The Autobiography of Phineas Pett
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 13,860_l._, and was
to be required to 'put in assurance' to finish her for 16,000_l._;
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 40,833_l._ 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 1190_l._ 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.
[Sidenote: The Last Years.]
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 100_l._ 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.
[Sidenote: Phineas Pett's Character.]
In forming any just appreciation of the character and abilities
of Phineas Pett, regard must be had to the circumstances of age
in which he lived. It was a time of great political and religious
unrest, and expressions of religious devotion which might now be
thought extravagant were then normal, and were apparently not
thought incongruous with dishonesty in money matters. The chronic
maladministration of the Navy, and the arrears in payment of the
relatively small salaries allotted to responsible posts, may to
some extent justify methods of acquiring additional emoluments that
nowadays are judged more severely.
Pett's kindness towards his unfortunate brothers and sisters shows
a good heart, and there must have been something attractive in his
character to secure him the steady support of Nottingham, James
I, and Charles I, which went so far as to shield him against the
consequences of his misdeeds.
The favoured position which he held, and the privilege he enjoyed
of direct intercourse with the supreme heads of the Navy behind
the backs of his immediate superiors, brought Pett into conflict
with the latter on many occasions. It is not necessary to accept
the explanation of Phineas that these incidents were the results of
conspiracies directed against him. To oppose him was a deadly sin;
thus, Burrell, who was 'a worthy gentleman and good friend' when
he stood on Pett's side in the Prince Royal inquiry, became Pett's
'greatest enemy,' engaged in the 'malicious practice' of 'tending
to overthrow me and root my name out of the earth' because he was
appointed one of the Commissioners of Inquiry in 1618.
Pett was evidently interested in the various efforts made in the
early seventeenth century to explore and colonise the coasts of
North America. He frequently refers to his friendship with Button,
and states that he assisted in the selection of the Resolution for
the voyage of 1612. He was, moreover, a kinsman of Hawkridge and an
acquaintance of Foxe; while Gibbons was the master of his ship the
Resistance. The disparaging remark on Waymouth's 'mistaking his
course (as he did in the North-West Passage)'[176] shows that he
was acquainted with the story of the voyage of 1602, but the most
competent modern authorities do not agree with this opinion of Pett
(and of his contemporary Foxe), and hold that Waymouth did in fact
enter the straits subsequently called after Hudson and sail along
them for a considerable distance.[177] Pett was also a member of
the Virginia Company, though he does not mention this fact. His
name appears in the second and third Charters of the Company (1609
and 1612), and in 1611 he subscribed the sum of 37_l._ 10_s._ This
was the lowest subscription allowable for members, but it was a
comparatively large sum for those days.
Evidently Phineas, in spite of his large and growing family, was at
this time fairly prosperous, and had an income considerably greater
than the 54_l._ 15_s._ which represented his official salary and
allowance. No doubt this income was augmented by the trading ventures
in the Resistance and by shipbuilding for private owners and by
various official 'perquisites.' In 1614 it was increased by 40_l._,
granted him by the King under writ of Privy Seal, but in 1617 and
the following years his bad speculations in regard to the Destiny,
the pinnace built for Lord Zouch, the Mercury, and the Spy, made
serious inroads into his capital and burdened him with a load of
debt which seems to have weighed upon him for many years and given
him much trouble. James came to his assistance in 1620 by presenting
him with a patent for a baronetcy which brought him about 650_l._,
and Charles gave him another in 1628 which only fetched 200_l._
His appointment as a Commissioner of the Navy in 1631 increased his
official income to 200_l._, exclusive of the 40_l._ payable on the
writ of Privy Seal. With this substantial addition to his salary he
was in a position to gradually improve his finances, and after 1634
we hear no more of the actions for debt.
From the story of his life as now unfolded it is clear that Phineas
Pett was a man of considerable ability and industry, kindly to
his friends, but impetuous and quick-tempered; 'well-in' with the
authorities, and apt to take advantage of that fact when he disagreed
with his equals or superiors. It is probable that he was slightly in
advance of his contemporaries in the profession of shipbuilding,
but not to the extent commonly supposed. Here his autobiography
has stood him in good stead, for it has attached to his name a
personality that makes his existence seem more real and of more
moment to a later age in which his professional contemporaries have
become shadowy names. It is difficult to say what was his real motive
in writing it, but it was probably commenced as an explanation of
his position in regard to the Prince Royal dispute of 1608, and
afterwards continued partly for recreation; partly, perhaps, for
the edification of his children. Pepys appears to have thought much
of it, for he took the trouble to copy it into his collection of
miscellanea; but it is certainly wanting in the candour and honesty
of the celebrated Diary, and seems to have been written in order
to convey a favourable impression to the reader, and explain away
doubtful deeds, rather than as a real revelation of self.
FOOTNOTES:
[94] 'The rage for Bible names dates from the decade 1560-1570, which
decade marks the rise of Puritanism.'--Bardsley, _Curiosities of
Puritan Nomenclature_, p. 39.
[95] Numbers xxvi. 11-13.
[96] _Cott. MSS._, Otho E. vii. fol. 155.
[97] _Misc._ x. 353. There are errors in this transcript, which has
been corrected, so far as possible, from the original.
[98] Double-dealer; probably he refers to Bright.
[99] MS. flattsheate.' Pepys has transcribed this 'flat cheat.'
[100] _Sic_ in transcript, probably 'far.'
[101] _Cal. S.P. Dom._, 26 Feb. 1626.