MARITIME HISTORY 



with his successors. Neither in the expedition to Ireland in 1 171 nor in Richard's crusade of 1 1 90 

 do we know that Suffolk took part. For the former there were 400 ships, most of which must 

 have been very small and levied in the south and west ; Richard's fleet consisted of upwards of 

 100 large vessels, and probably included many from the continental dominions of the crown. The 

 landing at Walton of a military force, brought from Flanders by Robert, earl of Leicester, occurred 

 in 1173, but there was no attempt by sea to hinder his passage. In 1205 we have the first station 

 list of the king's ships, from which we find that there were two galleys at Ipswich and five at 

 Dunwich. 1 As there was none between London and Ipswich, and Dunwich has the same number 

 as London, this is incidental evidence of the early importance of the two Suffolk ports. In that 

 year the king placed two galleys in commission to guard the coast from Orford to Yarmouth, 

 promising the crews a half value of all prizes 2 ; besides these other galleys were attached to 

 Ipswich and Dunwich. Both in 1208 and 12 14 lists of ships belonging to all the ports of the 

 kingdom, with the names of their owners, were required, but in the latter year the demand was 

 confined to ships of eighty tons and upwards. 3 In 121 3 the principal maritime districts were called 

 upon to supply naval necessaries, Norfolk and Suffolk being required to find masts, oars, and 

 cordage. 4 In the same year there was a general levy of ships to form the fleet which, under the 

 earl of Salisbury, destroyed a French force in the Swin, and no doubt the Suffolk ports were repre- 

 sented in his command. John was several times in Suffolk during his reign, but only once on the 

 coast, in 121 6, at Ipswich. 



In 1225 the sheriffs of Norfolk and Suffolk were directed to select at Ipswich three ships fitted 

 for horse transport, or, if they were not to be obtained there, to take them from Dunwich. 6 At 

 this date the Cinque Ports contingent was the nucleus of the royal fleets, and it is noteworthy that 

 a writ to the Cinque Ports ordering a levy was frequently accompanied by one to Norfolk and 

 Suffolk for the same purpose, showing that in sufficiency and readiness they were considered on an 

 equality. And, of the Suffolk ports, Dunwich stands out pre-eminently as the one upon which 

 the crown relied as always having ships and men available. On 10 September, 1229, the bailiffs of 

 Dunwich were required to send forty ships, armed and manned, to Portsmouth by the 29th for 

 the king's passage over the sea, and although ten of the forty were remitted there is no indication 

 that this was done because such a sudden demand for so many vessels unduly strained the maritime 

 resources of the town. 6 Again, in 1235, when most of the Cinque Ports, together with Yarmouth 

 and Southampton, were assessed for one ship each, Dunwich alone was required to send two. 7 An 

 order of 1236 that ten vessels were to be chosen in Norfolk and Suffolk for the passage of the king's 

 sister Isabella on her marriage with the Emperor Frederick 8 seems to show that the ships belonging 

 to these ports were comparatively large and roomy and suitable for passengers, since the only others 

 levied were from the Cinque Ports; and those we know, whatever their merits, did not possess such 

 qualities. Dunwich was again coupled with the Cinque Ports in 1242, when, after Henry's failure 

 abroad, he urged the bailiffs to devote the whole strength of the towns to ravage the French coast 

 and to destroy French commerce. 9 



Both in 1230 and 1255 there were arrests of ships large enough to carry sixteen horses ; in the 

 first instance the writ is for Suffolk generally, in the second Orford, Ipswich, and Dunwich are 

 specified. 10 In 1242 only vessels of eighty tons and upwards were required from the Suffolk ports." 

 In another writ Goseford, which undoubtedly meant Bawdsey Haven '*' — that is to say, the district 

 watered by the lower part of the River Deben, probably including Woodbridge — is grouped with 

 Ipswich and Orwell. 13 These appear to have been the only Suffolk ports as yet conspicuous. 

 Perhaps a sign of the commencing decline of Dunwich is to be found in 1264 when a writ states 

 that twenty-four of their ships having been impressed the town and the adjacent places were left 

 unprotected, and that therefore one vessel, available at VVinchelsea, was to be returned. 11 The 

 Dunwich men themselves considered that the moment of their greatest prosperity was when they 

 took the farm of the town from Edward I, about 1279 ; at that time they possessed eighty ' great 

 ships' and the tolls levied at their 'commodious port' paid most of the farm. By 1348 the ships 

 had been destroyed by enemies, the port spoiled by sandbanks, and lands submerged by the sea. u 



1 Close, 6 John, m. 10. 'Pat. 6 John, m. 2. 



3 Ibid. 9 John, m. 2 ; 16 John, m. 1 6. * Close, I 5 John, m. 4. 



'Ibid. 9 Hen. Ill, m. 16. e Close, 1 3 Hen. Ill, m. 4 ; 14 Hen. III. m. 16. 



1 Pat. 19 Hen. Ill, m. 14. f Rymer, Focdcra, i, 358. 9 Ibid. 406. 



" Close, 14 Hen. III. m. ] 7 d. ; Pat. 38 Hen. Ill, m. 5. In the 1230 levy the owners showed some 

 hesitation and the local authorities were ordered to imprison those recalcitrant (Close, 14 Hen. Ill, m. 13). 

 " Close, 26 Hen. Ill, m. 4. 



18 'Goseford haven aliter diet Baudseye haven' (Exch. K. R. Mem. Roll 333, East. r. 7). 

 13 Pat. 19 Hen. III. m. \\ d. 



M Close, 48 Hen. Ill, m. \d. The others were at Bordeaux. 

 16 Pat. 22 Edw. Ill, pt. 1, m. 1 2 d. ; Rot. Pari, i, 426 ; ii, 210. 



2 201 26 



