The motion to refer it to a Committee was lost, and thus went out the last spark of life of a Corporation that had struggled in vain for a hundred years to carry out the intentions of its founders.

When Thomas Heywood, in his description of the Sovereign of the Seas written in 1637, referred to the author of this manuscript as 'Captain Phineas Pett, overseer of the work, and one of the principal officers of his Majesty's navy, whose ancestors, as father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, for the space of two hundred years and upwards, have continued in the same name officers and architects in the Royal Navy,' he was, it may be presumed; recording the local tradition of the Pett family. That this tradition was strong and persistent is clear from the fact that Mansell, writing to Thomas Aylesbury[71] in 1620 to propose Peter Pett as builder of the new pinnaces; recommended him on the ground that 'his family have had the employment since Henry the Seventh's time,' while forty years later, Fuller, in his 'Worthies of England,' also referred to it in these words: 'I am credibly informed that that Mystery of Shipwrights for some descents hath been preserved successfully in Families, of whom the Petts about Chatham are of singular regard.'

This tradition, so far as it relates to the descent of the 'mystery' from generation to generation, was no doubt well founded, but there is no evidence that office under the Crown was held by any of Phineas Pett's ancestors earlier than his father, Peter.

The name 'Pett' is said by a modern writer on the history of English surnames to be a Kentish variant of the name 'Pitt.' This would imply a Kentish origin of the family, and this supposition might seem to be strengthened by the fact that the name, as a place-name, only occurs in Kent and on the eastern border of Sussex.[72]

The fact is, however, that 'pet' is simply a Middle-English variant of the familiar word 'pit,' kin to the old Frisian 'pet,' and is found in use throughout the east coast counties from Sussex to Yorkshire, but more frequently in the South than in the North. In the 13th and 14th centuries this surname occurs in the form 'atte Pet' or 'del Pet'; i.e. 'at the pit' or 'of the pit,'[73] which indicates clearly that the bearers had, on the introduction of the hereditary surname from the 12th century onward, taken the name 'Pet'—or had it thrust upon them—because they were known as living near to a pit, and were thereby distinguished from other Walters or Adams dwelling on the heath or by the wood etc. etc. A study of the local distribution of this name in the 14th century shows that the pit in question, though it may occasionally have been a well, a sawpit, or a pitfall for wild beasts, was more usually a place where, owing to the absence of stone from the district, clay or loam had been dug in forming the walls of the rude cottages in which all but the upper strata of society then dwelt. Thus one great centre of the Petts in Suffolk in the 13th and 14th centuries, the district between Thetford and Eye, is a heavy clayland from which stone is absent.[74] By the end of the 16th century this name, in the form 'Pet,' 'Pett,' and 'Pette' was common in Kent, Essex, Suffolk, and South Norfolk.

In 1583, Peter Pett, then Master Shipwright at Deptford, obtained a grant of arms from Herald's College. The original has unfortunately disappeared, but from the reference to it in Le Neve's 'Pedigree of the Knights'[75] it appears that he claimed descent from 'Thomas Pett of Skipton in Cumberland' through John Pett his grandfather and Peter Pett his father, who had been a shipbuilder at Harwich. The fact that there is no Skipton in Cumberland shows that this record is hardly reliable as regards the place of origin of the family. Neither of the existing Skiptons,[76] which are both in Yorkshire, remote from the sea, is likely to have given birth to a family of shipbuilders; and there is no indication that any relations of the Petts were at any time resident in Yorkshire or Cumberland. Moreover, the name was practically unknown at this period in the North.[77] In an attempt to elucidate this matter, Major Bertram Raves put forward in the 'Mariner's Mirror'[78] the suggestion 'that Thomas Pett was of Hopton,[79] in Suffolk, and that Hopton was fudged into Skipton by the Tudor Heralds in the grant of arms to Peter Pett.... Petts about or near to Hopton at the time were yeomen or husbandmen.... The pedigree may, therefore, have seemed to need treatment.' He then goes on to show that Petts were established in the neighbouring villages of Hepworth, Wattisfield, Harling, and Walsham-le-Willows; the Petts at Wattisfield having been in the neighbourhood since the 14th century.[80] One significant fact is the letter which Peter Pett, the half-brother of Phineas, wrote to Sir Bassingbourn Gawdy[81] of Harling, in 1598, in which he apologises for his delay in visiting him and sends his remembrances to Lady Gawdy and others: it is clear from this letter that Peter was well known in the neighbourhood, and was, it may be presumed, related to the Thomas Pett living there at that time.

But it seems very doubtful whether Skipton really was a wilful substitution for, or a mis-transcription of, an original 'Hopton,' for there is no evidence that anyone of the name ever lived at Hopton, and it seems possible that some earlier Pett may have migrated to Yorkshire and his descendant John have returned to East Anglia.[82]

Of Thomas Pett nothing is known; and of John his son nothing can be stated with certainty.

In 1497 William Pette of Dunwich left by will[83] 'to my brother John Pette, my new boat and all my working tools'; a legacy that implies that the brothers were shipwrights. It is not improbable that this was the John Pett who was engaged in caulking the Regent in 1499. From the entry in the Roll[84] it is clear that John was a master workman or shipbuilder; for the sum paid him, 38l. 1s. 4d., is a fairly large amount for that period, and covered miscellaneous stores besides the caulking of the 'overlop' or deck, and the sides of the ship 'against wind and water.' Unfortunately his account, 'billam suam inde factam,' is no longer in existence. This work was possibly carried out at Portsmouth, where the Regent had been fitted for the Expedition to Scotland in 1497,[85] and where she was again undergoing repair in 1501,[86] but there would have been nothing unusual at that period, when the resources of the Portsmouth district were hardly sufficient, in entrusting such work to a shipbuilder from the eastern counties. In 1485 a master shipwright had been sent from London to Bursledon to superintend the removal of the mast of the Grace Dieu and her entry into dock,[87] and shipwrights were frequently impressed from East Anglia for work in Portsmouth and Southampton. The work may, however, have been carried out at Harwich, where the King's ships sometimes rode.[88]

With Peter, the son of John, we come at length upon sure ground. The will he made in March 1554 is upon record, and shows that he was possessed of a dwelling-house and shipbuilding yard at Harwich, which he bequeathed to his son Peter, the father of Phineas. Possibly he was the Peter Pett noted by Mr. Oppenheim[89] as among the shipwrights pressed from Essex and Suffolk working at Portsmouth in 1523: there can be no doubt that he was the Peter Pett of Harwich who, with other shipwrights, signed a decree of appraisement of a ship in 1540.[90]

His son Peter Pett, who died in 1589 when Master Shipwright at Deptford, entered the royal service some time before 1544, as already noted.

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 20l. to the children of his son Richard;[91] 6l. 13s. 4d. to the child of his daughter Lydia; 100l. 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.

[[Click here for table image.]]

FAMILY OF PHINEAS PETT.

[[Click here for table image.]]

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]

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]

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

whereupon Palmer called him a rogue, and asked him if he never stole anything, and then struck him with a cudgel;

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 3l. or 4l.; 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.

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 12l. 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 60l. 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 300l., 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 '800l. or 1000l., 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.

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

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,

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:

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:

A little further on, in dealing with frauds connected with the receipt of stores, Pett is again made the principal example:

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 800l., 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.

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,

In regard to Pett's competence:

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

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:

A little further on, in speaking of the discrepancies to be found in ships supposed to be built from the same design, he says:

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:

In an undated paper, a copy of which is preserved in the Harleian MSS.,[120] he further criticises the shipwrights to the following effect:

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.

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]

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:

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]

Perhaps this was stated a little too strongly, for in 1623, after a refit costing under 1000l., she made the voyage to Spain and back in safety. Nevertheless, as pointed out by Mr. Oppenheim, she 'was never subjected to any serious work,' and in 1641 she was entirely rebuilt at Woolwich by Peter Pett at an estimated cost of 16,019l., to which must be added 2160l. for launching and transporting her to Chatham.[139]

Having been forced by the circumstances to take the matter into his own hand, James seems to have conducted the inquiry with moderation and skill, and if he had remained content with weighing the evidence, and had not attempted to decide some of the technical points in dispute himself, his decision might have received universal acceptance.

An inspection of the list of witnesses on either side shows that the weight of authority was against Pett: the seamen appearing against him were of much greater importance than those for him, and, with the exception of Burrell, who subsequently[140] reported against the ship, the same may be said of the shipwrights. In considering the result of the inquiry we cannot do better than follow James' division into the three points of art, sufficiency of materials, and charge. As regards art, it is obvious that Pett was treading the path of progress experimentally with his new design; the criticisms indicate that he had introduced modifications into the methods followed by Baker and the older shipwrights (e.g. in the width of the floor and the shape of the bows), while the subsequent furring of the mould and the alterations to the futtocks show that he was uncertain where he was going, and modified his plans during the building. For the settlement of the much disputed point of the flat of the floor, which seems to have been the determination of the actual point at which the lower sweep commenced (obtained, presumably, by finding the geometrical centre of that sweep and dropping a perpendicular from it on to the floor), James chose Briggs, who was an eminent mathematician, and Chaloner, who, notwithstanding that he was a court official, was of some eminence as a scientist. Their verdict in favour of Pett must therefore be accepted as final.

On the whole, it seems that as regards 'art' Pett was in the right; but as regards the second point, 'material,' sufficient has been already said to show that his opponents were justified in their criticism. As regards the third point, 'charge,' i.e. costs, facts showed subsequently that the claim that 'the charge of the building of this ship should not exceed other ships that had been built in her Majesty's times ... allowing proportion for proportion, the garnishing not exceeding theirs,' was entirely unfounded; for even allowing for the lavish decoration, the cost of building was much greater proportionately than that of any of those ships. The exuberance of the decoration may be seen from the entries in the Declared Accounts, printed in the Appendix,[141] which are of additional interest from the information they give as to constructive details. It will be observed that these agree with such details as can be made out in the Hampton Court and Hinchinbrook pictures.[142]

The Commission of Inquiry of 1618 found the management of the Navy in much the same state as it was in 1608, with the same abuses still unremedied. But although in its Report it did not pillory Pett as the earlier Commission had done, it seems, by the reforms which it instituted, to have made him very uncomfortable. The actual shipbuilding was concentrated at Deptford, and Phineas was employed at Chatham in the work of improving and enlarging that yard. Wm. Burrell, who had been one of Pett's chief supporters in the Prince Royal Inquiry, was made one of the Commissioners, and although he remained the chief shipbuilder of the East India Company,[143] the whole of the new construction, which amounted to two ships yearly for the next five years, was placed in his hands, all the ships being built under contracts made between Burrell and the Commissioners. Naturally this arrangement, however efficient it might be from the national point of view, did not coincide with Pett's interests, and in his usual hyperbolical style he describes Burrell and Norreys (the Surveyor) as his 'greatest enemies,' and attributes the necessary reforms of the Commissioners to a plot to 'ruin' himself.

The story of the Expedition to Algiers, which was as much a diplomatic move in support of the Elector Palatine as an attempt to suppress the Algerine pirates, has been amply dealt with by historians,[144] but there remains something to be said about Pett's connection with it, and his financial troubles that arose from it. It will be noted that he does not utter a word as to what happened between the time of his joining Mansell's fleet at Malaga in the Mercury on the 8th February and his return to the Downs on the 19th September. This silence was, no doubt, intentional, and arose from his unwillingness to put on record anything that might give offence to his friend Mansell or to higher authorities.

Part of the fleet was fitted out at the expense of the London merchants, who entered into a contract with Phineas for the construction of two pinnaces, of 120 and 80 tons respectively, subsequently named the Mercury and the Spy. It was the habit of the Master Shipwrights to exceed their instructions in building ships for the Navy; partly, perhaps, from a desire to do greater things than they were asked to do, and to outrival their colleagues, but largely because the greater the ship the greater the profit to themselves. When Pett attempted to play this trick upon the merchants (increasing one pinnace from 120 tons to 300, and the other from 80 tons to 200), 'upon some hopes of thanks and reward,' he got bitten badly, for the merchants, disdaining the precedents of the royal dockyards, insisted upon holding to their contract, and left Pett to make the best of a bad bargain. His appeal to the Council for redress was referred to the Committee of Merchants, who in their reply[145] of 2nd December 1622 pointed out that their 'chief desires and endeavours have been and ever shall be to do right unto all and (as fast as money can be gotten in) to give satisfaction where any just demands can be made unto us.' They added that 'at our last meeting Captain Pett sent his brother and son unto us, with whom we have conferred and have agreed that Captain Pett shall bring in his accompt, and if it appear that he hath not received as much or more than any way can be due unto him, either for making the two pinnaces or his entertainment, we will make present payment of the remainder, as we have formerly offered before your Lordships.'

The matter drifted on until 1624, and two further remonstrances, from the Admiralty, brought forth a reply from the merchants that they were

Apparently Pett never received the balance of the money, but his troubles did not end there. He was indebted to his brother Peter for materials for these ships to the value of 325l. While his brother lived Phineas does not seem to have troubled about repayment, although, according to Elizabeth Pett, his sister-in-law, Peter had been 'often arrested on this account,' and Phineas himself had, as he tells us, been arrested and imprisoned in 1628 at the suit of 'one Freeman,' by whom the timber seems to have been originally supplied.[147]

After Peter's death,[148] his widow endeavoured to recover the debt from Phineas, but could not enforce judgment on account of the latter's position as the King's servant. She therefore petitioned the Admiralty in January 1633 for 'leave to have the benefit of law against him.' Pett was ordered to satisfy her or show cause why the law should not take its course. Pett explained his loss on the transaction, and asserted that, 'notwithstanding this great loss and main other[149] befallen me, yet according to my poor abilities I have endeavoured to make satisfaction for the debt due to my brother,' and he promised to pay it off in instalments. Elizabeth, who had herself been 'taken in execution' for the debt, pressed for a larger amount down, because she was 'almost utterly undone through want of the said sum so long time, being the greater part of her maintenance.'

In May Phineas wrote to Nicholas protesting that he could not help defaulting in his payments because his son fell dangerously sick, and he could not get his arrears due from the Exchequer, and asserting his intention to settle the matter 'before the end of this term.' In June Nicholas told him that the course of justice could not be stayed any longer, and Pett again promised that the instalment due should be paid. In October, Pett was still in default, and he was ordered by the Admiralty to give immediate satisfaction or show cause within a week why proceedings should not be taken. He managed still to hold out, and on Sunday the 8th of December he was arrested as he was going to St. Dunstan's Church 'to hear a brother of his preach.' The officers let him go when they heard that he was the King's servant, and subsequently excused their action on the ground that Mrs. Pett's daughter had assured them that Phineas 'lay skulking in obscure places and then ... lay at a chandler's shop in Tower Street, being ... an old sea captain and ready to go to sea presently.' Upon this Pett petitioned the Admiralty, complaining that he had offered part of the debt, which was 'utterly rejected, and her implacable spirit will receive no other satisfaction but present payment of the whole debt,' and he asked the Lords to summon Mrs. Pett and her abettors before them for daring to arrest him without leave, 'so that he can go about his business without fear of arrest and that she may be enforced to accept her debt at such reasonable times as he is able to pay.' The remainder of the story is not to be found in the State Papers, but Pett tells us[150] that the matter was fought out at law, to his 'great charge,' so that presumably he was ultimately compelled to pay the money.

A little before the time when Elizabeth first began to press him for the payment of the debt due to her late husband, Phineas was being pursued by an anchor-smith named Tayte, who asked the Admiralty for permission to proceed against him for a debt of 250l. due on account of ironwork supplied for the construction of the Destiny, which Pett built for Sir Walter Ralegh in 1617. Phineas does not mention this in the manuscript, but as it gave rise to the interesting letter to Nicholas and petition to the Admiralty printed in the Appendix[151] it seems worthy of passing reference. On the return of Ralegh from his disastrous expedition, the Destiny was confiscated by the Crown, her name being changed to Convertive. Pett was therefore unable to recover against the ship the 700l. which was due to him, and presumably had no power to recover it from Ralegh's estate; possibly, however, this was another case in which he had exceeded the contract and had no legal remedy against the owner for the difference.

In relating the voyage to Spain with the squadron sent to bring home Prince Charles after his foolish adventure with Buckingham at the Spanish Court, Pett has not been so reticent as he was in the case of the voyage to Algiers, and he has given a fuller account of the incidents of the return voyage than will be found elsewhere. The circumstances in which he went mark the peculiarly favoured position which he held in relation to the King and the Lord High Admiral. The letter written to Buckingham printed in the Appendix[152] further illustrates this special relationship. His complaint therein that the cook-room of the Prince had been moved against his consent is evidently directed against the Commissioners, who, in their report of 1618, had urged that cook-rooms should be placed in the forecastle because, when placed amidships, the smoke made 'the okam spew out,' and they took up valuable space required for storage, and by bad distribution of weights made the ship 'apt to sway in the back.' It does not seem unreasonable that the Navy Commissioners should have objected[153] to the absence of one of the principal master shipwrights from his duties for such a purpose as the voyage in question, although Phineas, with his usual animus against those who differed from him, accuses them of plots and malicious practices.

The scandal in regard to the sale of old cordage as 'brown paper stuff' was judicially investigated before the Judge of the Admiralty, and the report of the proceedings is preserved among the State Papers.[154] From this report it appears that Palmer, Pett, and others had sold this material (much of which, so it was alleged, might have been used for oakum, gun wads, or twice-laid rope) without the consent of the other Principal Officers. Some of the money received for it had been applied to legitimate purposes, but it is clear that part had been kept back in the hope that no questions would be asked, and that after a time the holders might appropriate it for themselves. The assertion of Pett[155] that it was 'claimed as a perquisite to our places' is not borne out by his own evidence.

According to his deposition, made on 7th August 1633, the Keeper of the Storehouse at Chatham had reported to him that the storehouse was so cumbered with 'unnecessary and unserviceable cordage and old ends and decayed junks' that there was no room for serviceable material. For this reason, he and Terne, Clerk of the Survey, then acting as deputy to Aylesbury, sold 'a quantity of old ends and decayed junk for brown paper stuff,' but Pett alleged that he told the 'Master then attendant' and other officers that nothing that was fit for use or service was to be handed over to the purchasers. Pett could not remember the total amount received for this stuff,[156] but stated that he had 'received of the said Sir Henry Palmer (upon promise made by this deponent to deliver up bills to the Treasurer of his Majesty's Navy for so much money due to him, this deponent, from his Majesty) four score and six pounds sterling and hath since made an assignment to the said Treasurer to defalk so much out of this deponent's entertainment payable to him.' He further stated that the sales were 'by their own authority, being principal officers of his Majesty's Navy,' and claimed that 'any two of the said principal officers personally attending at Chatham have sufficient power and authority for themselves, without acquainting the rest, there being divers precedents of the like done by others heretofore.'

On 22nd February 1634, Pett, Palmer, Fleming, Terne, and Lawrence were sequestered from their places for having sold the material without sufficient authority, but on 1st March Charles entirely pardoned Pett, while only allowing the others the favour of continuing in their places until they had answered in writing.[157]

The idea of building a royal ship that should be larger and more ornate than any of her predecessors seems to have originated in the mind of the King, who acquainted Pett with his intention towards the end of June 1634. Phineas thereupon prepared a model, which was ready by the middle of October and was carried to Court on the 19th of that month. In the meantime the Masters of Trinity House heard of the project and lodged the amusing protest printed in the Appendix.[158] Apparently this model was not approved, for on 7th March of the following year Pett received instructions from the Admiralty to build a 'new great ship' of 1500 tons, and was told to prepare a 'model' for it.[159] This second model does not appear to have been constructed, but as Pennington's draft, giving the dimensions proposed by him for the ship, is endorsed by the King as a 'model,' perhaps a tabular statement of that nature was all that was intended. In April a committee, consisting of Pennington, Mansell, Pett, and John Wells,[160] examined Pett's plans and drew up the following schedule of proposed dimensions,[161] which was approved by the King but afterwards modified:

This is endorsed in the King's handwriting: 'Dimensions resolved on for the Great Ship, 7 of April 1635.' It is of interest to note, as evidencing the jealous way in which the fundamentals of the design were kept secret, that the Committee proposed to impart the details of the midship bend[162] and of the narrowing and rising lines,[163] which together formed the key to the actual form of the hull, to the King alone.

Ten days later Pennington appears to have put in a proposal that slightly modified this design, increasing the draught of water by nine inches, the beam by four inches, the flat of the floor by one foot, and the tonnage by 56 or 48 tons, but decreasing the keel length by one foot. His scheme of dimensions, which is endorsed in the King's handwriting as 'Dimensions of Pennington's Model for the Great Ship, 17 April 1635,'[164] seems, from the fact that the tonnage is quoted in the contemporary lists[165] as 1522 tons, to have been the one finally adopted, though with slight modification. It runs as follows:

The outstanding interest of this 'model' lies in the fact that it is the only instance in which the sweeps of the mould are given. Before we can proceed to construct from it the midship section, we are met with the difficulty that the depth from greatest breadth to keel is not given, but in the first model this was equal to the draught, viz. 18 feet 9 inches, and since this was increased by 9 inches, we may fairly assume that the 'depth' in Pennington's model would be about 19 feet 6 inches, and in fact we have this dimension given in a contemporary list as 19 feet 4 inches. If, taking this figure, we now attempt to plot the section, it will be found that the sweeps will not reconcile, the radius of the futtock sweep, 31 feet, being too great by about 6 feet. The mistake appears to lie in the height of the 'breadth from the water' (i.e. the height of the greatest breadth above the 'swimming line'), given as 2 feet. In the first model this was 2 feet 6 inches, and, as it is not probable that it would be less in the deeper ship, we may take this to have been 3 feet, and not 2 feet. On this assumption we can proceed to construct the curve of the midship section as in the drawing annexed. In this drawing we have:

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.