The Autobiography of Phineas Pett
work, but rather thinketh the contrary. Further, being demanded
what ship he knoweth or have heard the said Pett hath built or
repaired, he saith he never knew any new ship of his building,
but one of 120 tons or thereabouts which he built by Chatham
for himself,[115] as far as he knoweth, and another ship of the
burthen of 223 tons he repaired,[116] and a pinnace[117] for his
Majesty, which he saith was so done that after he had repaired
them they were worse in condition than they were when he took
them in hand, for that they were so unserviceable that they would
bear no sail, by which default of his they were returned from the
seas into Chatham to be new furred[118] to make them bear sail,
so that with his first repairing and furring of them he doubts
not but it will appear by the accompts that his workmanship with
stuff was more chargeable than a new ship of their burthen might
have been new built for, which are enough to persuade any man
that he cannot be sufficient to perform the building of so great
a ship when he hath performed the reparation of a small ship so
ill, as of a good ship he made a bad.
Further, being asked what his opinion was concerning the choice
of the stuff, he saith it was not chosen for the good of the King
but for their own turns, and that very little of it fit to be
put into any ship, and much less into a great ship, because it
will be of no continuance, and that he never knew Pett to make
any frame in the wood either for ship or boat, who cannot do it,
being never brought up to it; and as for his brother Peter Pett,
who was appointed purveyor, he holdeth him a man most simple
for such a purpose, and also saith that, though they be both
unsufficient for the making of such a frame, yet the badness of
the stuff is not altogether to be imputed to them, but to those
who dispose of the business according to their own humour.
Five days later, Bright came up for examination and was required to
give answers to seventeen questions, apparently the same as those
put to Baker. Six of them he did not answer, but referred the
Commissioners to the answers given to them by Baker. His replies to
the others were generally in corroboration of what Baker had said,
but as regards Pett's capability he expressed no direct opinion,
contenting himself with pointing out that
the old Officers, in former times, in such great works did place
two Master Shipwrights in the building of one great ship, as my
father Mr. Bright was joined with Mr. Pett in the building of the
Elizabeth Jonas, as also in the building of the Bear with Mr.
Baker. Their reason was that two Master Shipwrights' opinions
was little enough for the charge so great in scope as she at
Woolwich will be, but now it is carried by the favour of some of
the Officers to whom it pleaseth them; but howsoever it is, the
charge is great for a young man to do which never made great ship
before of that burthen.
[Sidenote: Captain George Waymouth.]
After this the matter remained in abeyance until the end of March,
when Northampton enlisted the services of George Waymouth, who
appears to have possessed a great reputation among his contemporaries
for his theoretical knowledge of shipbuilding. In 1602 Waymouth had
set out, under the auspices of the East India Company, to attempt the
North-West Passage in the Discovery, with another small vessel, the
Godspeed, but had been compelled, through the mutiny of his crew, to
abandon the attempt, after entering the strait subsequently known
as Hudson's Strait. In 1605 he made a short voyage of discovery in
the Archangel along the American coast. Of actual experience in
shipbuilding he seems at that time to have had none whatever, and a
perusal of his chapter on that subject in the manuscript volume 'The
Jewell of Artes,'[119] which he presented to James in 1604, would
not inspire any great confidence in his theoretical knowledge, but
fortunately other means of judging the extent to which this knowledge
was subsequently increased have lately presented themselves.
The chapter in 'The Jewell of Artes' consists entirely of criticism,
together with a few crude drawings not explained in the text. These
criticisms are not without point, as may be seen from the following
extracts. He says:
Although the form and fashion of these our English ships have
always been, and yet are accompted to be made by the best
proportion, and fittest both for service and burden, yet if art
and diligence were to the full performed in their buildings as
they might, there should not remain in them so many dangerous
impediments as there do at this day, which maketh me verily
suppose that the one of them, if not both, is not in such measure
in our shipwrights as with all my heart I do wish.
A little further on, in speaking of the discrepancies to be found in
ships supposed to be built from the same design, he says:
Yet could I never see two ships builded of like proportion by the
best and most skilful shipwrights in this realm ... the chiefest
cause of their error is because they trust rather to their
judgment than to their art, and to their eye than to their scale
and compass.
He then, feeling, no doubt, that his want of technical experience
in shipbuilding gave him small right to pose as a critic of the
professional builders, deprecates their censure in the following
words:
All which defects in building and many other I have with no less
careful endeavour than with the often peril and hazard of mine
own life diligently applied myself to search and find out, even
to the uttermost of my skill and understanding; and although by
mine own experience I can in this point speak as much as most
seamen (I might say as any), having been employed in this service
ever since I was able to do any, and served therein well near
four prenticeships, and having in this time borne all the offices
belonging to this trade, even from the lowest unto the highest,
yet had I rather that any other should have taken upon them the
searching and finding out of these impediments and the laying
of them open, than myself; but seeing that no man that ever I
heard of hath hitherto, as yet, undertaken the same, the thing
being of much importance, as it is, and the dangers so great,
though perhaps I shall be hardly censured for the same of the
shipwrights, whose want of art or diligence I therein accuse, yet
do I think it the part of every good subject rather to seek to do
good to the whole state than to fear the displeasure of any one
occupation.
In an undated paper, a copy of which is preserved in the Harleian
MSS.,[120] he further criticises the shipwrights to the following
effect:
The Shipwrights of England and of Christendom build ships only by
uncertain traditional precepts and observations and chiefly by
the deceiving aim of their eye, where for want of skill to work
by such proportions as in Art is required and is ever certain, I
have found these defects.
(1) No shipwright is able to make two ships alike in proportion
nor qualities; to build a ship to any desired burden certain; nor
to propose to himself how much water his ship shall draw until
there be trial made thereof.
(2) Ships yet built go not upright in the sea, whereby they often
lose the use of their lower tier of ordnance.
(3) They are often forced to be furred; which is a great charge
and weakening to the ships; this is for want of skill to work
their desired proportions.
(4) They labour and beat in the sea more than they may be made
to do; which causeth often leaks to spring and weakeneth them
that they cannot last so long as they might.
(5) They go not so near the wind as they might be made to do, the
wind being the greatest advantage in fight.
(6) They draw more water in proportion to their burdens than they
might be made to do.
(7) They be made of less burdens than they may be made of in
proportion to the length, breadth and depth. This defect the
Hollanders have in part mended and are able to carry freight for
one third part less than our Merchants.
(8) They cannot bear sail nor steer readily to make the
best advantage of the wind, for want whereof, and of art in
proportioning the Moulds, they sail not so fast as they may be
made to do.
My study these twenty years in the Mathematics hath been chiefly
directed to the mending of these defects. I have during this
time applied myself to know the several ways of building and
the secrets of the best shipwrights in England and Christendom,
and have likewise observed the several workings of ships in
the sea in all the voyages I have been. By these helps I have
demonstratively gained the science of making of ships perfect in
Art, which of necessity must be made wrought by a differing way
from all the Shipwrights in the world.
He goes on to say that ships built after his plan would cost less
and be of more burden, and gives reasons why the ships of the Low
Countries carried freight at cheaper rates than English ships. This,
he says, was because they were longer in proportion to their breadth,
broader and longer in the bottom, and therefore of less draught, and
not built so high above water, with the result that they required
less sail and tackling and could manage with a smaller crew.
These criticisms of the English shipwrights are no doubt well
founded, but the step from critic to artist is a long one, and
Waymouth never took it. Nevertheless he was a more competent critic
than Pett would have us believe. An anonymous seventeenth-century
MS., entitled, 'A most excellent briefe and easie Treatize,'
containing, among other matters, 'A most excellent mannor for the
Buildinge of Shippes,' exists in the Scott collection, and this, by
the kindness of the owner, has been placed at the disposal of the
editor, who, after a careful examination, has no doubt that it is
the work of Waymouth, written after he had built the ship which Pett
calls a 'bable and drowne divell,' and of which a midship section is
given. Unfortunately, except in this one instance, the treatise is
purely theoretical and throws no light on the problems of the Prince
Royal, or the methods of the royal shipwrights, but as a theoretical
treatise it is far in advance of the 'Jewell of Artes,' and indeed
of anything that the English shipwrights of that century produced,
and is sufficient to explain why Waymouth's opinions were accorded so
much respect.
[Sidenote: Inquiry by Nottingham, Worcester, and Suffolk.]
After Waymouth's futile visit to Woolwich, the King seems to have
been much perplexed, and since there was no independent expert,
for they had all taken sides, he handed the matter over to a
committee composed of the Lord High Admiral and two of the great
officers of State. In theory, no doubt, the selection of the
Admiral to superintend such an inquiry was the natural course to
be followed, but in this case he was sitting in judgment on one of
his own protégés, and could hardly condemn him without indirectly
condemning himself and justifying Northampton. The result in such
circumstances--and with such a man--was a foregone conclusion, for
the other two members, having no professional experience of the
matter, would naturally follow his direction. The technical arguments
of Baker and Stevens would be lost on Worcester and Suffolk, even if
Nottingham could appreciate them, which may be doubted; and--judging
by his writings, and allowing for their ignorance of the mathematical
side of the questions at issue--it is not surprising that Waymouth
bored them beyond endurance, with the result that in the end 'they