The Chetney Hill Lazaret

^rcltawltfjjia d^ntiatw THE CHETNEY HILL LAZARET By P. FROGGATT, M.A., M.D., D.P.H. Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Queen's University, Belfast INTRODUCTION CHETNEY HILL is an island of twenty-nine acres in Stangate Creek, 4 miles north-north-west of Sittingbourne. I t is uninhabited and used as pasturage. Early in the nineteenth century a lazaret, i.e. a quarantine establishment, was built on the island, but it was subsequently abandoned and the materials sold for a fraction of their cost. This was the only lazaret built in England, and it was planned to rank with, and even improve on, the great 'lazarettoes' which were a feature of the European trading ports of the Mediterranean. The need for the lazaret, the choice of Chetney Hill for its site, the circumstances leading to its construction, the buildings and their ultimate fate, are the principal subjects of this paper. A brief review of international quarantine is first given. INTERNATIONAL QUARANTINE International quarantine was the enforced detention and segregation of vessels, persons, and merchandise, believed to be infected with certain epidemic diseases, for specified periods at or near ports of disembarkation. It was also observed at land frontiers in time of emergency. It is obsolete and has been replaced by more appropriate systems. It was, however, in varying degrees from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries, the bulwark raised by Europe and Britain against importing certain exotic diseases. It was based on the belief that these diseases are 'contagious', i.e. are spread by contact with an infected person or his effects; and it evolved from the primitive noli-me-tangere attitude which is the logical corollary of contagionist views. The practical expression of this is the strict segregation of the infected and non- 1 THE CHETNEY HILL LAZARET infected, without communication or intercourse, by a cordon sanitaire, until the epidemic has burnt itself out. Life under these conditions is portrayed in the Decameron.1 But this system is impracticable and restricts social and commercial intercourse. Thus a scheme developed where the infected were still shunned, but 'suspected' persons and goods were isolated only for such time as would permit any latent disease to be exposed. For quasi-religious reasons forty days was considered adequate for this revelation; thus quarantine was born.2 Bubonic plague was its great enemy, but later also yellow fever and cholera. Plague originated in Egypt and the Levant. It was therefore at the great ports of the Mediterranean which traded with these countries that quarantine was principally practised. Venice, Genoa, Leghorn, Spezia, Marseilles, Ancona, Messina, and others, all had lazarets sited on some spit or island near the harbour, foreboding and sternly isolated (Plate I). Communication with the mainland was restricted by solemn and bizarre precautions, e.g. approaching the lazaret from windward, wearing special dress, handling letters with long tongs, which made sense then but are now seen to have been mostly unnecessary and irrelevant to safety. QUARANTINE IN BRITAIN Britain was differently placed since she had little direct trade with the Levant. Plague had smouldered in the larger ports, especially London, since the Black Death. 'Plague orders', first proclaimed in 1518,3 were, in Tudor times, more concerned with limiting travel within the country whenever plague deaths increased,4 than in surveilling shipping. Scotland was an exception trading directly with infected ports in the Baltic.5 The formation of the Levant Company shifted the emphasis, and from an Order in Council of 30th July, 16036 regulations at certain ports were sporadically enforced,7 and were backed both by medical 1 G. Boccaccio, The Decameron . . . containing An Hundred Pleasant Novelles, i (1909), London, David Nutt, author's introduction. 2 Forty days was the duration of the great flood and the fast in the wilderness, and had significance in alchemy. 3 F. P. Wilson, The Plague in Shakespeare's London, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1927). 4 'Licence to His Majesties' servants Lawrence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage . . . to exercise the art of playing comedies, tragedies, histories, interludes, morals, pastorals, stage plays and such like, in all towns and universities when the infection of the plague shall decease.' (F. W. Dendy, Extraots from the Privy Seal Dockets relating chiefly to the North of England, May, 1603, Arch. Aeliana, xxiv (1903), 184-228.) 6 J. Ritchie, 'Quarantine for plague in Scotland during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries', Edin. med. J., Iv (1948), 691-701. 6 P. Russell, A Treatise of the Plague, London, G. G. J. and J. Robinson (1791), p. 478. 7 J. Simon, English Sanitary Institutions, 2nd Edn, London, J. Murray (1897), p. 100. 2 THE CHETNEY HILL LAZARET opinion8 and legislation.9 Plague virtually disappeared from England after 1666, and the Government, after thanking God, determined to take all measures to prevent its re-importation. In August, 1709, plague again occurred in the Hanse cities of the Baltic brought by the overland trade with Turkey. Orders in Council were issued. They were repeated in each of the following six months, were backed by Royal Proclamation because they were disobeyed,10 and later by Act of Parliament11 enforced by troops.12 This inaugurated an almost continuous quarantine policy for England. The main provision was for ships from the Baltic to quarantine at temporary sites near the large ports.13 This was a continuation of former expediencies, and in 1720, with plague in France, the Government instructed a London physician, Richard Mead, to devise more efficient methods. Among Mead's recommendations was quarantine 'in lazarettoes near to our several ports, built in convenient places, on little islands, if it can be so, for the reception both of men and goods . . . '14 The duration of quarantine would depend upon whether there was plague during the voyage, the Bill of Health, i.e. foul or clean, given by the Consul at the port of embarkation,15 and whether the goods retained infection, hair, skins and cotton, being deemed especially 'susceptible'. Mead's book was popular but his ideas were not, being restrictive to trade; but they were preferred by the Government to a possible reimportation of plague. They formed the basis for two new Acts,16 one concerned with quarantine the other with smuggling 'from which wicked Practice I should always apprehend more danger of bringing the disease [into the country] than by any other way whatsoever'.14 Because of administrative difficulties and the strength of the commercial lobby, quarantine was enforced only in time of emergency until the Quarantine Act of 1753 initiated a continuous and improved system.17 Nevertheless the principles of quarantine in land lazarets 'after the custom of Italy',18 had been officially accepted in 1721; eighty years passed before the first stone was laid. 8 P. Froggatt, 'The lazaret on Chetney Hill', Med. Hist., viii (1964), 44-62. 9 2 James I, c. 31 (1604). This was not repealed until 7 Will. IV and 1 Vict., c. 91 (1837) but was obsolete for many years. 10 Tudor and Stuart Proclamations, Oxford, i (1910), No. 4492. u 9 Anne c. 2 (1710). 32 Calendar of Treasury Books, 1712, xxvi (pt. 2), 101. 13 These sites were specified in an Order of 31st January, 1712 (ibid., p. 143). 14 R. Mead, A! Discourse on the Plague, 9th Edn., London, A. Millar and J. Brindley (1744), pt. I, chap. 2; pt. II, chap. 1. 15 Bills of Health were frequently incorrect and abused. For an example see: J. Howard, An Account of the Principal Lazarettos in Europe, 2nd. edition London, Jobson, Dilly and Codell (1791), pp. 26-7. 10 7 Geo. I, o. 3 (1721); 8 Geo. I, c. 18 (1722). 17 26 Geo. I I , c. 6 (1753). 18 Directives of the College of Physicians, 1636. (P. Russell, op. cit., p. 318, footnote.) 3 THE CHETNEY HILL LAZARET THE STEPS TO CHETNEY HILL Plague hospitals and leper-houses existed in Britain before the seventeenth century, but they were not lazarets as such.19 Quarantine 'establishments' at ports were sheds used to protect goods and to house attendants.5 In 1663-4, with plague in Holland, Hole Haven on the Thames at Canvey Island, 'in a creek which would receive an hundred vessels . . . and not nearer the city than Tilbury Hope',7 was selected as the quarantine site for London.20 Goods were to be aired on shore in temporary sheds; passengers and crew to remain on board.21 Hole Haven was little used and was later superseded. 'Stangate Creek on the south shore of the Medway, opposite the Isle of Grain, Sharpfleet Creek, and the lower-end of the Hope', was delegated the quarantine site by an Order in Council of 16th September, 1709.22 To contemporary opinion this site was ideal. It was close to the main river yet remote from habitation. It could accommodate many ships. I t was exposed to the 'purifying' effects of the elements. I t was unused for commerce. It was, however, leased to the free fishermen of the Hundred of Middleton for oyster beds which that year they had restocked. Accordingly compensation was paid for the loss of the oyster trade, fishing and boating in the Creek were prohibited, and the substantial number of ships performing quarantine in the 1709-12 emergency (nearly 150 in the first six months of 1712 alone) was successfully accommodated.23 Persons were quarantined on board ship; goods were aired in specially erected sheds at Hoo Fort, three sea miles further up the Medway on the northern banlc.24 There were no cases of plague.25 In the emergencies between 1721 to 1743, although the need for a land lazaret was then recognized by the legislature,26 a compromise was reached; persons were confined on ships in Stangate Creek as previously, but 'susceptible' goods were aired on hired vessels.27 In July, 1743, there was plague in Messina and all Thames-bound ships from the Mediterranean were ordered to Stangate Creek.28 On 19 C. Creighton, A History of Epidemics in Britain, Cambridge, University Press (1891), i, pp. 235, 360-1. 20 Analytical Index to the City [of London] Remembrancia, 1579-1664, Corporation of London (1878), p. 349. This gives 'Moll Haven' as the quarantine site but is a mistranscript from the original document in the Records Office, Guildhall Library, which gives 'HoU Haven'. HoU Haven is almost certainly to be identified with the present Hole Haven. 21 Correspondence between the Privy Council, the Lord Mayor of London, and the Farmers of the Customs, of October, 1663. (J. Simon, op. cit., p. 99.) 22 Calendar of Treasury Books, 1712, xxvi (pt. 2), 217. 28 Ibid. 24 Report from the Select Committee appointed to Consider the Validity of the Doctrine of Contagion in the Plague, 1819 (449) ii, 537. Appendix 3. 20 Ibid. Evidence of Dr. James Johnson. 20 7 Geo. I, c. 3 (1721). 27 Select Committee (1819), op. cit., Appendix 3. 28 P. Russell, op. cit., p. 446. 4 THE CHETNEY HILL LAZARET 27th September the Customs estimated that 'sheds or lazarets for the opening or airing of goods after quarantine performed, and also proper Houses and Centinal Boxes for the persons attending the opening, airing and re-packing . . . '29 would cost £1,672 l i s . Od.30 This sum was authorized by an Order in Council of the 29th;31 but at the same time it was clear to the Privy Council that the quarantine facilities were inadequate for expanding commerce, and 'inconvenient and expensive to the merchant'.32 Further plague outbreaks in Turkey and the proposed alteration in the Levant Company's charter decided the Government on legislative reform, and the construction of a lazaret was reconsidered. On 8th January, 1752, the Admiralty ordered officers to Stangate Creek to 'examine whether there is a piece of ground for building of lazarets',33 and on the 13th reported that the officers 'had found a proper place at the upper end of Stangate Creek'.34 This intelligence was considered by a parliamentary committee to which had been co-opted the assistant to the Master Shipwright, and the Master Attendant of H.M. Dock, both of Deptford.35 On 5th March they reported, deprecating the 'present manner of performing quarantine by airing goods on board Hoys and Vessels', and resolving 'that Chetney Hill . . . is the proper place for a lazaret, . . . and plans and estimates to be prepared and laid before the House'.36 This is the first reference to Chetney Hill as the lazaret site. The Quarantine Act of the following year (1753) anticipated the erection of the lazaret.37 This Act was for an indefinite period, power to expropriate lands for quarantine purposes was vested in Parliament, and arrangements were made for quarantining ships, on which plague had occurred after passing Cape Finisterre, in the Scillies between Tresco and Bryer. (The uninhabited islands of St. Helen's Tean and North Withell were later substituted.38) A further Act required ships with foul Bills of Health, i.e. from infected ports, to quarantine at one of the Mediterranean lazarets, ships with clean Bills of Health, i.e. from non-infected ports, to quarantine at Stangate Creek, and goods to be aired on hulks. These arrangements were temporary pending erection of the lazaret.39 However, building the lazaret was again postponed presumably because the Mediterranean lazaret ports were open to 20 P.R.O., MSS. Tll/22, p. 359. 30 Calendar of Treasury Books and Papers, 1742-1745, p. 317. 31 P.R.O., MSS. Tll/22, p. 359. 32 J.H.C., xxvi, 478. 33 Minutes of the Navy Board, P.R.O., ADM. 106/2564. Under dates. 34 Ibid. Under dates. 36 J.H.C., xxvi, 463. 30 Ibid., xxvi, 478. 37 26 Geo. I I , c. 6 (1753). 38 29 Geo. II, c. 8 (1756). Facts from J.H.C, xxvii, 372-3, 412. 38 26 Geo. I I , c. 18 (1753), sect. 12. 5 THE CHETNEY HILL LAZiVRET British shipping. Some, including Pitt, were dissatisfied with the arrangements since they depended upon foreign facilities. The Lisbon plague of 1757 gave Pitt his chance to press the matter further and he obtained a memorandum on quarantine from Dr. .Alexander RusseU.40 Britain was now at war and the project was shelved until hostilities had ceased. In April, 1764, and January, 1765, plans and estimates of a lazaret were presented to the House.41 Their details are unknown.42 Later in 1765 £5,000 from the Sinking Fund was voted 'towards building a lazaret', the site being unspecified,43 and in 1772 power to purchase land was further extended.44 The way was now clear but work did not start for another thirty years. The reasons for this inertia are complex. The virtual disappearance of plague from Europe and the mounting cost of the Customs service both contributed. But the main reason was the adequacy of the vessels which had served as lazarets since 1755. They were the hulks of two x forty-four gun ships,45 considered fit for no other purpose,46 and eonverted, so that 'from their being roofed and tiled they have a singular and amphibious appearance'.47 Deck-houses to protect merchandise being aired gave them the appearance of Noah's .Arks.48 The sides of these deck-houses were open, 'like a brew-house', for ventilation which could be controlled by shutters; the floors were open gratings. Shingle ballast produced stability at moorings. Each hulk was manned by a crew of twelve or more hands including the Master and Quarantine Guardians.49 Intended as expedients they were functional and economical. There was no great pressure for their replacement. In the 1790s two events produced a new urgency. First, yellow fever in New York threatened to pollute cotton cargoes which had been heavy since the onset of the war with Republican France.50 Quarantine was 40 P. RusseU, op. cit., pp. 438-40. 41 J.H.C, xxix, 967, 1041; xxx, 33. 42 Many unbound Commons' papers of the eighteenth century were lost in the fire at the Houses of Parliament in 1834. 43 5 Geo. I l l , o. 40 (1765), sect. 23. 44 12 Geo. I l l , c. 57 (1772). 46 E. Hasted, History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, 2nd Edn., Canterbury (1797-1801), vi, 34-40. 48 Minutes of the Navy Board, 1764. P.R.O. ADM. 106/2578. 47 S. Ireland, Picturesque Views of the River Medway . . . with Observations on the PubUc Buildings and other Works of Art in its Neighbourhood, London, T. and J. Egerton (1793). 48 J. Evans, quoted in J. O. Murray, The Martial, Medical and Social History of the Port of Rochester, private brochure, unpublished, p. 22. Also—Select Committee (1819), op. cit., John Green's evidence. 49 Select Committee (1819), op. cit., evidence of witnesses; and, The Second Report from the Select Committee appointed to Consider of the Means of Improving and Maintaining the Foreign Trade of the Country, relative to Quarantine, 1824 (417) vi, 164. Appendix F.2. 00 E. Aokernecht, 'Anticontagionism between 1821 and 1867', Bull. Hist. Med., xxii (1948), 662-93. 6 THE CHETNEY HILL LAZARET therefore in 1798 for the first time extended to cover diseases other than plague.51 The second was Napoleon's Italian campaign (1796-7) which had placed most of the principal European lazaret ports in enemy hands, Messina and Malta alone being open to British shipping.52 Already the Levant Company's trade was seriously affected 'due to increased French action in the Mediterranean',53 and in July, 1799 'in order to remove as far as was thought prudent and advisable, the restraints of the Turkey trade . . . ',54 an Act allowed ships with foul Bills of Health to proceed directly to Britain if authorized by an Order in Council.55 These two statutes, and expanding trade, placed a heavy burden on the existing administration. Stangate Greek had never been intended as a foul Bill quarantine station; extra facilities and precautions would be needed. On 14th August, 1799, the Privy Council directed 'two or three old Men of War . . . to be fitted up as Lazarettes . . . and one . . . to be fitted up as an Hospital and . . . an able medical person . . . to examine into the health of the crews and other persons on board the ships arriving from the L e v a n t . . . in like manner as is practised in the best regulated Foreign Lazarettes'.56 These arrangements proved inadequate, and on 25th September the newly-convened advisory committee to the Privy Council considered 'whether if they shall be of the opinion that a hospital or Pesthouse on shore will hereafter be found more convenient and more secure [than hulks] for the purposes before mentioned, and [if so] they are to cause to be prepared a plan of the same'.57 There were, however, fresh considerations. Stangate Creek had been ideal in 1709; now there were doubts. The war had increased activity in the area, and there were prison hulks and prisoner-of-war ships moored in the channel. Further downriver (and downwind, and therefore assumed to be in danger of infection) were tide-breakers at Sheerness occupied by sixty or seventy families.58 Stangate Creek was in fact 'a place of considerable resort and in this respect not so well adapted for a business of this nature [quarantine]'.59 Nevertheless there was no adequate alternative and the House was finally advised on 28th February, 1800 that Chetney Hill should be the lazaret site.60 Events now moved swiftly. On 24th June, plans and estimates prepared by James Wyatt, Surveyor of H.M. Board of Works, were presented to the 01 38 Geo. I l l , c. 33 (1798). 62 J. D. Tully, History of Plague . . . in the Islands of Malta, Gozo, . . ., etc., London, Longman, Hurst, etc. (1821), p. 36. 03 Reports from Committees of the House of Commons, xiii (1803), 769. 04 Ibid. 55 39 Geo. I l l , o. 99 (1799). This was the first occasion, since 1753 that foul Bill ships could quarantine in Britain. «« P.R.O., P.O. 1/44/A160. Under dates. " Ibid. Under date. 08 J. O. Murray, op. cit., pp. 21-2. 00 P.R.O., P.O. 1/44/A160. 00 J.H.O., lv, 244-5. 7 THE CHETNEY HILL LAZARET Commons, and the following day £65,000 was voted from the Consofidated Fund 'for erecting a lazaret on Chetney HiU'.61 A statute of 1st October allowed expenses to be defrayed by levying duties on ships quarantining in Britain,62 and another of 31st December extended these duties to ships bound for the Channel Islands and Man.63 Building now commenced. THE LAZARET'S DESIGN This is not known and the lazaret is no longer standing. Wyatt's plans have not survived in the printed sessional papers of 1800.42 The fire which destroyed the London Custom House in 1814, so completely that 'The whole Custom House is now down except the front wall',64 would have probably accounted for papers lodged with the Customs despite the efforts made to recover documents which had been buried or blown away. (These included the appointment of 'two Inspectors of the River with a sufficient number of Trusty Tidewaiters . . . to assist in saving such Books, Papers, Documents, and other property, as may be dug out of the Ruins'; and the attendance of authorized officers daily 'at the Sign of the Robin Hood and Little John, Hoxton Fields, at the Shoulder of Mutton and Cat, London Fields, Hackney, at the Lamb, Kingsland, and at the Bird Cage, Stanford HiU', to receive any wayward documents.)65 However, some evidence can be adduced of the lazaret's design and structure. The most influential medical members of the advisory committee to the Privy Council of 1799, were Patrick RusseU and Gilbert Blane.66 Both believed implicitly in quarantine. Russell, in addition, had written an authoritative series of books on quarantine, and had clearly stated his views on the superiority of land to floating lazarets, with a plan of an ideal one 'which . . . must be accommodated to circumstances of commerce, as weU as to the various dispositions of the ground on which they [the buUdings] are erected; but the general plan may be nearly the same for all'61 (my italics). The great Marseilles lazaret, of which he had personal experience, was his model. Also, his views were simUar to those 01 Ibid., Iv, 697. 82 39 and 40 Geo. I l l , c. 80 (1800). This repealed 26 Geo. I I , c. 6; 29 Geo. II, c. 8; 12 Geo. I l l , c. 57; 28 Geo. I l l , c. 33; 39 Geo. I l l , c. 99. 63 J.H.C, lv, 911, 913, 921, 930. 64 National Register, 16th February, 1814. 06 R. C. Jarvis, 'Laing's Custom House', Trans. Lond. Middlesex. Arch. Soc. xx(iv) (1961), 1-16. 00 The committee comprised: Four of H.M. Physicians-in-Ordinary; Dr. Patrick Russell, former physician to the British factory at Aleppo; Drs. Johnston and Blane, Commissioners of Sick and Hurt, and another physician; one of the Commissioners of Customs; two members of the quarantine committee of the Levant Company (Reports, 1800 (169) xxviii, 4; P. Froggatt, op. cit.). 67 P. Russell, op. cit., p. 404. 8 PLATE I South view of the Lazaretto in the Gulf of Spezia, [faeep. 8 - 0 Aerial Survey Map of Chetney Hill, showing foundation footings of a considerable building running north-west to south-east. PLATE III Ruined walls standing on Chetney Hill. Photograph taken from Chetney Hill. THE CHETNEY HILL LAZARET of John Howard, his influential lay contemporary, who had wide experience of all the European lazarets, and had published detailed plans of an appropriate one for England.68 I t seems certain that to be accepted Wyatt's plans must have met Russell's (and Howard's) specifications. The lazaret was to be a large, waUed enclosure 'of the most cheerful aspect [with] a spacious and pleasant garden [to be] convenient as well as salutary'.68 The walls 'were not so much intended for the prevention of persons making their escape, as of the clandestine conveyance of goods or small parcels'.69 There would be compartments for airing goods, those with foul Bills being segregated; and a fresh water supply, three infirmaries for 'infected . . . dubious . . . and those convalescent from the plague', separate buildings for passengers depending on their Bill of Health, houses for the superintendent, chaplain, surgeon, stewards and clerks; a laundry, a tavern, porters' and sentinels' lodges, and a parloir. Outside the walls, close to the quay, would be a powder magazine, and a pratique house 'for the reception of captains of ships, when they come to present their patents and letters, and to be examined'. The main enclosure would have three gates, 'one . . . towards the land and two towards the water', these last two having quays for handling goods respectively before and after quarantine. Passengers' quarters were to be in two buildings 'both being provided with a vaulted room for fumigation, and with a bath. Each department should have its separate entry, and other convenience,.. . but as the number of passengers from the Levant is inconsiderable, and the Continent is seldom in quarantine, the buildings proposed need not, at first, be extensive as they may be enlarged afterwards if found necessary.' Also, RusseU was keen to avoid the worst practices of the European lazarets, those of Venice and Syra being notorious but the others being little better. Of the former Howard wrote: 'I was shown to lodgings in the lazaret which was a very dirty room fuU of vermin, and without a table, chair or bed . . . I hoped for better lodgings . . . The apartment now appointed me, consisting of an upper and a lower room, was no less disagreeable and offensive than the former. I preferred lying in the lower room upon a brick floor where I was almost surrounded by water.'70 Of the latter 'where the exactions are monstrous', an eye-witness had seen 'a person come out [from the lazaret] having had his garments devoured by rats, and his person disfigured by vermin'.71 08 J. Howard, op. cit., p. 11. 00 Facts about the lazaret plan from ibid., p. 11 seq., and P. Russell, op. cit., p. 403-08. Quotations from the latter. 70 J. Howard, op. cit., p. 11. 71 J. Bowring, Observations on the Oriental Plague, and on Quarantine as a Means of Arresting its Progress, Edinburgh, G. Tait (1838). Abstracted in Lancet (1838), i, 342-8. 9 THE CHETNEY HILL LAZARET How close the lazaret approached RusseU's and Howard's specifications is not known since seemingly no plans, prints, or pictures, have survived. The trades represented on Wyatt's accounts include 'finishing trades'; thus part at least of the lazaret was completed (see Appendix). Also, maps suggest its size and shape. The 1-inch Ordnance Map of 1819-20 shows three buUdings, one substantial in the centre of the island and two smaUer ones in the north-west, consistent with RusseU's proposals. The 6-inch map of 1864-5 shows none of these; but there are now two buUdings in the south-east, one about 75 ft. by 20 ft., and the other about 20 ft. square. The 6-inch maps of 1896 and 1906 show only the larger of these which by then had lost a projecting block. These may well have been farm buildings.72 The 1947 Aerial Survey Map shows foundation footings of a considerable rectangular buUding running north-west to south-east (Plate II). Regular compartments seem to be set off from a central corridor, again consistent with RusseU's proposals. The composition of additional storeys is not known, but the Marseilles lazaret, the presumed model, was multi-storeyed, as were the other European lazarets. Some fragments of walls are still standing and are locaUy believed to be the remains of a former 'college' (Plate III). The architectural style is unknown. CONSTETJCTION AND PATE Work started in 1801. The first payment, £20,000, was made on 10th November, and by 12th April, 1806, £95,000 had been paid,73 £30,000 above the original provision. Parliament noted the extra in April, 1804.74 A Treasury scrutineer, George Saunders, subsequently debited Wyatt's account £1,258 13s. 6|d. (see Appendix). On 3rd May, 1810, an additional £21,000 was appropriated from the Consolidated Fund.75 This time the accounts were approved.76 Subsequently a further £55,000 was advanced by the Customs.77 Incredibly, after 10 years of work and nearly £200,000 expense, the lazaret was not completed; but there is some doubt as to what extent even its incomplete buUdings were ever actually used for quarantine purposes. Baker says that it was used 'for some years',78 and certainly salaries and disbursements of the lazaret attendants were paid from 1807 to 1820 (although they dropped sharply after 1817), and 'contingent expenses' from 1806 to 1818.79 The 72 The 1842 Tithe and Apportionment is blank. The occupier is William Crayden, Esq.; the usage is pasturage. 73 P.R.O., A.O. 1/2499/434. 74 J.H.C, lix, 233; 44 Geo. I l l , c. 110 (1804). 70 J.H.O., lxv, 581. 70 P.R.O., A.O. 1/2501/448. 77 Select Committee (1824), op. cit., Preamble. 78 S. Baker, The Laws Relating to Quarantine, London, Kegan Paul (1879). 70 Accounts and Papers, 1821 (656) xxi, 337. 10 THE CHETNEY HILL LAZARET evidence taken at the subsequent select committees,80 however, is conflicting and suggests either that the lazaret was not used, or, if used, it was at very reduced capacity. It was certainly never completed, and for the foUowing reasons. The quarantine service was becoming expensive. At London in 1797 quarantine expenses were £558, in 1807 they were £12,000, and in 1815 they were £36,000.81 Although the duties levied under the Quarantine Acts of 1800 and 180182 were to pay for the lazaret's construction, and were adequate for this purpose83 (the expenses of the quarantine service were defrayed from customs duties), the Government wished to avoid additional recurrent expense if there were doubts as to the future need of the lazaret. Such doubts existed. There was growing popular distaste for international quarantine and a weakening in its enforcement on the Continent. I t little suited the needs of war with its restrictions on travel and communication. 'In a lazaret on the Austrian frontier . . . I saw correspondence . . . opened, examined, fumigated, resealed and dispatched. In some lazarets . . . [the letters] are cut across with a sharp instrument and dipped into vinegar and water, so that the writing is rendered frequently illegible.'84 Also, there was a rising tide of anticontagionist, i.e. anti-quarantine, opinion in medical circles.85 Admittedly the Government had forcefuUy reaffirmed its strict quarantine policies in Acts of 1805 and 1806,86 and been supported by all but one of the medical witnesses called at a special committee in 1811 ;87 but these witnesses were a biassed group, and support for quarantine now owed as much to reactionary politics as to a realistic appraisal of the facts. Also, Chetney HiU was not the 'healthy site' which Mead had recommended, being 'the most unhealthy spot in England',88 and 'too unhealthy a situation to be occupied even by a lazaret'.89 But the principal reason was that Chetney Hill, although then as now above the level of the surrounding marshes,90 gave no firm foundation. This became apparent during the building operations. Seemingly the land had been 80 Select Committees (1819 and 1824), op, cit., evidence of witnesses. 81 Reports from Committees of the House of Commons, xiii (1803), 24-5; and Select Committee (1824), op. cit., appendixes. 82 39 and 40 Geo. I l l , c. 80; 41 Geo. I l l , c. 30. 88 The gross receipts ranged from £12,000 to £23,000 during the period 1803-20 Accounts and Papers, 1821 (657) xvii, 301. 84 J. Bowring, Lancet, i (1838), 343. 80 E. Aclcernecht, op. cit. 80 45 Geo. I l l , c. 10 (1805); 46 Geo. I l l , c. 98 (1806). 87 Hansard, 2nd series, xii (1825), 1315. 88 Select Committee (1824), op. cit., Sir William Pym's evidence. 89 C. Maclean, Results of an Investigation respecting Epidemic and Pestilential Diseases . . ., etc. London, Underwood, 1816. Abstracted in London med. Rep., xii (1819), 299. 00 J. Evans, 'The Upchurch marshes in the time of the first Elizabeth', Arch. Cant, lxxvi (1961), 163-8. 11 THE CHETNEY HILL LAZARET incompetently surveyed, presumably Wyatt's responsibUity. The Select Committee of 1824 explained: 'It was, however, discovered before the completion of the buUding that the situation had been injudiciously selected, and the intended Institution was in consequence abandoned and the materials disposed of by order of the Government.'91 A London merchant was more forthright: 'The ground was found to be so marshy that they could not get a foundation or attempt to erect a superstructure upon it.'92 The fate of the buildings completes this tragicomedy and is finked to the coUapse in 1824 of part of the (London) Custom House. The link is Henry Peto, master-builder of Little Britain. When the job of buUding a new Custom House was put out to tender in 1812, the contract was let to Peto and his partner John MUes, a City merchant.93 They finished in 1817, and but for war damage to the (now demolished) east wing the result is essentiaUy the Custom House as it exists today. The story of the buUding operations is of misfortune, incompetence, negligence and inevitable delay, leading later to involved and bitter litigation when an action for fraud, negligence, and breach of contract was taken against Peto and his bond escheated in the sum of £33,000. In 1820 cracks appeared in some arches in the building; in 1823 the roof of the Long Room was found to have sunk; in December, 1824, enough ceUing and flooring in the Long Room had coUapsed to require major construction. During this, second-hand timber and other faulty materials were found in the roof—where only subsequent accident could have disclosed them. These may have been some of the unspecified materials, from the Chetney Hill lazaret, purchased in 1815 by Peto for £1,600 for the stated purpose of using them in the Custom House.94 Without an inventory this must be conjecture, but it seems probable because at this time Peto was under pressure of time and finance, his partner and financier Miles having died in 1814. Additional disposable materials fetched £13,000 by pubhc sale in 1815.94 How far the lazaret was then dismantled is not known, but some 'salaries and disbursements' for attendants at Chetney HUl were paid up untU 1820 (see above). However, floating lazarets were by then mostly re-established with eight vessels in the quarantine service in Stangate Creek alone in 1820.95 The most likely date for its final abandonment is between 1820 and 1824 (when the Select Committee sat).96 Since then the island has reverted to pasturage; foundation lines 91 Select Committee (1824), op. cit., Preamble. 92 Ibid., Mr. Levy's evidence. 93 Unreferenced details concerning the Custom House, from R. C. Jarvis, op. cit. 94 Select Committee (1824), op. cit., Appendix G. 90 Accounts and Papers, 1821 (727) xiv, 190 seq. 96 This agrees with Bagshaw's 'about thirty years ago' (S. Bagshaw, History Gazetteer and Directory of the County of Kent, etc. Sheffield. G. Ridge, ii (1847)). 12 THE CHETNEY HILL LAZARET and remnants of ruined waUs, and the graves of eight 'strangers' in the parish of Iwade,97 are aU that now remain of this unique and costly episode in British preventive medicine. APPENDIX (P.R.O. A.O. 1/2499/434) FINAL ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS OP JAMES WYATT, ESQ., AS SURVEYOR OP H.M. WORKS BETWEEN 5TH JANUARY, 1800 AND 6TH JANUARY, 1812 The Declaration of the final Account of James Wyatt, Esq., late Surveyor of H.M. Works, of money received and expended by him for Works done at the Houses of Parliament, the Speaker's House, the Prisons of the King's Bench, Fleet and Marshalsea, the Journal Office at the House of Commons, the buildings of Somerset Place, the Lazarettoes at Chetney HiU, and the Secretary of State's Office for the War Department in Parliament Street, and also two accounts for works done at the Houses of the Commissioners for victualling, and at the Tax Office, between 5th January, 1800 and 6th January, 1812. CHETNEY HILL 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th January, 1801 to 5th January, 1802 1802 to 5th 1803 to 5th 1804 to 5th 1805 to 5th 1806 to 5th July 1803 1804 1805 1806 1806 Total £20,000 £10,000 £20,000 £15,000 £20,000 £10,000 £95,000 The Accountant is surcharged with the following sums being the amount of disallowances made by George Saunders, Esq., Architect, on the bUls of sundry artificers and labourers . . . ; wliich disaUowances are particularized and prepared . . . by George Saunders, Esq., and transmitted to the Treasury. 97 The burials of seven men and one woman entered as 'strangers' are recorded by name in the parish register of Iwade (which includes Chetney), for Michaelmas 1806 to Michaelmas, 1807. No deaths occurred in the Stangate Creek lazaret hulks at this time, and drowned persons' names are seldom known. The 'strangers' might have been connected with the building. 13 THE CHETNEY HILL LAZARET On the BiU of Geo. Hutchinson, Painter .. .. £1,258 13 6£ On the Accountant's claim for commission at £5 per cent., on the amount of Artificer's BiUs .. .. £100 18 2 PARTICULARIZATION OF CHARGES FOR LAZARETTOES AT CHETNEY HILL Executors of Samual Wyatt, Carpenter Thomas Baker (Carpenter) Richard Martyr (Carpenter) Jeffry Wyatt (Carpenter) Samuel and William Nicholson (Bricklayers) Assignees of Richard Westmacott (Mason) George Hutchinson (Painter) .. Charles Wyatt (Coppersmith) .. James Mackell (Smith) Assignees of John Francis Humber Thomas Ould (Slater) Thomas Lowe (Cooper) John Wyles (Wheelwright) John Clifford (Smith) John Batten (Upholsterer) Henry South (Masterman) Mary Elwood (Coal Merchant) .. Total (Artificers and Labourers) John Sale (Clerk of Works) Expenses of the Accountant in a journey to Chetney HiU to survey the spot, previous to the commencement of the work Accountants Commission (£5%) less overcharging .. Fees on the sum of £95,000 issued to Accountant on the account of the Lazarettoes at Chetney HiU At the Exchequer At the Treasury Stamps and Messengers Duty 6d. per £ on the sum of £20,000 (part of the above sum of £95,000) issued on 10th February, 1803 .. £ 26,450 16,000 14,000 4,000 11,300 4,605 3,950 1,975 960 277 360 2 2 2 717 215 667 £85,485 963 50 5,326 2,376 50 2 s. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 9 0 7 0 11 11 0 1 0 1 19 13 15 d. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 7 0 8 6 1 n 0 H 0 0 0 500 0 0 Grand Total £94,754 9 11 14 THE CHETNEY HILL LAZARET ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my thanks to the Staffs of the House of Lords Record Office, The State Paper Room of the British Museum, the Public Records Office, and the Royal Society of Medicine. Also to the following individuals: Dr. Felix HuU, Kent County Archivist; Mr. T. Armstrong, Town Clerk of the Borough of Dartford; Mr. R. C. Jarvis, Librarian, H.M. Customs and Excise, Dr. WiUiam Urry, Keeper of Manuscripts, Chapter Library, Canterbury, and Mr. A. H. HaU, Librarian, Guildhall Library. This paper could not have been written without the assistance of Miss F. R. E. Davies, Kent County Librarian, and Mr. John Evans, Hon. Editor of this Journal, both of whom went to quite inordinate lengths to supply me with relevant details. Mr. Evans also supplied the map from which Plate I I is taken; Mr. M. Crouch, Deputy County Librarian, Kent, supplied the photograph for Plate III. ABBBBVIATIONS : J.H.C. Journals of the House of Commons; P.R.O. Public Records Office. 15