Tilbury Fort and the development of artillery fortification in the Thames estuary

A. D. Saunders

doi:10.1017/S0003581500061928

Tilbury Fort and the development of artillery fortification in the Thames estuary

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 November 2011

A. D. Saunders

Article contents

Summary
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Summary

Three of the four main periods of artillery fortification in England, when construction was undertaken on a national scale, are represented in the Thames: the castles and bulwarks of Henry VIII, the bastioned forts of the late seventeenth century, and the Royal Commission forts of the 1860's. The exception is the rather special case of the Martello Tower system, but its place here is taken by the steady improvements carried out at the end of the eighteenth century and in the 1840's and 1850's. Shornemead, Cliffe Creek, and Slough Forts are ruined and derelict, Coalhouse Fort is used as a store, but Tilbury, now in the guardianship of the Ministry of Works, can show the progress of fortification over the course of 250 years. That they never saw the action for which they were designed is irrelevant, for, as Sidney Herbert said in 1860, ‘the object of the fortifications is not so much to resist as to deter attack’.

The subsequent coastal batteries of the last two wars, the hastily constructed pill-boxes, and even the ‘flak’ towers off the east coast are simply gun positions. They are neither self-contained nor self-defensible fortresses. By these criteria the forts erected as a result of the 1860 Royal Commission can be regarded as the last legitimate successors of the prehistoric hill fort and the medieval castle.

Type: Research Article
Information: The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 40 , Issue 3-4 , October 1960 , pp. 152 - 174

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500061928 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 152 note 1} Victoria County History of Essex, ii, 259; Pepys, Naval Minutes, p. 59. ‘The Trinity House do generally say that without the marks and buoys, our own countrymen the best experienced could not with any security go in or out of the river of Thames.’

^{page 152 note 2} Rymer, , Foedera, viii, 271Google Scholar; Cruden, R. P., History of Gravesend and the Port of London, pp. 115, 122Google Scholar.

^{page 153 note 1} Maurice-Jones, K. W., The History of Coast Artillery in the British Army, p. 275Google Scholar.

^{page 154 note 1} I must acknowledge the opportunities and assistance I have been given in this study by the Ministry of Works in the course of my duties in the Ancient Monuments Inspectorate. In particular I am very grateful to Mr. R. Gilyard-Beer, M.A., F.S.A., who introduced me to the subject of artillery fortifications and has given me much encouragement in it.

^{page 154 note 2} Cal. S.P. Foreign and Domestic, 1539, i, 398.

^{page 154 note 3} Ibid, i, 989.

^{page 154 note 4} Ibid, ii, 109.

^{page 154 note 5} Ibid. 1540, 323.

^{page 155 note 1} Copy in Ministry of Works Library. Historic Plans and Drawings.

^{page 155 note 2} I am indebted to Mr. A. J. Taylor, M.A. F.S.A., for this information.

^{page 155 note 3} Cal. S.P. Dom. 1581-1590, p. 507.

^{page 155 note 4} Ibid., p. 509.

^{page 155 note 5} Cruden, , History of Gravesend and the Port of London, p. 237Google Scholar.

^{page 155 note 6} Cal. S.P. Dom. 1581-1590, p. 514.

^{page 155 note 7} Ibid., p. 536.

^{page 156 note 1} Cal. S.P. Dom. 1581-1590, p. 550.

^{page 156 note 2} Cruden, , History of Gravesend and the Port of London, p. 247Google Scholar.

^{page 156 note 3} Ibid., p. 296.

^{page 157 note 1} S. E. Rigold, Yarmouth Castle, Ministry of Works Guide.

^{page 158 note 1} Marollois, , Ars muniendi sive fortificationis, 1614Google Scholar.

^{page 158 note 2} Dogen, M., L'Architecture militaire moderne, 1648Google Scholar.

^{page 158 note 3} Stevin, S., Nouvelle manure de fortification par escluses, 1618Google Scholar.

^{page 159 note 1} Dictionary of'National Biography, viii, 103

^{page 159 note 2} B.M. Sloanian MS. 5027 A, art. 63.

^{page 159 note 3} Oxoniensia, i, 1936, pl. XXII.

^{page 159 note 4} B.M. Add. MS. 16370.

^{page 159 note 5} In the library of the National Maritime Museum.

^{page 159 note 6} Pepys, , Naval Minutes, p. 28Google Scholar.

^{page 159 note 7} V.C.H. Essex, ii, 289.

^{page 159 note 8} Cal. S.P. Dom. 1666-7.

^{page 160 note 1} B.M. Add. MS. 16370; Sloanian MS. 2448.

^{page 160 note 2} Le Blond, Élémens de Fortification, 1756. Vauban was claimed as the inventor of the tenaille although Marollois and de Ville had proposed something similar before him. In Vauban's ‘first system’ tenailles cover the flanks of the bastion as well as the curtain. They later developed solely as works before the curtain.

^{page 160 note 3} B.M. Sloanian MS. 2448.

^{page 160 note 4} Brought to my notice by Col. W. H. Schukking.

^{page 160 note 5} Burke, G. L., Tie Making of Dutch Towns: Klundert 1632, p. 120Google Scholar; Willemstad 1632, p. 118, etc.

^{page 160 note 6} B.M. Add. MS. 16370.

^{page 161 note 1} Capt. Thomas Venn, Military and Maritime Discipline, 1672.

^{page 161 note 2} Tilbury Fort Accounts 1674-1681. P.R.O. WO 53/530.

^{page 161 note 3} Cal. S.P. Dom. 1660-61, p. 558.

^{page 162 note 1} Cal. S.P. Dom. 1671-72, p. 179.

^{page 162 note 2} Cal. S.P. Dom. 1676-77, p. 272.

^{page 162 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 162 note 4} Estimates, etc., relating to Tilbury Fort, 1676-1683. P.R.O. WO 49/181.

^{page 162 note 5} Ibid.

^{page 163 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 163 note 2} Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, South East Essex, p. 170.

^{page 163 note 3} Blomfield, R., Sibastien le Prestre de Vauban 1633-1707, p. 88.Google Scholar The design of architecture was supposed to be within the province of the military engineer at this time.

^{page 163 note 4} P.R.O. WO 49/181.

^{page 163 note 5} B.M. Sloanian MS. 2448.

^{page 163 note 6} Evelyn's Diary, iii, 609, 21st Mar. 1672.

^{page 163 note 7} Daniel Defoe, Tour Through Great Britain, 1724, i, 10.

^{page 164 note 1} Pepys, , Naval Minutes, p. 205Google Scholar.

^{page 164 note 2} V.C.H. Essex, ii, 290.

^{page 164 note 3} Romer's Survey of Tilbury Fort, 1715 Ministry of Works Library. Historic Plans Drawings.

^{page 164 note 4} Maurice-Jones, K.W., History of Coast Artillery in the British Army, p. 96Google Scholar.

^{page 164 note 5} Information kindly given by F. Z. Claro.

^{page 164 note 6} Information kindly given by J. Prebble.

^{page 165 note 1} Thomas Hyde Page, State of the Fortifications in the Medway Division. B.M. King's Top. Coll. XVII. 16 b.

^{page 165 note 2} Lieut. Hartcup, Report on the Thames 1794. P.R.O. WO 30/60, 63.

^{page 165 note 3} The Institution of Royal Engineers, Letter Books. 9th Apr. 1795.

^{page 165 note 4} The Institution of Royal Engineers, Plan of Fort Coalhouse, Tilbury. ER. 92.

^{page 166 note 1} General Dumoiriez, Mémoire militaire sur l'Angkterre 1803. P.R.O. WO 30/72.

^{page 166 note 2} Clarke, G. S., Fortification, p. 8Google Scholar.

^{page 166 note 3} Montalembert, , La Fortification perpendiculaire, 1776Google Scholar.

^{page 167 note 1} P.R.O. WO 55/1548.

^{page 167 note 2} P.R.O. WO 44/127.

^{page 167 note 3} P.R.O. WO 44/725.

^{page 167 note 4} P.R.O. WO 44/614.

^{page 168 note 1} Report of the Commissioners appointed to consider the Defences of the United Kingdom, 7th Feb. 1860. Appendix 4.

^{page 168 note 2} Brialmont, ‘Progrès de la défense des etats et de la fortification permanente depuis Vauban’.

^{page 169 note 1} P.R.O. WO 55/1548.

^{page 169 note 2} Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the construction, condition, and cost of the fortifications erected or in course of erection under 30th and 31st Viet, and previous statutes. 1869.

^{page 169 note 3} Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers Works Committee, Minute 965, Report No. 102.

^{page 172 note 1} P.R.O. WO 44/614.

^{page 172 note 2} Institution of Royal Engineers. Letters Issued General 14th June 1866 to 13th Feb. 1869.

^{page 173 note 1} Von Scheliha, A Treatise on Coast Defence.

^{page 173 note 1} G. S. Clarke, Fortification.

^{page 173 note 1} Report of the Parliamentary Committee on plans for fortification and armament of our military and home mercantile ports, etc. 1888.

^{page 174 note 1} Hansard, 13th Aug. 1860, 1226.

Article contents

Tilbury Fort and the development of artillery fortification in the Thames estuary

Summary

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests