The Autobiography of Phineas Pett
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