shipwright apprentices

Shipwright Apprentices in theMid-Eighteenth Century

A Social History of Apprentice Shipwrights in the Royal Dockyards

in the Mid-Eighteenth Century

Submitted by George William Gillibrand-Stephenson to the University of Exeter as a

dissertation towards the degree of Master of Arts by advanced study in Maritime History,

September 2008.

I certify that all the material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been

identified and that no material is included for which a degree has previously been

conferred upon me.

Signed:

George William Gillibrand-Stephenson

: Title Page

Shipwright Apprentices in the Mid-Eighteenth Century

Abstract

The apprenticeship of a shipwright was a seven year period whereby a servant was legally

bound to a master to learn his craft. No direct payment was made to the servant: the

master had to provide board and lodging, clothes and tools of the trade. The relationship

between master and servant could be described as being similar to a marriage, whereby

both parties had obligations to each other which had to be fulfilled. I have therefore

chosen phrases from the Solemnization of Marriage to give chapter headings for the

various themes that arose from the research.

Chapter 1, '... from this day forward ...', looks at the types of application made to the Navy

Board seeking permission to take on an apprentice. Only the right sort of man was

granted a warrant by the Navy Board, provided his officers were in agreement.

Chapter 2, '... for better for worse ...', looks at apprentices good and bad behaviour.

Misbehaviour includes idleness and insubordination, but what of other misdemeanours?

With the transfer of men between dockyards, it was not always easy to keep track of the

appropriate records.

Chapter 3, '... for richer for poorer ...', looks at changes in financial circumstances and how

these affected both master and servant. The Navy Board paid wages quarterly, one

quarter in arrears. As the masters' fortunes changed, the boys' indentures were often sold

to pay debts, and thereby transferring the servant to a new master.

Chapter 4, '... in sickness and in health ...' looks at the provision of healthcare in the

dockyards. The absence of an apprentice from work through injury or illness meant loss of

income. But there was a rudimentary scheme for compensation in place.

A psalm is always sung at wedding, so the title for Chapter 5 is from Psalm 119 verse 141:

'I am small, and of no reputation: ...'. In wartime, there was plenty of work in the

dockyards. But when peace came, rules governing apprentices' numbers would be cut to

limit expenditure. Whilst some men were retained, this meant either famine or feast for

either master or servant. The apprentice was often powerless against authority.

: Abstract


Table of Contents

Page

Tables & Illustrations 4

Introduction 5

Chapter 1: “... from this day forward ...” 11

Chapter 2: “... for better for worse ...” 21

Chapter 3: “... for richer for poorer ...” 32

Chapter 4: “... in sickness and in health ...” 41

Chapter 5: “I am small, and of no reputation ...” 50

Conclusion 61

Glossary 65

Bibliography 67

: Contents


List of Tables & Illustrations

Reference Title or description Page

Table 5.1 Shipwrights and servants entered inChatham dockyard, 1736/7 51

Table 5.2 Numbers of shipwrights and servantsin Royal Dockyards, November 1747 57

Table 5.3 Numbers of shipwrights and servants andallowances in accordance with Navy BoardEstablishments 57

Fig. 5.1 ADM 106/897/57r; shipwrights and servantsentered in Chatham dockyard, 1736/7 52

Fig. 5.2 ADM 106/897/57v; shipwrights and servantsentered in Chatham dockyard, 1736/7 53

: Tables & Illustrations


Introduction

This dissertation is a social history of shipwright apprentices in the mid-eighteenth century.

Whilst there has been much written concerning apprentices in secondary sources, these

have tended to be from the viewpoint of the authorities; histories 'from the top down'. This

work has largely been researched from sources as close to the apprentices' own words as

possible. Hence, the major primary sources chosen for this research project have been

the letters written to the Navy Board from the various protagonists. These people were the

dockyard officers, shipwrights, carpenters1, their wives and widows, and on occasions the

apprentices themselves. This correspondence is now stored in The National Archives at

Kew, London. The letters and petitions researched are catalogued amongst the ADM 106

series of items; the Navy Board In-Letters.

In addition to the above correspondence, the most important contemporary account

relating to a shipwright's apprenticeship is the autobiography of Mary Lacy, published in

1773. Mary Lacy was born in Wickham, Kent in January 1740. At the age of nineteen she

ran away to sea, disguised as a boy, taking the name 'William Chandler'. She served on

board the Sandwich as servant to the carpenter and eventually became indentured in

Portsmouth dockyard as an apprentice shipwright in March 1763, aged twenty-three. She

completed her apprenticeship in 1770, aged thirty. Due to ill health and finally having been

revealed as a woman, she left Portsmouth and successfully petitioned the Admiralty for a

pension of twenty pounds a year. She claimed to have married Mr. Slade, the Master

Shipwright at Deptford, and published her autobiography under that surname in 1773.2

This text is important as it is almost entirely the account of her apprenticeship, particularly

how she lived under conditions of hardship. However, it does not go into great detail about

her practical experiences at work, although some of the more unusual occurrences appear

throughout the book. Mary's text has been summarized as the final chapter of Suzanne

1 In this dissertation, a carpenter is a shipwright working on board ship in the Royal Navy. The other trade was designated 'house carpenter' and is outside the scope of this work.

2 Slade, M., The History of the Female Shipwright; to Whom the government Has Granted a Superannuated Pension of Twenty Pounds per Annum, during Her Life: Written by Herself (London, 1773) (hereafter Slade), pp. 14-18 & 77-84 & 183-191; Guillery, P., 'The Further Adventures of Mary Lacy: “Seaman”, Shipwright, Builder', History Workshop Journal, No. 49 (2000) (hereafter Guillery), pp. 212-220; Stark, S. J., Female Tars: Women aboard ship in the age of sail (London, 1998) (hereafter Stark), pp. 125-167.

: Introduction


Stark's Female Tars: Women Aboard Ship in the Age of Sail (London, 1998).3 However,

Stark was looking from the perspective of a researcher of women's history and may have

missed the fact that Mary Lacy's autobiography is mainly an account of her apprenticeship

as a shipwright.

Other relevant contemporary autobiographies of shipwrights exist; one is to be found at the

Royal Institution, Truro, Cornwall in the Courtney Library. This is the Thomas Furse Family

Memoirs (1767-1838), written between 1834-38. The author, Thomas Furse, was an

apprentice shipwright in Mevagissey, Cornwall. Several years later, he entered Plymouth

yard for a period, enlisting in October 1798.4 Furse mentions little of his apprenticeship

compared to Mary Lacy, and was writing of a later date than the majority of material

researched. However, what he has written compares favourably with the story of Mary

Lacy, which has far greater relevance. Autobiographies from shipwrights who trained and

worked in private shipyards have not survived in any number. Consequently, there is

insufficient material with which to make a detailed study of the differences in

apprenticeship between private and naval yards. This dissertation will, therefore,

concentrate on shipwright apprentices within the Royal dockyards.

Other literary sources on shipwrights and apprentices are rare. Of importance are the

transcriptions by D. J. Rowe of The Records of the Company of Shipwrights of Newcastle-

upon-Tyne 1622-1967, published in two volumes by the Surtees Society.5 These texts give

details of the company's rules and accounts in volume one, and list members and officers

of the company in volume two. Whilst of great interest as to how that company of

shipwrights was regulated and who were members by apprenticeship, these texts are not

supported with any other supplementary records. There are no other business records or

accounts from any shipyard in the Newcastle-upon-Tyne archives that coincide with these

records, or the period of this research to be of any value. Most other works on

shipbuilding of the eighteenth century do not go into sufficient detail with respect to

shipwrights or their apprentices. Examples are A. J. Holland's two works; Ships of British

3 Stark, pp. 125-167.4 Thomas Furse Family Memoirs (1767-1838), written 1834-38, pp. 12-14 & 27-29.5 Rowe, D. J. (ed.), The Records of the Company of Shipwrights of Newcastle-upon-Tyne 1622-1967, 2

Vols (Gateshead, 1970 & 1971).

: Introduction


Oak (Newton Abbot, 1971)6 and Buckler's Hard (Emsworth, 1985)7. These two works only

briefly mention shipwrights and apprentices. This is not surprising as such works as these,

although using some pertinent primary sources, cover their subject matter in general

terms.

Whilst there has been a wealth of material published on naval administration and dockyard

management, no social history of any dockyard artificers has so far been written. Their

apprentices have been completely ignored from the point of view of social history.

Apprenticeship in general has been discussed by Joan Lane in her Apprenticeship in

England, 1600-1914 (London, 1996). Lane looked at apprentices across a wide range of

trades and crafts throughout England, but there are only a couple of references to

apprentice shipwrights.8 Where apprentices do appear in the secondary sources, they are

discussed either from an administrative viewpoint or as troublemakers. This may be due

to the degree of interest that has been shown in naval administration. This interest

produces a 'from the top down' view of dockyard history and is not surprising, given the

administrative archives that survive.

For this research project, the majority of the archival material used was almost exclusively

found within the records of the Navy Board. It has been the intention of this author to

endeavour to get as close to the actual apprentices as possible. In order to achieve this,

one needs to consider the route that paperwork would take to ask a question and to obtain

an answer. This communications route starts with a letter to the Navy Board, to which an

answer in the form of a warrant to the respective dockyard officer is the end result. By

limiting the paper trail to the lower echelons of naval administration, this author has been

able to produce a 'history from below' with respect to the relationship between a shipwright

and his apprentice.

During the collation of results for this dissertation, five themes arose from the research.

These themes covered different aspects of the servants' apprenticeship or master-and-

servant relationship. The relationship between a master (in our case a shipwright or

6 Holland, A. J., Ships of British Oak: The Rise and Decline of Wooden Shipbuilding in Hampshire (Newton Abbot, 1971).

7 Holland, A. J., Buckler's Hard: a rural shipbuilding centre (Emsworth, 1985).8 Lane, J., Apprenticeship in England 1600-1914 (London, 1996) (hereafter Lane), pp. 17 & 113.

: Introduction


carpenter) and his apprentice (or servant, to use the language of the Navy Board) was

legally binding for seven years. During those years, both parties had legal obligations

towards one another. The apprentice received no money directly for his labour from his

master; this was paid to the shipwright who supported his apprentice throughout the entire

seven years of servitude. The apprentice had to live with his master, who would provide

for his servant's needs; food, clothing, lodging and tools. In return, the servant had to

obey his master in order to learn his craft. These legal obligations became manifest in the

form of a contract. It is this contract, known as an indenture, that can be likened to a

marriage between master and servant. Consequently, I have chosen phrases from The

Book of Common Prayer: 'The Solemnization of Matrimony' as chapter headings to

describe the themes of my findings.

The first chapter, entitled “... from this day forward, ...”9, covers the start of the

apprenticeship. How a boy became an apprentice shipwright and examples of indentures

are discussed. When a shipwright or carpenter wished to take on an apprentice, he

petitioned the Navy Board for a warrant to be issued to the officers of the dockyard in

which he served. Examples of these petitions survive in large numbers within the archives

of the Navy Board, consequently only the more unusual cases are examined in detail.

These petitions give us an insight into the types of persons the Navy Board favoured, for to

have an apprentice was a privilege. Of interest is the case of 'William Chandler', who was

indentured in Portsmouth yard in 1763. He, in fact, was Mary Lacy who concealed her

true identity throughout a total of twelve years service.10

Chapter two, entitled “... for better for worse, ...”11, discusses good and bad behaviour of

apprentice shipwrights. Apprentices have been involved in many dockyard disturbances

throughout history, but these are not discussed here. What will be discussed are the

effects of behaviour specifically on the master-and-servant relationship. The well-behaved

apprentice could expect to be entered into the dockyard books on successfully completing

his apprenticeship. The badly behaved apprentice could expect to be discharged

immediately.

9 Various Authors, 'The Solemnization of Matrimony', The Book of Common Prayer (1662) (hereafter BCP (1662)), p. 190. n.b. page numbers may vary between different reprints.

10 Slade, pp. i-iv.11 BCP (1662), p. 190.

: Introduction


The third chapter, entitled “... for richer for poorer, ...”12, looks at what effect changes in

fortune had on shipwrights and their apprentices. The Navy Board paid its workforce

quarterly, one quarter in arrears. Consequently, living on credit was the norm for large

sections of dockyard communities. Shipwrights who overstretched their credit often

mortgaged their apprentices' indentures either to borrow money or in an attempt to clear

debts. According to Mary Lacy's account of her apprenticeship, she often went barefoot

and without food as her various masters' financial problems became manifest.

Chapter four, entitled “... in sickness and in health, ...”13 gives examples of attempts by the

authorities to provide basic healthcare. If an apprentice became ill or injured, his master

stood to lose wages for his servant. However, if a medical certificate could be obtained

from the dockyard surgeon, the Navy Board allowed payment of wages for time off sick.

Mary Lacy's experience on board the Sandwich show how rapidly conditions of hygiene

declined, even on a ship's first cruise. In contrast, she was cared for under much better

conditions in the newly opened Haslar hospital. Apprentices suffered illnesses and

injuries, varying from smallpox to falls and spinal injuries. Not all were treatable. Most

shipwrights appeared to be more concerned about loss of wages than their servants' well

being, according to the records that survive. However, there was a system of

compensation similar to 'statutory sick pay' for those injured in the course of their work.

During the Solemnization of Matrimony, after a bride and groom have exchanged vows

and received a blessing, a Psalm is usually sung in celebration of the marriage. For the

title of chapter five, I have chosen verse 141 from Psalm 119: “I am small, and of no

reputation: ...”. The verse concludes, “yet do I not forget thy commandments”.14 What this

means in terms of the subject matter is that shipwright apprentices were affected by

reductions in Navy Board expenditure. As naval finances varied between wartime and

peacetime, changes in regulations governing allowances of servants would affect family

circumstances. The rules had to be obeyed, in order to save money, and the apprentice

shipwright was compromised when he was laid off only part way through his

apprenticeship. So, at the lowest level of the skilled workforce, the shipwright apprentice

12 BCP (1662), p. 190.13 BCP (1662), p. 190.14 BCP (1662), Psalm 119, verse 141, p. 322.

: Introduction


was very vulnerable to the wax and wane of the Government dockyard establishment.

The paradox is that the dockyards, and British Naval Power, were dependent on the

training of apprentices. This dissertation examines the main features of this training.

: Introduction


Chapter 1

“... from this day forward ...”

On 31st March 1768, Alexander Peter, carpenter to His Majesty's Ship Mars indentured

John Collings as an apprentice shipwright. According to the surviving employer's half of

this contract, young John was

... to learn his Art; and with him, after the manner of an Apprentice, to serve from the Twenty-first day of January last past unto the full End and Term of Seven Years from thence next following, to be fully complete and ended. During which Term, the said Apprentice his said Master shall faithfully shall serve, his Secrets keep, his lawful Commands every where gladly do.1

The apprentice, known as a servant in the language of the Navy Board, was also bound

over not to cause any damage to his master's or others' property and was not permitted by

law to marry, gamble, buy or sell anything, and

... shall not haunt Taverns, or Playhouses, nor absent himself from his said Master's Service Day or Night unlawfully: But in all Things as a faithful Apprentice, he shall behave himself towards his said Master, and all his, during the said Term.2

This first half of the document sets out the servant's contractual obligations. The second

half gives details of Alexander Peter's obligations towards John Collings. The whole item

consists of a pre-printed form where a clerk can enter handwritten clauses pertinent to the

specific requirements of the indenture. Continuing, we read that Mr. Peter has indentured

... his said Apprentice in the same Art of a Shipwright which he useth, by the best Means that he can, shall teach and instruct, or cause to be taught and instructed, finding unto his said Apprentice The Provisions and Lodging allowed by the King to a Servant in Ordinary during his servitude therein. And when he is Entered in any of His Majesty's Yards then he is to be Boarded by his Father ... who are also to find him Apparell of all Sorts, Washing and Mending the same during the whole Term and In Consideration whereof the Master is to allow ... Ten Pounds a year from the Expiration of One year & half after the Date of such Entry in the Yards ... and also find the said Apprentice in Tools during the whole Term.

1 Devon Record Office (hereafter DRO): 4187M/E264, first paragraph. Printed document: italics indicate insertions in manuscript. Throughout the text, all eighteenth century abbreviations will be typed out in full and all original spellings will be maintained.

2 DRO: 4187M/E264, end first paragraph.

: Chapter 1


And for the true Performance of all and every the said Covenants and Agreements, either of the said Parties bindeth himself unto the other by these Presents.3

At the foot of the document, John Collings, who could not write his name, has left his mark

along with the signatures of his father, Robert Collings, and two witnesses. This contract

was drawn up by a solicitor who was also the agent for collecting the stamp duty payable

at the rate of sixpence in the pound. As four shillings and sixpence was paid, John's father

paid Alexander Peter nine pounds as a premium to indenture his son.

Two years later, Mr. Peter also indentured Thomas Negus under the same terms and

conditions, and for the same premium.4 Each of these two indentures has been cut in a

wavy line along its top edge, and is the master's copy. The servant would have retained

the other half as his proof of the agreement. According to Samuel Richardson, who

published a handbook for apprentices in 1734, the word indenture is derived from the

French endenter, meaning 'to jag, or notch, and signifies a Writing, which contains an

Agreement between different Persons, whereof there are two Copies, which being cut,

waved or notched, tally to one another when put together, and prove the Genuineness of

both'.5

On completion of the term of apprenticeship, the servant would be handed the missing half

as proof of satisfactory completion of the period of servitude. He would then seek

admission to a yard or ship on his own account. In addition, in the Royal Dockyards, the

young man would obtain a certificate signed by his Officers that he had completed his

apprenticeship to their satisfaction. If the young man should fail to comply with the terms

and conditions of his indenture, then he had to suffer the consequences. Marriage was

not permitted as 'it is hardly possible that such a one should marry upon equal Terms, ...'6;

but if he did, the marriage contract would have to be drawn up clandestinely. Richardson

continues, 'It is very possible, that such an one may come to have a Family of Children

3 DRO: 4187M/E264, second paragraph.4 DRO: 4187M/E265.5 Richardson, S., The Apprentice's Vade Mecum: or Young Man's Pocket-Companion (London, 1734)

(hereafter Vade Mecum), pp. 1-2. Original italics.6 Vade Mecum, p. 4. Original italics.

: Chapter 1


while he himself is but a Boy, and while he is deprived of all honest Means of maintaining

them, which may put him upon vile and base Practices to support it'.7

Joseph Bright was one such apprentice who married and started a family whilst indentured

at Chatham Dockyard. In a petition received by the Navy Board in January 1738, a

secretary has annotated: 'Mrs. Mary Crikett, widow, relation of Joseph Bright, requests he

may be entered as apprentice shipwright at Chatham yard. The Master Shipwright has

refused him entry on account of his recent marriage'. She had lent money to Joseph to

'purchase him necessaries' to help keep his wife and child. The Master Shipwright made

no complaints about his working due to his marriage, which occurred before his

apprenticeship expired. An annotation to the letter says, 'waiting without'. She had either

taken the letter to London herself, or a clerk at the Commissioner's office in Chatham yard

had added this note on receipt. Whether Mrs. Crikett was the mother-in-law of Joseph

Bright or his master's widow is not known. There are no further annotations on the letter to

indicate whether the request was granted or not.8

When William Chandler became an apprentice shipwright in 1763, his circumstances were

different to those of most boys. He did not have a father to pay the premium to a master,

but had served at sea since 1759 in the capacity of servant to Richard Baker, the

carpenter of the Sandwich. William had not been indentured as an apprentice to learn a

trade, but had served in a capacity we would now call an assistant. When young Chandler

was eventually indentured to Mr. McLean, acting carpenter of the Royal William, it was

with some trepidation. He talked the matter over with a friend, Mr. Dawkins who was

boatswain of the Royal Sovereign,

... whereupon he advised me to agree to the proposal; for that it was better to have some trade, than none at all; and added, I know him to be a good tempered man; and seven years is not for ever, so I would have you go. But the dread of being discovered that I was a woman before the expiration of my apprenticeship, was a great obstacle to this proposal.9

William Chandler was in fact born Mary Lacy. At the age of nineteen, she ran away from

7 Vade Mecum, p. 4.8 The National Archives: ADM 106 Admiralty Papers: Navy Board Correspondence (hereafter ADM106/item

no./folio no.), ADM 106/896/4. Abbreviations used at the time will be typed out in full for clarity. Original spellings will be maintained.

9 Slade, pp. 14-18 & 77-81.

: Chapter 1


home in Kent disguised as a boy. She eventually served out her apprenticeship in

Portsmouth dockyard and was entered as a shipwright in 1770. She confessed her true

identity towards the end of 1771, and after a successful plea to the Admiralty was granted

a pension of twenty pounds a year. However, her adventures did not end there. According

to her autobiography published in London in 1773, she married Mr. Slade, the Master

Shipwright at Deptford dockyard. Suzanne Stark, in her researches for Female Tars

(London, 1998) failed to find a record of this marriage. This may not be surprising as no

central records were kept until after 1836 with the implementation of the Registration and

Marriage Acts.10 Mary settled in Deptford town and built a row of ten houses; numbers 104

to 122 High Street between 1775 and 1784.11

The process of becoming a servant to either a shipwright or a carpenter was not so

straightforward as the above cases show. Messrs. Peter and McLean had to meet with the

approval of the dockyard officers and the Navy Board. Only a suitable man was allowed

the 'Encouragement of a Servant' to use the turn of phrase current in eighteenth century

dockyards. William/Mary was taken by McLean to see the Master Builder at Portsmouth to

be entered as his servant. McLean was only acting carpenter of the Royal William, his

actual capacity being carpenter of the Deptford, a fourth-rate ship. Consequently he was

only allowed one servant and so William/Mary was entered 'but not as a yard servant ...'12.

Presumably, this meant she became his allotted servant in the Deptford on the ordinary

expense books of Portsmouth yard, and not on the extra expense books of the yard. Both

Mr. Peter's servants were entered in the ordinary expense books of Portsmouth, according

to the certificates of indenture. It is interesting to note that Mary/William did not work

alongside any of her masters throughout her apprenticeship. On first being indentured,

Mary was taken to find a suitable quarterman; one Mr. Dunn. He in turn placed Mary

under 'a skilful workman' to be instructed; a Mr. Cote.13

That the Navy Board took an interest in all petitions from shipwrights and carpenters to

have servants shows that they wanted to make sure their money was spent only on the

most suitable applicants. During his apprenticeship, the servant would not receive any

10 Stark, p. 197.11 Stark, pp. 125-167; Guillery, pp. 212-220.12 Slade, p. 84.13 Slade, pp. 84-85

: Chapter 1


wages directly; these would be paid to his master who would provide board, lodging and

tools in return.14 The number of servants that could be allotted to a particular rank of

officer or artificer (i.e. craftsman) ranged from five to the Master Shipwrights down to one

to the more deserving craftsmen. The only qualifications for a servant were a limit on

height (four feet ten inches minimum), and age (sixteen years minimum; reduced to fifteen

in 1765; fourteen in 1769). Boys who were indentured to their fathers or relatives greatly

boosted household income in times of hardship, the wages (from 1664) being one shilling

and two pence a day in the first year to one shilling and ten pence in the last year. This

may be compared to the earnings of a qualified shipwright who received two shillings and

one penny basic daily pay.15

The types of petition received by the Navy Board varied according to the circumstances of

the petitioner. On 7th February 1737/8 John Fox, carpenter of the Ramillies in

Portsmouth, applied for another servant to replace one who 'desired to go to the West

Indies in the Commodore'. His letter was annotated on the reverse by one of the yard

officers, 'This is a humble request of a very good officer and if the Board approve of it may

be done'.16 On February 11th, Commissioner Richard Hughes acknowledged receipt of a

warrant from the Navy Board: '... And to Enter a servant to Mr. Fox, carpenter of the

Ramilies, in the room of One just out of his time ...'.17

An artificer wishing to take on a servant would first write a letter in the form of a petition to

the Navy Board for consideration. The Board would then consult with the yard officers

concerned. If the officers agreed, an order was raised in the form of a Navy Board

Warrant to the Commissioner of the respective Yard. This warrant ordered the Clerk of the

Cheque and the Master Shipwright to enter the servant in the appropriate yard book or

ship. Sometimes, the petition was forwarded by a yard officer, as in Mr. Fox's case above.

Alternatively, the Board may contact the respective dockyard Commissioner directly to

obtain names of suitable candidates.18

14 MacLeod, N., 'The Shipwrights of the Royal Dockyards', Mariner's Mirror, Vol. 11 (1925) (hereafter MacLeod1), p. 285-286; DRO: 4187M/E264 & E265.

15 MacLeod1, pp. 286-287.16 ADM 106 /898/93.17 ADM 106/899/173.18 National Maritime Museum: Portsmouth Dockyard Papers: Navy Board Warrant Books (hereafter

POR/A/xx: date), POR/A/22: Warrant of 28 May 1764; ADM 106/1134/32.

: Chapter 1


Thomas Durnford was favoured with the benefit of a servant as a reward for his and his

father's services on 9th February 1740/1. In his letter of 6th February, he has paid proper

respect to the Board by using the right language:

The Humble Petition of Thomas Durnford, Shipwright in his Majesty's Yard at Plymouth to the Honourable the Principle Officers and Commissioners of His Majesty's Navy ...

He continued that he 'served his time to the Builders Assistants', and has worked in the

Yard for thirteen years,

... under the care and inspection of the Mastmaker, Boatbuilder, and many of the Quarter Men, and been well approved of them for his ability, Diligence and Sobriety, his Father belonged to the yard almost from the beginning thereof to between 20 and 30 years, ...

serving much of that time as a 'Measurer Quarterman and Deputy Surveyor'. Thomas was

aware of the Board's generosity in instances of long and good service and sought 'the

favour, and Encouragement of a servant' as a just reward. A Board secretary annotated

the letter, 'Let him have a servant' and 'Warrant 9th'. The Plymouth Officers would be

issued with a Navy Board Warrant that day.19

The system of promoting a shipwright depended on to whom he was apprenticed at the

outset of his career. Roger Knight, in the Mariner's Mirror of 1971, stated that the system

of promotion did not enable those men of technical ability who were apprenticed to

ordinary shipwrights or carpenters to rise to senior posts. During the last twenty-five years

of the eighteenth century, all the Master Shipwrights had been apprenticed to their

counterparts, and no ordinary shipwrights' apprentices rose through the ranks to become

officers. Master Shipwrights charged twenty Guineas as an enrolment premium and then

received the wages of their servants, which often amounted to half their income since

officers' pay had not otherwise increased since the seventeenth century.20 Officers

generally had numerous servants, so their earnings added up.

19 ADM 106/935/8.20 Knight, R. J. B., 'Sandwich, Middleton and Dockyard Appointments', Mariner's Mirror, Vol. 57 (1971)

(hereafter Knight, R.1), pp. 179-180.

: Chapter 1


This system of favouring men apprenticed to officers for key posts upset Charles Brown,

Commissioner of Chatham Dockyard in November 1750. Mr. Ward, the Master Builder,

had complained to the Board that Brown had not countersigned Ward's notes to the Clerk

of the Cheque approving his appointment of recently time-served officers' servants over

men of long service. In his defence, Brown replied to the Board:

... for it is my Opinion that if no other Shipwrights are to be preferr'd but Builder's Apprentices lately out of their time, there will be little Encouragement left for Men of long Service and great Merit.21

Considering that officers' servants were indentured for a higher premium in the first place,

and therefore paid for a more technical apprenticeship in the absence of a system of

academic qualifications, these young men expected a better career path and ought to

have been promoted. Quantity of service does not necessarily mean quality of service.

Charles Brown exhibited the similar animosity shown towards university graduates taking

up management posts without practical experience in industry in more recent times.

However, dockyard officers did not always get their own way. The appointment of another

apprentice to Mr. Allin, the Master Shipwright at Portsmouth, seemed straightforward

according to Commissioner Hughes' acknowledgement of 9th March 1737. Two years

later it was a different matter when his eldest son was out of his time. Both Richard

Hughes and Joseph Allin sent letters in support of Allin's petition.22 Joseph Allin had

indentured his eldest son to himself in 1730. However, the boy was only entered in the

extra books of the yard for five and a half years as Allin then had no vacancy for another

servant. Apparently he had trained the boy the whole time as normal. Several servants of

Allin's subordinates had been indentured under similar circumstances and had been

granted the privilege of entering their sons as time-served shipwrights.23

The Clerk of the Cheque refused to enter Allin's eldest son possibly because of

irregularities concerning his other son, the servant granted to him by the Board in 1737.

Mr. Allin had obtained permission from Sir Charles Wager to send this second son to the

Royal Academy in Portsmouth 'for his being further instructed in Writing, Drawing,

21 ADM 106/1079/456.22 ADM 106/910/6 & 7.23 ADM 106/910/7r.

: Chapter 1


Geometry & other parts of the Mathematick'. This was at the loss of wages, the boy being

discharged from the yard during his studies 'to be improved in these Sciences to render

him the better qualified to serve his Country' until 24th June 1738. The Clerk of the

Cheque only allowed wages for this second son from this date and not from his first time of

entry.24 Although Joseph Allin took great pains to see that his sons were trained in the best

possible way for their future profession, he was acting in an unorthodox manner by

contemporary standards. There are no annotations on either of these letters to indicate

the Navy Board's decision.

Ordinary shipwrights were not without influence when petitioning for an apprentice. Many

were freeholders, and consequently were enfranchised. Robert Henley, Mayor of

Weymouth, wrote to the Navy Board on 3rd February 1740/1 in support of William Pope, a

shipwright/caulker in Portsmouth yard. Pope had 'lately bought a freehold in Weymouth on

purpose to serve Mr. Pearce & the rest of our friends, ...'25. Mr. Pearce was then

Commissioner of Portsmouth dockyard, who was standing for election. When William

Pope had completed his apprenticeship as a shipwright some years before, he was

persuaded to be entered as a caulker due to a shortage of that trade at that time. Pope,

still serving as a caulker, was about to take on a servant who would only be a shipwright

apprentice. Henley therefore asked the Board to arrange for Pearce to transfer them both

to the shipwrights books. A warrant was issued to that effect on 9th February.

Commissioner Richard Hughes of Portsmouth yard acknowledged receipt of the warrant

on 12th February.26

However, this use of such influence did not always help. James Edwards summoned to

his aid the Mayor of Rochester and the Dean of the Cathedral when he petitioned to have

a servant entered for him in Chatham dockyard. According to the letter of the Mayor and

Dean of 21st October 1739, Edwards had served around twenty-four years and 'bears the

Character of a deserving Man and has a large Family and one son very fit for that purpose,

...'. Commissioner Thomas Mathews might have attended the Navy Board Office to

discuss this. He seems to have been annoyed at the rejection, for in his own hand at the

24 ADM 106/910/7v.25 ADM 106/937/45.26 ADM 106/938/75.

: Chapter 1


foot of the letter he wrote, 'Not to be done Except, you will done the Same for upwards of

twenty others Equally as well recommended to myself'.27

The Navy Board often rewarded shipwrights when they returned from service overseas

with servants. Alexander Law was one such man who had been 'in the Government

Service ever since the year 1707 [when he] Worked at Portmahon in Queen Ann's Wars'.

He returned to England from Menorca in the Stirling Castle under the command of Captain

Richard Hughes, who then became Commissioner of Portsmouth yard.28 Law had been

entered into that yard, but without a servant for several years before he wrote his petition

of 9th November 1747. By then his son was 'both of a Sufficient Age and Stature

According to your Honours Order'. There is no evidence Law had his son entered but on

12th November, Richard Hughes was issued with a warrant to enter John Flew and

Christopher Palmer into the yard

... in regard they have Served more than the time of their Agreement with us at Antigua, to Enter them, with each a Servant on their Appearance accordingly, taking care their Servants are duly Qualified and live with their Masters during the time of their Apprenticeships. For which this shall be your Warrant. Dated at the Navy Office the 12th November 1747.29

It is interesting to note that in the next entry in the warrant book of the same date, Hughes

was instructed to enter four Joiners and a Blacksmith, also returning from Antigua, but

without any mention of granting them servants.

Of the fifty-four cases studied for this chapter, officers' petitions amounted to seven, of

which four were granted, three were not. Only one case specifically identified a servant

being a son. Out of a total of eighty shipwrights and carpenters, seventy were granted

servants (of which one was a son, one a grandson and one a family member), and ten

were not (two of whom were family). In the cases of widows being granted servants, the

deceased artificer either died under exceptional circumstances, or was an exceptional

man. In most cases where the master died before the end of the apprenticeship, the

servant was permitted to continue for the remainder of his time only, with no guarantee of

entry into the yard on completion.30

27 ADM/106/908/263.28 ADM 106/1045/84.29 POR/A/15: 12 November 1747.30 ADM 106/990/3 is an example.

: Chapter 1


Whether a shipwright or carpenter was granted a warrant to have a servant depended on

many factors. The artificer had to have the right kind of service record regarding his

character and disposition. He had to be the kind of person who could be trusted to instruct

the next generation of craftsmen. The servant had to be of the right height and age, and of

no other requirements. They did not necessarily have to be able to read or write at the

outset, as witnessed by the indenture of John Collings. The eventual career path of the

servant depended on to whom he was indentured in the first place. The plumb jobs

invariably went to those who had paid for the privilege of being indentured to a dockyard

officer. The career of the master invariably affected the final career of the servant.

Throughout all the researched correspondence for this chapter, only a handful of cases

specifically mention shipwrights indenturing their sons. Whilst a great many apprentice

shipwrights and carpenter's sons were indentured to their fathers, if one was to take the

Navy Board letters at face value one would think otherwise. However, what is more likely

to have happened is the artificer would have asked for permission to have a servant.

When the warrant was issued, the artificer would then have presented a suitable candidate

to the Master Shipwright and the Clerk of the Cheque in person, as in the case of Mary

Slade's appointment. The final decision as to who the servant would be and who he would

work with lay with the dockyard officers.

: Chapter 1


Chapter 2

“... for better for worse ...”

In this chapter, it is intended to give a flavour of apprentices' behaviour towards authority,

their masters and each other. The better behaved young man would complete his period

of servitude successfully. He would then be entered into the dockyard books as a qualified

artificer in his own right. Those with the worst behaviour could expect to be punished

accordingly, either by instant discharge, or by not being allowed to continue in employment

at the end of their time. One can easily get the wrong impression of apprentices, as the

bulk of records concerning their behaviour that survive are of a negative nature.

Therefore, it is difficult to obtain an unbiased opinion for apprentices, like the Vikings, have

had a bad press. Most contemporary records of Viking behaviour come from the scribes

of their victims: the literate monks who witnessed their carnage. The Viking legacy of

excellent seafaring and shipbuilding skills can easily be overlooked if one relies only on

such accounts. Similarly with shipwright apprentices, surviving records of their bad

behaviour outweigh those of their good behaviour. The few records of good behaviour that

have survived give us an insight into the type of person the average shipwright might have

been.

The successful shipwright apprentice received a certificate from the dockyard officers

indicating satisfactory completion of his indentures. However, these certificates are

qualitative in nature, and not quantitative. One can only surmise that the servant did not

cause his officers to have too many complaints against his character. As to the standard

of the servant's workmanship, no indication of the level of achievement appears on the

certificates. When Mary Slade obtained her certificate on 4th March 1770, all she had to

do was attend the Master Shipwright's office and ask for her certificate to be written out, if

he had no objection. The Master Builder (as he was also known) merely asked to whom

she had served her time. On getting his answer he ordered a clerk to prepare it. William

Chandler (as she was known to everyone in the yard) took this 'to each of the proper

persons, who readily signed it'. Mary then presented the completed certificate to the Clerk

: Chapter 2


of the Cheque who entered her in the yard books as a man. Mary had endured extreme

hardship throughout her seven years apprenticeship and had even gone barefoot in all

weathers when the fortunes of her masters fell. Right up to the end of her apprenticeship

she went without her clothing allowance and was probably without shoes on that last day

of her apprenticeship.1

James Bartlett and John Smith were both recommended to be entered into Plymouth yard

after completing their apprenticeships. Although written twenty years apart, the two

certificates carry much the same wording as each other. Bartlett's certificate, dated 20th

November 1750, states he was apprenticed to William Wilkins, formerly carpenter of the

Mary Galley and then of the Defiance. Signatories to the certificate were his master,

foreman and quarterman.2 John Smith's certificate, of 28th November 1770, appears to be

more formal even though the wording is similar. John has collected seven signatures from

his officers.3 Both Bartlett and Smith had served the requisite seven years apprenticeship.

Each young man had 'behaved himself as an honest and faithful Apprentice ought to do'

and their officers continued, 'being a good Shipwright we humbly recommend him to be

entered as such for himself in His Majesty's Yard ...'.4 The last term probably meant the

two men were to receive their own wages from that day forward without any let or

hindrance.

It was quite possible for a man to be entered into another dockyard after completing his

apprenticeship. In the winter of 1750/1, William Martin sent a string of letters to the Navy

Board in support of his petition. On December 3rd he wrote that he had initially been

indentured to the carpenter of the Lennox based at Woolwich for five years. When his

master was moved to the Ramillies, Martin was entered into Portsmouth yard to serve the

rest of his time. He wished to be transferred back to Woolwich to be with his friends and to

deal with his affairs.5 On 25th January, he sent his 'Certificate of my servitude' in support

of his previous letters.6 The second letter he refers to of 17th December has not survived.

The clerks of the Navy Board seem to have been unusually slow in responding for the first

1 Slade, pp. 179-180.2 ADM 106/1087/38.3 ADM 106/1193/150.4 ADM 106/1087/38.5 ADM 106/1083/244.6 ADM 106/1083/245.

: Chapter 2


letter was not read until 13th February 1750/1. Notes on the reverse state the clerks were

'To Endeavour to remove a Shipwright to Change with him out of Woolwich Yard'. William

Martin was finally 'To be Entered in Woolwich Yard as a Shipwright' by a warrant issued on

27th February.7

William Watts was another time-served apprentice who wished to continue his service in

another yard. In his letter to the Navy Board of 9th May 1768, he wrote he had served the

first four years of his time at Deptford yard. When his master, John Clevely, was

transferred to Chatham to be Carpenter of the Victory William was ordered to go with him.

On completion of his time, William was entered into Chatham yard and had a 'proper

Certificate Lodged in the Builders Office'. However, his mother was dependent on him for

support, hence his petition to be transferred back to Deptford. His officers must have been

satisfied with his performance for a warrant was issued by return. A clerk had noted on the

reverse, 'Give orders for his being discharged from Chatham and for his Entry at

Deptford'.8

On occasions, the Navy Board permitted those whose apprenticeship was unorthodox to

be entered into service. One example is the case of Robert Stremar who petitioned the

Navy Board in November 1750. Initially being under age, he was taken on board the

Essex by his father as an assistant. Two years later, he was indentured to his father. After

serving 'upwards of five years'9 Robert was entered as a shipwright in 'Portmahon'

(Mahon) on the island of Menorca. On being discharged from Mahon, Robert received a

certificate of his satisfactory behaviour and returned to England in the Essex. By the time

of writing his father had died, but whether this was in England or overseas is unknown.

Robert hoped that, 'as I have Served His Majesty in the time of Warr, That you'll order me

once more to be Entered in one of His Majesty's yards.' The certificate from Mahon was

returned and a warrant was issued to that effect on 12th November 1750.10

Not every time-served apprentice admitted as a shipwright came from within the dockyard

workforces. One example is the petition of Joseph Westcott, dated 7th August 1766.

7 ADM 106/1083/244v & 245.8 ADM 106/1174/285r & v.9 ADM 106/1085/393.10 ADM 106/1085/393.

: Chapter 2


Joseph had been apprenticed for seven years to Worthington Brice, a shipbuilder of

Woodbury, Devon. Writing from Ideford that he was out of his time on 7th June, he asked

to be entered into Plymouth yard as a shipwright.11 He enclosed his certificate signed by

Brice and dated 14th July 1766.12 On 11th August, the Navy Board issued a warrant

ordering the officers at Plymouth yard to enter Westcott as a shipwright 'if they have no

objection'.13 This last remark implies that the decision to employ a shipwright was the

responsibility of the yard officers; the Board merely making the decision from a regulatory

or financial standpoint.

The Navy Board delegated the decision to take on Richard Oakshott in a similar manner in

their warrant of 19th October 1751. This warrant, to the officers at Portsmouth, quotes

verbatim Richard Oakshott's letter to the Navy Board of 16th October 1751. Oakshott was

bound apprentice to John Childs, shipwright, on 10th October 1744. He served over five

years of his time in Portsmouth yard 'during which he behaved with the greatest Diligence

in his Business and entirely to the satisfaction of his Officers'. His master, John Childs,

was then discharged for neglect of duty. Consequently Oakshott was discharged

presumably to deny Childs the benefit of his servant's wages. According to Oakshott, he

continued to serve his apprenticeship 'in the Merchants Service'. He requested to be

entered as if he had served his whole time there as his discharge was not due to his own

actions. The Navy Board were willing to accept Oakshott's petition provided the Master

Shipwright and the Clerk of the Cheque had no objection.14

Samuel Richardson, the well known eighteenth century writer, gave good advice to the

apprentice in the second part of his Vade Mecum when he wrote,

If it be your Lot to be put to a Handicraft Business, Industry and Diligence will be the principal things that will be required of you, and you must avoid Loitering or Idleness, that terrible Bane of Youth, which often introduces the most unhappy Consequences.15

11 ADM 106/1150/78r.12 ADM 106/1150/79.13 ADM 106/1150/78v.14 POR/A/16: 19 October 1751.15 Vade Mecum, p. 25.

: Chapter 2


He reminded the apprentice that the servant's time was not his own and to be grateful for

any free time that was granted; 'for to a Handicrafts-Man, Time is the same as Money'.16

In Apprenticeship in England, 1600-1914 (London, 1996), Joan Lane devoted a whole

chapter to apprentices' bad behaviour. 'Apprentices!' was the contemptuous remark used

to describe adolescents in general in much the same way as 'Students!' is used today.17

Lane's work covers a broad spectrum of trades across three centuries and give a flavour

of the life and work of apprentices, although shipwrights only appear twice. Idleness and

theft seem to be the most common complaints against apprentices, and the records of the

Navy Board concur with this general opinion.

Mary Slade was regularly pestered by three idle apprentices who frequently took her

canoe to look for periwinkles in Portsmouth harbour. On one occasion the boys capsized

the canoe and lost all their catch in the process. One of the boys was nearly drowned and

only rescued with great difficulty. As the canoe could easily be overturned, Mary wisely

avoided joining them on these trips.18 Mary had earned a reputation for being able to

handle the canoe which actually belonged to the bosun of the Royal Sovereign. On one

occasion she raced her master, in a four-oared boat, back to their ship for sixpence.

Typically, he did not pay up but spent the money on their beer that evening. Several times

afterwards both of them would race back to the ship in the same manner.19

The misbehaviour of apprentices was of great concern to shipwrights' widows, who relied

on their servants' wages as a form of pension. Having lost their husbands, they

presumably had no other income in order to survive. In addition they had the burden of

dealing with unruly youths who were living in their homes. Elizabeth Eastwood of Gosport

was the widow of John Eastwood who had worked in Portsmouth yard for forty-five years

as a shipwright and timber measurer. On his death, John left his widow with a family of

four children and grandchildren to look after. On 16th August 1738, she petitioned the

Navy Board for a replacement servant. Her late husband's servant, George Card, was

causing his mistress some distress through his behaviour. The boy 'since the death of his

master is become a very loose, idle and disorderly fellow', often missing for days or weeks

16 Vade Mecum, p. 26.17 Lane, p. 188.18 Slade, p. 97.19 Slade, p. 87-88.

: Chapter 2


at a time. He was rarely seen at work and since extra hours of work had been introduced

had 'utterly deserted and absconded from his duty'. Whether her request was complied

with is not known.20

Another person in a similar situation was the widow of Jeremiah Rosewell, late Master

Shipwright at Sheerness. George Musgrave, his executor, wrote to the Navy board on

10th November 1741. He complained that Rosewell's servants, namely William Turner,

Ralph Paine and John Day, had been 'very remiss in their duty'. They had relations in

Chatham and Musgrave hoped the Board would send them there in order to be 'under

their own roofs'. The Board approved and issued a warrant to that effect stating, 'The

servants are to be removed to Chatham as prayed'.21

When both master and servant were serving in different yards it could be difficult to

maintain discipline at times. John Jefferys was one such artificer; he was carpenter of the

Yarmouth Hulk in Portsmouth when he received a letter in April 1746 from Mr. Allen, the

Master Shipwright at Deptford. In March 1745/6 his apprentice, John Anderson, was

permitted to continue serving in Deptford yard 'by reason of his being with his friends'.

Presumably this was when Jefferys was transferred to Portsmouth. In Jefferys' letter of

17th April 1746, he wrote that Mr. Allen had discharged Anderson on the 14th for being

absent without leave. Jefferys asked the Master Shipwright if his other servant could be

transferred from the extra books to the ordinary books in Portsmouth in Anderson's place.

However, this could not permitted without an order from the Navy Board. The Board

granted the request, provided he had no other servants serving anywhere else.22

The dockyard authorities took the matter of apprentices' insolence towards their officers

seriously. In the records are numerous instances of servants being reprimanded for

mistreating officers in this way. One group of apprentice shipwrights went so far as to take

an officer to court in response to allegations of insolence and attempted theft of a dockyard

boat. On 24th January 1750/1 Richard Hughes, Commissioner of Portsmouth dockyard,

wrote with some concern about John Shamman, a shipwright who was in charge of one of

20 ADM 106/901/116.21 ADM 106/941/112.22 ADM 106/1030/220.

: Chapter 2


the dockyard boats. Hughes enclosed two letters; one from Shamman and the other from

Mr. Lock, the Master Builder.23 Commissioner Hughes asked the Navy Board if they would

pay for Shamman's legal expenses. Hughes was concerned that if no notice was taken of

the case, then

... they [the servants] will gain their Point, and thereby get so great an Ascendancy over the Persons who have the Charge of the Dock Boats, that, there will be no such thing as managing, or keeping them within Bounds: and if they are not Checqued by a Superior Power, for this Insolence, in all probability they will grow much more Impertinent, and Saucyer than ever ...24

So what had caused Richard Hughes so much dread that the yard might fall into

disrepute? In John Shamman's letter to Hughes of 21st January, he reported that the boat

under his charge had been tampered with no less than four times in order to either steal or

sink it. Shamman would be forced to pay salvage for the boat if this happened. The boat

was used to ferry workmen between Portsmouth dockyard and Gosport. Sometimes as

many as twenty people would be on board. On the first occasion, Shamman found the

mooring rope had been cut and a chain disconnected from the stem and thrown overboard

below the low water mark. For several days afterwards, the men found the boat almost

impossible to row. On beaching the boat, 'Several great Stones' had been tied to the lower

rudder pintle. This happened on two further occasions and Shamman and his crew were

at a loss as to who was doing it.25

However, whilst Shamman and others were trying to solve this riddle, three shipwright

apprentices belonging to other boats continued to poke fun at the men. The servants cried

out 'in a Scurrilous manner' calling the men 'old Double Bankers, Greyhounds &c and told

us we were Clinkered and should be Clinkered again at night'. These boys were Richard

Anderson, servant to the carpenter of the Monarch, Richard Morse and Alexander

Burgess, both servants to quartermen. Shamman and his crew surmised these servants,

by their behaviour, had either tied the stones to the boat or at least knew who had done it.

As the boat often carried around twenty men, Shamman felt their lives were endangered

by these actions. Shamman reported the whole affair to the Master Shipwright. He in turn

asked the Clerk of the Cheque to deduct a week's pay to make an example of these three

23 ADM 106/1090/104r.24 ADM 106/1090/104r. Original spelling maintained.25 ADM 106/1090/105.

: Chapter 2


servants. Shamman was then 'served by a Bailiff with three King's Bench Writs' from the

three apprentices and the threat of a fourth from their lawyer.26 In support of John

Shamman, the Master Shipwright wrote to confirm he had arranged for the servants to

have their pay 'mulched ... in order to deter others from being guilty of the like Crimes'.

Lock continued that the servants behaviour became worse after this and was worried

about the possibility of a riot.27 As apprentices were involved in many dockyard riots and

disturbances, the authorities were justified in their fear of another incident.

In response, the Navy Board replied to Commissioner Hughes on 28th January. They

informed Hughes that they had instructed a lawyer to take on Shamman's case and

defend him against the three servants at the Crown's expense. Approving of the

deductions from the boys' wages (which would incur losses to their masters), the Board

gave further instructions to Hughes. He was to inform the two quartermen that they were

accountable for their servants' behaviour. If the quartermen did not interpose, then they

would be discharged along with their servants.28 Hughes made no mention of the

carpenter and his servant, Richard Anderson. He had either disciplined them already or

was waiting for a warrant to that effect. As the Monarch was 'In Extra in Harbour'29 at the

time of his writing, both men would have been available to be disciplined.

Apprentice shipwrights' unruliness caused a major problem for Thomas Mathews,

Commissioner of Chatham dockyard. In his letter of 27th November 1739, he wrote to the

Navy Board about two apprentices who were troublesome and informed the Board that he

had

... discharged Joseph Puckett, Servant to Melcher Smith, Quarterman, and James Jarret, Servant to the Widow Gore from this Yard, for frequent neglect of Duty - particularly for absenting themselves from the yard, without leave, and going to Woolwich at the late disturbance there.30

At the same time, Commissioner Mathews also discharged Robert Wills, a shipwright,

whom he believed had sent an anonymous letter threatening to cause a riot in Chatham

26 ADM 106/1090/105.27 ADM 106/1090/106.28 ADM 106/1090/104v & 110.29 ADM 106/1090/104 & 110. Listed in the margins are the Monarch and several ships in harbour.30 ADM 106/907/196v.

: Chapter 2


yard. Chatham, Woolwich and Sheerness yards were under his jurisdiction, and so he had

good reason to be concerned about the spread of violence from one yard to another.

Joseph Puckett and James Jarret were described as 'two notorious Mutinous men' and

Mathews requested that they should not be allowed entry into any other yards.31

However, the matter did not end there. The following day four shipwright apprentices

approached Mathews at his house. George Page, Servant to the Widow Lamb; Richard

Fryer, servant to the carpenter of the Colchester; Francis Nelson, servant to the carpenter

of the Britannia; and William Edwards, servant to Quarterman Henry Leake, told Mathews

'in an insolent manner' that they spoke on behalf of all the apprentices. They demanded to

be discharged in support of Joseph Puckett and James Jarret.32 Mathews ordered them to

go back to their duty and sent for their masters.

Francis Nelson's master complained he 'could not govern him' and in trying to reproach

Nelson for his behaviour was threatened and was 'in danger of his life'. Nelson's master

wished to relinquish his servant and see him discharged. Unfortunately for Mathews, the

carpenter of the Colchester was at sea. Quarterman Leake confessed that William

Edwards was 'past his Manageing'. Widow Lamb promised to take George Page before

Justice Walter in case Page 'should not come to his work'. Commissioner Mathews

described Richard Fryer as 'a very insolent youth, and was the Spokesman, and told me,

the old men would stand by them'. This seemed hardly likely as their masters appeared

glad for a chance to be rid of them. Mathews discharged the apprentices and requested

that they should not be allowed entry into another yard.33

The most common crime committed by shipwright apprentices was theft or embezzlement

of materials, particularly iron or lead. The usual punishments were instant dismissal or

suspension pending a warrant to be dismissed. The commissioners of the yards would

ask the Navy Board to bar entry of the guilty parties into the other yards. One example is

the case of James Niles, a servant to the carpenter of the Somerset. On 14th August

1767, Thomas Hanway, then Commissioner of Chatham yard, wrote to the Navy Board

31 ADM 106/907/196.32 ADM 106/907/200.33 ADM 106/907/200.

: Chapter 2


that he had discharged the servant 'having been detected in attempting to carry about

twenty pounds of old Lead out of the Dock-Gate'. Commissioner Hanway asked if the

Board would forbid their entry into the other dockyards.34 These thefts were a common

problem, and Hanway asked

If the Board could provide some Method for punishing such Villains in a Summary Way, as the Parliament have lately done for Wood-Stealers, &c, I should hope it would in great measure prevent these frequent petty Thefts.35

The Navy Board approved of the discharges and issued warrants to forbid the two thieves

from being entered into any other yard.36

On the 19th August, Commissioner Richard Hughes wrote to the Navy Board

acknowledging receipt of their warrant of 17th August 'Not to Enter James Niles, Servant in

Ordinary to the Carpenter of the Somerset ... lately discharged from Chatham (for

attempting to carry Lead out of that Yard) in this Yard, on any pretence whatever'.37 On

21st August 1767, Commissioner Frederick Rogers wrote from Plymouth dockyard that he

had received identical instructions.38 In the short span of a week, James Niles had been

excluded from working within the entire network of Royal dockyards. However, as there

were numerous private shipyards along the Thames and Medway, apprentices discharged

from the Royal dockyards may have been able to find alternative employment relatively

quickly. This may explain many apprentices 'moments of carelessness'.

The majority of cases of misbehaviour studied for this chapter were instances of theft of

either iron or lead. Out of twenty-six cases, twelve were instances of servants caught

stealing, often referred to as embezzlement. The other fourteen cases were instances of

insubordination, insolence, absence from work or involvement in disturbances. All the

items of correspondence investigated had been written in peacetime, when work in the

yards was scaled down in comparison to wartime. Could this mean that servants were idle

and misbehaved because they had not enough work to keep them occupied? However,

the majority of shipwrights' and carpenters' servants were of acceptable behaviour judging

34 ADM 106/1154/218.35 ADM 106/1154/218.36 ADM 106/1154/218v.37 ADM 106/1155/228.38 ADM 106/1159/212.

: Chapter 2


by the numbers who were entered into the dockyards on successful completion of their

indentures. In the description books of 1748, for example, many apprentices are listed as

being more than just able.39 Well-behaved apprentices far outnumbered the minority who

were badly behaved.

39 McGovern, M. T., List of Workmen and Apprentices in His Majesty's Dockyards 1748 (Southsea, 1748) (hereafter Dockyards 1748), pp. 13 et seq.

: Chapter 2


Chapter 3

“... for richer for poorer ...”

As mentioned briefly in the conclusion of Chapter 1, the career of the apprentice shipwright

was affected by the career of his master. If the master was a dockyard officer, then the

servant would move with his master from place to place. In these cases, the servant was

destined to become an officer himself, as he was indentured to a dockyard officer for that

reason. Shipwrights' and carpenters' servants were frequently moved from yard to yard

when their masters were transferred to take up a new appointment. For example, when a

shipwright was appointed to be the carpenter of a ship being completed, his servant would

be transferred with him.

A shipwright's fortunes could vary for many reasons. As Roger Morriss described in his

Naval Power and British Culture, 1760-1850 (Aldershot, 2004), the local dockyard

communities were dependent on the Navy. Morriss points out that many people had been

suspicious of central government since the seventeenth century. The dockyard townsfolk

were dependent on the frequency of work and pay meted out to the workforce.1 The

fortunes of the artificer varied and were not helped by the long periods between wage

payments. Consequently, servants were often caught in a poverty trap as credit

availability dried up. Since 1650, a shipwright's basic wage had remained static at two

shillings and one penny a day. However, since 1660 the right to 'chips' was restored. This

allowance was the amount of timber off-cuts a shipwright could take home under his arm.

In value, this has been estimated at being worth five pence a week. This was open to

abuse and a 'chip' was considered to be a piece of timber no more than three feet in length

- even if the artificers cut up wood specifically for the purpose!2

Up until 1788 shipwrights could also claim two pence halfpenny a week lodging allowance

together with the money from the sale of their 'chips', which could amount to an additional

1 Morriss, R., Naval Power and British Culture, 1760-1850 (Aldershot, 2004) (hereafter Morriss4), p. 35.2 Richardson, H. E., 'Wages of Shipwrights in H. M. Dockyards', Mariner's Mirror, Vol. 33 (1947) (hereafter

Richardson), pp. 266-267.

: Chapter 3


three shillings a week. One fifth of the shipwrights were allowed a servant at one shilling

and two pence (rising to one shilling and ten pence) per week. The only deduction was

two pence a month for doctors' fees.3 Those men with servants had to pay 'board wages'

if they were not keeping their servants under their own roofs, as per the terms and

conditions of indenture. In the case of Alexander Peter, carpenter of the Mars, he had to

pay an allowance of ten pounds a year to his servants or their fathers. These payments

were to cover clothes (including washing and mending) and board whilst the servants were

entered in any of the Royal dockyards.4 However, workmen were not paid cash weekly.

Payments were always quarterly, one quarter in arrears. In other words, after six months

duty the wages for the first three months would be paid. Consequently, almost the entire

population of dockyard towns was living on credit making life extremely difficult at times.5

Like so many shipwrights and carpenters, Alexander Peter must have felt the effects of

over-extended credit in spite of earning approximately thirty-nine pounds a year6 plus the

wages from two apprentices. It must have been with some trepidation that on 12th March

1774 he walked into the office of Mr. John Line, a solicitor of Lindridge, Devon. Mr. Peter

entered into an agreement with Mr. Line to borrow one hundred pounds at a rate of interest

of five percent per annum. Repayment was due in full on 12th September, otherwise Mr.

Peter was liable for two hundred pounds with interest.7 This agreement consisted of two

documents; the first in the form of a large indenture between Messrs. Peter and Line. By

this indenture, Mr. Peter signed over his two servants to Mr. Line as security against the

loan and was not permitted to benefit from the servants' wages until the debt was settled.

In addition, Mr. Line was to be Mr. Peter's attorney.8 The second document concerning

this arrangement is a bond for two hundred pounds should the original loan not be repaid.9

It appears from the records that this loan was never repaid. Some time afterwards,

Alexander Peter received a letter from the widow of Mr. Line. Her letter has not survived,

but Mr. Peter replied in an undated letter. In this letter, preserved with the other

3 Richardson, p. 269.4 DRO: 4187M/E264 & E265.5 Richardson, p. 269.6 Richardson, p. 272.7 DRO: 4187M/E266 & E267.8 DRO: 4187M/E266.9 DRO: 4187M/E267.

: Chapter 3


documents, Mr. and Mrs. Peter sent their condolences. Mr. Peter continued that he 'was

abroad' and therefore could not reply sooner. He was offended by Mrs. Line's previous

remarks and commented he was worried about the whole affair and would try to make

amends.10 The two apprentice indentures were not returned to the servants at the end of

their time. This set of five documents, now kept in the Devon Record Office, Exeter (viz.

the two apprentice indentures, the two loan indentures and Alexander Peter's letter to Mr.

Line's widow), give us an indication of the extent to which servants were treated as

property during their time of indenture. The carpenter's two servants, John Collings and

Thomas Negus, found themselves the servants of a new master until the debt was

cleared. Presumably, Mr. Line had to make arrangements to pay their 'board wages'.

William Chandler, alias Mary Lacy, was similarly pushed from pillar to post as her various

masters' fortunes changed from bad to worse. At first, her apprenticeship seemed to go

well when she worked as a cadet; working one week in Portsmouth yard and one week on

the recently launched Britannia. She soon acquired her basic tool kit, 'a saw, an ax[e] and

chizzel' to which the man for whom she had been set to work would fit new hafts.11 Soon

afterwards, when working on the frigate Niger, she had a tool chest made. Mary ate well

at first, sharing her food allowance with her quarterman:

I had the allowance of the king; so we made one allowance serve us, and sold the other to the purser for a guinea and a quarter, as we both often dined at my master's house.12

Mary also had the benefit of being able to sell her chips at the dockyard gate. This was a

valuable source of income to an otherwise impoverished servant. She would often take a

bundle of chips to her friend the boatswain, where she was always welcome.13 By

December 1765, Mary was earning a shilling a week as boatswain of one of the dockyard

boats. This extra money 'was of great benefit' to her, but she was required to stay with the

boat in bad weather.14 However, Mary knew more times of ill fortune than good throughout

her seven year apprenticeship.

10 DRO: 4187M/E268.11 Slade, pp. 85-86.12 Slade, pp. 88-89.13 Slade, p. 89.14 Slade, p. 140-141.

: Chapter 3


When officers were moved from one yard to another by way of promotion, they often took

men and servants with them. On 7th December 1744 Thomas Fearne, Master Shipwright

at Chatham, petitioned the Navy Board when he was promoted to Kinsale yard in Ireland.

He asked if two of his servants, Charles Fearne and Joseph Drawbridge, could be

continued in Chatham yard as they had not served much of their time. Mr. Fearne asked

for a third servant, William Sloane, to be continued in Chatham but only until he had

relocated to Ireland with his family.15 On 19th December, he wrote again requesting that

William Sloane, shipwright John Palmer and Palmer's servant, John Burr, be discharged

from Chatham and victualled on board the transport for Plymouth. The Board agreed to

the arrangements and allowed the three men to go to Kinsale via Plymouth.16

Similarly John Holland, Master Shipwright of Woolwich yard, was appointed to Deptford

yard on 11th June 1746.17 In his letter to the Navy Board of 18th June he requested that

three of his servants, Dionysius Gale, John Musgrove and Robert Swaine be allowed to

remain at Woolwich because the 'time of board given by their Parents [was] not compleat'.

Holland also asked that his other two servants, Thomas Roberts and John Jones, be

allowed to go with him to Deptford. The Board approved by a warrant issued on 30th

June.18 By September 1748 Holland had died leaving apprentices Musgrove and Swaine

behind at Woolwich. John Jones then only had four months left before he was out of his

time, and Thomas Roberts had become a quarterman.19

When a carpenter was appointed to a new ship, he often took his servant with him. On 6th

May 1747, Edward Cole wrote from Hull that John Cannadey and his servant had reported

for duty on the new 50 gun ship being built there.20 However, on 19th May Anne

Cannadey petitioned the Navy Board to have the servant returned to her care and entered

into Portsmouth yard.21 She may have been worried for the boy, or possibly concerned

about the loss of wages. However, there is no indication in the letter of how Mrs.

15 ADM 106/990/110.16 ADM 106/990/116.17 Winfield, R., British Warships in the Age of Sail, 1714-1792 (Minnesota, 2007) (hereafter Winfield2), p.

372.18 ADM 106/1038/178r.19 Dockyards 1748, pp. 49, 54, 122 & 127.20 ADM 106/1041/202.21 ADM 106/1041/219.

: Chapter 3


Cannadey received these wages. Both men were working away from home on the other

side of the country whilst the nation was at war.

The loss of a ship by enemy action or by disposal often compromised the fortunes of both

master and servant. John Parlby was one such master who had served as carpenter on

the ill-fated Marlborough during the Seven Years War. The ship was leaking badly when

she was lost in the Atlantic on 29th November 1762. The entire crew were rescued by the

Antelope and brought safely home.22 On 8th April 1763, Parlby wrote to the Navy Board

that he had been out of work since 19th February. He requested that his eldest servant be

entered into Portsmouth yard for the remainder of his time in order to provide support for

Parlby's family. The apprentice, Thomas Chaplain, was nearly out of his time having only

a few more months to serve.23 This extra income would have been welcome under the

circumstances. Without hesitation, the Board issued a warrant to that effect on 11th April

1763.24

Ship disposal could spell gloom for any family reliant on the wages of both master and

servant. On 9th April 1766, knowing that the Princess Mary was to be sold, her carpenter,

Francis Palmer, requested for him and his apprentice to be entered into Deptford yard so

that Palmer could be with his family.25 According to Palmer's letter of 28th November, they

had both been entered in Woolwich yard since 1st May. Since then, however, the servant

had been taken before the Magistrate having 'used your petitioner and his wife very ill'.

The Magistrate had offered to release Mr. and Mrs. Palmer from their obligations towards

the apprentice if the Navy Board would grant a replacement. In spite of Palmer's fifty-two

years of service, the board replied 'his request cannot be complied with.'26 Francis Palmer

was probably reliant on the income of the young man as a form of pension. When the two

men were working on board ship, the apprentice would have been closer to his master and

consequently more easily controlled. In the space of only six months, the servant had

repaid his master for saving their jobs by his bad behaviour.

22 Winfield2, p. 15.23 ADM 106/1127/53.24 POR/A/22: 11 April 1763.25 ADM 106/1147/163.26 ADM 106/1147/265.

: Chapter 3


Some letters to the Navy Board seem innocuous enough when one reads of a simple

request by a mother to have her son moved to be nearer home. On 28th August 1740,

Elizabeth Bothwell petitioned the Navy Board to have her son entered into Woolwich

yard.27 He was apprenticed to his father Alex Bothwell, carpenter of the Newcastle, a

fourth rate of 50 guns.28 The Bothwells' son had served five years of his apprenticeship on

board ship, 'both in Ordinary and at Sea' and on occasions in the yards 'Soe as to be

perfected in his Trade'. Mrs. Bothwell was living at Woolwich, and requested that her son

might live with her.29 However, there is no mention of the country being at war in the letter.

War with Spain had been declared in October 1739. Initial naval actions had been in the

West Indies: was Mrs. Bothwell worried about the prospect of losing two members of the

family, if not in action then to disease? By moving her son closer to home, she hoped to

guarantee an income during the ensuing years of uncertainty. Young Bothwell had two

more years of servitude before he could be entered as a man on full pay. The petition was

annotated on the reverse giving orders for young Bothwell to be entered in Woolwich for

the rest of his time.30

By far the greatest problems for master and servant were those compounded by debt.

Widows were particularly affected when their late husbands had borrowed money and the

debt remained unsettled on their death. During the eighteenth century, almost without

exception, a loan arranged between two parties was still liable for repayment after the

death of one party. On 28th May 1746, the Navy Board received a letter from Woolwich

concerning Elizabeth Furzer, widow of Samuel Furzer, formerly a shipwright in that yard.

The Master Shipwright, and the Clerk of the Cheque held a meeting with Mr. James

Sedgwick, the principal creditor of the late Samuel Furzer. Sedgwick was receiving the

wages of William Molineux, formerly Samuel Furzer's servant, and would continue to do so

until Furzer's debt was repaid.31

Elizabeth Furzer had not received any wages for William Molineux since her husband's

death in May 1742. The boy had been entered in Woolwich yard in October 1741, seven

months before Samuel Furzer died. Originally, Elizabeth Furzer had written to the Board

27 ADM 106/916/30r.28 Winfield, R., The 50-Gun Ship (London, 1997) (hereafter Winfield1), p. 40.29 ADM 106/916/30r.30 ADM 106/916/30v.31 ADM 106/1038/154r.

: Chapter 3


on 10th February 1745, but this letter was returned to her. She stated she had never

received any wages for her late husband's servant and was not likely to do so for the rest

of the boy's apprenticeship. She petitioned the Board to allow her to have another servant

entered in consequence of the circumstances in which her late husband had left her.32 It

appears that the two officers from Chatham were negotiating on Mrs. Furzer's behalf

further to their meeting with Mr. Sedgwick. The officers resubmitted the widow's letter

along with their own letter of May 28th.33 However, the Board did nothing to alleviate the

situation of Mrs. Furzer, the officers' letter being annotated 'Nothing more to be done

herein'.34

There were several reasons why a shipwright and his servant would get into debt. The

problems of rising prices combined with static wages are well documented in the history of

the Royal Dockyards. Other reasons are not so obvious and may result from the artificer

or the servant over-stretching their meagre resources. William Chandler, alias Mary Lacy,

was a victim of her various masters' financial problems throughout almost all her

apprenticeship. Her trouble started quite early on. Mary's 'mistress', for she was not Mrs.

McLean, had a great liking for drink and on several occasions would send 'William' to fetch

some. Eventually, 'Mrs. McLean' had run up so many debts that Mr. McLean was arrested

in Gosport. McLean was carried off to a 'spunging house' before being taken to

Winchester gaol the next day. 'Mrs. McLean' immediately started selling the furniture to

the pawnbrokers in order to buy food. Mary and her fellow servant relied on the kindness

of neighbours and Mr. Colman, a cabin keeper in the yard. Colman, who was elderly and

infirm, kept a boat. Mary used to carry home Colman's chips in his boat on occasions in

exchange for some supper.35 In order to clear Mr. McLean's debts, an agreement was

reached whereby Mary was transferred to a Mr. Aulquier, the deal being brokered by Mr.

Simmons, carpenter of the Africa and also a pawnbroker in Gosport.36

32 ADM 106/1038/155r.33 ADM 106/1038/155v.34 ADM 106/1038/154v.35 Slade, pp. 121-125.36 Slade, pp. 127-133.

: Chapter 3


Life with the Aulquiers was even more colourful than before, with Mrs. Aulquier enjoying

the same propensity for liquor as Mary's previous mistress. However, on more than one

occasion, 'Mrs. McLean' still prevailed upon Mary to do menial chores about the house as

if Mary was still her servant. Mary was lodging with the McLeans, although Mr. Aulquier

was responsible for her board wages.37 To make matters worse, 'Mrs. McLean' turned

Mary out of the house. Mr. Aulquier refused to pay Mary any board wages unless she

lodged with them. Mary became homeless and 'was obliged to shift' as best as she

could.38

Eventually Mary lodged with her new master and mistress, but they had become so poor

that that all three of them often went without food. Some time later, Mary received two

pence a day from Mr. Aulquier for meals. It was at this time she was working almost bare-

foot in all weathers.39 Right up to the end of her apprenticeship, Mary's situation continued

to be unsettled. She had been denied the benefit of her board wages of three pounds a

year. She had to buy her own clothes and was refused new shoes although her master

received her wages.40 This would be in contravention of her indentures as a servant. It

was clear to Mary's colleagues that she had suffered enough. It was a compassionate act

when two shipwrights she worked with agreed to keep the secret of her true sex when she

was forced to admit it.41

The life of an apprentice shipwright was not an easy one. The work was hard; lifting heavy

timbers, shaping them with an adze, boring holes, hammering fastenings home. It was a

highly skilled craft, but also involved learning a good deal of theory. However, the real

problems for the apprentice were in keeping body and soul together for seven years. As

seen from the few examples referred to in this chapter, the master-and-servant relationship

was fragile. A great deal depended on the job security of the shipwright in times of both

peace and war. The servants were beholden to their masters for their very existence and

on many occasions these relationships broke down. This was due to many factors: some

external arising from the vagaries of the Navy Board's finances; others internal, sometimes

37 Slade, pp. 160-166.38 Slade, p. 166.39 Slade, p. 170.40 Slade, p. 179.41 Slade, pp.171-174.

: Chapter 3


being alcohol related, or due to personality clash. They could all result in a lack of money

which must undoubtedly have put an even greater strain on the relationship between an

apprentice and his master.

: Chapter 3


Chapter 4

“... in sickness and in health ...”

The health and welfare of the dockyard workforce was of some interest to the Navy Board.

However, by modern standards this interest would be considerably lacking. Deductions

from dockyard workers' pay at a rate of twopence a month provided for the services of a

doctor.1 This enabled the dockyard management to provide some form of basic health

care. For a carpenter and his apprentice serving on board ship, they had the additional

services of a ship's surgeon. These provisions were haphazard at times, but were part of

the package of benefits the Royal dockyards offered over and above those available in the

private sector. Private yards offered no medical cover.

The range of injuries and illnesses suffered by shipwrights and apprentices were typical for

any eighteenth century working environment. Hand and back injuries were common and

still are the major causes of loss of production in dockyards today. Diseases such as

smallpox were virtually untreatable, and some medicines were often as poisonous as the

original infection. If a shipwright or servant became ill, more often than not the worst was

feared. The immediate worries were financial as time off work was unpaid. This meant

less money - or rather less credit - to buy food and thereby worsening chances of

recovery. Most letters to petition the Navy Board on matters of servants' health were

written in a very matter-of-fact manner treating the servant as property and a source of

income first, and as a person second.

Mary Lacy's first experiences of naval healthcare were while serving on board the

Sandwich off the port of Brest in the summer of 1759. This was the ship's first commission

and Mary, alias William Chandler, was serving as servant of Mr. Baker, the carpenter.

However, she was not indentured as an apprentice shipwright in Portsmouth until 4th

March 1763.2 Mary had served at sea only a few months when she developed

rheumatism in her fingers. At first she did not know what was wrong with her, except that

1 Richardson, p. 269.2 Slade, pp. 17-18 & 29-30 & 82; Winfield2, p. 18.

: Chapter 4


her fingers had swollen. Mr. Baker thought this highly amusing and remarked, 'Hang me, if

William is not growing rich: You dog, you have got the gout in your fingers'.3 Her master

had wrongly thought her condition was due to overindulgence. A couple of days later she

was affected so badly in her legs that she could not walk. Her master was clueless as

what to do and called for the ship's surgeon, who immediately ordered her to be taken

down to the sick bay.4 Considering the Sandwich was a new ship, it is surprising to read

how the sick bay had deteriorated in such a short space of time. As Mary wrote in her

autobiography,

Well knowing what a nasty unwholesome place it was, the very thoughts of going thither made me very uneasy; nevertheless, I did not chuse to say anything to my master about it. I was accordingly carried down; but he [Mr. Baker] sent me thither every day some tea and biscuit buttered for breakfast. This I received from the hands of an old man, who was of so uncleanly a disposition, that had I been ever so well, I could not have relished it from him. I remained in this disagreeable place for several weeks; bur growing worse and worse was much altered.5

It was probably the 'lob-lolly boy' who was feeding her. Mary asked a friend who visited

her to tell her master what condition she was in. She hoped that Mr. Baker would move

her to another part of the ship. She feared that if she was not moved, she would soon die.

Her master then arranged for her to be moved to his cabin, where he gave her a wash.

However, she had to be carried down to the sick bay that night. The following morning, the

surgeon disapproved of Mary's removal and was insistent she remained in the sick bay

until she recovered. When the carpenter heard this, he argued with the surgeon. Baker

told the surgeon that Mary was to be taken to his cabin every day 'for [her] staying there

was the readiest way to kill [her]'.6 Gradually, Mary's health improved until she could get

about on crutches. The carpenter fitted spikes to the crutches to enable Mary to walk

about on deck safely.7

It was not long before it was Mary's turn to look after her master during his illness. The

Sandwich was Admiral Geary's flagship in the Western squadron and in between stations

off the French coast was either in Torbay or Plymouth. It was on these visits to Plymouth

that Mr. Baker would spend most of his money on alcohol. Baker suffered from mood

3 Slade, p. 41.4 Slade, pp. 41-42.5 Slade, p. 42.6 Slade, pp. 42-43.7 Slade, p. 44.

: Chapter 4


swings when he was sober, but was of a better disposition when drunk. He also suffered

from gout. In late 1759, Baker had a re-occurrence and was in so much pain that Mary

'was obliged to sew some flannel upon his legs'. Mary was constantly at his beck and call

for no sooner was she in her hammock, she would be fetched to do his bidding.8

Carpenter Baker was a bad patient and on a subsequent occasion, when the Sandwich

was on passage to her station off La Rochelle, Mary thought Baker would die because of

the severity of his gout. Mary had little or no peace, as she was ordered to make all sorts

of meals at all hours as her master steadily worsened.9

In the autumn of 1760, whilst the Sandwich was in Portsmouth, Mary was troubled with her

rheumatism again and was carried into Haslar hospital. This had been brought on through

wearing wet clothes. She had gone on shore, but had been seized with so much pain that

she had to be carried back to the ship. The following day, Mary was rowed across to the

hospital on the orders of the ship's doctor. The agent in the hospital ordered Mary to be

carried into the 'fifth ward south'. Here, she grew worse daily and and 'at length became

so delirious, that [she] neither knew what [she] said, or to whom [she] spoke'. Eventually,

the hospital treated her by bleeding which, amazingly, made her feel much better.10

Gradually, Mary regained the use of her limbs and could walk about the ward, but could

not bend her legs sufficiently to go down stairs. Initially she found the staircase too cold

and was ordered by the nurse not to venture out until the weather improved. As the

weather became warmer, Mary was able to shuffle down stairs on her backside and sit

under the arches in the sunshine. Eventually Mary recovered, but as the Sandwich had

sailed without her, she was sent to the guard ship Royal Sovereign as a supernumerary

seaman.11

Mary Lacy's last brush with naval medical care was almost her last. In the spring of 1761,

while serving on board the Royal Sovereign, Mary fell down the forward hatch into the hold

and split her head open on the edge of a cask. She was carried to the ship's surgeon who

put in three stitches and dressed the wound. Mary was unconscious throughout the

treatment. On gaining her senses, she was extremely worried that the surgeon might have

8 Slade, p. 50.9 Slade, pp. 53-54.10 Slade, p. 60-61.11 Slade, pp. 61-62.

: Chapter 4


discovered her true sex in examining her.12 However, she was lucky not to be found out

which she put down to

... he [the surgeon] being a middle aged gentleman, was not very inquisitive; and my mess mates being advanced in years, and not so active as young people, did not tumble me about to undress me.13

The pain in her head grew so bad that Mary almost lost conciousness. She was

constantly on guard in case her true identity was discovered. Mary became worse, almost

losing her teeth at one point, but for the care of a bumboat woman who fed her and

brought her back to health.14

Mary was then able to go to the surgeon daily to have her head wound dressed. He often

remarked that he should have given her 'the St. Andrew's Cross', which made Mary afraid

of any operation. As Mary's condition improved, the surgeon declined from further

intervention. But her wound still required daily attention and on one occasion the

surgeon's mate tied the bandage so tightly the pain became unbearable. After protesting

to the surgeon, the bandage was eventually loosened. But Mary then came down with a

fever and was virtually 'senseless for three or four days'. The surgeon wanted to move her

to Haslar hospital but her mess mates intervened. They claimed that taking her out into

the cold would finish her off. The fever subsided, but on regaining consciousness Mary

discovered she had been bled from her thigh. However, the surgeon's mate, who had

carried out this procedure, made no mention of her being a woman. She gradually

recovered. On account of her accident, Mary later became entitled to a pension.

However, as she had no friend able to act on her behalf, she was unable to get 'a smart

ticket for Chatham' thereby missing out on a payment of at least four pounds a year.15

Smart money was the term applied to payments made from the Chatham Chest in cases

of injury. The chest was the name given to the charitable fund, founded in 1590, which

granted lump sum payments or pensions to wounded or disabled personnel. The Navy

Board administered the Chatham Chest until 1803 when control was transferred to

12 Slade, pp.65-66.13 Slade, p. 66.14 Slade, pp.66-67.15 Slade, pp.67-69.

: Chapter 4


Greenwich Hospital, merging with it in 1814. To get 'a smart ticket for Chatham' meant to

obtain medical certification in order to apply for support from the Chatham Chest.16

Once Mary had become an apprentice shipwright, she suffered no further health problems.

At least she made no more entries in her memoirs to that effect until she came out of her

time. Other servants were not so fortunate during their apprenticeship. One of the more

unusual cases is that of Thomas Clack, carpenter of the Marlborough. After successfully

petitioning the Navy Board, the latter issued a warrant to Commissioner Hughes at

Portsmouth dated 22nd October 1751. The warrant read that Thomas Clack's servant,

John Caulke, having served '... upwards of Six Years, is now out of his mind, ...' and that

Clack desired a replacement. The Portsmouth officers were ordered to enter another

servant unless they had '... no objection thereto.'17 Commissioner Hughes acknowledged

receipt of this warrant on 24th October 1750.

On 18th February 1747/8, Plymouth shipwright John Rule's petition was presented to the

Navy Board. Rule wrote that his servant '... was taken Sick of a Fever and dyed a few

days since ...'. The Navy Board issued a warrant on that date and annotated the reverse

of Rule's letter: 'Order another Servant to be Entered in the room of that out of his

apprenticeship'.18 Three years later, Howel Powell also wrote from Plymouth concerning

the death of his apprentice. On 5th March 1750/1, Powell informed the Board that he had

been entered into Plymouth yard 'having served the Full Time of his agreement' in Port

Mahon. He was allowed the privilege of a servant as a reward for his overseas service.

That servant had died and Powell requested another to take his place.19 The Board did not

reply, so Powell wrote again in June. Powell reiterated his appeal, this time informing the

Board that the servant 'was not Entered above Seven Months before he died to the great

Loss of your Petitioner and his large Family'. The Board granted the request and issued a

warrant on 28th June that Powell was 'To have a Servant in the Room of that dead'.20

William Philp was another Plymouth shipwright whose servant died after less than two

years service. In September 1764, Philp's petition was forwarded to the Navy Board by

16 Cock, R., and N. A. M. Rodger (eds), A Guide to the Naval Records in the National Archives of the U.K. (London, 2006), p.215; Knight, R.1, pp. 175-192, p. 177.

17 POR/A/16: 22 October 1750.18 ADM 106/1048/28.19 ADM 106/1084/14.20 ADM 106/1084/38.

: Chapter 4


the Right Honourable Mr. Francis William Sharpe, Member of Parliament for Callington,

Cornwall. Several times afterwards, the M. P. had 'troubled their Honours with Letters in

favour of the petitioner'.21 William Philp, after twenty years service, had been granted

William Quint as a servant. The boy was indentured on 5th July 1762, but Mr. Philp '...

lately had the Misfortune to loose by Death ...' that servant on 28th May 1764.22 Without

Mr. Sharpe's intervention, the file would have remained closed, but on 16th August 1765 a

warrant was issued: 'In consideration of his Servant dying so soon after his entry, Direct

Plymouth Officers to entry him another'.23

Not all petitions for a substitute servant were granted. In Portsmouth, on 7th May 1766,

Eleanor Phillips informed the Board that her husband's servant had died of smallpox.

Husband John Phillips was then carpenter of the Lark in the West Indies. He had

previously served in Antigua in 1759 where he had been a 'foreman afloat'.24 Mrs. Phillips

wrote again on 22nd August restating her case as she had not received a reply. Mrs.

Phillips was hoping that her husband would be granted another servant, as had been

allowed for shipwright Thomas Williams.25 Commissioner Richard Hughes had received

orders to enter a new servant to Williams '... in the room of his former Deceased ...' in

May.26 Whether the two boys died from the same outbreak of smallpox is not known. Mrs.

Phillips appealed for a third time on 31st August 1766. There are no annotations to

indicate the Navy Board's decision. In the light of John Phillips' service overseas, it seems

unusual that this request was not be granted. Almost all shipwrights returning from foreign

dockyards were granted servants on their reappearance on home soil.

The work an apprentice shipwright undertook could be dangerous at times, particularly

when balancing at an awkward angle from scaffolding. This would be constructed from

larch poles simply lashed together. Loose boards would rest on these to form staging and

the whole structure would be rickety at the best of times. On 24th June 1764, the

Plymouth officers petitioned the Navy Board after a fatal accident. John Coryton fell from

the gunroom port of the Cambridge into the bottom of the dry dock and died from his

21 ADM 106/1141/142v.22 ADM 106/1141/142r.23 ADM 106/1141/142v. Original spelling maintained.24 ADM 106/1147/174.25 ADM 106/1147/218; Winfield2, pp. 199 & 258.26 ADM 106/1145/141.

: Chapter 4


injuries. He was apprenticed to Benjamin Foot, a shipwright who was also the Master

Shipwright's measurer. In a casual manner, the officers recommended a replacement

servant. The Board raised a warrant to that effect on 27th June.27

William Pope was somewhat more fortunate in that he survived his injuries, although what

caused them is not known. On 16th June 1767, the Portsmouth officers reported to the

Board the results of their enquiry into Pope's case. Pope was apprenticed to shipwright

Edward Milligan, who stood to lose money if Pope's time off work was disallowed. The

officers at Portsmouth found in favour of Milligan's case. Pope's condition was verified by

Mr. Knarr, the dockyard surgeon. The Board agreed that Pope was 'To be allowed his

time', i.e. to be paid.28 Commissioner Hughes received a warrant 'to allow William Pope,

servant to Edward Milligan, shipwright, the time he was absent' and sent his

acknowledgement on 21st June.29

William Powell was another injured servant who took several months to recover from his

accident. On 5th June 1769 the Navy Board received a petition from his master, William

Scott, carpenter of the Queen which was under construction in Woolwich yard. On 6th

March, William Powell was putting a piece of heavy timber into a boiling trough when the

piece fell on him. Powell was confined to bed as a result, missing the call to work every

day until 21st May. William Scott prayed that

in Consideration of his great loss of time and the Extra expense he has been at in providing people to attend his Servant Night and Day during his confinement, and having a large family to support your Honours will be pleased in your wonted goodness and compassion to grant he may be allowed the Ordinary day pay the time his servant was unavoidably confined at home.30

Scott enclosed a report on Powell's condition from the yard surgeon, William Troward. In

this report of 3rd June, Surgeon Troward recorded William Powell's injuries received on

March 6th as follows:

... Powell ... received ... a partial Dislocation of the upper Vertebra of the Loins, by a Piece of thick stuff falling upon him as he was assisting to put it into the Kiln; which compressed the Spinal Marrow, and occasioned an immediate Palsey of the lower Limbs, attended by a violent suppression of urine,

27 ADM 106/1135/145.28 ADM 106/1158/196.29 ADM 106/1155/168.30 ADM 106/1183/192r.

: Chapter 4


and an Ulcer of the Bladder, which not only confined him to his Bed, but greatly endangered his Life, and thereby occasioned an unevitable loss of time, till the 21st May following.31

The Board agreed to allow Scott to receive Powell's wages for the period and instructed

the officers at Woolwich accordingly.32

However, this was not the end of the matter. On December 12th 1769, William Scott wrote

again to the Navy Board. He had been turned over to the Launceston, and his place as

carpenter of the Queen was taken by John Rothery. William Powell had been discharged

from Woolwich yard as Scott was not allowed a servant, the Launceston being only a fifth

rate ship. On 11th December, Rothery took over William Powell's indentures as he was

servant to the carpenter of the Queen, but refused on account of Powell's injuries. Powell

was still recovering from his back injuries, being '... in a fair way of Doing well in three or

four years time as Ever'. Scott requested the Board to intervene and allow Powell to

continue in the yard, as he received his injuries as a result of his work.33

A lengthy note overleaf, possibly written by an officer from Woolwich, summed up the

situation. Although William Powell received his injuries whilst on duty in the yard and had

a good behaviour record, he was not a cadet and so was not entitled to any 'smart money'.

Mr. Scott had received pay for Powell whilst he had acted as carpenter of the Queen,

despite having medical expenses for Powell's care whilst living under Scott's roof. Mr.

Rothery was not happy about taking Powell on as his servant, as the boy still could not put

his shoes and stockings on, Rothery '... having never had any benefit from him'. The note

closes with remarks from the surgeon that Powell was regaining his health as fast as could

be expected and anticipated Powell would make a full recovery in due course.34

Mary Lacy's experiences of naval healthcare seem typical for all those who served at sea

during the eighteenth century. It is perhaps not surprising that men feared the worse when

they were left with no alternative but to be taken to the sick bay. Mary's treatment at the

hands of the surgeon's mates and the 'lob-lolly boy' shows how quickly levels of hygiene

31 ADM 106/1183/193. Original spelling maintained.32 ADM 106/1183/192v.33 ADM 106/1183/293r.34 ADM 106/1183/293v.

: Chapter 4


could deteriorate on a newly built ship such as the Sandwich. She fared much better in

Haslar hospital in Gosport, which at the time of her admission was newly completed. Mary

probably suffered from rheumatic fever, but once she was working on shore in the

dockyard her symptoms did not seem to recur. Apart from her head injury received on

board the Royal Sovereign, she avoided other accidents and illnesses during her

apprenticeship.

The main problem for the master-and-servant relationship was the loss of earnings due to

accident or illness. The cases of William Pope and William Powell were typical when

serious injury resulted in time off work. By their correspondence, the masters appeared to

be more concerned about loss of wages than their servant's health. William Powell's first

master, Mr. Scott, had the additional expense of providing health care at home, but he was

allowed to claim wages for Powell which should have compensated him to some extent.

Mr. Rothery is not to be blamed for being unwilling to take on an injured apprentice. After

nearly ten months, Powell was far from fit for duty and hence could not earn any money for

Rothery. The system of healthcare provision and compensation was rudimentary by

modern standards, but does show the Navy Board were not oblivious to the problems.

Such provisions were not to be found in the private sector, and were used as means to

attract craftsmen to work in the Royal dockyards.

: Chapter 4


Chapter 5

“I am small, and of no reputation ...”

Shipwrights and their apprentices were often at the mercy of their administrators. The

finance of the dockyards varied between times of war and peace, so the master-and-

servant relationship could not avoid being affected. The ratio of shipwrights to servants

was supposed to be limited to six to one, by an order of the Navy Board in May 1742.1

However, this figure was frequently exceeded when servants were granted to widows of

deserving officers and men. During the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748)

restrictions on the number of servants were relaxed in order to attract shipwrights away

from private yards, particularly to Plymouth. Several yards carried twice the usual

peacetime allowances.2

Close to the end of the war Navy Board warrants concerning the numbers of workmen and

servants were issued to the dockyard officers. The returns to these warrants formed the

dockyard description books for 1748, now catalogued at The National Archives as ADM

106/2976. This has been expertly transcribed by M. T. McGovern as List of Workmen &

Apprentices in His Majesty's Dockyards 1748 and published by the Naval Dockyards

Society in 2002. Another set of similar lists was prepared for the Navy Board in 1779.3

Such lists were produced from time to time in order to assess the standard of dockyard

artificers and to select those for discharge at the end of a war. The economic

consequences on the surrounding areas to the dockyards could be dire. With the coming

of peace, hundreds of sailors and artificers would be put out of work as the government cut

back on expenditure.4

Occasionally, paperwork between the Navy Board and the Commissioner of a dockyard

could become confused. Thomas Mathews, Commissioner of Chatham dockyard, wrote to

1 Baugh, D. A., British Naval Administration in the Age of Walpole (Princeton, 1965) (hereafter Baugh1), p. 316; ADM 106/1093/187.

2 Baugh1, p. 323.3 ADM 106/2980 & /2981.4 Dockyards 1748, pp. 7-10.

: Chapter 5


the Board on such an occasion on 10th February 1737/8. He was puzzled as to why the

Navy Board's figures regarding the number of servants entered in Chatham differed from

his:

Since my coming home last night, I have made an exact enquiry, what Shipwrights and Servants have been Entered in this Yard since 1st January 1736, And Inclosed [sic] you have a List of them, by which, it will appear, there has not been one Entered but by your Warrants, therefore how it come to be thought otherwise I can't tell.5

This list of two pages in length survives as ADM 106/897/57, photographed below as

figures 5.1 and 5.2. It contains the names of forty-seven shipwrights and servants entered

into Chatham yard within the previous thirteen months. Twenty-one names were of

servants out of their time and entered as fully qualified shipwrights. One man, John Best,

was entered without any mention of his apprenticeship and may have come from outside

the yard. Another was transferred into the yard from being carpenter of the fireship Pool

along with his servant. The others were servants to ships' carpenters, shipwrights and

yard officers, details given below in table 5.1.6

Shipwrights entered 2

Newly Qualified Shipwrights (out of indentures) entered 21

Servants entered to Shipwrights 3

Servants entered to Carpenters 10

Servants entered to Officers: Master Shipwright 1

Master Boatmaker 1

Master Mastmaker 1

Master Caulker 1

Foremen 1

Quartermen 6

Total number of servants entered 24

Total number of shipwrights entered 23Table 5.1 Shipwrights and Servants entered in Chatham dockyard, 1736/7.

Taken from ADM 106/897/57.

Commissioner Mathews continued to relate the problems the yard officers were having in

keeping up with the workload. The number of labourers was the problem, not having

sufficient to operate a crane or keep pace with the demands for ships' rigging.7

5 ADM 106/897/56.6 ADM 106/897/57.7 ADM 106/897/56.

: Chapter 5


Fig. 5.1 ADM 106/897/57r; Shipwrights and Servants entered in Chatham dockyard, 1736/7.

: Chapter 5


Fig. 5.2 ADM 106/897/57v; Shipwrights and Servants entered in Chatham dockyard, 1736/7.

: Chapter 5


The result of Commissioner Mathews' correspondence with the Navy Board on these

matters is not known. Chatham dockyard was overstretched as the yard was

approximately a third larger than 'in Queen Ann's Peace'.8 It is clear from the

Commissioner's letter to the Board that work in progress at Chatham was suffering due to

the loss of semi-skilled and unskilled labour. Looking at Commissioner Mathews' list,

drawn up by his clerk, it is interesting to note that nine of the men whose servants had just

finished their apprenticeship were immediately allowed another servant.9

In order to control expenditure on dockyard labour, including apprentices, the Lords of the

Admiralty directed the Navy Board to attend a meeting with them on 31st March 1747. In

examining several accounts their Lordships noticed that all apprentices were working Extra

hours. The Navy Board replied that servants only worked Extra alongside their masters,

and this was only worked by shipwrights. Their Lordships wished to limit 'so great an

expense to the government' and asked for proposals to reduce costs. The Board replied

that Extra was limited to two tides a day.10 A tide was a working period of one and a half

hours overtime. The origin of this expression is not clear, but may originate from the

practice of working on ships beached at low tide. A shipwright would have approximately

one and a half hours before the tide returned.

The discussion between their Lordships and the Board continued concerning rates of pay.

Their Lordships proposed that a shipwright was to be paid five shillings a day and his

servant to be paid day rate. In answer to this, the Navy Board represented to the meeting

that 'when an apprentice had served three years he was an able man, and had only

twopence a tide and his labour was the cheapest in the yard; ...'11 The Board continued in

their reply that dockyard officers' servants were only allocated to work Extra with the gangs

to which they were assigned. The Board saw no problem in permitting apprentices to work

Extra from the outset of their apprenticeship as there was plenty of useful work for them to

do. Naval Commissioner James Oswald, who was acquainted with philosophers Adam

Smith and David Hume, pointed out that dockyard officers' servants were always put on

Extra working. Oswald suggested that as the Master Shipwrights allocated Extra working,

8 ADM 106/897/56.9 ADM 106/897/57.10 Baugh, D. A., Naval Administration, 1715-1750 (London 1977) (hereafter Baugh2), pp. 314-315.11 Baugh2, p. 315.

: Chapter 5


then these officers were not impartial. Oswald suggested averaging the Extra pay that

would be earned by those servants and increasing the salaries of Master Shipwrights

accordingly. They would also lose their servants in the process.12 On 2nd April, the Lords

of the Admiralty directed the Navy Board 'to take it into their consideration the employing of

apprentices and improper persons upon Extra work', and to propose methods of limiting

expenditure.13

In consequence, the dockyard officers were issued with Navy Board warrants. The

Commissioner of Portsmouth dockyard received his dated 8th April 1747. The warrant

summarised previous correspondence and the meeting of 31st March. The Board drew

the yard officers' attention to the 'great Irregularities [that] have been committed by

Employing Apprentices and Improper Persons upon Extra Work'. The yard officers were to

propose means to reduce Extra working and limit its allocation to able persons only. In

future, Extra working was only to be implemented when absolutely necessary. Navy Board

representatives had observed Extra being worked by elderly shipwrights, who were

otherwise unfit after a normal day's work, and by first year apprentices. The advantage to

officers in putting their servants on Extra had not gone unnoticed. The yard officers were

then required to inform the Board of their proposals for measures to reduce Extra working.

The Board hinted that such measures were to include the allocation of Extra work to

suitably qualified men only, so that first and second year apprentices received their pay at

their normal day rate.14

As a reply to the above mentioned warrant, Commissioner Richard Hughes wrote to the

Navy Board from Portsmouth on 25 April 1747. The Commissioner was in sympathy with

the directives of the Navy Board. He stated that whilst it was an act of charity towards old

men of long service that they should be allowed to continue employment, he agreed they

were unsuitable persons to be given Extra work. The Commissioner proposed that

apprentices under two years of service ought not to be allowed Extra work, regardless of

to whom they were indentured. Servants in their first two years would 'scarce know an axe

from an adze, or an auger from a gimlet, or how to handle or use either one or the other'.

12 Baugh2, p. 315.13 Baugh2, p. 315.14 POR/A/15: 8 April 1747.

: Chapter 5


However, if servants were not paid to work the same Extra as their masters, Hughes

continued, then it would be unreasonable to expect them to work to the same extent. The

Commissioner pointed out the advantage to the service would be that such boys would

have had more practice at their trade when it came to their being entered into the yards at

the end of their apprenticeship. Hughes also suggested that gangs of shipwrights should

be offered Extra work in rotation so as not to benefit either any particular gang or any

particular servant's master.15

On 9th November 1747, as the War of the Austrian Succession continued, the Navy Board

issued warrants to each of the dockyards,

... to let us know, what number of Shipwrights are borne in [your] Yard, and what Number of Servants they now have. What are the Officers who are allowed Servants, and how many each of them now have. What widows have Servants and how many. What Number of Servants are borne to Carpenters of Ships, distinguishing which Carpenters Work in the Yard and which are at Sea, or in Ordinary.16

The results were varied and might be easier to read if the clerks at the Navy Board office

had composed standard forms to be completed and returned. Figures for the numbers of

shipwrights and servants were obtained from Chatham, Plymouth, Portsmouth and

Woolwich. The information from Deptford and Sheerness may not have survived. A

summary of the information is given in table 5.2 below. Of interest in Chatham's figures

are that two of the officers' servants belong to the Master Shipwright at Kinsale in Ireland.

Of the twenty-one widows listed, three servants were allowed to the widow March, who

may have been an officer's widow, whereas all the others had one each. There were also

twelve servants apprenticed to executors of various late yard officers and shipwrights.

Eleven apprentices were listed as 'Servants to Carpenters of Ships Superannuated'.

Presumably this meant retired or pensioned ships' carpenters. Two servants were

allocated to a new seventy gun ship then being built.17 The figures for Portsmouth and

Woolwich yards have not given quite the same information requested by the Board's

warrant. The widows are not named, merely the number of servants they have.18 19

Plymouth included the names of the carpenters and their ships.20

15 Baugh2, p. 316.16 POR/A/15: 9 November 1747.17 ADM 106/1041/116.18 ADM 106/1046/176.19 ADM 106/1053/101.20 ADM 106/1047/194v.

: Chapter 5


: Chapter 5


The Navy Board issued two more warrants in order to ascertain the numbers of

shipwrights and servants working in the dockyards in August 1748 and August 1751. The

results are compared in table 5.3 above. The figures for the numbers of shipwrights

include servants. According to a Navy Board warrant of April 1722, the establishment for

apprentices was calculated by adding together the number of shipwrights and apprentices

and dividing this total by six.21 Clearly, by the end of the War of the Austrian Succession,

some dockyards had more than doubled their establishment of servants. By 1751, three

years after the war, Plymouth had not succeeded in reducing the number of servants.

Numbers would reduce as servants were taken on as shipwrights and carpenters at the

end of their apprenticeships. Most of the men removed from Woolwich in December 1748

were labourers. None of the 510 shipwrights were discharged.22

The reason for Plymouth yard having such a high ratio of apprentices to shipwrights may

have been as a result of a recruitment drive in 1747. On 22nd December, the yard officers

wrote a long letter to the Navy Board with recommendations to alleviate the shortage of

skilled men. As Plymouth was the nearest dockyard for the Royal Navy's Western

squadron, this was putting a strain on resources. There was an acute shortage of skilled

shipwrights and other craftsmen. In addition to 'conduct money' and prompt payment of

wages, the officers recommended that

... if the men are supplied from Deptford, Woolwich or Chatham on the river Thames they should be entered immediately into pay, and be allowed ten days to travel down, and such carriage by the waggons [sic] as the Board thinks proper; also that if any deserving men be engaged to enter here, every such man having the officers certificate of any of the yards, or of the Deptford officers for such river men, shal[l] have a servant for their encouragement; But having considered that such allowance to them may have a bad effect on our good men now in the yard that have not servants, we humbly propose al[l]owing servants to twenty of our able men, which wil[l] in great measure take off the resentment of the rest;23

In addition, Plymouth yard required as many caulkers and sawyers as they could get hold

of, and two teams of horses. The Navy Board approved of the recommendations and

allowed twenty Plymouth shipwrights to have servants, 'provided they procure lusty lads'.

The Board paid ten shillings board wages and provided clothes and boots, not only for the

shipwrights but also for those servants that went with their masters. Men and servants

21 Baugh2, p.292; ADM 106/1093/354.22 Dockyards 1748, p. 9.23 ADM 106/1052/164.

: Chapter 5


wishing to move to Devon were to muster at Deptford yard. The same terms and

conditions were applied to caulkers.24

In a further move to limit expenditure on servants, the Navy Board issued further warrants

to the officers of the dockyards. At Plymouth, Commissioner Philip Vanburgh

acknowledged the receipt of his warrant on 30th November 1750. Plymouth officers were

given orders 'to discharge all Carpenters' Servants of 5th Rates'.25 This decision had far-

reaching effects for on 24th December 1750, Alexander McCleod submitted his petition to

the Navy Board. Writing from Portsmouth Common, McCleod put his case forward.

McCleod had been carpenter of the Margate which was sold. He and his servant were

then entered into Portsmouth dockyard by a warrant of 17th September 1749. According

to the letter, McCleod was then appointed as carpenter of the sloop Jamaica by an

Admiralty order. McCleod begged that their Honours '... would take it into a Serious

Consideration that £25 a year is a Poor Income to support a Wife and three Small Boys ...'.

His apprentice was bound by indenture at the office of the Master Shipwright 'by the

Ap[p]robation of Commissioner Heughs [sic], the Clerk of the Cheque and Master

Shipwright'.26

The servant in question had only served fourteen months of his seven years

apprenticeship when he was discharged. McCleod could neither support the boy for the

rest of his apprenticeship nor teach the boy his trade, as he was duty bound to do in

accordance with the legal requirements of the indentures. McCleod reiterated the poor

condition of his family: 'A Serious reflection on this, the Condition of a Small weak Family.

And the Disappointments of a Destitute Boy'. McCleod asked the Navy Board for an order

to permit the boy to continue his apprenticeship in Portsmouth yard. The servant was

reported to be '... a Sober Willing Diligent Brisk Fellow as Any of his Practice in the whole

Yard'.27 The Navy Board were not impressed. A laconic note on the reverse of the letter

reads, 'Acquaint him [McCleod] that by a late Order from the Right honourable the Lords

Commissioners of the Admiralty no Servants are to be Born[e] to the Carpenters of the 5th

24 ADM 106/1052/165.25 ADM 106/1086/296.26 ADM 106/1083/256r.27 ADM 106/1083/256r.

: Chapter 5


and 6th Rates in Ordinary'.28 Perhaps the boy may have been allowed to continue if his

situation was reversed. If the servant had only fourteen months of his indentures

remaining, the Board may have instructed Portsmouth to keep him on. However, there

would have been no guarantee of the young man being employed afterwards due to

reductions in naval expenditure.

Apprentices were very much beholden to the dockyard authorities. At the beginning of the

wars, their numbers were increased in order to encourage shipwrights and other artificers

to re-locate to the dockyards. But when peace came, apprentices were reduced in number

in order to maintain standards of workmanship and limit expenditure. The wages of a

servant were paid to his master, with very little being passed on to the servant by way of

board and lodging, and they were a valuable source of extra income to a household during

periods of rising prices during wartime. But this system was not perfect and was open to

abuse at times. The Board of Admiralty and the Navy Board took a very dim view of

dockyard officers using apprentices to boost income. In particular, strong objections were

made to the practice of putting inadequately trained junior apprentices to work Extra hours

at high rates of pay.

Towards the end of the War of the Austrian Succession, the Admiralty and Navy Board

made efforts to reduce government expenditure. One measure was the production of the

dockyard description books of Autumn 1748 in order to select men suitable for discharge.

These lists catalogued artificers by their ability as being either 'well' or 'able'. Presumably

those artificers of lower classification were the ones selected for discharge. As with most

forms of employment, an apprentice shipwright's future was not guaranteed. When ships'

carpenters of the smaller fifth and sixth rates were no longer permitted servants in 1750,

for example, their servants would have to leave and seek employment in merchant yards.

Whether any of these boys were able to find such employment is not known. Their

chances of finding alternative employment would have depended on how many years they

had served and their references.

28 ADM 106/1083/256v.

: Chapter 5


Conclusion

Shipwright apprentices were entered into a seven year apprenticeship in order to be

trained in a set of skills that would set them up for life. The advice given in 1762 by Mr.

Dawkins, the bosun of the Royal Sovereign, to young 'William Chandler' were typical

sentiments applicable to all apprentices: '... for that it was better to have some trade, than

none at all; ... and seven years is not for ever, ...'. In the Royal dockyards it was standard

practice for an apprentice shipwright to undergo such training, indentured as a servant to

either a shipwright or a carpenter. There was little difference in how an apprentice was

trained for either trade. Boys were indentured as apprentice shipwrights and would

practice as shipwrights when qualified.

The Navy Board controlled the number and type of apprentices by granting permission

only to such artificers as the dockyard officers deemed worthy. In addition, there were

established ratios of shipwrights to apprentices; varying from one fifth to one sixth of the

total number of working shipwrights. Suitable masters were shipwrights and carpenters

with either long or outstanding career records. Shipwrights returning from a designated

period of service overseas were almost always granted servants, for example. The yard

officers making these approvals would be the Master Shipwright and the Clerk of the

Cheque. The shipwright would petition the Navy Board for a warrant to have an

apprentice. The Board would then check with the yard officers regarding the shipwright's

suitability. If the yard officers were satisfied, then a warrant was issued to the yard officers.

Exactly how many of these boys were shipwrights' sons is not known. Only a few of the

items of correspondence researched specifically mentioned shipwrights' or carpenters'

sons. Most petitions to the Navy Board were for 'a servant'. When a shipwright was

granted permission to have a servant, the yard officers had the final say on the

appearance of the potential master and servant at their office. The majority of shipwright

apprentices in the Royal dockyards may well have been sons of shipwrights. However, the

yard officers may have preferred to indenture sons to someone outside the family, perhaps

for political reasons, i.e. for franchise holders. The answer as to how many apprentices

: Conclusion


were shipwrights' sons may lie in genealogical research of parish records and dockyard

pay books.

During the period of study, from 1738 to 1770, the greater part of Navy Board

correspondence regarding the behaviour of apprentices is of a negative nature. However,

we do have some examples of good behaviour in the form of certificates indicating

satisfactory completion of apprenticeship. In the dockyard description books of 1748 most

apprentices were graded as being either 'well' or 'able'. If any of these boys were of

indifferent behaviour, then they would have been graded otherwise or may have been

discharged by the time these lists were drafted. The most common crime committed by

apprentice shipwrights was theft of either iron or lead. These items would be easy to

conceal, but an apprentice struggling under a heavy load was easily spotted.

Apprentices indentured to shipwrights' widows and executors were the most problematic

with respect to discipline. If working on board ship as a carpenter's servant, an unruly boy

could be more easily controlled. But if that master died, the boy was sometimes

transferred into a dockyard. These boys, aged between sixteen and twenty-three, could

prove difficult to control when there was no longer another man about the house. Widows

in these circumstances, often elderly, relied on their servants' wages as a form of pension.

They had little or no recourse if these boys got out of hand. Most cases of misbehaviour

researched occurred in peacetime. This could be indicative of patterns of work in the

dockyards at these times. Unruly apprentices would be laid off as the programme of work

in the dockyards was reduced.

Perhaps the hardest thing for a shipwright apprentice would be keeping body and soul

together for seven years. The circumstances of 'William Chandler', whose real name was

Mary Lacy, are a case in point. It is safe to say that her experiences were not unique.

Mary endured extreme hardship as her various masters' fortunes changed from bad to

worse. From Mary's autobiography, we can obtain a good description of the social

conditions under which a Georgian shipwright apprentice lived and worked. Most of her

troubles were caused either by her masters' or by her mistresses' predilection for alcohol.

With this came verbal and physical abuse, outrageous behaviour, 'personality clash', 'poor

: Conclusion


anger management' and finally debt problems resulting in extreme poverty. Mary often

went without shoes and was dressed in rags on more than one occasion. In order for her

masters to pay their debts, Mary's indentures were sold on to another master. The go-

between was a local shipwright-cum-pawn-broker. Apprentice shipwrights were treated as

property to a large extent, with indentures changing hands as security against loans or

debts. The new owner would collect the wages due to an apprentice until the debt was

repaid. According to eighteenth century practice, debts were still liable for repayment after

death. The debts transferred to the 'executors or administrators' of the deceased debtor.

Apprentices did not pass the whole of their apprenticeship without any money. During the

seven years of an apprenticeship, the servant did not receive his wages directly. These

were paid to the boy's master who in return would have to provide board and lodging. If

the boy lived elsewhere, then the master was supposed to pay his servant 'board wages'.

However, this was not the servant's sole source of income. We learn from Mary Lacy that

apprentices were allowed the privilege of 'chips'. This was the ancient right of shipwrights

to take timber offcuts out of the yard, provided they could carry them under one arm.

According to H. E. Richardson, in the Mariner's Mirror of 19471, the value of these chips

has been estimated at five pence a day. There were other opportunities for an apprentice

to earn money. Mary was bosun of a dockyard boat for a time, earning one shilling per

week.

From Mary Lacy's autobiography, it is interesting to observe how rapidly conditions in the

sick bay on board the Sandwich became unhygienic during Mary's first illness. When

suffering from her second bout of fever, in the autumn of 1760, Haslar hospital was newly

completed. Through her experiences, we gain a brief insight into how much of an

improvement this was over medical facilities provided on board ship. Healthcare provision

to apprentices was the same as for any artificer. Apprentices could be eligible for relief

from the Chatham Chest if their injuries were caused when serving as a cadet, i.e. in their

first two years of apprenticeship. Apprentices' masters were eligible to collect wages for

the period their servants were off sick. Applications had to be accompanied by a certificate

from the dockyard surgeon.

1 Richardson, pp. 266-269.

: Conclusion


The primary sources used for this dissertation have provided a valuable insight into the

social history of shipwright apprentices. The Navy Board correspondence, held in The

National Archives, Kew, London has provided the bulk of the source material. This vast

archive consists of letters, catalogued as the ADM 106 series of items, sent to the Navy

Board in London from the various Royal dockyards. These letters, filed alphabetically by

sender, are important sources for historians of administrative affairs. Before the era of

mechanical copying, it would have been virtually impossible to file these letters by subject.

Most letters contain several topics; particularly those letters from the dockyard officers

which give almost daily accounts of the administration of the Royal dockyards throughout

their history.

What is often missed in this vast collection is that a large proportion of the correspondence

was written, or at least dictated, by shipwrights themselves. In addition, their wives,

widows and, on occasions, their apprentices wrote to the Navy Board. Many of the letters

give an insight into the social conditions under which shipwrights and their apprentices

lived and worked. Similarly, the autobiography of Mary Lacy, which she published in 1773

under her 'married' name of Slade, has also proved to be an important primary source in

this respect. This book has been studied previously by researchers of women's history.

What has been missed is the fact that almost the entire book is an account of Mary Lacy's

apprenticeship as a shipwright in Portsmouth dockyard. Whilst it does not go into great

detail about her activities at work, it does give an insight into the social conditions she

encountered. By using this account in conjunction with the correspondence of the Navy

Board, this dissertation has provided some insight into the master-and-servant

relationship. Specifically, this text has presented a 'history from below' of shipwright

apprentices in the mid-eighteenth century.

: Conclusion


Glossary

Adze Principle woodworking tool of a shipwright. The head consists of a forged iron or steel blade fashioned into a curve. The cutting edge is set at right-angles to the line of the helve (handle). Various sizes for particular jobs.

Apprentice Trainee craftsman or artificer, serving a seven-year term.

Auger Steel drilling bit used for boring large holes for bolts or dumps, used two-handed by means of a wooden T-handle.

Board wages The term applied to money paid either to an apprentice or his father by the apprentice's master. Used for payment of board, lodging, food, clothing and laundry if the servant is not residing in his master's home.

Bumboat woman A woman who traded goods to a ship's crew from a boat.

Carpenter In the Navy and dockyards, this is the name given to a shipwright serving on board ship. Often called a ship's carpenter.

Caulker A craftsman who undertakes caulking as a full-time occupation.

Caulking The process of closing gaps in between the planking of a wooden ship or boat in order to make it watertight. The materials used in the process; namely oakum and pitch.

Chatham Chest The charitable fund, founded in 1590 to provide pensions to wounded and

disabled personnel.

Chips Offcuts of timber, a daily allowance of which a shipwright is permitted to take out of the dockyard - provided the shipwright can carry the bundle under one arm.

Clerk of the Cheque The principal dockyard officer in charge of the accounts.

Commissioner The most senior dockyard officer in overall control of the management of a dockyard.

Gimlet Steel drilling bit used for boring small holes for screws, used in one hand by means of a wooden T-handle.

Gunroom Area at the aft end of the lower gun deck of a warship.

Haft The handle of a hammer or small axe.

: Glossary


Helve The handle of an adze or large axe. The length of an adze helve should be equal to the shipwright's inside leg measurement.

House carpenter An ordinary carpenter, working on timber buildings and structures within a dockyard.

Indenture Contract between a craftsman, who is the master, and an apprentice, who is the servant. The terms and conditions of indenture form a legally binding agreement. Can also be a legally binding contract between two parties, especially when money is borrowed.

Lob-lolly boy A general labourer working for the surgeon on board ship.

Master Builder Another name for the Master Shipwright.

Master Shipwright The principal naval architect and project manager in a dockyard.

Navy Board More correctly, 'The Honourable the Principle Officers and Commissioners of His Majesty's Navy'. The governing body in charge of the Royal dockyards and all matters of ship construction, repair and logistics. Subordinate to the Board of the Admiralty.

Oakum Fibrous material salvaged from old or condemned hemp rigging or rope. This is teased apart by hand, soaked in tar and rolled into bales. This process is the origin of the term 'money for old rope' as the old rope was sold to out-workers, processed and sold back to the Navy Board.

Pitch Black resinous product made from the sap of coniferous timber. Mostly imported from the Baltic states. Heated to boiling point and poured on top of oakum, this forms a watertight seal between planks on cooling.

Quarterman A junior dockyard officer, in charge of a gang of shipwrights.

Sawyer A semi-skilled craftsman who saws timber into planks.

Servant An apprentice craftsman in the Royal dockyards. Often abbreviated to sert., servt. or srt.

Shipwright Woodworking craftsmen, specifically a builder of ships. Can also build boats and undertake caulking when required. Often abbreviated to swt.

Smart ticket A letter from a dockyard officer accompanied by a note from a surgeon stating a person's injuries. Used to obtain a pension from the Chatham Chest.

: Glossary


Bibliography

Primary Sources

a) Manuscript Sources

The National Archives: Public Records Office, Kew, London

Admiralty Papers: Navy Board Correspondence

ADM 106 Correspondence from Dockyards: alphabetically by signatory and year

Item No. Signatories Year

ADM 106/895 A-B 1738

ADM 106/896 C 1738

ADM 106/897 C 1738

ADM 106/898 D-G 1738

ADM 106/899 H 1738

ADM 106/900 H 1738

ADM 106/901 I-O 1738

ADM 106/902 P 1738

ADM 106/903 P-T 1738

ADM 106/906 C 1739

ADM 106/907 C 1739

ADM 106/908 D-H 1739

ADM 106/910 H 1739

ADM 106/916 A-B 1740

ADM 106/917 C 1740

ADM 106/918 C 1740

ADM 106/920 H 1740

ADM 106/927 T 1740

ADM 106/935 D-F 1741

ADM 106/937 H 1741

ADM 106/938 H 1741

ADM 106/941 M-O 1741

ADM 106/990 F-G 1744

ADM 106/103 H-K 1746

: Bibliography



ADM 106/1037 U-V 1746

ADM 106/1038 W 1746

ADM 106/1040 B 1747

ADM 106/1041 C 1747

ADM 106/1043 H 1747

ADM 106/1044 H-K 1747

ADM 106/1045 L-P 1747

ADM 106/1046 P 1747

ADM 106/1047 P 1747

ADM 106/1048 R-S 1747

ADM 106/1051 U-V 1747

ADM 106/1052 V-W 1747

ADM 106/1053 W-Y 1747

ADM 106/1079 A-B 1750

ADM 106/1082 H 1750

ADM 106/1083 I-O 1750

ADM 106/1084 P 1750

ADM 106/1085 R-S 1750

ADM 106/1086 T-V 1750

ADM 106/1087 W-Y 1750

ADM 106/1088 A-B 1751

ADM 106/1089 C-F 1751

ADM 106/1090 G-H 1751

ADM 106/1091 H 1751

ADM 106/1092 I-O 1751

ADM 106/1093 P 1751

ADM 106/1094 R-S 1751

ADM 106/1118 A-B & E-G 1754-6

ADM 106/1124 I-L 1763

ADM 106/1127 P 1763

ADM 106/1134 H-K 1764

ADM 106/1135 P 1764

: Bibliography



ADM 106/1136 R-V 1764

ADM 106/1140 G-H 1765

ADM 106/1141 P 1765

ADM 106/1142 R 1765

ADM 106/1143 S 1765

ADM 106/1144 B-H 1766

ADM 106/1145 H 1766

ADM 106/1147 P 1766

ADM 106/1148 R 1766

ADM 106/1149 S-V 1766

ADM 106/1150 W 1766

ADM 106/1153 H 1767

ADM 106/1154 H 1767

ADM 106/1155 H 1767

ADM 106/1158 P 1767

ADM 106/1159 R 1767

ADM 106/1163 C 1768

ADM 106/1165 H 1768

ADM 106/1172 S 1768

ADM 106/1173 T-V 1768

ADM 106/1174 W-Y 1768

ADM 106/1175 A-B 1769

ADM 106/1180 R 1769

ADM 106/1181 P 1769

ADM 106/1183 S-V 1769

ADM 106/1189 H-N 1770

ADM 106/1193 S-Y 1770

: Bibliography


National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London

MSS/79/122.0 CAMPER, William, Apprentice Indenture, Gosport 1809 [MSS.82/012]

Portsmouth Dockyard Papers: Navy Board Warrant Books:

POR/A/15 Warrants from 23 March 1747 to 25 April 1749

POR/A/16 Warrants from 27 April 1749 to 13 October 1752

POR/A/22 Warrants from 16 October 1762 to 17 May 1765

SPB/20 1745 Manuscripts: Notes on Ship Construction compiled by William Wilkins,

Apprentice to John Ward, Master Shipwright at Chatham, ca. 1745

Devon Record Office, Sowton, Exeter

Indentures of Alexander Peter, Carpenter, H.M.S. Mars, 1768-1774

4187M/E264 Apprentice Indenture of John Collings to Alexander Peter,

Carpenter, H.M.S. Mars, 31 March 1768

4187M/E265 Apprentice Indenture of Thomas Negus to Alexander Peter,

Carpenter, H.M.S. Mars, 4 May 1771

4187M/E266 Indenture between Alexander Peter, Carpenter, H.M.S. Mars, and

John Line, Esq., 12 March 1774

4187M/E267 Bond between Alexander Peter, Carpenter, H.M.S. Mars, and

John Line, Esq., 12 March 1774

4187M/E268 Letter to Mrs. Line from Alexander Peter, undated.

Royal Institution, Truro, Cornwall: Courtney Library

Thomas Furse Family Memoirs (1767-1838), written 1834-38

b) Printed Primary Sources

Contemporary Publications

Defoe, D., The Complete English Tradesman (London, 1726)

Richardson, S., The Apprentice's Vade Mecum: or Young Man's Pocket-Companion

(London, 1734)

Slade, M., The History of the Female Shipwright; to Whom the government Has Granted a

Superannuated Pension of Twenty Pounds per Annum, during Her Life: Written by

Herself (London, 1773)

: Bibliography


Modern Transcriptions of Contemporary Records

Barnes, G. R., and J. H. Owen (eds), The Private Papers of John, Earl of Sandwich, First

Lord of the Admiralty 1771-1782, 4 vols (London, 1932-1938)

Baugh, D. A. (ed.), Naval Administration 1715-1750 (London, 1977)

Hattendorf, J. B., and R. J. B. Knight, A. W. H. Pearsall, N. A. M. Rodger, G. Till (eds),

British Naval Documents, 1204-1960 (Aldershot,1993)

Knight, R. J. B. (ed.), Portsmouth Dockyard Papers 1774-1783: The American War, a

Calendar (Portsmouth, 1987)

Lavery, B. (ed.), Marine Architecture: or Directions for Carrying on a Ship (New York, 1993)

McGovern, M. T. (ed.), List of Workmen and Apprentices in His Majesty's Dockyards 1748:

an alphabetical index transcribed from ADM 106/2976 at the Public Record Office

(Southsea, 2002)

Merriman, R. D. (ed.), The Sergison Papers (London, 1950)

Ponsford, C., Shipbuilding on the Exe: The Memorandum Book of Daniel Bishop Davy

(Exeter, 1988)

Rowe, D. J. (ed.), The Records of the Company of Shipwrights of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

1622-1967, 2 Vols (Gateshead, 1970 & 1971)

Webb, J. (ed.), An Early Nineteenth Century Dockyard Worker (Portsmouth, 1971)

2) Published Secondary Sources

Abell, Sir W., The Shipwright's Trade (Cambridge, 1948)

Anderson, R. C., 'Early Books on Shipbuilding and Rigging', Mariner's Mirror, Vol. 10

(1924), pp. 53-64

Anderson, R. C., 'Eighteenth-Century Books on Shipbuilding, Rigging and Seamanship',

Mariner's Mirror, Vol. 33 (1947), pp. 218-225

Banbury, P., Shipbuilders of the Thames and Medway (Newton Abbot, 1971)

Barnard, J. E., Building Britain's Wooden Walls: The Barnard Dynasty c.1697-1851

(Oswestry, 1997)

Bartlett, J., Ships of North Cornwall (Padstow, 1996)

Baugh D. A., British Naval Administration in the Age of Walpole (Princeton, 1965)

Bruzelius, L., Maritime History Virtual Archives,

http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Nautica.html (accessed Feb. 2008)

: Bibliography

http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Nautica.html


Coad, J. G., The Royal Dockyards, 1690-1850: Architecture and Engineering Works of the

Sailing Navy (Aldershot, 1989)

Coats, A., 'Efficiency in Dockyard Administration 1660-1800: A Reassessment', The Age of

Sail: The international Annual of the Historic Sailing Ship, Vol. 1 (London, 2002),

pp. 116-132

Cock, R., and N. A. M. Rodger (eds), A Guide to the Naval Records in the National

Archives of the U. K. (London, 2006)

Cooper, C. C., 'The Portsmouth System of Manufacture', Technology and Culture, No. 25

(1984), pp. 182-225

Crewe, D., Yellow Jack and the Worm (Liverpool, 1993)

Crimmin, P. K., 'Admiralty Relations with the Treasury, 1783-1806: The Preparation of Navy

Estimates and the Beginnings of Treasury Control', Mariner's Mirror, Vol. 53

(1967), pp. 63-72

Dicker, G., A Short History of Devonport Royal Dockyard (Plymouth, 1980)

Dougan, D., The Shipwrights (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1975)

Duffy, M., and S. Fisher, B. Greenhill, D. J. Starkey, J. Youings (eds), A New Maritime

History of Devon, Vol. 1: From Early times to the Late Eighteenth Century (London,

1992)

Duffy, M., and S. Fisher, B. Greenhill, D. J. Starkey, J. Youings (eds), A New Maritime

History of Devon, Vol. 2: From the Late Eighteenth Century to the Present Day

(London, 1994)

Farr, G., Shipbuilding in the Port of Bristol (London, 1977)

Guillery, P., 'The Further Adventures of Mary Lacy: “Seaman”, Shipwright, Builder', History

Workshop Journal, No. 49 (2000), pp. 212-219

Gwyn, J., Ashore and Afloat: the British Navy and the Halifax Yard before 1820 (Ottawa,

2004)

Haas, J. M., 'The Introduction of Task Work into the Royal Dockyards, 1775', Journal of

British Studies, Vol. 8 (1969), pp. 44-68

Haas, J. M., 'The Royal Dockyards: The Earliest Visitations and Reform, 1749-1778',

Historical Journal, Vol. 13 (1970), pp. 191-215

Haas, J. M., 'Methods of Wage Payments in the Royal Dockyards, 1775-1865', Maritime

History, Vol. 5 (1977), pp. 99-115

: Bibliography


Haas, J. M., 'The Royal Dockyard Schools, 1800-1914', Mariner's Mirror, Vol. 76 (1990),

pp. 325-335

Haas, J. M., A Management Odyssey: The Royal Dockyards, 1714-1914 (London, 1994)

Holland, A. J., Ships of British Oak: The Rise and Decline of Wooden Shipbuilding in

Hampshire (Newton Abbot, 1971)

Holland, A. J., Buckler's Hard: a rural shipbuilding centre (Emsworth, 1985)

Horsley, J. E., Tools of the Maritime Trades (Newton Abbot, 1978)

Humphries, J. 'English Apprenticeships: A neglected factor in the First Industrial

Revolution', David, P.A. and T. Mark (ed.), The Economic Future in Historical

Perspective (Oxford, 2001)

Kitson, H., 'The Early history of Portsmouth Dockyard', Mariner's Mirror, Vol. 33 (1947), pp.

256-265

Knight, C., '“Carpenter” Master Shipwrights', Mariner's Mirror, Vol. 18 (1932), pp. 411-422

Knight, R. J. B., 'Sandwich, Middleton and Dockyard Appointments', Mariner's Mirror, Vol.

57 (1971), pp. 175-192

Knight, R. J. B., 'The Building and Maintenance of the British Fleet during the Anglo-French

Wars 1688-1815', Acerra, M., J. Merrino, J. Meyer (eds), Les Marines de Guerre

Européenes XVII-XVIIIe siècles (Paris, 1985), pp. 35-50

Lambert, A., War at Sea in the Age of Sail, 1650-1850 (London, 2000)

Lane, J., Apprenticeship in England 1600-1914 (London, 1996)

Lunn, K, and A. Day (eds), History of Work and Labour Relations in the Royal Dockyards

(London, 1999)

MacLeod, N., 'The Shipwrights of the Royal Dockyards', Mariner's Mirror, Vol. 11 (1925),

pp. 276-291

MacLeod, N., 'The Shipwright Officers of the Royal Dockyards', Mariner's Mirror, Vol. 11

(1925), pp. 355-369

Masefield, J., Sea Life in Nelson's Time (London, 1972)

Middleton, R., 'The Visitation of the Royal Dockyards, 1749', Mariner's Mirror, Vol. 77

(1991), pp. 21-30

Morriss, R., 'Labour Relations in the Royal Dockyards, 1801-1805', Mariner's Mirror, Vol.

62 (1976), pp. 337-346

Morriss, R., The Royal Dockyards during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars

(Leicester, 1983)

: Bibliography


Morriss, R., 'St. Vincent and Reform, 1801-04', Mariner's Mirror, Vol. 69 (1983), pp. 269-

290

Morriss, R., Naval Power and British Culture, 1760-1850 (Aldershot, 2004)

Pritchard, J., 'From Shipwright to Naval Constructor: The Professionalization of 18th-

Century French naval Shipbuilders', Technology and Culture, Vol. 28 (1987), pp. 1-

25

Richardson, H. E., 'Wages of Shipwrights in H. M. Dockyards, 1496-1788', Mariner's

Mirror, Vol. 33 (1947), pp. 265-274

Rodger, N. A. M., The Wooden World: An Anatomy of the Georgian Navy (London, 1986)

Rodger, N. A. M., The Command of the Ocean: A Naval History of Britain 1649-1815

(London, 2004)

Stammers, M., 'Slipways and Steamchests: The Archaeology of 18th-19th Century

Wooden Merchant Shipyards in the United Kingdom', International Journal of

Nautical Archaeology, Vol. 28 (1999), pp. 253-264

Stark, S. J., Female Tars: Women aboard ship in the age of sail (London, 1998)

Starkey, D. J., 'Shipbuilding in the South West during the Napoleonic War', Maritime South

West, Vol. 6 (1993), pp. 1-13

Various Authors, The Book of Common Prayer (1662)

Ward-Jackson, C. H., Ships and Shipbuilders of a Westcountry Seaport: Fowey 1786-1939

(Truro, 1986)

Webb, J., 'Apprenticeship in the Maritime Occupations at Ipswich, 1596-1651', Mariner's

Mirror, Vol. 46 (1960), pp. 29-34

Winfield, R., The 50-Gun Ship (London, 1997)

Winfield, R., British Warships in the Age of Sail, 1714-1792 (Minnesota, 2007)

3) Dissertations and Theses

Doe, H., Small shipbuilding businesses during the Napoleonic Wars: James Dunn of

Mevagissey, 1799 to 1816, MA Dissertation, University of Exeter (2003)

: Bibliography

shipwright apprentices

Documents

chapter headings

degree of master

new master

contentsshipwright apprentices

abstractshipwright apprentices

apprentices numbers

apprentices good

mideighteenth centurylis