Chatham Dockyard (5 page)

Blaise Ollivier would have entered the yard at Chatham through the Main Gate, built in 1720. A three-storey brick building, it was designed to resemble the gateway of a contemporary fortress and housed the yard porter and boatswain.

Remaining with Ollivier in the Extraordinary, he would certainly have taken an early glimpse at the various dry docks and beginning, most probably with the South Dock. This had begun life in the early seventeenth century as the Double Dock but had been converted in 1703 to a single dock, achieved through the process of reducing its length while also giving it greater width. Experience had demonstrated that the value of a double dock, whereby two vessels, end to end, could be taken into the same dock, was limited. Apart from anything else, it meant that the vessel at the far end of the dock, often a ship under construction, was trapped in position, and could only be moved when work had been completed on the vessel nearest to the dock entrance. Furthermore, with the growth in size of vessels, the dock itself had been generally too narrow, hence the need to increase its width. According to Ollivier, who carefully measured the size of all of the yard docks, the South Dock, at that time, had length of just over 186ft (56.8m) and a width of 68ft 3in (20.8m). [All measurements given by Ollivier were given in French feet, but converted into imperial and metric for purposes of this publication.] Nearby was the North Dock, this having begun life as the original single dock that had been constructed in the early seventeenth century. It also had undergone numerous alterations and now mirrored the South Dock in the dimensions given by Ollivier. A further pair of dry docks, these being the ones built in 1686, stood approximately 400ft (121.9m) to the north and, despite now being over forty years old, were known as the First and Second New Docks. These were fundamentally unaltered since their time of construction, although one of them had been substantially repaired during the previous year, the total cost being £7,000. Ollivier in measuring them, found them both to be of 160ft (48.8m) in length with a width of 64ft (19.5m).
⁵

To reach the Master Shipwright’s office, the pathway followed by Ollivier had first skirted around the ropery, a collection of buildings on his left side, while to the right was the resident Commissioner’s House and garden together with the officers’ residences. While most of the buildings belonging to the ropery dated back to the early seventeenth century, the various residential buildings in the yard were of much more recent construction. Regarding the Commissioner’s House, this had been completed in 1704 at an approximate cost of £912. Still in existence, and now known as Medway House, it is a spacious three-storey residence with additional attic and basement. Constructed of brick, it was built at the behest of George St Lo, Commissioner of the yard between 1703–14. On first taking office at Chatham, St Lo had indicated
his disappointment at the small size of the residence built during the early part of the previous century and forcibly made it clear that it was not suitable for a Commissioner charged with the most important yard in the country. Some twenty years later, a terrace of houses allowed to the officers of the yard, some twelve in number, was also constructed following the demolition of a set of houses dating, once again, to the early seventeenth century. As with the Commissioner’s House, they are still a feature of the modern-day yard with their combined construction cost amounting to £4,000.
⁶

Intriguingly, Ollivier makes reference to a fifth dry dock and one that was ‘empty or in poor repair’. As it happens, there was no fifth dock at Chatham, with Ollivier either erroneously transcribing his own notes or misunderstanding what he was being told. The latter is quite likely, given that Ollivier had such a limited understanding of the English language. For whatever reason, Ollivier is clearly confused by the presence of an abandoned building slip, one of the earliest in the yard, and situated between the North and South Docks. In Ollivier’s own words, it was ‘empty and in poor repair’. At the time it was in the process of being filled in, with a replacement slip having already been constructed. It was probably the fact of it being partially filled with soil and standing so close to two of the existing docks that led to Ollivier making such a basic error. As to the reason for its abandonment, this related to the recent increase in width that had been given to the North and South Docks, the workmen employed now finding the available workspace far too limited for their needs and so requiring the removal of that particular building slip.
⁷

On reaching the Master Shipwright’s office, Ollivier would have made contact with John Ward, the Master Shipwright at Chatham. Whether this was on the first morning of Ollivier’s arrival or later in the week is not verified. However, one thing is clear, Ollivier received considerable assistance, Ward happily showing his French visitor the drawings of a seventy-gun ship then under construction in the yard while also revealing a series of modifications that were being introduced to newly built British warships. In fact, Ollivier was even in position to measure off the principle dimensions of this new seventy-gun warship, the future
Elizabeth
, together with ‘many notes concerning [her] lines’.
⁸
However, it also becomes clear from this meeting with Ward that Ollivier had not admitted to his true background or level of technical expertise, declaring in the account he presented to Maurepas that, ‘I could not without compromising myself extend my curiosity further.’

In stepping out of the Master Shipwright’s office, it seems not unreasonable to assume that Ollivier’s attention would, once again, have been absorbed by the dry docks and slipways that lined the central river frontage of the dockyard. His interest in the dry docks was considerable, with Ollivier going to great lengths to describe both their design and usage, accompanying his notes with a number of detailed drawings. All four of the docks were of timber construction at this time, with the floor of each laid with a covering of oak planking. Along the sides of the dock, which had an upward slope of approximately seventy degrees, were two stepped platforms, or altars, that were used both to support shores that supported the vessel and to allow artisans ready access to the upper hull of the vessel upon which they were working. The docks themselves were reliant upon gravity drainage, meaning that when a ship was brought into a dock on an appropriate
tide, water could flow out with the receding tide. To assist in this drainage, each of the docks had an approximate declivity of about three degrees. However, a further and lesser-known feature of each dock was that of the floor having a gradual rise towards the centre. The purpose of this was to better accommodate incoming vessels that had, through service at sea, witnessed the hogging of the keel. Caused by the action of waves, it was where the keel had been forced out of true, with the two ends lying lower than the middle. On commenting upon this, Ollivier indicated that ‘without this precaution the ship would take up her original shape on settling in the dock, and would then lose it again suddenly on leaving the dock, and would thereby be exposed to leaking’.
⁹

An important facet of the dockyard at Chatham was that of the river, used for the mooring of warships out of commission and for the carrying out of repair and refit work on vessels that had either been dry docked or did not need to be docked. At one time, therefore, Chatham Reach, seen here in this photo, would have had a number of vessels moored and under the authority of the yard.

As for the use to which these docks were put, this was more wide ranging than in the French dockyards. Whereas the use in France was directed entirely to the repairing of ships, in Chatham it was also common to briefly dock a vessel for graving. At one time, of course, this had been carried out on the mud banks on the river Medway while it is also possible that in the early Tudor yard there might also have been a specialised careening wharf. However, with the construction of two docks during the early seventeenth century and a further pair of docks some sixty years later, it would no longer have been necessary to have a separate wharf for hauling vessels over for the purpose of careening. Ollivier was especially favourable to the practice carried out at Chatham, considering it to be less costly, more expeditious and likely to place vessels under less strain. He noted, for instance, that in graving vessels while still afloat, it not only necessitated the construction of a specialised wharf but also the retention of a number of ‘boats, barges and ballast lighters’ to support those engaged in the work of cleaning down the hull. All of these could be dispensed with if dry docks were used for graving. Ollivier’s recommendation, therefore, was that French yards should generally increase the number of docks they possessed, as this ‘would be paid back in but a few years through the savings which we would achieve’.
¹⁰

Ollivier was particularly fortunate in having arrived on 2 May, as he was able to witness the ninety-gun
Union
being brought into dock. Undertaken on a high tide, the vessel was brought round from her moorings in the river some 30 minutes before the full height of tide had been reached. Assembled around the dock were some 100 labourers and shipwrights, their task to provide muscle power, hauling upon the cables that would gently bring the vessel through the entrance and line her up with the centre of the dock. As the tide had flowed out, and now only requiring sixty shipwrights, timber shores were placed in position for the purpose of securing the ship once the water had fully drained from the dock. Depending on the precise nature of work to being undertaken, the vessel might have to be brought to rest on blocks, but if no work was required upon the keel, the ship would settle directly on the timber-lined floor or working platform.
¹¹

Once the dock had drained, it was then necessary for the dock gates to be lifted into position. The process was fairly complex as the gates were formed of three separate timber panels, the two side panels held fast against the dock and a third positioned in the middle. All were manoeuvred into position by use of blocks and tackle, with the panels secured to each other and the side of the dock through the use of iron straps. Once the gates were closed, timber shores were wedged against them, these to provide additional support.
¹²

In turning his attention to the building slips, Ollivier correctly noted the existence of two, the South Slip and the New Slip, with the latter having only been recently completed. Both were fully employed at the time, with the frame of a future seventy-gun vessel, the already mentioned
Elizabeth
, standing on the South Slip. Of the forwardness of this vessel, Ollivier noted that she was ‘planked from the keel to the planksheer’ while both her decks were finished. At the time of his visit, the workmen of the yard were ‘installing the beams of the forecastle and quarterdeck and working on the apartments of the hold’. On the New Slip, and the first vessel to be laid on this slip, labourers were readying it for construction of a fifty-gun vessel, the future
Guernsey
. Among the tasks being undertaken was the ‘lofting up of some of her full size frames’.
¹³

Over on the north side of the yard was an area set aside for the storing and making of masts. Its most obvious feature was the mast pond that had been dug out and formed from an existing creek during the 1690s. Used to immerse finished mast sticks under a covering of seawater, it had been constructed with thirty-two brick arches that kept the sticks permanently submerged. The total cost of constructing the pond, including the excavation work, two pairs of gates, wharfing slips and the arches had been £3,180. Celia Fiennes, an English traveller who had visited the yard in 1697, described it in the following manner: