The Autobiography of Phineas Pett
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 Cap^n. 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.
Cap^n. 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:
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 500_l._ 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 6,000_l._ 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 20,000_l._ 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 1000_l._, 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 16,019_l._,
to which must be added 2160_l._ for launching and transporting her to
Chatham.[139]
[Sidenote: 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