Chatham Dockyard (22 page)

Workforce opposition to classification was total and unremitting. Using the petition as the chief weapon in the campaign, the system of petitioning was to be developed and strengthened over the seven-year period in which classification governed the system of wage payment. From a fairly unsophisticated device, albeit frequently supported by considerable organisation, for the simple submission of requests, it was to become the means by which the entire dockyard community was drawn into a major political campaign.
Initial opposition to classification, however, did not give a hint as to this later transformation. Indeed, the earliest petitions from Chatham were fairly unremarkable, emanating from artisans placed in the third class and requesting promotion to a higher class, a concern that for some continued into the late 1830s. This was much to the Admiralty’s liking, indicating a willingness to work within the imposed system. In each case, the Admiralty indicated that promotion was certainly possible but would depend entirely upon their future endeavours. Signs of a more orchestrated campaign began to appear in 1835 when a series of petitions emanated from the various trade groups employed both at Chatham and the other naval dockyards. In all cases, these were fairly general, listing a range of grievances that included the general depression of wages brought about by the loss of piece work and classification. Both the timing of these petitions and the similarity of content show they were the result of considerable organisation. Contact of either a direct verbal nature or through written communication must have been made. Possibly, some form of ad hoc committee might have been formed but there is no direct evidence. The failure of these petitions to move the Admiralty forced the leaders of the campaign to rethink their strategy. Instead, a more imaginative and forceful means of presenting the petition had to be devised. For this reason, in 1836, important allies were recruited into the campaign. Following considerable contact between the various yards, public meetings, towards the end of that year, were held in each of the major dockyard towns. At Chatham, a meeting was held at the Sun Inn during December and was addressed by, among others, William Evenden, a joiner in the second class. After explaining some of the past difficulties faced by those in the dockyard, he directed his attention to the system of classification, with his speech reported in the
Rochester Gazette
:

The advocates for it stated that it was a stimulus for exertion, and he would ask the meeting what necessity there was for this, at a time when they had received a vote of thanks from the Admiralty for their exertions. It was a useless thing – it was an oppressive system – in as much as it deprived a man and his family of many of those comforts of which they had before been partaking. He had said it was a degrading system, and it certainly was so. He would appeal to any present, supposing they had been in the yard 20 years, and were put in the second class – how would they like to see a young man, who had been probably the apprentice, placed in the first class? Would it not be naturally supposed that the aged workman had done something whereby he had disgraced himself?
¹⁹

The petition that was presented to the meeting and subsequently signed, either at the meeting or during the following week, by many thousands of local inhabitants, made it quite clear that the system of classification was primarily opposed because of its divisive nature:

That your memorialists believe the system of classification adopted in His Majesty’s dockyards was introduced with the earnest desire to reward merit and encourage industry, but are fully assured from observation and the testimony of the workmen, that it has signally failed to accomplish this object. They believe that it has created most invidious distinctions amongst the workmen where no difference exists in merit. So much so as to cause in many instances the promotion to be deprecated rather than desired; that it is the cause of continual discord and jealousy, and tends to destroy that unity and good feeling which should at all times subsist between fellow-workmen, and that no beneficial effect has resulted, or can result there from, to the service of His Majesty.
²⁰

However, there was neither a resultant abolition of classification nor an increase offered in wages paid. But this failure does not appear to have undermined the general faith of dockyard artisans and labourers in the value of petitions. Over the next three years petitions continued to be submitted to the Admiralty on a regular basis, some of them from artisan groups while others carried signatures drawn from the wider community. In addition, increased involvement of Members of Parliament is also discernible. Often in attendance at these meetings, they also accompanied delegations of workmen who had been given permission to express their views to the Board in their London offices.

That the campaign to abolish classification was to meet with eventual success was only partly due to the on-going petitioning campaign. More important was increasing Admiralty awareness of the difficulties involved in both retaining and recruiting skilled artisans into the yards. During the latter part of the 1830s increasing numbers had chosen to leave, preferring employment in the private yards or working abroad, the situation reaching a crisis point by about 1839. Aware that something had to be done, Lord Minto, First Lord since 1835, determined on a major gesture to appease the workforce. In April 1840, it was announced that the hated third class would be abolished. Those currently rated to this class would, upon its abolition in January 1841, be raised to the second class. For the workforce, while not a complete victory, it was a move in the right direction. In May 1840 a delegation that consisted of two shipwrights from each yard together with thirteen Members of Parliament, all of them drawn from the dockyard towns, visited the Admiralty. Although a wide range of matters was discussed, including that of low wages, the system of classification was very much at the heart of the meeting. According to the
Rochester Gazette
, the deputation strongly protested ‘against its continuance’.
²¹
Undoubtedly the matter that must have concerned members of the Board was a statement made by one of the deputation from Portsmouth. He strongly urged the necessity of a definite answer:

… as he represented a body of six hundred of excellent workmen as could be found; and added that he did not wish to hold out anything in the shape of a threat, but he would tell his Lordship that 70 of them, and he was amongst the number, had resolved – unless something satisfactory was done – to quit the service, and they could at once obtain employment in a foreign country at double the rate of wages they were now receiving.
²²

While they were given no definite promises, the delegation ‘left the Admiralty with full expectation that something will be done for them’.
²³
It was at the beginning of September 1840 that the Admiralty finally announced an end to classification. For the men at Chatham, the news was given to a deputation of artisans who had waited upon visiting members of
the Admiralty during the annual inspection of the yard. With the ending of classification, the men returned to being paid the day rate, the rates now being adjusted for certain groups. Only in war time, or emergencies, were piece rates to be reintroduced, this taking place at the time of the Russian War (1854–56) and brought to an end shortly afterwards.

A further reform that also came under such criticism that it had to be radically adapted after a relatively short period was the introduction, in 1833, of a specialised dockyard police force. Prior to that year, security within the dockyard at Chatham had been in the hands of porters, warders, watchmen and rounders. Each had a specific role, with the porter usually located at the Main Gate and rounders conducting regular patrols. The warders had general duties, assisting porters during times when men were leaving the yard while holding the keys to various buildings. As for watchmen, they carried out regular patrols of the yard each evening. The number of warders, watchmen and rounders tended to vary, influenced by the availability of a secondary security force, that of a military guard. As for anyone detained on suspicion of having stolen dockyard stores, they were usually brought before the Commissioner of the yard who, as an appointed magistrate, had the right to conduct an examination.

Generally, however, the system did not work particularly well. Whether working with a ‘friendly’ rounder or watchman or not, it seems that certain members of the workforce were particularly adept at smuggling useful items out of the yard. In addition, there are numerous accounts in the dockyard records of stores being taken by those from outside of the yard who simply clambered over the wall at night. Given that members of this loosely organised dockyard security force were frequently chosen from among the workforce and never received any training, it was unlikely to provide a solution to the security needs of such a large and potentially vulnerable industrial complex.

In theory, therefore, the introduction of a uniformed and purposely recruited body should have been a marked improvement over what had gone before. Yet the dockyard police force that first began to operate at Chatham on 26 July 1833 failed to live up
to expectations. Its officers, usually retired naval lieutenants, lacked any training in their new role and were unable to instil any sense of real responsibility into those they employed as constables. As a result, pilfering of dockyard material continued unchecked with the force soon becoming a byword for inefficiency. Certainly this was recognised as early as 1840, when the dockyard police force at Chatham was placed under an efficiency review, with the Board of Admiralty’s Secretary informing the Captain Superintendent at Chatham:

While the No.2 Slip may not have survived the vicissitudes of time, a number of other (albeit later) coverings do survive, with that covering the No.3 Slip (in foreground) being constructed in 1838.

I am commanded by My Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that the Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police intend sending two of their superior officers to Chatham Yard for the purpose of ascertaining what arrangements are necessary for making the police force of the yard more efficient, and I am to signify their Lordships directions to you to afford them every assistance in the prosecution of their enquiry.
²⁴

Despite such efforts, no improvements in the system were discernible, with officers and constables of the dockyard force continuing to perform their duties in an inefficient and lackadaisical manner. Eventually, but not until 1860, this first attempt at the creation of a dedicated dockyard security force was replaced by a separate division of the Metropolitan Police. Serving as clear evidence that those responsible for this new force had little faith in those who had been previously recruited into the earlier dockyard force, very few of the officers and constables were allowed to transfer into the new body.

Despite the failure of many of these reforms, it did not prevent the yard at Chatham taking numerous strides forward and eventually allowing it to become the most important of the naval dockyards for new construction of warships. While the era of reform had not necessarily been the most demanding in terms of vessels built and ships brought in for repair, something else of considerable importance was also occurring. In various ways, the yard was being prepared for a veritable revolution. Alongside those reforms, the yard at Chatham had steadily been moving from an age dominated by wooden-hulled sailing ships to one that would be dominated by steam and ironclads. In comparison, the various reforms and changes undertaken during the first half of the nineteenth century were to pale into insignificance when compared with the changes that were to be brought about during the third quarter of that same century.

7

T
HE
S
HIPBUILDING
R
EVOLUTION

The middle years of the nineteenth century witnessed two major revolutions in warship construction: the introduction of steam as a motive power and the increasing use of iron in the construction process, with the latter culminating in the adoption of armour-plated hulls. As a major warship building yard, it was inevitable that Chatham would be at the forefront of these developments, frequently called upon to both construct radically new types of vessels while modifying those already under construction or about to be launched. Furthermore, it would eventually lead to a massively altered dockyard, with both new types of specialised workshops required and the employment of a workforce with skills significantly different from those required only a few decades earlier.