They consisted of ropes, about the same size as their respective shrouds. and were put over the mast head first, in the same manner that the shrouds were (Some times they were wormed parcelled and served their whole length, other times not.). The shrouds were then put on over them. They hung down approximately 1/3 to 1/2 the way down their respective masts. Up until the mid to late 18th Century a block was seized into their lower ends, after that an eye with an iron thimble was seized in to take the hook of the upper block on the mast tackles.
They were used to hoist in and fish the anchor, to hoist boats, cannon and any other heavy item they needed to get on board. They were also used to set up various pieces of rigging, such as the shrouds. (see John Harlands Seaman Ship in the Days of Sail and Darcy Levers Young Officers Sheet Anchor for how this all worked.)
There also seems to be some confusion between the terms "Mast Tackle Pendants", "Runner Pendants" and Burton Pendants". Basically they were all the same thing, but there location and the weight of the tackles involved seem to set the terms.
On the fore & main lower mast they were called runner pendants or mast tackle pendants, and there were normally two on each side. One of which was usually a little shorter than the other.
On the fore and main topmast they were called Burton pendants and there was normally only one per side. On the lower mizzen mast they were also were called Burton pendants and there was normally only one per side. There was rarely any at all on the mizzen topmast.
The blocks for these "Mast Tackles" were very large as they were used to hoist in very heavy weights. Being very large they were very heavy, thus they were taken down when not in use and the pendants lashed to a convenient shroud, or in port, and on most models, just left hanging.
Second - Since we are looking at mast tackles, we might also take a look at stay tackles and yard tackles. One thing they all had in common was that their purpose was to lift heavy weights. Another thing they had in common was all of these tackles, at least up through most of the 18th Century, made use of long tackle blocks rather than common double blocks. IE - a sort of luff tackle with a two sheave long tackle block at the top and a large single block at the bottom. I think there may be at least two reasons for this.
Long tackle blocks are much the same as sister blocks or fiddle blocks, but larger. They consist of a large sheave on top and a smaller sheave below in the same shell. While a double block has two sheaves of the same size side by side in the same shell.
The first reason is no "thing" is stronger than it's weakest link. The weakest link in a block is the pin that the sheave rides on. In a common double block both sheaves ride on the same pin, thus all the weight of whatever you are lifting must be supported by that single pin, this could cause breakage but more importantly, the more weight the more friction created by the use of a single pin. (The friction is generated between the pin the sheave and the hole in the shell.) In a long tackle block however, each sheave rides on it's own separate pin thus only half the load rides on each pin. That does not mean the friction is also cut in half, but is is reduced (but let's not go there now).
A second reason may be that, when you heave on the hauling end of a tackle,
not all the weight is instantly spread out evenly over all the sheaves in the tackle.
In fact most of the weight is first borne by the sheave that the hauling end rides
over. A double block, being wide, because the two sheaves are side by side,
would tend to cock toward the side where the hauling end was. This cocking
could add a great deal of friction (which translates into weight) to the tackle
as the rope rubbed against the side of the sheave and even the inside of the
shell, and in some circumstances, could even lead to the tackle jamming.
{Neb Kehoe}
Back?