HISTORY OF MARINE ARCHITECTURE.

4 7

There are many curious particulars explained to us by the foregoing account,nor is that the least interesting, which points out the great length of time,not less than four entire davs, and the number of men, amounting to four hun-dred, which were required to work the ship from Erith, where it was built *,to Barking. It proves very sufficiently the inexpertness of the navigators, orthe unwieldiness of the vessel, not improbably both. On the remaining arti-cles, as they are sufficiently explanatory of themselves, it becomes needlessto make any further comment. The following were the names of the restof the ships belonging to the king, which were at the same time in theriver Thames, and are taken from the same indenture.

Names of the King’s Ships in the Thames. Anno vi Hen. vm.

The Mary Rose, in dock.

The Christ of Greenwich, into Levant.The Ann Galland, into the North Seas.The Less Bark, into the North Seas.The Henry of Greenwich, intotheNorth.The Black Bark.

The Mary Imperial.

The Mary James, into Levant.

The Henry Grace a Dieu.

The Sovereign.

The Gabriel Royal.

The Katherine Fortelesa.

The Peter Pomgranate.

The Mary George.

The Mary and John.

The Great Bark.

The Great Nicholas.

The Lesser Barbara.

The Lizard.

The John Baptist, into Levant.The Rose Galley.

The Sweepstakes, into the NorthSeas; a war.

The Great Barbara.

This, however, is by no means to be supposed the whole of Henry’s navy ;for among other consequential steps taken by him towards its improvement

* By contract in a private yard, as is supposed by some very ingenious and well informed men, thoughthe idea contradicts the opinion of the learned Gibson, bishop of London, the well known editor ofCamden. This custom, which was then as prevalent as now, is much complained of by the great SirWalter Raleigh. He observes, that such ships being at that time built of materials inferior in quality tothose used in the royal dock yards, and withal less carefully constructed, were by no means so durable,or serviceable, as those built under the immediate inspection of the navy board. Mr. \\ diet, in hisMemoir relative to the Navy, in speaking of the state of ship-building, and the very low state it was inmany years after this time, in private yards, observes, “ It is said, and I believe with truth, that at thistime (the middle of the sixteenth century) there was not a private builder between London bridgeand Gravesend, who could lay down a ship in the mould left from a navy board’s draught, withoutapplying to a tinker who lived in Knave’s Acre.”

G 3 and