Trinity House of Deptford Transactions, 1609-35 London Record Society 19. Originally published by London Record Society, London, 1983.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying and sponsored by London Record Society. All rights reserved.
431. [f.68v. Before 22 Feb. 1634] Trinity House to the lords commissioners of the admiralty [See 432; cf SP 16/228, f.117v; CSPD 1633–4, 470.] They have had the sole execution of the office of lastage* and ballastage for 100 years, for these 38 or 40 years under the broad seal. Lately the king has confirmed the grant under his privy seal, reserving a rent of £50 a year assigned to Capt. Thomas Porter. Lastly in 2 references the king has declared his intention not to abridge their rights. Nevertheless, the attorney general, on information and considering only the legal point, has preferred a quo warranto action against the corporation in the court of king's bench, being of opinion that the right of sole ballastage does not belong to them. The commissioners are asked to consider the point of convenience and how prejudicial would be the 'promiscuous' ballastage of ships, with nobody answerable for misdemeanours. The commissioners know how it concerns the reputation of the petitioners that the office be executed without prejudice to the river.
433. [f.69. ? Before 6 Dec. 1634] Trinity House to the lords commissioners of the admiralty about Humphrey Streete and the ballastage office [Cf SP 16/278/15; CSPD 1634–5, 344. The SP text is annotated in a contemporary hand as received on 6 Dec. 1634 and is ascribed by CSPD to that date.]
434. [f.69v] 19 Dec. 1633. Admiralty court order to Sir John Wentworth, Francis Brewster and Henry North, esquires, Thomas Trenchfeild, 'Charles' [? recte Christopher] Browne and George Hatch, mariners
The bailiffs, commonalty and adventurers in the fishing trade at Dunwich, Southwold and Walberswick in Suffolk have complained that Sir John Rowse, for private gain, has lately made heading banks and 2 sluices whereby the ancient, previously navigable, channel belonging to the towns is blocked not far above the mouth of the haven. The haven and harbour are much decayed and likely to be stopped, impoverishing the inhabitants and prejudicing the king's service and customs. In the star chamber on 29 Nov., the privy council ordered Sir Henry Martin, admiralty court judge, to institute an enquiry by some members of Trinity House, together with some gentlemen of Suffolk with no interest and not living nearby. Martin has decreed a commission to them accordingly to view the haven, channel, headings and sluices, and to make a report to the admiralty court, to be presented to the star chamber board by the beginning of next term.
435. [f.70] 17 Jan. 1634. Sir John Wentworth, Francis Brewster, Henry North, Thomas Trenchfeild, Christopher Browne and William Ewen to the privy council about the threat to the fishing trade at Dunwich, Southwold and Walberswick [Cf SP 16/260/28(1); CSPD 1633–4, 453–4. CSPD does not list the signatories or mention that the sluice had been built near the site of a mill which the father of Sir John Rowse, who had died 30 years since, had built on the stream.]
According to the order dated 29 Jan. 1634 they have consulted sailmakers whose opinions are enclosed. Mildewing of sails can only be lessened if shipmasters take care to open the sails often to dry, air and cool them. Sails left furled for long become heated, which mildews them more than lying wet. 'Buckt cloth double' [? cloth steeped or boiled in an alkaline dye] is too weighty, boisterous and unmanageable. But for double sails for great ships good 'warpt' cloth is best.
437. [f.71] 4 March 1605. Certificate by Thomas Milton and others (fn. 1)
They were summoned before Sir Julius Caesar, admiralty court judge, and empanelled as a jury to set down how far the king's chambers, havens, or ports on the coast extend. They comprise all the coast within a straight line drawn between each headland of England. [The headlands are listed, together with the distances and bearings, one from another, starting with Souter Point and ending with Holyhead.] A plat is enclosed [not entered].
According to 'your' warrant of 19 Dec. [not entered], they have surveyed the 2 new ships built for the king in dry dock at Deptford and Woolwich, and have calculated the burdens according to the old rule and that laid down by the privy council on 26 May 1628.
The frames, mould, workmanship, the sizes and scantlings of the timbers, the binding within and without board, and the quality of the materials in the scarf* riders, beams, knees*, etc. is good. The decks of the ship at Deptford go flush fore and aft, as does the lower gundeck of the ship at Woolwich, but a rise is cut in the fore part of the gunroom in the upper gundeck. In future, both gundecks should be flush, as they have certified formerly. The ports of both ships will lie about 5 ft from the water and are 8 or 9 ft apart or under in the case of the ship at Woolwich, and 9 ft in that of the ship at Deptford. The ports are of a convenient depth and breadth. Both ships will be very serviceable royal men-of-war.
Edward Steevens, John Ducy, John Southerne, John Graves, John Dearsly, Robert Tranckmore. (fn. 2)
They were required this day for the king's service to give their opinions of the 'reasons abovementioned' [not entered]. Nine of the 10 ships built in the time of the late commissioners of the navy [appointed in 1619] were cast in the 2nd and 3rd ranks of the king's ships. The 4 new ships built at Deptford and Woolwich within this last 2 years are likewise of much greater burden than those mentioned in the propositions of the commissioners. It is concluded that the reasons of the 'masters' for increasing the cables in the new ships by one inch for mooring in habour and for service are very fitting, but for the old ships mentioned in the propositions, to which 'divers of us' then subscribed, cables of the scantlings then set down will suffice.
Following a warrant dated 31 Dec. they viewed and certified concerning the 2 new ships of the king then in dock at Woolwich and Deptford [Unicorne and James]. Now that the Unicorne does not prove answerable to their opinion, they acknowledge their error, which proceeds from their not weighing well the overbuilding of the ship, which is the only cause of her tenderness. They were not alone in this error because many others of good judgement have also failed in their opinion of her.
Being lately at Genoa, they had needed a friend on divers occasions as they were strangers and repaired to Francisco Massola their consul who had renounced the task. Signor Phillippo Barnardi befriended them and considering the need for so able a protector in future, they recommend Barnardy as consul. He is honest and able, has a great affection for England, having long been there, and knows the language and customs of the English.
Upon the suit of merchants, captains and masters trading to Genoa, they appointed Francisco Massola, a Genoese, to be consul for so long as he aided the English nation there, but now they have been credibly informed that he has renounced the consulship. Phillippo Barnardy having been recommended in his stead [f.73] Trinity House, insofar as in them lies, appoint him consul for so long as he provides assistance. His fee is to be 2 ducats a ship, great or small. The state of Genoa is asked to accept him as consul.
443. 29 March 1634. [Commissioners of the admiralty to Trinity House seeking an opinion on a petition by Capt. Thomas Porter and Capt. Hawkeridge (444) about pilotage. Cf SP 16/264, f.2; CSPD 1633–4, 528.]
Strangers daily enter the king's ports for trade and succour and sound the harbours and entry places on the coast of England, Scotland and Ireland, the Thames only excepted, which has made them as skilful as 'our best pilots' and has caused much mischief and misery. Thus in 1631 Turkish pirates landed at night at Baltimore in Ireland, sacked the town, and carried away 109 persons whom they sold as slaves in Algiers, which they would not have dared, had they not known the haven. The mischief is because there is no restraint on foreigners entering without native pilots, as is the rule in Spain, France, the 'Two Countries', Denmark etc. where native pilots have to be employed and pilotage paid. To keep foreigners at the like distance and to employ aged seamen unfit for long voyages, the king is asked to ordain that no stranger shall enter in or out without a pilot under penalty. In view of their services and the late great losses of Hawkeridge, the king is asked to empower the petitioners to appoint pilots in England, Wales and Ireland [sic], the Thames excepted, and to take such fees from strangers for their services as are granted to like officers by foreign princes.
In reply to 443, they oppose the grant of a patent to prevent strangers from entering the ports and harbours of the kingdom without pilots for these reasons: (a) Apart from the Thames, Bristol, Hull, Lynn and some other petty places, the harbours are open and free from danger. Corporations of seamen exist at Newcastle, Hull and Dover, charged by their charters to provide pilotage. Yarmouth is a limb of the Cinque Ports to whom pilotage belongs. (b) It would be a needless charge and give much discontent to strangers, and might endanger the king's subjects to have a like charge put on them in all foreign countries. (c) Strangers were never subjected to pilotage, those few places formerly mentioned excepted, nor has there been such a proposal previously. (fn. 3) The king's subjects pay pilotage only at Venice in Italy. In all other places within the Straits, in the ports of Spain, Holland, and Denmark, they are free, although anyone can have a pilot if he wishes. (d) Ports are open to receive all navigation in all countries. God forbid that the ports of the king's dominions should be shut up, as they will be if pilotage is made compulsory. Since pilots are not required, ships often enter for shelter and to safeguard lives and goods when it is not possible to obtain pilots. (e) Whereas the 'petitioner' [sic] conceives that the Turkish action at Baltimore was caused by their knowledge or that of a Christian stranger, this was not so. The Turks took a fisherman not far away and made him guide them into the port, promising to set him free, which they did. (f) Since ports in all countries are known to those seamen who trade in them, knowledge [f.74v] of English ports which have so great a trade cannot be clouded. (g) The petitioner conceives that if strangers had to have pilots, they would be kept ignorant, but a mariner once brought in and out of a port is there made a pilot forever. (fn. 4)
They request an opinion on the following 2 cases: (a) Two merchants freighted a ship from Ireland to London and back again and let 6 tons in her by charter party. The ship reached London, discharged her lading, and began to relade. Goods came so fast from the 2 principal merchants and strangers, that when the servant of the merchant who had freighted the 6 tons arrived, there was space for only 4 tons. Nevertheless, he came with the other 2 tons within the time specified in the charter party. When the master refused to accept them, he brought them ashore and ventured them in another ship without the consent of his own master or the other freighters. Who is to bear the loss of these 2 tons? (b) Mr Kirwane freighted a 60 ton ship for £120 for a voyage from Ireland to Bilbao and loaded 20 tons of salmon. His factor, Mr Lynch, seeing the ship ready to part not half loaded, put another 10 tons aboard without the consent of the principals. What freight should be paid?
Their opinion on these cases propounded to them today  is: (a) The servant of the third merchant took the 2 tons of goods ashore again without protesting against the master and principal factor according to law. Although he offered to lade in due time and according to the charter party, since he had direction from neither the principal freighter nor the master to ship the goods in another vessel, the third merchant must bear the whole loss of the 2 tons loaded by his servant. (b) In the second case, the factor is to pay to the principal or first merchant a proportionate part of the freight, i.e. £20.
449. [f.75v] 24 May 1634. Trinity House to the privy council supporting the building of a quay and dry dock at 'Dunham Bridge' [Downham Bridge on the Orwell near Ipswich] in Suffolk [Cf SP 16/268/59; CSPD 1634–5, 38. The SP text is signed by William Rainborowe, master, Anthony Tutchen, John Totton, Gervais Hockett, Samuel Doves, James Moyer, William Case, T. Best, Robert Salmon, Walter Coke.]
Sir William Curteene, merchant of the city of London, has made suit to them about the need for a consul for ships and seamen at Trapani in Sicily and has sought their allowance of Henry Dyke, a merchant, to be settled there as consul. They are credibly informed by Curteene that Dyke is of good report and an able man, being already consul there for the Dutch. Insomuch as in them lies, they appoint Dyke consul for so long as he helps 'our nation'. His fee is to be 2 ducats a ship, great and small. The viceroy of Sicily is entreated to accept him as consul.
In answer to his letter about the king's pleasure for ballast in the Tyne, they recommend an order entered in the register of the council. All men can, and many will, then take copies to answer exceptions. Whereas he desired them to find a man to seize the ballast and receive the money, if there is anything else needed, they will do their best therein.
According to the warrant dated 24 May they have been aboard the king's ship, the Unicorne, now at Chatham, and on conference with her principal men they conclude that she is unfit to bear sail because she has too little breadth and too much height. To remedy these defects and for the grace of the ship, the following work is required: (a) Since she is too high for her breadth, her upper works need to be taken down to the level of the upper edge of the ports in the waist of her upper gundeck, and the upper deck taken away, leaving a large quarterdeck and forecastle. The great cabin floor should go flush with the middle deck, the roundhouse floor 'settled' 18 inches, and the roundhouse made a convenient height to make her 'shipp shapen'. The step of the mizen should be brought down to the lower gundeck and the friezes, spirket wales and gunwales on the forecastle removed. The timbers and work in the waist and on the quarterdeck should be made as light as possible. (b) It is fit to girdle her with 8 strakes of wales and plank, the thickest being 5 inches, 'to continue the breadth one foot higher than now it is, and to bring on a wale to finish it under the ports'. The total cost of the work, timber, planks, pitch, tar and ironwork and the workmanship of carpenters, caulkers, joiners, carvers and painters, would be £500.
William Raineborow, Anthony Tutchen, John Totton, James Moyer [of Trinity House], Edward Steevens, Henry Goddard, Peter Pett [? nephew of Phineas Pett], John Graves, Robert Tranckmore [shipwrights]. (fn. 5)
The lords commissioners of the admiralty directed the writers to survey the king's new ships now building in dry dock at Deptford and Woolwich [Leopard and Swallow] before the deck beams or planks are laid to enable the remedy of any defects which cannot be so well done when they are fully built. At least 3 from both Trinity House and Shipwrights' Hall are required to set aside all other business and assemble at Woolwich on next Monday morning, 4 June, (fn. 6) to survey the materials and workmanship, and to prevent ill quality in the laying of her orlops*, the contriving of her ports and the rounding* of her gundecks. The ship at Deptford will be surveyed similarly in the afternoon.
In reply to 453, they have surveyed the 2 ships building for the king at Woolwich and Deptford. The dimensions of the ship at Woolwich [Leopard]1 are: length by the keel, 93 ft 8 inches; breadth from outside to outside the timbers, 32 ft 8½ inches; depth from the upper part of the keel to the diameter of the breadth, 12 ft 1½ inches; depth of the keel, 1 ft 7 inches; rake of the stern, 31 ft 3 inches; (fn. 8) rake of the stern post, 4 ft 6 inches; the flat floor about 13 ft (it could not be exactly measured); draught amidships, 12 ft 9 inches, at which draught the master shipwrights may lay the orlops* so as the lower edges of the ports are 5 ft 9 inches from the water. The dimensions of the ship at Deptford [Swallow] (fn. 7) are: length by the keel, 95 ft 6 inches; breadth from outside to outside the timbers, 32 ft; depth from the upper edge of the keel to the diameter of the breadth, 11 ft 7½ inches; depth of the keel, 1 ft 8 inches; rake of the stern, 27 ft 9 inches; rake of the stern post, 4 ft 8½ inches; the flat floor about 13 ft (it could not be exactly measured); draught amidships, 12 ft 3 inches, at which draught the master shipwrights may lay the orlops so that the lower edges of the ports are 5 ft 9 inches from the water. [f.78] Their timber, material and workmanship are sufficient; only part of the oak plank is green and of insufficient length. As to their upper works, what is to be done for rounding* of the beams, laying the orlops flush fore and aft, and making the ports, they leave to the king's directions but they wish the master shipwrights to take great care in building the upper works as snug and as light as may be.
Present: the king, archbishop of Canterbury, lord keeper, archbishop of York, lord treasurer, lord privy seal, duke of Lennox, marquess [of] Hamilton, earl marshal, lord chamberlain, earl of Dorset, earl [of] Bridgewater, viscount Wimbledon, lord Newburgh, Mr treasurer, Mr comptroller, Mr vice chamberlain, Mr secretary Coke, Mr secretary Windebanke.
Upon consideration of a complaint by the mayor and burgesses of Newcastle that the ballast shore lately built at South Shields on the Tyne by Sir Robert Heath, lord chief justice of common pleas, would prejudice shipping, navigation and the river, the care of which had been entrusted to them by the king, and upon hearing both sides with their counsel, it was ordered that: (a) the ballast shore be finished and backed with ballast to make it fit for the saltworks which are begun there for the king's service in the first place; (b) seamen shall be free to cast their ballast there if they wish, but not forced to do so; (c) the town of Newcastle and the hostmen are not to hinder seamen indirectly by refusing to transport coal in keels to the ships which cast their ballast at Shields. The king reserves the ordering of the ballast shore so that navigation and shipping benefits, no loss of customs and other duties occurs, and the town suffers no loss of trade [f.79] or the river any hurt.
458. 30 June 1634. Lords commissioners of the admiralty to Trinity House about 456 [Cf SP 16/264, f.27; CSPD 1634–5, 98. 458 subscribed by lord Cottington, Sir Henry Vane, Sir Francis Windbanck and the earl of Lindsey.]
459. [f. 80–80v] 9 July 1634. Trinity House to the lords commissioners of the admiralty about 456 [Cf SP 16/271/46; CSPD 1634–5, 138–9. CSPD does not mention the distinction which Trinity House drew between 'we that are owners and masters of ships' and 'those men that be masters mates, gunners, carpenters and boatswains'. The SP text is signed by Walter Coke (described as deputy master in 459), Anthony Tutchen, Jonas James, George Hatch, Thomas Trenchfeild, T. Best, James Moyer, John Totton, Robert Salmon, Christopher Browne.]
At the instance of the bearer, David Davison, ropemaker of Wapping, they certify that it is much better for the spinning of yarn for all sorts of cordage to be done under cover than in the open air. Yarn spun in the open air is subject to moisture in the air, dew and rain. If there is moisture in yarn made into cordage, the cordage soon rots endangering ships of merchants and of the king. Even the best hemp, when spun moist or wet, will rot. To spin and make cordage under cover is not a new device but ancient in all countries, as in Muscovy, Prussia, Holland, Poland, Lubeck and Hamburg.
They have seen the engine model which Mr Needham and his 'second', Mr Browne, have made for cleansing the Thames and have seen it work. It is of no use to the river but a 'mere fancy or toy fallen from an idle head'. The reasons are too tedious to trouble him with, but can be given if desired.
Provision has been made by statute [2 Richard II, stat. 1, c. 4] for mariners to be retained in the king's service under his admiral or lieutenant, but there is no other provision for retaining them for the service and defence of this kingdom. Mariners at sea or in foreign parts not under the admiral or his lieutenant are neither bound to return, nor restrained from serving foreign princes. The king thereby loses the service of expert and courageous seamen whose names are not made known. Despite laws against the transportation of ordnance, there is no means of discovering the names of those who transport it. Merchants, masters, owners and governors load as much ordnance as their ships will bear, and return scarce half or quarter, having sold the rest at great profit. The master of the ordnance of the Tower takes notice only of the ordnance which is exported from the port of London, and takes bonds only for the ordnance imported but there is no provision for discovering what becomes of the ordnance afterwards. At no other port is there any regulation of ordnance at all. Nor is there a register of seamen leaving and returning and no officer is appointed for these purposes. The course hereafter propounded would prevent these evils and also the illegal export of wool, fuller's earth, hides, leather and other prohibited goods allegedly sent to another port in the kingdom but really carried overseas. [f.82] Since his accession the king has created a new office for the entry of passes to ascertain the names of all subjects leaving the realm, their places of abode, estates, degree, destination and intended date of return so that the king can recall them if he requires their services. (fn. 9) A similar register of seamen, ordnance and prohibited goods would provide the king with information about the number and quality of seamen and would prevent illegal practices. Prohibited goods would be listed and bonds taken against their export without licence as laid down by former proclamation [? of 30 Sept. 1632 (Proc. i. 196)]. The creation of an office and register at London and all other ports, creeks and havens of England and Wales is requested. Details would be kept of each ship departing, her burden, captain, master, governors, owners, officers, seamen and passengers, her guns, muskets and other munitions, [f.82v] and of prohibited goods carried, and on her return of any discrepancies in personnel or ordnance, and where prohibited goods had been landed. A copy of the entry would be given to the master, owner, or chief officer of the ship before departure. The books of entry and the register should be delivered once yearly to the king's remembrancer in the court of the exchequer, as is done by the customer and comptrollers of the port of London. On pain of forfeiture, ships should be prohibited from leaving port for Newfoundland, the North Sea or any other place, and the crew forbidden to disperse or unload on return before the entries are made and an oath administered. Since many ships go out of one port and return to another where there would be no record of their departure, officers should not grant clearance before an oath has been taken, and an entry and copy [f.83] made. The copy is to be shown to the authorised officer, and an explanation given of discrepancies under oath. The master of the ordnance of the Tower [of London], saving his privileges, and the authorised officers are to take care that these provisions are not breached. It is requested that those whom the king appoints as keepers of the register and as clerks should receive for taking bonds and making the entries and copies a fee of 2d a head for captains, governors, masters and officers, and 1d for mariners, ships' boys and passengers for voyages abroad, payable both outwards and homewards, and half these amounts for voyages to ports in England and Wales, and 1d a ton on ships entering and leaving for voyages abroad, and a farthing for voyages to ports in England and Wales. [f.83v] These dues would be paid only by the king's subjects and on ships belonging to the king's subjects. Payment would be made by the master or owner before departure and on return, on pain of the same forfeiture.
They report their opinions of 462. No better provision can be made than that which already exists. The new office would maintain many idle fellows and damnify many thousand honest men, enthralling all merchants, owners and masters. To await the pleasure of this 'great officer', thereby losing their tide, fair wind and weather would delay all ships. The projector argues that there is no provision for registering seamen but is ignorant of 'our customs' because no ship can be cleared in the customs house and searchers' office until the number of the crew is given in a note signed by the master or purser, whereby the number of seamen at sea can always be known. Besides, every 4 or 5 years, the lord admiral takes a muster of seamen, so that a new office is not needed for this business. As for seamen who run away from ships overseas and enter the service of foreign nations, the projector offers no remedy. Great disorder exists among seamen at home, since for every 500 who take press money, only 200 or 300 appear despite all the wit of the king's officers. Besides, the late proclamation [of 5 May 1634 (Proc. i.200)] against runaways abroad and the orders of Trinity House based on the civil law render offenders liable to loss of wages and, if they come home later, to imprisonment either by the judge of the admiralty or by Trinity House. As to ordnance, the projector acknowledges divers laws to prevent transportation but says that there is insufficient provision to discover the names of the transporters. This savours of silliness, for once transportation is discovered, the names of those responsible cannot be hidden. The master and crew will reveal the names of the owners of the ordnance and who hired the ship. If discovered abroad, every customs house will say for 12d when it was landed, and the name of the ship and master. Besides, in every port and creek of the realm, the customs house is like the eye of Argus, ever vigilant and prying. [f .84] Further, ordnance cannot be taken aboard any ship without a warrant from the lord high admiral to the master of the ordnance, who must first take bonds for its safe custody at all times. When a ship returns from a voyage, the ordnance is inspected by officers appointed by the master of the ordnance as appears by order of 24 June 1619 [order no. 11 in 464 is then quoted] which was sent by the privy council to Trinity House with command to perform it. Failure to do so would render the corporation liable to condign punishment. The matter of the illegal export of prohibited goods is for the gentlemen of the Customs House to answer. As to the dues being a small charge on subjects, the annual yield would be £5,000 or £6,000, a grievous burden upon navigation.
(1) Since the only furnaces for casting iron ordnance are in Sussex and Kent, the one market for buying and selling it shall be at the 'further Tower Hill', London, commonly called East Smithfield, which is to be free for all founders of iron ordnance, merchants and others, as accustomed. (2) Iron ordnance is only to be landed at Tower wharf, as accustomed. (3) Iron ordnance is only to be proved at Ratcliff fields, as accustomed. (4) Iron ordnance is to be shipped only at Tower wharf. The lieutenant of the Tower is to assist in the removal of ships which hinder the loading and unloading of iron ordnance there. (5) Iron ordnance is only to be shipped from London because of great abuse in stealing and shipping away ordnance, principally in the outports. (6) Furnaces for manufacture may only be built in future by licence of the king on the advice of the lord admiral and the master of the ordnance. (7) No founder is to sell iron ordnance unless it bears his name (or at least 2 letters of it), its weight and year, so as to ensure that each piece is of the right weight and no more. [f.85] (8) The master of the ordnance is to take bonds of £1,000 from founders, with the condition that they must provide him annually with details of iron ordnance manufactured, the number, height, weight and nature, and to whom it was sold; that the ordnance will be delivered only to the market place at Tower Hill; and that they will obey the other orders. (9) Iron ordnance is only to be shipped from the port of London. Shipping from all ports and creeks of Sussex, i.e. Lewes, 'Michinge', (fn. 10) Newhaven, Brighton, the old and new Shoreham and their members and elsewhere forbidden. The master of the ordnance or his deputy is to take bonds of £500 and £1,000 from principal searchers and other officers to enforce this regulation. (10) If any licence is granted by the king and council for export to foreign princes and others, it is first to be registered with the master of the ordnance who is to take bonds to ensure that the provisions of the warrant are not transgressed. (11) When any new ship is to be supplied with ordnance, certificate is to be brought from Trinity House to the lord admiral testifying the burden of the ship and the quantity and quality of the ordnance required. The lord admiral will signify his approval to the master of the ordnance who is to take bonds from the master and one owner to ensure that the ordnance is for the defence of the ship and is not to be sold. The bonds are to be [f.85v] for 4 years unless the ship is sold or there is a change in the master or owner. (12) The master of the ordnance shall cause the letter of the lord admiral, or a copy, to be returned to the searchers' office in the Customs House with 'test' that bonds have been taken. The searchers are to certify the same to the collectors outward. The ancient fee of 6d a ship for viewing the ordnance on her return is to be paid, and searchers and collectors are to 'confer' their books once a quarter. (fn. 11) (13) Bonds are to be certified to the court of exchequer as by law they ought. No action is to be taken to execute them unless the master of the ordnance certifies that they are forfeit, or upon manifest testimony of the same. (14) The customer, with the consent of the vice admiral or his deputy dwelling there, or the farmer's deputy is to take bonds in the outports. If a ship in the outports is to be supplied with new ordnance, the ordnance must be bought at the market at Tower Hill as aforesaid, and bonds are to be taken by the master of the ordnance as for the port of London. (15) For every new ship which is to be furnished in the outports, the burden of the ship and the ordnance required is to be certified to the lord admiral who will signify his approval to the master of the ordnance and he will take bonds as for the port of London. Copies of bonds are to be sent to the customer and searcher of the outport who are to keep registers as in London. Letters are to be written to the outports to this effect. (16) Only the accustomed fees are to be taken and new ones are not to be exacted.
|1629 [–30]||1630 [–1]||1631 [–2]||1632 [–3]||1633 [–4]|
|173||9||8 (fn. 12)||84||3||2||65||1||10||62||3||6||66||16||2|
|641||4||3 (fn. 13)||761||2||2||669||17||0 (fn. 14)||855||12||6||820||4||5 (fn. 15)|
|1629 [–30]||1630 [–1]||1631 [–2]||1632 [–3]||1633 [–4]|
|210||16||1||260||4||2||271||15||9 (fn. 16)||358||8||3||272||17||0 (fn. 17)|
|Total for the year:|
|£852||0s||4d||£1,021||6s||4d||£941||12s||9d||£1,214||0s||9d||£1,097||1s||5d (fn. 18)|
Total for coasters in the port of London for 5 years, £3, 748 0s 4d; cost of collection, £374 16s; balance, £3, 373 4s 4d; total receipts from the outports and the 'crossers of the sea' in the port of London, £1,378 1s 3d; total receipts, £4,751 7s 5d; (fn. 19) less one eighth of the total, £593 18s 2d; balance, £4,157 7s 5d; cost of the maintenance of the service at £160 a year for 5 years, £800; 'so resteth clear per annum one year with another for 7 parts of 8' is £671 9s 5d, £3,357 7s 5d.
The carpentry in the 2 new ships of the king [Leopard and Swallow] now in dry dock is complete. The king's master shipwrights at Chatham and Shipwrights' Hall have been asked to meet Palmer and Edisbury at Deptford at 9 a.m. on Tuesday 9 Dec. to resurvey the hulls and give an opinion on the materials, workmanship, burden and properties of these ships. Some principal men of their brotherhood should be chosen to observe the building, the rounding* and laying of the gundecks, the distances between, and the sizes of, the ports, the placing of cook rooms, storerooms and bulkheads, and to assess the draught and the burden in tons and tonnage*, and the suitability of the ships for the service of the king.
In reply to 466 they have surveyed the 2 new ships of the king in dry dock at Deptford and Woolwich and have calculated the burdens according to the old rule and that laid down by the privy council on 26 May 1628.
|Ship built at Woolwich by young Mr [Peter] Pett [son of Phineas] [Leopard] (fn. 20)||[f. 87] Ship built at Deptford by Mr Peter Pett [nephew of Phineas] [Swallow] (fn. 20)|
|Length by the keel||95 ft||96 ft|
|Breadth from outside to outside [the planks]||33 ft 8 inches||32 ft 10 inches|
|Draught||13 ft 6 inches||12 ft 9 inches|
|These figures multiplied together and divided by 100 produce in tons and tonnage*||575||536|
|Length by the keel||95 ft||96 ft|
|Breadth inside the planks||33 ft||32 ft 2 inches|
|Depth from the upper edge of the keel to the diameter of the breadth||12 ft 4 inches||11 ft 7½ inches|
|These figures multiplied together and divided by 100 produce in tons and tonnage||515||478|
The frames, workmanship, the size and scantling of timbers, the goodness and strength of materials in the scarf* riders, beams, knees*, etc., and the rounding* and laying of the gundecks, together with the siting of cooks' rooms, storerooms and bulkheads is good. The distances between the decks is 6 ft 6 inches. The lower edges of the ports will be 5 ft from the diameter of the breadth. The ports are 8 ft 8½ inches apart in the case of the ship at Woolwich, and 8 ft generally in that of the ship at Deptford. The ports in both ships are 2 ft 1 inch from the orlop*, and the sizes 2 ft 4 inches fore and aft, and 2 ft 2 inches in depth. Both ships are suitable for the service of the king.
468. [f.87v.? Before 2 Oct. 1634] Thomas Smith, receiver general of the duchy of Cornwall, to the king about ballastage in the Thames [Cf SP 16/275/11, annotated as received on 2 Oct. 1634; CSPD 1634–5, 224, which ascribes it to that date. CSPD does not mention Smith's account of an offer by the city to pay 2d for every ton of sand and gravel taken from the Thames.]