PETT, Peter (1610-72), of Chatham, Kent.

Pett’s family had been associated with the shipbuilding industry since at least the reign of Henry VII, and rose to prominence in the mid-sixteenth century, when his great-grandfather, Peter Pett (d. 1554) was a shipwright at Harwich. Pett’s grandfather, also Peter (d. 1589), was the first in the family to gain armigerous status and the first to become a master shipwright; this rank was achieved by four of his sons and at least three of his grandsons, more than one of whom shared the same name. Indeed, part of the difficulty with Pett’s career centres on the problem of distinguishing him from his first cousin, Peter Pett of Deptford (1592-1652), who was the son of Peter Pett (d. 1631), half-brother of Phineas Pett, our MP’s father. However, at least on some occasions, contemporaries distinguished the two men by referring to our MP as Pett the younger, and his cousin as Pett the elder.22CCSP i. 18; CSP Dom. 1631-3, pp. 516, 531, 555; 1651-2, pp. 353, 369; Phineas Pett ed. Perrin, pp. l-li; Burke and Barron, ‘Builders of the Navy’, 147, 154-61, 169. The two men can also be distinguished by the fact that Pett the younger spent his life at Chatham, where his father served as a master shipwright. It is unclear precisely when he himself began to make any significant impact on the profession, although it is unlikely to have been much earlier than May 1633. Then, following Pett’s petition to the king, the lords of the admiralty ordered his appointment as an assistant to his father at Chatham.23CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 559; 1633-4, pp. 51, 53; SP16/238, f. 68. The many references to Peter Pett during the previous decade were almost certainly to Peter Pett the elder, who became a master shipwright in 1632, and master of the Shipwrights’ Company in 1635, and who was involved in building ships such as the Charles.24CCSP i. 18; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 502; 1628-9, pp. 231-2, 543; 1629-31, pp. 60, 144; 1631-3, pp. 102, 109, 308, 318-9, 331, 337, 410, 422, 468, 563, 566; 1634-5, p. 450; SP16/142, ff. 77-9; SP16/215, ff. 170-81; SP16/216, f. 96; SP16/226, f. 144; SP16/282, f. 15.

Confusingly, both Peter Petts engaged in shipbuilding in the 1630s, although it was our MP, Peter Pett junior, who was responsible for ships such as the Leopard (1634).25CSP Dom. 1633-4, pp. 160, 171, 187, 356, 483; 1634-5, pp. 74, 155; 1635, p. 463; SP16/269, f. 71; Phineas Pett ed. Perrin, 153, 156. His most important commission, however, was the construction of the Sovereign of the Seas, under his father’s supervision, for which he was honoured in verse by Henry Jacob and Thomas Carew, and by a gift of the silver cup with which the ship was launched.26CSP Dom. 1635, pp. 540, 542; 1637, p. 505; Add. 34217, f. 29; SP16/370, f. 176. Pett also petitioned for the privilege of printing, publishing, and selling the ‘plot or draft’ of the new vessel.27CSP Dom. 1635-6, p. 15; SP16/306, f. 128. Pett’s growing prestige ensured not only that he became involved in investigations into abuses within the industry, but also that he was formally presented to the king at Hampton Court in September 1638, and afterwards to the lord admiral, the 4th earl of Northumberland (Algernon Percy†), at Syon House.28CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 175; Phineas Pett ed. Perrin, 171. He was also honoured with further commissions, and between 1639 and 1641, for example, was given the task of rebuilding the Prince Royal.29CSP Dom. 1639, p. 533; SP16/429, f. 107; Phineas Pett ed. Perrin, p. lxxxi.

Pett supported the parliamentarian cause in 1642, like his father, who was the Captain Pett responsible for securing Chatham dockyard for Parliament in August that year.30HMC 5th Rep. 39, 46. In September 1642, Pett’s father was appointed one of the commissioners for the navy, and retained the post until his death in 1647.31A. and O.; E351/2286. Pett’s own activity is less well defined, however, and it is uncertain which of the two namesakes was involved in provisioning the navy between 1643 and 1649, and which was contracted to work for the Committee of Navy and Customs in May 1649.32Bodl. Rawl. A.220, unfol.; A.221, f. 234; A.222, f. 14v; A.224, ff. 64v, 92v. The picture becomes yet more confusing from 1644, following our MP’s promotion to the rank of master shipwright, when he was replaced as assistant by his brother, Christopher Pett.33Bodl. Rawl. A.222, f. 29; CJ iii. 430b; A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 608. However, Pett is known to have been responsible for building the Phoenix at Woolwich in 1647, while his cousin built the Assurance, Nonsuch, Tiger and Elizabeth at Deptford, and by this time the two can also be distinguished by the fact that our MP was styled ‘Captain’ Peter Pett.34CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 363, 376, 377; Peter Pett of Deptford see: Bodl. Rawl. A.224, f. 30v; CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 82, 96, 171, 176, 181, 342, 397, 398, 404, 409; 1650, p. 326; SP18/1, f. 58; SP18/3, f. 101; SP18/11, f. 9; SP18/12, ff. 56, 138; Memorials of Stepney Parish ed. G.W. Hill and W.H. Frere (Guildford, 1890-1), 188, 192.

During the second civil war, Pett displayed his loyalty to Parliament by providing information regarding the actions and intentions of the Kentish petitioners to the Committee for the Admiralty and Cinque Ports (15 June), and he was thanked by the Commons and Committee of Both Kingdoms for helping to secure Chatham against the royalists.35HMC Portland, i. 459-62; CJ v. 605, 606a; CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 128. He also attended a council of war at Warwick House to discuss the naval revolt (16 June), and was appointed to the county sequestrations committee.36LJ x. 331a; CJ v. 652a. Pett provided information about suspected delinquents during the months which followed, until the royalist threat finally abated.37CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 263, 266; HMC 7th Rep. 50a; Bodl. Rawl. A.224, f. 29; LJ x. 484a. His support for the regime continued during the Rump, and in February 1649 he was appointed a commissioner for the navy, with a salary of £250, some 16 months after the Commons first sought his nomination.38LJ ix. 469a; CJ vi. 144a, 148a-b; SP18/103, f. 131; E351/2289. Based in Chatham, Pett was required to implement orders of, and report to, the council of state, the Committee of Navy and Customs and the navy board, regarding both the dockyard at Chatham, and the defence of the region.39CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 57, 324, 411, 431, 548; 1650, pp. 113, 128, 140, 220, 393; SP18/9, ff. 77-8; SP18/11, ff. 190-1; Add. 9306, ff. 52, 54v, 56, 61v; NMM, MS 82/097, unfol. His main task was to oversee the repair, refitting and provisioning of the fleet, but he was still involved in the construction of naval vessels, such as the Advice.40Bodl. Rawl. A.224, f. 97; A.225, f. 114-v; A.226, ff. 9v, 20v, 21, 25v; CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 467, 472; 1651, pp. 459, 534; NMM, MS 82/097, unfol.

Pett also became involved in religious matters both in Chatham and the neighbouring area, in part arising from conciliar decisions to refer particular cases to his attention.41CSP Dom. 1651, p. 259; 1658-9, p. 29. Occasionally, however, this reflected tensions within the administration in Chatham, as with the case surrounding the naval minister William Adderley. In November 1651, Adderley petitioned against what he perceived as widespread corruption within the dockyard, and the way in which Pett ‘takes part with the offenders, and upbraids those who complain as meddlers, and smothers up abuses, his kindred being concerned therein’. Complaints about the behaviour of Pett’s many kinsmen engaged in naval affairs were not new, but Adderley stated explicitly that ‘it is not for the state’s advantage to have a generation of brothers, cousins and kindred packed together in one place of public trust and service’.42Bodl. Rawl. A.224, f. 49v; CSP Dom. 1651, p. 504; 1651-2, pp. 41-2; SP18/16, f. 176. This dispute probably reflected political and religious differences as well as charges of corruption. Adderley was a prominent Independent preacher, who worked with the likes of William Bridge, Sidrach Simpson, William Greenhill and Philip Nye in editing the works of Jeremiah Burroughes, and although Pett had played a part in inviting Adderley to leave his living at Pinner in order to work at Chatham, it is possible that he came to reject the minister’s views.43J. Burroughes, An Exposition (1650, E.588); J. Burroughes, The Eighth Book (1654, E.819); SP18/16, ff. 183-5. In December, Pett complained about local appointees who ‘pretended to religion’, and he and others also suggested that Adderley neglected his duty by refusing to preach on board ship, as was the custom.44CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 57-8; SP18/16, ff. 180-1. The matter was quickly brought to the attention of the Admiralty Committee, who in turn referred it to a group of prominent local MPs including Sir Michael Livesay*, John Dixwell*, William Kenwricke*, William Goffe* and John Parker*.45CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 60-2, 65, 70; SP18/16, ff. 183-5; Bodl. Rawl. A.226, f. 60v. Adderley was found guilty of neglecting his responsibilities, and he promised to do as his employers wished thereafter.46Bodl. Rawl. A.226, ff. 61v-2.

The affair rumbled on, however, and the enquiry held in January 1652 into the initial allegations of corruption involved claims that some of Pett’s relatives held office despite their involvement in the Kentish rebellion of 1643 and the Kent petition of 1648.47CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 127-8; SP18/23, ff. 47-50v. Pett responded, meanwhile, with further allegations against Adderley, not merely regarding his lack of preaching, but also his threats to ruin the Pett family.48SP18/23, ff. 62-72. The dispute continued into 1653, in June of which year Pett once again complained to the Admiralty Committee about ‘subordinate ministers’, saying that ‘if there were more of righteousness and less of pretence, it would be more suitable to the life of a Christian’.49CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 389; SP18/37, ff. 147-8. In February 1654, meanwhile, the minister and his clerical supporters claimed that Pett’s dislike of the preacher stemmed from the latter’s allegation that he countenanced ‘ungodly’ men and discountenanced the godly.50Bodl. Rawl. A.111, p. 116. Although the precise nature of Pett’s religious views are unclear, it is likely that he rejected the views of his congregationalist opponents, in favour of a Calvinist national church structure, whether Independent or Presbyterian. In late 1655 he would praise the Independent minister, John Durant, as ‘a godly man and a good preacher’, while his library was lined with books by divines like John Preston, and even Presbyterians like Dr Samuel Bolton.51CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 407; PROB11/340/443.

Pett was sufficiently powerful at Chatham, and sufficiently influential at Whitehall, to ensure that Adderley was removed sometime in 1654, while his own position was unaffected.52B. Capp, Cromwell’s Navy (Oxford, 1991), 310. His relatives continued to be appointed to senior positions, although he himself may have made greater efforts to prevent corruption.53Bodl. Rawl. A.226, f. 202v; CSP Dom. 1654, p. 542; 1655, pp. 202, 348-9, 495, 513. Indeed, throughout the dispute with Adderley, Pett continued to work closely with the council in Whitehall, and with the navy commissioners in Mincing Lane, and to build new ships, and in both capacities he became more active than ever during the Dutch war.54CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 315, 329, 354, 524, 527, 528, 534, 536, 537, 539, 540; 1652-3, pp. 179, 606; Bodl. Rawl. A.227, ff. 5, 21v, 30, 40, 70, 72, 79v, 84, 96v, 97v, 98v, 99v, 100v, 104v, 105v, 110v, 112v, 125v, 126v. Although on more than one occasion he was ordered to work alongside Francis Willoughby* at Portsmouth, and although he occasionally sat as a navy commissioner in London, Pett remained based in Chatham, where he oversaw the preparation of the fleet, and local fortifications such as Upnor Castle.55SP46/119, f. 3; SP46/97, f. 109; CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 235, 314, 542, 577; 1659-60, p. 479; Add. 9308, ff. 20v, 38, 39v; Add. 18986, f. 150. He spent the summer of 1653 in Suffolk, Norfolk, and Essex, but returned to Chatham in the autumn, especially because of signs of unrest within the navy over pay.56CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 18-19, 29, 30, 177, 188, 189, 192, 517, 480, 485, 489; SP18/60, f. 258; SP46/119, ff. 134, 149, 165, 177, 208, 280; SP46/115, f. 132; Add. 9308, ff. 47, 51, 104; Bodl. Rawl. A.461, ff. 4v, 8, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19. Before the end of 1653 he also became one of the governors of Chatham Chest, and he became an active lobbyist on behalf of those aged seamen who relied upon its funds.57ADM82/1, f. 172; ADM3/273, ff. 77, 113v, 227; ADM2/1729, ff. 135v, 195v; CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 52; 1657-8, pp. 121-2, 351, 362, 381, 398; 1658-9, p. 457. Such zealous service ensured that Pett was ordered to receive a supplementary salary of £150 in January 1654.58CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 351.

Whatever the allegations regarding Pett’s religion, there was no doubting his loyalty to either the commonwealth or the protectorate, and he remained an active servant of the state throughout the decade.59ADM2/1729, passim; SP46/117, f. 81; SP46/120, ff. 24, 28, 257. In the face of a renewed royalist threat in 1655, Pett worked closely with the local major-general, Thomas Kelsey*, in monitoring malignants, warned of the need for vigilence regarding the navy, and took action against those who were vocally critical of Oliver Cromwell* as lord protector.60CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 75, 84, 373, 441; 1656-7, pp. 427, 429, 444; TSP iii. 720. Although dismissive of the likelihood of a rising in March 1657, Pett nevertheless promised to trust his enemies ‘no further than we can see them’, and to ensure that the port remained well-guarded.61CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 523; SP18/163, f. 43. He also accompanied the minister Hugh Peter to Dunkirk in the summer of 1658, and reported on his return that the townspeople were ‘sottishly ignorant and superstitious, whose prejudice and blind zeal transports them so far beyond humanity that they refuse to give way to the interring of our English in any of their consecrated ground’.62CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 96; SP18/182, f. 66.

Pett supported the government interest in the 1656 elections, although he had to report that the candidates supported by Kelsey had been ‘too much undervalued’, and that he feared this ‘may prove a sad presage’.63CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 416; SP18/144, f. 111. Pett himself is not known to have stood for election during this period, but in 1659 he secured a seat in Richard Cromwell’s* Parliament, to which he was returned for Rochester, the borough nearest to Chatham. Although Pett made no recorded impression on the proceedings, he almost certainly attended the House. It was reported on 22 January that he had travelled to London, but although he remained there until 29 January, he was in Chatham two days later, and may not have returned to London until sometime after 20 February. A letter written from London on 28 February indicated that he was required to return to Chatham again, and thereafter there is no evidence to suggest that he returned to the House before the dissolution.64CSP Dom. 1658-9, pp. 511, 515, 517, 529, 531, 435, 541, 543, 546.

Pett was re-elected at Rochester for the Convention in April 1660, and perhaps as a result of his having curried favour with Edward Montagu*, 1st earl of Sandwich, managed to retain his position as navy commissioner after the Restoration, when he also became a fellow of the Royal Society. He was eventually removed in the wake of the humiliation inflicted by the Dutch navy in the Medway in 1667, although he escaped a planned impeachment. Pett retired to a comfortable private life, allegedly financed by the proceeds of the corruption with which he had long been charged.65HP Commons 1660-90, iii. 229-30; CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 387; PROB11/340/443.