unrelieved, for a petition from them, together with their Charter,
was referred by the Council of State to the Committee of the
Admiralty, who were to advise with the Admiralty Judges on the
matter. The result of this does not appear, but it seems probable
that the Corporation shortly after ceased to exercise its functions,
for a petition to the Navy Commissioners in 1672 (which shows the
same old difficulties still unremedied) refers to 'the discontinuance
of the exercise of this Charter in the late troublesome times.'[64]
During the earlier years of its activity the Corporation played
a part of some importance in the administration of the Navy. It
surveyed and reported upon the workmanship and tonnage of ships built
in the royal yards, and gave advice concerning their defects--thus
acting to some extent as a check upon the master shipwrights--and
notices of the sale of unserviceable ships were given out at
Shipwrights' Hall as well as on the Exchange. In one instance[65] it
was called upon to submit a scheme 'for the mould of a ship like to
prove swiftest of sail and every way best fashioned for a ship of
war,' but this attempt to erect it into a board of design seems to
have failed completely.
In 1683 the Corporation attempted to set its affairs on a more
satisfactory basis by obtaining a new charter, surrendering the
charter of 1612 in October 1684[66] and obtaining in January 1686 a
warrant from James II. to renew it with additions. This was opposed
by its old enemies, and nothing seems to have come of it, although
the matter was under discussion until 1688, and the Masters of
Trinity House in 1687, in a report to Pepys, had recommended that
there should be but one Company of Shipwrights, and that all of that
trade in England should be under their rule and government. The
Corporation appears then to have become practically extinct, for in a
report by the Navy Office, in 1690, on the method of measuring ships
reference is made to the 'measurement and calculations ... formerly
taken and made by the Corporation of shipwrights (when there was such
a company).'[67]
In 1691[68] and 1704 the remnants of the Corporation made a final
attempt at reconstruction, backed by the Admiralty, Navy Board,
and Trinity House. A petition to this end came before the House of
Commons in January 1705, and is recorded in the Journal[69] of the
House in the following terms:
A Petition of the Master Shipwrights (who signed the same) in
behalf of themselves and others, Master Shipwrights of England,
was presented to the House and read: setting forth that the
petitioners' predecessors were incorporated by charter in 1605,
and were thereby empowered to rectify the disorders and abuses of
the Shipwrights' Trade, and to furnish the Crown and Merchants
with able workmen, and to bind and enrol their apprentices;
but the breed of able workmen is almost lost, and for want of
sufficient power to execute the good intent of their charter, the
petitioners have not been in a regular method many years past
to rectify the disorders amongst the shipwrights and to improve
their trade; yet a Proposal of some additional heads to effect
the same has been approved, and reported by the Commissioners of
the Admiralty, Commissioners of the Navy, Corporation of Trinity
House; and also his Royal Highness,[70] the 7th Nov. 1704,
declares his opinion that it will be much for the public service
to have the shipwrights incorporated by Charter, as desired by
them; but in the said proposal there are some necessary clauses
which cannot be made practicable and effectual without an Act of
Parliament: and praying that leave be given to bring in a Bill,
of regulating clauses, to be inserted in a new charter for the
better breeding of Shipwrights and for the more firm and well
building of ships and other vessels.
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.
FOOTNOTES:
[5] _Cal. Close Rolls_, 27 Jan. 1337. Rymer, _Foedera_, iv. 703.
[6] _Exchequer Accts._ 19/31.
[7] This rate was being paid in 1303.
[8] Oppenheim, _The Administration of the Royal Navy_, 1509-1660, p.
14.
[9] Thos. Allen, writing to the Earl of Shrewsbury in 1516, refers to
'one Brygandin son unto him that made the King's great ship.' Lodge,
_Illustrations of British History_, vol. i. p. 14.
[10] _Cal. S.P. Dom._, May 12, 1519.
[11] 'An Act for Servants' Wages,' 11 Henry VII, c. 22.
[12] An Act concerning Artificers and Labourers, 6 Henry VIII c. 3.
[13] _Op. cit._, pp. 22, 153, 179, 232-3.
[14] Henry V had merely given a pension for past service to a
shipwright incapable of further labours.
[15] Patent Roll 680.
[16] 'Ac in consideratione veri et fidelis servicii quod dilectus
serviens noster Jacobus Baker durante vita sua impendere intendit.'
[17] Pat. Roll 704.
[18] _Acts of the P.C._, New Series, i. 233.
[19] _Ibid._, ii. p. 186.
[20] Pat. Roll 833. I cannot trace in the rolls any similar grant to
Holborn or Smyth.
[21] Pat. Roll, 921.
[22] He may be the Richard Bull who was called before the Council in
1555. _Acts of the P.C._, v. 189.
[23] Stephins was engaged on the repair of the _Lion_ barge in 1553,
and was paid 20_l._ as 'the Queen's Majesty's Shipwright' for making
the _Leader_ barge in 1558. _Acts of the P.C._, iv. 362, and vi. 426.
[24] The difference in the spelling is no argument against this, as
'ph' and 'v' are used indifferently in the documents in this surname,
Stevens' name being spelt 'Stevyns' and 'Stevins' and 'Stephens' in
the rolls.
[25] Pat. Roll 1091.
[26] Officium Naupegiarii sive unius magistrorum factorum Navium et
Cimbarum nostrarum.
[27] Pat. Roll 1249. The entry in Pat. Roll 1091 is vacated with an
endorsement in the margin, signed by Mathew Baker and William Borough
to the effect that the surrender was voluntary and in consideration
of the grant to Baker and Addey.
[28] Sometimes spelt Adye, Adie, or Ady.
[29] Pat. Roll 1210. No office is mentioned; all that is conveyed is
the 'annuity or annual fee of 12_d._ sterling a day.'
[30] Nec non in consideratione boni et fidelis servicii per præfatum
Willelmum Pett Shipwright antehac impensi ac imposterum impendendi in
fabricatione navium nostrarum heredum et successorum nostrorum ac in
assistencia sua in causis nostris marinis.
[31] Pat. Roll 1300. In a MS. account of the 'ordinary wages and
exchequer fees of his Majesty's Master Shipwrights' (Add. MS. 9299 f.
48) it is stated that this had been given in recompense for building
the _Ark Royal_, but as this ship appears to have been originally
built for Ralegh this can hardly have been the reason. The patent
only speaks of 'good and faithful service done and to be done.'
[32] Pat. Roll 1342.
[33] Drake's edition of Hasted, _History of Kent_, p. 41.
[34] _Add. MS._ 9299. I have not been able to find his patent.
[35] He built the _Warspite_ in 1596 and the _Malice Scourge_ for the
Earl of Cumberland, and in 1598 and 1600 received, in conjunction
with others, the usual 'rewards' for building merchant ships (_Cal.
S.P. Dom._, 30 July 1596, 24 Sept. 1598, 15 Jan. 1600).
[36] Pat. Roll. 1620.
[37] Appendix I, p. 173.
[38] _Infra_, p. 27.
[39] _S.P. Dom. Chas. I_, xxxv. 104. Although countersigned by Coke,
this warrant is not signed by the Lord High Admiral, so presumably it
is a duplicate.
[40] 11 July 1614. He does not mention this in the manuscript.
[41] Probably these amounts should be multiplied by 6.
[42] Thus in November 1591, whilst holding office as Master
Shipwright, Chapman, who owned a private yard at Deptford, was paid
the bounty of 5_s._ a ton for building the _Dainty_ of London of 200
tons, 'as an encouragement to him and others to build like ships,'
and Phineas was paid the like bounty for building the _Resistance_.
(_Cal. S.P. Dom._)
[43] Appendix II, p. 175.
[44] _Salisbury MSS. (Hist. MSS.)_, i. 276.
[45] Appendix III, p. 176.
[46] Appendix IV, p. 179.
[47] Rotherhithe, where their Hall was situated.
[48] Probably it was due to the growing resistance of the City
Company of Free Shipwrights.
[49] _Cal. S.P. Dom._, 12 July 1613.
[50] _Ibid._, 30 Oct. 1613.
[51] See Sharpe, _Short Account of the Worshipful Company of
Shipwrights_. This author has made the mistake of assuming that the
Charter of 1605 was granted to the City Company.
[52] It is not even mentioned in Stowe's list of sixty companies
attending the Lord Mayor's Banquet in 1531.
[53] _Cal. S.P. Dom._, 4 Feb. 1632.
[54] _Ibid._, 17 June 1631. I am indebted to Mr. E. A. Ebblewhite for
drawing my attention to the significance of this fact.
[55] _Cal. S.P. Dom._, 30 June 1637.
[56] _Ibid._, 10 July 1637.
[57] _Ibid._, 26 July 1637.
[58] _Council Register_, No. 50.
[59] _Commons Journal_, i. 563.
[60] _Cal. S. P. Dom._ January 21, 1633.
[61] _Lords' Journal_, vii. 286. _Hist. MSS._, Sixth Report, p. 51.
[62] _Lords' Journals_, viii. 232, 286; x. 403.
[63] _Hist. MSS._, Seventh Report, p. 40.
[64] _Cal. S.P. Dom._, 25 July 1672.
[65] By the Commissioners for inquiring into the State of the Navy.
_Cal. S.P. Dom._, 22 Feb. 1627.
[66] Bodleian, _Rawlinson MSS._ A 177.
[67] _Cal. S.P. Dom._, 21 Aug. 1690.
[68] See Sutherland, _Britain's Glory, or Shipbuilding Unvail'd_, p.
70.
[69] Vol. xiv. p. 482.
[70] Prince George of Denmark, then Lord High Admiral.
2.--_The Family of Pett._
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, 38_l._
1_s._ 4_d._, 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 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.
THOMAS PETT
|
JOHN
|
PETER, of Harwich, = Elizabeth Paynter.
_Shipbuilder_, |
_d._ (?) 1554. |
+--------------+-----------------+
| |
(1) ? = PETER, of Deptford, = (2) Elizabeth Ann = John Chapman.
| _Master Shipwright_, | Thornton,
| _d._ 1589. | _d._ 1597.
| +------------------------------------+
+----+----------------------------------+-----------------------+ |
| | | |
WILLIAM, = Elizabeth (1) Margaret = JOSEPH, = (2) Margaret | |
of Lime- | March. Curtis, | of Lime- | Humfrey, | |
house, | _d._ 1594. | house, | _d._ 1612. | |
_Master +--+ | _Master | | |
Shipwright_, | | Shipwright_,| | |
_d._ 1587. | | _d._ 1605. | | |
| | | | |
+------+--+ +-----+ +----+----+ | |
| | | | | | |
Elizabeth. Lucy. Margaret. William. Joseph. | |
| |
+-------------------------+-----------+--------+ |
| | | |
(1) Ann = PETER, = (2) Elizabeth. Richard, Lydia, |
Tusam. of of London. _d._ 1610. |
Wapping |
_Shipbuilder_, |
_d._ 1631? |
| |
+-----------------+-----+----------+-------------------+-----+ |
| | | | | |
PETER, of = Elizabeth William, Elizabeth = Thomas Ann Mary |
Deptford, Johnson. _Clerk in Barwick. |
_Master Holy |
Shipwright_ Orders_, |
_b._ 1592, _d._ 1651. |
_d._ 1652. |
|
+------------------------------------------------+
|
+------+-----+----+------+------+------+-----------+-------+
| | | | | | | |
Jane, | Noah, Peter the | Abigail, Elizabeth, |
Susannah, | _d._ 1595. Younger, | _d._ 1599. _d._ 1599. |
_d._ 1567. | _d._ 1600. | |
| +---------+ +-----------+
| | |
PHINEAS Rachel, = Rev. W. Mary, = (?) Cooper.
(_see next _d._ 1591? Newman. _d._ 1626.
Table_).
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.