In April 1592 Chapman died[33] at Deptford, and William Bright, one of the Assistant Master Shipwrights, succeeded to his post and annuity of 20d.[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 20d. 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 12d. 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 2s. a day; to this was added the Exchequer fee or annuity of 12d. (or in the case of Bright 20d.) 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, 15s.; of Bright £66, 18s. 4d.; and of Phineas Pett £54, 15s.; 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.