MARITIME HISTORY 



Again, in November, 1302, there was a general levy from Newcastle to the Land's End, the 

 eastern counties being called upon for fifty ships, but the number required for each town is not 

 given. 1 In this case, and unlike the southern counties, which were commended as a whole for their 

 willingness, the east coast showed a lagging spirit whicli evoked some coercive measures. The 

 original order was dated 10 November, 1302, and Walter Bacun, a king's clerk, was to select the 

 vessels in the various ports. On 2 March, 1303,8 writ to the sheriffs of the counties directed them 

 to aid Bacun to take security from the shipowners for appearance at Berwick, as some had absolutely 

 refused to send ships, and others had not sent as many as had been demanded. 2 On 16 April 

 another clerk was associated with Bacun because 'he has been negligent ' and the king 'expects 

 great help from the ships.' 3 Seeing that probably the greater part of such trade as existed with 

 Scotland was carried on by the east coast towns it can be understood why a dynastic war was not 

 very popular in that region. The shipbuilding industry which was afterwards the chief business of 

 Ipswich must already have been of some standing, for in 1295 a galley and a barge for the king 

 were being built there. 4 



The practice of the crown in taking up merchant ships was a part of the king"s claim to the 

 services of all his subjects, upon which the right of impressing seamen was also based. At first 

 sight the constant levies of ships and men would appear to have been destructive of commerce, but 

 in reality they were not nearly so disastrous to it as they seem to be. A trading voyage involved 

 great risk of loss from wreck, piracy, or privateering ; the royal service meant certain payment for 

 the fitting and hire of the ship with sixpence a day for the officers and threepence for the men, very 

 liberal wages allowing for the different value of money. The incessant embargoes which harassed 

 trade — then much increased — under Edward III were not yet common, and the alacrity with which 

 most of the ports responded to the demands made upon them shows that the services required were 

 not oppressive, nor even unwelcome, especially as those who contributed to the sea service were 

 freed from any aid towards that by land. There was no permanent naval administration at this 

 time. The king possessed some ships of his own and the commanders were usually charged with 

 their maintenance. When a fleet was to be raised from the merchant navy a certain extent of 

 coast was allotted to one of the king's clerks, or to a serjeant-at-arms, who acted with the bailiffs of 

 the port towns in selecting ships and men and seeing them despatched to the place of meeting. If 

 a ship did not appear, or the men deserted, they or the owner might be required to find security to 

 come before the king, and although there was as yet no statute dealing with the offence, 6 they were 

 imprisoned by the authority of the king alone or punished at the discretion of the admiral. 6 



The entries on the Patent and Close Rolls show that in the thirteenth century Dunwich was 

 the leading Suffolk port. In 1275 and 1285 there are references to a direct wine trade with 

 Gascony, one of the ships engaged being of at least 125 tons. 7 In the next reign two Dunwich 

 ships were plundered to the value of some thousands of pounds in a Zealand port ; 8 in 1317 two 

 ships of Gosefcrd (probably of Woodbridge) are mentioned, one of which must have been of about 

 120 tons. 9 Orford, Ipswich, Orwell, and Goseford, as well as Dunwich, are referred to as passage 

 ports, but in 1229 only Ipswich and Dunwich were subjected to an embargo on foreign trading. 10 



The continual quarrels between the ports about their rights or encroachments are sufficient 

 evidence that the herring fishery was carried on industriously. In 1233 the bailiffs of Yarmouth 

 were ordered to allow the Dunwich men to remain in their port in peace ; n an order of the same 

 year, 12 which exempted all Suffolk vessels from payment of the fortieth, was perhaps due to the desire to 

 encourage the fishery, since such a tax must have pressed most hardly on fishing boats. Some of the 

 orders, such as one in 1309 that no one should take fish ' without payment' from the Holland and 

 Friesland boats, seem to point to easy if dishonest methods of supply. 13 The feuds between 

 Yarmouth and the Cinque Ports are well known, but the Suffolk towns also had an uneasy time 

 with their big neighbour. In 1302 a commission sat to examine into complaints made by Yarmouth 

 against Gorleston and Little Yarmouth, and the gist of their offence may no doubt be found in 

 another Yarmouth petition in 1307 which states that 200 ships at the time, belonging to 'merchants 

 strangers,' were sometimes lying in the two smaller ports. 14 The success of Gorleston caused so 

 much ill-feeling in Yarmouth that a year later the sheriff of Norfolk was ordered to proclaim that 

 any injury done to the Gorleston men would be punished by ' grievous forfeiture.' 15 An award of 



I Pat. 30 Edw. I, m. 2. ' Ibid. 31 Edw. I, m. 33. 



3 Ibid. m. 27. ' Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. ix, App. i, 257. 



5 The first statute was 2 Rich. II, st. I, cap. 4, by which deserters were fined double their wages and sent 

 to prison for a year. 



II e.g. Pat. 30 Edw. I, m. 13; ibid. 32 Edw. I, m. 28 ; Close, 17 Edw. II, m. 6 d. See also/w/, p. 206. 

 ; Pat. 3 Edw. I, m. 25. * Close, 2 Edw. II, m. 11. 



' Ibid. 10 Edw. II, m. 12 d. ; 11 Edw. II, m. 18 d. '° Ibid. 13 Hen. Ill, m. 7 d. 



" Ibid. 17 Hen. Ill, m. 10. " Ibid. m. 16 d. 



" Ibid. 3 Edw. Ill, m. 23. To the cast coast generally except Essex and Lincolnshire. 

 " Pat. 30 Edw. I, m. 15 d. ; 35 Edw. I, m. 37 d. 15 Close, 1 Edw. II, m. 6. 



203 



