Shipwrights’ Errors.
Noticing the general discrepancies between designs and results in shipbuilding, Charles II remarked a generation later of Christopher Pett, when he turned out a successful ship, ‘I am sure it must be God put him in the way, for no art of his own could ever have done it.’ An observer of this date, Kenrick Edisbury, who succeeded Sir Thos. Aylesbury as Surveyor of the Navy, perhaps better qualified to judge, attributed part of the apparent error rather to self-interest. ‘I never yet knew,’ he writes to Nicholas, ‘any ship built by day-work but the shipwrights have made them of greater burden than their warrants mentioned, as you may discern by this new ship now in building at Deptford, which I am persuaded will prove 200 tons greater than was appointed.’[1107] Edisbury was referring to either the Leopard or the Swallow, and there is an instructive paper relating to these two vessels which shows the lack of exactness, whether due to ignorance or intention. It gives the measurements as ordered by the King—the shipwrights intrusted with the work received their instructions from him personally[1108]—and as they actually were.[1109]
| Leopard | Swallow | ‘Dimensions given by his majestie’ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feet | Feet | Feet | |
| Keel | 95 | 96 | 93 |
| Beam inside the plank | 33 | 32.2 | 31 |
| Depth from upper edge of keel to diameter of breadth | 12.4 | 11.7½ | |
| Depth of keel | 1.7 | 1.8 | |
| Rake of stem | 30.6 | 28.4 | 27 |
| Rake of stern post | 4.3 | 4.8 | 4 |
| The flat of the floor | 13 | 13 | 13 |
| Midship draught | 12.9 | 12.3 | 11.6 |
| Distance of lower edge of port from greatest breadth | 5 | 4.10½ | 5.6 |
| Distance between ports | 8.6 and 9 | 8 | 8 |
| From deck to lower edge of ports | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2.2 |
| Breadth of ports | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.4 |
| Depth of ports | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.4 |
| From the diameter of breadth to the top of the waist | 13.6 | 12.7 | |
| Between decks | 6.6 | 6.7 | 6.8 |
| Gross tonnage | 515 | 478 | 384 |
Report on the Ships.
In January 1626-7 we have a report on the qualities of the new ships added since 1618, and built under Burrell’s superintendence while he was the Commissioners’ principal subordinate. The Constant Reformation is said to be strongly built and seaworthy, but cannot work her lower tier in a moderate sea; the Victory weakly built and crank, as is also the Garland which is a slow sailer as well. The Swiftsure, Bonaventure, and Mary Rose are all condemned as badly built, crank, or slow under sail. The St George, St Andrew, and Triumph are awarded faint praise. It must, however, be remembered that this survey was made by Burrell’s professional competitors, of whose envy and jealousy there is incidental evidence yet remaining, and that at least five of these vessels, after years of sailing and fighting round half the world, are to be found still fit for service in the Navy lists of Charles II. The Commissioners claimed that, with the exception of the earlier Bonaventure, theirs were the first additions to the Navy that could carry out their guns ‘in all fighting weathers.’
The Sovereign of the Seas.
It is unnecessary to describe the Sovereign of the Seas, accounts of which, based on Thos. Heywood’s well-known tract,[1110] have been several times given in various works. Some details, however, not known to Heywood, may be given here. The suggestion must have been under discussion for some time, but the first mention of her is in August 1634, when the masters of the Trinity House, apparently without being asked for it, volunteered an opinion that such a ship was an impossible dream.[1111] Their dogmatic statement that a three-decker was a thing ‘beyond the art or wit of man to construct,’ has already been quoted, but they further insisted that, if built, there was no port, ‘the Isle of Wight only’ excepted, in which she could ride, and no ground tackle which would hold her. No notice seems to have been taken of their long and poetically expressed effusion, and in January 1635 an estimate was called for of a vessel of 1500 tons, (‘the king with his own hand hath set down the burden;‘), and in March, Phineas Pett was ordered to prepare a model of ‘the ship royal,’ and was told that ‘you principally are appointed by his majesty for the building of the same.’[1112] A month later Pennington, Mansell, Phineas Pett, and John Wells[1113] met, and agreed on dimensions, which were substantially those afterwards adopted, and the gross tonnage was to be by depth 1466 tons, by draught 1661 tons, and by beam 1836 tons; but no explanation is given of the way in which these figures are arrived at.[1114] Pett’s estimate of the cost was £13,680;[1115] perhaps he really did not know, perhaps he did not wish to frighten Charles, but the amount eventually spent on her, exclusive of guns, was £40,833 8s 1½d.[1116] Comparing this sum with the £5500 to £6500 which was the average cost of a forty-gun ship, there must have been, even allowing for the much larger proportion spent in decoration of various kinds, great extravagance in some respects.
Before commencing work Pett desired that the principal officers, who, he said, had always shown themselves adverse, should neither provide materials nor make any payments without his signed order. ‘Already I find certain extraordinary unnecessary charges of new building of dwelling-houses bestowed and employed in Woolwich yard, which I doubt not will be brought upon the charge of the ship.’[1117] As this was occurring while the trees which were to form her frame were yet in leaf in Chopwell and Brancepeth woods, it gives us an interesting glimpse into the habits of the chief Officers of the Navy, and the estimation in which they were held by one who was brought into daily contact with them. The keel was laid at Woolwich, in the presence of Charles, on 16th January 1636, and she was launched in October 1637. Pett had recommended that the launching should be deferred till the spring, since the vessel would grow foul lying in the river through the winter, and would then require redocking. Pett’s proposal was annotated by the king, ‘I am not of your opinion.’[1118] Charles had a dull optimism, unshaken by any number of blunders, in the value of a royal opinion, whether applied to subjects of general policy or to such a technical matter as the rate at which a ship’s hull was likely to grow foul.[1119]
The wages bill on the Sovereign amounted to £20,948, and joining, painting, and carving to £6691; but in the case of this ship the large sum spent in decoration has in popular imagination, as expressed in pictures and descriptions, implied an equivalent expenditure on other ships which did not really occur. Where details are given of the cost of men-of-war, or of their repairs, the money spent on ornamental carving and painting bears a very small proportion to the total; and it is quite likely that the conventional representations of sixteenth and earlier seventeenth century vessels are altogether wrong in this respect, and that men-of-war of these times, at any rate those of the second, third, and fourth ranks, were little more bedecked than modern merchantmen. The manner in which the adornments of the Prince and Sovereign are described and dwelt upon as out of the common points to the probability that other ships possessed few of these external attractions. The Elizabeth and Triumph, the Ark Royal and Merhonour were as relatively important in their day as the Prince and Sovereign, but, with the exceptions already noticed under the reign of Elizabeth, allusion to any special ornamentation is in their case exceptional, still less, then, would the smaller vessels be much beautified by gold, colours, and carving. Decoration, perhaps, became much more general and expensive after the Restoration; but John Holland attributed the increased expenditure on it that began about now to the absence of control over the master shipwrights, who were permitted to do much as they liked and would not be outdone by each other.
The Sovereign being afloat, the next proceeding was to arm her, and for this purpose 102 brass guns were required, costing, by estimation, £24,753, 8s 8d.[1120] They were thus divided:—