FOOTNOTES:
[338] Herodotus, vii, 128.
[339] Thucydides, i, 49.
[340] Ibid. ii, 84; vii, 34.
[341] Thucydides, iii, 90.
[342] Polyaenus, Strategemata, i, 48 (2).
[343] Livy, xxxvii, 24: "Eudamum in alto multitudine navium maxime Hannibal, ceteris omnibus longe praestantem, urgebat; et circumvenisset ni signo sublato ex praetoria nave, quo dispersam classem in unum colligi mos erat, omnes quae in dextro cornu vicerant naves ad opem ferendam suis concurrissent."
[344] This work Λέοντος ἐν Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ αὐτοκράτος τῶν ἐν Πολέμοις τακτικῶν σύντομος παράδοσις is usually assigned to Leo VI (the philosopher), but it is possible that it may have been written by Leo III (the Isaurian) and dates therefore from the eighth century. It has not been translated into English.
[345] Probably 1338, vide Monumenta Juridica; The Black Book of the Admiralty, ed. by Sir Travers Twiss (Rolls Series), Introduction, p. xxx.
[346] Due Ordinanze Militari Marittime del Conte Verde, Anno 1366, by Capitano di Corvetta Prasca in Rivista Marittima, June 1891. I have supplied as literal a translation as the state of the text admits.
[347] The object of this manoeuvre is not clear, but since the ram and the guns pointing forward were the only weapons of the galley it can be readily understood that friendly galleys would only face one another in exceptional circumstances.
[348] Commander Prasca suggests that lon should be read as bon and that the meaning is: to a place on the poop where the banner can be well seen. I suggest that it should be read as son.
[349] It was omitted from Howe's signal-book of 1790.
[350] Exchequer Accounts, 49/29 (7-10 Hen. V): "j banner de consilio de Armis Regis et Sancti Georgii."
[351] Transcribed from a Vatican ms. in Jal's Archéologie Navale, ii, 107 et seq.
[352] Fernandez de Navarrete, Coleccion de los Viages y Descubrimientos que hicieron por mar los Espanoles, i, 410 et seq.
[353] Cada patron con un cómitre.
[354] Published with notes by Jal in the Annales Maritimes et Coloniales 1842, Part ii, pp. 54 et seq.
[355] Calcet.
[356] Cappitaine. He is thinking only of the galleys.
[357] Soubz le vent, probably an error for "to windward."
[358] The gangway running along the galley amidships.
[359] La gallère ou care ou à la penne à demy pendant.
[360] See Book of War by Sea and Land, edited by Sir J. K. Laughton in vol. i of The Naval Miscellany (Navy Records Society).
[361] "À demy clouée."
[362] "à moitie pendant." Presumably there was some difference in these two methods of tying a flag in a weft, but it is not known in what this difference consisted. Perhaps "a demy clouée" meant that the fly was gathered into the hoist, while the other expression denoted that the flag was gathered up horizontally in the middle, the normal method of making a weft.
[363] Harl. MS. 309.
[364] quarter.
[365] whither.
[366] Pepys MS. 1266.
[367] Sic; apparently the ship is to yaw, i.e. deviate from her course.
[368] S. P. D. James I, clvii, 67.
[369] The Naval Miscellany (Navy Records Soc.), vol. i.
[370] S. P. D. James I, xcii, 9.
[371] The latest ms. appears to be Sloane ms. 2427; the earliest that the author has seen is in the Bodleian. It was from a ms. almost identical with the latter that the printed edition was published in 1685.
[373] "lesqueles banères sount appelés baucans et la gent d'Engleterre les appelent stremers et celes banères signefient mort sans remède et mortele guerre en tous les lious où mariners sont."
[374] "nous ne sums tenus faire restitution ne amende si nulle chose eit esté fait ou prise par nous en ladite guerre; quar il est usage et ley de meer que de choses faites ou prises sur meer en guerre meisement ou ledit baukan soit levée ne doit estre fait restitution n'amende d'une partie ne d'autre." 'Baucan,' cognate with 'beacon,' must not be confused with 'bauçan.'
[376] This and the two following sections are in substance a revision of a pamphlet Nelson's Signals, The Evolution of the Signal Flags, written by me in 1908 and published for the Admiralty by H.M. Stationery Office. I am indebted to the Controller of that Department for permission to make use of it in this work.
[377] Corbett, Fighting Instructions (N. R. S.), p. 99.
[378] Possibly as a result of the first collision with the Dutch, Tromp appears to have been ahead of the English in the matter of signals.
[379] Shortly after 1756 the white balls disappear, and a white square takes their place, the flag thus becoming what is now familiarly called the Blue Peter. By Rodney's time this flag at the mainmast head had become the signal to recall everyone to his ship, whence its present use to denote that the ship is about to sail.
[380] A flag is said to be "pierced" when it has a small square of another colour in the centre.
[381] In his memoirs it is stated that in 1746 he had written a book on Signals and Naval Evolutions.
[382] Possibly because with a "table" of 16 squares a side he was enabled to make 256 signals, with two flags only to each "hoist," whereas by the simple numerary method he could of course only make 99 with less than three flags.
[383] J. K. Laughton, Letters and Papers of Lord Barham (N. R. S.), i, 340.
[384] Hitherto the official books of Instructions and Signals had been of folio size.
[385] A "cornet" is a swallow-tailed flag.
[386] According to present practice no signal made with more than one flag is obeyed until the officer making it hauls it down.
[387] Nicholas, Letters and Dispatches of Lord Nelson, iii, 230.
[388] Richard Hall Gower, an officer of the East India Company's fleet, suggested in the 2nd edition of his Treatise on Seamanship, 1796, the use of a dictionary with the words numbered consecutively from 1 upwards under each letter of the alphabet. The letter and number were to be shown on a large board.
[389] The hoists were: Telegraph flag; 253 (England); 269 (expects); 863 (that); 261 (every); 471 (man); 958 (will); 220 (do); 370 (his); 4, 21, 19, 24 (duty). In the hoist for 220 the second flag was the "substitute," duplicating the numeral "2."
[390] See the last column of [Plate XIII].
[391] In 1808 the 1799 book was reprinted, and the manuscript additions incorporated, but its form was not changed.
[392] He produced in 1804 a signal code for the East India Company's ships.
[393] During the war this flag was altered to one divided vertically yellow, red yellow, in order to obviate the use of the Pilot Jack as an ordinary signal flag.
[394] Parl. Paper C 8354 of 1897.
[Chapter VII]
Ceremonial and other Usages
The student who has wandered along the by-paths of early military and naval history may perhaps have been struck by the fact that although he met not infrequently with instances of the devotion and respect with which the soldier regarded his military ensigns he met with no similar examples in naval affairs. He might at first be disposed to attribute this to the fact that the histories he had read were not the work of professed seamen, but upon reflexion he would more probably be disposed to infer that, except in the ship of the Commander-in-Chief, there was at sea nothing to correspond to the military insignia. The examination into the early history of the flag which we have endeavoured to carry out in the first chapter of this book leads us to the conclusion that until the thirteenth century there was no equivalent of the military ensign in use at sea, and the early history of the salute at sea tends to confirm this view.
The Ordinance[395] drawn up by King John in 1201, which required all ships and vessels to strike and lower their sails at the command of the King's ships, makes no mention of a flag, and although the striking of the sails was perhaps primarily intended not so much as a mark of respect as a practical means of ensuring that the ships in question should render an effective submission to the will of the king's officers, the omission is at any rate of some significance. An instructive commentary upon the relative significance of the acts of striking sails or flags is afforded by the account of the taking of two Spanish ships by the 'Amity' of London in 1592[396]. These merchantmen had fallen in with each other off the south-west coast of Spain, and apparently each side had determined to make prize of the other. The Spaniards were displaying a flag with the arms of the King of Spain, which caused the English to "judge them rather ships of warre then laden with marchandise." After a long fight the English ship gained the advantage,
willing them to yeeld, or els we should sinke them: wherupon the one would have yeelded, which was shot betweene winde and water; but the other called him traiter. Unto whom we made answere, that if he would not yeeld presently also, we would sinke him first. And thereupon he understanding our determination, presently put out a white flag, and yeelded, and yet refused to strike their own sailes, for that they were sworne never to strike to any Englishmen.
Evidently the striking of the sails was an act of greater submission than the display of the flag of truce, and its persistent survival until the year 1806 as part of the ceremony required when the salute was exacted by H.M. ships is a clear indication that it must have been originally the most essential part of that ceremony. When Pennington was given his instructions as Admiral of the Narrow Seas in May, 1631, he was told:
If in this yor imployment you shall chance to meete in the Narrowe Seas anie ffleete belonging to anie forraine Prince or State you are to expect that the Admirall and cheefe of them in acknowledgmt of his Mats Soveraignty there shall strike their Top-sayle in passing by, or if they refuse to do it you are to force them thereunto[397],
but no instruction was given him in regard to their flag, and the Treaty made between Cromwell and the Dutch at the close of the First Dutch War in 1654 required the latter not only to haul down their flag when rendering the salute, but also to lower the topsail (vexillum suum e mali vertice detrahent et supremum velum demittent).
After Trafalgar the British Naval Power stood at such a height that it was felt that no loss of prestige could then arise from the abandonment of the claim so tenaciously insisted on for many centuries, and the instructions to naval officers to exact the salute were quietly dropped out of the King's Regulations where they had, for many years, appeared in the following terms:
When any of His Majesty's Ships shall meet with any Ship or Ships belonging to any Foreign Prince or State, within His Majesty's Seas, (which extend to Cape Finisterre) it is expected that the said Foreign Ships do strike their Topsail, and take in their Flag, in Acknowledgement of His Majesty's Sovereignty in those Seas; and if any shall refuse or offer to resist, it is enjoined to all Flag Officers and Commanders to use their utmost Endeavours to compel them thereto, and not suffer any Dishonour to be done to His Majesty. And if any of His Majesty's Subjects shall so much forget their Duty, as to omit striking their Topsail in passing by His Majesty's Ships, the Name of the Ship and Master, and from whence, and whither bound, together with Affidavits of the Fact, are to be sent up to the Secretary of the Admiralty, in order to their being proceeded against in the Admiralty Court. And it is to be observed, That in His Majesty's Seas, His Majesty's Ships are in no wise to strike to any; and that in other Parts, no Ship of His Majesty's is to strike her Flag or Topsail to any Foreigner, unless such Foreign Ship shall have first struck, or at the same time strike her Flag or Top-sail to His Majesty's Ship.
An adequate presentment of the history of the salute at sea would claim a volume to itself, and is indeed rather outside the scope of the present work, but it may be remarked that in the sixteenth century (and probably at an earlier date, though evidence of this is lacking) the requirement of the salute—in itself a mere passing ceremony—was expanded into a demand that no foreign ship or English merchantman should fly any flag at all when in the presence of any of H.M. ships of war. This point of view, as understood by the seamen of the late Elizabethan and early Stuart period, is set forth in the Observations of Sir Richard Hawkins published just after his death in 1622:
One thing the French suffered (upon what occasion or ground I know not) that the English always carried their flag displayed: which in other partes and Kingdomes is not permitted; at least in our seas, if a Stranger Fleete meete with any of his Majesties ships, the forraigners are bound to take in their flags, or his Majesties ships to force them to it though thereof follow the breach of peace, or whatsoever discommodity. And whosoever should not be jealous in this point, hee is not worthy to have the commaund of a Cock-boat committed unto him: yea no stranger ought to open his flag in any Port of England, where there is any Shipp or Fort of his Majesties; upon penaltie to loose his flagg and to pay for the powder and shott spend upon him. Yea, such is the respect to his Majesties Shippes in all places of his Dominions, that no English ship displayeth the Flagge in their presence, but runneth the like danger, except they be in his Majesties service: and then they are in predicament of the Kings Ships.
In Queene Maries Raigne, King Philip of Spaine comming to marry with the Queene, and meeting with the Royall Navie of England, the Lord William Howard, High Admirall of England, would not consent that the King in the Narrow Seas should carrie his Flagge displayed until he came into the Harbour of Plimouth.
I being of tender yeares, there came a Fleete of Spaniards of above fiftie sayle of Shippes bound for Flaunders to fetch the Queene Dona Anna de Austria, last wife to Philip the second of Spaine, which entered betwixt the Iland and the Maine, without vayling their Top-sayles or taking in of their Flags, which my father, Sir John Hawkins (Admirall of a Fleete of her Majesties Shippes then ryding in Catt-water) perceiving, commanded his Gunner to shoot at the flagge of the Admirall, that they might thereby see their error.
The instances in which this point of view was impressed upon foreign ships and English merchant ships are numerous.
The following example of the ceremonious manner in which the salute was sometimes voluntarily rendered outside the "Narrow Seas" is of special interest. It occurred during the expedition to Algiers in 1620, under Sir Robert Mansell:
The one and thirtieth of October, in the morning wee turned into the Road of Gibraltar, where were riding at anchor two of the King of Spaines ships of warre, the Vice Admirall of a Squadron with the Kings Armes in his fore-top and another, who so soone as they perceived us weighed their Anchors, set sayle, and comming Lee-ward of our Admirall, strooke his flag, saluting him with their small shot and great Ordnance, after haled him with voyces; our Admirall striking his flag, answered them with voyces, gave them his Ordnance and small shot, all the Fleet following in order.
Before the legislative union of the two kingdoms, the salute was exacted by English men-of-war of ships of the Scottish navy. In June, 1706, the 'Royal William,' one of the three small ships that then comprised the Scots navy, put into Tynemouth, whereupon the commanding officer of H.M.S. 'Dunwich' fired "a sharp great shot" at her and complained that her commanding officer was displaying a broad pendant in English waters. In his letter reporting the incident to the Lord High Admiral of Scotland, Commodore Gordon adds that the commander of H.M.S. 'Bonaventure' had told him "that he should be sorry of meeting me without the Island of May, since he had orders from the Board of England to make our frigates strike and salute[398]."
Closely connected in idea with the lowering of the flag in salute and as a mark of respect to a stronger power is the lowering of it as a sign of submission and surrender in action. Its application to this purpose seems comparatively modern and to have been really an extension of the salute. In naval warfare among the ancients and during the middle ages submission was often of little use; the only safe thing to be done by those who saw that they would be beaten and cared to save their lives was to take to flight. Prisoners, except a few likely to be of value for ransom, were usually disposed of summarily by being thrown overboard, for there was little room for them in the early ships and none at all in the galleys. It will be remembered that Chaucer says of his "Schipman": "If that he foughte and hadde the heigher hand By water he sente hem hoom to everyland." When Hubert de Burgh's men in 1217 agreed that so soon as they had boarded Eustace the Monk's ship one of their number should climb the mast and cut down the flag, they did not imagine that this would indicate surrender; the object they had in view was to confuse the remaining enemy ships by depriving them of the mark by which they could recognise their leader's ship.
Until the use of great ordnance had been sufficiently developed at sea to enable an enemy ship to be overcome at a distance, it is obvious that the dispute for the mastery could only be settled by hand-to-hand encounter. In these circumstances there would be no need of any method of indicating surrender other than by a personal appeal for quarter on the part of the vanquished crew, and indeed, the vanquished would hardly have the time or opportunity of removing the various flags placed along the bulwarks or flown from the masthead as a preliminary to such an appeal. But when it became possible for the ship to be destroyed from a distance, some method of indicating a wish to surrender on terms became necessary. This appears to have first been provided by displaying a flag of truce, a practice that was no doubt adopted about the beginning of the sixteenth century from the usages of land warfare where it had been current for many centuries. The following instance of its employment at sea occurred during Sir Richard Hawkins' voyage into the South Sea in 1593-4. In April, 1594, Hawkins' ship was caught at a disadvantage in the Bay of San Mateo. The crew were not over-anxious to fight, and talked of surrendering. Hawkins harangued them: "Came we into the South Sea," he asked, "to put out flagges of truce? And left we our pleasant England, with all her contentments with intention and purpose to avayle ourselves of white ragges?" After some fighting, which their neglect of proper preparations rendered useless, the captain of the ship "presently caused a flagge of truce to be put in place of our Ensigne, and began to parley of our surrendering[399]." It will be noted that the colours were hauled down and the white flag then hoisted on the ensign staff.
This method of indicating a wish to surrender was evidently the general practice at this period, for in the same year, during an attack upon a carrack by the Earl of Cumberland at Terceira, some of the crew of the carrack who had had enough fighting waved a flag of truce and called out to the English to save their lives, but the captain ordered them to take in the flag of truce, for he had determined never to yield while he lived. In the time of the First Dutch War the striking of the colours formed part of the outward symbolism of surrender, but not the whole. According to Captain Joseph Cubitt's account of the Battle off the Texel on 31st August, 1653, some of the Dutch ships "that had lost all their masts struck their colours and put out a white handkerchief on a staff, and hauled in all their guns[400]." It may be concluded from this that the mere hauling down of the colours was not in itself considered sufficient to indicate that the ship desired to take no further part in the fight, nevertheless it is clear that as great importance was attached to the capture of the flags as to the capture of a regiment's colours on land, for the States General published a list of rewards[401] offered to their "soldiers at sea" which included an offer of 1000 guilders to him who should "fetch off and deliver up" the flag of the chief admiral, 500 guilders for a subordinate admiral's flag, 250 guilders for a jack, 150 guilders for a flag from the mizen, and 50 guilders for a stern ensign.
The process of surrender is illustrated by Captain John Smith in his Accidence for Young Seamen[402] in the following words:
They hang out a flag of truce ... hale him amaine, abase or take in his flag, strike their sailes and come aboard with their Captaine, Purser and Gunner, with their commission, coket, or bils of lading.
By the time of the Second Dutch War (1666) the mediation of a flag of truce appears to have become unnecessary, for Van de Velde's picture of the surrender of the 'Royal Prince,' Admiral Ayscue's flagship which ran aground on the Galloper during the Four Days' Fight, clearly shows the lowered ensign and a man at the main masthead in act of lowering the admiral's flag. Van de Velde was present at the action, so that there can be little doubt but that the details are correct. From this date the lowering of the colours appears to have been sufficient.
But perhaps the principal reason for the disuse of the white flag at sea lay in its ambiguity. On the occasion above referred to, Ayscue was Admiral of the White Squadron, and the 'Royal Prince' was displaying a large white flag at the masthead and an ensign which was almost entirely white save for a small St George's cross in its upper corner. In such circumstances the display of another white flag would have been liable to misunderstanding. A like ambiguity would have arisen in the French navy, where from 1661 until the Revolution the ensign was plain white, and it may be noted that in 1794 during the attack on Martinique the French fired on a flag of truce sent by the English, and explained their action later as being due to a mistaken supposition that it was intended for the colours of their late rulers the Bourbons; whereupon it was agreed that in future ships bearing flags of truce should have the enemy's flag at the bow and their own national colours at the stern.
The plainest and most unmistakable method of indicating surrender is to hoist the enemy colours above one's own, and this was the course adopted by some of the Spanish ships which surrendered at Trafalgar, although others appear to have hoisted the white flag after hauling down their own colours[403]. Modern practice, however, recognises the hauling down of the colours accompanied by the cessation of fire as sufficient; the victors on taking possession then hoist their own flag above the enemy flag as a sign of capture.
It is evident from an incident that occurred during the capture of the Island of Goree by Commodore Keppel in 1758 that the precise significance of hauling down the flag was in doubt even at that comparatively late date. The fire of the British Squadron was so overpowering that the enemy's flag was hauled down and the fire thereupon ceased.
A lieutenant being ordered ashore, attended by the Commodore's Secretary ... was surprised on being asked before they quitted the boat on what terms the surrender was "expected." The lieutenant astonished at this question asked if they had not struck their flag, intimating an unconditional submission resting merely on the clemency of the victor? He was answered "No: lowering of the flag was intended only as a signal for a parley."
The action was thereupon renewed and finally the Governor ordered the regimental colours to be dropped over the walls as a signal of surrender at discretion[404].
The captor's flag is not hoisted above the colours of a neutral vessel seized for breach of blockade or similar reasons; in such a case the captor's flag (if hoisted) should be hoisted in another part of the ship.
The custom of "half-masting" the flag, that is, of lowering it to a position halfway or more down the flagstaff as a sign of mourning, does not seem to be very ancient, but it is probably older than the seventeenth century. The earliest instance in which I have met it occurred in July, 1612, on the occasion of the murder of James Hall by the Esquimoes during the first expedition in search of the North-West Passage in which Baffin took part, when the 'Heart's Ease' rejoined the 'Patience' with "her flag hanging down and her ancient hanging over the poop, which was a sign of death." On entering the Thames two months later the 'Heart's Ease' again lowered her flag and ensign "in token and sign of the death of Mr Hall," so that it was at that date well understood to signify the death of the commanding officer of a ship. It was the custom in the navy after the Restoration to observe the anniversary of the execution of Charles I in a similar manner, for Teonge twice records the fact in his Diary:
30 Jan. 1675. This day being the day of our King's marterdome wee shew all the signs of morning as possible wee can, viz. our jacks and flaggs only halfe staff high;
and again:
30 Jan. 1678. A solemn day, and wee keep it accordingly with jacks and pendents loared halfeway.
Evidently the practice of half-masting the flags was well understood both in the English navy and in the merchant service, but it is doubtful if it became a universal custom until comparatively modern times. The 'Black Pinnace,' which brought the body of Sir Philip Sydney from Holland in 1586, had black sails, but the illustration in the contemporary account of his funeral[405] shows the flags at the masthead, and the Danish ship which brought over the Duke of Richmond's body in 1673 had a "black Flagg at his Main Top Masthead and black colours[406]." Black as a sign of mourning is of great antiquity, and a black sail was used for this purpose among the ancient Greeks, but a black flag was used by Drake at Cartagena in 1585 as a sign of war to the death, and was commonly adopted by pirates with a like meaning. It was never used in the navy in the sinister connection in which it is used ashore; an execution in one of H.M. ships was signalised by the display of a yellow flag at the masthead.
We may conjecture that the original signification of the lowered flag was the passing away of the authority which that flag connoted.
After the battle of Lepanto in 1571 the fleet of Don John entered Messina "the galleys gay with all their flags and streamers and towing their prizes with lowered colours."
There were several ways of treating the flag of a captured ship during the seventeenth century. It might be hung below the ensign of the captor on his ensign staff, hung over his stern spread upon a spar or trailing in the water, hung over the stern of the captured ship in like manner[407], or kept to "dress ship" with. When Captain Heaton was in command of H.M.S. 'Sapphire' during the First Dutch War,
he took so many prizes that on a festival day the Yards, Stays, backstays and shrouds being hung with Dutch, French, Spanish and Burgundian colours and pendants variously intermixed, made a beautiful show, and raised the courage of all belonged to her[408].
The practice of hoisting numerous flags in token of rejoicing is so ancient and so widespread that it may be regarded rather as the result of a primitive instinct than the outcome of any formal symbolism, but it may be noted that, although the display of numerous flags by ships in harbour on holy days and days of national rejoicing was allowed, and in some cases even enjoined by authority, the display at sea of "ostentatious bravery" was usually interpreted to indicate some warlike or provocative action on the part of the ship indulging in it. This was certainly the case until the end of the seventeenth century, but with the dawn of the eighteenth a more law-abiding, or perhaps we should say more civilised, spirit began to prevail upon the sea, and these primitive methods of displaying the red rag to the bull began to go into disuse. The practice of displaying flags upon occasions of rejoicing, however, gave rise from time to time to unpleasant incidents between ships of different nations from the indiscriminate use of all the flags in a ship, including national flags of other nations, in the desire to make a fair show; for until the nineteenth century was well advanced both men-of-war and merchantmen carried very few signal flags, which are the only flags over whose relative precedence when hoisted in "dressing ship" no offence can be given.
Prior to 1889 it was usual in the Royal navy for one of the junior officers to draw up a scheme for "dressing ship" on ceremonial occasions for the approval of the captain, but since that date the order of the signal flags, some 60 in number, has been laid down in the Signal Manual so that uniformity is secured, the national ensign (or ensign of a foreign power if the occasion warrants the use of this) being exhibited only at a masthead.
The modern practice, for all ordinary occasions, is to hoist the national colours in the morning and to keep them up until sunset, but innumerable references to hoisting or "heaving out" the colours indicate that in earlier days this was not the custom, and that they were only hoisted at sea when there was some special reason for so doing. There was a routine for hoisting the flag in harbour in the time of Elizabeth, for the orders for Drake's fleet in 1589 and the "Brief Noates" of John Young circa 1596 both contain an article to this effect, those absent without leave at the time being deprived of their "aftermeal," but the hour at which the ceremony took place is not stated. The practice at the end of the eighteenth century, as related by Wm Spavens[409], Pensioner on the Naval Chest at Chatham, was as follows:
At sunrise every ship in the fleet hoists her colours viz the ensign and jack, unless it blows hard and the yards and top masts are struck, in which case the colours are not hoisted but when some vessel is coming in or passing; and at sunset they are again struck or hauled down; at half past 7 o'clock the drums begin to beat and continue till 8, when the ship on board of which the Commander in Chief hoists his flag, fires a gun.
We do not know when this practice of hoisting the colours at sunrise was first instituted, but it is not older than the seventeenth century. In 1844 the time was altered to 8 a.m. from 25th March to 20th September and 9 a.m. from 21st September to 24th March. If there is sufficient light for the ensign to be seen, it is hoisted earlier or later than these hours, if the ship is coming to an anchor, getting under way, passing or meeting another ship, approaching a fort or town, etc.
The use of false flags as a means to deceive or entrap an enemy is probably as old as the flag itself. We have already had an example of the application of a similar ruse in the case of the Greek and barbarian standards in the year 480 b.c., but perhaps the earliest instance upon record of the use of flags at sea for this purpose occurred about the end of the twelfth century when Frederick of Sicily was a little boy (dum ... Fredericus Sicilae Rex esset puerulus). The Pisans had fitted out twelve ships and galleys and set out to attack Messina, which they tried to blockade. One night the citizens discovered that four of the galleys were off the Pharos, or lighthouse. They fitted out two galleys under Walter of Ferrara with picked crews, and hoisting Pisan flags (which presumably would be visible near the lighthouse) they fell upon the Pisans and took two of the galleys. Many instances of the use of false flags, either to avoid scaring an unsuspecting prey or to escape the notice of a stronger enemy, might be culled from the sea literature of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, one of the most interesting being the following, taken from Captain Wyatt's account of Dudley's voyage in 1594-5:
But this before mentioned Spaniarde perceavinge the imminent dainger ensewinge and seinge noe way to avoyde it ... made triall of a thirde, which was to worke theire safetie by desaitefull pollecie, a fitt subject for base objects to worke strainge strategems, yett the usuall occupation of Spanish practises. Being in this dilemma, and driven withall to this forced conclusion by necessite, they bore up with us puttinge forth an English flagg, keeping his men soe close that they might not soe much as seeme to bee Spaniards. But wee seinge her to be a flibote standinge with us, bearinge in her top the English collers, supposed them at the least to be some Irishmen bounde for Lisborne.... But beinge noe soener past us, and perceavinge that if wee should cast aboute after them, wee might hasarde the bouldginge of our selves, beinge a shipp of soe great a burden, and withall soe neare the Rock, they then begin to disclose themselves, abusinge that most contemptuouslie which before they had most safelie, although craftelie, used for their safegarde, by takinge their English flagg, by whom they had theire safe pass, from their top and hanging it at theire sterne most disdainefullie[410].
Among more modern instances, one that is almost classic occurred in January, 1797, when five large East Indiamen under the orders of Lennox, master of the 'Woodford,' met a French squadron of six frigates off Java. Lennox immediately hoisted the flag of a British admiral and made imaginary signals, and by this means deceived the French into thinking that they were in presence of a number of British men-of-war; with the result that they withdrew and the East Indiamen escaped capture.
There is no clear pronouncement of International Law as to what is and what is not lawful in the use of false colours, and publicists are by no means unanimous upon the subject, but the following instance is given by Halleck[411] as an example of what should not be allowable:
In that year (1783) the 'Sybille,' a French frigate of thirty-eight guns, Captain le Comte de Krergaron de Soemaria, enticed the British ship 'Hussar,' twenty guns, Captain J. M. Russell, by displaying an English ensign reversed in the main shrouds, and English colours over French at the ensign staff. She was also under jury-masts, had some shot holes, and in every way intimated herself to be a distressed prize to some of the British ships. Captain Russell at once approached to succour her, but she immediately, by a preconcerted and rapid movement, aimed at carrying away the bowsprit of the 'Hussar,' raking and then boarding her. This ruse de guerre, of so black a tint, was only prevented taking full effect by the promptitude of Captain Russell, who managed to turn his ship in such a way as only to receive half the raking fire. He then engaged with the 'Sybille,' and, on eventually capturing her, publicly broke the sword of the French captain, who he considered had sullied his reputation by descending to fight the 'Hussar' for above thirty minutes under false colours, and with signals of distress flying. "She" (the 'Hussar'), said Captain Russell, "had not had fair play, but Almighty God had saved her from the most foul snare of the most perfidious enemy." He confined the captain of the 'Sybille' as a State prisoner. It appears that the latter was subsequently brought to trial by his own Government, but was acquitted.
It is, however, now generally agreed that ships of war may hoist false colours for the purpose of deceiving the enemy, provided that their proper national colours are substituted for them before any hostile act is committed. As regards the use of neutral colours by merchantmen seeking to escape capture, it will be remembered that during the late war the Germans claimed this as a violation of the law, but the British Government contended that it was a legitimate ruse de guerre, and had been recognised in the past as not entailing a breach of international law.
A few remarks may be offered upon the various methods of fastening the flag to its support. In the earliest times it seems to have been nailed to its staff, and while it was small and easily portable this entailed no inconvenience. Afterwards it became customary to form a socket of canvas, buckram, or other stout material to which the hoist was sewn, and which was slipped over the staff from the top. This method was only convenient for the smaller flags, and with larger ones it appears to have been usual to sew a band of canvas down the hoist and attach a number of ribands to this by which the flag was tied to the staff. Finally, the flag was sewn to a piece of rope which could be made fast at the ends to halliards running through a block or sheave in the cap at the top of the staff, but at first these halliards were, in the case of masthead flags, taken only down to the top, not to the deck, so that a sailor had to ascend the mast whenever the flag was taken down or put up, or when any signal had to be made aloft. Thus, during the battle with the Dutch off Lowestoft on 3rd June, 1665, the Duke of York
ordered the signal to be given for the whole fleet to tack, but the sailor who had got up the mast to give the signal was so long about it that before he could let the flag fly Opdam had with his van bore up round.... This little accident lost above six hours.
No doubt it was "accidents" of this nature that led, at a later date, to the introduction of longer halliards reaching down to the deck[412]. After the introduction of the driver or spanker boom about 1790 the ensign staff on the poop had to be removed in three-masted ships when the ship was under sail, and the ensign was then hoisted at the "peak" or outer end of the gaff by which this spanker sail was supported, the halliards passing from the poop through a small block made fast at the extremity of this spar. This continued to be the position for the ensign when the ship was at sea until the abolition of sails brought it again to its original position.
It remains to say a few words about the sizes of flags. The "baucan" streamer of circa 1293 was 30 yards long and 2 yards wide at the head. In 1337 the streamers range from 14 to 32 yards in length and were from 3 to 5 "cloths" wide. It is not known what the width of a "cloth" was, but it was certainly not the full width in which the cloth was made in the loom, which would have been 54 inches or more. Probably it was about one yard, for the banners were 1¾ yards long and 2 "cloths" wide, and we know that these were rectangular and rather deeper in the hoist than they were long in the fly. In the time of Elizabeth the streamers were from 12 to 28 yards long and 2 to 3 yards broad at the head, rather less in size than those of 1337, but the banners had increased in size and some were 5 yards long and 4½ yards deep. In 1623 ensigns were of 9 to 18 "breadths," flags 5 to 24 "breadths" and pendants 8 to 24 yards long. This "breadth" was probably 11 inches, for in 1664 the material was being woven in widths of 23 inches and then cut in half. Pepys, at a somewhat later date, tells us that
it is in general to be noted that the Bewper of which Colors are made being 22 inches in breadth, and the half of that breadth or 11 inches going in ordinary discourse by the name of a Breadth when wrought into Colours, every such breadth is allowed about half-a-yard for its Fly.
By this rule the largest ensigns in 1623 were 27 feet long and 16 feet 6 inches deep, and the largest "flags" (i.e. masthead flags) 36 feet long and 22 feet deep. In Pepys' time the ensign or flag of a first rate was 26 breadths and 14 yards in the fly, while the jack was of 14 breadths and 7 yards fly, and the pendant 3 breadths at the head and 32 yards fly. The "distinction" pendant as used in the Downs was broader and shorter, being of 5 breadths and 21 yards fly. The Lord High Admiral's flag was 24 or 22 breadths and 12 or 11 yards fly. In 1708 the ensigns had slightly increased in size and varied from 10 to 30 breadths, but the "breadth" was then nearer 10 inches than 11. An ensign of 26 breadths in 1709 was 14 yards long and the Union canton was 189 inches by 117 inches. In 1742 ensigns were from 16 to 34 breadths and 9 to 17 yards long, and jacks were from 6 to 16 breadths and 3 to 8 yards long.
These were truly enormous flags, and towards the end of the eighteenth century the sizes seem to have suffered a gradual reduction. In modern times the "breadth" has been reduced to 9 inches, and the largest ensigns are not more than 22 breadths, but the relative length of the flag has been slightly increased. Thus the largest ensign of 1742 was 51 feet long and 28 feet deep; the largest modern ensign is 33 feet long and 16½ feet deep. The largest Union flag is now 18 breadths, i.e. 27 feet by 13 feet 6 inches, while pendants vary from 3 to 20 yards in length. The proportions of the crosses in a modern Union flag are as follows:
| St George's Cross | { red | 1/5 of width of flag |
| { white border | 1/15 " " | |
| St Andrew's Cross | white | 1/10 " " |
| { red | 1/15 " " | |
| St Patrick's Cross | { white border | 1/30 " " |
It may be observed that the white "fimbriation" of the St Patrick's cross, required by the rules of heraldry to prevent the colour red from touching the colour blue (white being a "metal": silver) is now taken from the width of the red, reducing that from 1/10 to 1/15. The two crosses, St Andrew's and St Patrick's ought, however, to be of equal width, and the fimbriation of the latter should therefore be taken from the blue ground.
In the white ensign the St George's cross in the fly is 2/15 of the width of the flag. In the red and blue ensigns the Union canton now occupies one-fourth of the flag; in the white it is, of course, slightly smaller owing to the space occupied by the large St George's cross.
The pendant at the masthead of one of H.M. ships is a sign that the ship is in "commission"; that is, in active service under the command of an officer of the Royal Navy holding a commission from the Crown or the Lord High Admiral or the Commissioners for executing that office. It is not flown in ships in reserve. In ships flying the flag of an Admiral, or a Commodore's broad pendant, the Admiral's or Commodore's flag is in itself sufficient indication that the ship is in commission, and the pendant is not flown in those ships. It is, however, not struck when a captain hoists a Senior Officer's pendant.
It is difficult to say when the custom of hoisting a pendant on commissioning the ship became established. Mainwaring, writing about 1623, speaks of the pendants as serving solely "for a show to beautify the ship," and Boteler, ten years later, knew them only as used for this purpose or as a means of distinguishing the squadrons of a fleet[413]; but from 1661 onwards there was, in addition to the three squadronal pendants with red, white or blue fly, a fourth with the fly striped red, white and blue. This was the distinctive pendant of all H.M. ships in commission which did not form part of a fleet divided into squadrons by the red, white and blue squadronal colours.
The first step towards the recognition of the pendant as the distinctive sign of a man-of-war was taken by the Proclamation of 1661, which assigned the Union pendant to H.M. ships only, and the next by the Proclamation of 1674, which forbade merchantmen to fly any pendant whatsoever; but although the use of a pendant was thereby confined to men-of-war, it does not seem to have been the custom at that time to fly it continuously. It is clear from the Diary which Teonge, the naval chaplain, kept during his service in the Navy from 1675 to 1679, that the pendant was only hoisted—with the jack and ensign—when the ship wished to make her nationality known; or was preparing to fight; or on days of rejoicing, when pendants were hung from every yardarm; but the significance of the pendant seems to have been generally recognised at that date, for in the account which he gives of the launching in 1676 of a brigantine by the Knights of Malta, he says that after the religious ceremony, "they hoysted a pendent to signify shee was a man of warre, and then at once thrust her into the water."
Although it was not until 1824 that the King's Regulations for the Navy contained any instruction that ships in commission were to fly a pendant, it is probable that the practice of flying a pendant continuously in H.M. ships in commission was established about the end of the seventeenth century, for the first edition of the Regulations (1731) contained a direction to Captains "to husband the Ship's Colours, and not to keep them abroad in windy weather, the Pendant being a sufficient mark of distinction," from which it is clear that the latter was then flown continuously. The practice in the Navy at the beginning of the nineteenth century is given by Captain Basil Hall[414] in the following words:
In the mean time I must proceed to put my ship in commission. The first thing to do is to get hold of one of the warrant-officers to "hoist the pendant," which is a long slender streamer, having a St George's cross on a white field in the upper part next the mast, with a fly, or tail, either Red, White, and Blue, or entirely of the colour of the particular ensign worn by the ship; which, again, is determined by the colour of the Admiral's flag under whose orders she is placed. The pendant being hoisted shows that the ship is in commission, and this part of the colours is never hauled down day or night. At sunset, when the ensign is hauled down, a smaller pendant three or four yards in length, is substituted for the long one, which, in dandified ships, waves far over the stern. Ships in ordinary[415] hoist merely an ensign.
According to modern practice the pendant is hoisted at 9 a.m. on the day on which the ship is "commissioned" and is kept flying night and day (unless an Admiral's flag is hoisted in her) until she is "paid off." At the present day the regulation size is strictly adhered to, even in "dandified ships"; but it is a common practice for ships abroad, when ordered to return home to pay off, to hoist a very long narrow pendant, apparently as a sign of rejoicing. This pendant, which is of course not officially recognised, is made by the signal staff out of white bunting which they have "acquired" in the course of the commission, and is usually of such length (150-250 feet) as to reach from the masthead to the water, even when inclined at a considerable angle from the perpendicular, but in some instances it is much longer and it has been known to reach 1400 feet. A bladder filled with air is fastened at the end to keep it buoyant when trailing on the water.
It was at one time the custom to fly the Union flag at the masthead of any of H.M. ships in which a foreign personage of importance was embarked. The two following examples are typical of this usage, which is now obsolete. When William Prince of Orange came to England in 1677 to marry the Princess Mary, the royal yacht which brought him over carried this flag at the masthead while he was on board; and in 1689 Admiral Russell, who had embarked the Queen of Spain in his ship at Flushing and conveyed her to the Downs and thence to Corunna, flew the Union flag at the main topmast-head during the time the Queen was on board his ship. In modern times the personal standard of the Prince or the Queen would have been flown, but it is clear from these and similar examples that the wearing of a foreign flag at the masthead of one of H.M. ships would at an earlier period have been regarded as an intolerable act of humiliation.
Analogous to this usage was the flying of the Union flag at the main when the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Governors of Colonies, or Ambassadors were embarked, but this mark of honour was not permitted in the waters of the English Channel or in the presence of an Admiral's flag. In 1821 the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was granted the use of a special form of the Union flag bearing in the centre a harp on a blue escutcheon, and in modern times the Governors General or Governors of Colonies or Dominions may, when afloat, fly a Union flag bearing the badge of the Colony in the centre.
In this account of the history of British flags I have not dwelt upon the immaterial or emotional aspects of these important national emblems; partly because this seemed somewhat foreign to the aim I had in view; partly because this side has been sufficiently illustrated in other works. There is, however, one aspect which may receive an illustration here. Among the privileges and duties of which a British flag has for so many centuries been an outward emblem, not the least in value has been that of freedom. Towards the end of 1769 Lord St Vincent, then plain Captain Jervis, was in the Port of Genoa in H.M.S. 'Alarm.' Two Turkish galley slaves temporarily released from their chains were walking on the mole near their galley when they caught sight of one of the 'Alarm's' boats. They jumped into her and wrapped themselves in the British colours, claiming their freedom. The Genoese guard removed them by force, part of the boat's pendant being torn away in the struggle. Jervis demanded of the Doge and Senate of Genoa that the officer of the guard should bring the slaves with the fragment of the colours and make a formal apology on the quarter deck of the 'Alarm.' When this had been done, Jervis "asked the slave who had wrapped the pendent round his body what were his sensations when the guard tore him from the pendent staff. His reply was that he felt no dread for he knew that the touch of the royal colours gave him freedom." And upon this note I must make an end.