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.
H. NORTHAMPTON. CH. PARKINS.
E. ZOUCH. RO. COTTON.
JOHN CORBETT.
Cap^n. Waymouth further saith, touching the imperfection of
the mould, that the Hollowing Moulds[133] are not good neither
before nor abaft, for in the Hollowing Moulds afterward he hath
taken away too much timber from the hooks, whereby it hath much
weakened the ship, that when she cometh to lie on ground she will
complain in that place, which will be a great impediment to the
ship. And concludeth that she being so deep and her moulds so
unperfect, with these gross errors and absurdities she can never
be made strong and fit for service, and least of all for our seas.
EDWARD STEVENES. GEORGE WAYMOUTH.
MATHEW BAKER.
W. BRIGHT.
NYCHOLAS CLAY.
JOHN GREAVES.
RICHARD MERYETT.
H. NORTHAMPTON.
E. ZOUCH.
CH. PARKINS.
RO. COTTON. JOHN CORBETT.
This indictment cannot be lightly set aside. Baker was the most
prominent shipbuilder of that day, and Bright and Meryett (or, as the
name is more usually written, Meritt) were Government shipbuilders
of long experience, while Clay, Greaves, and Stevens were private
builders of considerable standing in their profession. Unfortunately
we have hardly any authentic details of the ship; certainly not
sufficient to enable us to form any independent opinion upon the
question of her design. We have, from the careful survey[134] taken
in 1632, the following dimensions:
Feet. Ins.
Length of keel 115 0
Breadth 43 0
Mean breadth 36 0
Depth (presumably from the breadth to top of keel) 18 0
Depth from the seeling 16 3
Tonnage (old measurement) 1186·80
Tonnage (new measurement) 1330
and from the arguments during the inquiry it appears that the breadth
of the floor was 11 feet 8 inches. This is all we know of the
shape of the hull below water, and the pictures of the ship that
can be considered authentic representations[135] do not add to this
knowledge.
It would seem that Pett had made one or two slight alterations in the
accepted rules, as followed by his predecessors, in the design of
the hull. For example, his floor was slightly wider than the amount
allowed by Baker in his scheme for plotting the midship section,
given in the 'Fragments of Ancient English Shipwrightry,'[136]
according to which it should have worked out at 10 feet 3 inches; but
as Waymouth had, as we have already seen, been advocating a broader
floor, a change that subsequently took effect, it is difficult to
understand why he, at any rate, should have objected to this. To
a later age, which has seen much greater ships of deeper draught
navigate 'our shoal seas' in safety, the objection to the deep
draught of water may seem somewhat uncalled for, but it must be
remembered that at that date the King's ships, when not on service,
lay in the Medway above Upnor, and an undated MS.[137] written about
1640 shows that difficulty was experienced in finding safe moorings
for the Sovereign and the Prince in this position. On the whole,
it seems probable that the objections on the score of design were
not well founded. We never hear of the ship having been crank or
unseaworthy on this account, and there is no such disgraceful episode
as that connected with the Unicorn, built by Edward Boate in 1633,
to be brought up against her.
On the charge of insufficiency of material, however, the evidence is
against Pett. There can be little doubt but that much of the timber
was unsuitable; some was green and unseasoned; some too old and in
incipient decay; while the curved timbers, which should have been
cut from trees crooked by natural growth, had been cut from straight
trees, with the result that the grain did not run round, but across,
the curves, to the detriment of their strength. In December 1621
the Navy Commissioners expressed their feelings on the subject to
Buckingham in a letter, of which the following draft is preserved in
the Coke MSS.:[138]
Her weakness is so great that all we can do unto her at this time
with above 500_l._ charge will but make her ride afloat and be
able to go to sea upon our own coast rather for show than for
service, and that to make her a strong and perfect ship will
require at least 6,000_l._ charge and time till monies and fit
provisions may be had. This we write to your Honour with grief
and some just indignation, seeing a ship which so lately cost His
Majesty near 20,000_l._ and was boasted to be of force to fight
for a kingdom, so suddenly perish, and that no other reasons are
given thereof but her first building of old red and decaying
timber and that fallen in the sap, and her double planking with
green and unseasoned stuff, wherein the improvidence of the
officers and unfaithfulness of the workmen cannot be excused,
such faults tending to the dishonouring and disarming of the
state cannot with duty be either coloured or concealed.
Perhaps this was stated a little too strongly, for in 1623, after a
refit costing under 1000_l._, 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 16,019_l._,
to which must be added 2160_l._ for launching and transporting her to
Chatham.[139]
[Sidenote: The Inquiry before James at Woolwich.]
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.