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]
[Sidenote: The Commission of 1618.]
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.
[Sidenote: The Algiers Expedition.]
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
sorry to observe your Lordships' displeasure contained against us
upon the suggestions of those whom nothing but their own demands
can satisfy.... Your Lordships may please to be advertised that
we contracted with him to build two pinnaces for twelve hundred
and seventy pounds, and have paid to his workmen and lent to
himself divers great sums of money over and above our contract
and his wages,[146] by reason whereof we conceive he is more
indebted to us than his wages demanded amounts unto, in a great
sum of money, and also we lent him two hundred pounds upon his
own bond yet unsatisfied. Notwithstanding, as formerly we have
certified your Lordships, and sundry times offered to Capt. Pett,
that we were ready to accompt with him that satisfaction might be
given if ought were due to either party, and we are still ready
to perform the same, yet because he rejects this motion and that
we are desirous your Lordships may be fully satisfied of our
honest intentions and proceedings and may be no further troubled
herein, we are therefore emboldened to become suitors to your
Lordships that the Commissioners of the Navy, or whom else your
Lordships shall please to appoint, may have the examination of
the account depending, and if upon their report anything be found
due we will take present order for payment thereof.
[Sidenote: Elizabeth Pett.]
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 325_l._ 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.
[Sidenote: The Destiny]
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 250_l._ 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 700_l._
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.
[Sidenote: The Voyage to Spain.]
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.
[Sidenote: Brown Paper Stuff.]
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]
[Sidenote: The Sovereign of the Seas.]
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:
According to your Ma^{ts} command we have examined the
particulars of the plot and the dimensions presented to
your Ma^{ty} by Capt. Pett, and by comparing the rules of
Art and experience together we have agreed to the Proportion
underwritten, which we most humbly submit to your Ma^{ts} further
pleasure.
Ft. Ins.
Length of the keel 127 0
Breadth within the plank 46 2
Depth in the hold from the breadth to the upper
edge of the keel 18 9
Keel and dead rising 2 6
Draught of water from the breadth to the lower
edge of the keel 21 3
The swimming line from the bottom of the
keel 18 9
The flat of the floor 13 0
Rake of the stem 38 0
Rake of the post 8 0
Height of the Tuck at the fashion piece 16 0
Breadth of the Transome 28 0
Height of the way forward 14 0
Distance of the ports 10 0
Ports upon the lower tier, square 2 8
Ports upon the second tier, square 2 6
Ports upon the third tier, round or square 2 4
Distance of the ports from the swimming line
with four months victuals at 5 0
With six months victuals at 4 6
The first deck from plank to plank 7 0
The second deck 7 3
The third deck 7 3
All the decks flush fore and aft, and the half deck, quarter deck
and forecastle according to the plot.
Ton and
Tonnage
1. This ship by the depth in hold will be 1466
2. By the draught in water 1661
3. By the mean breadth, which is the truest of all 1836
Your Ma^{ty} will be pleased to be informed that after mature
debate we have likewise agreed upon the rules to be proportioned
to each sweep of the midship bend, and where the bend is to be
placed, and likewise of the rules to be held in her narrowing
and rising lines, which we all pray may be only imparted to your
Ma^{ty}.
ROBERT MANSELL. J. PENNINGTON. J. WELLS.
PHINEAS PETT.
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:
Ft. Ins.
Length by the keel 126 0
Breadth at the beam 46 6
Breadth at the Transome 28 0
Breadth of the Floor 14 0
Breadth from the water 2 0
Draught of water 19 6
Ports from the water 5 0
Ports asunder 9ft., some more 9 0
Ports from the deck 2 0
Distance between the decks from plank to plank 7 6
Rake of the Stem 37 6
Rake of the Post 9 0
Height of the Tuck 17 0
Depth in hold from the seeling to the lower
edge of the beam 17 0
Sweep at the runghead 11 0
Sweep at the right of the mould 31 0
Sweep between the water line and the breadth 10 0
Sweep above the breadth 14 0
Burden in tons and tonnage by the old rule 1522
New rule 1884
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:
Ft. Ins.
AB = the half breadth 23 3
AC = the depth from greatest breadth
to top of keel 19 4
AD = the half flat of the floor 7 0
DE = the radius of the runghead sweep 11 0
FG = the radius of the sweep between
greatest breadth and the waterline 10 0
FH = the radius of the 'sweep above
the breadth' 14 0
We can now plot the curve of the section; Drawing the arc FI with
radius GF to a depth of 3 feet perpendicularly below CF, we obtain
the point I, and producing IG backwards to K, a point 31 feet distant
from I, we have the centre of the futtock sweep, or 'sweep at the
right of the mould,' which is given as 31 feet in radius. With this
radius from K we draw the arc IL cutting a line drawn from K through
E at L. On drawing the runghead sweep from D with radius of 11 feet
from centre E, it is found that this arc meets the other precisely at
L, and these two arcs 'reconcile,' _i.e._ are tangent to each other
at L, for the centres of both arcs lie in the same straight line KEL.
[Illustration: (drawing described above)]
The curve of the 'topsides' presents more difficulty, because we are
only given the radius of the 'sweep above the breadth,' but if we
assume that the distance CM, or total height of the midship section
above the greatest breadth, is equal to AC (and this seems to have
been the customary proportion), and that the reverse curve NO was
struck with the same radius as FN, namely 14 feet, we get a curve
for the half midship section ADLIFNO which cannot be far from the
original design, and in the lower portion must approximate to it very
closely indeed.
There are no data from which the plan or elevation can be
constructed, but it may be noted that the list in the State Papers
already quoted gives the length of keel as 127 feet, although the
tonnage remains as fixed by Pennington, so that, presumably, the
rakes of the stem- and stern-posts were also modified so as not to
increase the displacement, or rather the empirical measurement of it.
Some time during this year Peter Pett was petitioning the King for
license to print and publish 'the plot or draught of the great ship,'
a concession which he had apparently been promised,[166] but there
is no record of the answer returned to his petition, nor is there
any trace of the drawing, which may have been the original of the
well-known engraving by Payne. In 1663 Christopher Pett gave Pepys
a copy of the 'plate of the Soverayne with the table to it,'[167]
but whether this was Peter Pett's 'plot' or Payne's engraving with
additional details cannot now be ascertained.