The Autobiography of Phineas Pett
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]
[Sidenote: 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 Ma^{ts} command we have examined the
particulars of the plot and the dimensions presented to
your Ma^{ty} 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 Ma^{ts} 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 Ma^{ty} 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
Ma^{ty}.
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
Rake of the Stem 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