The Autobiography of Phineas Pett
of discussing with Mr. L. G. Carr Laughton the technical questions
raised in connexion with the Prince Royal and the Sovereign of the
Seas.
W. G. P.
_December 1918._
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Probably rewritten when the narrative was taken up again.
[2] By the Rev. S. Denne, _Archæologia_ xii. p. 217.
[3] The words 'and ourselves to sit with the Officers' (page 144),
not in the Harleian copy, are in the printed version.
[4] _E.g._ 'Articles' for 'Arches,' p. 14; 'enemy' for 'injury,' p.
26; 'tarried' for 'arrived,' p. 25; 'Frank Moore' for 'Tranckmore,'
p. 33; 'perceived' for 'protested,' p. 61; 'care' for 'ease,' p. 104;
'Warwick,' for 'Woolwich' p. 142, &c., &c.
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION
The Shipwrights xv
The Family of Pett xlii
Phineas Pett lii
THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY 1
APPENDICES
I. Grant to Phineas Pett 173
II. Petition of Shipwrights 175
III. Charter to Shipwrights' Company (1605) 176
IV. Charter to Shipwrights' Company (1612) 179
V. New Building the Prince Royal 207
VI. Petition to the Admiralty (1631) 210
VII. Letter to Buckingham (1623) 212
VIII. Protest against Building the Sovereign 214
IX. Ships Built or Rebuilt by Phineas Pett 217
X. The Arms of Pett 218
INDEX 219
INTRODUCTION
1.--_The Shipwrights._
It might be supposed that so ancient a craft as that of shipbuilding
would have left some trace in contemporary records of its activities,
the methods of its technique, and the personalities of those engaged
in it. Yet although references to ships and shipping are frequent in
the records of this country from the earliest times, and although the
shipwright was a distinct class of workman at least as early as the
tenth century--probably much earlier--no record of the methods in
which he set about the design and construction of ships earlier than
the end of the sixteenth century appears to have survived.
It may be presumed that those of our earlier kings who possessed a
navy royal, and did not rely entirely on the support of the Cinque
Ports and of the merchant shipping, would include among their
servants some skilled man to perform the functions of a master
shipwright, and if not to design, at any rate to look to the upkeep
of the king's ships and to watch the construction in private yards
of those intended for the royal service. But if the Clerk of the
Ships, who first comes into notice in the reign of John, had any such
subordinate, his existence before the end of the reign of Henry V
is not known to us. It is, however, possible that, on occasion, this
duty was performed by the king's carpenters, whose principal function
seems to have been to keep the woodwork of the royal castles in
repair. In 1337 forty oaks required in the construction of a galley,
then being built at Hull for Edward III under the superintendence
of William de la Pole, a prominent merchant of that town, were
supplied by the Prior of Blyth, who was directed to hand them over
to William de Kelm (Kelham), the king's carpenter (_carpentario
nostro_).[5] The accounts for this galley have not survived, and
there is no means of ascertaining whether William de Kelm had
anything to do with the actual construction. Another galley and a
barge were at the same time being built at Lynn under Thomas and
William de Melcheburn. The accounts[6] show that the master carpenter
(_magister carpentariorum_) of the galley was John Kech, who was paid
at the rate of sixpence[7] a day and had under him six carpenters
at fivepence a day, six 'clynckers' at fourpence, six holders at
threepence, and four labourers (_servientes_) at twopence halfpenny.
The master carpenter of the barge was Ralph atte Grene, who received
the same rate of pay as Kech. Neither Kech nor Grene appear as the
King's servants.
In 1421 the 'King's servant' John Hoggekyns, 'master carpenter of the
king's ships,' was granted by letters patent a pension of fourpence
a day, 'because in labouring long about them he is much shaken and
deteriorated in body,' and this grant was confirmed in December of
the following year on the accession of Henry VI. In 1416-18 Hoggekyns
had built the Grace Dieu, 'if not the largest, probably the best
equipped ship yet built in England.'[8]
With the sale of most of the royal navy on the death of Henry V, the
need for a 'master carpenter of the King's Ships' must have passed
away, and no trace of any further appointment of this character has
been found for over a century. The construction of the Regent in 1486
was entrusted by Henry VII to the Master of the Ordnance, and it
seems probable that the design of the Henri Grace à Dieu, built in
1514, was the work of the Clerk of the Ships, Robert Brygandin,[9]
although the superintendence of her building was entrusted to William
Bond (or Bound), who is described in 1519 as 'late clerk of the
poultry, surveyor, and payer of expenses for the construction of the
Henri Grace à Dieu and the three other galleys.'[10]
It is not until the later years of Henry VIII's reign that steps
appear to have been taken to establish in the royal service a
permanent body of men skilled in the art of shipbuilding. From the
earliest times of which records exist it had been the practice to
send out agents to the various ports to impress the shipwrights,
caulkers, sawyers, and other workmen required for the construction
and repair of ships of the Royal Navy. This system was no doubt
satisfactory while the merchant ship and the royal ship presented
no essential points of difference; the latter were, indeed, often
let out to hire for mercantile purposes. But when the ship-of-war
began to carry a larger number of guns than the trading ship found
necessary for her protection--a change that may be roughly dated
from the end of the fifteenth century--the methods of construction
began to diverge, and the old system of casual impressment must have
tended to become less and less satisfactory; so that when Henry,
after remodelling the material of the Navy, turned, at the end of his
reign, to the improvement of the Administration he no doubt saw the
necessity of attracting permanently to his service men capable of
directing the art of shipbuilding, as applied to ships of war, in the
new channels in which it was henceforth destined to run.
Up to this point, the position of the shipwright--even of the Master
Shipwright--was not an exalted one. He was classed among 'servants'
and 'artificers,' and his pay was made the subject of legislation
expressly designed to keep the wages of those classes as low as
possible. In 'Naval Accounts and Inventories of the Reign of Henry
VII, 1485-8 and 1495-7,' Mr. Oppenheim has edited material which
illustrates the various rates paid to shipwrights, and has pointed
out that these rates of pay 'had remained practically unaltered since
the days of Henry V.' An Act of Parliament of 1495[11] laid down the
following scale of payments:--
_From Candlemas to Michaelmas._
With meat Without
and drink, meat and drink,
a day a day
Master Ship Carpenter with
charge of work and men
under him 5_d._ 7_d._
Other Ship Carpenter called
a Hewer 4_d._ 6_d._
An able Clincher 3_d._ 5_d._
Holder 2_d._ 4_d._
Master Caulker 4_d._ 6_d._
A mean Caulker 3_d._ 5_d._
Caulker labouring by the
tide, for as long as he may
labour above water and
beneath water, shall not
exceed for every tide 4_d._ --
_From Michaelmas to Candlemas._
Master Shipwright 4_d._ 6_d._
Hewer 3_d._ 5_d._
Able Clincher 2½_d._ 4½_d._
Holder 1½_d._ 3_d._
Master Caulker 3_d._ 5_d._
A mean Caulker 2½_d._ 4½_d._
This Act was repealed in 1496, but the same scale was fixed in 1514
by an Act[12] that was not repealed until 1562.
It will be observed that the highest rate under these Acts is
sevenpence a day, although in several instances in the accounts[13]
referred to above a Master Shipwright was paid eightpence a day.
When Henry VIII instituted[14] the practice of granting by letters
patent an annuity for life to certain shipwrights performing the
duties of the office known later as 'the Master Shipwright,' he fixed
the daily rate upon the basis set forth above, but it must be borne
in mind that (as will be shown later) this did not represent the
total emoluments of that official, who was in effect raised, both as
to emoluments and status, above the class in which he had formerly
been placed.
The first of the succession of officials thus established by Henry
appears to have been James Baker, who by letters patent[15] dated
the 20th May 1538 was granted, as from Michaelmas 1537, an annuity
for life of fourpence a day, the lowest rate of a Master Shipwright,
or Master Ship Carpenter as he was alternatively called by the Acts
referred to. The entry in the Roll is of some interest; unlike the
later grants, this grant is not based upon past services, but solely
upon services which are to be rendered in the future,[16] and the
authority for the letters patent is not the usual writ of privy seal,
but the direct motion of the King: 'per ipsum Regem.' In December
1544 new letters patent were issued,[17] in which Baker is described
as a 'Shipwright' and the annuity (_annuitatem sive annualem
redditum_) fixed at eightpence a day. In January of the same year,
Peter Pett, 'Shipwright,' had by letters patent been granted a
wage and fee (_vadium et feodum_) of sixpence a day for life, as
from Michaelmas 1543, 'in consideration of his good and faithful
service done and to be done'; from which it appears that Peter Pett
was already in the royal service. It is probable that the increase
in Baker's annuity was intended to mark his superior position in
relation to Pett.
The official title of 'master shipwright' does not appear as yet
in use, for when Baker and other shipwrights were, in the next
year, sent by the Council, at the request of the Lord Admiral, to
Portsmouth to examine into the decay of one of the ships there, they
were simply described as 'Masters James Baker and others skilful
in ships.'[18] In addition to Baker and Pett, these included John
Smyth, Robert Holborn, and Richard Bull. On the 23rd April 1548
these three latter, under the designation of 'Shipwrights,' together
with Richard Osborn, anchor-smith, 'had by bill signed by the King's
Majesty each of them 4_d._ per diem in consideration of their long
and good service and that they should instruct others in their
feats.'[19] Smyth and Holborn were hardly in the same category as
Baker and Peter Pett. They seem to have been skilled mechanics rather
than constructors or designers, and are not mentioned as having
'built' a ship, though this is perhaps due to the scantiness of the