John Smeaton, Joseph Dingle and the Mystery of Charlestown Harbour

I have previously presented the argument for John Smeaton’s involvement in the construction of Charlestown Harbour. Like many others who have studied the history of the village, I initially accepted that the celebrated engineer had played an important part in its creation.

My intention in returning to the subject was not to disprove Smeaton’s involvement. Quite the opposite. I wanted to establish more precisely what he had done and, if possible, find the documentary evidence behind a story that has been repeated for generations.

These are my findings so far.

And they have led me to a man whose importance in the construction of Charlestown may have been seriously underestimated:

Joseph Dingle.

What do Smeaton’s own records tell us?

Almost every published history of Charlestown credits John Smeaton with designing or constructing the harbour.

Yet there is a fundamental difficulty.

I have examined Smeaton’s published papers, his personal journals and his surviving correspondence. Nowhere have I found a reference to Polmear, Charlestown, Charles Rashleigh or Rashleigh’s harbour project.

I have also searched material in the collections of the Royal Society and Trinity House without finding documentary evidence connecting Smeaton directly with Charlestown.

That does not prove Smeaton was uninvolved.

He could have visited Cornwall and advised Rashleigh informally. He may have supplied drawings or plans which have subsequently disappeared. Correspondence between Rashleigh and Smeaton could also have been destroyed or lost.

But historical possibility and historical evidence are not the same thing.

Until a letter, plan, payment, diary entry, account or other contemporary document directly connecting Smeaton with Rashleigh’s project can be found, the precise nature of his involvement remains uncertain.

Was John Smeaton actually personally involved at Charlestown?

Smeaton’s final years

The chronology also deserves consideration.

By about 1785, Smeaton’s health was beginning to decline. A contemporary account records that he had resolved to avoid new undertakings wherever possible and devote more of his remaining time to publishing accounts of his engineering work.

Despite this, he remained heavily involved at Ramsgate Harbour.

Smeaton had first been consulted at Ramsgate in 1773, but his responsibilities there became particularly demanding during the final years of his life.

In 1788, work began on an advanced pier intended to reduce turbulence within the harbour.

By 1790, Smeaton was adapting his specialised diving apparatus for underwater construction associated with the works.

In 1791, he presented his report to the Ramsgate Harbour trustees.

The advanced pier was completed in 1792, shortly before Smeaton’s death in October.

This matters because contemporary evidence indicates that the principal construction of Charlestown Harbour began in the spring of 1791.

The two projects therefore overlap almost exactly.

Again, this does not rule Smeaton out. He could have supplied plans or advice without being personally present throughout construction.

Indeed, that possibility becomes particularly interesting when we examine what an early account of Charlestown actually says.

The “excellent architect”

An early description of Charlestown records Charles Rashleigh’s improvements:

“Mr. Rashleigh has erected a pier at the bottom of the town, commenced a quay, and formed a dock at the back of it.”

It then makes the crucial statement:

“It is needless to say more of the one than that it was built by an excellent architect under the direction of the late Mr. Smeaton, whose plans have been faithfully carried into execution…”

This is perhaps the most important sentence in the entire Smeaton question.

It does not say that John Smeaton built Charlestown Harbour.

It says that an unnamed:

“excellent architect”

built the work under Smeaton’s direction and faithfully executed his plans.

If the account is accurate, we potentially have three separate roles:

Charles Rashleigh — the proprietor behind the development.

John Smeaton — the supposed designer or adviser.

An unnamed architect — the person who actually carried the plans into execution.

The obvious question is:

Who was that architect?

Searching among Smeaton’s associates

I initially considered several men known to have worked with Smeaton.

John Gwynn worked alongside him at Ramsgate and was highly regarded by Smeaton. But Gwynn died in 1789. If Charlestown’s principal construction began in the spring of 1791, he could not have supervised it.

William Jessop, Smeaton’s former pupil and assistant, certainly possessed the necessary engineering ability. But Jessop had substantial engineering commitments elsewhere during the relevant period, and I have found no documentary evidence placing him at Charlestown.

John Pickernell, Smeaton’s experienced Ramsgate surveyor and overseer, is another possibility. He had exactly the sort of practical experience required to execute maritime engineering works under Smeaton’s instructions. Yet once again, no evidence has emerged placing him at Charlestown.

This led me to consider whether I had been approaching the question from the wrong direction.

Perhaps the “excellent architect” did not come from Smeaton’s circle at all.

Instead of asking:

Which of Smeaton’s men came to Charlestown?

Perhaps we should ask:

Who was already working for Charles Rashleigh?

Charles Rashleigh, photo copyright Richard Larn.

And that brings us to Joseph Dingle.

Joseph Dingle

Joseph Dingle has traditionally been remembered largely because of his later financial difficulties and spectacular falling-out with Charles Rashleigh.

But the contemporary evidence suggests that his earlier role in the creation of Charlestown was considerably more important.

Dingle was appointed Superintendent of Works in 1790, placing him at the centre of Rashleigh’s development immediately before the principal harbour construction began.

His significance becomes much clearer in the contemporary account of the later legal dispute involving his bankrupt estate and Charles Rashleigh.

The Bodmin Summer Assizes recorded thirty-seven ejectment actions brought by the assignees of Dingle’s bankrupt estate against Rashleigh and others.

The case was reported as:

“Roe, on demise of Heale and others, v. Rashleigh. The same v. Thirty-six other persons.”

The actions concerned possession of houses, buildings, the pier, basin and other property at Charlestown.

But buried within the report is something potentially far more important to the history of the harbour.

It describes Joseph Dingle’s role in Charlestown’s creation.

According to the report, Dingle:

“foresaw the immense benefit to be derived from converting a barren spot into a port and harbour…”

It then states that, with the assistance of Rashleigh, he:

“…actually converted that barren spot into a place of the first importance to the County…”

Those are remarkable words.

They do not describe Dingle merely as a financial agent or administrator.

They associate him directly with the transformation of the site into a port and harbour.

Dingle and Crinnis Cliff Battery

Joseph Dingle is listed as a captain in command of 120 men.

Another piece of evidence now adds considerably to our understanding of Dingle’s position at Charlestown.

In 1794, only a few years after the principal harbour works began, Crinnis Cliff Battery was constructed as part of the defence of the developing port.

Dingle’s connection with that battery can now be demonstrated from a contemporary published source.

A View of the Volunteer Army of Great Britain in the Year 1806, in its return of the Royal Cornwall Volunteers, records:

“Crinnis Cliff Battery — 120 — Captain Joseph Dingle”

This is important evidence, although it must be interpreted carefully.

The return dates from 1806, twelve years after the battery was constructed, and therefore does not by itself establish that Dingle commanded the battery when it was first built in 1794. Nor does military command demonstrate that Dingle possessed the technical knowledge necessary to design a harbour.

Nevertheless, the evidence is significant.

Dingle was not commanding an unrelated volunteer unit elsewhere in Cornwall. He was Captain of Crinnis Cliff Battery, immediately associated with the place whose transformation he had already helped to oversee.

And he commanded a substantial body of 120 men.

The emerging picture of Dingle is therefore rather different from that of a minor employee or financial administrator.

He had been appointed Superintendent of Works in 1790.

Contemporary legal evidence subsequently credited him with having “actually converted” the site into an important port and harbour.

And by 1806 he was Captain of 120 men at Crinnis Cliff Battery, another important component of the Charlestown development.

There remains a crucial question which further research may answer:

When did Joseph Dingle first become associated with Crinnis Cliff Battery?

If evidence can be found showing that he commanded the battery from its establishment, or was involved in its construction in 1794, the significance would be much greater. It would demonstrate Dingle exercising responsibility for another substantial element of Rashleigh’s development within only a few years of the construction of the harbour itself.

For the moment, however, the 1806 evidence should not be made to say more than it does.

What it establishes beyond doubt is that Dingle's association with Charlestown extended beyond his title of Superintendent of Works and that he subsequently occupied a position of considerable local authority at Crinnis.

Was Dingle the “excellent architect”?

This raises a possibility that I believe deserves serious investigation.

Could Joseph Dingle have been the unnamed “excellent architect” who carried Smeaton’s supposed plans into execution?

At present, I cannot prove that he was.

His title of Superintendent of Works does not necessarily mean architect or engineer. His later command of Crinnis Cliff Battery demonstrates organisational responsibility, but it does not prove engineering expertise. Nor have I yet discovered a document explicitly describing Dingle as the architect mentioned in the early account.

But the evidence places him in an increasingly significant position.

He was involved at exactly the right time.

He was Superintendent of Works.

He was directly associated with Rashleigh.

A contemporary legal report credited him with having “actually converted” the site into an important port and harbour.

And his continuing importance at Charlestown is demonstrated by the 1806 record naming him Captain of 120 men at Crinnis Cliff Battery.

That makes Dingle more than simply another name on a list of possibilities.

He becomes one of the strongest documented candidates for the man responsible for the practical execution of the harbour project.

And perhaps that distinction is important.

The early account does not necessarily require us to identify Dingle as the man who designed the harbour.

If Smeaton supplied the plans, someone else had to turn those plans into a functioning harbour.

Perhaps the more precise question is therefore not simply:

Was Joseph Dingle the “excellent architect”?

But:

Was Joseph Dingle the man who actually carried Smeaton’s plans into execution?

At present, the evidence does not allow me to say that he was.

But the question is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Charles Hatchett and the Rashleighs

There is another piece of contemporary evidence which makes the situation even more intriguing.

In May 1796, Charles Hatchett visited the newly developed Charlestown.

He did not visit simply as an independent traveller.

He went there with Charles Rashleigh and Jonathan Rashleigh.

Hatchett recorded:

“Went with Mr C and Mr Jonathan Rashleigh to see Charles Town built by the former.”

He described the granite pier, wet dock, rope walk, storehouses, fish cellars and other improvements.

Yet Hatchett makes no mention of John Smeaton.

That silence is particularly interesting because Hatchett was seeing the harbour only a few years after its construction and was doing so in the company of Charles Rashleigh himself.

It does not prove that Smeaton was uninvolved.

But if Smeaton had been responsible for the harbour’s design, it is reasonable to wonder why his name apparently did not arise during such a visit.

Where does this leave Smeaton?

I am not arguing that John Smeaton had nothing to do with Charlestown.

In fact, I have previously presented the evidence supporting his involvement, and the early account stating that his plans were faithfully executed remains important evidence that cannot simply be dismissed.

But my continuing research has forced me to reconsider exactly what the traditional statement “Smeaton built Charlestown Harbour” actually means.

The evidence presently available suggests something considerably more complicated.

Smeaton may have supplied plans or engineering advice.

But somebody else apparently executed those plans.

And contemporary evidence places Joseph Dingle much closer to the actual creation of the harbour than his place in the traditional story would suggest.

The chronology is increasingly striking:

1790 — Dingle appointed Superintendent of Works.

1791 — principal construction of Charlestown Harbour begins.

1792 — John Smeaton dies.

1794 — Crinnis Cliff Battery is constructed.

1796 — Hatchett visits Rashleigh’s newly created Charlestown.

1806 — Joseph Dingle is recorded as Captain of 120 men at Crinnis Cliff Battery.

This potentially gives us a different working model:

Charles Rashleigh — proprietor, financier and driving force.

John Smeaton — possible designer or engineering adviser.

Joseph Dingle — Superintendent of Works and a documented central figure in the practical creation and subsequent organisation of Charlestown.

The missing link remains the identity of the mysterious:

“excellent architect.”

Was that man Joseph Dingle?

At present, the evidence does not allow me to say yes.

But neither do I believe we can continue discussing Smeaton’s involvement at Charlestown without asking the question.

Indeed, the question may now be broader than the identity of a single architect.

What exactly was Joseph Dingle’s role in creating Charlestown?

I began this research looking for stronger evidence of John Smeaton.

Instead, the documentary trail has led me increasingly towards Joseph Dingle.

The discovery that he subsequently commanded 120 men at Crinnis Cliff Battery does not solve the mystery.

But it adds another piece to an accumulating body of evidence showing that Dingle was a man of considerable responsibility at Charlestown and that his role in Rashleigh’s extraordinary transformation of Polmear deserves much closer examination.

And sometimes that is exactly what historical research does.

You begin by looking for the evidence to explain an accepted story—and discover that the evidence may be telling a rather different one.

Written by Lyndon Allen, August 2026.