The Autobiography of Phineas Pett

by Phineas Pett

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.

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]