At a later date some of the Commissioners themselves did not escape suspicion. In 1623 Sir John Coke, still the leading member, wrote to Conway that all went well until the Algiers voyage, but that he then suspected that some of his colleagues were selling their own wares to the government. They, of course, denied the allegation when Coke was frank enough to openly tax them with it, but ‘ever since I carried a watchful eye over them and employed fit persons to discover their dealings.’[873] A man like Coke was probably not popular even among those with whom he was associated, still less with the gang whose deceits and illicit gains he had greatly helped to terminate. We may read something of the temper and feelings of the discarded Navy Officers in his appeal for protection against Sir Guilford Slingsby, a year later, who had threatened that, unless he was restored to office by Lady day, Coke should not outlive that date.[874] Slingsby was reappointed Comptroller by Charles I and then again gave evidence of his peculiar qualifications for the exercise of authority over others. But there is no doubt that the administration of the Commissioners was pure enough compared with that of Mansell. Their failures were due to causes they were unable to deal with, such as want of money and the bad treatment of the men. So far as the latter were concerned the Commissioners did not—and probably had no power to—reverse the disposition to employ landsmen of influence as captains who were out of sympathy with their men and had no care for their feelings or interests. It was in this and the succeeding reign that there grew up that bitter hatred and contempt for gentlemen captains, to which seamen so often gave expression for a century afterwards, and of which traces are to be found in the present century.
At the close of their first five years of office the Commissioners sent in a report of the work done by them.[875] They said that whereas they found in 1618 twenty-three serviceable and ten unserviceable ships, of altogether 15,670 tons, four decayed galleys and four hoys, costing £53,000 a year, they have now thirty-five serviceable vessels of 19,339 tons, besides the hoys and galleys, and the expense has been little more than £30,000 a year, including the charges for building ten new ships.
Naval Expenditure.
This last amount does not coincide with those given in the table below, from the Pipe Office Accounts, but that may be from the inclusion in the latter of extraneous expenses, such as the Algiers expedition, considered by the Commissioners to be outside the range of their comparison:—[876]
| Amount received | Victualling | Sea Charges | Total spent | Stores | Ordinary | Extra-ordinary | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1603 | £42619 | £32920 | £13247 | £42271 | |||
| 1604 | 24000 | 12469 | 6248 | 24002 | £9616 | £6789 | |
| 1605 | 29000 | 16042 | 9760 | 28672 | 7312 | £22493 | |
| 1606 | 22100 | 10156 | 18984 | ||||
| 1607 | 21000 | 9452 | 2896 | 25200 | 11000 | 5242 | 19900 |
| 1608 | 38424 | 12103 | 6859 | 36554 | |||
| 1609 | 42400 | 10200 | 43396 | ||||
| 1610 | 36607 | 10432 | 36358 | ||||
| 1611 | 42300 | 8670 | 3428 | 40153 | 25520 | 8143 | 31921 |
| 1612 | 34200 | 8672 | 3934 | 33930 | 8867 | ||
| 1613 | 50355 | 19625 | 8814 | 55987[877] | 25000 | 10100 | 45786 |
| 1614 | 48463 | 15275 | 7996 | 56848 | |||
| 1615 | 45643 | 15387 | 7764 | 57968 | 16295 | 8313 | |
| 1616 | 40515 | 12886 | 7800 | 41269 | 15268 | 4625 | |
| 1617 | 31213 | 13716 | 25548 | ||||
| 1618 | 10465 | 5165 | 27489 | 8000 | |||
| 1619 | 31606 | 6324 | 32610 | 2355 | 5789 | ||
| 1620 | 38300 | 14680 | 2960[878] | 35872 | 5936 | ||
| 1621 | 54264 | 23369 | 2945[879] | 51000 | 10723 | ||
| 1622 | 52385 | 11143 | 7765 | 45450 | 13011[880] | ||
| 1623 | 59200 | 23414 | 24000 | 62000[881] | |||
| 1624 | 26529 | 6430 | 3079 | 31125 |
Seamen’s wages remained unchanged till the end of the reign when the rate reached fourteen shillings a month, and the pay of the officers was raised in 1618. Not only was it difficult to keep the men on board the ships, but the expensive and wasteful system of impressment made the eventual outlay even heavier. In 1624 an estimate was drawn up of the expenses for fitting out a fleet of twelve men-of-war: 3000 men were required, of which number the river was to supply 800 at press and conduct money of 2s 6d a man, the remaining 2200 being obtained from ‘remote places’ at a cost of eight shillings a man. At their discharge one shilling and seven shillings a man conduct money respectively, for the river and country districts would again have to be paid. The total estimate for twelve men-of-war for five months, and fifty merchantmen for six months, was, £94,874, a sum which shows the great increase in prices since the days of Elizabeth, and partly explains the rise in the yearly expenditure.[882]
Piracy.
Piracy, though still a school for seamanship, was no longer the flourishing business it had been under Elizabeth; the trade, to use a modern phrase, was ‘cut up.’ Spanish commerce was almost destroyed in northern latitudes, and the Dutch was well able to protect itself, while new competitors were found in the Mediterranean rovers who hovered round the English coasts and even stretched out into the North Atlantic, and in the fast sailing Dunkirk privateers who swarmed in the Channel. In 1605 Hannibal Vivian wrote from the west country, ‘let it not offend you that I inform you from time to time of the piracies and depredations daily committed on this coast.’ However repugnant piracy may have been to some of the officials it commended itself still to many natives of the western counties. Out of one pirate crew, thirty-five in number, seventeen belonged to Dartmouth and Kingswear, and the mayor and others of Plymouth were accused of buying the stolen goods and favouring the escape of the men. The government appeared helpless; if they sent ships to sea the captains ‘pretend to pursue, and when well away in some distant port write up that a leak had been sprung, obtain warrants to repair in port, and so remain for the captain’s benefit.’ Sometimes they even took the pirates’ goods on board and sheltered the criminals themselves. If any of the corsairs were caught the general opinion among them that they were only liable ‘to a little lazy imprisonment,’ was usually justified by results. Ireland was said to be ‘the nursery and storehouse of pirates,’[883] for, besides providing its own quota of sea-rovers it offered the hospitality of its ports to those vessels belonging to the Barbary corsairs that required repair.[884]
In 1616 the weakness of the Crown was shown by a warrant being granted to two London merchants to prepare a ship to go pirate hunting with permission to retain for themselves three-fourths of the goods seized.[885] About this time there was a fleet of thirty Turkish ships in the Atlantic, and another Salleeman had recently been captured in the Thames;[886] between 1609 and 1616 the Algerines had captured 466 British ships and reduced their crews to slavery,[887] and in the latter year Sir Francis Cottington wrote to Buckingham that their strength and boldness exceeded all previous experience. Mansell’s voyage of 1620-21 cost at least £34,000, and probably much more, but ‘such was the misgovernment of those ships,’[888] that within a few weeks of his return an Algerine fleet was at work again in the narrow seas. The inhabitants of Swanage seem to have been especially nervous since they petition for a block-house, ‘the Turks being grown exceedingly audacious.’ Matters grew even worse towards the close of the reign. Some Weymouth merchants desired to fit out ships of their own to deal with the incubus terrorising commerce, but permission was refused, mainly because it was injurious to the Lord Admiral’s profits and ‘dishonourable to the King.’ Others, however, of the Weymouth tradesmen dealt with the robbers, and the local Admiralty officers were supposed to connive at the traffic.[889]
The Lizard light was objected to because ‘it will conduct pirates,’ and to most people it will read strangely now that it was forbidden at the instance of the Trinity Corporation. The Newfoundland Company, in asking for assistance, said that since 1612 damage to the amount of £40,000 had been committed by the marauders, and that over 1000 men had been forced or persuaded to join them.[890] One of the freebooters was admiral of a large pirate fleet. In 1624 the Navy Commissioners were desired to certify how many men-of-war would be required to clear the southern and western coasts, just as they had often enough before been required to certify; the process seldom proceeded further.