(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.