The Autobiography of Phineas Pett
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.
In June 1650 the difficulties of the Company were evidently still
unrelieved, for a petition from them, together with their Charter,
was referred by the Council of State to the Committee of the
Admiralty, who were to advise with the Admiralty Judges on the
matter. The result of this does not appear, but it seems probable
that the Corporation shortly after ceased to exercise its functions,
for a petition to the Navy Commissioners in 1672 (which shows the
same old difficulties still unremedied) refers to 'the discontinuance
of the exercise of this Charter in the late troublesome times.'[64]
During the earlier years of its activity the Corporation played
a part of some importance in the administration of the Navy. It
surveyed and reported upon the workmanship and tonnage of ships built
in the royal yards, and gave advice concerning their defects--thus
acting to some extent as a check upon the master shipwrights--and
notices of the sale of unserviceable ships were given out at
Shipwrights' Hall as well as on the Exchange. In one instance[65] it
was called upon to submit a scheme 'for the mould of a ship like to
prove swiftest of sail and every way best fashioned for a ship of
war,' but this attempt to erect it into a board of design seems to
have failed completely.
In 1683 the Corporation attempted to set its affairs on a more
satisfactory basis by obtaining a new charter, surrendering the
charter of 1612 in October 1684[66] and obtaining in January 1686 a
warrant from James II. to renew it with additions. This was opposed
by its old enemies, and nothing seems to have come of it, although
the matter was under discussion until 1688, and the Masters of
Trinity House in 1687, in a report to Pepys, had recommended that
there should be but one Company of Shipwrights, and that all of that
trade in England should be under their rule and government. The
Corporation appears then to have become practically extinct, for in a
report by the Navy Office, in 1690, on the method of measuring ships
reference is made to the 'measurement and calculations ... formerly
taken and made by the Corporation of shipwrights (when there was such
a company).'[67]
In 1691[68] and 1704 the remnants of the Corporation made a final
attempt at reconstruction, backed by the Admiralty, Navy Board,
and Trinity House. A petition to this end came before the House of
Commons in January 1705, and is recorded in the Journal[69] of the
House in the following terms:
A Petition of the Master Shipwrights (who signed the same) in
behalf of themselves and others, Master Shipwrights of England,
was presented to the House and read: setting forth that the
petitioners' predecessors were incorporated by charter in 1605,
and were thereby empowered to rectify the disorders and abuses of
the Shipwrights' Trade, and to furnish the Crown and Merchants
with able workmen, and to bind and enrol their apprentices;
but the breed of able workmen is almost lost, and for want of
sufficient power to execute the good intent of their charter, the
petitioners have not been in a regular method many years past
to rectify the disorders amongst the shipwrights and to improve
their trade; yet a Proposal of some additional heads to effect
the same has been approved, and reported by the Commissioners of
the Admiralty, Commissioners of the Navy, Corporation of Trinity
House; and also his Royal Highness,[70] the 7th Nov. 1704,
declares his opinion that it will be much for the public service
to have the shipwrights incorporated by Charter, as desired by
them; but in the said proposal there are some necessary clauses
which cannot be made practicable and effectual without an Act of
Parliament: and praying that leave be given to bring in a Bill,
of regulating clauses, to be inserted in a new charter for the
better breeding of Shipwrights and for the more firm and well
building of ships and other vessels.
The motion to refer it to a Committee was lost, and thus went out the
last spark of life of a Corporation that had struggled in vain for a
hundred years to carry out the intentions of its founders.
FOOTNOTES:
[5] _Cal. Close Rolls_, 27 Jan. 1337. Rymer, _Foedera_, iv. 703.
[6] _Exchequer Accts._ 19/31.
[7] This rate was being paid in 1303.
[8] Oppenheim, _The Administration of the Royal Navy_, 1509-1660, p.
14.
[9] Thos. Allen, writing to the Earl of Shrewsbury in 1516, refers to
'one Brygandin son unto him that made the King's great ship.' Lodge,
_Illustrations of British History_, vol. i. p. 14.
[10] _Cal. S.P. Dom._, May 12, 1519.
[11] 'An Act for Servants' Wages,' 11 Henry VII, c. 22.
[12] An Act concerning Artificers and Labourers, 6 Henry VIII c. 3.
[13] _Op. cit._, pp. 22, 153, 179, 232-3.
[14] Henry V had merely given a pension for past service to a
shipwright incapable of further labours.
[15] Patent Roll 680.
[16] 'Ac in consideratione veri et fidelis servicii quod dilectus
serviens noster Jacobus Baker durante vita sua impendere intendit.'
[17] Pat. Roll 704.
[18] _Acts of the P.C._, New Series, i. 233.
[19] _Ibid._, ii. p. 186.
[20] Pat. Roll 833. I cannot trace in the rolls any similar grant to
Holborn or Smyth.
[21] Pat. Roll, 921.
[22] He may be the Richard Bull who was called before the Council in
1555. _Acts of the P.C._, v. 189.
[23] Stephins was engaged on the repair of the _Lion_ barge in 1553,
and was paid 20_l._ as 'the Queen's Majesty's Shipwright' for making
the _Leader_ barge in 1558. _Acts of the P.C._, iv. 362, and vi. 426.
[24] The difference in the spelling is no argument against this, as
'ph' and 'v' are used indifferently in the documents in this surname,
Stevens' name being spelt 'Stevyns' and 'Stevins' and 'Stephens' in
the rolls.
[25] Pat. Roll 1091.
[26] Officium Naupegiarii sive unius magistrorum factorum Navium et
Cimbarum nostrarum.
[27] Pat. Roll 1249. The entry in Pat. Roll 1091 is vacated with an
endorsement in the margin, signed by Mathew Baker and William Borough
to the effect that the surrender was voluntary and in consideration
of the grant to Baker and Addey.
[28] Sometimes spelt Adye, Adie, or Ady.
[29] Pat. Roll 1210. No office is mentioned; all that is conveyed is
the 'annuity or annual fee of 12_d._ sterling a day.'
[30] Nec non in consideratione boni et fidelis servicii per præfatum
Willelmum Pett Shipwright antehac impensi ac imposterum impendendi in
fabricatione navium nostrarum heredum et successorum nostrorum ac in
assistencia sua in causis nostris marinis.
[31] Pat. Roll 1300. In a MS. account of the 'ordinary wages and
exchequer fees of his Majesty's Master Shipwrights' (Add. MS. 9299 f.
48) it is stated that this had been given in recompense for building
the _Ark Royal_, but as this ship appears to have been originally
built for Ralegh this can hardly have been the reason. The patent
only speaks of 'good and faithful service done and to be done.'
[32] Pat. Roll 1342.
[33] Drake's edition of Hasted, _History of Kent_, p. 41.
[34] _Add. MS._ 9299. I have not been able to find his patent.
[35] He built the _Warspite_ in 1596 and the _Malice Scourge_ for the
Earl of Cumberland, and in 1598 and 1600 received, in conjunction
with others, the usual 'rewards' for building merchant ships (_Cal.
S.P. Dom._, 30 July 1596, 24 Sept. 1598, 15 Jan. 1600).
[36] Pat. Roll. 1620.
[37] Appendix I, p. 173.
[38] _Infra_, p. 27.
[39] _S.P. Dom. Chas. I_, xxxv. 104. Although countersigned by Coke,
this warrant is not signed by the Lord High Admiral, so presumably it
is a duplicate.
[40] 11 July 1614. He does not mention this in the manuscript.
[41] Probably these amounts should be multiplied by 6.
[42] Thus in November 1591, whilst holding office as Master
Shipwright, Chapman, who owned a private yard at Deptford, was paid
the bounty of 5_s._ a ton for building the _Dainty_ of London of 200
tons, 'as an encouragement to him and others to build like ships,'
and Phineas was paid the like bounty for building the _Resistance_.
(_Cal. S.P. Dom._)
[43] Appendix II, p. 175.
[44] _Salisbury MSS. (Hist. MSS.)_, i. 276.
[45] Appendix III, p. 176.
[46] Appendix IV, p. 179.
[47] Rotherhithe, where their Hall was situated.
[48] Probably it was due to the growing resistance of the City
Company of Free Shipwrights.
[49] _Cal. S.P. Dom._, 12 July 1613.
[50] _Ibid._, 30 Oct. 1613.
[51] See Sharpe, _Short Account of the Worshipful Company of
Shipwrights_. This author has made the mistake of assuming that the
Charter of 1605 was granted to the City Company.
[52] It is not even mentioned in Stowe's list of sixty companies
attending the Lord Mayor's Banquet in 1531.
[53] _Cal. S.P. Dom._, 4 Feb. 1632.
[54] _Ibid._, 17 June 1631. I am indebted to Mr. E. A. Ebblewhite for
drawing my attention to the significance of this fact.
[55] _Cal. S.P. Dom._, 30 June 1637.
[56] _Ibid._, 10 July 1637.
[57] _Ibid._, 26 July 1637.
[58] _Council Register_, No. 50.
[59] _Commons Journal_, i. 563.
[60] _Cal. S. P. Dom._ January 21, 1633.
[61] _Lords' Journal_, vii. 286. _Hist. MSS._, Sixth Report, p. 51.
[62] _Lords' Journals_, viii. 232, 286; x. 403.
[63] _Hist. MSS._, Seventh Report, p. 40.
[64] _Cal. S.P. Dom._, 25 July 1672.
[65] By the Commissioners for inquiring into the State of the Navy.
_Cal. S.P. Dom._, 22 Feb. 1627.
[66] Bodleian, _Rawlinson MSS._ A 177.
[67] _Cal. S.P. Dom._, 21 Aug. 1690.
[68] See Sutherland, _Britain's Glory, or Shipbuilding Unvail'd_, p.
70.
[69] Vol. xiv. p. 482.
[70] Prince George of Denmark, then Lord High Admiral.
2.--_The Family of Pett._
When Thomas Heywood, in his description of the Sovereign of the
Seas written in 1637, referred to the author of this manuscript