Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:03:49.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. The Royal Dockyards: The Earliest Visitations and Reform 1749–1778

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

James M. Haas
James M. Haas
Affiliation:
Southern Illinois University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Naval historians traditionally have been preoccupied with operations at sea. Yet sea power hinges on the dockyards without which there would be no navies and no battles to write about. If Britain's greatness in the eighteenth century depended on a navy greater than any other in Europe, it depended no less on land-based facilities sufficient to create and maintain that navy. Two-thirds of the fleet on the eve of the American Revolution had been built in the navy's own dockyards, and virtually all the ships of the fleet were fitted and repaired in them, although in wartime especially upkeep to some extent devolved on the limited facilities of overseas bases. Moreover, decommissioned ships—the ships in Ordinary—which in peacetime were several times more numerous than those in service, were maintained at the royal dockyards. The requirements of an ever-growing fleet—170 ships of twenty guns and upwards in 1739, 271 in 1775, 360 in 1787—made the yards much the largest employer in eighteenth-century Britain. Slightly more than 5,000 workmen of all kinds were employed in 1754; by 1775 the number had risen to more than 7,500 and exceeded 9,500 in 1782 when, due to the demands of war, the number of sixth-rate ships and above was approaching 500.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 1970 , pp. 191 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

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

1 For a discussion of all aspects of naval administration, see the brilliant study by Baugh, Daniel A., British Naval Administration in the Age of Walpole (Princeton, 1965).Google Scholar The dockyards are discussed on pp. 262–340. See also Usher, Roland Green, ‘Civil Administration of the British Navy during the American Revolution’ (unpublished thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1942)Google Scholar and Williams, M.J., ‘The Naval Administration of the Fourth Earl of Sandwich, 1771–82’ (unpublished thesis, Oxford University, 1962).Google Scholar

2 P.R.O., Adm. 7/662, fo. 7.

3 For the number of sixth-rate ships and above in 1739, see Baugh, p. 246; for the numbers from 1753 to 1787, see P.R.O., Adm. 7/567 fos. 34–66. For quarterly accounts of the number of workmen in the dockyards, see P.R.O., Adm. 106/2188 ff.

4 On the other hand, ‘the Earl of Berkeley, Lord Torrington, and Sir Charles Wager [successive First Lords from 1717 to 1739] had the time, ability, and inclination to apply themselves to the task of mastering the civil affairs of the navy’. Baugh, pp. 87–8. But the cooperation between the Admiralty and Navy Boards which apparently characterized the years between 1717 and 1739 subsequently broke down under Bedford, Sandwich and Anson, who were reformers and innovators, a fact which raises certain questions about the earlier period. For a discussion of relations between the two Boards see Ibid.. pp. 83–92.

5 Parl. Papers, 1793, x 26.

6 Baugh, p. 293.

7 P.R.O., Adm. 106/2507, Standing Order 69.

8 Russell, Lord John (ed.), Correspondence of John Fourth Duke of Bedford (3 vols. London, 1842–1846), 1, 192–3.Google Scholar

9 P.R.O., Adm. 2/237, 94.

10 P.R.O., Adm. 3/61, 26 June-12 Aug. 1749, passim.

11 P.R.O., Adm. 7/659–662, passim.

12 The practice of inspecting the stores of the ships in Ordinary in the presence of their boatswains and carpenters was begun by Sandwich in 1773.

13 This account of the procedure followed during the visitations of the seventies is based primarily on R. Gregson to North, 30 April 1777, William Clements Library, University of Michigan, Shelburne MSS. vol. 146, no. 105.

14 P.R.O., Adm. 7/662, fos. 73–4.

15 Probably not even by Sir Charles Wager, who was First Lord in 1733–42, even though he had been Comptroller of the Navy in 1714–17.

16 P.R.O., Adm. 2/215, 45.

17 The following is based on P.R.O., Adm. 3/61, 26 June–12 Aug. 1749, passim and Adm. 2/215, 45–54–

18 The Admiralty made no mention of the practice of assigning old and worn-out warrant officers to the ships in Ordinary, of which Baugh has written that ‘one is tempted to believe that the ships survived in spite of these men rather than because of them’, Baugh, pp. 244–5. The omission, especially in view of the new spirit of reform, suggests that the practice may have been less common than before.

19 The officer responsible for the ships in Ordinary.

20 P.R.O., Adm. 2/315, 53.

21 P.R.O., Adm. 3/61, 26 June 1749.

22 Ibid. 3 Aug. 1749; Parl. Papers, 1793, X, 26.

23 P.R.O., Adm. 3/61, 10 Aug. 1749.

24 P.R.O., Adm. 2/215, 52–3.

25 P.R.O., Adm. 106/2507, Standing Order 399.

26 So far as abuses and irregularities are concerned, no reports were ever made on whether they were corrected, nor are the minutes of subsequent visitations nearly as detailed on this subject as those of 1749.

27 Thousands of workmen were discharged beginning in the spring of 1748; by the autumn of 1750 the number of shipwrights and caulkers was inadequate. P.R.O., Adm. 106/2185, 2, 53, 102–4, 320–1.

28 P.R.O., Adm. 106/2507, Standing Order 399, cap. 12.

29 See below.

30 Ibid. Standing Order 408; Part Papers, 1793, X, 26.

31 P.R.O., Adm. 106/2507, Standing Orders 68 (1686), 111 (1695), 215 (1718), 230 (1721), 293 (1729).

32 Ibid. Standing Orders 110 (1695), 111 (1695), 230 (1721) 235 (1735).

33 Ibid. Standing Order 125.

34 P.R.O., Adm. 7/662, fo. 71.

35 P.R.O., Adm. 3/75, fo. 121; Adm. 2/237, 157; Laughton, Sir John Knox (ed.), Letters and Papers of Charles, Lord Barham (3 vols. London, 1907–1911), 11, 228.Google Scholar

36 The foreman of a gang of shipwrights.

37 P.R.O., Adm. 106/2196, 245–7; Adm. 106/2508, 506.

38 P.R.O., Adm. 106/2196, 387–99.

39 P.R.O., Adm. 7/659, fos. 36–7, 75–6.

40 P.R.O., Adm. 106/2201, 38–40, 137.

41 Ibid. 138–53; Adm. 106/2203, 275–86.

42 P.R.O., Adm. 2/261, 110.

43 P.R.O., Adm. 106/2198, 221–5, 235~42; Adm. 3/75, fos. 120–2.

44 Gentleman's Magazine, XLV (08. 1775), 389–90.Google Scholar

45 P.R.O., Adm. 2/237, 95–6 158–9; Adm. 106/2198, 224.

46 P.R.O., Adm. 106/2203, 18. Concerning task work, see below.

47 P.R.O., Adm. 3/75, fos. 122–3.

48 P.R.O., Adm. 3/62, 2 June 1752.

49 P.R.O., Adm. 3/75, fo. 107.

50 P.R.O., Adm. 3/62, 2 June 1752.

51 P.R.O., Adm. 3/75, fo. 260.

52 P.R.O., Adm. 106/2199, 362.

53 P.R.O., Adm. 7/662, fos. 71–2.

54 P.R.O., Adm. 7/659, fo. 105.

55 P.R.O., Adm. 106/2508, Standing Orders 609, 617; Adm. 2/241, 432; Clements Library, Shelburne MSS. vol. 149, no. 16. Exceptions might be made on emergencies.

56 P.R.O., Adm. 7/662, fos. 68, 72, 79; see also, Adm. 7/659, fo. 91.

57 The Clerk of the Acts was chief secretary to the Navy Office.

58 Clements Library, Shelburne MSS, vol. 146, nos. 105, 162.

59 Ibid. no. 174.

60 Barham Papers, 11, 6.

61 Clements Library, Shelburne MSS, vol. 151, no. 40.

62 P.R.O., Adm. 2/261, 89–116.

63 The report was made in 1788. Part. Papers, 1793, x, 4.

64 Barham Papers, 11, 6.

65 Mackesy, Piers, The War for America (London, 1964), p. 164.Google Scholar

66 Barham Papers, 11, 11–29.

67 For example, Murray, Sir Oswyn A.R., ‘The Admiralty’, Mariner's Mirror, xxiv (07 1938), 334.Google Scholar

68 Williams, ‘Naval Administration of Sandwich’, 160–282; Natl. Maritime Museum, SAN/1–3, s–6.

69 Barham Papers, 11, 27.

70 P.R.O., Adm. 7/662, fos. 72–3.

71 Barham Papers, 11, 10, 315–16.

72 P.R.O., Adm. 7/662, fos. 59–60.

73 Concerning task work, see Haas, James M., ‘The Introduction of Task Work into the Royal Dockyards, 1775’, Journ. Br. Studies, VIII, 2 (05 1969), 44–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74 P.R.O., Adm. 3/62, 2 June 1752. The shipwrights' basic pay was 2s. Id. a day, which in peacetime was augmented by 7½d. for one tide extra (1½ hours) from 1 May until the end of August. For a discussion of shipwrights’ wages, see Haas, , ‘Task Work’, Journ. Br. Studies, VIII, 2 (05 1969), 58–61.Google Scholar

75 P.R.O., Adm. 7/662, fos. 59–60.

76 Parl. Papers, 1803–4, III 20–1.

77 See the accounts of the visitation of 1784, P.R.O., Adm. 106/3222, passim, Adm. 2/261, 89–116.

78 Barnes, G.R. and Owen, J.H. (eds.), The Private Papers of John, Earl of Sandwich (4 vols. London, 1932–1938), IV, 409;Google Scholar P.R.O., Adm. 106/2508, Standing Order 918.

79 P.R.O., Adm. 3/62, 2 June 1752.

80 Clements Library, Shelburne MSS, vol. 151, no. 40.

81 P.R.O., Adm. 106/2186, 348; Adm. 7/659, fos. 54, 85.

82 P.R.O., Adm. 7/661, fo. 75; Adm. 7/660, fos. 12–13, 48–9; Adm. 7/662, fo. 70.

83 P.R.O., Adm. 7/661, fos. 80 – 1.

84 P.R.O., Adm. 7/660, fos. 84 – 5; Adm. 7/662, fos. 74 – 5; Adm. 3/80, fo. 117. With the goal of three years' supply in view in 1773, the Standing Orders ‘relative to t he providing, stowing, converting, preserving & seasoning Timber’ were revised and formed into a single order. P.R.O., Adm. 3/80, fos. 94, 117. Concerning the supply of timber, see Robert Greenhalgh Albion, , Forests and Sea Power (Cambridge, Mass., 1926), pp. 133–5;Google ScholarCommons Reports, XXI (1771).Google Scholar passim.

85 P.R.O., Adm. 2/261, 110.

86 By constant vigilance alone was the supply kept up. See P.R.O., Adm. 7/660, fo. 85; Adm. 2/243, 543, Adm. 2/244, 369.

87 P.R.O., Adm. 106/2508, Standing Order 567; Adm. 7/661, fos. 2, 26, 42–3, 62; Adm. 7/662, fos. 11, 31, 75.

88 P.R.O., Adm. 106/2508, Standing Order 567; see also, Adm. 2/238, 188.

89 P.R.O., Adm. 7/661, fos. 49–51; Clements Library, Shelburne MSS, vol. 149, no. 16.

90 P.R.O., Adm. 2/241, 434; Adm. 106/2201, 408; Adm. 7/660, fos. 76–7; Adm. 7/661 fos. 3, 42.

91 P.R.O., Adm. 3/61, 12 Aug. 1749; Adm. 7/659, fo. 79.

92 Natl. Maritime Museum, ADM B/165, 7 July and 21 July 1760.

93 P.R.O., Adm. 106/2196, 348–9; Adm. 1/5167, 21 June 1765.

94 P.R.O., Adm. 106/2196, 348–52 and unfoliated pages following.

95 Ibid. p. 350.

96 P.R.O., Adm. 7/660, fo. 54; Adm. 7/661, fo. 2; Adm. 7/662 fos. 78–9.

97 P.R.O., Adm. 106/2196, 350–1.

98 P.R.O., Adm. 7/659, fo. 60.

99 Natl. Maritime Museum, ADM B/i83, 21 Aug. 1770; P.R.O., Adm. 7/659, fo. 25.

100 P.R.O., Adm. 7/662, fo. 78.

101 P.R.O., Adm. 7/660, fos. 34–6.

102 P.R.O., Adm. 7/659, fos. 60–1.

103 P.R.O., Adm. 3/78, 14 Aug. 1771.

104 P.R.O., Adm. 7/659, fos. 25–8, 52.

105 P.R.O., Adm. 7/660, fos. 5–6; Adm. 7/661, fo. 27; Adm. 7/662, fo. 30.

106 P.R.O., Adm. 7/659, fos. 61–2.

107 Br. Museum, King's MSS, 44, fo. 3.

108 P.R.O., Adm. 7/660, fos. 28–9, 31; Adm. 7/661, fo. 39.

109 P.R.O., Adm. 7/660, fos. 29–30; Adm. 7/661, fos. 39–41, 43–4, 46–8.

110 P.R.O., Adm. 7/659, fos. 24–5; Adm. 7/660, fos. 45, 65, 81–2; Adm. 7/661, fos. 41–2; Adm. 7/662, fo. 39. Timber merchants in making contracts invariably stipulated that a certain proportion of small timber be taken with the large, even though the dockyards had no immediate use for it. P.R.O., Adm. 7/660, fo. 7.

111 P.R.O., Adm. 7/662, fos. 75–6.

112 Ibid. fos. 78–9.

113 P.R.O., Adm. 7/659, fos. 97–8; Adm. 2/241, 435; Adm. 7/660, fos. 80–1; Adm. 7/661, fos. 62–3.

114 P.R.O., Adm. 7/659, fo. 104; Adm. 7/660, fo. 73; Adm. 7/662, fo. 45.

115 P.R.O., Adm. 7/660, fo. 65, Adm. 7/661, fo. 17; Adm. 7/662, fos. 18–19.

116 Ibid. fo. 72.