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.