115. [f. 48. Before 18 Feb. 1618] Trinity House to the privy council
The king referred their petition about lighthouses to the privy council,
who concluded that Trinity House as persons trusted by the statute
should have the sole right of providing all seamarks. But when Sir
William Erskine pressed his suit, the king referred the case to Sir Francis
Bacon, then attorney general, who certified that there was authority
'mixed with a trust' settled in Trinity House to provide lighthouses and
other marks, and that this authority could not be transferred from them
by law . When this opinion was read on 26 March 1617, the privy
council confirmed their former opinion, saving the king's pleasure.
Nevertheless Erskine has pressed his suit and obtained the king's hand
and the grant is ready for the seal. The ensuing inconveniences [see 116]
are for the privy council to consider.
116. [Before 18 Feb. 1618. Statement by Trinity House. See 109.]
The inconveniences of the king's grant if Erskine erects lights: (a) The
grantees are unskilled and those whom they employ are less qualified
than the masters of Trinity House to place lighthouses. (b) There are
sufficient lighthouses already erected at or near Winterton Ness. (c)
Multiplicity of lighthouses and seamarks confounds pilots, thereby
endangering ships, goods and lives. (d) The contribution offered by
traders to Trinity House to erect and maintain lights at Winterton Ness is
only 6d per 20 chaldrons and no collections have yet been made. But the
imposition approved by the king is believed to be 3s 4d on 20 chaldrons.
(e) The discontent caused by so great a levy on so poor a trade is left for
consideration. (f) Many ships will cease trading, thereby diminishing coal
supplies and raising prices in the city and the country.
117. [Early 1618. Trinity House] to the lord high chamberlain of England
They seek his assistance in the matter of lights which concerns not only
them but also the navigation and all the seamen of the kingdom.
118. [After 7 Jan 1618. (fn. 1) Trinity House] to the lord chancellor
He has been a father to the country and to their house in love and in his
opinion to the privy council when the king referred the cause to him .
They seek his continued support in the matter of lights both in their own
interest and in that of the seamen of the kingdom.
119. [f. 48v] 20 Feb. 1618. [Sir] C. Edmondes [clerk of the privy council, to
Their petition  was read this afternoon in full council. They, together
with Sir W. Erskine and counsel, are to be heard on Sunday morning
120. [f.49. Before 25 May 1618] Merchant adventurers of Newcastle to the
privy council [See 121.]
By reason of the king's proclamation [on 17 Apr. 1615] against the use of
strangers' ships, the petitioners have been forced, sundry times within
these 2 years, after the sale of goods exported from Newcastle to the
Seventeen Provinces, to make over money from thence to France and to
other countries, causing losses to themselves and to the king's customs,
because there were no English ships to transport back such goods as they
could buy. Also by reason of the proclamation they are unable to export
as much coarse cloth as formerly because they dare not venture loading a
whole ship in case of miscarriage for then they would be undone. The
king loses customs both ways, the petitioners lose their trade, coarse
cloth is unsold, and the return on such sales is lost. They do not believe
that this was the meaning of the proclamation, and hope that Trinity
House will confess as much. They seek permission to export in strangers'
ships to the United Provinces and to Germany up to 6 small fardels of
cloth in any one stranger's ship, as they used to do, and to bring back up to
20 tons of commodities, the master bringing a certificate under the seal of
the port where the cargo was laden stating that no English ship was
available. They hope that Trinity House will agree that this will not
prejudice navigation but will advance customs and help the poor town of
121. 25 May 1618. [Sir] George Calvert [clerk of the privy council] to the
merchant adventurers of London and Trinity House
Request for an opinion on the petition .
122. 3 June 1618. Ratcliff. Trinity House [to the privy council. Cf SP
14/97/93; CSPD 1611–18, 543.]
Their opinion and that of the merchant adventurers [of London] was
sought on the petition [120–1]. They do not know the extent of the trade
and the inconveniences which might be caused to the merchant
adventurers [of London]. The Newcastle merchant adventurers might
however load small ships of their own town without wrong to themselves
by filling the rest of the cargo space with coal, the profit from which will
pay for the freight and employ their ships and poor seamen. Besides there
is at Newcastle a Trinity House whose care it is to maintain their own
navigation and who pretend to have in that river as much privilege as
Trinity House [of Deptford] in this but no certificate of toleration seems
to have been made by them.
John Osborne, Thomas Best, Hugh Merit, Robert Salmon, Roger
Gunston, William Wye, Thomas Malbye, William Hare.
123. [f. 49v. Before 8 July 1618] Peter Frobisher, heir to, and executor of,
Sir Martin Frobisher, to the king [See 124.]
Because of the dangerous entrance to the river Humber, where there is
continual loss of ships, men and merchandise, the Trinity House of Hull
asked Sir Martin Frobisher to obtain from the late queen a grant for the
erection of a watchhouse at Ravenspur or Kilnsea. Sir Martin died before
it was fully effected. The petitioner, being asked to do so, is willing to
forward so charitable a work which will benefit the king's subjects and
strangers trading to northern parts, who are now cast away for want of a
light. Subject to a certificate from the principal masters and owners
trading to those parts concerning the need for a light, and the approval of
the lord high admiral, he seeks letters patent for a watchlight at
Ravenspur or Kilnsea. He would pay an annual rent of £6 13s 4d to the
exchequer and seeks an imposition on shipping which is similar to that for
the lights at Dungeness and Winterton.
124. 8 July 1618. Court at Windsor. [Sir] Sidney Montagu [master of
requests] to Trinity House
Order to consider the petition .
[Marginal note] The answer to this is at folio 53 [sic, see 135].
125. 1 Aug. 1618. Ratcliff. Trinity House of Deptford to the Trinity House
The king has asked for their opinion on the petition [123–4]. Since
Frobisher alleges that the Trinity House of Hull proposed and approve
the project, the opinion of that House is requested.
126. [f. 50. ? Aug. 1618] Trinity House to the king [See 127.]
In 36 Elizabeth letters patent were granted to Trinity House conferring
upon them, among other things, the office of lastage* and ballastage of all
ships entering or leaving the Thames or elsewhere between London
Bridge and the main sea [C 66/1410, mm. 11–12]. The king is asked to
confirm the grant. They use the revenue to support 200 poor, aged and
distressed seamen, their wives and children.
127. Aug. 1618. Statement [by Trinity House]
The poor, aged, impotent, lame and distressed men, women and children
supported monthly by Trinity House are as follows:
|London, St Katherine's, etc.||25||1||10||6|
This amounts to £209 12s 6d a year [i.e. 13 four week periods]. In
addition, between £50 and £70 is given annually to English, French, and
Dutchmen who have suffered shipwreck and to many more poor, lame
and impotent men, women and fatherless children.
128. [f.50v. After 19 Aug. 1618] Trinity House to the king
In reply to 124, they have consulted the Trinity House of Hull whose
answer they have received . Both Houses consider the proposal for a
light at Ravenspur is impossible, while a light at Kilnsea, 3 or 4 miles
away, would be dangerous for shipping, the reasons for which can be
given if desired. If nevertheless the king decides that a light shall be
erected, the allowances for the 2 earlier lights [at Dungeness and
Winterton] would suffice for it and for many more lights, if needed.
129. [Before 22 Sept. 1618] Trinity House to the king [See 130.]
Since doubts have been expressed concerning the wording of the letters
patent of 36 Elizabeth [C 66/1410, mm. 11–12], and others may thereby be
enabled to provide beacons, buoys and landmarks, thus imperilling
navigation, the king is asked to confirm the letters patent and, subject to
the advice of counsel, to add a prohibition against others exercising these
130. 22 Sept. 1618. Court at Whitehall. [Sir] Lionel Cranfield [master of
the great wardrobe] to the lords commissioners of the treasury
Order to consider the petition . If they find it fitting for the grant to
be made, the king's solicitor is to prepare a grant for the king's signature.
131. [f. 51] 10 Oct. 1618. Trinity House [to chancery]
In accordance with the chancery order of 12 June last, they summoned
both parties and are of opinion that £23 10s is due to the widow Lawson.
They are informed that John Kinge, half-owner of the ship, has already
paid half, and John Harvye, a quarter-owner, should pay a quarter. The
other quarter-owner died in the time of the voyage, leaving as executor a
brother who is also dead. A third brother then became owner 'by
executorship' long after the end of the voyage. Whether he is liable for a
quarter is for the court to decide.
Thomas Best, master; Roger Gunston, Walter Whyting, Thomas Love,
wardens; Richard Chester, Thomas Mylton, Matthew Woodcot, Robert
Rickman, Robert Bradsho, William Ivey, assistants.
132. [f. 51v] 11 Nov. 1618. Certificate by Trinity House
At the request of the bearers, the bailiffs, burgesses and citizens of
Dunwich, Southwold and Walberswick in Suffolk, they certify that the
haven belonging to those towns is much decayed and unless action is
taken will be 'darved up' and become irrecoverable to the ruin of the
inhabitants and to the prejudice of the shipping and seamen of the
Thomas Best, Thomas Love, Roger Gunston, Walter Whyting, Thomas
Milton, Matthew Woodcot, William Hare, Nicholas Diggins, Robert
Rickman, Richard Chester, Robert Salmon, Robert Bradsho.
133. [f. 52] 16 Oct. 1618. Order of the privy council concerning the
surveyor of coals [Printed in APC 1617–19, 276.]
134. 16 Oct. 1618. Order of the privy council concerning Winterton
lighthouses [Printed in APC 1617–19, 275–6.]
135. [f. 52v. 19 × 31 Aug. 1618] Trinity House of Hull to Trinity House of
Their letter of 1 Aug.  was received on the 18th. It is true that 26 or
27 years ago their predecessors (none of whom is now alive) petitioned
Sir Martin Frobisher to secure the queen's permission to build a
lighthouse at Ravenspur. 'Kelsey' by 'which we rather suppose is meant
…Kilnsey' [Kilnsea] was not, however, mentioned in the petition, nor
is it, or any other place near the river Humber, fitting for a lighthouse,
apart from Ravenspur. At the time of the petition, Ravenspur was on
very firm ground and was a good site, containing as it did at least 300 acres
of dry ground. But, contrary to the expectations of their predecessors and
of themselves, it is now utterly worn away and surrounded [by water].
Although their predecessors meant well in trying to provide a lighthouse,
the imposition would have been an intolerable burden; 6d per 20
chaldrons would have been quite enough. Year by year, they have seen
the ruin of Ravenspur and have not moved the petitioner, Mr. Frobisher.
Although he has shown them today proposals for a light which are signed
by a number of neighbours and younger brethren of the guild among
others, those who have put their hands to it were ill advised to do so and
the reasons quoted were insufficient and tend more to the procuring of
shipwreck than preventing it.
John Preston, mayor; Thomas Ferres, John Woodmansey, wardens;
William Smorthwaite, Cuthbert Thompson, John Brighouse, Andrew
Rakes, George Carlill, elder brethren; Thomas Woodmansey, Martin
Jefferson, John Helmster, Robert Raykes, assistants.
P.S. Six days before receipt of the letter they sent to Ravenspur and
places nearby, intending to set up a beacon, but could not find a site
where one would have stood for 2 months.
136. [f. 53. As in 21, with slight variations.]