VI - The Navy Victualler's 1565 Contract and Related Papers

Summary

At the beginning of Elizabeth's reign this essential service was under the control of Edward Baeshe, who had been appointed General Surveyor of Victuals for the Seas on 18 June 1550. At first his accounts were rendered irregularly, but in accordance with the Privy Council ruling of 1557 they became annual or ‘as often besides’ as required by the Council. In fact there is then a gap in the extant sequence, which resumes in 1561. As part of the general investigation of military spending after the Le Havre fiasco, Baeshe's accounts from 1 January 1562 were examined by special commissioners appointed under the great seal on 1 May 1564. Meanwhile a new patent had been issued in 1563 to Baeshe in partnership with John Elliot. Then with the 1565 bargain printed here [28], victualling was placed on a contract basis, and the new procedures by which Baeshe alone was accountable to the Exchequer were defined. Thereafter the Declared Accounts survive in full. For just one calendar year we also have a set of his Quarter Books on which, as with those of the Treasurer, the annual accounts are based. A large amount of supporting material is to be found among the State Papers and elsewhere. Reconstructing Baeshe's operation ought therefore to be fairly straightforward, but there are inevitably some residual mysteries.

By about 1560 he had been provided with a headquarters on Tower Hill and a number of storehouses at Ratcliff, St Katherine's and Rochester, all at considerable expense. Before the bargain, he received most of his money from Gonson as it was required. Four samples are given [24–7] of the brief statements he submitted to the Privy Council, requesting ad hoc warrants for the month ahead. After 1565 he was provided with his ordinary in regular tranches directly from the Exchequer, and paid the bills as they came in from the various agents who were working on his behalf (and at his appointment) in the different localities. The earlier hand-to-mouth procedure was scrapped, partly because it was unpredictable, and partly because it was thought to be unnecessarily expensive, and this indenture or contract was agreed in its place. In spite of its precise-seeming language, it is full of holes and ambiguities. The bases are the daily ‘allowance’ for each man, and the rates of 4½d per man/day in harbour and 5d at sea.