
|_Quittance_ | 64| 26| 13|24 |4 | 219| 274| 7.5 | 5800|42|
|_Answer_ | 65| 26| 13|24 |4 | 219| 274| 7.5 | 5800|42|
|_Advantage_ | 60| 24| 12|22 |3.10 | 172| 216| 5.13 | 4600|36|
|_Tremontana_ | 60| 22| 10| | | 132| 165| 4.6 | 3500|31|
|_Charles_ | 63| 16| 7|15 |3 | 70| 80| 2.4 | 2000|20|
|_Moon_ | 50| 17| 7|15 |2.8 | 59| 74| 1.17 | 1600|19|
|_Advice_ | 50| 14| 6|12 |2.6 | 42| 52| 1.4 | 1100|15|
|_Spy_ | 50| 14| 6|12 |2.6 | 42| 52| 1.4 | 1100|15|
|_Sonne_ | 50| 13| 6|11 |2.2 | 39| 48| 1.2 | 1100|13|
+-------------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+---------+-----+--+

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| |Anchors |
| | |Cables |
| | | |Weight of Ordnance |
| | | | |Men in harbour |
| | | | | |Men at sea |
| | | | | | |Mariners |
| | | | | | | |Gunners |
| | | | | | | | |Soldiers |
| | | | | | | | | | Cost per |
| | | | | | | | | |month at sea:|
| | | | | | | | | | wages and |
| | | | | | | | | | victualling |
| +---+-----+---+-----+----+--+---+---+--+---+-------------+
| |No.|lbs. |No.|lbs. |tons| | | | | | £ s d |
|_Elizabeth_ | 7 |15000| 7|31000|61 |30|500|340|40|120|758 6 8 |
|_Triumph_ | 7 |15000| 7|32500|68 |30|500|340|40|120|758 6 8 |
|_White Bear_ | 7 |15300| 7|30000|63 |30|500|340|40|120|758 6 8 |
|_Merhonour_ | 7 |15000| 7|30000|63 |30|400|268|32|100|606 13 4 |
|_Ark Royal_ | 7 |13500| 7|24000|50 |17|400|268|32|100|606 13 4 |
|_Victory_ | 7 |13000| 7|24000|50 |17|400|268|32|100|606 13 4 |
|_Repulse_ | 7 |14400| 7|26300|54 |16|350|230|30| 90|530 16 8 |
|_Garland_ | 7 |12700| 7|22800|47 |16|300|190|30| 80|455 0 0 |
|_Warspite_ | 7 |13000| 7|22800|40 |12|300|190|30| 80|455 0 0 |
|_Mary Rose_ | 7 |13000| 7|20000|43 |12|250|150|30| 70|379 3 4 |
|_Hope_ | 6 | 9200| 6|17800|37 |12|250|150|30| 70|379 3 4 |
|_Bonaventure_| 6 | 9600| 6|19000|40 |12|250|150|30| 70|379 3 4 |
|_Lion_ | 6 | 9600| 6|19000|40 |12|250|150|30| 70|379 3 4 |
|_Nonpareil_ | 6 | 9600| 6|15000|32 |12|250|150|30| 70|379 3 4 |
|_Defiance_ | 7 |12200| 7|19000|41 |12|250|150|30| 70|379 3 4 |
|_Vanguard_ | 6 | 9600| 6|19100|40 |12|250|150|30| 70|379 3 4 |
|_Rainbow_ | 6 | 9000| 6|16600|35 |12|250|150|30| 70|379 3 4 |
|_Dreadnought_| 6 | 8200| 6|15400|32 |10|200|130|20| 50|303 6 8 |
|_Swiftsure_ | 5 | 7100| 5|14100|29 |10|200|130|20| 50|303 6 8 |
|_Antelope_ | 5 | 7300| 5|14000|30 |10|160|114|16| 30|242 13 4 |
|_Foresight_ | 5 | 7300| 5|12600|26 |10|160|114|16| 30|242 13 4 |
|_Adventure_ | 4 | 6000| 4|11000|24 |10|120| 88|12| 20|182 0 0 |
|_Crane_ | 4 | 4500| 4| 8500|18 | 7|100| 76|12| 12|151 13 4 |
|_Quittance_ | 4 | 4500| 4| 9400|19 | 7|100| 76|12| 12|151 13 4 |
|_Answer_ | 4 | 4500| 4| 9400|19 | 7|100| 76|12| 12|151 13 4 |
|_Advantage_ | 4 | 3700| 4| 7400|15 | 7|100| 76|12| 12|151 13 4 |
|_Tremontana_ | 4 | 3200| 4| 5600|11 | 6| 70| 52| 8| 10|106 3 4 |
|_Charles_ | 4 | 1800| 4| 3000| 7 | 5| 45| 32| 6| 7| 68 5 0 |
|_Moon_ | 3 | 1800| 3| 2600| 5 | 5| 40| 30| 5| 5| 60 13 4 |
|_Advice_ | 3 | 1600| 3| 2000| 3½ | 5| 40| 30| 5| 5| 60 13 4 |
|_Spy_ | 3 | 1600| 3| 2000| 3½ | 5| 40| 30| 5| 5| 60 13 4 |
|_Sonne_ | 3 | 1500| 3| 1700| 3¼ | 5| 30| 24| 4| 2| 45 10 0 |
+-------------+---+-----+---+-----+----+--+---+---+--+---+---+--+-+----+

In consequence of the existence of a formula, to be presently noticed, for calculating tonnage, we have in the preceding table for the first time an attempt at exactness instead of the former round numbers. The keel and other measurements given can only be taken as approximate seeing that they differ in nearly every paper. And some of the other particulars, such as the number of anchors and cables, represent only a theoretical equipment; the inventories show that vessels frequently carried more than the seven anchors and seven cables assigned to the large ones here. On the other hand the strength of the crews rarely reached the proportions in the list, it may safely be said never, if a large fleet was prepared.

The great Portuguese carrack, the _Madre de Dios_, captured in 1592 and regarded as the largest ship afloat, had a keel length of 100 feet, an extreme breath of 46 feet 10 inches, and an extreme length of 165 feet.[583] The keel length of the _Rainbow_ being 100 feet, her extreme length was 139 feet 6 inches and she had only 32 feet of beam. Moreover the carrack would be hampered by tiers of cabins built up on her poop and forecastle; a comparison of these proportions will help to explain the better weatherly and sailing qualities of the English ships. If for further illustration we compare the _Elizabeth Jonas_ carrying 55 heavy guns,[584] with a 52 gun ship of 1832 we find that the ordnance of the latter weighed 125 tons 4 cwt.; cables (iron and hempen), 56 tons 1 cwt.; anchors 12 tons 10 cwt. 2 qrs.; masts and yards 74 tons 5 cwt.; and fixed and running rigging 51 tons 9 cwt.[585]

This table also explains why galleys, never much in favour, were rapidly falling out of use. In 1588 the _Bonavolia_ served for two months as a guardship in the river at a total cost of £1028,[586] that is to say £514 a month. In 1589 there is an estimate, in the handwriting of Hawkyns, for the same galley but 150 ‘slaves’ are now allowed for, and ‘there may be for every bank[587] a soldier with his piece if the service require it.’ He adds ‘there is no dyett spoken of for the slaves for that we are not yett in the experyence.’[588] We cannot now tell whether Hawkyns had his early merchandise of negroes in his mind or whether ‘slaves’ was the pleasant Elizabethan way of describing criminals and vagrants.[589] The reference however, to ignorance in the matter of diet seems rather to imply that negroes were in question. Doubtless the cost of free oarsmen had been found to be too great. It will be observed that a large cruiser like the _Dreadnought_ could be kept at sea throughout the year at a charge of £303 a month while the almost useless galley, only doubtfully available in summer, cost very much more. The galley service was only possible among the Mediterranean states, and then only when, like Venice, they bought surplus human stock by the thousand from the Emperor. The four galleys of 1601-2 were never once engaged in active service, and were probably only used for purposes for which steam tugs are now employed; perhaps also in pageants, men from the royal ships or ordinary watermen being put in them for the particular service.

[Sidenote: Types of Ships.]

The lines of ships had begun to vary according to the purpose for which they were designed. There had formerly been no difference between merchantmen and men-of-war except that the latter were perhaps more strongly built. But a paper by William Borough, Comptroller of the Navy, now describes three orders:—[590]

1. The shortest, broadest, and { To have the length by the keel
deepest order. { double the breadth amidships and the
{ depth in hold half that breadth.

This order is used in some merchant ships for most profit.

2. The mean and best proportion { Length of keel two or two and a
for shipping for merchandise, { quarter that of beam. Depth of hold
likewise very serviceable for { eleven-twentyfourths that of beam.
all purposes.

3. The largest order for galleons { Length of keel three times the
or ships for the wars made for { beam. Depth of hold two-fifths of
the most advantage of sailing. { beam.

If the figures in the preceding table are trustworthy it will be seen that the keel length is very seldom three times the breadth although the later ships show a drift towards that proportion. The short keel, not sufficiently supported in a head sea must have made the vessel pitch tremendously, and one object of the beakhead and great forward rake was to shatter the seas and prevent them breaking on board. Probably these ships were but little worse sailers than the ordinary merchantmen of the beginning of this century, at least before the wind. They could not sail on the wind within at least eight points; fore and aft sails were not yet known, and the top-hamper of lofty sides and built up poop and forecastle levered the vessel off to leeward.

[Sidenote: Improvements and Inventions.]

Many improvements however were introduced. A method of striking topmasts, ‘a wonderful ease to great ships,’ and a system of sheathing by double planks, having a layer of tar and hair between them, were two of the most important. Both were due to Hawkyns, and the sheathing process remained in use for more than a century after his death. The finest Elizabethan men-of-war, the fastest sailers and best seaboats then afloat were built from his plans; and from the time of his appointment as Treasurer of the Navy dates the change to the relatively low and long type that made the English ships so much more handy than their Spanish antagonists. On Ralegh’s testimony the chain pump, the use of the capstan for weighing the anchor, bonnets and drablers, sprit, studding, top, and top-gallant sails were all new.[591] Ralegh is usually accepted as an authority, but some of these statements are surprisingly inaccurate, considering that he was a shipowner, and had himself been to sea. The bonnet, which laced on to the foot of the ordinary sail, was in use at least as early as the fourteenth century: the drabler laced on to the bonnet, and if the name was new the thing itself was doubtless old. Top, top-gallant, and sprit sails, can be traced back to the close of the preceding century, and there is no reference to studding sails in the inventories. In view also of the ‘main,’ ‘forecastle,’ and ‘lift’ capstans found on a ship like the _Sovereign_ in 1496 it seems incredible that they should not have been earlier applied to weighing the anchor.

The chain pump was brought into use by Hawkyns; a patent log was invented by Humphrey Cole but it does not appear to have superseded the ordinary log line. The lower ports were now some four feet above the water line, and there was a tendency to decrease the deck superstructures. Ralegh is emphatic in his disapproval of deck cabins: ‘they are but sluttish dens that breed sickness in peace, serving to cover stealths, and in fight are dangerous to tear men with their splinters.’ Nevertheless others thought differently, and in view of the large crew of a man-of-war and crowded narrow quarters some deck accommodation was perhaps absolutely essential. Both poop and forecastle were barricaded and the bulkheads pierced for arrow and musketry fire. In ships ‘built loftie’ there was a second, and perhaps even a third tier over the poop and forecastle of similarly defended cabins. The waist was partly open on the upper deck, while on the lower deck were again loop-holed bulkheads running transversely, so that if a ship were boarded her assailants found themselves exposed to a galling cross-fire from the defenders.

Gravel ballast only was used and for such crank vessels a large quantity was necessary. It was seldom changed and becoming soaked with bilgewater, drainings from beer casks, and the general waste of a ship, was a source of injury to the vessel and of danger to the health of the men. The ‘cook-room,’ a solid structure of bricks and mortar, was built in the hold on this ballast, and in that position, besides making the ship hot and spoiling the stores, was a frequent cause of fire. Moreover ballast and cook-room being practically immovable nothing could be known of the condition of the timber and ironwork below. Sir William Wynter advocated, in 1578, the use of stone ballast and the removal of the cooking galley to the forecastle, but neither proposal was generally adopted.[592] In the squadron commanded by Hawkyns and Frobisher in 1590 the _Mary Rose_, however, Hawkyns’ flagship, had her cook-room especially removed from the hold to the forecastle, ‘as well for the better stowinge of her victualles as also for better preserving her whole companie in health during that voyadge beinge bounde to the southwardes.’ We may therefore take it that the opinion of Hawkyns coincided with that of Wynter on this point. But the alteration in the _Mary Rose_ was an isolated occurrence, and even as late as the beginning of the eighteenth century the galley was still sometimes in the hold. The large amount of space occupied by the ballast, cables, ammunition, and other necessaries left but little room for other things, and a ship had only provisions on board for three or four weeks, although theoretically she was expected to carry more. The presence of a fleet of transports was therefore necessary with all naval expeditions.

The attention given to maritime matters bore fruit in other inventions, many of them far in advance of their time. Centre board boats, paddlewheels, a diving dress, and fireships, were all recommended and perhaps used.[593] Gawen Smith proposed to erect a beacon and refuge, capable of holding twenty or thirty persons, on the Goodwin sands such as was actually tried, unsuccessfully, in the first half of this century.[594]

[Sidenote: Cost and Construction of Ships.]

There is no detailed statement of the whole cost of a ship complete. Most were built by contract, and payment to the master shipwright responsible appears to be only for the hull, masts and spars. For an early vessel, probably the _Triumph_, there is a fuller account[595] and here the total is £3788, of which the timber cost £1200, spars and ironwork £700, and wages £1888; this does not include sails, fittings, etc. Building by contract seems to have commenced with the accession to office of Hawkyns in 1578. The _Lion_ was rebuilt in this manner in 1582 for £1440, the _Nonpareil_ for £1600, the _Hope_ ‘brought into the fourme of a galease’ £250,[596] and the _Cygnet_, and _Greyhound_ built for £93, 18s 1d and £66, 13s 4d each.[597] The _Victory_ was ‘altered into the forme of a galleon’ for £500, and the _Vanguard_ and _Rainbow_ built for £2600, apiece.[598] The _Merhonour_, _Garland_, and _Defiance_, cost £5, 2s, £5, 19s 5d, and £6, 7s 4d a ton,[599] and the price was based on the net tonnage. These rates do not however correspond with the amounts in the naval accounts which are £3600 for the _Merhonour_, £3200 for the _Garland_, and £3000 for the _Defiance_.

The earliest details we have of construction are in connection with these three vessels. A committee consisting of Howard, Drake, Hawkyns, Wynter, Borough, Ed. Fenton, Rich. Chapman, and Mathew and Christopher Baker, settled the plans.[600] The three were very similar, and it was decided that the one to be built by Peter Pett (the _Defiance_) should have a keel length of 92 feet, a beam of 32 feet, and be 15 feet deep ‘under the beame of the maine overloppe.’ Eight feet above the keel ten beams were to be placed on which ‘to lay a false overloppe so far as neede shall require,’ and under the ten beams ten riders were to be set; the riders at the footwales were to have two ‘sleepers on every side fore and afte,’ and pillars to be sufficiently bolted to them. The pillars supporting the lower deck had been newly adopted,[601] and as riders were put into the _White Bear_ twenty years after she was built they also were possibly a recent improvement. The main, or lower deck, of the _Defiance_ was to have twelve beams, with side knees and standards, every knee having four bolts and the deck itself was of three-inch plank. The upper deck was of two-and-a-half inch plank, but three inches in the waist; on this deck were the poop and forecastle. From the keel to the second wale four-inch plank was to be used, thence to the ‘quickside or waist,’ three-inch, and above that two-inch ‘rabbated to the railles to be inbowed to goe to the shippes side,’ On the orlop deck there were to be cabins for the boatswain, surgeon, gunner, and carpenter; the ship’s company were berthed on the main deck.

The _Merhonour_, and _Garland_, differed only in details, therefore these vessels, one of which was the third largest in the Royal Navy, were not even two-deckers in the modern sense. Three-deckers were unknown in the English service and, beyond the existence of a print, diagrammatic in character, in the British Museum, which is said, on insufficient authority, to represent the _Ark Royal_, there is no ground for supposing that two-deckers were in use. The _Warspite_, of 648 tons, had possibly only one ordnance deck but certainly not more than one-and-a-half; ‘having an overloppe and deck before and after, and a half deck abaft the main mast.’[602] She was ‘planked between the two lower walles and from the lower walle down to the keele with four-inch plank, and from the second walle upwards to the cheyne walle with three-inch plank, and from the cheyne walles to the railes upwards on the waste with two-inch plank.’ The _Warspite_ was one of the few shipbuilding failures of the reign. In 1598, although a nearly new ship, she cost £712 for repairs and further sums were spent on her in the succeeding years.

The illustration of an Elizabethan man-of-war, reproduced from a drawing in a Bodleian MS., shows some marked differences from the _Tiger_ of Henry VIII. She is probably a vessel of the earlier portion of the reign; perhaps the _Bull_ or _Tiger_ of 1570. So far as the hull is concerned, there is distinct retrogression in that the keel is relatively shorter to the extreme length, and that the poop is built up to a disproportionate and unseaworthy extent. This last may be explained by the fact that the earlier _Tiger_ was not expected to be called upon to serve outside the four seas, while the later ship had a wider cruising scope. The extended field of service called for larger crews, and as the orlop deck was not introduced till late in the reign, the increased accommodation necessary was obtained by the provision of more deck structures. In the matter of heavier masts and spars, possibly finer under water lines, larger sail area, and the multiplication of appliances for more rapid handling, there was an undoubted advance on the earlier ship.

[Sidenote: Decoration of Ships.]

Philip’s ambassador told him in 1569 that ‘they expect to be able to repel any attack by means of their fleet,’ and this confidence found natural expression in an inclination to decorate and adorn the weapons on which they relied. At any rate we now find specific payments for these purposes made with a frequency new in naval history. The ‘carving of personages in timber,’ and painting and colouring of ships in 1563 cost £121, 13s 8d and ‘painting and colouring red the great new ship called the _White Bear_‘[603] £20. Three ‘great personages in wood for the garnishing and setting forth’ of the same vessel were £1, 15s each. The upper works of the _Bonaventure_ were painted black and white,[604] and the _Lion_ in ‘timber colour;’ as the _White Bear_ was red, and the _Revenge_ and _Scout_, green and white there was evidently no regulation colour. The _Bonaventure_ had a dragon on her beakhead, the royal arms on her stern, and two lions and two dragons in gilt and paint on her galleries. The _Foresight_ carried the Queen’s arms, a rose and a _fleur de lis_, on her stern, and in 1579 £2, 13s 4d was paid for carving a Saturn and a Salamander for the _Swallow_. Figure heads were usual. The _Nonpareil_, _Adventure_, _Dreadnought_ and _Hope_, had a dragon; the _Charles_, _Defiance_, _Rainbow_, _Repulse_ and _Garland_ a lion; the _Mary Rose_, a unicorn, and the _Swiftsure_ a tiger. When the _White Bear_ was rebuilt the carvings included,

‘an image of Jupiter sitting uppon an eagle with the cloudes,
before the heade of the shippe xiˡⁱ; twoe sidebordes for the
heade with compartments and badges and fruitages xˡⁱ; the
traynebord[605] with compartments and badges of both sides
viiˡⁱ; xvi brackets going round about the heade at xiiˢ the
pece; xxxviii peces of spoyle or artillarie round about the
shippe at xivˢ the pece; the greate pece of Neptune and the
Nymphes about him for the uprighte of the Sterne viˡⁱ xˢ.’[606]

The whole cost of carving was here £172, and of painting and gilding £205, 10s, but these appear to have been exceptional amounts. Painting the _Bonaventure_ cost £23, 6s 8d, the _Dreadnought_ £20, the _Vanguard_ £30, and the _Merhonour_ £40, and these sums more nearly represented the ordinary expenditure. On the _Elizabeth_ however £180 was spent in 1598 for

‘newe payntinge and guildinge with fine gold her beake heade
on both sides with Her Maiesties whole armes and supporters,
for payntinge the forecastle, the cubbridge heades[607] on the
wast, the outsides from stemme to sterne, for like payntinge
and newe guildinge of both the galleries with Her Maiesties
armes and supporters on both sides, the sterne newe paynted
with divers devices and beastes guilte with fine gold; for newe
payntinge the captens cabbon, the somer decke[608] as well
overhead as on the sides, the barbycan, the dyninge roome and
the studdie.’[609]

The _Rainbow’s_ lion figure head was gilt and on her sides were ‘planets, rainbows, and clouds’ with the royal arms on the upper, middle, and lower counter, but the whole charge was only £58, 6s. Cabins were painted and upholstered in the favourite Tudor colour of green and ‘Her Maiesties badge’ was painted in green and red. The _White Bear_ and the _Elizabeth_ are the only two instances in which comparatively large sums are found to be spent in ornament, and it does not appear that there was as yet more than a bent towards general embellishment. The smaller vessels are never mentioned in this connexion. The opinion of a contemporary was that, both for work and appearance,

‘our navy is such as wanteth neither goodly, great, nor
beautiful ships who of mould are so clean made beneath, of
proportion so fine above, of sail so swift, the ports, fights,
coines, in them so well devised, with the ordnance so well
placed, that none of any other region may seem comparable unto
them.’[610]

[Sidenote: Tonnage Measurement.]

The new method of building by contract, and the large number of merchantmen upon which the bounty was now paid, necessitated a more exact measurement of tonnage than had hitherto obtained. In 1582 a rule was devised which remained in use for nearly half a century and was said to have been due to Mathew Baker, son of the James Baker shipwright to Henry VIII, and himself one of the principal government shipwrights. The writer says:[611]

‘By the proportion of breadth, depth, and length of any ship
to judge what burden she may be of in merchant’s goods and
how much of dead weight of ton and tonnage. The _Ascension_
of London being in breadth 24 feet, depth 12 feet from that
breadth to the hold, and by the keel 54 feet in length doth
carry in burden of merchant’s goods (in pipes of oil or
Bordeaux wine) 160 tons, but to accompt her in dead weight, or
her ton and tonnage may be added one third part of the same
burden which maketh her tonnage 213⅓. After the same rate these
proportions follow:

+-----------------------+----------+---------+---------+-------+-------+
| | | | |Burden | |
| |Breadth at| Depth | |in cask| Dead |
| | midship |from her | Keel |of oil |weight |
| | beam | breadth | |or wine|tonnage|
| +----------+---------+---------+-------+-------+
| A Ship of | 20 ft. | 10 ft. | 42 ft. | 86½ | 115 |
| A Ship of | 21 ” | 10½ ” | 45 ” | 102⅒ | 136⅛ |
| _Prudence_ of London | 24 ” | 12 ” | 51½ ” | 150½ | 202⅔ |
| _Golden Lion_ | 32 ” | 12 ” | 102 ” | 403 | 537 |
| | |or 14 | |or 461 |or 614⅔|
| _Elizabeth Jonas_[612]| 40 ” | 18 ” | 100 ” | 740 | 986⅔ |
+-----------------------+----------+---------+---------+-------+-------+

To find the burden of any ship proportionately to the
_Ascension_ before specified multiply the breadth of her by her
depth, and the product by her length at the keel, the amounting
sum you shall use as your divisor. If 15,552, the solid cubical
number for the _Ascension_ do give 160 tons, her just burthen,
what shall 8400, the solid number of a ship 20 feet broad, 10
feet deep, and 42 feet keel. Work and you shall find 86³⁴⁄₈₁
tons of burden while if you add one-third you shall find your
tonnage 114 almost.’

This formula made theory square with fact since the result corresponded with the tuns of Bordeaux wine experience had shown a ship to be able to carry. But strictly, ‘burden’ and ‘ton and tonnage,’ as used here do not correspond with our net and gross tonnage, since burden is used in connexion with lighter material occupying more space than a heavy cargo, such as coal, that would be represented by ton and tonnage. The Spanish system of measurement in 1590 was to multiply half the breadth by depth of hold and the result by the length over all.[613] From this 5% was deducted for the entry and run, and the remainder divided by eight, gave the net tonnage; 20% was added to obtain the gross tonnage.[614]

[Sidenote: The Seamen.]

As early as 1561 the Venetian Resident considered England superior to its neighbours in naval strength,[615] but he may not have included Spain among the neighbours. The Spaniards officially in England kept Philip fully acquainted with the character and equipment of the fleet. He was always apprised of any preparations, and in such detail that we find him told on one occasion that twelve or fourteen ships were of from 400 to 700 tons ‘with little top-hamper and very light, which is a great advantage for close quarters, and with much artillery, the heavy pieces being close to the water.’[616] Eight years earlier his ambassador, De Silva, recommended him to have ships built in England instead of continuing the chartering system in vogue in Spain as ‘certainly the ships built here are very sound and good.’[617] These intimations probably did not stand alone, but neither then nor later did they lead to any change in the type affected in the Peninsula. English seamen did not favourably impress the Spaniards. One of Philip’s correspondents, in writing to him that four men-of-war had been prepared for sea, added, ‘the men in them are poor creatures.’[618] Six months later he was informed that although Elizabeth possessed twenty-two large ships she had only been able to fit eleven for sea, and would find it impossible to equip more, and that ‘the men on the fleet although they appear bellicose are really pampered and effeminate different from what they used to be.’[619] The estimate appears the more extraordinary because English seamen were at this time giving daily proof, at the expense of Spanish and other commerce, of the wild energy animating them. As late as 1586, Mendoza wrote that four ships were in commission and others in preparation, but of these latter, only four were seaworthy, ‘all the rest being old and rotten.’[620] If Philip was continuously misinformed as to the number of ships available, the difficulties in furnishing them, and the fighting value of the men, it may help to explain the confidence he showed later.

As a matter of fact, there are very few complaints throughout the reign about embarrassments due to want of crews. The semi-piratical expeditions preferred by the government were better liked than would have been a more regular warfare that would have meant harder fighting and fewer chances of plunder. Hatred of Spain and Popery, conjoined with the hoped for pillage of Spanish galleons, formed an inducement that never failed to bring a sufficient number of men together, notwithstanding that, as privateering speculations, most of the voyages were, pecuniarily, failures, although they served their purpose in destroying Spanish commerce and credit. The proportion of men on board a man-of-war was three to every five tons, of gross tonnage; one-third being soldiers, one-seventh of the remainder, gunners; and the rest seamen. In merchantmen the ratio was one man to every five tons of net tonnage, one-twelfth being gunners and the rest seamen.[621] But in practice the strength of a crew depended on the number of men required and the success of the impress authorities.

[Sidenote: The Seamen:—Pay and Rewards.]

Until 1585 the wages remained at 6s 8d a month, to which it had been raised in 1546 or very shortly afterwards. In 1585, the sailor’s pay was raised to ten shillings a month, through the action of Hawkyns. There must have been some dissatisfaction with the quality of the men hitherto serving, and the breach with Spain doubtless made an improvement necessary. Hawkyns coated the pill for Elizabeth by assuring her that fewer men would be required, of the standard to be attracted by the higher rate, and, ‘by this meane her Maiesties shippes wolde be ffurnyshed with able men suche as can make shyfte for themselves, kepe themselves clene withoute vermyne and noysomeness which bredeth sycknes and mortalletye.’[622] Moreover, ships could then carry more stores and continue longer at sea. Hawkyns was one of the few commanders of his age who recognised a claim to consideration in his inferiors, and made some attempt to secure their health and comfort. In 1589 he took care to have his stores ‘of an extraordinary price and goodnes to keep men in health’; in 1595 he took out clothes for his men and a new kind of ‘lading victuells, a kind of victuells for sea service devised by Mr Hughe Platte.’[623] Hammocks were introduced in 1597, when a warrant authorises payment for 300 bolts of canvas ‘to make hanging cabones or beddes ... for the better preservation of their health.’[624] In 1590, a suggestion, which did not, however, take practical shape till long afterwards, was made for the benefit of the merchant sailor. John Allington, a draper of London, proposed the creation of a special office for the registration of contracts between merchants, owners, and masters of ships. This would have led to something equivalent to the present ‘signing on’ enforced by the Board of Trade, and would have regulated the position of the seamen and simplified the enforcements of his rights, too often sacrificed to an unscrupulous use of legal forms.[625] Allington, like most of the projectors and schemers of his day, was no philanthropist. He offered to pay £40 a year for permission to establish such an office, and apparently expected to obtain five shillings apiece from 500 or 600 ships a year.

No especial provision was made on board men-of-war for the sick or wounded sailor; if the ship went into action he was placed in the cable tier or laid upon the ballast as being the safest places. If he survived the medical science of his time, and was landed disabled, he was supposed to be passed to his own parish. Sometimes he was permitted to beg. A printed licence from Howard, as Lord Admiral, under date 1590, still exists empowering William Browne, maimed in 1588, to beg for a year in all churches.[626] By 35 c. 4 and 39 c. 21 of Elizabeth relief was afforded to hurt men; these were both repealed by 43 c. 3 which enacted that parishes were to be charged with a weekly sum of not less than twopence or more than tenpence to provide help, the pension however in no case to exceed ten pounds for a sailor or twenty pounds for an officer. Gratuities were sometimes given. In 1593 Hawkyns was ordered to pay two shillings a week, for twenty weeks, to 29 injured men, and William Storey, having lost a leg, received £1, 13s 4d, apparently in settlement of all claims.[627]

Such gifts, in view of the number we can still trace, were probably more frequent than would be expected from the character of Elizabeth. In 1587 a month’s extra pay was awarded to the crews of three pinnaces for their good service in capturing Spanish prizes. For 1588 £5, was divided among 100 men who manned the fireships sent into Calais Roads, £80, among the wounded of the fleet generally, and £7 to sick men in the _Elizabeth_.[628] In 1591 six months’ pay was given to the widows of the men killed in the _Revenge_, and in 1594 there is a gift of £61, 19s 6d to Helen Armourer, widow of John Armourer of Newcastle, ‘in consideration of his good and faithful services,’ although the name is quite strange in naval affairs.[629] Merchant seamen were also remembered in these benefactions. On one occasion forty marks were paid to five men ‘having been lately lamentably afflicted in Naples by pryson and other punyshments by thinquisition of Spayne as we are informed and by secret escape savid their lyves.’[630] On another ‘in consideration of the valiantnes done in Turkey by our welbeloved subiecte John Ffoxe of Woodbridge in our county of Suffolk, gunner by whose meanes 266 Christians were released out of miserable captivity,’ an assuredly nobly earned pension of one shilling a day was conferred upon him.[631] When it cost the Queen nothing directly she was sometimes still more liberal. To Robert Miller, a master mariner, £200, was allowed out of forfeited goods in consideration of his services and losses at sea; George Harrison received £800, in the same way and for the same reasons. Sometimes seamen’s wives, whose husbands were prisoners in Spain, petitioned the Council for help. In one instance the merchants owning the ships were ordered to assist the women; in another their landlords were directed not to press them for rent.

We can know little of the internal economy of a merchantman in those days. The vessels were relatively as crowded, and probably as unhealthy, as men-of-war; the victualling was of the same, and at times even worse quality, seeing that the owners of merchant vessels were expected to buy government provisions if the victualling department found itself overstocked. In 1596 there is a letter directing the Lord Mayor to forbid the city butchers to sell meat to ships until the government stores of salt beef were sold out. This is followed by an order from the Council to the Serjeant of the Admiralty not to allow any outward bound trader to pass down the river unless a certificate of such purchase was produced.[632]

[Sidenote: Mortality on Shipboard.]

We have no means of estimating the mortality from disease on board merchant ships, but we know that in men-of-war it was very great. ‘In the late Queen’s time many thousands did miscarry by the corruption as well of drink as of meat,’ says a seventeenth century writer;[633] and Sir Richard Hawkyns thought that, in twenty years, 10,000 men died from scorbutic affections. The length of the voyages now undertaken rendered larger crews necessary; the accommodation was narrow and ill-ventilated, the requirements of sanitation unknown, and the food was usually scanty and bad, so that the sailor was placed under conditions that made him fall an easy victim to disease. In Drake’s voyage of 1585-6 out of 2300 men nearly 600 died from disease. In the expedition of 1589, out of 12,000 men employed, nearly one-half perished, mainly from sickness and want of food, and every enterprise, small or great, suffered more or less largely in the same way. Usually the hope of plunder sustained the men through all such trials, and there is only one serious case of the mutiny of a crew because of ‘the weakness and feebleness they were fallen into through the spare and bad diet.’ But in this instance sympathy with their captain may have had much to do with their action.[634]

The pages of Hakluyt relate much of the suffering endured by our seamen abroad from disease and privation, but there is one historic illustration at home of the miseries borne by the men and the callousness or scanty resources of the authorities. On 10th August 1588 Howard wrote to Burghley:

‘Sicknes and mortallitie begin wonderfullie to growe amongste
us ... the _Elizabeth_, which hath don as well as eaver anie
ship did in anie service, hath had a great infectione in her
from the beginning soe as of the 500 men which she carried out,
by the time she had bin in Plymouth three weeks or a month
there were ded of them 200 and above, soe as I was driven to
set all the rest of her men ashore, to take out the ballast and
to make fires in her of wet broom 3 or 4 daies together, and
so hoped therebie to have cleansed her of her infectione, and
thereuppon got newe men, verie tall and hable as eaver I saw
and put them into her; nowe the infectione is broken out in
greater extremitie than eaver it did before, and they die and
sicken faster than ever they did, soe as I am driven of force
to send her to Chatham ... Sir Roger Townsend of all the men
he brought out with him hath but one left alive ... it is like
enough that the like infectione will growe throughout the most
part of the fleet, for they have bin soe long at sea and have
so little shift of apparell ... and no money wherewith to buy
it.’

On the 22nd August he writes to the Queen that the infection is bad, that men sicken one day and die the next but, in courtly phrase, that ‘I doubt not that with good care and God’s goodnes which doth ever bles your Maiestie it wyll quenche againe.’ But on the same day he tells the Council more plainly, ‘the most part of the fleet is grievouslie infected and die dailie ... and the ships themselves be so infectious and so corrupted as it is thought to be a verie plague ... manie of the ships have hardly men enough to waie their anchors.’[635] And as illustrating the infection and its probable cause comes a complaint from him to Walsingham that, although the beer in the fleet has been condemned as unfit for use, it is still served out to the men, and ‘nothing doth displease the seamen more than sour beer.’

This sickness is usually said to have been the plague or typhus. But Howard and his captains, who had lived to middle age in a country where the plague was endemic and who must have known its symptoms well, obviously thought ‘the infectione’ something different. In the passage quoted above he compares it to the plague and in another letter he writes, ‘The mariners who have a conceit (and I think it true and so do all the captains here) that sour drink hath been a great cause of this infection amongst us.’[636] The plague was familiar to them all but this was something they could not easily name. The same arguments apply, although perhaps not so closely, against typhus which in its general form and symptoms was familiar under various names to sixteenth century observers. But 1588 was not a particularly unhealthy year on land and there is no record of any sudden outbreak of epidemic disease either before or after that occurring on the fleet. Moreover though typhus occasionally kills within a few hours it has never been known to kill numbers in the rapid fashion suggested by Howard. It is probable that the complaint was an acute enteritis, caused by the beer, acting on frames enfeebled by bad and insufficient food, and still further weakened by the scorbutic taint to which all classes, but especially seamen, were subject in the middle ages.

On the whole the position of the sailor was now steadily deteriorating. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries his pay had been relatively very high, and as he was only called upon to serve round the coasts, or, at furthest, to Bordeaux or the Baltic, his health was not affected by conditions to which he was only exposed for a short time. But towards the end of the sixteenth century the wages, in consequence of the general rise in prices, were relatively less than they had been, and less than those of the artisan classes on shore. In an epoch when the increase in the number of distant voyages set his services in commercial demand he was required to serve in the royal fleets for longer periods than had been before known. He was exposed to a merciless system of impressment, cheap for the State because he had to indirectly bear the cost. And the length of the cruises, their extension into tropical climates, and the character of the provisions, unsuited to the new conditions, made themselves felt in outbreaks of disease to which his ancestors, assembled chiefly for Channel work, had been strangers. Morally the general tone among the men cannot have been high if we may judge them from a phrase used by the officials sent down to examine into the plunder of the _Madre de Dios_ in 1592, ‘we hold it loste labor and offence to God to minister oathes unto the generallitie of them.’[637]

[Sidenote: Seamen’s Clothing.]

It will have been noticed that in his letter of 10th August Howard says that the men have no money wherewith to buy clothes; in another he suggests that a thousand marks’ worth of apparel should be sent down. But the custom of providing crews with coats or jackets at the expense of the crown had quite ceased, and even if necessaries were supplied to the men they had to pay for them. The supply was usually a private speculation on the part of some Admiralty official. In 1586 Roger Langford, afterwards paymaster of the Navy furnished men with canvas caps, shirts, shoes, etc., a piece of business by which he lost £140. In 1580 the government sent over clothes for the men on the Irish station, the cost of which was to be deducted from their wages. The articles included, ‘canvas for breches and dublettes’—‘coutten for lyninges, and petticoates,’ stockings, caps, shoes, and shirts.[638] Hawkyns with the forethought always characterising his action as an admiral, took out with him in 1595 ‘calico for 200 suits of apparel,’ 400 shirts, woollen and worsted hose, linen breeches and Monmouth caps.[639] There is a sketch in a contemporary treatise on navigation of a seaman, apparently an officer. He wears a Monmouth, or small Tam o’ Shanter, cap, a small ruff round the neck, a close-fitting vest, and long bell-mouthed trousers.[640] In 1602 there is a payment in the Navy accounts of £54, 19s 8d for clothing for Spanish prisoners. Canvas shirts, cotton waistcoats, caps, hose, and ‘rugge’ for gowns were provided and the articles were doubtless of the same kind and quality as those worn by the men.

[Sidenote: Royal Ships Lent.]