MARITIME HISTORY 



so that the coasting and cross-Channel trade was stopped, and fishermen dared 

 not go out. In 1636 the western ports, including Poole, Weymouth, and 

 Lyme, petitioned that the coast was ' infested ' with Turks, and that they had 

 lost, within the last few years, 87 ships worth nearly jT 100,000 and 1,160 

 men."' Wrought up to more active measures than writing petitions, the three 

 Dorset joined with five Devon ports to send John Crewkerne, who had been 

 town clerk of Lyme but was then living at Exeter, to London to see the 

 principal members of the Privy Council individually ; of the expenses inci- 

 dental to the mission the three Dorset towns bore three-twenty-fourths. "' 

 Crewkerne saw several members of the Council and found them all sympathetic, 

 but Archbishop Laud was especially earnest ; he ' gave this answer, striking 

 his hands upon his breast, that while he had breath in his body he would 

 to the uttermost of his power advance a business so necessary.' ^"' The king 

 promised, vaguely, such measures as would sweep the Algerines and Saleemen 

 off the seas, but we find that in 1638 Poole and Weymouth were still suffer- 

 ing, and that 27 Algiersmen were then known to be in the Channel or bound 

 for it.^" The inability to deal with these human vermin was only one indica- 

 tion of the general rottenness of administration which, during the reign of 

 Charles I, consumed the resources of the country without result. 



Under the stimulus of expected invasion some attention had been given 

 to the coast defences, but after 1588 they were again neglected. In 1593 

 Portland was disarmed and left ' wholly unprovided,' all the brass guns having 

 been taken away for use in the Navy."'' The ruinous condition of Brownsea, 

 where there was not a gun mounted, was reported to Burghley in 1596, but 

 it was in much the same state when the panic of 1599 brought it again under 

 notice ; there was then only a caretaker in it."'' At the same time Portland 

 and Sandsfoot Castles were said to be ' unfurnished,' which may mean much 

 or little."* As regards Sandsfoot it certainly meant much, for from another 

 paper of the same date it is clear that part of the ramparts had fallen down 

 and that the place was going to destruction from neglect."^ In 1610 there 

 was a grant of £2^0 for the repair of Sandsfoot,"* and then the fortifications 

 everywhere were forgotten until 1623, when relations with Spain were 

 becoming strained. In July the Ordnance Office officials were ordered to 

 survey the fortifications from the Thames to Cornwall ; at Portland there were 

 13 guns and at Sandsfoot 10, but the sea there was undermining the front. "^ 

 To put both castles in good condition it was estimated that ^1,000 would 

 be required. At Weymouth, in 1622, there were guns at the Nothe and in 

 the Bulwark ; in 1625 the corporation resolved that the block-house at Mel- 

 combe should be built up with stone."^ When it appeared probable that war 

 with France was approaching the ports grew fearful of cross-Channel raids, 

 and in 1626 estimates were prepared for two more batteries, one at Weymouth 

 and one at Melcombe ; towards this the corporation offisred jr20 of the cost."' 

 In 1628 there was no fort at the Nothe ; in petitioning for one the corporation 



•■* S.P. Dom. Chas. I, dxxxvi, No. 97. -' Moule, op. cit. 179. 



-■■" Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. iii, App. 346. ™ Coke MSS. (Hist. MSS. Com.), ii, 191, 192. 



*" Jas o/P.C. 7 Aug. 1593. 



''^ S.P. Dom. Eliz. cclvii, No. 77 ; Cecil MSS. (Hist. MSS. Com.), viii, 152 ; Harl. MSS. 3324, fol. 62. 



"* S.P. Dom. Eliz. cclxxii, No. 25. '" Cecil MSS. (Hist. MSS. Com.), viii, 148. 



"'■ S.P. Dom. Jas. I, Ivii, 1 1 Aug. 1610. "^^ Ibid, cxlix, No. 104 ; Harl. MSS. 1326, fol. 70, 72. 



"' Moule, op. cit. 171. ^' Ibid. 174. 



213 



