Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T09:57:03.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ordnance Office and the King's forts, 1660–1714

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2016

Howard Tomlinson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The study of one department of state in relation to its activities in building is at present being undertaken by a group of historians surveying the Office of Works. That Office, however, was certainly not the only department in the late seventeenth century concerned with the construction and management of edifices of national importance. For the Office of Ordnance was one of the most vital building departments during this period with responsibility for the maintenance of all kinds of garrison buildings as well as the erection of fortifications throughout England and later in Scotland and the colonies. It is this concern of the Office for fortifications - without which ‘no monarch, prince or state has been or can be safe in their government’ - that I wish to discuss in this paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
Architectural History , Volume 16 , 1973 , pp. 5 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes: spelling and punctuation have been modernized

1 Brown, R. Allen, Colvin, H. M. & Taylor, A. J., The History of the King's Work, vols I-II (1963)Google Scholar; J. Mordaunt Crook & M. H. Port, vol. VI (1973).

2 Including chapels and hospitals. PRO WO47.10, pp.70 & 93.

3 The Office was responsible for fortifications in Scotland shortly after the Union (Blenheim MS B i, 23, letter of 15 February 1708/9). It is clear that the Office did not direct fortifications in all the colonies. Although the Office took over the Gibraltar works in May 1708 (Blenheim MS B i, 2, letter to Marlborough 14 May), it was not responsible for the New York fortifications at this time (PRO W047.25, p.261, report of the Board, early 1707/8).

4 PRO WO44.100, p. 19, Beckman's letter, 10 December 1690.

5 From an essay by Lt-Col. Ross on military engineering, 1642–49, in Pro fessional Papers of the Corps of Royal Engineers xiii (1887), p. 100.Google Scholar

6 Tait, A. A., ‘The Protectorate Citadels of Scotland’, Architectural History viii (1965), pp.9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 John Rosworme may have been responsible for the design of Inverness Citadel (ibid., p. 13). There is also the Royal Citadel at Plymouth dated 1677 and initialled J.R. (BM Add. MS 5415.6.2, cited by Tait, op. cit., p. 12).

8 Few building accounts of the period seem to have survived (Tait, op. cit.,p. 17, n.42).

9 BM Add. MS 5027, A. art 63.

10 ROSS, op. dt., p. 110.

11 Memorial of John Ray (ed. Lankester, ), Ray Society (1846), p. 162, cited by Tait, op. cit.,p.12.Google Scholar

12 Tragellas, Walter H., ‘Historical Sketch of the Permanent Coast Defences of England’, Professional Papers of the Corps of Royal Engineers xii (1886), p.79.Google Scholar

13 PRO W047.5, p.222.

14 CSPD, 1661/2, p.573.

15 PRO W047.8, 15 March 1664/5, petition of Captain of Hurst Castle; CSPD, 1661/2, p.225, report of the Governor that Sandham Fort ‘can neither offend an enemy nor defend itself’; PRO SP29.234, pp. 151–153, report of Sir Robert Holmes, 6 February 1667/8 on the six garrisons of the Isle of Wight.

16 PRO W047.5, pp.250–251.

17 PRO WO47.6, p.78, 11 November 1664.

18 BM Add. MS 16 370, p. 12, plan by De Fabvolière. Comment, Ross, op. cit., p.97.

19 PRO WO 46.5, p.l30.

20 O'Neil, St J., ‘Stefan Von Haschenperg, an Engineer to King Henry VIII and his work’, Archaeobgia xci (1945), pp. 137–155.Google Scholar

21 Maclvor, Iain, ‘The Elizabethan Fortifications of Berwick-upon-Tweed’, Antiquaries Jnl, xlv (1965), pp. 64–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Tait, op. cit. (last page re citadels 1670). See Figs 1a & b.

23 Appointment of a Commission for Plymouth, PRO SP29. 104, pp.73–75, 17 November 1665.

24 BM King's Top. Coll., xi, 83, plan 1725.

25 Both new and old fortifications are clearly shown on Lilly's plan of 1715 (BM King's MS 45, p.33).

26 PRO SP29.128, p. 155, 10 August 1665.

27 PRO SP29.104, pp.98–99, 15 May 1666.

28 See Figs 2a & b. For De Gomme's remodelling of Pembroke and Town Mount, BM Add. MS 16 370, pp. 14–15; estimates, ibid., pp. 16–22, and Sloane MS 2448, pp. 16–18.

29 Staffs RO Dartmouth MS 1778, V.28.

30 ibid., contract with Thomas & John Fitch, 1 March 1667; BM Add. MS 16370, p. 38, De Gomme's estimate for Gosport, 22 January 1677/8.

31 Staffs R O D. 1778, V.28; V.29, draft of the redout slightly larger than at Gosport.

32 BM King's Top. Coll., xxxiii, 23, g.1–4, Clifford's Fort. See Fig.5a.

33 PRO W046.1, p.214, warrant, 10 August 1681.

34 Ray's report, see note 11 above.

35 PRO W0 46.1, p.302, letter from Beckman, 13 June 1681.

36 PRO W0 46.1, p.214, warrant, 10 August 1681.

37 PRO W0 46.1, p.347, fourth instruction from Beckman to Capt. Lloyd, 15 April 1683.

38 PRO W0 46.1, p.307, letter from Beckman, 7 September 1681.

39 Rogers, P. G., The Dutch in the Medmy (Oxford 1970), pp.80–81.Google Scholar

40 BM King's Top. Coll., xvii, 12, early plan for Sheerness by De Gomme.

41 PRO W047.19A, pp.225,437.

42 BM King's MS 43, elevations of each fort. The date 1671 may be clearly seen on the plaques above the entrance to each building. See also Fig. 4.

43 CSPD, 1667/8, p.416, warrant, May 1668.

44 BM King's MS 43.

45 PRO W0 46.3, p. 108, Office to Romney, 16 March 1694/5.

46 PROSP 429.207 i

47 CSPD, 1671, p.272, King to Chichely, 25 May 1671; BM Add. MS 16370, pp. 2–9, plans for Tilbury, 1663,1668 & 1670. See Fig. 5b.

48 CSPD, 1695, p.81, 14 October 1695; PRO W0 47.18, p.57, 7 December 1695, petition from Hastings.

49 PRO W0 46.5, p.97,20 May 1702.

50 PRO W0 46.5, p. 100, 21 May 1702.

51 PRO W0 46.5, p. 101, 2 June 1702.

52 BM King's MS 45, p. 18, 22 July 1715.

53 CSPD, 1700–02, pp.515–516, 16 February 1702, Vernon to Romney, trans mitting the Lieutenant-Governor's memorial.

54 PRO W0 48.25, p. 162, 2 November 1686, payments of travelling charges to Dartmouth for attending the King to Bristol to choose ground to erect a fort there; ibid., p. 164, 10 November 1686, to Theodore Dury for a design for a fort at Bristol; PRO W0 48.26, 20 July 1687, travelling charges for Talbot Edwards for going to Bristol to assist Beckman in survey of River Avon, 8 November-7 December 1687; ibid., 22 September 1687, payment to Beckman for same.

55 PRO WO 48.30, 19 November 1691, payment.

56 PRO W0 46.6, p.6, Office to Marlborough, 23 March 1703/4.

57 PRO WO 46.5, p.l06.

58 PRO W0 46.6, pp.83 & 84, report of Board, 17 February 1707/8.

59 BM King's Top. Coll., xiii, 15.2 & 3, drafts not signed by De Gomme but by the same hand as plan of Sheerness above (note 40). See also Fig. 3.

60 CSPD, 1672, p.353,29 August 1672.

61 CSPD, 1673, p. 128, 8 April 1673.

62 PRO WO 47.25, p. 468, 29 April 1708; Blenheim MS B i, 23, estimate for repairs of fortification, 1709, ‘the corporation of Harwich and others do lay claim to the ground upon which a line of fortifications did formerly run and have built some houses thereupon’.

63 Hogg, O. F. C., The Royal Arsenal, 2 vols (Oxford 1963).Google Scholar

64 PRO W0 46.6, pp.90–91, Office to Marlborough, 25 March 1708; W0 47.25, p. 320, orders to Capt. Manway, 10 February 1707/8.

65 7 Anne, c.26 (1708); 8 Anne, c.21 (1709).

66 BM Stowe MS 477, p. 11, Richards report, October 1713.

67 BM King's MS 43, p. 128.

68 BM King's Top. Coll., xi, 81; plan by a French artist, ibid., 74.2.

69 CSPD, 1700–02, p.370, 23 June 1701, Vernon to Romney, enclosing extracts of Commissioners’ letter.

70 CSPD, 1667, p.8.

71 BM Add. MS 16370, p.37.

72 SP16, No. 133, ii, memorial by the Admiralty Commissioners, 9 February 1696/7.

73 BM King's MS 43, p.93.

74 PRO W0 47.22, p.426, 27 October 1705.

75 PRO W0 46.6, pp.90–91, Office to Marlborough, 25 March 1708.

76 BM Stowe MS 477, p. 11, 28 October 1714.

77 PRO W0 46.4, p.39, 14 November 1698.

78 The Sergison Papers (ed. Merriman, R. D.), NRS (1945), p. 137, 10 September 1698.Google Scholar

79 PRO W0 46.4, p.41, Office to Romney, 13 December 1698.

80 PRO SP32.11, ff.318–319, report of Office, 12 September 1699.

81 ibid.

82 CSPD, 1702/3, pp.599–601, 20 February 1702/3.

83 PRO WO 46.5, p. 149.

84 BM King's MS 45, reports, 1714–17.

85 ibid., p. 5.

86 ibid., p.20.

87 ibid., p. 57.

88 ibid., p.32.

89 ibid., p. 32.

90 ibid., pp.20 & 22.

91 BM Sloane MS 477, p.20, 5 May 1714.

92 ibid., p. 18, 19 March 1714.

93 PRO W047.29, p.58, 4 March 1714/5.

94 CSPD, 1667, p. 150, 4 June 1667, Sir Robert Holmes to Williamson, complaining about the want of timber for the works at Sandham Fort which the Ordnance officers ‘pretend’ is not wanted.

95 CSPD, 1702/3, p.600, warrant, 20 February 1702/3.

96 PRO WO47.24, p.47, 31 August 1706. Mr Thorpe the storekeeper at Pendennis Castle was blamed, because the Lieutenant-Governor had been forced to complain of its condition.

97 Pepys, S., Naval Minutes (ed. Tanner, J. R.), NRS (1926), p.28.Google Scholar

98 ibid., p205.

99 Staffs ROD 1778, 1.i 1077, letter of 1684.

100 Tait, , op. cit., p. 12 Google Scholar, re plans for Liverpool Fort and Reading defences.

101 E.g. his scheme for fortifying the Bouce de Vale in Guernsey (BM King's MS 48, pp. 42–43).

102 BM Stowe MS 477, p.27; PRO W0 46.6, p.92. The actual estimate was £301186 19s 3d.

103 PRO W0 48.35. Total expenditure for services June 1696 to June 1697 was £265 822 12s 17¾ (not counting money imprested, salaries or exchequer fees).

104 PRO WO 44.100, p.25, Office to Romney, 7 October 1699.

105 SirMoore, Jonas , Modern Fortification or Elements of Military Architecture (1st edn 1673), p. 73.Google Scholar

106 PRO W0 47.13, p. 195, re sinking of main graft at Portsmouth. Minute, 11 October 1683: ‘it will be an extraordinary charge the season of the year being almost spent and the days grow short.’ Though at Hull in 1681 works were still continuing in December (PRO W046.1, p.319).

107 Staffs RO D.1.i 514, report of Clarke at Portsmouth, 28 September 1679; ibid., 572, report of Duxbury, 4 July 1680.

108 Moore, , op. cit., pp. 76–77.Google Scholar This was the opinion of Moore, who was con cerned in the works.

109 PRO WO 44.100, p.7, letter of Christopher Musgrave, 4 November 1684.

110 BM Stowe MS 477, p. 10, Richards report to the Board re the dangers from the impulse of water and of rolling shingle to Blockhouse Point, July 1713; PRO W0 47.19B, 17 November 1674, notice given to the Office that the sluice at Gillingham Fort ‘is very much eaten away with the sea’; PRO WO 47.16, p. 69,5 December 1685, ‘The tide by the late storm having broken into the moat and torn away the berme [at Languard Fort]’.

111 PRO W0 46.1, p.232, Beckman's report, 26 April 1683. The tide rose 4–8ft neap tide and 8–13ft spring tide ‘which is not so much upon any wall now standing near the sea side in England, and when high or southerly winds do arise there must be a sufficient wall to resist that great force the water will produce’.

112 PRO WO 44.100, pp.20–25.

113 BM King's MS 48, p.49.

114 PRO W0 47.15, p. 152.

115 PRO W0 47.H, p.5,16 August 1684.

116 PRO WO 46.6, pp.90–91, Office to Marlborough, 25 March 1708.

117 BM Stowe MS 477, p. 11, report, 28 October 1714.

118 BM King's MS 45, p.5.

119 BM Stowe MS 477, p.26.

120 Blenheim MS Aii, 25, letter from the Board, 7 May 1708.

121 ibid.

122 Blenheim MS Bi, 2, Board to Marlborough, 29 June 1708.

123 PRO WO 46.6, p.36, Board to Marlborough, 22 May 1705.

124 PRO W0 46.1, pp.230–231, De Gomme criticisms of Catlyn's proposals for the great wall intended for the east end of the Citadel at Hull.

125 ibid. Catlyn had wanted one-third of the total once the contract was signed.

126 PRO W0 46.1, p.330, letter from Beckman, 26 July 1682.

127 CSPD, 1671/2, p.45, Major N. Darell to the Earl of Arlington, 3 May 1672.

128 PRO SP32, pp.318–319, 12 September 1699.

129 PRO W0 46.6, p.92, 7 May 1708.

130 PRO W0 46.6, p.41, Board to Marlborough, 8 January 1705/6.

131 PRO SP32, pp.318–319, 12 September 1699.

132 Staffs, RO D1778, V28, detailed contract for works at Gosport, 9 March 1667/8.

133 Reddaway, T. F., The Rebuilding of London after the Great Fire (1940), pp. 214–216.Google Scholar

134 PRO WO 47.10, p.60, 2 July 1681. Presumably at Castle Cornett, the magazine of which was blown up by the lightning.

135 PRO W0 47.13, p. 176, 13 September 1683.

136 PRO W0 46.1, p.319, 26 November 1681.

137 PRO W0 46.1, p.319,3 December 1681.

138 PRO W0 47.13, p.33, 22 February 1682/3.

139 PRO W0 46.1, p.285, 11 April 1682.

140 PRO W0 46.2, p.297, Beckman to the Board, 24 November 1684.

141 PRO W0 46.2, p.299, Beckman to the Board, 26 November 1684.

142 PRO W0 46.2, p.300, Beckman to the Board, 6 December 1684.

143 PRO WO 46.2, p. 145, letter from the Board to the Fitches, 28 October 1684; WO 47.13, p. 159, 18 August 1683.

144 PRO W0 46.1, pp.232 & 285; W0 46.2, p.251.

145 Staffs RO D1778 Ii 579, 17 August 1680, letter from Duxbury re failures of Fitch, Lee and Couzens.

146 PRO W0 46.1, p.320, letter from Duxbury at Hull, 12 December 1681. Fitch refused to pay sub-contractors full rates and they stopped work.

147 Staffs RO D1778 Ii 1077, letter of 1684.

148 PRO W0 46.1, p.308, letter to Board, 25 September 1681.

149 PRO WO 46.2, p.242, letter to Board, 23 July 1684.

150 Bodleian Rawl MS A475, p. 1, minutes of Commissioners, 14 April 1683.

151 ibid., p. 18, letter from De Gomme and Sherburne, 14 July 1683.

152 PRO W0 46.1, p.304, letter from Duxbury, 5 October 1681.

153 PRO WO 47.10, p.85, 1 October 1681.

154 Bodleian Rawl MS A475, p. 18, letter from De Gomme and Sherburne, 14 July 1683.

155 ibid., p. 19, letter from De Gomme and Sherburne, 20 July 1683.

156 PRO W0 47.13, p. 162, 23 August 1683.

157 BM King's MS 45, p. 5.

158 PRO W0 46.1, p.308, 25 September 1681 John Fitch to Board; ibid., p.346, 16 April 1683, Duxbury to Board.

159 ibid., p. 345, 26 March 1683, Duxbury to Board.

160 Staffs RO D1778 Ii 512, letter from Clarke, 28 September 1679.

161 Staffs RO D1778 V21, ‘Payments made the several companies employed in the new fortifications off Gospar this present year 1678’.

162 Staffs RO D1778 I.i 512, letter, 28 September 1679.

163 PRO W0 46.1, pp.316, 318, 319, letters, 16, 23, 26 November 1681.

164 CSPD, 1666/7, p.590, 27 March 1667.

165 PRO SP44.29, f. 198, King's warrant to Chicheley, 10 August 1676.

166 PRO W0 47.19A, pp.227–228, appointment of De Gomme, Moore and Baylie as overseers for building the forts at Gillingham and Cockham Wood, 20 March 1668/9.

167 PRO SP29.128, p. 155, King's warrant for the appointment of Commis sioners for Portsmouth, 10 August 1665, sixth instructions.

168 PRO W0 46.1, p.340, letter from Beckman, 20 November 1682.

169 PRO W0 46.1, p.351, letter from Charles Lloyd, 2 May 1683.

170 Staffs RO D1778 V28. In this way the Fitches’ contract for Gosport (March 1667/8) was delayed one month.

171 PRO W0 46.1, p.351, letter from Charles Lloyd, 14 May 1683; p.353, letter from Duxbury, 28 May 1683.

172 PRO W0 46.1, p.326, 26 April 1682.

173 Bodleian Rawl MS A475, pp. 6–19, letters, May-July 1683.

174 Staffs RO D1778 I.i 566, letter from Clarke, 15 June 1680.

175 ibid. 599, letter from Clarke, 30 November 1680.

176 ibid. 1072, letter, 26 October 1684; ibid. 1070, further complaints from Phillips about Clarke, 5 October 1684.

177 ibid. 1077, letter of 1684.

178 ibid. 591, letter, 17 October 1680.

179 Notably Tilbury Fort and Plymouth Citadel.