MARITIME HISTORY 



claimed that the Admiralty had no power of impressment within their liberties, and that the 

 government could act only through the Lord Warden ; but it is evident that precedent, and this 

 is not the only one, 1 was against them ; it also destroyed the contention that their liability to serve 

 was confined to their own squadron. An interval of peace abroad was turned to account for a 

 renewal of the broil with Yarmouth, necessitating a warning to both to keep the peace pending an 

 award from Edward, who, with youthful optimism, had ' undertaken to terminate the matter in a 

 friendly way.' 2 This happened in 1330, but in 1336 another conference was requisite, and 

 relations between the east and south were so strained that the admirals of the north and west were 

 directed to keep the Yarmouth and Cinque Ports crews, in their respective commands, well apart. 3 

 There are indications, too, that the old quarrel with the western counties had been renewed. In 

 1348 the king caused representatives from Dartmouth and the Cinque Ports to meet him at 

 Porchester, where he arranged terms of peace between them, and the agreement was solemnly 

 sealed by the corporations on both sides. 4 War with Scotland broke out again in 1332, followed 

 by general arrests of shipping in which Chichester was included. The continual embargoes, and 

 consequent injury to trade, were now causing some murmurs in the port towns, but Edward knew 

 when to persuade rather than to command, and in December, 1336, sent John de Watenhull to 

 the Cinque Ports and other places westward to take the townsmen, apparently, into his confidence 

 and explain ' certain things near the king's heart.' * At the same time the coast towns were 

 requested to send representatives to London to discuss matters ; in Sussex they came from 

 Chichester, Shoreham, Seaford, Pevensey, Hastings, Rye, and Winchelsea. 6 



The late Sir Harris Nicolas, than whom no one had a more profound knowledge of the 

 sources of English naval history, described the Cinque Ports as ' nests of robbers ' ; 7 theii latest 

 serious historian 8 ignores, as far as possible, that side of their story, but it was one which must 

 have helped on their decadence in the fourteenth century as sovereign and subjects recognized that 

 the evil done for their own profit far outweighed any good done for the kingdom, and that they 

 were, indirectly, a most expensive form of defence. 9 In 1336 a king's ship lying at Winchelsea 

 was boarded by men of the town, who stripped her of all her tackling and gear. 10 If they had 

 sufficient audacity to do that with a king's ship lying in harbour, what fate awaited strangers at 

 sea ! There were other causes in operation conducing to their decline. The great increase in the 

 size of fleets and ships which marked the fourteenth century considerably minimized the relative 

 importance of their contribution to the national armaments. With the exception of Winchelsea 

 none of them was rich enough, probably, to hold its own with other ports, rising into importance, 

 in the equipment of larger ships, and the French raids on Kent and Sussex after the middle of 

 Edward's reign still further reduced their resources. Added to these disabilities was the progressive 

 deterioration of the harbours, which must have been going on in all of them, although that of 

 Winchelsea is the only one whose condition is noticed at this date. In 1336 there was a grant of 

 dues that the barons- might build a dam or breakwater (exclmd) there as the fairway was filling 

 up with sand so badly that even 2O-ton vessels could hardly enter the port. 11 It is difficult to 

 reconcile this statement with the fact that now and later Winchelsea was often the port of con- 

 centration for fleets unless we suppose that it referred to the inner port, while the fleet anchorage 

 also included Rye harbour and bay. 12 



Chichester, too, notwithstanding that it had been summoned to send maritime representatives 

 in 1336, was losing any naval importance it may have had, and no doubt the same agency was at 

 work. In 1339 the admiral of the west was directed not to trouble the city for ships, because when 

 the king had lately ordered three the citizens had petitioned for relief, and at the subsequent inquiry 

 it had been found that ' ships do not ply at the city, and no men of the city have ships or boats, 

 and that there are no mariners dwelling there.' ls However, in spite of coming decay, the day of 

 the Cinque Ports was not yet done, and Winchelsea, at least, retained its ascendancy. An undated 

 paper of this reign 14 relates to four ships belonging to the town of from 100 to 180 tons, and it 

 also gives details of IO owned at Shoreham, of which two were of 110 and 120 tons, the others 

 being only of 40 and 45 tons. Another document of 1335 15 affords striking confirmation of the 

 naval strength of Winchelsea and Rye. It is an account of the expenses of preparing a Cinque 



'Another instance is of 1337 (Pat. II Edw. Ill, pt. i, ra. 37 tt.). 

 ' Close, 4 Edw. Ill, m. 39 d. ' Ibid, i o Edw. Ill, m. 2 1 d. 



'Pat. 22 Edw. Ill, pt. ii, m. 15. 'Close, 10 Edw. Ill, m. 4< 



'Rot. Scot. 10 Edw. Ill, m. 3 d. ''Hist, of the Royal Navy, i, 357. 



'Burrows, The Cinque Ports, Lond. 1888. 



'e.g. in 1336 Edward paid 8,000 marks compensation to the Genoese owners of a ship the Portsmen 

 had taken in 1321 (FoeJera, ed. 1816, ii, 948, ion). 



10 Pat. 10 Edw. Ill, pt. i, m. 14^. " Ibid. m. 17. Perhaps a sluice. "See/w/, p. 142. 



"Close, 13 Edw. Ill, pt. i, m. 14. "Chan. Misc. ^. 



"Exch. Accts. K.R. bdle. 79, No. 22. 



2 137 l8 



