Cockham Wood Fort

COCKRAM WOOD FORT VICTOR T.C. SMITH, B.A. INTRODUCTION This is a report of documentary research and field investigations by members of the Kent Defence Research Group and the New Tavern Fort Project during 1992-93. Cockham Wood Fort, built from 1669, is on the left bank of the River Medway, 2 kilometres (1.25 miles) downstream of Upnor at N.G.R. TQ 777712. It formed part of a system of artillery defences to protect the river approaches to the Royal Dockyard at Chatham and the anchorage for Royal Navy warships which occupied the 6 or so kilometres (3.75 miles) of reaches below Rochester Bridge. Much of the plan of the fort is traceable on the ground but its brickfaced river front is in a seriously deteriorating condition, being gradually undercut and destroyed by tidal erosion. Now therefore, seems an opportune moment to describe the history of the fort as well as its remains. An archaeological investigation of the fort is long overdue (particularly of the areas at risk from tidal action) before the evidence to be uncovered becomes lost. HISTORY Origins and the Dutch Raid The fort formed part of a wider strategy to provide new and improved defences for the Medway, Thames, Portsmouth and Plymouth in the years following the destructive Dutch raid on the Medway in 1667. New defences had in fact been proposed for all these places in the several years before the Dutch Raid.1 Indeed, in the Medway a new fort 1 A.D. Saunders, Fortress Britain, Liphook, 1989, 83 ff. 55 VICTOR T.C. SMITH had been under construction at Garrison Point at Sheerness at the moment the Dutch attacked. The trauma of the Dutch Raid emphasised the weakness of England's coastal defences and gave a greater urgency to the need to protect key areas with effective defences. Nowhere did this seem more necessary or immediate a need than for the security of the Medway. The defence of the Medway involved national interests. By the 1620s Chatham had become England's premier naval base.2 The reaches of the river between Rochester and Chatham had been used as a mooring for naval vessels out of commission since the reign of Henry VIII and storage facilities for the fleet had existed on the riverbank at Chatham since at least 1547.3 Increasing numbers of ships were being built and repaired at Chatham by the time of the three Dutch Wars (1652-74). Further emphasising the importance of the Medway, a new dockyard had been started at Sheerness shortly before the Dutch Raid. Ships based in the Medway were also conveniently located for offensive naval operations against the Dutch. However, sometimes wind conditions might considerably delay vessels from Rochester or Chatham making the journey all the way downstream to the mouth of the river. Yet, if insufficiently protected, the shoreline naval facilities and the anchorage were vulnerable to naval attack by an enemy. Although an unpiloted advance up the meandering river by an enemy squadron was not easy, especially with the hazard of areas of very low water which risked vessels grounding, any difficulties were surmounted by the Dutch in 1667 who apparently brought people with them who were knowledgeable of the river.4 Modest artillery defences had been a feature of the Medway since the mid 1540s, with gun positions built at Sheerness (and possibly at Grain) to guard the entrance to the river and Queenborough Castle was re-fortified.5 Upstream, Upnor Castle was built between 1559 and the later 60s to guard the adjacent naval anchorage. In 1575 a bastioned fort was started downstream at Swaleness6 to defend the Medway against a flanking attack into it from the River Swale, but work seems never to have been completed. Instead, the Privy Council preferred to adopt the expedient of blocking St. Mary's 'and sundry other creeks' with piles.7 As an additional defence in 1585, during the early part of 2 Philip MacDougall, The Chatham Dockyard Story, Rochester, 1981, 26. 3 Jbid., 14. 4 Ibid., 41. 5 History of the King's Works, IV 1485-1660 (II), London, 1982, 477 ff. 6 Acts of the Privy Council, viii, 273, 281. 7 VCH, ii, 1908, 295. 56 COCKRAM WOOD FORT the war with Spain, a substantial chain was plac 􀁊 ·n the river below Upnor Castle.8 This could be raised into positio as an obstacle to navigation in a period of threatened attack. By 1595, if not earlier, there were four sconces or artillery batteries in the Medway, called Warham, Bay, Openhall and Dane.9 Warham and Bay were located on the riverbank just downstream of Upnor Castle. The positions of Openhall and Dane are not yet known. The year of the Dutch Raid (1667) found the Medway in an uncertain state of defence. A heavy iron chain had again been placed across the river, this time between Gillingham and Hoo Ness with extemporised batteries built at either end during the actual period of emergency.10 However, the construction of a new fort at Sheerness had not progressed far and it was soon captured by the Dutch when they attacked.11 This left the way open to the Dutch to advance upstream where they were able to clear an English blockship from the channel and overcome the obstacle of the chain to burn and capture a number of ships before withdrawing unscathed to the Thames Estuary. The guns of Upnor Castle, too far upstream to protect adequately the whole of the gradually increasing anchorage, may have deterred the Dutch from pressing their attack further. The Dutch had, in any event, exhausted their supply of fire ships. Whether Warham and Bay Batteries were still extant is at present unclear, but some extemporised batteries had certainly been formed during the emergency to cover the dockyard itself and the Dutch may, from their observation, have become aware of these. '2 The disaster had demonstrably revealed the insecure condition of the Medway which had scarcely possessed a scheme of defence worth the name. Prince Rupert was ordered to review the defences of the river and, as an early measure, the deficient chain was replaced at Gillingham.13 The key to an effective defence was, however, the building of further and correctly positioned powerful artillery defences. The works at Sheerness were redesigned, re-started and extended while on 22 December, 1668, the Board of Ordnance ordered the building of '2 new forts at Chatham by Gillingham and Cookham'.14 The name Cookham was sometimes used in documents at this early period but more often Cockham Wood was used. The place- 8 Cal. S.P. Dom., 1581-90, 304. 9 PRO WO55/1609. 10 Philip MacDougall, op. cit. in note 2. 11 Ibid., 42. 12 lbid., and H.A. James, The Dutch in the Medway, Chatham, 1967, 11. 13 Philip MacDougall, op. cit. in note 2, 44. 14 J. Presnail, Chatham - the story of a Dockyard Town, Chatham, 1952, 127. 57 VICTOR T.C. SMITH name Cookham or Cockham may derive from the Old English for settlement on a hill.15 The new defences were placed where artillery firepower could be used to the best advantage to protect the anchorage and the naval shore facilities. This meant finding positions from which to command the river approaches to the anchorage at long range and to defend against close attack, both of which the existing defences had been incapable of achieving. Gillingham Fort, on the right bank of the Medway was sited at the entrance to St. Mary's Creek just upstream of the chain. It both guarded the entrance to the creek and handled the long-range defence of the main channel approaches to the anchorage. It had a field of fire along the straight length of river which formed Gillingham Reach, towards the Mussell Bank, a treacherous area of low water where the river bent into Pinup Reach. It could direct a withering fire on ships which would not have been able to return fire for a lengthy period until almost broadside on, by which time considerable damage might have been inflicted upon them. Likewise, it could have brought a broadside fire to bear on ships which succeeded in passing it by upstream into Short Reach. Cockham Wood Fort on the left bank, about 1.6 kilometres (1 mile) upstream would then have taken over. It had the same capability to direct a long range fire and a devastating broadside against a target attempting to pass by and which would also have had to negotiate a small nearby mud bank in midstream. So the 1.6 kilometres (1 mile) of river both in front of and behind the chain were covered with fire. Upnor Castle became a second line of defence. The building of the fort By February, 1669, 16 Sir Bernard de Gomme, the King's Chief Engineer, had surveyed the river Medway between Rochester Bridge and the Mussell Bank and by then must have had his initial draughts for the design of the two forts. In March the arrangements for managing the building of the forts had been settled, including the procurement of materials such as timber, brick, stone and lime, the supply of workmen and financial matters.17 The lines of both forts were staked out between 30 March and 2 April and work on construction soon began. 1s Several maps and plans, apparently dated to 1669, portray Cockham Wood and Gillingham forts.19 These include 'The River of Chatham 15 A.H. Smith, English Place Name Elements, pt. 1, Cambridge, 1956, 103. 16 PRO WO 51/10. 11 PRO WO47/19A. 1s PRO WO51/10, WO48/9. 19 NMM, GOM 218:8/25, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. 58 COCKRAM WOOD FORT with the new Batteryes made by Sir Bernard Gomme', which also features two other batteries (one of 8 guns and one of 20 guns) on the right bank of the river at the dockyard itself.20 The status of the maps and plans is not clear to the writer but, so far as Cockham Wood and Gillingham Forts are concerned, they show them before completion and contain an element of project planning. These drawings show Cockham Wood Fort adapted to the form of the hillside which sloped down to the river at that point with a line of gun embrasures on the edge of the river, and a second tier at higher level behind, the whole enclosed on its landward sides by a rampart and ditch. At the centre of the rear was a redoubt or tower, on one plan portrayed as square, on another as square fronted by a redan and on a third as diamond shaped. On a fourth plan there were to be two square redoubts at either end of the gorge. In one plan the revetment of the lower lines of guns on the river's edge was sloped and on another it was of near vertical masonry with sloped merlons above. Gillingham Fort on a flat marshy site, was diamond shaped, with the guns in two faces of the diamond laid on the river and in a wing battery extending from its left side. There was also an internal redoubt as at Cockham Wood. With minor alterations to design this is how the two forts were built. A plan of 1698 provides the earliest definitive view of how Cockham Wood Fort wa:s constructed21 (see Fig. 1). From this and other evidence has been drawn a simplified isometric 'bird's eye' view of the fort (Fig. 2). An addition from the plans of 1669 was a small lodge or gunner's house in the north-east angle of the fort, close to its single entrance. The ends of the lower platform were formed into higher and slightly protruding 'bastions'. The initial phase of construction at both Cockham Wood and Gillingham appears to have taken about 5 months, because in August 1669,22 Captain Valentine Pine was ordered to both places to plant guns, even though not all the platforms appear to have been completed for their reception. Work clearly continued and Captain Pine was at both forts again in June, 1670 to lay platforms.23 Payments made in December 1670 to Thomas Wilson covered such costs as bricks, oak and elm timbers, supplies of lime a n d the wages of sawyers, bricklayers, carpenters, smiths and labourers, as well as for specific projects such as the digging of a well, excavation of chalk, stubbing 20 NMM, GOM 218:8/33. 21 BL Royal Ms 43, ff36-8. 22 PRO WO 51/10. 23 PRO WO 51/12. 59 VICTOR T.C. SMITH DEFENCES OF THE CHATHAM ANCHORAGE 0 O SOM lt-wC ►- ,, t. MEDWAY Fig. I. Location map and plan of Cockham Wood Fort in 1698. 60 COCKRAM WOOD FORT COCKHAM WOOD FORT, 1698 Fig. 2. Oblique aerial view of Cockham Wood Fort, as it would have appeared in 1698. and grubbing and the freight of materials for the fort wall.24 There were also payments in this year for repairs to Middleton's and James' Batteries which succeeded the earlier Warham and Bay Batteries, just downstream of Upnor Castle.25 Payments for materials needed for Cockham Wood Fort continued on through to 1675, together with the payment of expenses for supervisory visits by De Gomme and Jonas Moore. The latter was Assistant Surveyor and Surveyor General from November, 1669, and appears to have been administratively responsible for the construction of the forts.26 Moore received £30 in 1670 'for his extraordinary paines and care in looking after ye workes at Sheerness, Gillingham and Cockham Wood this last year.'27 Payments for 1672 included ones for carving works which may refer to special dressing stones and perhaps the coats of arms on the redoubts in the two forts.28 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Information on the relationship between De Gomme and Moore kindly supplied by Mr A.D. Saunders, M.A., F.S.A. 27 PRO WO 51/12. 28 PRO WO 49/218. 61 VICTOR T.C. SMITH An estimate (undated, but perhaps of 1669) gave £1,960 as the cost of building a redoubt at Gillingham Fort and £2,000 for the one at Cockham Wood.29 A document quoted by Presnail indicates that in the summer of 1669 the two redoubts had not yet been started.30 Their function was seen as storehouses and a retreat for the soldiers in case of need. Their obvious role as places of observation with good views downstream was not mentioned. Documentation of that year refers to 'stone redoubts' 31 at both places but the colour coding of illustrations of them in 169832 (and the extant evidence on the site of Cockham Wood) may suggest that they were mainly brick structures with stone cladding and dressings. The structure at Cockham Wood (labelled a blockhouse on the plan) was three-storied, and bastion-shaped with two faces to landward and two flanks, with an entrance from the interior of the fort at ground level. Surmounting the entrance was an ornate coat of arms. Windows at the gorge of the building admitted light to all three stories. The roof was accessed from an internal staircase which emerged next to a flagstaff. There were several positions for light artillery on the roof and projecting sentry boxes on three of the angles. The internal arrangements as built are not known but a plan of 166933 envisaged the ground floor as the room for ammunition and stores, with the second floor the soldiers' lodgings. The function of the 1st floor was then unstated. The redoubt was 10.40 m. (34 ft.) high. The redoubt at Gillingham was square, 11 m. (36 ft.) high and with a plainer coat of arms above its doorway. The drawings of 1698 show the date 1671 on the coats of arms, which perhaps was the date of completion of the redoubts. Whether as new work or repairs, in 1690 boarding of the sides of the embrasures in the lower gun platform at Cockham Wood became necessary, together with brickwork.34 In 1693, the laying (or re-laying) of stone platforms was also called for.35 Added to these, an estimate of 1694 indicated the need for more extensive work, including rebuilding the embrasures of both the upper and lower batteries and for large amounts of planking required for the lower battery as well as palisade work on the land side of the fort. The windows of the powder magazine (presumably in the redoubt) were to be bricked up and repairs carried 29 BLAdd. Ms. 16370f70. 30 Ibid., note 14. 31 /bid., note 29 and NMM 218:8/132. 32 Ibid., note 21. 33 NMM GOM 218: 8/31. 34 PRO WO 49/115. 35 PRO WO 49/117. 62 COCKRAM WOOD FORT out to the gunners' house. Outside the fort, a line of palisades was to be set in the river bank twenty feet out from the wall of the lower battery.36 Equally extensive repairs were recommended for Gillingham Fort.37 Armament In August 1669, the following guns were to be allocated to the two forts:38 Cockham Wood Gillingham 16 Demi-Cannon 19 Culverins 2 Sakers (for the top of the stone redoubt) 8 Demi-Cannon 19 Culverin 10 Demi-Culverin or 6pr. or 8pr. (for the top of the stone redoubt) An abstract of 1680 noted the following gun carriages on site:39 Cockham Wood Gillingham 2 Demi-Cannon 19 Culverins 3 Demi-Culverins 2 6 prs. } 4 Sakers 11 Demi-Cannon 30 Culverin } 10 Demi-Culverin 2 6 prs. standing carriages ship's carriages ship's carriages The first definitive list of guns actually in place forms part of a collection of plans of the Medway defences in 1698.40 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. Cockham Wood 38 PRO WO 47/19A/447. 39 PRO WO 49/112. 40 Ibid., note 21. 16 Demi-Cannon 19 Culverin 3 Demi-Culverin 2 6pr. 4 Sakers 63 Gillingham VICTOR T.C. SMITH 40 Culverins 10 Demi-Culverins 3 6pr 1 3pr Colonel Browne's survey of guns in British forts in 1698-170040• a d d ed 4 S akers to Cockham Wood and gave an armament for Gillingham of: 11 Demi-Cannon 30 Culverin 10 Demi-Culverin 2 6pr 1 3 pr. Both forts had powerful armaments, most of which could be brought to bear on the river. According to a table of ordnance details of 1646,41 the Demi-Cannon had a 155 mm. (6-in.) bore and fired a 12.2 kg. (27 lbs.) shot to a maximum range of about 1.6 kilometres (1 mile). This was among the heaviest guns generally in use on English coastal defence batteries. The Culverin, Demi-Culverin and Saker were lighter weapons and fired 6.8, 4 and 2 . 2 kg. ( 1 5 , 9 and 5 lbs.) shot , respectively. Other forts in the Medway While the new forts of Cockham Wood and Gillingham were under construction, Upnor Castle had begun a new role as a powder magazine and store for guns and carriages. In 1691, it had more gunpowder in store than in any other depot in England but still retained a defensive armament on its river front.42 The two batteries between Upnor and Cockham Wood, called Middleton's and James' suffered extensive periods of decay. There were payments in 167243 for repairs to both places and in 1694 their gun platforms required to be re-laid.44 In the Browne survey Middleton's had 5 Demi-Cannon, 12 Culverins and 1 Demi-Culverin and James' 10 Demi-Cannon. By this date there was also a battery for 26 Culverins on Hoo Ness (at about the site of the nineteenth century Hoo Fort): this 40a PRO WO 55/1736. 41 William Eldred, The Gunner's Glasse, 1646. 42 A.D. Saunders, Upnor Castle, London, 1967, 15. 43 PRO WO 51/12. 44 Ibid., note 35. 64 COCKRAM WOOD FORT work, 1.9 kilometres (1.25 miles) downstream of Gillingham Fort,45 greatly improved the forward defence of the anchorage and had a field of fire of about 1.6 kilometres (1 mile) down Pinup Reach, so that with Cockham Wood and Gillingham Forts, some 4.8 kilometres (3 miles) of the river were covered with fire. At the entrance to the Medway were three batteries at Grain, called Quaker, Middle and Buda Batteries. These were all of earth and had 17 Culverins, 22 Cannon and 12 Culverins, respectively. At Sheerness both on sea and land fronts was a very large armament of 150 guns.46 Both the entrance to the Medway and the near approaches to the anchorage and dockyard at Chatham were thus protected by considerable firepower which, if maintained, would have been able to offer a powerful resistance against an attack of the Dutch Raid type. By 1725 or earlier there were also Galteries at Bishop Marsh and Stoke. 46a The middle years of Cockham Wood Fort As for most coastal and riverine forts and batteries during peacetime, Cockham Wood had a caretaker garrison which may have been augmented from time to time during periods of emergency. In 1715, there was a Master Gunner and 4 ordinary gunners.47 In the extant documentation of gunner establishments for 1728,48 174349 and 175250 there were smaller garrisons of 1 Master Gunner and 1 ordinary gunner. Few domestic details of life at Cockham Wood have survived in the records. In 1732, an Irie Listead of Cockham Wood Fort (presumably the daughter of the Master Gunner or ordinary gunner) married Charles Bell, gunner of HMS Superb. 51 There is also a reference to the sweeping of the chimneys at the fort in early 1743.52 In 1748 there seems to have been just a Master Gunner at the fort who had been given 3 months' leave because of ill-health: there was concern for security of the lead on the roof of the gunners' house as the Master Gunner was ready to leave his post without definite arrangements having been made for a replacement.53 The small stores were inspected 45 Ibid., note 40. 46 Ibid. 460 A plan of the River Medway with the fortifications thereon, 1725. 47 O.F.G. Hogg, English Artillery 1326-1716, Woolwich, 1963, 179. 48 PRO WO 54/200. 49 Army List for 1740. 50 PRO WO 54/211. 51 Information from Councillor D.S. Worsdale. 52 Upnor - Some notes on the Castle and other things, held at Upnor Castle (unpublished) brought to the attention of the writer by Mr C.G. Haysom, B.E.M. 53 Ibid. 55 VICTOR T.C. SMITH annually and while the reports have not survived, there is a record of a minor disagreement between the inspector and the Master Gunner.54 As part of a general programme of disarmament in 1716 following the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, the guns of some of the Medway defences were reduced and others left untouched.55 R eductions: Sheerness Gillingham Upnor Untouched: Cockham Wood H owness James Middleton 150 to 70 guns 54 to 40 guns 37 to 21 guns 44 guns 27 guns 18 guns 10 guns The three batteries at Grain were not mentioned. Instead of a reduction of artillery on a common percentage scale, the reductions and retentions were carefully measured: there were large reductions at Sheerness which still retained a formidable firepower while, except at Gillingham Fort, the defences of the anchorage at Chatham and the dockyard were little touched. By 1725, Cockham Wood had been reduced to 16 X 42 pounder guns and 1 X Saker, but the 42-pounder was the heaviest gun in general use in coastal defences.56 It was the same armament in 1748, and there were then 806 roundshot in store.57 There are two surviving documents concerning the stores of powder in the fort.58 Repairs for Cockham Wood and Gillingham forts were called for and estimated at various times in the decades following 1700, sometimes with small sums of money actually being spent on them. The fort was surveyed in 1715 but the potentially informative report has not survived.59 There is, however, a useful plan which had formed part of it.59a Surveys by Captain Desmaretz and by a Mr Payne in 175760 called for maintenance works within the redoubt and the gunners' house 54 Ibid. 55 PRO PC 2-85. 56 BL Stowe Ms. 482 notified to the writer by Mr C.W. Trollope. 51 Ibid., note 52. 58 Ibid., and PRO WO 49/122. 59 PRO WO 47/20A. 59•PRO MPHH 703. 60 PRO WO 55/2276. 66 COCKHAM WOOD FORT including at the latter place lowering the ground at the back 'to throw the rain water from the walls'. Desmaretz noted his survey to the effect that works ordered to be done that year at Cockham Wood were in hand. A report of 1766 throws a dismal light on Cockham Wood, saying of both that place and Howness, 'There are scarcely any remains of these Forts except the Barracks, which at each place want some little repairs' .6 1 In 1755, the expanding Chatham Dockyard had been protected on its landward side by a line of earthen bastioned defences. The end of Cockham Wood Fort as a battery The document of 1766 included only a 6-pr gun in its armament listing. A report by Colonel Debbieg of 1779 which reviewed the Medway defences did not mention Cockham Wood Fort as a defence position; nor did other reports in the ensuing years.62 In 1797, the historian and topographer Hasted reported the fort to be very ruinous 'with all the guns dismounted and thrown by on the ground, the shot etc lying in the Master Gunner's house nearby.'63 He also described Birdsnest Battery (the name then given to Middleton's Battery) as ruined, without an armament and noted Hooness unarmed. Gillingham Fort, however, continued in use albeit with a reduced armament and, in 1805, had 2 18 pr. guns in position.64 The defences of Sheerness retained a large number of guns and there were also batteries on Grain.65 Chatham Lines, which protected Chatham Dockyard from attack from the land, not only continued but were extended and strengthened during the era of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. Although no longer a defence position, attempts were made to maintain Cockham Wood Fort in a reasonable condition, even if on one occasion materials destined for repairs were stolen from Chatham Dockyard. 66 The fort continued to be occupied by a gunner. As was revealed in 1800, neither the local responsible Royal Engineer nor the Board of Ordnance were certain of the boundaries of the ground which had been originally purchased for building the fort.67 61 PRO SP 41/39. 62 RE Letter Books (Chatham), September, 1779 - February, 1780 and PRO WO 55/2269. 63 Edward Hasted, The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, iii, 1797, Canterbury, 537. 64 K.W. Maurice-Jones, The History of Coast Artillery in the British Army. London, 1959, 96. 65 RE Letter Books (Chatham), May, 1797-September, 1805. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 67 VICTOR T.C. SMITH This was a problem which was to surface on several occasions in the ensuing decades. Boundary stones had certainly existed although they were no longer evident. In 1806, two elderly local men who remembered seeing the stones some 50 years earlier offered to show where they had been. 68 In 1806, the fort was occupied by a Master Gunner and an Invalid Gunner, the former enjoying the use of garden land and wood which had developed within the fort. They are both described as living in a 12.30 m. X 4.60 m. (40 ft. X 15 ft.) two-storied brick building (shown in a plan of 1837) of which foundation traces remain. 69 This was a replacement for the original gunners' house, which had apparently gone out of use, but its date of construction is not yet known. In 1818, both Cockham Wood and Gillingham Forts were offered in leasehold by auction, Gillingham having been finally disarmed several years previously. There were then still Master Gunners at both forts who were to be relocated to other accommodation. Cockham Wood was to be let for 7 years at an annual rent of £25, with parochial and King's taxes to be paid by the Board of Ordnance, together with the cost of repairs. The tenant was to have right to the furze, bramble and brushwood on the premises. A caveat provided for the fort to be surrendered back to the Crown, if required in a period of emergency. 70 The first tenant was David Gardner of Upnor who is mentioned in a document of 1818.71 Some decision had been reached about the delineation of the boundaries which had been marked during the same year on 54 trees by the Royal Engineers' Clerk of Works.72 In 1825, the ground at Cockham Wood was considered to be suitable for excavating to provide brick-earth in the event of the construction of further fortifications at Sheerness. Yet in the same year, the fort was still seen as having some remaining military potential for defence and the Board of Ordnance ordered that the fort should continue to be in Government ownership.73 A proposal in 1836 for the private utilisation of Gillingham Fort worried Lt.-Col. Graydon, RE, who considered that the site should be retained in Government ownership as he thought that it could be used by an enemy as a base of operations against Chatham Lines. 68 RE Letter Books (Chatham) September, 1805 - September, 1807. 69 ibid. 10 PRO WO 44/141. 71 ibid. 72 RE Letter Books (Chatham) January, 1816- December, 1818. 73 RE Letter Books (Chatham), December, 1824 - December, 1826. 68 COCKRAM WOOD FORT William Hodge was the tenant at Cockham Wood in 1831,74 but was succeeded in 1832 by William Nicholson, a local landowner who owned all the land which surrounded the fort. 75 During his tenancy, there had been severe subsidence of the house formerly occupied by the Master Gunner. The Board of Ordnance refused to accept responsibility for repairs as did the tenant.76 By the later 1830s or not long after, the house was demolished. The ground within the fort was in 1837 described as garden ground and coarse pasture land.77 In a Tithe map of 1840 the fort area is described as an orchard, still occupied by Nicholson.78 In 1843, he offered to buy the fort, adding 'In making this request I would beg to observe that the House and Buildings which were on the land were some years since pulled down and the materials sold and that the small remains of the old fort are rapidly decaying and falling down, in short it has become a mere piece of waste ground and I cannot conceive that it should ever again be of any use to the public service.' 79 A Royal Engineers Perambulation Report of 1853 identified Cockham Wood Fort as Board of Ordnance property and commented that 'the brickwork which at present preserves this property from the inroads of the River is being daily undermined and it is recommended that small piles should be driven and clay and ragstone filled in between them and the brickwork.' so The fort did not appear in later Perambulation reports. A War Office map of the Medway dated 1865 shows the fort as just an area of trees.81 Whereas Cockham Wood Fort continued in existence as an unmaintained ruin, Gillingham Fort disappeared as a result of the extension of Chatham Dockyard in the 1860s. Yet, the building of new and powerful defences for rifled guns at Sheerness and Grain during the same period to command the entrance to the Medway and its approaches had also been attended by the construction of replacement batteries for Cockham Wood and Gillingham Forts and Hooness Battery. These took the form of the circular Hoo Fort and Fort Darnet which were the second line of defence to protect the near approaches to the dockyard at Chatham which had acquired greater importance since its enlargement.82 74 RE Letter Books (Chatham), September, 1830-July, 1833. 75 lbid. 76 Ibid. and PRO WO 44/141 and 143. 77 RE Letter Books (Chatham), August, 1835 - October, 1837. 78 CKS, CTR 190A and B. 79 RE Letter Books (Chatham), September, 1842-April, 1844. 80 RE Perambulation Reports, August, 1853 - November, 1885. 81 PRO MR 1307. 82 R. Crowdy, Medway's Island Forts, Medway Military Research Group (undated). 69 VICTOR T.C. SMITH 0 50M I iliiM N+Nf MINN! ....I l"n:'.S'f.J Fig. 3. Plan of Cockham Wood Fort as it presented in 1993. Sometime in the later nineteenth century the fort site was sold to a private purchaser. Towards the end of the century at least it was owned by G.F. Armytage and leased to W.L. Wylie for a time in the early twentieth century when it came into the ownership of the Brice family who still own the site. 83 Around 1910 there were evidently some excavations at the fort but their scope and results are unknown. 84 Photographs of that time show the bastion on the right flank of the fort to survive almost to parapet height. 85 The historian and topographer W. Coles Finch writing in 1929 comments 'the ... gun platforms have completely disappeared owing to the destructive enterprises of hunters for mementoes of the Dutch invasion. ' 86 The f ort w a s Scheduled as an Anc i e nt Monument i n 1 964. D.R. Barnes reported in 197387 that the whole of the front wall of the 83 Information from Mr D.S. Worsdale. 84 W. Munro, 'The Early Defences of the Medway', United Services Magazine, 1910, 611, and K.R. Gulvin, The Medway Forts, undated. 85 Munro op. cit. in note 84, 611. S6 W. Coles Finch, The Medway River and Valley, London, 1929, 194. 87 Information from Mr D.R. Barnes. 70 COCKHAM WOOD FORT PLATE I Revetment of lower battery, 1992 (3 m. pole) right bastion had collapsed onto the shore. At the time of writing (1993) this continues to be vandalised and to be eroded by the river. COCKHAM WOOD FORT TODAY The whole of the fort site survives, albeit with its parts in varying degrees of preservation. At Fig. 3 is a sketch plan of the remains of the fort taken from a prismatic compass and tape survey by the writer in 1993. The most noticeable part is the remnant of the red-brick revetment to the lower gun battery on the river's edge. (Plate I) This displays reinforcement by a number of small buttresses and underpinning of later date. (Plate II) There are also traces of piles and boarding in the river mud in front of these, and a double-line of piles protecting the upstream end of the west bastion, the vestiges of measures to minimise the destructive effects of tidal action on the wall. The substantially eroded curtain between the sites of the two terminating bastions survives to a height of 0.90 to 2.30 m. (3 ft. to 7 ft. 6 in.) with soil behind it; the displaced east bastion is visible as brick traces at beach level which are partially confused by the remains of an old barge: the eastern end of the fort has been so destroyed by the tides that the 71 VICTOR T.C. SMITH PLATE II Buttress and underpinning of revetment to lower battery, 1992 (2 m. pole) PLATE III Brickwork of west bastion, 1992 (4 m. pole) 72 COCKHAM WOOD FORT PLATE IV Counrerforts with slolS for bonding 10 collapsed front face, 1992 Interior of redoubL 1992 (2 m. poles) 73 VICTOR T.C. SMITH ground behind it has been eroded to a distance of 15 m. (49 ft.) Some sections of dislodged brickwork remain among the trees behind this erosion line. Brickwork of the west bastion (5.50 m. (18 ft.) to its highest point) survives nearly to parapet height (Plate III) but much of its front face has collapsed on to the beach where its remains may be seen. The collapse revealed four interior counterforts into the divisions of the arches of which the face of the wall had evidently been bonded, as evidenced by slots in the brickwork to be found there (Plate IV). With small variations the bricks are 216 mm. X 101 mm. X 60 mm. (8½ in. X 4 in. X 2¾ in.) and are laid in English bond. On the beach are several cut blocks of Purbeck stone which originated within the structure of the fort. A layer of flagstones has been exposed in the ground behind the counterforts. Of the defences enclosing the rear of the site, which is overgrown with trees, bushes and plants, the west and north ramparts and ditch are easily traced. The ditch is best seen in winter· months when bush and plant growth dies back. The outline of the redoubt, (Plate V) half way along the north rampart is well defined and its ground floor or subbasement survives in English bond to a height of 1.50 m. (5 ft.). Where the defences turn to form the east rampart and ditch which contained the entrance to the fort the situation is less clear. There are no vestiges of the original gunners' house but foundations probably exist. 10 m. (33 ft.) to the south of its site is a re'ctangular brick-lined shaft, perhaps the top of a well shaft. 8 m. (26 ft. 3 in.) to the south of the redoubt are traces of a brick culvert and the outline of the later gunners' house, which had suffered severely from subsidence in the early nineteenth century. The upper gun lines, which may have been largely of earthen construction, scarcely exist although there is some evidence of a flattish area which may have formed the gun platform. It is not possible to precisely chronicle the progress of deterioration and decay of the fort which has brought it to the present condition. The process of decay had started by the middle of the eighteenth century, less than one hundred years from its construction. The gun lines went unmaintained and the original gunners' house fell out of use to be replaced by a new building, which was itself practically uninhabitable by 1837. A plan of the same year shows the redoubt in broken line which must indicate that it had been demolished,88 but the date when this happened is uncertain. The use of the interior of the fort as garden land and a plantation must have continued the process of decay of the interior profiles. The interior slopes are still visible. 88 PRO MR. 74 COCKRAM WOOD FORT END COMMENT Rather than being a species of any particular form of fortification, Cockham Wood Fort was a basically functional battery adapted to the sloping ground it occupied and located at a place from which its guns could be used to best effect for its defensive purpose. The closely placed and stepped upper and lower batteries concentrated a large amount of fire-power within a compact area. The closely placed nature of the batteries at Cockham Wood may have had safety implications as burning wadding from the guns of the upper battery at Cockham Wood might have fallen on the lower battery, a matter of some anxiety with, necessarily, the presence of gunpowder charges on the platform during an action. The redoubt or tower which was at its rear and the similar structure at Gillingham Fort were unusual features but were paralleled by two tower-like forts designed by De Gomme for the defence of Portsmouth harbour.s9 Two brick redoubts were also designed for Tilbury Fort by De Gomme90 but these were, by comparison, tiny structures of two stories with provision for musketry firing only. Although its enclosure rampart and ditch and the rear-placed redoubt gave a measure of protection to the fort against sudden rush by a landing party, the fort was commanded by adjacent higher ground to the rear and it had a limited self-defence capability. Despite its deteriorated condition, Cockham Wood Fort is a remarkable survival, which urgently needs archaeological investigation, especially of its river front which is under particular risk from river erosion. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer would like to thank Mr A.D. Saunders, M.A., F.S.A., Mr D.R. Barnes, B.Sc., and Mr P. MacDougall, B.A., M.Phil., for reading and commenting upon this paper. Thanks are also due to Mr. C.W. Trollope, for providing a transcript of Colonel Browne's survey of ordnance in 1698-1700, to Councillor D.S. Worsdale and Mr E. St. J. Brice, for various information, and to Mr C.G. Haysom, B.E.M., for access to unpublished notes and transcripts of documents on Upnor Castle and other defences as well as for his comments on stone found at Cockham Wood Fort. 89 A.D. Saunders, op. cit. in note 1, 93. 90 Ibid. 91. 75