Tuesday, December 31, 2024

The Ghost in the Dome


Ghost in the Dome

You see this all goes back to at least 1998 and maybe further back.

I had done this M.Phil at the Poly in the early 1980s and it was about George Livesey who was the big man in the late 19th century gas  industry.  He had built East Greenwich Gas Works  and I rather thought - as the Millennium neared - well this was my big chance!

I was also researching the history of the peninsula and for a long time I had been going down there and climbing through hedges and finding things (I was younger then), chatting up security men and so on.  I got to know Kay Murch who was the last gas works employee on the site and by then she was site manager for the New Millennium Experience Company.  Kay was a local lady, who had started in the gas works as a typist, and she was all right.

So - its 1998 - one morning I open the Guardian and there is a big three page spread about the Dome, and Kay had taken a group of press men round the site. She had been asked about stories of a ghost - oh, yes, she had said - its George Livesey who built the gas works, Mary Mills knows all about it.'   There it was, in print.

So - next evening there I was on ITV - at what was then the Livesey Museum in the Old Kent Road. Telling the world about George.


And then I sort of forgot about it. But then once the Dome was opened in 2000 I got a call from their press officer - who I knew anyway. And down I went for an interview with Psychic News and Fortean Times.  'Tell us' they said 'did Mr. Livesey have any hobbies'.  'Oh yes, he liked to go to the seaside' .  'Oh' says the press officer 'there is a seaside zone in the Dome ... and its on the site of the old gas company office block'.  Ah ha.  


Next thing I was on the John Dunn show going down the river on Viceroy and telling them all about Livesey live on air - except when I mentioned Blur and Park Life in Riverway (they put music over that bit and told me off - the John Dunn show never had music recorded after 1970).   


Anyway it all pops up from time to time in ghost hunting journals. Personally I think Livesey was a committed Christian, rational and very very bright and would have had no truck with becoming a ghost.


BUT some years later I met some bloke who said to me that he was the ghost in the Dome.  He said that in the Second World War he was fire watching down in the gas company offices. He was tired so he wrapped himself up in a sheet and went to sleep on the comfy deep pile carpet in the director's offices. Then clank clank there is the cleaner in the morning, so he stood up, wrapped  in a sheet ............................ so you see that's how stories start.


Mary Mills 

INFORMATION ON THE EAST GREENWICH GAS HOLDER

 



EAST GREENWIH NO 1 GAS HOLDER

INFORMATION ON THE EAST GREENWICH GAS HOLDER.

This is a brief information sheet about the holder plus information on the current demolition plans.

Biggest gas holder in Europe - an exceptional structure built to revolutionary principles - listing now refused - and scheduled for demolition - ideas for reuse apparently not considered

BACKGROUND

The gas industry in South London, beginning around 1820, had developed as a chaos of small competing private companies. Regulation was imposed on them by governments from the 1870s. This resulted in the area being dominated by Livesey’s South Metropolitan Company from the Old Kent Road. East Greenwich works was built in the 1880s as the out-of-town mega works which the government wanted to be built but it was also a show place for Livesey’s ideals and standards. Only perfection was good enough for South Met.!


THE HOLDER


A gas holder is like a cup turned upside down in a saucer which holds a pool of water. The cup is built in a tier of sections which can lift and fall according to the amount of gas in it. This one was built on George Livesey's revolutionary cylindrical shell principle which treats it as a single huge cylinder. There are many other revolutionary aspects to the design and materials and while the structure appears to be simple it is really very complex and different from the older, often highly decorative, holders.


It is far taller than would normally be expected. It has four ‘lifts’ which rise upwards and is the first holder ever built to this size. It rises to about 180 feet and holds 8.2 million cubic feet of gas. The great height of construction was made possible by new materials and it effected a great saving in cost which had a huge subsequent effect. It is it more efficient and lighter.  Costs of storage were also less in terms of land use and labour - and workers could be encouraged to go to church on Sundays even though Sunday dinners had to be cooked.


The holder is free of all decoration and it sets a new bench-mark for gasholder design of which it is a refinement in size and sophistication and an exploitation of the beauty of pure structural form. Ideas then being embodied in industrial and domestic design as the modern movement.


WHY IT ISN'T LISTED AND PROTECTED


Some years ago English Heritage commissioned a report on London holders.  Very recently this report has been revisited and as a result an Old Kent Road holder has been listed and East Greenwich No.1 has not.


The holder has (April 2018) been given consent to demolition. Last year the Council drew up a planning brief for the site in which they said “Proposals should respect and respond to the industrial character of the area as a means of relating new development to the local context. In particular, development should build on the heritage value of the gas holder to enhance the character and distinctiveness of the area.”  Following this an application was made for immunity to listings order – which does not get general consultation, although Greenwich Industrial History Society was aware of it and made a submission.  But the order was granted meaning that it could be demolished without a planning application


I am putting below an extract about the legal position by Matt Pennycook MP - which his consent (thank you Matt) - because it is a particularly clear and straightforward explanation


Crucially, the application SGN plc submitted was not a standard planning application but a ‘prior approval’ application. Securing prior approval allows developers to use permitted development rights i.e. the right to make changes without the need to apply for planning permission from the local planning authority. Local planning authorities have only 28 days to determine such applications (if they do not, there is a default in favour of grating permission). Local councillors who object cannot call such applications in, and, in the case of an application to demolish a structure, the local planning authority can only consider the method of demolition, not the principle of whether or not it should take place. In the case of the gasholder, our Council could scrutinise the method of demolition and they did just that, refusing SGN plc’s first prior approval application, but could not refuse the prior notification on the grounds that they would like to see some or all of the gasholder structure to be retained. It’s a frustrating situation, but one that is a world away from the impression created in some recent reports suggesting the Council has backed the demolition of the gasholder. 

 

As things stand, the granting of prior approval means that there is nothing that can be done to prevent the gasholder being lost should SGN plc wish to proceed with a demolition. However, the Council will continue to make efforts to reach out to SGN plc in the hope that the site owner will agree to at least begin a discussion about the heritage value of the gasholder and the range of creative proposals that could be brought forward to retain and make use of it. I very much hope they are successful

Matt Pennycook


I have also written to planners and influentual people asking them to get the planners to write more detailed letters to residents in cases like this where it is not a straightfordward planning application,. Residents who had raised objections just got a two line letter saying - the first time that it had not been given consent for demolition, and then - the second time that it had.  They deserved to be told what the actual situation was.  Would be grateful for backing for this.

Mary Mills


Accident in 1803

 


200th Anniversary of an industrial accident on the Greenwich Peninsula


By Mary Mills


On 8th September 2003 is the 200th anniversary of an industrial accident on the Greenwich riverside. There were lots of those but this one had consequences beyond the immediate ones, and it involved one of the heroes of steam technology, Richard Trevithick.


A plaque on the wall of the public house on the Peninsula, reads 'New East Greenwich’ and that may have been what was intended in 1803 -a new development away from the main industrial town of Greenwich. Development on the Peninsula is not something new - in 1800 the developer was George Russell, the site's owner. Russell had made a fortune from soap manufacture, founding the old Barge House Soap works on the west side of Blackfriars Bridge and he died at his home at Longlands, Sidcup,  in 1804. Since developments, including the landscaping of the area, as part of the Dome site it is very difficult to find the area where this incident took place. Most people will remember that the courtyard now in front of the Pilot used to extend to the riverside as Riverway. On the northern side stood the Blackwall Point Potter Station -- and this is roughly the site of the tide mill under construction in 1803. Ceylon Place. The cottages alongside the Pilot were built to house the workers.

This mill was constructed by the leading millwrighting business of John Lloyd. Lloyd was based at Brewers Green in Westminster but within two years had moved to Nelson Square in Southwark as a partner in Lloyd and Ostell. The company were government contractors and were to install the equipment at Waltham Abbey Gunpowder Works and a number of other important sites. They represent a point at which water powered mill wrighting was at a peak; a few years later such a big industrial installation would have chosen steam power with little consideration of any alternative

The mill was apparently also the work of a little known engineer, William Johnson. Johnson seems to have come from Bromley, where he gave his address as Widmore House. He had approached Morden College several times during the previous couple of ' years for a site where he could construct a 'water corn mill ' but exactly what his relationship was with George Russell and John Lloyd is not clear. By 1802 he had moved to Montpelier Row in Blackheath and was asking the City of London Thames Conservators for permission to open the river bank for the mill race and following a visit from their inspector a Mr. Hollingsworth was employed do the work. At the same time George Russell received a licence for the causeway into the river, which people will remember was used by the yacht club until riverbank reconstruction by English Partnerships.


One day in 1802 0linthus Gregory, Professor of Mathematics at the Royal Military Academy in Woolwich, he walked along the riverside from Woolwich. and chatted to the foreman and recorded what he found on site. It is from him that we have most of the details of this important mill.

 Steam power was available on site: a high-pressure engine built by Richard Trevithick was in use, apparently for building work. Trevithick had recently come to London to advertise his work -- this had included the previous bear the demonstrations of his locomotive on a circular track at Euston.

It had an 8-inch cylinder and worked without an expansive cock. Trevithick himself said that it was 'too light a load to do good dull and 'of a bad construction .. The flywheel was loaded on one side. So as to divide the power of ' The double engine '. It was reported that the fire 'in contact with the cast iron ' had heated the boiler red hot and burnt all the joints. Eels congregated under the mill and on Thursday ', 8th September 1803. an apprentice. left to look after the steam engine. went to catch them. 'Impatient to finish the work he had put a piece of Limber between the top and the safety value and bent it down so that it could not rise to allow the steam 10 escape the boiler blew- up, killing three men on site. At the remote riverside a wherry was called and the injured taken b} river to St. Thomas's Hospital which was there at London Bridge. Despite the efforts of the surgeon. N'lr. Bingham, one man. Thomas Nailor. died a few days later: his head and neck had been covered in boiling water interestingly Nailor had not been a Greenwich resident, but had lived north of the river in Poplar. Another man was deafened. but the boy who was the cause of the trouble. although injured. recovered.


Trevithick feared that Boulton and Watt, as rival engine manufactures. would be quick 10 point out the dangers involved. The Times in reporting the incident said that Mr. Walt's engines would not explode in this way ' and that the accident 'should be a warning to engineers to construct their safety valves so that common workmen cannot stop them at their pleasure. It seems that there was some sort of enquiry after the accident - it is the sort of thing which ought to have happened The only clue to this is found in a register of expenses submitted to the Court of ' Chancery after George Russell's death. One item concerns expenses to 'Daniel Vaux and Mr. Johnson for attending as a witness in a case respecting the steam engine in Greenwich' - what was this case? Was it about insurance? I have been totally ' unable to find out and some knowledge of this case and its proceedings might throw a whole new light on the matter The mill lived on -- it had a number of operators and became part of Frank Hills' chemical works in the 1840s and was still there in 1890. After his death some of the site was used for Blackmail Point Power Station and the rest, including the mill, became The Phoenix Chemical works attached to the gas works. In 1927 the insurance based Goad plan for the area still shows some of the mill ponds with a causeway leading to them from the area of the tidal intake - is there anyone who still remembers those ponds What were they used forte When were they drained? It is almost impossible now, given the landscaping undertaken by English Partnerships to trace the site of the mill or the ponds   




This appeared in the GIHS Newsletter for September 2003

Cervia

 


Some years ago I bought a book in the Falconwood Bookshop “London Ship Types” published in  1938 by the East Ham Echo.  The first chapter is headed “Points of Vantage on the London River”.  And lists  out good places to stand and watch the shipping. It says “Greenwich and its opposite shore are particularly popular”. What was there then for them to see? We could well look at some of the places where you can stand today - although you’ll see nothing even remotely like they would have seen in 1938.

The River has been very much in my mind all week because I’ve been looking at a Facebook page or the preserved steam tug, Cervia. (https://www.facebook.com/groups/steamtugcervia?locale=en_GB) I noted the date of the memorial service for the 70th anniversary of her terrible accident in the river at Gravesend. Cervia was working at Tilbury docks and involved in the undocking of the P&O liner Arcadia by  towing her, stern first, away from the landing stage. Arcadia put her engines full ahead to avoid a collision with P&O liner Orcades which was in Tilbury entrance.  CERVIA was pulled sideways, capsized and sank. Although they tried to release the towing hawser the Cervia’s  Master, Bill Russell, MBE and five of her crew died. Another Watkins owned tug, Challenge, rescued three of the crew.

I’ve had been talking to Bill Russell only 24 hours or so earlier, standing in his garden where he had been mowing the lawn. Next morning there was his picture on the front page of the News Chronicle  with a whole story about the accident.  It is a small illustration of daily work on the River and its frequent dangers – and the people who worked with all those ships.

For many years Cervia was in Ramsgate in a dock next to the Museum as a preserved ship - like Greenwich has got Cutty Sark so Ramsgate had Cervia. She is now in the hands of voluntary sector organisation, dedicated to her.

Back to the book about Thames Shipping in 1938.  As the author says people enjoy looking at the River and the ships.  He says Greenwich “has the advantage of an unusually long stretch of river in view and so narrow that the ships are bound to come close. Thousands of people stand on the bank here for hours!”  I don’t know where those thousands stood in Greenwich to see the ships. I hope they weren’t all there together or most of them would see nothing but other people’s heads!  In 1938 the pier and the river frontage next to it - Garden Stairs –Billingsgate Dock  - were much as now but behind them there were streets with industrial buildings and lots of pubs! The Cutty Sark wasn’t there;  Cutty Sark gardens weren’t there - so there was a lot less space for all these thousands of people.

What would they have been looking at and what would they have seen? In those days  newspapers published very long lists of the ships that were expected in the Port, and other list of those that were here already.  Almost all movement around the world was by ship for both passengers and goods. I know most good are still are moved by ship, although we don’t see them – and in the Port of London they go to termini down river. In 1934 most of it would have been coming up river - and by a lot I mean a lot! 

If you want to know about how the Port used to operate - x see a film made in 1940 called City of Ships. If you’ve never seem it. then you should.  It’s in the BFI collection so you can see it on-line (https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-city-of-ships-1940)  It was made by Basil Wright – the same man who made ‘Nightmail’ which I wrote about last year.

The lists of ships in the newspaper cover the whole port, right down to Gravesend and beyond.  I think the people watching a Greenwich will just have seen ships which were going up River (and back down) from, say, Charlton. So that would exclude everything downriver of Charlton and, I’m afraid, I would exclude shipping using the Royal Docks because the entrance at Galleons is further down river.

Now a very very rough count of the ships listed as in the Port of London on the 12th November 1938 which would pass Greenwich was probably about 100 vessels. The lists include ships at riverside wharves and that includes wharves as up as far as Brentford and beyond. It also includes the upriver docks. I guess that most people these days will have no idea about the various docks and dock names. I said I would exclude shipping using the Royal Docks from what they would  see from Greenwich but they are very much still there although in other use, including the airport. The next docks going upriver on the north bank were the East India Docks which have very largely gone - but there are some bits and pieces if you walk around the site. They were directly opposite Blackwall Point and the Dome.  The West India Docks and Millwall Dock which are the water areas all round Canary Wharf.  Although they are not used you can still get boats in and out of them. Then Regents Canal Dock which now seems to call itself Limehouse Basin which gives access to the whole of the Midlands and north in England. The London Dock which was in Wapping and is now just a few bits of canal and then St Katharine’s which is still there and used a ‘yacht basin’ and leisure facility.

On the south side of the River were the Surrey Docks. An awful lot of the vessels in the list are going there. Surrey Docks was the area around Canada Water and that great big Tesco. There are still two  docks there - the South Dock which you can get enter from the River and the Greenland Dock which is a rebuild of the oldest dock on the river.  The Surreys specialised in timber imports.

On the 12th November 1938 the list says that a ship called Aurania was expected in the Surrey Commercial Docks that day.  Aurania was owned by Cunard and she had come from Montreal in Canada, stopping off first at Le Havre and at Plymouth. Cunard had bought her from a Newcastle based shipping company called Cairns Line who had established the trade with Canada. Aurania and her sisters were basically cargo vessels but they also carried passengers. Almost all movement around the world in 1938 was by boat and that while we know all about the big glamorous passenger liners we don’t hear about the ships which went to everywhere else. You would have to go on a ship which was taking part cargo and part passengers. A lot of the ships going up river past Greenwich would be like this.

Every day there would be many ships bringing coal down from the Durham coalfield for gas works and power stations in London, and many other industries – some using several 1,000 ton of coal every day. Some of the big gas companies had their own fleets and, South Met. for instance had a  site on Deptford Creek where they had not only serviced the ships that went to Durham but also had tugs and various small workboats.  Some gas works and power stations were upriver and vessels had to pass under bridges to get to them. Wandsworth Gas Works, for instance had collier vessels called ‘Flat irons’ whose funnels were hinged so they could lay flat as the boat went under the bridges. 

The people watching at Greenwich would also have seen a lot of boats - probably most of what was in the River – which were not in these lists of arrivals from overseas. Lot of vessels worked on the river. There would be official boats like launches owned by the Port of London Authority and other organisations doing actual business about the River.  There would also have been River maintenance  boats – like dredgers. Some of them were owned by Tilbury Construction based on Dreadnought Wharf in Greenwich. Then there were boats delivering cargoes from up and down the river and never going to sea. Of course there were lots of sailing barges – just as glamorous then as they are now but in those days they would be at work.  They have a lot of fans and a lot of websites which will tell you about every one of them.  For example  https://sailingbargeassociation.co.uk/

We mustn’t forget the cable ships – always ready to keep world communications working by going off and repairing a cable in mid-Atlantic in a Force 12!  Clearly there was always one based in Greenwich at Enderbys and further downriver - actually in Charlton - was Faraday at Siemens. There were other specialist ships for local works and I would be interested to know about them.

There were lots more types of boats up and down the River which I have no space to mention.

So those river watchers in Greenwich in 1938 would see a busy, crowded, River.   What would they see on the River today?  To be perfectly honest - not much! Do all the visitors leaving the various trippers vessels take much notice and who in the end wants to look at lots of lots of identikit flats anyway? On the River itself there are still of course working boats from organisations like PLA but otherwise it’s just the Clippers and party boats with very occasional visitors like a battleship or a cruise liner.

The old world of the River was hard and dirty –watch ‘City of Ships’ and see the heavy labouring and the black smoke stacks.  We shouldn’t romanticise it. But  ... still ...

 

Telegraph Hill park


There was a fountain in Telegraph Hill park don't know where it has gone now but I do know   what it commemorated. Surprisingly enough it was all about strike breaking!

On a day in early November 1889  a man stood at that spot and looked down at South London beneath him. He was particularly concerned about the gas works – you can still see the big gasholder in Old Kent Road from Telegraph Hill today.  The man, tall, thin with a big beard, had walked a long way that morning, He had come from Reigate where he had left his wife having travelled with her from Eastbourne.  As he walked he had no doubt been going over in his mind a whole set of problems about the company of which he was Chairman. It would be easy to think that his main concern was trade union activity in the gas works down in Old Kent Road 

below – but it was rather more complicated than that.

George Livesey was a complicated man.  He had been brought up in the Old Kent Road gasworks of the South Metropolitan Gas Company and for over fifty years had stayed there, seen it grow and change, and now he was Company Chairman.  George was not a conventional man; his instincts were always revolutionary. Since his father died in 1871 he had taken on the whole gas industry, tried to make them  efficient, introduced the concept of partnership with the customers, and, on the whole, changed things. That is, except for the hated, and enormous, North London based Gas Light and Coke Company, which remained elusively beyond his control. Since boyhood he had been immersed in the London temperance movement and the Church of England.  This had led him to a strong ideology, which was generally about partnership, working together and improving the lot of the working man by inducing him to self-help.  This was not a concept that he had been able to further in the gas works since even his own board, generally sycophantic, would not accept ideas of co-operation, or even profit linked bonuses.

In the summer of 1889 summer east London had been swept with the great Dock Strike. The dockers had won their 'tanner' and other groups of workers had wondered if they too could benefit from a little militant action. North of the river, in the works of the Gas Light and Coke Company, trade union activity had been stirring under the leadership of one, Will Thorne – previously a stoker at Old Kent Road.   The  agitation was around the re-arrangement of the shift system into stints of eight hours, rather than twelve.   As a result of this on 4th November a meeting had been held at the Cannon Street Hotel between the union leaders and representatives of the Boards of the various London gas companies.   Here the negotiations had moved on to the reduction of the hours worked on Sundays – something Livesey felt strongly about and had tried to tackle for years.  As the meeting had progressed Thorne and the north London managements grew closer together – became remarkably friendly in fact. While the two sides reached an agreement the South Metropolitan Gas Company stayed outside. In theory Livesey should have been in favour of the workers getting together to help themselves – it was something he had always advocated – but as far as Will Thorne's Gas Workers Union was concerned, Livesey hated them. He described them as 'outsiders' – people from outside 'his' gasworks, and, worse,  had started in North London and the Gas Light and Coke Company, In the future workers organisations at South Met. were ony encouraged so long as Livesey was in charge of them!

As he looked at the view and the beauties of the November morning Livesey clearly had a lot on his mind.  He later said that he thought how the area should be dedicated as a public park for the people of South London – but we must assume that mostly he thought about the Gas Workers Union.   What happened next is not entirely clear.  In fact, it must be said that accounts of this story vary considerably and that it is impossible to come to any exact conclusion on the sequence of events. Livesey was a strong Christian gentleman and we should not be tempted to think that he might have just possibly been making all this up – so, just in case,  perhaps we should take someone else's version of events.

Charles Tanner was the head foreman at the Old Kent Road gas works, but, in his account of events, he wisely misses out some crucial details.  He told the story  some twenty years later about how Livesey arrived at the works and that he asked Livesey 'how he could keep the men out of the hands of the Union'.  Livesey's own version was rather more dramatic. He said that he arrived at the works from his long walk to meet Charles Tanner, and that Tanner said ' we have lost all authority in the retort houses --- unless you do something -- we shall be completely in the power of the union!!!'  Livesey went on 'I had not thought out anything and cannot explain how or why this thing came to be but in a quarter of an hour on half a sheet of paper the scheme was set out in writing and when the Board met was submitted to them'.  This hastily thought out scheme was Livesey's triumph – a profit sharing scheme designed to offer the company's workforce an inventive by offering them a bonus based on profits while at the same time making future strike action impossible. Despite the drama and the walk from Telegraph Hill it was in fact the scheme that Livesey had been pressing on his reluctant Board 

for years. Given the emergency, and the fact that Livesey had announced it all in advance, the Board had little choice but to agree.

This is an article about Telegraph Hill and it is not the place to go through all the details of the South London Gas Workers strike in the winter of 1889 – or, indeed, the long and successful history of the profit sharing scheme. Once Livesey had announced profit sharing the Gas Workers Union called a strike on the issue of 'liberty' – i.e. no compulsion to join the scheme and the right to join a union. Livesey then set about breaking the strike and smashing up the union with relentless and frightening efficiency (particularly for a Christian gentleman). By the time he had finished there was a different workforce in place, one that was only too keen to do whatsoever he wanted. As time went by the profit sharing scheme became 'Co-partnership' with many embellishments and a works 'Co-partnership' committee - the minutes of which exhibit an unbelievable level of sycophancy. For the last twenty years of Livesey's life he made a new career out of promoting it as a new way of reconciliation between master and men. 


So – what about Telegraph Hill? After the strike was over South Metropolitan Gas Company felt that it had something to celebrate.  At the end of February 1890 two of the shareholders wrote to the Times asking that money – not more than two guineas each – should be subscribed to a fund as a testimonial to Livesey 'in recognition of the eminent services rendered to the community on the occasion of the recent stokers' strike'.   1,450 people subscribed and £2.216 was collected.  In August the testimonial committee presented a portrait of Livesey to the company which was hung in the Board Room. The balance - £1,700 – was given to Livesey who said that he 'wished it might be devoted to the  benefit of working people'.  He contacted the Greenwich Board of Works, offering them £2000. They voted another £2000 themselves as did the London County Council.  He then approached the Haberdasher's Company for the piece of land on which he had stood.


The area was, and is known as Telegraph Hill – and the early telegraph which once stood on it, although extremely interesting,  is not relevant here. Before the telegraph came the area had been called Plow Garlic Hill and at the opening ceremony of the park Faithfull Sturdee, the local historian, presented pictures of the telegraph to the dignitaries concerned..  The Haberdashers Company agreed to sell the land for the £6,000 which had been collected – although they valued it at £8000 thus allowing the reduction in price as their own contribution.  The park was, and is, in two sections. The southerly portion is where the telegraph stood – while the northern portion looks out –  as Livesey did – towards the Thames and inner London.  It is 160 feet high and, at the time, the view was said to be of Knockholt Beeches – although I am very unclear as to whether that area can still be seen now

The park was not easy to lay out because of the steep slope and rough nature of the ground. In particular the southern portion present problems with potential slippage of the clay, and a special drainage system had to be installed. £7,500 was spent in laying it out – although who paid for that it not clear, presumably the London County Council. The park was laid out and designed by the great Col. Sexby, Chief Officer of the LCC's  Park's Sub-Department - whose work on London parks of this period is one of the great design achievements of the late Victorian era.  There was a lake, flower beds, and a 'grove of trees', a wrought iron fence and a bandstand.  It was stepped in such a way as to be 'approachable even by persons whose climbing abilities are not conspicuous'. 

On the top of the hill was a children's play area where 'half the children of the neighbourhood were rushing over the grass and standing on their heads … without their coats, in spite of the keen wind'. 

The park was opened on April 6th 1895 by Arthur Arnold, then Chairman of the London County Council.   He was accompanied by other members - including Sydney Webb, the Fabian intellectual and founding father of the Labour Party. It was not a nice day. 'the wind had a great deal of the north in it .. dull heavy clouds driving before the wind …. and a sharp cold shower of rain'.  There were however colourful 'bannerettes' and an 'admirable' band playing, under Mr. Warwick Williams, 'a number of popular airs'.   Happily. seating for the official party was 'judiciously placed to the leeward of the bandstand' but they were watched from behind the railings 

by a crowd 'who tried to look as if they liked the invigorating energy of the wind'. 

Many of the speakers paid tribute to Livesey and his efforts which had made the opening of the park possible. Arnold spoke about 'the liberal and munificent spirit' which had made the money available and 'of the great social struggle in which Mr. Livesey had played a prominent part'.  


So, what about the empty plinth? Livesey donated a drinking fountain which was to be placed at the spot where he had looked down on south London. Many years ago I was given a copy of the plans for the inscription on this fountain when it had turned up among items being thrown out of the old Deptford Borough stores.  The anonymous sender pointed out that the inscribed name 'Sir George Livesey' has been altered and enlarged.    The fountain seems to have disappeared at some time since the second world war – but  I have never met anyone who actually remembers it. Why was it removed?  Was it damaged? It must have been a fairly heavy item to shift and difficult to destroy. I would be amazed if it had been taken much further than the council yard. Does it still lurk somewhere in a Lewisham Council depot, or, was it resurrected somewhere else? Has anyone ever seen it?  Was it actually taken down because someone remembered that it was really a monument to strike breaking?  I think we should be told.


This article first appeared in Bygone Kent.


Richard Hills autobiography review

 

The Seven Ages of One Man. By Richard L. Hills. 296 pp., well illustrated throughout. Gloucester UK: The Choir Press, 2018. £16.90 (PB).  ISBN-9781911589679.

So we have an autobiography of a great man – the Rev. Dr. Richard Hills.  He is well known for his work at the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry and this book is entitled The Seven Ages of One Man or How one man started the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester.  However take notice of the cover picture where the museum is shown as one segment in a circle of seven pictures, one for each of the seven ages – while Richard spins above them.  When we get to look inside the book we find it is not all about the Museum but about Richard Hills himself and what he had to say about his own life. 

It begins very properly with his birth in 1936 and the first stage of his life; I’m pleased to see, in Lee Green in South London.  I had always known he was Kentish, something I think he was quite rightly proud of. His mother died when he was very, very young and he was initially brought up by his grandparents - his grandfather was Chairman of Fremlins Brewery and they lived in some comfort.  During the Second World War his father was away and Richard with his brother and sister were cared for by a variety of relatives mostly living in country houses in comfortable circumstances. After the War they joined their father, who had remarried, and become Vicar at Seal, in Kent.  Richard’s earliest school days were in Tunbridge Wells – at what was clearly a private school. 

He tells the usual schoolboy stories and the growing amount of freedom he had allowing him to move around on his own and learn about the world and these stories are often tinged with humour. He had an increasing interest in technology. Every page is full of detail about events, relationships and what’s going on in his life and things around him and throughout the book he stresses his Christian commitment.  Mysteriously throughout the book he describes himself as ‘The Little Prince’.  Perhaps I have missed his explanation of this phrase – or misunderstood the connotations with Saint-Exupéry!

He was eventually to join his older brother at Charterhouse School where again he seems to have done well.  I am relieved to learn that someone who was not sporty could flourish in a public school environment.  He specialised in classics in the Sixth Form, became a prefect and head of his house.

His ‘third age’ sees him doing National Service for two years like other young men but he was quickly selected for officer training.  After that he went to take up a place at Queens’ College Cambridge and read history.  I am impressed by the name of his tutor - Peter Mathias, the brewing historian. Lecturers included G. R. Elton, biographer of Elizabeth I - who I recall being urged to read when I was doing A Level.

A growing interest in mountaineering eventually led to a life changing incident and perhaps put him on the path for which he is now best known.  With a group in Cumberland his left leg was broken and crushed. Things got worse and worse; he narrowly escaped amputation but was moved from hospital to hospital from specialist to specialist.  In a period between hospitals he was taken by some friends to the pumping station at Stretham [1] but was unable to climb the stairs. Bored he looked in a chest and found inside books, with the records of the pumping engine. They were to change his career and his life.

So we have to reach his ‘sixth age’ before Manchester is mentioned in connection with the Museum.  By then he had a reputation from his published works on the drainage of the Fens, on the Stretham engine and much else.  He had a ‘growing interest’ in industrial archaeology, and was getting known.  He was at the Manchester Museum for 16 or so years and many readers will relish the detail of the exhibits and how they were chosen and exhibited.  He left citing ill health and, I guess, exhaustion.

His ‘seventh age’ was full of diverse activity.  There is a whole chapter on his work as a paper historian and then, of course, his ordination.  Clearly this was something very important to him.  The focus turns from the Manchester Museum to his Christian faith and his personal life - and so it should be.  The other thing of great importance to him throughout the book and to which the longest chapter is devoted is his Lancia Lamda [2].  He bought it as a young man and only sold it when Parkinson disease meant that he could no longer drive.  Also something very important to him was his marriage to Bernice at the age of I think 72.

This is an easy book to read, crammed with incident.  It’s a paper back and it must have been Richard’s own decision to bring out this autobiography in an informal format.  It also shows what is important in a life alongside the public events.

Oh and thank you to him for being so nice to me when I met him and for taking me seriously - although I guess he knew I couldn’t have told the Lancia from a Ford Popular. Such a nice man.

 

[1] Stretham Old Engine, Cambridgeshire UK. TL 516 730.

[2] These innovative Lancia cars were built between 1922 and 1931.

 

Dr Mary Mills

Newcomen Society

marymillsmmmmm@aol.com

 

Greenwich archive

zz 

Your editors have asked me to write an article about the petition which Greenwich Industrial History Society is currently running about the Greenwich archive.  This is a much more difficult task than it appears since while the petition is running things change every day.  By the time this reaches your letterboxes in three or four weeks time the situation may be entirely different. So I I’m not really sure that writing about what is going on currently is going to be particularly useful. There is a public meeting to be run by Greenwich Historical Society next week - but that will be over by the time you read this.

The whole point of the petition is to impress on the Council, as the ultimate decision makers, that there


is wide popular support for a functioning archive service.

I’m going to go back 25 years when we did have a service which worked.There was a museum at Plumstead and an archive, here in Westcombe Park. They were run by the Borough library service and were open and rooted in their local communities.  The sort of work which is currently going on in the east of the borough and around the Year of Culture bid could have been done by their staff very cheaply and effectively – they were not an expensive service to run. I am not going into all the whys and wherefores of what has happened since but we no longer have a museum and the archive is based in the trading estate, a long way from public transport, you have to make an appointment and order one your item in advance - and there is no browsing.

What we had in Westcombe Park - although covering the entire Borough - was the local history department and archive. This was based in the upper floors of Woodlands – now the Steiner School.It was open six days a week, plus some evenings.  It was friendly, it was accessible. You could chat to a staff member or you could just browse the shelves of books. Archive material was available immediately. Staff went regularly to speak at schools and help them with projects. They talked to local clubs and took part in the work of local historical organisations. Throughout most of its existence the archive and library were run by Julian Watson wh  retired 20 years ago. He is due to give a talk about the history of the archive at a meeting next week. Hopefully next month I will be able to say that it’s available on YouTube for everyone to hear.  I could talk about many of the staff but in particular for most of the time the library was open the senior assistant was Barbara Ludlow. As far as I’m aware Barbara had lived in Westcombe Park all her life – her mother lived in Humber Road and when we moved here her Dad was Chair of the local Labour Party branch. Her family links included much of the local Labour and trade union movements (her Uncle Charlie once hired Woolwich Odeon for Union branch meeting)as well as the owner of the trendiest record shop in South London.

Over the past 25 years decisions have been made which have changed all this. Initially I’m sure they were with good intent to help the regeneration of the Arsenal site but it moved the service away from its community bases. I am sure many decision makers today won’t know about this past and see it as an irrelevant and elitist organisations which would not meet the future aspirations of many of our residents.  Technically it is now owned by the Royal Greenwich Heritage Trust and I’m sure that it was thought that this organisation would grow to equal the success of what is now Better which took over our leisure activities in the 1980s.

So one of the reasons behind the petition is to try and get through to the decision makers on the Council that the archive and museum could be an inexpensive way of meting their aspirations and that there is massive public support for it.

They sold our Town Hall


At the October Cabinet meeting of Greenwich Council councillors voted to dispose of the Borough Hall in Royal Hill.   So we will lose what is almost the last bit of municipal Greenwich.

Once upon a time there was a town called Greenwich, one of the principal towns in Kent; it had a strong manufacturing base, some grand buildings, and a busy town centre.  In 1900 it left Kent to become the Metropolitan Borough of Greenwich – covering Deptford St.Nicholas, Charlton and Kidbrooke.  It had a Town Hall in Greenwich High Road and an ex- Workhouse/Hospital in the Woolwich Road. The Borough was very proud of its nurses'  homes in Vanbrugh Hill, and its pioneering TB Clinic in Maze Hill.    Then in 1939 they built their showpiece Town Hall.

Greenwich Town Hall in Royal Hill was very, very special. The architect they appointed was Clifford Culpin – whose father was then the Labour Chair of the London County Council.  However anyone who looks at the net under ‘Clifford Culpin’ can see the long succession of modernist public buildings which he and his partners built in the post war years. Famously Pevsner described Greenwich Town Hall as “the only town hall of any London borough to represent the style of our time adequately”.   It was part of a movement across Europe to build civic buildings differently. It was art deco, functional, ‘avowedly modernist’, to ”consciously reflect” a progressive left-wing Metropolitan Borough. Or as contemporary architectural commentator Owen Hatherley has said, “You gradually realise it is an extraordinary work of art”.  It had a tower from which the people of Greenwich could see the river and it included many interesting decorative features. In brick, it is “ moderate modern.. rectilinear but not aggressive’.  It’s easily the most important modern building in the Royal Borough, probably also in South London.

In 1965 the Metropolitan Borough of Greenwich was abolished and, along with Woolwich, became the London Borough of Greenwich. I probably should refrain from pointing out that there were more ex-Woolwich councillors than ex-Greenwich in the new Council.  So – what can I say –by the early 1970s canvassers on many Greenwich door steps were met with ‘they sold our Town Hall’.  But in fact they sold only half of it.  They kept the Borough Hall, letting it out to a variety of organisations.  When Greenwich Dance Agency moved out last year the hall was suddenly announced to be full of asbestos and so should be sold. So there we go.

What was an important town in Kent now effectively has no town centre – apart from one which serves the tourists – and no municipal presence.  You see – they sold our Town Hall.

I’m quoting here – Pevsner & Cherry, South London.  Owen Hatherley ‘Guide to the New Ruins’ , Municipal Dreams blog

Woodlands- Angerstein and parties


 

I’m a resident of Westcombe Park which lies between East Greenwich and Blackheath - but claims to be in Blackheath.  I was delighted to see in a recent issue of the newsletter Stanley Slaughter’s excellent article about John Julius Angerstein and the origins of the National Gallery.  He also mentions Angerstein’s house – Woodlands.

Angerstein is a fascinating character and well known to people in Westcombe Park where we not only have Woodlands but we also have the railway built fir Angerstein’s son, John. For many years Woodlands housed the Greenwich local history collection and archive and its now used by the Greenwich Steiner School. In the past it was a nunnery and their novices’ house is still our local community centre.

Recently when I was looking the local papers I discovered reports on three consecutive years of the early 19th century of ‘public breakfasts’ held by Angerstein’s daughter.  I’m not sure how they were ‘public’ as the majority of the guests seem to have titled and include the Prince of Wales and - intriguingly Sir Joseph Banks. I’m also not sure about breakfasts which take place mid afternoon.

However the newspaper reporters walked around the estate and commented on what they saw. I’ve put below a compilation of some of their comments - giving a picture of the grounds of a banker’s house on the outskirts of London around 1800.

“A delightful Villa, called the Woodlands.  - The house is a white square building, in the construction of which, ornament is judiciously used....  on your approach, you pass through two gates, the second of which opens into serpentine walks, bordered with the beautiful trees and flowers, which conduct you to the front of the house”

...you can see “boats sailing up and down the river  ...at several mile s distance ...  it commands a most enchanting and picturesque view of the Thames from Limehouse to Long Reach.... a great part of Romford, Brentwood..... London, Highgate, and all Essex”.

Paths diverge .... various walks, bordered with roses, myrtles, and alt the other tribes of the most fragrant and beautiful shrubs the perfume of which filled the air  with their delicious odours... beautiful meandering paths, the edges of which are embroidered with shrubs and flowers, some growing in pots, others in beds, with exquisite taste

Three elegant marquees were erected and tables were placed on the beautiful lawn ....The grand front parlour, drawing room, and dining parlour, were all laid out for breakfast. The front parlour was appropriated to the Prince of Wales and his Royal Highness's particular friends.

The Conservatory. This is one of the finest in England. It is about three hundred feet long, by fifty feet wide. Being upon the largest scale of any structure of the kind in Europe . It  exhibited one of the finest pineries ever beheld in this country, together with orange and  lemon trees of uncommon size and in full bearing, and a profusion of the finest flowers.  shrubs and flowers, deemed the most curious and beautiful of the Cape of Good Hope, Botany Bay, India, Egypt, Tunis, and Algiers, ail in full bloom, and in all the luxuriance they could boast in their native beds. In every climate of the torrid zone, has here a representative.

Kitchen Garden, a space of four acres, divided into compartments, filled with every species of succulent vegetables, and abounding with strawberries, cherry trees, &c. Of the cherries, the bleeding hearts were the largest ever. At the bottom of the garden is a pile of glass, consisting of ten ranges  filled with grapes, pines, melons, peaches.

Hot-house. Profusion of grapes, in all the tints, from the most delicate green, to the purple, hanging in luxuriant clusters, and with the broad and beauteous foliage and spreading branches of the parent vine, forming a solid and continued ceiling. The hot-houses have apricots, & heated by stoves of a curious and peculiar construction, for which Mr. Angerstein has obtained a patent, and not used in any other hot-house in the kingdom. The heat is regulated by thermometers, of which each house is with one.

A gravel walk, of about a quarter of a mile in length, conducts you to the bottom of a hill, and affords a view of the front of the house, and the lawn.-

A beautiful dairy in rural simplicity, with the pails of milk arranged upon the various shelves. a curious grotto, and a farmyard, in the centre of which is a jet d’eau, cooling and refreshing the air with its streams, and presenting a beautiful picture as they played in the sun-beams.

A large orchard well stored with fruit trees.

The American Plantation, of curious American shrubs and flowers, collected, with infinite care, and great expense, from every part of that immense continent.

A large basin, situated between one .of the houses and the stables, into which all the rain that falls upon the roofs of all the surrounding buildings is conveyed by pipes, and forms a reservoir, from which all the hot-houses are supplied with water.

But – the event was interrupted about four o'clock, by a sudden and dreadful clap of thunder. Terror and dismay were now depictured in those lovely countenances, that a moment before beamed with life, spirit, and joy ; and tears bedewed the cheeks, that were mantled with smiles. Even those who had sought shelter in the groves, finding themselves feebly protected there from  the pelting of the pitiless storm endeavoured to make their escape to the house. But before they reached it they appeared like so many dripping VENUS'S just risen from the sea. The rain continued to fall, and the thunder to roll, to the total prevention of all further amusement out of doors.

 

William Joyce


 

William Joyce

1813 -

By

Dr Mary Mills

 

On 12 August 1850 there was great excitement in Greenwich.  A ship was to be launched from Dreadnought Wharf.  This was to be a steamship and it was being said that this was the first iron ship ever built in Greenwich.[1]  By ‘Greenwich’ they meant the riverside between Deptford Creek and Royal Greenwich – and not the area across the Creek in Deptford where lots of ships were built, because that’s not really Greenwich, is it? 

 

The ship about to be launched had been built on the premises of William Joyce & Co. of the Greenwich Ironworks. A large assemblage of inhabitants had tickets to witness the ceremony - it was a fine day and flags fluttered everywhere. The ‘noble vessel’ was to be called City of Paris and she ‘shone resplendent with fluttering bunting’ as she glided gently and smoothly into the river. [2]

City of Paris was a paddle steamer apparently built to the designs of the leading shipwright at Woolwich Dockyard, Oliver Lang.[3]  But, if we are honest, she was actually quite a small ship, at 425 tons, whose future was carrying passengers between Milford Haven and Waterford in Ireland.[4]William Joyce, the shipbuilder, had had a foundry in Greenwich since 1841 making steam engines but he was one of only a few shipbuilders who worked in Greenwich ‘proper’ – rather than in Deptford or on the Peninsula.

Joyce was the youngest child of Jeremiah Joyce, an interesting man who, sadly, cannot be the subject of this article. He was a major figure in London dissent, coming from a relatively poor background in Chesham and, via an education at dissenters’ Hackney College, became secretary to the radical Earl Stanhope at Chevening. He was thrown into the Tower of London for sedition in 1794 and later moved to North London where he became an editor of numerous educational publications.  William was his youngest child, born in 1813, whowas two years old when Jeremiah died suddenly[5]and we know nothing about his childhood and education.

It seems possible that he was helped, or worked for, one of his father’s friends.  This was John Farey whose address William gave in early advertisements for his work. In the early years of the 19th century Jeremiah Joyce had edited a number of encyclopedias and part works – one was ‘Rees’s Cyclopedia.’As a teenager Farey drew the illustrations for these and must have known Jeremiah well.  He is well known for his ‘Treatise on the Steam Engine,’ the first part published in 1827, and a key work on the history both of the technology and its applications.[6]  It may be that he took the son of his deceased friend in, perhaps as a trainee. The 1841 census shows the Farey household some years later.One of the servants is a Louisa Edgecombe.

By 1835, when he was just twenty two William was circulating leaflets advertising his ‘new improved pendulous steam engine.’[7]He describes himself as a ‘machinist, pump, lathe and press maker.’ In 1841 he was living in Francis Street Lambeth[8] – a tiny road in the area now covered by the entrance to Waterloo Station. He was 27 years old and described as an ‘engineer.’  He appears to be a lodger with a Welsh family –Margaret Gravell, and four young men, presumably her sons, two of them in print trades.[9] The eldest, David Gravell is also described as an ‘engineer’and was to become a very distinguished railway engineer who worked worldwideand who joined the Institution of Civil Engineers from an address in Moldavia.[10]Maybe William lived with the family because he and David were friends.

William leased a site in Greenwich to open his own foundry in 1841.[11]This was the old Norway Street Gas Works – Greenwich’s first gas works, built by Gosling in 1926, then taken over by the Phoenix Gas Co soon after and closed down, although some gas storage remained on site.  It had been let out to various industries since, but in 1841 had been vacant some time.[12] The foundry was to remain until it closed in 1866, and the site is now under the London County Council built Eastney Street Estate.

In December 1841 William married Louisa Edgecombe in St. Pancras Church – and it is most likely to be Louisa,the servant in the Farey household. On the banns for the wedding Louisa gave her address as ‘Compton Street.’[13] There was a Louisa Edgecombe living in Compton Street but she seems to be a married woman with a small child.[14]The Louisa who William married had been born in Salisbury[15]  and she may well have started out in life as ‘Louise Hedgecombe’ from Fisherton Anger in Salisbury,[16] and to be some three years older than the age she gives on the 1851 census.[17]

Soon after, William and Louisa leased 3Diamond Terrace, Greenwich.[18]This is a very nice house by anyone’s standards and it would be interesting to find out how William got the finance for itand the foundry. That source mighthave been William’s elder brother, Charles.

Charles was fifteen years older than William and by the 1820s was working for London merchants, Messrs Briggs in Egypt.  In 1825 while in Alexandria he married the daughter of one of the firm’s partners. The birthplaces of their eight children reflect their movements around the Mediterranean and Near East.[19]  He is said to have established cotton brokerages and trading organisations in London and Alexandria.[20]He maintained a London office, providing banking and underwriting services. He sat on the Board of a number of companies concerned with railways, shipping and banking.  He lived in a number of up-market London addresses and leased Tonbridge Castle, where his youngest child was born, and from where he sent a basket of fruit to the Queen.  It would seem natural that he would provide the financial backing for his younger brother’s business.

So, William Joyce opened his iron works in Norway Street, in partnership with a Thomas Meacham.  He most likely made a range of items although information is limited. For instance, he may have provided the ironwork for abridge in the London Docks in the 1840s.[21] However, what he was best known forand what seems to have been his bestseller, was his ‘pendulous’ steam engine - basically the engine he developed before he was 20, presumably with the knowledge of –and maybe the help of - John Farey.  This appears to be a fairly simple engine.[22]The pendulous engine is ‘suspended from its top end, centres like a pendulum with the piston working out below.’[23]A view from acurrent steam historian is more direct ‘I'm sorry to tell you that it's a relatively unremarkable machine and typical of many of a similar design produced at that time. I don't think he invented the idea either. A simple oscillating steam engine, whereby the steam cylinder is held on a pivot and allowed to oscillate.’[24]

Joyce’s engine seems to have sold widely. One major installation was a corn mill in Smyrna - today’s Izmir - in Turkey, which was the subject of a number of contemporary accounts.[25]In one article he is said to have sold the engine widely across the near East and the Mediterranean. Another, where a legal action involved a Joyce engine sold in Gloucester, has interested litigation historians in the US.[26] Ten years later, in 1851, the engine was exhibited at the Great Exhibition in Hyde Park whereitwas shown in connection with spinning and weaving machines.[27] Once the Crystal Palace had moved to Penge one of his machines was used with the Masters? Ice Maker to make iced desserts in the second-classrefreshment room.[28]

However, it is also clear that he sold many engines locally - although I only know details of two. One of these was to John Bennett Lawes whose groundbreaking superphosphate factory was opposite Joyce’s site on Deptford Creek.[29] It received great praise for economy and reliability.  The other was to Frank Hills for his chemical works. Although Frank had a works in Deptford, again on the opposite side of the Creek to Joyce, this was used in his East Greenwich tide mill and is listed in the effects of the mill when it was sold.[30]

Joyce’ engine business had a lot of publicity in what, or then, was really bad luck.This was through the terrible explosion on the river boat Cricket at Adelphi Pier on 27th August 1847.  Cricket was preparing to leave the pier, crowded with 100 or so passengers.  Along with her sister ships, Ant and Bee, she offered  ‘ha’penny fares’ at a time when water transport was often the fastest way of getting around the City.  The explosion, in the boiler, injured many and blew others off the boat.  The numbers of the dead could never be known because many bodies were swept away in the River.  Great credit was given to rescueattempts by workers on adjacent wharves. Although Joyce had built the engines and boiler –and both he and Thomas Meacham gave detailed evidence at the enquiry - it was clear that his machinery was not to blame, sincecrew members on the Cricket had disabled safety valves, and gone for their lunches.Cricket’sengineer eventually went to jail.[31]

In the late 1840s Joyce began to turn to shipbuilding.  Initially he had used Bishop’s Wharf- a tiny river area off Norway Street and at the end of a tiny block of housing, Bishop’s Buildings.[32]  They were soon to also use the very much larger Dreadnought Wharf. Although Dreadnought Wharf has gone and the site is now just an extremely bland and boringwalkway, called ‘Dreadnought Walk,’it is an area which many people remember on the Riverside.  The Wharf dated from before 1800 and had earlier been used by fishing vessels. Its name ‘Dreadnought’ does not appear to relate directly to the hospital ship - it was not used as the ship’s depot or transhipment area[33] - but it was near to the this more famous ‘Dreadnought’ and so took its name.  After Joyce left it was used by the Rennie Brothers as their shipbuilding yard and subsequently by Tilbury Dredging and Constructing.

So, the paddle steamer which I mentioned in the first paragraph,was launched there to a great deal of celebration and was called The City of Paris.  I have already quoted some of the plaudits. It was built for the Commercial Steam Navigation Company to ply with passengers and goods between London and Boulogne. It was designed by Oliver Lang, Assistant Master Architect at the Royal Dockyard, Chatham -‘his first design ….  constructed of iron.’  The engines, they said, were ‘constructed with the collective power of a hundred and 20 horses.’ [34] Most importantly it ‘may be considered as creating a new and important branch of industry in the town.’ We must also not forget theexcellent luncheon given to the builders and a select circle of their friends, includingdrinking to the success of the designer and builders, which was received with great cordiality.’[35]

In fact The City of Paris never did run between London and Boulogne but instead did the twice weekly Milford Haven - Waterford run which it seems to have undertaken with great efficiency and maybe some charm.  There are a number of stories of minor collisions, embarkation of soldiers and weathering of sudden storms.[36]  Perhaps her most famous moment was when she escorted the Great Eastern into Milford Haven where ‘the channel fleet anchored in a double line ... Great Eastern and was greeted with cheers from the crews in the rigging .. soon clustering in every yard.’[37]

I don’t know what happened to The City of Paris. She was sold in 1864.  The National Maritime Museum says she was converted to a screw steamer in Renfrew in 1870.[38] I am sure the NMM are always correct and we must remember thatCity of Paris’was a common ship name at the time.  I have found no more trace of her after that.

A year later another boat was launched at DreadnoughtWharf. This was the Kassheid Kheir, a ‘schooner rigged iron steam yacht on the screw principle’...one of the finest and most symmetrical vessels that we have ever seen.’The name means 'Good Omen’.  It was built for His Highness the Pasha of Egypt and I am aware that it seems very likely that it was probably Joyce's brother’s influence which got him the contract. I note that J.Tibaldi, the Pasha’s agent, took charge of the vessel. Charles’ wife had been a MissTibaldi – I wonder if he was Charles' brother in law?[39]

There seem to have been more than several steam yachts built in London in that period forvarious notables in Egypt and other countries. In fact at the same time Joyce’s ship-was launched C.J.Mare & Co. had a rather larger such yacht under construction at Blackwall.[40]

The newspaper report describes it as being in ‘splendid oriental style’ with many details right down to the bed springs. However I note that some of the others were equally in splendid oriental style and some were enormous. An illustration of a banquet on one of them in London seems to show a dining room of a size which would not have disgraced a modern cruise liner. Some of these dignitaries had more than one such vessel.

There is an unexplained phrase in one newspaper report.  It mentions‘the jealous feeling existing in the minds of many persons, but we trust that the Kasshied Kheir will stamp their character as engineers, and eradicate all prejudice and ill feeling that may exist.’[41]  Does this perhaps refer to the demise of the Cricket? Or something else?  Things were indeed about to go very wrong.

The next few years are confused and confusing. They are dominated by the construction of ships for the Spanish and Portuguese Shipping Company – owned by the Wapping based Wood family.  The financing and management of them is described in great detail in the subsequent legal action which continued after Joyce’s death and in which the business was no longer directly involved. The case features in some American legal textbooks.

What is clear is that Joyce’s shipyard was very busy. There ae press reports of launches which tell us what ships were actually built and it is clear that there is a lot more going on. For example one report of a launch includes a comment that another ship- otherside unmentioned undescribed-  is now on the vacated slip brought in for major alteration.[42]  There were usually two slips with work going on - one on the older site at Bishop's Wharf and the other on Dreadnought Wharf.

Joyce’s problems began with the contract to build steam ships for the Wood family for their Spanish and Portuguese wine shipments. There were contracts on finance set with strict deadlines on dates and other conditions.  In August 1853 Peninsula was launched from Joyce’s yard by Miss Wood, granddaughter of the Lord Mayor and an MP. The ship was a screw steamer rigged as a three masted schooner.[43]

Following the launch of Peninsula, a ship called Gibraltar was built for Woods on the same slip. She was launched in December 1854 apparently ‘built for the Spanish wine trade.’  In fact, things were going very wrong. The press reports said she would initially he used as a troopship and, indeed, expensive adaptations had had to be added before she was launched.[44] Two days later on 11th December 1854 Joyce petitioned for bankruptcy.  Throughout this period and subsequently there was a mass of litigation.[45]

There was another contract with Woods for a ship to be called Britannia which was being built at Dreadnought Wharf. Work on her had stopped and it seems likely that the engines built for her were disposed of separately and there are some other issues concerning her.  I have never found a report of a launch.  In succeeding years there are many press advertisements for ‘Steam to Lisbon, Gibraltar and Cadiz’ on Peninsula, Gibraltar and Britannia - but these are all very common ship names of the period and could easily be different vessels to those built for Woods by Joyce.Clearly Britannia did not remain half built on the Dreadnought slip forever, but I have found no explanation of what happened to her.

At Joyce’s bankruptcy hearing the Commissioner said that the major cause of failure was a contract to build two large steam vessels on which numerous alterations were ‘required by the Government rendering them eligible for the conveyance of troops in consequence of the war.’He saidthat ‘the bankrupt had been exceedingly diligent in rendering every assistance.’ There are favourable comments about the quality and value of much of the estate.[46]

There are also some unclear issues around Dreadnought Wharf and the Norway Street foundry.  In March 1854 Joyce had deposited the lease on Dreadnought Wharf with the Woods family as a security.[47]Then, later that year, 1854, Phoenix Gas Company, the owners, advertised the freehold of the iron works for sale.[48]It seems likely that some of the responsibilities these incurred were devolved to Thomas Meacham – Manager of the Shipbuilding yard, engineer, foreman, etc.  In press reports the firm is now often named as ‘The Victoria Foundry’ or a similar name while ‘Messrs Joyce’ or ‘Greenwich Iron Works’ are used less often.  The Victoria Company was now managing the foundry and shipyard and we must assume by this they mean that Thomas Meacham is in charge.

 

By the Spring of 1856 things had improved and apparently recovered.  On 7thApril two boats were launched from Dreadnought and Bishop’s Wharves.  One of these was the Victor Emmanuel - ‘a magnificent vessel.’The launch ceremony was performed by Miss Airy, daughter of Prof. George Airey the Astronomer Royal.  The ship had a ‘screw steam propeller’ and the engines had been designed and built by the Victoria Foundry Company.  The report said ‘she is a useful specimen of naval architecture’ and her name was suggested ‘with much taste and good feeling’ by the recent visit of the King of Sardinia to England. It added‘we hear a great deal of talk about Aberdeen clippers and Clyde built vessels but in symmetry of build, in quality of materials and in point of workmanship, that London built ships are superior to any of the northern productions of naval architecture.’[49]

 

Later that afternoon a second boat was launched. This was Fidget one of two gunboats built in the yard. She was launched by Miss Sweetwright, daughter of the Admiral at Deptford Dockyard.  This was the first gunboat to be launched in Greenwich. Contracts for gunboats were being handed out by the Government to most shipyards at this stage of the Crimean War, and twenty in all were built in the Navy’s ‘Cheerful Class.’ The Joyce company had responded to the call to build them ‘with energy and promptitude.’ [50]

 

Fidget’ssister, Flirt, was launched two months later on 14th of June ‘the honours being undertaken by Miss Dudgeon.’

 

Flirt was the second ship launched that day. Earlier in the afternoon anothersteamer had been launched, the Fernando Catolico. She was said to be ‘suitable for plying in shallow waters ‘and had been commissioned by a Spanish Railway Company to ‘ply from the termination of the new Spanish Railway in Trocadero to Cadiz.’ The launch was carried out by ‘a young lady called Mancha’ [51]- presumably Spanish, so perhaps the supply of local dignitaries’daughters had run out.  The distance between Trocadero and Cadiz seems negligible but an advertisement of 1853 for the Xeres Port StMary and Cadiz Railway explains plans for the line ‘from Trocaderopassengers will be conveyed to Cadiz by steamers belonging to the company. Transit nottaking more than quarter of an hour.’  And indeed two steamers are budgeted for in the accounts given below.[52]I have been unable to trace if this system ever existed and what happened to the two steamships when it was replaced.  It appears that the railway had been constructed to facilitate the export of sherry- and we should note that Woods, who had commissioned Britannia, Peninsula and Gibraltar, were wine merchants who wanted the ships for that trade.

 

I'm not sure that any of these ships built at Dreadnought Wharf in 1856 had particularly long existences.  Fidget and Flirt were wooden screw propelled ships built for the Navy. Both were broken up at Haslar in 1863.[53]

 

Victor Emmanuel also had a short life.It appears that Joyce & Co. maintained ownership of Victor Emanuelwhich they said they had built specifically for themselves. The ship had been intended by Joyce & Co.  as part of Charles Joyce’s planned shipping line.[54]A report of June 1856 says that Joyce and Co. of Moorgate Street were about to establish a line of vessels between England and the Cape in which steam power would only be used when the wind could not be used‘for these capabilities.’[55] The line was not continued following William’s death.  However it was intended to use Victor Emmanuelas a sailing ship and her engine waseventually removed. 

On 30 January 1861 Victor Emmanuelwent aground at Blackgang, Chale Bay, Isle of Wight. She was on her way back to England from Alexandria with ‘a cargo of beans, barley, wool, flax and gum.’ The ship was in pieces within 90 minutes and attempts to launch the boats failed when they were stoved in by the side of the ship. The coastguard was unaware that the ship was in trouble because of poor visibility and 15 of the 19 crew were lost.[56]The ship’s bell is preserved in a museum on the Isle of Wight.[57]

William Joyce died unexpectedly in the morning of 22nd August 1856. He had woken up well but before leaving for the foundry had an internal haemorrhage and died quite quickly.[58]He was just 42.  He was buried at Nunhead cemetery where the hearse was followed by the entire workforce of the company ‘men and lads walking two and two in the employ of the firm of nearly 200.’ As an employer of labour and one who has done much to promotethe prosperityof the working classes within this neighbourhood,his character stood high and his loss will be severely felt.’[59]

Mourners at the funeral included his brother Charles with Frederick Westmorland, Charles' son-in-law and partner.  Officiating were Dr Rev.North and Rev. Mr Norris[60]- these two are a bit of a mystery as they were the Roman Catholic priests based at the newly built our Lady Star of the Sea - the Roman Catholic Church in Greenwich very close to Joyce’s home.[61] However Joyce is buried in the dissenters section of the cemetery deep in undergrowth where his grave cannot easily be found.[62] Also at the service was Thomas Meacham who was clearly about to inherit the firm and with him Joseph Delaney employed as the firm’s ‘naval architect’ - and we will hear more of him.

Interestingly, also in the cemetery at Nunhead is the Martyrs Memorial which commemorates the Scottish Martyrs;[63] support for whom is one of the reasons his father Jeremiah was sent to the Tower of London. One wonders if the Joyce family were aware of the monument.

Louisa does not appear to have been at William’s funeral. By 1861 she was living in the home of Rev. Randall, a Church of England vicar and grandson of Jeremiah Joyce, son of his daughter Emma.[64]

Meacham was five years younger than William, came from Stourport and lived in Circus Street, Greenwich with his wife and daughter.[65]He too was to die young in 1867 aged only 50 and after a long illness.[66] However he put out a statement which said that the Victoria Foundry Company had purchased the Greenwich Ironworks with all the plant tools and machinery and were carrying on the business.He stressed the need to pay particular attention to the pendulous engineand invited estimates for ‘engines, millwork machinery, sawmills or anything else.’[67]

Work at the foundry and shipyard continued and the next May a Ship called Metropolis was launched which had doubtless been begun under William. It had the usual lavish launch ‘notwithstanding the unpropitious state of the weather.’ The ‘elite’ of Greenwich attended – including Prof Airy, the two Roman Catholic clerics, and J. Townsend the MP, but there was no music ‘which detracted from the treat.’ [68]In October it did the trip to Guernsey in record time.[69]

In September 1858 a vessel berthed in Gateshead attracted a great deal of attention. It had been constructed by the Victoria Ship-building Co. of Greenwich, for the ‘Jointed Ship Company’ to the patent of a Mr MacSweeney. It was ‘intended to facilitate the delivery of coal’ and it was called The Connector as an experiment.

It was claimed she could do the work ‘of three ships ... by having one loaded section waiting for her in the north, and another lightened of her burden in the Thames …  each section may lie left at the wharf of a different merchant, according as is required.’ Technical details of her construction followed but basically the ship consisted of a ‘train’ of demountable sections.[70]

In November, once again in the North East, the press was asked to come aboard and meet Mr. MacSweeney along with Captain Mullett, formerly of the William Cory screw steamer. The Connector had a 10-horse power engine and was rigged fore and aft with sails to each section. It was intended to build vessels to carry 1000 tons of coal to the Thames, in sections of 200 to 250 tons each.  The Northern papers were enthusiastic. [71]I note the connection with Corys and also the note in the article that wharfage charges would be saved by this system.  It might be noted at around this time Cory’s were setting up the Atlas hulk in Charlton in order to avoid such charges and dues.[72]

Very little was heard of the Connector after that.  It is said that she failed in sea trials although she seems to have got from Greenwich to Gateshead without difficulty.  Despite the warm welcome in Gateshead the press coverage included several dramatic pictures which could have never been drawn from life.  The concept seems to have been treated with derision, at the very least, and ever since.  It may be that the failure was to do with construction issues but this remains unknown.

The Victoria Foundry and the shipyardclearly made lots of items of whichwe have no knowledge. One, perhaps the only visible relic we have of the shipyard, is from a miscellaneous category. This is the Cape Point Lighthouse which is a tourist attraction in South Africa.  I've had endless contacts from people who have visited the lighthouse and sent me photographs of the plaque which says that it was built in Greenwich.It was in use from 1 May 1860 until the First World War.

It is built in cast-iron sections which were shippedto CapeTown and then transferred to a small boat in which it was taken toBufflesBay. A modified gun carriage was used to haulit over ground on difficult terrain and a sledge was used for the final leg of the journey. Deliveries of oil and food were made once every three months.[73]

The plaque says “DESIGNED, SPECIFIED AND DIRECTED BY ALEXANDER GORDON CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE BOARD OF TRADE IRON TOWER BY VICTORIA FOUNDRY GREENWICH.   LANTERN & LIGHTS BY DEVILLE & Co LONDON 1857.[74]

Alexander Gordon was a well known engineer of the day and it is interesting to note that in 1847 he had prepared a paper recommending that the Board of Trade establish a department for erecting, maintaining and improving the management of Colonial Lighthouses.[75] Throughout a long and varied career he continued to work on the development and construction of lighthouses- some of it jointly with lighting specialst, Deville.

The Victoria Foundry continued into the early 1860s. They are said to have eventually collapsed in 1866 as part of the commercial crisis of that year.[76]  It is however very difficult to find what they did in those last few years - perhaps a few engines. In 1859 there had been a sale[77] with a vast list of equipment from the Victoria Foundry for sale by auction.  There is so much here that surely it is a closing down sale? Thomas Meacham was ill and seems to have left the firm. He did not die until 1867 but ‘after a long illness’ – was this illness the reason for the sale of equipment.[78]

The works passed into the hand of Joseph Francis Delaney who had served an apprenticeship as a mechanical engineer under William Joyce and stayed in the firm as naval architect and manager of shipbuilding.  He was assisted by John Charles Raymond Okes, who, unusually for the management of the works, had been trained elsewhere including an apprenticeship under Fairbairn.[79]  They apparently continued until 1866.

Delaney had an interesting afterlife. He had married the daughter of the chief cashier of commitmentthus became manager of the Greenwich branch of the North-Kent Bank. He didn't like this and when his wife died he volunteered to become chief engineer in 1874 on the Chilean iron ship Magellan. On reaching Chile he was promoted to be chief constructor of the Chilean Navy.   He died with his two sons of consumption in 1881.[80]

Dreadnought Wharf continued as a ship building site under the Rennie brothers.   One of the longest lived of all those involved in the Joyce shipbuilding works and Victoria Foundry, was Charles Joyce.  He died in 1869 having collapsed on a Metropolitan Line train and died on Kings Cross platform triggering a new railway regulation about removing corpses from platforms quickly.

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1]Kentish Mercury 15thNovember 1856

[2] Kentish Independent 12th August 1850 

[3] There are many entries on web sites to Lang’s work. He is buried in St.Luke’s Charlton where there is a memorial plaque.

[4] Kentish Independent 12th August 1850 

[5] John Issit. Jeremiah Joyce, Biography.

[6]Institution of Civil Engineers: Obituaries; Wikipedia. John Farey, Jnr

[7]Kent County Archive. Correspondence of Cobb brewery, Margate.

[8]Census 1841

[9]Census 1841

[10]Inst. Civil Engineers records.

[11]Garton. History of South Metropolitan Gas Co. (serialised Gas World 1952)

[12]I covered this in Jrnl. Greenwich Historical Society, 2017-18

[13]St .Pancras church records

[14]Census 1841. This Louisa was married to a surgeon, Richard Edgecombe, and the family can be traced through subsequent years

[15]Census 1851

[16]Fisherton Anger is now part of Salisbury, known as the site of the County Gaol, the Bridewell, the local gallows, brickworks and cholera. More recently the local mental hospital, the gas works, the railway yard and too many rough pubs.

[17]Family History Search, baptism records. The Mormon database picked up her alter-ego immediately!

[18]Thanks to Neil Rhind for residency details

[19]https://edpopehistory.co.uk/entries/joyce-jeremiah/1793-05-19-000000

[20] Rollins. Letters from the Sphinx.

[21] Mechanics Magazine 1848. Although Joyce is not mentioned by name in the article itself, Mr. Dredge makes it clear in a note that the iron work was by Joyce

[22]https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co51081/model-of-joyces-single-cylinder-pendulous-oscillating-engine-oscillating-steam-engine-model

[23]AnElementaryTreatiseonSteamandtheSteamEngine_10031254 (7).pdf

[24] Richard Albanese. Private correspondence,

[25] Tredgold. Steam Flour Mills Erected in Smyrna.  This has many detailed illustrations.

[26] Snyder, University of Texas. Email

[27] Catalogue 1851

[28]https://www.exhibitionstudygroup.org

[29] Practical Mechanics Journals 1849

[30] Estate Agent’s inventory 1892.  Collection of late Patrick Hills

[31]There are numerous accounts of this terrible accident.  Mechanics Magazine, 1847 p. 316 gives an account of the preliminary inquest with the Navy Board Inspector’s detailed report on Joyce’s equipment, the damage and the probable causes –he had some criticisms –but the verdict was ‘improper use’.

[32] Cases Heard in the Queen’s Bench … XIX Victoria 1856

[33][33]McBride.History of the Dreadnought Seamen's Hospital at Greenwich.Also see Richardson, Wood Wharf

[34] Kentish Independent. 17th August 1850

[35] Morning Chronicle 12th August 1850

[36]http://waterfordlibraries.ie/local-history-online/

[37] Waterford News 31st August 1860.

[38]https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-148900

[39] Morning Post 25th November 1851.

[40] Liverpool Albion 25th August 1851

[41] Kentish Mercury 8th November 1851

[42] South Eastern Gazette 16th August 1853.

[43] Morning Post 8th August 1853

[44] Kentish Mercury 9th December 1854

[46] Morning Post. 14th April 1855; Morning Advertiser 15th June 1855

[47] Law Times above

[48] Morning Herald. 20th June 1854

[49] West Kent Guardian 12th April 1856

[50] West Kent Guardian 12th April 1856

[51] Morning Chronicle 10th June 1856

[52] Railway Times. Vol.16 1853

[53]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheerful-class_gunboat

[54] Sun 15th May 1856

[55] Illustrated London News 28th June 1856

[56] Isle of Wight Observer 9th February 1861

[57]https://museum.maritimearchaeologytrust.org/2020/12/17/ships-bells-and-the-sv-victor-emanuel/

[58] Kentish Mercury 23rd August 1856

[59] Kentish Mercury 23rd August 1856

[60] Kentish Mercury 15th August 1856

[61] Information  Fr Kevin Robinson, with thanks

[62]Information Ron Woollacott, Friends of Nunhead Cemetery with thanks.

[63]https://www.fonc.org.uk/

[64] 1861 Census

[65] 1861 Census

[66] Sun.18th July 1867

[67] Herepath’s Railway Journal 31st October 1857

[68] Borough of Greenwich Free Press. 30th May 1857

[69] Jersey Independent 24th October 1857

[70] Teesdale Mercury 8thSeptember 1858

[71] Northern Daily Express. Northern Herald November 1858

[72] Pearsall.  Derricks at Charlton. Greenwich Antiq Trans 1971

[73] This information came from the old lighthouse’s original web site.  It is no longer given on it and I have been unable to track it down elsewhere. The current web site is only concerned with visitor management and spend. Some details at http://capepoint.co.za/cape-of-lights-2/

[75]NationalArchives

[76] Inst, Civil  Engineers. Obit.

[77] Morning Herald 19th M she arch 1859

[78] Ancestry and census details

[79] Inst Civil Eng. obit

[80] Int. CivilEng. obit

The Enderby loading gear

  So, we have just learnt that   a previously unremarkable piece of Greenwich is now the same as Stonehenge ...   and we can all go and see ...