Chapter V: Introduction: 1.--The Shipwrights (2)

Text size

There is no record of the names of the earlier ships built by him, but it is known that in 1573 he built the Swiftsure and Achates, and in 1586 the Moon and Rainbow; all at Deptford. At the time of his death in 1589 he was engaged upon the Defiance and Advantage, which were completed by Joseph Pett, his second and eldest surviving son, who, as already remarked, succeeded to his place as Master Shipwright, his eldest son William Pett of Limehouse, also a Master Shipwright, who built the Greyhound in 1586, having died in 1587. Peter Pett was twice married, and had four sons and one daughter by his first wife, whose name is not known; and six daughters and three sons (of whom Phineas was the eldest) by his second wife, Elizabeth Thornton. These will be found set forth in the subjoined tables, which will serve to illustrate the relationship between them and the other members of the family referred to in the manuscript.

Peter Pett, towards the end of his life, had achieved a great reputation as a shipbuilder and was, as is evident from his will, a man of considerable means. He died possessed of a house at Harwich, where he had also built almshouses; a house at Deptford; land at Frating, near Colchester; the lease of a house at Chatham; and 'ground'--presumably a shipbuilding yard--at Wapping. In addition to this property, he left 20_l._ to the children of his son Richard;[91] 6_l._ 13_s._ 4_d._ to the child of his daughter Lydia; 100_l._ each to Phineas and his brothers Noah and Peter; and 100 marks to each of his four daughters by his second wife and to an unborn child that probably did not live. The payments to the children of his second wife were to be made on their attaining the age of twenty-four, but from the statements of Phineas on pages 12 and 13 it would appear that part of the money was embezzled by the Rev. Mr. Nunn and part retained by Phineas' brother Joseph.

Peter Pett, of Wapping, the third son of the above, carried on business as a shipbuilder in the private yard at Wapping which had been left to him by his father. He does not appear to have held any office under the Crown, but seems to have been well known to the Lord High Admiral, for in his letter above referred to be puts off his visit to Gawdy on the ground that he has to be 'next Sunday with the Earl of Nottingham at the Court at Richmond.' In 1599 he published a poem entitled 'Time's Journey to seeke his Daughter Truth; and Truth's Letter to Fame of England's Excellencie,' which he dedicated to Nottingham. He was also the author of a sonnet in three stanzas of seven lines entitled 'All Creatures praise God.'[92]

It is not necessary for our present purpose to pursue the fortunes of this family further, but the reader who is desirous of obtaining information as to the later descendants of Peter Pett of Harwich will find it in an excellent paper in vol. x. of the 'Ancestor,' by Mr. Farnham Burke and Mr. Oswald Barron, entitled 'The Builders of the Navy: a Genealogy of the Family of Pett.'[93]

RELATIONS OF PHINEAS PETT.

FAMILY OF PHINEAS PETT.

PHINEAS PETT,
= _b._ 1570, _d._ 1647. =
(1) Ann Nicholls, (2) Susan Yardley, (3) Mildred Byland,
_m._ 1598, _née_ Eaglefield, _née_ Etherington,
_d._ 1627. _m._ 1627, _m._ 1638,
| _d._ 1637. _d._ 1638.
|
+-------------------------+
|
+---+------------+-----------+-------+-+----+-------+-+------+
| | | | | | | | | |
| Henry, Richard, Joseph, | | Phineas, | | Christopher,
| _b._ 1603, _b._ 1606, _b._ 1608, | | _b._ 1615, | | _Master
| _d._ 1613. _d._ 1629. _d._ 1627. | | _d._ 1617. | | Shipwright_
| | | | | at Woolwich
| | | | | and Deptford,
| | | | | _b._ 1620,
| | | | | _d._ 1668.
| | | | |
| +----------+ | +---+ |
| | | | |
John, = Katherine Peter, Ann, | Phineas, = Frances
_Captain | Yardley _Commissioner_ _b._ 1612. | _Captain | Carre.
R.N._ | at Chatham, | R.N._ |
(lost in | _b._ 1610, | (killed |
VI | _d._ 1672. | in +--+
Whelp), +--+ | Tiger), |
_b._ 1602, | | _b._ 1619, |
_d._ 1628. | | _d._ 1666. |
| | |
| +-+----------------+ |
| | | |
| +---+-+----+ |
| | | |
| Mary, Martha, = John |
| _b._ 1617, _b._ 1617, Hodierne. |
| _d._ 1617 _m._ 1637. |
| |
| +--------+
| |
Phineas, Phineas
_Master (owner of
Shipwright_ the MS.,
at Chatham, _c._ 1670),
_b._ 1628, _b._ 1646,
_d._ 1678. _d._ 1694.

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 xxxviij_li._ xvj_d._ 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 A^o xv^o Regis Henrici vij^{mo.}. 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 xxvi_s._ viij_d._ 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._

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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
100_l._

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 3_l._ or 4_l._; 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.

[Sidenote: 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 12_l._ 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 60_l._ 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 300_l._, 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 '800_l._ or 1000_l._, 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.

[Sidenote: 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 200_l._, 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 3576_l._, 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
7600_l._ 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 800_l._, 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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 Cap^n. 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.

Previous Next

Comments

The Autobiography of Phineas PettChapter V: Introduction: 1.--The Shipwrights (2)

0%36 min left in chapter