A HISTORY OF SUFFOLK 



seventeen of from 100 to 300 tons, and Aldeburgh fourteen of the same class with twenty-four of 

 from thirty to eighty tons. 1 Dunwich housed eighty-two seafaring men, but petitioned in 1628 

 that there was only one parish left in the town, which was now too poor to set out anything but 

 small fishing boats, and thatmost of their men had died in the Rh6 expedition. In 1629 there were 

 1,129 seamen in the county, of whom 250 belonged to Ipswich and 256 to Aldeburgh. 8 



The recurrence of war caused attention to be paid to the coast defences generally and to 

 Harwich harbour in particular as a descent was apprehended there. In August, 1625, Sir John 

 Coke, an influential official then attending to the restoration of the ruined forts in the home counties, 

 wrote forcibly to Buckingham about its importance and its absolute unprotectedness, ' this place then 

 above all others must be considered of.' * It was probably in consequence of this letter that the 

 deputy lieutenants of Suffolk were asked for a report upon Landguard and other places. They of 

 course recommended a fort at Landguard, ' where formerly there hath been one, for if the enemy 

 should land there and build a sconce he would command all the harbour.' From Orfordness to 

 Thorpeness there were only eight ' old honeycombed iron pieces,' presumably at Aldeburgh ; 

 Dunwich and Southwold had each two old and useless guns. 4 Nothing was done immediately 

 for the coast towns, and a report of 1627 shows that their antique armament still remained, but 

 in the same year ten new guns were sent to Aldeburgh and eight to Southwold. 5 Although 

 these, places were supplied with guns they were expected to furnish ammunition for themselves, but 

 Aldeburgh petitioned that it was too poor even to do that. 8 



When Sir John Coke wrote to Buckingham insisting on the immediate necessity of a fort at 

 Landguard he added that, ' if the haste will not expect the ordinary slow proceeding in the Office 

 of the Ordnance,' the superintendence might be entrusted to a Navy Commissioner. This was in 

 August, 1625, and a descent under the Marquis Spinola being daily expected 1,000 militia were 

 encamped there in September. 7 In the result the work was placed in the charge of the earl of 

 Warwick, the lord-lieutenant of Suffolk, and by January, 1626, it was in progress. 8 In October 

 commissioners were sent to survey the new buildings there and at Harwich ; they reported that ' great 

 care and judgment ' had been displayed, but that another four months' work would be required to 

 finish Landguard. 9 It seems to have been a square with four ' bulwarks,' or bastions, and four 

 curtains, having a circuit of 1,968 feet ; the curtain walls were to be eighteen feet high, and two 

 faces of the fort commanded the entrance of the harbour. 10 The fortress was established from 

 I July, 1627, but it was sufficiently advanced in 1626 to be armed with forty-three guns, and 

 nineteen more were added in the following year. 11 It was probably planned by Simon von 

 Cranvelt, who was induced by our ambassador in Holland to come over here ' for the making and 

 working of fortifications within this kingdom.' Cranvelt died here, and his representatives were 

 paid ;ioo in i626. 12 The earl of Holland was created governor of Landguard for life, with the 

 colonelcy of the garrison of 126 men, by grant of 7 March, 1628, and a fee of ^207 in. 8^. a 

 year was allowed him for their maintenance. The first incident of interest in the history of the new fort 

 was 'a great mutiny ' in June, 1628. Robert Gosnold, the lieutenant-governor, who must have 

 exceeded his powers, made the six ringleaders draw lots, the one who lost being condemned to death. 

 The prisoner was handed over to the civil arm, the process being to transfer him from one parish 

 constable to another until he reached his destined prison. However, the constable of Trimley 

 St. Mary, who perhaps knew more than Gosnold of the law, set the culprit free. 



Both men-of-war captains and port commandants were everywhere sticklers for etiquette in 

 the matter of salutes, and the usual collision between the Navy and the Army soon occurred at 

 Landguard. In 1629 Captain Richard Plumleigh, in a king's ship, put into Harwich harbour, and 

 was ordered by the commanding officer at Landguard to strike his flag. Plumleigh, like other 

 captains, thought such a confession of inferiority insufferable, even if the demand had not been for 

 several reasons ridiculously impertinent as coming from this particular army. His description of 

 his proceedings is couched in the right spirit : 



I told them that without an order from the Council or the Commissioners of the Admiralty, I durst 

 do no such obeisance ; they answered that if I refused they would sink me, and that they had warrant 

 from my lord of Warwick so to do. I slighted that authority and replied that I thought myself as able 

 to beat their paper fort to pieces with my ordnance as they to sink me, and bid them take heed how 

 they made the first shot. Upon this we fell to worse words, and at length to some blows, in which 

 they had nothing the better. 13 



1 S.P. Dom. Chas. I, cclxx, 64 ; cclxxii, 135. It may be noticed that before an English ship could 

 be sold to a foreigner the approval of the judge of the Admiralty Court, of the Admiralty, and of the Navy 



rf" __!_!. 1 . 1 9 Tl 1 1 M T i i . 



I Ibid, civ, 31. ' Ibid. iv. 77. 

 5 S.P. Dom. Chas. I, Ixxxiii, 10 ; ccxlv, 49. 



Diary of John Rous (Camd. Soc.) 2. 

 9 Ibid, xxxvii, 64. 



II Ibid, ccliv, 41 ; xciv, 33. 



" S.P. Dom. Chas. I, cxlvii, 18. 

 226 



Commissioners had to be obtained. 



4 Hist. MSS. Com. Wodehouse MSS. 443. 

 * Ibid, xxix, 114. ' Ibid, vi, 44 



' S.P. Dom. Chas. I, six, 20 ; xxxvi, 22. 



10 Ibid. 64. i. 



" Devon, Isiuei of the Exchequer, 7. 



