A HISTORY OF SUFFOLK 



their guns by its fire. 1 As the Southwold authorities stated a few weeks afterwards that the town 

 was unprotected these guns were the old and useless ones referred to later. 3 It was believed, no 

 doubt with some exaggeration, that there was a whole fleet of Dunkirkers off the Suffolk coast. A 

 certificate of 1628 specifies thirteen Aldeburgh ships, of the value of ^6,800, lost between 1625 

 and 1627, of which four had been taken by Dunkirkers ; 200 men had been drowned, leaving 300 

 widows and children. 3 In August, 1626, there were fifty-eight Ipswich ships lying in the Orwell 

 and in Harwich harbour unable to sail for fear of capture, while the Iceland and North Sea fishermen 

 had abandoned their voyages for the same reason. In consequence of a petition from Dunwich and 

 its neighbours in December a convoy of four Newcastle ships, hired for the purpose, was ordered for 

 the fishery in January, 1627, 4 but in March the Ipswich burgesses still reported the Orwell as 

 blockaded and estimated their losses, from capture alone, during 1626 at ^5,000.' In addition to 

 this the hindrance to free ingress and exit was destroying their shipbuilding trade. 6 The Navy was 

 not large enough to spare vessels in war time for convoy purposes, nor was the administration 

 efficient enough to make the most of what resources were available, therefore in reply to a joint 

 petition from Norfolk and Suffolk of 1628, hired ships were again ordered to be taken up. In this 

 instance the government undertook to pay, but the petitioners were told that if the necessity recurred 

 the ports would have to pay for themselves. 7 Peace with France and Spain brought some relief, 

 but the Dunkirkers — which it should be understood was a generic name for all privateers — were not 

 quelled, and the pause was only for a time until the vastly increased parliamentary Navy policed the 

 four seas effectively. 



The peaceful reign of James I gave little occasion for military or naval levies, therefore there 

 are few references to the ports. But there is evidence that in spite of the ravages of the Dunkirkers 8 

 maritime commerce had steadily increased so far as London and other ports carrying on special trades 

 were concerned. Mr. R. G. Marsden considers that there were upwards of 2,000 trading craft 

 afloat ; 9 this number is largely in excess of that existing in the palmiest days of Elizabeth. 

 Mr. Marsden has compiled a list 10 of ships' names occurring in legal and historical documents of the 

 reign of James, and also in various printed sources, in which 36 Aldeburgh vessels are mentioned, 76 

 of Ipswich, 12 of Orford, 9 of Southwold, 27 of Woodbridge, 2 of Walberswick, and I of Dunwich. 11 

 There must have been many others that sailed through an uneventful career without attracting the 

 attention of the law, the Admiralty officials, or the customs. The tendency of ship tonnage was to 

 increase, in itself a sign of growing trade and larger cargoes ; in 1 61 7 the bounty was paid on the 

 Griffin, 318 tons of Orford, and the Anne Bonaventure, 372 of Ipswich. There was evidently money 

 to spare for speculation because in March, 161 1, the Ipswich corporation subscribed j£ioo 'out of 

 the town treasure ' for the Virginia Settlement of the London Company. 12 



The profit from wreck and the latent jealousy of the crown anent privileges shorn from the 

 prerogative were causes why the Admiralty rights of the towns were regarded with suspicion towards 

 the end of the sixteenth century. In 1606 the opinion of Coke, the attorney-general, was taken on 

 the jurisdiction exercised by Ipswich, but the claims of the Suffolk towns were more firmly based 

 than were those of some in other counties and no legal proceedings followed. An inquisition of 1628 

 showed that the Lord Admiral only possessed rights of wreck between Leiston and Aldeburgh, all the 

 rest of the coast being franchised to the corporations or to private persons. The time had passed 

 when the exempted towns were places of refuge for maritime criminals, and the time was coming 

 when preciser legislation more strictly administered was to make their pecuniary privileges of less value. 

 During the eighteenth century the office of vice-admiral was an almost honorary one and the profits 

 from wreck and accessory perquisites became less and less. Local jealousies, however, made these 

 immunities seem of consequence as proofs of former importance, and in 1829 Dunwich and South- 

 wold went to law over the question whether a puncheon of whiskey found floating at sea was within 

 the jurisdiction of the one or the other. The victor, Dunwich, had to pay its own costs of upwards 

 of j£i,ooo. The absurdity of this case may have hastened legislation but there were also more serious 

 grounds for action. The Municipal Corporation Commissioners found that the proceedings of the 



1 S.P. Dom. Chas. I, xxii, 46, i. ' Post, p. 226. 



' S.P. Dom. Chas. I, exxvi, 5 5 ; of these thirteen vessels two were of 3 50, two of 3 20, and two of 300 tons. 

 One of the thirteen was a Mayflower, and this ship, Mr. Marsden informs me, was not improbably the famous 

 vessel of the Pilgrim Fathers. 



* Ibid, xlii, 102 ; xlvii, 23. ' Ibid, lvi, 66. 



6 Ibid, lviii, 14. ' Ibid, xc, 70 ; xci, 30, 4;. 



6 They mainly haunted particular portions of the coast and large and well armed ships were able to 

 protect themselves. 



9 Trans. R. Hist. Soc. xix, 311,' English Ships in the Reign of James I.' 10 Ibid. 



11 Mr. Marsden informs me that the corresponding figures for the period 1509-47 are Aldeburgh 26, 

 Ipswich 17, Lowestoft 15, Southwold 7, Walberswick 17, Woodbridge 12, Dunwich 10, Orford 2, and 

 Thorpe, Sizewell, and Bawdsey I each. 



" Hist. MSS. Com. ReJ>. ix, App. i, 256. 



224 



