The Autobiography of Phineas Pett
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