Thames shipyards in 1650s
Thames shipyards in 1650s
Editorial history
08/11/12: CSG, created page
Suggested links
Materials handling
Port trades
Thames docks and wharves
Thames lighters
Peter Pett
The owners of the ship the Ruth were involved in a dispute about the alleged non-payment for sheathing provided to the Ruth by the deceased Peter Pett’s shipyard.
Peter Pett (b. ?, d. 1652), was of Deptford, Kent. He was a master ship-builder at the Deptford yard from XXX till his death in 1652. This Peter Pett was half-cousin of Commissioner Phineas Pett (b. 1570, d. 1647), master-shipwright, Chatham 1605-29, Navy Commissioner, Chatham 1630-47[1]
Edward T(h)ompson, brother of the aggressive merchant Maurice T(h)ompson, was commander of the Ruth, one of Maurice Thompson’s ships. The ship’s recorded voyages included private trading in the East Indies in the years XXX – XXXX.
Edward Thompson was deposed in a case for alleged non-payment of due moneys owing to Mr Pett's shipyards from the years 1648 and 1649. Pett himself was by then dead.
Thompson's deposition is worth reading in its entirety, both for its descriptions of the different ship yard trades and weekly payment practices, and for its description of the bargaining and subsequenly disputed verbal contract made for two sheathings to be applied to the Ruth.
According to Edward T(h)ompson, a bargain had made between Maurice Thompson, the merchant brother of Edward T(h)ompson and Mr. Pett for the sum of two hundred and seventy pounds, yet Pett subsequently, after performing the work, attempted to extract the two hundred and eighty pounds he had proposed during the lengthy verbal bargaining process.
In his deposition, Edward T(h)ompson offered several proofs that, before his death, Mr Pett had pulled back from his higher claim. Firstly, that Pett had lived for a further three years and had never made further claim on the alleged debt of ten pounds. Secondly, further work had been done two years later on the Ruth at Pett's yard on behalf on Maurice Thompson, with the ship being "graved", and no deductions had been made or attempted for a pretended debt by Pett. Finally, that Maurice Thompson had paid Mr Pett further moneys since the work on the sheathings and no attempt had been made to recover the alleged debt. Indeed, Maurice Thompson had also received payments from Mr Pett subsequent to the sheathing work, without attempted deductions of the alleged debt.
- "15. The 10th of May 1656.
16. Examined upon an allegation on behalfe of the
17. said Tompson and others.
18. <margin value="Left">Pett against the Ruth and}
19. Morrice Tompson.}
20. and others}</margin>
21. <margin value="Left">Rp. .j.</margin>
22. Edward Tompson of Shadwell in the County of
23. Middlesex Mariner, aged 49 yeeres or thereabouts
24. sworne and exámined.
25. To the first ˹and second˺ articles of the said allegation hee saith and deposeth that
26. hee this deponent was commander of the shipp the Ruth arlate
27. the time when the worke in question was donne aboard her, which was
28. in the yeeres 1648 and 1649 or thereabouts, and did oversight and
29. locke after her doing the worke about her áltering repairing and
30. fitting, and from time to time paid all the workemen very
31. Satturday night during the continuance of the said worke namely
32. Carpenters, cawkers, Seamen and others, and dischardged all wages
33. and worke donne upon her by the day, and all that was donne
34. while she was in the dock of Peter Pett deceased; saving
35. two sheathings that were donne by the said mr Pett by this
36. greate, and stuff about the fore said repairing and altereing, howbeit
37. hee saith that hee this deponent paid the said Mr Pets man (by his order)
38. the summe of two hundred and fiftie ˹pounds for stuff and timber˺ in part of discharge of the
39. bill of the said mr Pett for the said repaires. And saith that when
40. the foresaid make (saving the said sheathing) was almost finished
41. this deponent having long sustained the trouble of payment of
42. the workemen weekely, advised the said mr Maurice Tompson to advise
43. with mr Pett and (seeing the rest of the worke was even almost
44. finished) to agree with him by the greate for her two sheathings;
45. which accordingly hee did in the house of William Tompson the Cawker
46. in the said mr Petts yard in the presense of the said William Tompson
47. and of this deponent, and that then and there they comming to termes
48. about the charge of the said sheathing, they after much discourse thereabouts
49. <margin value="Bottom right, under main body of text, as lead to next page">came</margin>"
"1. came to this issue videlicet, the said Mr Pett demanded the summe
2. of two hundred and sev eightie pounds to undertake and doe the said two
3. sheathings and finde all necessaries, materialls and workemanshipp thereby GUTTER
4. but the said Mr Maurice Tompson said hee ˹on behalfe of himselfe and company˺ would give him two hundred
5. and seaventie pounds therefore and noe more; And with all said unto him that
6. or to this effect, Mr Pett if you will undertake and doe it for two
7. hundred and seaventie pounds, goe to worke assoone as you will,
8. whereunto the said Mr Pett made noe answer, but went his wayes,
9. and fo within four dayes after fell upon that worke and went on and
10. finished the same, and saith having soe finished it, hee demanded
11. 280li for the same and some odd money, to which Mr Tompson told him
12. that hee had promised him two hundred and seaventie pounds and noe
13. more and would give it him accordingly on behalfe of himselfe and
14. company, and ˹hee and the rest of the owners˺ did accordingly pay the same unto him, and the said Mr
15. Pett (by his servants) received the same,
16. And saith the said Mr Pett lived three yeares
17. after the said worke done, and the said money received and never
18. demanded any more, and further that the said shipp was graved
19. at his yard about two yeares after by him the said Mr Pett and
20. hee was paid for that worke of graving alone, and ˹soe farr as this deponent observed GUTTER˺ hee never
21. demanded or made any mention of any old score or debt for the
22. as remay{ni}ng unpaid for the said two sheathings, which if ˹true˺ in had
23. bin ˹ought˺ due, hee would undoubtedly have donne. And
24. otherwise hee cannot depose. saving that besides the said graving
25. mr morrice Tompson hath paid Mr Pett ˹severall˺ other moneys upon
26. other accounts since the said sheathings soe donne and paid for
27. in all which time soe farr as this deponent could ever learne hee
28. the said Pett never demanded or pretended to have any money
29. due or unpaid with him for the said sheathings, having received
30. the said 270li, and likewise Mr Pett upon other accounts hath paid
31. moneys to mr Morris Tompson and never desired any deduction
32. in respect of any such debt due unto him.
33. Edward Thompson [SIGNATURE, RH SIDE]
34. Repeated before doctor Godolphin."
- HCA 13/71 f.219v & f.220r Case: Pett against the Ruth and Maurice Tompson and others; Deposition: 1. Edward Tompson of Shadwell in the County of Middlesex Mariner, aged 49 yeeres; Date: 10/05/1656[2]
Assessment of storm damage by shipwrights
Two shipwrights, the twenty-eight year old Henry Berrie of Redriff, Surrey, and the more experienced William Sherwood, likewise from Redriff, were employed to view storm damage to the ship the Samuell (CHECK).
- "shee cannot bee made firme and fitt to undertake a voyage without takeing out her whole stemme (part whereof yet remaynes)"
- HCA 13/71 f.502v Case: Lawe against Lee; Deposition: 3. Henry Berrie of Rederiff in the County of Surrey Shipp wright aged eight and twenty yeares; Date: 26/02/1656[3]
- "the sayd shipps head and forecastle and stemme were broken downe and five of her beames of her upper deck and her upper deck it selfe alsoe broken downe and shee otherwise bruised and hurt"
- ↑ PROB 11/224 Bowyer 196-244 Will of Peter Pett of Deptford, Kent 18 August 1652; see also PROB 11/362 Bath 1-59 Will of Ann Pett, Widow of Woolwich, Kent 07 January 1680; Latham & Mathews, The diary of Samuel Pepys: Companion (?London, 1983), pp. 325-326
- ↑ HCA 13/71 f.219v; HCA 13/71 f.220r
- ↑ HCA 13/71 f.502v
- ↑ HCA 13/71 f.502v
