THE COMMONWEALTH 1649-1660 (continued 2)

Crescent, broken up.

Defiance, sold.

Garland, lost in action.

Greyhound, lost in action.

Happy Entrance, burnt at Chatham.

Henrietta, sold.

Henrietta Maria, burnt in West Indies.

Leopard, lost in action.

Mary Rose, wrecked.

Merhonour, sold.

Nicodemus, ”

Roebuck, ”

1st Whelp, ”

2nd Whelp, ”

10th Whelp, ”

The Bonaventure, Garland, and Leopard were lost to the Dutch, but the two former were burnt and sunk when fighting under the Dutch flag in July 1653. The Merhonour, Defiance, and 2nd Whelp, all three long laid up as useless, were handed over to Taylor in 1650, at a valuation of £700, in part payment of his shipbuilding bill; the 1st Whelp was used for some time as a hulk at Deptford, and the 10th Whelp remained in commission till 1654. The Greyhound was blown up in action with two privateers, in 1656, by her captain, Geo. Wager, when she was boarded and practically taken by 100 of the enemy, who went up with her.[1378] The Henrietta Maria and Happy Entrance were burnt by accident in 1655 and 1658; the Mary Rose was wrecked off the coast of Flanders in 1650, and the Charles off Harwich in the same year.

Whenever ships were lost on the British coasts the authorities did their best to recover the stores, and, in the case of the Charles, men were still engaged in 1660 patiently fishing for her guns. At first Bulmer, a man whose name has been mentioned under Charles I as an inventor in connection with maritime matters, was employed, but it was not until May 1657, after seven years of search, that he triumphantly announced that he had discovered her exact position. He was succeeded by Robert Willis, described as a diver, who was more fortunate in that he did at last recover at least two brass guns, for which he was allowed 20s a cwt. As the Admiralty had been for eight years at the expense of a hired hoy and the wages of the men occupied in work, it might have been cheaper to have allowed the guns to remain under water. The methods used are not alluded to, but, as the diving-bell was described by Bacon in the beginning of the century, it must have been a well-known appliance; and Bourne had described a diving dress on the modern principle in 1578.

One other man-of-war, the Phœnix, belonging to Badiley’s squadron, was captured on 7th September 1652 by the Dutch off Leghorn, and gallantly retaken in November by eighty-two volunteers, under captain Owen Cox, who boarded her at daybreak while at anchor amidst the enemy’s fleet. Cox did not disdain to eke out the lion’s with the fox’s skin, since, in the afternoon, he hired ‘a bumboat or two with good wine to go aboard and sell it cheap;’ the Dutch were consequently keeping a careless watch, but fighting continued below for two hours after the ship was under way. Cox further promised £10 to each man with him, but this was still unpaid in June 1653, and he then tells the Council of State that the men ‘persecute him to fulfil his engagement’; and Badiley wrote that ‘since their exploit they are very turbulent and disorderly.’ Cox was granted £500 for his good service;[1379] he was killed in the action of July 1653, while still in command of the Phœnix.

Piracy.

Complaints of piracy, in the strict sense, are very few during this period, and there is not a single reference to the presence of a Turk in the narrow seas. In face of the Commonwealth Navy there were no more of such incidents as the sack of Baltimore. The French, Dutch, and Spanish privateers, who kept our men-of-war continually on the alert, and occasionally overpowered a smaller one, sailed under some sort of commission, either from their own states or the Stewarts, and did not, therefore, possess that freedom from responsibility which in warfare soon degenerates into savagery. The owners of the Constant Cavalier, for instance, cruising under a commission from the nominal Charles II, had to give a bond for £1000 not to injure his allies or his loyal subjects.[1380] That the Dunkirkers and others found privateering by no means so easy a road to fortune as it had been in the days of Charles I is sufficiently shown by the number of their captured ships taken into the national service, besides the loss of many more not considered suitable for that purpose. Their best opportunity was during the Dutch war, when the cruisers were mostly withdrawn to strengthen the fleets: but even then the government usually managed to provide convoys for the coasting trade. English, Scotch, or Irish seamen taken in a privateer were summarily transported to the plantations.[1381]

In 1656 for some reason, probably the effort to keep the fleets on foreign service at their full strength, the guard round the coasts seems to have been temporarily relaxed, and the result was that ‘the Ostenders and Dunkirkers begin to grow numerous.’ On the east coast they were so successful for the moment that, dreaming hopefully that the old times were about to return, they desired some of their released prisoners to ‘tell the Protector that while he is fetching gold from the West Indies they will fetch his coals from Newcastle.’[1382] Oliver was not a safe subject for threats, and their spoon was certainly not long enough to enable them to enjoy in comfort the meal they proposed sharing with him; at any rate very shortly afterwards the war was carried into the enemy’s country by the blockade of Ostend and Dunkirk, and there are no more lamentations about the number of them at sea, or the mischief they were doing, until the very eve of the Restoration.

The Administration:—The Committees.

The administrative direction of the Navy was, at the beginning of the Commonwealth, placed in the hands of (i.) the Admiralty Committee of the Council of State,[1383] (ii.) the Committee of Merchants of Navy and Customs, and (iii.) the Commissioners of the Navy. The second Committee took no practical part in the administration, was early requested to leave the management to the Navy Commissioners, ‘as formerly,’[1384] and was dissolved in 1654. Warwick’s second appointment as Lord Admiral was cancelled by a parliamentary ordinance of 23rd Feb. 1649, and the first Admiralty Committee of the Council of State took over his duties from that date for the one year for which the Council of State was only itself existent. This Committee was renewed yearly until the Protectorate, when ‘Commissioners of the Admiralty and Navy’ were nominated by act of Parliament, and the control of the Ordnance department was also given them.[1385] Their number varied but was seldom less than twelve or fifteen; they met at first at Whitehall once a week, during the Dutch war once a day, and, from January 1655, occupied Derby House at a rental of £100 a year. Following the fall of Richard Cromwell an act was passed, 21st May 1659,[1386] nominally vesting authority in ‘Commissioners for carrying on the affairs of the Admiralty and Navy,’ but power really remained in the hands of Parliament to which the Commissioners had to submit the names of even the captains they appointed.

The Administration:—The Navy Commissioners.

The brunt of administrative work and responsibility fell, however, on the Navy Commissioners, who, so far as may be judged from the letters and papers relating to them and their work, laboured with an attention to the minutest details of their daily duties, a personal eagerness to ensure perfection, and a broad sense of their ethical relation towards the seamen and workmen, of whom they were at once the employers and protectors, with a success the Admiralty never attained before and has never equalled since. The earliest Commissioners were John Holland, Thos. Smith, Peter Pett, Robt. Thompson, and Col. Wm. Willoughby;[1387] the last-named died in 1651, and was replaced by Robt. Moulton, who himself died the next year. In 1653, Col. Fr. Willoughby, Ed. Hopkins, and major Neh. Bourne, who, besides being a soldier had also commanded the Speaker, were added to the first four. In 1654 Geo. Payler replaced Holland, and from then there was no change till 1657, when Nathan Wright succeeded Hopkins. All the Navy Commissioners, except Holland, had £250 a year, a sum for which they gave better value than did the members of the Admiralty Committee for their £400 a year; but for 1653 each was granted an extra £150 in consideration of the excessive and continuous toil of that year.

From the first they adopted a tone towards the Admiralty Committee which would hardly have been endurable but that it was excused by an obvious honesty, and justified by superior knowledge. Early in 1649 they recommended that the rope-makers at Woolwich should have their wages increased by twopence a day, but their letter was returned by the Admiralty Committee, probably with a reprimand. This was not to be borne in silence, so ‘we have cause to resent that we are so misunderstood as to be inhibited by you to do our duty.’ If the Committee has not itself power to make the order it can move Parliament, ‘who will not see men want, especially as in the sweat of these men’s brows consists not only their particular living but also that of the republic.... What interpretation soever may be made of our actions by those that have the supervision of them we shall not fail to represent the grievances of those under our charge when they represent them to us.’[1388] On 22nd May 1649 the admirals and captains at sea were ordered to address the Commissioners direct on all administrative details, thus leaving only matters of the highest importance to be dealt with by the Admiralty Committee. In some ways the relative position of superiors and inferiors seems to have been reversed, for, on one occasion, we find the Committee writing to the Commissioners about a course of action the former had decided on, that, ‘as you disapprove’ of such procedure, it was not to be adopted; and it frequently happened that the Council of State communicated directly with the Navy Commissioners, ignoring the intermediate Admiralty Committee.

During the Dutch war a Commissioner was stationed in charge of each of the principal yards—Pett at Chatham, Willoughby at Portsmouth, and Bourne at Harwich, which last place, in consequence of the operations on the North Sea and off the Dutch coast, had suddenly sprung into importance. Monk wrote concerning Bourne: ‘It is strange that twenty ships should be so long fitting out from Chatham, Woolwich, and Deptford, where there are so many docks ... when there have been twenty-two or more fitted out from Harwich in half the time by Major Bourne.’[1389] There is a consensus of evidence as to the way in which Bourne threw his heart into his work, and the success he obtained under difficulties due to the want of docks and materials at Harwich and an insufficient number of men. Notwithstanding Monk’s depreciatory reference to Chatham, Pett was very well satisfied with his operations there. A few months before he had reported to the Admiralty Committee that he had graved nine ships in one spring tide, without injury to ship or man; ‘truly it makes me stand amazed at the goodness of God in such unparalleled successes.’

Besides their superintendence of the building, repairing, and fitting out of ships, the purchase and distribution of stores, the control of the dockyards, and all the diverse minutiæ of administration in war time, the Commissioners were called upon to maintain the not very rigid discipline of the service. Hitherto all ranks had been allowed to do much as they pleased when ships were in port, but henceforth no captain was to leave his command for more than six hours without the express permission of either the Admiralty or Navy Commissioners, and during any such absence the lieutenant, or the master, was to remain on board; for the first disobedience the penalty was a fine of one month’s pay, for the second three months’, and for the third to be cashiered. Similar rules applied to all the officers; and men absent without leave forfeited a month’s pay. The clerks of the check[1390] were to ‘take an exact account’ how officers and others performed their duties, and once a week report to the Navy Commissioners, a regulation which, if loyally obeyed, must have made the clerks popular. The clerks of the check attached to the dockyards were to similarly watch the clerks on shipboard, and, in turn, report on them once a week to the Commissioners.[1391] This system was akin to that of the sixteenth-century Spanish navy, in which the duties were so arranged that each officer was a spy on another; admirable in theory, it did not suit English idiosyncrasies, and these reports never took any practical shape.

From 2nd June 1649, the Navy Commissioners had occupied rooms in the victualling office at Tower Hill, but in 1653 they found the annoyance caused by the proximity of the victuallers’ slaughterhouses there to be unbearable. It was not, however, till the next year that Sir John Wolstenholme’s house in Seething Lane was purchased for them for £2400, and became the Navy Office for a long period;[1392] the Treasurer’s, now a quite distinct office, was in Leadenhall Street, and its lease was renewed in February 1657 for eight years at a rental of £49, 6s 8d a year and a £700 fine. The next request of the Commissioners was that their number might be increased, as half the members of the Board were constantly away in charge of dockyards, and for this they ‘desire timely remedy or dismissal from our employment.’ It has been noticed that three new men, of whom certainly two—Bourne and Willoughby—were, in their sphere, amongst the ablest administrators who have ever served the state, were in consequence added in 1653. Besides the Commissioners, Thomas White at Dover, captain Hen. Hatsell at Plymouth, major Richard Elton at Hull, and major William Burton at Yarmouth, acting as Admiralty agents, had nearly as much work and responsibility, and executed it as ably, as their more highly placed colleagues.

In 1655 the salaries of subordinates at the Admiralty amounted to £1740, the secretary, Robert Blackborne, receiving £250. The first secretary of the Admiralty Committee, Robert Coytmore, had £150 a year, of which £50 was regarded as an extra given on condition that neither he nor his clerk received fees—a stipulation probably due to a lively recollection of the habits of Nicholas and his successor, Thomas Smith. The Navy Commissioners had no secretary, and until September 1653 each Commissioner was allowed only one clerk, at £30 a year—scanty assistance, considering the amount of work thrown into their hands. From September the number was doubled, and two purveyors were appointed to assist them in purchasing stores. The total annual cost of the Admiralty, the Navy Office, and the chief officers of the four dockyards was £11,179, 9s 10d.[1393]

If we may trust a later writer, the sums spent on the Navy Office, which bore only a trifling proportion to the naval expenses, sometimes reaching a million and a quarter, were not misapplied. Henry Maydman, who was a purser under the Commonwealth, and Mayor of Portsmouth in 1710, wrote long afterwards:—

In all the wars we had in the time of King Charles’s exile the Navy Office was so ordered that a man might have despatched any affair almost at one board ... and with the greatest ease imaginable, and cheapness too. For their public business was carried on with all imaginable application, and it was a crime for any one to absent himself from his post.[1394]

So far as the intentions and efforts of the Navy Commissioners were concerned this was doubtless true, but it is to be feared that the State Papers do not support the implication that money matters were settled with the same ease as those relating to the routine of daily management, although that, of course, was an imperfection for which they were not accountable, and over which they had no control. To the full extent of their power they watched not only over the public interests, but also over those of the men who, for the first time, seem to have looked up to officials of their position as friends and helpers. Some of the appeals they listened to are embodied in a letter to the Admiralty Committee.[1395]

We have complaints daily made unto us by poor seamen pressed out of merchant ships into the state’s service that they are grossly abused by their masters and owners in pretending leakage, damage, or not delivery of their goods, whereby they keep their pay from them, meanly taking advantage of the poor men’s forcing away by the state’s press masters and not having time to get their rights, are by this means defrauded of their wages. We look upon it as a very great oppression and have therefore thought good to acquaint your honours therewith.

Shortly afterwards they had to write on behalf of merchants who had trusted them[1396]:—

It is not pleasing to us to fill your ears with complaints, yet we judge it our duty, while entrusted with so great a share of the naval affairs, to again remind you of the emptiness of all the stores.... We have not been wanting in obtaining supplies by means of fair promises, and now we are hardly thought and spoken of by those who cannot obtain their money.

In one instance the ‘fair promises’ resolved themselves into a bill for £400 on account, which, said the recipient, ‘has hitherto done me no more good than an old almanac.’ It has been remarked that the position of all who were in the service of the state became more difficult as time passed, and money became scarcer and scarcer towards 1660. When, in 1658, the Navy Commissioners were obliged to pay—or promise—prices from 30 to 50 per cent. above the market standard, it may be supposed that their situation had its own discomforts.[1397] Besides guarding the material interests, they had to review the moral conduct, of their subordinates, and they were evidently shocked to be compelled to report to the Admiralty Commissioners that captain Phineas Pett, clerk of the check at Chatham, was the father of an illegitimate child. On another occasion Willoughby was inquiring whether a boatswain possessed two wives.

After the resignation of Richard Cromwell Parliament interposed more directly in naval affairs, and the Commissioners exercised less authority; on one occasion the agent at Chester, who went on board a man-of-war to muster the men, was refused an opportunity to perform his duty, and told, in answer to his threats, that ‘the power of the Navy Commissioners was not as formerly.’ A fact so plainly put must have been generally recognised, and accounts for the comparative disappearance of the Commissioners from the papers of the last year of the Commonwealth.

The Administration:—The Navy Treasurer.

From 1st January 1651, Richard Hutchinson replaced Vane as Treasurer of the Navy under circumstances noticed on a previous page. He began with a salary of £1000 a year, in lieu of all former fees and perquisites, and the appearance of his name in the State Papers is almost invariably associated with requests for higher pay, or melancholy wails about the amount of work thrown upon him by the wars in which we were engaged. For 1653 he was allowed an extra £1000;[1398] not satisfied with this he petitioned again in December, and so successfully that, by an order of the Council, he was to be given, in 1654, £2500, and a further £1000 for every £100,000 disbursed in excess of £1,300,000.[1399] That this man, who was merely a glorified clerk, who was never required to act on his own initiative, and whose work demanded neither energy, foresight, nor talent, should have received over £2500 a year, while the Navy Commissioners, to whose organising genius was mainly due the rapid and complete equipment which enabled the English fleets to be of sufficient strength at the point of contact, were rewarded with £250 a year, and a gratuity of £150 for one twelvemonth, is one of those incidents which interest the impartial student of forms of government. From January 1655 his pay was fixed at £1500 a year, with £100 commission on every £100,000 issued above £700,000; a year later he tried to get this commission doubled, and to have it allowed on his first three years of office, ‘I having much larger promises at the time.’[1400] A remark like this, the ease with which he obtained his almost annual increments, and the fact that he was appointed in spite of Vane’s opposition, taken together, lead one to suspect that he must have had some potent influence behind him.

The Commonwealth Captains.

Among officers, captains were the class who gave most trouble throughout these years, the number tried for, or accused of, various delinquencies yielding a much higher percentage of the total employed than that afforded by the men, or by officers of any other rank. This was, perhaps, largely due to the rapid promotion necessitated by the sudden increase of the Navy, commanders being chosen mainly for professional capacity, and, if considered politically safe, few questions were asked about their religious or moral qualifications. Many, again, had risen from the forecastle, and possibly brought with them reminiscences of the habits existing in the Caroline Navy: others had been privateer captains, an occupation which did not tend to make their moral sense more delicate. Professional honour was not yet a living force, and, in some orders issued by Monk to the captains of a detached squadron, the threat of loss of wages as a punishment for disobedience came after, and was obviously intended as a more impressive deterrent than, the disgrace of being cashiered.[1401]

With one offence, however—cowardice—very few were charged; after 1642 few men wanting physical courage were likely to force their way to the front. George Wager, who chose to blow up the Greyhound rather than strike the English flag, had been a boatswain; Amos Bear, a boatswain’s boy; Robert Clay, a carpenter; Heaton, a trumpeter’s mate; Badiley, Sansum, and Goodson, cabin boys; and doubtless close inquiry would reveal many more examples. Four days before the execution of Charles the Navy Commissioners wrote to Portsmouth, and presumably to other naval stations, ‘to entreat’ those in charge to take care that all officers appointed were well affected to the Parliament, and authorising them to suspend any suspected ones on their own responsibility.[1402] But the government was not unforgiving; two of Rupert’s captains, Goulden and Marshall, commanded state’s ships,[1403] and officers who had deserted in the mutiny of 1648 were received back into the service of the Commonwealth. The following list, in all probability by no means complete, will show the large number of captains whose conduct came under observation, and the character of their misdemeanours:—

Name Accused of Result

John Taylor Neglect of duty in action of Nov. 1652 Ordered to enter into recognisances to come up for judgment if called upon.[1404]

Anth. Young

Edm. Chapman

B. Blake

Thos. Marriott Embezzlement, 1652 Not known

John Mead ” 1653 ”

John Best Drunkenness and cowardice, 1653 ”[1405]

Wm. Gregory Embezzlement, 1653 ”

Jon. Taylor Signing false tickets, 1653 ”

Thos. Harris Neglect of duty, 1653 Cashiered

Jas. Cadman Killing one of his crew, 1653 Suspended for 12 months

—— Neglect of convoy duty, 1653 Not known[1406]

Jas. Peacock Embezzlement, 1653 ”

Sam. Dickinson ” 1654 ”

Val. Tatnell ” 1654 ”

J. Clarke ” 1655 Cashiered

—— ” 1655 Wages suspended

Robt. Nixon Cruelty, 1655 Not known

J. Seaman Drunkenness, 1655 ”

Fr. Parke Theft from prizes, 1655 ”[1407]

Alex. Farley Drunkenness and embezzlement 1656 ”

J. Jefferies Embezzlement, 1656 Fined £60[1408]

Thos. Sparling ” 1656 ” £160

J. Lightfoot Fraud and violence, 1656 Not known[1409]

J. Smith Embezzlement and drunkenness, 1656 ”

Rich. Penhallow Making out false tickets, 1656 Amount to be deducted from his wages

Jas. Cadman Embezzlement, 1656 Fined[1410]

W. Hannam Cowardice, cruelty, and incapacity, 1656 Not known

John Best Drunkenness, 1656 ”

Robt. Nixon Cruelty and embezzlement, 1657 ”[1411]

Hen. Powell Embezzlement, 1657 Severely admonished

—— Drunkenness and blasphemy, 1657 Not known

J. Vasey Drunkenness, 1658 Charge withdrawn[1412]

— Davis Selling prize goods, 1658 To refund

Robt. Saunders Came home without leave, 1658 Cashiered

Thos. Whetstone Drunkenness and theft, 1658 Not known

Rowland Bevan Embezzlement and carrying cargo, 1658 ”

—— Carrying cargo, 1659 ”

Pet. Foote. ” 1659 ”[1413]

Robt. Kirby Drunkenness and theft, 1659 ”

—— Carrying cargo, false tickets, 1660 ”

It is curious to find that, in 1657, two ex-captains, Mellage and Baker, were in prison as Quakers. In cases of embezzlement the sentence of a court-martial, where ascertainable, appears to have been usually confined to fining the accused the value of the stores stolen, or stopping the amount from his wages. The custom was commencing of trying commanders, who lost their ships by misadventure, before a court-martial, instead of accepting their explanations, or holding an informal investigation at Whitehall, as had previously been done; and once a captain was sent before a court because his ship went ashore, although she came off without damage.[1414] This must be almost the first occurrence of that form of inquiry. Log books were now compulsory, and were sent up to the Navy Commissioners on the return of the ship; by an order of 2nd Feb. 1653 an advocate, who conducted prosecutions in courts-martial, was attached to the fleets. It will be noticed how often drunkenness is an article in the foregoing charges, and this weakness seems to have been common in all ranks, from captains down to ships’ boys. Among these naval papers there are very few indications of the existence of Puritan fervour or even of ordinary religious feeling; the great mass of men and officers aimed at pay and prize money, gave strenuous service when the former was punctual and the latter plentiful, and became heedless and indifferent when they failed. Sailors have been always much more interested in their material prosperity in this world than the prospects of their future welfare in the next. Nor does the rule of the saints appear to have spiritualised the proverbial hard swearing of the service.

Inception of Class Feeling.

It is, however, from this period that dates that sense of solidarity among officers and men which is at once the sign and consequence of an organised and continuous service. Hitherto the permanent executive force in peace time had consisted of a few subordinate officers and some 200 or 300 shipkeepers, many of whom were not even seamen. When a fleet was prepared, the ships were commanded by captains for whom sea service was only an episode, and officered and manned by men who came from, and were immediately sent back to, the merchant service on the completion of their cruise. But between 1642 and 1660 every available English sailor must have passed a large portion of those years on the state’s ships; and the captains and officers were kept in nearly continuous employment, with the result of the formation of a class feeling, and the growth of especial manners and habits, characteristic of men working under conditions which removed them from frequent contact with their fellows. The numerous notices in Restoration literature of the particular appearance, modes of expression, and bearing, stamping the man-of-war officer—references never before made—show how rapidly the new circumstances had produced their effect.

The other Officers.

When captains showed themselves so ready to steal it might have been expected that officers of lower rank would follow, and even improve upon, the pattern set them, but this did not prove to be the case. Although, of course, there are many flagrant cases recorded, the number of officers charged with fraud or theft is not only relatively less, considering the much larger aggregate employed, than under Charles I, but also absolutely smaller for any equal series of years. Experience, gained during the civil war, had led to closer inspection and the introduction of safeguards which made theft neither so easy nor so free from risk, and further precautions were taken under the Commonwealth. Embezzlement by a captain could not be prevented, it could only be punished: but the regulations which made it easy for him might make it difficult for his gunner or boatswain. The first step, taken in 1649, was to raise the wages of those officers who were in charge of stores, a measure recommended long before by Holland and every other reformer. In 1651 the Navy Commissioners were directed to consider how the frauds, still numerous among officers, might be best dealt with, and this was probably the cause of an order the next year that sureties should be required from pursers, boatswains, and others for the honest performance of their duties.[1415] These sureties were usually entered into by two persons, and were sometimes as high as £600.

That some such method was necessary, at least with the pursers, is evident from the following catalogue of their ‘chief’ abuses, drawn up by the Navy Commissioners in 1651:[1416] (1) They forge their captains’ signatures; (2) make false entries of men; (3) falsify the time men have served; (4) sign receipts for a full delivery of stores and compound with the victualling agents for the portion not received; (5) do not send in their accounts for one voyage till they are again sailing; (6) charge the men with clothes not sold to them; and (7) execute their places by deputy while they stop on shore. The principal reforms suggested by the Commissioners were that bonds should be required, that stewards should be employed for the victualling, that pursers should in future sail as clerks of the check, with limited powers, and that all their papers should be countersigned by the captain. These measures were all adopted, but a further recommendation that a pillory should be erected near the Navy Office for their especial use was not, apparently, acted upon. When one purser openly declared that he cared not how the seamen starved if he could ‘make £500 or £600 a year out of their bellies,’ it was full time to apply to his kind the treatment exercised by governments on such dangerous idealists as constitutional reformers.

The Commissioners had set themselves a hard task in the inculcation of honesty, for that sentiment which still regards lightly cheats on a government was strongly against them. When Dover was searched, in 1653, large quantities of stolen cordage, sold from the ships, were discovered, and Bourne found that ‘these embezzlements are so common that the people declare that they think it no wrong to the state.’ Still in the long run they were more successful than their predecessors had been, and the trials for embezzlement became fewer after 1653. Their treatment of the pursers had the best results, judging from the small number of those officers who came up for judgment; these gentlemen did not at all like the new rules and at first mostly refused to sail as clerks of the check. For reasons unknown, unless it was that they had become more trustworthy and that the new system was in some respects cumbrous, the clerks were abolished in 1655 and the pursers reinstated in their old powers, pecuniary guarantees in the shape of the bonds still being required from them.[1417] It must have been a very new and unpleasant experience to some of these men, who many of them remembered the free hand they were allowed before 1640, to find themselves before a court-martial for acts they had come to look upon as natural to their places. One steward attempted to evade an accusation of embezzlement by declaring that the rats had eaten his books; he might have improved his defence by producing some of the victuallers’ ‘salt horse,’ and showing that his books, being tenderer and more nutritious, were more likely to tempt the rats. In the trial of another we have some account of the mode of proceeding. The prisoner, Joshua Hunt, was tried under the twenty-eighth article of war before Lawson and twelve commanding officers, and was himself sworn and examined. By the twenty-eighth article the character of the penalty is left to the decision of the court, and Hunt was given the option of making restitution or of undergoing punishment. In making his report, Monk remarked that the prisoner had only been found out in that which most stewards did, and that he would be sent up to London to give his friends or sureties the opportunity of making amends; if they failed to do this he was to be returned to the fleet for corporal punishment at the decision of a further court-martial.[1418] This form of sentence was very frequent, and gunners, boatswains, and stewards were ordinarily fined the value of the stores stolen, and committed to prison until it was paid.

The wide discretion left to the courts-martial led to great inequality in the sentences, especially when an example could be made without losing the stores or their money value. A carpenter was tried for theft; he confessed to the intention, and partly to the act, but returned the articles before arrest. He was, however, ordered to be taken from ship to ship in the Downs, with a paper describing his offence affixed to his breast, the paper being read at each ship’s side, to be thrice ducked from the yardarm, and to be cashiered. Obviously it was more profitable and less dangerous not to stop halfway in theft. In 1653 is found a rather remarkable sentence: Wm. Haycock, carpenter’s mate of the Hound, was, for ‘drunkenness, swearing, and uncleanness,’ ordered, among other things, ten lashes at the side of each flagship. Haycock has the distinction of being the first recorded victim of the form of punishment which afterwards developed into the devilish torture known as ‘flogging round the fleet.’ It became comparatively common during the reign of Charles II.

At Chatham, in 1655 the authorities appear to have discovered and broken up a gang of receivers, of whom one had an estate of £5000 obtained from thefts from the ships and yards. A hoyman, Dunning, confessed to having conveyed 500 barrels of powder from the men-of-war at Chatham and Deptford within four years. When pressed for particulars, he exclaimed, ‘Alas! shall I undo a thousand families? Shall I undo so many? I did not think you would put me upon it to do so!’ Finding that this appeal, instead of silencing, only whetted his examiners’ curiosity, he had at last to name eighteen ships whose gunners had given him powder to remove.[1419] The Admiralty employed detectives of their own to find out thefts, but on more than one occasion these men turned thieves themselves. The aforesaid Dunning bought a cable from one of them; another was found ‘to have unduly abused his trust,’ but a third was granted £15 for proving the larcenies of captain Cadman. Sometimes, when the amount was small, the Admiralty, instead of bringing offenders to trial, deducted the estimated value of their embezzlements from wages;[1420] evidently punishment was very uncertain in extent, but the practical impunity of former times could no longer be reckoned on.

In some few instances the Admiralty had to deal with difficulties of another nature among the officers. Richard Knowlman, a gunner, and described as a Quaker, wrote to the Commissioners that he had served by sea and land from 1641, and was still willing to continue in any other capacity, since ‘I would be free to act against all deceit ... for I see most men, especially those in the navy and of most rank and quality, are corrupted.’ Knowlman could not have expressed less respect for the average official had he enjoyed access to the State Papers, but on the whole his was one of the very rare eras when such doubts were unjust. Another master gunner had, for two months, refused to fire a gun, ‘lest blood might be spilt,’ and a third insisted on preaching to the crew of the Fame, who by no means appreciated his amateur ministrations. In three instances chaplains are found accused of drunkenness, but their presence on board ship was not invariable, and their influence appears to have been very slight. One was tried for forging Monk’s signature.

The Commissioners’ Success.

The habits of half a century were not to be at once overthrown, but after 1655 references to thefts became far fewer; and the Navy Commissioners could congratulate themselves on having done much to extinguish customs which had gone far to destroy the vitality of the former Royal Navy. The want of trust, that long experience had shown to be justifiable in gunners, carpenters, and boatswains, who had been, and were still to a certain extent, treated as officers, may have been one reason why lieutenants were now always attached to ships, except fifth- and sixth-rates. Another may probably be found in the growing demand for scientific seamanship, an accomplishment the former class had little opportunity of acquiring. Whatever the cause, the effect was to thrust the gunners and their compeers lower down in the social scale, to lose them that respect on shipboard they had hitherto possessed, to lessen their authority, and so quicken the downward movement. We are told that, a generation later, it was as usual to strike them as to strike the men, and that they had to ‘fawn like spaniels’ on the lieutenants to retain favour or position. The lieutenants must have been found much more satisfactory; in the whole series of papers relating to this period there is no instance of one being tried by court-martial, and only one in which such an officer got into any trouble. His captain put him in irons, but the reason is not given. Lieutenants were occasionally appointed to the naval service in the reign of Elizabeth, but the Dutch war may be taken as the period where their position became permanent. In June 1652, Sir Wm. Penn, then vice-admiral, writing to Cromwell, gave expression to the unanimous desire of his colleagues that such a rank should be allowed in all ships carrying 150 men.

Another difficulty the Commissioners had to contend with was the forging of seamen’s tickets, an old form of crime which grew in extent with the employment of so many more men. The Navy Commissioners, in advance of their time, recognised that the only legal penalty, death, was too severe, and practically prevented any punishment.[1421] The Navy department was not the only one which suffered from these forgers, who were all more or less connected with each other; in the same year forgeries of public faith bills to the amount of £115,000 were discovered. Some of these men were in league with clerks in the Navy and prize offices, and obtained the necessary papers and information from them. At a later date one of the gang confessed, when in prison, that the total of the public faith bill and other forgeries was nearly £500,000.[1422] In 1656 a new plan was tried: ‘to prevent the many frauds and deceits formerly practised,’ the Commissioners were ordered to send the Treasurer, daily or weekly, an abstract of all the bills or tickets they signed authorising payment of money. Subsequently the Admiralty Commissioners obtained power to themselves commit offenders to prison. Nicholas Harnaman, for instance, was sent to Bridewell with hard labour ’till further order,’ for counterfeiting tickets.[1423]

Officers’ Pay.

Officers’ pay was raised in March 1649, and again in 1653, after which latter date there was no alteration.[1424] It then stood per month at:—

1st Rate 2nd Rate 3rd Rate 4th Rate 5th Rate 6th Rate

£ s d £ s d £ s d £ s d £ s d £ s d

Captain 21 0 0 16 16 0 14 0 0 10 0 0 8 8 0 7 0 0

Lieutenant 4 4 0 4 4 0 3 10 0 3 10 0

Master 7 0 0 6 6 0 4 13 8 4 6 2 3 7 6 [1425]

Master’s mate or pilot 3 6 0 3 0 0 2 16 2 2 7 10 2 2 0 2 2 0

Midshipman 2 5 0 2 0 0 1 17 6 1 13 9 1 10 0 1 10 0

Boatswain 4 0 0 3 10 0 3 0 0 2 10 0 2 5 0 2 0 0

Boatswain’s mate 1 15 0 1 15 0 1 12 0 1 10 0 1 8 0 1 6 0

Quartermaster 1 15 0 1 15 0 1 12 0 1 10 0 1 8 0 1 6 0

Quartermaster’s mate 1 10 0 0 10 0 1 8 0 1 8 0 1 6 0 1 5 0

Carpenter 4 0 0 3 10 0 3 0 0 2 10 0 2 5 0 2 0 0

Carpenter’s mate 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 16 0 1 14 0 1 12 0 1 10 0

Gunner 4 0 0 3 1 0 3 0 0 2 10 0 2 5 0 2 0 0

Gunner’s mate 1 15 0 1 15 0 1 12 0 1 10 0 1 8 0 1 6 0

Surgeon 2 10 0 2 10 0 2 10 0 2 10 0 2 10 0 2 10 0

Corporal 1 15 0 1 12 0 1 10 0 1 10 0 1 8 0 1 5 0

Purser 4 0 0 3 10 0 3 0 0 2 10 0 2 5 0 2 0 0

Master Trumpeter[1426] 1 10 0 1 8 0 1 5 0 1 5 0 1 5 0 1 4 0

Cook 1 5 0 1 5 0 1 5 0 1 5 0 1 5 0 1 4 0

Guns and Ordnance Stores.

When Parliament began the rapid construction of new ships some of its members may have had misgivings about getting the crews to man them, but few probably anticipated the future difficulties in procuring the guns wherewith to arm them. Geo. Browne, for so many years the royal gunfounder, was still almost the only maker, and his works were unequal to the increased demands.[1427] In March and April 1652, when war appeared certain, 335 guns were immediately required to equip only part of the Navy,[1428] but the authorities were already reduced to such straits as to be compelled to send searchers about London to try to find ordnance.[1429] A month later some of the inland strongholds were disarmed, and 84 brass and 544 iron guns thus obtained; the sale of ordnance taken in prizes was strictly prohibited, and, in the course of the year, guns were hired at ten and twelve shillings each a month. In December the ordnance officials announced that 1500 iron pieces, weighing 2230 tons, at £26 a ton, were required, the same number of carriages at from 21s to 31s 3d each, 117,000 round and double-headed shot, 5000 hand grenades at 2s 6d each, 12,000 barrels of corn powder at £4 10s a barrel, and 150 tons of breechings and tackle at £50 a ton.[1430] To meet these wants they had in store only 121 guns and 34,000 rounds.[1431] In February 1653 the contracts were made for these guns, but, very soon after they were entered into, the officials saw that the deliveries would be at ‘a vast distance from our pressing occasions,’ for not only was the Tower empty but the ports were also destitute of munition, and, at Portsmouth, they were in April ‘at a stand’ for powder and shot.

All that Browne and Foley could promise was to deliver 140 guns in October, 190 in February 1654, 254 in June, 230 in October, and 86 in June 1655; but, as 500 were still to be sent in on old contracts, their engagements could hardly be relied on. Fifty tons of shot and 5000 hand grenades they promised for June, 50 tons in September, and 100 more by March 1654. In the meantime ships intended to serve as armed merchantmen were actually waiting uselessly for 117 guns, which the Ordnance department could not procure anywhere.[1432] The immediate outlook for powder was no better, since there was instant demand for 2780 barrels and only 500 in store, while the contractors were only bound to supply 660 barrels a month. Here, however, the further prospect was more favourable, as there were many powder-makers at work and the government could purchase quantities at Hamburg.

The staff of the Ordnance office was very much larger, proportionately, than that of the Admiralty. It employed, at yearly salaries, a surveyor, £194; clerk, £215; storekeeper, £216; clerk of the delivery, £166; master gunner of England, £121; keeper of the small gun office, £66; messenger, £60; two furbishers, £12 each; and twenty labourers at £21 each.[1433] Its management had mended considerably since 1640, but the improvement did not avail to save its independence in 1653 when it became a department of the Admiralty. In February 1654 matters were so far better that there were 2359 barrels of powder and 38,000 round and other shot in hand, but still no guns in reserve. There are no complaints about the quality of the powder supplied during the Dutch war, but, in 1655 and 1656, accusations against the makers, who were said to ‘use some sleight to make it Tower-proof on delivery, but it does not long continue good nor abide change of weather,’ became numerous. All that the authorities could do was to call upon the manufacturers to make it good, or, if they preferred, take it back with a licence to export it abroad; 6827 out of 15,098 barrels recently furnished were defective, and, by an order of 2nd April 1656, the Council gave the contractors the choice between these courses and being committed to prison. The makers, however, had something to say on their side. Like most other naval purveyors they had not been paid, and even to get any money on account were sometimes compelled, under threats of still longer postponement, to repair Hamburg powder at 17s a barrel when the real price should have been £2, naturally with unsatisfactory results. Some attributed all the mischief to the Hamburg importations, but most of them seem to have gone into the business without any expert knowledge, simply with a view of profiting by the sudden demand for war material.[1434]

The form of reparation exacted was manifestly unfair: instead of each maker being required to substitute good for whatever bad powder he had sent in they were called upon to replace it in proportion to their contracts. Thus Josias Devey was made liable for 461 barrels instead of the 141 which were faulty in the number he had supplied, and apparently he would have fared just as badly if his powder had been excellent down to the last pound.[1435] As some of the manufacturers had delivered 50 per cent., or more, of inferior quality, the probable explanation of this not very honourable proceeding is to be found in the fear of the Council that the worst culprits would be pecuniarily unable to make amends if assessed at their full liability. Wapping seems to have been a manufacturing district, since, in July 1657, there was an explosion of powder mills, or stores, there which injured many people and damaged 846 houses to the extent of £10,000.

The Dockyards.

The enlargements and improvements of the dockyards were not as considerable as might have been expected in view of the increased number of ships, and the space required for their accommodation. These requirements were partly met by the greater use made of Plymouth, and making Dover and Harwich stations where ships might obtain provisions and minor repairs. Harwich, largely used for a few years in the middle of the sixteenth century, had been found of some service during the civil war, but the movements of the fleets in the North Sea, and off the coast of Holland, brought both it and Dover into prominence. The latter port was not utilised till 1653, and was never very freely used, although the quarterly accounts sometimes reached £700 or £800; both it and Portsmouth were supplied with stores from Deptford. Bourne, from the date of his appointment as Navy Commissioner, took up his residence at Harwich, and remained there till March 1658. Monk’s testimony to his ability and success has already been quoted, although he had none of the appliances available in the older yards. But in 1657 ground was rented from the corporation, for a permanent government yard and wharf, on a ninety-nine year lease at £5 a year.[1436] Plymouth was employed mainly for victualling the ships on the western Channel station, as Dover was for those eastwards, and, to a certain extent, for repairs, although its exposed roadstead was no favourite with captains whose vessels were fit to put to sea. Blake evidently did not like it; ‘the unsafeness and hazard of this road, which to us is worse than a prison, is enough to scare us hence.’

One way of gauging the relative importance of the dockyards is to compare the stores in hand at a given date. We are enabled to do this for February and June 1659, as follows:—[1437]

Chatham Woolwich Deptford Portsmouth Plymouth Harwich

Anchors 108 129 62 17 13

Masts 356 724 269 498 95 67

Cables 106 29 272 70 42 63

Loads of timber[1438] 1500 322 416 508 [1439] 79

Tree-nails 80,000 122,000 93,000 2000

Compasses 180 144[1440]

Hemp 100 tons 75 tons 63½ tons

Noyals canvas 23,000 yds. 10,600 yds. 2000 yds. 4850 yds.

Vittery ” 1800 ells 25,000 ells 380 ells

Ipswich ” 272 bolts[1441] 5½ bolts

English ” 240 bolts 7650 yds. 370 yds.

Tar and pitch 30 lasts 99 barrels 95 barrels

Hammocks 900 1200 700 2020

Owing to want of money the magazines were very low at this date, but the relation shown here would doubtless always exist. Harwich and Plymouth can refit ships which have suffered in spars, fittings, or canvas; Chatham, Woolwich, and Deptford build or repair, while Portsmouth is equipped for all purposes. Hitherto all masts had been obtained from the Baltic, but in 1652 the government tried the experiment of sending two vessels to New England for them, and the results were so satisfactory that henceforth a proportion of masts from the colonies is found in all the lists of dockyard stores. The English canvas is elsewhere described as west country canvas, and was principally made in Somersetshire; its manufacture was due to Geo. Pley, afterwards government agent at Weymouth and governor of Portland, who successfully urged its use upon the Admiralty. It cost 1s 7d or 1s 8d a yard, and was dearer than French canvas, but considered better.[1442]

In 1653 there was a double dry dock at Chatham, Woolwich, and Deptford respectively,[1443] and one at Blackwall, probably in the East India Company’s yard; these were the only docks directly belonging to, or available by, the state. No addition appears to have been made to Chatham yard except the purchase of a wharf and storehouse adjoining the old dock in 1656.[1444] In October 1653 a contractor from Chatham was either repairing an old, or constructing a new, dock at Deptford;[1445] and in 1657 some wharves were built there along the waterside.[1446] A new dry dock was ordered for Woolwich in 1653[1447] and completed the next year;[1448] storehouses were built in 1656;[1449] and two years later a lease was taken from John Rymill, butcher, of London, of one acre of land, known as Chimney Marsh, on the east side of Ham Creek, ‘next to the state’s yard,’ for ten years, at £4 a year.[1450] The sizes of the yards may, perhaps, be inferred from the number of watchmen attached to each—Chatham, 32; Deptford, 18; Woolwich, 16; and Portsmouth, 13.

Dockyards:—Portsmouth.

Portsmouth, if the smallest of the chief yards, became under the Commonwealth one of the busiest and most important. In June 1649 one of five new frigates was ordered to be laid down there; this vessel, the Portsmouth, was duly launched in 1650, and, with the doubtful exception of the Jennett, in ‘new making’ at Portsmouth in 1559, was the first man-of-war of the modern Royal Navy built at that place since the Mary Rose and Peter Pomegranate of 1509 were first floated in the harbour.[1451] The dry dock so often recommended and ordered under Charles I was, however, not yet existent. It was urged that one-third of the Navy ought to be permanently stationed at the port, but in 1652 the Commissioner in charge complained that there was not room for the stores required for the few ships usually there. From a survey of 1653 we obtain, so far as names go, a statement of the number of buildings in the dockyard; they are upper and lower storehouses, upper and lower hemp houses, block loft, old rope-maker’s house, office and nail loft, canvas room, hammock room, kettle room, iron loft, tar house, oil house, sail loft, and top-makers’ and boat-makers’ house.[1452]

Less than twenty years earlier Russell had found that work done at Portsmouth was 100 per cent. dearer than at the other yards, but Willoughby had altered that, and now boasted that he could build 20 per cent. cheaper than elsewhere, although all the skilled artisans required in naval work had to be sent down, there seeming to be as yet no population attached to or living on the dockyard. He desired that five and a half acres of adjoining ground should be purchased, a rope yard erected, and the whole yard surrounded by a brick wall 73 perches in length.[1453] Therefore in 1653 and 1654 the Navy Commissioners were directed to take a lease of an acre and a half of the ground recommended, to set up a rope-yard, and to build the wall.[1454] In December 1655 Willoughby put before the Commissioners the difficulty in carrying on the ordinary work, ‘we wanting the benefit of a dock,’ and at this time the staff, recently reduced in strength, numbered 180 men. In the following April Bourne and captain John Taylor, a shipwright of Chatham, were sent down to consult with Willoughby as to the best position for a dry dock which was to be ‘forthwith made.’[1455] On their report an order issued in August that one of sufficient capacity to take third-rates was to occupy the situation of the existing graving dock, and that it was not to cost more than £3200, of which the town, presumably in the hope of attracting trade and inhabitants, was willing to contribute £500.[1456] In November Taylor was instructed to go to Portsmouth and superintend its construction, but he energetically protested that he knew nothing about dock-building and would, under such circumstances, only make himself ridiculous. It was therefore put in the hands of Nicholas Poirson, who signed the contract on 24th November, by which he undertook to complete it by the following 20th July, for £2100, the government providing the materials and the corporation £500 of this sum.[1457]

Shipwrights and Workmen.

There were still a sufficient number of abuses in connection with the dockyards, but the flagrant thefts customary under Charles I had been largely diminished. Members of the Pett family occupied responsible positions in the three home yards, and either they used their power to ill purpose, or their favour with the authorities was no passport to the love of their subordinates. In 1651 there was what would now be advertised as a great scandal at Chatham; all the chief officers, and many of the workmen, were accusing each other of misdeeds in a way which necessitated a governmental commission of inquiry, empowered to take evidence on oath. The light in which the Petts were regarded is shown by a remark made by one man to another that he dared not speak, ‘for fear of being undone by the kindred ... they were all so knit together that the devil himself could not discover them except one impeached the other.’ The result of the inquiry was a resolution that all the accused, on both sides, should retain their places, a decision more likely to be due to the impossibility of displacing experienced officers when war was imminent than to any inability to form an opinion.

The yearly salary of the master shipwright at Chatham was £103, 8s 4d, Deptford the same, and Woolwich £70. The building programme of the government naturally tempted these men to add to their salaries the profits to be made by having private yards for the construction of men-of-war. Holland pointed out that this led to the shipwright’s absence from the state’s yard, to the exchange of good government workmen for bad of his own, and that usually a frigate turned out from a shipwright’s yard cost the country twice as much as one from a dockyard.[1458] Holland commented on another evil, the existence of beerhouses in the dockyards, ‘necessary at first, now one of the greatest abuses in the Navy.’ At least one ‘searcher’ was employed to prevent theft from the dockyards; but, judging from the small number of such cases reported, the precautions taken or the higher standard induced in the men, had greatly altered former conditions for the better. In one instance, however, the want of honesty shown by two men was attributed—it is painful to have to confess here—to their habit of reading ‘histrye books.’ The wages of shipwrights and caulkers were raised in April 1650 from 1s 10d to 2s 1d a day, and again in 1652 to 2s 2d; they appear to have been punctually paid to a later date than the seamen, but in 1656, when they also were beginning to suffer from the emptiness of the treasury and their wages to fall into arrear, the Council, with the dry humour of officialism, ordered ‘an exact and punctual inspection and examination’ quarterly of their accounts. By 1658 they had, mostly, twelve months’ wages owing, but their murmurs were not nearly so loud as those of the seamen. Frequently during 1659 they were working half-time or less, for want of materials. In March 1660 there were not 100 yards of canvas remaining at either Woolwich or Deptford, the contractors would not supply more without ready money; and we may assume that other necessaries were equally lacking.[1459] During part of 1659 there was only one forge going at Portsmouth, John Timbrell, the anchor-smith, having received no money for two years, and having been compelled to dismiss his men, being unable to procure iron on credit. Timbrell was mayor of the town in 1662, so that the Restoration apparently relieved him of his troubles.

In September 1658 the Happy Entrance was destroyed by fire at Chatham, a mishap attributed to carelessness on the part of the men at work on her, and the absence of supervision of the superior officials. This caused the promulgation of an order the following month that no member of the superior dockyard staff should absent himself without leave from the Commissioner, and he only by permission of the Admiralty or Navy Commissioners, with a general penalty of dismissal for disobedience.[1460] This order was to be framed and hung up in each yard. White’s invention of 1634 of iron mooring chains, noticed previously, was now taken up by the government, and some were laid down at Chatham, Deptford, and Woolwich for ships to ride at, two to a chain. Mooring places for the use of merchantmen were granted to White, Bourne and others at a rental of £5 a year.[1461] The dockyard chains weighed 2 cwt. 2 qrs. 14 lbs. to a fathom, cost fivepence a pound, and were guaranteed for two years.[1462] In 1658 a boom was ordered to be placed across the Medway at Upnor, but there is reason to believe that the order was not carried out.

Dean Forest.

Among the Commonwealth experiments was that of using the wood and iron ore of Dean Forest for the manufacture of iron for the supply of the dockyards and private purchasers. As a ton of iron could be made there for £3, 10s, and a ton of shot for £4, and sold respectively at £7 and £9, the enterprise was more profitable than most government undertakings.[1463] In 1656 the stock in hand was valued at £9446, which stood as net gain, all expenses being cleared;[1464] but, as Major Wade, who was in charge, thought that one or two hundred tons of iron thrown upon the market ‘would surfeit the whole country,’ it was rather a book profit than an actual one. However, from September 1654 to March 1659 Dean Forest supplied the Navy with 701 tons of shot and 88 tons of iron fittings; and from Sept. 1656 to April 1660 with 2300 tons of timber and 123,000 tree-nails,[1465] the saving thus effected being alone a sufficient justification of the new department. The plentiful yield of timber suggested the advisability of building frigates on the spot, and the Grantham was launched at Lidney in 1654; she was followed by the Forester, and then the Princess remained long in hand, since Furzer, the master shipwright, was receiving only £2 a week of the £15 necessary to meet expenses. In October 1659 he wrote to the Navy Commissioners that instead of attending to his duties he was forced to be away two or three days in the week trying to borrow money.

Naval Expenditure.

The following table, drawn up from the Audit Office Declared Accounts, shows the general expenditure for this period in round figures:—

Amounts received and paid by Treasurer Already owing Victualling Deptford[1466] Woolwich Chatham Portsmouth Wages

£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £

1649[1467] } 432,000 233,500 149,000 8700[1468] 8786 23,768 5292

1650

1651 446,000 129,000 51,000 10,163 7776 19,089 3783

1652 629,000 238,000 88,000 10,900 8381 22,744 6860 304,000

1653[1469] 1,445,000 335,000 269,000 12,600 12,500 29,000 13,700 227,000

1654 1,117,000 450,000 230,000 11,700 13,500 22,500 15,700 225,000

1655 587,000 466,000 70,000 8700 7600 21,800 7700

1656 791,000 473,000 209,000[1470] 8000 7000 20,000 7000

1657 746,000 506,000 9000 10,300 19,400 6200 311,000[1471]

1658[1472] } 1,442,000 714,000 11,800 18,000 25,000 9000 447,000

1660

1660 1,056,000[1473]

The Commonwealth began its naval administration hampered by a debt of £233,000, and it will be seen that, with the exception of 1650, during which year the arrears were partly paid off, it steadily grew in amount. But comparing the national revenue, which had also to support a standing army, with the sums devoted to the Navy, the wonder seems to be that the debt was not larger. For the financial year ending 29th September 1657 the total public income was £1,050,000, and of this £809,000 was assigned to naval purposes; for 1658 £951,000, of which the Navy took £624,000.[1474] The receipts for 1659 were put at £1,517,000,[1475] and the Navy estimates at £848,000[1476].

The strain began to be most seriously felt from 1653, when, in September, the Navy Commissioners warned their chiefs that £1,115,000 was required before 31st December, without including the cost of the vessels on the stocks or that of the winter fleet; no provision, they said, had been made for this and ‘we find it necessary to lay before you the daily clamours we undergo for want thereof.’[1477] In October 1654 the Admiralty Commissioners apprised the Protector that the credit of the Government was so greatly impaired that stores could not be obtained except for ready money; yet £1,117,000 in cash passed through the Treasurer’s hands in this year. This sum was procured from many sources—excise, £262,000; treasurer-at-wars, £424,000; customs, £162,000; ‘profits arising by probate of wills,’ £1163; commissioners for Dutch prizes, £2029; commissioners for prize goods, £44,000; treasurer at Drury House, £16,000;[1478] Col. Barkstead,[1479] £44,000; from the exchequer, £131,000; and defalcations and sale of stores, £31,000. Notwithstanding these receipts the Admiralty Commissioners wrote in April 1655 to the Council that they had only been able to pay seamen’s wages, that all other debts remained unpaid, and that the yards were exhausted of stores.[1480] Straitened as they were, the Council, two months later, were not deterred from ordering 2000 Bibles for the soldiers in the West Indies, although the fact that the commissioners of the treasury had to ‘consider’ how they could be paid for seems to imply that Bibles were no more to be obtained on credit than cordage. On at least one occasion Oliver appears to have himself advanced £10,000 to the Navy Office.[1481]

The debt increased, but the revenue did not show the same elasticity; all that the Admiralty Commissioners could do, themselves almost daily invoked by the Navy Commissioners, was to carry on the appeal to the Council, ‘finding every day a sad increase of the just complaints of several persons for money long since due.’ This was in 1658, but in March of the following year they wrote bitterly to the Council that, while such large debts were contracted and they were struggling with difficulties, it made them ‘exceeding unhappy’ to see that even their assignments on the customs were not handed over to them in full.[1482] In May 1659, among other items, £330,000 was owing for seamen’s and £43,000 for dockyard wages, and the £735 a week paid by the Navy Treasurer to the Savoy and Ely House hospitals was six months over-due.[1483] In September the army commissioners were directed to hand over £60,000 for naval purposes, although the soldiers’ pay was months in arrear. When the Commonwealth accounts close on 7th July 1660 the debt was £1,056,000.[1484] For this large sum every year from 1640 furnished its quota, thus detailed:—1640-9, £10,200; 1650, £71,000; 1651, £25,000; 1652, £16,000; 1653, £11,000; 1654, £5000; 1655, £50,000; 1656, £229,000; 1657, £218,000; 1660, £421,000. That the earlier amounts were not merely book debts carried forward for want of claimants is shown by the existence of a petition, of April 1658, begging for the settlement of a bill for freight incurred between 1643 and 1651.[1485] These liabilities, belonging to only one branch of the public service, help to explain why many classes of society, not actively royalist, may have welcomed a restoration which promised a settlement of debts and a more stable financial system.

Flags and The Salute.

When the St George’s cross was made the national flag in February 1648-9, it was also ordered that an escutcheon should be carried on the stern of each man-of-war, containing a red cross in one compartment and a harp in another. In 1653 the three Generals at sea used, besides their standards, a pendant of red, white, or blue, at the main, and their vice- and rear-admirals their respective colours at the fore and mizen. From 18th May 1658 the standard of the General of the fleet was to bear the arms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, ‘with his Highnes’ escutcheon of pretence according to the great seal of England.’ The jack flag for admirals was to consist of the arms of England and Scotland united, ‘according to the ancient form,’ with the harp added, ‘according to a model now shown.’[1486] All saluting, whether from ships or forts, was strictly forbidden in 1652, except in honour of ambassadors; but the salute to the flag from foreigners was firmly upheld under all circumstances. By the treaty of 5th April 1654, the Dutch formally acknowledged the English right to the salute in the ‘British seas.’ In 1657 Opdam, with thirty Dutch sail, passing Dover struck his flag and saluted the castle; shortly afterwards he met the Dragon and the Colchester, whose captains ordered him again to strike. He refused, saying that he was not expected to pay this mark of respect to every ship he met, whereupon they replied that if he did not they would engage him till they sank alongside. Then ‘he struck in a great rage,’ and kept his flag down till out of sight of the Englishmen. Man-of-war captains sometimes displayed the same feeling of pride in their position at the expense of English ships. In 1654 a Virginiaman was run down and sunk in the Channel by the Ruby. In the subsequent inquiry the master of the merchantman held that the Ruby should have gone astern of his vessel, to which her captain retorted by asking, ‘How many men-of-war have you known go under a merchantman’s stern?’

Prices.

The prices of naval stores varied greatly, according to the confidence felt in the treasury and conditions of peace or war; the following are the rates for some of the principal articles:—

Iron Ordnance

1650, £20 a ton

1653, £26 ”

Canvas

Noyals, 1652, £15 to £17 a bale[1487]

Noyals, 1654, £19, 7s a bale

Vitery, 1654, 1s a yard

Vitery, 1655, 1s 4d an ell

Ipswich, 1654, £1, 12s a bolt

Ipswich, 1655, £1, 7s 9d a bolt

Hemp

1653, £32 a ton (English)

1655, £38, 10s a ton (Riga)

1657, £44 a ton (Riga)

1658, £46 a ton (Riga)

1658, £33 a ton (English)

1658, £38 a ton (Russia)

Anchors

1656, £34 a ton

” £37 ”

Powder

1650, £3, 16s a barrel

1652, £4 ”

1653, £4, 10s ”

Plank

1653, £2, 18s a load

1655, £3, 7s ”

1657, £3, 5s ” (oak)

1659, £3, 15s ” ”

Small Arms

Snaphaunces, 1658, 11s 6d each

Matchlocks, 1658, 10s 6d each

Carbines, 1658, 11s each

Pistols, 1658, 14s a pair

Black Rosin

1655, £10, 10s a ton

1657, £10 a ton (Mar.)

1657, £9, 5s ” (Aug.)

Compass Timber

1656, £2, 5s a load

1658, £3 ”

Cordage

1649, £30 a ton

1656, £44 ”

1657, £48 ”

1658, £44 ”

Shot

1652, £11, 10s a ton

1653, £14 a ton

Tar

1654, £1, 15s a barrel

1655, £10, 12s a last

1656, £12 a last

1657, £12, 10s a last

1658, £13 a last

Pitch

1654, £1, 16s a barrel

1655, £15, 5s a last

Beer

1654, £1, 15s a tun

1659, £2, 5s ”

Sprutia[1488] Deals

1656, 12s 6d each

1659, 14s ”

Ordinary Deals

1657, £4, 3s per 100 of six score

Whale Oil

1659, £26, 15s a ton

English Tallow

1658, £2, 3s per cwt.

Lignum Vitæ for blocks

1656, £6, 15s a ton

Examples of that incongruity of expression usually associated with Puritan fervour are not frequent among the Navy papers, but they do occasionally occur. On one occasion Lawson writes, ‘All that look towards Zion should hold Christian communion—we have all the guns aboard.’ Major Robert Sedgwick, starting for the West Indies, asks the Navy Commissioners, after official details, for ‘your prayers that we may be sent out with a blessing and be a blessing where we go.’ Major Sedgwick’s duties were to kill Spaniards, plunder their property, and annex their territory. These men were too grimly earnest in the work they set their hands to do to trouble themselves about fine phrases. They lacked humour, and the court of Charles II was, we are taught, very witty; but when, in 1667, the roar of foreign guns was, for the only time in English history, heard in London, even that majority which always loves a royal jest must have begun to appreciate the distinction underlying Stewart wit and Puritan dulness.