Chatham Dockyard E-Book

Philip Macdougall

• Herausgeber: The History Press
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2012

Beschreibung

Founded in 1570, Chatham Dockyard quickly became one of the most important naval yards for the repair and building of warships, maintaining a pre-eminent position for the next 400 years. Located on the River Medway, in all, the yard was responsible for the construction of over 500 warships, these ranging from simple naval pinnaces through to first-rates that fought at Trafalgar, and concluding with the hunter-killer submarines of the nuclear age. In this detailed new history of the yard from experienced local and maritime author Philip MacDougall, particular attention is given to the final two hundred years of the yard's history, the artisans and labourers who worked there and the changing methods used in the construction of some of the finest warships to enter naval service. Coinciding with the dockyard's seeking status as a World Heritage site, this fascinating history places Chatham firmly in its overall historical context.

Leseprobe

Ocelot, the last Royal Navy submarine to be built at Chatham, is one of three important warships currently open to public boarding in the historic enclave of the dockyard that is now managed by the Chatham Dockyard Historic Trust.

Frontispiece: Achilles, laid down in the No.2 Dock at Chatham in August 1861. Achilles represented the start of a new era for Chatham as she was the first iron-built battleship to be built in any government yard. The ship is seen in 1864 undergoing completion prior to her commissioning into the Channel Squadron.

CONTENTS

Title Page

Introduction

1 The Early Years

2 In the Footsteps of Blaise Ollivier

3 The View from the Commissioner’s House

4 Shipwrights, Scavelmen and Labourers

5 Building the Ships that Fought at Trafalgar

6 The Era of Reform

7 The Shipbuilding Revolution

8 Quadrupled in Size

9 Global Conflict

10 Within Living Memory

11 The Rise of the Phoenix

Endnotes

Glossary

Bibliography

Copyright

INTRODUCTION

In acquiring this book it might initially be wondered whether it is simply a reissue of my earlier history of the dockyard that was published in two editions during the 1980s. Of this it needs to be made absolutely clear; this book is a completely new history of the massive industrial complex that was Chatham dockyard. Of that earlier book, this has been out of print for nearly twenty years. While there has always been considerable interest in having the book reprinted, my own continued interest in the dockyard has resulted in the unearthing of considerable new material. It would therefore be unfortunate if the opportunity were not taken to include this new research, so making this book complementary to the earlier book rather than a simple update.

So, how are the two books different? First and foremost, the earlier book directed an equal amount of attention to all periods of the dockyard’s history and did not attempt a more detailed study of any particular period. In this new history, attention is directed to the later years. It is here to which much of the new research undertaken has been directed, so permitting a better understanding of how Chatham dockyard was affected by the Industrial Revolution and, in turn, greatly contributed to the bringing about of a number of essential improvements in technology and workforce management.

Chatham dockyard, from its creation in the latter years of the sixteenth century, through to its final closure in 1984, was a military industrial complex of some considerable significance. At times it was employing the largest number of civilian workers to be found in any single industrial enterprise in Britain, with numbers employed during the late seventeenth century averaging 900 and going on to reach a massive 2,000 artisans and labourers by the early nineteenth century. While Portsmouth has often been regarded as the largest and most important of the home yards, this is only correct for certain periods of history. From its inception and continuing into the first decades of the eighteenth century, Chatham was not only the most important of the royal dockyards but came close to being the largest and most energetic naval dockyard in the world. In effect, it was only the state-owned Ottoman yard of Constantinople and the declining yard of Venice that were of a size that overshadowed the repair and building capacity of the yard at Chatham.

Much of the new material that has been used to inform this book has come from the National Maritime Museum (NMM), the National Archives (TNA), the Royal Naval Museum (RNM) and the Scottish Records Office (SRO). This has allowed for more careful focusing on the mid-eighteenth century through to the late nineteenth century. In addition, and to make up for an earlier shortage of material relating to the dockyard during the final decades prior to its closure, more attention has also been given to this period. While the earlier book looked at these final years through a series of interviews that I conducted with some of those who were employed in the yard, a considerable amount of new material has now emerged. This has been used to provide a more useful glimpse of a dockyard workforce that had been promised much by successive governments but was ultimately sacrificed.

Philip MacDougall (Dr)

1

THE EARLY YEARS

The founding date of Chatham dockyard lies somewhere between the years 1567 and 1572; as to the precise year, much depends on what significant event might be regarded as of sufficient importance to constitute the founding of such an important future military-industrial complex. Was it the initial planning, undertaken around 1567, or would it be the work that begun during the following year on both clearing the site and preparing the foundations? Alternatively, it could be the completion of the first usable facility or the later raising of the flag of St George that announced the site to be that of a working naval ship repair facility.

Of one thing that is clear, the frequent suggestion of a much earlier date for the founding of the dockyard, and one that roots back to the early sixteenth century, is most certainly incorrect. Such a suggestion refers to a very different event. Instead of the formation of the dockyard, it is the period in which the river Medway was being developed as a naval supply base and safe anchorage. This in itself is important, the Medway at that time being utilised by an increasing number of royal ships that were using the river as a winter home. During the early part of his reign, Henry VIII (1509–47), having established a fairly sizeable navy, determined upon bringing an increasing number of these ships into the Medway, knowing that they would be safe from all but the most severe winter storms. Eventually it was decided to turn this into a more permanent arrangement when, in 1547, a building for the storage of maritime equipment was hired at a cost of 13s 4d per year, this located alongside ‘Jillyngham Water’.1 Over the years, a whole host of writers have put forward dates between 1510 and 1547 as marking the founding of the dockyard, confusing the concept of a naval base, albeit one having limited maintenance facilities, with that of a purpose-built dockyard.2

From 1547, the annual statement of accounts, as presented to the Exchequer, shows the continued payment of rents, with the amounts steadily rising as the demand for storehouses increased. By the year 1561, the cost to the Exchequer had more than quadrupled:

Also paide by the said Accomptants for the rents and hyer of Storehouses for the storage of part of the said provisions viz. at Deptford Strand 105s. Jillingham 60s 5d.3

Unfortunately, nothing is said of the more precise location of these buildings. Certainly it would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that the storehouses were all located close to the river at ‘Jillingham’. The subsequent construction of the dockyard at Chatham combined with the use of Chatham Reach, rather than Gillingham Reach, as the favoured stretch for the mooring of ships, would suggest many of these storehouses lay within the parish of Chatham. Perhaps only the first rented storehouse was located in ‘Jillingham’, with the name subsequently used as shorthand for all Medway storehouses, irrespective of where they were located. A recent archaeological dig has certainly revealed evidence of an early Tudor storehouse located below St Mary’s church, where the subsequent Elizabethan dockyard was built.

The increasing value placed upon the Medway as a naval anchorage is amply demonstrated by two sets of orders from 1550. In June the Lord High Admiral was informed:

That the Kinges shipps shulde be harborowed in Jillingham Water, saving those that be at Portsmouth, to remaigne there till the yere be further spent, for avoiding of all inconveniences, and that all masters of shippes, gonnes and pursers be discharged except a convenient nombre, till the danger of the yere be past, and afterwards ordered as it hath been accustomed in time of peace.4

Admittedly, in having brought warships to the Medway, the government did not simply leave them neglected or untended. A small crew of ship keepers would have remained on board to assist in preparing the vessels for the following season. Items of ageing equipment would have been renewed while rotting timbers were cut out and replaced. From the storehouses, those responsible for the upkeep of these vessels would have been able to draw such necessities as rope, pulley blocks, ships’ timbers and sail cloth. Such tasks must certainly have been undertaken upon ships brought into the Medway prior to 1547, but it is only in that year that accurate surviving financial records begin to provide absolute evidence. In that year, it is clearly stated that £4,167 was expended on maintaining and preparing ships in the Medway, this in addition to the hiring of a storehouse and a separate reference to the employment of a victualler and clerk.5

It is possible to acquire an even more definitive picture of what was happening at the Medway anchorage. The wording of a Privy Council instruction of 1550 makes it clear that ships arriving in the Medway should be ‘caulked and grounded’.6 The first of these two tasks, caulking, referred to the need to ensure that the timbers of each ship were completely watertight, especially those that formed the underside of the hull. To achieve this, caulkers would be employed on driving fresh oakum (once the old oakum had been removed) into the seams between the planks.7 Normally, this task was associated with the general cleaning down of the outer hull for the purpose of retaining overall sailing efficiency, the process of cleaning being known as graving. In any period at sea, timber-hulled warships collect large amounts of seaweed, barnacles and other accretions that will generally hamper their seagoing qualities. The removal of these through graving could only be achieved by grounding the vessel. As undertaken in the Medway, the process of grounding, also known as careening, was carried out through heaving the vessel down on to a soft mud embankment so that the underside of the hull was revealed. The various accretions would then be burned off (known as breaming) with the hull caulked and then given a coating of tar that would help seal it from water incursion. After one side had been so treated, the vessel was floated off on the tide, turned round and the process repeated on the opposite side.8

An additional aspect of ‘Jillingham Water’ as a supply base was that of the acquisition of a separate storehouse at Rochester, this to supply ships with victuals rather than on-board equipment. Again, this was a considerable undertaking, with over £6,000 being expended upon replenishing ships from the Rochester storehouse between 1550 and 1552.9 Once again there is no certainty as to the exact location of this storehouse but given that a subsequent victualling yard was also established in Rochester, close to where both Chatham and Rochester interlink, it does not seem unreasonable that this was also the site of the Tudor victualling storehouse.

Despite the increasing use of the Medway as a naval base, the available facilities could only be adapted to routine repairs and maintenance. Anything more demanding would have to be undertaken at an alternative location that possessed additional specialised equipment: in other words, a purpose-built dockyard. At Woolwich and Deptford, both established much earlier in the century, such facilities most certainly existed. At Woolwich, for instance, which dates to the year 1513, a yard had been established that contained a dry dock, numerous workshops and a considerable range of storehouses. As for Deptford, also established in 1513 this was adapted to the fitting out of ships through having a basin that admitted ships into an enclosed area of water that was unaffected by the rise and fall of the tide. This basin could also be usefully employed for the careening of ships, as it had the addition of capstans that could be used for the controlled heaving of a ship over to one side and allow those employed in the yard to clean the now-exposed hull.10 In addition, the yards at Deptford and Woolwich were also engaged in constructing new ships, and had additional facilities, such as building slips, to permit the undertaking of this task. Overall, while £30,300 was spent upon ship repair and building work at Deptford between 1548 and 1551, this same period saw the much smaller sum of £6,600 being spent at ‘Jillyngham’.

The site of the Tudor dockyard constructed c.1570. Later occupied by the Ordnance Wharf, it lay immediately below St Mary’s parish church.

Among the earliest features to be added to the dockyard at Chatham was that of a mast pond ‘for the better preserving’ of mast timbers and which appears to have been completed in the year 1570.11 This was a specialised facility and was to be of sufficient size as to allow a total of seventy-seven mast timbers to be held in storage fully immersed in water. Converted from fir trees grown in northern Europe, it was necessary that these timbers were kept underwater so as to ensure that they did not dry out and so become unusable when taken on board a ship. In addition to the building of a mast pond, a mast house would also have been necessary, this needed by the mast makers who would have been employed in the cutting and shaping of the mast timbers prior to their transfer to the pond. However, the permanent staff at Chatham was still small, consisting of a clerk, purveyor and rat catcher. In addition and temporarily brought to the anchorage in that year, were sixty shipwrights and caulkers from Deptford, these employed on the twenty or so ships moored there during the winter period.12

A further feature of the year 1570 was the acquisition of Hill House for use by those responsible for both administering the new yard and work carried out upon ships moored in the Medway. The house was a large and recently built property that fronted the modern-day Dock Road, overlooking the site of the new yard. Owned by the Dean and Chapter of Rochester, who also owned much of the land that had also been purchased for the new dockyard, it was stipulated that the ‘Officers of the Marine Causes’ should use Hill House to ‘mete and confere together of the weightie affairs of the said office’.13 The house, later renamed Queen’s House, was to remain in the possession of the Admiralty until its demolition in the late eighteenth century. For virtually the entirety of that period, Hill House was under lease to the Admiralty rather than being under direct ownership.14

During 1571 further land was rented from the Dean and Chapter, this time used for construction of a forge or anchor smithery, with a number of new storehouses also built. Confirming the entire site as a working naval dockyard and site of an important industrial military complex was the purchase of a flag bearing the cross of St George. Hoisted each morning, it summoned to work the 120 shipwrights who were at that time employed upon the repair and maintenance of the royal fleet.

As for the already existing population in the village of Chatham, the increasing use of the area by the Navy was beginning to bring considerable financial benefits. Previously dependent on farming the fields that surrounded the village or from fishing the Medway, a number of alternative opportunities now existed. For one thing, a new merchant class came into being, either employing local villagers or emerging from among the villagers themselves. For the most part, they would have been small-time traders, supplying the needs of the skilled workers of the yard and seamen on board the ships. Other villagers would have found direct employment within the dockyard. For the most part, this would have been the young and able bodied. Although none would have possessed shipbuilding skills, they could certainly have undertaken various unskilled tasks associated with running a dockyard. The least ambitious could enter as labourers, while others might seek employment as teamsters (driving cart horses in shifting large objects) or sawyers.

Other landmarks in the early history of the yard quickly followed. On 25 March 1572, Matthew Baker (1530–1613), the royal Master Shipwright, was appointed to the yard, while in September of the following year Queen Elizabeth (on the throne from 1558–1603) undertook an official visit. Baker, who was the leading English shipbuilder of his age, had turned the practice of designing ships into a science. Whereas earlier shipwrights had relied upon line of sight and rule of thumb to achieve their end product, Baker planned out his future ships through geometrical calculations. In doing so he also adopted draught plans from which curved patterns or moulds could be cut and then used for the accurate shaping of timbers that were used to build his ships. However, Baker would not have been employed exclusively at Chatham, as most of his shipbuilding work was concentrated on Deptford. Instead, he must have journeyed frequently between the two yards, encouraged to give his advice on the layout and necessary facilities for the new yard being constructed at Chatham. For this, Baker was ideally suited, having already visited a number of foreign dockyards including the grand naval arsenal at Venice.

Under the supervision of Baker, other buildings were soon being added to the yard, including sawpits, further workshops and storehouses, while the whole area was fenced with a hedge in 1579.15 Of further significance was the addition of a wharf and crane in 1580. The purpose of the wharf was to offload heavy items such as ordnance and unused stores prior to a vessel undergoing repair. The crane, which was capable of carrying loads of up to 3 tons, would have had a treadmill drive located inside a protective house structure and from which a swing jib projected. The unloading wharf itself was some 378ft in length and 40ft wide. It is recorded that construction of the wharf was undertaken at a cost of 5s per foot.16

Giving an early specialism to Chatham and foreshadowing its later important role in carrying out long-term repair work on the most important ships of the Navy, was the construction of a dry dock in 1581. This was very directed in its use, designed only for the accommodation of galleys. At the time, most commonly associated with the Mediterranean, galleys were shallow drafted, lightweight vessels that were propelled by oars. As such, they were not best suited to northern waters, being unable to withstand the pounding of heavy seas. Nevertheless, such ships were not unknown in the waters of northern Europe, being free of a dependency on the wind and able to easily outmanoeuvre an enemy warship that, through being only sail powered, might well have found itself becalmed. As regards the Navy of Queen Elizabeth, the number of galleys employed, during any one period of time, never exceeded five. Some were built in England while others had been captured in battle. The first galley to be brought into the new dry dock at Chatham was Eleanor. Described by contemporaries as large, Eleanor, later renamed Bonavolia, had a total crew of 300, and was originally captured from the French during the 1560s. It was, perhaps, for this reason, that one role allocated to Eleanor while at Chatham, was the entertainment of foreign dignitaries whom the Queen wished to impress. Other than this, the main duties on which the royal galleys were employed under Elizabeth was that of towing dismasted vessels, while Eleanor was also responsible for undertaking a survey of the Thames in 1588.

The graving dock at Chatham, which was designed to accommodate galleys, would have been very different in appearance from those built at a later date. For one thing, it would have been much shallower in depth, the dock not needing to accommodate the larger, deep-draughted sailing ships that were to totally dominate the yard in later years. Furthermore, the galley dock may not even have had any special flooring, the dock being just a trench cut into a mud embankment. As for the entrance to the dock, this would also have been of earth and laboriously broken up and then repaired every time a ship moved in or out of dock. Although this was the normal entrance design for such docks at the time, the system clearly had its drawbacks. Thus, about a year after the galley dock first came into use, it was fitted with a pair of floodgates.

With Baker involved in the planning of this major new dockyard at Chatham, he finally decided that the role of the yard could be extended into the realms of shipbuilding. Nothing too dramatic as it happens, with the first vessel to be constructed at Chatham, Sunne, a pinnace of only forty tons in weight. Designed to operate in advance of the fleet, her role was to warn of approaching danger. In service during the Armada campaign of 1588, she was present at the final and decisive Battle of Gravelines. Any contemporary mariner, even one with only the most rudimentary knowledge of ship design, would instantly have recognised Sunne as one of Matthew Baker’s products. Apart from anything else, she looked like a warship, being designed for speed through her sleek lines and low forecastle with approximately five guns on her deck.

While specific mention has been made of the two royal dockyards of Deptford and Woolwich, nothing so far has been said of Portsmouth as a naval dockyard. This might seem surprising, given that Portsmouth was not only the first permanent naval dockyard to be established in Britain, but is usually regarded as the largest and most important of such establishments. However, during the first century of Chatham dockyard’s existence, Portsmouth was relatively insignificant. Having been established during the reign of Henry VII, Portsmouth had seen the construction of a dry dock (be it of a similar primitive design to that of the galley dock at Chatham) together with other shipbuilding and repair facilities. Yet, and primarily as a result of developments in the Medway and Thames, the yard at Portsmouth was little used. Not that it was abandoned; a small number of ships were retained at Portsmouth for the defence of the south coast, with these vessels maintained by a small workforce that continued to be employed at the dockyard.

In future years, a clear love-hate relationship would emerge between those who either worked in or favoured the yard at Chatham and those similarly connected with Portsmouth. An early contributor to this debate was Admiral Sir William Monson, an experienced naval officer and writer of a series of tracts that debated the form in which the Navy of the early seventeenth century should develop. Monson was absolutely convinced that Chatham had a number of advantages over Portsmouth:

Chatham is so safe and secure a port for the ships to ride in that his Majesty’s may better ride with a hawser at Chatham than with a cable at Portsmouth.

To this, he added:

The water at Chatham flows sufficiently every spring tide to grave the greatest ships. And it is a doubt whether it can be made to heighten so much at Portsmouth as to do the like.

No wind or weather can endanger the coming home of an anchor in Chatham, and the rival affords sufficient space for every ship to ride without annoying one another. As to the contrary, a storm, with a wind from the north-east to the south-south-east, will stretch the cables in Portsmouth; and if any of their anchors come home they cannot avoid boarding one another, to their exceeding great damage and danger, the channel being so narrow.

To finally drive the point home, Monson concluded:

In comparison betwixt Chatham and Portsmouth, Chatham is the best and safest place, and I wish that our whole navy may be kept at Chatham and not make any continual residence but there only, considering the former reasons.17

While Portsmouth was being sidelined, the yard at Deptford was viewed very differently. Of limited value as a naval base, it having an inadequate harbour, Deptford nevertheless possessed a highly valued dockyard. Since its creation, this yard had taken on the building of the nation’s largest warships, with its proximity to London serving as a further advantage, allowing administrators in London to easily oversee the progress of work at this yard. For this reason, at a time when thought was being given to the funding of new and extensive repair and refit facilities, Deptford was considered a prime candidate. Alternatively, this new facility could be built at Chatham. Either way, wherever this new facility was located, it would establish the chosen yard as the nation’s premier naval industrial complex.

The debate over the siting of the new repair facility reached its peak in 1611 when an important government enquiry was underway. One argument advanced for it not being built at Chatham was a concern that the Medway was subject to increased silting that would, at some point in the future, seriously reduce its overall depth. This, as it happens, was to be proved correct, with the yard at Chatham, during the eighteenth century, finding itself seriously threatened by rapid shoaling that made it difficult for larger ships to reach the dockyard.18 For this reason, it is interesting to note that such concerns existed some 200 years earlier. As to the cause, accusatory fingers at that time were being pointed at both the use of chalk in ‘fitting up the piles’ of Rochester Bridge and to colonies of mussels newly arriving in the Medway. As regards the former, it seems that large quantities of chalk were being used to support the stanchions of the bridge, with much of this chalk subsequently washed into the Medway and supposedly heightening the overall depth of the river. Even more fanciful, was the suggestion that naval warships now moored in the river were bringing large numbers of mussels that ‘bred upon the [outer hulls of those] ships’. In turn, these mussels would be regularly removed through the process of graving and ‘bed in the river’ and ‘make such banks as will stay the current and fill it up’.19 Ultimately, both arguments were rejected, it being suggested that the river, as a result of the following evidence, was actually gaining in depth:

The Navy Royal, which before the Queen’s time [Elizabeth I] consisted of only small ships, could not in former time come up above Gillingham, three pulls below Chatham. But being in her reign doubled in number and greater ships they ride now between Upnor and Rochester Bridge.20

As to why this should be, the reasons, so it was suggested, were twofold:

1. The inning of the Marshes above the Bridge has strengthened the Channel and so forced the tide to go quicker [and] ground the River deeper … and this appears in trial betwixt Chatham and the opposite north shore [where] none might in memory have gone a foot over at a low water tide, whereas now [it is] twelve foot at the north shore.

2. By continual riding of the [naval war] ships the cables do continually move up and down and by so beating the ground loosen the silt and wear the Channel deeper.21

However, the two factors that won the argument and ultimately brought the new facility to Chatham were those of economy and the ease with which ships could be brought to Chatham when compared with Deptford. On the latter point, it was estimated that in the additional time it took for a ship to be transported to Deptford and back ‘a ship with small defects may be repaired’ and to be returned to sea, if sent to Chatham.22 As for the financial savings, it was considered these could be brought about in two ways. First, it was estimated by making greater use of Chatham, a large number of artisans could be permanently housed there, rather than being sent on a temporary basis and having to be given the inducement of a lodging allowance on top of the normal wage. Inevitably, this made Chatham a popular place to work, since those employed here were considerably more affluent than those employed at Deptford where no such allowances were paid. In 1611, for instance, the Christmas quarter witnessed a total of 259 shipwrights, caulkers and other artisans employed at Chatham and receiving lodging allowance.23 The second financial economy was that Chatham, due to the availability of nearby land, was unrestricted in the extent to which it could be enlarged, and might completely replace the yard at Deptford. This was certainly a possibility that was seriously canvassed, it being suggested that the facilities at Deptford might, at an estimated sum of £5,000, be sold ‘to Merchants for a Dock Site’.24 Ultimately, however, Deptford was retained, but it is clear that Chatham was seen as a potential replacement yard, the facilities it eventually gained being considerably beyond those of the initial plan that had not gone much beyond the building of a single dry dock, unloading wharf with additional storehouses and workshops.

With the decision taken to build the new facility at Chatham, careful thought had to be given as to where exactly it should be located. As it stood, the existing yard was too constrained, having insufficient space for the new dry dock and wharf. To overcome this problem, it was decided that considerable additional land would need to be taken in, with 71 acres acquired from three separate landowners: Robert Jackson, the Dean and Chapter of Rochester and the Manor of West Court. Conveniently situated immediately to the north of the original Tudor yard, it forms the bulk of the land that is held by the present-day Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust, while the original area of the yard was to be eventually transferred to the Ordnance Board and converted into a gun wharf.

On the newly acquired site, construction work appears to have begun sometime around 1616, with initial building efforts directed to the new dry dock, wharf and the planned storehouses, together with a brick wall to secure the site. All were to be completed in 1619, the original combined estimate for construction standing at £4,000. However, the project was to see at least a doubling in cost, it having been decided that if Deptford dockyard was to be replaced, the yard at Chatham should be given an even greater range of facilities. Ultimately, these were to include a new mast pond, sail loft, ropery, residences for officers and a double dock, all of which was completed by 1624. Each of these, in its own right, was a massive undertaking; the ropery, for example, was eventually responsible for the manufacture of most of the rope and cable required by the ships of the Royal Navy. However, the decision to close Deptford was at that time deferred, it being felt that the facilities there were still of value. Perhaps, indeed, this explains the sudden curtailment placed upon the expansion of Chatham, with the decision to build an expensive wet dock or basin (to replace the already existing one at Deptford) being cancelled. As a result, Deptford was to remain, for a great many years, the only royal dockyard with such a facility.

During the early seventeenth century, a completely new yard was established at Chatham, this located to the north of the original yard and closer to Upnor Castle. As this map shows, it lay alongside Chatham Reach and well inside the parish of Chatham.

The expansion of Chatham necessitated a considerable increase in the numbers employed at the yard, with the combined force of artisans and labourers reaching some 800 by about 1660. Within the nearby village of Chatham, which by now should more correctly be referred to as a town, considerable pressure was placed on existing accommodation and bringing about a considerable demand for new housing. From having once been a typical farming village, Chatham was rapidly becoming a crowded, unhealthy metropolis that had little in the way of carefully planned or delicately beautiful buildings. Instead, it was the recipient of hastily built and densely packed houses for the working classes, with the more affluent choosing to live beyond the perimeters of this newly developing township. Among those who aided the construction of housing suitable for the artisans of the yard was Phineas Pett, a senior officer of the yard, and one of the leading shipbuilders of the day. He was also someone who never missed a trick when it came to the accumulation of money. Within the dockyard itself, and while serving as Master Shipwright, he found himself charged, on two occasions, with major scams that involved the misuse and sale of considerable amounts of government property.25 As for his involvement in the housing scheme, Pett, in a classic case of insider dealing, made his first land purchase in 1616, aware that the government was about to push forward on its scheme to expand the dockyard and so increase the numbers employed there. In his autobiography he noted, ‘The 8th day of April [1616] I bought a piece of ground of Christopher Collier, lying in a placed called the Brook in Chatham, for which I paid him £35 ready moneys’.26 Just four weeks later he made a further acquisition, ‘The 13th day of May, I bought the rest of the land at the Brook, of John Griffin and Robert Griffin, brothers, and a lease of their sister, belonging to the College of Rochester’.27 Before many months had passed, and like a highly skilled player of the board game Monopoly, he soon ensured that these once-vacant sites were now packed with tiny houses that were designed to inflate his own personal income.

Phineas Pett, a slippery character with a super-charged ability to avoid recrimination and punishment, was appointed to the post of resident Commissioner at Chatham in 1630. Indeed, he was the very first to hold such office, it being a newly created post that had not yet been adopted in any other yard. This now made Pett entirely responsible for coordinating the general workings of the yard as well as providing him with a position on the Navy Board, the body in London that was charged with administering all matters connected with the civilian side of the Navy. Given his propensity for lining his own pocket, Pett was now in a unique position. In striding around the yard, he would identify various items of naval property and condemn portions of it as ‘decayed property’. In the resulting sale, for the dockyard regularly disposed of such materials in this way, Pett appears to have retained some of the sale money for himself. Eventually this did come to the attention of other officers on the Navy Board, resulting in his temporary removal from office in February 1634. But Pett had influential friends, not least of which was the reigning monarch, Charles I (on the throne 1625–49). Only a week later, having been informed of the situation, he had Pett quickly reinstated with a full pardon. Pett, unharmed by such charges, remained resident Commissioner until 1647 when he happily handed the office, together with his position on the Navy Board, over to his son Peter, an equally skilled shipbuilder and embezzler of government money.

Another name to conjure with is that of Samuel Pepys who, during the mid-seventeenth century, became a frequent visitor to Chatham dockyard. Although most famed for his diary writings that spanned the period 1660–69 he was, like the two Petts, a member of the Navy Board, with Pepys holding the post of Clerk of the Acts. In modern-day speak, this can most closely be translated as secretary, although it should be added that he also had full voting rights on the Board. As such, he did not just handle the paperwork relating to matters connected with the civilian administration of the Navy but could both regulate and advise on a wide range of associated matters. Furthermore, when visiting the dockyard at Chatham, his status automatically meant that he was accommodated in Hill House, a building that Pepys, in a diary entry for 8 April 1661, describes as ‘a pretty pleasant house’. In coming to Chatham, Pepys was charged with inspecting the efficiency of the yard and to head off any emerging problems. On a number of occasions, and through his diary, Pepys expressed concern at the way Peter Pett was carrying out his duties as Commissioner. In July 1663 he confided:

… being myself much dissatisfied, and more than I thought I would have been, with Commissioner Pett, being by what I saw since I came hither, convinced that he is not able to exercise that command in the yard over the officers that he ought to do.

And, again, in August 1663:

Troubled to see how backward Commissioner Pett is to tell any faults of the officers and to see nothing in better condition here for his being here than they are in any other yards where there is [no Commissioner appointed].

Pepys’ first significant visit to the dockyard was made in April 1661, when he was required to supervise the auctioning of a number of items of ageing dockyard property. Was it a visit designed specifically to keep an eye on how Pett was handling matters, given the various accusations that had been made against his father? Certainly Pepys made a point of viewing ‘all the storehouses and old goods that are this day to be sold’.

Pepys was also present at Sheerness in August 1665 for the planning of a second dockyard to be sited on the Medway:

… and thence to Sheerness, where we walked up and down, laying out the ground to be taken in for a yard to lay provisions for cleaning and repairing ships; and a most proper place it was for that purpose.28

In time, the dockyard at Sheerness was to take on a subsidiary role to that of Chatham, concentrating on the refitting of smaller vessels, especially frigates. For much of its existence, the yard at Sheerness was also under the authority of the Commissioner at Chatham, rather than the yard having its own Commissioner.

These, as it happens, were serious times, the country going through a succession of trials and tribulations. In the Civil War that had resulted in the beheading of Charles I, the dockyard at Chatham had been relatively little affected, having quickly fallen into the hands of parliament. However, following the Restoration of 1660, the country had entered into a string of wars with the Dutch, these primarily fought at sea. The position of Chatham, located close to the east coast, was of paramount significance, so the dockyard was called upon to undertake the bulk of repair and maintenance work on an increasing number of ships on active service in the North Sea and Channel. However, the Treasury was hard put to support the war, choosing to make economies that were, given the importance of the work being carried out at Chatham, quite suicidal. It was simply decided to delay paying the workforce their regular wages, with not a penny made available for months on end. In November 1665, Pett was reporting that the men were on the verge of mutiny and there was absolutely no way of disciplining them. Most of the men at Chatham were under-employed, for the lack of money also meant a lack of stores. In November all the workmen in the yard laid down their tools and attended a mass meeting in which they demanded their wages. Further trouble was only averted when a number of the leaders were put into the dockyard stocks before being transferred to prison. With something like £18,000 owing in wages to the men at Chatham, this was hardly a suitable long-term solution and there were a number of incidents in which the men stopped working completely.

Worst still, in 1667, the river Medway was subjected to a direct raid carried out by a Dutch squadron of warships. The object was the destruction of both naval warships moored in the river and the dockyard at Chatham. Over a period of four days, the Dutch gradually inched along the Medway, destroying both government facilities and naval warships as they progressed. Having entered the Medway on 10 June, the Dutch squadron had reached as far as Upnor by the morning of 13 June. A number of ships had either been destroyed or captured with the destruction of the dockyard looking inevitable. However, the Dutch, under the command of Vice-Admiral Willem van Ghent, were concerned that an English fleet might well be in the vicinity and could possibly trap them within the river. To avoid this fate, which was not even a developing possibility, van Ghent chose to withdraw, leaving the yard at Chatham to build and repair for another day.

In 1667 the dockyard at Chatham was the ultimate goal of a Dutch squadron that raided the Medway. At the time a number of ships moored in the Medway were sunk, with evidence of one such sunken vessel revealed during the nineteenth century when work was being undertaken on an extension of the yard. Although the remains were not retained, this drawing was made of the find. (TNA Works 41/114)

Upnor Castle, which lies opposite the dockyard at Chatham, played an important part in the defence of the yard at the time of the Dutch raid.

Once again, Peter Pett was viewed with suspicion, described by Pepys as ‘in a very fearful stink for fear of the Dutch, and desires help for God and the King and the kingdom’s sake’.29 A further witness to the Dutch raid, Thomas Wilson, the Navy victualler, together with his assistant, Mr Gordon, provided members of the Navy Board with a first-hand account of the progress of the Dutch squadron. Somewhere off Gillingham they had seen ‘three ships burnt, they lying all dry, and boats going from men-of-war to fire them’.30

The unwillingness of the government to pay yard workers their hard-earned wages did not help the situation within the dockyard. In choosing to reject government promises of future payment they chose to withdraw their services during the period of crisis with most seeming to take the view that, if the government would not pay them, then there was no reason why they should risk their lives. According to the Duke of Albemarle, who commanded the English fleet in the Medway, ‘I found scarce twelve of eight hundred men which were then in the King’s pay, in His Majesty’s yard, and these so distracted with fear that I could have little or no service from them’.31

Once the Dutch retreated the yardmen began to return, but even then they were reluctant to work without wages. To encourage them they were offered a shilling a day extra. According to William Brouncker, a Navy Commissioner, this failed to enthuse them:

But all this stops not the mouths of the yard, who have two quarters [six months’ pay] due to them, and say they deserted not the service but for mere want of bread, not being able to live without their pay. We are fain to give them good words, but doubt whether that will persuade them to stand in the day of trial.32

The stringent economies and lack of available money to be spent on the dockyard at Chatham were eventually terminated in 1684 when Charles II (1660–85) sanctioned a programme of expenditure that was designed to reverse the sad state into which both the Royal Navy and its support facilities had fallen. For Chatham, plans began to be put in hand for a further extensive enlargement when additional land was acquired, this in two separate purchases, one from the Manor of West Court and the other from the Dean and Chapter of Rochester. The object was to create sufficient room for two new dry docks built of timber together with a possible enclosed basin that could be used for the more efficient refitting and graving of ships. In the event, only the two dry docks were to be built, these both having a length of 200ft (61m), under very different arrangements. While the workforce of the dockyard constructed one themselves in an attempt to reduce overall costs, the other was built under contract by a certain John Rogers. His tender was for a total payment of £5,310 with estimated time for construction being approximately sixteen months from the signing of the contract. Under James II (1685–88) further improvements to the yard saw the addition of a large brick storehouse situated in the ropery together with ten mast houses. While another round of improvements would undoubtedly have been made if James had remained on the throne, he was usurped after a short reign by the Duke of Orange, who claimed the throne as William III (1689–1702). Equally naval minded, the new King continued to sanction money being spent on Chatham, agreeing to the construction of a second mast pond and a further mast house. Additional stores were also built together with a smithery, painters’ shop and two substantial houses to be occupied by the yard surgeon and his assistant. Finally, with all this new work deemed complete, the original wall of the yard was extended, ensuring that the new mast pond and other facilities were fully secure from the attentions of uninvited visitors.

These important improvements that took place during the latter part of the seventeenth century naturally increased the capacity of Chatham dockyard. Not only that, but it also allowed Chatham to retain its premier position among the royal dockyards. Whereas the other four long-established dockyards, those of Portsmouth, Woolwich, Deptford and Sheerness, could only muster five dry docks between them, Chatham could boast four. Furthermore, Chatham had the addition of a ropeyard with Woolwich the only other yard with such a facility. Finally, through the recent addition of a range of new storehouses and workshops, Chatham was given a further edge over the other naval yards.

Unfortunately for Chatham, however, its supremacy over the other yards was not to remain unchallenged. The new century was to bring a great number of wars, of which France was invariably the enemy. Battlegrounds changed, with the Atlantic and, eventually, the Mediterranean being the future theatres of war. Chatham, in this changing environment, was somewhat ill-placed when compared with the other royal dockyards. Portsmouth began to expand and, within a few years, was able to boast a greater workforce than that of Chatham. Plymouth, an entirely new dockyard, also grew rapidly. Established in 1691, it had, by 1703, a workforce just under half that employed at Chatham. By the middle of the century this had expanded so that it was about equal to that of Chatham.

Not that Chatham ceased to have an important role to perform. Increasingly it was seen as a dockyard more suited to constructing the nation’s warships and less suited to fitting out fleets during times of mobilisation. The result was that many of the nation’s greatest warships – including Victory – were to be built there. In doing so, the dockyard at Chatham had lost one role, but was to take on a new and equally important role. As such, it is to this important warship building and heavy repair work to which the rest of this book is devoted, this initial chapter serving only as an introduction to a yard that was to become pre-eminent in its role as the nation’s most important warship building yard.

2

IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF BLAISE OLLIVIER

On Monday 2 May 1737 Blaise Ollivier, Master Shipwright at Brest, the French government’s most important naval dockyard, passed without restriction into the dockyard at Chatham. Carefully concealing his identity, although his heavy accent and limited knowledge of English clearly marked him out as a foreigner, he was on a very special mission and one that had been sanctioned at the very highest level. His task: that of securing information on working methods used at Chatham and how this compared with those used in the French yards. In other words, Ollivier was a spy, and one who was to report directly to Jean Frédéric, Comte de Maurepas, Secretary of State for the Marine.