3.—Phineas Pett.

From the care that had been taken to provide for his education, and from the fact that it was only at the 'instant persuasion' of his mother that he was 'contented' to be apprenticed as a shipwright, it may be inferred that Phineas had been destined for the Church or the Law, and that Peter Pett did not propose that his son should follow in his own footsteps. The peculiarity[94] of the name chosen for him (which no doubt refers, not to the disobedient son of Eli, but to 'Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest,' who received 'the covenant of an everlasting priesthood')[95] gives rise to the surmise that his parents had intended him for the Church, but whatever the intention may have been, it was certainly abandoned on the death of his father.

Phineas does not seem to have profited greatly from his studies at Cambridge. He was hardly a master of English; possibly he had a good knowledge of Latin, for the influence of the Latin idiom is to be seen in almost all his periods; but the fact that he had subsequently to practise 'cyphering' in the evenings does not imply any great acquirements in mathematics, even of the very elementary forms which at that period were sufficient for the solution of the few problems arising in connection with the design of ships. Nevertheless, he received the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1592 and that of Master in 1595.

If the statement that he spent the two years of his apprenticeship to Chapman 'to very little purpose' is to be accepted literally, it would seem that the misfortunes that subsequently befell him must have aroused latent energies and filled him with determination to master the details of his future profession when he returned to England in 1594. His voyage to the Levant and subsequent employment as an ordinary workman under his brother Joseph no doubt gave him a practical acquaintance with ships that enabled him to profit greatly by the instruction of Mathew Baker, although apparently this only extended over the winter of 1595-6. Pett's confession that it was from Baker that he received his 'greatest lights,' written, as it must have been, after he had found Baker an 'envious enemy' and an 'old adversary to my name and family,' indicates how great that assistance was. This is borne out by a letter[96] which he wrote to Baker in April 1603, in order to deprecate the old man's wrath, which had been aroused when Phineas, then Assistant Master Shipwright at Chatham, commenced work on the Answer. The letter was partially destroyed by the fire which damaged the Cottonian Library in 1731, but fortunately Pepys had copied it in his Miscellanea.[97]

This expression of opinion upon Baker's capacity was evidently quite genuine, for many years after, when the old man was dead and there was nothing to be feared from his enmity, Phineas wrote of him as 'the most famous artist of his time.'[101]

Phineas did not rely on his professional skill alone to gain him preferment. When in his brother Joseph's employment, he laid out his earnings in clothing himself 'in very good fashion, always endeavouring to keep company with men of good rank, far better than myself.' By means of a friend thus gained, he obtained an introduction to the Lord Admiral, which was 'the very first beginning' of his rising. No doubt Nottingham had known his father, and it is certain that he was well acquainted with his brother Peter; it is probably to this that the 'extraordinary respect' and the later favours of the Admiral were due. These favours brought upon him the 'malicious envy' of the Master Shipwrights, who were no doubt aggrieved at seeing employment that might have provided them or their friends with 'pickings,' handed to a newcomer.

The post of a purveyor of timber was not without its perquisites, and Pett's thankfulness that 'nothing could be proved against him' when the accounts of his doings in Suffolk and Norfolk were scrutinised, indicates that his labours had not been without some profit to himself; indeed his association with Trevor, who became an able disciple of the arch-thief Mansell, leads one to suspect that Fulke Greville's action in 'wrongfully' cutting off twenty pounds was not the high-handed injustice that Phineas would have one believe. It is true that Mr. Oppenheim[102] dates the 'administrative degeneracy' of the Navy Office from Greville's treasurership, but it is probable that this arose from Greville's incapacity to exercise the strict control which had characterised his predecessor Hawkyns, and not from want of integrity. Three years later Phineas affirms that Greville continued his 'heavy enemy' because the Treasurer could not win him 'to such conditions as he laboured me in' against the Surveyor, a state of affairs that seems to indicate a half-hearted attempt at reform on Greville's part, rather than any underhand conspiracy.

In an anonymous account of the quarrel at Chatham in 1602 preserved in Pepys' Miscellanea,[103] written evidently by George Collins, 'the principal informer and stirrer in this business,'[104] it is stated that the writer told Sir Henry Palmer that Pett

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

The writer then goes on to give instances of Pett's misappropriations of materials and labour; four tons of elm timber sawn into boards; fifty deals from the storehouse; fifty small spars; two four-inch planks to make a bridge into his meadow; labour for two or three days; a sluice made in the meadow at a cost of 3l. or 4l.; two or three tons of oak timber sawn into posts to hang clothes on and painted at the Queen's cost. Although the writer has an obvious grievance against Pett, there seems no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of the charges made.

One of the gravest indictments subsequently brought by the Commission of Inquiry of 1608-1609 against Phineas was that relating to the ship which he had laid down in David Duck's private yard at Gillingham in 1604, when both he and Duck were shipwrights at Chatham. From the account of it presented by Phineas[105] it might be supposed that the charge related merely to the sale of ordnance and ammunition to the Spaniards, but the malpractices alleged went much further than that; and, although Pett was cleared by the King, an examination of the evidence produced before the Commission leads to the conclusion that 'those scandalous and false informations' might have led to very unpleasant results if the King had not been biased in his favour. The story, as made out from the existing documents,[106] is briefly as follows:

The ship—a small one of about 160 tons—had been built largely of timber delivered 'for the King's use at Chatham' and with articles 'borrowed out of the store,' under warrant of the Principal Officers, two of whom, Mansell and Trevor, subsequently had shares in her. She was rigged 'with the rigging of the Foresight, which for bare 12l. only he bought out of her' at much less than the value, by the favour of the Surveyor (Trevor) and the Treasurer (Mansell), so that 'she was sailed with the King's sails and rigged with the King's tackling.' When she set sail for Spain in 1605 'under colour of a transporter of my Lord Admiral's provisions,' she was furnished out of the King's store with cables, anchors, flags, pitch, and other stores and provisions, including 600 cwt. of biscuit. She also drew 120 bolts of canvas for the use of the fleet, part of which was sold by Pett's brother, and for the whole of which Phineas acknowledged himself responsible. Although taken up as a transport and paid wages and tonnage (on a false rating of 300 tons, about twice her capacity) she was entered in the Customs as a merchantman bound for San Lucar, and carried 60 tons of lead for a merchant of London named Alabaster, for which 60l. was received as freight. At Lisbon Pett sold a demi-culverin of brass, captured at Cadiz in 1596, with ammunition and a quantity of bread, biscuit, and peas belonging to the fleet, for which he received 300l., which he sent, 'by the way of exchange,' to Trevor and Mansell, then at Valladolid[107] with Nottingham, who had gone there to ratify the peace recently concluded between the two countries. Altogether, the voyage of this ship cost the King '800l. or 1000l., as appeareth by the accounts, for little or no service done at all.'

As regards the money sent to Valladolid, it is probable that this was used in paying some of the expenses of the embassy, and that this proceeding had the sanction of Nottingham; but Pett's answers before the Commission to some of the other charges, as given in his signed deposition of 12th May 1608, seem rather weak. He stated that the 'riggings' of the Foresight were 'found to be so ill that they stood him in little or no stead,' that the accounts for the provisions were delivered to Sir John Trevor and no copies had been kept, and, by a convenient lapse of memory, he could not say what persons or stuff were landed at the Groyne 'nor what burden the ship was accounted for to the King.' When asked by Captain Morgan to set him down on the east side of the Groyne, he was alleged to have said that 'he could not adventure the ship by his directions for that she was no part of the fleet,' in reply to which allegation he swore that to the best of his recollection no such words were ever used. It appears from the evidence that Sir Richard Leveson had refused to allow the ship as one of the fleet, but he had died shortly after the return to England, and after his death Mansell and Trevor, 'assuming full power into their own hands,' had reversed the decision. One reason given by Pett for visiting ports other than that to which the fleet had gone is of interest; he told the Commission that he had been informed by Trevor and Mansell that the biscuit would not be needed for the fleet 'by reason of the short voyage my Lord Admiral had into Spain,' and he was to go to Lisbon or San Lucar to sell it, 'and that they reported as from my Lord Admiral that because this deponent was a shipwright he might in the harbours where he should put in take view of the Spanish ships and galleys and of the manner of their building.'

With a ship so cheaply built and rigged, and employed on such favourable terms, it could not have been difficult to make a handsome profit, and it is little wonder that Pett calls her a 'lucky ship' when he tells of her sale in 1612.

The corruption in the administration of the Navy, which had begun to appear in the last years of Elizabeth's reign, had by 1608 reached such a height that James was at length forced to take some steps in regard to it. The knowledge that Spain was actively engaged in setting her navy in order no doubt quickened the King into action and provided a motive powerful enough to sweep aside for the time the obstruction of the senile Nottingham and his jackal Mansell. At first it had been intended that Nottingham should head the Commission, and letters patent[108] were passed on 1st April 1608, in which his name appears first, Northampton coming second, but for some reason this was altered, and on the 30th April a commission under the great seal was issued to Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton, then Lord Privy Seal and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, Charles Howard, Earl of Nottingham, the Lord High Admiral, and thirteen others,[109] of whom Sir Robert Cotton, the famous antiquary, was the most active. Northampton, who was Nottingham's cousin, seems to have been the leader of the reform party, and although he is persistently vilified by Pett, there is little doubt that he was actuated by a more or less sincere desire (sharpened, possibly, by mutual antagonism between the offices of Lord Warden and Lord High Admiral) to reform the many existing abuses. What all these abuses were would take too long in telling, but they were sufficient to justify, and more than justify, the vigorous language of the patent, which speaks of the

The patent then proceeds to give instructions for the examination of all officials who have been connected with the Navy since 1598 and the investigation of their accounts,

Possibly, at the time, James really intended to reform the administration. Nottingham kept out of the way, and his subordinates had an unpleasant time while they were examined upon their misdeeds; but in the end, James' fear of Spain having passed away, he, with his usual weakness, let the offenders off with a lecture.

The Commission commenced to sit in May 1608 and sat for a little over a year, ending with the proceedings before the King recorded on pp. 68-69 below. During this period 161 witnesses were examined, and their signed depositions taken. These are preserved among the manuscripts of Sir Robert Cotton,[110] who acted as the secretary. They were analysed by Cotton, who drew up a lengthy report[111] in which various abuses are set forth and proposals made for their remedy; the latter, as might be expected, were duly ignored by the King. Among the offenders cited by name, Pett appears as one of the chief, and although the present occasion is not convenient for a general examination of the report and evidence, some mention must be made of the matters in which Pett is directly charged with wrong-doing.

The first point made against him is that while he was keeper of the timber store at Chatham he had failed to reject bad timber and plank brought in by one of the purveyors. His answer to this was 'that Sir Henry Palmer had been so quick with him for some of these exceptions as he would complain no more though the purveyors brought in faggot sticks.' He is next charged with certain malpractices in connexion with the Resistance, and other charges on this account are brought against him further on; these have already been referred to. In a general charge against the Master Shipwrights that, for reasons of private gain, ships were repaired 'when they were not worth the labour nor the charges bestowed on them,' the case of the Victory is cited as an example:

In complaining that estimates for repair were made blindfold, with the result that money was spent upon old ships more than sufficient to have built new ones, the illustration is again drawn from Pett's proceedings:

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

In a further charge relating to the issue of material for ships building or under repair, it is pointed out that the Surveyor had taken away the keys of the storehouses from the Clerk of the Check, their proper custodian, 'and put them into the hand of Pett his chief favourite, who could not only take just what he liked, but likewise hath power to expend upon the ships (or under that pretence) whatsoever he thinketh good without contradiction, and full scope withal to embezzle what he list.' He is also mentioned in connexion with the construction and decay of the 'pale' which should defend the storeyard from pilferers 'on the outside towards the Thames,' and with the employment of youths and boys 'that fill up numbers but work little.' Finally he is charged with 'wasteful and lavish expense' in repairing the ironwork of the Anne Royal at a cost of 800l., or more than double the amount necessary for the purpose. In the only charge to which Pett himself refers, namely, that of altering his lodgings, he is not mentioned by name, but it is clear that all the resident officials had added rooms to their houses at the expense and to the detriment of the storehouses which adjoined.

There seems little doubt that these charges were well founded, and that Pett was acting in collusion with his 'very good friends' Mansell and Trevor to defraud the State. It is, however, probable that the other officers were little better, and were only restrained by the lack of those opportunities the possession of which they envied Pett.

It is clear from the remarks in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry already quoted and from Pett's narrative[112] that the original intention was to rebuild the Victory, which had been removed from Chatham to Woolwich in the autumn of 1606 for this purpose. The official records do not throw any light upon the circumstances in which this intention came to be abandoned, and indeed the Treasurer's official accounts for 1609 and 1610 preserve the fiction that the Victory was rebuilt.[113] From the story related by Phineas, it appears that the Victory had been given by James to Prince Henry, and that Pett was entrusted with the task of rebuilding her because he was one of the Prince's retainers. He then conceived the idea of constructing a ship larger than any that his predecessors had built, and made a model embodying his design, which so pleased the Lord High Admiral that the King was brought to see it, with the result that it was decided to build a new great ship on the lines suggested by Pett. This procedure of constructing a model to scale from the design, for the approval of the authorities, before starting to build the ship, is probably the first instance of the adoption of a course that later became customary in all cases where a new ship represented an advance in size, or method of construction, or embodied features not to be found in her predecessors. Her keel was not laid until the 20th October 1608, nearly a year after the model had been submitted to the King's inspection. In the meantime the Commission of Inquiry had been appointed, and the construction had not proceeded far before questions were raised as to the correctness of the design, the suitability of the material, and the competence of Pett as designer and builder.

On the 15th December, Baker was examined on the subject before the Commission. The questions put to him related to the estimated cost of the Prince Royal and the material used; the cost of the rebuilding of the Ark Royal; and the experience of Pett as a builder. Baker estimated the probable cost of the Prince at £7000, nearly twice what he had been paid for the Merhonour.[114] This estimate, although apparently in excess of one given by Pett, proved very far short of the mark, since the total cost finally came to nearly £20,000, no less than £1309 being spent on decoration and carving alone. As regards the material, Baker stated that the timber was very badly chosen. It appears that old and unsuitable trees were selected on account of the profit to be made by their larger 'tops,' which seem to have been one of the many perquisites of the officers. In preparing the timber there was, so Baker said,

In regard to Pett's competence:

Five days later, Bright came up for examination and was required to give answers to seventeen questions, apparently the same as those put to Baker. Six of them he did not answer, but referred the Commissioners to the answers given to them by Baker. His replies to the others were generally in corroboration of what Baker had said, but as regards Pett's capability he expressed no direct opinion, contenting himself with pointing out that

After this the matter remained in abeyance until the end of March, when Northampton enlisted the services of George Waymouth, who appears to have possessed a great reputation among his contemporaries for his theoretical knowledge of shipbuilding. In 1602 Waymouth had set out, under the auspices of the East India Company, to attempt the North-West Passage in the Discovery, with another small vessel, the Godspeed, but had been compelled, through the mutiny of his crew, to abandon the attempt, after entering the strait subsequently known as Hudson's Strait. In 1605 he made a short voyage of discovery in the Archangel along the American coast. Of actual experience in shipbuilding he seems at that time to have had none whatever, and a perusal of his chapter on that subject in the manuscript volume 'The Jewell of Artes,'[119] which he presented to James in 1604, would not inspire any great confidence in his theoretical knowledge, but fortunately other means of judging the extent to which this knowledge was subsequently increased have lately presented themselves.

The chapter in 'The Jewell of Artes' consists entirely of criticism, together with a few crude drawings not explained in the text. These criticisms are not without point, as may be seen from the following extracts. He says:

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

He then, feeling, no doubt, that his want of technical experience in shipbuilding gave him small right to pose as a critic of the professional builders, deprecates their censure in the following words:

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

He goes on to say that ships built after his plan would cost less and be of more burden, and gives reasons why the ships of the Low Countries carried freight at cheaper rates than English ships. This, he says, was because they were longer in proportion to their breadth, broader and longer in the bottom, and therefore of less draught, and not built so high above water, with the result that they required less sail and tackling and could manage with a smaller crew.

These criticisms of the English shipwrights are no doubt well founded, but the step from critic to artist is a long one, and Waymouth never took it. Nevertheless he was a more competent critic than Pett would have us believe. An anonymous seventeenth-century MS., entitled, 'A most excellent briefe and easie Treatize,' containing, among other matters, 'A most excellent mannor for the Buildinge of Shippes,' exists in the Scott collection, and this, by the kindness of the owner, has been placed at the disposal of the editor, who, after a careful examination, has no doubt that it is the work of Waymouth, written after he had built the ship which Pett calls a 'bable and drowne divell,' and of which a midship section is given. Unfortunately, except in this one instance, the treatise is purely theoretical and throws no light on the problems of the Prince Royal, or the methods of the royal shipwrights, but as a theoretical treatise it is far in advance of the 'Jewell of Artes,' and indeed of anything that the English shipwrights of that century produced, and is sufficient to explain why Waymouth's opinions were accorded so much respect.

After Waymouth's futile visit to Woolwich, the King seems to have been much perplexed, and since there was no independent expert, for they had all taken sides, he handed the matter over to a committee composed of the Lord High Admiral and two of the great officers of State. In theory, no doubt, the selection of the Admiral to superintend such an inquiry was the natural course to be followed, but in this case he was sitting in judgment on one of his own protégés, and could hardly condemn him without indirectly condemning himself and justifying Northampton. The result in such circumstances—and with such a man—was a foregone conclusion, for the other two members, having no professional experience of the matter, would naturally follow his direction. The technical arguments of Baker and Stevens would be lost on Worcester and Suffolk, even if Nottingham could appreciate them, which may be doubted; and—judging by his writings, and allowing for their ignorance of the mathematical side of the questions at issue—it is not surprising that Waymouth bored them beyond endurance, with the result that in the end 'they found the business in every part and point so excellent.'

Northampton's anger at the result was not unnatural, and the King found that there was no other course open to him but to hold an inquiry in person. This was fixed for the 8th May, and during the first week of that month Baker, Waymouth, and their associates took the dimensions of the ship at Woolwich and set out their objections in the following document:[121]

This indictment cannot be lightly set aside. Baker was the most prominent shipbuilder of that day, and Bright and Meryett (or, as the name is more usually written, Meritt) were Government shipbuilders of long experience, while Clay, Greaves, and Stevens were private builders of considerable standing in their profession. Unfortunately we have hardly any authentic details of the ship; certainly not sufficient to enable us to form any independent opinion upon the question of her design. We have, from the careful survey[134] taken in 1632, the following dimensions: