ADMINISTRATION OF THE NAVY

175

two boards of navy commissioners, one financial, the other administrative.1

1 Mr Oppenheim, in the History of the Administration of the Royal Navy, London, 1896, p. 295 (note), censures Professor Hosmer for saying, in his life of Sir Henry Vane, that he had created a fleet out of nothing. Oppenheim observes that the parliament commenced the Civil War infinitely better equipped at sea than on land, and did not find it necessary to begin building again till 1646. "If Mr Hosmer," Oppenheim goes on, "is referring to a later period, the statement is still more questionable, since the number of men at war had been increased, and Vane had ceased to have any special connection except in conjunction with others, with naval affairs. Allowing for his narrow intelligence and vacillating temperament, Charles showed more persistence and continuity of design in the government of the navy than in any other of his regal duties, for though relatively weaker as regards other powers, England, as far as ships and dockyards were concerned, was stronger absolutely in 1642 than in 1625."

Returning to Vane, "Mr Hosmer says in one place (p. 148) that the post of treasurer was worth £30,000, and in another (p. 376) £20,000 a year. What Mr Hosmer's authority (Sikes, The Life and Death of Sir Henry Vane) really writes is, 'The bare poundage which in time of peace came to about £3000, would have amounted to about £20,000 by the year during war with Holland.' The poundage in peace years never approached £3000, and as Vane ceased to be treasurer in 1650, and from the date of his resignation, a lower scale of payment was adopted, the second part of the calculation is obviously nothing to the purpose. Whether the reduction in the treasurer's commission was due to Vane, or whether he resigned on account of it, we have no evidence to show. Mr Hosmer quotes Sikes to the effect that Vane returned half his receipts, from the date of his appointment as sole treasurer, at the time of the self-denying ordinance. Unfortunately the accounts previous to 1645 are wanting, and the question must remain open; but if the probability may be judged by general tendency it must be said to be extremely unlikely since he was treasurer from August 8, 1642, till December 31, 1650, and during that time received in poundages and salary for the five and a half years for which the accounts remain, the sum of £19,620, Is. Iod. There is no sign in the audit office papers, that he returned one penny of his legal dues, and whoever else had to wait, he seems to have paid himself liberally and punctually. Mr Hosmer has only indirectly noticed that parliament, when Vane resigned, settled a retiring pension on him. Sikes says 'some inconsiderable matter without his seeking' was allotted to him by parliament in lieu thereof" (i.e., of his place). The inconsiderable matter was landed estate producing £1200 a year. Seeing that he held his post for only seven and a half years, that during that time he must have received at least £25,000, and that all previous treasurers had

In point of numbers, position, and resources, the parliamentary party were much the strongest. They been, on occasion, dismissed without any suggestion of compensation, his disinterestedness may be questioned. Going on with his strictures upon Hosmer, Mr Oppenheim remarks that Sikes "writes only loosely, and generally making up in enthusiasm what he lacked in exactness; e.g., in the beginning of that expensive war he resigned the treasurership of the navy. Hutchinson succeeded him from January 1, 1650-1, and war with Holland did not occur till June 1652. There is nothing to show that Vane was not an honest administrator, but his party fortunately produced many others equally trustworthy."

Assuredly we are in no way bound to submit to the assumption that the question must remain open because Mr Oppenheim cannot get at the accounts of the navy before 1645, and that money returned by Sir Henry Vane to aid the expenses of the Civil War should go back through the audit office. The statement that Vane returned a moiety of what he had received, has been made not only by Sikes, but also by Ludlow, who, having been a member of the Council of States, had better means of knowing than Mr Oppenheim. We give Ludlow's own words: "Sir Henry Vane had been removed by the late king from being treasurer of the navy for performing his duty in the House of Commons, and being restored to that employment by the parliament, he freely contributed half of the profits, amounting to the sum of £2000 yearly, towards carrying on the war for the liberties of England. When that war was ended he put the receipt for the navy in such a way that, by order of the parliament, the whole expense of the office exceeded not £1000 by year, men being brought by this means to understand that they were not placed in employments to serve themselves but to serve the publick."-Memoirs of General Ludlow, third part, p. 11, printed at Vevay, 1699.

It should be borne in mind that Vane was not dismissed by the parliament, but voluntarily resigned a post which had been originally granted by the king, and this he offered to do in 1646. See Whitelocke's Memorials, p. 236: "An ordinance passes at Sir Henry Vane's request to enable him to make a surrender of his place of treasurer of the navy." At this time the king was a prisoner in Holmby House. In saying that after his resignation of the treasurership, Sir Henry had no special connection with the navy except in conjunction with others, Mr Oppenheim passes too hastily over his valuable services as chairman of the head committee appointed to manage the admiralty and navy, which are attested by many papers in the Public Record Office.

The profits of the treasurership of the navy varied in different years. Oppenheim (p. 280) tells us that in 1634 the treasurer's fixed fee was raised from £270 to £645; Sir Christopher Wray, in arranging for a jointure for his daughter Frances, who was married to Sir Henry Vane in 1640, estimates his office as worth £600 a year. Vane was at that time joint-treasurer, sharing the profits with Sir William Russell,

STRENGTH OF THE PARLIAMENT

177

held the capital with all the advantages accruing from such a large centre of population; it probably held about half a million inhabitants. The train-bands had a regular organisation and some exercise in arms, and could do more than defend the city. The country around London was mostly in their favour. The south-eastern counties, the old seat of Lollardism, had already shown their discontent against the enclosures of commons and other agrarian and class oppressions by several risings suppressed with cruelties not yet forgotten.1

From these parts had come the exodus to Holland and New England, and there were so many sympathisers left behind as to give the Puritans decidedly the upper hand. The adherents of the parliament were also strong in the centre of England, especially in the larger towns, and they held most of the principal seaports-Bristol, Hull, Portsmouth, and Plymouth. On their side were some of the best of the old nobility, many of the gentry, and a large proportion of the yeomanry and freeholders. Above

The associated counties, which did so much in the Civil Wars, were Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge, Huntington, Bedford, Essex, Lincoln, and Oxford. The social and political influences which brought about the revolution are well reviewed in Die Vorläufer des neueren Socialismus, Abschnitt: Kommunistische und demokratisch-Socialistische Strömungen während der englishschen Revolution des 17 Jahrhunderts, Von Ed. Barnstein, Stuttgart, 1895. Noteworthy are the author's remarks about the Lollards, and Robert Ket's insurrection (1549.) He quotes William Petty's Essay on Political Arithmetic, 1687, who estimated the population of London, in the middle of the seventeenth century, at half a million. In those days about three-fourths of the population of England lived in the country.

Gregory King, who wrote about 1688, calculated that there lived in London

530,000 inhabitants. 870,000 4,100,000

"

all, they had that incomparable spirit which sprang from the fresh breath of liberty and hopes not yet blighted, the longing to be rid of the hateful idols of the past, the misrule of the king and priests, with the resolve to enforce the right to think for themselves in the great problems which filled their minds of God, eternity, and the future life: aspirations stirring and tumultuous, difficult to keep within bounds. Through all, there was a deep confidence that God, who had begun this good work, would surely finish it, and this made easy the sacrifice of wealth and health and life. In London many of the citizens contributed large sums, and loans were easily raised. So much silver plate was brought that it was difficult to take it in store; even poor women brought their rings and bodkins; some wealthy men raised troops of horse, one a whole regiment. The pulpits in the city rang with militant harangues; sheets and pamphlets thrown off every day served to keep up the excitement, and to spread it through the country. The Puritan preachers, silenced no longer, Laud being fast in the Tower, returned to their old flocks, and raised their voices high for the cause of reform.

Within these districts where the parliament had the upper hand the English Commonwealth now commenced its troubled existence. As the Celt always takes the losing side, Wales and Cornwall were in favour of the Royalists. The king had many supporters in the northern counties; but even in these quarters the cause of liberty had friends, though over-ruled and outnumbered.

After the king had gathered at York a cohort

ASSEMBLY ON HEYWORTH MOOR

179

of the gentry of the northern counties, noisy in their demonstrations of loyalty, he ventured to call on the freeholders and farmers of Yorkshire, to meet him. on June 3, on Heyworth moor, with his whole muster of army followers. More than 40,000 men of all degrees assembled. The king rode through the crowd. He was received with confused murmuring. The Cavaliers soon perceived that a petition was being circulated, begging the king not to go to war with his parliament. This the courtiers did their best to hinder, riding amongst the groups and snatching the copies of the petition, declaring, with violent invectives, that the king would not receive it. Sir Thomas Fairfax had headed a protest of the Yorkshire gentry favourable to the parliament, refusing their consent to forces being raised by the king. The petition was entrusted to him and his cousin, Sir William Fairfax, who followed the king about the moor, rudely obstructed by some of the courtiers. Sir Thomas at last managed to get near the king, and placed the petition on the pommel of his saddle. The ill-starred Stuart pushed his horse against the young gentleman, little dreaming that the day would come when he should fly before him.

A large number of the nobility and gentry of England answered to the king's urgent calls, some from a blind sentiment of traditional loyalty, others from a misgiving that their own rank and dignity were endangered by the levelling tendencies of the Roundheads, or that their fortunes might be bettered by the royal favour. Dislike of change, with a hazy understanding of what the quarrel was about, and an