Читать бесплатно онлайн книгу автора The Autobiography of Phineas Pett
E-text prepared by MWS, John Campbell,
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
(http://www.pgdp.net)
from page images generously made available by
Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries
(https://archive.org/details/toronto)
Note:
Images of the original pages are available through Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries. See
https://archive.org/details/autobiographyofp00pettuoftTRANSCRIBER'S NOTE
As noted in the Preface, some [missing words] in the text have been added inside brackets [ ] in this edition. Many archaic and nautical terms are explained in the Footnotes.
On some handheld devices the two genealogical tables are best viewed in a small font or in landscape mode. An image of each table from the original text is also provided.
More detail can be found at the end of the book.
PUBLICATIONS
OF THE
NAVY RECORDS SOCIETY
Vol. LI.
AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF PHINEAS PETT
THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF
PHINEAS PETT
EDITED BY
W. G. PERRIN
PRINTED FOR THE NAVY RECORDS SOCIETY
MDCCCCXVIII
THE COUNCIL
OF THE
NAVY RECORDS SOCIETY
1917-1918
PATRON
THE KING
PRESIDENT
THE RIGHT HON. LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, G.C.S.I.
VICE-PRESIDENTS
Corbett, Sir Julian S., F.S.A.
Custance, Admiral Sir Reginald N., G.C.B., K.C.M.G., C.V.O., D.C.L.
Firth, Professor C. H., LL.D., F.B.A.
Gray, Albert, K.C., C.B.
COUNCILLORS
Atkinson, C. T.
Bethell, Admiral Hon. Sir A.E., K.C.B., K.C.M.G.
Brindley, Harold H.
Callender, Geoffrey A. R.
Dartmouth, The Earl of, K.C.B.
Desart, The Earl of, K.C.B.
Dewar, Commander Alfred C., R.N.
Gough-Calthorpe, Vice-Admiral The Hon. Sir Somerset A., K.C.B., C.V.O.
Guinness, Captain Hon. Rupert E. C., C.B., C.M.G., M.P., R.N.V.R., Ad. C.
Kenyon, Sir Frederic G., K.C.B., D.Litt., F.B.A.
Leyland, John
Marsden, R. G.
Milford Haven, Admiral The Marquess of, P.C., G.C.B., G.C.V.O., K.C.M.G., LL.D., Ad. C.
Murray, John, C.V.O.
Newbolt, Sir Henry
Ottley, Rear-Admiral Sir Charles L., K.C.M.G., C.B., M.V.O.
Parry, Sir C. Hubert, Bt., C.V.O.
Pollen, Arthur H.
Richmond, Captain Herbert W., R.N.
Robinson, Commander Charles N., R.N.
Sanderson, Lord, G.C.B., K.C.M.G., I.S.O.
Slade, Admiral Sir Edmond J. W., K.C.I.E., K.C.V.O.
Smith, Commodore Aubrey C. H., M.V.O., R.N.
Tanner, J. R., Litt.D.
SECRETARY
Lieut.-Colonel W. G. Perrin, O.B.E., R.A.F., Admiralty, S.W.
HON. TREASURER
Sir W. Graham Greene, K.C.B., Ministry of Munitions, S.W.
The Council of the Navy Records Society wish it to be distinctly understood that they are not answerable for any opinions or observations that may appear in the Society's publications. For these the responsibility rests entirely with the Editors of the several works.
PREFACE
The manuscript in which Phineas Pett has recorded the story of his life from his birth in 1570 to the end of September 1638, consisted originally of sixty-nine uniform quarto sheets, of which the 52nd is now lost, together with the bottom of the 14th. The handwriting is that of Phineas throughout, but marginal references on the first few pages and a note at the end—'The life of Commissioner Pett's father whose place he did enjoy'—have been added subsequently by Samuel Pepys, no doubt when he was making the transcript referred to below.
The first paragraph is written on a separate sheet, which, unlike the rest, has no writing on the back, and is followed by a series of subtraction sums of the form 1612 1570 42 giving the age of Phineas for each year from 1612 to 1640. From the differences apparent in the figures and ink it is clear that these calculations were made year by year from the time that Phineas was forty-two until he reached the age of seventy.
A close inspection of the internal construction, the handwriting, and of the ink used, leads to the conclusion that the body of the manuscript, in the form in which it has descended to us, was written up, not at short intervals, but in sections at comparatively long intervals of time. The first and largest of these, written apparently in 1612, narrates the events down to September 1610, and stops at the word 'ordered' on line 15 of page 80 below. The remainder[1] of that paragraph continues on a fresh sheet in a smaller handwriting and different ink, and from that point the ample margin of the earlier pages is abandoned and a small one ruled off with lead pencil. The top line of this page is also ruled, and from this page to the end of the writing the use of these pencil lines persists. The next break is in July 1611 (page 92), where Pett reiterates the statement that he was sent for by Prince Henry. Another break in the writing seems to occur in September 1613; and a very perceptible one, with change of ink, occurs in 1625 at 'All April' (page 134). The final section, as indicated by a further change of ink, begins in February 1631: 'The 23rd of February' (page 146). The various anachronisms observable in the text show that these sections were written up some considerable time after the events occurred. Thus, the references to 'Sir' John Pennington in 1627 and 1628 make it clear that the events of those years were not written up before 1634.
From the great accuracy of the dates given (which have been frequently tested from contemporary sources), it is clear that Phineas kept a diary in which events were recorded as they occurred, and from which the narrative was compiled. He appears to have commenced this diary on going to Chatham in June 1600, when precise dates begin to replace the vague 'about,' 'toward the end,' &c., of the earlier paragraphs.
The narrative stops abruptly in 1638, apparently with the sentence unfinished, for there is no mark of punctuation after the last word. In 1640, when the final section seems to have been written, Pett was an old man, and it is probable that, having been interrupted at this point, the fast-gathering troubles of the State diverted his mind from the subject, or left him without sufficient energy or leisure to pursue it.
It will be noticed that towards the end the composition becomes more slovenly and the omission of words more frequent, as though the task had become burdensome and the author anxious to have done with it.
Pepys copied the whole of the manuscript into the first volume of his Miscellany with the following preface:
'A Journal of Phineas Pett, Esquire, Commissioner of the Navy and father to Peter Pett, late Commissioner of the same at Chatham, viz: from his birth Ao 1570 to the arrival of the Royal Sovereign, by him then newly built, at her moorings at Chatham; transcribed from the original written all with his own hand and lent me to that purpose by his grandson Mr. Phineas, son to Captain Phineas Pett.'
The manuscript afterwards came into the possession of George Jackson, who was Secretary of the Navy Board in 1758 and Second Secretary of the Admiralty from 1766 to 1782. Sir George Duckett (he had changed his surname in 1797) died in 1822, and ten years later his library, including a very valuable collection of naval manuscripts, was sold by auction. Fortunately the manuscripts were purchased by the British Museum after being bought in at the sale; the volume (No. IV) in which this manuscript was contained becoming Additional MS. 9298. A commonplace book (Additional MS. 9295) containing, among copies of various naval documents, an abbreviated version was purchased at the same time.
The copy of the autobiography most generally known is the early eighteenth-century transcript in the Harleian Collection (Harl. 6279). It is to this copy that writers usually refer, possibly because it is mentioned in the paper[2] published in Archæologia in 1796, although the garbled extracts there given are stated to have been taken 'from another copy' and seem, in fact, to have been taken from the original.[3] A further reason for the preference generally shown for the Harleian copy may be its more modern and more clerkly handwriting.
The Harleian transcript is not a good one. It contains few omissions, none of great importance, but mistranscriptions of individual words are very numerous and have reduced the text to nonsense in several places.[4] It may seem strange that writers should be content to quote passages that were evidently incorrect, without looking at another copy, which was easily to be found; but whatever the reason may be, the fact is that hitherto the original has remained unidentified as such.
The best transcript is that made by Pepys; but even he had difficulty in deciphering some of the words, although the handwriting of Pett is, on the whole, very clear and consistent.
In preparing this edition, the Pepysian and Harleian copies have been collated and the missing parts of the original made good by this means; but as the numerous inversions of form and mistakes of reading in these copies have no general interest—and are of no authority in presence of the original—there is no need to specify them in detail.
Considerable licence has been taken with the punctuation of the sentences, which is entirely without system in the original, and the spelling has been modernised in accordance with the rule of the Society, but the composition has been left otherwise untouched. Where some word is necessary to complete the sense it has been added in square brackets [ ], and the parts now missing from the original, which have been supplied from the transcripts, have been printed in italics. The legal year in England, prior to 1752, did not commence until the 25th March, and Pett usually gives his dates by this reckoning, but in one or two instances he writes as though the year had begun on 1st January and ended on 31st December. To avoid misunderstanding, it may be stated that the dates in the Introduction, headings, and notes are given according to the Julian year, commencing on 1st January.
Pett invariably wrote and signed 'Phinees' but it has been thought better to adhere to the spelling 'Phineas,' which appears from time to time in documents from 1605 onwards and has been universally adopted by modern writers.
In the Introduction an attempt has been made: first, to trace the rise of the Master Shipwright as an official of the Crown and to consider his relation to the profession of shipwrights generally; secondly, to trace the origin of the Pett family and its ramifications down to the date of Phineas' death; thirdly, to throw additional light on the events narrated in the manuscript from such original sources as are accessible. In asking the indulgence of the reader towards the evident shortcomings of this attempt, the Editor would plead that most of the work has had to be carried out under great difficulties in scanty moments of leisure. Despite the generous assistance of Mr. Vincent Redstone of Woodbridge, whose extensive knowledge of Suffolk genealogy has been brought to bear on the problem, it has not been found possible to trace the Pett family to its original location, but it is hoped that sufficient has been done to render this task more easy to some future investigator.
In conclusion the Editor has to thank many friends for the help readily given, more especially Dr. Tanner, who has read the proofs and given the Introduction the benefit of his criticism, and Mr. G. E. Manwaring, of the London Library, who has rendered invaluable help in clearing up many obscure points, and he is indebted to Mrs Scott for the loan of the MS. treatise on shipbuilding referred to in the Introduction. The Editor has also had the great advantage of discussing with Mr. L. G. Carr Laughton the technical questions raised in connexion with the Prince Royal and the Sovereign of the Seas.
December 1918.
W. G. P.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Probably rewritten when the narrative was taken up again.
[2] By the Rev. S. Denne, Archæologia xii. p. 217.
[3] The words 'and ourselves to sit with the Officers' (page 144), not in the Harleian copy, are in the printed version.
[4] E.g. 'Articles' for 'Arches,' p. 14; 'enemy' for 'injury,' p. 26; 'tarried' for 'arrived,' p. 25; 'Frank Moore' for 'Tranckmore,' p. 33; 'perceived' for 'protested,' p. 61; 'care' for 'ease,' p. 104; 'Warwick,' for 'Woolwich' p. 142, &c., &c.
CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction
The Shipwrights
xvThe Family of Pett
xliiPhineas Pett
liiThe Autobiography
1Appendices
I.
Grant to Phineas Pett
173II.
Petition of Shipwrights
175III.
Charter to Shipwrights' Company (1605)
176IV.
Charter to Shipwrights' Company (1612)
179V.
New Building the Prince Royal
207VI.
Petition to the Admiralty (1631)
210VII.
Letter to Buckingham (1623)
212VIII.
Protest against Building the Sovereign
214IX.
Ships Built or Rebuilt by Phineas Pett
217X.
The Arms of Pett
218Index
219
[1] Probably rewritten when the narrative was taken up again.
[2] By the Rev. S. Denne, Archæologia xii. p. 217.
[3] The words 'and ourselves to sit with the Officers' (page 144), not in the Harleian copy, are in the printed version.
[4] E.g. 'Articles' for 'Arches,' p. 14; 'enemy' for 'injury,' p. 26; 'tarried' for 'arrived,' p. 25; 'Frank Moore' for 'Tranckmore,' p. 33; 'perceived' for 'protested,' p. 61; 'care' for 'ease,' p. 104; 'Warwick,' for 'Woolwich' p. 142, &c., &c.
A close inspection of the internal construction, the handwriting, and of the ink used, leads to the conclusion that the body of the manuscript, in the form in which it has descended to us, was written up, not at short intervals, but in sections at comparatively long intervals of time. The first and largest of these, written apparently in 1612, narrates the events down to September 1610, and stops at the word 'ordered' on line 15 of page 80 below. The remainder[1] of that paragraph continues on a fresh sheet in a smaller handwriting and different ink, and from that point the ample margin of the earlier pages is abandoned and a small one ruled off with lead pencil. The top line of this page is also ruled, and from this page to the end of the writing the use of these pencil lines persists. The next break is in July 1611 (page 92), where Pett reiterates the statement that he was sent for by Prince Henry. Another break in the writing seems to occur in September 1613; and a very perceptible one, with change of ink, occurs in 1625 at 'All April' (page 134). The final section, as indicated by a further change of ink, begins in February 1631: 'The 23rd of February' (page 146). The various anachronisms observable in the text show that these sections were written up some considerable time after the events occurred. Thus, the references to 'Sir' John Pennington in 1627 and 1628 make it clear that the events of those years were not written up before 1634.
The copy of the autobiography most generally known is the early eighteenth-century transcript in the Harleian Collection (Harl. 6279). It is to this copy that writers usually refer, possibly because it is mentioned in the paper[2] published in Archæologia in 1796, although the garbled extracts there given are stated to have been taken 'from another copy' and seem, in fact, to have been taken from the original.[3] A further reason for the preference generally shown for the Harleian copy may be its more modern and more clerkly handwriting.
The copy of the autobiography most generally known is the early eighteenth-century transcript in the Harleian Collection (Harl. 6279). It is to this copy that writers usually refer, possibly because it is mentioned in the paper[2] published in Archæologia in 1796, although the garbled extracts there given are stated to have been taken 'from another copy' and seem, in fact, to have been taken from the original.[3] A further reason for the preference generally shown for the Harleian copy may be its more modern and more clerkly handwriting.
The Harleian transcript is not a good one. It contains few omissions, none of great importance, but mistranscriptions of individual words are very numerous and have reduced the text to nonsense in several places.[4] It may seem strange that writers should be content to quote passages that were evidently incorrect, without looking at another copy, which was easily to be found; but whatever the reason may be, the fact is that hitherto the original has remained unidentified as such.
The King[608] to all to whom etc. greeting. Whereas our dearest Sister Elizabeth late deceased Queen of England by her letters patent under the great seal of England bearing date at Westminster the twenty-third day of January in the twenty-sixth year[609] of her reign gave and granted for herself her heirs and successors unto Mathew Baker and John Addey Shipwrights and to the longer liver of either of them among other[610] things a certain annuity or annual rent of twelve pence sterling a day: to have and to receive yearly the said annuity or annual rent of twelve pence sterling a day to the aforesaid Matthew Baker and John Addey and their assigns and to the longer liver of either of them from the Feast of the Nativity of the Lord then last past before the date of the same letters patent during the natural life of the same Mathew Baker and John Addey and the longer liver of either of them from her Treasury and that of her heirs and successors at the Receipt of the Exchequer at Westminster of herself her heirs and successors at the hands of the Treasurer and Chamberlain of her her heirs and successors there for the time in being at the four terms of the year namely at the Feast of the Annunciation of the B.V. Mary of St. John the Baptist of St. Michael the Archangel and of the Nativity of the Lord in equal portions. And whereas also our same dearest Sister Elizabeth by other letters patent under the great seal of England bearing date at Westminster the twenty-ninth day of July in the thirty-second year of her reign[611] gave and granted for herself her heirs and successors to Joseph Pett Shipwright another annuity or annual fee of twelve pence a day of lawful money of England; to have hold and receive unto the same Joseph Pett and his assigns during the natural life of the same Joseph Pett from the Treasury of her her heirs and successors at the Receipt of the Exchequer at Westminster by the hands of the Treasurer and Chamberlain there and from time to time existing, as by the several said letters patent more plainly doth appear. Which said Mathew Baker and John Addey and Joseph Pett to this day remain alive and to this present have and enjoy the said several annuities by virtue of the several letters patent aforesaid. Know ye that we of our special grace and sure knowledge and mere motion also in consideration of the good true and faithful service to us done and hereafter to be done by our beloved and faithful subject Phineas Pett now serving our dearest son Henry Prince of Wales both in the building of the ships of us our heirs and successors and in his attendance on our marine affairs and causes have given and granted and by these presents for ourself our heirs and successors do give and grant to the same Phineas Pett that annuity or annual fee of twelve pence sterling a day of good and lawful money of England out of the two above named annuities whichever first after the date of these presents by death resignation surrender or composition of any one of the aforesaid Mathew Baker and John Addey and Joseph Pett or in any other manner shall have become vacant or determined or shall hereafter become vacant or cease. To have hold enjoy and receive the said annuity or annual fee of twelve pence a day as is in manner aforesaid vacated or determined or shall hereafter determine to the aforesaid Phineas Pett or his assigns for the term of the natural life of the same Phineas immediately from the time at which either of those annuities shall first become vacant or determine as aforesaid from the Treasury of us our heirs and successors at the Receipt of our Exchequer at Westminster by the hands of the Treasurers and Chamberlains of us our heirs and successors there from time to time in being at the four terms of the year namely at the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel the Nativity of the Lord the Annunciation of the B.V. Mary and the Nativity of St. John the Baptist in equal portions to the aforesaid Phineas Pett or his assigns during the natural life of the same Phineas Pett annually to be paid the first payment thereupon commencing at that feast of the aforesaid feasts which first and nearest shall fall after one of the two separate aforesaid annuities of twelve pence a day shall become vacant or determined in the mode and fashion above specified. Although express mention etc. In witness etc. Witness the King[612] at Westminster the 26th day of April.
In most humble and reverent wise do complain unto your honours as well the Mr. Shipwrights of her Majesty's Ships, as also all other of the same art, that take charge over any of that faculty, be it in ships, boats, barges, or any such like vessels, both appertaining to her Majesty or her Highness' subjects, specially within the liberty of the Thames and other places near adjoining to the same. In the which place, as all kind of vessels are greatly increased, so are the artificers likewise augmented, only in number, but less in skill, whereby such as do use them are not only deceived but also the work greatly endangered. Besides their manners are mutinous even in her Majesty's service, and their exactions intolerable amongst her Majesty's subjects. These and many other enormities, which daily increase to the great grief of many her Majesty's good and honest subjects, may bring the art to a ruinous state.
[Power to meet in their hall and] to entreat consult determine constitute ordain and make any Constitutions Statutes Laws Ordinances Articles and Orders whatsoever ... touching or concerning the good estate rule order and good government of the said Master Wardens and Commonalty ... and in what Order and manner the said Master Wardens and Commonalty ... and all other person and persons using the said art or mystery within this Realm of England or Dominion of Wales shall demean and behave themselves [with power to punish offenders.... Power to] view search and survey all and every the Works and Workmanship of all and every person or persons whatsoever making working or building or which hereafter shall make work or build any manner of ships, pinnaces or other vessels and all manner of timber and wood appointed provided and fitted for the building of ships ... [Ships found to be] falsely and deceitfully and untruly made wrought and builded [timber, wood, &c. to be put in safe custody and complaint made to Justices of Peace.... Power to] buy and provide in any the places beyond the seas all such timber planks masts deals spars and wood and also all pitch, tar, rosin and oil as they shall think necessary and convenient for the building or repairing of ships pinnaces or other vessels [and bring same to England or Wales on payment of custom and other duties. Since the Master Wardens and Commonalty] are to be as occasion shall be offered employed and attendant upon the Navigation of Us [etc., the said Master Wardens and Commonalty shall not] be enforced put placed or impannelled in or upon any Assises Juries Inquests or Attaints whatsoever [nor] be pressed or enforced to serve ... as land soldiers....
Sebastian Vicars, for carved works by him wrought and performed aboard his Highness' ship the Prince, lately new built at Woolwich. That is to say, in the beakhead for carving the George, 20l.; the trailboard, 10l.; the sideboard, 16l.; of two boards for the half rail between the planchers, 9l.; of 14 brackets for both, 13l. 6s. 8d.; of two lions for the half rail, 50s.; of a serpent for the tacks, 13s. 4d.; of two great mask heads for the two hawsers, and of two fish heads for steadying the main knee, 30s.; for carving the sides without board, viz: of 104 brackets along the sides without board, 12l. 6s. 8d.; of 47 compartments in the lower strake, 110s.; of 14 great lion heads for the round ports, 10l.; of 12 Prince's badges in the middle strake, 12l.; for carving 9 compartments in the same strake, 110s.; of the King's badges on the sides without board, 22l.; of one pair of the King's arms and another of the King's and Queen's together, 15l.; of four terms[616] on either side the arms, 75s.; of four ports, two in the bow and two in the quarter abaft, with four taffrails, 110s.; of 4 scuttles of windows, 4l.; of 8 trophies in the upper strake, 110s.; of 14 brackets in the narrow strake and 12 compartments, 55s.; and of four hansing pieces in the waist, 53s. 4d.; for carving the two sides in the lower gallery, 20l.; of 26 brackets, 6l.; of 12 supporters under the galleries, 6l.; and of the frieze round about, 8l.; for carving of 6 panels with stories on the middle of the gallery, 18l.; of 16 arches, 60s.; of ten great terms, 10l.; of 14 little terms, 6l. 10s.; of two great badges of the Prince's, 8l.; of four of the Prince's letters, 25s.; of ten Dragons for supporters, 100s.; of two great arches within the galleries, 13s. 4d.; and of four hansing pieces, 40s.; for the carving the two sides on the upper gallery, 15l.; of the ten brackets, 40s.; of eight beasts, 70s.; of ten taffrails, 25s. 8d.; for carving of four great terms in the stern, 6l.; of three great arches, 60s.; of two great lions' heads, 33s. 4d.; of the rudder head and tiller, 20s.; of the planks cross the stern, 6l. 13s. 4d.; of the frieze, 4l.; of seven brackets, 33s. 4d.; of two dragons, 40s.; of seven pendants, 68s.; of eight terms, 7l. 10s.; of six arches, 25s.; of the Prince's badges, 4l.; of two letters on either side of the badge, 16s.; of two pieces of Victory and Fame, 7l.; of the plank cross the stern in the upper gallery, 7l.; of six brackets, 25s.; of six beasts, 66s. 8d.; and of five taffrails, 15s.; for carving the King's arms ten foot wide in the upright, 22l.; and of two pyramids with two boys sitting on the top showing for Peace or War, 6l.; for carving four terms for the doors in the forecastle, 35s.; of a frieze round about, 35s.; of four terms and four cartowes,[617] 55s.; and of two hansing pieces, 40s.; for carving of six terms and six cantlappers[618] and two arches for the doors in the forecastle within board, 6l.; of three orpins,[619] 73s. 4d.; of six brackets, 15s.; of four badges of the King's, 60s.; and of the bellhouse and knights' heads, 56s. 8d., for carved work in the bulkhead abaft, viz. of six terms and six cantlappers, 6l.; of four cantlappers and six arches to give light under the half deck, 35s.; of seven brackets and six compartments in the narrow frieze, 35s.; for carving twelve arches on both the sides of the half deck and of 28 brackets, 7l.; for carving of six terms for three doors and six cantlappers with three arches on the quarter deck, 9l.; of two terms and two cantlappers, 30s.; and of two hansing pieces and the knights' heads, 30s.; and for carving two orpins and two brackets on the roundhouse, 20s.; and of two hansing pieces, 20s. In all 441l. 4d.
VI
Petition to the Admiralty
[S.P. Dom., Chas. I, cxciv. 47]
Noble Sir,—I have nothing to tender you for many favours received from you but the return of my thanks, and particularly for this last courtesy about the petition delivered against me which I have, herein enclosed, returned together with my answer, desiring you to be pleased it may be both presented and read to the Lords Commissioners, whose order herein I shall with all humble submission assent unto, not doubting of your careful favour herein, which I shall study to requite with my best acknowledgments, beseeching you to be pleased so far to mediate for me that the plaintiff may not have power from their lordships to bring disgrace upon me, whereby his Majesty's service may suffer as well as myself, by giving leave to have me intercepted when I am to attend the ordinary meeting of the principal officers of his Majesty's Navy, within the city, where they wait for advantage. So leaving myself to your care I take leave and rest
At your service,
Phineas Pett.
Chatham, 22nd June, 1631.
I pray, sir, be pleased to return me word by this bearer when his Majesty is to go to Portsmouth.
(Endorsed) To my honoured friend Edward Nicholas, Esquire, Secretary to the right honourable Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty of England these
Westminster.
47 I.
To the right honourable the lords and other Commissioners of the Admiralty of England.
The humble answer of Phineas Pett, his Majesty's servant, to the petition of Lewes Tayte, smith.
I do acknowledge I become debtor[620] to this petitioner for ironwork delivered to the building of a new ship called the Destiny, built by me for Sir Walter Ralegh, from whom I could never receive satisfaction for the said work by 700l., which I was forced to venture with him in his voyage, wherein he failing, and at his return the ship seized into his Majesty's hands, I suffered the loss of the whole debt.
I was contented to give this petitioner my bond for payment of his debt, notwithstanding my great loss, some part whereof was orderly paid, and the rest I should have easily satisfied had not a greater loss presently befallen me, through the occasion of building two small ships for the expedition of Algiers, wherein I sustained (by the overworks, and charge of the journey wherein I served as Captain in one of those ships) the loss of above 900l., towards which I could never hitherto recover one penny satisfaction.
By these two great losses suddenly befalling me, almost together, I was utterly disabled either to satisfy the debts arising from these businesses, or to raise means to maintain myself and poor family.
Notwithstanding I have out of the little remnants of my poor fortunes paid above 500l. of these debts within the space of 6 years, which I never so much as drank for, and I do yearly still contribute the better half of my small means towards the satisfying the rest as carefully as I can.
I have often entreated this petitioner's patience, as knowing his abilities better able to forbear than others, interested as himself in the same business, he having also made more gain by his commodities than any other. Always tendering satisfaction to him as I could take of other debts, to the utmost my fortunes would extend unto, and am very ready and willing yearly to pay unto him such a sum as your lordships in your honourable considerations of the premises, and my present fortunes, shall order me to do. Humbly submitting myself to your Lordships' favourable construction.
Phineas Pett.
INTRODUCTION
1.—The Shipwrights.
It might be supposed that so ancient a craft as that of shipbuilding would have left some trace in contemporary records of its activities, the methods of its technique, and the personalities of those engaged in it. Yet although references to ships and shipping are frequent in the records of this country from the earliest times, and although the shipwright was a distinct class of workman at least as early as the tenth century—probably much earlier—no record of the methods in which he set about the design and construction of ships earlier than the end of the sixteenth century appears to have survived.
It may be presumed that those of our earlier kings who possessed a navy royal, and did not rely entirely on the support of the Cinque Ports and of the merchant shipping, would include among their servants some skilled man to perform the functions of a master shipwright, and if not to design, at any rate to look to the upkeep of the king's ships and to watch the construction in private yards of those intended for the royal service. But if the Clerk of the Ships, who first comes into notice in the reign of John, had any such subordinate, his existence before the end of the reign of Henry V is not known to us. It is, however, possible that, on occasion, this duty was performed by the king's carpenters, whose principal function seems to have been to keep the woodwork of the royal castles in repair. In 1337 forty oaks required in the construction of a galley, then being built at Hull for Edward III under the superintendence of William de la Pole, a prominent merchant of that town, were supplied by the Prior of Blyth, who was directed to hand them over to William de Kelm (Kelham), the king's carpenter (carpentario nostro).[5] The accounts for this galley have not survived, and there is no means of ascertaining whether William de Kelm had anything to do with the actual construction. Another galley and a barge were at the same time being built at Lynn under Thomas and William de Melcheburn. The accounts[6] show that the master carpenter (magister carpentariorum) of the galley was John Kech, who was paid at the rate of sixpence[7] a day and had under him six carpenters at fivepence a day, six 'clynckers' at fourpence, six holders at threepence, and four labourers (servientes) at twopence halfpenny. The master carpenter of the barge was Ralph atte Grene, who received the same rate of pay as Kech. Neither Kech nor Grene appear as the King's servants.
In 1421 the 'King's servant' John Hoggekyns, 'master carpenter of the king's ships,' was granted by letters patent a pension of fourpence a day, 'because in labouring long about them he is much shaken and deteriorated in body,' and this grant was confirmed in December of the following year on the accession of Henry VI. In 1416-18 Hoggekyns had built the Grace Dieu, 'if not the largest, probably the best equipped ship yet built in England.'[8]
With the sale of most of the royal navy on the death of Henry V, the need for a 'master carpenter of the King's Ships' must have passed away, and no trace of any further appointment of this character has been found for over a century. The construction of the Regent in 1486 was entrusted by Henry VII to the Master of the Ordnance, and it seems probable that the design of the Henri Grace à Dieu, built in 1514, was the work of the Clerk of the Ships, Robert Brygandin,[9] although the superintendence of her building was entrusted to William Bond (or Bound), who is described in 1519 as 'late clerk of the poultry, surveyor, and payer of expenses for the construction of the Henri Grace à Dieu and the three other galleys.'[10]
It is not until the later years of Henry VIII's reign that steps appear to have been taken to establish in the royal service a permanent body of men skilled in the art of shipbuilding. From the earliest times of which records exist it had been the practice to send out agents to the various ports to impress the shipwrights, caulkers, sawyers, and other workmen required for the construction and repair of ships of the Royal Navy. This system was no doubt satisfactory while the merchant ship and the royal ship presented no essential points of difference; the latter were, indeed, often let out to hire for mercantile purposes. But when the ship-of-war began to carry a larger number of guns than the trading ship found necessary for her protection—a change that may be roughly dated from the end of the fifteenth century—the methods of construction began to diverge, and the old system of casual impressment must have tended to become less and less satisfactory; so that when Henry, after remodelling the material of the Navy, turned, at the end of his reign, to the improvement of the Administration he no doubt saw the necessity of attracting permanently to his service men capable of directing the art of shipbuilding, as applied to ships of war, in the new channels in which it was henceforth destined to run.
Up to this point, the position of the shipwright—even of the Master Shipwright—was not an exalted one. He was classed among 'servants' and 'artificers,' and his pay was made the subject of legislation expressly designed to keep the wages of those classes as low as possible. In 'Naval Accounts and Inventories of the Reign of Henry VII, 1485-8 and 1495-7,' Mr. Oppenheim has edited material which illustrates the various rates paid to shipwrights, and has pointed out that these rates of pay 'had remained practically unaltered since the days of Henry V.' An Act of Parliament of 1495[11] laid down the following scale of payments:—
From Candlemas to Michaelmas.With meat and drink, a day
Without meat and drink, a day
Master Ship Carpenter with charge of work and men under him
5
d.7
d.Other Ship Carpenter called a Hewer
4
d.6
d.An able Clincher
3
d.5
d.Holder
2
d.4
d.Master Caulker
4
d.6
d.A mean Caulker
3
d.5
d.Caulker labouring by the tide, for as long as he may labour above water and beneath water, shall not exceed for every tide
4
d.—
From Michaelmas to Candlemas.Master Shipwright
4
d.6
d.Hewer
3
d.5
d.Able Clincher
2½
d.4½
d.Holder
1½
d.3
d.Master Caulker
3
d.5
d.A mean Caulker
2½
d.4½
d.This Act was repealed in 1496, but the same scale was fixed in 1514 by an Act[12] that was not repealed until 1562.
It will be observed that the highest rate under these Acts is sevenpence a day, although in several instances in the accounts[13] referred to above a Master Shipwright was paid eightpence a day.
When Henry VIII instituted[14] the practice of granting by letters patent an annuity for life to certain shipwrights performing the duties of the office known later as 'the Master Shipwright,' he fixed the daily rate upon the basis set forth above, but it must be borne in mind that (as will be shown later) this did not represent the total emoluments of that official, who was in effect raised, both as to emoluments and status, above the class in which he had formerly been placed.
The first of the succession of officials thus established by Henry appears to have been James Baker, who by letters patent[15] dated the 20th May 1538 was granted, as from Michaelmas 1537, an annuity for life of fourpence a day, the lowest rate of a Master Shipwright, or Master Ship Carpenter as he was alternatively called by the Acts referred to. The entry in the Roll is of some interest; unlike the later grants, this grant is not based upon past services, but solely upon services which are to be rendered in the future,[16] and the authority for the letters patent is not the usual writ of privy seal, but the direct motion of the King: 'per ipsum Regem.' In December 1544 new letters patent were issued,[17] in which Baker is described as a 'Shipwright' and the annuity (annuitatem sive annualem redditum) fixed at eightpence a day. In January of the same year, Peter Pett, 'Shipwright,' had by letters patent been granted a wage and fee (vadium et feodum) of sixpence a day for life, as from Michaelmas 1543, 'in consideration of his good and faithful service done and to be done'; from which it appears that Peter Pett was already in the royal service. It is probable that the increase in Baker's annuity was intended to mark his superior position in relation to Pett.
The official title of 'master shipwright' does not appear as yet in use, for when Baker and other shipwrights were, in the next year, sent by the Council, at the request of the Lord Admiral, to Portsmouth to examine into the decay of one of the ships there, they were simply described as 'Masters James Baker and others skilful in ships.'[18] In addition to Baker and Pett, these included John Smyth, Robert Holborn, and Richard Bull. On the 23rd April 1548 these three latter, under the designation of 'Shipwrights,' together with Richard Osborn, anchor-smith, 'had by bill signed by the King's Majesty each of them 4d. per diem in consideration of their long and good service and that they should instruct others in their feats.'[19] Smyth and Holborn were hardly in the same category as Baker and Peter Pett. They seem to have been skilled mechanics rather than constructors or designers, and are not mentioned as having 'built' a ship, though this is perhaps due to the scantiness of the surviving records; but the fact that the formality of letters patent was dispensed with in connexion with this grant is significant. Bull was, however, in May 1550 granted 12d. a day from Midsummer 1549 by letters patent in the usual terms,[20] and since Peter Pett was not granted this higher rate until April 1558,[21] in the last year of Mary's reign, it would seem as though Bull's services were rated by Edward VI more highly than Pett's. James Baker does not seem to have long survived Henry VIII. Probably he died in 1549, and Bull received Baker's annuity, since it is not likely that an additional annuity would be created for Bull at that time, and there is no mention of any reversion in Bull's patent.
Little is known of Bull[22] or of another master shipwright 'William Stephins'[23] who is mentioned in 1553 and 1558. The latter may have been the ancestor of the Stevens[24] who built the Warspite in 1596, and contested the place of Master Shipwright with Phineas.
In 1572 Mathew Baker, son of James, succeeded to Bull's annuity. The letters patent[25] by which the grant was made are different in form from those above referred to, for Baker is first granted the office of Master Shipwright[26] with all profits and emoluments pertaining to it, which he is to hold in as ample a mode and form as 'a certain Richard Bull, deceased,' or any other, had held such office, and then, for the exercise of this office, he is granted the usual annuity of 12d. a day for life, as from Lady Day 1572.
In January 1584 Baker attended personally at the Exchequer and of his free will surrendered this grant in exchange for one in similar form[27] made out to himself and John Addey[28] with reversion to the longer liver. The reasons why Baker thus formally adopted Addey as his successor do not appear. However, Baker outlived him, dying in 1613, whereas Addey died in 1606 at Deptford, where he was then the Master Shipwright.
In July 1582 Peter Pett had appeared at the Exchequer and surrendered his patent of 1558, receiving in exchange a joint patent,[29] in similar terms, for himself and his eldest son, William, who was already in the royal service as a shipwright,[30] with reversion to the longer liver. William, however, died in 1587, two years before his father, so that the annuity never reverted to him. In his will he describes himself as one of her Majesty's Master Shipwrights, and from the reference to him in the patent above referred to it seems probable that he held the office in 1584.
In 1587 Richard Chapman received a grant[31] of the office of 'Naupegiarius,' which was to be held on similar terms (modo et forma) to those in which Peter Pett and Mathew Baker or any other held like office, but the annuity granted with it was 20d. a day, and not the usual 12d. Apparently this was an additional post created especially for Chapman, and the 20d. indicates the rise that had by that time taken place in the shipwrights' rates of pay.
In July 1590 Joseph Pett was granted 12d. a day as from Midsummer.[32] Presumably this was the annuity that had reverted to the Exchequer on the death of his father in 1589, his brother William, who had held the reversion of it, being already dead; but the patent contains no reference to this, the grant being based upon 'his good and faithful service done and to be done in building our ships.' Unlike those issued to Mathew Baker and Chapman, this patent contains no reference to office and is in the earlier form. Phineas (see p. 4) dates Joseph's succession to his father's place as Master Shipwright in 1592, but this is evidently incorrect.
In April 1592 Chapman died[33] at Deptford, and William Bright, one of the Assistant Master Shipwrights, succeeded to his post and annuity of 20d.[34] In July 1603 Edward Stevens, who was a private shipbuilder of some importance,[35] obtained a grant by letters patent[36] in terms that differ from those hitherto noticed. In consideration of service to be rendered in the future (post-hac), he is granted an office of Master Shipwright for life—which office he is to have and exercise directly one becomes vacant, in as ample a manner as Mathew Baker, William Bright and Joseph Pett or any other had held it—together with an annuity of 20d. a day for his services. Finally the patent concludes by declaring that no one else shall be admitted to such an office until after Stevens has been duly appointed and installed. This was the patent that gave Phineas such 'great discouragement' (p. 20). It is drawn up in due form, and it is difficult to understand on what grounds it can legally have been set aside. The patent[37] granted to Phineas in 1604 did not revoke it, it was not recalled, and it would appear that it was in virtue of this same patent that Stevens was finally admitted as Master Shipwright in 1613. However, Phineas, by the all-powerful influence of the Lord High Admiral, managed to get it set aside in his favour on the death of his brother Joseph in 1605, 'by reason the fee was mistaken wherein his Majesty was abused and charged with an innovation.'[38] The 'innovation' was evidently the grant of a 'general reversion.' It would have been interesting to see the arguments laid before the Council by Stevens when, as Phineas tells us, he contested the decision, but unfortunately all the Council Registers from 1603 to 1613 perished in the fire at Whitehall in 1618. There is little wonder that Stevens (who was an older man and had, one would imagine, superior claims) bore a grudge against Pett. Stevens appears to have been appointed as Master Shipwright in the vacancy caused by the death of Baker in 1613. In 1614 he was Master Shipwright at Portsmouth, and was in 1621 serving with Phineas as his 'fellow' Master Shipwright at Chatham, where he died, being succeeded by Henry Goddard in 1626.
On 26th April 1604 Phineas, by the assistance of the Lord High Admiral, obtained the grant by letters patent of two chances of the reversion of an annuity of 12d. a day, either that of Baker-Addey or that of his brother Joseph. His brother was the first to die, and at the end of the following year Phineas succeeded to the annuity that had been in the hands of the Petts since 1544.
It is of interest to note that the patent was not of itself sufficient to enable the patentee to enter into the office of Master Shipwright; the Lord High Admiral's warrant was also necessary. A specimen of such a warrant has been preserved in the State Papers[39] in the case of Goddard, who succeeded Stevens in 1626, having held a reversion by patent since 1620, and runs as follows:—
Whereas we have received certain knowledge of the death of Edward Stevens late one of his Majesty's Master Shipwrights and the necessity and importance of his Majesty's Service requireth another man to be presently entered in his place. And forasmuch as the bearer hereof Henry Goddard is authorised by his Majesty's letters patents to execute the next place of a Master Shipwright that should become void by death or otherwise. And in regard we have had good experience of the sufficiency and honesty of the said Henry Goddard and that the said place of one of his Majesty's Master Shipwrights is granted to him by his Majesty's letters patents under the great seal of England. These are therefore to will and require you to cause the said Henry Goddard to be entered one of his Majesty's Master Shipwrights with such allowances as is usual.
Hereof we require you not to fail. And for your so doing this shall be your warrant.
Dated the 16 of September 1626.
J. Coke.
To our very loving friend Peter Buck, Esq., Clerk of his Majesty's Check at Chatham or his deputy.
The Lord High Admiral's records have long since disappeared, and in the State Papers for the period with which we are concerned very few documents remain of the bulk of naval records that must once have existed. This one is therefore of considerable interest on account of the light which it throws upon the very independent position of the Lord High Admiral in relation to the Crown: it may be doubted whether any other great officer of State was in a position of such authority that he could presume to ratify a grant that had already passed the Great Seal.
At the time when Phineas became a Master Shipwright, the ordinary wages of the post, paid by the Treasurer of the Navy, were 2s. a day; to this was added the Exchequer fee or annuity of 12d. (or in the case of Bright 20d.) a day. Besides these Mathew Baker received a pension from the Exchequer of £40 a year granted by writ of Privy Seal, said to be 'in recompense of his service after the building of the Merhonour'; a concession that at a later period[40] was extended to Phineas. Thus, at that period, the total yearly emoluments of Mathew Baker were £94, 15s.; of Bright £66, 18s. 4d.; and of Phineas Pett £54, 15s.; while the East India Company paid Burrell, their Master Shipwright, £200. After making allowance for the difference in the value of money at the beginning of the seventeenth century and its present (or rather pre-war) value,[41] it is clear that these were inadequate emoluments for so important a post, and it is not surprising that many of the Master Shipwrights kept private shipbuilding yards,[42] while all added to their income at the expense of the Crown in ways that were very irregular and constantly gave rise to scandal. Probably none was more adept in this art than Phineas himself.
In addition to the Master Shipwrights receiving an additional allowance from the Exchequer under letters patent, who seem to have been known as the 'principal' Master Shipwrights, there were others who, although they were never fortunate enough to succeed to an Exchequer annuity, performed the duties of the post, to which, apparently, they were admitted by warrant from the Lord High Admiral before their reversions under letters patent fell due. In this category were William Pett and Addey.
The relationship between the royal shipwrights and the commercial shipbuilders was at all times very close. Not only did the former engage freely in commercial business, but they joined the latter in attempting to regulate the shipbuilding industry of the country. An undated petition of both classes of shipwrights for incorporation occurs among the State Papers of 1578.[43] No answer seems to have been given to it, but as there is a 'brief' of a patent for shipwrights dated 1592 mentioned in the calendar of Salisbury MSS.,[44] it is clear that the proposal subsequently received consideration, although the matter did not come to fruition until thirteen years later.
All record of the steps that preceded the grant of the Charter of 1605[45] appears to be lost. It is not probable that the aged Nottingham would have moved in the matter without strong pressure from below, and we can only surmise that the officers of the company thereby incorporated were the prime movers in the agitation which led to its being granted.
It will be observed that the petition of 1578 is based upon the alleged need for regulating the pay, discipline, and training of the ordinary shipwrights, now increasing rapidly in number with the increase of the mercantile marine. The arguments for granting the Charter of 1605, as set forth in the preamble, are two: first, that all ships, both royal and merchant, were built neither strongly nor well; secondly, that many of the shipwrights were not sufficiently skilful. The remedy proposed for this state of affairs was the formation of a corporation or trade union, of which all persons engaged in shipbuilding in England and Wales were to be compelled to become members. The government of the corporation—and therefore of the whole shipbuilding industry of the country—was placed in the hands of a Master, four Wardens, and twelve Assistants. Baker, as the most noted shipbuilder of the period, was rightly made the Master; the wardenships were divided between the remaining two master-shipwrights and two of the most prominent private shipbuilders; the twelve assistantships were divided as follows: Phineas Pett, Addey, and Apslyn, from the royal dockyards; four shipbuilders of the neighbourhood of London; and one each from Woodbridge, Ipswich, Bristol, Southampton, and Yarmouth. The omission of any representative from Hull or Newcastle is noteworthy.
No record remains to show what effect this charter had; probably very little, if one may judge from the absence of any record of complaints against it, although the documentary remains of the first ten years of James I's reign are so very scanty that no great reliance can be placed upon this argument.
In 1612 another charter[46] was sealed. The necessity for this was based on the ground of the insufficiency of the powers granted by the former charter, and no pains were spared to remedy this, so far as words could do so. The Charter of 1605 extends over five and a half membranes of the Patent Roll, each membrane about 30 inches long and containing 90 lines of writing. The Charter of 1612 was a portentous document; its enrolment extends from membrane 16(2) to membrane 37 and contains about 15,600 words. No possible loophole was left for any verbal quibble or evasion on the part of those who might desire to escape from its jurisdiction; the 'all and every person and persons being shipwrights or carpenters using the art or mystery of shipbuilding and making ships' of the earlier charter—sufficiently explicit, one would have thought—becomes 'all and every person and persons being shipwrights, caulkers or ship-carpenters, or in any sort using, exercising, practising, or professing the art, trade, skill or mystery of building, making, trimming, dressing, graving, launching, winding, drawing, stocking, or repairing of ships, carvels, hoys, pinnaces, crayers, ketches, lighters, boats, barges, wherries, or any other vessel or vessels whatsoever used for navigation, fishing, or transportation,' and to this is added another long clause covering accessories made of wood, from masts downward. The other clauses of the earlier charter are also expanded with the like object, and there are several new ones. Deputies were to be appointed in 'every convenient and needful place' to see that the ordinances of the Corporation were properly carried out, and to collect dues; members might be admitted who were not shipwrights; the admission of apprentices was regulated; dues were to be received on account of all ships built; the secrets of the art were to be kept from foreigners; power was given to punish those who forsook their work or became mutinous; the Corporation was granted the reversion of the post of Surveyor of Tonnage of new-built ships, and was to examine each new ship to see that it was properly built 'with two orlops at convenient distances, strong to carry ordnance aloft and alow, with her forcastle and half deck close for fight'; provision was to be made for the poor; and finally, no doubt on account of the extended powers granted, the ancient liberties of the Cinque Ports were expressly reserved to them.
The provision for the armament of the merchant ships is of especial interest when it is remembered that in this year the Royal Navy reached the low water mark of neglect and inefficiency, while piracy in British waters reached a high water mark of efficiency that promised the speedy extinction of the peaceful trader.
But if the general trend of the new charter was the enlargement and consolidation of the powers of the Corporation, there is one significant change that led in the opposite direction: the 'Shipwrights of England' became the 'Shipwrights of Redrith[47] in the County of Surrey,' a step so retrograde that it is difficult to imagine what possible argument could have been adduced to justify such a change: some reason, no doubt, there was, but owing to the loss of the records it has not been possible to discover it.[48] It will be observed that, although the master under the new charter was a government official, the wardens, reduced to three in number, were all private shipbuilders, and only three of the sixteen assistants were in the service of the State.
In the year following the grant of the enlarged charter, the legal position of the Corporation was further strengthened by the issue of an Order in Council authorising the Master and Wardens to apprehend all persons using the art of shipbuilding contrary to the Charter, and all apprentices or journeymen departing unlawfully from their masters;[49] and by an order of the Lord High Admiral directing the apprehension of all persons who refused to conform to the regulations, and their imprisonment until they complied—'they being chiefly poor men and unable to pay a fine.'[50]
The fact that it was necessary to recapitulate two of the penal clauses of the charter throws light on the uncertain scope—possibly the illegality—of the powers intended to be conferred by it. The active life of the Corporation was one long struggle to enforce its powers and secure its rights, not only against private individuals or rival bodies, but even against the Officers of the Crown, who might well have been expected to respect the provisions of its charter. For the resistance to the Corporation did not come from 'poor men' alone. The other associated bodies of shipwrights that were in being resented interference in their own localities. The most important of these was the London Civic Company, known as the Company or Brotherhood of Free Shipwrights of London, which had been in existence as a 'trade craft' or 'guild' from an early date. It is mentioned among the Civic Companies in 1428,[51] and was in 1456 erected into a 'fraternity in the worship of St. Simon and St. Jude,' and in 1483 regulations were made by it relating to apprenticeship and use of good material and workmanship.
This company held a very obscure position among the minor companies[52] of the City, and during the period in which its activities concern us it seems to have been in a very low financial condition. This, however, did not deter it from contesting the jurisdiction of the Corporation (or 'foreign' shipwrights, as it termed them, despite the fact that, owing to the growth of London, it had itself long left the boundaries of the City's Liberties, and now had its headquarters near Ratcliff Cross), and the City, not unnaturally jealous of its own special privileges, supported the opposition.
At first the efforts of the free shipwrights of the City to dispute the authority of the Corporation were unsuccessful. An attempt made in 1632 ended in the submission of the two citizens who had been put up to contest the matter, and their 'promise to be obedient to the Shipwrights of Rotherhithe, saving the freedom of the City of London';[53] a submission brought about by the fact that they were members of both companies, although they had endeavoured to deny that they were members of the Incorporated Company of Rotherhithe.[54]
A further attempt in 1637, however, by two other free shipwrights, backed again by the City Corporation, was more successful. The case was referred to Sir Henry Marten, the Judge of the Admiralty, who reported to the Admiralty that 'these London Shipwrights, being supported by the countenance of the City, will by no means agree to come under the King's Charter and government, and to that purpose are resolved to oppose themselves by further proceedings at law.'[55] The case was referred back to him by the Admiralty with the remark that 'You have long been acquainted with the said business and know of what importance it is to have the shipwrights kept under government, which was the ground of the grant made to the Company at Rotherhithe.'[56] Marten finally advised the Admiralty not to grant their request, 'it being a business so much importing the general good of the kingdom that all shipwrights should live under a uniform government, as now regulated by the King's charter,'[57] and the two recalcitrants were committed to the Marshalsea, where they made their submission. Nevertheless, in Oct. 1638 the matter was again brought up, coming before the newly appointed Lord High Admiral upon a petition from the City Company, and by an Order in Council of March 1639 that Company was exempted from the jurisdiction of the 'New Corporation of the Suburbs,' although, in view of the fact that 'the said Corporation of shipwrights is of so great importance for the defence of the Kingdom and is dispersed not in the suburbs only but over the whole Kingdom of England,' it was declared 'that this exception ... ought to be no encouragement to any other Society or Trade or particular persons to withdraw their obedience to the said new Corporation or to make suit for the like exemption, which in no sort will be granted.'[58]
The City had won; fine words, whether in a Royal Charter or an Order in Council, were of little use without the consistent support of the authorities, and this the unfortunate Corporation never received. The attempt of the Ipswich Shipwrights in 1621 to secure its dissolution failed, but upon the motion of their member against the 'Patent of the Ship-carpenters who impose exceedingly upon builders of ships,' the House of Commons ordered that the Corporation should not demand or receive any more money by virtue of their patent until it had been brought to the Committee of Grievances and further order been taken therein by the House.[59]
Less drastic attacks on the privileges of the Company frequently succeeded. The exemption from 'land service' was ignored by the Earl Marshal and the Lord Admiral in 1628. In 1631 the King's Bench indirectly curtailed its powers by prohibiting the Lord High Admiral from proceeding in matters relating to freight, wages, and the building of ships; and two years later prohibited the Company from using its powers of arresting ships, thereby preventing the Company from getting 'their suits decided in a speedy way in the Court of Admiralty' and compelling them to 'contend with the master, who, proving poor and litigious, all that the (Company) can get, after long suit, is but the imprisonment of his body.'[60] The East Country merchants also opposed its trading privileges, and in 1634 the Company found it necessary to appeal to the Admiralty for assistance in carrying out its powers in regard to the search and survey of ships, and the regulation of apprentices. In 1635, when Peter Pett was Master, the difficulties of collecting the dues of the shipwrights and the 'tonnage and poundage' granted for the support of the Corporation and its poor, became more acute than ever. After much argument and reference to Sir Henry Marten, the Master, Wardens and Assistants were told, in 1638, 'to cause their charters to be published and put in execution,' while the 'Vice-Admirals, Mayors and other Officers' were charged to assist them. In 1641 the right of freedom from impressment and from attendance on juries was again in question, and although the decision of the Lord Admiral was then favourable the troubles of the Company still continued, for in January 1642 they were petitioning the Commons for relief.
In March 1645 an Ordinance to protect the Shipwrights from impressment for land service 'on account of the importance of their trade and the decrease of qualified workmen,' was presented to the Lords by Warwick, the Lord High Admiral, and was approved by them and passed on to the Commons for concurrence, but it does not appear to have been read.[61]
In August of the following year, Warwick again reported from the Committee of the Admiralty to the Lords a 'Report and Ordinance concerning the better building of ships and granting privileges to the Shipwrights and Caulkers to be freed from Land Service,' elsewhere described as an 'Ordinance for the better regulation of the Mystery and Corporation of Shipwrights.' This was agreed to and sent to the Commons, who read it a first time and ordered it to be read a second time 'on Thursday next come Sevennight,' and then dropped it.
In the meantime the Clerk and other officials of the Company, whose pay was much in arrear, were petitioning the House to take such action with the Company as would force it to meet their claims, while the Master and Wardens were complaining of individual refusals to pay assessments due to the Company.[62] This state of affairs was still in evidence in 1648, when Edward Keling, the Clerk, and the existing and late Beadles of the Company, petitioned the Lords for relief, and asked 'that the public instruments entrusted to Keling may be disposed of and he be indemnified for them.' The statement of the Wardens annexed thereto[63] explains the situation as follows: The Wardens had
[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 20l. 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 12d. 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 5s. 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.
consented to pay the established duties of the Corporation as directed by Order of the House, but Peter Pett and other principal members, and great dealers in that mystery, withhold and refuse to pay the duties for support of the Corporation, and so the Wardens have not the means to pay the salaries of their officers, or their house rent, to relieve the poor, to make their due surveys upon ships, or to pursue an ordinance for settlement of their government which passed the House of Peers eighteen months ago, and now remains in the House of Commons.
In June 1650 the difficulties of the Company were evidently still 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 20l. 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 12d. 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 5s. 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.
[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.
It may be presumed that those of our earlier kings who possessed a navy royal, and did not rely entirely on the support of the Cinque Ports and of the merchant shipping, would include among their servants some skilled man to perform the functions of a master shipwright, and if not to design, at any rate to look to the upkeep of the king's ships and to watch the construction in private yards of those intended for the royal service. But if the Clerk of the Ships, who first comes into notice in the reign of John, had any such subordinate, his existence before the end of the reign of Henry V is not known to us. It is, however, possible that, on occasion, this duty was performed by the king's carpenters, whose principal function seems to have been to keep the woodwork of the royal castles in repair. In 1337 forty oaks required in the construction of a galley, then being built at Hull for Edward III under the superintendence of William de la Pole, a prominent merchant of that town, were supplied by the Prior of Blyth, who was directed to hand them over to William de Kelm (Kelham), the king's carpenter (carpentario nostro).[5] The accounts for this galley have not survived, and there is no means of ascertaining whether William de Kelm had anything to do with the actual construction. Another galley and a barge were at the same time being built at Lynn under Thomas and William de Melcheburn. The accounts[6] show that the master carpenter (magister carpentariorum) of the galley was John Kech, who was paid at the rate of sixpence[7] a day and had under him six carpenters at fivepence a day, six 'clynckers' at fourpence, six holders at threepence, and four labourers (servientes) at twopence halfpenny. The master carpenter of the barge was Ralph atte Grene, who received the same rate of pay as Kech. Neither Kech nor Grene appear as the King's servants.
It may be presumed that those of our earlier kings who possessed a navy royal, and did not rely entirely on the support of the Cinque Ports and of the merchant shipping, would include among their servants some skilled man to perform the functions of a master shipwright, and if not to design, at any rate to look to the upkeep of the king's ships and to watch the construction in private yards of those intended for the royal service. But if the Clerk of the Ships, who first comes into notice in the reign of John, had any such subordinate, his existence before the end of the reign of Henry V is not known to us. It is, however, possible that, on occasion, this duty was performed by the king's carpenters, whose principal function seems to have been to keep the woodwork of the royal castles in repair. In 1337 forty oaks required in the construction of a galley, then being built at Hull for Edward III under the superintendence of William de la Pole, a prominent merchant of that town, were supplied by the Prior of Blyth, who was directed to hand them over to William de Kelm (Kelham), the king's carpenter (carpentario nostro).[5] The accounts for this galley have not survived, and there is no means of ascertaining whether William de Kelm had anything to do with the actual construction. Another galley and a barge were at the same time being built at Lynn under Thomas and William de Melcheburn. The accounts[6] show that the master carpenter (magister carpentariorum) of the galley was John Kech, who was paid at the rate of sixpence[7] a day and had under him six carpenters at fivepence a day, six 'clynckers' at fourpence, six holders at threepence, and four labourers (servientes) at twopence halfpenny. The master carpenter of the barge was Ralph atte Grene, who received the same rate of pay as Kech. Neither Kech nor Grene appear as the King's servants.
It may be presumed that those of our earlier kings who possessed a navy royal, and did not rely entirely on the support of the Cinque Ports and of the merchant shipping, would include among their servants some skilled man to perform the functions of a master shipwright, and if not to design, at any rate to look to the upkeep of the king's ships and to watch the construction in private yards of those intended for the royal service. But if the Clerk of the Ships, who first comes into notice in the reign of John, had any such subordinate, his existence before the end of the reign of Henry V is not known to us. It is, however, possible that, on occasion, this duty was performed by the king's carpenters, whose principal function seems to have been to keep the woodwork of the royal castles in repair. In 1337 forty oaks required in the construction of a galley, then being built at Hull for Edward III under the superintendence of William de la Pole, a prominent merchant of that town, were supplied by the Prior of Blyth, who was directed to hand them over to William de Kelm (Kelham), the king's carpenter (carpentario nostro).[5] The accounts for this galley have not survived, and there is no means of ascertaining whether William de Kelm had anything to do with the actual construction. Another galley and a barge were at the same time being built at Lynn under Thomas and William de Melcheburn. The accounts[6] show that the master carpenter (magister carpentariorum) of the galley was John Kech, who was paid at the rate of sixpence[7] a day and had under him six carpenters at fivepence a day, six 'clynckers' at fourpence, six holders at threepence, and four labourers (servientes) at twopence halfpenny. The master carpenter of the barge was Ralph atte Grene, who received the same rate of pay as Kech. Neither Kech nor Grene appear as the King's servants.
In 1421 the 'King's servant' John Hoggekyns, 'master carpenter of the king's ships,' was granted by letters patent a pension of fourpence a day, 'because in labouring long about them he is much shaken and deteriorated in body,' and this grant was confirmed in December of the following year on the accession of Henry VI. In 1416-18 Hoggekyns had built the Grace Dieu, 'if not the largest, probably the best equipped ship yet built in England.'[8]
With the sale of most of the royal navy on the death of Henry V, the need for a 'master carpenter of the King's Ships' must have passed away, and no trace of any further appointment of this character has been found for over a century. The construction of the Regent in 1486 was entrusted by Henry VII to the Master of the Ordnance, and it seems probable that the design of the Henri Grace à Dieu, built in 1514, was the work of the Clerk of the Ships, Robert Brygandin,[9] although the superintendence of her building was entrusted to William Bond (or Bound), who is described in 1519 as 'late clerk of the poultry, surveyor, and payer of expenses for the construction of the Henri Grace à Dieu and the three other galleys.'[10]
With the sale of most of the royal navy on the death of Henry V, the need for a 'master carpenter of the King's Ships' must have passed away, and no trace of any further appointment of this character has been found for over a century. The construction of the Regent in 1486 was entrusted by Henry VII to the Master of the Ordnance, and it seems probable that the design of the Henri Grace à Dieu, built in 1514, was the work of the Clerk of the Ships, Robert Brygandin,[9] although the superintendence of her building was entrusted to William Bond (or Bound), who is described in 1519 as 'late clerk of the poultry, surveyor, and payer of expenses for the construction of the Henri Grace à Dieu and the three other galleys.'[10]
Up to this point, the position of the shipwright—even of the Master Shipwright—was not an exalted one. He was classed among 'servants' and 'artificers,' and his pay was made the subject of legislation expressly designed to keep the wages of those classes as low as possible. In 'Naval Accounts and Inventories of the Reign of Henry VII, 1485-8 and 1495-7,' Mr. Oppenheim has edited material which illustrates the various rates paid to shipwrights, and has pointed out that these rates of pay 'had remained practically unaltered since the days of Henry V.' An Act of Parliament of 1495[11] laid down the following scale of payments:—
This Act was repealed in 1496, but the same scale was fixed in 1514 by an Act[12] that was not repealed until 1562.
It will be observed that the highest rate under these Acts is sevenpence a day, although in several instances in the accounts[13] referred to above a Master Shipwright was paid eightpence a day.
When Henry VIII instituted[14] the practice of granting by letters patent an annuity for life to certain shipwrights performing the duties of the office known later as 'the Master Shipwright,' he fixed the daily rate upon the basis set forth above, but it must be borne in mind that (as will be shown later) this did not represent the total emoluments of that official, who was in effect raised, both as to emoluments and status, above the class in which he had formerly been placed.
The first of the succession of officials thus established by Henry appears to have been James Baker, who by letters patent[15] dated the 20th May 1538 was granted, as from Michaelmas 1537, an annuity for life of fourpence a day, the lowest rate of a Master Shipwright, or Master Ship Carpenter as he was alternatively called by the Acts referred to. The entry in the Roll is of some interest; unlike the later grants, this grant is not based upon past services, but solely upon services which are to be rendered in the future,[16] and the authority for the letters patent is not the usual writ of privy seal, but the direct motion of the King: 'per ipsum Regem.' In December 1544 new letters patent were issued,[17] in which Baker is described as a 'Shipwright' and the annuity (annuitatem sive annualem redditum) fixed at eightpence a day. In January of the same year, Peter Pett, 'Shipwright,' had by letters patent been granted a wage and fee (vadium et feodum) of sixpence a day for life, as from Michaelmas 1543, 'in consideration of his good and faithful service done and to be done'; from which it appears that Peter Pett was already in the royal service. It is probable that the increase in Baker's annuity was intended to mark his superior position in relation to Pett.
The first of the succession of officials thus established by Henry appears to have been James Baker, who by letters patent[15] dated the 20th May 1538 was granted, as from Michaelmas 1537, an annuity for life of fourpence a day, the lowest rate of a Master Shipwright, or Master Ship Carpenter as he was alternatively called by the Acts referred to. The entry in the Roll is of some interest; unlike the later grants, this grant is not based upon past services, but solely upon services which are to be rendered in the future,[16] and the authority for the letters patent is not the usual writ of privy seal, but the direct motion of the King: 'per ipsum Regem.' In December 1544 new letters patent were issued,[17] in which Baker is described as a 'Shipwright' and the annuity (annuitatem sive annualem redditum) fixed at eightpence a day. In January of the same year, Peter Pett, 'Shipwright,' had by letters patent been granted a wage and fee (vadium et feodum) of sixpence a day for life, as from Michaelmas 1543, 'in consideration of his good and faithful service done and to be done'; from which it appears that Peter Pett was already in the royal service. It is probable that the increase in Baker's annuity was intended to mark his superior position in relation to Pett.
The first of the succession of officials thus established by Henry appears to have been James Baker, who by letters patent[15] dated the 20th May 1538 was granted, as from Michaelmas 1537, an annuity for life of fourpence a day, the lowest rate of a Master Shipwright, or Master Ship Carpenter as he was alternatively called by the Acts referred to. The entry in the Roll is of some interest; unlike the later grants, this grant is not based upon past services, but solely upon services which are to be rendered in the future,[16] and the authority for the letters patent is not the usual writ of privy seal, but the direct motion of the King: 'per ipsum Regem.' In December 1544 new letters patent were issued,[17] in which Baker is described as a 'Shipwright' and the annuity (annuitatem sive annualem redditum) fixed at eightpence a day. In January of the same year, Peter Pett, 'Shipwright,' had by letters patent been granted a wage and fee (vadium et feodum) of sixpence a day for life, as from Michaelmas 1543, 'in consideration of his good and faithful service done and to be done'; from which it appears that Peter Pett was already in the royal service. It is probable that the increase in Baker's annuity was intended to mark his superior position in relation to Pett.
The official title of 'master shipwright' does not appear as yet in use, for when Baker and other shipwrights were, in the next year, sent by the Council, at the request of the Lord Admiral, to Portsmouth to examine into the decay of one of the ships there, they were simply described as 'Masters James Baker and others skilful in ships.'[18] In addition to Baker and Pett, these included John Smyth, Robert Holborn, and Richard Bull. On the 23rd April 1548 these three latter, under the designation of 'Shipwrights,' together with Richard Osborn, anchor-smith, 'had by bill signed by the King's Majesty each of them 4d. per diem in consideration of their long and good service and that they should instruct others in their feats.'[19] Smyth and Holborn were hardly in the same category as Baker and Peter Pett. They seem to have been skilled mechanics rather than constructors or designers, and are not mentioned as having 'built' a ship, though this is perhaps due to the scantiness of the surviving records; but the fact that the formality of letters patent was dispensed with in connexion with this grant is significant. Bull was, however, in May 1550 granted 12d. a day from Midsummer 1549 by letters patent in the usual terms,[20] and since Peter Pett was not granted this higher rate until April 1558,[21] in the last year of Mary's reign, it would seem as though Bull's services were rated by Edward VI more highly than Pett's. James Baker does not seem to have long survived Henry VIII. Probably he died in 1549, and Bull received Baker's annuity, since it is not likely that an additional annuity would be created for Bull at that time, and there is no mention of any reversion in Bull's patent.
The official title of 'master shipwright' does not appear as yet in use, for when Baker and other shipwrights were, in the next year, sent by the Council, at the request of the Lord Admiral, to Portsmouth to examine into the decay of one of the ships there, they were simply described as 'Masters James Baker and others skilful in ships.'[18] In addition to Baker and Pett, these included John Smyth, Robert Holborn, and Richard Bull. On the 23rd April 1548 these three latter, under the designation of 'Shipwrights,' together with Richard Osborn, anchor-smith, 'had by bill signed by the King's Majesty each of them 4d. per diem in consideration of their long and good service and that they should instruct others in their feats.'[19] Smyth and Holborn were hardly in the same category as Baker and Peter Pett. They seem to have been skilled mechanics rather than constructors or designers, and are not mentioned as having 'built' a ship, though this is perhaps due to the scantiness of the surviving records; but the fact that the formality of letters patent was dispensed with in connexion with this grant is significant. Bull was, however, in May 1550 granted 12d. a day from Midsummer 1549 by letters patent in the usual terms,[20] and since Peter Pett was not granted this higher rate until April 1558,[21] in the last year of Mary's reign, it would seem as though Bull's services were rated by Edward VI more highly than Pett's. James Baker does not seem to have long survived Henry VIII. Probably he died in 1549, and Bull received Baker's annuity, since it is not likely that an additional annuity would be created for Bull at that time, and there is no mention of any reversion in Bull's patent.
The official title of 'master shipwright' does not appear as yet in use, for when Baker and other shipwrights were, in the next year, sent by the Council, at the request of the Lord Admiral, to Portsmouth to examine into the decay of one of the ships there, they were simply described as 'Masters James Baker and others skilful in ships.'[18] In addition to Baker and Pett, these included John Smyth, Robert Holborn, and Richard Bull. On the 23rd April 1548 these three latter, under the designation of 'Shipwrights,' together with Richard Osborn, anchor-smith, 'had by bill signed by the King's Majesty each of them 4d. per diem in consideration of their long and good service and that they should instruct others in their feats.'[19] Smyth and Holborn were hardly in the same category as Baker and Peter Pett. They seem to have been skilled mechanics rather than constructors or designers, and are not mentioned as having 'built' a ship, though this is perhaps due to the scantiness of the surviving records; but the fact that the formality of letters patent was dispensed with in connexion with this grant is significant. Bull was, however, in May 1550 granted 12d. a day from Midsummer 1549 by letters patent in the usual terms,[20] and since Peter Pett was not granted this higher rate until April 1558,[21] in the last year of Mary's reign, it would seem as though Bull's services were rated by Edward VI more highly than Pett's. James Baker does not seem to have long survived Henry VIII. Probably he died in 1549, and Bull received Baker's annuity, since it is not likely that an additional annuity would be created for Bull at that time, and there is no mention of any reversion in Bull's patent.
The official title of 'master shipwright' does not appear as yet in use, for when Baker and other shipwrights were, in the next year, sent by the Council, at the request of the Lord Admiral, to Portsmouth to examine into the decay of one of the ships there, they were simply described as 'Masters James Baker and others skilful in ships.'[18] In addition to Baker and Pett, these included John Smyth, Robert Holborn, and Richard Bull. On the 23rd April 1548 these three latter, under the designation of 'Shipwrights,' together with Richard Osborn, anchor-smith, 'had by bill signed by the King's Majesty each of them 4d. per diem in consideration of their long and good service and that they should instruct others in their feats.'[19] Smyth and Holborn were hardly in the same category as Baker and Peter Pett. They seem to have been skilled mechanics rather than constructors or designers, and are not mentioned as having 'built' a ship, though this is perhaps due to the scantiness of the surviving records; but the fact that the formality of letters patent was dispensed with in connexion with this grant is significant. Bull was, however, in May 1550 granted 12d. a day from Midsummer 1549 by letters patent in the usual terms,[20] and since Peter Pett was not granted this higher rate until April 1558,[21] in the last year of Mary's reign, it would seem as though Bull's services were rated by Edward VI more highly than Pett's. James Baker does not seem to have long survived Henry VIII. Probably he died in 1549, and Bull received Baker's annuity, since it is not likely that an additional annuity would be created for Bull at that time, and there is no mention of any reversion in Bull's patent.
Little is known of Bull[22] or of another master shipwright 'William Stephins'[23] who is mentioned in 1553 and 1558. The latter may have been the ancestor of the Stevens[24] who built the Warspite in 1596, and contested the place of Master Shipwright with Phineas.
Little is known of Bull[22] or of another master shipwright 'William Stephins'[23] who is mentioned in 1553 and 1558. The latter may have been the ancestor of the Stevens[24] who built the Warspite in 1596, and contested the place of Master Shipwright with Phineas.
Little is known of Bull[22] or of another master shipwright 'William Stephins'[23] who is mentioned in 1553 and 1558. The latter may have been the ancestor of the Stevens[24] who built the Warspite in 1596, and contested the place of Master Shipwright with Phineas.
In 1572 Mathew Baker, son of James, succeeded to Bull's annuity. The letters patent[25] by which the grant was made are different in form from those above referred to, for Baker is first granted the office of Master Shipwright[26] with all profits and emoluments pertaining to it, which he is to hold in as ample a mode and form as 'a certain Richard Bull, deceased,' or any other, had held such office, and then, for the exercise of this office, he is granted the usual annuity of 12d. a day for life, as from Lady Day 1572.
In 1572 Mathew Baker, son of James, succeeded to Bull's annuity. The letters patent[25] by which the grant was made are different in form from those above referred to, for Baker is first granted the office of Master Shipwright[26] with all profits and emoluments pertaining to it, which he is to hold in as ample a mode and form as 'a certain Richard Bull, deceased,' or any other, had held such office, and then, for the exercise of this office, he is granted the usual annuity of 12d. a day for life, as from Lady Day 1572.
In January 1584 Baker attended personally at the Exchequer and of his free will surrendered this grant in exchange for one in similar form[27] made out to himself and John Addey[28] with reversion to the longer liver. The reasons why Baker thus formally adopted Addey as his successor do not appear. However, Baker outlived him, dying in 1613, whereas Addey died in 1606 at Deptford, where he was then the Master Shipwright.
In January 1584 Baker attended personally at the Exchequer and of his free will surrendered this grant in exchange for one in similar form[27] made out to himself and John Addey[28] with reversion to the longer liver. The reasons why Baker thus formally adopted Addey as his successor do not appear. However, Baker outlived him, dying in 1613, whereas Addey died in 1606 at Deptford, where he was then the Master Shipwright.
In July 1582 Peter Pett had appeared at the Exchequer and surrendered his patent of 1558, receiving in exchange a joint patent,[29] in similar terms, for himself and his eldest son, William, who was already in the royal service as a shipwright,[30] with reversion to the longer liver. William, however, died in 1587, two years before his father, so that the annuity never reverted to him. In his will he describes himself as one of her Majesty's Master Shipwrights, and from the reference to him in the patent above referred to it seems probable that he held the office in 1584.
In July 1582 Peter Pett had appeared at the Exchequer and surrendered his patent of 1558, receiving in exchange a joint patent,[29] in similar terms, for himself and his eldest son, William, who was already in the royal service as a shipwright,[30] with reversion to the longer liver. William, however, died in 1587, two years before his father, so that the annuity never reverted to him. In his will he describes himself as one of her Majesty's Master Shipwrights, and from the reference to him in the patent above referred to it seems probable that he held the office in 1584.
In 1587 Richard Chapman received a grant[31] of the office of 'Naupegiarius,' which was to be held on similar terms (modo et forma) to those in which Peter Pett and Mathew Baker or any other held like office, but the annuity granted with it was 20d. a day, and not the usual 12d. Apparently this was an additional post created especially for Chapman, and the 20d. indicates the rise that had by that time taken place in the shipwrights' rates of pay.
In July 1590 Joseph Pett was granted 12d. a day as from Midsummer.[32] Presumably this was the annuity that had reverted to the Exchequer on the death of his father in 1589, his brother William, who had held the reversion of it, being already dead; but the patent contains no reference to this, the grant being based upon 'his good and faithful service done and to be done in building our ships.' Unlike those issued to Mathew Baker and Chapman, this patent contains no reference to office and is in the earlier form. Phineas (see p. 4) dates Joseph's succession to his father's place as Master Shipwright in 1592, but this is evidently incorrect.
In April 1592 Chapman died[33] at Deptford, and William Bright, one of the Assistant Master Shipwrights, succeeded to his post and annuity of 20d.[34] In July 1603 Edward Stevens, who was a private shipbuilder of some importance,[35] obtained a grant by letters patent[36] in terms that differ from those hitherto noticed. In consideration of service to be rendered in the future (post-hac), he is granted an office of Master Shipwright for life—which office he is to have and exercise directly one becomes vacant, in as ample a manner as Mathew Baker, William Bright and Joseph Pett or any other had held it—together with an annuity of 20d. a day for his services. Finally the patent concludes by declaring that no one else shall be admitted to such an office until after Stevens has been duly appointed and installed. This was the patent that gave Phineas such 'great discouragement' (p. 20). It is drawn up in due form, and it is difficult to understand on what grounds it can legally have been set aside. The patent[37] granted to Phineas in 1604 did not revoke it, it was not recalled, and it would appear that it was in virtue of this same patent that Stevens was finally admitted as Master Shipwright in 1613. However, Phineas, by the all-powerful influence of the Lord High Admiral, managed to get it set aside in his favour on the death of his brother Joseph in 1605, 'by reason the fee was mistaken wherein his Majesty was abused and charged with an innovation.'[38] The 'innovation' was evidently the grant of a 'general reversion.' It would have been interesting to see the arguments laid before the Council by Stevens when, as Phineas tells us, he contested the decision, but unfortunately all the Council Registers from 1603 to 1613 perished in the fire at Whitehall in 1618. There is little wonder that Stevens (who was an older man and had, one would imagine, superior claims) bore a grudge against Pett. Stevens appears to have been appointed as Master Shipwright in the vacancy caused by the death of Baker in 1613. In 1614 he was Master Shipwright at Portsmouth, and was in 1621 serving with Phineas as his 'fellow' Master Shipwright at Chatham, where he died, being succeeded by Henry Goddard in 1626.
In April 1592 Chapman died[33] at Deptford, and William Bright, one of the Assistant Master Shipwrights, succeeded to his post and annuity of 20d.[34] In July 1603 Edward Stevens, who was a private shipbuilder of some importance,[35] obtained a grant by letters patent[36] in terms that differ from those hitherto noticed. In consideration of service to be rendered in the future (post-hac), he is granted an office of Master Shipwright for life—which office he is to have and exercise directly one becomes vacant, in as ample a manner as Mathew Baker, William Bright and Joseph Pett or any other had held it—together with an annuity of 20d. a day for his services. Finally the patent concludes by declaring that no one else shall be admitted to such an office until after Stevens has been duly appointed and installed. This was the patent that gave Phineas such 'great discouragement' (p. 20). It is drawn up in due form, and it is difficult to understand on what grounds it can legally have been set aside. The patent[37] granted to Phineas in 1604 did not revoke it, it was not recalled, and it would appear that it was in virtue of this same patent that Stevens was finally admitted as Master Shipwright in 1613. However, Phineas, by the all-powerful influence of the Lord High Admiral, managed to get it set aside in his favour on the death of his brother Joseph in 1605, 'by reason the fee was mistaken wherein his Majesty was abused and charged with an innovation.'[38] The 'innovation' was evidently the grant of a 'general reversion.' It would have been interesting to see the arguments laid before the Council by Stevens when, as Phineas tells us, he contested the decision, but unfortunately all the Council Registers from 1603 to 1613 perished in the fire at Whitehall in 1618. There is little wonder that Stevens (who was an older man and had, one would imagine, superior claims) bore a grudge against Pett. Stevens appears to have been appointed as Master Shipwright in the vacancy caused by the death of Baker in 1613. In 1614 he was Master Shipwright at Portsmouth, and was in 1621 serving with Phineas as his 'fellow' Master Shipwright at Chatham, where he died, being succeeded by Henry Goddard in 1626.
In April 1592 Chapman died[33] at Deptford, and William Bright, one of the Assistant Master Shipwrights, succeeded to his post and annuity of 20d.[34] In July 1603 Edward Stevens, who was a private shipbuilder of some importance,[35] obtained a grant by letters patent[36] in terms that differ from those hitherto noticed. In consideration of service to be rendered in the future (post-hac), he is granted an office of Master Shipwright for life—which office he is to have and exercise directly one becomes vacant, in as ample a manner as Mathew Baker, William Bright and Joseph Pett or any other had held it—together with an annuity of 20d. a day for his services. Finally the patent concludes by declaring that no one else shall be admitted to such an office until after Stevens has been duly appointed and installed. This was the patent that gave Phineas such 'great discouragement' (p. 20). It is drawn up in due form, and it is difficult to understand on what grounds it can legally have been set aside. The patent[37] granted to Phineas in 1604 did not revoke it, it was not recalled, and it would appear that it was in virtue of this same patent that Stevens was finally admitted as Master Shipwright in 1613. However, Phineas, by the all-powerful influence of the Lord High Admiral, managed to get it set aside in his favour on the death of his brother Joseph in 1605, 'by reason the fee was mistaken wherein his Majesty was abused and charged with an innovation.'[38] The 'innovation' was evidently the grant of a 'general reversion.' It would have been interesting to see the arguments laid before the Council by Stevens when, as Phineas tells us, he contested the decision, but unfortunately all the Council Registers from 1603 to 1613 perished in the fire at Whitehall in 1618. There is little wonder that Stevens (who was an older man and had, one would imagine, superior claims) bore a grudge against Pett. Stevens appears to have been appointed as Master Shipwright in the vacancy caused by the death of Baker in 1613. In 1614 he was Master Shipwright at Portsmouth, and was in 1621 serving with Phineas as his 'fellow' Master Shipwright at Chatham, where he died, being succeeded by Henry Goddard in 1626.
In April 1592 Chapman died[33] at Deptford, and William Bright, one of the Assistant Master Shipwrights, succeeded to his post and annuity of 20d.[34] In July 1603 Edward Stevens, who was a private shipbuilder of some importance,[35] obtained a grant by letters patent[36] in terms that differ from those hitherto noticed. In consideration of service to be rendered in the future (post-hac), he is granted an office of Master Shipwright for life—which office he is to have and exercise directly one becomes vacant, in as ample a manner as Mathew Baker, William Bright and Joseph Pett or any other had held it—together with an annuity of 20d. a day for his services. Finally the patent concludes by declaring that no one else shall be admitted to such an office until after Stevens has been duly appointed and installed. This was the patent that gave Phineas such 'great discouragement' (p. 20). It is drawn up in due form, and it is difficult to understand on what grounds it can legally have been set aside. The patent[37] granted to Phineas in 1604 did not revoke it, it was not recalled, and it would appear that it was in virtue of this same patent that Stevens was finally admitted as Master Shipwright in 1613. However, Phineas, by the all-powerful influence of the Lord High Admiral, managed to get it set aside in his favour on the death of his brother Joseph in 1605, 'by reason the fee was mistaken wherein his Majesty was abused and charged with an innovation.'[38] The 'innovation' was evidently the grant of a 'general reversion.' It would have been interesting to see the arguments laid before the Council by Stevens when, as Phineas tells us, he contested the decision, but unfortunately all the Council Registers from 1603 to 1613 perished in the fire at Whitehall in 1618. There is little wonder that Stevens (who was an older man and had, one would imagine, superior claims) bore a grudge against Pett. Stevens appears to have been appointed as Master Shipwright in the vacancy caused by the death of Baker in 1613. In 1614 he was Master Shipwright at Portsmouth, and was in 1621 serving with Phineas as his 'fellow' Master Shipwright at Chatham, where he died, being succeeded by Henry Goddard in 1626.
In April 1592 Chapman died[33] at Deptford, and William Bright, one of the Assistant Master Shipwrights, succeeded to his post and annuity of 20d.[34] In July 1603 Edward Stevens, who was a private shipbuilder of some importance,[35] obtained a grant by letters patent[36] in terms that differ from those hitherto noticed. In consideration of service to be rendered in the future (post-hac), he is granted an office of Master Shipwright for life—which office he is to have and exercise directly one becomes vacant, in as ample a manner as Mathew Baker, William Bright and Joseph Pett or any other had held it—together with an annuity of 20d. a day for his services. Finally the patent concludes by declaring that no one else shall be admitted to such an office until after Stevens has been duly appointed and installed. This was the patent that gave Phineas such 'great discouragement' (p. 20). It is drawn up in due form, and it is difficult to understand on what grounds it can legally have been set aside. The patent[37] granted to Phineas in 1604 did not revoke it, it was not recalled, and it would appear that it was in virtue of this same patent that Stevens was finally admitted as Master Shipwright in 1613. However, Phineas, by the all-powerful influence of the Lord High Admiral, managed to get it set aside in his favour on the death of his brother Joseph in 1605, 'by reason the fee was mistaken wherein his Majesty was abused and charged with an innovation.'[38] The 'innovation' was evidently the grant of a 'general reversion.' It would have been interesting to see the arguments laid before the Council by Stevens when, as Phineas tells us, he contested the decision, but unfortunately all the Council Registers from 1603 to 1613 perished in the fire at Whitehall in 1618. There is little wonder that Stevens (who was an older man and had, one would imagine, superior claims) bore a grudge against Pett. Stevens appears to have been appointed as Master Shipwright in the vacancy caused by the death of Baker in 1613. In 1614 he was Master Shipwright at Portsmouth, and was in 1621 serving with Phineas as his 'fellow' Master Shipwright at Chatham, where he died, being succeeded by Henry Goddard in 1626.
In April 1592 Chapman died[33] at Deptford, and William Bright, one of the Assistant Master Shipwrights, succeeded to his post and annuity of 20d.[34] In July 1603 Edward Stevens, who was a private shipbuilder of some importance,[35] obtained a grant by letters patent[36] in terms that differ from those hitherto noticed. In consideration of service to be rendered in the future (post-hac), he is granted an office of Master Shipwright for life—which office he is to have and exercise directly one becomes vacant, in as ample a manner as Mathew Baker, William Bright and Joseph Pett or any other had held it—together with an annuity of 20d. a day for his services. Finally the patent concludes by declaring that no one else shall be admitted to such an office until after Stevens has been duly appointed and installed. This was the patent that gave Phineas such 'great discouragement' (p. 20). It is drawn up in due form, and it is difficult to understand on what grounds it can legally have been set aside. The patent[37] granted to Phineas in 1604 did not revoke it, it was not recalled, and it would appear that it was in virtue of this same patent that Stevens was finally admitted as Master Shipwright in 1613. However, Phineas, by the all-powerful influence of the Lord High Admiral, managed to get it set aside in his favour on the death of his brother Joseph in 1605, 'by reason the fee was mistaken wherein his Majesty was abused and charged with an innovation.'[38] The 'innovation' was evidently the grant of a 'general reversion.' It would have been interesting to see the arguments laid before the Council by Stevens when, as Phineas tells us, he contested the decision, but unfortunately all the Council Registers from 1603 to 1613 perished in the fire at Whitehall in 1618. There is little wonder that Stevens (who was an older man and had, one would imagine, superior claims) bore a grudge against Pett. Stevens appears to have been appointed as Master Shipwright in the vacancy caused by the death of Baker in 1613. In 1614 he was Master Shipwright at Portsmouth, and was in 1621 serving with Phineas as his 'fellow' Master Shipwright at Chatham, where he died, being succeeded by Henry Goddard in 1626.
It is of interest to note that the patent was not of itself sufficient to enable the patentee to enter into the office of Master Shipwright; the Lord High Admiral's warrant was also necessary. A specimen of such a warrant has been preserved in the State Papers[39] in the case of Goddard, who succeeded Stevens in 1626, having held a reversion by patent since 1620, and runs as follows:—
At the time when Phineas became a Master Shipwright, the ordinary wages of the post, paid by the Treasurer of the Navy, were 2s. a day; to this was added the Exchequer fee or annuity of 12d. (or in the case of Bright 20d.) a day. Besides these Mathew Baker received a pension from the Exchequer of £40 a year granted by writ of Privy Seal, said to be 'in recompense of his service after the building of the Merhonour'; a concession that at a later period[40] was extended to Phineas. Thus, at that period, the total yearly emoluments of Mathew Baker were £94, 15s.; of Bright £66, 18s. 4d.; and of Phineas Pett £54, 15s.; while the East India Company paid Burrell, their Master Shipwright, £200. After making allowance for the difference in the value of money at the beginning of the seventeenth century and its present (or rather pre-war) value,[41] it is clear that these were inadequate emoluments for so important a post, and it is not surprising that many of the Master Shipwrights kept private shipbuilding yards,[42] while all added to their income at the expense of the Crown in ways that were very irregular and constantly gave rise to scandal. Probably none was more adept in this art than Phineas himself.
At the time when Phineas became a Master Shipwright, the ordinary wages of the post, paid by the Treasurer of the Navy, were 2s. a day; to this was added the Exchequer fee or annuity of 12d. (or in the case of Bright 20d.) a day. Besides these Mathew Baker received a pension from the Exchequer of £40 a year granted by writ of Privy Seal, said to be 'in recompense of his service after the building of the Merhonour'; a concession that at a later period[40] was extended to Phineas. Thus, at that period, the total yearly emoluments of Mathew Baker were £94, 15s.; of Bright £66, 18s. 4d.; and of Phineas Pett £54, 15s.; while the East India Company paid Burrell, their Master Shipwright, £200. After making allowance for the difference in the value of money at the beginning of the seventeenth century and its present (or rather pre-war) value,[41] it is clear that these were inadequate emoluments for so important a post, and it is not surprising that many of the Master Shipwrights kept private shipbuilding yards,[42] while all added to their income at the expense of the Crown in ways that were very irregular and constantly gave rise to scandal. Probably none was more adept in this art than Phineas himself.
At the time when Phineas became a Master Shipwright, the ordinary wages of the post, paid by the Treasurer of the Navy, were 2s. a day; to this was added the Exchequer fee or annuity of 12d. (or in the case of Bright 20d.) a day. Besides these Mathew Baker received a pension from the Exchequer of £40 a year granted by writ of Privy Seal, said to be 'in recompense of his service after the building of the Merhonour'; a concession that at a later period[40] was extended to Phineas. Thus, at that period, the total yearly emoluments of Mathew Baker were £94, 15s.; of Bright £66, 18s. 4d.; and of Phineas Pett £54, 15s.; while the East India Company paid Burrell, their Master Shipwright, £200. After making allowance for the difference in the value of money at the beginning of the seventeenth century and its present (or rather pre-war) value,[41] it is clear that these were inadequate emoluments for so important a post, and it is not surprising that many of the Master Shipwrights kept private shipbuilding yards,[42] while all added to their income at the expense of the Crown in ways that were very irregular and constantly gave rise to scandal. Probably none was more adept in this art than Phineas himself.
The relationship between the royal shipwrights and the commercial shipbuilders was at all times very close. Not only did the former engage freely in commercial business, but they joined the latter in attempting to regulate the shipbuilding industry of the country. An undated petition of both classes of shipwrights for incorporation occurs among the State Papers of 1578.[43] No answer seems to have been given to it, but as there is a 'brief' of a patent for shipwrights dated 1592 mentioned in the calendar of Salisbury MSS.,[44] it is clear that the proposal subsequently received consideration, although the matter did not come to fruition until thirteen years later.
The relationship between the royal shipwrights and the commercial shipbuilders was at all times very close. Not only did the former engage freely in commercial business, but they joined the latter in attempting to regulate the shipbuilding industry of the country. An undated petition of both classes of shipwrights for incorporation occurs among the State Papers of 1578.[43] No answer seems to have been given to it, but as there is a 'brief' of a patent for shipwrights dated 1592 mentioned in the calendar of Salisbury MSS.,[44] it is clear that the proposal subsequently received consideration, although the matter did not come to fruition until thirteen years later.
All record of the steps that preceded the grant of the Charter of 1605[45] appears to be lost. It is not probable that the aged Nottingham would have moved in the matter without strong pressure from below, and we can only surmise that the officers of the company thereby incorporated were the prime movers in the agitation which led to its being granted.
In 1612 another charter[46] was sealed. The necessity for this was based on the ground of the insufficiency of the powers granted by the former charter, and no pains were spared to remedy this, so far as words could do so. The Charter of 1605 extends over five and a half membranes of the Patent Roll, each membrane about 30 inches long and containing 90 lines of writing. The Charter of 1612 was a portentous document; its enrolment extends from membrane 16(2) to membrane 37 and contains about 15,600 words. No possible loophole was left for any verbal quibble or evasion on the part of those who might desire to escape from its jurisdiction; the 'all and every person and persons being shipwrights or carpenters using the art or mystery of shipbuilding and making ships' of the earlier charter—sufficiently explicit, one would have thought—becomes 'all and every person and persons being shipwrights, caulkers or ship-carpenters, or in any sort using, exercising, practising, or professing the art, trade, skill or mystery of building, making, trimming, dressing, graving, launching, winding, drawing, stocking, or repairing of ships, carvels, hoys, pinnaces, crayers, ketches, lighters, boats, barges, wherries, or any other vessel or vessels whatsoever used for navigation, fishing, or transportation,' and to this is added another long clause covering accessories made of wood, from masts downward. The other clauses of the earlier charter are also expanded with the like object, and there are several new ones. Deputies were to be appointed in 'every convenient and needful place' to see that the ordinances of the Corporation were properly carried out, and to collect dues; members might be admitted who were not shipwrights; the admission of apprentices was regulated; dues were to be received on account of all ships built; the secrets of the art were to be kept from foreigners; power was given to punish those who forsook their work or became mutinous; the Corporation was granted the reversion of the post of Surveyor of Tonnage of new-built ships, and was to examine each new ship to see that it was properly built 'with two orlops at convenient distances, strong to carry ordnance aloft and alow, with her forcastle and half deck close for fight'; provision was to be made for the poor; and finally, no doubt on account of the extended powers granted, the ancient liberties of the Cinque Ports were expressly reserved to them.
But if the general trend of the new charter was the enlargement and consolidation of the powers of the Corporation, there is one significant change that led in the opposite direction: the 'Shipwrights of England' became the 'Shipwrights of Redrith[47] in the County of Surrey,' a step so retrograde that it is difficult to imagine what possible argument could have been adduced to justify such a change: some reason, no doubt, there was, but owing to the loss of the records it has not been possible to discover it.[48] It will be observed that, although the master under the new charter was a government official, the wardens, reduced to three in number, were all private shipbuilders, and only three of the sixteen assistants were in the service of the State.
But if the general trend of the new charter was the enlargement and consolidation of the powers of the Corporation, there is one significant change that led in the opposite direction: the 'Shipwrights of England' became the 'Shipwrights of Redrith[47] in the County of Surrey,' a step so retrograde that it is difficult to imagine what possible argument could have been adduced to justify such a change: some reason, no doubt, there was, but owing to the loss of the records it has not been possible to discover it.[48] It will be observed that, although the master under the new charter was a government official, the wardens, reduced to three in number, were all private shipbuilders, and only three of the sixteen assistants were in the service of the State.
In the year following the grant of the enlarged charter, the legal position of the Corporation was further strengthened by the issue of an Order in Council authorising the Master and Wardens to apprehend all persons using the art of shipbuilding contrary to the Charter, and all apprentices or journeymen departing unlawfully from their masters;[49] and by an order of the Lord High Admiral directing the apprehension of all persons who refused to conform to the regulations, and their imprisonment until they complied—'they being chiefly poor men and unable to pay a fine.'[50]
In the year following the grant of the enlarged charter, the legal position of the Corporation was further strengthened by the issue of an Order in Council authorising the Master and Wardens to apprehend all persons using the art of shipbuilding contrary to the Charter, and all apprentices or journeymen departing unlawfully from their masters;[49] and by an order of the Lord High Admiral directing the apprehension of all persons who refused to conform to the regulations, and their imprisonment until they complied—'they being chiefly poor men and unable to pay a fine.'[50]
The fact that it was necessary to recapitulate two of the penal clauses of the charter throws light on the uncertain scope—possibly the illegality—of the powers intended to be conferred by it. The active life of the Corporation was one long struggle to enforce its powers and secure its rights, not only against private individuals or rival bodies, but even against the Officers of the Crown, who might well have been expected to respect the provisions of its charter. For the resistance to the Corporation did not come from 'poor men' alone. The other associated bodies of shipwrights that were in being resented interference in their own localities. The most important of these was the London Civic Company, known as the Company or Brotherhood of Free Shipwrights of London, which had been in existence as a 'trade craft' or 'guild' from an early date. It is mentioned among the Civic Companies in 1428,[51] and was in 1456 erected into a 'fraternity in the worship of St. Simon and St. Jude,' and in 1483 regulations were made by it relating to apprenticeship and use of good material and workmanship.
This company held a very obscure position among the minor companies[52] of the City, and during the period in which its activities concern us it seems to have been in a very low financial condition. This, however, did not deter it from contesting the jurisdiction of the Corporation (or 'foreign' shipwrights, as it termed them, despite the fact that, owing to the growth of London, it had itself long left the boundaries of the City's Liberties, and now had its headquarters near Ratcliff Cross), and the City, not unnaturally jealous of its own special privileges, supported the opposition.
At first the efforts of the free shipwrights of the City to dispute the authority of the Corporation were unsuccessful. An attempt made in 1632 ended in the submission of the two citizens who had been put up to contest the matter, and their 'promise to be obedient to the Shipwrights of Rotherhithe, saving the freedom of the City of London';[53] a submission brought about by the fact that they were members of both companies, although they had endeavoured to deny that they were members of the Incorporated Company of Rotherhithe.[54]
At first the efforts of the free shipwrights of the City to dispute the authority of the Corporation were unsuccessful. An attempt made in 1632 ended in the submission of the two citizens who had been put up to contest the matter, and their 'promise to be obedient to the Shipwrights of Rotherhithe, saving the freedom of the City of London';[53] a submission brought about by the fact that they were members of both companies, although they had endeavoured to deny that they were members of the Incorporated Company of Rotherhithe.[54]
A further attempt in 1637, however, by two other free shipwrights, backed again by the City Corporation, was more successful. The case was referred to Sir Henry Marten, the Judge of the Admiralty, who reported to the Admiralty that 'these London Shipwrights, being supported by the countenance of the City, will by no means agree to come under the King's Charter and government, and to that purpose are resolved to oppose themselves by further proceedings at law.'[55] The case was referred back to him by the Admiralty with the remark that 'You have long been acquainted with the said business and know of what importance it is to have the shipwrights kept under government, which was the ground of the grant made to the Company at Rotherhithe.'[56] Marten finally advised the Admiralty not to grant their request, 'it being a business so much importing the general good of the kingdom that all shipwrights should live under a uniform government, as now regulated by the King's charter,'[57] and the two recalcitrants were committed to the Marshalsea, where they made their submission. Nevertheless, in Oct. 1638 the matter was again brought up, coming before the newly appointed Lord High Admiral upon a petition from the City Company, and by an Order in Council of March 1639 that Company was exempted from the jurisdiction of the 'New Corporation of the Suburbs,' although, in view of the fact that 'the said Corporation of shipwrights is of so great importance for the defence of the Kingdom and is dispersed not in the suburbs only but over the whole Kingdom of England,' it was declared 'that this exception ... ought to be no encouragement to any other Society or Trade or particular persons to withdraw their obedience to the said new Corporation or to make suit for the like exemption, which in no sort will be granted.'[58]
A further attempt in 1637, however, by two other free shipwrights, backed again by the City Corporation, was more successful. The case was referred to Sir Henry Marten, the Judge of the Admiralty, who reported to the Admiralty that 'these London Shipwrights, being supported by the countenance of the City, will by no means agree to come under the King's Charter and government, and to that purpose are resolved to oppose themselves by further proceedings at law.'[55] The case was referred back to him by the Admiralty with the remark that 'You have long been acquainted with the said business and know of what importance it is to have the shipwrights kept under government, which was the ground of the grant made to the Company at Rotherhithe.'[56] Marten finally advised the Admiralty not to grant their request, 'it being a business so much importing the general good of the kingdom that all shipwrights should live under a uniform government, as now regulated by the King's charter,'[57] and the two recalcitrants were committed to the Marshalsea, where they made their submission. Nevertheless, in Oct. 1638 the matter was again brought up, coming before the newly appointed Lord High Admiral upon a petition from the City Company, and by an Order in Council of March 1639 that Company was exempted from the jurisdiction of the 'New Corporation of the Suburbs,' although, in view of the fact that 'the said Corporation of shipwrights is of so great importance for the defence of the Kingdom and is dispersed not in the suburbs only but over the whole Kingdom of England,' it was declared 'that this exception ... ought to be no encouragement to any other Society or Trade or particular persons to withdraw their obedience to the said new Corporation or to make suit for the like exemption, which in no sort will be granted.'[58]
A further attempt in 1637, however, by two other free shipwrights, backed again by the City Corporation, was more successful. The case was referred to Sir Henry Marten, the Judge of the Admiralty, who reported to the Admiralty that 'these London Shipwrights, being supported by the countenance of the City, will by no means agree to come under the King's Charter and government, and to that purpose are resolved to oppose themselves by further proceedings at law.'[55] The case was referred back to him by the Admiralty with the remark that 'You have long been acquainted with the said business and know of what importance it is to have the shipwrights kept under government, which was the ground of the grant made to the Company at Rotherhithe.'[56] Marten finally advised the Admiralty not to grant their request, 'it being a business so much importing the general good of the kingdom that all shipwrights should live under a uniform government, as now regulated by the King's charter,'[57] and the two recalcitrants were committed to the Marshalsea, where they made their submission. Nevertheless, in Oct. 1638 the matter was again brought up, coming before the newly appointed Lord High Admiral upon a petition from the City Company, and by an Order in Council of March 1639 that Company was exempted from the jurisdiction of the 'New Corporation of the Suburbs,' although, in view of the fact that 'the said Corporation of shipwrights is of so great importance for the defence of the Kingdom and is dispersed not in the suburbs only but over the whole Kingdom of England,' it was declared 'that this exception ... ought to be no encouragement to any other Society or Trade or particular persons to withdraw their obedience to the said new Corporation or to make suit for the like exemption, which in no sort will be granted.'[58]
A further attempt in 1637, however, by two other free shipwrights, backed again by the City Corporation, was more successful. The case was referred to Sir Henry Marten, the Judge of the Admiralty, who reported to the Admiralty that 'these London Shipwrights, being supported by the countenance of the City, will by no means agree to come under the King's Charter and government, and to that purpose are resolved to oppose themselves by further proceedings at law.'[55] The case was referred back to him by the Admiralty with the remark that 'You have long been acquainted with the said business and know of what importance it is to have the shipwrights kept under government, which was the ground of the grant made to the Company at Rotherhithe.'[56] Marten finally advised the Admiralty not to grant their request, 'it being a business so much importing the general good of the kingdom that all shipwrights should live under a uniform government, as now regulated by the King's charter,'[57] and the two recalcitrants were committed to the Marshalsea, where they made their submission. Nevertheless, in Oct. 1638 the matter was again brought up, coming before the newly appointed Lord High Admiral upon a petition from the City Company, and by an Order in Council of March 1639 that Company was exempted from the jurisdiction of the 'New Corporation of the Suburbs,' although, in view of the fact that 'the said Corporation of shipwrights is of so great importance for the defence of the Kingdom and is dispersed not in the suburbs only but over the whole Kingdom of England,' it was declared 'that this exception ... ought to be no encouragement to any other Society or Trade or particular persons to withdraw their obedience to the said new Corporation or to make suit for the like exemption, which in no sort will be granted.'[58]
The City had won; fine words, whether in a Royal Charter or an Order in Council, were of little use without the consistent support of the authorities, and this the unfortunate Corporation never received. The attempt of the Ipswich Shipwrights in 1621 to secure its dissolution failed, but upon the motion of their member against the 'Patent of the Ship-carpenters who impose exceedingly upon builders of ships,' the House of Commons ordered that the Corporation should not demand or receive any more money by virtue of their patent until it had been brought to the Committee of Grievances and further order been taken therein by the House.[59]
Less drastic attacks on the privileges of the Company frequently succeeded. The exemption from 'land service' was ignored by the Earl Marshal and the Lord Admiral in 1628. In 1631 the King's Bench indirectly curtailed its powers by prohibiting the Lord High Admiral from proceeding in matters relating to freight, wages, and the building of ships; and two years later prohibited the Company from using its powers of arresting ships, thereby preventing the Company from getting 'their suits decided in a speedy way in the Court of Admiralty' and compelling them to 'contend with the master, who, proving poor and litigious, all that the (Company) can get, after long suit, is but the imprisonment of his body.'[60] The East Country merchants also opposed its trading privileges, and in 1634 the Company found it necessary to appeal to the Admiralty for assistance in carrying out its powers in regard to the search and survey of ships, and the regulation of apprentices. In 1635, when Peter Pett was Master, the difficulties of collecting the dues of the shipwrights and the 'tonnage and poundage' granted for the support of the Corporation and its poor, became more acute than ever. After much argument and reference to Sir Henry Marten, the Master, Wardens and Assistants were told, in 1638, 'to cause their charters to be published and put in execution,' while the 'Vice-Admirals, Mayors and other Officers' were charged to assist them. In 1641 the right of freedom from impressment and from attendance on juries was again in question, and although the decision of the Lord Admiral was then favourable the troubles of the Company still continued, for in January 1642 they were petitioning the Commons for relief.
In March 1645 an Ordinance to protect the Shipwrights from impressment for land service 'on account of the importance of their trade and the decrease of qualified workmen,' was presented to the Lords by Warwick, the Lord High Admiral, and was approved by them and passed on to the Commons for concurrence, but it does not appear to have been read.[61]
In the meantime the Clerk and other officials of the Company, whose pay was much in arrear, were petitioning the House to take such action with the Company as would force it to meet their claims, while the Master and Wardens were complaining of individual refusals to pay assessments due to the Company.[62] This state of affairs was still in evidence in 1648, when Edward Keling, the Clerk, and the existing and late Beadles of the Company, petitioned the Lords for relief, and asked 'that the public instruments entrusted to Keling may be disposed of and he be indemnified for them.' The statement of the Wardens annexed thereto[63] explains the situation as follows: The Wardens had
In the meantime the Clerk and other officials of the Company, whose pay was much in arrear, were petitioning the House to take such action with the Company as would force it to meet their claims, while the Master and Wardens were complaining of individual refusals to pay assessments due to the Company.[62] This state of affairs was still in evidence in 1648, when Edward Keling, the Clerk, and the existing and late Beadles of the Company, petitioned the Lords for relief, and asked 'that the public instruments entrusted to Keling may be disposed of and he be indemnified for them.' The statement of the Wardens annexed thereto[63] explains the situation as follows: The Wardens had
In June 1650 the difficulties of the Company were evidently still 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 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:
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.
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, 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.]]
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
(1) Ann
=
Peter,=
(2) Eliza-
Richard,
Lydia,
of Lime-
March.
Curtis,
of Lime-
Humfrey,
Tusam.
of
beth.
of London.
d.1610.
house,
d.1594.
house,
d.1612.
Wapping,
Master
Master
Ship-
Shipwright
Shipwright
builder
d.1587.
d.1605.
d.1631?
Elizabeth.
Lucy.
Margaret.
William.
Joseph.
Peter, of = Elizabeth
William, Elizabeth = Thomas
Ann
Mary
Deptford, Johnson.
Clerk in Barwick.Master
Holy
Shipwright
Orders,
b.1592,
d.1651.
d.1652.
Jane,
PhineasNoah,
Peter the
Rachel, = Rev. W.
Abigail,
Elizabeth,
Mary, = (?) Cooper.
Susannah,
(
see next d.1595.
Younger,
d.1591? Newman.
d.1599.
d.1599.
d.1626.
d.1567.
Table).
d.1600.
FAMILY OF PHINEAS PETT.
[[Click here for table image.]]
Phineas Pett,=
b.1570,
d.1647. =
(1) Ann Nicholls,
m.1598,
(2) Susan Yardley,
m.1627,
(3) Mildred Byland,
m.1638,
d.1627.
néeEaglefield,
d.1637.
néeEtherington,
d.1638.
John, = Katherine
Henry, Richard, Joseph,
Peter,
Ann,
Phineas,
Phineas, = Frances
Christo-
Captain
Yardley
b.1603,
b.1606,
b.1608,
Commis-
b.1612.
b.1615,
Captain
Carre.
pher,
R.N.
d.1613.
d.1629.
d.1627.
sionerat
d.1617.
R.N.
Master
(lost in
Chatham,
(killed in
Shipwright
VI
b.1610,
Tiger),
at
Whelp),
d.1672.
b.1619,
Woolwich
b.1602,
d.1666.
and
d.1628.
Deptford,
Phineas
b.1620,
Phineas,
(owner of
d.1668.
Master
the MS.,
Shipwright
Mary,
Martha, = John
c.1670),
at
b.1617,
b.1617, Hodierne.
b.1646,
Chatham,
d.1617.
m.1637.
d.1694.
b.1628,
d.1678.
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 xxxviijli. xvjd. 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 Ao xvo Regis Henrici vijmo.. P.R.O. E. 405 (80).
[85] Naval Accounts and Inventories of Henry VII., N.R.S., Vol. viii.
[86] P.R.O. Augmentation Office Misc. Bk., 317, f. 236.
[87] N.R.S., vol. viii. pp. liv, 222.
[88] In 1487, Thomas Rogers, clerk of the King's ships, was paid xxvis. viijd. for his expenses in going to Harwich, and victualling the King's ships there. See Material Illustrative of the Reign of Henry VII, vol. ii. p. 143.
[89] Administration, p. 74.
[90] P.R.O., H.C.A. 7 (1), 'probos viros Petrum Pette et Johannem Moptye villae Harewici (and two others) fabros lignarios, anglice shipwrights.'
[91] Richard Pett of London, gent. (elsewhere described as 'unus valettorum regis') in 1593 sold his share of the property at Deptford to his brother Peter Pett, of Wapping. This property had been bought by his father in 1566.
[92] Printed by the Parker Society in Select Poetry, vol. ii. p. 386.
[93] The following errors may be noted: p. 149, the name 'Marcy' should be 'March'; p. 151, the William Pett who petitioned the Admiralty in 1631, was not the son of Joseph but a much older man, apparently belonging to another branch of the family; p. 157, the dates of the death of Phineas' second wife and of his third marriage are antedated by a year; p. 158, the date 'July' was an error of the Harl. transcriber; the dates of birth and death of Phineas, junior, are incorrect; p. 172, Joseph Pett of Chatham was not the son of Phineas, but of Joseph of Limehouse, and he was born in 1592 not 1608.
[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 xxxviijli. xvjd. 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 Ao xvo Regis Henrici vijmo.. P.R.O. E. 405 (80).
[85] Naval Accounts and Inventories of Henry VII., N.R.S., Vol. viii.
[86] P.R.O. Augmentation Office Misc. Bk., 317, f. 236.
[87] N.R.S., vol. viii. pp. liv, 222.
[88] In 1487, Thomas Rogers, clerk of the King's ships, was paid xxvis. viijd. for his expenses in going to Harwich, and victualling the King's ships there. See Material Illustrative of the Reign of Henry VII, vol. ii. p. 143.
[89] Administration, p. 74.
[90] P.R.O., H.C.A. 7 (1), 'probos viros Petrum Pette et Johannem Moptye villae Harewici (and two others) fabros lignarios, anglice shipwrights.'
[91] Richard Pett of London, gent. (elsewhere described as 'unus valettorum regis') in 1593 sold his share of the property at Deptford to his brother Peter Pett, of Wapping. This property had been bought by his father in 1566.
[92] Printed by the Parker Society in Select Poetry, vol. ii. p. 386.
[93] The following errors may be noted: p. 149, the name 'Marcy' should be 'March'; p. 151, the William Pett who petitioned the Admiralty in 1631, was not the son of Joseph but a much older man, apparently belonging to another branch of the family; p. 157, the dates of the death of Phineas' second wife and of his third marriage are antedated by a year; p. 158, the date 'July' was an error of the Harl. transcriber; the dates of birth and death of Phineas, junior, are incorrect; p. 172, Joseph Pett of Chatham was not the son of Phineas, but of Joseph of Limehouse, and he was born in 1592 not 1608.
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.'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
3.—Phineas Pett.
Education.
From the care that had been taken to provide for his education, and from the fact that it was only at the 'instant persuasion' of his mother that he was 'contented' to be apprenticed as a shipwright, it may be inferred that Phineas had been destined for the Church or the Law, and that Peter Pett did not propose that his son should follow in his own footsteps. The peculiarity[94] of the name chosen for him (which no doubt refers, not to the disobedient son of Eli, but to 'Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest,' who received 'the covenant of an everlasting priesthood')[95] gives rise to the surmise that his parents had intended him for the Church, but whatever the intention may have been, it was certainly abandoned on the death of his father.
Phineas does not seem to have profited greatly from his studies at Cambridge. He was hardly a master of English; possibly he had a good knowledge of Latin, for the influence of the Latin idiom is to be seen in almost all his periods; but the fact that he had subsequently to practise 'cyphering' in the evenings does not imply any great acquirements in mathematics, even of the very elementary forms which at that period were sufficient for the solution of the few problems arising in connection with the design of ships. Nevertheless, he received the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1592 and that of Master in 1595.
If the statement that he spent the two years of his apprenticeship to Chapman 'to very little purpose' is to be accepted literally, it would seem that the misfortunes that subsequently befell him must have aroused latent energies and filled him with determination to master the details of his future profession when he returned to England in 1594. His voyage to the Levant and subsequent employment as an ordinary workman under his brother Joseph no doubt gave him a practical acquaintance with ships that enabled him to profit greatly by the instruction of Mathew Baker, although apparently this only extended over the winter of 1595-6. Pett's confession that it was from Baker that he received his 'greatest lights,' written, as it must have been, after he had found Baker an 'envious enemy' and an 'old adversary to my name and family,' indicates how great that assistance was. This is borne out by a letter[96] which he wrote to Baker in April 1603, in order to deprecate the old man's wrath, which had been aroused when Phineas, then Assistant Master Shipwright at Chatham, commenced work on the Answer. The letter was partially destroyed by the fire which damaged the Cottonian Library in 1731, but fortunately Pepys had copied it in his Miscellanea.[97]
Sir,—My duty remembered unto you. It is so that I received a message from you by Richard Meritt, the purveyor, concerning the Answer, who gave me to understand from you that you were informed I meant to break up the ship and to lengthen, and that I should no further proceed till I received further order from you. Indeed the ship was heaved up by general consent, both of my Lord, some of the Principal Officers, and two of the Master Shipwrights which were here present at the time she was begun to be hauled up, no determination being resolved upon what should be done unto her; for which cause (other haste of businesses also being some hindrance) she hath lain still ever since, till now that it pleased Sir Henry Palmer to command she should be blocked and searched within board only, and so let alone, partly because our men wanting stuff to perfect other businesses had little else to do, as also to the intent she might be made ready to be the better viewed and surveyed lying upright, being somewhat also easier for the ship. This is now done, but I ensure you there was no intent or other purpose to proceed in anything upon her any further till the Master Shipwrights, especially yourself who built her, had first surveyed her, and under your hands set down what should be done unto her; and therefore, good Mr. Baker, do not give so much credit to those that out of their malice do advertise you untruth concerning either this or any other matter, for it is supposed by whom this hath been done, and he is generally thought to be no other than an Ambodexter[98] or rather a flat sheet,[99] being so far off from either procuring credit to himself by due execution of his place and discharge of his duty, that like Aesop's Dog he doth malice any other that is willing to give him precedent of better course than all men can sufficiently in this place report himself to follow. And for myself it is so sure[100] from me to understand anything that you should think any ways prejudicial unto you, or to any of your works, that you shall always rather find me dutiful as a servant to follow your directions and instructions in any of these businesses, than arrogant as a prescriber or corrector of anything done by you, whose ever memorable works I set before me as a notable precedent and pattern to direct me in any work that I do at any time undertake, and you yourself can say, setting private jars aside, which I hope are all now at a final end, but that I ever both reverenced you for your years and admired you for your Art, in the which I know (to speak without flattery) no Artist in Christendom of our profession able in any respect to come near you. Therefore, good Mr. Baker, carry but that loving mind towards me as you shall find my loving duty to you to deserve, who you shall find always as ready to do you any service, either in this place or any other, as any servant of yours whatsoever, among whose rank I account myself one of the unworthiest, for although I served no years in your service, yet I must ever acknowledge whatever I have of any art (if I have any) it came only from you. Thus hoping this shall suffice to give you satisfaction in this behalf, I humbly take my leave, ever resting ready to do you service.
Chatham this 10 April, 1603.
Your Servant,
Phineas Pett.
To the worshipful and my loving friend Mr. Mathew Baker, one of his Majesty's Master Shipwrights, give this at Woolwich or elsewhere.
This expression of opinion upon Baker's capacity was evidently quite genuine, for many years after, when the old man was dead and there was nothing to be feared from his enmity, Phineas wrote of him as 'the most famous artist of his time.'[101]
Preferment.
Phineas did not rely on his professional skill alone to gain him preferment. When in his brother Joseph's employment, he laid out his earnings in clothing himself 'in very good fashion, always endeavouring to keep company with men of good rank, far better than myself.' By means of a friend thus gained, he obtained an introduction to the Lord Admiral, which was 'the very first beginning' of his rising. No doubt Nottingham had known his father, and it is certain that he was well acquainted with his brother Peter; it is probably to this that the 'extraordinary respect' and the later favours of the Admiral were due. These favours brought upon him the 'malicious envy' of the Master Shipwrights, who were no doubt aggrieved at seeing employment that might have provided them or their friends with 'pickings,' handed to a newcomer.
The post of a purveyor of timber was not without its perquisites, and Pett's thankfulness that 'nothing could be proved against him' when the accounts of his doings in Suffolk and Norfolk were scrutinised, indicates that his labours had not been without some profit to himself; indeed his association with Trevor, who became an able disciple of the arch-thief Mansell, leads one to suspect that Fulke Greville's action in 'wrongfully' cutting off twenty pounds was not the high-handed injustice that Phineas would have one believe. It is true that Mr. Oppenheim[102] dates the 'administrative degeneracy' of the Navy Office from Greville's treasurership, but it is probable that this arose from Greville's incapacity to exercise the strict control which had characterised his predecessor Hawkyns, and not from want of integrity. Three years later Phineas affirms that Greville continued his 'heavy enemy' because the Treasurer could not win him 'to such conditions as he laboured me in' against the Surveyor, a state of affairs that seems to indicate a half-hearted attempt at reform on Greville's part, rather than any underhand conspiracy.
In an anonymous account of the quarrel at Chatham in 1602 preserved in Pepys' Miscellanea,[103] written evidently by George Collins, 'the principal informer and stirrer in this business,'[104] it is stated that the writer told Sir Henry Palmer that Pett
had sold away the Repulse's foretopmast, and that through his negligence the Crane was bilged in the Dock, which cost the Queen 100l.
whereupon Palmer called him a rogue, and asked him if he never stole anything, and then struck him with a cudgel;
and no wonder! though Sir Henry took his part so much, for in six weeks after he had great masts sawed out into boards at the Queen's charge, a long boat full, and towed down to Whitechapel by Boatswain Vale, or his man, at a ketch's stern.
At the term after, I served Phineas Pett upon a battery, and Sir John and Sir Henry procured my Lord Admiral's warrant to send me to the Marshalsea. But that I paid well for it in Mr. Pope's house I had gone thither; and so was forced to agree with Phineas and to enter into bond never to follow suit against him, neither for the King nor yet for myself.'
The writer then goes on to give instances of Pett's misappropriations of materials and labour; four tons of elm timber sawn into boards; fifty deals from the storehouse; fifty small spars; two four-inch planks to make a bridge into his meadow; labour for two or three days; a sluice made in the meadow at a cost of 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.
The Resistance, and the Voyage to Spain.
One of the gravest indictments subsequently brought by the Commission of Inquiry of 1608-1609 against Phineas was that relating to the ship which he had laid down in David Duck's private yard at Gillingham in 1604, when both he and Duck were shipwrights at Chatham. From the account of it presented by Phineas[105] it might be supposed that the charge related merely to the sale of ordnance and ammunition to the Spaniards, but the malpractices alleged went much further than that; and, although Pett was cleared by the King, an examination of the evidence produced before the Commission leads to the conclusion that 'those scandalous and false informations' might have led to very unpleasant results if the King had not been biased in his favour. The story, as made out from the existing documents,[106] is briefly as follows:
The ship—a small one of about 160 tons—had been built largely of timber delivered 'for the King's use at Chatham' and with articles 'borrowed out of the store,' under warrant of the Principal Officers, two of whom, Mansell and Trevor, subsequently had shares in her. She was rigged 'with the rigging of the Foresight, which for bare 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.
Commission of Inquiry.
The corruption in the administration of the Navy, which had begun to appear in the last years of Elizabeth's reign, had by 1608 reached such a height that James was at length forced to take some steps in regard to it. The knowledge that Spain was actively engaged in setting her navy in order no doubt quickened the King into action and provided a motive powerful enough to sweep aside for the time the obstruction of the senile Nottingham and his jackal Mansell. At first it had been intended that Nottingham should head the Commission, and letters patent[108] were passed on 1st April 1608, in which his name appears first, Northampton coming second, but for some reason this was altered, and on the 30th April a commission under the great seal was issued to Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton, then Lord Privy Seal and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, Charles Howard, Earl of Nottingham, the Lord High Admiral, and thirteen others,[109] of whom Sir Robert Cotton, the famous antiquary, was the most active. Northampton, who was Nottingham's cousin, seems to have been the leader of the reform party, and although he is persistently vilified by Pett, there is little doubt that he was actuated by a more or less sincere desire (sharpened, possibly, by mutual antagonism between the offices of Lord Warden and Lord High Admiral) to reform the many existing abuses. What all these abuses were would take too long in telling, but they were sufficient to justify, and more than justify, the vigorous language of the patent, which speaks of the
'very great and intolerable abuses, deceits, frauds, corruptions, negligences, misdemeanours and offences' that 'have been and daily are perpetrated, committed, and done against the continual admonitions and direction of you our High Admiral by other the officers of and concerning our Navy Royal, and by the Clerks of the Prick and Check, and divers other inferior officers, ministers, soldiers, mariners, and others serving, working, or labouring in and about our said Navy.'
The patent then proceeds to give instructions for the examination of all officials who have been connected with the Navy since 1598 and the investigation of their accounts,
minding that the said intolerable abuses, frauds, misdemeanours, and offences shall forthwith be enquired of, the offenders therein condignly punished and also to provide a speedy reform of the same for the time to come.
Possibly, at the time, James really intended to reform the administration. Nottingham kept out of the way, and his subordinates had an unpleasant time while they were examined upon their misdeeds; but in the end, James' fear of Spain having passed away, he, with his usual weakness, let the offenders off with a lecture.
The Commission commenced to sit in May 1608 and sat for a little over a year, ending with the proceedings before the King recorded on pp. 68-69 below. During this period 161 witnesses were examined, and their signed depositions taken. These are preserved among the manuscripts of Sir Robert Cotton,[110] who acted as the secretary. They were analysed by Cotton, who drew up a lengthy report[111] in which various abuses are set forth and proposals made for their remedy; the latter, as might be expected, were duly ignored by the King. Among the offenders cited by name, Pett appears as one of the chief, and although the present occasion is not convenient for a general examination of the report and evidence, some mention must be made of the matters in which Pett is directly charged with wrong-doing.
The first point made against him is that while he was keeper of the timber store at Chatham he had failed to reject bad timber and plank brought in by one of the purveyors. His answer to this was 'that Sir Henry Palmer had been so quick with him for some of these exceptions as he would complain no more though the purveyors brought in faggot sticks.' He is next charged with certain malpractices in connexion with the Resistance, and other charges on this account are brought against him further on; these have already been referred to. In a general charge against the Master Shipwrights that, for reasons of private gain, ships were repaired 'when they were not worth the labour nor the charges bestowed on them,' the case of the Victory is cited as an example:
Thus did the Victory for transportation, docking and breaking up stand the king in four or five hundred pounds, and yet no one part of her at this day serviceable to any use about the building of a new as was pretended for a colour. To conclude, though we set her at a rate of 200l., yet it had been better absolutely for the King to have given her away to the poor than to have been put to the charge of bringing her from Chatham to Woolwich, no other use having been made of her than to furnish Phineas Pett (that was the only author of her preservation) with fuel for the diet of those Carpenters which he victualled.
In complaining that estimates for repair were made blindfold, with the result that money was spent upon old ships more than sufficient to have built new ones, the illustration is again drawn from Pett's proceedings:
An instance of this art may be drawn from the King's ship now called the Anne Royal, whose estimate being first set down by the Master Shipwrights at 3576l., which sum would have built another (by the judgment of those that made the estimate) newly from the stocks of equal burthen, doth upon her finishing by Phineas Pett (a favourite of the chief officers) amount to full 7600l. upon that false ground which before hath been spoken of.
A little further on, in dealing with frauds connected with the receipt of stores, Pett is again made the principal example:
When timber and other materials come to be received into the stores, of the Clerk of the Check combining closely with the deliverers to increase the quantity of that which is delivered some time to a third part above true measure, which increase is shared between both, and lots are cast upon the robe of the Redeemer.
Sir Foulke Greville, espying plainly this collusion between parties to the wrong of our great Master, sought to prevent this play of fast and loose by adding Phineas Pett to the Clerk of the Check at Chatham as an assistance to take care that there might be no increase of quantities, but all things accounted for in their true proportion in weight and number as they were indeed, without conspiracy. But such was the falsehood of the party, as having found the thief, he ran with him, thrusting himself into [the] pack with the Clerk and the deliverer; and thus adding himself as an assistant indeed, not to plain dealers as Sir Foulke Greville meant, but to filchers and abusers, as Pett himself meant, which appears upon examination.
In a further charge relating to the issue of material for ships building or under repair, it is pointed out that the Surveyor had taken away the keys of the storehouses from the Clerk of the Check, their proper custodian, 'and put them into the hand of Pett his chief favourite, who could not only take just what he liked, but likewise hath power to expend upon the ships (or under that pretence) whatsoever he thinketh good without contradiction, and full scope withal to embezzle what he list.' He is also mentioned in connexion with the construction and decay of the 'pale' which should defend the storeyard from pilferers 'on the outside towards the Thames,' and with the employment of youths and boys 'that fill up numbers but work little.' Finally he is charged with 'wasteful and lavish expense' in repairing the ironwork of the Anne Royal at a cost of 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.
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.
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.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 Capn. 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.
Capn. 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:
[94] 'The rage for Bible names dates from the decade 1560-1570, which decade marks the rise of Puritanism.'—Bardsley, Curiosities of Puritan Nomenclature, p. 39.
[95] Numbers xxvi. 11-13.
[96] Cott. MSS., Otho E. vii. fol. 155.
[97] Misc. x. 353. There are errors in this transcript, which has been corrected, so far as possible, from the original.
[98] Double-dealer; probably he refers to Bright.
[99] MS. flattsheate.' Pepys has transcribed this 'flat cheat.'
[100] Sic in transcript, probably 'far.'
[101] Cal. S.P. Dom., 26 Feb. 1626.
[102] Monson Tracts, ii. 140.
[103] Miscell., vol. x. pp. 257-262: A large and particular complaint against Phineas Pett relating to abuses in the Navy about the end of the Queen's and beginning of King James's Reign. Cf. Dr. Tanner's Introduction in Hollond's Discourses of the Navy (N.R.S., vol. vii.). What is probably the same account is calendared by the Hist. MSS. Commission (Coke MSS, vol. i. p. 36) as '1602 Oct 14} 1603 June 19} allegations by George Colyson of abstraction of sea stores, and other frauds by Phineas Pett.'
[104] Infra, p. 18.
[105] Infra, p. 70.
[106] Cott. MSS., Julius F. 111—the depositions of Pett and various witnesses; S.P.D. James I, xxxi. 51—memorandum drawn up from the above; S.P.D. James I, xli.—report of the Commission, drawn up by Sir Robert Cotton, with analytical draft and notes attached.
[107] The capital of Spain from 1601 to 1606.
[108] Pat. Roll, 1771.
[109] The names were as follows: Henry, Earl of Northampton; Charles, Earl of Nottingham; Lord Zouch; Lord Wotton, Comptroller of the Household; Sir Julius Cæsar, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Sir Thomas Parry, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; Sir Edward Phillips and Sir John Doderidge, Serjeants-at-Law; Sir Henry Hobart, Attorney-General; Sir Francis Bacon, Solicitor-General; Sir William Waade, Lieutenant of the Tower; Sir Charles Parkins; Sir Robert Cotton; Sir Thomas Crompton; and John Corbett, a Clerk of the Privy Council. Pat. Roll, 1770.
[110] Cott. MSS., Julius F. 111.
[111] S.P. Dom. James I, xli. The 'book of reformation' referred to at p. 37. Northampton also made a report direct to the King, which deals, however, only in generalities.—Royal MSS. 18 A, xxxiv.
[112] Pp. lxiv and 29 et seq.
[113] Pipe Off. Dec. Accts. 2247. 'New Building the Victory in dry dock at Woolwich;' ibid. 2248, 'Shipkeepers attending the Victory, now named the Prince Royal'; 'New Building the Victory now named the Prince Royal.'
[114] The relative dimensions were: Prince Royal—length of keel 115 ft.; breadth 43 ft.; depth 18 ft. Merhonour—length of keel 110 ft.; breadth 37 ft.; depth 17 ft. Baker built the Merhonour by contract for £3600.
[115] The Resistance.
[116] The Answer. He does not include the Anne Royal, which had just been finished.
[117] The Moon.
[118] 'There are two kinds of furring, the one is after a ship is built, to lay on another plank upon the side of her (which is called plank upon plank). The other, which is more eminent, and more properly furring, is to rip off the first planks and to put other timbers upon the first, and so to put on the planks upon these timbers. The occasion of it is to make a ship bear a better sail, for when a ship is too narrow, and the bearing either not laid out enough, or too low, then they must make her broader, and lay her bearing higher. They commonly fur some two or three strakes under water and as much above, according as the ship requires, more or less. I think in all the world there are not so many ships furred as are in England, and it is a pity that there is no order taken, either for the punishing of those who build such ships, or the utter preventing of it, for it is an infinite loss to the owners, and an utter spoiling and disgrace to all ships that are so handled.'—Mainwaring, Seaman's Dictionary, s.v. Fur.
[119] Addl. MS. 19889.
[120] Harl. MS. 309, f. 68.
[121] S.P. Dom., James I, xlv. 33.
[122] See note on p. lxviii. In this case pieces were laid upon the outsides of the timbers to make the mould broader.
[123] See note on p. 37.
[124] The sweeps are the circular arcs of the mould; see the mould of the Sovereign on p. xcvi.
[125] 'The Harpings of a Ship is the breadth of her at the bow: also some call the ends of the bends, which are fastened into the stem, the Harpings.'—Mainwaring, Seaman's Dictionary.
[126] Overhang.
[127] Holes cut through the timbers over the keel to allow the bilge water to run to the pump.
[128] See note on p. 60.
[129] I.e. the overlap of the joint was not sufficient.
[130] The inside planking upon the floor timbers, sometimes called 'seeling' or 'ceiling.'
[131] The rungheads at the ends of the floor timbers, where these begin to curve upward into the lower (or runghead) sweep.
[132] I.e. shortened the futtock sweep.
[133] The moulds fore and aft in which the lower sweeps become concave instead of convex exteriorly.
[134] Addl. MS. 18037.
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 500l. 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 6,000l. 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 20,000l. 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 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]
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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]
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 Mats command we have examined the particulars of the plot and the dimensions presented to your Maty 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 Mats 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 Maty 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 Maty.
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
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.
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.
Pett estimated the cost of building the ship at 13,860l., and was to be required to 'put in assurance' to finish her for 16,000l.; but, before she was complete, wages alone had amounted to more than this sum, while the total cost, exclusive of ordnance, reached the extraordinary amount of 40,833l. In May Pett set out for the north to fell and prepare the 2500 trees required for her in Chopwell and Brancepeth Woods. The cost of carriage of the timber to the water, estimated at 1190l. at least, fell upon the counties of Durham and Northumberland, and Bishop Morton of Durham, who had been made responsible for the provision of this service, had to apply to the Council for assistance in proportioning out the assessment. The county of Northumberland objected to the burden to be placed upon it, and it was suggested that Cumberland, Westmoreland, and the North Riding of Yorkshire should bear part. By the beginning of September the timber had begun to arrive at Woolwich, and Pett expected to have the ship finished in eighteen months.
On the 19th September Phineas found it necessary to protest to the King against the interference of the other officers, who had 'from the beginning opposed the King's purpose in building this ship,'[168] and especially against being made to take material of which he did not approve, and against the attempt to charge the ship with the cost of houses then being built at Woolwich. He pointed out that he could not keep the cost within the estimate if such practices, which seem to have been customary, were permitted. The Navy Officers complained to the Admiralty of Pett's action, and he was called before the Admiralty, when he denied that he had complained to the King about any of them.[169] Possibly the great disproportion between the estimated and the ultimate cost of the ship was to some extent due to the fact that his protest was not successful, though it is difficult to believe that his original estimate can have been even approximately accurate. He had also under-estimated by six months the time required to build her.
The Last Years.
The manuscript ends abruptly with Pett's visit to the Lord High Admiral on the 1st October 1638, and, curiously enough, the references to him in the State Papers—hitherto frequent—cease at the same date, with a letter from Northumberland to Pennington mentioning this visit. Except for one reference in connexion with a gratuity to be given to Henry Goddard in April 1645, his name is never again mentioned therein. Yet he remained in the service and carried on his duties at Chatham until his death.
On 28th June 1642 the King sent him a warrant informing him of the appointment of Pennington as Lord High Admiral in place of Northumberland, and directing him to send the standard and all necessaries for the fleet as Sir John should direct.[170] It will be remembered that Pennington hesitated and waited before going to the Fleet, with the result that Warwick, who had been nominated by Parliament to take command, went on board the flagship on the 2nd July, and the Fleet went over to the Parliamentary side. On the 20th August Colonels Sir John Seaton and Edwyn Sandis, acting on instructions from the Committee of Public Safety, went to Chatham Dockyard, 'which was surrendered to them by Captain Pett when he saw their warrant.'[171] This was on Saturday evening, and on the Monday they completed their work by placing a guard on board the Sovereign.
Pett was rewarded for his ready obedience by being included among the Commissioners of the Navy appointed by Ordinance on the 15th September,[172] and he was to receive the same allowance as he already held, although the other captains (except Batten) and John Hollond were only given 100l. a year. From this time until his death in August 1647, in his seventy-seventh year, he seems to have remained quietly at Chatham, perhaps too old to take any very active part in current affairs, for he has certainly left no mark upon them. His death seems to have occurred unnoticed; the exact date is unknown,[173] and there is no record of his will—if he made one. The last entry concerning him in the official records[174] relates to the payment of his salary up to 29th September 1647, when he had passed away, but no reference is made to that fact. It is curious that Sir Henry Vane, the Treasurer of the Navy in 1647, who had corresponded with Pett, and must have known of his death, has left a blank in place of his name in the entry in these accounts relating to the salary of Thomas Smith,[175] who succeeded to Pett's post at Chatham on the 28th August.
No authentic portrait of Phineas is known to exist. He tells us that in 1612 his 'picture was begun to be drawn by a Dutchman working then with Mr. Rock,' one of the ship-painters, but does not say if it was ever finished. The picture in the National Portrait Gallery, which shows the stern view of the Sovereign, at one time supposed to be a portrait of Phineas, is now acknowledged to be that of his son Peter. Another picture, in the possession of the Earl of Yarborough, has been exhibited in the past as a portrait of Phineas, but there can be no doubt that it really represents Sir Phineas (son of Peter of Deptford and grandson of Peter of Wapping), who was a Commissioner of the Navy from 1685 to 1689. The ship included in this picture is probably the Britannia, built by Sir Phineas in 1682.
[135] At Hinchinbrook, Hampton Court, and Windsor Castle. See R. C. Anderson, 'The Prince Royal and other Ships of James I,' in Mariner's Mirror, vol. iii. (1913), in which these pictures are reproduced.
[136] Pepysian MS. 2820.
[137] Addl. MS. 9299, f. 206.
[138] Coke MSS. (Hist. MSS.), I. 114. See also pp. 124, 125, infra.
[139] Add. MSS. 9294 f. 409 and 9300.
[140] I.e. in 1621.
[141] Appendix V, p. 207.
[142] It need scarcely be pointed out that the illustrations in Charnock's Marine Architecture do not remotely resemble the real ship.
[143] Burrell quarrelled with the Company in 1626 and was dismissed their service. He died in 1630.
[144] See especially Playfair, The Scourge of Christendom; Corbett, England in the Mediterranean, vol. i., chap. viii.; and Oppenheim, Monson Tracts, vol. iii. p. 94 et seq.
[145] S.P. Dom., James I, cxxxiv. 60.
[146] I.e. his wages as captain of the Mercury.
[147] Infra, pp. 139, 141.
[148] About 1631. In January 1634 he is stated to have been dead three years.
[149] He refers especially to his loss on the Destiny. For this use of 'main' in the sense of considerable,' cf. 'a very main loss.'—N.E.D.
[150] Infra, p. 154. The above account has been collected from the S.P. Dom., James I, ccxv. p. 98; ccxxviii. f. 14, 84a; ccxxi. 45; ccxxxii. 27; ccxxxiii. 10; ccxxxviii. 89; ccxlii. 3, 36; ccxlvii. 84; ccli. 18; cclix. 10.
[151] Appendix VI, p. 210.
[152] App. VII, p. 212.
[153] Infra, p. 126.
[154] S.P. Dom., Chas. I., ccli. 74.
[155] Infra, p. 153.
[156] It was 252l. 6s. 9d.
[157] S.P. Dom., Chas. I, cclx. 108, ccxxviii. f. 122.
[158] Appendix VIII, p. 214.
[159] S.P. Dom., Chas. I, cclxiv. ff. 67a, 87a.
[160] Storekeeper at Deptford. He seems to have had some knowledge of design, for in 1626 and 1627 he had been associated with Pett, Stevens, Lydiard, and Gunter, the mathematician, in drawing up new rules for ship measurement.
[161] S.P. Dom., Chas. I, cclxxxvi. 44.
[162] The transverse section at the greatest breadth.
[163] The curves passing through the ends of the floor timbers, as referred to the plan and elevation respectively.
[164] S.P. Dom., Chas. I, cclxxxvi. 105.
[165] Add. MSS. 9300 f. 64; 9336 f. 53. S.P. Dom., Chas. I, ccclxviii. 121. In this list, which is dated September 1637, the ship is not named. The keel length is given as 127 ft., depth from breadth to top of keel as 19 ft. 4 ins., and breadth as 46 ft. 6 ins.
[166] S.P. Dom., Chas. I, cccvi. 83.
[167] Diary, Jan. 31, 1663.
[168] S.P. Dom., Chas. I, ccxcviii. 20.
[169] S.P. Dom., Chas. I, ccxcix. 2, 12.
[170] Hist. MSS. Report, v. 33.
[171] Hist. MSS. Report, v. 46.
[172] Firth, Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, i. 27.
[173] He was buried in Chatham Church on August 21.
[174] Pipe Office Dec. Accts. 2286.
[175] Smith, who had been Northumberland's secretary, had been appointed Secretary of the Admiralty by Ordinance of the same date as the one by which Pett had been re-appointed a Commissioner of the Navy in 1642.
Phineas Pett's Character.
In forming any just appreciation of the character and abilities of Phineas Pett, regard must be had to the circumstances of age in which he lived. It was a time of great political and religious unrest, and expressions of religious devotion which might now be thought extravagant were then normal, and were apparently not thought incongruous with dishonesty in money matters. The chronic maladministration of the Navy, and the arrears in payment of the relatively small salaries allotted to responsible posts, may to some extent justify methods of acquiring additional emoluments that nowadays are judged more severely.
Pett's kindness towards his unfortunate brothers and sisters shows a good heart, and there must have been something attractive in his character to secure him the steady support of Nottingham, James I, and Charles I, which went so far as to shield him against the consequences of his misdeeds.
The favoured position which he held, and the privilege he enjoyed of direct intercourse with the supreme heads of the Navy behind the backs of his immediate superiors, brought Pett into conflict with the latter on many occasions. It is not necessary to accept the explanation of Phineas that these incidents were the results of conspiracies directed against him. To oppose him was a deadly sin; thus, Burrell, who was 'a worthy gentleman and good friend' when he stood on Pett's side in the Prince Royal inquiry, became Pett's 'greatest enemy,' engaged in the 'malicious practice' of 'tending to overthrow me and root my name out of the earth' because he was appointed one of the Commissioners of Inquiry in 1618.
Pett was evidently interested in the various efforts made in the early seventeenth century to explore and colonise the coasts of North America. He frequently refers to his friendship with Button, and states that he assisted in the selection of the Resolution for the voyage of 1612. He was, moreover, a kinsman of Hawkridge and an acquaintance of Foxe; while Gibbons was the master of his ship the Resistance. The disparaging remark on Waymouth's 'mistaking his course (as he did in the North-West Passage)'[176] shows that he was acquainted with the story of the voyage of 1602, but the most competent modern authorities do not agree with this opinion of Pett (and of his contemporary Foxe), and hold that Waymouth did in fact enter the straits subsequently called after Hudson and sail along them for a considerable distance.[177] Pett was also a member of the Virginia Company, though he does not mention this fact. His name appears in the second and third Charters of the Company (1609 and 1612), and in 1611 he subscribed the sum of 37l. 10s. This was the lowest subscription allowable for members, but it was a comparatively large sum for those days.
Evidently Phineas, in spite of his large and growing family, was at this time fairly prosperous, and had an income considerably greater than the 54l. 15s. which represented his official salary and allowance. No doubt this income was augmented by the trading ventures in the Resistance and by shipbuilding for private owners and by various official 'perquisites.' In 1614 it was increased by 40l., granted him by the King under writ of Privy Seal, but in 1617 and the following years his bad speculations in regard to the Destiny, the pinnace built for Lord Zouch, the Mercury, and the Spy, made serious inroads into his capital and burdened him with a load of debt which seems to have weighed upon him for many years and given him much trouble. James came to his assistance in 1620 by presenting him with a patent for a baronetcy which brought him about 650l., and Charles gave him another in 1628 which only fetched 200l. His appointment as a Commissioner of the Navy in 1631 increased his official income to 200l., exclusive of the 40l. payable on the writ of Privy Seal. With this substantial addition to his salary he was in a position to gradually improve his finances, and after 1634 we hear no more of the actions for debt.
From the story of his life as now unfolded it is clear that Phineas Pett was a man of considerable ability and industry, kindly to his friends, but impetuous and quick-tempered; 'well-in' with the authorities, and apt to take advantage of that fact when he disagreed with his equals or superiors. It is probable that he was slightly in advance of his contemporaries in the profession of shipbuilding, but not to the extent commonly supposed. Here his autobiography has stood him in good stead, for it has attached to his name a personality that makes his existence seem more real and of more moment to a later age in which his professional contemporaries have become shadowy names. It is difficult to say what was his real motive in writing it, but it was probably commenced as an explanation of his position in regard to the Prince Royal dispute of 1608, and afterwards continued partly for recreation; partly, perhaps, for the edification of his children. Pepys appears to have thought much of it, for he took the trouble to copy it into his collection of miscellanea; but it is certainly wanting in the candour and honesty of the celebrated Diary, and seems to have been written in order to convey a favourable impression to the reader, and explain away doubtful deeds, rather than as a real revelation of self.
FOOTNOTES:
[94] 'The rage for Bible names dates from the decade 1560-1570, which decade marks the rise of Puritanism.'—Bardsley, Curiosities of Puritan Nomenclature, p. 39.
[95] Numbers xxvi. 11-13.
[96] Cott. MSS., Otho E. vii. fol. 155.
[97] Misc. x. 353. There are errors in this transcript, which has been corrected, so far as possible, from the original.
[98] Double-dealer; probably he refers to Bright.
[99] MS. flattsheate.' Pepys has transcribed this 'flat cheat.'
[100] Sic in transcript, probably 'far.'
[101] Cal. S.P. Dom., 26 Feb. 1626.
[102] Monson Tracts, ii. 140.
[103] Miscell., vol. x. pp. 257-262: A large and particular complaint against Phineas Pett relating to abuses in the Navy about the end of the Queen's and beginning of King James's Reign. Cf. Dr. Tanner's Introduction in Hollond's Discourses of the Navy (N.R.S., vol. vii.). What is probably the same account is calendared by the Hist. MSS. Commission (Coke MSS, vol. i. p. 36) as '1602 Oct 14} 1603 June 19} allegations by George Colyson of abstraction of sea stores, and other frauds by Phineas Pett.'
[104] Infra, p. 18.
[105] Infra, p. 70.
[106] Cott. MSS., Julius F. 111—the depositions of Pett and various witnesses; S.P.D. James I, xxxi. 51—memorandum drawn up from the above; S.P.D. James I, xli.—report of the Commission, drawn up by Sir Robert Cotton, with analytical draft and notes attached.
[107] The capital of Spain from 1601 to 1606.
[108] Pat. Roll, 1771.
[109] The names were as follows: Henry, Earl of Northampton; Charles, Earl of Nottingham; Lord Zouch; Lord Wotton, Comptroller of the Household; Sir Julius Cæsar, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Sir Thomas Parry, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; Sir Edward Phillips and Sir John Doderidge, Serjeants-at-Law; Sir Henry Hobart, Attorney-General; Sir Francis Bacon, Solicitor-General; Sir William Waade, Lieutenant of the Tower; Sir Charles Parkins; Sir Robert Cotton; Sir Thomas Crompton; and John Corbett, a Clerk of the Privy Council. Pat. Roll, 1770.
[110] Cott. MSS., Julius F. 111.
[111] S.P. Dom. James I, xli. The 'book of reformation' referred to at p. 37. Northampton also made a report direct to the King, which deals, however, only in generalities.—Royal MSS. 18 A, xxxiv.
[113] Pipe Off. Dec. Accts. 2247. 'New Building the Victory in dry dock at Woolwich;' ibid. 2248, 'Shipkeepers attending the Victory, now named the Prince Royal'; 'New Building the Victory now named the Prince Royal.'
[114] The relative dimensions were: Prince Royal—length of keel 115 ft.; breadth 43 ft.; depth 18 ft. Merhonour—length of keel 110 ft.; breadth 37 ft.; depth 17 ft. Baker built the Merhonour by contract for £3600.
[115] The Resistance.
[116] The Answer. He does not include the Anne Royal, which had just been finished.
[117] The Moon.
[118] 'There are two kinds of furring, the one is after a ship is built, to lay on another plank upon the side of her (which is called plank upon plank). The other, which is more eminent, and more properly furring, is to rip off the first planks and to put other timbers upon the first, and so to put on the planks upon these timbers. The occasion of it is to make a ship bear a better sail, for when a ship is too narrow, and the bearing either not laid out enough, or too low, then they must make her broader, and lay her bearing higher. They commonly fur some two or three strakes under water and as much above, according as the ship requires, more or less. I think in all the world there are not so many ships furred as are in England, and it is a pity that there is no order taken, either for the punishing of those who build such ships, or the utter preventing of it, for it is an infinite loss to the owners, and an utter spoiling and disgrace to all ships that are so handled.'—Mainwaring, Seaman's Dictionary, s.v. Fur.
[119] Addl. MS. 19889.
[120] Harl. MS. 309, f. 68.
[121] S.P. Dom., James I, xlv. 33.
[122] See note on p. lxviii. In this case pieces were laid upon the outsides of the timbers to make the mould broader.
[123] See note on p. 37.
[124] The sweeps are the circular arcs of the mould; see the mould of the Sovereign on p. xcvi.
[125] 'The Harpings of a Ship is the breadth of her at the bow: also some call the ends of the bends, which are fastened into the stem, the Harpings.'—Mainwaring, Seaman's Dictionary.
[126] Overhang.
[127] Holes cut through the timbers over the keel to allow the bilge water to run to the pump.
[128] See note on p. 60.
[129] I.e. the overlap of the joint was not sufficient.
[130] The inside planking upon the floor timbers, sometimes called 'seeling' or 'ceiling.'
[131] The rungheads at the ends of the floor timbers, where these begin to curve upward into the lower (or runghead) sweep.
[132] I.e. shortened the futtock sweep.
[133] The moulds fore and aft in which the lower sweeps become concave instead of convex exteriorly.
[134] Addl. MS. 18037.
[135] At Hinchinbrook, Hampton Court, and Windsor Castle. See R. C. Anderson, 'The Prince Royal and other Ships of James I,' in Mariner's Mirror, vol. iii. (1913), in which these pictures are reproduced.
[136] Pepysian MS. 2820.
[137] Addl. MS. 9299, f. 206.
[138] Coke MSS. (Hist. MSS.), I. 114. See also pp. 124, 125, infra.
[139] Add. MSS. 9294 f. 409 and 9300.
[140] I.e. in 1621.
[141] Appendix V, p. 207.
[142] It need scarcely be pointed out that the illustrations in Charnock's Marine Architecture do not remotely resemble the real ship.
[143] Burrell quarrelled with the Company in 1626 and was dismissed their service. He died in 1630.
[144] See especially Playfair, The Scourge of Christendom; Corbett, England in the Mediterranean, vol. i., chap. viii.; and Oppenheim, Monson Tracts, vol. iii. p. 94 et seq.
[145] S.P. Dom., James I, cxxxiv. 60.
[146] I.e. his wages as captain of the Mercury.
[148] About 1631. In January 1634 he is stated to have been dead three years.
[149] He refers especially to his loss on the Destiny. For this use of 'main' in the sense of considerable,' cf. 'a very main loss.'—N.E.D.
[150] Infra, p. 154. The above account has been collected from the S.P. Dom., James I, ccxv. p. 98; ccxxviii. f. 14, 84a; ccxxi. 45; ccxxxii. 27; ccxxxiii. 10; ccxxxviii. 89; ccxlii. 3, 36; ccxlvii. 84; ccli. 18; cclix. 10.
[151] Appendix VI, p. 210.
[152] App. VII, p. 212.
[153] Infra, p. 126.
[154] S.P. Dom., Chas. I., ccli. 74.
[155] Infra, p. 153.
[156] It was 252l. 6s. 9d.
[157] S.P. Dom., Chas. I, cclx. 108, ccxxviii. f. 122.
[158] Appendix VIII, p. 214.
[159] S.P. Dom., Chas. I, cclxiv. ff. 67a, 87a.
[160] Storekeeper at Deptford. He seems to have had some knowledge of design, for in 1626 and 1627 he had been associated with Pett, Stevens, Lydiard, and Gunter, the mathematician, in drawing up new rules for ship measurement.
[161] S.P. Dom., Chas. I, cclxxxvi. 44.
[162] The transverse section at the greatest breadth.
[163] The curves passing through the ends of the floor timbers, as referred to the plan and elevation respectively.
[164] S.P. Dom., Chas. I, cclxxxvi. 105.
[165] Add. MSS. 9300 f. 64; 9336 f. 53. S.P. Dom., Chas. I, ccclxviii. 121. In this list, which is dated September 1637, the ship is not named. The keel length is given as 127 ft., depth from breadth to top of keel as 19 ft. 4 ins., and breadth as 46 ft. 6 ins.
[166] S.P. Dom., Chas. I, cccvi. 83.
[167] Diary, Jan. 31, 1663.
[168] S.P. Dom., Chas. I, ccxcviii. 20.
[169] S.P. Dom., Chas. I, ccxcix. 2, 12.
[170] Hist. MSS. Report, v. 33.
[171] Hist. MSS. Report, v. 46.
[172] Firth, Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, i. 27.
[173] He was buried in Chatham Church on August 21.
[174] Pipe Office Dec. Accts. 2286.
'Phineas Pett, Esq., another of the said Commissioners and one of the principal officers of the Navy, for his salary at 200l. per annum, 8d. per diem for one clerk and 6l. per annum for paper, pens etc., due to him for the same time ended as the former [i.e. the year ended September 29, 1647]
217l. 3s. 4d.
'Thomas Smith, Esq., now one of the Commissioners of the Navy in the room and place of (blank) for the entertainment of himself at 200l. per annum and two clerks at 16d. per diem and 6l. per annum for paper money due to him for 34 days begun the 28th of August 1647 and ended the 30th of September following
22l. 9s. 4d.'
[175] Smith, who had been Northumberland's secretary, had been appointed Secretary of the Admiralty by Ordinance of the same date as the one by which Pett had been re-appointed a Commissioner of the Navy in 1642.
[176] Infra, p. 71.
[177] See Christy, Voyages of Foxe and James (Hakl. Soc.) and Asher, Henry Hudson the Navigator (Hakl. Soc.).
[176] Infra, p. 71.
[177] See Christy, Voyages of Foxe and James (Hakl. Soc.) and Asher, Henry Hudson the Navigator (Hakl. Soc.).
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.
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.
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]
If the statement that he spent the two years of his apprenticeship to Chapman 'to very little purpose' is to be accepted literally, it would seem that the misfortunes that subsequently befell him must have aroused latent energies and filled him with determination to master the details of his future profession when he returned to England in 1594. His voyage to the Levant and subsequent employment as an ordinary workman under his brother Joseph no doubt gave him a practical acquaintance with ships that enabled him to profit greatly by the instruction of Mathew Baker, although apparently this only extended over the winter of 1595-6. Pett's confession that it was from Baker that he received his 'greatest lights,' written, as it must have been, after he had found Baker an 'envious enemy' and an 'old adversary to my name and family,' indicates how great that assistance was. This is borne out by a letter[96] which he wrote to Baker in April 1603, in order to deprecate the old man's wrath, which had been aroused when Phineas, then Assistant Master Shipwright at Chatham, commenced work on the Answer. The letter was partially destroyed by the fire which damaged the Cottonian Library in 1731, but fortunately Pepys had copied it in his Miscellanea.[97]
Sir,—My duty remembered unto you. It is so that I received a message from you by Richard Meritt, the purveyor, concerning the Answer, who gave me to understand from you that you were informed I meant to break up the ship and to lengthen, and that I should no further proceed till I received further order from you. Indeed the ship was heaved up by general consent, both of my Lord, some of the Principal Officers, and two of the Master Shipwrights which were here present at the time she was begun to be hauled up, no determination being resolved upon what should be done unto her; for which cause (other haste of businesses also being some hindrance) she hath lain still ever since, till now that it pleased Sir Henry Palmer to command she should be blocked and searched within board only, and so let alone, partly because our men wanting stuff to perfect other businesses had little else to do, as also to the intent she might be made ready to be the better viewed and surveyed lying upright, being somewhat also easier for the ship. This is now done, but I ensure you there was no intent or other purpose to proceed in anything upon her any further till the Master Shipwrights, especially yourself who built her, had first surveyed her, and under your hands set down what should be done unto her; and therefore, good Mr. Baker, do not give so much credit to those that out of their malice do advertise you untruth concerning either this or any other matter, for it is supposed by whom this hath been done, and he is generally thought to be no other than an Ambodexter[98] or rather a flat sheet,[99] being so far off from either procuring credit to himself by due execution of his place and discharge of his duty, that like Aesop's Dog he doth malice any other that is willing to give him precedent of better course than all men can sufficiently in this place report himself to follow. And for myself it is so sure[100] from me to understand anything that you should think any ways prejudicial unto you, or to any of your works, that you shall always rather find me dutiful as a servant to follow your directions and instructions in any of these businesses, than arrogant as a prescriber or corrector of anything done by you, whose ever memorable works I set before me as a notable precedent and pattern to direct me in any work that I do at any time undertake, and you yourself can say, setting private jars aside, which I hope are all now at a final end, but that I ever both reverenced you for your years and admired you for your Art, in the which I know (to speak without flattery) no Artist in Christendom of our profession able in any respect to come near you. Therefore, good Mr. Baker, carry but that loving mind towards me as you shall find my loving duty to you to deserve, who you shall find always as ready to do you any service, either in this place or any other, as any servant of yours whatsoever, among whose rank I account myself one of the unworthiest, for although I served no years in your service, yet I must ever acknowledge whatever I have of any art (if I have any) it came only from you. Thus hoping this shall suffice to give you satisfaction in this behalf, I humbly take my leave, ever resting ready to do you service.
Sir,—My duty remembered unto you. It is so that I received a message from you by Richard Meritt, the purveyor, concerning the Answer, who gave me to understand from you that you were informed I meant to break up the ship and to lengthen, and that I should no further proceed till I received further order from you. Indeed the ship was heaved up by general consent, both of my Lord, some of the Principal Officers, and two of the Master Shipwrights which were here present at the time she was begun to be hauled up, no determination being resolved upon what should be done unto her; for which cause (other haste of businesses also being some hindrance) she hath lain still ever since, till now that it pleased Sir Henry Palmer to command she should be blocked and searched within board only, and so let alone, partly because our men wanting stuff to perfect other businesses had little else to do, as also to the intent she might be made ready to be the better viewed and surveyed lying upright, being somewhat also easier for the ship. This is now done, but I ensure you there was no intent or other purpose to proceed in anything upon her any further till the Master Shipwrights, especially yourself who built her, had first surveyed her, and under your hands set down what should be done unto her; and therefore, good Mr. Baker, do not give so much credit to those that out of their malice do advertise you untruth concerning either this or any other matter, for it is supposed by whom this hath been done, and he is generally thought to be no other than an Ambodexter[98] or rather a flat sheet,[99] being so far off from either procuring credit to himself by due execution of his place and discharge of his duty, that like Aesop's Dog he doth malice any other that is willing to give him precedent of better course than all men can sufficiently in this place report himself to follow. And for myself it is so sure[100] from me to understand anything that you should think any ways prejudicial unto you, or to any of your works, that you shall always rather find me dutiful as a servant to follow your directions and instructions in any of these businesses, than arrogant as a prescriber or corrector of anything done by you, whose ever memorable works I set before me as a notable precedent and pattern to direct me in any work that I do at any time undertake, and you yourself can say, setting private jars aside, which I hope are all now at a final end, but that I ever both reverenced you for your years and admired you for your Art, in the which I know (to speak without flattery) no Artist in Christendom of our profession able in any respect to come near you. Therefore, good Mr. Baker, carry but that loving mind towards me as you shall find my loving duty to you to deserve, who you shall find always as ready to do you any service, either in this place or any other, as any servant of yours whatsoever, among whose rank I account myself one of the unworthiest, for although I served no years in your service, yet I must ever acknowledge whatever I have of any art (if I have any) it came only from you. Thus hoping this shall suffice to give you satisfaction in this behalf, I humbly take my leave, ever resting ready to do you service.
Sir,—My duty remembered unto you. It is so that I received a message from you by Richard Meritt, the purveyor, concerning the Answer, who gave me to understand from you that you were informed I meant to break up the ship and to lengthen, and that I should no further proceed till I received further order from you. Indeed the ship was heaved up by general consent, both of my Lord, some of the Principal Officers, and two of the Master Shipwrights which were here present at the time she was begun to be hauled up, no determination being resolved upon what should be done unto her; for which cause (other haste of businesses also being some hindrance) she hath lain still ever since, till now that it pleased Sir Henry Palmer to command she should be blocked and searched within board only, and so let alone, partly because our men wanting stuff to perfect other businesses had little else to do, as also to the intent she might be made ready to be the better viewed and surveyed lying upright, being somewhat also easier for the ship. This is now done, but I ensure you there was no intent or other purpose to proceed in anything upon her any further till the Master Shipwrights, especially yourself who built her, had first surveyed her, and under your hands set down what should be done unto her; and therefore, good Mr. Baker, do not give so much credit to those that out of their malice do advertise you untruth concerning either this or any other matter, for it is supposed by whom this hath been done, and he is generally thought to be no other than an Ambodexter[98] or rather a flat sheet,[99] being so far off from either procuring credit to himself by due execution of his place and discharge of his duty, that like Aesop's Dog he doth malice any other that is willing to give him precedent of better course than all men can sufficiently in this place report himself to follow. And for myself it is so sure[100] from me to understand anything that you should think any ways prejudicial unto you, or to any of your works, that you shall always rather find me dutiful as a servant to follow your directions and instructions in any of these businesses, than arrogant as a prescriber or corrector of anything done by you, whose ever memorable works I set before me as a notable precedent and pattern to direct me in any work that I do at any time undertake, and you yourself can say, setting private jars aside, which I hope are all now at a final end, but that I ever both reverenced you for your years and admired you for your Art, in the which I know (to speak without flattery) no Artist in Christendom of our profession able in any respect to come near you. Therefore, good Mr. Baker, carry but that loving mind towards me as you shall find my loving duty to you to deserve, who you shall find always as ready to do you any service, either in this place or any other, as any servant of yours whatsoever, among whose rank I account myself one of the unworthiest, for although I served no years in your service, yet I must ever acknowledge whatever I have of any art (if I have any) it came only from you. Thus hoping this shall suffice to give you satisfaction in this behalf, I humbly take my leave, ever resting ready to do you service.
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]
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
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
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:
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.'
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 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 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 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.
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.
The 17th day of July, his Majesty the noble King of Denmark arrived in England, against whose coming, being but only supposed some two months before, I received private directions from the Lord Admiral and some of the Principal Officers to have all the ships put into a comely readiness, which accordingly was performed in a decent and warlike manner, as if they had been prepared to sea; but upon the news of his certain arrival they were all rigged and furnished with their ordnance, and a great preparation was made aboard the Elizabeth Jonas and the Bear, for entertaining the Kings, Queen, Prince, and all the other State and Troupes;[255] wherein I confess I strove extraordinarily to express my service for the honour of the Kingdom, but by reason the time limited was short, and the business great, we laboured night and day to effect it; which accordingly was performed, to the great honour of our sovereign King and Master and no less admiration of all strangers that were eye witnesses of the same.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In an undated paper, a copy of which is preserved in the Harleian MSS.,[120] he further criticises the shipwrights to the following effect:
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]
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.
[118] 'There are two kinds of furring, the one is after a ship is built, to lay on another plank upon the side of her (which is called plank upon plank). The other, which is more eminent, and more properly furring, is to rip off the first planks and to put other timbers upon the first, and so to put on the planks upon these timbers. The occasion of it is to make a ship bear a better sail, for when a ship is too narrow, and the bearing either not laid out enough, or too low, then they must make her broader, and lay her bearing higher. They commonly fur some two or three strakes under water and as much above, according as the ship requires, more or less. I think in all the world there are not so many ships furred as are in England, and it is a pity that there is no order taken, either for the punishing of those who build such ships, or the utter preventing of it, for it is an infinite loss to the owners, and an utter spoiling and disgrace to all ships that are so handled.'—Mainwaring, Seaman's Dictionary, s.v. Fur.
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.
[271] MS. 'flower.' 'Floor—are those timbers lying transverse to the keel, being bolted through it ... and strictly taken, is so much only of her bottom as she rests upon when lying aground.'—Blanckley, Naval Expositor.
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 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 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.
[328] The futtocks or foothooks are the timbers between the floor timbers and the top timbers. The floor timbers, lower and upper futtocks, and top timbers, when put together, form a complete frame-bend.
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.
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.
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.
Capn. 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.
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.
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]
The 19th day of September, 1621, we arrived in the Downs, and the 20th day at night, I came safe to my house at Chatham, finding my wife and children all in good health, for which mercy of God I gave God thanks, as did also my whole family.
I must not forget that in the beginning of the year 1621, before I was two months out of England, [through] the malice of Mr. Burrell and some of the rest of the Commissioners for the Navy, that there were divers master shipwrights of the river of Thames and some masters of the Trinity House sent down to Chatham to survey the state of the Prince;[461] amongst which Commissioners was, beside old Burrell and his son, my fellow,[462] Stevens, Graves,[463] Dearslye,[464] Bourne,[465] Thomas Brunning of Woodbridge, and one Chandler,[466] a creature of Mr. Burrell's, and divers other mariners, who maliciously certified the ship to be merely unserviceable and not fit to be continued, and what charge soever should be bestowed upon her would be lost, which they certified under their hands. But the 24th of February succeeding, by special command from his Majesty, who well understood their malicious proceedings, the selfsame surveyors were again sent to Chatham and under their hands certified that the ship might be made serviceable for a voyage into Spain with the charge of 300 pounds,[467] to be bestowed upon her hull and the perfecting her masts, which certificate was returned under their hands and delivered to his Majesty. Whereupon present warrant was granted to have the ship docked and fitted for a Spanish voyage; which was accordingly done, and brought into the dock the 8th of March, 1623, at Chatham, and was launched the 24th day of the same month.
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]
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.
Appendix,[141] which are
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.'
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.
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]
The 26th of February, attending the Officers of the Navy at Sir Sackville Crowe's[513] house by Charing Cross, Sir[514] John Pennington came thither to acquaint them with a warrant from the Lord Duke, directed to him and myself, for present bargaining with the yard-keepers[515] of the river for the building of 10 small vessels[516] for the enterprise of Rochelle, of some 120 tons a-piece, with one deck and quarter only, to row as well as sail. The 28th day of the same month we concluded our bargains with the several yardkeepers and drew covenants between us, and delivered them imprests[517] accordingly. In this business I was employed till the latter end of July, that the ships set sail to Portsmouth. My son John was placed Captain in the sixth Whelp, built by my kinsman Peter Pett; having liberty from the Lord Duke to make choice for him amongst them all, I chose that pinnace before the rest, supposing she would have proved best, which fell out afterward clean contrary.
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.'
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.
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.
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:
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:
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:
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
On the 19th September Phineas found it necessary to protest to the King against the interference of the other officers, who had 'from the beginning opposed the King's purpose in building this ship,'[168] and especially against being made to take material of which he did not approve, and against the attempt to charge the ship with the cost of houses then being built at Woolwich. He pointed out that he could not keep the cost within the estimate if such practices, which seem to have been customary, were permitted. The Navy Officers complained to the Admiralty of Pett's action, and he was called before the Admiralty, when he denied that he had complained to the King about any of them.[169] Possibly the great disproportion between the estimated and the ultimate cost of the ship was to some extent due to the fact that his protest was not successful, though it is difficult to believe that his original estimate can have been even approximately accurate. He had also under-estimated by six months the time required to build her.
On the 19th September Phineas found it necessary to protest to the King against the interference of the other officers, who had 'from the beginning opposed the King's purpose in building this ship,'[168] and especially against being made to take material of which he did not approve, and against the attempt to charge the ship with the cost of houses then being built at Woolwich. He pointed out that he could not keep the cost within the estimate if such practices, which seem to have been customary, were permitted. The Navy Officers complained to the Admiralty of Pett's action, and he was called before the Admiralty, when he denied that he had complained to the King about any of them.[169] Possibly the great disproportion between the estimated and the ultimate cost of the ship was to some extent due to the fact that his protest was not successful, though it is difficult to believe that his original estimate can have been even approximately accurate. He had also under-estimated by six months the time required to build her.
On 28th June 1642 the King sent him a warrant informing him of the appointment of Pennington as Lord High Admiral in place of Northumberland, and directing him to send the standard and all necessaries for the fleet as Sir John should direct.[170] It will be remembered that Pennington hesitated and waited before going to the Fleet, with the result that Warwick, who had been nominated by Parliament to take command, went on board the flagship on the 2nd July, and the Fleet went over to the Parliamentary side. On the 20th August Colonels Sir John Seaton and Edwyn Sandis, acting on instructions from the Committee of Public Safety, went to Chatham Dockyard, 'which was surrendered to them by Captain Pett when he saw their warrant.'[171] This was on Saturday evening, and on the Monday they completed their work by placing a guard on board the Sovereign.
On 28th June 1642 the King sent him a warrant informing him of the appointment of Pennington as Lord High Admiral in place of Northumberland, and directing him to send the standard and all necessaries for the fleet as Sir John should direct.[170] It will be remembered that Pennington hesitated and waited before going to the Fleet, with the result that Warwick, who had been nominated by Parliament to take command, went on board the flagship on the 2nd July, and the Fleet went over to the Parliamentary side. On the 20th August Colonels Sir John Seaton and Edwyn Sandis, acting on instructions from the Committee of Public Safety, went to Chatham Dockyard, 'which was surrendered to them by Captain Pett when he saw their warrant.'[171] This was on Saturday evening, and on the Monday they completed their work by placing a guard on board the Sovereign.
Pett was rewarded for his ready obedience by being included among the Commissioners of the Navy appointed by Ordinance on the 15th September,[172] and he was to receive the same allowance as he already held, although the other captains (except Batten) and John Hollond were only given 100l. a year. From this time until his death in August 1647, in his seventy-seventh year, he seems to have remained quietly at Chatham, perhaps too old to take any very active part in current affairs, for he has certainly left no mark upon them. His death seems to have occurred unnoticed; the exact date is unknown,[173] and there is no record of his will—if he made one. The last entry concerning him in the official records[174] relates to the payment of his salary up to 29th September 1647, when he had passed away, but no reference is made to that fact. It is curious that Sir Henry Vane, the Treasurer of the Navy in 1647, who had corresponded with Pett, and must have known of his death, has left a blank in place of his name in the entry in these accounts relating to the salary of Thomas Smith,[175] who succeeded to Pett's post at Chatham on the 28th August.
Pett was rewarded for his ready obedience by being included among the Commissioners of the Navy appointed by Ordinance on the 15th September,[172] and he was to receive the same allowance as he already held, although the other captains (except Batten) and John Hollond were only given 100l. a year. From this time until his death in August 1647, in his seventy-seventh year, he seems to have remained quietly at Chatham, perhaps too old to take any very active part in current affairs, for he has certainly left no mark upon them. His death seems to have occurred unnoticed; the exact date is unknown,[173] and there is no record of his will—if he made one. The last entry concerning him in the official records[174] relates to the payment of his salary up to 29th September 1647, when he had passed away, but no reference is made to that fact. It is curious that Sir Henry Vane, the Treasurer of the Navy in 1647, who had corresponded with Pett, and must have known of his death, has left a blank in place of his name in the entry in these accounts relating to the salary of Thomas Smith,[175] who succeeded to Pett's post at Chatham on the 28th August.
Pett was rewarded for his ready obedience by being included among the Commissioners of the Navy appointed by Ordinance on the 15th September,[172] and he was to receive the same allowance as he already held, although the other captains (except Batten) and John Hollond were only given 100l. a year. From this time until his death in August 1647, in his seventy-seventh year, he seems to have remained quietly at Chatham, perhaps too old to take any very active part in current affairs, for he has certainly left no mark upon them. His death seems to have occurred unnoticed; the exact date is unknown,[173] and there is no record of his will—if he made one. The last entry concerning him in the official records[174] relates to the payment of his salary up to 29th September 1647, when he had passed away, but no reference is made to that fact. It is curious that Sir Henry Vane, the Treasurer of the Navy in 1647, who had corresponded with Pett, and must have known of his death, has left a blank in place of his name in the entry in these accounts relating to the salary of Thomas Smith,[175] who succeeded to Pett's post at Chatham on the 28th August.
Pett was rewarded for his ready obedience by being included among the Commissioners of the Navy appointed by Ordinance on the 15th September,[172] and he was to receive the same allowance as he already held, although the other captains (except Batten) and John Hollond were only given 100l. a year. From this time until his death in August 1647, in his seventy-seventh year, he seems to have remained quietly at Chatham, perhaps too old to take any very active part in current affairs, for he has certainly left no mark upon them. His death seems to have occurred unnoticed; the exact date is unknown,[173] and there is no record of his will—if he made one. The last entry concerning him in the official records[174] relates to the payment of his salary up to 29th September 1647, when he had passed away, but no reference is made to that fact. It is curious that Sir Henry Vane, the Treasurer of the Navy in 1647, who had corresponded with Pett, and must have known of his death, has left a blank in place of his name in the entry in these accounts relating to the salary of Thomas Smith,[175] who succeeded to Pett's post at Chatham on the 28th August.
Pett was evidently interested in the various efforts made in the early seventeenth century to explore and colonise the coasts of North America. He frequently refers to his friendship with Button, and states that he assisted in the selection of the Resolution for the voyage of 1612. He was, moreover, a kinsman of Hawkridge and an acquaintance of Foxe; while Gibbons was the master of his ship the Resistance. The disparaging remark on Waymouth's 'mistaking his course (as he did in the North-West Passage)'[176] shows that he was acquainted with the story of the voyage of 1602, but the most competent modern authorities do not agree with this opinion of Pett (and of his contemporary Foxe), and hold that Waymouth did in fact enter the straits subsequently called after Hudson and sail along them for a considerable distance.[177] Pett was also a member of the Virginia Company, though he does not mention this fact. His name appears in the second and third Charters of the Company (1609 and 1612), and in 1611 he subscribed the sum of 37l. 10s. This was the lowest subscription allowable for members, but it was a comparatively large sum for those days.
Pett was evidently interested in the various efforts made in the early seventeenth century to explore and colonise the coasts of North America. He frequently refers to his friendship with Button, and states that he assisted in the selection of the Resolution for the voyage of 1612. He was, moreover, a kinsman of Hawkridge and an acquaintance of Foxe; while Gibbons was the master of his ship the Resistance. The disparaging remark on Waymouth's 'mistaking his course (as he did in the North-West Passage)'[176] shows that he was acquainted with the story of the voyage of 1602, but the most competent modern authorities do not agree with this opinion of Pett (and of his contemporary Foxe), and hold that Waymouth did in fact enter the straits subsequently called after Hudson and sail along them for a considerable distance.[177] Pett was also a member of the Virginia Company, though he does not mention this fact. His name appears in the second and third Charters of the Company (1609 and 1612), and in 1611 he subscribed the sum of 37l. 10s. This was the lowest subscription allowable for members, but it was a comparatively large sum for those days.
AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF
PHINEAS PETT
I, Phineas[178] Pett, being the son of Mr. Peter Pett of Deptford Strond[179] in the County of Kent, one of her Majesty's Master Shipwrights, was born in my father's dwelling house in the same town one All Saints' day in the morning, being the first day of November in the year of our Lord 1570, and was baptized the 8th of the same month and year aforesaid in the parish church of Deptford Strond aforesaid.
I was brought up in my father's house at Deptford Strond until I was almost nine years of age, and then put out to a free school at Rochester in Kent, to one Mr. Webb, with whom I boarded about one year, and afterward lay at Chatham Hill in my father's lodging in the Queen's House, from whence I went every day to school to Rochester and came home at night for three years space. Afterwards, by reason of my small profiting at this school, my father removed me from thence to Greenwich to a private school kept by one Mr. Adams, where I so well profited that in three years I was made fit for Cambridge.
In the year 1586 at Shrovetide, against bachelor's commencement, I was sent to the University of Cambridge, and by the means of one Mr. Howell,[180] a Minister in Essex, I was placed in Emanuel College with a reverend tutor, President of the house, called Mr. Charles Chadwick, where I was allowed 20l. per annum during my father's life, besides books, apparel, and other necessaries.
In the year 1589, about the 6th day of September, it pleased God[181] to call to his mercy my reverend loving father, whose loss proved afterward my utter undoing almost, had not God been more merciful unto me; for leaving all things to my mother's directions, her fatal matching with a most wicked husband, one Mr. Thomas Nunn,[182] a Minister, brought a general ruin both to herself and whole family.
Some two months after my father's decease or thereabouts, my eldest sister Rachel was married to one Mr. Newman, Minister of Canewdon in Essex, a man of most dissolute life, with whom she not long enjoyed, for God, of his great mercy, took her and delivered her from a most miserable and slavish life wherein she lived with him; by whom he had two children, but both died.
By reason of my mother's cross matching, my means of maintenance being wholly taken from me, and having no hopes of exhibition from any friend, I was forced after four years continuance in Cambridge, my graces for Bachelor of Art being passed both in house and town, to abandon the University presently after Christmas in anno 1590.
At Candlemas after, I, by the instant persuasion of my mother, was contented to put myself to be an apprentice to become a shipwright (my father's profession) and was bound a covenant servant[183] to one Mr. Richard Chapman of Deptford Strond in Kent, one of her Majesty's Master Shipwrights, and one whom my father had bred of a child to that profession, my allowance from him to find myself tools and apparel being bare but 46 shillings and 8 pence per annum. This man I served almost two years altogether at Chatham in the Queen's Majesty's Works, and then he died; where I spent all that time, God he knoweth, to very little purpose.
After my foresaid master his death, I laboured to have served Mr. Mathew Baker, one of her Majesty's Master Shipwrights also; but by the working of one Mr. Peter Buck,[184] then Clerk of the Check at Chatham, and some other back friends, I was crossed in my service and so put to my shifts, and left to the wide world without either comfort or friend, but only God.
At this time my eldest brother by my father's side, Mr. Joseph Pett, succeeded in my father's place, one of her Majesty's Master Shipwrights, which preferment no doubt God brought him to the better to enable him to have given his help to us; but we found it clean contrary, for he was not only careless of us all and left us to our fortunes, but became also so unkind a brother to two of us, my own brother Noah and myself, that he was forced to leave his native country and seek comfort in Ireland with an uncle of ours, own brother to my mother, called George Thornton, an ancient and well experienced sea captain; where he shortly after was drowned in the river of Cork; and myself was constrained to ship myself to sea upon a desperate voyage in a man of war,[185] not greatly caring what became of me.
I was shipped on this voyage a little before Christmas in anno 1592, in a ship called the Gallion Constance of London, of burden of 200 tons or thereabouts, belonging to a gentleman of Suffolk, one Captain Edward Glenham,[186] for the carpenter's mate, the master carpenter being one Edward Goodale, born in Deptford. To my setting out to sea, I found not any of my kindred so kind as to help me, either with money or clothes, or any other comfort; only another brother I had by my father's side, Peter Pett, dwelling then at Wapping, that vouchsafed me lodging and meat and drink till the ship was ready to set sail; one William King, a yeoman in Essex and a stranger to me, lent me 3l. in ready money to help to furnish my necessaries, which afterward I repaid him again.
In this voyage I endured much misery for want of victuals and apparel; and after twenty months spent in the Levant Seas, coasts of Barbary and Spain, with many hazards both of loss of life and time, without taking any purchase[187] of any value, we, extreme poorly, returned for Ireland into the river of Cork; and there taking leave both of ship and voyage, I travelled to Dublin[188] to visit my uncle Captain Thornton and my brother Noah, being then master with him in the Popinjay of the Queen's Majesty's; and presently after bent my course for England, taking passage at the town of Waterford.
With some difficulty I got to London, some three days before Christmas in anno 1594, having neither money nor apparel, and took up my lodging at my brother Peter's house in Wapping, before spoken of, who, although I was returned very poor, yet vouchsafed me kind entertainment. The next day I presented myself to my brother Joseph, who very coyly receiving me, out of his bounty lent me 40s. to apparel myself, which I bestowed as frugally as I could in Birchin Lane in London, contenting myself as well as I could with mean attire, till such time as it should please God to provide better for me.
At that time it so fell out that there were certain of her Majesty's ships appointed to be made ready for the voyage of Sir Francis Drake and Sir John Hawkyns, amongst which the Defiance[189] was to be brought into Woolwich Dock to be sheathed; which work being commended to my brother Joseph's charge, he was contented to admit me amongst many others to be one, where I was contented to take any pains to get something to apparel myself, which by God's blessing I performed before Easter next after, and that in very good fashion, always endeavouring to keep company with men of good rank far better than myself.
In the latter end of this year 1594 about the beginning of Lent, I lost my dear brother Noah, who was drowned in Cork river with eight more of his company, and lieth buried in Cork church in Ireland.
About Bartholomew tide in anno 1595, the Triumph of her Majesty's was had into Woolwich Dock to be new builded by Mr. Mathew Baker, under whom I was entertained there as an ordinary workman and had allowed me a boy, which was John Wood, being the first servant that I ever kept; but presently after Mr. Baker was appointed to leave that business, and had order to go in hand with the building of a great new ship at Deptford, called afterward the Repulse,[190] and was admiral of my Lord's of Essex squadron in the Cadiz journey. The Triumph[191] was then appointed to my brother Joseph's charge, with whom I a while continued, but, finding him altogether unwilling to prefer[192] me in his work as next under him, with some passage of discontent betwixt us, I left him, and had ready entertainment by Mr. Baker in his new business at Deptford, yet no otherwise than an ordinary workman; with whom I continued from the beginning of the foresaid ship, till she was wholly finished, launched, and set sail of her voyage from Woolwich, which was about the latter end of April 1596.
All that winter, in the evenings, commonly I spent my time to good purposes, as in cyphering, drawing, and practising to attain the knowledge of my profession, and I then found Mr. Baker sometime forward to give me instructions, from whose help I must acknowledge I received my greatest lights. At this time also the Lord Admiral[193] lay most of the winter at his house[194] at Deptford, by reason whereof I got some acquaintance amongst his men, and was much importuned to have attended his Lordship in that journey,[195] which no doubt might have proved very much both profitable and beneficial unto me, besides it would have brought me in acquaintance and favour with my Lord Admiral, but some other reasons restrained me from all these likelihoods and kept me at home, to my no small hindrance as it fell out.
After I was discharged from the Repulse, my brother Joseph entertained me at Woolwich upon the Triumph, upon which ship I wrought till her launching and the discharge of the men from her, and afterwards was employed at my brother's, at Limehouse, upon a small model for the Lord Treasurer[196] his house called Theobalds,[197] and the next winter I spent in Essex, at Paglesham[198] in Rochford Hundred, as overseer for my brother Peter in certain woods he had bought there.
About this time, was I very desirous, by the instigation of some special friends of mine, to have been a follower of the Lord of Essex, and was three several times brought purposely to have been presented unto his lordship, but was every time delayed by reason of his great state[199] affairs, the Lord of heaven having other ways in his secret wisdom determined to dispose of me.
In the latter end of March succeeding, or beginning of April 1597, by the means of one Mr. Gilbert Wood, one of the Lord Admiral's Chamber, an especial good friend of mine, I was presented to the Lord High Admiral of England, at his Manor at Chelsea, where his lordship was pleased not only to accept me as his servant, but also openly shewed such extraordinary respect of me as I had much cause to give God thanks, who no doubt had stirred his honourable heart to regard me, but a simple and mean fellow, even far beyond my expectation or desert, and this was the very first beginning of my rising.
In the beginning of this year, 1597, my dear and loving mother deceased at Weston in Suffolk, not far from Bury, and lieth buried in the parish church there. A little after midsummer in the same year, I was employed by my brother Joseph Pett, in his yard at Limehouse, upon the repairing of a great Flemish ship of whom was master Mr. John King of Limehouse, where I first came acquainted with him, and in his company and Mr. Nicolas Simonson of Limehouse, I was first brought acquainted at Highwood Hill[200] where I first fell in love with my now wife, which was about St. James' tide.[201] About Bartholomew tide[202] next following, the Elizabeth Jonas was brought into her Majesty's Dock at Woolwich, and there was the first preferment my brother Joseph holp me with, making me principal overseer of that business under him. During all the time of this work, we both lodged and dieted at old Mr. Lydiard's[203] in the yard.
During the continuance of this work I did not neglect my wooing, having taken such a liking of the maiden that I determined resolutely (by God's help) either to match with her or never to marry any; the which I with much difficulty (praised be God) at length achieved, all my own kindred being much against my matching with her, by reason of some controversies grown twixt Mr. Nicolas Simonson and them.
Toward the end of February in this present year, I took the lease of a new house (of Mr. William Borough,[204] then Comptroller of her Majesty's Navy) at Limehouse by the through head,[205] which to some charge I fitted for my dwelling, although I remained not in it little more than two years, paying 11l. yearly rent, and 20l. income.[206]
I was married to my now wife Ann, the daughter of Richard Nicholls of Highwood Hill in the parish of Hendon in Middlesex, a man of good report and honest stock, the 15th day of May 1598 at Stepney Church upon a Monday in the forenoon. I kept my wedding at my own charge in my new dwelling house at Limehouse, accompanied with my brothers and sisters, my wife's parents, and divers of her friends and kindred.
About midsummer after, was the Elizabeth Jonas launched out of Woolwich Dock, and sudden preparation made to have received her Majesty aboard the ship riding afloat; but upon some unknown reasons her Majesty came not at all, for even at that instant had one Mr. Wiggs[207] procured commission about examination of certain abuses in the Navy, which was pursued with a great deal of malice against divers particular men but with little profit to her Majesty's service.
From midsummer, all the ensuing year, till Christmas I lay still and idle without any manner employment or comings in but what my servants got with working now and then abroad, which was very little and hardly able to buy me food.
About Christmas my honourable lord and master the Lord High Admiral commended me to an employment in Suffolk and Norfolk for the finishing of a purveyance of timber and plank formerly undertaken by one Child of Sole,[208] who dealt in Norfolk and, dying, left the business in much disorder.
And one Robert Ungle[209] who dealt in Suffolk and, for divers abuses by him there committed, fled the country and left all the service in great disorder and spoil; for the rectifying of which abuses, saving of her Majesty's provisions, and discharging of the countries,[210] it pleased my Lord to make choice of me to undertake the same, and to take order to send in all the said provisions of timber and plank; which accordingly I did, using all care and diligence in the performance of the same, both to the content of her Majesty's service, my Lord Admiral and the Officers of the Navy, and the satisfaction of all countries where I had to do. Notwithstanding through the malicious envy of old Mathew Baker, Bright, Adye, and others[211] all my doings and accounts were throughly sifted, but thanks be to God nothing could be proved against me, so that I had all my bills passed quietly; but by reason Mr. Fulke Greville,[212] being then Treasurer of the Navy, did not greatly affect[213] me, by cause of some particular spleens between him and Mr. John Trevor,[214] then newly made Surveyor, who was my especial and worshipful friend, he laid a rub[215] in my way, cutting me off wrongfully of twenty pounds in my accounts after all my bills were passed and signed by the hands of the Principal Officers, according to the custom of the Navy.
All this year of 1599, I spent wholly in this service, in which time these occurrences happened.
After the decease of my dear and loving mother there were left under the keeping of my father-in-law,[216] Thomas Nunn, then Minister of Weston in Suffolk, three sisters, vide: Abigail Pett, Elizabeth and Mary, the youngest, and one brother named Peter Pett, who was put out to a gentleman's house in Suffolk to teach his children, the daughters remaining all at home with him, he being then lately again married.
He used himself to them as a stern and cruel father-in-law, not contented that he had brought a general ruin upon my mother's whole family by cosening us of all that was left us, but proceeded further, even to blood, for upon a slight occasion about making clean his cloak, being wet and dirty with riding a journey the day before, he furiously fell upon my eldest sister Abigail, beating her so cruelly with a pair of tongs and a great firebrand that she died within three days upon that beating and was privately by his means buried; but God that would not let murder pass unrevenged, stirred up the hearts of his own parishioners and neighbours, who, complaining to the Justice, caused the body to be taken up, and so by the coroner's inquest that passed upon her and miraculous tokens of the dead corpse, as fresh bleeding, sensible opening of one of her eyes, and other things, he was found guilty of her death and so committed and bound over to answer the matter at next General Assizes to be held at Bury, which was in the Lent after, being in this year 1599, and in the time of my employment in Suffolk and Norfolk.
Upon his committing, my two other poor sisters were put by the justices to the keeping of the town of Weston, till the assizes[217] were past, at whose hands I received them at Bury in a miserable fashion, not having clothes nor any necessaries fit for them; the charge of their board I was glad to defray to the constable, and all the charge of the assizes, where both they and my young brother were bound to give in evidence against our father-in-law, to whom we shewed more mercy than he did to us, whom our spoil would not content, but he thirsted also our blood. In his arraignment Sir John Popham, then Lord Chief Justice of England and Chief Judge of that circuit, shewed such true justice (notwithstanding great means was made for him, not only by his friends, but by the clergy of that country), that all his cruelty and wicked proceedings was laid open and he, convict of manslaughter by the jury, was committed to prison to sue for the benefit of the Queen's pardon,[218] from whence being shortly freed, he, by God's just revenging hand, lived but a short time after.
From the assizes at Bury I sent my brother and my two sisters home to my wife at Limehouse, being no small charge to me, being but newly married and having little means but my hands to bring in anything, yet I refused not to do the duty of a brother to them to the utmost of my power; the eldest of my sisters, called Elizabeth, by means of friends I placed in London with a gentlewoman of good fashion, where she continued not long, but came home sick and died at my house as we doubted of the plague. My youngest sister sickened also shortly after, but it proved the small pox.
In all these extremities I had little help from my brothers, who were bound in conscience to have had some care of them, the small portions they had being in the hands of my eldest brother Joseph, yet no relief came from him towards their maintenance or bringing up; but being but half brothers and sisters they thought them less bound to do them good and therefore left all the burden upon me, worst able of all to bear it.
My youngest sister Mary, recovering her sickness, continued with me in my house contenting herself with such breeding as I could give her; from whence she never removed till she was married from me. My young brother Peter, about the end of November, I placed with a worshipful gentleman, Doctor Hone,[219] in the Arches,[220] as one of his clerks, where he might have lived well if he would have stayed with him.
In December this year, 1599, I began a small model, which being perfected and very exquisitely set out and rigged, I presented it to my good friend Mr. John Trevor, who very kindly accepted the same of me.
In the beginning of this year, I, having no employment, determined with myself to have bought some part of a castle carvel[221] and to have gone in her myself; whereby I hoped (by God's blessing) to have gotten an honest and convenient maintenance, and to that end I began to follow one John Goodwin of London, professor of the mathematics, with whom I spent three days in a week in practice, and so was purposed to have continued the whole year till the spring following; but God, who in his secret counsel had otherwise decreed of me, altered all my determinations, for upon the 25th day of June I was sent for to the Court, lying then at Greenwich, by my honourable lord and master the Lord High Admiral who, after some speeches expressing both his love and honourable care of me, his lordship concluded to send me down to Chatham, where I was to succeed in the place of one John Holding, a shipwright that was keeper of the plank yard timber and other provisions (upon some displeasure turned out of all), the means whereof being but small, as 18d. per diem and 6l. per annum fee for myself, and allowance for one servant at 16d. per diem.
I was very unwilling to undertake so mean a place, by the which I was neither sure of competent maintenance nor of any reputation, but that I was encouraged by the persuasions of my ever honourable lord, who comforted me with promises of better preferment to the utmost of his power; whereupon I being contented to accept his lordship's offer, I was, the 27th of the same month of June, placed at Chatham by Sir Henry Palmer, then Comptroller, Mr. John Trevor, Surveyor, and Mr. Peter Buck, Clerk of the Ships.
At this time there was grown very high terms of unkindness between my brother Joseph and me about my poor sisters and brother, because he did not only deny to be any ways contributory to their maintenance but also made the neighbours believe that they were brought up at his charge in my house, because he would not be troubled with them, when God knoweth he never disbursed halfpenny to their bringing up, nor cared what became of them.
Now upon this occasion of my placing at Chatham, we were reconciled and ever after lived together as loving brethren. It also happened that Sir Fulke Greville, then Treasurer, continuing his spleen against me for Mr. Trevor's sake, opposed me all he could, which after turned me to much trouble.
About the time of my coming to Chatham, Mr. Barker, the lord of the Manor, was removed to a house he had bought at Boley Hill[222] by Rochester, by reason whereof his Manor House wherein he formerly dwelt at Chatham was void, the which house by means of my brother Joseph's encouragement I ventured upon and took a lease for twenty-one years, paying 25l. income, the which lease was sealed unto me the 17th day of October, 1600.
The 16th day of June in this year my youngest brother Peter, having, against all the consent of his friends and without their knowledge, forsaken his worshipful master Doctor Hone's service and betaken himself to disordered courses, sickened at London at the sign of the Dolphin in Water Lane, and the 21st day after deceased of the small pox before I knew he was sick, whose charge both of his sickness and funeral I was at, and saw him seemly interred, accompanied with a good company of my friends, in Barking churchyard[223] in Tower Street, the 23rd of the same month of June 1600.
The 24th October, having bestowed all my poor stock upon the lease of my house and the furnishing of the same in some convenient manner, I shipped the same in [an] hoy of Rainham[224] and so removed to Chatham, myself going down in the hoy; where I missed a great danger, for at the west end of the Nore about 3 of the clock in the morning, 25th day, we were like to be surprised by a picking Dunkirk[225] full of men who, being at our passing by (although it was very dark) at an anchor, suddenly weighed and gave us chase, and had boarded us had not God prevented him by our bearing up, the wind being at east; and running ourselves on shore within the Swatch,[226] the next day we got safe as high as Gillingham.
My dwelling house at Limehouse I passed away with a great deal of loss, both of income, rent and wainscotting to the value of 50l., putting it over at 10l. per annum, when I was bound by lease to pay 11l. Yet was I glad to be rid of it upon any condition.
Presently after Christyde[227] my wife, being great with child, fell sick at Chatham and grew so weak that I was forced, about the 10th of March following, to remove her, not without great hazard, to London, and from there to her father's house at Highwood Hill in Middlesex, where the 23rd day of March after, thanks be given to God, she was delivered of her first born son, John Pett; from whence she returned to Chatham in safety some two months after.
Much about this time I was made an assistant to the Master Shipwrights at Chatham, in the room of Thomas Bodman. In this year the first business I undertook was the repairing of the Lion's Whelp hauled up at the storehouse end at Chatham.
In the year 1602 I also new built the Moon, hauled up in the same place, enlarging her both in length and breadth, and this year also, I, with Mr. Pickasee, undertook the victualling of the shipwrights and caulkers at Chatham, which we continued only two months, to our great loss; which we could never get recompensed by reason Mr. Fulke Greville continued my heavy enemy, and was content to receive and countenance informations against me, because he could not win me to such conditions as he laboured me in, both against my good friend Sir John Trevor (who then lay very dangerously sick at Plymouth) and against many others serving with me at Chatham. The principal informer and stirrer in this business against me was one George Collins, sometimes carpenter of the Foresight, a very stubborn and malicious fellow, who by Mr. Greville's countenance was suffered to sue me at the common law upon an action of trespass for striking him with a little rod upon the shoulder in the Queen's yard at Chatham, upon a cause of mutiny in the time of victualling; and so little relief had I against him, notwithstanding my Lord Admiral's favour, that I was forced to compound with him and gave him 20 nobles[228] ready money for satisfaction. Thus it pleased God to exercise me with continual trouble and hindrances in the beginning of my service.
In November this present year, 1602, Mr. Greville, having undertaken the preparation of a Fleet with her Majesty, to be ready fitted to sea by a set time, was contented (upon my promise to him to procure the said Fleet to be fitted in six weeks) to receive me to his favour, which promise I accordingly (by God's gracious assistance) fully accomplished; by which means I had gained his love, favour and good opinion, had there not happened a sudden alteration by the death of her Majesty which presently followed.
The 18th day of March 1603,[229] my wife was delivered of her second son, Henry, at my house at Chatham.
The 24th day of the same month, her Majesty of sacred memory deceased at Richmond.
The same day his Majesty, whom God grant long to reign, was proclaimed at Westminster, London, and other places, and the next day, being Friday and market day, at Rochester.
This year happened the great plague throughout England, but especially about London, by reason whereof many removed from thence into divers places in the country where they had any friends or means of succour.
In the middle of July my brother Joseph, with his wife and children, removed from his house at Limehouse to Ipswich.
To transport them thither by sea I procured a small pinnace of his Majesty's to be prepared ready, called the Primrose, and manning her with my good friends and neighbours as Boatswain Vale,[230] David Duck, Mr. Rock, Robert Perin, Jarvis Mins, and divers others, together with myself, we embarked at Chatham the 14th of July, 1603, and in Tilbury Hope took in our passengers; and the 16th day in the afternoon landed them safely at Ipswich, where of their friends we received very great entertainment, staying there about 4 days; and the 21st day we arrived again at Chatham, thanks be to God, in health, about 4 of the clock in the afternoon.
The sickness beginning to be very hot at Chatham, upon the persuasions of some of my friends I removed my wife and children from thence to my wife's father's in Middlesex, shipping them away in the same vessel I had to Ipswich, and landing at Dagenham[231] in Essex, had horses there met us, and so journeyed to Highwood Hill. This voyage was taken from Chatham the 16th of August; we came to Highwood Hill the 19th day, where my wife and children remained till the 3rd of October following, which day we took our journey to Dagenham, where the next day we were stayed by a great rain, but the 4th day we came over the ferry at Greenhithe[232] and safely home, thanks be given to God, at 4 of the clock that afternoon.
This summer I began to new-build the Answer, being hauled up and blocked at the end of the storehouse at Chatham.
The 10th of November my landlord Mr. Barker, with some of his family, sojourned with me at Chatham, where they remained till the 28th day of the same month, and then returned to their own house at Boley Hill.
During this time I divers times solicited my brother to be joined patentee with him, but his remissness caused me to overslip opportunity so long that one Mr. Stevens[233] of Limehouse, this year, by means of some great friends about my Lord Admiral, got a general reversion of all the Master Shipwrights' places, cutting me off from all hopes of any timely preferment, to my great discouragement considering what pains I took at Chatham to further his Majesty's service.
When I was most dejected with the conceit of this injury, as I took it, it pleased God of His great mercy to me, even then when I least expected any such thing, to raise me up a means of some hope of preferment after this manner; for about the 15th of January, being at Ratcliff with my wife, to christen her sister Simonson's daughter Martha, there was, unknown unto me, a letter sent post to Chatham from my honourable Lord Admiral, commanding me with all possible speed to build a little vessel for the young prince Henry to disport himself in above London Bridge, and to acquaint his Grace with shipping and the manner of that element, setting me down the proportions and the manner of her garnishing, which was to be like the work of the Ark Royal, battlement wise. This little ship was in length by the keel 25 foot, and 12 foot in breadth, garnished with painting and carving both within board and without very curiously, according to his Lordship's directions. I laid her keel the 19th day of January, wrought upon her as well day as all night by torch and candle lights under a great awning made with sails for that purpose.
The 6th day of March after, I launched the ship, being upon a Tuesday, with a noise[234] of trumpets, drums, and such like ceremonies at such time used.
I set sail with her on the Friday after, being the 9th day, from Chatham. Between the Nore head and the east end of Tilbury we had a very great storm, so that it was Sunday before we could get Gravesend; and on Monday morning, being the 12th day, we anchored at Blackwall. Mr. George Wilson, then boatswain of the Lion, was master with me, and myself captain, and I was manned with almost all boatswains of the Navy and other choice men.
On Wednesday, being the 14th day of March, by my Lord Admiral's commandment we weighed from Limehouse, and anchored right against the Tower before the King's lodgings, his Majesty then lying there before his riding through London. There the young Prince, accompanied with the Lord Admiral and divers of the Lords, came and took great pleasure in beholding of the ship, being furnished at all points with ensigns and pendants. The 16th day, being Friday, we unrigged and shot the bridge, and the 17th day we rigged again and received both ordnance and powder from the Tower.
On Sunday in the afternoon, being the 18th day, fitted with a noise of trumpets and drums and fife, we weighed and turned up with the wind at south-west as high as Lambeth, with multitudes of boats and people attending upon us. As we passed by Whitehall, I saluted the Court with a volley of small shot and our great ordnance, and upon the ebb, turning down again, we did the like, and then taking in our sails we came to an anchor right against the Privy Stairs.
On Monday the 19th day his Majesty went by barge to the Parliament. We shot our great and small ordnance of round,[235] both at his taking barge and landing.
All Tuesday and Wednesday we rode still, without doing anything but giving entertainment to gentlemen of the King's and Prince's servants that hourly came aboard of us.
On Thursday morning, being the 22nd day, I received a commandment from the Lord Admiral to prepare the ship and all things fitting to receive the young prince aboard of us in the afternoon; who accordingly presently[236] after dinner came aboard us in his barge accompanied with the Lord High Admiral, Earl of Worcester, and divers other noblemen. We presently weighed and fell down as far as Paul's Wharf,[237] under both our topsails and foresail, and there came to an anchor; and then his Grace,[238] according to the manner in such cases used, with a great bowl of wine christened the ship and called her by the name of the Disdain.
His Grace then withdrawing himself with the lords into the great cabin, there my honourable lord, and till then master,[239] with his own hands presented me to his Grace, using many favourable words (beyond my deserts) in my commendations, with this addition, that I was a servant worthy the acceptance of the greatest prince of the world. From his hands it pleased his Grace very thankfully to receive me as his servant, with many promises of his princely favour to me. The next day, being Friday and the 23rd of March, it pleased my Lord Admiral to entreat my worthy friend Sir John[240] Trevor to accompany me to the Lord Thomas Howard, then Lord Chamberlain, from whom receiving a ticket, I was sent to St. James', the Prince's house, where by Mr. Alexander and Mr. Abington, then gentlemen ushers, I was sworn his Grace's servant, and by them presented to the Prince before he went to dinner, with as much favour and respect as I could desire.
During this time of my attendance at the Court as his Grace's Captain of his ship, it pleased my honourable Lord Admiral to give order to Sir Thomas Windebank,[241] one of the Clerks of the Signet, to draw me a bill for the reversion of Mr. Baker's or my brother Joseph Pett's place, which first should happen to be void, notwithstanding the letters patent formerly granted to Mr. Stevens; which accordingly was with all expedition performed, and the 11th of April following was presented to his Majesty and signed, and shortly after passed the great seal; for the whole charge whereof I gave Sir Thomas Windebank 17l. About the same time Sir Robert Mansell had his patent passed for the Treasurer of his Majesty's Navy.
The 3rd of May, after my return to Chatham from my attendance at Court, I began to set up a small ship at Gillingham in David Duck's yard at my own charges; and the 17th day of the same month also was launched the Answer, whom I had new built, who by carelessness ran off before her time without any great hurt, thanks be to God therefor. About the midst of June following, the preparation was begun for the entertainment of his Majesty aboard the ships at Chatham, where I took both extraordinary care and pains, which my envious enemies Mr. Baker and Mr. Bright sought by all means to disgrace, even at the instant time when his Majesty was to come on board the Elizabeth; but the Lord diverted all their malice by the countenance of my old master the Lord Admiral who, approving my honest endeavours and finding the success answerable in all respects to his Lordship's expectation, dismissed them with sharp rebukes and encouraged me with no small commendation. This happened the 4th of July, 1604.
The 12th of November after, I launched the new ship at Gillingham, which was begun in May preceding, and called her[242] name the Resistance.
And in the beginning of December following I carried her up to Limehouse, and there hauled her on shore at the south side of my brother Joseph's wharf, where she lay till I had sold away part of her.
The 21st of January following I sold one-third part of her to Sir Robert Mansell and another third to Sir John Trevor, and the other third I reserved to myself.
I rigged her and prepared her with all her furniture to attend the Lord High Admiral of England in his journey into Spain when he went Ambassador, and made ready the Bear and the rest of his Majesty's ships at Chatham that went that voyage, myself being commanded by his Lordship to wait upon him in his own ship, the Bear, which accordingly I performed.
The 24th of March I took my leave of the most noble Prince my master at Greenwich, being Sunday in the afternoon; and the 28th day of the same month following I took leave of my wife and children at Chatham and attended the Lord Ambassador on board the Bear in his own barge, the whole fleet then riding at Queenborough, from whence we set sail the last day, being Sunday and Easter day.
The 4th day of April we[243] came to an anchor in Dover Road, and the 10th day after we lost the sight of the Lizard. The next day, being the 11th, the Lord Ambassador sent me aboard my own ship, the Resistance, with one Captain Morgan, with certain directions, to the Groyne.[244] But by the overbearing of Captain Morgan, his Lordship altering his determination came into the Groyne two days before us, where we also arrived the 16th day, being Tuesday.
The 20th of April, being Saturday, I set sail with the Resistance out of the Groyne, with instructions to go for Lisbon, where I arrived the 24th after, and there stayed to despatch my affairs till the 9th day of May following; from whence I set sail for St. Lucar,[245] and arrived there the 11th day in the afternoon, being Saturday; from whence I went by passage boat, leaving my ship at Bonanza,[246] to Seville;[247] from whence, after three days stay there, I returned to my ship the 17th day of the same month.
From St. Lucar I set sail the 2nd day of June, and plying it up for Cape St. Mary's[248] with a contrary wind, I put room[249] the 5th day for Cales[250] road, from whence, putting to sea again the 8th day, I arrived back again at the Groyne the 19th day, according as my instructions directed me. Where going ashore to the Governor and understanding the fleet to be all gone to St. Anderas[251] and that the Lord Ambassador was already (as he said) embarked for England, I put to sea again presently, directing my course for England. The 23rd day I made the Start, and the 26th day of June, being Wednesday, I landed at Rye in the forenoon; from whence I came post to my house at Chatham, with much rain, thunder, and lightning all the way, where I lighted about 10 of the clock at night.
In the midst of July, after my return home, I let out my ship, the Resistance, to merchants for a voyage into the Straits by the month, one Mr. Burgess going master, and my friend William Gibbons, his mate and purser. I docked her, sheathed her, and fitted her, and she went from Gravesend the 23rd day of August following.
In the midst of October following I made a journey into Hampshire, to make a survey of a part of the forest of East Bere,[252] being then in the occupation of the Right Honourable the Earl of Worcester, of whom, after my return, Sir Robert Mansell and Sir John Trevor bought 3000 trees.
At my return to London from that journey I found my eldest brother Joseph Pett, then dwelling at Limehouse, very dangerously sick, of the which he never recovered but departed this life the 15th day of November about 9 of the clock in the forenoon, being Friday.
He was buried in the chancel in Stepney Church the 18th day of November in the forenoon, accompanied with my good friends Sir Robert Mansell, Sir Henry Palmer, Sir John Trevor, then Principal Officers of His Majesty's Navy, and many other good friends and neighbours, who after the funeral returned to my brother's house, where they all were welcomed with a very great dinner and feast.
Presently after my brother's decease, it pleased my very good lord, the Lord High Admiral, to grant his warrant for my entrance into my brother's place, to the effect of my letters patent, notwithstanding the claim made unto it by one Edward Stevens[253] of Limehouse, who had formerly procured a general reversion of all the Master Shipwrights' places, but by reason the fee was mistaken, wherein his Majesty was abused and charged with an innovation, he could not prevail in his claim, albeit he often petitioned the Lords of the Council and made great friends against me; yet it pleased God, by the noble favour of the Prince my master, and the Lord Admiral's countenance, I enjoyed my place with a general approbation both of the State and Officers; and so finished this year of 1605.
I had forgotten[254] to insert in his proper place the birth of two sons, which it pleased God were born unto me, the eldest whereof named John was born at Highwood Hill, in my wife's father's house, in the Parish of Hendon in Middlesex, the 23rd day of March, 1600. The second son named Henry was born in my house at Chatham in Kent the 18th of March in anno Domini 1602.
The 12th of January following I began a journey into Hampshire, into the forest of East Bere, where I spent the rest of that month in making choice of the trees were bought of the Earl of Worcester; which business performed, and my good friend David Duck undertaking the whole charge of the same in the behalf of Sir Robert Mansell and Sir John Trevor, I returned home to my house at Chatham in the beginning of February.
The 21st of June succeeding it pleased God my wife was safely delivered of our third son Richard Pett at my house in Chatham.
The 8th day of July I took another journey into Hampshire into Bere forest, as well to survey how the business was ordered as to carry down money to David Duck; from whence I returned home the 14th day of the same month.
The 17th day of July, his Majesty the noble King of Denmark arrived in England, against whose coming, being but only supposed some two months before, I received private directions from the Lord Admiral and some of the Principal Officers to have all the ships put into a comely readiness, which accordingly was performed in a decent and warlike manner, as if they had been prepared to sea; but upon the news of his certain arrival they were all rigged and furnished with their ordnance, and a great preparation was made aboard the Elizabeth Jonas and the Bear, for entertaining the Kings, Queen, Prince, and all the other State and Troupes;[255] wherein I confess I strove extraordinarily to express my service for the honour of the Kingdom, but by reason the time limited was short, and the business great, we laboured night and day to effect it; which accordingly was performed, to the great honour of our sovereign King and Master and no less admiration of all strangers that were eye witnesses of the same.
The solemnity of this entertainment was performed the 10th day of August, being Sunday. At this time Sir Oliver Cromwell[256] and other gentlemen, my good friends, were lodged at my house.
Presently after the King of Denmark was returned into his own country, order was taken by the Lords of his Majesty's Council, together with the Lord Admiral, for the dry docking of four of his Majesty's ships, videlicet, the Ark Royal, the Victory, the Golden Lion, and the Swiftsure; the two latter being appointed to be docked at Deptford, commended to the charge of old Mathew Baker; the other two, being ships royal, appointed to Woolwich and committed to my charge (by reason the Victory was given by the King to the Prince, whose servant I being, it was held fit to be most proper to me, which bred me no small trouble and question afterward).[257]
About the beginning of September following I received warrant and directions from the Principal Officers of the Navy for preparing the dock at Woolwich to receive the ships formerly appointed for that place; which accordingly being effected, the 8th of October ensuing I docked the Victory, and the next day after, being Thursday, I docked the Ark, hastened the shutting in of the dock gates, shored them, and discharged my company the 3rd day of November following; but the 21st day of the same month I had order to press in new men, to rip and lay open the state of the ships, which in a short time being performed, I discharged my company the 11th of December after.
Towards the fine of January ensuing, I received warrant for the surveying of the forest of Alice Holt[258] in Hampshire, and the forest of Shotover near Oxford. I began my journey thither from London the 27th day of the same month, and returned back to London the second day of February, with a good account of my service; within short time after, warrants being granted for the number of trees to be taken in both these places, I substituted my brother Peter, my purveyor in Alice Holt, and one Richard Meritt, purveyor for Shotover.
About the 15th day of April 1607, I received warrant for going in hand with the ships at Woolwich, whereupon I removed thither with my household presently after, and began first to work upon the Ark with a small company, till provisions could be brought in to put on more workmen, which was not till the beginning of August following, at which time I began to victual all the workmen, on a Monday, being the 3rd day of the same month.
The 25th day of the same month, I was elected and sworn Master of the Company of Shipwrights, and kept a solemn feast with a great number of our friends, well stored with venison, at the King's Head in New Fish Street.[259]
After my settling at Woolwich I began a curious model for the Prince my master, most part whereof I wrought with my own hands; which being most fairly garnished with carving and painting, and placed in a frame arched, covered, and curtained with crimson taffety, was, the 10th day of November, by me presented to the Lord High Admiral at his lodging at Whitehall. His Lordship, well approving of it, after I had supped with his honour that night, gave me commandment to carry the same to Richmond, where the Prince my master then lay; which accordingly was performed the next day after, being Tuesday and the 11th day.
On Wednesday morning, being the 12th day, having acquainted Sir David Murray[260] with my business, and he delivering the same to his Highness, order was given to have the model brought and placed in a private room in the long gallery, where his Highness determined to see it in the afternoon, but my ever honoured old lord and master, unknown to me, studying by all means to do me good, had acquainted his Majesty with this thing, and the same day, unlooked for of any, procured his Majesty to make a purposed[261] journey from Whitehall to Richmond, to see the same model, whither he came in the afternoon about 3 of the clock, accompanied only with the Prince, the Lord Admiral and one or two attendants. His Majesty was exceedingly delighted with the sight of the model, and spent some time in questioning me divers material things concerning the same, and demanding whether I would build the great ship in all points like to the same, for I will (said his Majesty) compare them together when she shall be finished.
Then the Lord Admiral commanded me to report to his Majesty the story of the 3 ravens I had seen at Lisbon, in St. Vincent's Church,[262] which I did as well as I could, with my best expression, though somewhat daunted at the first at his Majesty's presence, having never before this time spoken before any King. It pleased his Majesty to accept all things in good part, and to use me very graciously; and so returned back to Whitehall again the same night.
The succeeding year brought with it many great troubles, for the Lord of Northampton having, by the instigation of some that were no great well willers to the honourable Admiral and some of the Principal Officers of his Majesty's Navy in especial favour with his Lordship, had procured a great and large[263] commission from his Majesty for the inquiring of all abuses and misdemeanours committed by all Officers in their several places, under colour of reformation and saving great sums to his Majesty, which he expended yearly in the maintenance of his ships; which inquisition was presented with such extremity of malice as not only many were brought into great question and tossed to and fro before the commissioners at Westminster, to their no small charge and vexation, but the government itself of that Royal Office was so shaken and disjointed as brought almost imminent ruin upon the whole Navy, and a far greater charge to his Majesty in his yearly expense, than was ever known before. In this great inquisition it pleased God, for punishment of my sins, to suffer me to be grievously persecuted and publicly arraigned, as shall be in his proper place at more large described.
The parties informers[264] were many, whereof some were principal members of the Navy and had been raised from nothing by the noble favours of the good Lord Admiral, against whom they were contented to take party; by name Sir Peter Buck, Clerk of the Ships, Thomas Buck, his brother, under clerk to him, Mr. Mathew Baker, William Bright, principal Master Shipwrights to his Majesty, Hugh Meritt, one of the six Masters, Hugh Lydiard, Clerk of the Check at Woolwich, Thomas Norreys, and one Clifton, a baker, sometime Pursers of ships in the Navy, with divers others, Pursers, Boatswains, Gunners, and Carpenters. These were assisted with many others, as one Edward Stevens, a shipwright and yard keeper of Limehouse, and was in reversion for a Master Shipwright's place[265] to his Majesty, Thomas Graves of Limehouse, shipwright and yard keeper, Nicholas Clay of Redriff,[266] shipwright and yard keeper, George Waymouth, sometime a master and mariner, one Tranckmore, a shipwright; with divers others that were either drawn into this business upon private ends of their own or wrought in with great hopes of future preferment.
The persons principally questioned and aimed at (leaving the great master of the office) were Sir Robert Mansell, then Treasurer, Sir John Trevor, Surveyor, Sir Henry Palmer, Comptroller, Captain Thomas Button, John Legatt, Clerk of the Check at Chatham, myself, and Sir Thomas Bludder,[267] then Victualler to the Navy.
This year, in the end of July, I began the new gates for Woolwich Dock, and set up a dam without them, so that we wrought always dry; which gates were placed, set up, and finished, and the dam taken away, within the space of nine weeks; wherein I saved to his Majesty above four hundred pounds, according to a former estimate made of the charge of the same under the hands of his Majesty's Master Shipwrights.
During this business at Woolwich it pleased God that my wife was safely delivered of her fourth son in Mr. Lydiard's house in the yard the 27th April 1608, and was baptized in Woolwich Church the 5th of May following, and named Joseph.
About the beginning of August it pleased the Prince's Highness my master to send me word that he would come to Woolwich at his return out of Essex from the Lord Petre's,[268] whither his Grace was then going in progress; and on Saturday after, being the 13th day of August, his Highness took his barge at Blackwall, and came by water to Woolwich about noon, accompanied only with his own train, where I received him on shore at the yard stairs. On the poop of the Ann Royal was placed a noise of trumpets, an ensign, and two ensigns upon the heads of both the mizens. After my duty presented to his Highness with the best expression I could, to cause him to understand his welcome to that place and how much it would joy all seamen's hearts to perceive his Highness so well addicted to his Majesty's ships and the sight of them, I conducted his Highness round about the dock, and so directly aboard the Ann Royal to the very top of her poop where, after my duty performed, I gave a secret signal (as was before concluded between us) to my good friend Mr. William Bull, then Master Gunner of England, who stood ready prepared upon a mount in Mr. Hugh Lydiard's garden with thirty-one great brass chambers,[269] orderly and distinctly placed, which, with Mr. Gunner's help, I had procured from the Tower for that purpose. He, presently receiving the signal, diligently attending the same, gave fire to the train, and so discharged the whole volley with so good order as gave a marvellous pleasing content to his Highness (and the more because he expected no such thing, but that it was done suddenly).
When the ordnance gave over, I then kneeled down to his Highness and besought him to be pleased to accept this poor sea entertainment from me, as an unfeigned earnest of my duty to him, which I would hereafter strive to express in better manner if his Highness would be pleased graciously to receive this his first homely welcome. His Highness then, having answered my request with a princely acceptance, commanded me to lead into all the places of the ship; which having viewed with a great deal of delightful judgment, I led his Grace into the Yard, and so to the place where the keel, stem, and stern of his own ship, which was to be built, lay ready framed; which having perused very seriously, and caused the length of the keel to be measured, I besought his Grace to walk into the house to rest himself, which his Highness willingly condescending unto, I conducted him unto Mr. Lydiard's parlour where was prepared a set banquet of sweet meats and all other fruits the season of the year could yield, with plentiful store of wine, both Rhenish white, sack, Greek wine and claret. His Highness was well pleased to take his refection, and after the banquet done, giving his hand to kiss to divers gentlewomen of the town that were in the room together with my wife, his Highness desired to be brought to the mount where the chambers were placed, which were again laden in this interim and ranged in their first order with the train made ready. This sight so much pleased his Grace that he was very desirous to have the train fired, his Highness standing by, but at my humble entreaty, understanding what danger was incident to such a business, he gave me order that, at the holding up of his handkerchief in his barge, I should see them put off; and so taking notice of Mr. Bull and giving him his hand to kiss, taking his leave, I conducted his Highness to his barge, being the top of full sea; where kissing his hand upon my knee, he expressed how kindly he accepted his welcome, using many gracious speeches to me, and so putting off. I returned to the mount, and, upon his Highness' signal given me, the train was fired and the chambers delivered their loud voices in as distinct order as at the first, to the great delight of his Highness, and general applause of all others there present.
Having now finished, by God's providence and gracious assistance, the Ark, which I began to repair in Woolwich Dock in May, was twelve-month before, on the 29th day of September, 1608, I launched her. It was a very blustering day, the wind at south-west, but, thanks be to God, with a little difficulty she was launched and brought safely to her moorings. Her name was altered and given by the mouth of my very good friend Sir Oliver Cromwell, in presence of Sir Robert Mansell, Sir John Trevor and Captain Button, divers other gentlemen being on board, with his Majesty's trumpets and drums; her name was given the Anne Royal. These knights, with the Lady Mansell, the Lady Trevor, Mrs. Button, and sundry others, dined this day with me at Woolwich in Mr. Lydiard's parlour, my lodgings being as yet not altered, and therefore inconvenient for entertaining of any friends of account; which lodgings I after by warrant repaired and made as they now are, for which I was greatly questioned by the Lord of Northampton in his inquisition, and stand upon his book of reformation at large recorded.
The 20th October following, being Thursday, by God's good help I lay the keel of the new great ship[270] upon the blocks in the dock, and the 28th day following, of the same month, I raised her stern, and presently after the stem, and proceeded in order with the floor[271] as fast as I could, notwithstanding the many practices underhand attempted to have diverted the whole course of that building, as hereafter in his proper place shall be discovered.
[178] MS. 'Phinees' (the form also adopted in his signature), the Greek form of the Hebrew name Mouth of Brass, given as 'Phinehas' by the translators of the Bible.
[179] MS. 'Deepforde Stronde.' The etymology of this well-known name does not appear to have been satisfactorily determined. Antiquaries have been content to explain it as the 'Strand' or shore of the deep ford over the Ravensbourne River, which enters the Thames at Deptford Creek. As a matter of fact, Deptford Strond lay on the shore of the Thames some distance to the west of the Ravensbourne. It seems more probable that Deptford Town, at the head of the creek near the bridge by which the Dover Road crosses, was the original settlement, and took its name from the deep creek (fiord), which was navigable for ships of 500 tons up to that bridge, and that Deptford Stronde was settled later from the 'Town' and took the addition 'Stronde' in contradistinction. The dockyard was on the site now occupied by the Foreign Cattle Market.
[180] Probably Thomas Howell, Rector of Paglesham.
[181] Throughout the MS. the name of the Deity is spelt without a capital letter: the use of capitals in this connection appears to be comparatively modern.
[182] 'Num' in MS., in which it occurs twice.
[183] I.e. apprentice.
[184] Benjamin Gonson, junior, and Buck were appointed jointly Clerk of the Ships, with reversion to the longer liver, by letters patent of 10 July 1596. Gonson died in 1600 and Buck succeeded him. Buck was knighted in 1604 and died in 1625.
[185] A private man-of-war, called later in the 17th century a 'privateer.'
[186] Or Glemham. This was the second voyage. Neither appears to have been a financial success. An account of this voyage under the title, News from the Levane Seas ... was published in 1594.
[187] Prize.
[188] MS. 'Divelinge,' apparently a phonetic attempt at the old name of Dublin, 'Duibhlinn,' pronounced Divlin. Pepys in his marginal note writes 'travelled to Dublin.'
[189] This was destined to be the last voyage of Drake and Hawkyns. The Defiance was Drake's ship.
[190] Or Due (Dieu) Repulse.
[191] Built in 1561, this was a rebuilding.
[192] Advance.
[193] Howard of Effingham.
[194] On the north side of Deptford Green, overlooking the Thames, afterwards the Gun Tavern. See Dew's History of Deptford, p. 185.
[195] I.e. the Cadiz Expedition of 1596, under the joint command of Howard and Essex.
[196] William Cecil, Lord Burghley.
[197] Pronounced 'Tibalds,' whence the form 'Tiballs' in which it appears in the MS. Theobalds Park (near Waltham Cross) was afterwards exchanged between Burghley's son, the first Earl of Salisbury, and James I for Hatfield.
[198] MS. 'Pakellsum.'
[199] MS. 'estate.'
[200] MS. 'Hye Woodehill'; near Mill Hill.
[201] St. James's Day, 25th July.
[202] St. Bartholomew's Day, 24th August.
[203] Hugh Lydiard, senior, Clerk of the Check.
[204] The navigator, brother of Stephen Borough.
[205] Possibly the entrance to the dock.
[206] The 'income' was the fee or fine paid on entering upon the lease.
[207] Thomas Wiggs, a subordinate of Lord Buckhurst, Commissioner of State Trials. He is mentioned in a letter of Buckhurst to Cecil of 7th December 1600. Salisbury MSS. (Hist. MSS.), x. p. 411, and in Pepys' Miscell., x. p. 349.
[208] Southwold.
[209] Or 'Vugle.'
[210] I.e. districts.
[211] See Introduction.
[212] Afterwards Lord Brooke.
[213] Like, favour.
[214] See Introduction.
[215] An allusion to the game of bowls.
[216] Stepfather.
[217] MS. 'syses.'
[218] S.P. Dom. 28th May 1599; the name is given as 'Nun.'
[219] Probably John Hone, Advocate of Doctors' Commons, 1589; Master in Chancery 1596-1602.
[220] The ecclesiastical 'Court of Arches' held at St. Mary-le-Bow.
[221] A Newcastle carvel-built ship.
[222] MS. 'Bulley'; the high ground south of Rochester Castle.
[223] 'All Hallows, Barking,' founded by the nuns of Barking Abbey, whence the name.
[224] MS. 'raynam.'
[225] Thievish Dunkirker.
[226] Swatchway; the channel south of the Nore Sand.
[227] Christmas.
[228] Originally half a mark, or 6s. 8d., afterwards 10s.
[229] 1602, according to the Old Style, as it is before the 25th March.
[230] Or Avale, see p. 86; for many years the pilot for the river and Downs. The Commission of 1618 proposed to pension him as 'aged and blind.'
[231] MS. 'Dagnam.'
[232] MS. 'Grenehyve.'
[233] See Introduction.
[234] Band.
[235] Round shot. At that period salutes were fired with shotted guns, not with blank charges.
[236] Immediately.
[237] South of St. Paul's, and on the east side of Baynard's Castle.
[238] I.e. Prince Henry.
[239] I.e. the Lord High Admiral.
[240] M.S. 'Ihon,' mis-transcribed in the Harl. MS. here and elsewhere as 'Thomas.'
[241] M.S. 'Winebancke.'
[242] The words in italics are wanting in the original MS.
[243] The words in italics are wanting in the original MS.
[244] Coruña.
[245] San Lucar, at the mouth of the Guadalquivir.
[246] MS. 'Bonance': opposite San Lucar.
[247] MS. 'Civill.'
[248] C. de Sta. Maria.
[249] Bore away.
[250] Cadiz.
[251] Santander.
[252] In Hampshire, north of Havant.
[253] See Introduction.
[254] This is a mistake. He has already given the date of birth of John as 23rd March 1601-2 and of Henry as 18th March 1602-3; see pp. 17 and 18.
[255] Suites.
[256] Of Hinchinbrook, a gentleman of the Privy Chamber, uncle of the Protector.
[257] In 1608, see Introduction.
[258] MS. 'Alceholte' (Aisholt = Ashwood), near the Surrey border S.W. of Farnham.
[259] At the northern approach to old London Bridge.
[260] The poet, then gentleman of the bedchamber to Prince Henry.
[261] I.e. for this special purpose.
[262] A legend concerning the relics of St. Vincent, who suffered martyrdom at Valencia in A.D. 304. His body on being exposed to wild beasts was said to have been protected by a raven. During the Moorish invasion of Spain these remains were removed from Valencia to Cape St. Vincent, and in the twelfth century were brought by water from that Cape to the cathedral of Lisbon and placed in the Chapel of St. Vincent. Two (not three) ravens, who watched over his tomb, accompanied the ship on its voyage, remaining on watch when the relics were deposited in the cathedral. The ship and the two birds appear in the arms of Lisbon.
[263] I.e. of ample powers.
[264] See the list and notes at pp. 54-5.
[265] Ante, p. 20.
[266] Rotherhithe; MS. 'Redreife.'
[267] MS. 'Bluther.'
[268] MS. 'Peter.'
[269] A small piece of ordnance without carriage, used for firing salutes. This was not the 'chamber' used with the early breech-loading ordnance.
[270] The Prince Royal.
[271] MS. 'flower.' 'Floor—are those timbers lying transverse to the keel, being bolted through it ... and strictly taken, is so much only of her bottom as she rests upon when lying aground.'—Blanckley, Naval Expositor.