| Total No. | Tons | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 500 | 450 | 400 | 350 | 300 | ||
| London | ||||||
| Limehouse | 20 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | |
| Wapping | 21 | 1 | 2 | |||
| Horseleydown | 14 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
| Ratcliff | 19 | 1 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Deptford | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Shadwell | 1 | |||||
| Blackwall | 1 | |||||
| Ipswich | 48 | 1 | 7 | |||
| Yarmouth | 26 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Aldborough | 12 | 2 | ||||
| Hull | 25 | |||||
| Woodbridge | 12 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| Colchester | 7 | |||||
| River of Thames | 102 | |||||
| Bristol | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Harwich | 2 | 1 | ||||
| Dartmouth | 3 | |||||
| Dover | 2 | 1 | ||||
| Southampton | 2 | |||||
| Shoreham | 14 | 5 | ||||
| Plymouth | 1 | |||||
| Weymouth | 3 | 1 | ||||
| Blakeney | 1 | |||||
| Exeter | 2 | |||||
In July 1626, Buckingham was directed to procure returns of the number and size of the ships belonging to the port towns, and the resulting list, so far as the reports have survived, is as follows:—[1149]
| No. | Largest in tons | 100 tons or upwards | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Portsmouth | 5 | 80 | |
| Gosport | 11 | 40 | |
| Isle of Wight | 10 | 70 | |
| Padstow | 3 | 40 | |
| Chester | 21 | 50 | |
| Boston | 12 | 80 | |
| Yarmouth | 97 | 320(2) | 26 |
| Dartmouth and Tor Bay | 65 | 270 | 15 |
| Fowey | 2 | 50 | |
| Sandwich | 30 | 240 | 12 |
| Lynn | 67 | 160 | 15 |
| Wells | 26 | 80 | |
| Burnham | 10 | 50 | |
| Blakeney | 14 | 100 | 1 |
| Plymouth | 40 | 120 | 7 |
| Stonehouse | 6 | 120 | 1 |
| Saltash and vicinity | 24 | 200 | 4 |
| Salcombe | 11 | 50 | |
| E. and W. Looe | 28 | 40 | |
| Penryn | 7 | 180 | 3 |
| Bristol | 32 | 250 | 16 |
The principal point which the reader of this list will notice is the small extent of change in the maritime relation of these places which had occurred since the days of Elizabeth. In her time Dartmouth, including Totnes, was the leading southern port, and, although Plymouth and adjoining towns now run it close, it is hardly yet second. And so far as the scanty materials for comparison allow us to judge, it does not appear that the relation between the other ports had altered to any important degree, although the aggregate of ships belonging to them is much greater. Notwithstanding the obvious omissions in this roll, it includes 100 vessels of 100 tons and upwards, against 177 in 1588 for the whole of England.
In February 1628 there was a survey of such ships in the Thames as were fit for the royal service.[1150] There were seven East Indiamen[1151] of 4200 tons and 218 guns, the largest being one of 900, one of 800, and two of 700 tons; besides thirty-four other merchantmen of 7850 tons and 610 guns, and twenty-two Newcastle colliers of from 200 to 250 tons each. The largest of the merchantmen were one of 500 and two of 450 tons. A year later, in February and March 1629, there was another survey of London and other ports, but only of ships of 100 tons and upwards, and there were now in the river eight East Indiamen of 5700 tons, one being of 1000 tons, and forty-seven other merchantmen of 12,150 tons, and 906 guns; there were also twenty-nine merchantmen of 7060 tons and 556 guns at sea, thirty Newcastle vessels belonging to London owners, and eighteen other ships of not more than 120 tons each and unarmed.[1152] The following list of the remaining towns will complement that of 1626, on which it shows some variations[1153]:—
| 100 tons and upwards | Largest | |
|---|---|---|
| South Cornwall | 6 | 200 |
| Plymouth | 8 | 160 |
| Dartmouth | 15 | 200 |
| Weymouth | 1 | 110 |
| Poole | 1 | 150 |
| Southampton | 1 | 100 |
| Sandwich | 6 | 200 |
| Dover | 7 | 260 |
| Malden | 2 | 160 |
| Colchester | 9 | 240 |
| Woodbridge | 17 | 300 |
| Harwich | 11 | 140 |
| Ipswich | 63 | 300 |
| Aldborough | 14 | 300 |
| Lynn | 5 | 120 |
| Yarmouth | 26 | 200 |
| Bristol | 30 | 250 |
| South Wales | 1 | 250 |
Including London there were, then, in 1629, more than 350 ships of over 100 tons, while Newcastle is only partly, and Yorkshire, Somerset, Chester, and Sussex are not at all mentioned; but the writer of the copy of 1634 remarks that in the five years that had elapsed since the survey was made, ninety-five more such vessels had been built.
The Ports.
All the fleets set forth by Charles contained a large proportion of colliers, as their cost was supposed to be but one-third of that of merchantmen. The growing importance of the coal trade is shown by the shipment of 143,000 chaldrons (equal to nearly 200,000 tons) of coal from Newcastle in 1626.[1154] On the other hand, leaving piracy aside for the moment, the chances of war and tempest played havoc with the commercial prosperity of not a few of the coast towns. In 1626 Bristol lost fifty ships by wreck and capture. When, in 1627, these ports were required to provide vessels for the King, most of them pleaded inability from these causes and losses by pirates. By the embargo in France and Spain Poole had lost £8500, and had to maintain 400 widows and children; Exeter, from the same cause, had lost £80,000 and ‘in many parishes there is not one man of ability to a hundred poor people.’ Barnstaple and Totnes replied that the crown owed them money for billeted soldiers, and that until payment was made they were powerless. Norwich was ‘in a desolate and distressed condition,’ as was also Harwich; and Aldborough in three years had lost thirteen ships, and had three hundred widows and children to keep. The port of Boston was choked up, and its big ships all sold. Dartmouth, Penryn, and Lyme Regis professed to be nearly ruined by the embargo laid on their ships and goods in France and Spain, while most of their remaining merchantmen were unemployed and they had many poor to support. Plymouth was ordered to supply two vessels of 200 tons each; they said they were in a distressed and miserable state, that since 1624 they had lost by pirates and embargo £44,000, that the crown owed £6000 in the town, and that the plague was causing ‘infinite misery.’[1155] Weymouth and Melcombe, called upon to provide the same number as Plymouth, answered that their losses by embargo came to £6000, besides the expense of supporting many poor women and children; Colchester had suffered from the plague for ten months and possessed no 200-ton ship, and King’s Lynn had lost twenty-five ships to the Dunkirkers, while their port cost them £350 a year.[1156] Yarmouth, in two years, had lost by Dunkirkers ‘and sundry other casualties at sea’ £25,000; their port cost them £600 a year, their haven and piers £1000 a year, and there was a municipal debt of £2200 on which they paid £140 per annum interest.[1157]
Against these sorrows we must set the fact that the returns show that these ruined ports were able to steadily build and increase, year by year, the number of their large ships, and in at least one instance—that of Dartmouth—while the townspeople said that they possessed no 200-ton vessel, the papers of 1626-7 show that they had one of 270 and two of 200 tons.[1158] The losses by wreck seem at one time to have been exceptionally heavy; between 1625 and 1628 393 ships, valued at some hundreds of thousands of pounds, perished at sea, the Eastland Company losing £100,000 in eighteen months.[1159] But probably neither the municipal authorities nor the government held themselves compelled to strict truthfulness in making out a case. As in most generations, owners appear to have overbuilt at the first sign of prosperous trade; in 1633 the Trinity House petitioned for an enforcement of the navigation laws, as shipping to the extent of 6000 tons was lying idle in the Thames.[1160] When in employment, captains did not neglect any chance of trade. In 1638 the master of a Mediterranean trader took a Turk, and sold fifteen men of its crew in a Spanish port; on his return he offered ‘the duty payable to his majesty,’ a tenth of the proceeds.[1161] The rule of requiring the shipowner to give a bond, before his vessel went to sea, that it should not be sold abroad had been strictly enforced since 1625; in fact before sale to a foreign subject could be effected the Lords of the Admiralty, the Officers of the Navy, and the judge of the Admiralty Court, had all to give their approval.