6
Commentary
Henry’s poverty finally caught up with him in 1525. On 25 February, Francis was defeated and captured by the Emperor’s forces at Pavia. Suddenly, France seemed to be at his mercy; plans for peace were abandoned, and enthusiastic proposals for partitioning the kingdom canvassed. This time, however, it was Charles who was cautious. He was now in a position to extract real concessions from his prisoner, and in no mood to humour the extravagant greed of a virtually useless ally. So Charles signed an advantageous peace at Madrid, and left Henry to get the best terms he could. His plans to raise extra-parliamentary taxation (the Amicable Grant) having collapsed, Henry made peace in the Treaty of the More in August 1525. The fleet does not appear to have been mobilized at all during that summer, but at some point the Mary Rose was moved to Deptford, where she ‘lieth in the pond’, awaiting caulking (55).
Apart from an entirely theoretical war with the Emperor in 1527, the next fifteen years saw no hostilities, largely because the King was totally absorbed by his Great Matter (getting rid of Catherine of Aragon) and its ramifications. Throughout this period, with a few brief exceptions, all the King’s Great Ships were kept on a care and maintenance basis, either at Deptford or Portsmouth. Tentative plans to use Dartmouth and Rye for that purpose were not accepted. According to the surviving accounts of Thomas Jermyn (who had succeeded Brigandine as Clerk of the Ships in 1523), the Mary Rose was at Portsmouth for virtually the whole period from November 1524 to January 1530. The number of shipkeepers paid for looking after her varied from six to twenty-one for no obvious reason, and the apparently unbroken sequence of accounts may be deceptive. In addition to the Deptford visit mentioned here, she was also recorded as being there, awaiting repair, on 22 October 1526, when according to Jermyn’s accounts she was supposed to be at Portsmouth. The only gap in the Clerk’s sequence is from 15 to 26 October 1527, and is equally unexplained. Extensive superficial repairs and regular maintenance work was carried out in June 1527 (56), and the fact that these accounts were also presented by Jermyn suggests that this work was carried out at Portsmouth. Such overhauls seem to have taken place annually by this time, and between February and June 1528 a new dock was excavated at Portsmouth, specifically for the repair of the Mary Rose, and other ships like her. Another overhaul and recaulking was also undertaken at that time.
After 1531, sightings become fewer and fewer. From January 1536 to March 1537 William Gonson accounted for the Mary Rose, and several other ships, which were then laid up in the Thames, but there is no reference to her being in service. In 1536 also, Eustache Chapuys, the Imperial ambassador, commented disparagingly that all Henry’s Great Ships were in such a poor state of repair that it would take eighteen months to get them to sea. This was probably an exaggeration, born of Chapuys’ dislike of, and contempt for, the English; but Thomas Cromwell, now Henry’s chief minister, seems to have come to a similar conclusion. Only three ships had been added to the fleet since 1524: the Trinity Henry of 250 tons in 1530; the Mary Willoughby of 160 tons in 1532; and the Sweepstake of 300 tons in 1535. Of these, the Mary Willoughby was promptly taken by Scottish pirates in 1533, and only the Sweepstake was a significant acquisition. So the navy needed attention, and between 1536 and 1538 eight ships were either built or rebuilt, including the Mary Rose and the Peter Pomegranate. When and where this happened is unclear. Cromwell recorded the rebuilding of the Mary among his achievements in a memorandum of uncertain date (probably towards the end of 1536), but Gonson’s accounts, which cover the supposed period of the work, are incomplete. He records only £1,018 13s 3d for unspecified repairs, and that would have been insufficient to cover even one modest rebuild, let alone two thoroughgoing ones. So it is probable that the work was contracted out to one of the several shipyards on the Thames or the Medway, and paid for by a special assignment, which would not have passed through Gonson’s accounts.
The archaeological evidence for the work is substantial, but somewhat controversial. What seems to have happened is that the internal structure was altered, possibly to accommodate an increased number of gunports on the lowest gun deck (the main deck). Alterations were made to the side of the ship at upper-deck level, and several of the smaller gunports were blocked. At the same time the ship was strengthened by the addition of large, heavy riders across the keelson, and diagonal braces were added, strengthening the side of the ship and the main gun deck. As we have seen, the effect was to increase her long-range fighting potential, possibly at the cost of her sailing efficiency and stability. In this remodelled form, she probably saw service in the spring of 1537, but as she is not specifically named, we cannot be sure. The fracas that was brought to the attention of the Admiralty Court in June 1539 probably took place when the ship was in commission, and was on standby at Greenwich (57). Henry had been acutely alarmed by the Treaty of Nice in 1538 between the Emperor and the King of France. As he was excommunicate, and both his potential opponents wished to secure the support of the papacy, he feared that one, or both of them, would attack him. This fear dominated 1539. The whole fleet was mobilized, and large sums of money (raised by selling off former monastic lands) was spent on coastal defences. A string of modern forts, like Walmer, Deal and Portsea, was hastily erected and armed. Huge musters were held, right across the south of England. The panic passed, and within a year the two great European powers were at each other’s throats again, but England was now armed and ready for major war. The antics of Richard Baker and his drunken friends have no particular relevance to this situation, except that they illustrate what could happen when a fully manned warship was left at anchor within easy reach of a populous city. They provide almost the only tangible evidence of the whereabouts of the Mary Rose in the summer of 1539, and confirmation that she was, at that point, ready for the call which never came. She was, presumably, laid up again in the winter of 1539/40, but it is not known where. An ordnance list survives from February 1541, which may indicate another spring preparation, but the next firm evidence is from July 1543, when she was again at sea in the context of Henry’s last French war.
Documents
55. From a list of ships, 1525 or earlier.
Mary Rose. Item the Mary Rose, being of portage 600 ton, lieth in [the pond] at Deptford beside the storehouse there, which must [be …] and caulked from the keel upward, both within and without.
56. Extracts from accounts of Thomas Jermyn, Clerk of the Ships, for 1523–30.
Hereafter ensueth all such payments as hath been paid by Thomas Jermyn, deputy for Thomas Sperte, master of the Henry Grace à Dieu since the 26th day of November in the 15th year of the reign of our sovereign lord King Henry the VIIIth for wages and victuals of masters, boatswains, mariners, keeping of the King our sovereign lord’s ships within his haven of Portsmouth by the space of 10 months begun the foresaid 26th day of November and to end the first day of September in the 16 year of the reign of our said sovereign lord, as hereafter more plainly doth appear.
The Mary Rose. Paid more to John Conner, master of the Mary Rose, for wages and victuals of 21 men, shipkeepers, keeping of the said ship within the haven of Portsmouth by 10 months begun the 26th day of November in the 15th year of the reign of our sovereign lord King Henry the VIIIth and to end the first day of September in the 16th year of the reign of our said sovereign lord, after the rate of 10s 4d every man by the month, with 2 deadshares for the master by like time at 10s a month – £113 10s.
Ceramic cooking pot from a chest on the main deck at the stern. The handle indicates that this pot would have been suspended over the galley fire. (Mary Rose Trust)
Paid by me Thomas Jermyn, master of the Mary Rose, for wages and victuals of 15 men, shipkeepers, keeping of the said ship within the haven of Portsmouth by 7 months begun the 2th day of September in the 16th year of the reign of our sovereign lord King Henry the VIIIth and to end the 16th day of March then next following in the same year, of the rate of 10s 4d every man by the month, with 2 deadshares for the master by like time at 10s a month – £57 15s …
Similar payments by Jermyn as master for eighteen men, 17 March–21 December 1525, and for twelve men, 22 December 1525–25 October 1526. It seems that for this period there was no regular master, and Jermyn was therefore directly responsible for these charges.
… Paid more to John Jett, keeper of the Mary Rose, for wages and victuals of 11 men, shipkeepers, keeping the said ship within the haven of Portsmouth by 4 months begun the 26th day of October in the 18th year of the reign of our said sovereign lord King Henry the eight and to end the 14 day of February then next following, after the rate of 10s 4d every man by the month, with one deadshare for the keeper at 5s a month by like time, amounteth – £23 14s 8d …
Similar payments to Jett for between six and thirteen men for half-yearly periods between 15 February 1527 and 7 January 1530.
An iron nail, 105mm long, remarkably preserved in a cauldron of tar. (Mary Rose Trust)
… Hereafter followeth all such stuff with other necessaries provided by me Thomas Jermyn, Clerk of our sovereign lord the King’s Ships, for the repair of the Mary Rose and for caulking of her orlop and decks forth and aft withinboard, and likewise for searching and caulking from the keel upward withoutboard, and repairing and trimming of her boat, the 5th day of June in the 19th year of the reign of our sovereign lord King Henry the VIIIth.
First paid for 37 foot of plankboard containing 5 inches, at 8s the hundred, the sum maketh – 3s.
Item more for 120 foot of orlop board containing 2 inches, at 3s 4d the 100, sum – 4s.
Item more for 46 foot of square timber at 3s 4d the ton – 4s 10d.
Item more for 6 clove boards at 4d a board – 2s.
Item for 55lb of carvel spikes, at 1½d thelb – 6s 10½d.
Item for 150 of orlop nail at 3s [the] 100 – 4s 6d.
Item more for 150 of orlop nail at 2s [the] 100 – 3s.
Item for 150 of orlop at 16d the 100 – 2s.
Item more for 600 of 6d nail – 3s.
Item 100 of 5d nail – 5d.
Item for 400 of 4d nail – 16d.
Item for 100 of 3d nail – 3d.
Item for 600 of scupper nail – 2s.
Item for two load of burning – 2s.
Item for 600 [6 cwt] 3 quarters of oakum at 7s 8d the 100 [cwt] – 51s 9d.
Item for 6lb of thrums 12d – 12d.
Item for 2 hoses – 16d.
Item more spent in pitch – 8 barrels.
Item in tar – 2 barrels.
Sum of the page – £4 13s 3½d.
57. Depositions before the Admiralty Court, June 1539.
Concerning an alleged assault by sailors from the Mary Rose against the crew of a Portuguese ship moored in the Thames. The outcome of the case is not known.
Richard Baker alias Skenthroppe, dwelling in St Nicholas Lane of the city of London, mariner, in which city he hath dwelt about 20 years, now one of the mariners of the Mary Rose, examined before Mr Dr [John] Tregonwell upon Wednesday the 11th day of June in anno Domini 1539 and in the 31th year of the reign of our sovereign lord King Henry the eight, saith that upon Monday night last, after eight of the clock, when he and his company had supped upon board the said Mary Rose, he and certain of his company, mariners of the same ship, with divers other mariners of those ships lying at anchor besides Deptford, went on land to make merry at an honest man’s house in Deptford, whose name he knoweth not, and there this examinant, one Robert Grygges of Suffolk, mariner, one William Oram, mariner, of London, and one Marmaduke, all mariners of the said Mary Rose, sat making merry at the said house in Deptford until 10 of the clock in the night, and then departed from the said house and came down to the water’s side and called to the Mary Rose for the boat, intending to have gone on board; and their company being on board did not hear them. And then this examinant and the said three other mariners took a wherry which had no oar in her, but only a pair of rafts wherewith they set the wherry up by the shore’s side, and at the last they fell down on stream, the boat of the said Mary Rose lying at the stern of the same ship. And there one of his company took hold of an oar lying in the same boat, and the stream was so bent downwards that it bare them from the said Mary Rose’s boat towards Greenwich, and drove the said wherry athwart the hawse of a Portingale [Portuguese] ship riding at her anchors over against the mouth of Deptford Creek; and then the Portingales being within the same ship, threw stones at this examinant and his said company and brake the said Oram’s head. And therewith this inquisite and his company were angry, and thereupon they entered the same Portingale ship, purposing to give them a blow or two for throwing of the said stones; and at their entering the said Oram drew his sword and struck flat long at the Portingales, being about three in number, and drove them under hatches and laid the hatches down upon them, and so went into the wherry again, taking nothing with them, nor did no manner other harm unto them, for he saith that they had neither bill, sword nor staff with them, nor any other kind of weapon with them, but only the said Oram’s sword. And after that they were into the wherry and gone from the Portingales’ ship towards land, the Portingales cried, making a great noise. And therewith this inquisite and his company came on land on the North shore and landed between Greenwich and over against where the said Portingale lay, and so went down to Blackwall, and came from thence to London. And his said company went to St Katharine’s, and there lay that night. And this inquisite came home to his own house, and went next morning to his work again on board the said Mary Rose, and there was taken as he saith, and otherwise he knoweth not.
Robert Grygges, late of Ipswich, mariner, one of the mariners of the Mary Rose, examined the day and year abovesaid, saith that upon Monday at night last, about half an hour at after 10 of the clock in the night, the said Baker, William Oram and Marmaduke Colman, late of Ipswich, mariner, came all together from a house in Deptford, where they had been drinking until some of them were overseen with ale, and so they took a wherry and rowed down with a piece of a board down towards Greenwich, and came athwart the hawse of a Portingale lying over against Belynges Gate at Greenwich in the middle of the stream. And then with that one of his said company said, Vengeance on him, here lyeth a Portingale. But which of them said so he knoweth not, for he saith that he, this inquisite, had well drunk. And soon after that they fell on board the Portingale’s boat, lying on larboard side the same ship, and entered the same boat, and from thence the said Oram and Baker entered into the Portingale ship. And soon after that this inquisite heard the Portingales cry, and with that this examinant went into the same ship for fear lest his said fellows Baker and Oram had been hurt. And when this inquisite came on board the Portingales’ ship, the Portingales were all under hatches saving one. And he further saith that there was two shirts and two hose cloths [or two remnants of cloth inserted] of the Portingales’ goods cast into the said wherry, but how it came there he knoweth not, not by whom. And then they came into the same wherry and came on land right over against Greenwich. And [he] saith that after they were gone from the said Portingales’ ship, the Portingales cried and made such noise that the men of Greenwich cried unto them again; and saith that the said cloth was left on the oose [mud] where this inquisite and his company landed. And from thence they came towards London. And this inquisite went into a hay barn at St Katharine’s and tarried there till about 10 of the clock next day because he was so foul arrayed with oose, and saith that Oram’s head was broken; but whether it were at the entering into the Portingale or after that they were departed from the same ship he knoweth not; and further saith that Marmaduke came not into the Portingale, nor they had no manner of weapons with them, saving that Oram had a sword and this inquisite had a knife called a ‘matchan’ not half a yard long, the which he did draw because Oram said that he was hurt. And further he sayeth not.
In the wooden world of the sailing ship, the carpenter was a major figure. Items of his equipment recovered include a caulking mallet (on right), general-purpose mallets, planes, rules, a mortise gauge and a brace. (Mary Rose Trust)
These recovered items show that the ship was well equipped to serve food and drink. But an evening ashore was a more tempting prospect. (Mary Rose Trust)
Memorandum that upon Thursday the 12th day of June in the year of Our Lord 1539 and in the 31th year of the reign of our sovereign lord King Henry the eight, in the dwelling house of John Dyes, merchant of Portugal, situate in the parish of St Dunstan’s in the East of the city of London, in the presence of me Roger Huntte, notary public, and of these witness under named, did personally appear Gonsalianus Cassado of Villa Viana in the realm of Portugal, pilot of a good ship called Saynte John de Cangas in Galicia now at anchor in the River of Thames at St Katharine’s pool, and Petro Falcon of Cangas beforesaid, merchant, and they did allege and say that upon Monday at night last past about 12 of the clock in the night, the abovesaid Richard Baker and Robert Grygges before examined, with four or five persons more, came with a wherry unto the said ship, then lying over against Greenwich in the said River of Thames, at what time the said Gonsalianus and Petro were on sleep under hatches of the said ship, and the master of the same ship, called Roderigo de Pyncta with them, and under the deck abaft the same ship lay two mariners on sleep called John de Vale and Edwarde Roderigus, and upon the hatches lay two boys of the ship on sleep. And then and there the said Baker and his company entered the said ship and beat the said boys with their swords flatlong, and drove them under hatches, and then one of the said Baker’s company went abaft the said ship and kept the said John de Vale and Edward, that they could not come forth of their cabin, and another of the same Baker’s company stood at the hatch hole with a naked drawn sword in his hand, and kept the said Gonsalianus and his company, then being waked with that noise, under hatches, that they could not come up. And the same thieves tarried searching on board the same ship by the space of an hour, in which time they broke three chests and unlocked another chest, and took and carried away with them £5 6s sterling of the said Petro Falcon’s, found wrapped in a clout in one of the said three chests, and 17 yards northern cloth, colour orange, price 17s, and 5 yards northern cloth of orange colour, price 5s, and half a white kersey containing 9 yards, price 10s, and 2 remnants of white kersey containing 6 yards, price 8s 8d, and five yards of broadcloth, colour russet, price 23s 4d, belonging to Anthony Roderycke of Cangas, merchant, and one shirt of the said Petro Falcon’s, price 2s 6d, and 2 shirts of Gonsalianus Cassado, price 6s 8d, and £4 2s 8d, and 2 ryals of plate of the same Cassado’s, and 2 shirts, price 4s, belonging to Roderigo de Pyncta, and one sugar loaf weighting 8lb, price 5s 4d, belonging to the said Petro Falcon and to Gregory de Vale, and 3 ells of holland, price 4s 9d, belonging to John de Porto of Cangas in Spain, merchant. And all the said goods were carried away from the said ship by the same thieves, and at their departing from the same ship they loosed the ship’s boat and let her drive down the stream, because the company of the said ship should not overtake them, nor make any suit after them at that time. And they further alleged and said that they came up above the hatches of the said ship soon after the thieves were departed, and saw them going away, and perceived them to be six or seven in number, and that all the said parcels of money and other goods be lacking and not received again; albeit they say that the next morning following they found lying on the ooze upon the north shore over against Greenwich 6 yards grey cotton price 3s, of the goods of Gonsalianus before named, and one yard and half of red cloth price 7s 6d, and one yard and an half of broad green cloth price 7s 6d, of the goods of the said Petro Falcon’s, and one old shirt, an old cape, and a cap of the said Gonsalianus. In witness of all which premises to be true the said Gonsalianus and Petro gave a corporal oath upon the gospels of God, by them bodily touched, and for the more faith of the premises they have subscribed their firms [affirmations] with their own hands; then being present the said John Dyes, who did interpret the sayings of the said Gonsalianus and Petro unto me the notary above written, and Malachias Cogley, notary public, and John Cocke, mariner, witness required by the said Gonsalianus and Petro to bear witness of the premises.
P. Falcon. Thus it is: by me Roger Huntte, notary public.
For testimony John Dyaz. [Signature of Gonsalianus].
[Sign of an anchor].
In the presence of me Malachias Cogley, notary public.