The Autobiography of Phineas Pett
when he tells of her sale in 1612.
[Sidenote: Commission of Inquiry.]
The corruption in the administration of the Navy, which had begun to
appear in the last years of Elizabeth's reign, had by 1608 reached
such a height that James was at length forced to take some steps
in regard to it. The knowledge that Spain was actively engaged in
setting her navy in order no doubt quickened the King into action and
provided a motive powerful enough to sweep aside for the time the
obstruction of the senile Nottingham and his jackal Mansell. At first
it had been intended that Nottingham should head the Commission,
and letters patent[108] were passed on 1st April 1608, in which his
name appears first, Northampton coming second, but for some reason
this was altered, and on the 30th April a commission under the great
seal was issued to Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton, then Lord
Privy Seal and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, Charles Howard, Earl
of Nottingham, the Lord High Admiral, and thirteen others,[109] of
whom Sir Robert Cotton, the famous antiquary, was the most active.
Northampton, who was Nottingham's cousin, seems to have been the
leader of the reform party, and although he is persistently vilified
by Pett, there is little doubt that he was actuated by a more or less
sincere desire (sharpened, possibly, by mutual antagonism between
the offices of Lord Warden and Lord High Admiral) to reform the many
existing abuses. What all these abuses were would take too long in
telling, but they were sufficient to justify, and more than justify,
the vigorous language of the patent, which speaks of the
'very great and intolerable abuses, deceits, frauds, corruptions,
negligences, misdemeanours and offences' that 'have been and
daily are perpetrated, committed, and done against the continual
admonitions and direction of you our High Admiral by other the
officers of and concerning our Navy Royal, and by the Clerks
of the Prick and Check, and divers other inferior officers,
ministers, soldiers, mariners, and others serving, working, or
labouring in and about our said Navy.'
The patent then proceeds to give instructions for the examination of
all officials who have been connected with the Navy since 1598 and
the investigation of their accounts,
minding that the said intolerable abuses, frauds, misdemeanours,
and offences shall forthwith be enquired of, the offenders
therein condignly punished and also to provide a speedy reform of
the same for the time to come.
Possibly, at the time, James really intended to reform the
administration. Nottingham kept out of the way, and his subordinates
had an unpleasant time while they were examined upon their misdeeds;
but in the end, James' fear of Spain having passed away, he, with
his usual weakness, let the offenders off with a lecture.
The Commission commenced to sit in May 1608 and sat for a little
over a year, ending with the proceedings before the King recorded
on pp. 68-69 below. During this period 161 witnesses were examined,
and their signed depositions taken. These are preserved among the
manuscripts of Sir Robert Cotton,[110] who acted as the secretary.
They were analysed by Cotton, who drew up a lengthy report[111] in
which various abuses are set forth and proposals made for their
remedy; the latter, as might be expected, were duly ignored by
the King. Among the offenders cited by name, Pett appears as one
of the chief, and although the present occasion is not convenient
for a general examination of the report and evidence, some mention
must be made of the matters in which Pett is directly charged with
wrong-doing.
The first point made against him is that while he was keeper of the
timber store at Chatham he had failed to reject bad timber and plank
brought in by one of the purveyors. His answer to this was 'that Sir
Henry Palmer had been so quick with him for some of these exceptions
as he would complain no more though the purveyors brought in faggot
sticks.' He is next charged with certain malpractices in connexion
with the Resistance, and other charges on this account are brought
against him further on; these have already been referred to. In a
general charge against the Master Shipwrights that, for reasons
of private gain, ships were repaired 'when they were not worth the
labour nor the charges bestowed on them,' the case of the Victory is
cited as an example:
Thus did the Victory for transportation, docking and breaking up
stand the king in four or five hundred pounds, and yet no one
part of her at this day serviceable to any use about the building
of a new as was pretended for a colour. To conclude, though we
set her at a rate of 200_l._, yet it had been better absolutely
for the King to have given her away to the poor than to have been
put to the charge of bringing her from Chatham to Woolwich, no
other use having been made of her than to furnish Phineas Pett
(that was the only author of her preservation) with fuel for the
diet of those Carpenters which he victualled.
In complaining that estimates for repair were made blindfold, with
the result that money was spent upon old ships more than sufficient
to have built new ones, the illustration is again drawn from Pett's
proceedings:
An instance of this art may be drawn from the King's ship now
called the Anne Royal, whose estimate being first set down by
the Master Shipwrights at 3576_l._, which sum would have built
another (by the judgment of those that made the estimate) newly
from the stocks of equal burthen, doth upon her finishing by
Phineas Pett (a favourite of the chief officers) amount to full
7600_l._ upon that false ground which before hath been spoken of.
A little further on, in dealing with frauds connected with the
receipt of stores, Pett is again made the principal example:
When timber and other materials come to be received into the
stores, of the Clerk of the Check combining closely with the
deliverers to increase the quantity of that which is delivered
some time to a third part above true measure, which increase
is shared between both, and lots are cast upon the robe of the
Redeemer.
Sir Foulke Greville, espying plainly this collusion between
parties to the wrong of our great Master, sought to prevent this
play of fast and loose by adding Phineas Pett to the Clerk of the
Check at Chatham as an assistance to take care that there might
be no increase of quantities, but all things accounted for in
their true proportion in weight and number as they were indeed,
without conspiracy. But such was the falsehood of the party,
as having found the thief, he ran with him, thrusting himself
into [the] pack with the Clerk and the deliverer; and thus
adding himself as an assistant indeed, not to plain dealers as
Sir Foulke Greville meant, but to filchers and abusers, as Pett
himself meant, which appears upon examination.
In a further charge relating to the issue of material for ships
building or under repair, it is pointed out that the Surveyor had
taken away the keys of the storehouses from the Clerk of the Check,
their proper custodian, 'and put them into the hand of Pett his
chief favourite, who could not only take just what he liked, but
likewise hath power to expend upon the ships (or under that pretence)
whatsoever he thinketh good without contradiction, and full scope
withal to embezzle what he list.' He is also mentioned in connexion
with the construction and decay of the 'pale' which should defend the
storeyard from pilferers 'on the outside towards the Thames,' and
with the employment of youths and boys 'that fill up numbers but work
little.' Finally he is charged with 'wasteful and lavish expense' in
repairing the ironwork of the Anne Royal at a cost of 800_l._, or
more than double the amount necessary for the purpose. In the only
charge to which Pett himself refers, namely, that of altering his
lodgings, he is not mentioned by name, but it is clear that all the
resident officials had added rooms to their houses at the expense and
to the detriment of the storehouses which adjoined.
There seems little doubt that these charges were well founded, and
that Pett was acting in collusion with his 'very good friends'
Mansell and Trevor to defraud the State. It is, however, probable
that the other officers were little better, and were only restrained
by the lack of those opportunities the possession of which they
envied Pett.
[Sidenote: The Prince Royal.]
It is clear from the remarks in the Report of the Commission of
Inquiry already quoted and from Pett's narrative[112] that the
original intention was to rebuild the Victory, which had been removed
from Chatham to Woolwich in the autumn of 1606 for this purpose. The
official records do not throw any light upon the circumstances in
which this intention came to be abandoned, and indeed the Treasurer's
official accounts for 1609 and 1610 preserve the fiction that the
Victory was rebuilt.[113] From the story related by Phineas, it
appears that the Victory had been given by James to Prince Henry,
and that Pett was entrusted with the task of rebuilding her because
he was one of the Prince's retainers. He then conceived the idea of
constructing a ship larger than any that his predecessors had built,
and made a model embodying his design, which so pleased the Lord
High Admiral that the King was brought to see it, with the result
that it was decided to build a new great ship on the lines suggested
by Pett. This procedure of constructing a model to scale from the
design, for the approval of the authorities, before starting to build
the ship, is probably the first instance of the adoption of a course
that later became customary in all cases where a new ship represented
an advance in size, or method of construction, or embodied features
not to be found in her predecessors. Her keel was not laid until the
20th October 1608, nearly a year after the model had been submitted
to the King's inspection. In the meantime the Commission of Inquiry
had been appointed, and the construction had not proceeded far before
questions were raised as to the correctness of the design, the
suitability of the material, and the competence of Pett as designer
and builder.
On the 15th December, Baker was examined on the subject before the
Commission. The questions put to him related to the estimated cost of
the Prince Royal and the material used; the cost of the rebuilding
of the Ark Royal; and the experience of Pett as a builder. Baker
estimated the probable cost of the Prince at £7000, nearly twice what
he had been paid for the Merhonour.[114] This estimate, although
apparently in excess of one given by Pett, proved very far short
of the mark, since the total cost finally came to nearly £20,000,
no less than £1309 being spent on decoration and carving alone. As
regards the material, Baker stated that the timber was very badly
chosen. It appears that old and unsuitable trees were selected on
account of the profit to be made by their larger 'tops,' which
seem to have been one of the many perquisites of the officers. In
preparing the timber there was, so Baker said,
so much waste as the charge will be well near half so much more
as it needed to be to the King; besides the ship will be of many
years less continuance serviceable than otherwise she would have
been if the timber and plank had been well chosen, and framed in
the wood.
In regard to Pett's competence:
Being asked, also by virtue of his oath, whether Phineas Pett be
a workman sufficient to be put alone in trust upon a ship of so
great charge and burthen, he answereth that he never saw any work
of his doing whereby he should so think him sufficient for that