Page 1
-1-
Paucity of Shipwrights in British Royal Naval Dockyards During World War II
and
The Royal Dockyard Schools and their Education System
by
F. E. King B.Sc.
Introduction
Early in the 1840s, the Admiralty, recognizing the need to improve the technical educa-
tion of Shipwrights in the Naval Dockyards, approved the establishment of apprentice schools.
The first Dockyard School opened in Chatham Dockyard in 1843, followed by schools in Ports-
mouth and Devonport in 1844, and Sheerness, Pembroke, Deptford and Woolwich by 1846. At
first, the purpose of the schools was to improve the technical competence of Shipwright Appren-
tices and to identify those that showed the most academic aptitude for further education in order
to qualify as Naval Constructors. Later, as the Royal Navy went from wooden ships with sails to
steel, electricity and steam propulsion, the mission of the schools expanded to include the tech-
nical education of apprentices in all the trades.
Over the years, the Dockyard Schools at Chatham, Devonport, Portsmouth, Rosyth (re-
established in 1940) and Sheerness developed a four-year education programme for the most ac-
ademically qualified students that lasted until 1958 when the last traditional classes of Fourth-
Years graduated. After the War, with countries of the Empire gaining independence and Britain’s
worldwide role reducing, overseas dockyards were closed, and the number of apprentices greatly
reduced. Eventually the Dockyard Schools were phased out completely by 1971.
The intent of this article is to supplement the accounts of the Dockyard Schools presented
by Allen1 and Luscombe
2, with details derived from public records from the period 1936 through
1945, supplemented with recollections of my experience as a Dockyard Apprentice, in order to
capture some of the history of an unusual, perhaps unique, education system.
Number and Quality of Shipwrights Prior to and During World War II
In March of 1942, Stephen Payne, the Manager, Construction Department, H.M. Dock-
yard Devonport, raised his concerns about the number and academic quality of candidates choos-
ing Shipwright Apprenticeships in H. M. Dockyards in recent years in a memorandum to his
Admiral Superintendent, with distribution to the superintendents of the other Dockyards, manag-
ers of the other Construction Departments and headmasters of the Dockyard Schools.3 His open-
ing paragraph states the quality problem succinctly.
1 K. H. Allen, ‘The Royal Dockyard Schools’, IEE Engineering Science and Education Journal, (1993).
2 E. W. Luscombe, ‘The Devonport Royal Dockyard School: Apprentice Education, 1844–1971’,
The Devonshire Association for the Advancements of Science, Literature and the Arts, (2005). 3 The Payne memorandum ‘Shipwrights in H.M. Dockyards’, the discussion it provoked, the Dockyard Apprentice-
ship process, Dockyard Schools examination results and Cadetships awarded, are all gathered (some 175 unnum-
bered pages) in ‘Dockyard Schools: Examination Results and Paucity of Shipwright Apprentices 1941–1945’,
NA ADM 116/4722 (Admiralty dockyards).
Page 2
-2-
The quality of Shipwright Apprentices has steadily worsened for the last ten years
and unless the causes can be found and remedied shipbuilding and ship-repairing
in H.M. Dockyards will be very much less well done in the future than at present.
Not only will Dockyards suffer but the Drawing Offices and the staff of the Direc-
tor of Naval Construction at Admiralty will become less efficient because Ship-
wrights forming the backbone of constructive work form also the principal source
of recruitment of the Drawing Offices and Design Sections.
The number of Shipwrights and the percentage of Shipwrights of all workers in Devon-
port Dockyard, for example, had decreased over the prior 30 years, as the following table shows.
Year All Workers Number of Percentage
In Yard Shipwrights Shipwrights
1909 8,524 1,752 20.0
1917 14,000 2,476 17.7
1920 13,630 1,955 14.3
1941 17,000 1,413 8.44
It can be seen that the number of Shipwrights in 1941, near the height of the War, was less than it
was in 1909, when the Navy was much smaller and the ships far less complex.
The problem, then, was both the quality and quantity of Shipwright Apprentices. Payne’s
memorandum provoked a discussion of the causes of the problem and generated suggestions for
its correction in minutes, letters and notes through to March 1945.
The Apprenticeship Qualifying and Trade Choosing Process5
Early each year, the home dockyards (Chatham, Devonport, Portsmouth, Rosyth and
Sheerness) and the Royal Naval Torpedo Depots assessed the numbers of apprentices they need-
ed in the trades: Electrical Station Fitter, Electrical Fitter, Engine Fitter, Shipwright, Ship Fitter,
Armament Fitter, Boilermaker, Coppersmith, Founder, Joiner, Patternmaker, Plumber,
Ropemaker, Sailmaker, Smith and Torpedo Fitter. The Admiralty also specified the number of
Artificer and Air Apprentices it needed and the number of Naval Shipwright Apprentices to be
trained and educated in the Chatham, Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyards.
For example, in 1941 the Admiralty identified the need for 155 Artificer and 170 Air Ap-
prentices and the following dockyard positions were approved:
Chatham Devonport Portsmouth Rosyth Sheerness
Apprentices 173 285 354 80 57
Naval Shipwrights 18 18 18
191 303 372 80 57
4 This table was derived from data in the Payne memorandum.
5 ‘Regulations for the entry of Apprentices to the various Trades in His Majesty’s Dockyards at Home’.
October, 1941. (Contained in NA ADM 116/4722.)
Page 3
-3-
There were also 37 apprenticeships open in the Royal Naval Torpedo Depots for a total 1,365
open positions.6
Then in the spring of each year, the vacancies were open for public competition via a
two-day examination held in London, Edinburgh, Belfast, Leeds, Cardiff, Ipswich, Pembroke
Dock, Weymouth, Chester, Durham, Preston, Salisbury, Cambridge, Lincoln, Taunton and the
dockyard cities of Chatham, Plymouth (Devonport), Portsmouth and Sheerness. (In 1941, 1,553
candidates competed for the 1,365 open positions.) The subjects in the examination and the max-
imum marks were:
Arithmetic 300
Mathematics 300
English 300
History and Geography 300
Science 300
Total 1,500
Applicants had to be age fifteen or over but less than seventeen on the first day of August
of the year in which they wished to take the examination. (This meant that each successful can-
didate was age fifteen or sixteen in the September he started his apprenticeship.) The application
for permission to sit the qualifying examination also required the candidate to indicate his inter-
est in a Naval Apprenticeship, a Dockyard Apprenticeship, or both, and where applicable, to
which Dockyard he was seeking an apprenticeship.
The examination results were listed in order of aggregate marks and a level established
below which, in the judgment of the Civil Service Commission, candidates had not demonstrated
sufficient proficiency to be offered apprenticeships. In 1941, the passing level was set at 600 for
Naval Artificer and Air Apprentices and 400 for Dockyard and Naval Shipwright Apprentices,
out of a possible 1,500 marks. The ordered list of all candidates (the combined list) also indicated
whether the candidate had applied for a Naval Artificer and Air Apprenticeship, a Dockyard Ap-
prenticeship (in which yard), or both.7
In 1941, 665 candidates who expressed an interest in a Naval Artificer or Air Apprentice-
ship scored 600 or more on the entrance examination for 379 open positions. Some of the 665
decided not to accept Naval Apprenticeships, preferring Dockyard Apprenticeships, or did not
pass the physical examination; and some decided not to accept an apprenticeship.
From this combined list, individual dockyard lists were derived. Each dockyard list was
of particular importance: it established the order in which a candidate could select a trade from
the openings still available in his particular Dockyard when his turn came to choose. The follow-
ing table shows, by Dockyard, the number of Dockyard Apprenticeship positions approved and
the number actually filled by qualified candidates in 1941.
Chatham Devonport Portsmouth Rosyth Sheerness
Approved 173 285 354 80 57
Filled 127 246 217 23 50
Deficit 46 39 137 57 7
6 For 1941, the numbers of approved positions by Yard are given in NA CSC 10 4834.
7 The passing levels and the entrance examination results list for 1941 are given in NA CSC 10 4834
Page 4
-4-
Some of the deficit in each yard was filled by Yard Boys (boys who left school at age 14
to take unskilled dockyard jobs).
The table below shows the positions in the dockyard lists (as distinct from the combined
list) of candidates who chose Shipwright for apprenticeship in 1940 and 1941 (the 1940 entry
and 1941 entry, respectively).
Positions in the Dockyard Lists of Candidates who Chose Shipwright Apprenticeships8
In his memorandum, Payne observed from the table above that:
The job of Shipwright has become very unpopular with boys and their parents,
and that while a few years ago it was usual to find that more boys in the first
twenty on the examination list took the trade of Shipwright than any other trade, it
has now degenerated to such an extent that [in 1941] the first boy at Devonport
Dockyard who would accept the trade of Shipwright was 114th
on the [Devonport]
list and before the hundredth boy could be found to take the trade [make the quo-
ta], the list had to be extended to the 377th
place.
It should be noted that the first and second positions on the 1941 Chatham list were the
12th and 15th on the combined list, and the third position on the Portsmouth list was fifth on the
combined list. Furthermore, as the table on the next page shows, not all the open Shipwright Ap-
prenticeship positions could be filled with qualified candidates. In 1941, Portsmouth had to fill
55 out of the 100 approved Shipwright Apprenticeship positions with Yard Boys.
Clearly, Payne had cause to be concerned about the number and academic aptitude of ap-
prentices choosing the Shipwright trade.
Later, it may be interesting to speculate on why those few high-ranking candidates in
1941 (the first and second on the Chatham list and third on Portsmouth’s) chose Shipwright,
8 This table is given in the Payne memorandum.
Position
Choosing
Shipwr’t
Portsmouth
1940 1941
Devonport
1940 1941
Chatham
1940 1941
Sheerness
1940 1941
Rosyth
1940 1941
Highest
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
.
. Lowest
13 3
19 19
39 48
65 114
93 119
121 134
131 153
147 165
148 193
162 201
. .
. . 417 353
19 114
34 148
62 168
75 171
82 173
100 174
101 202
124 204
135 207
139 208
. .
. . 310 377
26 1
33 2
35 48
52 72
63 76
70 98
107 100
122 108
131 115
135 130
. .
. . 182 195
9 30
32 32
35
37
38
39
41
43
47
48
.
. 32 57
2 12
8 19
9
20
21
25
27
28
28 19
Page 5
-5-
while most of the other high-ranking candidates chose Electrical Fitter or Electrical Station Fit-
ter. It would also be interesting to see how those high-ranking Shipwrights candidates fared in
subsequent years, but alas I find no records beyond 1942.
Shipwright Apprenticeship Positions—Approved, Filled, Unfilled9
Before moving on to Payne’s suggestions why high-ranking candidates chose trades other
than Shipwright, it may be informative to look at the top 20 candidates on the combined lists of
the Entrance Examinations and identify the Dockyards (usually their home towns) they applied
to enter.
Entrance Examination Results 1936–194110
From the table below, it can be seen that year-after-year, Portsmouth candidates captured
a disproportionate number of the top 20 positions on the entrance examinations.
Year Portsmouth Devonport Chatham Sheerness Rosyth
1936 13 3 3 1 –
1937 13 1 5 1 –
1938 (Results for this year are missing from the archives.)
1939 12 6 1 1 –
1940 14 6 0 0 0
1941 11 6 3 0 0
An interesting question is why this was so? Were the boys in Portsmouth smarter than
those in the rest of the country? Were the career opportunities of an apprenticeship valued much
more in Portsmouth so that better students chose to take the examination? Were the applicants
better prepared for the examination in the Portsmouth secondary schools?
An answer to the last of these questions may be found in an anonymous essay written by
a Portsmouth candidate who took the entrance examination in 1943. He tells of the Mile End
9 This table was derived from data given in the Payne memorandum.
10 Derived from entrance examination results given in CSC10 4825, 4830 and 4834.
Portsmouth
1940 1941
Devonport
1940 1941
Chatham
1940 1941
Sheerness
1940 1941
Rosyth
1940 1941
Positions
Approved
Filled From
Exam. List
Filled By
Yard Boys
Unfilled
100 100
95 45
3 55
2
100 100
100 100
35 35
35 32
3
12 12
2 12
10
8 14
8 2
12
Page 6
-6-
School, an expensive private prep school known as Oliver’s, which specialized in the apprentice-
ship examination. Apparently, the examination results were published each year in the local
newspaper with the schools the candidates attended identified. The Mile End School was proud
of its reputation and no doubt pleased with the free newspaper publicity. 11
The anonymous author tells us that the ‘school was brutal, teachers used canes of various
sizes and any mistake or other fault was punished on the spot with whacks across the hands or
one’s back made with some ferocity. … Oliver’s was a ‘crammer’ school and parents accepted
that ‘thrash’ and ‘success’ were synonymous’. Although his parents could afford for him to go to
Oliver’s for only two terms, he and a two-term friend were in the top 15 on the Portsmouth list
with all the other Oliver’s students below them, indicating that success was based on a combina-
tion of aptitude and preparation. As a crammer school, it must also have been good preparation
for the Dockyard School that, as I shall later claim, was itself a crammer school.
The author of the essay goes on to tell us, ‘The first three [on the Portsmouth list] were
advised to take Shipwright as it was thought certain they would gain scholarships and go on to
the Royal Naval College to become Constructors. Those after [them on the list] were advised to
take Electrical Fitter’. This may be an explanation why those few high-ranking candidates in
1941 (the first and second on the Chatham list and third on Portsmouth’s) chose Shipwright,
while most of the other high-ranking candidates chose Electrical Fitter or Electrical Station Fit-
ter.
Why Did High-Ranking Candidates Choose Trades other than Shipwright for Apprentice-
ships?12
Payne observed in his memorandum that in the past it had been usual for more boys in
the first twenty on the examination list to take the trade of Shipwright than any other trade. How-
ever, by 1941 that had changed. The following table shows the distribution of trades that the first
twenty candidates in each Dockyard chose in 1941.
Trade Chatham Devonport Portsmouth Rosyth Sheerness
Station Fitter 4 3 5 1
Electrical Fitter 12 17 11 8 12
Engine Fitter 1 2 8 8
Shipwright 3 2 2
Pattern Maker 1
The following is a summary of the reasons Payne suggested in his memorandum why high-
ranking candidates chose trades other than Shipwright for their apprenticeships.
For some time past the electrical work has been the most popular amongst boys
and their parents, and it is believed that this is probably due to the thought that
matters electrical are likely to increase in variety and use.
It may be due in part to the very extensive general knowledge that a Dockyard
Shipwright is required to learn. This can be seen fairly readily by the Book of
11
www.portsmouthdockyard.org.uk/1942%20-%201944%20My%20Career%20Begins.pdf 12
From the ordered lists by Yard, of trades chosen by 1941 candidates given in NA ADM 116/4722.
Page 7
-7-
Questions for Shipwright Apprentices [that the] Admiralty issued [in 1937]. There
are forty-four pages of questions with an average of fifteen questions per page,
many of which are sub-divided. The knowledge these apprentices have to obtain
is extremely varied. As an example, on the first page of this book they have to
enumerate the different kinds of files in ordinary use; on one of the middle pages
the question is, ‘Enumerate the different parts of a ship that are connected by
voice pipes’, and on the last page there is, ‘Show how to calculate the strength of
a davit having been given its overhang, height and diameter’. In between these
sample questions are a variety of problems [that must be learned] by a Shipwright
Apprentice for a trade that must continue to increase in its wonderful variation if
we are to continue masters in the art and craft of shipbuilding.
Enquiries have been made from boys, parents and schoolmasters as to what is the
principal deterrent when it comes to choosing the Trade of Shipwright and repeat-
edly the answer has been that wholesale discharges of Shipwrights after the last
War and continuing up to 1933 are largely responsible for [a fear of future unem-
ployment].
There is no trade in private shipbuilding yards comparable with the Dockyard
Shipwright. A plumber or a joiner or a fitter, however much he lost if discharged,
could find comparable work in many walks of life, but the Dockyard Shipwright
is unique and in the event of discharge finds this unique position a most serious
handicap in obtaining employment.
[Recognizing the fear of unemployment, the Admiralty, in a regulation issued in
1939, promised that approved Shipwright Apprentices would] not be discharged
within the first two years after the completion of their apprenticeship.
The Shipwright who remains a mechanic cannot obtain as high a wage as [an En-
gine Fitter]. At one time the wages were the same but for many years past there
has been a lower maximum for Shipwrights than for [Engine Fitters]. The matter
seems to have [come from Union] bargaining… [The reason given for a higher
rate for some fitters was that they] were [e]specially good on precision work.
‘Precision’ is a relative term and a blacksmith who moulds an angle to the curva-
ture of a ship’s bottom to an error not exceeding 1/16th
of an inch is working to as
great a precision as anyone on a modern lathe working to one thousandth of an
inch.
Shipwrights’ work although interesting and varied is not so congenial as that of
most other trades because so much of it has to be done in the open in all weathers.
Work in a shop no matter how dirty it may be has great advantages over work on
a building slip. Practically all this work is carried out on some form of “Payment
by Results” and therefore has to be continued in frost and rain and semi-darkness,
whereas in shops there is always artificial heating in addition to shelter.
My Personal Experience and Observations
In writing about my own experience with and observations of the apprenticeship selection
process, the saying, “All South American Indians walk single file—at least the one I saw did”,
comes to mind. I was in the first group of candidates assembled in the courtyard behind the main
Page 8
-8-
office building of Devonport Dockyard in August, 1944, to select a trade. As far as the process
and the reasons for choosing a particular trade are concerned, statistically I am a sample of one.
I was given no information ahead of time about the many trades I could choose from (the
nature of the work and opportunities that might be available after the apprenticeship). Nor was
it suggested that I think about my interests and aptitudes.
Elsewhere I had learned that the electrical trades (Electrical Station Fitter and Electrical
Fitter) were the most popular, that historically there were only three Electrical Station Fitter
positions available each year and that they were taken early. I knew that Station Fitter Appren-
tices were educated and trained to operate and maintain the Dockyard power station. Even
though I knew next to nothing about electricity, had never dabbled in electric circuits or built a
radio, my first preference was Electrical Station Fitter and second Electrical Fitter. Fortunately,
although I was not high enough in the selection order to reasonably expect to get a Station Fitter
position, the third and last opening was still available when my turn came and I got it.
I did not know what work a Shipwright did and was not told of the advantages of choos-
ing that trade. Since I did not know the nature of a Shipwright’s work, all except the first of
Payne’s suggestions were not relevant in my case. I knew nothing of the “wholesale discharges
of Shipwrights after the last War and continuing up to 1933.” To tell me that as a Shipwright I
would not be discharged within the first two years after the completion of my apprenticeship five
years hence, would not have encouraged me to choose Shipwright. In fact, it more likely would
have made me wonder why such an assurance was needed. During my apprenticeship I did learn
of the Geddes’s Ax, the drive for public economy and retrenchment in the 1920’s that led to sev-
eral entries of apprentices, in most trades, being discharged the day they completed their ap-
prenticeships. I can’t say it bothered me: as a teenager I lived for the day.
As far as an Engine Fitter being paid a wage higher than a Shipwright, I did not know
that until I read Payne’s suggestion that it was a possible factor in the dearth of Shipwright Ap-
prentices. Furthermore, from the table above showing the trades chosen by the top 20 boys in
each of the various yards, Engine Fitter does not appear to be a challenger to Shipwright at
Chatham, Devonport, and Portsmouth, where neither was popular. This was only the second en-
try of apprentices at the re-opened Rosyth where the score was eight Engine Fitters to two Ship-
wrights, but there were nine in the electrical trades and two Shipwrights in the top twenty who
either did not know or did not care that Engine Fitters were paid more than their chosen trades.
Similarly, at Sheerness all twelve of the approved electrical positions were taken before 13 En-
gine Fitters, followed then by the first Shipwright.
The higher pay for Engine Fitters does not appear to have been a factor adversely affect-
ing the choice of Shipwright Apprenticeships in general and by high-ranking candidates in par-
ticular.
Although I knew of the Dockyard School (that if I completed four years of study in the
school, I could become a draughtsman), officially I was told nothing about the school program
until the morning of the first day of my apprenticeship when I was simply told by the Chargeman
(Foreman) to report to the school that afternoon.
The Dockyard Schools and Cadetships
All first year apprentices were required to attend their Dockyard School two half days
and three evenings a week. Each apprentice was placed in a class according to his position on the
qualifying examination. Roughly, the top half of the entry was placed in the Upper School with
Page 9
-9-
20 to 30 students per class (1A Upper, 1B Upper, etc.) and the lower half in the Lower School
(1A Lower, 1B Lower, etc.), and each student sat in class according to his position on the exami-
nation: highest front row left, lowest back row right.
The schools in all the yards followed the same curriculums. At the end of the first year,
the students took externally set and marked Upper and Lower School midsummer examinations.
Based on the results of these examinations, more than half the apprentices in each yard were no
longer required to attend the second year of the school program, but continued with their practi-
cal apprenticeship training. Of the continuing second year apprentices, some from the Upper
School were demoted to the Lower School, while a few (very few) Lower School apprentices
were promoted to the Upper School. As with the first year, the classes were designated 2A Up-
per, 2B Upper, etc. and 2A Lower, 2B Lower, etc., and the seat assignments were according to
the midsummer examination results.
For example, in 1940 Portsmouth Dockyard admitted 323 apprentices: 124 to the Upper
School and 199 to the Lower School. On the basis of the 1941 midsummer examinations, 59 of
the 124 in the Upper School moved on to the second year upper, 49 went on to the second year
lower and 16 left school. Of the 199 in the Lower School, 13 moved on (joining the 49 from the
Upper School) to the second year lower, while 186 left school. In summary, for Portsmouth: 323
started in the school; 121 (37.5%) moved on for a second year; and 202 left school. Similarly, for
Devonport: 290 started in the school; 103 (35.5%) moved on for a second year; and 187 left
school.13
The midsummer examination-reduction-reseating process was repeated at the end of the
second and third years. There was no fourth year Lower School, so with few exceptions, all third
year Lower School apprentices ended their academic education after three years. The third and
fourth year Upper School attendance became two full days and one evening. To put all this in
some perspective: in the 1940s, the five Dockyard Schools together had an entry of about 900
each year that was reduced to less than 100 by the fourth year. Consequently, each year the five
Dockyard Schools combined had between 1,400 and 1,500 students: possibly the largest tech-
nical education system in the country.
Each year a limited number of the highest ranking Shipwright Apprentices on the com-
bined dockyards’ fourth year midsummer examination, if considered qualified, could be offered
Constructor Cadetships described as follows:
Shipwright Apprentices so selected are appointed to R. N. Engineering College,
Keyham, for one year, with the rank of Constructor Sub-Lieutenant, whence they
may under certain conditions proceed to R. N. College, Greenwich, for advanced
course in naval architecture, with a view to their eventual entry into the Royal
Corp of Naval Constructors. Apprentices of trades other than Shipwright who
have secured the highest places in the examination held at the end of their second
year, and, in the case of Apprentices within the Constructive Department at the
end of their third year, may be given an opportunity to transfer to the Shipwright
trade, in order that they may become eligible in due course for consideration for
appointment as Constructor Sub-Lieutenants. It will be a condition of transfer that
re-transfer to their original trade will not be allowed. Shipwright Apprentices not
selected for appointment as Constructor Sub-Lieutenants at the end of their fourth
13
Data derived from the Dockyard Schools examination results contained in NA ADM 116/4722.
Page 10
-10-
year, but who show special promise, may, after a further year, be given the oppor-
tunity, under certain conditions, of taking the advanced course in naval architec-
ture at R. N. College, Greenwich, mentioned above. …14
During the earlier period when, as Payne observed, ‘It was usual to find that more boys in the
first twenty on the examination list took the trade of Shipwright than any other trade’, there
probably was no need to encourage apprentices in other trades to transfer to Shipwright. The Na-
vy began adopting electricity in ships as early as the late 19th
century. In 1903 Electrical Depart-
ments were established in the Dockyards, and when the need for Electrical Engineers became
apparent, Electrical Cadetships were instituted. In the 1941 regulations, Electrical Cadetship are
described as follows:
Electrical Fitter and Electrical Station Fitter Apprentices selected for special train-
ing at the end of their fourth year proceed directly to R. N. College, Greenwich,15
where they take an advanced course in Electrical Engineering with a view to their
qualifying for appointment as Assistant Electrical Engineers.
The introduction of Electrical Cadetships eventually competed with Constructor Cadetships as an
attraction for the better students.
Relationship Between Positions on the Entrance Examination and Fourth Year Results
The following table, showing a comparison of the top ten positions on the 1941 fourth
year examination with the positions of the same individuals on the 1937 Entrance Examination
(combined dockyards list), leads to some interesting observations and questions.16
Position Name Marks Yard Trade
4th
Yr. Ent. Ex.
1 44 Reeves 854 Ports. Ship.
2 57 Paffett 828 Ports. Ship.
3 1 Avey 825 Ports. Ship.
4 387 Seward 744 Ports. Ship.
5 2 Hancock 730 Ports. Ship.
5 24 Evans 730 Devon. Elec. F.
7 8 Lang 721 Devon. Ship.
8 37 Boulter 707 Ports. Ship.
9 271 Davey 697 Ports. Eng. F.
10 296 Gundry 696 Ports. Ship.
14
Regulations for the entry of Apprentices to the various Trades in His Majesty’s Dockyards at Home.
October, 1941. (Contained in NA ADM 116/4722.) 15
In 1945 the procedure for electrical apprentices so selected was changed. They were appointed to the R. N. Engi-
neering College Keyham, for one year before proceeding to Greenwich. 16
This table was derived by combining Dockyard Schools 1941 examination results given in NA ADM 116/4722
with 1937 Entrance Examination results given in CSC 10 8000.
Page 11
-11-
There was no shortage of high-ranking Shipwrights in the 1941 fourth year classes, but
did they all choose Shipwright on entry in 1937 or did some transfer to Shipwright at a later
stage? Did any of the top ten receive Constructor Cadetships? Did the Electrical Engineering
Department lose possible candidates for Electrical Cadetships by their transfer to Shipwright? I
am unable to find answers to these questions in the archives.
Interestingly, only three of the top ten on the fourth year examination were in the top ten
of the 1937 Entrance Examination; the others were all lower than 20th
. Seward, who was fourth
in 1941, was 387th
on the Entrance Examination and 172nd
on the Portsmouth entry list. Although
some ahead of him certainly decided not to accept Dockyard Apprenticeships, he along with
Davey and Gundry, would have had to work their way up from low Upper School positions in
their first year to get to the top ten in their fourth year.
This is an example of only one year, but it is not untypical. In general, some of the high
ranking students on entry stay high for the four years, as did Avey, Hancock and Lang, while
others fade even to the extent of not completing the four years. Some lower ranking students on
entry move up the ranks, as did Seward, Davey and Gundry, even to Cadetships.
The Entrance Examination was a course filter allowing candidates with some ability to
read the questions, write something in response and perform simple arithmetic to pass. The
Dockyards needed many more craftsmen with some Dockyard School education than candidates
for Cadetships. Elsewhere, Luscombe, commenting on the entrance examination stated, ‘The
standard required was not taxing to those who had obtained a School Certificate, which many
had done at the age of 14! Some schools … used to specifically prepare boys for the Entrance
Examination’. Boys who attended grammar schools had already, at age ten or eleven, been se-
lected through what was then known as the Scholarship Examination to attend the top tier gram-
mar or high schools. The Dockyard School system allowed students from lower tier secondary
schools, many from humble backgrounds, to acquire higher educations.
The Awarding of Cadetships in 1942
The results of the top ten positions (all Yards) on the 1942 fourth year examination (1938
entry), shown below, lead to some interesting observations with respect to Cadetships. Their po-
sitions on the 1941 third year examination are also shown for comparison.17
Position Name Marks Yard Trade
4th
Yr. 3rd
Yr. 4th
Yr.
1 3 Murdock 806 Sheer. Elec. F.
2 4 Hitchins 790 Chat. Elec. F.
3 2 Honnor 780 Chat. Elec. F.
4 5 Rydill 765 Devon. Elec. St. F.
5 1 Lamont 763 Sheer. Ship.
6 15 Russell 751 Devon. Elec. F.
7 9 Stallard 738 Ports. Elec. F.
8 11 Pain 707 Ports. Elec. St. F.
9 34 Deacon 678 Chat. Elec. St. F.
10 13 Thurlow 672 Chat. Elec. St. F.
17
1941 and 1942 Dockyard Schools examination results are given in NA ADM 116/4722.
Page 12
-12-
As can be seen, the top five students simply changed positions between the third and
fourth year midsummer exams, with Lamont, the only Shipwright, dropping from first to fifth.
With the exception of Stallard who moved up from ninth to seventh, students moving up from
positions lower than tenth the prior year took the sixth through tenth positions. Deacon moved
from 34th
to ninth and Russell from 15th
to sixth.
Since there was only one Shipwright in the top ten, the Director of Naval Construction
proposed that the first three Electrical Apprentices be offered Constructor Cadetships, contrary to
the condition stated the year before that Constructor Cadets should have at least two years ap-
prentice experience within the Constructive Department. The Director of Electrical Engineering
objected, stating that the first two students were being appointed Probationary Assistant Electri-
cal Engineers, but that there was no objection to any other Electrical Apprentices being granted
Constructor Cadetships. In fact, Murdoch and Hitchins accepted Electrical Cadetships, and
Honnor and Rydill accepted Constructor Cadetships.18
What about Lamont? He was a Shipwright, fifth on the fourth year examination, first at
the end of the third year; only two points separated him from Rydill in 1942. (Rydill may have
had a good examination day, Lamont a not so good day and Deacon a very good day!) Further-
more, since the D.N.C. was originally looking for three Constructor Cadets, I trust that Lamont
was awarded the third Constructor Cadetship.
In spite of being an Electrical Station Fitter Apprentice and never having worked on a
ship, L. J. Rydill was awarded a Constructor Cadetship leading to a distinguished career. He be-
came the Director of Ship Designs and Engineering in 1976 (when one of his three deputies was
Electrical Engineer F. Hitchins).19
He was the first Royal Corp of Naval Constructors Professor
of Naval Architecture at London University when the Greenwich program was transferred to
University College, London.
Transfers from Trades other than Shipwright
Since there does not seem to be a strong correlation between positions on the Entrance
Examination and class positions at the end of the fourth year when Cadetships were awarded, it
was as well that candidates were free to make their own decision on choice of trade. Results at
the end of the second year, when apprentices could apply to transfer to Shipwright, appear to be
a better indicator of fourth year performance. As shown above (page 10), eight of the top ten stu-
dents in the fourth year classes of 1941 were Shipwrights either on entry or by second year trans-
fers and seven were from Portsmouth. In 1942, there was only one Shipwright and he was from
Sheerness. The following table shows the transfers of second-years for years 1941, 1942 and
1943 (all from Portsmouth).
Unfortunately, the archives do not have the corresponding fourth year results or the ca-
detships that were awarded for those years; however, a 1944 Fourth-Year, Allen Keel, reported
that six from Portsmouth were awarded Constructor Cadetships that year.20
18
The information in this paragraph was found in a collection of September, 1942 memos in NA ADM 116/4722
discussing the pros and cons of the transfer of non-Shipwright Apprentices to Shipwright in anticipation of Ca-
detships. 19
D. K. Brown, A Century of Naval Construction (London, 1993), 263 and 343. 20
www.portsmouthdockyard.org.uk/Eighty%20Six%20to%20One.pdf
Page 13
-13-
Entry Second Yard Number Transferred Fourth
Year Year From To Year
1939 1941 Ports. 2 Elec. F. Ship. 1943
1940 1942 Ports. 5 Elec. F. Ship. 1944
1 Elec. St. F. Ship.
1941 1943 Ports. 1 Elec. F. Ship. 1945
3 Elec. St. F. Ship.
1 Eng. F. Ship.
There were two other interesting transfer requests from the 1942 third year Portsmouth
class (1939 entry). One was a Ship Fitter Apprentice who ranked fourth in all Yards and as a
third year apprentice in the Constructive Department exercised his option to transfer to Ship-
wright (a rare occurrence) that was approved. The other was a Naval Shipwright Apprentice who
ranked eighth in all Yards. Naval Shipwrights were trained and educated in the Dockyards while
in the Navy. Their relationship with the Dockyard Schools will be discussed later, as will this
application for a transfer.
Pedagogy of the Dockyard Schools
There is a reference in the archives to a 1935 Dockyard Schools syllabus.21
Unfortunate-
ly, I am unable to obtain a copy. However, although a syllabus would be of interest in what was
to be taught, it is unlikely to be relevant as to how the subjects were presented. For that I have to
rely on my memory of the four years I spent as a student in the Devonport Dockyard School,
from September 1944 to midsummer 1948 (64 years ago) and a few of my surviving note books.
Individuals and institutions tend to perform to the yardstick by which they are measured.
In the Dockyard Schools the individual’s yardstick was the midsummer examination that deter-
mined whether he moved on to the next year and where he would sit in the class. The fourth year
combined-yards’ examination results determined the handful of students who would be awarded
Cadetships and identified the Home Dockyard of each winner—the institutional yardstick. Indi-
vidually, we studied for the test; collectively, we were taught to the test. The method and prac-
tice of Dockyard School teaching are the topics of this section and are again viewed from my
personal experience.
On the Wednesday evenings of my first year, we studied Trigonometry under a jovial (but
to a 16-year-old a somewhat fearsome) Irishman who started the course by presenting the proofs
and derivations of all the important trigonometric relations. Then one evening, without telling us
his motive, he set the pattern for what was expected of us if we were to survive the rest of the four
years. Having previously told us that we were to memorize all the trig relations, he started the
class by pointing to a student at random and demanding, “Sine of A plus B!” In a fraction of a
second, while the victim was trying to comprehend what was expected of him, he was ordered,
“Extra night!” The process was repeated, student after student, “Cosine of A minus B, extra
night! Sine of 2A, extra night! …” until everyone in the class was ordered to attend an extra
night. I don’t remember actually coming in for an extra class, but I do remember diligently
21
HM Dockyard Schools Syllabus. 1935 (HMSO)
Page 14
-14-
memorizing the formulae, as evidently did the rest of the class because we all passed with flying
colours when put to the test the following week. There is a difference between memorizing and
mere rote learning: each year we honed the tools we would need the following year and possibly
for our futures as tradesmen, draughtsman, constructors and engineers.
Many of the questions on midsummer examinations were in two parts. The first part was
a question starting with a word such as: prove, define, derive, show, state or sketch. The second
part (the bulk of the question) was a set of equations or a problem to be solved based on the
question posed in the first part.
For example, a typical first year mathematics examination question was:
Prove sin (A + B) = sin A cos B + cos A sin B.
This was followed by several trigonometric identities to be resolved by manipulating the left side,
using the trigonometric relations we had memorized, until it was identical to the right side. For
homework during the course, we had struggled with many such identities in order to be prepared
to successfully resolve the identities on the examination.
Each midsummer examination was three hours long and consisted of ten or more ques-
tions with up to seven answers to be submitted. Some of the questions were worth more points
than others. The challenge for competitive students was to solve as many of the high points ques-
tions as possible (possibly after first solving a low points problem to build confidence). Time was
of the essence. That was another reason for being prepared to quickly answer the first part of the
question with confidence and little expenditure of mental energy.
Another first year course included algebra and arithmetic. The teacher started with indi-
ces (exponents) and progressed to the theory and application of logarithms: an important skill
when slide rules were not precise enough (in any case, slide rules were not available during the
War). We were each given a book of five figure logarithms and taught to use them for various
kinds of calculations.
An anticipated examination question was:
Define the logarithm of a number.
Several formidable looking numerical expressions to be calculated followed. For homework, we
practiced evaluating expressions from prior years’ examinations, one of which resulted in a
number that was the year of the examination. That presented a dilemma: if on the examination
an evaluation resulted in a number close to the year of the examination, check your work; if it
didn’t, estimate the order of magnitude of the expected result by rounding the numbers involved
and quickly mentally estimate the answer. Of course, the examiner would not purposely give an
expression that resulted in a correct number that was only close to the current year; or would
he? In later years, when faced with mathematics that involved logarithmic theory, I found myself
mentally reciting, “The logarithm of a number to a given base is the power to which the base
must be raised to equal the number.”
Due to the War we had few if any textbooks. The teachers either presented the work on
the board for us to copy or handed out copies of their notes to be returned the next class. Sheets
of homework exercises accompanied the handouts. Consequently, I had (and still have from my
fourth year) excellent notes and many, many worked examples on naval message pad sheets. We
Page 15
-15-
were expected to practice, practice, practice: as a tennis player practices his serve until it be-
comes automatic. The definition of terms in logical order was a characteristic of the notes.
During the second year, among other things we plotted given functions of distance versus
time and graphically, by drawing tangents to the curves, derived the corresponding velocity-time
plots. Then similarly, we derived the acceleration-time plots. We then reversed the process: giv-
en a function of acceleration versus time, by counting squares in strips under the acceleration-
time plot, we determined the velocity-time plot and then similarly derived the distance-time plot.
Without knowing it at the time, we were introduced to differentiation and integration.
Later we learned: the definition of a derivative; the process of taking a limit; to derive
(and memorize) the differential coefficients (derivatives) of about 30 standard expressions; and
the rules for differentiating functions, combination of functions, and functions of function. We
must have performed well over a hundred differentiations, practicing for what we anticipated
would be on the midsummer examination. The process was then reversed: we learned to inte-
grate all the functions that we had differentiated. For example, I have homework sheets with 50
integrals involving partial fractions to be evaluated. We became masters of differential and inte-
gral calculus.
The fourth year mathematics included: plane analytical geometry (I have work sheets de-
voted to ten ellipse problems alone and another set devoted to radius of curvature problems);
solid geometry; and determinants. We became masters of differential equations (I had a note
book full of solutions to various types of differential equations).
My stated goal for this section was to present the method and practice of Dockyard
School teaching. I think I have shown that the Dockyard Schools were crammer schools that ob-
jectively prepared students for the midsummer examinations. We became walking mathematical
handbooks with developed skills and confidence in solving mathematical and physical problems.
In so doing, however, I have obscured the breadth, depth and expected understanding of the sub-
jects. The table on the next page may rectify some of that obscurity, while further demonstrating
the extent of the preparation for the examination.
The table is from the first page of my fourth year Mechanics notebook. It was given to us
at the first class of the year to be copied into our notebooks as a guide to the preparation for the
1948-midsummer examination. The left most column shows topics to be covered. The other col-
umns show by year, the problems on the examinations related to those topics. The rightmost col-
umn was newly added for 1947, the prior year.
The fourth year curriculum was:
Pure Mathematics Thermodynamics and Metallurgy
Mechanics Electricity
A Trial Drawing (prepared during the year)
For Engine Fitter Apprentices
Steam and Heat Engines General Engineering
For Shipwright Apprentices
Shipbuilding Laying Off
For Electrical Fitter Apprentices
Electrical Engineering General Engineering
Page 17
-17-
The Dockyard Schools Education System
In the introduction to this article I referred to the Dockyard Schools as an unusual, per-
haps unique, education system, a statement to which I now turn. Again it is based on my own
limited experience.
I was one of the 20 students in the 1948 fourth year class at Devonport Dockyard, the
distillate from about 250 apprentices who started in the school in 1944. The first year, based on
my entry examination marks, I sat at the right end the third row of 1A-Upper. I was apprehensive
about the first year examination, but was successful enough to move up to the first row. I found
subsequent midsummer examinations challenging, but not worrisome, and moved around the
first and second rows based on my results. I was one of four Station Fitters (three on entry and a
fourth who transferred in from Chatham), who led a sheltered, comfortable work life. After the
first year the only contact I had with other apprentices was with my limited number of class-
mates. They were my peers, not my competitors. We were all competing with the system, as
mountaineers compete against the mountain—because it is there. In 1948 I was a Fourth-Year,
but didn’t feel particularly special: my classmates were academically as good or better than I.
The anonymous author (page 6) told us that the teaching in his crammer school was bru-
tal, that teachers used canes of various sizes and any mistake or other fault was punished on the
spot with whacks across the hands or one’s back made with some ferocity. Although I submit that
the Dockyard Schools were crammers and the amount of work expected of us could be described
as brutal, there was no need for physical brutality on the part of the teachers. They were good,
hard working and dedicated to those students who chose to do well. We were self-selected, moti-
vated and the program was our challenge—our mountain to climb.
There was no need to collect and mark homework to motivate us to do the work. At the
beginning of a class the teacher simply asked if anyone had difficulty with the homework. Some-
times several hands would be raised and one student would be asked for the problem number.
After working the problem on the board the teacher again asked the question and usually fewer
hands would be raised indicating that his solution satisfied most of the first hand-raisers. After
the teacher satisfied most, if not all, of the second group, there would be no third round; he
simply proceeded with that day’s class work. I remember one occasion when many but not all the
hands went up and the teacher, with a smile on his face, said, “If one fool can get it, all the fools
should be able to get it”, before providing the solution. That was about as brutal as it got, but
the 250 down to 20 was a survival of the fittest.
The examinations were set and marked elsewhere (I have always assumed at Greenwich)
and were taken on the same days at all five Dockyard Schools. An assigned number identified
each student. At the end of each test the examination sheets as well as our answers were collect-
ed. (Presumably, the teachers made or kept copies of the examination questions because we were
given worked sample problems from prior years in our notes, but I never saw actual examina-
tions pages from prior years.) I think that, as far as possible, the examination system was a level
playing field.
I never saw my corrected examination papers or knew what marks I had scored. I simply
was told my new seating position in the class on the first day of the new school year (the individ-
ual yardstick). From the separate yards results, it was a simple exercise to derive the combined-
yards list for each year showing the staffs of the various Dockyard Schools how well their stu-
dents had performed and the likely candidates for Cadetships (the institutional yardstick). There
Page 18
-18-
must have been competition between the schools for cadetships, but as far as I know, it never got
through to the students.
The Education of Naval Shipwright Apprentices in the Dockyard Schools System
Until I recently found Dockyard School examination results relating to Naval Shipwright
Apprentices in the archives, I knew nothing of their existence. As a Station Fitter Apprentice, I
never encountered Naval Shipwrights Apprentices at work, and I never met any in the Dockyard
School. I have synthesized much of the following from the records in order to capture some of
the history of an apprentice programme that existed for many years and ended 50 or more years
ago.
Each year in the 30’s and 40’s, in addition to the open positions for Naval Artificer and
Air Apprentices identified by the Admiralty, 18 positions for Naval Shipwright Apprentices in
each of the Chatham, Devonport and Portsmouth Dockyards were approved.22
These apprentices
were housed (room and board) in the Naval Barracks associated with those Dockyards and, I as-
sume, wore double-breasted naval uniforms with black buttons and peaked caps similar to those
worn by Naval Artificer Apprentices. They took the common Entrance Examination, but were
not required to pre-register, as were Naval Artificer and Air Apprentice candidates, and went
through the trade-choosing process with the Dockyard Apprentices. I have no idea how candi-
dates knew of this particular option. One of its attractions may have been that it relieved the par-
ents of the expense of keeping and clothing a son during the War years and the depression that
preceded it. At the age of 18, they were expected to sign a 12-year commitment to the Navy.
From the midsummer examination results, it appears that Naval Shipwright Apprentices
attended the Dockyard Schools and took the examinations along with the Dockyard Apprentices,
but their results were listed separately. Although most candidates who chose Naval Shipwright
were from the lower half of the entrance examination, a few in each yard ranked high enough to
be placed in the respective first year upper schools. For example, in the 1940 entry:23
Yard N. S. Upper Lower
App’s School School
Chatham 14 3 11
Devonport 18 4 14
Portsmouth 17 2 15
There was one key difference between Naval Shipwright Apprentices and Dockyard Ap-
prentices: Naval Shipwright Apprentices were required to attend their Dockyard School for at
least three years, irrespective of their marks on the midsummer examinations. Dockyard Appren-
tices had to qualify to move on to the next year by scoring marks on the midsummer examination
above a cutoff mark. By the end of their second year, the marks of most of the Naval Shipwrights
Apprentices moving on to the third year lower were below the cutoff for Dockyard Apprentices.
As a result of the 1941 midsummer examination, two of the three Chatham first year up-
per Naval Shipwrights Apprentices moved on to a second year upper; the third joined the 11
22
The numbers of approved positions by Yard are given in NA CSC 10. 23
From the Dockyard Schools examination results contained in NA ADM 116/4722.
Page 19
-19-
lower school Naval Shipwrights Apprentices (all of whom scored below the cutoff for Dockyard
Apprentices) for the second year lower. That year, Chatham allowed 41 ex-yard boys to take the
first year lower course, one of whom scored above the cutoff for Dockyard Apprentices and went
on to the second year. His marks were above those of all the 11 Naval Shipwrights Apprentices.
The scores of next seven ex-yard boys were comparable to best nine of the 11 Naval Shipwright
Apprentices.
For Devonport, three of the four first year upper Naval Shipwright Apprentices moved on
to the second year upper; the fourth joined the 14 first year lower Naval Shipwright Apprentices
(all but three scored below the cutoff for Dockyard Apprentices) for the second year lower.
At Portsmouth, both of the first year upper Naval Shipwright Apprentices joined the 15
lower Naval Shipwright Apprentices (only one scored above the cutoff for Dockyard Apprentic-
es) for the second year lower.24
These results raise some questions: did the cutoff motivate the Dockyard Apprentices to
study? Would some of the Naval Shipwright Apprentices have strived to achieve more if they
were not required to attend school? Since routinely more than 60 percent of the first year Dock-
yard Apprentices did not qualify to move on to the second year, was there any reason to expect
the Naval Shipwright Apprentices to do better than those Dockyard Apprentices?
In the midsummer of 1942, two Naval Shipwright Apprentices from the 1939 entry com-
pleted their third year in the Upper School: Sibley in Devonport and Ireton in Portsmouth. That
is in itself noteworthy; furthermore, Ireton (who was 344 on the combined entry list) ranked
fourth on the Portsmouth third year upper list and eighth on the all-yards list (two Dockyard
Shipwrights Apprentices and a Ship Fitter Apprentice were ahead of him on the all-yards list).
That would have put him in contention for a cadetship if he had been a Dockyard Shipwright
Apprentice. The first week of September 1942, with the encouragement (I suspect) of the Ports-
mouth school staff, he applied to the Admiralty for a transfer to Dockyard Shipwright Appren-
tice, in order to be eligible for consideration for a cadetship at the end of his fourth year. From
the correspondence related to this application, it appears that it was an unprecedented request.25
The Portsmouth Admiral Superintendent immediately gave local provisional approval of
Ireton’s application, and a request for covering approval sent to the Admiralty. Within two
weeks, Their Lordships replied that they were unable ‘to give covering approval to the transfer to
(Dockyard) Shipwright Apprentice of Ireton as Naval Shipwright Apprentices are not covered by
the provisions of … Home Dockyard Regulations, and they are unable to approve the transfer as
a special case’. In a note dated 15th
September, 1942 the Head of Naval Branch opined:
Ireton signed an engagement (Form S. 55) for service in the Royal Navy
for 12 years from the age of 18 from which he would have to be discharged in or-
der to become a Naval Constructor. There is no provision in the chapter of Home
Dockyard regulations devoted to Naval Shipwright Apprentices for the action re-
ported by the Admiral Superintendent, the article quoted by him refers entirely to
Dockyard Apprentices (other than Shipwright) and cannot be interpreted as in-
cluding Naval Shipwright Apprentices.
The discharge of Ireton from his R. N. engagement, under the provisions
of Art. 120, could be considered as a special case; but the number of entries of
24
From the Dockyard Schools examination results contained in NA ADM 116/4722. 25
The discussion and dispensation of the Ireton situation in what follows is taken from the continuing discussion of
the 1942 Payne memorandum that lasted until March, 1945 and is contained in NA ADM 116/4722.
Page 20
-20-
Naval Shipwright Apprentices for the past few years has been considerably below
actual requirements and it is thought that release, even as a special case, should
not be granted.
Ireton continued as a Naval Shipwright Apprentice while attending the fourth year upper
class at Portsmouth and, I assume, spent the year in the Drawing Office working on his trial
drawing. I have no records of the 1943 fourth year examination results; however, he must have
done very well. At the end of a collection of written discussions, dated 6th October 1943, on the
original topic raised by Stephen Payne in March of 1942, I found ‘… the recent release from the
Royal Navy of R. F. Ireton, Naval Shipwright Apprentice, to enable him to become a Construc-
tor Sub-Lieutenant …’ which implies that he was awarded a cadetship! And in a footnote:
Despite the shortage of Naval Shipwrights and the difficulties of recruiting
them both in peace and war, D.P.S. [Director of Personal [sic] Services] cannot
but agree with D. of D. [Director of Dockyards] that, in the interests not only of
the individual but also of the service, Naval Shipwright Apprentices of exception-
al ability should not be debarred from consideration for Naval Construction Ca-
detships.
How ironic? Ireton was released from a 12-year commitment to the Navy so he could be-
come a Constructor Sub-Lieutenant. Their Lordships did have hearts after all.
Conclusion
To become a Fourth-Year, one had to have some measure of ability in mathematics and a
desire to achieve that recognition, either for its own merit or for where it might lead. But the four
midsummer examinations were no measure of an individual’s creativity and ability to present his
ideas, ability to make decisions with risks involved, leadership and social skills or the ability to
make physical things that work.
Brown26
quotes Lewis a ‘well-known Submarine Constructor’, as saying:
In 1927 only 50 apprentices were accepted at Portsmouth. At the end of
each (school) year an examination was held and apprentices who failed to qualify
had to leave. So after four years only a dozen of the original fifty survived and
these, together with the fourth year students of Plymouth, Chatham, Sheerness,
(alas, not Rosyth which was closed), had to compete for [only one] constructor
cadet post and [only one] electrical engineer cadetship.
Brown continues, ‘One may wonder, too, whether the Corps [of Naval Constructors] actually got
the right man at the end. Such rigorous selection, based entirely on exams, and followed by four
more years’ intensive academic study, sometimes produced a rather narrow individual’. He then
quotes Lewis further:
26
Brown, A Century of Naval Construction, 154–5.
Page 21
-21-
… [the man] was by any yardstick GOOD and the severe competition, self
discipline and strength of character needed to achieve the post seemed to remain
in later life. Most of them were gluttons for work and their job was their whole
life. A rather narrow way of life by today’s standards, but good for the Admiralty
and the Navy!
A disclaimer: I was not such a man, but then I was not awarded a Cadetship.
F. E. King
November, 2012
Comments and additional information welcome. [email protected]
Copyright: F.E.King, 2012
