GOVERNMENT AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN
KENT: THE CASE OF THE ROYAL NAVAL
DOCKYARD TOWN OF SHEERNESS
TREVOR M. HARRIS, B.A., Ph.D.
'Such a town . . . is scarce to be found again in England.'
Wesley, J., The Journal of the Reverend John Wesley,
reprinted 1906, Everyman, 3, 316.
INTRODUCTION
With the exception of the twentieth-century dockyard of Rosyth on
the Firth of Forth, Royal Naval dockyards have historically, for
strategic, logistic and political reasons, been located along the
southern coast of England and Wales (Fig. 1). Indeed, four of the
one-time eight major dockyards, comprising Deptford, Woolwich,
Chatham and Sheerness, clustered in the south-eastern corner of the
country and principally in Kent. These yards were generally amongst
the earliest of the naval dockyards to be established and the closure
of Chatham naval base, following as it does the previous closure of
Woolwich dockyard over a century earlier and of Sheerness yard in
1959, will bring to an end the long-standing Tnks, extending over
some four centuries, which existed between the Royal Navy, the
dockyard establishments and this county.
Whilst the chronology of dockyard development is in most cases
now well documented,1 little attention has been similarly accorded to
the townships which grew in response to the specialised demands of
the naval service and whose relict features remain with us today
fossilised in the urban form of several contemporary townships in
Kent. The relationship between industrial development and urban
growth in this instance is unclear, and the simplistic statement that
1 See for example P. MacDougall, Royal Dockyards, Newton Abbot, 1982.
245
T.M. HARRIS
Daptford
Davonport
pamtxok* Dock
Porttmouth
ShaantM*
Woolwich
Tima span of tha dockyards
# Major Dockyards
r\ M O Minor dockyards
1600 teoo 1700 uoo igoo 2000
CORK
KINSA HARWICH
DEPTFORB.. --^SHEERNESS
WOOLWICH CHA"TT^
PEMBROKE
50
O
H
O
s*
z
o
•n
CO
X
m
m
50
Z
m
Fig. 2. Site. Situation and Water Approaches to Sheerness Dockyard.
T.M. HARRIS
only a few kilometres from Sheerness, provided further extensive
anchorages for the fleet. These physical advantages of the site made
up to some extent for the deficiencies of the riparian yards, not the
least of which was the ability to accommodate capital ships unable to
be laid-up afloat at Chatham or at the Thames yards.5
The construction of an advance naval base during time of war was
not a new idea for during the First Dutch War (1651-54) Harwich had
been developed in such a mode. However, the shallowness of water
at that port, the long circuitous route to the Thames supply yards, the
difficulty encountered in leaving Harwich against an easterly wind
and the lack of room on shore to store provisions, all contributed to
the abandonment of Harwich in favour of an outport at Sheerness.6
Such a transfer of operations began during the Second Dutch War
(1665-67) and in March 1673, during the Third Dutch War (1672-74),
the Duke of York ordered that Harwich was to be run down and all
vessels were thereafter to go to Sheerness.7 Continued use of
Sheerness following the conclusion of hostilities effectively ended
Harwich's life as a working dockyard although it did continue as a
cruiser station for some time after.
The defensive potential of Sheerness to command the Thames
estuary and the entrance to the Medway had been recognised from an
early date for bulwarks had existed in that area since 1551, contemporaneous
with the inauguration of Chatham Dockyard further up
the Medway.8 During the Second Dutch War Sheerness was selected
by the government as the site for a more extensive defensive work,
and it was during the construction of this fort in 1665 under the
auspices of Charles II that plans were drawn up to build naval
facilities adjacent to the fortification.9 On 1 September, 1664, Peter
Pett, the Navy Commissioner at Chatham Dockyard, had written to
the Navy Board indicating that 'the ground to be staked out for a yard
near the graving place at Sheerness will be most fit for a single or
double dry dock, to contain nearly an acre and a half of ground.'1"
5 B.L. Kings Mss. 44 1.20; B.L. Sloane Mss. 2448 f.39.
' M. Oppenheim, (1907), 'The maritime History of Essex', VCH (Essex), ii, 287;
M. Oppenheim, (1926), op. cit., 354.
7M. Oppenheim, (1907), op. cit., 292.
* B.L. Cottonian Mss. Aug. I.I.51; M. Oppenheim, 'A History of the Administration
of the Royal Navy and of Merchant Shipping in Relation to the Navy, 1509-1660',
London (1896), 102.
" B.L. Sloane Mss. 2448 f.44; B.L. Kings Mss. 44 f.2(); The importance attached to
the site is indicated by the number of visits made by the king and his ministers to
Sheerness during this period. See R. Braybrooke, Diary and Correspondence of
Samuel Pepys, London 1924, 2, 40; B.L. Kings Mss. 44 f.20; C.S.P.D., 23 April, 1673.
'"C.S.P.D., CXXXII 5, 1 September, 1664.
250
THE DOCKYARD TOWN OF SHEERNESS
Thus, the site had been in previous use as a graving place for the
cleaning of ships' hulls, though this probably involved no more than
the beaching of vessels on the shore, a common practice requiring no
substantial provision of facilities. Sheerness was not, however, the
only site considered for Sir William Winter, the Surveyor of the
Navy, also surveyed nearby Grain and Queenborough as alternative
sites for the dockyard before finally settling on Sheerness." In March
1665, Pett wrote to the Navy Board requesting timber to build a small
house at Sheerness to keep provisions in,12 and in April a hulk, 'to be
placed upon the beach', was sent to Sheerness and men followed soon
after." Plans of the 'proposed dockyard at Sheerness' were sent by
Commissioner Pett to Pepys in July 1665 and orders to proceed were
received in August of the same year." Pepys, in his diary under 18
August, 1665, recorded, '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 is for the
purpose'.15 On 13 November, 1666, the Navy Board directed that all
large ships were henceforth to be cleaned at Sheerness, though the
yard was already operational by this date.16
The Dutch raid on Sheerness and the Medway in 1667 by de
Ruyter, despite the extensive damage inflicted, was only a temporary
set-back to the defences and naval yard there. Whilst the immediate
result of the raid was the destruction of the partially completed fort
and dockyard at Sheerness17 the raid did emphasise the strategic
importance of the site to the security of the Medway and Chatham
Dockyard18, and far from reducing investment here the raid stimulated
greater efforts to prevent a recurrence of such an embarrassing
breach of the country's security. In August 1667, work began on
rebuilding the fort and naval yard on a much larger scale than had
been envisaged before the raid.1" In February 1673, Jonas Shish was
appointed the first Master Shipwright of Sheerness Dockyard,2" and
11 H.M. Dockyard Sheerness closing ceremony, 31 March, 1960.
12C.S.P.D., CXV 24, 17 March, 1665.
"C.S.P.D., CXVIII 73, 18 April, 1665; CXIX 61.
14 C.S.P.D., CXXVII 53; CXXIX 4; CXXIX 1; CXXIX 42;; CXXIX 87; CXXXI
19.
" R. Braybrooke, op. cit., ii, 216.
'"Ibid., 431; C.S.P.D. CXXVI 121.
17C.S.P.D., 27 January, 1670.
Is See the diaries of Samuel Pepys (R. Braybrooke, op. of.) and Phineas Pett (W.G.
Perrin, (Ed.) The Autobiography of Phineas Pett, Navy Records Society (1918), 51) for
contemporary accounts.
19 C.S.P.D. CCXIII, 14 August, 1667; 15 March, 1671; G. Robinson. 'Admiralty
and naval Affairs May 1660 to March 1674', Mariner's Mirror. 36 (1950), 34-5.
20 Public Record Office (hereafter P.R.O.) ADM 42.
251
T.M. HARRIS
in May the recently appointed Clerk of the Cheque at Sheerness
noted 'The beginning of something like a yard here'.21
Throughout its history the strategic position of Sheerness was a
vital factor influencing the operation and development of the dockyard.
Because of the limited size of the yard only small repairs could
be undertaken at Sheerness or at the anchorage at the Great and
Little Nore, and it was the practice for ships to be examined initially
at Sheerness before being forwarded to one of the up-river yards
should major repairs be required. The yard also undertook an
important role as a supply base, though small frigates were only
constructed in order to fully employ the workforce. Besides being a
supply and repair base the yard also performed the function of a
naval base and maintained a cruiser station which patrolled the
eastern Channel and North Sea and monitored the Dutch fleet and
the French fleet when at Dunkirk.22 For these reasons the yard was
particularly busy during time of war but, because it was expensive to
maintain due to all necessities having to be imported from other
dockyards by ship, the yard was slack during peace-time.
Sheerness did, however, operate under a number of constraints
which contributed to its remaining the smallest of the naval
dockyards.23 The yard, as laid out, was on the lee-side and beyond the
walls of Sheerness fort which extended on the landward side in the
form of bastion fortifications (Fig. 3). In this respect, Sheerness
differed from the other fortified dockyards of Chatham, Portsmouth
and Devonport whose bastion defences were erected at a much later
date though Sheerness was subsequently enclosed by further bastiontrace
defences in the early nineteenth century (See Fig. 6). As a result
of the proximity of these defences, however, the dockyard was
continually hampered during the late eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries by a chronic shortage of space, and much of the yard was
subsequently built on reclaimed land, 'below what was antientiy high
water mark'.24 As part of the process of reclamation numerous vessels
were sunk as breakwaters on the mud-flats in front of the dockyard
wharves during the early years of the yard and as they broke down
they were incorporated into the foundations for making new ground
(See Figs. 3-4). Between 1673 and 1737, some 23 warships and hulks
21 C. Brcdon (n.d.). 'Plague! and Sheerness Yard began', Sheerness Times-
Guardian 10 October. 1958.
-National Maritime Museum (hereafter N.M.M.) CHA/M/1 1.20; (Ed.) J.R.
Tanner, Culalogue of Pepvsian Manuscripts, Navy Records Society, iv (1922), 656;
B.L. Kings Mss. 44 1.20.'
'-' ADM 7/6662, Visitation of 1775.
24 B.L. Kings Mss. 44 1.20.
252
to
Ln
Foremen's Lodgings
Master Caulker's House
Storekeeper's House
Master Shipwright's House
Master Attendant's House
Boatswain's House
Clerk of the Cheque's House
Clerk of the Survey's House
Workmen's Lodgings
The Foreman's House
Master Sailmaker's House
Master Joiner's House
M Smith's House
N Master Carpenter's House
Surgeon's House
Porter's House
INUNDATh
MAIN
River Medway
Fi». 3. Sheerness Dockyard and Fort. 1698.
T.M. HARRIS
were sunk to extend the yard in this manner25 and 'a small but
exceedingly useful Dockyard and Gun Wharf (was) formed'.26 Due to
the shortage of space these hulks were also utilised as storeships and
offices and, as discussed later, as accommodation for the workforce.
The lack of space also necessitated the dockyard authorities using
buildings within the fort as offices and storehouses27 (See Figs. 3-5).
In addition to the chronic shortage of space the location also
suffered from a number of other disadvantages. The site and
surrounding area consisted of low-lying alluvial marshland which was
liable to flooding and inundation by the sea, and the poor subsoil
necessitated extensive piling before buildings, docks and wharves
could be constructed. The promontory was exposed and uninhabited
and according to all accounts very inhospitable. The locality was also
deficient in fresh drinking-water and this was a great problem not
only to the inhabitants but to the dockyard because of the ships which
called for supplies. Furthermore, although the yard was protected by
a powerful fort, it was situated in an exposed position at the mouth of
the Medway and was the most vulnerable of all the naval dockyards.
That the yard remained in operation at all despite these deficiencies
indicates the great utility of the yard to the naval authorities.
GOVERNMENT AND THE EARLY PROVISION OF CIVILIAN
ACCOMODATION
One of the most important aspects which distinguished Sheerness
from other naval dockyard towns was the involvement of the
government in the large-scale provision of accommodation for the
workforce during the first century and a half of its existence. In many
respects, this was a reflection of the difficulties experienced by the
naval authorities in attracting workmen to the yard and retaining
them thereafter. The remoteness and inhospitable nature of the site
greatly contributed to these difficulties. The pristine site provided
little that could be of help in supporting a large workforce and the
two nearest settlements at Minster and Queenborough were some
distance away. Initially, workmen travelled daily by boat from
Chatham to Sheerness or lodged on board ships moored in the
harbour and provided by the naval authorities.2 * Almost every
2S P. Banbury, Shipbuilders of the Thames and Medway, Newton Abbot (1971),
203.
2" B.L. Kings Mss. 44 f.20.
27 Ibid.
2S B.L. Add. Mss. 9315 f. 14, 40.
254
Half Moon Battery Fortifications
F N "J Navy off icers' houses
Area of [ ; _
Navy Premises I S I Shipwright houses
Standing water
Marsh
Ooze
| O J Storehouses & offices - Di tch
Minster
Bastion
^ P ^ S I K , ^
\ ^VNa ~ Launching
S$?'d Chapel %m
Gala
uueenborough
NewdocKp Bastion
INUNDATION
Bat*,*'/ •*"
M A R S H GIVEN BY M R . M E Y N E L T O THE BOARD O F ORDNANCE~ i
Rod Gale
-J The Blue ^4_=i * * I
. ^.B,.House- • *Z**ZZi—1
Fig. 4. Sheerness, 1738.
To Minster
Seawall
Inundation
Mile Town
Moat
A Ordnance Wharf
B Timber Pond
C Parade
D Old Ships
E Naval offices
F Workmen's Lodgings
G Chapel Gate
H Red Gates
I Great Dock
J UttteDock
K Launching slip
L Admirals House
M Officers Houses
K 1 | j Dockyard
Mud
Blue Town
Ordnance Marsh
Sea Wall
River Medway
- Extent of navy premises within the fort
Fig. 5. Sheerness c. 1800.
THE DOCKYARD TOWN OF SHEERNESS
necessity had to be brought to Sheerness by water from Chatham for
land communication with the mainland via King's Ferry, 'that
whimsical ferry', was poor and extremely time consuming.2" Indeed,
almost a century after the inauguration of the yard, Wesley referred
to the isolated community of Sheerness as being 'in a little corner of
the land, shut up, as it were, from all the world.3" Building materials,
especially timber, were in very short supply and for the most part also
had to be imported. Furthermore, the sub-soil and marshland surface
provided further problems to would-be house builders.
The unhealthy nature of the site, for which Sheerness was renowned,
contributed in no small way to the difficulties experienced in
attracting suitable labour to the dockyard. Philipot referred to
Sheppey as being 'more celebrated for the fertility of the soil than
salubrity of the air, which is grosse and thick causing aguish infirmities
that keep long residence when they get possession'." Hasted also
made reference to the unhealthy nature of the island and to the
'vapours from the soil'.32 Nor was this limited to the early years of the
yard for in 1849 the medical officer of Sheerness dockyard reported,
'that ague and intermittent fever prevail more or less all year round, that the
inhabitants are subject to diarrhoea and that there is always a number of men from
the dockyard on the sick list,. . . The public service suffers not only from this cause,
but also from the fact of the men at Sheerness being allowed each 2 shillings extra,
chiefly on account of the present unhealthy state of the district and place.'"
The large number of open drainage ditches containing stagnant
water, which surrounded Sheerness, must have contributed considerably
to the prevalence of malaria in the district.34
There are numerous references to the dislike of Sheerness experienced
by the workmen, dockyard officers and military personnel sent
there, especially in its early years, and to the toll which the place
exacted on their health.35 In 1743, the Sheerness officers reported
that, 'Sheerness has not the best of Characters for health, the people
29 J. Wesley, The Journal of the Reverend John Wesley, Everyman, 3, 357.
30 Ibid.
31 R. Philipot, Villare Cantianum, London (1659), 379.
32 E. Hasted, The History and topographical Survey of the County of Kent, reprint
(1972). iv. 679, first published 1798.
33 W. Ranger, Report to the General Board of Health on a preliminary inquiry into
the sewerage, drainage, and supply of water, and the sanitary condition of the
inhabitants of the town of Sheerness, H.M.S.O., London 1849, 4-5.
34 Ibid.; G.S. Buchanan, 'Report on the sanitary circumstances and administration
of, and as to prevalence of enteric fever in, the Urban District of Sheerness' (1906).
See also P. MacDougall, 'Malaria: its Influence on a north Kent Community' Arch
Cant., xcv (1979), 255-64
35 See for example C.S.P.D. Charles II, 7 March, 1672; N.M.M. CHA/M/1 30
October, 1690.
257
T.M. HARRIS
round the country do not care to send their sons here, so readily as
they do (to) other yards'.'" Again in 1774, it was recorded that, 'The
Country adjacent to this place is all Marshy and has always been
reputed unhealthy . . . therefore it has been difficult to procure
Artificers and Labourers to reside there and indeed for the great part
we have have (sic) been bred there'.37 Under such circumstances and
in order to maintain a functioning dockyard the government was
compelled to provide more than just temporary accommodation. As
the Commissioners of Visitation in 1814 recounted, Sheerness
'had always the reputation of being unhealthy. At one period indeed fevers and
agues were so very prevalent that Shipwrights and other artificers were literally
impressed and compelled to reside at this point, for which purpose it was necessary
to provide them with lodgings at the expense of the public'.3*
The nature of these lodgings took two forms. The earliest workers in
the yard were accommodated on board hulks moored in the harbour
which was a common procedure for overcoming a temporary shortage
at new dockyard sites. Scon, however, the workers were
petitioning the Navy Board for houses, a market and a minister.39
Uncharacteristically, the response of the Board was a positive one:
'A petition being read from the officers of Sheerness, complaining of
the suffering through the unwholesomeness of the place, from the
want of convenient dwelling-houses for themselves and families
there; Agreed that for the sake of his Majesty's service, as well as in
charity to the men, some provision of habitations may be fit to be
provided'.4" Thus, toward the end of the 1680s a house was built for
the accommodation of workmen employed in the yard and a further
provision of lodgings 'for shipwrights and other Artificers entertained
there' was made in 1692.41 These lodgings were located within the
walls of the fort and appear to have been similar to the barrack-like
buildings occupied by the military.42 Additionally, the hulks were
used in a dual role of breakwater and workmen's accommodation.
There would appear to have been some early policy aimed at
differentiating accommodation on the hulks and lodgings between
married workmen and their families and single men, but this does not
36P.R.O. ADM 106/3553, 21 December, 1743.
37 B.L. Kings Mss. 44 f.4.
38 P.R.O. ADM 7/593, Visitation of 1814.
3" M. Oppenheim, (1926) op. cit., 359; C.S.P.D. Charles II, 12 July, 1667, XXVIII,
532; N.M.M. CHA/M/1, 30 October, 1690.
4"J.R. Tanner, op. cit., 539, 576, 587, 618.
41 B.L. Add. Mss. 10121 f. 129, 30 September, 1692.
42 P.R.O. MPHH 112; P.R.O. ADM 140/670; B.L. Kings Mss. 44 f.32
43 N.M.M. CHA/M/1.
258
THE DOCKYARD TOWN OF SHEERNESS
appear to have continued for long.43 In the course of time the hulks
attained the status of permanent streets in the face of the housing
shortage at Sheerness and in 1734 the 'workmen's lodgings' within the
garrison were made permanent and rebuilt in brick.44
There can be little doubt that the provision of accommodation at
Sheerness was closely linked to the need to attract workmen to the
yard. 'Hence Government has been obliged', recorded the dockyard
chroniclers in 1774,
'to grant them (the Sheerness dockyard workers) Advantages for their Encouragement
that they have not in other Yards, that is, they and their Familys arc provided
with lodgings part of them in Houses and part of them in old ships laid there as
Breakwaters. Viz 425 persons in 192 rooms, and 551 in 58 Cabbins, Total 976.'45
At this time some 469 workmen were employed in the dockyard.4"
A shortage of accommodation at Sheerness continued throughout
the eighteenth century especially during time of war. In 1742, it was
recorded that lodgings 'are extremely much wanted on this encrease
of people in the yard, several of whom are obliged to go upwards of
two miles after they leave work at night, for lodgings, And which they
pay very dear for, after trouble and Pains . . .'4? The dockyard
authorities were compelled, in the face of this chronic shortage, to
continue to provide accommodation although in this they were aided
by the continuous programme of sinking hulks as breakwaters
adjacent to the yard which provided a ready source of accommodation.
48
The large-scale provision of accommodation for dockyard workmen
and their families as at Sheerness was not undertaken at other
naval dockyards. Government involvement in the provision of
accommodation here was in response to the lack of private construction
and speculative investment in housing, which was a reflection of
the dislike felt toward this isolated location by all concerned.
Dockyard and military officers alike tended to transfer elsewhere at
the earliest opportunity, and the availability of capital for housing
ventures was not forthcoming as at other dockyard locations. The
transient nature of the workforce, many of whom were on temporary
transfer from the up-river yards, also depressed demand for permanent
private accommodation.4" Furthermore, the early provision of
44 B.L. Add. Mss. 9315 f.48, 5 April, 1734.
45 B.L. Kings Mss. 44 1'.20.
46 Ibid., 4.
47 P.R.O. ADM 106/3553, 8 December, 1742.
48 Ibid.
'" D.A. Baugh, British naval Administration in the Age of Walpole New Jersev
1965, 271. '
259
T.M. HARRIS
accommodation by the government must in itself have deterred
subsequent investment in private housing. Like companies elsewhere
who were involved in specialised and company towns the government
was forced, through economic necessity, to make good the housing
shortfall.
Despite the provision of accommodation and a market place,
however, the naval authorities had from an early date declined
suggestions to take on a more extensive mantle of responsibility for
community and town building. As early as 1678, Major Nathaniel
Darell, commander of Sheerness fort, had forwarded proposals to the
Lord Treasurer suggesting that,
'As the lands of the son of Alderman Mcnnel, deceased, called the level, ajoining
the fort and other lands abutting thereon, are going to be sold cheap . . . (then) . . .
the Lord Treasurer might buy them to great advantage . . . he will much consult his
interest by the resale of some of these lands, and certainly a little town may be built
there in short time, and besides the houses, the Lord Treasurer will get a good rent
for them, and will thus have an entire domination over the corporation of
Queenborough to dispose of it at his pleasure.'50
Such a proposal was not pursued. Instead the government took the
least costly and least involved course compatible with maintaining the
nucleus of a workforce necessary to operate the dockyard without
becoming embroiled in a field which the authorities considered lay
outside the scope of the State.
That the dockyard authorities had little intention of undertaking a
paternal role toward the dockyard community is illustrated by events
concerning the supply of water in Sheerness. Great difficulties had
always been experienced at Sheerness because of the shortage of
local water supplies, 'there being no fresh water on the whole island
sufficient to supply this place',51 and in the early years of the yard all
water was brought in barrels by ship from Chatham. Attempts by the
Navy Board to bore for water within the fort in 1724 failed52, but
supplies were obtained from a well at Queenborough. However, the
Navy Board attempted to reserve this supply for the sole use of the
dockyard and naval ships only, and it was not until the Treasury
intervened that the Navy Board was forced to open the supplies to
the public.53
5"C.S.P.D. Charles II 42, 68, 13 March, 1678.
M B.L. Kings Mss. 44 1.20
, : P.R.O. ADM 106/3188 9 July, 1726; 8 September, 1726.
" M. Oppenheim, (1926), op. cit., 369.
260
THE DOCKYARD TOWN OF SHEERNESS
URBAN AND DOCKYARD DEVELOPMENT DURING THE EIGHTEENTH
CENTURY: THE RISE OF BLUE TOWN
By 1738, after some sixty years of dockyard existence, the first private
houses had been constructed under the name of 'The Blew Houses'
on private land situated as close to the dockyard as was possible
without encroaching onto land owned by the Board of Ordnance or
the naval authorities54 (Fig. 4). Not only were the early house builders
confronted by poor terrain but also a severe shortage of building
materials for the site was tree-less and timber elsewhere on the island
had been procured by the dockyard authorities.55 It is commonly
accepted that as a result of these shortages the town was built of
timber taken from the dockyard as 'chips', supposed waste pieces of
timber or 'cut-offs' less than 6 ft. in length which dockyardmen were
permitted to remove from the yards as a perquisite. In view of similar
accounts of houses built of chips in Portsea and of the well known
abuses of the 'chips' privilege, there is good reason not to dismiss
these claims.5" The houses in Blue Town were constructed in typical
shipbuilding 'clinker' style and were still to be seen until recently
when slum clearances removed the last vestiges of them.57 In similar
vein, the name of Blue Town, it is popularly claimed, stems from the
colour of paint taken from the dockyard and used on these houses.
Under the circumstances, it seems reasonable to speculate that early
private housing in Blue Town during the eighteenth century was
undertaken by dockyard-men working on a do-it-yourself basis and
using materials obtained from the dockyard and was not based upon
injections of private speculative money.
This process of self-help would partly account for the slow and
cautious development of Blue Town. Prior to the Seven Years War
(1756-63), Blue Town had not expanded to any great extent beyond
the addition of two further terraces of houses58 though the proven
utility of the yard during the war5" led to plans being drawn up by Sir
Thomas Slade, Surveyor of the Navy, in 1763 to expand the dockyard
and to construct docks capable of taking larger ships. The proposal
54 P.R.O. MPHH 112.
55 A.A. Daly, The History of the Isle of Sheppey, London 1904, 214.
5" M.S. Bentham, The Life of Brigadier-General Sir Samuel Bentham, London 1862,
142-3. In 1802, the workmen at Sheerness'had taken to going out of the yard as a body
and carrying chips out with them three times a day". P.R.O. ADM 7/663, Visitation of
1802.
57 Photographs of these houses before clearances can be seen in K.A.O. UD/SH/
TPI/13, 2.
58 P.R.O. ADM 140/684; P.R.O. ADM 140/659.
5"M. Oppenheim, (1926), op. cit., 375-6.
261
T.M. HARRIS
seems to have been to construct an entirely new yard at Sheerness for
the plan had 'little or no regard to the preservation of the yard as it
then existed'.6" However, due to the poor friable subsoil, which was
liable to flood any dock which was deepened, the problems of
obtaining fresh water and the confined space of the yard, Slade's plan
was not implemented.61 Furthermore, an infestation of Toredo navalis,
or 'the ship worm', at Sheerness at this time was causing
substantial damage to wooden-hulled warships moored in the harbour,
and naval ships which were not sheathed in protection against
the worm could not safely be harboured in the vicinity.62
Despite these difficulties and the rejection of Slade's plan, the
dockyard was not abandoned for in the event of a northern war it was
considered highly desirable to have a yard in this area"' and the
strategic advantages of Sheerness were considered to out-weigh the
physical defects which could, in any case, often be ameliorated.64
However, until the basic deficiencies in the yard were overcome, and
despite an extension to the yard in 1774, the workforce remained
small."5
CLOSURE OFTHE HULKS: THE END OF QUASI-COMPANY TOWN STATUS
Government involvement in the provision of accommodation at
Sheerness continued for well over a century, but by the end of the
eighteenth century the development of private settlement, first at
Blue Town and subsequently at Mile Town (Fig. 5) caused the
authorities to consider ways of closing down the hulks and was
eventually central to the withdrawal of government-sponsored
accommodation in Sheerness. In 1767, the Reverend John Wesley
had noted,
'In the Dock ajoining to the Fort, there are six old men of war. These are divided
into small tenements, forty, fifty or sixty in a ship, with little chimneys and windows,
and each of these contained a family. In one of them where we called, a man and his
60 P.R.O. ADM 7/593.
61 P.R.O. ADM 7/663 M. Oppenheim, (1926), op. cit., 377.
62 It was thought that the use of old ships infected by 'the worm' as breakwaters
instigated this nuisance which was subsequently compounded by infected ships from
the Levant being quarantined in Standgate Creek nearby. P.R.O. ADM 7/659, 7/660.
63 B.L. Kings Mss. 44 f.20.
64 The introduction of copper sheathing for example in the late eighteenth century
greatly reduced the harmful effects of the Toredo navalis and Sheerness returned to
favour as a result. R.J.B. Knight, 'The Introduction of Copper Sheathing into the
Royal Navy 1779-1786', Mariner's Mirror, 59 (1973), 299-309.
65 P.R.O. ADM 4/660, Visitation of 1773; P.R.O. ADM 7/661, Visitation of 1774.
262
THE DOCKYARD TOWN OF SHEERNESS
wife, and six little children lived; and yet all the ship was sweet and tolerably clean,
sweater (sic) than most sailing ships I have been in'.66
However, other reports concerning the hulks present a less than
glowing testimonial to their character and certainly, as accommodation
in Blue Town increased, they became no more than an unwanted
nuisance to the dockyard and fort authorities. Access from Blue
Town to the hulks was via a passage through the dockyard, and by
1800 Commissioner Isaac Coffin was complaining of 'the inconvenience
(which) resulted from . . . (the yard) . . . being a common
resort of Whores and Rogues by day and night; the conduct of the
former . . . (being) . . . more shameful and atrocious by a ready
access to the Gin shops in the Old Ships'. He left it to the Navy Board
'to come to a determination most likely to put an end to the
practice',67 and in 1802 Coffin forcibly closed the hulks amidst riotous
conditions.68 The government had in the meantime made some
attempt to provide alternative accommodation to the hulks by
rebuilding in 1794 the 'Great Alleys', the barrack-like accommodation
within the fort, for even toward the end of the eighteenth century
accommodation was still in short supply in the town. After 1802, the
Alleys were the only remaining source of government accommodation
for civilian dockyard workers and they remained functional only
until the 1820s when it was reported that large numbers of workmen
were leaving the workmen's lodgings in the garrison to hire cheaper
accommodation in Blue Town and the more recent settlement at Mile
Town.6" In the process of dockyard reorganisation and the growth of
Mile Town during the 1820s, the government extricated itself completely
from the housing market.
NINETEENTH-CENTURY DOCKYARD EXPANSION
Toward the end of the eighteenth century the fabric of the dockyard
was in a poor condition.7" A number of short term improvements had
66 J. Wesley, op. cit., 316.
67 Letter from Coffin to the Navy Board, 17 July, 1800, cited by A. MacDcrmott,
'Dockyard Irregularities', Mariner's Mirror, 36 (1950), 92.
m M. Oppenheim, (1926), op. cit., 384. It is claimed that occupiers of the hulks were
granted £4 per annum 'cabin money' for the remainder of their lives as compensation
for their eviction from the hulks. Sheerness Times, 7 September, 1872.
w The principal reason for this appears to be that the garrison lodgings were liable
to charge for poor relief, which in the period following the Napoleonic War was
substantial, whereas many lodgings in the town were exempt from the rate. PRO
ADM 106/3190.
7,1 P.R.O. ADM 106/3222, Visitation of 1785.
263
T.M. HARRIS
been made to the yard since the rejection of Slade's plan and a
continuous programme of piecemeal land reclamation had alleviated
the pressing problem of space to some extent, but at the expense of
an unplanned and inefficient yard." Further plans to reorganise the
yard in the 1780s were not pursued,72 and, by 1802, the Commissioners
of Visitation recorded that 'much inconvenience appears to be
produced by the want of sufficient space, the dock being contracted,
and many of the storehouses very small and scattered in different
parts of the yard and the Garrison'.73 The disadvantages of the site,
well known for many years, continued to deter the large-scale
reorganisation and investment which the yard by now so urgently
required;
'although it has the advantage of depth of water and a situation to the North of the
Forelands, yet the nature of the soil (in most places a quick sand) the very confined
extent of wharfage near deep water and its being on the wrong side of the harbour
with respect to the prevailing winds, are disadvantages that should prevent the
expenditure of any considerable sums of money upon repairs (now much wanted) if
another place can be found that is not liable to the same objections.'74
The need for an outport to the up-river yards was stressed by
Inspector General Bentham in his proposals for improving the
dockyard system75 and, in a reappraisal of alternative sites to Sheerness,
Bentham proposed a site at Blackstakes, near Coleman Creek
on the Isle of Grain, a mile or two to the west of Sheerness.76 The
Commissioners of Visitation of 1802 were impressed with Bentham's
plan, and surveys and estimates for both Blackstakes and Sheerness
were made. In the event, the Blackstakes scheme was abandoned and
repairs to the wharves at Sheerness were, unsuccessfully, undertaken
by Bentham. Quite why Blackstakes was abandoned is not known,
though it did coincide with a much larger scheme proposed by John
Rennie the Elder to close the up-river dockyards altogether and
construct a new yard at Northfleet on the Thames. Rennie was also of
the opinion that the yard at Sheerness, 'composed only of some old
wooden ships embedded in the mud, a few storehouses, a wretched
basin lined with wooden walls, and some timber jetties,' should,
because of the cost of renovation, be abandoned and his plan was
enthusiastically accepted by the Prime Minister, William Pitt, and
land purchases at Northfleet were begun.77 The project, however, was
71 P.R.O. ADM 7/658-7/662.
72 M. Oppenheim, (1926), op. cit., 380.
73 P.R.O. ADM 7/663.
74 P.R.O. ADM 7/664.
75 P.R.O. ADM 106/3224; P.R.O. ADM 7/664.
76 Ibid.
77 J. Rennie, Autobiography of John Rennie, London 1875, 163.
264
THE DOCKYARD TOWN OF SHEERNESS
abandoned on the death of Pitt in 1806.™ In view of the favourable
response which this plan received, it may have precipitated the
abandonment of Bentham's original scheme.
By 1808, little improvement to the yard had been accomplished
and Commissioner Boyle wrote to the Navy Board calling their
attention, 'to the defective state of this Dock Yard, which is growing
more so every day'.7" This state of affairs was fully confirmed by a
subsequent survey by Rennie and the Master Attendant at Woolwich,
Joseph Whidby; 'The timber of the wharfes generally speaking
is rotten, the foundations in many places have slidden outwards - the
earth and pavement are sunk. A part of the side of the wall of the
Mud Dock at the small launching slip has tumbled down, and indeed
the great bulk of the Yard may be said to be a wreck'.8"
'the offices of the several officers of the yard . . . are scattered about in the most
inconvenient manner . . . the storehouses . . . are dispersed in the same irregular
manner over the yard, some being within and some without the garrison . . . (and)
. . . very much inconvenience . . . arises to the Public Service . . . The storehouses
are besides in a most wretched condition with regard to repair, as well as being
ill-calculated for the purpose to which they are applied . . . many of them are old
buildings that have been erected in the infancy of our Naval Power, and others . . .
have been added as temporary expedients. No systematic arrangement has ever
been thought of in any one part of this establishment.'81
They concluded that the yard was, 'not to be kept up by partial or
temporary repairs. Its constituent parts are gone, patching and
mending will only prolong the evil day for a short time, but the time
will come, and this not very distant, when the whole must be
thoroughly repaired . . .' and nothing short of a complete reorganisation
and modernisation programme was required.8 2 Importantly
though, they were now of the opinion that whatever the course of
events at Chatham, Deptford or Woolwich, or even if a new yard was
established in a better situation, Sheerness yard should be retained
for fitting and repairing ships83 for it was considered now as being of
'almost indispensable utility'.84 Because of the pressure of wartime
service no improvements could be made to the yard, but toward the
end of the Napoleonic war the Admiralty Board instructed the Navy
Board to draw up plans to reorganise the dockyard.85 In 1815, work
78 Ibid., 22.
™ P.R.O. ADM 7/3189. 27 May. 1808.
811 P.R.O. ADM 106/3192. 22 July, 1808.
81 P.R.O. ADM 7/593, Visitation of 1814. Indeed, so derelict had the yard become
that 'by far the best store belonging to the yard was a ship'. Ibid
82 P.R.O. ADM 106/3192. 22 July, 1808.
"' Ibid., 15 July, 1808.
84 P.R.O. ADM 7/593.
85 Ibid.
265
T.M. HARRIS
began on reorganising the yard according to plans drawn up by
Rennie and by the time the scheme had been completed in 1827 the
yard had been entirely rebuilt.86
NINETEENTH-CENTURY URBAN COLONISATION
By 1815, increases in the military and civilian population had resulted
in Blue Town growing to the maximum areal size possible within the
constraints of the surrounding Board of Ordnance land. The town
covered a triangular stretch of land adjacent to Sheerness Fort and
the dockyard was surrounded on all sides by government land. It was
unusual for the authorities to allow construction of private housing so
close to the defences during the eighteenth century. Whether this was
deliberate policy to encourage such private building or the inability of
the government to purchase this land is not known. Certainly by the
1790s, the Board of Ordnance had accepted that the landward
defences of Sheerness Fort were obsolete due to the presence of Blue
Town on its immediate flank and allowed private houses to be
constructed on Ordnance land to the north of High Street adjacent to
the inundation (Fig. 5).87 This section of the glacis contained only a
'burying ground' and standing water and, by 1800, encroachments
extended for some several hundred yards along the northern flank of
High Street and the western side of West Street,88 but the houses were
allowed to remain only on condition that the parties concerned
should give up possession when the land was required by the
government.8" Despite the obsolescence of the defences, the action of
the Board to allow such encroachments on the glacis was uncharacteristic
and such leniency reflects the severe housing and land
shortage which existed in the town.
As part of the defence schemes which were being implemented at
other dockyard locations during the 1780s, the Board of Ordnance
purchased further land encircling the settlement of Blue Town on its
landward side and began construction of a second outer defence
system part of which, Fort Townsend, existed in 1782. In this area
encroachments were fiercely resisted and the limits of urban expansion
of Blue Town firmly fixed.
"*J. Rennie, op. cit., 164, 453.
87 P.R.O. MPH 293.
88 P.R.O. ADM 140/670.
m P.R.O. ADM 106/3188, 2 November, 1814; 3 June, 1813. As acknowledgement
of Board of Ordnance ownership of the land a small ground rent was levied and an
annual perambulation made.
266
THE DOCKYARD TOWN OF SHEERNESS
During the reorganisation of the yard following the Napoleonic
war the Commissioners of Visitation negotiated for Major's Marsh
and the now obsolete defences to be transferred to the navy
authorities90 for the land was 'wholly useless as works of defence by
being surrounded with buildings (of Blue Town)', and was appropriate
'for no other use than as a receptacle for every kind of filth'.'" The
Board of Ordnance ceded the land but retained part of the defences
along the shore facing the Thames. The remaining fortifications were
levelled and the height of the land raised 6 ft. using earth excavated
from the dockyard extension to cover the filthy mud and prevent
standing water from accumulating."2
The dockyard expanded freely onto the Ordnance land and
residences for dockyard and military officers were amongst the first
buildings to be constructed (Fig. 6). In contrast the settlement of
Blue Town had reached saturation point and infilling had proceeded
as far as was possible. The tall narrow houses built during this period
reflect the great pressure on land space. A number of factors
combined at this time to force the movement of population out of
Blue Town beyond the surrounding Ordnance land toward Mile
Town. In preparation for the extension of the dockyard onto the
glacis, the naval authorities demanded that the houses which had
encroached onto the glacis along High Street should be vacated and
demolished. By this date the buildings were 'generally of the most
temporary description and let at very exorbitant rents such as
generally reimburse the Parties both Principal and Interest in the
course of four or five years after they have built', and were largely
occupied by 'Artificers employed in the Dockyard' and tradesmen."3
Whilst the tenants petitioned several times for the evictions to be
cancelled or delayed the government feared little trouble from them
for as dockyard employees they 'would not wish to give offence for
fear of dismissal'."4 Demolition of these houses was accomplished by
December 1818."5 Furthermore, other plans were implemented at this
time to purchase a strip of private land containing houses adjoining
the dockyard on the western side of West Street to gain additional
room and to reduce the risk of fire.96 The importance of these actions
""P.R.O. ADM 106/3195, 16 March, 1813.
91 P.R.O. ADM 7/593.
"2 P.R.O. ADM 106/3190, 21 July, 1815; P.R.O. ADM 106/3195, March 1815.
'"P.R.O. ADM/ 3188; P.R.O. 7/3189, 6 March, 1815.
94 P.R.O. ADM/ 3228, 30 April, 1814.
95 P.R.O. ADM 106/3188, 6 Deember, 1814; P.R.O. ADM 7/3189, 30 November,
1814.
"" P.R.O. ADM 7/593.
267
^
'^l^
f(S^ Garrison
/ordnance/
'Wharf/
Town y/U
Dockyard
&
Fig. 6. Sheerness c. 1820.
THE DOCKYARD TOWN OF SHEERNESS
was that they coincided with the boom conditions of the Napoleonic
War which, even though drawing toward a conclusion, was then
being boosted by large numbers of workmen employed on the
dockyard extension. The town, stimulated by the closure of the hulks
and the war had utilised all available space for housing such that by
1815 no accommodation was to be had in the town.97 A covering letter
by Major-General Rudyard, commanding officer of the Royal
Engineers at Sheerness, to a memorial sent to the Board from those
tenants faced with eviction from Ordnance owned land stated that he
had
'witnessed the consternation and real distress (which) the notices . . . (of eviction
have) . . . occasioned and (was) of the opinion that the memorial . . . is not
exagerated, but falls short of the suffering many of them must experience . . . and
were it even that Accommodations could be obtained in Blue Town or its
neighbourhood . . . which from my thorough knowledge of the place there is no
lodging to be procured even for a small family therefore it could be entirely out of
their power to remove at so short notice ...'""
So severe was the shortage of accommodation that hulks were made
available by the Navy Board to the contractors undertaking the
dockyard modernisation work, Jolliffe and Banks, to accommodate a
large number of their workmen. A further storey was also added to
the workmen's lodgings in the garrison.99
Requests by the inhabitants of Blue Town to the Board of
Ordnance to allow the construction of housing on Ordnance Marsh to
the south and east of Blue Town were rejected. Only sites beyond
Ordnance land 'at a considerable distance from the dockyard and
from the pier or landing place on which all the necessaries of life are
obliged by law to be landed' were available for the development.1""
This latter factor was especially important to those tenants
threatened with eviction for, 'being principally tradesmen with large
families whose means of support depend solely upon their trade and
situation of their Houses . . . (from the sudden and unexpected
peace) [they had] very considerable stocks remaining on their hands
which can neither be immediately disposed of nor suddenly
removed'.""
These forced removals and a congested Blue Town triggered the
movement of inhabitants beyond government land in the search for
"' P.R.O. ADM 106/3228, 30 April, 1814.
98 P.R.O. ADM 106/3188. 20 November, 1814.
"P.R.O. ADM 3196, 2 September, 1813; P.R.O. ADM 7/3189, 14 June, 1816;
P.R.O. ADM 106/3188, 31 July, 1810; March 1811.
'""P.R.O. 7/3189, 6 March, 1815.
1,11 P.R.O. ADM 106/3228, April 1814; P.R.O. ADM 106/3188.
269
T.M. HARRIS
building land and ultimately led to the unique urban plan of
Sheerness. An initial proposal was to develop a site to the south of
the town on the road to Queenborough, but only a footpath
connected this area with Blue Town and the dockyard and permission
was required from the Board of Ordnance to construct a road over
Ordnance land."12 A report from the local agent to the Navy Board
noted no material objection that could give the Navy Board cause to
oppose the proposal, and considered that, 'the situation . . . selected
for building their habitations on is in my opinion, the most eligible in
the neighbourhood, and certainly likely to be less expensive to them
than any other owing to its contiguity to the Medway and the present
landing place or pier . . .'.'"3 No settlement was constructed in this
area, however, and it is possible that the Board of Ordnance vetoed
the plan for the land proposed for the settlement was subsequently
purchased by the Board to become part of the glacis of the new
defences.
In the event, the colonising movement took place toward Mile
Town beyond Ordnance land to the east of Blue Town on the road
from Blue Town to Minster. The small settlement of 'Mile Houses'
was in existence from the early eighteenth century but, by 1815, it
contained no more than a few farms and out-buildings (Fig. 5).1"4
Early inhabitants of the colony comprised mostly clerks and artificers
employed in the dockyard 'lately removed from Blue Town in
consequence of the houses being taken down there'."15
The colonisation movement was further stimulated by an intriguing
proposal by Rennie that the site of Blue Town itself should be
purchased, the houses demolished and the land included within the
dockyard extension. An Act of Parliament for this purpose was
actually obtained in 1816.'"" Rennie's advice to the Navy Board was to
purchase the freehold interest of all land proprietors and to refuse to
renew leases as they neared completion or to purchase the leaseholds
on moderate terms or, if this proved impossible, on terms determined
by a jury under the terms of the 1816 Act."17 By 1819, no action had
been taken in this respect and the inhabitants of Blue Town
petitioned for a decision regarding the proposed purchase.108 An
agent was eventually appointed by the Navy Board in 1820 to enquire
1112 B.L. Add. Mss. 31323 G2; B.L. 7/3189, 14 March, 1815.
"B.L. ADM 7/3189.
"H P.R.O. ADM 106/3553; P.R.O. ADM/670; K.A.O. P254/12/2.
105 P.R.O. ADM 7/3189, 28 January, 1819.
106 56 George III cap 74; P.R.O. ADM 106/3188.
11,7 P.R.O. ADM 106/3194.
108 P.R.O. ADM 106/3194, 2 January, 1819.
270
THE DOCKYARD TOWN OF SHEERNESS
into the terms upon which the freehold property in Blue Town could
be purchased, 'and so to frame future leases as to render the total
removal of the town'."19 The agent estimated that more than 500
houses were under consideration and the number of owners 'very
great'."" A Bill was drawn up in May 1821 to proceed with the
purchase of 'the whole of the ground on which Blue Town stands',
but was held in abeyance pending final instructions to proceed from
the Navy Board.'"
It is unclear, despite the preparation of this Bill, to what extent the
government seriously intended to proceed with the purchase and
subsequent demolition of Blue Town. In 1819, the Commissioners of
Visitation commented that if 'the space now occupied by Blue Town
is likely to be required for Naval or Military purposes then undoubtedly
it ought to be purchased at an early period but as relating
to the Dock Yard the Committee do not think there is the most
remote prospect of its being wanted'."2 In 1820, the Navy Board
again noted that they were 'not aware of the necessity or advantage
for the purposes of the dockyard of having Blue Town and . . .
suggests that the Act may be repealed'."3 Despite these statements of
disinterest by the Navy Board, preparation of the Bill to purchase the
town was allowed to proceed but the delay in implementing it
brought about a spate of petitions to the government from house
owners in Blue Town demanding a decision."4 In 1821, the Navy
Board forwarded a petition to the Admiralty Board stating that they
could not 'but forward the enclosure for their Lordships consideration
without remarking that the state of suspense in which the
proprietor's of houses are now left, is calculated to produce the most
injurious effect upon their property, both as it respects any sales
thereof or the repairs of Buildings standing on the Freehold in
Question.' The Navy Board requested an end to the suspense by
repealing the Act of 1816 and the proposed Bill."5
Quite why the proceedings were not ended earlier is unclear
though the position of the military in this matter requires greater
clarity. Certainly the costs estimated by the agents in 1820 may have
been an important factor:
'The moment the Act was passed for the purchase of Blue Town the people began to
entertain unreasonable and exorbitant expectations of the value of their property,
'"" Ibid.
""P.R.O. ADM 106/3194, February 1820.
"' Ibid.
112 P.R.O. ADM 106/3190.
"3 Ibid., 18 January, 1820.
"4See for example P.R.O. ADM/3190, 21 May, 1821; 18 January. 1820.
115 Ibid., 6 June, 1821.
271
T.M. HARRIS
and in order to urge the Government to make the purchase they complained as a
matter of hardship that the Act of Parliament was hanging over their heads which as
they said kept them in a state of continual suspense as well as daily loss on their
property and it was in consequence of this that the Act was repealed.'1"'
The events of the early decades of the nineteenth century in
Sheerness illuminate a number of interesting aspects regarding the
relationship between the dockyard and military authorities and the
dockyard town community. Military and naval requirements necessarily
changed through time and yet the 'slate' upon which dockyard,
defences and townships were drawn could not be wiped clean without
considerable financial and social cost. What is particularly noticeable
in the clearance of population from High Street and West Street and
later the proposed demolition of Blue Town was that the authorities
made no proposals for relocating the evicted inhabitants elsewhere.
Proposals made to the authorities by the inhabitants involving
government land were rejected. The authorities appear to have
pursued a 'negative' role in development control, stipulating where
settlement could not take place rather than undertaking a more
positive approach and planning for future development in order to
lessen the conflict between civilian and military objectives.
A SECOND COLONISING MOVEMENT: THE GROWTH OF MARINE TOWN
This aspect is particularly well illustrated by events surrounding the
development of the colony of Mile Town during the 1820s and the
later development of Marine Town in the 1850s. During this period
the colony of Mile Town grew steadily from a small hamlet into a
small town. The greater part of the land upon which Mile Town was
constructed was owned by James Chalk of Queenborough"7 but was
mortgaged to Sir Edward Banks (1770-1835) who eventually came
into full possession (Fig. 7)."8 Banks was joint partner with Jolliffe in
a leading firm of building contractors who undertook the Sheerness
dockyard extension under the supervision of the Rennies."" During
the 1820s the proximity of the growing colony to the new bastion
defences increasingly concerned the authorities because of the narrow
glacis and as a result a section of land within 600 yards of the
defences and including the land surrounding Mile Town was pur-
116 P.R.O. ADM 106/3188, 25 August. 1820.
117 Sheerness Times, 25 December, 1897.
"8 Ibid., P.R.O. MR 1331.
119 Dictionary of National Biography, 1, 1046; H.W. Dickinson, 'Jolliffe and Banks,
contractors', Transactions of the Newcomen Society, xii (1931), 1-8.
272
Garrison
DOCKYARD
Mile Town
Blue Town ST (CATHERINE'S HOSPITAL
The Lines
Lower Hunter's Marsh
DELAMARK BANKS ESQ.
LORD WILLIAM
JOHN LAKE ESQ GEORGE HARRIS
EDWARD HOMEWOOD
THOMAS WEBB
Land purchased by Board of
, Ordnance from Sir Edward Banks
, \ Board o! Ordnance land
y^3
H
X
ffl
a
o
n
>
a
H
O
z
o
Ti
X
a
m
7*
z
m
en
oo
Fig. 7. Land Ownership in Sheerness, 1842.
T.M. HARRIS
chased by the government from Banks in 1827. This purchase
effectively enclosed Mile Town within government land and because
building on this land was not permitted, further expansion of Mile
Town was curtailed. In view of the size of Mile Town by this time
such a step was probably too late to have been effective in securing
the continued effectiveness of the defences and, yet, by preventing
further development of Mile Town, the government contributed to a
second colonising movement to the north-east beyond the recently
purchased government land to Marine Town. Government policy
toward dockyard settlements as indicated by the case of Sheerness
appears to have been short-term and, in relying on responding to
situations, seems to have been largely a matter of expediency. Having
restricted the areal expansion of Blue Town and stimulated population
movement to Mile Town, the government then proceeded also to
check, by land purchase, expansion of that settlement, bringing about
a second colonising movement to Marine Town. That the rapid
growth of Mile Town in front of the fortifications was not foreseen
nor sites for future settlement set aside indicates the limited role
which the authorities took in the planning and development of
dockyard settlements. Indeed, in time the presence of Mile Town and
Marine Town before the defences led to a further ramparted moat
being constructed to the east of Marine Town in 1862 which
thereafter prevented any further eastward expansion of Marine
Town.120
In many respects the action of Sir Edward Banks in the development
of Mile Town was in stark contrast to that of the naval
authorities. Banks became extensively involved in the development
of large parts of Mile Town including the construction of houses in
part of the town which became known as Banks Town. He gave land
for the construction of Holy Trinity Church121 and, in an attempt to
develop Sheerness as a watering-place, introduced a tri-weekly
steam-boat service from London to Sheerness and paid for the
restoration of the pier.i;2 In this way, Banks undertook a much more
active role in the development of the town, a role which the naval
authorities were now so reluctant to do.
120 K.A.O. P254/B28/1; K.R. MacDonald, The Isle of Sheppey and the Swale,
unpublished M.A. thesis, King's College, London 1949, 114.
121 H.T. A. Turmine, Rambles in the Island of Sheppey, Sheerness 1843, 32.
122 H.W. Dickinson, op. cit., 5.
274
North Sea
Ga"r,i sor,
Dock
Marine Town
*?\&
R. Medway
<8
Well Marsh
Mile Town
Bigm
0 Feet 1000
Fig. 8. Sheerness in 1871.
T.M. HARRIS
CONCLUSION
By the middle of the nineteenth century, therefore, the major
features of the present-day township were established (Fig. 8). The
closure of the yard in 1959, following a number of closure scares since
the 1880s, significantly emphasised the dependence of the township
and economy on the dockyard and government policy. With the
exception of the extensive Government involvement in housing
dockyard workers during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
such a pattern of events is similarly reflected in the development of
Chatham Dockyard and the growth of settlement at Brompton and
Gillingham. The absence of extensive landward fortifications at
Woolwich, which came under the general defence umbrella of
London, is reflected in the different urban morphology of that town
though its encirclement by government establishments emphasised
the military nature of the town. The involvement of the government
in such a way as at Sheerness was a very rare feature outside of the
dockyard system especially in the pre-twentieth century laissez-faire
period although the deep involvement of private companies in the
economy and affairs of a town is a more well known feature of urban
development following the Industrial Revolution. No other county
had such a concentration of naval dockyards or so many dockyard
employees and the imprint which the government and the naval
authorities have left on the contemporary economic, social and urban
fabric of these Kentish towns in the defence of this country is
probably without parallel.
276
