The last group of sites for me to write about on this trip up and down Deptford Creek is those on the West Bank immediately adjacent to the Thames. This is quite a large area which of was ultimately the site for General Steam Navigation and is now part of the site of a very large housing estate,, or ‘development’ as it prefers to call itself -originally New Millennium Quay..
In the Middle Ages this area was called ‘Church Marsh’ and was in the ownership of Bridge House Estates - the wealthy City of London body which funds and controls Thames bridges in the area of the City. Excavations here showed that there was a pre-13th century river embankment with some later structural repairs. However most of the riverside in this area is along the Thames and I am trying to look at the bans of the Creek, something which is not going to be easy.
In 1614 Church Marsh was leased by Bridge House to the very new East India Company.. It was their second site, the first having been a short distance to the west at what is now called Payne’s Wharf, but was then known as Stone Wharf. I wrote about this in Weekender in November 2919 and repeated it in my book on the Greenwich Riverside Upper Watergate to Angerstein. There is however a degree of overlap and confusion between these two sites.
And ….before people start moaning at me for writing about the East India Company … can I point out that was the start and long before their days as rulers of India with their own army and a reputation as major exploiters... In these early days they were sending out ships on what were effectively voyages of exploration to try and set up trading arrangements with places in the East Indies, the Far East and elsewhere in order to acquire supplies of spices and other ‘exotic’ items. I’ve been reading about some of these voyages and would recommend them to anyone who thinks this was the romantic days of sail. What is astonishing is the enormous numbers of men who went out on these ships who never came back. A majority of those who went died – of disease, warfare, starvation and many in captivity or by execution. They were visiting ports and coastal areas where there were local rulers and merchants of great wealth and sophistication with existing trading networks. To them the English ships were just an irritant and who, if they were ever interested at all, were playing them off against the Dutch adventurers.
On the long sea voyages – apart from the usual dangers – there was scurvy and infectious disease. The only places they could anchor and come ashore were often dangerous and unhealthy marshy areas. Local populations were unimpressed and unfriendly – or – worse - hostile and organised. One account I read is about the Company’s early pride and boasts about gaining the allegiance of the ‘spice island’ Run, in the Banda Islands. With some difficulty you can find it today on Google Maps. Even today it is – well - small. some people live there and there is one tiny settlement. It doesn’t actually look too bad a place built along the shore line and it has at least one grand(ish) building but there is no Google Street View, partly, of course, because there seems to be a definite lack of streets. In fact I would recommend a good look via Google at some of these romamtic destinations of our seafaring past. Bantam – which gets many mentions and where the East India Company’s Trades Increase first ship was lost – isn’t even marked as a place name and seems to be one of a number of pleasant but unimpressive coastal areas to the east of Jarkarta.
Of course in the 17th century those who survived were enriched – but at great personal risk. But the most profit was made by those who funded the voyages and stayed at home.
Also, before I get any further, I must explain that I have had considerable difficulty in finding anything out about this Creekside East India site. Almost every history I have looked at talks about the early works at Stone Wharf and then moves on to the more famous Blackwall site – missing out the second site in Deptford. I understand that there was a major archaeological dig there in 1997 with 20 archaeologists working on it. Normally there are reports on these digs easily downloadable – but the only place I can find it is via a commercial site who want £££££ for a time limited download and also I can find no one will admit having a copy. Why ?– What is in it that it needs to be so carefully guarded??
In 1614 the East India Company’s second Deptford site was set up by one, William Burrell, who had been appointed as ‘Master Shipwright’. He had previously been a shipbuilder with a site at Ratcliffe near Wapping. In 1614 Shakespeare is still alive, so let’s remember Burrell was setting up his major shipyard in doublet, hose and a big lace ruff although his work on the site and sourcing timber supplies all sounds very organised and ‘modern’. From 1619 he was also Master Shipwright at Deptford Royal Dockyard which must have led to some complications. After this second appointment the East India Company raised his salary from £200 to £300 a year. He is said to have had a house on site in Deptford. He eventually fell out with the Company in 1626, resigned and died in 1630 after a trip to Portsmouth.
What information I have found largely concerns his international search for suitable timber supplies – not relevant to this article on Creekside
There are some sketchy descriptions of what was found in the archaeological dig on sit in the book ‘Deptford Creek. Surviving Regeneration’ edited by Jess Steele and published by Deptford Forum Publishing in 1999. It tells us something about what was on site but not where it was or what exactly they found in the way of evidence to prove that that was what was there. From what they say was found it looks very much as if the site was intended not so much for building ships as for fitting them out and for supplying them for a voyage and for doing any necessary repairs on a return from a voyage..
First of all they built a dry dock and building slips. These were built to let out onto the Thames rather than the Creek and are shown on the 1623 ‘Evelyn’ map of Deptford. They survived, albeit rebuilt, until replaced by extensions to Deptford Power Station in the 20th century. I guess that dry docks then, as now, are expensive to build and they indicate some ambition for the site.
Between 1610 and 1620 the East India Company are said to have built over 30 ships here with a workforce of 500. These were said to be the larger ships – the smaller stuff being built at the later, but increasingly important, Blackwall Yard. I am unable to find out what these ships built at Deptford were. The ships listed as having been built by Burrell are all warships built in the Royal Dockyard. I guess it is unlikely that any of the historians at the National Maritime Museum will read this, but if they do – I am sure they will all know what the ships built here were called, where they went and what happened to them. I understand that the ships which might have been built at this Deptford Wharf – rather than at Stone Wharf or the Royal Dockyard – might include the Company’s first two purpose built first ships - that is the Trades Increase, which came to a relatively tragic end and lies wrecked off Bantam, and the smaller, Peppercorn. Peppercorn returned to England, losing another 19 sailors to disease on the return voyage.
There are some famous views which claim to be of the East India Company shipyard in production. One, ‘East India Company Ships at Deptford’, is the subject of several web pages (for i.e. https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-13352) where they point out that the date of the painting is after the closure of the yard and then, very impressively, detail every ship in the painting and describe what it is doing there.. Amother well known sketch apparently dated 1840 shows an impressive building with a little bell tower.
The Deptford site seems to have had a remit for repair and fitting out. On site was an iron foundry to make anchors and chains, a spinning house to make cordage, a slaughterhouse to kill animals and then facilities for salting and packing the meat. There were store houses for timber and canvas. There was also gunpowder store isolated on the east side of the site nearest the creek.
Excavations showed that in the 17th century a deep wharf had been provided to allow larger vessels to the dock edge and later in the 18th century a new river wall was bull extending the dockyard out to the north by 10m. This must however have been on its Thameside frontage rather than the creek. Much of this work was done re-using old ship's timbers and much of the surrounding debris was ship construction related – caulking hair, treenails, and so o.
On the east side of the dockyard there was a rope yard in the 17th and 18th centuries which went from the Stowage to the Thames
`
The East India Company closed this Deptford Yard in 1643 to concentrate on the now famous Blackwall site. The facilities which were built at Deptford were used by other shipbuilders throughout almost 300 years and the construction of Deptford Power Station and General Steam Navigation’s use of the site. One slipway – greatly strengthened and altered – may have been used for coal deliveries to Deptford Power Station in the late 19th century.
In 1649 it was leased to Peter Pett as the first of a succession of ship builders and repairers on this site. Clearly it is not easy to get right which Peter Pett this was – and I note various web pages trying to explain the differences between them. It is said that the Admiralty itself had difficulty with the family with so many members as shipwrights and all with the same first names.
There was more than one Peter Pett around in 1649. but I assume that whichever it was worked as a shipwright . If so the old East India Company yard was used by then for either for private work or as an extension to whatever prestigious post they held in the royal dockyards.
In my articles and book on this site in my accounts of the Greenwich riverside I covered many of the later users of the dry dock and slips in detail. All of them let out onto the Thames rather than the Creek. Working out which of the many ship builders and repairers were on the Creek frontage of the site is not going to e easy.
No comments:
Post a Comment