Peter Pett (Commissioner of the Navy)

Wikipedia

This text was copied from Wikipedia on 18 November 2024 at 6:10AM.

Peter Pett and the Sovereign of the Seas.
Painting by Peter Lely, 1637[1]

Peter Pett (6 August 1610 – 1672) was an English Master Shipwright and Second Resident Commissioner of Chatham Dockyard. He protected his scale models and drawings of the King's Fleet during the Dutch Raid on the Medway, in Kent in June 1667, during the Second Anglo-Dutch War, which was otherwise disastrous to the British Royal Navy.

Life

Pett was the son of the King's Master Shipwright Captain Phineas Pett. He was introduced to King Charles I of England in 1634 and was ordered to construct a new Third Rate ship of 500 tons at Woolwich Dockyard, to be named HMS Leopard. With the construction of the Leopard underway, Charles decided that he would have a ship built larger and more ornate than any of her predecessors.

In June 1634 while at Woolwich and on the Leopard with the king, Phineas Pett, Peter's father, related: "His Highness, calling me aside, privately acquainted me of his princely resolution for the building of a great new ship, which he would have me undertake...."

Peter Pett built HMS Sovereign of the Seas at Woolwich Dockyard, from the plans made by his father.

One of the largest in the world at that time, the Sovereign was a ship of 1,637 tons and was launched on 12 October 1637, after about two years in construction.

John Evelyn wrote in his Diary on 19 July 1641 "We rode to Rochester and Chatham to see the Soveraigne, a monstrous vessel so called, being for burthen, defence, and ornament, the richest that ever spread cloth before the wind. She carried 100 brass cannon, and was 1,600 tons, a rare sailer, the work of the famous Phineas Pett."

Commissioner Pett

Pett became Commissioner of Chatham Dockyard in 1648.[2] Despite his contracts from the King, Peter Pett sided with Parliament during the English Civil War and was consequently retained as Commissioner at Chatham Dockyard during the Commonwealth (1649–60).

Pett was the only member of the group of Commonwealth Commissioners who governed the Navy with any technical knowledge of shipbuilding, and responsibility for the designs of most new ships rested principally upon him. He became a Justice of the Peace by 1649. In 1659 he was elected Member of Parliament (MP) for Rochester in the Third Protectorate Parliament. He was re-elected MP for Rochester in 1660 for the Convention Parliament.[2]

Determined to survive the rigours of the nation's political upheavals, Pett, with great resourcefulness, having withheld Chatham from Charles I, was afterwards in Holland preparing the fleet to accompany the return of Charles II. The success of these efforts established for Pett a firm relationship with the King.

In 1667 Pett was blamed for the insufficient protection of the British fleet at Chatham, the charge being that he failed to tow the most capital ships higher up the river. Modern historians argue that it is doubtful whether this would have protected them, the Dutch being powerful enough to advance a few miles more, and that Pett did not have enough manpower anyway. Asked during the official investigation why he had brought his ship models into safety but not the ships themselves, he answered that the former were more valuable, much to the incredulous laughter of his accusers. Pett's view was that without the models it was impossible to build new ships, as it was not then feasible to build from drawings alone. Pett was fined and dismissed. He was seen to be a scapegoat for the incompetence of higher-ranking officers, as shown in part of Andrew Marvell's satirical poem:

After this loss, to relish discontent,
Someone must be accused by punishment.
All our miscarriages on Pett must fall:
His name alone seems fit to answer all.
Whose counsel[3] first did this mad war beget?
Who[4] all commands sold through the navy? Pett.
Who[5] would not follow when the Dutch were beat?[6]
Who treated out the time at Bergen?[7] Pett.
Who[8] the Dutch fleet with storms disabled met,
And rifling prizes, them neglected? Pett.
Who[9] with false news prevented the Gazette,
The fleet divided, writ for Rupert?[10] Pett.
Who all our seamen cheated of their debt,
And all our prizes who did swallow? Pett.
Who[11] did advise no navy out to set,
And who the forts left unrepairèd? Pett.
Who to supply with powder did forget
Languard, Sheerness, Gravesend and Upnor? Pett.
Who should it be but the Fanatic Pett?
Pett, the sea-architect, in making ships
Was the first cause of all these naval slips:
Had he not built, none of these faults had been;
If no creation, there had been no sin.
But his great crime, one boat away he sent,
That lost our fleet and did our flight prevent.

Pett's will was proved on 2 December 1672, and it revealed that he had enough worldly goods to be able to live in comfort after his dismissal as Commissioner. For example, in his will there was mentioned a necklace containing over 270 pearls. Being Lord of the Manors of Woodbridge Ufford and Kettle Ufford in Suffolk indicates that he remained possessed of some wealth.

Pett dynasty

Some confusion may arise between the identities of Peter Pett and his many relatives; even the Navy Board had difficulty in keeping its records straight on this matter.

From probably before the time that John Pett, (son of Thomas) was paid for caulking the Regent in 1499, the Petts have been mistaken, one for the other. Often this was the case with Peter Pett. The first of that name was a Master Shipwright at Deptford in the late 16th century, who built a number of English warships and other vessels from the 1570s onwards. The next Peter Pett, two generations later, was also a Master Shipwright at Deptford, who died in 1652. That Peter had two sons, Sir Peter, the Advocate General for Ireland and Sir Phineas Pett, Master Shipwright at Chatham, who was knighted in 1680, and who was the Comptroller of Stores, and resident Commissioner at Chatham, and who is further to be distinguished from the Commissioner Peter Pett's brother Phineas, a clerk of the check at Chatham.

Three other Petts named Phineas were at the same time in the Naval Service at Chatham or in the Thames, one of whom was killed in action in 1666 whilst in command of the Tyger, this being a brother of the 2nd Commissioner at Chatham.

References

  1. ^ portcities.org.uk
  2. ^ a b "Pett, Peter (1610-1672)". History of Parliament. Retrieved 27 March 2016.
  3. ^ Henry Bennet, 1st Earl of Arlington
  4. ^ James II of England
  5. ^ Henry Brouncker
  6. ^ In the Battle of Lowestoft
  7. ^ In the Battle of Vågen
  8. ^ Edward Montagu, 1st Earl of Sandwich
  9. ^ William Coventry
  10. ^ Dividing the English fleet after a false warning that the French fleet were present in The Channel led to a defeat in the Four Days Battle
  11. ^ Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, leading to the Raid on Chatham

16 Annotations

First Reading

Paul Brewster  •  Link

Wheatley footnote:
Peter Pett succeed his father, Phineas Pett, as Commissioner of the Navy at Chatham, in 1647; he was continued in his office after the Restoration, but in 1667, in consequence of the Dutch attack upon Chatham, he was superseded, sent to the Tower, and threatened with impeachment. The threat was not carried out, but he was never restored to office. Fuller observes that the mystery of shipwrights for some descents hath been preserved successively in families, "of which the Pettes of Chatham are of singular regard" -- Worthies of England. There is an interesting autobiographical memoir of Phineas Pett, in his own handwriting in the British Museum.

Mary  •  Link

Pett's impeachment.

Pett seems to have been made scapegoat for the disaster of the Dutch attack along the Medway. One of the charges levelled against him was that he had wasted time in removing model ships from Chatham during the attack, the implication being that these were mere decorative trifles. These models would have been accurate design models for warships and, as such, of potential value to the enemy, hence Pett's concern for their safety.

Vincent Bell  •  Link

A British National Portait Gallery potrait of Peter Pett - Go to http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search… & put in Peter Pett in the second search the collection sitter search box & press the search button.

dirk  •  Link

Footnote about Comm. Peter Pett
(to the entry for 10 August 1663)

From:
John Evelyn, Diary and Correspondence: Volume 1 (ed. William Bray), George Bell and Sons, London, 1883.
http://nils.lib.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…

"A monument to him in Deptford church bears a most pompous inscription: “Qui fuit patriæ decus, patriæ suæ magnum munimentum;” to the effect that he not only restored our naval affairs, but he invented that excellent and new ornament of the Navy which we call Frigate, formidable to our enemies, to us most useful and safe: he was to be esteemed, indeed, by this invention, the Noah of his age, which, like another Ark, had snatched from shipwreek our rights and our dominion of the seas."

Michael Smith  •  Link

The scapegoating of Pett in 1667 was satirized by Marvell:

After this loss, to relish discontent,
Someone must be accused by punishment.
All our miscarriages on Pett must fall:
His name alone seems fit to answer all.
Whose counsel first did this mad war beget?
Who all commands sold through the navy? Pett.
Who would not follow when the Dutch were beat?
Who treated out the time at Bergen? Pett.
Who the Dutch fleet with storms disabled met,
And rifling prizes, them neglected? Pett.
Who with false news prevented the Gazette,
The fleet divided, writ for Rupert? Pett.
Who all our seamen cheated of their debt,
And all our prizes who did swallow? Pett.
Who did advise no navy out to set,
And who the forts left unrepairèd? Pett.
Who to supply with powder did forget
Languard, Sheerness, Gravesend and Upnor? Pett.
Who should it be but the Fanatic Pett?
Pett, the sea-architect, in making ships
Was the first cause of all these naval slips:
Had he not built, none of these faults had been;
If no creation, there had been no sin.
But his great crime, one boat away he sent,
That lost our fleet and did our flight prevent.

Second Reading

Bill  •  Link

The great shipbuilding family of Pett was chiefly connected with the growth of the English navy from the reign of Henry VIII. to that of William III., but as the Christian names of Peter and Phineas appear to have been favourites in the family, it is very difficult to distinguish between some of them, and great confusion has been the result. Amongst the original Fellows of the Royal Society are mentioned Peter Pett, Esq., and Sir Peter Pett. The former of these two was the Commissioner, and the latter was Advocate-General, and Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. Peter Pett, Esq., was the fifth son of Phineas Pett, "Master Shipwright to James I.," and was born in 1610. It is frequently stated that he was knighted, but this appears to be incorrect.
---Wheatley, 1896.

Bill  •  Link

PETT, PETER (1610-1670?), commissioner of the navy: son of Phineas Pett; commissioner at Chatham, 1648-67; was largely responsible for the efficiency of the ships during the Dutch wars; his supersession due to the disaster at Chatham, 1667.
---Dictionary of National Biography: Index and Epitome. S. Lee, 1906.

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"... taking Commissioner Pett with me, and all alone dined together. He told me many stories of the yard, but I do know him so well, and had his character given me this morning by Hempson" http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…

Pepys noted Hempson's views in his Navy White Book, p. 11. According to Hempson, Pett was a miser, prone to charge all expenses to Charles II (even for the banquet he gave for the King at his Restoration), and was disliked by the gentry of the county as 'false-hearted'. (L&M footnote)

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Commissioner Peter Pett's father, Phineas, wrote a diary for many years. I found this part of the review interesting, and there is far more (but from before Pepys' time):

"https://eagleclawedwolfe.wordpres…

"Phineas Pett was an English Master Shipwright in the first half of the 17th Century. He was also a sea captain, Cambridge graduate, a bit of a rogue and a bit of a dandy, a vicious enemy to his rivals and, that greatest of virtues for any historical figure, an autobiographer.

"He is probably less well known than his son, Commissioner Peter Pett, who sat on the Navy Board with a more famous diarist, proving that on the path to historical immortality in the 17th century, passing acquaintance with Samuel Pepys counted more than the patronage of Kings.

"Phineas interests me in a number of ways:
First, shipbuilding was a large-scale industry in a still largely rural society where manufacture was almost entirely based on small, family-sized businesses.
Chatham shipyard employed 800 people in 1665, at a time where there was only a couple of dozen towns of more than 5,000 people in England.
Shipbuilding was at once large scale and high-technology and required people with both technical and managerial skill to lead them.
This technical manager fits well into our concept of post-industrial revolution, or even entirely modern industry, but is harder to place in early Stuart England.

"Lastly, Phineas Pett is hard to place in terms of class. Different aspects of his life, as well as at different times, showed traits of the fairly poor wage earner, of the artisan, and of the minor gentry. His “class” (with due regard to the difficulties associated with using the word in the 17th Century) was either amorphous or there was considerable potential for mobility between the classes. Was this typical, or was it peculiar to his unusual, almost anachronistic profession?"

Third Reading

Log in to post an annotation.

If you don't have an account, then register here.

References

Chart showing the number of references in each month of the diary’s entries.

1660

1661

1662

1663

1664

1665

1666

1667

1668

  • Jan
  • Mar

1669