FOOTNOTES:
[71] Bodleian. Clarendon State Papers, No. 166.
[72] E.g. Pett Place near Charing; Pett near Stockbury; Pett Street near Wye and Pett village near Winchelsea.
[73] E.g. Geoffrey del Pet, 1270, see Rye, Cal. of Feet of Fines for Suffolk. 'Walter de le Pet' (of Wattisfield), see Powell, A Suffolk Hundred in the year 1283; 'Adam atte Pet' (of Stonham Aspul), 'William del Pet' (of Wattisfield), see Hervey, Suffolk in 1327; 'Peter atte Pette of Shorn' (Kent) in Close Roll 1344.
[74] Mr. Redstone informs me that to this day large blocks of loam and clay are squared off in the pits of Rickinghall to form house walls.
[75] Printed by the Harleian Society.
[76] Skipton in Craven in the W. Riding and Skipton upon Swale in the N. Riding.
[77] I have only discovered one early instance of the name in Yorkshire, 'Ralph Pet' who lived in the 'Honor and Forest of Pickering' in 1314, and this, it may be observed, was on the sea coast.
[78] April 1912, p. 124.
[79] S.E. of Thetford: not the Hopton in East Suffolk.
[80] They were already there in the 13th; see [note on p. xliii].
[81] Gawdy MSS. (Hist. MSS.) 405; what appears to be Pett's draft of this letter is to be found in Egerton MS. 2713.
[82] It is also possible that Thomas of Skipton did not bear the surname 'Pett.' According to Bardsley, Curiosities of Puritan Nomenclature, p. 3, 'Among the middle and lower classes these (descriptive surnames) did not become hereditary till so late as 1450 or 1500.'
[83] Ipswich Probate Court Bk. III. f. 202.
[84] Ac xxxviijli. xvjd. tam super novas iact' (? jacturas) et le calkynge de le Overlope navis regis vocatae le Regent quam pro le calkynge anti ventum et aquam ejusdem navis ac aliis necessariis pro eadem nave fiendis et providendis per manus Johannis Pett ut prius per billam suam inde factam plenius apparet datam xiij die Novembris Ao xvo Regis Henrici vijmo.. P.R.O. E. 405 (80).
[85] Naval Accounts and Inventories of Henry VII., N.R.S., Vol. viii.
[86] P.R.O. Augmentation Office Misc. Bk., 317, f. 236.
[87] N.R.S., vol. viii. pp. liv, 222.
[88] In 1487, Thomas Rogers, clerk of the King's ships, was paid xxvis. viijd. for his expenses in going to Harwich, and victualling the King's ships there. See Material Illustrative of the Reign of Henry VII, vol. ii. p. 143.
[89] Administration, p. 74.
[90] P.R.O., H.C.A. 7 (1), 'probos viros Petrum Pette et Johannem Moptye villae Harewici (and two others) fabros lignarios, anglice shipwrights.'
[91] Richard Pett of London, gent. (elsewhere described as 'unus valettorum regis') in 1593 sold his share of the property at Deptford to his brother Peter Pett, of Wapping. This property had been bought by his father in 1566.
[92] Printed by the Parker Society in Select Poetry, vol. ii. p. 386.
[93] The following errors may be noted: p. 149, the name 'Marcy' should be 'March'; p. 151, the William Pett who petitioned the Admiralty in 1631, was not the son of Joseph but a much older man, apparently belonging to another branch of the family; p. 157, the dates of the death of Phineas' second wife and of his third marriage are antedated by a year; p. 158, the date 'July' was an error of the Harl. transcriber; the dates of birth and death of Phineas, junior, are incorrect; p. 172, Joseph Pett of Chatham was not the son of Phineas, but of Joseph of Limehouse, and he was born in 1592 not 1608.
3.—Phineas Pett.
Education.
From the care that had been taken to provide for his education, and from the fact that it was only at the 'instant persuasion' of his mother that he was 'contented' to be apprenticed as a shipwright, it may be inferred that Phineas had been destined for the Church or the Law, and that Peter Pett did not propose that his son should follow in his own footsteps. The peculiarity[94] of the name chosen for him (which no doubt refers, not to the disobedient son of Eli, but to 'Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest,' who received 'the covenant of an everlasting priesthood')[95] gives rise to the surmise that his parents had intended him for the Church, but whatever the intention may have been, it was certainly abandoned on the death of his father.
Phineas does not seem to have profited greatly from his studies at Cambridge. He was hardly a master of English; possibly he had a good knowledge of Latin, for the influence of the Latin idiom is to be seen in almost all his periods; but the fact that he had subsequently to practise 'cyphering' in the evenings does not imply any great acquirements in mathematics, even of the very elementary forms which at that period were sufficient for the solution of the few problems arising in connection with the design of ships. Nevertheless, he received the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1592 and that of Master in 1595.
If the statement that he spent the two years of his apprenticeship to Chapman 'to very little purpose' is to be accepted literally, it would seem that the misfortunes that subsequently befell him must have aroused latent energies and filled him with determination to master the details of his future profession when he returned to England in 1594. His voyage to the Levant and subsequent employment as an ordinary workman under his brother Joseph no doubt gave him a practical acquaintance with ships that enabled him to profit greatly by the instruction of Mathew Baker, although apparently this only extended over the winter of 1595-6. Pett's confession that it was from Baker that he received his 'greatest lights,' written, as it must have been, after he had found Baker an 'envious enemy' and an 'old adversary to my name and family,' indicates how great that assistance was. This is borne out by a letter[96] which he wrote to Baker in April 1603, in order to deprecate the old man's wrath, which had been aroused when Phineas, then Assistant Master Shipwright at Chatham, commenced work on the Answer. The letter was partially destroyed by the fire which damaged the Cottonian Library in 1731, but fortunately Pepys had copied it in his Miscellanea.[97]
Sir,—My duty remembered unto you. It is so that I received a message from you by Richard Meritt, the purveyor, concerning the Answer, who gave me to understand from you that you were informed I meant to break up the ship and to lengthen, and that I should no further proceed till I received further order from you. Indeed the ship was heaved up by general consent, both of my Lord, some of the Principal Officers, and two of the Master Shipwrights which were here present at the time she was begun to be hauled up, no determination being resolved upon what should be done unto her; for which cause (other haste of businesses also being some hindrance) she hath lain still ever since, till now that it pleased Sir Henry Palmer to command she should be blocked and searched within board only, and so let alone, partly because our men wanting stuff to perfect other businesses had little else to do, as also to the intent she might be made ready to be the better viewed and surveyed lying upright, being somewhat also easier for the ship. This is now done, but I ensure you there was no intent or other purpose to proceed in anything upon her any further till the Master Shipwrights, especially yourself who built her, had first surveyed her, and under your hands set down what should be done unto her; and therefore, good Mr. Baker, do not give so much credit to those that out of their malice do advertise you untruth concerning either this or any other matter, for it is supposed by whom this hath been done, and he is generally thought to be no other than an Ambodexter[98] or rather a flat sheet,[99] being so far off from either procuring credit to himself by due execution of his place and discharge of his duty, that like Aesop's Dog he doth malice any other that is willing to give him precedent of better course than all men can sufficiently in this place report himself to follow. And for myself it is so sure[100] from me to understand anything that you should think any ways prejudicial unto you, or to any of your works, that you shall always rather find me dutiful as a servant to follow your directions and instructions in any of these businesses, than arrogant as a prescriber or corrector of anything done by you, whose ever memorable works I set before me as a notable precedent and pattern to direct me in any work that I do at any time undertake, and you yourself can say, setting private jars aside, which I hope are all now at a final end, but that I ever both reverenced you for your years and admired you for your Art, in the which I know (to speak without flattery) no Artist in Christendom of our profession able in any respect to come near you. Therefore, good Mr. Baker, carry but that loving mind towards me as you shall find my loving duty to you to deserve, who you shall find always as ready to do you any service, either in this place or any other, as any servant of yours whatsoever, among whose rank I account myself one of the unworthiest, for although I served no years in your service, yet I must ever acknowledge whatever I have of any art (if I have any) it came only from you. Thus hoping this shall suffice to give you satisfaction in this behalf, I humbly take my leave, ever resting ready to do you service.
Chatham this 10 April, 1603.
Your Servant,
Phineas Pett.
To the worshipful and my loving friend Mr. Mathew Baker, one of his Majesty's Master Shipwrights, give this at Woolwich or elsewhere.
This expression of opinion upon Baker's capacity was evidently quite genuine, for many years after, when the old man was dead and there was nothing to be feared from his enmity, Phineas wrote of him as 'the most famous artist of his time.'[101]
Preferment.
Phineas did not rely on his professional skill alone to gain him preferment. When in his brother Joseph's employment, he laid out his earnings in clothing himself 'in very good fashion, always endeavouring to keep company with men of good rank, far better than myself.' By means of a friend thus gained, he obtained an introduction to the Lord Admiral, which was 'the very first beginning' of his rising. No doubt Nottingham had known his father, and it is certain that he was well acquainted with his brother Peter; it is probably to this that the 'extraordinary respect' and the later favours of the Admiral were due. These favours brought upon him the 'malicious envy' of the Master Shipwrights, who were no doubt aggrieved at seeing employment that might have provided them or their friends with 'pickings,' handed to a newcomer.
The post of a purveyor of timber was not without its perquisites, and Pett's thankfulness that 'nothing could be proved against him' when the accounts of his doings in Suffolk and Norfolk were scrutinised, indicates that his labours had not been without some profit to himself; indeed his association with Trevor, who became an able disciple of the arch-thief Mansell, leads one to suspect that Fulke Greville's action in 'wrongfully' cutting off twenty pounds was not the high-handed injustice that Phineas would have one believe. It is true that Mr. Oppenheim[102] dates the 'administrative degeneracy' of the Navy Office from Greville's treasurership, but it is probable that this arose from Greville's incapacity to exercise the strict control which had characterised his predecessor Hawkyns, and not from want of integrity. Three years later Phineas affirms that Greville continued his 'heavy enemy' because the Treasurer could not win him 'to such conditions as he laboured me in' against the Surveyor, a state of affairs that seems to indicate a half-hearted attempt at reform on Greville's part, rather than any underhand conspiracy.
In an anonymous account of the quarrel at Chatham in 1602 preserved in Pepys' Miscellanea,[103] written evidently by George Collins, 'the principal informer and stirrer in this business,'[104] it is stated that the writer told Sir Henry Palmer that Pett
had sold away the Repulse's foretopmast, and that through his negligence the Crane was bilged in the Dock, which cost the Queen 100l.
whereupon Palmer called him a rogue, and asked him if he never stole anything, and then struck him with a cudgel;
and no wonder! though Sir Henry took his part so much, for in six weeks after he had great masts sawed out into boards at the Queen's charge, a long boat full, and towed down to Whitechapel by Boatswain Vale, or his man, at a ketch's stern.
At the term after, I served Phineas Pett upon a battery, and Sir John and Sir Henry procured my Lord Admiral's warrant to send me to the Marshalsea. But that I paid well for it in Mr. Pope's house I had gone thither; and so was forced to agree with Phineas and to enter into bond never to follow suit against him, neither for the King nor yet for myself.'
The writer then goes on to give instances of Pett's misappropriations of materials and labour; four tons of elm timber sawn into boards; fifty deals from the storehouse; fifty small spars; two four-inch planks to make a bridge into his meadow; labour for two or three days; a sluice made in the meadow at a cost of 3l. or 4l.; two or three tons of oak timber sawn into posts to hang clothes on and painted at the Queen's cost. Although the writer has an obvious grievance against Pett, there seems no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of the charges made.
The Resistance, and the Voyage to Spain.
One of the gravest indictments subsequently brought by the Commission of Inquiry of 1608-1609 against Phineas was that relating to the ship which he had laid down in David Duck's private yard at Gillingham in 1604, when both he and Duck were shipwrights at Chatham. From the account of it presented by Phineas[105] it might be supposed that the charge related merely to the sale of ordnance and ammunition to the Spaniards, but the malpractices alleged went much further than that; and, although Pett was cleared by the King, an examination of the evidence produced before the Commission leads to the conclusion that 'those scandalous and false informations' might have led to very unpleasant results if the King had not been biased in his favour. The story, as made out from the existing documents,[106] is briefly as follows:
The ship—a small one of about 160 tons—had been built largely of timber delivered 'for the King's use at Chatham' and with articles 'borrowed out of the store,' under warrant of the Principal Officers, two of whom, Mansell and Trevor, subsequently had shares in her. She was rigged 'with the rigging of the Foresight, which for bare 12l. only he bought out of her' at much less than the value, by the favour of the Surveyor (Trevor) and the Treasurer (Mansell), so that 'she was sailed with the King's sails and rigged with the King's tackling.' When she set sail for Spain in 1605 'under colour of a transporter of my Lord Admiral's provisions,' she was furnished out of the King's store with cables, anchors, flags, pitch, and other stores and provisions, including 600 cwt. of biscuit. She also drew 120 bolts of canvas for the use of the fleet, part of which was sold by Pett's brother, and for the whole of which Phineas acknowledged himself responsible. Although taken up as a transport and paid wages and tonnage (on a false rating of 300 tons, about twice her capacity) she was entered in the Customs as a merchantman bound for San Lucar, and carried 60 tons of lead for a merchant of London named Alabaster, for which 60l. was received as freight. At Lisbon Pett sold a demi-culverin of brass, captured at Cadiz in 1596, with ammunition and a quantity of bread, biscuit, and peas belonging to the fleet, for which he received 300l., which he sent, 'by the way of exchange,' to Trevor and Mansell, then at Valladolid[107] with Nottingham, who had gone there to ratify the peace recently concluded between the two countries. Altogether, the voyage of this ship cost the King '800l. or 1000l., as appeareth by the accounts, for little or no service done at all.'
As regards the money sent to Valladolid, it is probable that this was used in paying some of the expenses of the embassy, and that this proceeding had the sanction of Nottingham; but Pett's answers before the Commission to some of the other charges, as given in his signed deposition of 12th May 1608, seem rather weak. He stated that the 'riggings' of the Foresight were 'found to be so ill that they stood him in little or no stead,' that the accounts for the provisions were delivered to Sir John Trevor and no copies had been kept, and, by a convenient lapse of memory, he could not say what persons or stuff were landed at the Groyne 'nor what burden the ship was accounted for to the King.' When asked by Captain Morgan to set him down on the east side of the Groyne, he was alleged to have said that 'he could not adventure the ship by his directions for that she was no part of the fleet,' in reply to which allegation he swore that to the best of his recollection no such words were ever used. It appears from the evidence that Sir Richard Leveson had refused to allow the ship as one of the fleet, but he had died shortly after the return to England, and after his death Mansell and Trevor, 'assuming full power into their own hands,' had reversed the decision. One reason given by Pett for visiting ports other than that to which the fleet had gone is of interest; he told the Commission that he had been informed by Trevor and Mansell that the biscuit would not be needed for the fleet 'by reason of the short voyage my Lord Admiral had into Spain,' and he was to go to Lisbon or San Lucar to sell it, 'and that they reported as from my Lord Admiral that because this deponent was a shipwright he might in the harbours where he should put in take view of the Spanish ships and galleys and of the manner of their building.'
With a ship so cheaply built and rigged, and employed on such favourable terms, it could not have been difficult to make a handsome profit, and it is little wonder that Pett calls her a 'lucky ship' when he tells of her sale in 1612.
Commission of Inquiry.
The corruption in the administration of the Navy, which had begun to appear in the last years of Elizabeth's reign, had by 1608 reached such a height that James was at length forced to take some steps in regard to it. The knowledge that Spain was actively engaged in setting her navy in order no doubt quickened the King into action and provided a motive powerful enough to sweep aside for the time the obstruction of the senile Nottingham and his jackal Mansell. At first it had been intended that Nottingham should head the Commission, and letters patent[108] were passed on 1st April 1608, in which his name appears first, Northampton coming second, but for some reason this was altered, and on the 30th April a commission under the great seal was issued to Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton, then Lord Privy Seal and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, Charles Howard, Earl of Nottingham, the Lord High Admiral, and thirteen others,[109] of whom Sir Robert Cotton, the famous antiquary, was the most active. Northampton, who was Nottingham's cousin, seems to have been the leader of the reform party, and although he is persistently vilified by Pett, there is little doubt that he was actuated by a more or less sincere desire (sharpened, possibly, by mutual antagonism between the offices of Lord Warden and Lord High Admiral) to reform the many existing abuses. What all these abuses were would take too long in telling, but they were sufficient to justify, and more than justify, the vigorous language of the patent, which speaks of the
'very great and intolerable abuses, deceits, frauds, corruptions, negligences, misdemeanours and offences' that 'have been and daily are perpetrated, committed, and done against the continual admonitions and direction of you our High Admiral by other the officers of and concerning our Navy Royal, and by the Clerks of the Prick and Check, and divers other inferior officers, ministers, soldiers, mariners, and others serving, working, or labouring in and about our said Navy.'
The patent then proceeds to give instructions for the examination of all officials who have been connected with the Navy since 1598 and the investigation of their accounts,
minding that the said intolerable abuses, frauds, misdemeanours, and offences shall forthwith be enquired of, the offenders therein condignly punished and also to provide a speedy reform of the same for the time to come.
Possibly, at the time, James really intended to reform the administration. Nottingham kept out of the way, and his subordinates had an unpleasant time while they were examined upon their misdeeds; but in the end, James' fear of Spain having passed away, he, with his usual weakness, let the offenders off with a lecture.
The Commission commenced to sit in May 1608 and sat for a little over a year, ending with the proceedings before the King recorded on pp. [68-69] below. During this period 161 witnesses were examined, and their signed depositions taken. These are preserved among the manuscripts of Sir Robert Cotton,[110] who acted as the secretary. They were analysed by Cotton, who drew up a lengthy report[111] in which various abuses are set forth and proposals made for their remedy; the latter, as might be expected, were duly ignored by the King. Among the offenders cited by name, Pett appears as one of the chief, and although the present occasion is not convenient for a general examination of the report and evidence, some mention must be made of the matters in which Pett is directly charged with wrong-doing.
The first point made against him is that while he was keeper of the timber store at Chatham he had failed to reject bad timber and plank brought in by one of the purveyors. His answer to this was 'that Sir Henry Palmer had been so quick with him for some of these exceptions as he would complain no more though the purveyors brought in faggot sticks.' He is next charged with certain malpractices in connexion with the Resistance, and other charges on this account are brought against him further on; these have already been referred to. In a general charge against the Master Shipwrights that, for reasons of private gain, ships were repaired 'when they were not worth the labour nor the charges bestowed on them,' the case of the Victory is cited as an example:
Thus did the Victory for transportation, docking and breaking up stand the king in four or five hundred pounds, and yet no one part of her at this day serviceable to any use about the building of a new as was pretended for a colour. To conclude, though we set her at a rate of 200l., yet it had been better absolutely for the King to have given her away to the poor than to have been put to the charge of bringing her from Chatham to Woolwich, no other use having been made of her than to furnish Phineas Pett (that was the only author of her preservation) with fuel for the diet of those Carpenters which he victualled.
In complaining that estimates for repair were made blindfold, with the result that money was spent upon old ships more than sufficient to have built new ones, the illustration is again drawn from Pett's proceedings:
An instance of this art may be drawn from the King's ship now called the Anne Royal, whose estimate being first set down by the Master Shipwrights at 3576l., which sum would have built another (by the judgment of those that made the estimate) newly from the stocks of equal burthen, doth upon her finishing by Phineas Pett (a favourite of the chief officers) amount to full 7600l. upon that false ground which before hath been spoken of.
A little further on, in dealing with frauds connected with the receipt of stores, Pett is again made the principal example:
When timber and other materials come to be received into the stores, of the Clerk of the Check combining closely with the deliverers to increase the quantity of that which is delivered some time to a third part above true measure, which increase is shared between both, and lots are cast upon the robe of the Redeemer.
Sir Foulke Greville, espying plainly this collusion between parties to the wrong of our great Master, sought to prevent this play of fast and loose by adding Phineas Pett to the Clerk of the Check at Chatham as an assistance to take care that there might be no increase of quantities, but all things accounted for in their true proportion in weight and number as they were indeed, without conspiracy. But such was the falsehood of the party, as having found the thief, he ran with him, thrusting himself into [the] pack with the Clerk and the deliverer; and thus adding himself as an assistant indeed, not to plain dealers as Sir Foulke Greville meant, but to filchers and abusers, as Pett himself meant, which appears upon examination.
In a further charge relating to the issue of material for ships building or under repair, it is pointed out that the Surveyor had taken away the keys of the storehouses from the Clerk of the Check, their proper custodian, 'and put them into the hand of Pett his chief favourite, who could not only take just what he liked, but likewise hath power to expend upon the ships (or under that pretence) whatsoever he thinketh good without contradiction, and full scope withal to embezzle what he list.' He is also mentioned in connexion with the construction and decay of the 'pale' which should defend the storeyard from pilferers 'on the outside towards the Thames,' and with the employment of youths and boys 'that fill up numbers but work little.' Finally he is charged with 'wasteful and lavish expense' in repairing the ironwork of the Anne Royal at a cost of 800l., or more than double the amount necessary for the purpose. In the only charge to which Pett himself refers, namely, that of altering his lodgings, he is not mentioned by name, but it is clear that all the resident officials had added rooms to their houses at the expense and to the detriment of the storehouses which adjoined.
There seems little doubt that these charges were well founded, and that Pett was acting in collusion with his 'very good friends' Mansell and Trevor to defraud the State. It is, however, probable that the other officers were little better, and were only restrained by the lack of those opportunities the possession of which they envied Pett.
The Prince Royal.
It is clear from the remarks in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry already quoted and from Pett's narrative[112] that the original intention was to rebuild the Victory, which had been removed from Chatham to Woolwich in the autumn of 1606 for this purpose. The official records do not throw any light upon the circumstances in which this intention came to be abandoned, and indeed the Treasurer's official accounts for 1609 and 1610 preserve the fiction that the Victory was rebuilt.[113] From the story related by Phineas, it appears that the Victory had been given by James to Prince Henry, and that Pett was entrusted with the task of rebuilding her because he was one of the Prince's retainers. He then conceived the idea of constructing a ship larger than any that his predecessors had built, and made a model embodying his design, which so pleased the Lord High Admiral that the King was brought to see it, with the result that it was decided to build a new great ship on the lines suggested by Pett. This procedure of constructing a model to scale from the design, for the approval of the authorities, before starting to build the ship, is probably the first instance of the adoption of a course that later became customary in all cases where a new ship represented an advance in size, or method of construction, or embodied features not to be found in her predecessors. Her keel was not laid until the 20th October 1608, nearly a year after the model had been submitted to the King's inspection. In the meantime the Commission of Inquiry had been appointed, and the construction had not proceeded far before questions were raised as to the correctness of the design, the suitability of the material, and the competence of Pett as designer and builder.
On the 15th December, Baker was examined on the subject before the Commission. The questions put to him related to the estimated cost of the Prince Royal and the material used; the cost of the rebuilding of the Ark Royal; and the experience of Pett as a builder. Baker estimated the probable cost of the Prince at £7000, nearly twice what he had been paid for the Merhonour.[114] This estimate, although apparently in excess of one given by Pett, proved very far short of the mark, since the total cost finally came to nearly £20,000, no less than £1309 being spent on decoration and carving alone. As regards the material, Baker stated that the timber was very badly chosen. It appears that old and unsuitable trees were selected on account of the profit to be made by their larger 'tops,' which seem to have been one of the many perquisites of the officers. In preparing the timber there was, so Baker said,
so much waste as the charge will be well near half so much more as it needed to be to the King; besides the ship will be of many years less continuance serviceable than otherwise she would have been if the timber and plank had been well chosen, and framed in the wood.
In regard to Pett's competence:
Being asked, also by virtue of his oath, whether Phineas Pett be a workman sufficient to be put alone in trust upon a ship of so great charge and burthen, he answereth that he never saw any work of his doing whereby he should so think him sufficient for that work, but rather thinketh the contrary. Further, being demanded what ship he knoweth or have heard the said Pett hath built or repaired, he saith he never knew any new ship of his building, but one of 120 tons or thereabouts which he built by Chatham for himself,[115] as far as he knoweth, and another ship of the burthen of 223 tons he repaired,[116] and a pinnace[117] for his Majesty, which he saith was so done that after he had repaired them they were worse in condition than they were when he took them in hand, for that they were so unserviceable that they would bear no sail, by which default of his they were returned from the seas into Chatham to be new furred[118] to make them bear sail, so that with his first repairing and furring of them he doubts not but it will appear by the accompts that his workmanship with stuff was more chargeable than a new ship of their burthen might have been new built for, which are enough to persuade any man that he cannot be sufficient to perform the building of so great a ship when he hath performed the reparation of a small ship so ill, as of a good ship he made a bad.
Further, being asked what his opinion was concerning the choice of the stuff, he saith it was not chosen for the good of the King but for their own turns, and that very little of it fit to be put into any ship, and much less into a great ship, because it will be of no continuance, and that he never knew Pett to make any frame in the wood either for ship or boat, who cannot do it, being never brought up to it; and as for his brother Peter Pett, who was appointed purveyor, he holdeth him a man most simple for such a purpose, and also saith that, though they be both unsufficient for the making of such a frame, yet the badness of the stuff is not altogether to be imputed to them, but to those who dispose of the business according to their own humour.
Five days later, Bright came up for examination and was required to give answers to seventeen questions, apparently the same as those put to Baker. Six of them he did not answer, but referred the Commissioners to the answers given to them by Baker. His replies to the others were generally in corroboration of what Baker had said, but as regards Pett's capability he expressed no direct opinion, contenting himself with pointing out that
the old Officers, in former times, in such great works did place two Master Shipwrights in the building of one great ship, as my father Mr. Bright was joined with Mr. Pett in the building of the Elizabeth Jonas, as also in the building of the Bear with Mr. Baker. Their reason was that two Master Shipwrights' opinions was little enough for the charge so great in scope as she at Woolwich will be, but now it is carried by the favour of some of the Officers to whom it pleaseth them; but howsoever it is, the charge is great for a young man to do which never made great ship before of that burthen.
Captain George Waymouth.
After this the matter remained in abeyance until the end of March, when Northampton enlisted the services of George Waymouth, who appears to have possessed a great reputation among his contemporaries for his theoretical knowledge of shipbuilding. In 1602 Waymouth had set out, under the auspices of the East India Company, to attempt the North-West Passage in the Discovery, with another small vessel, the Godspeed, but had been compelled, through the mutiny of his crew, to abandon the attempt, after entering the strait subsequently known as Hudson's Strait. In 1605 he made a short voyage of discovery in the Archangel along the American coast. Of actual experience in shipbuilding he seems at that time to have had none whatever, and a perusal of his chapter on that subject in the manuscript volume 'The Jewell of Artes,'[119] which he presented to James in 1604, would not inspire any great confidence in his theoretical knowledge, but fortunately other means of judging the extent to which this knowledge was subsequently increased have lately presented themselves.
The chapter in 'The Jewell of Artes' consists entirely of criticism, together with a few crude drawings not explained in the text. These criticisms are not without point, as may be seen from the following extracts. He says:
Although the form and fashion of these our English ships have always been, and yet are accompted to be made by the best proportion, and fittest both for service and burden, yet if art and diligence were to the full performed in their buildings as they might, there should not remain in them so many dangerous impediments as there do at this day, which maketh me verily suppose that the one of them, if not both, is not in such measure in our shipwrights as with all my heart I do wish.
A little further on, in speaking of the discrepancies to be found in ships supposed to be built from the same design, he says:
Yet could I never see two ships builded of like proportion by the best and most skilful shipwrights in this realm ... the chiefest cause of their error is because they trust rather to their judgment than to their art, and to their eye than to their scale and compass.
He then, feeling, no doubt, that his want of technical experience in shipbuilding gave him small right to pose as a critic of the professional builders, deprecates their censure in the following words:
All which defects in building and many other I have with no less careful endeavour than with the often peril and hazard of mine own life diligently applied myself to search and find out, even to the uttermost of my skill and understanding; and although by mine own experience I can in this point speak as much as most seamen (I might say as any), having been employed in this service ever since I was able to do any, and served therein well near four prenticeships, and having in this time borne all the offices belonging to this trade, even from the lowest unto the highest, yet had I rather that any other should have taken upon them the searching and finding out of these impediments and the laying of them open, than myself; but seeing that no man that ever I heard of hath hitherto, as yet, undertaken the same, the thing being of much importance, as it is, and the dangers so great, though perhaps I shall be hardly censured for the same of the shipwrights, whose want of art or diligence I therein accuse, yet do I think it the part of every good subject rather to seek to do good to the whole state than to fear the displeasure of any one occupation.
In an undated paper, a copy of which is preserved in the Harleian MSS.,[120] he further criticises the shipwrights to the following effect:
The Shipwrights of England and of Christendom build ships only by uncertain traditional precepts and observations and chiefly by the deceiving aim of their eye, where for want of skill to work by such proportions as in Art is required and is ever certain, I have found these defects.
(1) No shipwright is able to make two ships alike in proportion nor qualities; to build a ship to any desired burden certain; nor to propose to himself how much water his ship shall draw until there be trial made thereof.
(2) Ships yet built go not upright in the sea, whereby they often lose the use of their lower tier of ordnance.
(3) They are often forced to be furred; which is a great charge and weakening to the ships; this is for want of skill to work their desired proportions.
(4) They labour and beat in the sea more than they may be made to do; which causeth often leaks to spring and weakeneth them that they cannot last so long as they might.
(5) They go not so near the wind as they might be made to do, the wind being the greatest advantage in fight.
(6) They draw more water in proportion to their burdens than they might be made to do.
(7) They be made of less burdens than they may be made of in proportion to the length, breadth and depth. This defect the Hollanders have in part mended and are able to carry freight for one third part less than our Merchants.
(8) They cannot bear sail nor steer readily to make the best advantage of the wind, for want whereof, and of art in proportioning the Moulds, they sail not so fast as they may be made to do.
My study these twenty years in the Mathematics hath been chiefly directed to the mending of these defects. I have during this time applied myself to know the several ways of building and the secrets of the best shipwrights in England and Christendom, and have likewise observed the several workings of ships in the sea in all the voyages I have been. By these helps I have demonstratively gained the science of making of ships perfect in Art, which of necessity must be made wrought by a differing way from all the Shipwrights in the world.
He goes on to say that ships built after his plan would cost less and be of more burden, and gives reasons why the ships of the Low Countries carried freight at cheaper rates than English ships. This, he says, was because they were longer in proportion to their breadth, broader and longer in the bottom, and therefore of less draught, and not built so high above water, with the result that they required less sail and tackling and could manage with a smaller crew.
These criticisms of the English shipwrights are no doubt well founded, but the step from critic to artist is a long one, and Waymouth never took it. Nevertheless he was a more competent critic than Pett would have us believe. An anonymous seventeenth-century MS., entitled, 'A most excellent briefe and easie Treatize,' containing, among other matters, 'A most excellent mannor for the Buildinge of Shippes,' exists in the Scott collection, and this, by the kindness of the owner, has been placed at the disposal of the editor, who, after a careful examination, has no doubt that it is the work of Waymouth, written after he had built the ship which Pett calls a 'bable and drowne divell,' and of which a midship section is given. Unfortunately, except in this one instance, the treatise is purely theoretical and throws no light on the problems of the Prince Royal, or the methods of the royal shipwrights, but as a theoretical treatise it is far in advance of the 'Jewell of Artes,' and indeed of anything that the English shipwrights of that century produced, and is sufficient to explain why Waymouth's opinions were accorded so much respect.
Inquiry by Nottingham, Worcester, and Suffolk.
After Waymouth's futile visit to Woolwich, the King seems to have been much perplexed, and since there was no independent expert, for they had all taken sides, he handed the matter over to a committee composed of the Lord High Admiral and two of the great officers of State. In theory, no doubt, the selection of the Admiral to superintend such an inquiry was the natural course to be followed, but in this case he was sitting in judgment on one of his own protégés, and could hardly condemn him without indirectly condemning himself and justifying Northampton. The result in such circumstances—and with such a man—was a foregone conclusion, for the other two members, having no professional experience of the matter, would naturally follow his direction. The technical arguments of Baker and Stevens would be lost on Worcester and Suffolk, even if Nottingham could appreciate them, which may be doubted; and—judging by his writings, and allowing for their ignorance of the mathematical side of the questions at issue—it is not surprising that Waymouth bored them beyond endurance, with the result that in the end 'they found the business in every part and point so excellent.'
Northampton's anger at the result was not unnatural, and the King found that there was no other course open to him but to hold an inquiry in person. This was fixed for the 8th May, and during the first week of that month Baker, Waymouth, and their associates took the dimensions of the ship at Woolwich and set out their objections in the following document:[121]
Imperfections found upon view of the new work begun at Woolwich.
First her mould is altogether unperfect, furred[122] in divers places; she hath too much floor;[123] the lower sweep[124] and the upper are too long, and the middle sweep too short.
Her depth is too great and her side too upright, so that of necessity she must be tender sided and not able to bear sail.
Her breadth lieth too high, and so she will draw too much water, and thereby dangerous and unfit for our shoal seas.
Her harpings[125] are too round and lie too low, which maketh a cling at the after end of it, and makes the bow flare off[126] so much that the work is not only misshapen but the ship dangerous to beat in the sea either at an anchor or under sail.
Her workmanship is very ill done, and thereby the ship made weak, as first the limber[127] holes are cut so deep in the midship floor timbers that they are less thickness upon the keel than toward the rung head; whereas they ought to be thicker and stronger in the midst, to bear the weight on ground.
The futtocks[128] have not scarph[129] enough with the floor timbers, but at the lower end of them are divers short clogs of timber put in which serve to no purpose for strength but to fill up the room. Every mean owner in the Thames will assuredly tie the carpenter to allow a great scarph and to have his timber come whole within a foot of his kelson.
Some of the timbers abaft and afore are left so deep by the kelson that the footwales[130] and outside not being well trenailed together will be a great weakness to the ship, and the rather for that the rung,[131] being cut out of right and old grown timber, cannot be brought to a lesser scantling, they will break in sunder at the cross grain.
The provision of timber was not fitting such a chargeable work for that much of the same is overgrown and many pieces of them cross grained, as cut to a roundness out of straight timber, which cannot be strong enough to bear a ship on ground of so great weight as this is; as may be seen both in the ship and yard.
To shew his weakness in art and the imperfection of the mould, Pett himself, after workmen had seen her, hauled down his futtocks[132] 2 foot as soon as the lords were gone, and cut off some of the heads of them, whereby they have made her more imperfect than she was and put all things out of order that she can hardly be ever amended.
| Mathew Baker. | W. Bright. |
| Nycholas Clay. | Edward Stevenes. |
| John Greaves. | Richard Meryett. |
| George Waymouth. |
All these being Shipwrights (saving Capt. Waymouth) have taken their oath, and answered before us, both upon their conscience to God, their duty to the King and their love to their country that this declaration is true. And Capn. Waymouth also affirmeth that all which the said Shipwrights have declared to be imperfections are so to be accounted. But the error of the limber holes he did not look into, supposing that no man affecting the name of a workman would err in so gross an absurdity.
| H. Northampton. | Ch. Parkins. |
| E. Zouch. | Ro. Cotton. |
| John Corbett. |
Capn. Waymouth further saith, touching the imperfection of the mould, that the Hollowing Moulds[133] are not good neither before nor abaft, for in the Hollowing Moulds afterward he hath taken away too much timber from the hooks, whereby it hath much weakened the ship, that when she cometh to lie on ground she will complain in that place, which will be a great impediment to the ship. And concludeth that she being so deep and her moulds so unperfect, with these gross errors and absurdities she can never be made strong and fit for service, and least of all for our seas.
| Edward Stevenes. | George Waymouth. |
| Mathew Baker. | |
| W. Bright. | |
| Nycholas Clay. | |
| John Greaves. | |
| Richard Meryett. | |
| H. Northampton. | |
| E. Zouch. | |
| Ch. Parkins. | |
| Ro. Cotton. | John Corbett. |
This indictment cannot be lightly set aside. Baker was the most prominent shipbuilder of that day, and Bright and Meryett (or, as the name is more usually written, Meritt) were Government shipbuilders of long experience, while Clay, Greaves, and Stevens were private builders of considerable standing in their profession. Unfortunately we have hardly any authentic details of the ship; certainly not sufficient to enable us to form any independent opinion upon the question of her design. We have, from the careful survey[134] taken in 1632, the following dimensions:
| Feet. | Ins. | |
| Length of keel | 115 | 0 |
| Breadth | 43 | 0 |
| Mean breadth | 36 | 0 |
| Depth (presumably from the breadth to top of keel) | 18 | 0 |
| Depth from the seeling | 16 | 3 |
| Tonnage (old measurement) | 1186·80 | |
| Tonnage (new measurement) | 1330 | |
and from the arguments during the inquiry it appears that the breadth of the floor was 11 feet 8 inches. This is all we know of the shape of the hull below water, and the pictures of the ship that can be considered authentic representations[135] do not add to this knowledge.
It would seem that Pett had made one or two slight alterations in the accepted rules, as followed by his predecessors, in the design of the hull. For example, his floor was slightly wider than the amount allowed by Baker in his scheme for plotting the midship section, given in the 'Fragments of Ancient English Shipwrightry,'[136] according to which it should have worked out at 10 feet 3 inches; but as Waymouth had, as we have already seen, been advocating a broader floor, a change that subsequently took effect, it is difficult to understand why he, at any rate, should have objected to this. To a later age, which has seen much greater ships of deeper draught navigate 'our shoal seas' in safety, the objection to the deep draught of water may seem somewhat uncalled for, but it must be remembered that at that date the King's ships, when not on service, lay in the Medway above Upnor, and an undated MS.[137] written about 1640 shows that difficulty was experienced in finding safe moorings for the Sovereign and the Prince in this position. On the whole, it seems probable that the objections on the score of design were not well founded. We never hear of the ship having been crank or unseaworthy on this account, and there is no such disgraceful episode as that connected with the Unicorn, built by Edward Boate in 1633, to be brought up against her.
On the charge of insufficiency of material, however, the evidence is against Pett. There can be little doubt but that much of the timber was unsuitable; some was green and unseasoned; some too old and in incipient decay; while the curved timbers, which should have been cut from trees crooked by natural growth, had been cut from straight trees, with the result that the grain did not run round, but across, the curves, to the detriment of their strength. In December 1621 the Navy Commissioners expressed their feelings on the subject to Buckingham in a letter, of which the following draft is preserved in the Coke MSS.:[138]
Her weakness is so great that all we can do unto her at this time with above 500l. charge will but make her ride afloat and be able to go to sea upon our own coast rather for show than for service, and that to make her a strong and perfect ship will require at least 6,000l. charge and time till monies and fit provisions may be had. This we write to your Honour with grief and some just indignation, seeing a ship which so lately cost His Majesty near 20,000l. and was boasted to be of force to fight for a kingdom, so suddenly perish, and that no other reasons are given thereof but her first building of old red and decaying timber and that fallen in the sap, and her double planking with green and unseasoned stuff, wherein the improvidence of the officers and unfaithfulness of the workmen cannot be excused, such faults tending to the dishonouring and disarming of the state cannot with duty be either coloured or concealed.
Perhaps this was stated a little too strongly, for in 1623, after a refit costing under 1000l., she made the voyage to Spain and back in safety. Nevertheless, as pointed out by Mr. Oppenheim, she 'was never subjected to any serious work,' and in 1641 she was entirely rebuilt at Woolwich by Peter Pett at an estimated cost of 16,019l., to which must be added 2160l. for launching and transporting her to Chatham.[139]
The Inquiry before James at Woolwich.
Having been forced by the circumstances to take the matter into his own hand, James seems to have conducted the inquiry with moderation and skill, and if he had remained content with weighing the evidence, and had not attempted to decide some of the technical points in dispute himself, his decision might have received universal acceptance.
An inspection of the list of witnesses on either side shows that the weight of authority was against Pett: the seamen appearing against him were of much greater importance than those for him, and, with the exception of Burrell, who subsequently[140] reported against the ship, the same may be said of the shipwrights. In considering the result of the inquiry we cannot do better than follow James' division into the three points of art, sufficiency of materials, and charge. As regards art, it is obvious that Pett was treading the path of progress experimentally with his new design; the criticisms indicate that he had introduced modifications into the methods followed by Baker and the older shipwrights (e.g. in the width of the floor and the shape of the bows), while the subsequent furring of the mould and the alterations to the futtocks show that he was uncertain where he was going, and modified his plans during the building. For the settlement of the much disputed point of the flat of the floor, which seems to have been the determination of the actual point at which the lower sweep commenced (obtained, presumably, by finding the geometrical centre of that sweep and dropping a perpendicular from it on to the floor), James chose Briggs, who was an eminent mathematician, and Chaloner, who, notwithstanding that he was a court official, was of some eminence as a scientist. Their verdict in favour of Pett must therefore be accepted as final.
On the whole, it seems that as regards 'art' Pett was in the right; but as regards the second point, 'material,' sufficient has been already said to show that his opponents were justified in their criticism. As regards the third point, 'charge,' i.e. costs, facts showed subsequently that the claim that 'the charge of the building of this ship should not exceed other ships that had been built in her Majesty's times ... allowing proportion for proportion, the garnishing not exceeding theirs,' was entirely unfounded; for even allowing for the lavish decoration, the cost of building was much greater proportionately than that of any of those ships. The exuberance of the decoration may be seen from the entries in the Declared Accounts, printed in the Appendix,[141] which are of additional interest from the information they give as to constructive details. It will be observed that these agree with such details as can be made out in the Hampton Court and Hinchinbrook pictures.[142]
The Commission of 1618.
The Commission of Inquiry of 1618 found the management of the Navy in much the same state as it was in 1608, with the same abuses still unremedied. But although in its Report it did not pillory Pett as the earlier Commission had done, it seems, by the reforms which it instituted, to have made him very uncomfortable. The actual shipbuilding was concentrated at Deptford, and Phineas was employed at Chatham in the work of improving and enlarging that yard. Wm. Burrell, who had been one of Pett's chief supporters in the Prince Royal Inquiry, was made one of the Commissioners, and although he remained the chief shipbuilder of the East India Company,[143] the whole of the new construction, which amounted to two ships yearly for the next five years, was placed in his hands, all the ships being built under contracts made between Burrell and the Commissioners. Naturally this arrangement, however efficient it might be from the national point of view, did not coincide with Pett's interests, and in his usual hyperbolical style he describes Burrell and Norreys (the Surveyor) as his 'greatest enemies,' and attributes the necessary reforms of the Commissioners to a plot to 'ruin' himself.
The Algiers Expedition.
The story of the Expedition to Algiers, which was as much a diplomatic move in support of the Elector Palatine as an attempt to suppress the Algerine pirates, has been amply dealt with by historians,[144] but there remains something to be said about Pett's connection with it, and his financial troubles that arose from it. It will be noted that he does not utter a word as to what happened between the time of his joining Mansell's fleet at Malaga in the Mercury on the 8th February and his return to the Downs on the 19th September. This silence was, no doubt, intentional, and arose from his unwillingness to put on record anything that might give offence to his friend Mansell or to higher authorities.
Part of the fleet was fitted out at the expense of the London merchants, who entered into a contract with Phineas for the construction of two pinnaces, of 120 and 80 tons respectively, subsequently named the Mercury and the Spy. It was the habit of the Master Shipwrights to exceed their instructions in building ships for the Navy; partly, perhaps, from a desire to do greater things than they were asked to do, and to outrival their colleagues, but largely because the greater the ship the greater the profit to themselves. When Pett attempted to play this trick upon the merchants (increasing one pinnace from 120 tons to 300, and the other from 80 tons to 200), 'upon some hopes of thanks and reward,' he got bitten badly, for the merchants, disdaining the precedents of the royal dockyards, insisted upon holding to their contract, and left Pett to make the best of a bad bargain. His appeal to the Council for redress was referred to the Committee of Merchants, who in their reply[145] of 2nd December 1622 pointed out that their 'chief desires and endeavours have been and ever shall be to do right unto all and (as fast as money can be gotten in) to give satisfaction where any just demands can be made unto us.' They added that 'at our last meeting Captain Pett sent his brother and son unto us, with whom we have conferred and have agreed that Captain Pett shall bring in his accompt, and if it appear that he hath not received as much or more than any way can be due unto him, either for making the two pinnaces or his entertainment, we will make present payment of the remainder, as we have formerly offered before your Lordships.'
The matter drifted on until 1624, and two further remonstrances, from the Admiralty, brought forth a reply from the merchants that they were
sorry to observe your Lordships' displeasure contained against us upon the suggestions of those whom nothing but their own demands can satisfy.... Your Lordships may please to be advertised that we contracted with him to build two pinnaces for twelve hundred and seventy pounds, and have paid to his workmen and lent to himself divers great sums of money over and above our contract and his wages,[146] by reason whereof we conceive he is more indebted to us than his wages demanded amounts unto, in a great sum of money, and also we lent him two hundred pounds upon his own bond yet unsatisfied. Notwithstanding, as formerly we have certified your Lordships, and sundry times offered to Capt. Pett, that we were ready to accompt with him that satisfaction might be given if ought were due to either party, and we are still ready to perform the same, yet because he rejects this motion and that we are desirous your Lordships may be fully satisfied of our honest intentions and proceedings and may be no further troubled herein, we are therefore emboldened to become suitors to your Lordships that the Commissioners of the Navy, or whom else your Lordships shall please to appoint, may have the examination of the account depending, and if upon their report anything be found due we will take present order for payment thereof.
Elizabeth Pett.
Apparently Pett never received the balance of the money, but his troubles did not end there. He was indebted to his brother Peter for materials for these ships to the value of 325l. While his brother lived Phineas does not seem to have troubled about repayment, although, according to Elizabeth Pett, his sister-in-law, Peter had been 'often arrested on this account,' and Phineas himself had, as he tells us, been arrested and imprisoned in 1628 at the suit of 'one Freeman,' by whom the timber seems to have been originally supplied.[147]
After Peter's death,[148] his widow endeavoured to recover the debt from Phineas, but could not enforce judgment on account of the latter's position as the King's servant. She therefore petitioned the Admiralty in January 1633 for 'leave to have the benefit of law against him.' Pett was ordered to satisfy her or show cause why the law should not take its course. Pett explained his loss on the transaction, and asserted that, 'notwithstanding this great loss and main other[149] befallen me, yet according to my poor abilities I have endeavoured to make satisfaction for the debt due to my brother,' and he promised to pay it off in instalments. Elizabeth, who had herself been 'taken in execution' for the debt, pressed for a larger amount down, because she was 'almost utterly undone through want of the said sum so long time, being the greater part of her maintenance.'
In May Phineas wrote to Nicholas protesting that he could not help defaulting in his payments because his son fell dangerously sick, and he could not get his arrears due from the Exchequer, and asserting his intention to settle the matter 'before the end of this term.' In June Nicholas told him that the course of justice could not be stayed any longer, and Pett again promised that the instalment due should be paid. In October, Pett was still in default, and he was ordered by the Admiralty to give immediate satisfaction or show cause within a week why proceedings should not be taken. He managed still to hold out, and on Sunday the 8th of December he was arrested as he was going to St. Dunstan's Church 'to hear a brother of his preach.' The officers let him go when they heard that he was the King's servant, and subsequently excused their action on the ground that Mrs. Pett's daughter had assured them that Phineas 'lay skulking in obscure places and then ... lay at a chandler's shop in Tower Street, being ... an old sea captain and ready to go to sea presently.' Upon this Pett petitioned the Admiralty, complaining that he had offered part of the debt, which was 'utterly rejected, and her implacable spirit will receive no other satisfaction but present payment of the whole debt,' and he asked the Lords to summon Mrs. Pett and her abettors before them for daring to arrest him without leave, 'so that he can go about his business without fear of arrest and that she may be enforced to accept her debt at such reasonable times as he is able to pay.' The remainder of the story is not to be found in the State Papers, but Pett tells us[150] that the matter was fought out at law, to his 'great charge,' so that presumably he was ultimately compelled to pay the money.
The Destiny
A little before the time when Elizabeth first began to press him for the payment of the debt due to her late husband, Phineas was being pursued by an anchor-smith named Tayte, who asked the Admiralty for permission to proceed against him for a debt of 250l. due on account of ironwork supplied for the construction of the Destiny, which Pett built for Sir Walter Ralegh in 1617. Phineas does not mention this in the manuscript, but as it gave rise to the interesting letter to Nicholas and petition to the Admiralty printed in the Appendix[151] it seems worthy of passing reference. On the return of Ralegh from his disastrous expedition, the Destiny was confiscated by the Crown, her name being changed to Convertive. Pett was therefore unable to recover against the ship the 700l. which was due to him, and presumably had no power to recover it from Ralegh's estate; possibly, however, this was another case in which he had exceeded the contract and had no legal remedy against the owner for the difference.
The Voyage to Spain.
In relating the voyage to Spain with the squadron sent to bring home Prince Charles after his foolish adventure with Buckingham at the Spanish Court, Pett has not been so reticent as he was in the case of the voyage to Algiers, and he has given a fuller account of the incidents of the return voyage than will be found elsewhere. The circumstances in which he went mark the peculiarly favoured position which he held in relation to the King and the Lord High Admiral. The letter written to Buckingham printed in the Appendix[152] further illustrates this special relationship. His complaint therein that the cook-room of the Prince had been moved against his consent is evidently directed against the Commissioners, who, in their report of 1618, had urged that cook-rooms should be placed in the forecastle because, when placed amidships, the smoke made 'the okam spew out,' and they took up valuable space required for storage, and by bad distribution of weights made the ship 'apt to sway in the back.' It does not seem unreasonable that the Navy Commissioners should have objected[153] to the absence of one of the principal master shipwrights from his duties for such a purpose as the voyage in question, although Phineas, with his usual animus against those who differed from him, accuses them of plots and malicious practices.
Brown Paper Stuff.
The scandal in regard to the sale of old cordage as 'brown paper stuff' was judicially investigated before the Judge of the Admiralty, and the report of the proceedings is preserved among the State Papers.[154] From this report it appears that Palmer, Pett, and others had sold this material (much of which, so it was alleged, might have been used for oakum, gun wads, or twice-laid rope) without the consent of the other Principal Officers. Some of the money received for it had been applied to legitimate purposes, but it is clear that part had been kept back in the hope that no questions would be asked, and that after a time the holders might appropriate it for themselves. The assertion of Pett[155] that it was 'claimed as a perquisite to our places' is not borne out by his own evidence.
According to his deposition, made on 7th August 1633, the Keeper of the Storehouse at Chatham had reported to him that the storehouse was so cumbered with 'unnecessary and unserviceable cordage and old ends and decayed junks' that there was no room for serviceable material. For this reason, he and Terne, Clerk of the Survey, then acting as deputy to Aylesbury, sold 'a quantity of old ends and decayed junk for brown paper stuff,' but Pett alleged that he told the 'Master then attendant' and other officers that nothing that was fit for use or service was to be handed over to the purchasers. Pett could not remember the total amount received for this stuff,[156] but stated that he had 'received of the said Sir Henry Palmer (upon promise made by this deponent to deliver up bills to the Treasurer of his Majesty's Navy for so much money due to him, this deponent, from his Majesty) four score and six pounds sterling and hath since made an assignment to the said Treasurer to defalk so much out of this deponent's entertainment payable to him.' He further stated that the sales were 'by their own authority, being principal officers of his Majesty's Navy,' and claimed that 'any two of the said principal officers personally attending at Chatham have sufficient power and authority for themselves, without acquainting the rest, there being divers precedents of the like done by others heretofore.'
On 22nd February 1634, Pett, Palmer, Fleming, Terne, and Lawrence were sequestered from their places for having sold the material without sufficient authority, but on 1st March Charles entirely pardoned Pett, while only allowing the others the favour of continuing in their places until they had answered in writing.[157]
The Sovereign of the Seas.
The idea of building a royal ship that should be larger and more ornate than any of her predecessors seems to have originated in the mind of the King, who acquainted Pett with his intention towards the end of June 1634. Phineas thereupon prepared a model, which was ready by the middle of October and was carried to Court on the 19th of that month. In the meantime the Masters of Trinity House heard of the project and lodged the amusing protest printed in the Appendix.[158] Apparently this model was not approved, for on 7th March of the following year Pett received instructions from the Admiralty to build a 'new great ship' of 1500 tons, and was told to prepare a 'model' for it.[159] This second model does not appear to have been constructed, but as Pennington's draft, giving the dimensions proposed by him for the ship, is endorsed by the King as a 'model,' perhaps a tabular statement of that nature was all that was intended. In April a committee, consisting of Pennington, Mansell, Pett, and John Wells,[160] examined Pett's plans and drew up the following schedule of proposed dimensions,[161] which was approved by the King but afterwards modified:
According to your Mats command we have examined the particulars of the plot and the dimensions presented to your Maty by Capt. Pett, and by comparing the rules of Art and experience together we have agreed to the Proportion underwritten, which we most humbly submit to your Mats further pleasure.
| Ft. | Ins. | |
| Length of the keel | 127 | 0 |
| Breadth within the plank | 46 | 2 |
| Depth in the hold from the breadth to the upper edge of the keel | 18 | 9 |
| Keel and dead rising | 2 | 6 |
| Draught of water from the breadth to the lower edge of the keel | 21 | 3 |
| The swimming line from the bottom of the keel | 18 | 9 |
| The flat of the floor | 13 | 0 |
| Rake of the stem | 38 | 0 |
| Rake of the post | 8 | 0 |
| Height of the Tuck at the fashion piece | 16 | 0 |
| Breadth of the Transome | 28 | 0 |
| Height of the way forward | 14 | 0 |
| Distance of the ports | 10 | 0 |
| Ports upon the lower tier, square | 2 | 8 |
| Ports upon the second tier, square | 2 | 6 |
| Ports upon the third tier, round or square | 2 | 4 |
| Distance of the ports from the swimming line with four months victuals at | 5 | 0 |
| With six months victuals at | 4 | 6 |
| The first deck from plank to plank | 7 | 0 |
| The second deck | 7 | 3 |
| The third deck | 7 | 3 |
All the decks flush fore and aft, and the half deck, quarter deck and forecastle according to the plot.
| Ton and Tonnage | |
| 1. This ship by the depth in hold will be | 1466 |
| 2. By the draught in water | 1661 |
| 3. By the mean breadth, which is the truest of all | 1836 |
Your Maty will be pleased to be informed that after mature debate we have likewise agreed upon the rules to be proportioned to each sweep of the midship bend, and where the bend is to be placed, and likewise of the rules to be held in her narrowing and rising lines, which we all pray may be only imparted to your Maty.
| Robert Mansell. | J. Pennington. | J. Wells. |
| Phineas Pett. |
This is endorsed in the King's handwriting: 'Dimensions resolved on for the Great Ship, 7 of April 1635.' It is of interest to note, as evidencing the jealous way in which the fundamentals of the design were kept secret, that the Committee proposed to impart the details of the midship bend[162] and of the narrowing and rising lines,[163] which together formed the key to the actual form of the hull, to the King alone.
Ten days later Pennington appears to have put in a proposal that slightly modified this design, increasing the draught of water by nine inches, the beam by four inches, the flat of the floor by one foot, and the tonnage by 56 or 48 tons, but decreasing the keel length by one foot. His scheme of dimensions, which is endorsed in the King's handwriting as 'Dimensions of Pennington's Model for the Great Ship, 17 April 1635,'[164] seems, from the fact that the tonnage is quoted in the contemporary lists[165] as 1522 tons, to have been the one finally adopted, though with slight modification. It runs as follows:
| Ft. | Ins. | |
| Length by the keel | 126 | 0 |
| Breadth at the beam | 46 | 6 |
| Breadth at the Transome | 28 | 0 |
| Breadth of the Floor | 14 | 0 |
| Breadth from the water | 2 | 0 |
| Draught of water | 19 | 6 |
| Ports from the water | 5 | 0 |
| Ports asunder 9ft., some more | 9 | 0 |
| Ports from the deck | 2 | 0 |
| Distance between the decks from plank to plank | 7 | 6 |
| Rake of the Stem | 37 | 6 |
| Rake of the Post | 9 | 0 |
| Height of the Tuck | 17 | 0 |
| Depth in hold from the seeling to the lower edge of the beam | 17 | 0 |
| Sweep at the runghead | 11 | 0 |
| Sweep at the right of the mould | 31 | 0 |
| Sweep between the water line and the breadth | 10 | 0 |
| Sweep above the breadth | 14 | 0 |
| Burden in tons and tonnage by the old rule | 1522 | |
| New rule | 1884 | |
The outstanding interest of this 'model' lies in the fact that it is the only instance in which the sweeps of the mould are given. Before we can proceed to construct from it the midship section, we are met with the difficulty that the depth from greatest breadth to keel is not given, but in the first model this was equal to the draught, viz. 18 feet 9 inches, and since this was increased by 9 inches, we may fairly assume that the 'depth' in Pennington's model would be about 19 feet 6 inches, and in fact we have this dimension given in a contemporary list as 19 feet 4 inches. If, taking this figure, we now attempt to plot the section, it will be found that the sweeps will not reconcile, the radius of the futtock sweep, 31 feet, being too great by about 6 feet. The mistake appears to lie in the height of the 'breadth from the water' (i.e. the height of the greatest breadth above the 'swimming line'), given as 2 feet. In the first model this was 2 feet 6 inches, and, as it is not probable that it would be less in the deeper ship, we may take this to have been 3 feet, and not 2 feet. On this assumption we can proceed to construct the curve of the midship section as in the drawing annexed. In this drawing we have:
| Ft. | Ins. | ||
| AB = | the half breadth | 23 | 3 |
| AC = | the depth from greatest breadth to top of keel | 19 | 4 |
| AD = | the half flat of the floor | 7 | 0 |
| DE = | the radius of the runghead sweep | 11 | 0 |
| FG = | the radius of the sweep between greatest breadth and the waterline | 10 | 0 |
| FH = | the radius of the 'sweep above the breadth' | 14 | 0 |
We can now plot the curve of the section; Drawing the arc FI with radius GF to a depth of 3 feet perpendicularly below CF, we obtain the point I, and producing IG backwards to K, a point 31 feet distant from I, we have the centre of the futtock sweep, or 'sweep at the right of the mould,' which is given as 31 feet in radius. With this radius from K we draw the arc IL cutting a line drawn from K through E at L. On drawing the runghead sweep from D with radius of 11 feet from centre E, it is found that this arc meets the other precisely at L, and these two arcs 'reconcile,' i.e. are tangent to each other at L, for the centres of both arcs lie in the same straight line KEL.
The curve of the 'topsides' presents more difficulty, because we are only given the radius of the 'sweep above the breadth,' but if we assume that the distance CM, or total height of the midship section above the greatest breadth, is equal to AC (and this seems to have been the customary proportion), and that the reverse curve NO was struck with the same radius as FN, namely 14 feet, we get a curve for the half midship section ADLIFNO which cannot be far from the original design, and in the lower portion must approximate to it very closely indeed.
There are no data from which the plan or elevation can be constructed, but it may be noted that the list in the State Papers already quoted gives the length of keel as 127 feet, although the tonnage remains as fixed by Pennington, so that, presumably, the rakes of the stem- and stern-posts were also modified so as not to increase the displacement, or rather the empirical measurement of it. Some time during this year Peter Pett was petitioning the King for license to print and publish 'the plot or draught of the great ship,' a concession which he had apparently been promised,[166] but there is no record of the answer returned to his petition, nor is there any trace of the drawing, which may have been the original of the well-known engraving by Payne. In 1663 Christopher Pett gave Pepys a copy of the 'plate of the Soverayne with the table to it,'[167] but whether this was Peter Pett's 'plot' or Payne's engraving with additional details cannot now be ascertained.
Pett estimated the cost of building the ship at 13,860l., and was to be required to 'put in assurance' to finish her for 16,000l.; but, before she was complete, wages alone had amounted to more than this sum, while the total cost, exclusive of ordnance, reached the extraordinary amount of 40,833l. In May Pett set out for the north to fell and prepare the 2500 trees required for her in Chopwell and Brancepeth Woods. The cost of carriage of the timber to the water, estimated at 1190l. at least, fell upon the counties of Durham and Northumberland, and Bishop Morton of Durham, who had been made responsible for the provision of this service, had to apply to the Council for assistance in proportioning out the assessment. The county of Northumberland objected to the burden to be placed upon it, and it was suggested that Cumberland, Westmoreland, and the North Riding of Yorkshire should bear part. By the beginning of September the timber had begun to arrive at Woolwich, and Pett expected to have the ship finished in eighteen months.
On the 19th September Phineas found it necessary to protest to the King against the interference of the other officers, who had 'from the beginning opposed the King's purpose in building this ship,'[168] and especially against being made to take material of which he did not approve, and against the attempt to charge the ship with the cost of houses then being built at Woolwich. He pointed out that he could not keep the cost within the estimate if such practices, which seem to have been customary, were permitted. The Navy Officers complained to the Admiralty of Pett's action, and he was called before the Admiralty, when he denied that he had complained to the King about any of them.[169] Possibly the great disproportion between the estimated and the ultimate cost of the ship was to some extent due to the fact that his protest was not successful, though it is difficult to believe that his original estimate can have been even approximately accurate. He had also under-estimated by six months the time required to build her.
The Last Years.
The manuscript ends abruptly with Pett's visit to the Lord High Admiral on the 1st October 1638, and, curiously enough, the references to him in the State Papers—hitherto frequent—cease at the same date, with a letter from Northumberland to Pennington mentioning this visit. Except for one reference in connexion with a gratuity to be given to Henry Goddard in April 1645, his name is never again mentioned therein. Yet he remained in the service and carried on his duties at Chatham until his death.
On 28th June 1642 the King sent him a warrant informing him of the appointment of Pennington as Lord High Admiral in place of Northumberland, and directing him to send the standard and all necessaries for the fleet as Sir John should direct.[170] It will be remembered that Pennington hesitated and waited before going to the Fleet, with the result that Warwick, who had been nominated by Parliament to take command, went on board the flagship on the 2nd July, and the Fleet went over to the Parliamentary side. On the 20th August Colonels Sir John Seaton and Edwyn Sandis, acting on instructions from the Committee of Public Safety, went to Chatham Dockyard, 'which was surrendered to them by Captain Pett when he saw their warrant.'[171] This was on Saturday evening, and on the Monday they completed their work by placing a guard on board the Sovereign.
Pett was rewarded for his ready obedience by being included among the Commissioners of the Navy appointed by Ordinance on the 15th September,[172] and he was to receive the same allowance as he already held, although the other captains (except Batten) and John Hollond were only given 100l. a year. From this time until his death in August 1647, in his seventy-seventh year, he seems to have remained quietly at Chatham, perhaps too old to take any very active part in current affairs, for he has certainly left no mark upon them. His death seems to have occurred unnoticed; the exact date is unknown,[173] and there is no record of his will—if he made one. The last entry concerning him in the official records[174] relates to the payment of his salary up to 29th September 1647, when he had passed away, but no reference is made to that fact. It is curious that Sir Henry Vane, the Treasurer of the Navy in 1647, who had corresponded with Pett, and must have known of his death, has left a blank in place of his name in the entry in these accounts relating to the salary of Thomas Smith,[175] who succeeded to Pett's post at Chatham on the 28th August.
No authentic portrait of Phineas is known to exist. He tells us that in 1612 his 'picture was begun to be drawn by a Dutchman working then with Mr. Rock,' one of the ship-painters, but does not say if it was ever finished. The picture in the National Portrait Gallery, which shows the stern view of the Sovereign, at one time supposed to be a portrait of Phineas, is now acknowledged to be that of his son Peter. Another picture, in the possession of the Earl of Yarborough, has been exhibited in the past as a portrait of Phineas, but there can be no doubt that it really represents Sir Phineas (son of Peter of Deptford and grandson of Peter of Wapping), who was a Commissioner of the Navy from 1685 to 1689. The ship included in this picture is probably the Britannia, built by Sir Phineas in 1682.
Phineas Pett's Character.
In forming any just appreciation of the character and abilities of Phineas Pett, regard must be had to the circumstances of age in which he lived. It was a time of great political and religious unrest, and expressions of religious devotion which might now be thought extravagant were then normal, and were apparently not thought incongruous with dishonesty in money matters. The chronic maladministration of the Navy, and the arrears in payment of the relatively small salaries allotted to responsible posts, may to some extent justify methods of acquiring additional emoluments that nowadays are judged more severely.
Pett's kindness towards his unfortunate brothers and sisters shows a good heart, and there must have been something attractive in his character to secure him the steady support of Nottingham, James I, and Charles I, which went so far as to shield him against the consequences of his misdeeds.
The favoured position which he held, and the privilege he enjoyed of direct intercourse with the supreme heads of the Navy behind the backs of his immediate superiors, brought Pett into conflict with the latter on many occasions. It is not necessary to accept the explanation of Phineas that these incidents were the results of conspiracies directed against him. To oppose him was a deadly sin; thus, Burrell, who was 'a worthy gentleman and good friend' when he stood on Pett's side in the Prince Royal inquiry, became Pett's 'greatest enemy,' engaged in the 'malicious practice' of 'tending to overthrow me and root my name out of the earth' because he was appointed one of the Commissioners of Inquiry in 1618.
Pett was evidently interested in the various efforts made in the early seventeenth century to explore and colonise the coasts of North America. He frequently refers to his friendship with Button, and states that he assisted in the selection of the Resolution for the voyage of 1612. He was, moreover, a kinsman of Hawkridge and an acquaintance of Foxe; while Gibbons was the master of his ship the Resistance. The disparaging remark on Waymouth's 'mistaking his course (as he did in the North-West Passage)'[176] shows that he was acquainted with the story of the voyage of 1602, but the most competent modern authorities do not agree with this opinion of Pett (and of his contemporary Foxe), and hold that Waymouth did in fact enter the straits subsequently called after Hudson and sail along them for a considerable distance.[177] Pett was also a member of the Virginia Company, though he does not mention this fact. His name appears in the second and third Charters of the Company (1609 and 1612), and in 1611 he subscribed the sum of 37l. 10s. This was the lowest subscription allowable for members, but it was a comparatively large sum for those days.
Evidently Phineas, in spite of his large and growing family, was at this time fairly prosperous, and had an income considerably greater than the 54l. 15s. which represented his official salary and allowance. No doubt this income was augmented by the trading ventures in the Resistance and by shipbuilding for private owners and by various official 'perquisites.' In 1614 it was increased by 40l., granted him by the King under writ of Privy Seal, but in 1617 and the following years his bad speculations in regard to the Destiny, the pinnace built for Lord Zouch, the Mercury, and the Spy, made serious inroads into his capital and burdened him with a load of debt which seems to have weighed upon him for many years and given him much trouble. James came to his assistance in 1620 by presenting him with a patent for a baronetcy which brought him about 650l., and Charles gave him another in 1628 which only fetched 200l. His appointment as a Commissioner of the Navy in 1631 increased his official income to 200l., exclusive of the 40l. payable on the writ of Privy Seal. With this substantial addition to his salary he was in a position to gradually improve his finances, and after 1634 we hear no more of the actions for debt.
From the story of his life as now unfolded it is clear that Phineas Pett was a man of considerable ability and industry, kindly to his friends, but impetuous and quick-tempered; 'well-in' with the authorities, and apt to take advantage of that fact when he disagreed with his equals or superiors. It is probable that he was slightly in advance of his contemporaries in the profession of shipbuilding, but not to the extent commonly supposed. Here his autobiography has stood him in good stead, for it has attached to his name a personality that makes his existence seem more real and of more moment to a later age in which his professional contemporaries have become shadowy names. It is difficult to say what was his real motive in writing it, but it was probably commenced as an explanation of his position in regard to the Prince Royal dispute of 1608, and afterwards continued partly for recreation; partly, perhaps, for the edification of his children. Pepys appears to have thought much of it, for he took the trouble to copy it into his collection of miscellanea; but it is certainly wanting in the candour and honesty of the celebrated Diary, and seems to have been written in order to convey a favourable impression to the reader, and explain away doubtful deeds, rather than as a real revelation of self.