market or not, let the judicious regulator judge. Nor do I believe but the same or like abuses are or may be in sales by the candle at the East India courts, and am sure they have been too common at the prize office, not only in London but also at Portsmouth and other places, where such strange things have been done in this way that it would scarce be credited if they should be told. But that being out of my watch, and no part of mine intention to meddle with anything that is not proper to the navy, I shall rest silent therein, and leave the discovery and redress thereof to those whom it concerns. I cannot forget one pleasant passage of this nature in the year 1639 or thereabouts, when the Spanish fleet rode in the Downs. They were forced in their fight with the Dutch to let slip many anchors for want of time to weigh them. These anchors were afterwards seized by the then lord admiral Northumberland, as a royalty or perquisite of his place,' and when they were brought up in divers of the King's ships to Chatham and Deptford they were exposed to sale by the candle, and several men (that I could name) entrusted by the Lord Admiral to improve them to the utmost price or value. Some that were made judges in the case, and others that 1 On October 11, 1639, Tromp attacked the Spanish fleet in the Downs. Twenty of the Spanish ships ran ashore to escape the Dutch, and the rest reached Dunkirk in safety (Gardiner, ix. 68). Five days after, on October 16, the Lord Admiral instructed Sir John Penington, who was in command of the English fleet, to prevent any steps being taken to sweep for anchors and cables in prejudice of his jurisdiction (Cal. S. P. Dom. 1639–40, p. 42). On October 19 Penington was ordered to employ the boats of the King's ships in recovering anchors and cables, which were to be kept for his Lordship's use' (ibid. p. 47), and by the middle of November several had been taken up (ibid. p. 99). These anchors are occasionally picked up at the present day, and advertised for sale as relics of the Armada. U came as chapmen, pretended high services to his lordship in that particular, but the truth is, when they came to Deptford to make the sale, I easily perceived that all or most of the buyers were in combination, and, as one man, intended to have the anchors for a song, and yet carry the business with high pretence of service to his lordship. This thing was so plain to me that in plain terms I told them I would spoil their design, and turn merchant for anchors rather than suffer such gross abuses. Accordingly, when the candle was set up, I did not only bid but also outbid the whole combination (who were about ten or twelve in number). These men, perceiving that I was resolved either to buy them myself or else to mount them to a moderate price, voluntarily and in design suffered the candle to go out rather than to compete with me for the price; and so I had them, though at a dearer rate than ever they intended to give for them, being all one man (and, as I have heard, some of the then judges sharers with them); and yet these very men did, within half an hour after, contract privately with me for them, and gave me twenty pounds to relinquish my bargain, which I thought a fair compensation for my service, the whole not exceeding 400.; though yet his lordship never heard of it, nor had my reader at present, had it not been to let him see that this way is and is not a free market, being ofttimes made the stalking-horse to the basest knavery and fraud that can be imagined. CHAPTER X OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE ADMIRALTY It cannot be expected that what I shall say upon this head or title will be pleasing to those gentlemen that heretofore were or at present are employed as commissioners of the admiralty or the navy. Greatness hath no faults, or at least must not be told them. It is a Noli me tangere, which in the seaman's English is 'come no near;" and truly for their sakes I could willingly have declined the subject, having already been in the wind of them, or some of them, all along in the former part of this discourse, had I not premised to myself and reader, in the beginning of this discourse, that freedom that might become the design of the whole tract, without respect of persons; in which regard I must crave leave to lie a little more close-hauled (to speak in the seaman's dialect) that I may be the better able to double the point that lies before me, as the great rock or remora to the regular government of the navy; though yet I shall endeavour, as far as the matter I shall treat upon shall give leave, to give them all that honour and respect that their places justly call for. 1 'Near' for 'narre'='nearer.' Nares (Glossary) illustrates this use by a quotation from an old play, 'Pardon me, Countess, I will come no near.' 2 I.e. obstacle. There is no constant stream but hath a spring to feed it, and truly that flood of abuses that hath broken the banks of all regular government in the navy hath received much of its rise and force from those that have been employed as governors thereof. Whatsoever is said in the point of victuals, as to the unworthy carriages thereof, highly prejudicial to the honour and welfare of the State and subject, might in a great part have been spared, had some in place and power when that contract was first made, been but half so zealous for the State's interest as they were for their friends, if not their own; nay as they seemed then to be for the State's. I shall speak nothing of the power of the commissioners of the admiralty in general. I know they are in the room and absence of a lord admiral, and have the same or equivalent power that was given to him in the late King's time, only I do not remember that ever any lord admiral did or dared to take upon him to impose upon the commissioners of the navy in the execution of their trusts and duties by positive orders-a new rule of a late edition begotten and practised by some that I could name, to no small detriment to the State. I know there is and ought to be a subordination between the commissioners of the admiralty and the commissioners of the navy, as there is and ought to be between them and all inferior instruments in the navy; and that in things that barely refer to action, such as building of ships, setting them forth to the seas with such a number of men for so many months, calling them in or continuing them out, establishing by warrant all sorts of inferior instruments, and many other the like commands, for which in their obedience thereunto they dispense or give away none of the State's treasure, positive orders have always been given and obeyed, though yet I must tell my reader that all lords admirals, even in those very things, would so far regard the then principal officers or commissioners of the navy, that they would seldom or never send their orders to them till they had privately consulted them therein and received their opinion (at least) in matters of that nature; yea, as to offices or places for subordinate instruments, they were so cautious that they would rarely dispose any place without their recommendation of the party under their hands, as their warrant so to do and vindication in so doing; yea, it is said by some it was one of the articles of high treason in parliament against the then lord admiral the Duke of Buckingham, that contrary to his trust he did impose upon the then officers of the navy such instruments as they had not approved under their hands, according to the duty and trust of their places.1 All which considered, it is plain to me that it is not in the power of the commissioners of the admiralty to give a positive order to the commissioners of the navy to dispense the State's treasure to any man, till their judgments be first satisfied that it is just and equal that this or that man should have that money for his service or provisions. And hence it was that the principal officers There is no such article in the impeachment, or in the speeches printed in the State Trials. In his defence on the second article concerning 'buying the Admiral's place,' the Duke takes credit to himself for having done nothing of moment without the advice of the navy commission (State Trials, ii. 1426), so it is possible that some accusation of this kind was thrown out in debate. 2 The navy commission under the Commonwealth, of which Hollond was a member, had always been disposed, as Mr. Oppenheim points out, to resent the interference of the admiralty committee. 'From the first they adopted a tone towards the admiralty committee which would hardly have been endurable, but that it was excused by an obvious honesty, and justified by superior knowledge. . . . In some ways the relative position of |