| 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.