Prize Money.
Charles I fell, throughout his reign, into the error of supposing that, if ships and guns were provided, devotion to his person would ensure loyalty and spontaneous service on the part of the men. He found, in 1642, that seamen are not sentimental, and that their sense of duty drew them towards the best paymasters. That perception of their own best interests, which had impelled the Long Parliament throughout the civil war to treat the seamen liberally, had still stronger reasons for existence in the years following 1648 when the maintenance, possibly of the republic, certainly of peace at home, depended on the action of the fleet. Throughout the history of the Navy any improvement in the position of the man-of-war’s man is found to bear a direct relation to the momentary needs of the governing classes, and in 1649 the necessity of dealing with Rupert at once woke the tender conscience of the Council to some further improvements that might be made in his condition. Gibson, who was all through the war, says that ‘from the year 1641 the bread and beer was of the best for fineness and goodness;’ but fresh orders were issued by the Council of State to find out and prosecute any agents supplying victuals of bad quality. Hitherto Lent had been strictly kept, being pecuniarily advantageous to the crown as well as spiritually profitable to the men, although physically ‘of much discontent to them;’ in future its observance was to cease, as was also the abatement of food on Fridays, ‘being begotten by the covetous desires of the contractors for victuals, though coloured with specious pretence of abstinence and religion.’[1283]
Besides raising their pay the Council also desired that ‘all just satisfaction be given to seamen, and that they reap all the benefit of the act passed for their encouragement in distribution of prize goods,’ and expressed themselves as anxious to appoint persons acceptable to the men as commissioners of prize goods.[1284] The act referred to, passed in February 1649, amplified and fixed authoritatively the merely parliamentary resolution of October 1642, which gave the men, beyond their wages, one-third of the value of a prize. Directed especially at Rupert’s squadron and Stewart privateers, the new act gave the officers and men of a state’s or hired ship one-half the value of a man-of-war captured; the other half went to a fund for the relief of sick and wounded and the wives and children of those killed, while if the enemy was destroyed they were to be paid at the rate of from £12 to £20 a gun, according to the size of the pieces it had on board. The net proceeds, after condemnation in the Admiralty Court and sale of goods, of a merchantman taken by a man-of-war were to be divided into three parts, of which one went to the officers and men, one to the fund for sick and wounded, and one to the state. If the merchantman were prize to a hired ship in the state’s service, two-thirds went, as before, to the crew and the sick fund, but the remaining third was divided into two parts, of which one was taken by the owners of the ship, and the other by the state. The tenths which had formerly been a perquisite of the Lord Admiral were now to be devoted to rewards and medals; and owners of English ships recaptured from an enemy had to pay one-eighth of the value of vessel and cargo as salvage.
Doubtless both Parliament and the executive intended to work this enactment loyally, but the needs of the treasury overcame their good intentions, and the delay in the distribution of prize money was a chronic source of discontent. Therefore from 1st January 1653 a new scheme came into operation, which gave ten shillings a ton for every ton the prize, whether merchantman or man-of-war, measured, and £6, 13s 4d for every gun she carried; for every man-of-war destroyed, £10 a gun; and the Lord Admiral’s tenths were to be devoted to the sick and wounded and the relief of widows and orphans.[1285] These distributions were to be made by the collectors of prize goods three days after payment of wages, a regulation which must have savoured of irony to those who were waiting, sometimes years, for wages. For the moment, however, the sailor was considered in every possible way, and, in May, Blake and his colleagues were ordered always to exchange prisoners if possible, ‘as it will tend much to the satisfaction of the seamen when they see that care is had of them.’[1286] Matters progressed smoothly enough till the Dutch war strained our finance desperately, and from 1648 till May 1653 there are but two instances of insubordination to be found.[1287]
When the Dutch war broke out the want of men was greater than the want of ships, and it was decided to press all seamen between fifteen and fifty years of age, a ticket being given to each man with his three halfpence a mile conduct money, specifying his physical appearance, and which he was called upon to present at the port where he joined his ship.[1288] Attempts were made to keep crews in the service by carrying forward thirty shillings of each man’s wages when he was paid off; but this, wrote the Navy Commissioners, caused ‘so much clamour and discontent that we are scarce able to stay in the office.’[1289] Under James and Charles the men had been glad to get any pay at all, and they probably strongly objected to any proceeding which was by way of a return to old customs. Eventually, however, the government did this and more, for a couple of years later it was customary to keep three months’ pay in hand if the men were turned over to another ship.
The Articles of War.
A long step in advance towards the future discipline of the Navy was made in 1652, when, on 25th December, the House of Commons enacted the first articles of war to which the service had ever been subjected, and which were grounded on some regulations for the government of Warwick’s fleet passed by the House in March 1648-9.[1290] These articles have escaped the notice of writers upon naval law, who begin their history of the subject with those passed in 1661; these latter, however, were only based upon those previously existing, which are the groundwork of all subsequent modifications and additions experience has shown to be necessary down to the present day. They were thirty-nine in number, and, so far as paper penalties were concerned, were rigorous enough. No punishment was adjudged for the infraction of the first article relating to the due performance of divine service; and the thirty-ninth is only a vague reference to offences not mentioned in the preceding articles, and which were punishable according to the ‘laws and customs of the sea.’ Of the remaining thirty-seven thirteen carried the infliction of death unconditionally, and twelve that of death or lesser punishment, according to sentence of court-martial, or court of war, as it was then called.
The parliamentary bark seems to have been much more ferocious than its bite since, in all the numerous courts-martial mentioned in the State Papers and elsewhere, there is no instance to be found in which the death sentence was carried out, and very few in which it was pronounced. Moreover precautions were taken against the exercise of tyranny by inferior officers, inasmuch as the promulgation of the code was accompanied by an order that the accused was only to be tried for serious offences in the presence of a flag officer, and that no finding involving life or limb was to be carried out without the approval of the Generals or the senior officer in command; and as trifling charges were to be heard before the captain and seven officers of the ship in which the offence was committed the offender had a fair chance of an impartial trial. Very soon after the Restoration this regulation fell into abeyance and prisoners obtained justice—too often Jeddart—at the hands of the captain alone. Only one case of a really severe sentence on foremast men is to be found. In December 1653, in the middle of the war, six seamen of the Portland were found guilty of inciting to mutiny and were sentenced to death. This was commuted, so far as three were concerned, to thirty lashes apiece, and for the other three to stand one hour with their right hands nailed to the mainmast of the flagship with halters round their necks.[1291] There is no record of the infliction of such severe punishment by any other court-martial.
As might be expected in a mercantile community the thirty-fifth article, relating to convoy duty, was the longest and most explicit. Under Henry VIII, and later, convoy money had been a legal charge; recently it had become difficult to obtain convoy protection at all, and when given owners and captains had been exposed to vexatious and illegal demands. Now, any man-of-war captains not performing such duty thoroughly and efficiently, and defending ‘the ships and goods in their convoy without either diverting to other parts and occasions, or refusing or neglecting to fight in their defence if they be set upon or assailed, or running away cowardly, and submitting those in their convoy to peril and hazard,’ were to make good to the owners any pecuniary loss so caused. As, in the case of a valuable cargo and a penniless naval captain, such a sentence might be equivalent to escaping scot-free, death was also added as a possible punishment. Any captain or officer demanding or receiving a gratuity was to be cashiered. From 19th October 1649 the House had resolved that convoy should henceforth be provided without charge, and in 1650 the east coast fishermen were gratefully acknowledging the benefits resulting. Matters, however, did not progress altogether smoothly. Sometimes merchantmen were independent, and when the government provided men-of-war for the Mediterranean, would not ‘stay half a day’ to obtain their protection.[1292] But when the owners belonging to Poole, Weymouth, Dartmouth, and Plymouth united, nine months later, in begging for a stronger guard than usual to Newfoundland the Council recommended them to defer sending a fleet till next year, as a convoy could not be spared.[1293] From other papers the truth seems to have been that, although a vessel or two could have been found for the work, the Council desired to obtain for national purposes the men who would have manned the merchantmen.
The option of sailing with or without convoy was not always left to the discretion of owners. In February 1653 the Council sent orders to some of the eastern ports that no vessel was to sail without protection, for which preparations were being made; but in July the owners of three ships destined for the Mediterranean petitioned for leave to send them without the escort, which had been twice promised during sixteen months of delay, and of which there was still no sign. Criticism must take into account the fact that these things were happening during the strain of a great war and that under ordinary circumstances, or when merely at war with Spain, there was no want of promptness in the action of the authorities. On 25th February 1656 Hull petitions for a convoy, and on the 29th it is ordered; Newcastle on 10th February 1657 obtains an order the same day. In January 1660 twenty-five ships were on convoy duty, one being sent down to St Helena to meet the returning East Indiamen (this had been for some years customary), two to the Canaries, and four to the Mediterranean.