Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Abbreviations
- Preface
- Introduction
- 1 Towards Achilles: Shipbuilding and Repair
- 2 Improving the Facilities
- 3 Manufacturing and the Move to Steam Power
- 4 Storage, Security and Materials
- 5 Economics, Custom and the Workforce
- 6 Local Management
- 7 Central Management
- Appendix 1 Ships and Other Vessels Built at Chatham Royal Dockyard, 1815–1865
- Appendix 2 Post Holders, 1816–1865
- Documents and Sources
- Index
- Miscellaneous Endmatter
6 - Local Management
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2024
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Abbreviations
- Preface
- Introduction
- 1 Towards Achilles: Shipbuilding and Repair
- 2 Improving the Facilities
- 3 Manufacturing and the Move to Steam Power
- 4 Storage, Security and Materials
- 5 Economics, Custom and the Workforce
- 6 Local Management
- 7 Central Management
- Appendix 1 Ships and Other Vessels Built at Chatham Royal Dockyard, 1815–1865
- Appendix 2 Post Holders, 1816–1865
- Documents and Sources
- Index
- Miscellaneous Endmatter
Summary
Of paramount concern during the immediate post-war period was the necessity of bringing a greater degree of managerial efficiency to the dockyards [333]. A fundamental weakness was the position of the resident Commissioner. Working as a member of the Navy Board, it was the Commissioner's task to provide a link between the subordinate Board and the dockyard. All correspondence between the Boards in london and the respective officers of the yard passed unsealed through his office [342]. Aware of any Navy Board instructions, it was the Commissioner's task to report upon any shortcomings in the subsequent performance of the principal officers. However, should chastisement appear necessary, this would emanate entirely from the Navy Office [337, 340]. While sir thomas byam martin felt that this was sufficient for effective management [343], the Board of Admiralty disagreed and believed the authority of the Commissioner should be strengthened [341].
A further structural weakness identified by the Board of Admiralty during one of their post-war inspections was the number of post holders who had either overlapping authority or sub-divided duties. Between them, the Master Shipwright and Master Attendant were responsible for all the artisans and labourers employed in the yard. The former had authority over those directly employed on ships building and repairing, while the Master Attendant controlled similar groups employed on vessels moored in the harbour [332]. The storekeeper, clerk of the survey and clerk of the check were responsible for overseeing the delivery of stores. Additionally, the storekeeper was charged with the safekeeping and distribution of these stores; the clerk of the survey kept accounts of the quantities arriving and held in stock; and the clerk of the check examined the storekeeper's accounts [332]. The clerk of the check was also responsible for keeping the pay and muster books. It was his office that inspected the indentures of all new artificers and kept a record of workers employed and discharged [332]. The ropeyard was regarded as a completely separate entity. The clerk of the Ropeyard took responsibility for stores while the Master Rope-maker [337] was responsible for the direction of the workforce [341].
It was not only at principal officer level that there was an apparent excess of managers. The same was true at ‘inferior officer’ level. Here was a diverse group, which included some eligible for a dockyard house with others paid only slightly more than the ordinary yard artisan.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Chatham Dockyard, 1815-1865The Industrial Transformation, pp. 261 - 318Publisher: Boydell & BrewerFirst published in: 2024