MARITIME HISTORY 



vessels whose names occur in legal and historical MSS., as well as in various printed sources, of the 

 reign of James I, in which seven Chichester, one Feckham (Felpham), four Hastings, one Lewes, 

 fifteen Newhaven, nine Rye, seven Shoreham, and two Worthing vessels are mentioned. 1 There 

 must have been many others that sailed through an uneventful career without attracting the atten- 

 tion of the law, the Admiralty officials, or the Customs. In 1580 Rye possessed 20 trading 

 vessels, 2 and if, in the next reign, nine were subject to prosecution or inquiry we may suppose that 

 much the same total number then existed. The shipbuilding trade which brought prosperity to 

 Shoreham in the eighteenth century was already developed. A list exists of some 380 vessels built, 

 mostly for London owners, between 1625 and 1638, the certificate of building being necessary to 

 obtain a licence for ordnance. Of these 1 1 were built by Robert Tranckmore at Shoreham, the 

 only Sussex port in the list. 3 The number is small compared with London and some of the east 

 coast ports, but it exceeds more flourishing towns, such as Dartmouth, Plymouth, and Dover ; four 

 of the 1 1 were each of 300 tons. 



The first naval armament of any importance during the reign of James I was that under 

 Sir Robert Mansell, intended to act against Algiers. The western ports were the greatest sufferers 

 from the Mediterranean pirates, but the king thought that all the coast towns, as more or less 

 interested, should bear most of the expense. A circular letter from the Privy Council in February, 

 1618-19, dwelt on the misdeeds of the Algerine and Tunisian pirates, but in reality the expedition 

 was more immediately occasioned by the condition of European politics than by the sufferings of 

 James's subjects. The Council desired 400, payable within two years, from the Cinque Ports, but 

 their waning prosperity made it difficult to give the prompt response that had been customary in former 

 generations. 4 They said that in all the Ports there was only one (Dover) ship trading to the 

 Mediterranean, and that London had engrossed all their maritime traffic, leaving them only a few 

 small coasters sailing to Newcastle and the west of England. 5 The jurats of Rye appealed to the 

 Lord Warden in the letter noticed previously, 6 and incidentally remarked that they had been ordered 

 recently to provide the same number of guns for the defence of the town as existed in the time of 

 Queen Elizabeth, but that the ordnance then mounted had been taken away by her commission and 

 they were now too poor to replace them. But the Council appear to have had less trouble with the 

 Cinque Ports, even in their ruined state, than with many other more prosperous places. Notwith- 

 standing their decay the Ports still affected to be ready to perform their ancient 'service,' and in 

 1614 based a claim to exemption from payment of subsidy on their willingness. 7 There was still 

 sufficient enterprise in Rye for one of the freemen, John Allen, to be the first proposer of Dungeness 

 light for the benefit of the town, 8 but he lacked sufficient money and interest and the scheme 

 passed into other hands. There was some difficulty now in obtaining men, as well as ships, from 

 the Cinque Ports; in 1623 the Privy Council informed the Lord Warden that the punishment of 

 deserters would henceforth be severe, but the bad treatment and starvation suffered by man-of-war 

 crews sufficiently explain the hatred felt for the royal service without supposing any deterioration of 

 the sea instinct. Their miseries began before they set foot on board ship, for in 1620 the Council 

 directed the Warden to raise IOO men, the ordinary pressmasters not being employed on account of 

 the distress caused by their oppression and corruption. 9 From this it would seem that it was not yet 

 invariable to act through the Lord Warden in impressing men. 



The approach of war with Spain caused the issue of a commission for the inspection of all the 

 coast forts, with directions to raze those considered useless and renew and improve those it was 

 advisable to maintain. 10 There is no trace of any work being undertaken at Camber Castle, and it 

 must have been recommended for demolition, for, in 1627, the lieutenant of Dover Castle wrote to 

 the Lord Warden that the materials would not sell for much while the towns could think them- 

 selves in danger if it was pulled down. Simultaneously Rye, Winchelsea, and Hastings petitioned 

 against its destruction. 11 The actual outbreak of war was followed by the preparation of the Cadiz 

 fleet of 1625 ; it was made up of men-of-war and hired transports, the counties not being required 

 to provide any armed ships. There is none from Sussex in the fleet list, but the port of origin is 

 not always given. There is the same absence of the Sussex ports in the Willoughby, Buckingham, 

 and Lindsey fleet lists of 1627 and 1628, except that in Lord Lindsey's fleet of 1628 there were two 

 ships from Shoreham and one from Chichester. 1 ' As we find that in 1626 the largest Rye vessel 

 was of 40 tons, and in 1629 of 60 tons, 13 and as Rye was probably still the most flourishing port of 



1 Tram. R. Hist. Sw. xix, 311. ' Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. xiii, App. iv, 71. 



3 S.P. Dom. Chas. I, xvi, xvii. 



4 Ibid. Jas. I, cv, 88. Of this, 200 was to come from the Cinque Ports as a whole, and 200 from 

 Sandwich and Dover independently. * Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. xiii, App. iv, 152, 153. 6 Ante, p. 154. 



7 Suss. Arch. Coll. xvii, 137. 8 S.P. Dom. Jas. I, clx, 60. 



9 Ibid, cxvi, 54, i. "Ibid, cxlix, 104 ; cli, 89. " Ibid. Chas. I, Ivi, 75, 76. 



" Pipe Off. Decl. Accts. 2266. The Shoreham ship was of 80 tons. 



"Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. xiii, App. iv, 179, 192. 



155 



