MARITIME HISTORY 



In 1308 there was a levy of ships for the Scotch war, and Shoreham outside the Sussex 

 Cinque Ports was asked for one to be manned with 42 men. 1 The next year Seaford also was 

 included in a writ directed to the passage ports of the kingdom. 8 Shipowners quickly found that 

 the methods of Edward II were in unpleasant contrast to those of his father, who, if he often raised 

 fleets, did so at the expense of the crown. His son's extravagance soon forced him to require the 

 ports to provide vessels at their own cost, and Shoreham was assessed for one in this way in 1310, 

 when operations by sea and land were necessary against Robert Bruce. 3 A larger fleet was required 

 in 1311, and on this occasion Shoreham was rated for two ships, but at the king's charges. 4 The 

 Scotch war was again the cause, in 1314, of heavy levies, Shoreham and Seaford being each ordered 

 to send one ship and Chichester two. 6 In all these levies the Cinque Ports supplied their usual 

 ' service,' or such part of it as was demanded ; but in that of 1314 there was a default, for which 

 pardons were subsequently granted to four barons of Winchelsea and four of Hastings, Pevensey, 

 and Rye. 6 In 1316 the Warden of the Ports was directed to visit all the coast towns between 

 Greenwich and Southampton and persuade their inhabitants to equip as many ships as they could, 

 or would, to serve as long as possible at their expense, ' for the better keeping of the English sea ' 

 and to put down piracy. 7 This was a request, but it was soon followed by commands a general 

 order issued in 1319 to many ports, including Winchelsea, Rye, and Hastings in Sussex, to supply 

 ships for three or four months at their own cost. 8 Such an exaction seems a distinct infringement 

 of their privileges, and could only be defended as a national necessity consequent on the exhaustion 

 caused by the long war. The Cinque Ports, and the coast towns generally, must have welcomed a 

 two years' truce in 1320 with Scotland. 



When the war was renewed the squadron from the Ports was again in request, but it does not 

 appear that any non-privileged place in Sussex was troubled, and another truce with Scotland, for 

 thirteen years, was arranged in 1323. War then threatened with France, and writs were addressed 

 direct to Winchelsea, Rye, Hastings, Seaford, and Shoreham to send respectively six, two, one, one, 

 and two of the largest ships they possessed to convey troops to Aquitaine. 9 It was possibly because 

 this was a supplementary and unusual service that the king ' agreed ' with them that they were to 

 have three-fourths of all prize goods, reserving the remaining fourth for himself. 10 During the 

 absence of the Cinque Ports fleet a keeper of the port of Winchelsea was appointed, as, ' on account 

 of its ample size,' a large number of enemy's ships might put in and endanger the town. 11 

 Shoreham, perhaps, saw an advantageous opportunity to act for itself, and, in response to their 

 application, the burgesses received encouragement to make vigorous war against the French on their 

 own account. 12 In the meanwhile Isabella and Prince Edward were in France, and invasion was 

 known to be imminent. In August, 1326, officials were nominated to survey and take up all ships 

 of 50 tons and upwards ; the list of ports is very full, but in Sussex we find only Rye, Winchelsea, 

 Hastings, Pevensey, Seaford, and Shoreham. 13 The concentration of the southern fleet was to be 

 effected at Portsmouth, and shortly afterwards it was decided to strengthen the royal fleets still 

 further by calling upon those who had not been affected by the first levy to contribute to the 

 equipment of more ships. Rye was put down for three vessels and 114 men, Hastings two ships 

 and 63 men, Shoreham two ships and 46 men, Seaford one ship and 37 men, and Winchelsea 

 1 8 ships and 654 men. 14 The predominance of Winchelsea, not only in the confederation, but 

 over such places as Southampton, Dartmouth, Plymouth, and Bristol, stands out markedly here, and 

 it will be observed that in both these levies the legal liability of the Cinque Ports in the matter of 

 size and number of ships is entirely set aside. The measures taken by Edward or his advisers were 

 remarkably well considered strategically ; but perhaps they came too late or were not loyally executed, 

 for Isabella experienced no difficulty in crossing in September. 



While helping the king against foreigners, the Cinque Ports appear to have found it easy 

 simultaneously to carry on private war on their own account. The enmity between Yarmouth 

 and the Ports still continued, if only because the fight of 1297 was yet remembered on the east coast 

 and remained unavenged. In 1316 the smouldering fire seemed about to break into flame again, 

 for Yarmouth ships were sinking and burning those of the Ports off the coast of Sussex. 16 The 

 Ports prepared for war, a challenge readily taken up by Yarmouth, but the king hastened "to 

 intervene by issuing a proclamation forbidding hostilities, ordering security to be taken from owners 

 and masters to keep the peace, and calling upon both sides to send representatives to discuss their 



1 Close, 2 Edw. II, m. 22 d. ' Ibid. 3 Edw. II, m. \<)<t. 



3 Rot. Scot. 3 Edw. II, m. i. 4 Pat. 4 Edw. II, m. 7. 



Rot. Scot. 7 Edw. II, m. 6. " Pat. 8 Edw. II, m. 9. 



7 Close, 9 Edw. II, m. 13^. ' Rot. Scot. 12 Edw. II, m. 3. 



9 Close, 17 Edw. II, m. 1 1 d. m. <)d. w Ibid. 19 Edw. II, m. 26. 

 11 Pat. 1 8 Edw. II, pt. i, m. 23. Keepers of the coast of Sussex were also appointed. 



11 Rymer, FoeJera (ed. 1816), ii, 635. " Pat. 20 Edw. II, m. 21 ; Close, 20 Edw. II, m. 1 1 d. 



14 Close, 20 Edw. II, m. 8. u Pat. 10 Edw. II, pt. i, m. 2. 



135 



