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]

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]

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 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.'

The matter drifted on until 1624, and two further remonstrances, from the Admiralty, brought forth a reply from the merchants that they were

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.

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.

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:

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:

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:

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 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.