ePub 版
[blocks in formation]

In Campbell's "Lives of the Admirals,” a full list is given of the names, tonnage, and crews of all the ships of Elizabeth's navy, at the time of her death in 1603. From this memorandum we learn that she left forty-two ships, their aggregate burthen being 16,915 tons, exclusive of one ship (probably of 200 tons) the tonnage of which is not given. Casting up the columns, we find that the mariners of this fleet numbered 5,534; the gunners, 804; the soldiers, 2,008; in all 8,346 men ; but this does not include the crews of three of the smaller vessels. The first-raters were from 900 to 1,000 tons; and many range from 400 to 800 tons. Altogether, it must be admitted that for the age this was a very powerful navy, provided that it was really maintained practically at its nominal strength, as above detailed. In looking over the list, it is curious to perceive that we yet retain in our navy the same names as those borne by several of Elizabeth's ships. For example, she had a Victory, a Warspight (Warspite), a Nonpareil, a Lion, a Defiance, a Dreadnought, a Swallow, a Tiger, &c. The names of some of her ships are singular, as the White Bear, the Ark Royal, the Mer-Honeur, the Due Repulse, the

Garland, the Foresight, the Tide, the Crane, the Answer, the Advantage, Tramontain, the Catis, the Moon, the Merlin, the Synnet, &c. Two only are named after saints-the Saint Matthew, and the Saint Andrew. We shrewdly suspect that these ships (both first-raters) were built in the time of her sister Mary, and the latter's consort, Philip of Spain. Her first-raters had each a crew comprised of 340 mariners, 40 gunners, and 120 soldiers-in all 500


We need hardly allude to the great sea captains of Elizabeth's reign. Every reader must be familiar with the names of Lord Howard of Effingham, the Lord High Admiral of England, Devereux, Earl of Essex, the Earl of Cumberland, Sir John Hawkins, Sir Francis Drake, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Martin Frobisher, Sir Robert Dudley, Sir Richard Grenville, and others who reflected the highest glory on the reign of their royal mistress. Perhaps not one of the above named great commanders was so chivalrously heroic as Sir R. Grenville, nor died so gloriously. In battle with a Spanish fleet he was surrounded by an overwhelming force, but refused to attempt to escape, saying that he would rather die than bring such dishonour on himself, his country, and his queen's ship; and after nearly all the crew of his ship, the Revenge, were killed or wounded, he surrendered only when absolutely compelled by the survivors. He died three days afterwards of his wounds, and his last words were truly memorable :---"Here die I, Richard Grenville, with a joyful and quiet mind; for that I have ended my life as a true soldier ought to do, fighting for his country, queen, religion, and honour, my soul willingly departing from this body, leaving behind the lasting fame of having behaved as every valiant soldier is bound to do." Lasting fame! Yea verily, thou noble sea captain, sans peur et sans reproche, thy dying words were prophetical, and thy honoured memory shall be worthily cherished by the latest posterity of these isles!

During Elizabeth's reign considerable progression in the building, &c., of men-of-war was manifested. Sir Richard Dudley (who became Duke of

Northumberland) was the most eminent naval architect of the age, He was undoubtedly a man of original genius, and he designed no less than seven new classes of war ships, and showed great foresight and ingenuity in his plans. With regard to the calibre of the ship guns at this period, we find a list in Sir William Monson's Naval Tracts (written in the time of Elizabeth and her successor), and he gives their names, their bores, their weight, their several charges of powder, and the weight of the shot they projected. The reader will be interested, or at least amused, by the quaint names of these pieces of ordnance, which we shall here give in the order of their several sizes. They werecannon royal, cannon, cannon serpentine, bastard cannon, demi-cannon, cannon petro, culverin, basilisk, demiculverin, bastard culverin, sacar, minion, faulcon, falconet, serpentine, rabanet. Some of them were of great size; the cannon royal weighed 8000 lbs., had a bore of 8 inches, a charge of 30lbs. of powder, and threw a shot of 66lbs. weight. We may remark that the charge of powder seems inordinate, but we believe that gunpowder in those days did not possess such an expansive and projectile force as that manufactured now. The medium sized ordnance seems to have been the demi-cannon, which weighed 4000 lbs.. had a bore of 63 inches, a charge of 18 lbs. of powder, and projected a shot of 30 lbs. The smallest was the rabanet, which weighed 300 lbs., had a bore of 1 inch, a charge of lb. of powder, and projected a shot of lb.

We have already given a copy of the naval "laws and ordinances" in the time of Richard I., and we now, as a fitting corollary, must not quit the reign of Elizabeth without quoting her "articles of war," which are abundantly curious and suggestive. Our authority is the Harleian MSS:

The executions and capital punishments I finde to be thus in Queene Elizabeth's time, aborde her own shippes. If anye one mann killed another, he was to be bounde to the dead mann, and soe thrown into the sea. lf anye one drew a weapon wherewith to stryke his captaine, he was to loose his righte hande. If anye one drew a weapon within borde, in anye waye of tumult or murder, he was to loose his righte hande. If anye one pilfered, or stole away anye goods or monies from anye of his fellows, he was to be thryse ducked at

the boltsprits, and then to be dragged at the bote's sterne, and sett on shoare upon the next land, with a lofe of Lread and a can of beere. If anye one practysed to steale awaye anye of her Majesty's shippes, the captaine was to cause him to be hanged by the heels untill his braines were beaten out against the shippe's sides, [!!!] and then to be cutt down and lett fall intoe the sea. If any one slept in his watche: for the first time, he was to be headed with a bucket of water; for the second time, he was to be haled upp by the wrysts, and to have two buckets of water poured into his sleeves; for the thyrd time, he was to be bounde to the main mast with plates of iron, and to have some gunn chambers or a baskett of bulletts tied to his arms, and soe to remain at the pleasure of the captaine; for the fourthe time, he was to be hanged at the boltsprits, with a can of beere and a biscotte of breade, and a sharp knife, and so to hange, and chuse whether he woulde cutt himself downe and fall into the sea, or hange still and starve. If anye one marriner or soldier stole awaye from her Majesty's service, without lycense of his captaine, he was to be hanged. If anye one mutinye about his allowede proportion of victuals, he was to be laid in the bilbocs during the captaine's plea sure. As for all pettie pilferings and commis. siones of that kinde, those were generallie punished with the whippe, the offender beinge for that purpose bounde faste to the capstan; and the waggerie and idleness of shippe boys paid by the boatswayne with a rodde; aud commonlie this execution is done upon Mondaye morninges, and is so frequentlie in use, that some meere seamen and saylers doe believe, in good earnest, that they shall never have a faire winde untill the poore boyes be dulie brought to the chest; that is, whipped every Mondaye morninge.

And so farewell to the great Elizabeth and her navy, which Shakespere doubtless had in view when he bade us imagine the-

[blocks in formation]

crease and efficiency. At his death, in 1625, he left a navy of 82 ships, then maintained at an annual expenditure of £50,000. He also expressly commanded a famous first-rater to be built, concerning which the following interesting account has been preserved: This year, 1610, the king built a most goodly ship for war, the keel whereof was one hundred and fourteen feet, and the cross-beam forty-four feet in length; she will carry sixty-four pieces of great ordnance, and is of the burden of fourteen hundred tons. This royal ship is double-built, and is most sumptuously adorned, within and without, with all manner of carving, painting, and rich gilding, being, in all respects, the greatest and goodliest ship that ever was built in England; and this glorious ship the king gave unto his son Henry, Prince of Wales; and on the 24th of September, the King, the Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, and the Lady Elizabeth, with many great lords, went unto Woolwich to see it launched, but, because of the narrowness of the dock, it could not then be launched; whereupon, the prince came the next morning by three o'clock, and then, at the launchiing thereof, the prince named it after his own dignity, and called it The Prince.' The great workmaster in building this ship was Mr. Phineas Pett, gentleman, sometime Master of Arts of Emanuel College, Cambridge."


One sentence in the above-"because of the narrowness of the dock, it could not then be launched"quires a word of explanation. Down even to a comparatively recent period, first-rate ships were actually built in dock, and so floated out when completed, it being thought too difficult and dangerous to build them on the stocks on level ground. We wonder what our fathers, only a single generation ago, would have thought of the practicability of moving a monster like the Great Eastern, which will, moreover, be launched broadside!

Little glory accrued to our navy during the hapless reign of Charles I., and yet we may suppose that the unfortunate king had its prosperity and augmentation at heart, for he levied a tax called "Ship Money" to the amount of £200,000; and this very tax for the (at least ostensible) support of the naval service, was, as is well

known, one of the oppressions which led to the civil war. Hampden and others refused to pay it, although their personal assessment was small, on the ground that it was an illegal and unconstitutional exaction. In 1637, Charles built the "Soveraigne of the Seas" (subsequently called the "Royal Sovereign") which far surpassed in size any former ship. Her extreme length was 232 feet, but her length of keel was only 128 feet, so that her rake of stem and stern, together, must have been enormous. Her breadth was 48 feet; and from the keel to the top of the poop lantern was 76 feet. She had five lanterns, and the largest could hold ten persons. The tonnage of this ship has been variously stated. By one account her burden was 1637 tons (corresponding with the date she was built,) and by another 1683 tons. Mr. Thomas Heywood, her decorator, published a long and interesting description of her. He stated that "she has three flush-deckes and a forecastle, an halfe-decke, a quarterdecke, and a round-house. Her lower tyre hath thirty ports, which are to be furnished with demi-cannon and whole cannon throughout, being able to beare them. Her middle tyre hath also thirty ports for demi-culverin and whole culverin. Her third tyre hath twenty-six ports for other ordnance. Her forecastle hath twelve ports, and her halfe-deck hath fourteen ports. She hath thirteen or fourteen ports more within-board for murdering pieces, besides a great many loopholes out of the cabins for musket shot. She carried, moreover, ten pieces of chase-ordnance in her right forward, and ten right aft, that is, according to the land service, in the front and the reare." This makes 136 excluguns, sive of the "murdering pieces," but it has been clearly shown that she only mounted 100. We cannot conceive the use of the "murdering pieces," unless to fire at an enemy's tops or to repel boarders. The reader will note that cannon of different calibre were placed on the same battery, and this stupid custom prevailed even two or three generations later, thus causing blunders in charging and loss of time in action. The enormous castles, fore and aft, were about this period much reduced in size, and frigates were introduced in the service. The first frigate proper appears to have been

[ocr errors]

the Constant Warwick, a ship of about 400 tons, and 26 guns. In 1633, the eighth year of Charles's reign, his navy numbered 50 ships, and their aggregate tonnage was 23,595 ; and in 1641, 42 ships, of 22,411 tons. It seems, therefore, that although the number of ships had lessened in that interval, vessels of much larger size must have been introduced in the navy, as the aggregate tonnage was little decreased.

The era of the Commonwealth was, unquestionably, a glorious one for the navy. First the Parliament, and subsequently the Protector, managed the naval affairs of the kingdom with hitherto unparalleled skill and energy, splendidly aided by several great commanders, and especially by the grand old sea-king, Admiral Blake. Holland, Spain, Portugal, France, Tunis and Tripoli, Italy, and the West Indies, all trembled at the thunder of the English guns, and everywhere was the navy of the Commonwealth triumphant. Even ultra-royalists involuntarily expressed profound admiration at the marvellous achievements of their country's fleets under the republicans. Mr. Hepworth Dixon, in the able preface to the new edition of his capital "Life of Blake," makes some pertinent observations which we will here extract :-

One part of the naval career of Blake is of striking interest. He was the first man who broke through the old delusion that ships could not attack batteries. On three memorable occasions Blake attacked stone walls.

at St. Mary's, at Porto Ferrino, and at Santa Cruz-and each time with complete success, Contemporories at first thought him mad, as contemporaries often think men of genius; and the enemies whom he destroyed behind their granite walls consoled themselves by saying he was the devil. Even after his death the wonder did not cease. Clarendon, a political opponent, says of him :-" He was the first man that declined the old track, and Inade it manifest that science might be attained in less time than was imagined; and despised those rules which had been long in practice, to keep his ship and his men ont of danger, which had been held, in former times, a point of great ability and circumspection, as if the principal art requisite in the captain of a ship, had been to be sure to come home safe again. He was the first man who brought the ships to contemn castles on shore, which had been thought ever very formidable, and were discovered by him only to make a noise, and to fright those who could rarely be hurt by them. He was the first that infused that proportion of courage into the seamen, by

making them see, by experience, what mighty things they could do if they were resolved, and taught them to fight in fire as well as upon water; and though he hath been very well imitated and followed, he was the first that drew the copy of naval courage, and bold and resolute achievement." There are officers who still think it madness to oppose ships to batteries, though steam has added wings to the man-of-war, enabling it to attack when and how it pleases, to retire from the range, to return at will, to shift the position, to defy winds and tide. There are still officers who think their chief business lies in coming home safe again. Blake was of another mind; Nelson was of another mind; Dundonald, I believe, is of another mind. Santa Cruz was Blake's Cronstadt-one of the strongest fortresses of the seventeenth century; when Blake attacked it with his worn and rotting ships, it was strengthened by an enormous fleet -a fleet carrying nearly as many guns, and far more men, than his own. The Spaniards were as confident as the Muscovites in the impregnability of the fortress; yet he entered the harbour, silenced the batteries, and burnt the fleet. The royalist writers were overpowered by this brilliant feat of arms. Common men, of course, adhere to the common opinion; but uncommon men see that Blake was right, as well as successful, in attacking Santa Cruz. The most brilliant seaman of our generation—the true successor of Elake and Nelson-Lord Dundonald (who has done the writer of this narrative the very great honour of revising the naval part of it), has written some brief and pregnant notes on Blake's most celebrated actions. This was before the Russian war broke out, and long before the question of attacking Helsingfors and Cronstadt arose. With respect to Blake's attack on Santa Cruz, Lord Dundonald says, in a profound and characteristic passage: "On the principle which

[ocr errors]

I have never found to fail-that the more impracticable a task appears, the more easily it may be achieved, under judicious management -the attack on Santa Cruz was founded on correct estimate of the probable result."

In 1658, the Protector's navy numbered 157 ships of all rates, having 4390 guns, and manned by 21,910 men; maintained at an annual cost of £400,000. Even yet, the captains of ships and the admirals of fleets were very frequently men who had not been trained to the sea, but served indifferently, as ordered, either as sea or land officers. It was nothing unusual for the colonel of dragoons of one year to be the captain of a ship the next, or for the general to suddenly assume the title and duties of an admiral. It is remarkable that Blake, Deane, Sandwich, Monk, the Duke of York,

Prince Rupert, and several others of the most brilliant and successful admirals of the Commonwealth, and of Charles II.'s reign, were not appointed to command fleets until they had earned a reputation as able land officers. We may also here note that, up to this period, large men-of-war did not carry their own provisions or at any rate only a temporary supply, having tenders, or small vessels called, appropriately enough, victuallers, to provide them with rations. Sir An

thony Deane was the first who built ships of war (viz. :—the “ Warspite" and "Defiance," in 1665) to carry six months' provision on board, and yet have their lower-deck ports sufficiently elevated above the level of the sea.


During the reign of the "merry monarch" (who, although professing to be very anxious to uphold and improve the navy, cared as little for it as for anything else of national importance,) his brother, the Duke of York, was Lord High Admiral, and certainly proved himself to be a very able administrator, and a gallant commanderin-chief in battle. In the long and sanguinary wars with Holland, during this reign, our navy at least up. held its reputation on the whole, although, owing to the criminal supineness of the profligate monarch, on one disgraceful occasion, at least, England's honour was shamefully tarnished. It is said that Charles was absorbed in the most trifling and wanton amusements, pour passer le temps, at the very moment when the Dutch, after burning the shipping at Sheerness, insolently sailed up the Thames with brooms at their mast-heads. What a miserable caricature of a monarch then toyed with the sceptre, erst so gloriously grasped by the grand Queen Bess!

As regards the ships, we find that in 1677 there were six rates, besides sloops. The total number of ships of the navy in 1675 was 151, and their aggregate tonnage 70,587. At the death of Charles, in 1685, he left 179 ships, of 103,558 tons burthen.

The first-raters were from 90 to 100 guns, and the largest was 1400 tons. "The characteristic of a first-rate of 1677," says Mr. James, in his Naval History, "seems to have been, to mount her guns on three whole decks, a quarterdeck, forecastle, and poop; of a second-rate, to mount her guns on three

whole decks and a quarter-deck; of a third-rate, to mount hers on two whole decks, a quarter-deck, forecastle, and poop; of a fourth-rate, to mount hers on two whole decks and a quarterdeck; of a fifth-rate, to mount hers on her first gun-deck, from end to end, on her second, partially, with a few guns on the quarter-deck; and of a sixthrate, to mount her guns on a single deck, with or without any on her quarter-deck. It is worthy of remark, that there were, in these times, threedeckers of 64, and two-deckers of 30 guns; and that many single-decked ships of the present day exceed, nay, nearly double, even the former in tonnage." Fire-ships and yachts were introduced in 1675; and bombs, or mortar-vessels, were first employed to bombard Algiers in 1681. As regards fire-ships, we have a detailed account of one fitted out in 1693. It was a new three-hundred ton ship, and “at the bottom of the hold were a hundred barrels of gunpowder; these were covered with pitch, sulphur, rosin, tow, straw, and faggots, over which lay beams bored through, to give air to the fire, and upon these lay three hundred carcasses, filled with grenades, chain-shot, iron bullets, loaded pistols, wrapped in pitched linen, broken iron bars, and the bottoms of glass bottles!" This truly diabolical vessel was employed in an attack on St. Maloes, but on that occasion did not succeed in taking up the positiondesigned. As it was, she struck on a rock, and her crew set fire to her. We are told that the explosion which ensued was "terrible beyond description; it shook the whole town like an earthquake, broke all glass and earthenware for three leagues [] round, and struck off the roofs of three hundred houses. The capstern of the vessel, which weighed two hundred weight, was carried over the walls, and destroyed a house it happened to fall upon. The greatest part of the walls, towards the sea, feil down also." We wonder what they would have said to Lord Dundonald's grand suffocator (or whatever his secret destructive may be called) in those days. king who gave the order for the massacre of the Huguenots would not have been at all squeamish in using it!


The poet Dryden has bequeathed a striking allegorical picture of the meeting of hostile fleets at this period—

[ocr errors][merged small]
« 上一頁繼續 »