Englands First Navies

1660 The Royal Navy's Formation

This is the first of the series of Naval History

For those who are intrigued to know the History of Englands Navies through time; we will start with. The Royal Navy of today which consists of those state-owned ships of Britain, designed primarily for fighting and for the general conduct of war, which are distinguished by the flying of the White Ensign, and the title of "His or her Majesty's Ships."

In times of war, of course, a big expansion takes place, both in material and in personnel. As for ships, a large number of ordinarily non-naval ones are brought in "for the duration," to be used for the great variety of subsidiary purposes of War rather than to bear the brunt of the actual fighting.

Such ships usually become, for the duration, and for all practical purposes, "R.N. Ships": and are often so altered or armed as to admit of their giving a good account of themselves against the enemy. But they remain in essence non-naval ships, and to that status they will return when the emergency is over.

The fact is that the Navy, is the Maritime Fighting Force of Britain-though permanent now, was not always so. It-or that which once took its place-used to be the reverse. It was permanent-sparodic; because it came and went. It was there one moment and gone the next, but now it is permanent.

Now, the nation must own, because it must pay for, the Navy, and that not only because no individual or limited collection of individuals could afford to do so, but also because in every modern State all institutions which exist solely to perform the work of the State or are State-owned and State-paid-for. Yet, once again, this was not always so.

Our Maritime Fighting Force

Once on a time our Maritime Fighting Force, far from being "national," was the very opposite; which, in this connection, means that it was "private." The ships of which it was composed were individually-owned ships; and the men in them, though they might pass temporarily into the service of the Crown were basically, the servants of the men who owned the ships; and they returned normally to that allegience when the occasion was over.

It might be argued that the Navy of today has other things to do besides fighting, especially in times of peace. It looks after our shipping; it patrols the seas as a policeman patrols the streets. It performs, in fact, a policeman's function rather than a soldier's.

This is very true. The policeman-is not a soldier, and we may thank Heaven for it! Yet no one is likely to quarrel seriously with the epithet "fighting" when we declare-as we do-that what is meant by it here is "capable of fighting when required," and not "capable only of fighting."

Now those who have been brought up in a sort of vague and cheery "Britannia rules the Waves" atmosphere may have been led to imagine-if they gave the matter any consideration at all-that this highly organised modern Navy, this Permanent National Maritime Fighting Force, had been in existence more or less since the beginning of Time, or at least for so long a period when it did not exist was hardly worth worrying about.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This Royal Navy, as we know it, is new; not indeed in comparison with a man's life-that has nought to do with history-but in comparison with the life of the Nation.

The Mediaeval Navy of England

The first British Navy, however, upon whose purely national nature no doubts can be cast, is that of Charles II. For when he "came into his own" in 1660, with the clamorous consent of almost all his subjects, both he and the Parliment most wisely agreed, to retain the new maritime fighting force itself and, the Cromwellian way of financing it. It was even to Charles II that we owe the formal and official title of the "Royal Navy."

It would have been very right and proper-and strictly accurate-for Henry V and Henry VIII, and even Elizabeth, to call their own self-paid-for fleets the "Royal Navy," though they seldom did so.

It was reserved, by one of those little ironies so typically English, for the name to be given by the very first King in whose case it was not strictly true! Yet in reality Charles was not being cynical. He was not only acting in his own interests; he was also laying down the true future relationship of Crown, Country and Navy.

The truely State-owned ship may be said to date only from the time of Oliver Cromwell or Charles I, while anything like the modern personnel only begins to appear in Charles II reign. It is not affirmed, of course, that "The Navy" is as new as all that, nor are English fighting ships or English fighting seamen; nor even what may be termed our Naval "Tradition." But the modern Royal Navy, as defined above, is of that age, and that age only.

Embargoed ships for sea-cases

The "Old" or Mediaeval Navy of England was, an "emergency measure," and was very closely parallel to, the military emergency measure, where the masses were expected in times of peril to turn out to defend the land. In a sea-case upon an emergency declaring itself, the King would send out his officers to those parts of his realm where sea-help was naturally to be found-to the sea-ports.

Once there, those officers would lay an "embargo" on all shipping; saying, "Stop! Stay where you are while we take our pick of such ships and seamen as best to suit our purpose." Thereupon they made their chioce-or, in certain cases, allowed the local people to do so themselves. The ships so selected, by whichever method, were then dispatched forthwith to a suitable rendezvous, sailing under their own ordinary officers, and manned by their own crews.

They were then joined by any ships which belonged to the King himself, if he happened to possess any, and also by those rather more specialized fighting men who were the King's vassals who owed him military service for favours past. That was all-a form of maritime assembling for a specific pupose, and dissolving when that purpose was fullfilled.

Such, in principle, was "the Old Navy," and the principle endured for many centuries. In different ages there were minor differences, it is true, of which perhaps the main ones were differences in proportion between the Crown's contribution to the general pool and the contribution of its subjects.

Flagships of the Old Navy

Thus sometimes, but not often, the Crown's share was comparitively large, the king furnishing the greater part of the whole force; at other times, his share was insignificant, and occasionally it was even non-existent; in which case his subjects, or some section of them, shouldered the whole responsibility of finding ships.

Again, when the King had ships of his own, they were often rather good-or at least rather big-ships, as compared with those of his subjects. They remained private ships in the more literal and intimate meaning of that word. Because he had paid for them out of his own pocket; had built them to his own specification, and was therefore entitled, both in his own eyes and in those of his subjects, to use them for his own purposes.

The King was able to furnish what we should now call the "Flagships" of the Old Navy. The king's contribution, even when small in quantity, was great in quality, since his ships, and his alone, were in some degree specialized ships of war.

Yet the principle held, so that this Old Navy, thus collected, remained the only truly representative Maritime Fighting Force which England ever could, or did, produce right up to the middle of the seventeenth Cetury.

Edward III

Edward III possessed not only ships, but also a more than average grasp of the value of being strong at sea. He even believed in protecting his subjects' trade, though on a strict understanding that they should pay for the protection more or less "on the nail."

Yet Edward showed his limitations in several ways, and in one especially. After some considerable success-at Sluys, for instance, in 1340, and in the battle of Espagnols-sur-mer ten years later-he allowed his efforts to peter out, sustained a crushing naval defeat, off La Rochelle in 1372, and let his navy and his naval policy die with him.

He too was, doubtless, the father of a Navy; but not the father of that which grew into the Royal Navy.

Henry V

Henry V, built ships-some very big ones-and built them for war purposes; but his motives remained essentially mediaeval.

Like his predecessors, he had a good deal of "business" to transact in France-and, like them, he needed shipping rather for the purpose of what we might call "armed transport" than for any more strictly naval purpose.

The only thing that differentiates him from the rest, is the fact that he built his own ships, to do his own transporting.

Henry VIII

Henry VIII, he too owned ships-still merchant ships in every way, including construction. But then he used them very largely as merchant ships; for he was a merchant; and such an astute one that he made his fortune.

The king's ships were designed primarily to trade while his merchant subjects were encouraged, even bribed, to build ships sufficiently formidable to fight! The mere possibility of such a thing argues a complete absence of warship-specialization in Henry's day, and he did very little to hasten its coming.

His influence, therefore, towards the creation of a fighting Navy, though ultimately great, was quite indirect; it was "maritime" rather than strictly "naval." Yet it was certainly a necessary step in England's naval developement, for History everywhere seems to show a settled order of happenings.

Sea-trade must come first, and then Naval Power will almost inevitably develop in order to protect it. It is questionable whether any lasting Navy has ever grown up for any other reason than trade protecion, direct or indirect. But if there is no volume of maritime trade behind them they will very soon wither away and die.

At the turn of the century, so poorly off were we for deep-sea navigators and seamen that Henry had to borrow from the latin countries. Then, less than two generations later, England boasted some of the finest navigators and perhaps the finest seamen that the world had ever seen. Henry VIII, then, did invaluable maritime work for England.

He did not create her Navy, but he made it worth someone else's while to create one. It would by no means be devoid of truth, to call Henry VIII, the "Grandfather of the British Navy"; for if trade is the Mother which has borne and nurtured the British Navy, Henry's claim to be the father of British Trade is a very strong one.

Henry VIII's, claim to be the father of the British fighting fleet is very good indeed; for he built the first fighting fleet that lasted. It was still a "private" fleet, in the sense that he paid for it himself-or, if the other view be preferred, it may be said he stole from the Monastries and Rome the money which to pay for it. Whichever it was, it was a fleet built, not for trading, but essentially for fighting.

The result was forever after, succeeding Kings and Queens of England at least wanted fighting ships of their own. It meant that fighting ships would never quite dissapear from England; and they never did. Henry's fighting navy survived before it could be lost, the nation as a whole began to wake up to the value of the sea and trade thereon, and began to both "make" and to "take" trade.

We hesitate to accord King Henry VIII, the full title of "Father of the Navy," but we may much more safely regard him as the "Father of the British Fighting Fleet.

The continuation of this Naval History is called: "The New Navy"

Englands First Navies The New Navy

"Pirates Trilogy" $20