MARITIME HISTORY 



From the last sentence it may be inferred that shots actually were exchanged. So far as the Navy 

 was concerned, this especial folly soon ceased, but merchantmen were for long expected to salute 

 the king's forts. In 1715 sixty-one masters of merchantmen petitioned that the then governor 

 was in the habit of firing on them for not saluting, or for not going through the process to his 

 satisfaction, and that he made them pay for the cost of the exercise. 1 



Notwithstanding the favourable opinion of the commissioners of 1626, Landguard fort must 

 have been badly built, for in 1635 the walls were falling down, and it seems that the moat and 

 counterscarp had never been completed. 2 There were forty guns, but they were lying dismantled 

 and useless, and the pay of the garrison was £5,600 in arrear, the men being 'weak,' unclothed, and 

 in fear of arrest for debt. No repairs were undertaken, and in May, 1636, it was possible 'to ride 

 into the fort horse and man,' the wall being in a condition which offered no obstacle. 3 The 

 governor, in reporting the state of things rather later, said that there were 150 ships belonging to 

 the haven — presumably to Ipswich and Harwich — and that the county levies were not to be trusted 

 for the defence of the fort. 4 Landguard fell into the hands of the Parliament without trouble ; 

 nothing occurred there during the civil war, through which period it was kept in serviceable 

 condition, but after the return of peace it was neglected, and by 1656 had fallen into a ruinous 

 state again. 6 At one moment, however, there had been a possibility of its disestablishment, the 

 question being referred to the committee of the Eastern Association. 6 Beyond the guns of 1627 

 no further defence was afforded to the Suffolk ports before the Civil War. The threat of royalist 

 privateers off the coast impelled Parliament, in December, 1642, to assign £s°> and in the following 

 January another £50, for the purpose of throwing up batteries at Aldeburgh. 7 Later, the town 

 petitioned that it had expended £2,125 10s. about its twenty-six guns and the men watching and 

 serving them, there being often occasion to use them against the privateers hovering around. When 

 Cromwell marched into Lowestoft in 1643 he is said to have taken away the guns sent by 

 Elizabeth, but according to a petition of 1663 the Commonwealth built an 8-gun battery, which 

 was shortly afterwards swept away by the sea. 8 In 1656 there were guns at Lowestoft, but no 

 ammunition for them, and on 8 February five Dunkirkers were lying off the town, the inhabitants 

 expecting momentarily that the crews would come ashore and plunder. 9 The nomination of a 

 parliamentary committee in May, 1651, to consider the advisability of building some defence at 

 Gorleston probably marks the date of the Old Fort, or of its reconstruction and re-armament. 

 Guns were in position at Southwold when, in July, 1652, a Dutch fleet was off the place and took 

 two prizes in despite of the town artillery. 10 



Charles had intended an issue of ship-money writs in 1628, but, alarmed by the feeling aroused, 

 he withdrew from the first trial. Forced, however, to choose between facing a parliament or 

 raising money by this method, the ship-money writs of 20 October, 1634, were sent out, Suffolk 

 being linked with Essex to provide a 700-ton ship with 250 men, victualled, armed, and stored for 

 twenty-six weeks' service. 11 As the ships required were larger than those possessed by any port 

 except London, an equivalent in money might be paid to the Treasury to be applied to the 

 preparation of a king's ship, and Suffolk and Essex were therefore given the option of paying 

 £6,615. The total amount for the whole country was £104,252, and there was only ,£2,000 

 deficit in the payments. The second writ of 4 August, 1635, for £218,500, was general to the 

 inland counties as well as to the coast, Suffolk being asked for an 800-ton ship or ,£8,000. 12 Ipswich 

 was assessed at £240, Orford £12, Aldeburgh £8 165. Southwold £8, and Dunwich £4, the rates 

 affording striking evidence of the comparative wealth and importance of Ipswich. 13 The third writ 

 of 9 October, 1636, was again for an 800-ton ship, and for the fourth writ of 1639 the town 

 assessments were the same as in 1635 ; 14 but it was afterwards proposed to reduce them considerably, 

 the Ipswich rate falling to £90 and Dunwich to £2. In 1639 Sir Symonds D'Ewes was chosen 

 sheriff of Suffolk, and as in his Autobiography he describes ship-money as 'a most deadly and fatal 

 blow' to the liberties of the country, he was probably not very eager in applying pressure to 

 laggards in payment. On 21 April, 1640, he wrote to the Navy Treasurer that on that date hejiad 

 expected to receive £1,000, but feared there would not be £200, and enclosed examples of evasive 

 replies. 15 In June he was accused of slackness, but protested that he had done his best. 18 



All the more considerable English ports, the worst sufferers by Charles's naval mal- 

 administration, stood by the Parliament even in royalist counties ; in Suffolk only Lowestoft 



1 Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. xi, App. iv, 1 31 . ■ S.P. Dom. Chas. I, cote, 79. 



3 Ibid, cccxxii, 59. 4 Ibid, cccxl, 30. * Ibid. Intcrreg. exxiv, 6 Feb. 1656. 



* Commons Journals, 2 Mar. 1646-7. ' Ibid, ii, 878, 925. 



6 Gillingwater, Hist, of Lowestoft, 419. ' S.P. Dom. Interrcg. exxiv, 38. 



'" Ibid, xxiv, 73. " Ibid. Chas. I, eclxxvi, i, 64. " Ibid, ccxevi, 69. 



13 Ibid, cccxiii, 108. It may be that Ipswich paid £450, for the sheriff raised the assessment to that 

 amount; the corporation appealed to the Privy Council (ibid, ccc, 59). 



14 Ibid, cccci, 37. " Ibid, ccccli, 18. " Ibid, cccclvi, 41. 



227 



