Revealing Reward: A Brixham Trawler in Saltern`s Creek

Revealing Reward:
A Brixham Trawler in Saltern’s Creek
Courtesy of Sue Edden
INTRODUCTION
“Culture” is a term commonly used today to describe different aspects of a group of
people, to describe different beliefs and customs as their ‘culture’ or way of life. But
underlying the culture and values of every group of people is heritage: national heritage,
local heritage and family heritage. Commonly manifested as artifacts – material objects
from the past that still exist today – heritage serves to remind people about their past,
where they came from, and who they are. Heritage artifacts therefore contribute to the
formation and understanding of identity, whether on a family, local or national level.
Worldwide, people surround themselves with objects and artifacts of identity: images of
deceased relatives, pictures or objects serving as a reminder of a past experience, and
symbols of religion or patriotism. Such artifacts and images are deemed socially
important, and may become protected and preserved by institution. How they are valued,
however, may differ. Some objects will be conserved or reproduced and placed in a
public location to serve as a reminder of the past and social identity, whereas others may
be placed in a publicly accessible but strictly regulated location to ensure their survival
for future generations. We see some of these objects and sites every time we pass a
monument, a historic building, see a flag, or enter a museum. But the objects themselves
are merely a tangible and symbolic reminder of heritage; they cannot speak and do not
tell their story by merely existing. Rather, their history must be revealed and understood
in a broader context to cultivate meaning.
One such heritage artifact is the skeleton of an old wooden ship resting on the foreshore
of Saltern’s Creek in Fareham, Hampshire. Directly adjacent to a park and path welltrodden by locals, the identity of the ship has peaked the interest and inquiry of many
locals. Some merely wonder about her remains as they walk past at low-tide, seeking no
further information, whereas others inquire to the broader community, talking amongst
themselves and posting queries in local magazines such as Fareham Past & Present.
Sometimes, however, the artifact will peak the interest of students and researchers who
dedicate much time, effort and resources to revealing the true history and broader
significance of an object. The wooden ship in Saltern’s Creek has done just that, initially
peaking the interest of my classmate Johanna Saladas, and leading her to get fellow
researchers and classmates such as myself involved in the revelation of her true history.
Four classmates – Johanna Saladas, Courtney Jenkins, Marissa Kings, Mehvash Arslan –
and I began our exploration into the history and archaeology of the Saltern’s Creek hulk
in January 2008. Beginning on the banks of Saltern’s creek, talking to the locals, the
exploration would take us to local libraries, Brixham Heritage, the National Maritime
Museum in London, other archives, and ultimately face-to-face with the daughter of the
Rear Admiral who last owned the vessel – providing answers to events of the past only
available through first-hand knowledge.
Field Survey Report
2
May 2008
SITE LOCATION
Located in the intertidal zone of Saltern’s creek (aka. Fareham Creek) in Fareham,
Hampshire, the wreck is almost completely covered at high tide, and completely exposed
at low tide. She rests and is partly covered by a muddy creek floor of sand, shingle and
mud. The majority of her structure and surrounding creek bed is covered by algal growth.
Residing in a dynamic environment, her structure is severely degraded and scattered.
GPS coordinates for her location are: 50o 50’ 32.5” N, 01o 10’ 32.55 W.
Field Survey Report
3
May 2008
Fig 1: Maps showing location of wrecksite in Fareham, Hampshire, England.
Map, aerial image and satellite image courtesy of Google, © 2008 Tele Atlas.
RESEARCH PURPOSE
Our project aims to shed light on the importance of smaller vessels in maritime society
and to show that they can also be of great interest. The remains of an old wooden ship lie
in the inter-tidal zone of Saltern’s creek in Fareham. The locals pass it everyday, yet most
know nothing of its history, despite a rich local maritime heritage. Between January and
May 2008, our group set out to conduct an archaeological survey on the hulk in Saltern’s
Creek. Through analysis of our survey material, combined with historical research, we
hoped to reveal the type and identity of the vessel lying in the creek. Our theory - based
on preliminary site investigation and communication with locals - is that the vessel is the
Reward, a Brixham Trawler built in 1905. By comparing measurements of the hulk to
those of other Brixham Trawlers, and correlating physical remains with historical data,
we hoped to determine whether or not the hulk is in fact the Reward.
FIELD SURVEY
Health and Safety
Health and safety on site included dressing appropriately, knowing a difficult
environment and moving cautiously in it, bringing sufficient drinking fluids, and being
prepared for accidents. Group members were required to wear Wellington boots at all
times, and no one was allowed to enter the foreshore alone. The nature of our site and
surrounding creek bed was determined prior to commencing work, and each person
briefed on safe versus unsafe areas to walk in. Each person was required to bring
sufficient fluids for the day, and fresh water and hand sanitizer was brought to clean
hands prior to eating. Fortunately no one was injured during our survey, however a firstaid kit was onsite, and the route to the nearest hospital known. A ladder was brought in
case the tide rose to quickly, trapping us onsite, however was not needed.
Equipment
A myriad of equipment and supplies were needed for health and safety, site access, and to
conduct our survey. As described above, a first-aid kit, hand sanitizer, drinking and
washing fluids, waterproofs and a ladder were needed onsite for health and safety.
Equipment used to conduct our survey included: tape measures, line levels, baseline,
nails, scissors, tape, gloves, pencils, rubbers, rulers, a drawing board and perma-trace. A
camera and scale were also brought to image the site.
Methodology
Over the course of several months, my group spent 4 days on site, documenting the
remains of the vessel in Saltern’s Creek. Prior to going onsite, we checked the weather
and tide table, ensured we had appropriate equipment between us, and a first-aid kit.
Once arriving onsite, we first conducted a pre-disturbance check, examining the vessel’s
environment before getting to work (fig. 2). At low tide the entire vessel rested in a
Field Survey Report
4
May 2008
foreshore environment where the ‘bottom’ is weed-covered sand, shingle and mud. Her
bow faced a promenade opening to a park path, and her stern faced the shipping channel
behind and perpendicular to her. The wall was cement, and the muddy creek bed directly
adjacent to the wall was riddled with large stones and pieces of wreck, making the bed
firm and easy to walk on. Outside the port side of the vessel were the remains of an old
pier, and a gentle slope leading up to an adjacent promenade.
Fig. 2: Sketch plan of west bank showing site environment, not to scale. Credit: Jill Hooper, 2005 NAS survey.
Debris lay strewn inside and outside the vessel: wooden planks, remnants of a winch, and
other unidentified wooden and metal objects. In addition to hosting these artifacts, the
muddy bed outside the port side of the vessel contained many large stones, possibly from
a pier adjacent, and made the ground quite firm and safe to walk on. Forward and
surrounding the starboard side of the vessel, however, the mud was very clayey and
saturated with water. Walking directly adjacent to the portside of the vessel was near
impossible without getting stuck in the mud, and there was less than a meter of walkable
ground directly aft of the stern.
We first took pictures of the vessel where she lay (fig. 1), then set up a baseline and tape
directly across the lengthwise center of the ship, from bow to stern. The zero-end of the
baseline rested on the inside of the stern post, and we tied the end of the baseline and tape
around the most forward bow-piece. Three people were assigned to take measurements:
one person holding a tape measure at the baseline, and a second measuring to ribs off the
baseline using the tape measure and plumb bob. The perpendicular distance to the
outermost edge of the ribs or floorboards off the baseline were measured, the distance to
their mud line, as well as their height above or below the baseline. A third person stood
back to help check measurement accuracy (levelness, etc.) and recorded the data. While
one team took measurements off the baseline, one team member took pictures of various
features with a scale, and another drew a sketch of the wreck site.
Field Survey Report
5
May 2008
Fig. 3: Sketch of the wreck site in 2008. Credit: Kelley Elliott.
Resting in a tidal creek, we typically had a three to four-hour window to conduct work
before the tide came in and saturated the mud so much that it was not safe to conduct
work, and forced us off site. Our first two days on site were spent taking offset
measurements from the baseline to every-other exterior rib of the vessel, and their height
above or below the baseline, to provide a basic outline and vertical profile of the ship.
Length, breadth and height measurements were taken, images were taken with a scale,
and a sketch of the site was completed (fig. 3). The data was transferred onto a permatrace board at 1:20 scale, and readied for our next day’s onsite. Our final two days were
spent drawing a plane-view sketch of the hulk. We visually examined the remains for any
evidence of fire to confirm a local’s story, or of two masts, but no conclusive evidence
was found. Beams that may have been part of a mast are present on site, however more
information is needed to say conclusively. Many planks, wooden and metal features
remained onsite and were imaged: remains of a winch (fig. 4), what may be a rudder-pin,
a metal rod with rings likely used to secure the mainsail, and what looks to be the remains
of a metal stove (fig. 5) (Edden 2008a). Many more features and even artifacts may
remain, however are buried in the mud and would require excavation to be revealed.
Field Survey Report
6
May 2008
Fig 4: Remains of Winch. Credit: C. Jenkins.
Fig 5: Possibly remains of an oven, or the drum of a windlass. Credit: K. Elliott.
Data Processing
Data collected from the site was processed several ways. One group member used the
data to create a line plan of the site using auto-cad (appendix 1). Another plotted the x, y,
z data using excel to create both a plane view outline of the wreck (appendix 2), as well
as a vertical profile for the existing starboard (appendix 3) and portside (appendix 4)
frames. Finally, the group inked up the plane view from the wreck site (appendix 5).
DATA ANALYSIS
‘Brixham Trawler’ is a term applied to vessels known in historical documents as
‘smacks’ that were used for deep-sea trawling in southwest England (Greenhill 2000, 96).
These smacks are traditionally famous for having brown or ochre sails. From my
research, such vessels were typically built at Rye, Lowestoft, Brixham or Ramsgate until
the 1920’s, and the term applies to vessels that used the beam trawl – that British
fishermen claim was invented at Brixham – for deep-sea trawling (Ansen 1932, 123).
Further research into Brixham Trawlers will reveal varying aspects of ship size, style and
rigging by time and locale.
Reward was built at Beeching, Moses & Co. shipyard at Ramsgate in 1905. The smacks
from Moses’ shipyard “were constructed of local elm and oak cut down in the woods
around Canterbury and brought to Ramsgate on horse-drawn timber tugs.” The wood
used to construct Reward has not been analyzed, but could be to further confirm whether
she was built of elm and oak from the same areas. Edgar March has detailed the
construction of a smack, specifically a North Sea trawler built at a shipyard in Rye in the
first decade of the 20th century. While describing the construction, he makes frequent
comments and comparisons to similarities and differences in the design, building style
and technique of smacks in different locations and periods. Some of these points will be
correlated with the hulk from Saltern’s creek to help confirm or deny whether she may be
Field Survey Report
7
May 2008
a Ramsgate-built smack circa 1905. First, however, what remains to be correlated must
be described.
Fig 6: Image showing wreck site.
Only the lower section below the bilge remains of the hulk in Saltern’s creek. Here, long
degraded and algal-covered frames protrude from of the mud. At least some part of
nearly all of the starboard frames remain, the lower outside strakes still intact, and the
frames protruding proudly just to where they should curve at the bilge. Only one frame
remains to reveal the turn at the bilge on the starboard side, standing proud above the rest.
The keel likely remains however it is entirely buried beneath mud, and would require
excavation to investigate. The vessel has listed to port and thus much of the starboard
frames and remaining outside planks have broken apart or been covered by mud. The
lowermost section of the bow remains, and the sternpost still stands proud with bits of the
rudder still attached. Only the lowermost planking directly inside the ribs remains, and
are completely covered by sediment. No other inside planking or upper structure remains
intact, and little of the material disbursed around the site can be easily recognized.
Field Survey Report
8
May 2008
Fig 7: If the hulk in
Saltern’s creek were
entirely excavated and
cleaned, her skeleton
might look a bit like the
bottom half of this
smack, however with
double-timber frames.
Image shows
shipbuilders ‘dubbing
out’ the inside of a
smack being built at
Rye. (March 1953,
plate 24)
The hulk’s current length is 17m (55’ 9”), and breadth is 5.3m (17’ 5”), however her
length does not account for a bowsprit, or a transom stern that would have protruded
farther aft than the stern post (fig. 8). Her current breadth measurements also may not be
directly applicable, as some of the mid-ship portside frames seem to have fallen outward,
and those aft on the portside have collapsed completely; none of the existing portside
frames appear to extend to the turn of the bilge. Still, these measurements fit well within
the guidelines of a trawling smack, such as Pilgrim (BM45) with a keel length of 59’ 6”
and beam of 17.65’ (appendix 6), or the tosheri Mildred & Jack, hosting a keel length of
57’ and markedly narrow beam at 13’ 6” (appendix 7). More importantly, they fit well
within the dimensions of Reward, with a keel length of 60.7,’ breadth of 17,’ and depth of
7.15’ (Brixham Heritage).
Fig 8: If the hulk in Saltern’s creek
is in fact Reward, more would need
to be added to the length of the
stern to account for the transom
stern protruding aft. The bow,
however, would have continued
straight up. Credits: March
1953,65.
When building a smack, “the elm keel was laid first, then the oak stem and stern-post set
up, next, floors with futtocks erected, starting amidships at dead flat, the frames being
numbered for’ard and lettered aft” (March 1953, 207). Perhaps most useful in comparing
her physical remains with those of other trawling smacks are her frames. March describes
the framing of smacks:
“Framing commenced amidships and proceeded towards the bow and stern
alternately, the floors seating in the scores. Here again the practice differed. At
most of the yards the frames were double which allowed for use of smaller sided
timbers to those at Rye… Room and space varied. At Lowestoft and Brixham it was
generally 6 in. (15.2cm) floor, 6 in. (15.2cm) space, at Ramsgate two 4 in.
(11.4cm) timbers made up an 8 in. (21.6cm) double frame, with 17 in. (43.2cm)
centre to centre…” (March 1953, 64).
Fig 9: Image with scale showing frame construction of hulk in Saltern’s Creek. Credit: C. Jenkins.
Framing on the hulk (fig. 9) correlates directly with the frame dimensions described
above at Ramsgate. The hulk hosts a series of two planks making a frame. Currently,
each plank ranges from 9-10cm in width, making a combined total width of 18-20cm;
these measurements are slightly less than those described above at Ramsgate. The severe
degradation of the wood could account for such discrepancy. Furthermore, the center to
center of each double-frame, as measured onsite and from our scaled drawing, is
generally (but not always) about 43 centimeters. Other physical characteristics that might
be used for comparison to other smacks and Brixham Trawlers are buried by the mud, no
longer intact, or severely degraded. An NAS survey of the forward half of the ship in
2005 included digging a test pit to potentially reveal the mast-step, however it was not
revealed in the excavated area (appendix 8).
Figs 10-11: Front (left) and back (right) of china artifact showing Collingwoods stamp,
dated to between 1920 and 1945. Credit: Jo Saladas.
The 2005 NAS test pit did, however, reveal two artifacts during test excavation – notably
a piece of china with the “Collingwoods” stamp on the back (figs 10-11). According to
Mark Beatty-Edwards (NAS), the style of China is dated to between 1920 and 1945,
placing the wreck in the appropriate time frame for the arrival of Reward in Fareham
(MNL 1940, 1168). Physically, the construction and dimensions of the hulk are
consistent with Brixham Trawlers and smacks built at Ramsgate. Proving that she was in
fact a Brixham Trawler, and specifically the Reward, however, remains difficult.
Ultimately, the identity of the vessel would need to be determined through historic
research.
RESEARCH
Research of our wreck was conducted using a variety of sources: a previous
archaeological report, historic sources, museums, and personal communication with
locals and ultimately family members of previous owners. Our first tips as to the identity
of the wreck came from locals living in the area. While we were surveying the site, locals
going for a walk or walking their dogs would sometimes stop by and ask for information
about the wreck, or say what they knew. During the first survey conducted by NAS in
2005, a local fisherman said the ship was called the Reward. My classmate, Johanna
Saladas, later went to Fareham Library and perused through ‘Fareham Past and Present’
records; they included a variety of information that had been passed to locals by word of
mouth, and in some cases perhaps recalled from distant memory. References were made
to S.S. Reward and her sister ship, S.S. Servabo, being owned by a Canadian. After the
war, it is said the Canadian returned for Servabo but left Reward (Fareham Past &
Present 2003, 59). Although no tips provided in the records were certain, they provided a
starting point.
Searching for both the Reward and her sister ship, Servabo, Johanna finally found a
reference to Servabo on the Brixham Heritage website. She inquired with the museum,
and they later turned up some registration information for the Reward. Reward was built
Field Survey Report
11
May 2008
in 1905 by Beeching, Moses & Co. in Ramsgate, was 60.7’ x 17.0’ x 7.15,’ and only
24.66 tons when built. Loaded, she weighed in at 34.02 tons and had a ketch-rig. She
was owned by Chas. Spratt of Ramsgate in 1907, and was later sold to J.H. Blackmore in
1920, when she seems to have become BM382. That same year she went to Lowestoft.
With a BM registration number in hand, she set off to the Greenwich Maritime Museum.
There she worked with Jeremy Mitchell to search through line plans and images of ships
to try and find Reward. Jeremy pulled an image from 1920 up, but when he showed it to
Johanna she wasn’t sure: the sail said BM43, and information from Brixham Heritage
suggested it should have been BM382. She was almost ready to give up hope when
Jeremy pulled out a magnifying glass and they had a closer look at the hull number: it
said BM382. It was the Reward! Jo continued to use the Museum’s fantastic resources,
and ultimately found Reward listed in the 1920 Fisherman’s Nautical Almanac (44th ed.,
pg. 30). However, her registration data was different than previous registration data from
Brixham heritage; she had moved to Lowestoft and become SS463. Information seemed
to come to a standstill from this point, until more time working at our site led to
communication with more locals.
Fig 12: Image of Reward circa 1920, from the archives of the National Maritime Museum, Plans and
Images.
Following a field day at the site, a local kindly put me in touch with a woman named
Selma Cox, who had lived in Fareham for 65 years, most of that time on Saltern’s Lane.
Selma said the ship had been there for as long as she could remember (Cox 2008). She
Field Survey Report
12
May 2008
moved to Saltern’s Lane in the early 1940’s and had played on the ship when she was a
young girl. This placed the ship there since at least the 1940’s leaving a 20-year gap in
our records. She said the vessel was called Reward, but she didn’t recall her as a fishing
or trawling vessel. Rather, she said it was called H.M.S. Reward, and had been used as a
training vessel for Navy cadets. She said the ship has been in the same location all this
time and hadn't moved much.
Speaking with Selma hinted at a new chapter in the vessel’s life. I quickly searched
online databases for training vessels named Reward, but found nothing. I went to
Southampton Central Library and explored the Maritime Special Collection for useful
resources. Success! I found the vessel in the Mercantile Navy List and Maritime
Directory, first registered in 1906 and last registered in 1957. She had switched hands
eight times, and moved to many new locations. Her last owner lived in London when he
purchased her in 1937, however moved to Gosport Road in Fareham in 1940 – about a
mile away from the ship’s resting site! Immediately I had 37 years of new data, a handful
of new owners, and the beginning of an answer to how she came to reside in Fareham.
The data further revealed that Reward spent most of her life in Ramsgate, Brixham and
Lowestoft prior to being purchased by ‘Sub-Lieut. Philip D. Gick’ of the Royal Navy.
Next, I contacted the Admiralty Library at Portsmouth to seek information on Sub-LT
Gick, or any available information on Mercantile Navy ships. They didn’t carry much of
anything regarding Mercantile Navy ships, and I was literally laughed at when I inquired
about seeking archival information on a Sub-LT. Alas, I was not to be deterred from my
search. Next, I did what my generation knows best: I Googled it.
And thank goodness for Google! After a bit of time spent refining my search, I found a
hit on Sub-LT Gick on an ancestry web page that, for a small fee, would provide me with
some old phone records. I signed up and downloaded the record; Sub-LT Gick’s address
was the same as the listed in the Mercantile Navy List, and next to his name was the
abbreviation, “D.S.C.” (appendix 9). I continued to query the database with his name, and
ultimately found an ancestry tree including Gick, and a contact e-mail listed at the top. I
sent an inquiry off to the address explaining my interests and hoped for a reply.
Meanwhile, I returned to Google and queried “Gick” along with “D.S.C.” The results
were again successful, though this time hosted a sad ending.
I was directed to an obituary in the Telegraph detailing some of Gick’s history and many
accomplishments. P. D. Gick had been no ordinary serviceman. He had risen through the
ranks to become Rear Admiral, and was awarded the DSC and Bar, and twice mentioned
in dispatches (Telegraph 2002). He hosted an impressive service record that included
service on eight aircraft carriers, contributing to the sinking of at least 5 U-boats, and
scoring a direct torpedo hit on the German Battleship Bismarck during an air attack in
May 1941 (Telegraph 2002)!
My fascination with P. D. Gick had already been peaked by the time I received a
response from my Ancestry query: the contact listed was in fact related to P. D. Gick and
would pass my contact information on to one of his children to provide more information.
Field Survey Report
13
May 2008
Meanwhile I continued my research and headed to the Greenwich Maritime Museum. At
the Museum library, I used their near-complete Mercantile Navy List to complete
Reward’s timeline, and learned much about Brixham Trawler’s, fishing smacks in
Southern England, and Navy Cadet Training vessels (though I later confirmed Reward
was not one). I even found details on one of Reward’s owners – Mr. J. H. Blackmore –
and his activism for fishing vessels and fishermen (March 1953, 215).
Within a few days I received an e-mail from Mrs. Sue Edden – the daughter of Rear
Admiral Gick. She said if it was the Brixham Trawler Reward we were after, she had
some photos and information, and confirmed the vessel’s remains lay in the creek. My
excitement could hardly be contained! I arranged to meet with herii and view some
images of the ship (appendix10), and in the meantime she answered some questions with
first-hand knowledge that could never have been discovered through archival research. At
last, Reward’s story was complete.
HISTORY OF REWARD
Reward’s story is truly a microcosm paralleling the story of Brixham trawlers in the first
half of the 20th century. Like all trawling smacks, Reward was built locally (Smylie 1999,
149). Registration records reveal she was built at Ramsgate by Beeching, Moses and Co.
in 1905 (MNL 1906, 784). Search for the builders only returns a listing that they were
once located on Military Road in Ramsgate. Edgar J. March, however, records first-hand
knowledge of the Moses maritime heritage in Ramsgate. His book, Sailing Trawlers,
includes an image (March 1953, plate 156) of Military Road in 1808 that shows Moses &
Deveson’s sail loft (March 1953, 229). The store was owned by a gentleman with the last
name Moses, however he was the grandfather of Mr. Moses who ran the shipyard “on the
foreshore under the East Cliff” (232). How long the shipyard had been established under
the East Cliff is unknown, but “when the railway station [at Ramsgate] was built the
chalk excavated from the tunnel was dumped into the sea on the west side of the harbour
and the shipyard was moved to this site…” (232). Here, Mr. Moses himself established
the shipyard in 1900, building many smacks for local owners in the coming years. The
last trawler built in this yard was New Clipper prior to the outbreak of war in 1914, and
by 1953 the site had become a car park, and the sail loft gone (232). While the shipyard
was still in full business in 1905, however, Reward was built.
The Reward is not only a Brixham Trawler and Ramsgate-built smack, more specifically
she is a tosher i. Comparison of historic images (fig. 13,15) (appendix 10) and her
dimensions with the plans of a typical tosher that was made by the master rigger at
Moses’ shipyard in Ramsgate (fig. 14,16), reveal much similarity. According to March,
the blocks and rigging of the tosher were excellent, “but the hull was not up to the same
high standard as its beam was on the narrow side” (234).
Field Survey Report
14
May 2008
Fig 13: Historic image of Reward (flipped). Credit: Sue Edden.
Fig 14: Plan drawings of the small Ramsgate smack, or ‘Tosher,’ Mildred & Jack built by the Master
rigger at Moses’ shipyard in Ramsgate c. 1900. Credit: Edgar J. March, 1945. The plans are perhaps the
most similar in existence to Reward, being the same type of vessel built at the same shipyard. Minor
Field Survey Report
15
May 2008
differences can be seen by comparing the plan with historic images of Reward. Photo on page 15 courtesy
of Sue Edden, Image below courtesy of the National Maritime Museum, plans and photos..
Fig 15: Image of Reward in 1920. The image gives a partial view of the deck of the ship. Credit: National
Maritime Museum, Plans and Images.
Fig 16:Plan view of the small Ramsgate smack, or ‘Tosher,’ Mildred & Jack built by the Master rigger at
Moses’ shipyard in Ramsgate c. 1900. Credit: Edgar J. March, 1945.
First registered as a ketch-rigged vessel of 25i tons in 1906, Reward was owned by
Charles Spratt of 44 Addington St., Ramsgate, and given the official number 121361
(MNL 1906, 784). The same year, the register contained the names of 168 fishing vessels
and in 1910 there were 141 making the Ramsgate fleet (March 1953, 238). Reward
remained registered in Ramsgate during this time, but the 1914-18 war brought hardship;
“several smacks were mined in the first few months… close proximity to the continent
saw the harbor exposed to many a raid by Zeppelins and Gothas” (238). Perhaps out of
hardship during terrible times, or perhaps out of fear, in 1916 Mr. Charles Spratt sold or
transferred ownership of Reward to George and Thomas Smith of Rye, Sussex, though
she remained registered at Ramsgate. Perhaps intending to make the fishing business a
Field Survey Report
16
May 2008
family affair as was often done, George and Thomas may not have had much luck or
success, and by 1919 followed in the footsteps of others such as the Ramsgate owners of
Harry Martin, selling their vessel to Brixham owners (238). March expresses the
difficulty of the time: “It was heart-breaking for men who had struggled to save enough
money to buy a smack of their own to be forced to sell it at a give-away price” (238). By
1919, Reward was registered at Brixham under the new owner, James H. Blackmore of
79 Mountpleasant Road, Brixham.
Blackmore’s efforts helped to make Brixham’s situation better off than other ports such
as Ramsgate. Blackmore had been involved with the Brixham Fishing Smack Mutual
Insurance Society since 1898, and was chairman at the time Edgar March visited and
wrote about him (March 1953, 215). The society only insured sailing vessels, surveying
and valuing them before acceptance, and “practically every Brixham owner insured”
(215). Just before Reward is listed as having been registered at Brixham, Mr. Blackmore
took quite a stand to get the Brixham Trawlers and their fishermen protected:
The worst year was in the 1914-1918 war when six smacks were sunk in one week
by U-boats, meaning a very heavy call on the owners, some of whom wanted the
fleet laid up. Mr. Blackmore called a meeting and was sent to Plymouth to explain
matters to owners of fishing vessels there, and try and get the M.P’s interested so
as to obtain their assistance in the matter. A deputation waited on the Lords of the
Admiralty and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and as a result within a
fortnight every Brixham owner joined the War Risk Association. The smacks were
now organized into a fleet, Mr. Blackmore’s Prevalent being admiral’s ship with a
naval lieutenant in charge… under protection smacks were able to go to the better
grounds outside, catching three times the quantity of fish, an important item in
wartime. Some Lowestoft and Ramsgate men joined the fleet which was escorted by
an armed steam trawler, and only one smack was subsequently sunk and she had
strayed from the others” (March 1953, 215).
Mr. Blackmore’s decision to become managing owner of a new vessel, Reward, may
have stemmed from increased security or simply that his vessel, Prevalent, was now
manned by a naval lieutenant. Whatever the reason, Reward arrived at a Brixham made
relatively safe and prosperous for fishermen of the time. With increased protection after
the war, landings of fish rose to 90,637 cwt. in 1919, and 84,498 cwt. the following year,
valued at £186,920 (204). An image of Reward taken in 1920 is on archive in the
National Maritime Museum (fig 15). At first look, one might mistake her for the Master
Hand, as her sails largely display the registration BM43. A closer look at the image,
however, reveals BM382 on her hull – her Brixham registration number. Why she was
running with another ships sail could be attributed to her owner, Mr. Blackmore, who
“was a keen contestant (and winner) in many a hard-sailed race” (216).
Brixham Trawlers are known for their fine, but not too extreme, yacht-like lines,
providing both the speed necessary for their catch to “reach market in as fresh a condition
as possible,” and a “deep heel, a straight keel and ballast properly stowed and secured to
ensure an easy motion” so the vessel could “face anything, as it was a certainty that a
Field Survey Report
17
May 2008
smack would frequently be caught out in bad weather with no harbor within reach”
(March 1953, 57). Mr. Blackmore and other owners recognized the potential speed of the
smacks, racing them in regattas. Perhaps it was in preparation or during one of these
races that Reward was photographed. March commented on “a pleasing feature of these
races” being the sportsmanship displayed: “If a man thought a sail from another smack
set better than his own, it was freely loaned, in 1920 Prevalent set a mainsail belonging to
Mr. Upham’s Lynx, while Mr. Blackmore had loaned some of his sails to another man”
(220).
Despite efforts to revive the industry after the First World War (Lavery 2004, 259), after
1920 the fish catch out of Brixham steadily declined. Smacks were snagging their nets
and losing serious amounts of gear on the many war wrecks in the once prolific fishing
grounds. Sailing trawlers were being laid up, and according to March it was “little
wonder … when a warp alone cost £40, and few lads choosing to go into fishing meant
that the brunt of hard work fell on the old men” (1953, 204). Reward appeared to be
among the first of those sold, being sold or transferred to Alfred J. Turner of Trawl
Market, Lowestoft, where she was registered in 1921.
Lowestoft, like many British fishing ports, had lost many smacks during the 1914-18 war.
But afterwards the port began to bounce back, building 33 new smacks immediately
following the armistice (March 1953, 173). Some of the trawlers were being fitted with
motors, and nearly all the Lowestoft smacks were fitted with steam capstans. Registration
of Reward in the 44th edition of the Fisherman’s Nautical Almanac (1920, 30), shows that
she went to Lowestoft and became S.S. Reward, given the number SS463. This record
creates a confusing story, however, as later images of Reward from the late 1930’s and
1940’s do not appear to reveal evidence of conversion.
Reward remained registered in Lowestoft to owners living in Lowestoft through 1936,
although she changed hands many times. She was passed to managing owner Claud
Runacres of 19 Cleveland Road in 1922 (MNL 1922, 994) who kept her for 9 years.
During this time “the increase in steamer traffic added to the perils of collision” (March
1953, 22). The sinkings were so numerous “that red flares were carried in smacks to be
burnt immediately the lights of a steamship were sighted, so great was the fear of being
run down” (220). By 1930, 124 sail survived in Lowestoft, “53 registered 40 tons and
over and eight were fitted with motors” (173).
Perhaps due to the fear of being run-down, or to “the decline in fishing and the advent of
motorization [causing changes] in methods” (Smylie 1999, 149), Runacres passed
Reward to John Leech of 127 Rotterdam Road in 1932 (MNL 1932, 1246). Leech kept
her only a year before she was passed to William Forster of 73 Lawson Road in 1933
(MNL 1933, 1097), and again in 1935 she was passed to William N. Taylor of 20 Ashby
Road (MNL 1935, 1120). Whether her Lowestoft owners continued to use her as a
fishing vessel, or had converted her to a pleasure craft is unknown, however by 1937, she
came into the hands of Sub-Lieutenant Philip D. Gick of the Royal Navy. Gick had
“spent much of 1936 at sea in the fishery protection sloops Goedetia and Lupin”
(Telegraph 2002). He was likely exposed to Brixham Trawlers during this time, perhaps
Field Survey Report
18
May 2008
leading him to purchase Reward. As a keen yachtsman, Gick likely appreciated the fine
lines of the smack, and followed the path of many former Brixham Trawlers by using the
Reward as his personal pleasure yacht (figs 17-18) (Edden 2008b).
Fig 18: Gick’s sister Margaret, or ‘Peggy’
Gick, maneuvers the tiller. The arrow points to
‘Reward’ etched into the inside stern of the ship.
Credit: Sue Edden.
Fig 17: Gick, his wife, A. Rowntree, and friends
enjoy a day sailing on Reward. Credit: Sue
Edden.
From 1937 to 1939, Sub-LT Gick is listed as residing in London, however by 1940,
registration records reveal he had moved to Brook House on Gosport Road in Fareham,
perhaps a mile from Reward’s current resting place! During these years Reward came to
Fareham and was used by Gick as a pleasure yacht (Edden 2008b). While Gick left to
fight in WWII, however, Reward was laid up at Saltern’s Creek in Fareham.
Fig 19: Historic OS maps showing the location of Reward and her associated pier in 1932, 1975 and 1991 (left to
right). Note that even though she arrived c. 1940’s, no reference of her associated pier exists until 1991, when it is
noted as a mound.
Field Survey Report
19
May 2008
Fig 20-21: Personal images of Reward while she was owned by P. Gick. The image to the right is the only
known image below deck, showing Gick and fellow mates enjoying an evening on the boat. Gick took his
fellow Naval friends out on the boat, which is perhaps why a neighbor at the time mistook Reward as a
Navy cadet training vessel. Images courtesy of Sue Edden.
While Gick was away fighting the war, however, times back home were tough. By the
time Gick returned home, he discovered the locals had demolished Reward for firewood
(Edden 2008b). She was too far gone to salvage and Gick had no money. Gick recovered
what he could of her, and was forced to leave her in Saltern’s Creek. He and his family
moved to the Chichester area in 1947, leaving her remains behind. Reward has remained
in Saltern’s creek ever since, slowly degrading with daily double-tides and marine
growth, becoming increasingly covered with muddy sediment, and becoming harder and
harder to recognize from her days of glory.
Fig 22: Reward as she looks today, resting on the banks of Saltern’s Creek. Credit: K. Elliott.
CONCLUSION
Although the physical evidence remaining of the hulk in Saltern’s Creek correlates to the
construction of smacks at Ramsgate in the early 1900’s, absolute confirmation of her
identity, and actions contributing to her demise, was only possible through direct
Field Survey Report
20
May 2008
communication with living relatives. Today, Reward’s remains serve as a reminder of
merchant vessels in past days of sail. She spent many years as a working trawler, and
although new technologies evolved leading to the near extinction of Brixham Trawler’s
in a relatively short period, the trawling legacy remains to this day. Resting in the
proximity of numerous pleasure yacht’s, memories of her fine lines may be conjured, fine
lines that lead to the conversion of so many smacks of her type to pleasure yacht’s, lines
that may even be seen in surrounding vessels. Even her demise resulting in the presence
of her remains where they lay serve as a reminder of the difficult times of the past, and
the struggle to get by during WWII. Juxtaposed with extreme surrounding development
compared to her historic times, new technologies, and some of the most technologicallyadvanced vessels floating south of her in Portsmouth Harbor, we are reminded how
rapidly society has changed in the last century. Yes, I think it is safe to say that Reward’s
story reveals her hulk as an important piece of local and maritime heritage that needs to
be revealed to the community.
K. Elliott
Field Survey Report
21
May 2008
REFERENCES
Anson, P. 1932. Fishermen and Fishing Ways. London: George G. Harrap and Co. Ltd.
Cox, Selma. 2008. Personal communication via phone on 20 May.
Edden, Niel. 2008a. Personal communication on 28 May. Fareham, Hampshire.
Edden, Sue. 2008b. Personal communication on 25 and 27 May. Chichester, West
Sussex.
Fareham Past & Present. Autumn 2003.
Greenhill, B. 2000. A Dictionary of the World’s Watercraft: from Aak to Zumbra, edited
by the Mariners Museum. Newport News: Mariners Museum.
Lavery, B. 2004. Ship: 5,000 years of Maritime Adventure. London: Dorling Kindersley
Limited.
March, E. 1953. Sailing Trawlers: The Story of Deep-Sea Fishing with Long-Line and
Trawl. London: Percival Marshall and Company Limited.
[MNL] 1906-1957. Mercantile Navy List and Maritime Directory. London: H.M.S.O.
Saladas, J. 2005. NAS Part II Survey. Unpublished.
Smylie, M. 1999. Traditional Fishing Boats of Britain & Ireland: Design, History and
Evolution. Shrewsbury, Waterline Books.
Telegraph News. 2002. Rear Admiral Philip Gick. Accessed online on 20 May 2007,
from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1381964/Rear-Admiral-PhilipGick.html.
END NOTES
i
Registration records from Brixham Heritage actually have Reward listed as registered in at 24.66 tons,
and this is likely the correct weight. In 1894 an act was passed in Ramsgate prohibiting any trawler of 25
tons or more from going to sea unless both skipper and mate held certificates, and no lad under 16 could
sail unless bound apprentice. The tendency thereafter was to build smaller vessels, known as ‘toshers,’ just
a fraction under 25 net tons, to avoid the restriction (March 1953, 229).
ii
During my meeting with Sue, I learned that Reward’s sail was given to the Portsmouth Naval Museum
some years ago by Linda Banting. The Edden’s also still have a bunk side that was used on board Reward,
although it was originally on board the Mauritania.
Field Survey Report
22
May 2008
Appendix 1: Auto-CAD line renderings developed from lines taken off Reward.
Credit: Jo Saladas.
View from the keel.
View from the starboard bow.
Appendix 1: Auto-CAD line renderings developed from lines taken off Reward.
Credit: Jo Saladas.
Bow view.
Stern view, port side.
Appendix 2
Saltern's Creek Wrecksite
Stern
Bow
3
Distance to Edge Structure (m)
2
1
0
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
-1
-2
-3
Stern
Bow
Distance Along Centerline (m)
Appendix 3
Starboard Vertical Profile
Stern
Bow
0.6
Height above or below baseline (m)
0.4
0.2
0
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
Baseline (m)
Appendix 4
Portside Vertical Profile
Stern
Bow
0
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Height below baseline (m)
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
Baseline (m)
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
Appendix 7
Appendix 8
Appendix 9: 1944 British phone book record showing listing for P.D. Gick in Fareham.
Appendix 10: Historic images of Reward. Courtesy of Sue Edden.
Appendix 10: Historic images of Reward. Courtesy of Sue Edden.
Appendix 10: Historic images of Reward. Courtesy of Sue Edden.
Appendix 10: Historic images of Reward. Courtesy of Sue Edden.
Appendix 10: Historic images of Reward. Courtesy of Sue Edden.
Appendix 10: Historic images of Reward. Courtesy of Sue Edden.
Appendix 10: Historic images of Reward. Courtesy of Sue Edden.