John Smeaton, Joseph Dingle and the Mystery of Charlestown Harbour

I have previously argued that John Smeaton was involved in the construction of Charlestown Harbour. Like many others who have studied the village's history, I accepted that the celebrated engineer had played an important part in its creation. When I returned to the subject, I was not attempting to disprove his involvement, but wanted to establish exactly what he had done and, if possible, find the documentary evidence behind a story which has been repeated for generations. Having examined Smeaton's published papers, personal journals and surviving correspondence, I have been unable to find any reference to Polmear, Charlestown, Charles Rashleigh or the harbour project. I have also searched material held by the Royal Society and Trinity House, but so far nothing has been found which directly connects him with the construction of Charlestown Harbour.

John Smeaton: I have not been able to prove his involvement at Polmear

This does not mean that Smeaton was not involved. He may have visited Cornwall and advised Rashleigh privately, or supplied drawings and plans which have since been lost. Correspondence between the two men may also have disappeared, but until a letter, plan, payment, diary entry or other contemporary document is found, we cannot be certain what his involvement actually was. Historical possibility and historical evidence are not the same thing, and at present the accepted story rests upon very little contemporary evidence.

The dates also raise questions. By about 1785, Smeaton's health was beginning to decline, and a contemporary account records that he intended to avoid new projects wherever possible and spend more of his remaining time publishing accounts of his engineering work. He was also heavily involved at Ramsgate Harbour during the final years of his life. Smeaton had first been consulted there in 1773, but his responsibilities became particularly demanding after work began on an advanced pier in 1788. By 1790, he was adapting his specialised diving apparatus for the underwater construction, and in 1791 he presented his report to the Ramsgate Harbour trustees. The pier was completed the following year, shortly before his death in October 1792.

This work overlapped almost exactly with the principal construction of Charlestown Harbour, which appears to have begun in the spring of 1791. It would not have prevented Smeaton from supplying plans or advice without being present throughout the construction, and an early account of Charlestown may explain what happened. After recording that Charles Rashleigh had erected a pier at the bottom of the town, commenced a quay and formed a dock behind it, the account states that the work was “built by an excellent architect under the direction of the late Mr Smeaton, whose plans have been faithfully carried into execution.”

The wording is important because it does not say that Smeaton built the harbour. It suggests that he supplied the plans or direction, while another man carried out the work. I initially considered several men known to have worked with him. John Gwynn worked alongside Smeaton at Ramsgate and was highly regarded by him, but died in 1789, two years before the main construction at Charlestown began. William Jessop, Smeaton's former pupil and assistant, certainly had the necessary engineering ability, although he had substantial commitments elsewhere and I have found no evidence placing him at Charlestown. John Pickernell, Smeaton's experienced surveyor and overseer at Ramsgate, is another possibility, but once again there is nothing which connects him with the project.

Perhaps I had been looking in the wrong place. Rather than asking which of Smeaton's associates might have travelled to Charlestown, it may be more useful to ask who was already working there for Charles Rashleigh. This leads us to Joseph Dingle, a man generally remembered because of his later financial difficulties and spectacular falling-out with Rashleigh. New evidence suggests that his earlier role in the creation of Charlestown was considerably more important. He was appointed Superintendent of Works in 1790, placing him at the centre of the development immediately before the principal harbour construction began.

His position becomes clearer in a contemporary report of the later legal dispute involving his bankrupt estate and Charles Rashleigh. At the Bodmin Summer Assizes, the assignees of Dingle's estate brought thirty-seven ejectment actions against Rashleigh and others concerning possession of houses, buildings, the pier, basin and other property at Charlestown. The cases were reported as “Roe, on demise of Heale and others, v. Rashleigh. The same v. Thirty-six other persons.” Buried within the report is a description of Dingle's part in the development. It states that he “foresaw the immense benefit to be derived from converting a barren spot into a port and harbour” and that, with Rashleigh's assistance, he “actually converted that barren spot into a place of the first importance to the County.”

These words do not describe Dingle as simply a financial agent or administrator. They associate him directly with the transformation of the site into a port and harbour, while his appointment as Superintendent of Works places him there at exactly the right time. Another piece of evidence helps to show the position he later held at Charlestown. Crinnis Cliff Battery was constructed in 1794 as part of the defence of the developing port, and A View of the Volunteer Army of Great Britain in the Year 1806, in its return for the Royal Cornwall Volunteers, records “Crinnis Cliff Battery — 120 — Captain Joseph Dingle.”

Bond's history of Looe, page 278.

The return was published twelve years after the battery was built, so it does not prove that Dingle commanded it when it was first established or that he had been involved in its construction. Nor does the command of a battery prove that he had the technical knowledge to design a harbour. It does show that by 1806 he was captain of 120 men at a defensive position immediately connected with Charlestown. If evidence can be found showing that he commanded it from its establishment, or took part in its construction in 1794, it would place him in a position of responsibility for another important part of Rashleigh's development only a few years after the harbour was built.

Could Joseph Dingle have been the unnamed “excellent architect” who carried Smeaton's plans into execution? At present, there is no proof that he was. The title Superintendent of Works does not necessarily mean architect or engineer, and no document has yet been found which identifies him as the man mentioned in the early account. Even so, the evidence places him in a significant position. He worked directly for Rashleigh, was involved at the right time and was credited in a contemporary legal report with helping to convert the site into an important port and harbour. It may not be necessary to prove that Dingle designed Charlestown Harbour. If Smeaton supplied the plans, somebody else had to turn them into a working harbour, and Dingle may have been the man responsible for their practical execution.

There is another contemporary account which adds to the mystery. In May 1796, Charles Hatchett visited the newly developed Charlestown with Charles and Jonathan Rashleigh and recorded, “Went with Mr C and Mr Jonathan Rashleigh to see Charles Town built by the former.” Hatchett described the granite pier, wet dock, rope walk, storehouses, fish cellars and other improvements, but made no mention of John Smeaton. He was visiting only a few years after the harbour had been constructed and was in the company of Charles Rashleigh himself. His silence does not prove that Smeaton was uninvolved, but it is reasonable to wonder why his name did not arise if he had been responsible for the design.

I am not arguing that John Smeaton had nothing to do with Charlestown, as the early account stating that his plans were faithfully carried into execution remains important evidence. My research has, though, forced me to reconsider the traditional claim that Smeaton built the harbour. The truth may be more complicated, with Charles Rashleigh as the proprietor, financier and driving force behind the development, Smeaton supplying plans or engineering advice and Dingle, as Superintendent of Works, putting those plans into practice.

The identity of the “excellent architect” remains unknown, and I cannot yet say that it was Joseph Dingle. What can be said is that Dingle was much more than a minor employee. Contemporary evidence places him close to the creation of the harbour and shows that he continued to hold considerable responsibility at Charlestown in the years which followed. I began this research looking for stronger evidence of John Smeaton, but the documentary trail led me towards Joseph Dingle. His later command at Crinnis Cliff Battery does not solve the mystery, although it adds to the evidence that his part in Rashleigh's transformation of Polmear deserves much closer examination.

Sometimes historical research does not lead where you expect it to. You begin by looking for evidence to support an accepted story and discover that the evidence may be telling a very different one.

Written by Lyndon Allen, August 2026.