Page:Royalnavyhistory01clow.djvu/326

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
292
MILITARY HISTORY, 1154-1399.
[1379.

another descent upon it was to be feared. Measures for its defence, and for the protection of shipping in the North Sea, were recommended; and it was advised that a duty should he levied upon certain incoming ships and goods; but a representation by the commons that mariners and archers, who received but fourpence a day, and were in consequence quitting their employment, should he better paid, was not complied with.[1] On the other hand, it was enacted that mariners deserting the king's service should he fined and imprisoned for a year.[2]

The admirals, Percy and Calverley, cruised early in the year in the Channel, and took a ship of war and seven merchantmen.[3] In August, Calverley convoyed an army under the Duke of Bretagne to St. Malo. The English men-of-war first entered the harbour. As soon as they had doue so, a squadron of French and Spaniards, which had been lying in wait along the coast, attacked the transports and storeships in the rear, plying them with gunshot, and threatening to capture the whole of them. The wind was against Calverley; but he got out, apparently by warping his ship, and, singlehanded, poured in so deadly a flight of arrows that the enemy's galleys took to flight, and the transports safely made the harbour.[4]

But the year 1379 ended very disastrously. Reinforcements for Brittany were collected at Southampton under Sir John Arundel, brother of the earl. A squadron to transport the troops had among its commanders Calverley, Percy, Sir Thomas Banastre, Sir Thomas Morieux, Sir William Elmham, and other knights, and lay ready in the port. As the wind was unfavourable, Sir John Arundel, in disregard of what were then the Articles of War,[5] violently and sacrilegiously billeted his men in a Southampton nunnery, where, in consequence, gross outrages took place. In retaliation, a priest excommunicated and anathematised the culprits: and there is no doubt that the terrible tragedy which followed was ultimately associated in the minds of the people of the town with these events. It should he here said at once that neither of the admirals had any part in the disgraceful conduct of Sir John; and it may be added as a curious coincidence that, if Walsingham may be trusted, neither of their ships lost man or horse in the subsequent catastrophe.

When the wind was fair the troops embarked, and the squadron

  1. Parl. Rolls, iii. 63.
  2. Statutes, ii. 8.
  3. Walsingham, 224.
  4. Walsingham, 232.
  5. 'Black Book of the Admiralty,' i. 24