POLITICAL HISTORY 



The nominal objects of the levy of ship-money were defence against inva- 

 sion and defence against the pirates who had troubled the Dorset coast 

 all through the preceding century, and whose raids were only ended by the 

 sea-power of the Protectorate. It is probable that the government honestly 

 believed in efforts then said to be making to invade England. A letter from 

 Lord Suffolk in 1626 to the mayor and corporation of Weymouth and Mel- 

 combe speaks of the preparations for an invasion by Spain from Flanders.^ 

 It seems to have been caused by a letter to him from the Privy Council, to 

 order him to have the militia drilled, as the king had cause to expect an 

 invasion from Spain and Flanders.^ Yet, in spite of continued levies of ship- 

 money, Dorset had no help against the pirates — Turkish and Algerian 

 and often helped by the Dutch — whose attacks became worse, from 16 10 on. 

 Weymouth often joined Exeter and Dartmouth in attempts at repelling them, 

 and resort was had to petitions to the Council. In 1636 the corporation 

 endeavoured to enlist the favour of Laud, who 



did protest (strikeing his hands upon his brest), that whilst hee had breath in his bodie, he 

 would doe his uttmost endeavor to advance so necessary and consequential! a business . . . 

 that within this twelve monethes, not a Turkish ship should be able to putt out.^ 



But nothing was done to help the county against this scourge. It was, there- 

 fore, all the more irritating to find that ship-money writs continued to be 

 issued, the sums demanded having increased in severity. By 2 i March, 1635, 

 the sum received from the Dorset maritime towns under the writ of the 

 preceding year was ^^1,400, Gloucestershire and Hampshire having paid only 

 ^1,000 each.* The method of procedure was to assess the county in a 

 certain sum, and to make the sheriff responsible. He then divided this sum 

 among the various corporate towns, and the remaining parts of the county. 

 The corporate towns rated themselves and forwarded their contributions 

 through their mayors. The sheriff assessed the sums to be paid by the 

 various hundreds and parishes not included in the corporate towns, and 

 collected from these by his ' servants' or bailiffs. So early as 1635 the men 

 of Poole protested against the levy.° But about the same time Sir Thomas 

 Trenchard, sheriff (remonstrated with by the Council because he had not sent 

 in a note to say how the ship-money was assessed by him, and how much 

 to be paid by every hundred and corporate town), replied that he had already 

 paid to Sir William Russell ^^3,100, and to his own successor in office 

 (John Freke) jCgoS is. bd., with a memorial of the sum still owing, 

 >C99i i8j. dd. He had been delayed in returning his account by the daily 

 concourse of people to pay in their moneys to him.' A list, drawn up by 

 him in April, 1636, of those who had not paid, shows that Sir Walter Erie, 

 afterwards Parliamentary general, owed £^t^ 6s. Sd. for lands in Morden, 

 £^ 3J. for lands in Combe Aimer, and ^4 i is. for lands in Chelborough. 

 Sir William Strode would not pay, but suffered his goods to be distrained.'' 

 This case is the first mention of distraint. But the method was necessarily 

 soon resorted to in the collection of so unpopular a tax, at a time of 

 peculiar hardship, when the county was suffering severely from plague 

 ravages. In the assessment of 1636 Shaftesbury paid nothing, so heavy was 



' Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. v, 581. » Weymouth Chart, iv, 56. 



' Ibid, vi, 103. * Cal. S.P. Dom. 1633-4, P- 594 



' C<7/. S.?. DuOT. 1635-6, p. 12. ' Ibid. 211, 356. ' Ibid. 395-6. 



147 



