Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
file which includes the original illustrations.
See 51357-h.htm or 51357-h.zip:
(https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/51357/pg51357-images.html)
or
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51357/51357-h.zip)
Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries. See
https://archive.org/details/autobiographyofp00pettuoft
Transcriber's note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).
A carat character is used to denote superscription. A
single character following the carat is superscripted
(example: A^o). Multiple superscripted characters are
enclosed by curly brackets (example: vij^{mo.}).
As noted in the Preface, some [missing words] in the
text have been added inside brackets [ ] in this edition.
Many archaic and nautical terms are explained in the
Footnotes.
More detail can be found at the end of the book.
Publications of the Navy Records Society
VOL. LI.
AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF PHINEAS PETT
THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF PHINEAS PETT
Edited by W. G. Perrin
[Illustration: (publisher's colophon)]
Printed for the Navy Records Society
MDCCCCXVIII
THE COUNCIL
OF THE
NAVY RECORDS SOCIETY
1917-1918
PATRON
THE KING
PRESIDENT
THE RIGHT HON. LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, G.C.S.I.
VICE-PRESIDENTS
CORBETT, SIR JULIAN S., F.S.A.
CUSTANCE, ADMIRAL SIR REGINALD N., G.C.B., K.C.M.G., C.V.O., D.C.L.
FIRTH, PROFESSOR C. H., LL.D., F.B.A.
GRAY, ALBERT, K.C., C.B.
COUNCILLORS
ATKINSON, C. T.
BETHELL, ADMIRAL HON. SIR A.E., K.C.B., K.C.M.G.
BRINDLEY, HAROLD H.
CALLENDER, GEOFFREY A. R.
DARTMOUTH, THE EARL OF, K.C.B.
DESART, THE EARL OF, K.C.B.
DEWAR, COMMANDER ALFRED C., R.N.
GOUGH-CALTHORPE, VICE-ADMIRAL THE HON. SIR SOMERSET A., K.C.B., C.V.O.
GUINNESS, CAPTAIN HON. RUPERT E. C., C.B., C.M.G., M.P.,
R.N.V.R., AD. C.
KENYON, SIR FREDERIC G., K.C.B., D.Litt., F.B.A.
LEYLAND, JOHN
MARSDEN, R. G.
MILFORD HAVEN, ADMIRAL THE MARQUESS OF, P.C., G.C.B., G.C.V.O.,
K.C.M.G., LL.D., AD. C.
MURRAY, JOHN, C.V.O.
NEWBOLT, SIR HENRY
OTTLEY, REAR-ADMIRAL SIR CHARLES L., K.C.M.G., C.B., M.V.O.
PARRY, SIR C. HUBERT, BT., C.V.O.
POLLEN, ARTHUR H.
RICHMOND, CAPTAIN HERBERT W., R.N.
ROBINSON, COMMANDER CHARLES N., R.N.
SANDERSON, LORD, G.C.B., K.C.M.G., I.S.O.
SLADE, ADMIRAL SIR EDMOND J. W., K.C.I.E., K.C.V.O.
SMITH, COMMODORE AUBREY C. H., M.V.O., R.N.
TANNER, J. R., Litt.D.
SECRETARY
LIEUT.-COLONEL W. G. PERRIN, O.B.E., R.A.F., Admiralty, S.W.
HON. TREASURER
SIR W. GRAHAM GREENE, K.C.B., Ministry of Munitions, S.W.
THE COUNCIL of the NAVY RECORDS SOCIETY wish it to be distinctly
understood that they are not answerable for any opinions or
observations that may appear in the Society's publications. For these
the responsibility rests entirely with the Editors of the several
works.
[Illustration: (ornate section header)]
PREFACE
The manuscript in which Phineas Pett has recorded the story of his
life from his birth in 1570 to the end of September 1638, consisted
originally of sixty-nine uniform quarto sheets, of which the 52nd is
now lost, together with the bottom of the 14th. The handwriting is
that of Phineas throughout, but marginal references on the first few
pages and a note at the end--'The life of Commissioner Pett's father
whose place he did enjoy'--have been added subsequently by Samuel
Pepys, no doubt when he was making the transcript referred to below.
The first paragraph is written on a separate sheet, which, unlike
the rest, has no writing on the back, and is followed by a series
of subtraction sums of the form 1612 - 1570 = 42 giving the age
of Phineas for each year from 1612 to 1640. From the differences
apparent in the figures and ink it is clear that these calculations
were made year by year from the time that Phineas was forty-two until
he reached the age of seventy.
A close inspection of the internal construction, the handwriting,
and of the ink used, leads to the conclusion that the body of the
manuscript, in the form in which it has descended to us, was written
up, not at short intervals, but in sections at comparatively long
intervals of time. The first and largest of these, written apparently
in 1612, narrates the events down to September 1610, and stops at the
word 'ordered' on line 15 of page 80 below. The remainder[1] of that
paragraph continues on a fresh sheet in a smaller handwriting and
different ink, and from that point the ample margin of the earlier
pages is abandoned and a small one ruled off with lead pencil. The
top line of this page is also ruled, and from this page to the end of
the writing the use of these pencil lines persists. The next break is
in July 1611 (page 92), where Pett reiterates the statement that he
was sent for by Prince Henry. Another break in the writing seems to
occur in September 1613; and a very perceptible one, with change of
ink, occurs in 1625 at 'All April' (page 134). The final section, as
indicated by a further change of ink, begins in February 1631: 'The
23rd of February' (page 146). The various anachronisms observable in
the text show that these sections were written up some considerable
time after the events occurred. Thus, the references to 'Sir' John
Pennington in 1627 and 1628 make it clear that the events of those
years were not written up before 1634.
From the great accuracy of the dates given (which have been
frequently tested from contemporary sources), it is clear that
Phineas kept a diary in which events were recorded as they occurred,
and from which the narrative was compiled. He appears to have
commenced this diary on going to Chatham in June 1600, when precise
dates begin to replace the vague 'about,' 'toward the end,' &c., of
the earlier paragraphs.
The narrative stops abruptly in 1638, apparently with the sentence
unfinished, for there is no mark of punctuation after the last word.
In 1640, when the final section seems to have been written, Pett was
an old man, and it is probable that, having been interrupted at this
point, the fast-gathering troubles of the State diverted his mind
from the subject, or left him without sufficient energy or leisure to
pursue it.
It will be noticed that towards the end the composition becomes more
slovenly and the omission of words more frequent, as though the task
had become burdensome and the author anxious to have done with it.
Pepys copied the whole of the manuscript into the first volume of his
Miscellany with the following preface:
'A Journal of Phineas Pett, Esquire, Commissioner of the Navy
and father to Peter Pett, late Commissioner of the same at
Chatham, viz: from his birth A^o 1570 to the arrival of the Royal
Sovereign, by him then newly built, at her moorings at Chatham;
transcribed from the original written all with his own hand and
lent me to that purpose by his grandson Mr. Phineas, son to
Captain Phineas Pett.'
The manuscript afterwards came into the possession of George Jackson,
who was Secretary of the Navy Board in 1758 and Second Secretary of
the Admiralty from 1766 to 1782. Sir George Duckett (he had changed
his surname in 1797) died in 1822, and ten years later his library,
including a very valuable collection of naval manuscripts, was sold
by auction. Fortunately the manuscripts were purchased by the British
Museum after being bought in at the sale; the volume (No. IV) in
which this manuscript was contained becoming Additional MS. 9298. A
commonplace book (Additional MS. 9295) containing, among copies of
various naval documents, an abbreviated version was purchased at the
same time.
The copy of the autobiography most generally known is the early
eighteenth-century transcript in the Harleian Collection (Harl.
6279). It is to this copy that writers usually refer, possibly
because it is mentioned in the paper[2] published in _Archæologia_ in
1796, although the garbled extracts there given are stated to have
been taken 'from another copy' and seem, in fact, to have been taken
from the original.[3] A further reason for the preference generally
shown for the Harleian copy may be its more modern and more clerkly
handwriting.
The Harleian transcript is not a good one. It contains few omissions,
none of great importance, but mistranscriptions of individual words
are very numerous and have reduced the text to nonsense in several
places.[4] It may seem strange that writers should be content to
quote passages that were evidently incorrect, without looking at
another copy, which was easily to be found; but whatever the
reason may be, the fact is that hitherto the original has remained
unidentified as such.
The best transcript is that made by Pepys; but even he had difficulty
in deciphering some of the words, although the handwriting of Pett
is, on the whole, very clear and consistent.
In preparing this edition, the Pepysian and Harleian copies have been
collated and the missing parts of the original made good by this
means; but as the numerous inversions of form and mistakes of reading
in these copies have no general interest--and are of no authority in
presence of the original--there is no need to specify them in detail.
Considerable licence has been taken with the punctuation of the
sentences, which is entirely without system in the original, and
the spelling has been modernised in accordance with the rule of the
Society, but the composition has been left otherwise untouched.
Where some word is necessary to complete the sense it has been
added in square brackets [], and the parts now missing from the
original, which have been supplied from the transcripts, have been
printed in italics. The legal year in England, prior to 1752, did
not commence until the 25th March, and Pett usually gives his dates
by this reckoning, but in one or two instances he writes as though
the year had begun on 1st January and ended on 31st December. To
avoid misunderstanding, it may be stated that the dates in the
Introduction, headings, and notes are given according to the Julian
year, commencing on 1st January.
Pett invariably wrote and signed 'Phinees' but it has been thought
better to adhere to the spelling 'Phineas,' which appears from time
to time in documents from 1605 onwards and has been universally
adopted by modern writers.
In the Introduction an attempt has been made: first, to trace
the rise of the Master Shipwright as an official of the Crown
and to consider his relation to the profession of shipwrights
generally; secondly, to trace the origin of the Pett family and its
ramifications down to the date of Phineas' death; thirdly, to throw
additional light on the events narrated in the manuscript from such
original sources as are accessible. In asking the indulgence of the
reader towards the evident shortcomings of this attempt, the Editor
would plead that most of the work has had to be carried out under
great difficulties in scanty moments of leisure. Despite the generous
assistance of Mr. Vincent Redstone of Woodbridge, whose extensive
knowledge of Suffolk genealogy has been brought to bear on the
problem, it has not been found possible to trace the Pett family to
its original location, but it is hoped that sufficient has been done
to render this task more easy to some future investigator.
In conclusion the Editor has to thank many friends for the help
readily given, more especially Dr. Tanner, who has read the proofs
and given the Introduction the benefit of his criticism, and Mr. G.
E. Manwaring, of the London Library, who has rendered invaluable
help in clearing up many obscure points, and he is indebted to Mrs
Scott for the loan of the MS. treatise on shipbuilding referred to
in the Introduction. The Editor has also had the great advantage
of discussing with Mr. L. G. Carr Laughton the technical questions
raised in connexion with the Prince Royal and the Sovereign of the
Seas.
W. G. P.
_December 1918._
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Probably rewritten when the narrative was taken up again.
[2] By the Rev. S. Denne, _Archæologia_ xii. p. 217.
[3] The words 'and ourselves to sit with the Officers' (page 144),
not in the Harleian copy, are in the printed version.
[4] _E.g._ 'Articles' for 'Arches,' p. 14; 'enemy' for 'injury,' p.
26; 'tarried' for 'arrived,' p. 25; 'Frank Moore' for 'Tranckmore,'
p. 33; 'perceived' for 'protested,' p. 61; 'care' for 'ease,' p. 104;
'Warwick,' for 'Woolwich' p. 142, &c., &c.
[Illustration: (ornate section header)]
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION
The Shipwrights xv
The Family of Pett xlii
Phineas Pett lii
THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY 1
APPENDICES
I. Grant to Phineas Pett 173
II. Petition of Shipwrights 175
III. Charter to Shipwrights' Company (1605) 176
IV. Charter to Shipwrights' Company (1612) 179
V. New Building the Prince Royal 207
VI. Petition to the Admiralty (1631) 210
VII. Letter to Buckingham (1623) 212
VIII. Protest against Building the Sovereign 214
IX. Ships Built or Rebuilt by Phineas Pett 217
X. The Arms of Pett 218
INDEX 219
INTRODUCTION
1.--_The Shipwrights._
It might be supposed that so ancient a craft as that of shipbuilding
would have left some trace in contemporary records of its activities,
the methods of its technique, and the personalities of those engaged
in it. Yet although references to ships and shipping are frequent in
the records of this country from the earliest times, and although the
shipwright was a distinct class of workman at least as early as the
tenth century--probably much earlier--no record of the methods in
which he set about the design and construction of ships earlier than
the end of the sixteenth century appears to have survived.
It may be presumed that those of our earlier kings who possessed a
navy royal, and did not rely entirely on the support of the Cinque
Ports and of the merchant shipping, would include among their
servants some skilled man to perform the functions of a master
shipwright, and if not to design, at any rate to look to the upkeep
of the king's ships and to watch the construction in private yards
of those intended for the royal service. But if the Clerk of the
Ships, who first comes into notice in the reign of John, had any such
subordinate, his existence before the end of the reign of Henry V
is not known to us. It is, however, possible that, on occasion, this
duty was performed by the king's carpenters, whose principal function
seems to have been to keep the woodwork of the royal castles in
repair. In 1337 forty oaks required in the construction of a galley,
then being built at Hull for Edward III under the superintendence
of William de la Pole, a prominent merchant of that town, were
supplied by the Prior of Blyth, who was directed to hand them over
to William de Kelm (Kelham), the king's carpenter (_carpentario
nostro_).[5] The accounts for this galley have not survived, and
there is no means of ascertaining whether William de Kelm had
anything to do with the actual construction. Another galley and a
barge were at the same time being built at Lynn under Thomas and
William de Melcheburn. The accounts[6] show that the master carpenter
(_magister carpentariorum_) of the galley was John Kech, who was paid
at the rate of sixpence[7] a day and had under him six carpenters
at fivepence a day, six 'clynckers' at fourpence, six holders at
threepence, and four labourers (_servientes_) at twopence halfpenny.
The master carpenter of the barge was Ralph atte Grene, who received
the same rate of pay as Kech. Neither Kech nor Grene appear as the
King's servants.
In 1421 the 'King's servant' John Hoggekyns, 'master carpenter of the
king's ships,' was granted by letters patent a pension of fourpence
a day, 'because in labouring long about them he is much shaken and
deteriorated in body,' and this grant was confirmed in December of
the following year on the accession of Henry VI. In 1416-18 Hoggekyns
had built the Grace Dieu, 'if not the largest, probably the best
equipped ship yet built in England.'[8]
With the sale of most of the royal navy on the death of Henry V, the
need for a 'master carpenter of the King's Ships' must have passed
away, and no trace of any further appointment of this character has
been found for over a century. The construction of the Regent in 1486
was entrusted by Henry VII to the Master of the Ordnance, and it
seems probable that the design of the Henri Grace à Dieu, built in
1514, was the work of the Clerk of the Ships, Robert Brygandin,[9]
although the superintendence of her building was entrusted to William
Bond (or Bound), who is described in 1519 as 'late clerk of the
poultry, surveyor, and payer of expenses for the construction of the
Henri Grace à Dieu and the three other galleys.'[10]
It is not until the later years of Henry VIII's reign that steps
appear to have been taken to establish in the royal service a
permanent body of men skilled in the art of shipbuilding. From the
earliest times of which records exist it had been the practice to
send out agents to the various ports to impress the shipwrights,
caulkers, sawyers, and other workmen required for the construction
and repair of ships of the Royal Navy. This system was no doubt
satisfactory while the merchant ship and the royal ship presented
no essential points of difference; the latter were, indeed, often
let out to hire for mercantile purposes. But when the ship-of-war
began to carry a larger number of guns than the trading ship found
necessary for her protection--a change that may be roughly dated
from the end of the fifteenth century--the methods of construction
began to diverge, and the old system of casual impressment must have
tended to become less and less satisfactory; so that when Henry,
after remodelling the material of the Navy, turned, at the end of his
reign, to the improvement of the Administration he no doubt saw the
necessity of attracting permanently to his service men capable of
directing the art of shipbuilding, as applied to ships of war, in the
new channels in which it was henceforth destined to run.
Up to this point, the position of the shipwright--even of the Master
Shipwright--was not an exalted one. He was classed among 'servants'
and 'artificers,' and his pay was made the subject of legislation
expressly designed to keep the wages of those classes as low as
possible. In 'Naval Accounts and Inventories of the Reign of Henry
VII, 1485-8 and 1495-7,' Mr. Oppenheim has edited material which
illustrates the various rates paid to shipwrights, and has pointed
out that these rates of pay 'had remained practically unaltered since
the days of Henry V.' An Act of Parliament of 1495[11] laid down the
following scale of payments:--
_From Candlemas to Michaelmas._
With meat Without
and drink, meat and drink,
a day a day
Master Ship Carpenter with
charge of work and men
under him 5_d._ 7_d._
Other Ship Carpenter called
a Hewer 4_d._ 6_d._
An able Clincher 3_d._ 5_d._
Holder 2_d._ 4_d._
Master Caulker 4_d._ 6_d._
A mean Caulker 3_d._ 5_d._
Caulker labouring by the
tide, for as long as he may
labour above water and
beneath water, shall not
exceed for every tide 4_d._ --
_From Michaelmas to Candlemas._
Master Shipwright 4_d._ 6_d._
Hewer 3_d._ 5_d._
Able Clincher 2½_d._ 4½_d._
Holder 1½_d._ 3_d._
Master Caulker 3_d._ 5_d._
A mean Caulker 2½_d._ 4½_d._
This Act was repealed in 1496, but the same scale was fixed in 1514
by an Act[12] that was not repealed until 1562.
It will be observed that the highest rate under these Acts is
sevenpence a day, although in several instances in the accounts[13]
referred to above a Master Shipwright was paid eightpence a day.
When Henry VIII instituted[14] the practice of granting by letters
patent an annuity for life to certain shipwrights performing the
duties of the office known later as 'the Master Shipwright,' he fixed
the daily rate upon the basis set forth above, but it must be borne
in mind that (as will be shown later) this did not represent the
total emoluments of that official, who was in effect raised, both as
to emoluments and status, above the class in which he had formerly
been placed.
The first of the succession of officials thus established by Henry
appears to have been James Baker, who by letters patent[15] dated
the 20th May 1538 was granted, as from Michaelmas 1537, an annuity
for life of fourpence a day, the lowest rate of a Master Shipwright,
or Master Ship Carpenter as he was alternatively called by the Acts
referred to. The entry in the Roll is of some interest; unlike the
later grants, this grant is not based upon past services, but solely
upon services which are to be rendered in the future,[16] and the
authority for the letters patent is not the usual writ of privy seal,
but the direct motion of the King: 'per ipsum Regem.' In December
1544 new letters patent were issued,[17] in which Baker is described
as a 'Shipwright' and the annuity (_annuitatem sive annualem
redditum_) fixed at eightpence a day. In January of the same year,
Peter Pett, 'Shipwright,' had by letters patent been granted a
wage and fee (_vadium et feodum_) of sixpence a day for life, as
from Michaelmas 1543, 'in consideration of his good and faithful
service done and to be done'; from which it appears that Peter Pett
was already in the royal service. It is probable that the increase
in Baker's annuity was intended to mark his superior position in
relation to Pett.
The official title of 'master shipwright' does not appear as yet
in use, for when Baker and other shipwrights were, in the next
year, sent by the Council, at the request of the Lord Admiral, to
Portsmouth to examine into the decay of one of the ships there, they
were simply described as 'Masters James Baker and others skilful
in ships.'[18] In addition to Baker and Pett, these included John
Smyth, Robert Holborn, and Richard Bull. On the 23rd April 1548
these three latter, under the designation of 'Shipwrights,' together
with Richard Osborn, anchor-smith, 'had by bill signed by the King's
Majesty each of them 4_d._ per diem in consideration of their long
and good service and that they should instruct others in their
feats.'[19] Smyth and Holborn were hardly in the same category as
Baker and Peter Pett. They seem to have been skilled mechanics rather
than constructors or designers, and are not mentioned as having
'built' a ship, though this is perhaps due to the scantiness of the
surviving records; but the fact that the formality of letters patent
was dispensed with in connexion with this grant is significant. Bull
was, however, in May 1550 granted 12_d._ a day from Midsummer 1549 by
letters patent in the usual terms,[20] and since Peter Pett was not
granted this higher rate until April 1558,[21] in the last year of
Mary's reign, it would seem as though Bull's services were rated by
Edward VI more highly than Pett's. James Baker does not seem to have
long survived Henry VIII. Probably he died in 1549, and Bull received
Baker's annuity, since it is not likely that an additional annuity
would be created for Bull at that time, and there is no mention of
any reversion in Bull's patent.
Little is known of Bull[22] or of another master shipwright 'William
Stephins'[23] who is mentioned in 1553 and 1558. The latter may have
been the ancestor of the Stevens[24] who built the _Warspite_ in
1596, and contested the place of Master Shipwright with Phineas.
In 1572 Mathew Baker, son of James, succeeded to Bull's annuity. The
letters patent[25] by which the grant was made are different in form
from those above referred to, for Baker is first granted the office
of Master Shipwright[26] with all profits and emoluments pertaining
to it, which he is to hold in as ample a mode and form as 'a certain
Richard Bull, deceased,' or any other, had held such office, and
then, for the exercise of this office, he is granted the usual
annuity of 12_d._ a day for life, as from Lady Day 1572.
In January 1584 Baker attended personally at the Exchequer and of
his free will surrendered this grant in exchange for one in similar
form[27] made out to himself and John Addey[28] with reversion to the
longer liver. The reasons why Baker thus formally adopted Addey as
his successor do not appear. However, Baker outlived him, dying in
1613, whereas Addey died in 1606 at Deptford, where he was then the
Master Shipwright.
In July 1582 Peter Pett had appeared at the Exchequer and surrendered
his patent of 1558, receiving in exchange a joint patent,[29] in
similar terms, for himself and his eldest son, William, who was
already in the royal service as a shipwright,[30] with reversion to
the longer liver. William, however, died in 1587, two years before
his father, so that the annuity never reverted to him. In his will he
describes himself as one of her Majesty's Master Shipwrights, and
from the reference to him in the patent above referred to it seems
probable that he held the office in 1584.
In 1587 Richard Chapman received a grant[31] of the office of
'Naupegiarius,' which was to be held on similar terms (_modo et
forma_) to those in which Peter Pett and Mathew Baker or any other
held like office, but the annuity granted with it was 20_d._ a day,
and not the usual 12_d._ Apparently this was an additional post
created especially for Chapman, and the 20_d._ indicates the rise
that had by that time taken place in the shipwrights' rates of pay.
In July 1590 Joseph Pett was granted 12_d._ a day as from
Midsummer.[32] Presumably this was the annuity that had reverted
to the Exchequer on the death of his father in 1589, his brother
William, who had held the reversion of it, being already dead; but
the patent contains no reference to this, the grant being based upon
'his good and faithful service done and to be done in building our
ships.' Unlike those issued to Mathew Baker and Chapman, this patent
contains no reference to office and is in the earlier form. Phineas
(see p. 4) dates Joseph's succession to his father's place as Master
Shipwright in 1592, but this is evidently incorrect.
In April 1592 Chapman died[33] at Deptford, and William Bright, one
of the Assistant Master Shipwrights, succeeded to his post and
annuity of 20_d._[34] In July 1603 Edward Stevens, who was a private
shipbuilder of some importance,[35] obtained a grant by letters
patent[36] in terms that differ from those hitherto noticed. In
consideration of service to be rendered in the future (_post-hac_),
he is granted an office of Master Shipwright for life--which office
he is to have and exercise directly one becomes vacant, in as ample
a manner as Mathew Baker, William Bright and Joseph Pett or any
other had held it--together with an annuity of 20_d._ a day for his
services. Finally the patent concludes by declaring that no one else
shall be admitted to such an office until after Stevens has been
duly appointed and installed. This was the patent that gave Phineas
such 'great discouragement' (p. 20). It is drawn up in due form,
and it is difficult to understand on what grounds it can legally
have been set aside. The patent[37] granted to Phineas in 1604 did
not revoke it, it was not recalled, and it would appear that it was
in virtue of this same patent that Stevens was finally admitted as
Master Shipwright in 1613. However, Phineas, by the all-powerful
influence of the Lord High Admiral, managed to get it set aside in
his favour on the death of his brother Joseph in 1605, 'by reason
the fee was mistaken wherein his Majesty was abused and charged with
an innovation.'[38] The 'innovation' was evidently the grant of a
'general reversion.' It would have been interesting to see the
arguments laid before the Council by Stevens when, as Phineas tells
us, he contested the decision, but unfortunately all the Council
Registers from 1603 to 1613 perished in the fire at Whitehall in
1618. There is little wonder that Stevens (who was an older man and
had, one would imagine, superior claims) bore a grudge against Pett.
Stevens appears to have been appointed as Master Shipwright in the
vacancy caused by the death of Baker in 1613. In 1614 he was Master
Shipwright at Portsmouth, and was in 1621 serving with Phineas as his
'fellow' Master Shipwright at Chatham, where he died, being succeeded
by Henry Goddard in 1626.
On 26th April 1604 Phineas, by the assistance of the Lord High
Admiral, obtained the grant by letters patent of two chances of the
reversion of an annuity of 12_d._ a day, either that of Baker-Addey
or that of his brother Joseph. His brother was the first to die, and
at the end of the following year Phineas succeeded to the annuity
that had been in the hands of the Petts since 1544.
It is of interest to note that the patent was not of itself
sufficient to enable the patentee to enter into the office of Master
Shipwright; the Lord High Admiral's warrant was also necessary. A
specimen of such a warrant has been preserved in the State Papers[39]
in the case of Goddard, who succeeded Stevens in 1626, having held a
reversion by patent since 1620, and runs as follows:--
Whereas we have received certain knowledge of the death of Edward
Stevens late one of his Majesty's Master Shipwrights and the
necessity and importance of his Majesty's Service requireth
another man to be presently entered in his place. And forasmuch
as the bearer hereof Henry Goddard is authorised by his Majesty's
letters patents to execute the next place of a Master Shipwright
that should become void by death or otherwise. And in regard
we have had good experience of the sufficiency and honesty of
the said Henry Goddard and that the said place of one of his
Majesty's Master Shipwrights is granted to him by his Majesty's
letters patents under the great seal of England. These are
therefore to will and require you to cause the said Henry Goddard
to be entered one of his Majesty's Master Shipwrights with such
allowances as is usual.
Hereof we require you not to fail. And for your so doing this
shall be your warrant.
Dated the 16 of September 1626.
J. COKE.
To our very loving friend Peter Buck, Esq., Clerk of his
Majesty's Check at Chatham or his deputy.
The Lord High Admiral's records have long since disappeared, and in
the State Papers for the period with which we are concerned very few
documents remain of the bulk of naval records that must once have
existed. This one is therefore of considerable interest on account of
the light which it throws upon the very independent position of the
Lord High Admiral in relation to the Crown: it may be doubted whether
any other great officer of State was in a position of such authority
that he could presume to ratify a grant that had already passed the
Great Seal.
At the time when Phineas became a Master Shipwright, the ordinary
wages of the post, paid by the Treasurer of the Navy, were 2_s._ a
day; to this was added the Exchequer fee or annuity of 12_d._ (or in
the case of Bright 20_d._) a day. Besides these Mathew Baker received
a pension from the Exchequer of £40 a year granted by writ of Privy
Seal, said to be 'in recompense of his service after the building of
the Merhonour'; a concession that at a later period[40] was extended
to Phineas. Thus, at that period, the total yearly emoluments of
Mathew Baker were £94, 15_s._; of Bright £66, 18_s._ 4_d._; and of
Phineas Pett £54, 15_s._; while the East India Company paid Burrell,
their Master Shipwright, £200. After making allowance for the
difference in the value of money at the beginning of the seventeenth
century and its present (or rather pre-war) value,[41] it is clear
that these were inadequate emoluments for so important a post, and it
is not surprising that many of the Master Shipwrights kept private
shipbuilding yards,[42] while all added to their income at the
expense of the Crown in ways that were very irregular and constantly
gave rise to scandal. Probably none was more adept in this art than
Phineas himself.
In addition to the Master Shipwrights receiving an additional
allowance from the Exchequer under letters patent, who seem to
have been known as the 'principal' Master Shipwrights, there were
others who, although they were never fortunate enough to succeed to
an Exchequer annuity, performed the duties of the post, to which,
apparently, they were admitted by warrant from the Lord High Admiral
before their reversions under letters patent fell due. In this
category were William Pett and Addey.
The relationship between the royal shipwrights and the commercial
shipbuilders was at all times very close. Not only did the former
engage freely in commercial business, but they joined the latter in
attempting to regulate the shipbuilding industry of the country. An
undated petition of both classes of shipwrights for incorporation
occurs among the State Papers of 1578.[43] No answer seems to
have been given to it, but as there is a 'brief' of a patent for
shipwrights dated 1592 mentioned in the calendar of Salisbury
MSS.,[44] it is clear that the proposal subsequently received
consideration, although the matter did not come to fruition until
thirteen years later.
All record of the steps that preceded the grant of the Charter
of 1605[45] appears to be lost. It is not probable that the aged
Nottingham would have moved in the matter without strong pressure
from below, and we can only surmise that the officers of the company
thereby incorporated were the prime movers in the agitation which led
to its being granted.
It will be observed that the petition of 1578 is based upon the
alleged need for regulating the pay, discipline, and training of
the ordinary shipwrights, now increasing rapidly in number with the
increase of the mercantile marine. The arguments for granting the
Charter of 1605, as set forth in the preamble, are two: first, that
all ships, both royal and merchant, were built neither strongly nor
well; secondly, that many of the shipwrights were not sufficiently
skilful. The remedy proposed for this state of affairs was the
formation of a corporation or trade union, of which all persons
engaged in shipbuilding in England and Wales were to be compelled
to become members. The government of the corporation--and therefore
of the whole shipbuilding industry of the country--was placed in
the hands of a Master, four Wardens, and twelve Assistants. Baker,
as the most noted shipbuilder of the period, was rightly made
the Master; the wardenships were divided between the remaining
two master-shipwrights and two of the most prominent private
shipbuilders; the twelve assistantships were divided as follows:
Phineas Pett, Addey, and Apslyn, from the royal dockyards; four
shipbuilders of the neighbourhood of London; and one each from
Woodbridge, Ipswich, Bristol, Southampton, and Yarmouth. The omission
of any representative from Hull or Newcastle is noteworthy.
No record remains to show what effect this charter had; probably very
little, if one may judge from the absence of any record of complaints
against it, although the documentary remains of the first ten years
of James I's reign are so very scanty that no great reliance can be
placed upon this argument.
In 1612 another charter[46] was sealed. The necessity for this was
based on the ground of the insufficiency of the powers granted by
the former charter, and no pains were spared to remedy this, so far
as words could do so. The Charter of 1605 extends over five and a
half membranes of the Patent Roll, each membrane about 30 inches
long and containing 90 lines of writing. The Charter of 1612 was a
portentous document; its enrolment extends from membrane 16(2) to
membrane 37 and contains about 15,600 words. No possible loophole was
left for any verbal quibble or evasion on the part of those who might
desire to escape from its jurisdiction; the 'all and every person and
persons being shipwrights or carpenters using the art or mystery of
shipbuilding and making ships' of the earlier charter--sufficiently
explicit, one would have thought--becomes 'all and every person
and persons being shipwrights, caulkers or ship-carpenters, or in
any sort using, exercising, practising, or professing the art,
trade, skill or mystery of building, making, trimming, dressing,
graving, launching, winding, drawing, stocking, or repairing of
ships, carvels, hoys, pinnaces, crayers, ketches, lighters, boats,
barges, wherries, or any other vessel or vessels whatsoever used
for navigation, fishing, or transportation,' and to this is added
another long clause covering accessories made of wood, from masts
downward. The other clauses of the earlier charter are also expanded
with the like object, and there are several new ones. Deputies were
to be appointed in 'every convenient and needful place' to see that
the ordinances of the Corporation were properly carried out, and to
collect dues; members might be admitted who were not shipwrights; the
admission of apprentices was regulated; dues were to be received on
account of all ships built; the secrets of the art were to be kept
from foreigners; power was given to punish those who forsook their
work or became mutinous; the Corporation was granted the reversion
of the post of Surveyor of Tonnage of new-built ships, and was to
examine each new ship to see that it was properly built 'with two
orlops at convenient distances, strong to carry ordnance aloft and
alow, with her forcastle and half deck close for fight'; provision
was to be made for the poor; and finally, no doubt on account of the
extended powers granted, the ancient liberties of the Cinque Ports
were expressly reserved to them.
The provision for the armament of the merchant ships is of especial
interest when it is remembered that in this year the Royal Navy
reached the low water mark of neglect and inefficiency, while piracy
in British waters reached a high water mark of efficiency that
promised the speedy extinction of the peaceful trader.
But if the general trend of the new charter was the enlargement
and consolidation of the powers of the Corporation, there is
one significant change that led in the opposite direction: the
'Shipwrights of England' became the 'Shipwrights of Redrith[47] in
the County of Surrey,' a step so retrograde that it is difficult to
imagine what possible argument could have been adduced to justify
such a change: some reason, no doubt, there was, but owing to the
loss of the records it has not been possible to discover it.[48] It
will be observed that, although the master under the new charter was
a government official, the wardens, reduced to three in number, were
all private shipbuilders, and only three of the sixteen assistants
were in the service of the State.
In the year following the grant of the enlarged charter, the legal
position of the Corporation was further strengthened by the issue of
an Order in Council authorising the Master and Wardens to apprehend
all persons using the art of shipbuilding contrary to the Charter,
and all apprentices or journeymen departing unlawfully from their
masters;[49] and by an order of the Lord High Admiral directing
the apprehension of all persons who refused to conform to the
regulations, and their imprisonment until they complied--'they being
chiefly poor men and unable to pay a fine.'[50]
The fact that it was necessary to recapitulate two of the penal
clauses of the charter throws light on the uncertain scope--possibly
the illegality--of the powers intended to be conferred by it. The
active life of the Corporation was one long struggle to enforce its
powers and secure its rights, not only against private individuals
or rival bodies, but even against the Officers of the Crown, who
might well have been expected to respect the provisions of its
charter. For the resistance to the Corporation did not come from
'poor men' alone. The other associated bodies of shipwrights that
were in being resented interference in their own localities. The
most important of these was the London Civic Company, known as the
Company or Brotherhood of Free Shipwrights of London, which had
been in existence as a 'trade craft' or 'guild' from an early date.
It is mentioned among the Civic Companies in 1428,[51] and was in
1456 erected into a 'fraternity in the worship of St. Simon and
St. Jude,' and in 1483 regulations were made by it relating to
apprenticeship and use of good material and workmanship.
This company held a very obscure position among the minor
companies[52] of the City, and during the period in which its
activities concern us it seems to have been in a very low financial
condition. This, however, did not deter it from contesting the
jurisdiction of the Corporation (or 'foreign' shipwrights, as it
termed them, despite the fact that, owing to the growth of London,
it had itself long left the boundaries of the City's Liberties, and
now had its headquarters near Ratcliff Cross), and the City, not
unnaturally jealous of its own special privileges, supported the
opposition.
At first the efforts of the free shipwrights of the City to dispute
the authority of the Corporation were unsuccessful. An attempt made
in 1632 ended in the submission of the two citizens who had been
put up to contest the matter, and their 'promise to be obedient to
the Shipwrights of Rotherhithe, saving the freedom of the City of
London';[53] a submission brought about by the fact that they were
members of both companies, although they had endeavoured to deny that
they were members of the Incorporated Company of Rotherhithe.[54]
A further attempt in 1637, however, by two other free shipwrights,
backed again by the City Corporation, was more successful. The case
was referred to Sir Henry Marten, the Judge of the Admiralty, who
reported to the Admiralty that 'these London Shipwrights, being
supported by the countenance of the City, will by no means agree to
come under the King's Charter and government, and to that purpose are
resolved to oppose themselves by further proceedings at law.'[55]
The case was referred back to him by the Admiralty with the remark
that 'You have long been acquainted with the said business and
know of what importance it is to have the shipwrights kept under
government, which was the ground of the grant made to the Company at
Rotherhithe.'[56] Marten finally advised the Admiralty not to grant
their request, 'it being a business so much importing the general
good of the kingdom that all shipwrights should live under a uniform
government, as now regulated by the King's charter,'[57] and the
two recalcitrants were committed to the Marshalsea, where they made
their submission. Nevertheless, in Oct. 1638 the matter was again
brought up, coming before the newly appointed Lord High Admiral upon
a petition from the City Company, and by an Order in Council of
March 1639 that Company was exempted from the jurisdiction of the
'New Corporation of the Suburbs,' although, in view of the fact that
'the said Corporation of shipwrights is of so great importance for
the defence of the Kingdom and is dispersed not in the suburbs only
but over the whole Kingdom of England,' it was declared 'that this
exception ... ought to be no encouragement to any other Society or
Trade or particular persons to withdraw their obedience to the said
new Corporation or to make suit for the like exemption, which in no
sort will be granted.'[58]
The City had won; fine words, whether in a Royal Charter or an Order
in Council, were of little use without the consistent support of the
authorities, and this the unfortunate Corporation never received. The
attempt of the Ipswich Shipwrights in 1621 to secure its dissolution
failed, but upon the motion of their member against the 'Patent of
the Ship-carpenters who impose exceedingly upon builders of ships,'
the House of Commons ordered that the Corporation should not demand
or receive any more money by virtue of their patent until it had been
brought to the Committee of Grievances and further order been taken
therein by the House.[59]
Less drastic attacks on the privileges of the Company frequently
succeeded. The exemption from 'land service' was ignored by the
Earl Marshal and the Lord Admiral in 1628. In 1631 the King's
Bench indirectly curtailed its powers by prohibiting the Lord High
Admiral from proceeding in matters relating to freight, wages, and
the building of ships; and two years later prohibited the Company
from using its powers of arresting ships, thereby preventing the
Company from getting 'their suits decided in a speedy way in the
Court of Admiralty' and compelling them to 'contend with the master,
who, proving poor and litigious, all that the (Company) can get,
after long suit, is but the imprisonment of his body.'[60] The East
Country merchants also opposed its trading privileges, and in 1634
the Company found it necessary to appeal to the Admiralty for
assistance in carrying out its powers in regard to the search and
survey of ships, and the regulation of apprentices. In 1635, when
Peter Pett was Master, the difficulties of collecting the dues of the
shipwrights and the 'tonnage and poundage' granted for the support
of the Corporation and its poor, became more acute than ever. After
much argument and reference to Sir Henry Marten, the Master, Wardens
and Assistants were told, in 1638, 'to cause their charters to be
published and put in execution,' while the 'Vice-Admirals, Mayors
and other Officers' were charged to assist them. In 1641 the right
of freedom from impressment and from attendance on juries was again
in question, and although the decision of the Lord Admiral was then
favourable the troubles of the Company still continued, for in
January 1642 they were petitioning the Commons for relief.
In March 1645 an Ordinance to protect the Shipwrights from
impressment for land service 'on account of the importance of their
trade and the decrease of qualified workmen,' was presented to the
Lords by Warwick, the Lord High Admiral, and was approved by them and
passed on to the Commons for concurrence, but it does not appear to
have been read.[61]
In August of the following year, Warwick again reported from the
Committee of the Admiralty to the Lords a 'Report and Ordinance
concerning the better building of ships and granting privileges
to the Shipwrights and Caulkers to be freed from Land Service,'
elsewhere described as an 'Ordinance for the better regulation of the
Mystery and Corporation of Shipwrights.' This was agreed to and sent
to the Commons, who read it a first time and ordered it to be read a
second time 'on Thursday next come Sevennight,' and then dropped it.
In the meantime the Clerk and other officials of the Company, whose
pay was much in arrear, were petitioning the House to take such
action with the Company as would force it to meet their claims, while
the Master and Wardens were complaining of individual refusals to pay
assessments due to the Company.[62] This state of affairs was still
in evidence in 1648, when Edward Keling, the Clerk, and the existing
and late Beadles of the Company, petitioned the Lords for relief,
and asked 'that the public instruments entrusted to Keling may be
disposed of and he be indemnified for them.' The statement of the
Wardens annexed thereto[63] explains the situation as follows: The
Wardens had
consented to pay the established duties of the Corporation
as directed by Order of the House, but Peter Pett and other
principal members, and great dealers in that mystery, withhold
and refuse to pay the duties for support of the Corporation, and
so the Wardens have not the means to pay the salaries of their
officers, or their house rent, to relieve the poor, to make their
due surveys upon ships, or to pursue an ordinance for settlement
of their government which passed the House of Peers eighteen
months ago, and now remains in the House of Commons.