The crews both of warships and merchantmen were much more numerous in proportion to the size of the ship than they have since become. Many improvements tending to greater manageability were then unthought of. On long voyages also, allowance had to be made for serious sickness and mortality, which was almost invariably experienced. The Matthew Gonson of 300 tons, which voyaged to the Levant in 1535, carried 100 men, and it was recorded as remarkable that only one died. On tropical voyages, such as those to Guinea in the reign of Mary, it sometimes happened that more than half the crew never returned. Overcrowding and poorness of the victuals were partly responsible. The food supplied in English warships consisted only of biscuit, beef, fish, and beer, and it is unlikely that merchantmen were better found. A French victualling list, however, is somewhat more varied, including biscuit, fresh bread, flour, cider, beer, wine, salt and fresh flesh, mutton, bacon, butter, peas, fish, and verjuice.[[339]] The wages in 1512 were as follows: Admiral, 10s. per day; captain, 18d. per day; lodesman (pilot), 20s. per month; sailors, 5s. per month and 5s. worth of victuals.[[340]] The subordinate officers were paid the same as the sailors and, in addition, divided among themselves a number of ‘deadshares’ proportionate to the size of the ship. In merchant vessels private trading by all members of the crew, at any rate on long voyages, was a recognized custom, and they were allowed a certain amount of space in the hold for their goods. It is referred to in the charter granted by Henry VII to the Bristol syndicate in 1501, in the accounts of the Guinea voyages, and in the instructions to Sir Hugh Willoughby in 1553.
A large trading-ship was commanded by a captain, appointed by the merchants owning the cargo, and having general control over the conduct of the voyage, the ports of call, dates of sailing, &c, and by the master, who navigated the ship and controlled the crew. The captain was not necessarily a professional seaman, as the master, of course, invariably was. The composition of the crews in a well-found merchant fleet is illustrated by Hakluyt’s account of Willoughby’s expedition. In addition to the officers above mentioned, the Edward Bonaventure, the largest ship, carried a master’s mate, a minister, a master gunner and his mate, two gunners, a surgeon, a boatswain and his mate, four quartermasters, a steward and his mate, a cook, a cooper and a carpenter, together with twenty-one sailors. Most merchantmen also carried a purser. The Matthew Gonson, in the voyage already referred to, had six gunners and four trumpeters. The officers of the Tudor merchant service were recruited from the more educated seamen, or from boys who went to sea as ‘gromals’ or pages, the equivalent of the modern apprentice. Sebastian Cabot’s instructions for the North-East voyage enjoin that the boys are ‘to be brought up according to the laudable order and use of the sea, as well in learning of navigation, as in exercising of that which to them appertaineth’. The seamen were by no means the most illiterate class of men in the community. Several distinguished men, such as William Borough, rose from the forecastle; and the numerous relations in Hakluyt by persons in inferior positions indicate a comparatively high standard of education among seafaring men. There were no official certificates or examinations, and a man had to depend for advancement on the reputation he acquired among his fellows. Consequently it was easier for able men to come by their own than in the days of paper qualifications. The level of theoretical knowledge was not, however, very high; and in this respect England was inferior to foreign nations, which largely accounts for her comparative failure in exploration during the first half of the sixteenth century.
The subject of discipline in merchantmen is somewhat puzzling. The master of a ship had apparently no statutory control over his crew; his powers of discipline must have been largely those inherent in the cunning of his own right hand. Certain customary punishments, such as putting in irons, seem to have been recognized; one of Willoughby’s men was ‘for pickerie ducked at the yard’s arm and so discharged’ before the expedition cleared the English coast. But insubordination was common on long voyages, and often forced the captain and master to change their plans and forgo occasions of profit. Even in the navy things were sometimes no better. William Knight, writing in 1512 of the expedition to Spain, complains of ‘the ungodly manners’ of the seamen, who robbed the king’s victual while the soldiers were sea-sick.[[341]] The loss of the Mary Rose in 1545 was undoubtedly due to the state of anarchy prevailing on board. Her captain, when told of the danger arising from the open ports on the lee side, remarked that he had a set of rascals he could not rule; the ports were left open, and the sea poured in and sank the ship.
Piracy, the bane of European waters, flourished exceedingly during this period of constant struggle among the western powers. After the peace between England and France in 1514, a joint attempt was made by the two countries to put a stop to it. In 1517 it was arranged that a commission of three or four suitable persons should sit at Calais to hear French complaints, and that a similar court should hear English grievances at Boulogne. Judgement was to go against all persons who should neglect to appear when summoned.[[342]] Some attempt was made to put the above into practice, but anything short of an international arrangement was foredoomed to failure, for, when hard pressed, the freebooters changed their flag—French pirates pretended to be Scots, and vice versa—and it was impossible to obtain any redress. The general state of public opinion also rendered it improbable that port officials would be very eager to do justice on their own countrymen in behalf of foreigners.
In England piracies were judged by the Admiralty Court, the tribunal consisting of the Lord High Admiral or his representative, the Master of the Rolls, and another judge, proceedings being opened at the place nearest to that at which the offence took place.[[343]] An Act of 1536 strengthened the hands of the court, permitting it to pass sentence of death, and depriving pirates of benefit of clergy.
The evil increased as time went on, and during the war of 1544–6 assumed gigantic proportions. Privateers, under pretext of cruising against the enemy, snapped up any neutral vessels of value, and the signing of peace did very little to repress their activities. The weakness of the Government in the next reign encouraged them to greater audacity, and the Lord Admiral Seymour was accused of abetting them. The Act of Attainder by which he was condemned to death[[344]] stated that he had ‘maintained, aided, and comforted sundry pirates, and taken to his own use the goods pyratuslye taken against the laws’. It was not until long afterwards that the Narrow Seas became reasonably safe, for the French wars of religion, the revolt of the Netherlands, and the Anglo-Spanish war continued to produce hordes of privateers throughout the remainder of the sixteenth century.
During the period 1485–1558 the principal seaports after London were Southampton and Bristol. The customs receipts at Newcastle and Boston were both in excess of those at Bristol, but, as they were mainly derived from the extortionate duties on wool, none of which product was exported by the western city, they over-represent the true volume of traffic at those ports. Throughout the whole of this period the tendency was for London to increase its business at the expense of the other ports, many of which steadily decayed in importance although the volume of the country’s total trade was increasing. Since the duties continued practically unchanged, the sums paid at the various ports afford, when certain allowances have been made, a fair means of estimating their trade.
The growth of London as a port is illustrated by the following figures: during the first five years of Henry VII the average annual customs payments, exclusive of wool duties, amounted to £7,274; during the last five years of the same reign, £12,359; and during the years 1533–8, the last such period in which, for various reasons,[[345]] a just comparison can be made, £17,962. In half a century, then, the general trade of London was considerably more than doubled. The wool duties show a steady decline, due, not to a smaller output, but to the increase of the home manufacture of cloth which left less raw material available for export. The wool averages for the same three periods were £10,515, £7,206, and £4,217.[[346]]
Southampton suffered great misfortunes owing to changing conditions. During the latter part of the fifteenth century the town enjoyed great prosperity as the sole English port to be visited by the Flanders galleys of Venice and the great carracks of Genoa, bringing valuable cargoes of eastern goods, and departing with their holds full of English wool. As time went on this traffic almost entirely ceased, and Southampton, unlike London, failed to benefit by the growth of the North Sea trade. Consequently, after enjoying a maximum period of prosperity in the closing years of Henry VII, during which time she bade fair to rival London, the southern seaport experienced a steady and irretrievable decay under his successor. The average receipts at Southampton for 1485–90 were £5,449; for 1504–9, £10,341; and for 1533–8, £3,232. The quantity of wool exported by the Staple from Southampton was very small, and does not appreciably affect the above figures.
So serious had the distress of Southampton become that in 1530 an Act of Parliament[[347]] was obtained for the purpose of releasing the town from certain dues to the Crown which it found itself unable to continue paying. The preamble sets forth the cause of its decline, attributing it to the cessation of the ‘petie custom of merchandise which of old time was accustomed to be levied of the goods of strangers repairing thither in carreckis of Jeane (Genoa), laden with Jean woade; and in gallies of Florence and Venyse laden with spicis; and now by the time of many years past since that Tolowes (Toulouse) woade hath been usually brought into this realm, and that the King of Portugal took the trade of spices from the Venyzians at Calacowte, few or no such carreckis, galeis ne other shippis have repaired unto our said town with woad or spices, nor be like to repair hereafter’. The trade of Southampton, it was stated, had also suffered from the wars with France. Many persons of substance had forsaken the town, and others were preparing to follow. The melancholy state of affairs here described is borne out by the figures and may be taken as correct; unlike the majority of such preambles, which were very prone to wail about ‘change and decay’, and must be received with caution.