His Maiesties Commission ... concerning the Ordnance, scribal manuscript, [1620]

[ORDNANCE OFFICE]

His Maiesties Commission [...] concerning the Ordnance. [1620]

manuscript on paper, scribal copy of a report proposing extensive reform of the Ordnance on the versos, with responses and rebuttals by the Board of Ordnance to the Commission's claims on the facing rectos, signed at the end by George Carew as Master-General of the Ordnance and five other members of the Board of Ordnance, each comment by the Board marked against the report with a letter in red ink, also with some underlining and individual words in red ink for emphasis, red ruled margins, 89 pages, plus blanks, folio (385 x 260mm.), contemporary vellum with title on covers ("Th'office of Th'ordnance"), remains of green silk ties, staining, worm holes

A UNIQUE INSIGHT INTO MILITARY ADMINISTRATION IN THE DECADES BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR. The Ordnance Office was notorious for corruption, even by early Stuart standards; in one spectacular case uncovered in 1613, massive embezzlement by the Lieutenant General, Roger Dallison, left the Ordnance with £13,000 of debt. In 1618 a commission led by Sir John Coke was tasked with investigating the office, and their report in July 1620 suggested large-scale reforms, which they claimed would reduce annual expenditure from £14,000 to £4,000. The current manuscript is the response of the Board of Ordnance to Coke's report. The report (of which the only known complete copy is held by The National Archives, AO 16/6/3) was in three books, of which two are reproduced here. The first book, a survey of the current stores of ordnance, is omitted here, but the board have much to say about the second book, which contains proposals for the future provision of stores, as well as the third, "Contayning Instructions for the Government of the Office". Their rebuttal of the Commission's conclusions makes the Board's attitude clear. "It seemeth unto us: That in this conclusion, There is much mistaking"; the plans for reforming the provision of stores are misguided; the claim that it would be possible to save £10,000 implies, to their outrage, "That the Officers, either out of Corruption, or simplicity, are guilty of the Losse of soe much to his Majestie"; in fact, "Wee doe confidently affirme that all this pretended saving doth in truth afford nothing". Ultimately, the report achieved little. A proposal about the supply of gunpowder was enacted but never achieved any savings, and the administrative reforms were approved by the King but faced such continued resistance from the Ordnance itself that they were eventually shelved. NO OTHER COPY OF THIS MANUSCRIPT IS KNOWN IN PRIVATE HANDS, and the only institutional copy is in The National Archives (SP 14/117/54).

LITERATURE:

Michael B. Young, 'Illusions of Grandeur and Reform at the Jacobean Court: Cranfield and the Ordnance', The Historical Journal, 22 (1979), 53-73