CHAPTER VI.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAILING SHIP FROM THE TIME OF HENRY VII. TO THE DEATH OF QUEEN ELIZABETH (1485-1603).

We enter now upon a period that will always be memorable for the impetus given to maritime matters, and the consequent improvement that took place in sailing ships of all kinds. In the history of the latter there are two centuries that have witnessed the greatest developments in the production of that most beautiful of all things that man ever set himself to fashion out of wood or iron. The first of these eras was the sixteenth century, and the other was the nineteenth. But before we begin to consider the sixteenth, let us briefly sum up all that had been effected by the end of the fifteenth.

We have seen how the early type that prevailed so long in England was that of the Vikings, whilst in the Mediterranean the galley and carack were collateral kinds of craft. Whilst it is true that after the Crusades England did eventually begin to build real ships, yet long before this time out of the ports of Venice, Genoa and Barcelona were sailing big carrying ships of three decks and of several hundred tons burthen. Of enormous freeboard, the carack and caravel were more able to encounter bad weather and to remain in commission both winter and summer. Able, too, to carry considerable quantities of merchandise and large numbers of passengers with a fair chance of making port in safety, they were from the first destined to become the ideal ship for the trader in preference to the galley. In war-time the galley was more handy because she could be manœuvred quickly with oars. But the carack and caravel, when guns were introduced, instantly exercised an undisputed superiority in another respect, for they could carry larger and more numerous cannon, and had the commanding advantage of height, though they were in comparison with the galleys decidedly cumbrous. Slow in stays, top-heavy and decidedly uncomfortable, pitching into every sea, they were far from the ideal. Thus the galley (or its cousin the galleass) remained in existence for fighting, as distinct from merchant service, side by side until after the Armada. An effort was made to re-introduce the galley in the English Navy under Charles II., but though the galley flourished in the Mediterranean until the eighteenth century, it was doomed in England gradually but surely from the beginning of the fourteenth century.

The Viking-like ships of England had gradually undergone important changes. Alfred had tried the experiment of building them of greater displacement, and this increase in size had gone on steadily after the time of William the Conqueror. Moreover, as we have seen, the development of the forecastle and sterncastle had prepared the English sailors for the logical outcome of these—the ship with two or three decks. At first a mere light scaffolding, castellated at the top and capable of being affixed to a merchant ship on the declaration of war, these castles had in the march of time assumed a more permanent character. Instead of being mere supports lashed together, the framework became more solid, and the design of the ship was adapted to suit these structures—the sweep of the hull, as we have seen, coming up to meet the platform, which steadily became lower and lower and projected less forward until both fore- and stern-castle were essential portions of the vessel.

But besides the knowledge that our forefathers had gained through studying the ships in the Mediterranean at the time of the Crusades and after, owing to the large carrying trade, some of the big ships from the three Mediterranean ports just mentioned were in the habit of coming into English waters with their merchandise of gold, silks and spices. Their stay here would not be too short for our shipwrights to study their build and architecture. Here was a new kind of ship that but few had ever seen. Their cargo capacity and high freeboard, and the fact that they held a crew numerous enough to fight pirates on even terms would instantly appeal to those who had eyes to see. As soon as ever peace at home gave a sufficient encouragement, shipbuilding was bound to go ahead on these larger lines. Henry V., too, had actually in his navy some Genoese ships of this type, and by the middle of the fifteenth century merchant ships of 100 tons were not rare, and some of even 300 tons were in existence, and trading to the Mediterranean, the Baltic and Iceland. The galley was fast disappearing, and instead of the one-masted ship, by the end of the fifteenth century a big vessel of 800 tons with four masts and a bowsprit began to be built.

The evolution of the number of masts was on this wise. When the single mast was multiplied two things happened. In the Mediterranean the additional mast forward of the mainmast had become the _mât de misaine_ (Italian _mezzana_ = foresail), or foremast. In Northern Europe the mast was added aft, but nevertheless called mizzen—still another instance of the confusion that has existed in nautical nomenclature. We know from the illustrations on old manuscripts of this period that vessels possessed as many as three and four masts, and this is further confirmed by the inventories still extant of Henry VII.’s ships. The same evidence proves the introduction by now of topmasts as fixed though separate spars. There is even one instance of a topgallant mast. Instead, therefore, of the old rig consisting of one large sail on the one mast there is—reckoning from forward to the stern—a spritsail on the bowsprit, a squaresail on the fore and main masts with one small topsail on each of these two masts, and a lateen or triangular-shaped sail on a yard, but with no boom of course, hoisted up the mizzen-mast. The spritsail was a squaresail on a yard lowered from the end of the bowsprit. If the reader will look at the illustration in Fig. 46 he will see a badly drawn, but none the less interesting, illustration of a carack of the beginning of the sixteenth century. The ship in the foreground is the _Cordelière_. Though much of the bow end is not shown, there is sufficient to indicate how the fore- and stern-castles have come down to be part of the hull, and how the latter has been increased in length. The three masts will also be seen, though the bowsprit is not shown. The castellated structures have become large, roomy cabins. Guns will be seen on both the lower and main decks. It was about the end of the fifteenth century, also, that portholes were introduced, and the tiers in forecastle and poop reached as many as three. The guns in the ships of Henry VII. were serpentines, breach-loading, using lead, stone or iron ball. From the tops, picked men still hurled javelins or shot arrows from their bows on to the enemy’s decks below.

When Henry VII. ascended the English throne, the first real effort in the direction of an adequate national navy was made. It was a critical moment. The country’s finances had been drained by the long-drawn out Wars of the Roses, so that her navy had been utterly and grievously neglected. Notwithstanding that under Henry V. it had increased to unprecedented strength—including as it did as many as thirty-eight vessels ranging from 400 to 600 tons—yet on the death of this fifth Henry the thirty odd ships that remained were, disgraceful to relate, sold out of the service, and by 1430 the English Navy comprised only two or three dismantled hulks.[60] It is true that Henry V. had been at great pains to build ships, and Southampton Water and Hamble, the pretty little village on the river of the same name, were in those days as interested in his ships of war as to-day they are in the industry which yachting brings to both of these places. It is true, also, that Edward IV. had at various times during his reign bought some ships, including the _Grace à Dieu_ and _Mary of the Tower_, and the _Martin Garsia_, and that his successor, Richard III., had added to these three by the purchase of the _Governor_. These four indeed came into the possession of Henry VII. on his accession, but though the administration in his reign represented an effort rather than a complete reorganisation, yet it marked an important advance. He prepared the way for his successor Henry VIII., and showed his keen interest in the navy and maritime matters generally. But his especial good deed consisted in the building of two warships which were a considerable advance on any the country had previously possessed. Of these the _Regent_, of 600 tons, was inspired by French naval architecture. She was built on the Rother about 1490 and carried 225 serpentines. These guns were not of much avail in penetrating the enemy’s sides, but they would be efficacious in destroying his sails and rigging and in sending a sweeping fire over his decks. She had a foremast, foretopmast, mainmast, main-topmast and main topgallant mast, main mizzen and bonaventure mizzen.[61] Both mizzen-masts, having lateen-sails, were without topmasts. From the bowsprit, as already described, there was a spritsail. This, as we saw in Chapter III., had its origin in the Roman ships. I think there can be little doubt but that the spritsail was the lineal descendant of the artemon. It was scarcely very wonderful that it survived so long, seeing that the galleys had remained but little altered since classical times. We must not forget that the rig of the squaresail-ship originated in the Mediterranean, so that the spritsail would come most naturally to the aid of the ship for her head canvas. Similarly the lateen, being everywhere seen on the Mediterranean and Nile—on feluccas and dhows alike—would be found at hand for the after canvas. The preference for a lateen sail for the mizzen was based on the reason that such a sail will hold a better wind—will sail at least a point closer to the breeze. Its position in the stern was to facilitate the steering. The _Regent’s_ topmasts and topgallant mast were separate spars fixed to the lower mast but could not be lowered or raised. The topgallant mast had a sail but no yard. It was not till many years after that the topgallant sails had yards. Mr. Masefield states that the topgallant sail began like a modern moonraker, _i.e._ a triangular piece of canvas, setting from truck to the yard-arm of the topsail yard immediately below.[62]

The _Sovereign_ was of a similar type, though smaller. She had two decks in the forecastle, two in the summercastle, and in the topgallant poop. What the summercastle exactly was cannot be discovered, but Mr. Oppenheim suggests the very probable theory that it was the poop royal. At any rate it commanded an all-round fire and carried many guns. We shall see as we proceed how strong the tendency was in the sixteenth century to raise the poop to enormous heights. The _Sovereign_ had no main topgallant mast as the _Regent_ possessed. All the armament of both ships was carried in the waist, in the decks of the summercastle and poop, but there was no real gun-deck. With all this top-hamper, there is no wonder that the _Santa Maria_, Columbus’ ship, pitched so terribly. But in spite of the guns, a considerable part of the fighting was entrusted to the archers. Mr. Oppenheim mentions that the _Sovereign_ had on board 200 bows and 800 sheaves of arrows, and but small quantities of gunpowder and lead.

When the _Regent_ and _Sovereign_ were launched at the end of the fifteenth century the sensation which they caused can scarcely have been inferior to that in our own times made by the launch of the _Dreadnought_ and _Bellerophon_. The country had never produced such ships before in size and equipment. But just as it would have been impossible for our builders or designers to have suddenly brought a _Dreadnought_ into being, so in the case of the _Sovereign_ and the _Regent_ what was seen was the result of gradual progress. The fifteenth century shipwrights and architects had step by step been feeling their way to higher achievements, and had the Wars of the Roses never occurred there can be little doubt but that these big ships would have been launched in an earlier reign.

The standards flown by the ships of this period were of white linen cloth, with red crosses of “say” (_i.e._, woollen cloth). The streamers with which they were wont to decorate their vessels in a somewhat profuse manner were also of linen cloth or “say.” The _Regent_ had no gilding or carving, except a gilt crown. Nor was any great expense made on the score of paint, for we find a record of the painting of the _Regent_ and another ship called the _Mary Fortune_. The whole job was done by contract for the sum of £2 19_s._ 10_d._ The davits, both of this period and for many years after, were used not for hoisting the ship’s boats aboard—which was done by means of tackles with poles and sheaves of brass—but for getting up the anchors. There were both fixed davits and movable ones that could be used in different parts of the ship. Most of the timber came from the New Forest and Bere Forest, not far from Portsmouth. Iron was bought by the ton and worked up at the royal forge into nails and spikes, &c.

In 1497 two smaller men-of-war, named respectively the _Sweepstake_ and the _Mary Fortune_, were built. But these were much smaller than the other two, and carried three lower masts, a main topmast, as well as a spritsail on the bowsprit. The _Grace à Dieu_, which Henry had inherited on his accession to the throne, was renamed the _Harry Grace à Dieu_. She is said to have cost £14,000, to have had four pole masts, each with a circular top, a bowsprit, a built-up poop and forecastle, as well as two complete and two partial tiers of guns mounted in ports.[63] The late Sir W. Laird Clowes inclined to the belief that the drawing of the _Harry Grace à Dieu_ in the Pepysian Library, Cambridge, represents not the ship of the same name built in the reign of Henry VIII., but that of which we are now speaking. By the beginning of Henry VIII.’s reign she had either disappeared or was known under a new name.

It was for a long time the custom of English monarchs in times of peace to let out on hire the royal ships to merchants. Nor did Henry VII. break away from this practice. Apart altogether from the importance which big ships possessed from a naval point of view, it was a profitable speculation to build large vessels. Merchants were glad to hire them, since it saved the necessity of having to build for themselves or of keeping them in commission when their voyages were ended. The larger the tonnage of the ship the more popular were they to the hirers, for the reason that they not only held more cargo and were less likely to succumb to pirates, but that they could voyage to virgin fields where trade could be established. Henry, in addition to the ships he had inherited and built, also hired some himself, both from his subjects and the Spanish. He even went so far as to purchase some vessels from the latter, but Spain eventually legislated to prevent Spanish-owned ships from being sold to foreign Powers.

We find references in the naval accounts of this reign to caulking with “ocum”; also to the “crane line,” which led from the sprit mast to the forestay, and steadied the former. Among the details preserved to us concerning the _Grace à Dieu_ we find that she had three bonnets for the mainsail, the lacing that secured the bonnet to the foot of the sail (after the manner adopted by the Vikings) being called “latchetes.” There is a considerable similarity between the nautical terms of this period and of our own time. Corks were used for buoying anchors; “deadmen’s eyes” (dead-eyes, as we now call them, through which the lanyards of the shrouds are passed), “painters” (Mr. Oppenheim derives this familiar word from the old French _pantiere_, meaning a noose); hawse, used in its old sense, to mean the bows of a vessel—hence our modern expression “athwart hawse,” meaning across the bows—these, as well as others, were in daily use among sailormen. We find mention of the fact that the _Grace à Dieu_ had “a shefe (_i.e._, a sheave or pulley-wheel) of brasse in the bootes halse.” There were not always bulwarks or rails to ships of this age, and sometimes before going into action a cable was coiled round about the deck breast high in the waist, bedding and mattresses being also requisitioned as protection against the enemy’s fire.

As to other details of equipment, we have mention of these ships possessing running glasses, _i.e._ sand glasses for the use of the log which time has not even now wholly abolished in spite of the patent log on sailing ships. Outriggers, or as they were called, “outliggers,” “bitakles,” (_i.e._, binnacles), “merlyng irens,” (_i.e._, marlin spikes) were also in use. By 1514 at any rate, the usual length of a sounding line appears to be forty fathoms. There were winches apparently on the _Sovereign_, for we find mention of the “wheles for to wynde up the Mayne Sayle.” In order that the large square sails should set as flat as possible, bowlines played an important part during this century and after. In the case of very large sails, the weight on the tack was relieved to some extent by adding luff hooks and chains. As will be remarked in the illustration of the _Cordelière_, in Fig. 46, _pavesses_, or wooden shields bearing the devices or coats of arms, were placed along the ship’s waist, and sometimes too, on the forecastle and poop. The reader will recognise them as being survivals from the times when the Viking sea-chiefs hung their shields along the bulwarks. At a later stage we shall see these shields giving way to the waist cloth as a protection for this part of the ship.

It was under Henry VII. that the bounty system for encouraging shipbuilders was introduced. It was during his reign, too, that Portsmouth Dockyard was founded, and that at this port the first dry dock was built in England, and the _Sovereign_ was the first ship known to have gone into it. We find among the Naval Accounts of Henry VII., a record that on the tenth of October in the first year of his reign, the _Grace à Dieu_ was docked at Hamble, or, as it was then known, Hamill. But Mr. Oppenheim points out that this docking here meant merely getting the ship high and dry on to the mud and then surrounding her with a fence of brushwood. The popularity which, during the fifteenth century, Hamble had shared with Southampton, was decreasing as soon as ships of the size of the _Regent_ and _Sovereign_ were built. Perhaps it was owing to the lack of water in this river that the Portsmouth dry dock was made.

All the time the unhappy Wars of the Roses had been wasting England’s energy and finances, the people in the south-west corner of Europe were prospering exceedingly. Whilst England was at a standstill as regards development, Spain and Portugal were going rapidly ahead in maritime matters. They had acquired an immense amount of nautical knowledge from the Venetians and Genoese, and until the time came for England to wake up and set her house in order, Portugal was taking the lead in voyages of exploration. When Columbus set forth in 1492 on the voyage that led to the discovery of the West Indies, his fleet comprised his flagship, the _Santa Maria_, and two other caravels named respectively the _Nina_ and the _Pinta_. We find that the _Santa Maria_ proved to be “a dull sailer and unfit for discovery.”[64] This statement is entirely borne out by Captain D. V. Concas.[65] For from historical data, a replica of the _Santa Maria_ was built at Carraca by Spanish workmen in 1893, for the Chicago Exhibition. She was sailed across the Atlantic on her own bottom the same year with a Spanish crew. The course taken was exactly that followed by Columbus on his first voyage. The time occupied was thirty-six days, and the maximum speed obtained was about 6½ knots. Captain Concas, who was in charge of her, reported that she pitched horribly. The illustration in Fig. 43 represents a caravel of this period, and will give the reader a general idea of the ships of this time. This is from a photograph of a model made by Mr. Frank H. Mason, R.B.A., and exhibited in the Franco-British Exhibition of 1908. It has since been presented by Lloyd’s to the South Kensington Museum. The colouring of the underbody is quite correct, for we find mention of the “white bellies” of the Spanish ships of the sixteenth century being seen coming over the billows. The yard on the bowsprit for the spritsail should not be shown as a fixture for another hundred years later. The yards of the lower courses will be observed, and two topsails with fighting-tops and the lateen yard will be noticed aft. The rest of the rigging, including the stays and braces, are so clear as to need little comment further, except that the forestay should be provided with crane-lines as in Fig. 45. The _cresset_ or lantern is shown in its correct place over the stern. A cresset was, strictly speaking, a hollow vessel for holding a light, and carried upon a pole. The light was produced from a wreathed rope smeared with pitch or rosin. The development now reached by the forecastle, and the tendency to exaggerate the height of the poop which became in Spanish galleons even higher still, are worthy of the reader’s attention. Fig. 44 is from a photograph of the caravel model in the Royal United Service Museum, Whitehall. This is by no means an accurate model and is only put forward as an interesting representation of the manner of mounting the guns in these days, and showing how tubby in proportion to their length such ships sometimes were. It shows fairly accurately the proportion also to which the sides of the hull just above the water-line projected as compared with the narrow beam on deck. Whereas we saw in the illustration of the _bucco_ in Fig. 35 a fighting-top of slender basket-work, we have now a much more solid structure. No topsails are shown here, but Columbus’s ship carried a main-topsail. Mr. Mason’s model shows a fore-topsail which was certainly carried on ships of this time, though not on the _Santa Maria_. The Whitehall model should not carry the heavy figurehead, and a bowsprit should of course be shown. The topmasts are also too long. Falconer’s “Marine Dictionary” derives the caravel from the Spanish word _caravela_ as “a light, round, old-fashioned ship with a square poop, formerly used in Spain and Portugal.”[66] Levi derives the word as from either _carabos_, meaning a kind of lobster, or from _cara-bella_, meaning a beautiful shape, in reference, of course, to the lines of her hull.[67]

In Fig. 45 will be found a reproduction of what is probably the only accurate model of the _Santa Maria_ in existence. This has been constructed by Captain C. E. Terry, who has made it his hobby for some years to gather together every item of information in connection with Columbus’s ship. For this purpose he has searched all through Southern Europe in order to collect every detail, and through his courtesy I am enabled for the first time to show this interesting little ship, which the reader may regard as approaching as nearly to accuracy as possible at this late date. The sails with the Papal and Maltese crosses, the flag of Ferdinand and Isabella flying above, the crucifix over the stern, the crane-lines, the braces, sheets and other gear may be taken as reliable. The bonnet and drabbler will be found on the mainsail. On deck the brick-made cooking-galley, and the capstan, though not decipherable from the photograph, have been correctly placed. A careful examination of the lead of the gear will explain the rigging more quickly than by detailing every rope individually.

Not all the Spanish ships were rigged with square-sails. Indeed, the lateen sail in the Mediterranean gave way reluctantly to the rectangular shape, as is only natural in the seas so dominated by the felucca rig. Columbus’s ship, which was reconstructed according to every known source of information, had of course a lateen mizzen. She was three-masted, having a square mainsail with topsail of much smaller size, but “goaring” out considerably from a small yard. On the foremast was a square course but no topsail, while from the bowsprit was carried a square spritsail. In Mr. Filson Young’s work already referred to, the interesting fact is mentioned that after Columbus and his three ships had set forth they had to put into Grand Canary for a new rudder to be made for the _Pinta_, and that while they were waiting for this to be done the rig of the _Nina_ was changed from lateen to squaresail like that of the _Santa Maria_, so that the _Nina_ might be able to keep up with the others. For a ship that was about to cross the wide ocean of the Atlantic no sailorman nowadays would dispute this wise proceeding on the part of Columbus. As to the relative size of these ships the _Santa Maria_ was of about one hundred tons burthen, 90 feet long and 20 feet beam. Other accounts make her slightly larger, and she carried a crew numbering fifty-two. The _Nina_ was a much smaller ship of about forty tons.

Inasmuch as we are studying not so much the history of voyages as of the ships that actually carried the voyagers there is not here the scope to enter into a discussion of the reasons that prompted Columbus to go West. But it may not be out of place to point to the fact that it was no mere haphazard undertaking. We mentioned in an earlier chapter that the Vikings who colonised Iceland in a previous century also sailed further on from there to the American Continent. Now Columbus had visited Iceland and may in all probability have heard of the tradition that there was land to the far west across the seas. As Lord Dunraven mentions, Columbus knew that the world was more or less round, and that consequently the more he sailed West the nearer he would come to the well-known regions of the East. We must remember, too, that for some time the Portuguese and Spaniards had been applying themselves to the study of charts and the science of navigation. Columbus, himself, was a mapmaker, and a man with a scientific mind. But besides all this there was the story of the “unknown pilot,” whose ship having been blown from Spain or Portugal across the Atlantic had reached new land. Taking these considerations in conjunction with an age almost bursting with energy, that was thirsting for knowledge only to be obtained through adventure and perseverance, it was inevitable that the New World should be discovered.

As to the navigational instruments Columbus had with him a compass divided into 360° and 32 points as to-day, although the points were named somewhat differently. Nor was he prevented through lack of knowledge from taking observations of the sun. He had a cross-staff, a quadrant and a sea astrolabe. The voyage five years later of John Cabot, an Italian, to the mainland of America with a Bristol ship and Bristol sailors; of Vasco de Gama doubling the Cape of Good Hope _en route_ to India, and of other enterprising and courageous navigators could only have the effect of influencing the subsequent building of ships of greater tonnage and seaworthiness.

One of the largest ships of this time was the French _Cordelière_ in Fig. 46. Although it is not quite safe to rely too much on the reported tonnage of these mediæval vessels, hers has been assessed at 700 while the _Regent_ and the _Sovereign_ have been estimated at 1000 each. Another famous contemporary French ship was the _Grand Louise_ of 790 tons. The latter was a four-master. She had pavesses around her like those on the _Cordelière_. Cannon were carried on her deck. Her mainsail was decorated with a shield device, whilst the main-mizzen and the bonaventure mizzen carried lateen-sails. In the illustration just mentioned the _Cordelière_ is in the foreground, the ship behind being the _Regent_. While the latter was attacking the French ship off Brest at the beginning of Henry VIII.’s reign both vessels caught fire and became a total loss. Our illustration, which is taken from a MS. in the Bibliothèque Nationale, shows this mournful incident depicted.

Not entirely had the galley disappeared yet. In a warrant dated January 29, 1510,[68] we find mention of caracks, galleys, row-barges, hulks, barks (great barks and “lesse barks”), ships and crayers. The latter were victualling ships. Thus when the _Sovereign_ sailed from Portsmouth she had with her the _Trinity of Wight_ (80 tons), the _James of London_ (80 tons) and the _Katherine Pomegranate_ as her victuallers. We find in this warrant also mentioned “twyne, merling (marlin), ropes, cables, cabletts (these were used for the mainstay), boyes (buoys), lynes, tacks, lists, toppe-armers, stremers, standards, compasses, ronnyng glasses (sand-glasses for the log), lanterns, shevers of bras, poleys, shrowdes” and other “taclyng.” The same warrant directs the building of the _Mary Rose_ of 400 tons and the _Peter Pomegranate_ of 300 tons. The former foundered at Spithead in the year 1545.

It was in 1514 that the famous _Henri Grace à Dieu_, commonly known as the “Great Harry,” was built. The custom having recently grown up of passing on the name of an obsolete ship to her successor, and of reserving special names for the largest class and still further of embodying in it the name also of the ruling sovereign, it was but natural that this great “Harry” should be so named. Of the available illustrations of this ship that shown here in Fig. 47 and reproduced from Holbein’s painting in Hampton Court Palace, is perhaps the most reliable. The incident depicted is the embarkation of Henry VIII. from Dover, on May 31, 1520, to meet Francis I. at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. Besides this picture there exists another which hung for many years in Canterbury Cathedral, and is supposed to represent this vessel. It was afterwards presented by the Dean to Sir John Norris, Admiral of the Fleet, who died in 1749. In 1750 an engraving was made by Allen, and a copy is to be found in the Print Room of the British Museum. The original of Allen’s engraving has been ascribed to Holbein, but it seems pretty certain that this print depicts, not the “Great Harry” of the reign of Henry VIII., but a ship of later date. Nor, as we have mentioned above, does it seem probable that the _Henri Grace à Dieu_ in the Pepysian Library represents this vessel.

The _Henri Grace à Dieu_ of the time of Henry VIII. had four masts with two decks and topgallant sails on fore, main and main-mizzen masts. On the bonaventure mizzen she carried a topsail above the lateen but no topgallant. The fore and main masts had topsails as well. Happily her inventory is still extant and will be found in Mr. Oppenheim’s volume on the administration of the Navy of the reign of Henry VIII.[69] Her tonnage was 1500, and she represents still another advance in the construction of big ships. Her launching one day in the middle of June had been a memorable ceremony, in the presence of the Court, the ambassadors of both the Emperor and the Pope, as well as a distinguished crowd of bishops and nobles. Her armament, according to her existing inventory of 1514, included 184 pieces of ordnance, of which 126 were brass and iron serpentines.

Two more of Henry VIII.’s ships will be seen in Figs. 48 and 49. Both have been photographed from the coloured drawings of “The Rolle declaryng the Nombre of the Kynges Maiestys owne Galliasses” by Anthony Anthony in the Pepysian Library of Magdalene College, Cambridge. The date of the roll is 1546, one part being now in the British Museum and the other half in the Pepysian Library, as stated. Originally, both rolls belonged to Samuel Pepys. Quaint as these representations are, they are contemporary records and of some real interest to us. The _Murrian_, in Fig. 48, was brought into the Royal Navy in 1545 and sold out in 1551. Her tonnage was 500, and she had 300 men, 10 brass guns and 53 iron guns. The reader will notice the manner of stowing the spritsail which is correctly shown. Along the waist of the vessel the pavesses can just be discerned. The netting spread over the ship’s deck was as a protection against the enemy’s missiles dropped from the fighting-tops. Astern the ship’s biggest boat is seen towing, as was the custom when at sea, except in bad weather, “much as one may see a brig or a topsail schooner to-day with a dinghy dragging astern.”[70] The boat’s coxswain stayed in her as she towed, keeping her clean, fending her off, and looking out for any of the crew who happened to tumble overboard. The _Struse of Dawske_ (_i.e._ Danzig) in Fig. 49, had been purchased in 1544, and was sold out of the service the same year as the _Murrian_. She was very similar to the other ship but slightly smaller. Her tonnage was 450, she carried 250 men, 39 iron guns, but none of brass.

Another ship in this roll called the _Jesus of Lubeck_, being of 700 tons, having been purchased by Henry VIII. from the merchants of Lubeck in 1544, shows steel sickle-shaped bill-hooks affixed to the yard arms, so that in battle she could sail alongside the enemy and tear his rigging to pieces, but it was inevitable that the aggressor would injure himself scarcely less than his foe, and these hooks had disappeared before the end of the century, though their origin was of great antiquity. (See also Fig. 56.)

From a delightful volume[71] of this reign entitled the “Book of War by Sea and by Land,” by Jehan Bytharne, Gunner in Ordinary to the King, and bearing date 1543, we are able to verify the truth of the vain display of flags seen in the illustrations of the _Murrian_ and _Struse_. There is so much interesting matter contained in this work respecting contemporary ships that I make no apology to the reader for dealing with its contents at some length. Although the earliest code of signals belonged to about 1340 and was given out for the guidance of the fleets at Sluys, yet we have now much more elaborate directions.

Bytharne tells us just what we want to know about the decoration of the ships of his time. The external ornamentation from the mainwale to the top of the castles ought to be painted, he says, with the colours and devices of the admiral. Likewise the forecastle and after-castle were to be decorated as splendidly as possible. All the shields—as we saw in the _Cordelière_—round the upper part of the castles were to be emblazoned with the admiral’s arms and devices also. Above the forecastle on a staff inclining forwards was to be a (pennon) of the admiral’s colours and devices, as also at the two corners of the castle. Amidships there should be two square banners, emblazoned with the admiral’s arms, and on the after-castle high above the rudder he was to have a large square banner larger than any of the others. From the maintop a broad swallow-tailed standard was to be flown, of such a length as to reach to the water, and emblazoned with the admiral’s arms and devices also.

For celebrating a triumph the ship was to be covered in and curtained with rich cloth and draped. “You may also paint your sails with such devices and colours as you choose, or with the representation of a saint if you prefer it.” Then follow the signals to be employed for summoning the captains of the ships to come aboard the flagship. If a strange ship were espied, this was to be signalled by putting a square banner in a weft in the shrouds half-way up on that side on which the strange ship was seen. At sunset all the ships of the fleet were to pass ahead of the admiral’s ship and to shout three times, one after the other, and if they had trumpets they were to be sounded. At the third shout the master of the admiral’s ship was to return the salute “causing all those of your ship to shout and the trumpets and drums to sound.” And each ship as she made the salute was to ask for the watchword for the night and what course to steer. These having been given, the ships were all to drop astern again, and not pass ahead of the flagship during the night on pain of severe punishment.

Nor to any one gifted with imagination and a love of the beautiful can the following picture make an ineffectual appeal. For, after the above instructions had been carried out, the admiral was to cause to be sung the evening hymn to our Lady before her image, after which all lights were to be put out except those in the cabins of the gentlemen, who may have lamps trimmed with water covered with oil, but neither candles nor any other kind of light, owing to the risk of fire. The grandeur of these old ships with their plentiful freeboard towering high above water, pitching backwards and forwards to the swell of the sea, their highly coloured hulls lit up by the last rays of a glowing sunset, and the strong rough voices of the crew singing their solemn plain-chant as the freshening breeze wafted it to leeward—such an incident would have impressed itself on our minds scarcely less forcibly than the massive _Mauretania_ to-day racing over the Atlantic eastward with the sun sinking astern, her masthead, port and starboard lights showing, while the rich notes of a grand piano come floating out from the luxurious drawing-room.

The admiral was further to appoint persons who should see that all the crew not kept up on duty were to retire—soldiers and officers alike. At the stern of the ship a cresset with flaming combustibles was to burn so that every one might recognise the admiral’s ship and follow, no other vessel being allowed to carry such a fire. But if the fleet contained a vice-admiral, he was allowed to carry just such a light, but the admiral must then carry two instead of one. The ship was also to carry a large lantern in which were three or four great lamps with great lights to make a powerful illumination. The use of this lantern in place of the cresset was when the wind was blowing hard or from astern, and it became necessary to put out the cresset lest the ship should catch fire. At break of day the “two nimble ships” which sailed some distance ahead of the fleet were to come back and salute the admiral as at nightfall. They were then to take their orders for the day, go on ahead again and keep just in sight. At sunrise a fanfare was to be sounded on the trumpets, the other ships to salute as at sunset, the admiral’s ship keeping under easy sail until they had done so. Then “at such hour of the morning as shall please you your chaplain” is to say a dry Mass.[72]

For his interest in the Navy, England owes a debt to Henry VIII. Under him it became a separate, organised force instead of being a mere auxiliary of the army. About eighty vessels and thirteen row-barges of twenty tons were added during his reign to the ships inherited from his predecessor. Many were purchased from the Venetians and the Hanseatic League, who were the great merchant seamen of this time. Some also were prizes taken from the enemy, but about forty odd were actually built during this reign, among which may be mentioned the _Tiger_, which was flush-decked without any superstructures and heavily armed; and the _Ann Gallant_. Whereas clinker-built vessels had been almost universal from the times of the Vikings, carvel-built ships were now being used, as being both stronger and faster. Coloured cloths were put round the fighting-tops, and the hulls, besides being carved and gilded, were painted various colours. Sometimes the Tudor colours of green and white were seen, but ash and timber shafts became common under Elizabeth. In the ships of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the yellow colour above the waterline of our ships was more pronounced. The crews of Henry VIII.’s ships wore the Tudor colours of white and green also, cloth being used for the sailors and satin or damask for the officers.[73]

Under Edward VI. the power of the Hanseatic League began gradually to wane, and consequently the superiority which in respect of ships it had possessed over those of our nation became less marked. Perhaps no maritime incident of this reign is more interesting than the preparation, the setting out, and the partial accomplishment of the voyage from our shores to discover a passage by way of Archangel to China. Those who know their Hakluyt will agree that few yarns written nowadays by either professional or amateur sailormen are so absorbingly interesting as this record: those who have still to read this record will enjoy it thoroughly. It is not possible here to give even a summary of this lengthy voyage, in which Sir Hugh Willoughby and his crew perished of cold and starvation, though Richard Chancellor reached as far as Archangel. But there are some details given in the account that are pertinent to our inquiry of the sailing ship. Among the instructions given to the voyagers were that the fleet should keep together as far as possible. A log was to be kept by day and night, “with the points and observation of the lands, tides, elements, altitude of the sunne, course of the moon and starres.” The fleet comprised the _Bona Esperanza_, flagship, of 120 tons, “having with her a pinnesse and a boate,” the _Edward Bonaventure_, 160 tons, and the _Bona Confidentia_, 90 tons, the last two ships having the same number of boats as the first. Their progress down the Thames was not rapid, for it took them from the tenth of May till the twenty-second to get from Ratcliffe to Hole Haven. They could not sail nearer to the wind than seven points, for the statement is made that “the wind veared to the West, so that we could lie but North and by West.”[74] Approaching a strange harbour, they would first send forth the ship’s “pinnesse” before entering. They were not long in discovering that “the land lay not as the Globe made mention.” The “Confidence being troubled with bilge water, we thought it good to seeke harbour for her redresse.”

The cost of purchasing these three ships was £6000 according to another account also included in Hakluyt, and written by one, Clement Adams, who praises very highly the “very strong and well seasoned plankes for the building,” as well as the skill of the shipwrights who “calke them, pitch them, and among the rest they make one most stanch and firme, by an excellent and ingenious invention.” This invention is that “they cover a piece of the keele of the shippe with thin sheetes of leade, for they had heard that in certaine parts of the Ocean a kinde of wormes is bredde, which many times pearceth and eateth through the strongest oake that is.” The reader will recollect that this “invention” was known to the inhabitants of the Mediterranean for many hundreds of years before this.[75] The same writer states that when they departed from Ratcliffe “upon the ebbe” “with the turning of the water” the “greater shippes” were “towed downe with boates, and oares, and the mariners being apparelled in watchet or skie coloured cloth, rowed amaine.” The Court being at Greenwich they fired a salute while “one stoode in the poope of the ship, and by his gesture bids farewell to his friendes ... another walkes upon the hatches, another climbes the shrowds, another stands upon the maine yard, and another in the top of the shippe.” When they arrived at Harwich, to Chancellor’s dismay, part of the victuals were found to be “corrupt and putrified” “and the hoggesheads of wine also leaked, and were not stanch.”

During the reign of Mary the fishing and coasting traffic flourished, but it is when we enter upon the reign of Elizabeth that we find the greatest encouragement given. It was she who repealed all existing restrictions in connection with navigation laws, so that merchants were allowed to use whatever ships they possessed, whether foreign or English-built. More sensible and far-sighted than some of our modern legislators, she was wise enough to restrict the coasting trade to British ships. In this reign, too, telescopes were invented, Mercator’s chart of the world completed, the art of navigation developed, hydrography taken up seriously, the harbours of England and estuaries well surveyed, pilotage and buoyage systematised and placed under the care of the corporation of Trinity House. The variation of the compass had been already observed by Columbus and Cabot, but under Elizabeth the matter was given serious study.

The carrying trade, which for so long a time between England and the Mediterranean had been the monopoly of ships belonging to Venice or Genoa or Spain, now belongs exclusively to English vessels. Our shipwrights, too, were building craft of finer lines and longer on the keel. Hawkins, perhaps the ablest shipbuilder of the reign and a practical seaman who had roved over the seas as pirate and slave-hunter too, was foremost in designing ships on what were then new principles. He it was who recognised that the enormously high poops and forecastles of the prevailing type were as unnecessary as they were unwieldy. These were cut down considerably, and the reader will notice the changes effected if he will compare the illustration of the _Ark Royal_ in Fig. 50 with that of a Spanish galleon in Fig. 55. Practical test was made of the new type as soon as the Armada came sailing up the English Channel in July of 1588, with the usual south-west wind blowing. Howard’s ships sailed close-hauled out of Plymouth, succeeded in getting to windward of the Spanish craft, and keeping out of range of their guns, his own ordnance being of much longer range, poured a terrific fire into the enormous freeboard of the enemy, who found themselves at once both outsailed and outcannoned.

By adding also to the draught of water the Elizabethans were making their ships more weatherly and less likely to roll in a seaway. Among other advantages arising from this would be better marksmanship than could ever be obtained on a galleon pitching her head into every sea and making good gunnery almost impossible except in calms. An interesting comparison is possible when we mention that the new English ships possessed a length three and a half times their beam; nevertheless, the galley had been about seven times the breadth. Besides the green and white colours, Elizabethan ships were also painted outside black and white, red, or the timber-colour previously mentioned. Figureheads, consisting of a dragon or a lion, were in vogue, and carved figures of men and beasts decorated also the interior. Cabins were painted and upholstered in green and white, whilst at the stern the royal arms were displayed in gold and colours. Sir Walter Raleigh in his “Judicious and Select Essayes and Observations,” printed in London in 1650, refers to the recent invention of topmasts, which could be lowered or raised instead of being kept permanently fixed as hitherto had been the custom. He describes these as being “a wonderfull great ease to great ships, both at sea and harbour.”[76] He also mentions as recent innovations chain pumps, studding sails, topgallant sails and the weighing of the anchor by means of the capstan, and the introduction of the bonnet on the lower courses. But as to these last two items he is quite incorrect. The bonnet had existed at least from the Viking times, and we saw it on some of the seals. But below the bonnet was now laced on another called a drabbler. Instead of reefing as nowadays by taking in the foot of the sail, the drabbler would be unlaced, for one or two reefs, and the bonnet removed for a close reef. The yard would then be lowered away some distance from the mast. The same authority refers to the practice which had come into fashion of using long cables by which “we resist the malice of the greatest winds that can blow.”

He tells us also how the _Marie Rose_ of Henry VIII.’s time was lost when getting under way. She heeled over, and the water rushing in through her ports, which were only sixteen inches above the water, she sank. Raleigh goes on to say that they were now making such improvements in their ships as would prevent such a catastrophe occurring again; but we know that more than one instance of this kind of calamity happened in later times owing to the same cause, notably the case of the _Royal George_. Royal ships, he tells us, were being strengthened by pillars fastened from keelson to the beams of the second deck and so keeping them from giving way in bad weather. He rejoices over the improvement of the lines in the new ships mentioned above “whereby they never fall into the sea after the head and shake the whole body, nor sinck a sterne, nor stoope upon a wind.” He gives the following essentials for the building of a good ship: That she be strong, swift, stout-sided, able to carry her guns in all weathers, be seaworthy and stay well when boarding and turning on a wind. He advises that in order to make her sail well the ship should be given a long run forward and not sink into the water, but lie clear above it. He suggests, too, that her lowest tier of guns be four feet above water, and in order to be a good sea-boat she have a good draught of water and not be overcharged with towering poops, “which commonly the king’s ships are.” This “overcharging” compelled the ships in bad weather to “lie at trye” (_i.e._, heave-to, hence the derivation of the word try-sail), under main-course and mizzen. In protesting against this excessive overcharging of poops and decks he adds, “two decks and a half is sufficient to yield shelter and lodging for men and mariners and no more charging at all higher, but only one low cabbin for the master.”

Large ships had two decks, an upper one and a gun-deck underneath. Towards the end of the sixteenth century, a third deck, called a false orlop was laid in the hold to carry cabins and stores. The ship was divided transversely on both upper and lower decks by means of bulkheads where the forecastle and poop ended. Gravel ballast was used to such an extent that but little room was left for stores. A large portion of the space left in the hold of the ship in the waist was taken up by the cooking-galley which was a solid structure of bricks and mortar. Raleigh[77] complains of the heat “that comes from the cook roome” as well of the risk of fire which it afforded, and of the unsavoury smells which emanated from this part of the ship. He therefore recommends that the “cook roomes” be placed in the forecastle instead, as was the custom already adopted by many of the merchant ships.

When Elizabeth came to the throne, the _Henri Grace à Dieu_ had been accidentally burnt five years before. Apart from the _Jesus of Lubeck_ (700 tons), the _Triumph_ was the largest English ship afloat. Built in 1561, her tonnage was over a thousand, and her crew numbered 500. Until the launching of the _Prince Royal_ in 1610, she was the finest English ship afloat. But though there were improvements going on in regard to the building of the ships, the lot of the sailor was not entirely a happy one. Musty rations, want of clothes, and the harmful effects of the bilge water collecting in the bottom of the ship and emitting an unwholesome stench, caused scurvy and dysentery; and the sailors of both the English ships and the Spanish Armada suffered terribly from these. But on the other hand, we find that as early as the year 1601, Lancaster, during his first voyage for the East India Company, kept the crew of his flagship in comparatively good health by serving out lime-juice.[78]

The illustration in Fig. 50 is of the _Ark Royal_, from a contemporary print in the Print Room of the British Museum. Built for Sir Walter Raleigh in 1587, she was sold while on the stocks to Queen Elizabeth for £5000. Her name was to have been the _Ark Ralegh_, but on being purchased it was changed as above. Her name was, after the end of this reign, changed to the _Anne Royal_, and in 1625, while returning from Cadiz, she began to leak like the proverbial lobster-pot and only reached home with difficulty. In 1636, while lying in the Thames, she bilged on her own anchor and sank. It was this _Ark Royal_ that was Elizabeth’s flagship of the fleet that defeated the Armada, and for this reason, if for no other, she is deserving of a more complete consideration than we have room to devote to other ships of this period. Sir William Monson,[79] who was already a captain by 1587, gives her tonnage as 800, and the number of her crew as 400. Happily the complete inventory of the _Ark Royal_ is still in existence, and the reader is referred to the “State Papers Relating to the Defeat of the Spanish Armada, anno 1588.”[80] It was compiled in September 1588 after the _Ark Royal_ had come in for a survey, having been out in the Channel in the memorable victory. All the tackle and spars and sails, every item of the inventory down to the kettles for the cooking-room is mentioned. From this list we find that the spritsail, besides its yard, had clew lines, braces, sheets, halyards, and “a false tye.” Sir Henry Manwayring, who also fought in the fleet against the Armada, in his “Seamen’s Dictionary” defines ties as four-strand ropes, hawser-laid, being the ropes by which the yards hang. But the spritsail yard having no ties, was made fast by a pair of slings to the bowsprit. Among the items of the rigging of the foremast are included the “fore pennants,” and both the falls and pennants of the “swifters.” Referring to Manwayring’s “Dictionary,” we find that “swifters doe belong to the maine and foremast, and are to succour the shrowdes and keep stiffe the mast. They have pendants, which are made fast under the shrowdes at the head of the mast with a double block, through which is reeved the swifter.” Mention must be made of the “forebolings” and main bowlines. Our ancestors made great use of these bowlines in order that these great square sails might set quite flat. Until the triangular head sails came in about the middle of the eighteenth century, the foremast was stepped very far forward, for the spritsail was only used off the wind and when getting under way. The manner in which the spritsail in this illustration of the _Ark Royal_ is shown in the head stowed is quite correct.

The inventory mentions also the clew-garnets and martnets (leech-lines) of the foresail, and the “fore-puttocks” (_i.e._, futtock shrouds) of the foretopmast. The fall of the martnets of the topsails led down into the fighting-top where it was hauled, and the expression “top the martnets” was the order for hauling the martnets up. The yards were hoisted by jeers or halyards. Manwayring defines “jeere” as a hawser, made fast to the main or fore yard close to the ties of great ships only. It came through a block which was seized close to the top and led down to another block at the bottom of the mast close to the deck. Great ships had one on either side of the ties. Apart from the use of the jeer to hoist or lower the yards, it was especially serviceable for taking some of the weight off the ties, and to hold the yard from falling down if the ties should break. In fights, when the sickle-shaped shear-hooks already mentioned were used by the enemy, the opponent would sling his yards in chains “for feare least the ties should be cut, and so the yards fall downe, and these chaines are called slings” (Manwayring). The lateen yards on the mizzen and bonaventure-mizzen had parrals to secure them to the masts.

The _Ark Royal_ carried three bower anchors of 20 cwt. as well as three others and a grapnel. She had fifty fathoms of 15-inch cable, three compasses, four running glasses, three flags of St. George and two of the Queen’s arms, as well as a silk ensign. In the illustration before us the St. George’s flags will be noticed flying at the fore and bonaventure mizzen; at the main is the royal standard, and at the main-mizzen the Tudor Rose. From the spritsail yard flies a pennant surcharged with a St. George’s cross, from the foretop a pennant bearing a foul anchor, being the pennant of the Lord High Admiral. This flag will also be noticed on the foremast of the ship of Charles II.’s time of the frontispiece. In fact, as the reader is probably aware, this is still used as the Admiralty’s flag. From the fore topgallant yard is a streamer bearing a lion rampant, of Lord Howard of Effingham, Lord High Admiral of England; from the maintop another streamer, striped, whilst at the waist is a large banner with Howard’s arms thereon. The inventory includes ballast baskets for carrying the gravel on board, or in which it would be stowed; netting for the forecastle, the waist and the half-deck, as well as cloths for the waist and top armours for the mizzen top, but we shall refer to these later.

Touching the sails of the _Ark Royal_, she had a bonnet to her spritsail laced on in the manner adopted to-day by the wherry-man of the Norfolk Broads. The mainsail and foresail and main mizzen also had the bonnet, but the others had not, although a topsail bonnet was found rarely. The foresail had a double bonnet with a single drabbler, likewise the mainsail. In the case of the main mizzen the bonnet was a double one. The inventory only includes one topgallant sail, although three are shown in this engraving. This fact is certainly an argument for those who assert that the illustration represents not the _Ark Royal_, although the rest of the evidence is against this assertion. Much more likely is it that the other topgallant sails were added at a later date.

The inventory includes a sail for the ship’s boat, and two for the pinnesse. A longboat with a brass sheave in the head and supplied with oars, a pinnesse and a “cocke” (derived from the French _coque_) which was a ship’s boat, as well as an older pinnesse, were carried on board the _Ark Royal_. During the survey at Chatham it was decided to have her overlop in the waist made less curved and more level for the sake of placing the guns in better position, a lesson that had been impressed on them even more forcibly by the ill-success of the fire of the Spaniards. In our illustration it will be noticed that the curve has disappeared. I therefore conclude that this engraving was made after the ship had been altered at Chatham. It seems very probable that it was during this overhaul that the other topgallant sails were added, in which case the argument against the veracity of this engraving is rebutted.

Elizabeth’s own royal ships were undoubtedly fine able vessels for their time. They were seaworthy, and at any rate during the time of the Armada did not suffer from leaks. But the same statement cannot be made of the merchant ships that joined the royal fleet from the various English ports. These were far from sound and leaked badly. In a letter from Howard to Walsyngham[81] we find that the merchants besought the former that he and the rest of Her Majesty’s fleet would carry less sail for they could not endure it, while “we,” writes Howard, “made no reckoning of it.” This inferiority is confirmed also by Seymour, who writes to say that the merchant ships in the English fleet were not as good sea-boats as the Queen’s.

Before we leave the _Ark Royal_, let us call to the reader’s attention a detail that, if he is a sailorman, he will have already noticed. The furling of the sails, correctly shown here, is very clumsy and bungling. The custom was when the sails were furled to bind them to the yard with rope yarns, and these yarns were cut to loose the sail when getting under way. Thus Sir William Wynter, writing on February 28, 1587, concludes his letter: “Written aboard the Vanguard, being in the Downs, ready to cut sail.”[82]

Centuries ago, when England had only her Viking-like craft, she had bravely claimed for herself the Sovereignty of the Seas. It was to the foreigner an insolent, arrogant boast. She had fought for the distinction many times. Spain had grown up to be the first maritime nation of the world, but just as in after years the Dutch and the French had, not without a severe tussle, to be prevented from usurping this distinction, so England had to smash the Armada—the greatest aggregation of naval power the world had ever seen on one sea—and with this defeat England was again, for a time at least, the mistress of the sea. Drake’s voyage round the world with a squadron of five ships, the largest of which did not exceed 100 tons, set the final seal on the abilities of English seamanship and navigation. The victory over the Armada settled their superiority in ships, strategy and shooting.

Before we pass from the story of the fight that never grows old—and there is no more stirring reading than the plain narrative included in Hakluyt—let us not forget that capable as were the royal ships of Elizabeth, they could never have been victorious had not the West countrymen of England come to help with their ships and their crews. The former may have been leaky, the latter may have been not as skilled as Howard’s men in the finer arts of war, but they did their duty, in spite of a thousand drawbacks, and did it well. Where had they learned their seamanship? How was it that they had even such good ships as they possessed but a hundred years after Henry VII. had come to the throne? As Mr. Blackmore points out,[83] ever since the discovery of Newfoundland the men of Cornwall and Devon had gone forth year after year to fish for cod off the Banks. Kipling, Connolly, and others, have sung the epic of the brave fishermen who to-day race out to the same banks from Gloucester, U.S.A. Most readers of fiction know that cruising about there is no latitude for a fair-weather sailor, yet three hundred years before them, when the arts of shipbuilding and navigation were not what they are now, Englishmen in ships built at Dartmouth and elsewhere were making regular voyages across the broad Atlantic to those fishing banks. Big vessels and brave capable seamen were essential for these trips. Both, at the summons of necessity, had gradually evolved from the West Country, and, at the hour of need, placed themselves at the service and in the defence of their fatherland.

What were the kinds of ships that sailed in English waters during the reign of Elizabeth? As far as historical research will suffer us let us try and obtain a general idea as to their rig and appearance. Fig. 51, which is taken from the Rawlinson MSS. in the Bodleian, affords an excellent example of an Elizabethan man-of-war. The flags flying are the green and white Tudor colours on the ensign staff and the St. George at the main, which was the national flag, but it was men-of-war only that were allowed to fly it at the main. According to Manwayring the Elizabethan ships, when running before a wind or with the wind on the quarter in the case of a fair fresh gale, often unparralled the mizzen lateen yard from the mast, and launched out the yard and sail over the quarter on the lee side, fitting guys at the further end to keep the yards steady. A boom also appears to have been used in this case. If a ship gripe too much, says Manwayring, then the mizzen was stowed, for otherwise “she will never keep out of the wind.” The mizzen was sometimes used when at anchor to back the ship astern in order to keep her from fouling her anchor on the turn of the tide.

Perhaps in the mind of the general reader the one type of ship of this age that he has any vague knowledge of is the galleon. He associates her with the Armada and with the Spanish nation exclusively. He has not forgotten that he learned in the days of his youth that the ships of the Armada were of enormous size, and that the English ships were victorious because they were small and nimble. It is perfectly true to say that our vessels were light and comparatively handy, but we must not omit to throw into the balance the superiority of our seamanship and gunnery, as we pointed out just now. The English had a natural taste for the sea; the Spaniards, in spite of all their trading and exploring across the ocean, had for it an equal distaste. They were admittedly bad seamen.[84] I am not expressing an opinion but asserting a fact, and this was as much the cause of their defeat as anything else. But the English ships were not particularly small. At least seven were of between 600 and 1100 tons. There were in the whole Spanish Armada only four ships larger than our _Triumph_, whilst of the English merchantmen the _Leicester_ and the _Merchant Royal_ were each of 400 tons.

Nor did the word “galleon” necessarily denote a Spanish ship. It is perfectly true that the Spanish Armada contained a number of cumbrous galleons, but it must not be inferred from this that a galleon was necessarily clumsy. In point of fact, Spain was the last of the great maritime nations to adopt the galleon. In England the galleon denoted a vessel built expressly for war, as distinguished from the adapted merchantmen. She was essentially a ship built with finer lines, and in every way smarter than the ordinary vessel. The type had been first introduced into the English service by Henry VIII. long before Spain had adopted it, although, as we mentioned earlier, there was considerable confusion as to the actual names. Thus Henry VIII.’s ships were classed as “great ships,” “galleasses,” and “galleys,” while for a long time, both in England and France, the galleon was called indifferently “galleon,” “galleasse,” “galley,” and “galliot.” By the outbreak of the Spanish war practically all the men-of-war in our country were galleons, and were thus described by foreigners. Nevertheless, as Mr. Corbett points out,[85] English seamen never took kindly to the word galleon. They continued to confuse “galleasse” and “galleon” in describing the ships of foreigners. But for all that English shipwrights understood perfectly the technical characteristics, and in official building programmes after the middle of Elizabeth’s reign the three terms “galleon,” “galleasse,” and “galley” appear correctly. The galleon, as Mr. Masefield well describes her, was roughly the prototype of the ship of the line, the galleasse the prototype of the frigate, and the pinnace of the sloop or corvette. The galleon was low in the waist with a square forecastle and a high quarter-deck just abaft the mainmast, rising to a poop above the quarter-deck. Reckoning upwards, the two decks, according to Manwayring, were called lower orlop or first orlop, and the next the second orlop. But if a ship had three decks they never called the uppermost—the third—by the name of orlop, but simply “upper deck.” The wooden bulkheads that separated the stern from the waist were pierced with holes for small quick-firing guns.

The length of the galleon was three times that of her beam, whereas the ordinary merchantman was only twice her own beam, thus preserving the old distinction that we saw in classical time existing between the long ship and the round ship. Yet the newer class of Elizabethan merchantman was getting longer, influenced by the experience gained on the long voyages across the Atlantic. It had been in Italy, the great home of maritime matters in earlier days, that the galleon had first been built. The galleon was in fact the child of necessity. The Mediterranean possessed the galley-type from very early times as we have already seen; she had, as we have also seen, the “round” merchant type. But as time went on a demand arose for a compromise between the two. Able to hold as much cargo, and more, than the old rounships, yet not utterly helpless like them in calms and narrow waters, the galleons were yet to be of such a kind as to be capable of acting with the galleys in war time. So they were made not as long but with more beam than the galleys, with a built-up structure fore and aft and—let us note this carefully—though they were sailing ships they had at first auxiliary oar-propulsion. The smaller English galleons also retained their oars for a long time.

The immediate ancestor of the English galleon was the Italian merchantman that traded between Venice and London. This had three masts with a square sail on the foremast, but lateen on the main and mizzen. She carried also oars as auxiliaries. Afterwards, by degrees the oars were dispensed with, so that by the end of the sixteenth century the galleon was a purely sailing vessel with sometimes two and sometimes three decks, while the galleasse had oars as well. Her special claim was that she was both faster and more weatherly than the older type of warship. English shipwrights understood a galleasse to be similar to a galleon but with more length in proportion to her beam, though strictly speaking the galleasse should designate a large ship with high freeboard, using oars as well as sails. The ships, however, that fitted this description were known to them by the name of “bastard galleasses.” The galleasse was sometimes flush-decked and minus both poop and forecastle and never so highly charged (_i.e._, with such high decks at stern and bow) as the galleon. A good illustration will be found in the foreground of Fig. 52, which contains two of these with their oars out. This picture represents the Spanish Armada coming up channel when first sighted off the Lizard. The illustration has been taken from one of the plates in “The Tapestry Hangings of the House of Lords,” engraved by John Pine, London, in 1739. If the reader will pardon a short digression it may not be out of place to say a few words in explanation of these engravings.

After he had defeated the Armada in 1588, Lord Howard of Effingham, later raised to an earldom, determined to commemorate the victory by depicting the scenes he had so recently passed through. Accordingly Hendrik Corneliszoon Vroom, who had at this time obtained a European reputation as a marine artist, was invited from Haarlem to paint the pictures. From these Francis Speiring, an eminent craftsman, wove the designs into tapestry. Howard, or, as he now was, the Earl of Nottingham, sold them in his old age to James I., who hung them in the precincts of the House of Lords. When, during the Commonwealth, the House of Lords was abolished, the tapestries were fitted into brown wooden frames and hung on the walls of the chamber which had been used for the Upper House. Here they remained until the House was burned down in 1834, when the ten tapestries perished. Fortunately, however, even in the inartistic eighteenth century, an artist, John Pine, and a friend of Hogarth, had the inspiration to reproduce them by engraving, But for this we should lack what is a most valuable record. It is so easy to fall into inaccuracies a century after an event, but since Pine copied from the tapestries, and the tapestries were executed under Howard’s own supervision, there cannot be much room left for anything incorrect in respect of the ships. Howard had fought against the Spanish ships night and day in that memorable month of July, and had every opportunity of noting the rigging and lines of his enemy’s vessels, so that when he had left the sea and, not unnaturally, devoted his attention to his own memorial, he would be the ideal person to see that accuracy was insisted upon. These engravings are still to be picked up occasionally in some of the London print-sellers, but the illustration here given is from the collection in the Print Room of the British Museum.[86]

The reader who is familiar with Elizabethan literature must have found considerable confusion existing in his mind as to what a “pinnesse” really was. Let us say at once, then, that the name was indiscriminately given to two distinct classes of craft. One class was a kind of galleasse, only smaller; that is to say, she relied on both oars and sails. She was a sea-going ship and decked. Under this heading came also row-barges, and at various times also galleots, galleys, frigates, and shallops. The point to notice is that this class comprised really big craft. The other “pinnesses” were ships’ boats. The modern use of the word pinnace expresses pretty clearly its relation to the mother ship. The greatest critics are unable to define exactly what a “bark” was, but from an early Venetian print I gather that she was smaller than the prevailing Mediterranean galley. At the same time the word seems to have included also vessels ranging from fifty, to a hundred and fifty tons. Thus they were sometimes small ships, and sometimes large pinnaces. Whilst Elizabethan seamen included all sailing vessels fit to take their place in the line of battle under the generic term of ship, the shipwrights divided them according to their design into “ships,” “galleons,” “galleasses”; “barks” being a convenient term for vessels of smaller ability.

The “brigandine” or “brigantine” was a Mediterranean type of small galley, rowed by its own fighting crew and without slaves. Sometimes she was classed as a “pinnesse” and sometimes as a bark, but never as a galley. Whether or not she possessed sails she was primarily a rowed boat. The illustration in Fig. 53 represents a big sea-going pinnesse as distinct from the ship’s boat. This was the vessel that carried home the body of Sir Philip Sydney, and is taken from “Sequitur celebritas et pompa funeris...” (of Sir Philip Sydney) by Thomas Lant, printed in 1587. The Elizabethan deep-sea pinnaces were from eighty to fifteen tons. The present illustration shows the vessel with her waist-cloths rigged up to prevent boarding, and with nettings[87] drawn over the waist to intercept the missiles dropped from the fighting-tops of the enemy. Mr. Masefield says that this cloth was of canvas two bolts (three feet six inches) deep. It was gaily painted with designs of red, yellow, and the Tudor green and white. It was of no protection against the enemy’s guns, yet it helped the sail trimmers on board from being aimed at. But against the enemy’s arrows sent from the tops it was efficacious, for though they penetrated the texture they were caught. We have already called attention to the additional protection of the shields or pavesses that ran around the outside of the deck.

The illustration in Fig. 54 shows a galleon with decorated sails, a practice that died out about the close of Elizabeth’s reign.[88] This decoration was effected by stitching on to the canvas cut-out pieces of cloth with twine. Most of the sails were woven in Portsmouth on hand looms, and the stuff was of good quality. But during the reign of James II. when the Huguenots took refuge in England, among the many new trades which the settlers brought over was that of the manufacture of sail-cloth. A French refugee, Bonhomme, who had settled down at Ipswich, taught the secret of its manufacture. Previously, England had imported her sail-cloth from France. The new factory was assisted in every possible way, but was finally destroyed by French agents, who bribed the artisans to return once more to France. Another factory was set up in London during the reign of William III., but as late as the time of George I. sail-cloth was imported from abroad.

As to the rigging of Elizabethan ships: the shrouds of the fore and main masts led outside the ship to chains to which they were made fast. The platforms in the “chains” of the ships of this time were of no small size as we shall see when we come to consider the Spanish vessels. The shrouds of the mizzen and bonaventure were set up usually from inside the bulwarks on deck. The fighting-tops were of elm, being entered through a lubber’s hole in the floor. Contemporary prints show sheaves of arrows projecting from the tops. At a later date light guns were placed here, but as this necessitated the use of lighted matches there was always the risk of setting fire to the sails. The shrouds and stays were of thick nine-stranded hemp. We see from old prints of this time that those parts, as for instance where the foresail came into contact with the bowsprit, which were liable to suffer from chafing were protected by matting made of rope or white line plaited, and then tarred. Masts were made of pine or fir. In dirty weather the fore-yard and fore-topsail yard could be sent on deck. Parrals of course kept the yard to the mast. There is not so very much difference between the sailor language of Elizabeth’s time and that in use on board a modern sailing ship. Mr. Bullen in an essay on “Shakespeare and the Sea” reminds us that “Elizabethan England spoke a language which was far more studded with sea-terms than that which we speak ashore to-day.” In such plays as _Twelfth Night_, _Comedy of Errors_, _Macbeth_, _King Henry VI._, and _The Tempest_, we have instances of this. Thus in Act III. Scene I. of the latter the first sailor commands the other to “slack the bolins there.” Modern bowlines are slight ropes leading from forward to keep the leach or weather edge of the courses flat and rigid in light winds when on a wind. But in olden times the bowline was of far greater importance, as we have seen, and led well out on to the bowsprit. Not merely the lower course, but topsail and topgallant sails possessed them.

When the English fleet opposed the Armada it consisted of 197 vessels made up as follows: 34 of Elizabeth’s own royal ships, 34 merchant vessels, 30 ships and barks paid by the City of London, 33 ships and barks (with 15 victuallers not reckoned in the total number), 23 coasters varying from 160 to 35 tons, 20 other coasters and 23 voluntary ships. Of the merchant ships the _Galleon Leicester_ and the _Merchant Royal_ are each given as of 400 tons and carrying 160 men. The smallest was the small caravel of 30 tons with 20 men. But we have spoken at some length of the English ships. Let us now turn to consider the ships of other nations of this period.

The Armada consisted of 130 vessels if we add up the list given in Hakluyt. This number was made up of the following types: galleons, patasses or pataches, galleasses, zabras, galleys and hulks. Besides these there were 20 “caravels rowed with oares, being appointed to Performe necessary services unto the greater ships,” making a total of 150. The tonnage of the fleet came to 60,000. There were 64 galleons “of an huge bignesse” and “so high that they resembled great castles,” but in attacking ability “farre inferiour unto the English and Dutch ships, which can with great dexteritie weild and turne themselves at all assayes.” It was this “bignesse” and the high castles at bow and stern that caused the prevailing fallacy to arise that the Armada ships were far larger than ours. The former were very high but very short on the keel, and in consequence equally unseaworthy. Ours were, as we pointed out above, long on the keel and not highly “charged” with castles. The Hakluyt account says the upperworks of the galleons were so thick and strong as to resist musket shot. The lower part of the hull and its timbers also were “out of measure strong, being framed of plankes and ribs foure or five foote in thicknesse, insomuch that no bullets could pierce them, but such as were discharged hard at hand: which afterward prooved true, for a great number of bullets were founde to sticke fast within the massie substance of those thicke plankes. Great and well-pitched cables were twined about the masts of their shippes, to strengthen them against the battery of shot.”

The galleasses “were of such bigness, that they contained within them chambers, chapels, turrets, pulpits, and other commodities of great houses. The galliasses were rowed with great oares, their being in eche one of them 300 slaves for the same purpose, and were able to do great service with the force of their ordinance.[89] All these together with the residue aforenamed were furnished and beautified with trumpets, streamers, banners, war-like ensignes, and other such like ornaments.” The various vessels also carried 12,000 pipes of fresh water and plentiful supplies of bacon, cheese, biscuit, fish, rice, beans, peas, oil, vinegar and wine. Among their stores were candles, lanterns, hemp, ox-hides and lead sheathing to be used to stop the holes that should be made by the enemy’s guns.

The Spanish ships had been built unnecessarily strong by very heavy scantlings. They were, according to Mr. Oppenheim,[90] of light draught with broad floors and were both crank and leewardy. The seams opened in spite of the strength with which they had been put together. They were bolted with iron spikes and it was not long before these ships became “nail-sick.” Their masts and spars were too heavy and their standing rigging too weak; in fact, whilst the demand had to be met for big ocean-going ships, the Spanish shipwrights and naval architects were not sufficiently advanced at this time to deal with such enormous masses of material.

We have mentioned above that Spain was the last of the great maritime Powers to adopt the galleon. In Fig. 55 the reader will see a representation of her galleons. It was not till about 1550, Mr. Oppenheim states, that the great galleon was introduced. The print here reproduced is in the British Museum, and the date the authorities assign to it is about 1560, so that we have every reason for supposing that this illustration is a correct one. The reader will at once notice the high-charged stern immediately abaft the mainmast. The Spanish ships were notorious for their wall-like sides; and for the height to which the bowsprit was “steeved,” both of which details will be noticed in the illustration before us. We mentioned in this chapter that in her origin the galleon owed something to the galley. Now, one of the chief characteristics of the galley type was the ram which was handed down from ancient times. Here, then, in this picture will be seen the survival of the ram affixed to the galleon. But it is here no longer entirely for the purpose of attacking the enemy’s ships but for boarding the fore-tack when by the wind. The bowlines are clearly seen on the vessel to the right of the print, leading from both the foresail to the bowsprit and from the mainsail. On both the fore and main courses, the martnets or leach lines are shown very clearly in the print; it is a little difficult to indicate these so clearly in reproduction. Notice, too, that both foresail and main have got both bonnet and drabbler laced on. Below the bowsprit is seen the spritsail. The main-mizzen topsail is stowed, and the bonaventure does not carry a topsail above her lateen. The under portion of the hull of these Spanish ships was painted white, but ochre was frequently used for the stern. They had lids to their portholes, nettings and waist-cloths, and “blinders” to avert the arrows and musket fire. The armament of the Spanish merchantman was, in the case of vessels of 100 tons, four heavy iron guns and eight hand guns aside as well as eight other hand guns; but after about 1550 the armament became heavier.

We pass now to speak of the Spanish treasure-frigates. These were an important class of vessel during the last quarter of the sixteenth century. The length on their upper deck was nearly four times the beam, and they possessed considerable speed. They were not properly cargo ships, but built in order to carry the valuable treasures from the Spanish Main across the Atlantic to Spain. Specially designed by Pero Menendez Marquez about the year 1590, to get across from the West Indies with the utmost despatch, they carried 150 men with soldiers and marines. Hakluyt[91] contains “certaine Spanish letters intercepted by shippes ... containing many secrets touching” South America and the West Indies. The extremely interesting drawing in Fig. 56 was sent home by an English spy and is now preserved in the Records Office, by whose permission it is reproduced here. This illustration shows very clearly that she had evolved from a galley. She has three masts of which the main and mizzen are seen to possess topmasts that lower. These two masts also have topsails. The yards of the mainsail and foresail have also affixed to their extremities crescent-shaped shear-hooks for tearing the enemy’s rigging. The forestay and foretopmast stay are well indicated. The mizzen has a lateen as usual, and the ram still survives. The artist has also shown the netting mentioned just now. As to the hull, we see from the spy’s handwriting that she was “104 foote by the keele” and “34 foote in breadth.” She has three tiers of guns, these being mounted also forward, so as to be able to fire straight ahead. She appears to have as many as six decks aft—main, upper, spar and four poop decks. The greatest precaution was taken by the Spanish government to ensure seaworthiness in the ships leaving their shores for the West Indies. Three times they had to be inspected before being allowed to set forth: once when empty, then when laden, and lastly, immediately before departure. No cargo was allowed to be carried on deck except water, provisions and passengers’ luggage. In the huge “channels” which were mentioned above were stowed such commodities as wool, small casks of water, and straw. Mr. Oppenheim mentions that an ancient “Plimsoll” mark was ordered by the inspectors in the year 1618, although the Genoese statutes had ordained this as early as 1330.

When in 1592 the English captured the “huge carak” called the _Madre de Dios_ belonging to Portugal, there were found stowed in her capacious channels about 200 tons of goods. This will give some idea of the extent to which these channels grew in size. Hakluyt contains a long and detailed account of the capture and dimensions of this carack, which was the largest the English seamen had yet encountered. She was 1600 tons, having between 600 and 700 souls aboard, besides her rich cargo of jewels and spices and silks and other goods. She was eventually brought into Dartmouth, and is said never again to have left the harbour. When surveyed, Hakluyt says that she measured from beak-head to the stern, 165 feet, extreme beam, 46 feet 10 inches. Her draught when laden had been 31 feet, which, being about the draught of one of the largest modern liners, would seem exaggerated did not the account definitely state that the survey was exactly made by “one M. Robert Adams, a man in his faculty of excellent skill.” When, after being lightened, she was taken into Dartmouth, she drew only 26 feet, which is still enormous. Her decks at the stern comprised a main orlop and three closed decks. At the bows she had a forecastle and a spar-deck “of two floors apiece.” The length of her keel was 100 feet, of the mainmast 121 feet, while the circuit at the partners was 10 feet 7 inches, the main yard being 106 feet long. The following year another enormous carack was fired and sunk by the English. Her name was _Las Cinque Llagas_ (“The Five Wounds”), and she is said by some to have been bigger even than the _Madre de Dios_.

One of the most memorable of naval battles was that which was fought on the Adriatic Sea in 1571. On the one side were the allied forces of Venice, Spain, and the Papal States: on the other, the Turks who were defeated. Galleys and galleasses played an important part in obtaining this victory. To what development the galley had attained since the times of the early Greeks and Romans will be seen in Figs. 57 and 58. But in spite of all that history had added to them, it is surprising how little they differ in essentials. Fig. 57 has been sketched from a model in the South Kensington Museum. It is quite old, and is said to have belonged to the Knights of Malta. Her dimensions if built to scale would work out at about 165 feet long, by 22 feet beam, with extreme beam from gunwale to gunwale, 31 feet. The depth would be 9·9 feet, and the number of sweeps 44. In the United Service Museum there is also an instructive Maltese galley model of a large size which, though of the eighteenth century, differed so little as to be closely similar to the excellent illustration which we give in Fig. 58. This has been taken from an important publication, of the beginning of the seventeenth century, by Joseph Furttenbach, entitled “Architectura Navalis,” printed at Ulm in 1629. As will be seen, each oar is still worked by a gang of men. At the stern the captain sits with his knights by his side, while at the extreme stern is the pilot. Along the _corsia_ or gangway down the ship walk two men with long poles with which to beat the lazy oarsmen. The principal armament was carried in the bows and so was unable to be used for broadside fire. Notice also the survival of the trumpeters. The length of this vessel was 169 feet from beak to stern, with an extreme beam of about 20 feet. The word _antennæ_ is still found at this time as applied to the yards. In spite of the handiness of the galley and her consequent popularity in the Mediterranean, she was thoroughly despised by Elizabethan seamen. Much more after their own heart was the _nave_ or ship shown in Fig. 59, and also taken out of Furttenbach. The reader will notice a wise restriction of high-charged structures. This vessel, in fact, shows a steady improvement in naval architecture. Thus, besides the lateen mizzen she carries a square topsail above, while in addition to the spritsail seen furled to its yard on the bowsprit, there has now been added a sprit topsail whose yard is seen to hoist up a sprit topmast. When we compare this vessel with the wooden walls of the eighteenth century, she will be seen to be wonderfully modern. The last traces of crude mediævalism are disappearing. Science in design has fast begun to supplant rule of thumb and guess-work based only on ignorance. Skill has taken the place of inexperience in the work of the shipwright, and both design and construction have been based on the knowledge obtained not only in long and tedious voyages, but in the brisk fighting between nation and nation and privateer against treasure ship and trader. In the same volume of Furttenbach a useful plan of the lines of this ship is given, from which we see that whilst the mainmast is stepped at the keelson, the fore and mizzen are stepped on the main deck.

A favourite vessel with the Turkish pirates who infested the Mediterranean at this time was the _carramuzzal_, classed as a brigandine. Her sail, says Hakluyt, consisted of “a misen or triangle” sail, that is of course a lateen. She is shown in Furttenbach purposely without rigging or sails so as to indicate clearly her method of firing. The _tartana_, with her lateen sail, sometimes seen in contemporary prints, was a Mediterranean fishing vessel.

In spite of the great interest manifested by England and other nations recently in Arctic exploration, let us not forget that the first true polar voyage was undertaken during the reign of Elizabeth by Dutchmen. Their object was to find the North-East passage to China, and terrible were the privations and perils endured. The reader who has become familiar with Franklin’s, McClintock’s, Nansen’s, Scott’s, Shackleton’s, and other explorers’ travels to the poles, is advised to compare the experiences which these Dutchmen endured. Many of them have their counterpart in the accounts written by modern explorers. Thus one of the ships was tilted over to a dangerous angle, though ultimately righted. Once one of the ships was caught in a driving pack of ice, and suddenly freeing herself three of her crew who were on the ice had barely time to be drawn quickly up the ship’s sides and saved from drowning. These and the other incidents mentioned here are all delightfully illustrated in “A true account of the three new unheard of and strange journeys in ships ... in the years 1594, 1595 and 1596,” by Levinus Hulsius, printed at Frankfort in 1612. The type of ship used for this expedition appears to be the galleon. The rigging and sails, the lacing holes for the drabbler and bonnet, the topsails “goared” out to the clews, and the bowlines, are all shown. One illustration proves that when close-hauled these ships stowed both spritsail and sprit topsail.

Unhappily for the navigators, but luckily for us, their big ship stuck fast in the ice and remained there. Anxious, therefore, to return to Holland with the approach of summer, they determined to attempt the journey in open boats. Now much as we sympathise with the sufferings of these brave men, this unfortunate incident of an abandoned ship has given us a picture of the men engaged in adding raised gunwales to their small boats and afterwards sailing across the sea. Hitherto in this history of the sailing ship, except when we spoke of the lateen, we have always had in mind the squaresail rig. Its virtues never grow old when utilised for big ships and deep-sea sailing. But for small craft and for handiness there is nothing to beat what is known as the fore and aft rig. Just exactly when the fore and aft rig originated is not possible to determine, although its rise and influence have been since very powerful, especially in the modern yacht and fishing vessel. But it may be taken as practically certain that the sloop rig (by which I mean a vessel with a peaked mainsail and a triangular headsail), like many other good points of ship development, came from the Low Countries during the first half of the sixteenth century. In a map[92] sent in 1527 from Seville, in Spain, by M. Robert Thorne to Doctor Ley we see a Dutch-like sloop depicted. A map of Ireland of 1567 contains two vessels of this rig. H. C. Vroom, whom we referred to above as the designer of the House of Lords tapestries, painted a picture entitled _The Arrival at Flushing of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester_, 1586. The date of Vroom’s birth was 1566. Now this picture shows about half a dozen small vessels rigged exactly like the small boat given in Hulsius. This rig consists of a triangular sail hoisted up the forestay, and with a mainsail having no boom or gaff, but a large sprit across; in fact, exactly resembling the rig of the Thames “stumpey” barge to-day. It was only at a later date that the jib was added to the foresail and a topsail to the sprit mainsail. The other small boat given in Hulsius is shown square-rigged, with one course on her main and the same on her fore, but the latter mast is stepped very far forward and right at the bows. The design of the latter boat’s hull shows the remnant of the Viking influence, which is not obliterated even in the modern Dutch schuyt. It should be mentioned also that the cutter-rigged boat in Hulsius just alluded to has a yard-tackle coming down from the top of the mast to about the middle of the sprit, while from the peak of the sail two vangs lead down aft, just as in the modern barge.

Before we close this eventful period we must not omit to mention the East India Company, which ranks after the Armada and the Battle of Lepanto as the most important item to be reckoned with in connection with the development of the sailing ship. Formed by a company of merchant-adventurers to trade to the East Indies, Elizabeth granted its charter in 1600: its first fleet consisted of the _Red Dragon_ (600 tons and 200 men), the _Hector_ (300 tons and 100 men), the _Ascension_ (200 tons and 80 men), and the _Susan_ (240 tons and 80 men), together with a deep-sea pinnesse of 100 tons with 40 men.

The Tudor period had seen the most wonderful innovations and developments in connection with the sailing ship. Under no period had it altered so much or in so short a space of time. Not, indeed, until we come to the middle of the nineteenth century did the sea witness such original craft voyaging across its surface. But let us see now what happened during the reigns of the Stuarts and their successors.