Chatham Dockyard; Early Leases and Conveyances for its Building during the 16th and 17th Centuries

CHATHAM DOCKYARD ; EARLY LEASES AND CONVEYANCES FOR ITS BUILDING DURING THE 16th AND 17th CENTURIES By FREDERICK CULL, F.R.I.CS. ON the 30th September, 1958, the Admiralty advertised for sale " two contiguous properties " in Chatham known as the Royal Naval Gunwharf and the Royal Marines Medway Barracks. They were subsequently sold to Messrs. WiUiam Palfrey Ltd., Paper Sack Manufacturers who took possession of the properties on the 6th March, 1959. Thus a period of continuous Crown occupation of riverside land on the Medway extending over a period of 400 years came to an end. The Gunwharf extended from a point opposite Chatham Town Hall northwards along the east bank of the river for a distance of about a quarter of a mUe to the old Causeway where a ferry once existed. The Dockyard proper begins here, and originaUy the division between Dockyard and Gunwharf was clean cut and one had to cross water to get from one to the other. Latterly, for about 50 years, one could walk unimpeded from the Gunwharf to the Dockyard. Now, in accordance with the usual practice, a boundary fence has been erected to mark the division between the privately owned Gunwharf and Her Majesty's Dockyard. The latter stretches north and north eastwards into GiUingham sprawling over an area of some 500 acres to the Great Basins and St. Mary's Island, beyond which the River widens into GiUingham Reach. Much valuable information on the early occupation by the Crown of land in the Medway district is obtainable from the old Pipe Office Accounts (stiU in a remarkably fine state of preservation), which can be inspected at the Pubhc Record Office. This system of accounting requked the rendering of a full statement by the Navy Treasurer once a year of aU receipts and disbursements in connection with the maintenance of Her Majesty's Ships and Vessels. The system was tightened up in 1557 when a fixed sum was aUocated to the Navy Treasurer each year out of which he had to pay aU necessary expenses. Benjamin Gonson received £14,000 in the year 1557 and £10,000 the next year. The amount was reduced considerably from year to year during Ehzabeth's reign but the system lasted for about a century. The earliest references in the Pipe Office Accounts to the use of Acknowledgments. PubUshed by permission of the Admiralty. Unpublished Crown Copyright Material in the Public Record Office has been reproduced by permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. 75 CHATHAM DOCKYARD : EARLY LEASES AND CONVEYANCES land or property on the Medway for Naval purposes is in 1547 when it is recorded that the sum of 13s. 4d. was paid for the " hier of storehouses ".1 The entry in that Account is bracketed with three others ; " Depford, Woolwidge, Jilhngham, Colne". This and subsequent Pipe Office Accounts aU refer to " JUlingham " water untU the year 1567 when the name Chatham first appears and has since then given its name not only to the Dockyard but to the naval base adjoining in spite of the fact that more than half of the Yard and the entke naval base are situated in the Borough of GiUingham. The exact location of the storehouses rented in 1547 is not known but from the evidence of the subsequent growth of the Dockyard and of the " stretches " of river used for the berthing of naval vessels during the sixteenth century as shown by ancient maps and drawings, there is httle doubt that it was somewhere on the site of the former Gunwharf and probably near its southern extremity. Subsequent entries appear in various Accounts relating to rent for hke of storehouses, wages, victuaUing and lodging aUowances for workmen, cost of material and so on. The foUowing example is from the year 1560-61. " Also paide by the saide Accomptants for the rentes and hyer of Storehouses for the storage of parte of the said provisions viz. at Depford Strand 105s. JUlingham 60s. 5d. Colne 100s. Extraordinary viz. Harwych 5s. 2d."2 I t is noteworthy that up to the reign of Ehzabeth I the ruling authorities were apparently unable to settle on any convenient anchorage for the permanent mooring of H.M. Ships. Thek choice ranged over Woolwich, Deptford, Erith, Limehouse, Northfleet, Greenwich, Greenhithe, Ratclifie, Barking and elsewhere.3 The first recorded use of the Medway as an anchorage is in the reign of Edward VI when an order dated 8th June 1550 runs as follows : " Ordre was given to the Lord AdmyraU that the Kinges shippes shulde be harborowed in JUlingham Water, saving those that be at Portsmouth, to remaigne there tUl the yere be further spent, for avoiding of aU inconveniences, and that all masters of shippes, gonners and pursers be dischardged except a convenient nombre, tUl the danger of the yere be past, and afterwards to be ordred as it hath been accustomed in time of peace."4 And again on 14th August 1550 : " A lettre to the Lord Admkall to remove the King's Majesties Shippes from Portesmouth to Gillyngeham Water wheare he shall 1 Pipe Office Accounts, No. 2588. 2 ibid., No. 2198. 3 Victoria County History of Kent, Vol. II. 1 Acts of Privy Council. 76 FOR ITS BUILDING DURING THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES take order that they may be calked and grounded, with commandements to take such souldeours as be of the Kinges presently in Sussex and on the sea costes to furnishe them for the more sure conduct of them through the Narrowe Seas."1 From this time forward there is evidence of the growth in popularity of the Medway as a suitable naval base. A variety of reasons have been advanced for this : Fkstly the limited anchorage space at Woolwich and Deptford and secondly the distance of Portsmouth from the centre of Government. That the Medway was considered very suitable for a dockyard is evident from the foUowing extract from Sk WiUiam Monson, writing in the 17th century : " Chatham is so safe and secure a port for the ships to ride in that H.M. Navy may better ride with a hawser in Chatham than with a cable at Portsmouth. The reason for the long continuance of the Navy at Chatham is the convenience of docks and all other places for the commodity of ships. Chatham is near to London and may be supphed thence with aU things necessary for the ships. The water at Chatham flows sufficiently every spring tide for even the greatest ships to be graved. No wind or weather can endanger the coming home of an anchor at Chatham and the river affords sufficient space for every ship to ride without overcrowding."2 Repairs and refitting continued at Chatham and in 1567 in addition to the hire of storehouses a house was rented for the use of officers in respect of which the following entry appears :3 " Also the said Accomptante is allowed for money by him paide within the tyme of this Accompte for the Rentes and hire of certeyne storehouses and Tymber yardes for the stowage and safekeping of the provisions aforesaide and for the rente of a house wherein the Officers of the Marine Causes doe mete and confere togethere of the weightie affaires of the said Office viz. at JUlingham 7L 18s. 4d." I t is possible that the house referred to was the " HUl House " situated to the north of Chatham Parish Church and referred to in later documents, but this is doubtful. I t is unlikely that any major work of shipbuUding was done on the Medway prior to 1547 and there is no evidence for the suggestion made in a recent History of Chatham4 that the " The Great Harry " was bmlt on or near the site of the present Gunwharf. " The Great Harry " was the popular name given to the first two-decked ship built 1 Aots of Privy Council. 2 Naval Tracts of Monson (Vol. V). 3 Pipe Office Accounts, No. 2204. 4 Presnail. 77 CHATHAM DOCKYARD : EARLY LEASES AND CONVEYANCES ItlttU ] MlP 1 <& m 78 FOR ITS BUILDING DURING THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES KEY TO NUMBERS INSERTED ON PRINT OF JAMES ALMOND'S PLAN OF 1685 1. Hill House (or the Pay House). 2. Approximate position of present Main Gate. 3. Present Dock Road (a roadway laid out along this route about 1620 to give access to new Dockyard extension.) 3a. Site of former Medway Barracks (partly demolished). . 4. Former Gunwharf. 4a. Old Causeway marking northern extremity of Gunwharf. 5. Cordage Storehouse. 6. Spinning House. 7. Rope Walk. 8. Storehouse for Tar. 8a. The " Anchor Forge". 9. Another Cordage Storehouse. 10. Clerk of Ropeyard's Office. 11. Boat Yard and Houses. 12. Gatehouse. 13. Officer's Stables. 14. Residences (3). 15. Residences (approx. 10). 16. Storehouses. 17. Double Dock. 18. Single Docks. 19. Slip. 20. Old Mast House. 21. Tar House. 22. Old Dockyard Wall (demolished 1719) (approx. line of rear wall of present Dockyard Terrace). 23. Old Chalk Pit (corner of present Westcourt Street). 24. Deal Yard. 26. Approximate line of present Dockyard Wall. The descriptions are taken from a Dockyard plan of 1698. The leases and subsequent purchase from the Dean & Chapter of Rochester probably referred to the enclosure described as " New Dockyard ". The area is approximately 9 acres. The boundary stones referred to in the Commissioner's letter to the Navy Board of 22nd February 1695 appear to be approximately those of the enclosure marked " Old Dockyard " e.g. " The Ropemaker's Office " is possibly the building desoribed as " Clerk of the Ropeyard's Office " (10) and the " Plank Yard "is possibly the " Deal Yard " (24). The approximate area of the enclosure as far inland as buildings nos. (16) and (15) is again 9 acres. Caesar and Higgins claimed ownership of 3 acres only. The figures after the names of the ships, indicate depths of water in feet. Although a " scale of perches " is shown in plan the distances are inaccurate and should be regarded as approximate only. 79 OHATHAM DOCKYARD : EARLY LEASES AND CONVEYANCES in England. She had three masts and is said to have been constructed in the year 1488 in the reign of Henry VII. Considered by some authorities to have been the first ship of the Royal Navy (although Richard III may have owned a few of the ships wliich he employed), she is believed to have been accidentaUy destroyed by fire at Woolwich in 1553.1 WhUst it is not definitely known where she was constructed, it is impossible to beheve that such a major work could have been carried out in the 15th century on the Medway without leaving a trace and without any reference being made to the use of the land on the Medway for naval purposes prior to 1547. From the latter date aU the evidence points to the gradual increase in the use of the Medway for naval storage and refitting of ships untU with the accession of Ehzabeth (1558-1603) and the shift of the danger area from France to the Netherlands a noted impetus is given to the work of constructing new accommodation and fortifications. In 1560 Orders were given for the construction of Upnor Castle ("a certain bulwark be made at Upnoar ") to Richard Watts of Rochester, paymaster, purveyor and clerk of the works of the said fortifications."2 The site was apparently not purchased untU 1568 and the appropriate entry in the Account reads : " Also the said Accomptante is allowed for money by hym paide within the tyme of the Accompte to Thomas Devenyshe of Frinsbury in the County of Kent for certeyne grounde of him boughte to the Queen's Mat0 conteyning five acres or thereaboutes whereuppon her highness hathe caused to be builded her Castell of Upnoar . . . 25L."3 In 1571 more ground was rented at Chatham and a Wharf was buUt in 1580 which was 378 feet long, 40 feet wide and cost 5 shUlings a foot.4 The temper of the times may be gauged from the appointment of a Commission by Ehzabeth in 1583 consisting of Burghley, Walsingham, Howard, Drake and Frobisher to examine into the condition of ships and stores and so to organize the yards at Portsmouth and Chatham that a squadron could be held ready for sea if suddenly caUed for.5 The whole Navy was to be overhauled and repaired. The charges for its future maintenance were divided into ordinary and extraordinary. The latter included the buUding of wharves, sheds and storehouses and also of new ships, of which it was then decided that one at least must every year be added to the Fleet. Construction of this kind was done by contract. 1 James (Naval History (1826)). * Add MSS. 5752. 3 Pipe Office Account, No. 2204. 4 Oppenheim. « Froude, Vol. XII. 80 FOR ITS BUILDING DURING THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES Shortly after this time, in 1586, we find the first reference to a new ship having been built at Chatham. The relevant entry in the Pipe Office Account1 reads : " Also aUowed to the said Accomptant for Money by him disbursed for newe Shippes and Pinnaces buUded or otherwise altered within the time of the Accompte etc . . . . (Then foUows eight entries for ships made or refitted at Woolwich, Limehouse and Deptford). " To the same Mathewe Baker, her Mata Shippewrighte for a newe pinnace by him made for her highness at Chatham named the Sunne of 48 foote in length and 13 foote in breadth, the findinge the charge of all stuffe and workemanshippe, ptnent to ye same 150L." With the accession of James I (1603-1625) Deptford was stUl the principal Yard but Chatham was rapidly gaining in importance. Portsmouth is hardly mentioned. On a reorganization in 1618 a new body caUed the Navy Commissioners was appointed and from then dates the commencement of the present Dockyard. The Commissioners paid special attention to further development of land on the Medway. A new double dock was constructed and a waU built round the newly extended yard. About this time we have the first evidence of land being held on lease by the Commissioners, who were the forerunners of the present Admiralty. To quote from the relevant Account: " Sir Robert Jackson Kt. for the rent of certaine grounds caUed Lords Lands contaigning by estymation 71 acres . . . part whereof is used for the newe dockyard and rope waie part for a bryeke and lyme kylne and part for waies to the Docks and kylns at £14 p.a. half a year ended at Christmas 1622 . . . £7."2 Bracketed with the above are entries in respect of the rent of a house at Chatham from Sk GuUdford Slingsbie Kt . at 40 shUlings per annum (the " HUl House " above mentioned) ; a rent of 13/4 to Robert Yeardlie for a house for " laying upp of provisions ", a rent of 20/- to Jeffrey Baxter for " certaine grounds whereon storehouses are buUded " and a rent of 15/- to Peter Burke for " certaine marish grounds adjoining to the newe Dock Yard wherein Dockes are made to laie Mastes in." The total area in fact taken over on lease at this time by the Admkalty was approximately 80 acres3 the boundaries of which may be seen on the map of 1708 (Fig. 2) described as a " Survey of the Land lying near Her Majesty's Dock Yard at Chatham taken in order to make a Design for fortifying the same ". The parcels of land marked " The Queen's " together with the 1 Pipe Office Accounts, No. 2223. 2 Ibid., No. 2588. 3 Ibid., No. 2257. 81 JirStuMi Mi-Xquv MrJtMOS VrSOutS MrZyn \ x,^ MrXoqa* **S2S» JirKeyrs MrXyot Hrxeaas UMJIWAU •jlaQiuiKS WaJbncC JUtQjuuX j ^-OL UuNatyTjanCs JUrHtyts Sub of &o'yards l,M,l,,„f 3* 2! Htg- i Jl Sunty cftktXfud. fyuy tuarHjrMajesty* —r httic^o/cL tt CtiatUon. tab*, in, eftUrXffmwe A baiQu. fbr-jbftifyfy the stuHt -jhtHO t]o8 SaltMank.} FIG. 2. This plan of 1708 appears to have been drawn freehand and shows the approximate position of the Land Wall, Chatham Parish Church, Hill House, Dock Road and the village of Brompton. The present Dockyard main gate dates from 1710. O H CD FOR ITS BUILDING DURING THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES Dockyard (" Navy Yards ") make up about 80 acres and aU of this land, with the sohtary exception of the part forming the old gunwharf and R.M. Barracks sold in 1959, is stUl Crown Property. The date upon which the lease from Sk Robert Jackson of 71 acres was converted to freehold remains obscure there being no known conveyance in existence. The remaining 9 acres was acquked from the Dean and Chapter of Rochester and a further 3 acres from Alice Caesar owner of the Manor of Westcourt, in ckcumstances to be described later. Sk Guilford Shngsby the owner of HUl House was appointed ComptroUer of the Navy under Charles in February 1628. He appears to have been somewhat difficult to work with as it is recorded that John Wells, storekeeper of the Navy petitioned that although the other Officers had aUocated him lodgings in the Navy Office, Slingsby, to accommodate his famUy and servants " hath violently taken his lodgings from him ",1 In 1629 his colleagues complained to the Lords Commissioners that he had feUed with a pocket pistol, and otherwise maltreated the man in charge of the Navy Office, and kept him out of the house, notwithstanding thek wish to reinstate him ".2 Slingsby died in 1632. The purpose of the lease from Sk Robert Jackson was evidently to obtain possession of land for major dockyard extension. Part of it was used for the construction of a new dock, part for a ropehouse and part for brick and hme kilns.3 A path 137 rods long was made to it from Chatham Church (i.e. the present Dock Road). A plan4 by one James Almond " philomath " dated May 1685 indicates the layout of the " Docks, Storehouses, Castles and Forts " then existing and gives a fakly clear idea of the land then held most of wliich seems to have been comprised in the lease of 1618. The double drydock is shown together with three single docks, a boat shp, a boat yard, spinning house, " ropewaUc ", and a number of misceUaneous houses and buUdings including HUl House, Chatham Parish Church and the roadway above mentioned. The earhest evidence of ownership by the Admiralty which I have been able to trace is contained in an " Abstract of Lease " dated 10th September 1649, from the Admkalty to Richard Isaackson at an annual rent of £18 for a term of 21 years. The foUowing is a description of the property leased : "SCHEDULE AU that piece or parceU of ground being part of the ground commonly called the Old Dock situate and being in the Parish of 1 S.P.D., CXXXV, 37. 2 S.P.D., CLII, 51. 3 Pipe Office Accounts, 2260. 1 See Fig. 1. 83 CHATHAM DOCKYARD : EARLY LEASES AND CONVEYANCES Chatham aforesaid extending from the fence and pales belonging to a yard or backside belonging to or used with the Watermill commonly caUed Chatham MUl to the Cottage tenement or dwelling house hereafter mentioned to .be demised and aU the said cottage tenement or dwelling house wherein Thomas Hemson nowe dweUeth one great Storehouse one Bargehouse and . . . edifices and buUdings standing and being in and upon part of the said piece or parcel of ground together with the Dock being near the WatermiU aforesaid and aU the Wharfes, keyes, easements commodities . . . appurts whatsoever to the said pieces or parcel of ground dwelling house, storehouse and other the said premises belonging or in anywise appertaining and aU that garden plot nowe or late in the . . . tenure or occupation of Atway Widowe and free hberty way and passage ingress and regress into and from the said piece or parcel of the Old Dock aforesaid and o ther , . . premises into by through over and from the other part and residue of the ground and yard caUed the Old Dock aforesaid as weU on foot as on horseback with horses cattle carts and carriages and other . . . as weU loaden and unloaden at aU tyme and tymes during the term of years expressed at the free will and pleasure of the said Richard Isaackson his executors administrators and assigns and hberty to dig and lay such pipe and pipes of lead under ground as he or they shaU from tyme to tyme think fit for the carrying and conveying of water from the pipes of lead in or at the house in Chatham . . . commonly caUed the Pay House to any part or parts of the demised premises for his and thek use or uses there."1 The Pay House mentioned in the last clause appears from a later document dated 1750 to be another name for HiU House. The land and property described in the Schedule probably covered a considerable area judging by the rent of £18 per annum and the description of the buUdings (" one great storehouse " etc.). The MiU Pond attached to the Water MiU mentioned at the beginning of the schedule is shown on early maps of the area immediately adjoining the Old Dock and forming part of the site of the former War Department Gunwharf.2 The old " land wall" mentioned by Hasted in his description of the locahty was situated immediately to the landward side of the pond and behind that the Marsh later to be fined in and developed along which is now known as The Brook.3 Richard Isaackson, to whom the land was leased, was possibly a contractor. It is recorded of him that in August 1655 he undertook the gUding and painting of two second rates at £120 each. The figure- 1 Admiralty Lands Records. 2 Recently sold to Chatham Corporation. 3 See Fig. 2. 84 FOR ITS BUILDING DURING THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES head, arms on stern, and two figures on the stern galley were to be gilt and the hull was to be painted black, picked out in gold where carved.1 The land which was the subject of the lease, however, does not appear to have been used in connection with ship repaks or painting since in the survey taken by the Parhamentary Authorities in 1652 of Royal Estates, it is recorded that Isaackson had spent " £300 or upwards " on a " maulting house ". With an efficiency reminiscent of a modern lands office, the " Improvements " were valued at £14 per annum payable at the expiration of the lease. When Isaackson took over the land in 1649 it was said to be "lying waste and of no use to ye officers of ye navye for many years past".2 (Hasted in a footnote to page 72 Vol. II, incorrectly refers to the lessee as " John Isaacs ".) The reign of Charles I (1625-1649) marked a period of neglect and disorganization in the Dockyard and the conflict between King and Parhament brought work almost to a standstUl and caused great hardship locaUy and encouraged crime. In 1629 Edisbury the Treasurer pointed out that " great waste and theft existed, many famUies living in the Dockyard everyone almost being a dkector of his own work for want of some able understanding man to regulate the inferiors as it was while the Commissioners had the government ".3 The advent of the Commonwealth brought an immediate expansion in English naval power. Whereas under Charles construction of ships was limited to a paltry one or two a year, under the Commonwealth they were ordered almost by the dozen and in 1654 twenty-two men of war left the shps. However, corruption at Chatham apparently continued in which the famous Pett family played a notable part. Money from Parliament became tight again and in 1666 there was a deficit of £800,000. A decision was taken to lay up the fleet and there foUowed in June 1667 the audacious raid in the Medway by the Dutch Admkal de Ruyter. A detailed description of the action is contained in Archceologia Cantiana, Vol. LXV illustrating the state of unpreparedness into which the Dockyard had then fallen. There is no evidence of any major Dockyard development foUowing the extensions made during the period 1618 to 1623 untU year 1684-5 when correspondence between the Navy Board and Mr. Secretary Pepys took place on negotiations with the Dean and Chapter of Roohester for a lease of certain additional land on which new docks were being constructed. The approximate location can be seen on Almond's plan of 1685 described as " New Dock Yard " upon which 1 Oppenheim. 2 Parliamentary Surveys (Kent) E.317/13. 3 S.P.D., CXLIII, 37. 85 10 CHATHAM DOCKYARD : EARLY LEASES AND CONVEYANCES are indicated two new single docks. The land had a river frontage and was situated nearly opposite the present Dockyard Terrace. The foUowing letter on the subject is the earliest recorded :x For the Honbl6 Sam1. Pepys Esq10. His Ma'7'8 Secretary for the Admiralty Navy Office 10 March 1684/5 Sk, In pursuance of what was mentioned when this board last waited on his May at the Treasury Chambers concerning the securing (as much as may be), to His Maty a Title to the Ground adjoining to his May's Yard at Chatham wherein a New Single Dry Dock is now buUding for his Service. We have made enquky both into the title which Mr. Lawrence hath of the said Ground, and also the Termes upon which the King at present Holds the same of him ; and as to Mr. Lawrence's Title, we do find that he holds the said Ground by Lease from the Deane & Chapter of the Cathedrall Church at Rochester in the 25th Yeare of ye late King Charles the Second which lease he acquaints us he Renewed with the said Dene and Chapter in the yeare 1681 for the terme of twenty one yeares, whereof, seventeen yeares and about four months is yet to come. We do also find remaining in this Office, Articles of Agreement (bearing date the 31st of March 1677), made between Mr. Lawrance on the one part, and the Principall Officers and Cm" of his May° Navy on the behalfe of the King, on the other part, whereby the said Mr. Lawrance doth seU, assign and set over unto His May His heires Successors and Assigns, aU his Right, Title and Interest in the aforesaid Ground, for the consideration of the Sume of Two hundred and forty pounds, to be paid him by the King ; and until the said Sume should be paid, he agrees to accept of the Rent of Nineteen pounds a Yeare. Which sume of two hundred and forty pounds having not hitherto been paid Mr. Lawrance, the said Rent of Nineteen pounds per annum is continued to him. By what is before mentioned, it appears that whensoever, the King shaU think fitting to cause to be paid the aforesaid sume of Two hundred and forty pounds His May will be Secured of Mr. Lawrance's Title to this Ground; and as to the procuring of His May any further Title thereunto from the Church of Rochester, This Board doe not conceive themselves' capable of advising therein, But humbly Submitt the same to such Resolutions as His May (upon advise of his Learned CounseU in the Lawes) shaU 1 Navy Board Letters (Admiralty Papers). See also Fig. 1. 86 FOR ITS BUILDING DURING THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES thinke fitting to take concerning it. Which praying you to represent unto his May. We remain, Sr Yr very humble Servants Rt. Haddock P. Libbetts John Narbrough P. Pett J. Sotherne Then foUows a shorter letter from the Board to Mr. Secretary Pepys, apparently answering a query, to the effect that the sum of £240 was intended to be over and above the rent of £19 a year, which rent was to cease when the £240 was paid " without deducting out of that sume any of the rent which before the payment thereof Mr. Lawrance shaU have received of the King ". An agreement between Joseph Lawrance, shipwright, and the King foUowed on the 31st March of which the following is an Abstract.1 The Agreement Recites a lease dated 8th March 1662 which refers to : " all that piece or parceU of marsh ground containing by estimation seven acres parcell of the said nine acres, be the same more or less whereof was then lately inned with a Mast Dock and other the appurtenances situate lying and being in the Parish of Chatham aforesaid and then in the tenure or occupation of him the said Joseph Lawrance his assignee or assignees and boundeth on the lands of the said King's Majty there towards the East North and South and to the River of Medway West formerly demised to Peter Pett Esq™ under such Covenants Provisions and Exceptions as in the said Indenture are mentioned and expressed." " Item, the said Joseph Lawrance doth for himself his Executors and administrators Covenant promise grant and agree to and with our said Sovereigne Lord the King his heirs and successors by those presents. That the said Joseph Lawrance shaU and will accept of the Rent or Sume of Nineteen pounds to be paid yearly and every yeare by half yearly payments (that is to say) untill his said Maty or the Rt. HonWo his MayB PrincipaU Officers and Commr8 of his said Mays Navy shall please to pay the said sume of two hundred and forty pounds ". " Subject to the payments referred to It shall and may be lawful to and for our said Sovering Lord the King his heks. To have hold occupy possesse and enjoy the said nine acres and premises with the lease or leases thereof and to receive have and take the full and whole benefit and advantage of the said pieces or parceUs of marsh ground and the Mast Dock aforesaid and other the premises in the said recited Indenture of Lease mentioned to be demised and granted with the appurts to him the said Joseph 1 Navy Board Letters (Admiralty Papers). 87 CHATHAM DOCKYARD : EARLY LEASES AND CONVEYANCES Lawrance or any Person or Persons claiming under him etc. etc. " I t appears from a subsequent letter to the Navy Board dated 29th June 1694 from Sk E. Gregory, Commissioner of the Dockyard that the King preferred to pay £19 a year to Lawrance rather than the compounding sum of £240 and that Mr. Lawrance himself was not an entkely satisfactory lessee of the Dean and Chapter. The letter also shows the close and cordial relationship at the time between the Dockyard and Cathedral Authorities i1 Chatham 29th June 1694 " Rt. Honourable, " After the tyde last night had obliged our messenger to be gone hence towards Gravesend, Mr. Dean of Rochester and the Prebs his brethren gave me a surprising visit on purpose to acknowledge your civility to them and to acquaint me how Mr. Lawrance for sundry years past had been too hard for the Church and since I am a stranger to the agreement your honors have made with him and consequently ignorant of what mony is now to be pay'd to him for the assignment of his Lease I wish to be not too tight also upon you But that I submit to your wisdom It being at present my business to acquaint you with the substance of my conference last night with the Dean and Chapter who unanimously declared that they are most ready to gratify the Commissioners of the Navy by granting imediatly a Licence of alienation to thek present tenant Mr. Lawrance to transfer the right of his lease to thek Majesty's Provided the said Comm" wUl be pleased by some act or minute of thek's remaining on record in thek Office (Copy whereof they humbly request) secure the usual rent payable yearly to the Church of Rochester for seven acres of Marsh ground lying in Chatham and now improved by two new Docks buUt thereon for thek Majesty's service, and also promise that at the end of every seven years upon renewale of the Lease such a fine shaU be paid as for the future would have been requked from Mr. Lawrance himself in proportion to the rent of £19 per arm he received for 9 acres of land from the Crown. Tho the Dean & Chapter are very sensible of the great improvement that has been made since ye year 1684 yet in duty to thek Majesty's and in regard to the pubhck good they do not pretend to make any particular advantage thereof. But are mightily pleased that they are in a probabihty of having to do with men of honour and integrity. From whom the Church need fear no harm in the diminuation of any of her rights which have been some years curtaUed by Mr. Lawrances indue management. 1 Navy Board Letters (Admiralty Papers). 88 FOR ITS BUILDING DURING THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES That you may know the whole of your charge in this affak you wUl on the other side find a faithful abstract wherein are enumerated the particulars to a penny and by adding those to the sum now payable to Mr. Lawrance it wiU quickly be seen how good a bargain that Gentlemen does afford you. I have on this occasion caused our Clerk of the Cheque to overhaul his books from ye Restoration of the Monarchy to our time who gives me account from the year 1660 to Lady Day 1674 the King paid to Peter Pett Esq' £4 10s. p. annum. Then Mr. Lawrance purchasing it from Mr. Pett or his Executor the said sum was paid to him to Micl'mass 1674 when it was advanced to £12 and so continue till Midsummer 1677 and then raised to the present sum of £19 per annum. Thus I think that business is set before your honours in a true light. And the favour woh Mr. Dean and his Brethren beg of you is a quick return to their proposaU heareing mentioned because thek auditt wUl have a speedy period. I am (sd) E. Gregory " Particulars of the Charge payable by thek Majesty's if the right of Mr. Lawrances Lease be transfer'd to them £ s. d. The annual rent is .. . . 90 The \ yearly acquittances .. .. .. 8 The fine certain every 7th year .. .. 15 0 0 To the Chapter Clerk of registring and engrossing the Lease each 7th year .. .. .. 2 0 0 To the Dean & Chapter for ye seal .. .. 13 4 To the Register Clerk 2 6 To the Verger 10 Total 18 6 6 I t is gathered from a further letter dated 19th October 1694 that the land was by then purchased from Mr. Joseph Lawrence. The letter, which is in the nature of an instruction from Sk E. Gregory to Clerk of the Cheque at Chatham reads as foUows : " Whereas thek Majesty's have lately purchased of Mr. Joseph Lawrance his right to the March Land wherein the New Docks at this place are dug and the said land being held by lease from the Dean & Chapter of the City of Rochester there is an annual rent payable to them for the same. These are to pay and requke you (pursuant to the Navy Board's deskes signified to me in their letter of the 15th currt.) to cause the rent formerly aUowed Mr. 89 CHATHAM DOCKYARD : EARLY LEASES AND CONVEYANCES Lawrence on the Quarter Books to cease at Michaelmas 1694 and the rent of nine shillings per annum now to be allowed to the said Dean & Chapter to commence the . . . of October 1694, placing upon each of the Quarter Books the sum of 2 shUlings and 3d for the said rent, with an addition of 4d on Lady Quarter and the same on Mich"8 Quarter of each year being for two acquittances which the Receiver for the Church wUl give for the moneys and this shall warrant your so doing. Sd. E. GREGORY To the Clerk of Cheque of Thek Majesty's Yard at Chatham." The same land appears again in later documents. The existing lease from the Dean and Chapter was surrendered in 1698 and a new one entered into for 21 years at " yearly rent nine shUlings at the feasts of the Nativity of our Lord Christ and St. John the Baptist. Tenants to Maintain and keep repaked the Docks Masthouses and other appurts, and the fences and to pay and discharge aU taxes etc.". On 26th AprU 1805 reference to the land again appears in a lease to " Sk Andrew Snape Hammond Comptr and Henry Duncan Dept. Comptr, Sk John Henslow Knight and Sir WiUiam Rule, Knight, Surveyor, and Chas. Hope, Commr " at a yearly rent of nine shihings, Tenants to maintain and keep repaked the Docks etc. etc." Finally on 24th December 1805 the land was conveyed by the Dean and Chapter to the Admkalty for the sum of £648.-1 This represents £72 per acre a price not far removed from the present value of undeveloped marsh land on the riverside. Before the end of the 17th century and for some years after the turn of the century the petition of Alice Caesar (in wliich she was later joined by her husband John Higgins), claiming title to three acres of Dockyard land immediately adjoining and to the south of the 9 acres above referred to appears to have taken up a vast amount of official time. The. land contained a number of the principal dockyard buUdings in addition to two docks and a slipway and one can imagine that the petition must have caused some consternation at the Treasury. Ahce Caesar owned the Manor of Westcourt in the parish of GiUingham. According to Hasted (second edition Vol. IV, p. 568) : " Sk Richard Leveson in 1627 conveyed it (Westcourt), to John Duling gent, who by wUl in 1638 gave it to his daughter Elizabeth Salmon and she conveyed it in 1651 to George Bower Esq. the Executors of whose widow, Anne Bower, past it away in 1661 to Augustine Caesar MD of Rochester who by wiU in 1677 1 Admiralty Lands Records. 90 FOR ITS BUILDING DURING THE 16TH AND 17TH - CENTURIES gave it to Ahce his wife for hfe and afterwards to his nephew Augustine (son of his brother Joseph Caesar), and Ahce his wife and the survivor of them. They left four daughters and co-heks Joane, Margaret, Mary and Ahce. Ahce wife of Augustme Caesar surviving him married John Higgins gent, and they jointly with her four daughters and co-heks of her former husband in 1698 conveyed it to Thomas Rogers gent and anno 10 WUham III an Act passed for vesting the absolute fee and inheritance of this manor in him." The name " Irene " occurs in place of " Joane " in later references to this famUy and is more likely to be correct. Hasted's initial reference to the Caesars (Vol. IV, p. 232, 2nd. edition) is incorrect and he corrects himself later as above quoted. The last named owner, Thomas Rogers is probably the " Mr. Rogers " indicated on the plan (Fig. 2) as the owner of a number of parcels of land in the neighbourhood of the vUlage of Brompton and adjoining the Queen's land. The original petition is dated March 14th, 1695-6 but the matter had obviously been raised earlier as some local investigation into the claim had been made by the Dockyard Commissioner as shown by a letter from Commissioner Sk E. Gregory to Mr. Whittaker, Solicitor dated 22nd February 1695 which provides some valuable second hand information on the growth of the Dockyard during the 17th century. The text is as follows -1 "Sk, This ownes the receipt of yours of the 15th since which I have taken occasion to discourse with the oldest men now living in these parts from whom aU that I can learn amounts only to what follows. Tis most certain that the Crown has been in possession of the land wherein the Yard is buUt for near 80 years, 74 whereof have revolved since it was finished. Tis very probable from aU that I can collect from my conferences with these aged sparkes that the land whereon this Yard and Docks now stand was formerly the property of Sk WiUiam Butler, Baronet, then Lord of the Manor of Chatham and of John Duling gentleman, then living at his seat caUed West Court in the parish of GUlingham. In certain there is yet a great stone under our Master Ropemaker's Office window marked J.D. I am assured there was another near our Blockmaker's Shopp a third at the head of the Double Dock which I have often seen and sat upon, a fourth close by the Storehouse and a fifth without the Plank Yard Gate near to the Brick waU wliich were aU sayd to be 1 Treasury Papers (XXXVI) (54). See also Fig. I. 91 CHATHAM DOCKYARD : EARLY LEASES AND CONVEYANCES bound stones marking out the land of John Holding an aged Smith that has wrought about sixty three years in this his Majestys Yard, he says that when he was a youth he remembers to have heard severale elderly men say that King James the 1st purchased the said marsh land of John Duling before mentioned and that Sk WiUiam Butler being then of the Bedchamber to the said King James made a present to his Majesty of that land of his upon which the Yard now stands. Mr. Richard Burton affirms that having occasion not many years ago to search the Fke Office for some other matters he was informed that in the year or thereabout there was a Fine levyd by Sk WiUiam Butler for two wharfs two Storehouses and ten messuages in the parish of Chatham St. Mary which in aU probabihty must relate to the ground upon which the King's Yard and Docks now stand (as he believes) by the Crown of the said Sk WUliam Butler, or it may be given as in before asserted. In a word aU things relating to these affaks seem to be very dark and obscure. For the old gentleman above mentioned can affirm nothing with any sort of certainty. Only they all agree that the King (whom God preserve) is Chief Lord of the Manor of GiUingham whereof Mr. Chas. DaUison of Chatham, attorney is Steward and to whom I pray leave to refer you for a further account thereof. They say, that though there be sundry reputed Manors in Gillingham yet they aU pay quit rent to the King as Chief Lord of the Fee particularly West Court now in possession of the Widow Caesar pay 40" a year to his Majesty. If any good can be made of this advice, or anything else that I have sayd, I doubt not but you wUl industriously improve it to his Magesty's best advantage, though I am troubled to find that our friends at the Navy House can give no other account of the King's title but a long possession. I am Sk Your very humble Servant (Sd.) E. GREGORY Mr. Whittaker, Solicitor." The claim was pursued with great persistence and in 1705-6 we find it referred to the Lord High Treasurer with aU the relevant documents. These are briefly as foUows i1 (1) A petition of John Higgins gent in right of Alice his wife formerly Alice Caesar. (2) A lengthy report of the Surveyor General dated 18 June 1 Treasury Papers XCVII. 92 FOR ITS BUILDING DURING THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES 1700 from which it appears that the question of title had been in litigation since 1692. The claim made was for recompense for three acres of land wherein the Docks and buUdings were placed. No fewer than 16 witnesses were examined in 1695 and 1696 and a precis of thek evidence given. In 1699 an Order in CouncU referred it to the Attorney General. His report stated that the buUdings were erected in the time of Jas. I and the evidence as to title goes back to the year 1627 when Sk R. Leveson Knt. of the Bath sold to John Duling of Rochester gent in consideration of £1060 the Manor of Westcourt with the site and very many parcels of land in Gillingham and 3 acres of silt and fresh marsh in Chatham at or near the King's new Docks there late in the occupation of Pet. Buck Esq. (3) Order in CouncU dated 22 Feb. 1699 referring the petition and At. Genel report to the Commrs of Treasury. (4) The Attorney Gen"1 report dated 3 Feb. 1699. He said it did not appear to him that the inheritance of the 3 acres claimed was ever conveyed to H.M.'s predecessors. (5) Another petition of Ahce Caesar, alias Higgins for the deposition to be heard by the Admkalty and to report thek opinion. (6) Report of Sk E. Northey Att. Gen dated 7th August 1703 on the previous reports and evidence and the deeds and depositions. In addition he had caused Mr. Lechmore to survey the Docks and land there. His (the Att. Gen.) opinion was that the petitioners appeared to have a title to the 3 acres of marsh land in Chatham and it was probable that those 3 acres were in Chatham Docks. The suit if carried on would be doubtful and as the title of the Docks was of great consequence it would be a charity to the petit"' to put an end to this intricate question, it would be for Her Majesty's service to give the petitioners reasonable satisfaction. (7) Copy of Mr. Lechmore's letter to the Commrs. of the Navy sending copies of his report. He considered the claim groundless and that Her Majesty had an undoubted title to the premises and every part thereof Dated 15th Jan. 1702. (9) Letter from J. Higgins to Mr. Lowndes. He and his wife were wUling to convey to Her Majesty the land for principal and interest of £2500 to be computed from A.D. 1656 with reasonable charges they having spent £1000 and upwards prosecuting the suit. Dated 25th July 1704. 93 CHATHAM DOCKYARD : EARLY LEASES AND CONVEYANCES- (10) Letter from the same to the same. If the claim were not settled they wUl be obhged to seU to a private " hand " who would endeavour to exact the utmost improved value from the Crown. Dated 31st July 1704. (11) The petition of John Higgins gent, Ahce his wife and four daughters referring the whole matter to his Lordship. (12) Mr. Higgins case. It might modestly be presumed that above £100,000 had been laid out on the land, the fuU advantage whereof belonged to the owner of the soil. After spending £1000 in several years in prosecuting his right he submitted his case to his Lordship. There are two minutes on the back, the last of which is 25th Feb. 1705. The Commissioners say a statement of this case has been made by Mr. Lechmore which shows the petitioner has no Color of Title. The Cmmrs. are to send a copy of that case. The foUowing further reference to the case appear in later Treasury Papers : April 22 1707-081 Report of the Att. General (Northey) and the Surveyor Gen. (Travers) to the Lord High Treasurer on the petition of Mr. Higgins his wife and children relating to 3 acres of ground claimed by them within the dock at Chatham and also upon two reports relating to the petitioner's title to the same. They had considered the reports and perused the deeds produced by the petitioners and discussed with the petitioners and after several meetings brought them to take for thek pretentions £4000 viz. £1200 to Mr. Higgins and his wife and £700 apiece for the four daughters which they thought reasonable to quit Her Majesty's title and possession and to prevent the consequences of a trial of the right to the three acres, the buUdings on the same (if the three acres should be found to be within the Dock) being of very great value and the lands a very useful part of the Docks. The petitioners to convey the same to Her Majesty. Dated 22nd AprU 1717. Minuted 21st May 1707. My lord agrees to this. Also an abstract of the reports of Ld. Chief Justice Trevor Mr. Surveyor Gen. Travers, Mr. Att. General Sk E. Northey on the same matter. About Aug 25th HOI2 Petition of J. Higgins gent. Alice his wife and her four daughters viz. Irene, Margaret, Mary, Ahce Caesar to the Ld. High Treasurer, 1 Treasury Papers, Vol. CI. » Ibid., Vol. CH. 94 FOR ITS BUILDING DURING THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES asking him to dkect the Commrs. of the Navy to make out bUls forthwith for the purchase money (£4000) as apportioned by the Attorney General for their interest in 3 acres of land in Chatham Docks. Minuted "Read 25 Aug. 1707. Let Mr. Att. Gen. certify that the distributions agreed to are as set forth in his petition and then your letter to the Navy may be altered accordingly." A conveyance was duly completed, dated 25th July 1707 from John Higgins and other to Queen Anne of" all those three acres be the same more or less of fresh marsh and salt marsh situate lying and being in the Parish of Chatham " etc. etc. for the sum of £4000. Thus, aUowing £1000 for expenses incurred in prosecuting thek claim, Higgins his wife and her daughters received payment at the net rate of £1000 per acre, surely a handsome sum for " fresh marsh and salt marsh ". One might have thought the family would then have retked, satisfied. But no. A further entry appears in the records dated " about October 29th 1707 "1 " Petition of Irene, Margaret, Mary and Alice Caesar, daughters and heirs of Augustine Caesar late of Rochester, doctor of physic, to the Lord High Treasurer Praying payment of interest on purchase money agreed on for part of Chatham Docks." John Higgins and his wife are not mentioned in this petition. They evidently had had enough litigation. One can only hope that the daughters, foUowing the example of persistence set by thek mother and stepfather, received thek just reward. 1 Treasury Papers, Vol. GUI. 95