1844.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL 



ICl 



ment; in no case what would be otherwise lost." He had made no separate estimate of 

 the amount to bee.\pende"l in compensations, and his estimate of the revenue was admitted 

 to be irrespective otany outlay of the kind. 



The advantages of Mr. Walker's pl:in for a solid embankment, if it were complete, would 

 undoubtedly consist in its simplicity of outline, its freedom t'l om details, and its entire 

 exemption from restrictions and regulations of any kind for its after-management. In 

 making this observation, we desire to apply it either to a solid embankment tlnoughout, 

 or to the embankment with recesses to which Mr. Walker's proposal is at present limited; 

 for, although the objections, on the score of the accumulation of mud in these recesses, 

 and of the insufficiency of the ordinary traffic of the river tor its dispersion, pervade the 

 whole of the evidence taken by the Commission, yet the general tendency of that evidence 

 is to show, that, if they were judiciously constructed in the iirst instance, a moderate 

 application of artificial means, such in fact as is at present resorted to in the best con- 

 structed wharfs on the river, might answer every necessary purpose. 



The objections to tlie plan, however, on other grounds are not so easily disposed of. 

 According to the evidence before the Commission, the abstraction of the titlal water from 

 a navigable river is in principle objectionable, inasmuch as it diminishes the efficacy of 

 the scour. Various opinions were otfered as to the degree to which this objection would 

 apply to Mr. Walker's embankment Mr, Hartley was of opinion that it would be con- 

 siderable ; and, with Mr. Giles, that its effects, if not felt in the Pool itself, would be more 

 or Itfss injurious in the fiistrict of the river below the Pool : Mr. Rennie, that it would 

 operate both in the Pool and in the river below the Pool. The general temlency of tln^se 

 opinions, indeed, in reference to the plan immediately before us, was that, assuming the 

 navigable current to be improved by judicious dredging, and an uniform course and in- 

 creased velocity to be given to its channel, the loss would, in great measure be lompen- 

 sated. But these opinions were given in reference only to a small portion of the river, 

 irrespectively of any system for its general management, and, of course, without contem- 

 plating that extension ot its present plans, which this Commisiion may feel it right to re- 

 commend hereafter. 



It was objected as to the recesses, that in proportion as they were favourable to the 

 trade, they would become injurious to the navigation. Mr. Hartley was of opinion that 

 they would a')Stract from the full force of the tidal current, and in a limited or proportion- 

 ate degree affect both the tide and the scour : I\Ir. Cubitt, that an embankment so formed 

 would not be continuous enougli above low water mark to form a good and efficient tit'e 

 to the river : Mr. Gordon, that by causing eddies they would disturb the current of the 

 mainstream, and prevent the establishment of any uniform regimen for the river: Mr. 

 Rennie, that they would have a strong tendency to interrupt the free flow of the tide. Mr. 

 Rendell, speaking in his evidetice of these recesses, observes, '* I cannot imagine any 

 arrangement which would be more likely to make the bed of the river worse than it is at 

 present. If there were a series of long embankments, and a series of long recesses, they 

 would, instea^ of giving an uniform velocity to the stream make it more irregular than it 

 is at present." On the other hand, Captain Beautort was of opinion that. pra(.tic;illy. 

 they would have no effect on the scour of the river, and Mr. Macneil and Mr. Giles that 

 " embankments, with occasional recesses," would conduce to its " improvement,'* and to 

 the *' benetit of the navigation." 



The mode of levelling these recesses, proposed by Mr. Walker, and of providing them 

 with permanent foundations, is fully explained in his evidence. The objections on this 

 head took a wider range, though intrinsically of less importance, than those above ad- 

 verted to, inasmuch as they involved the use and the construction of these receptacles for 

 trade. Of the persons in trade examined by the Commission in reference to the dwarf 

 piling proposed by Mr. Walker, Mr. Hay (a lighterman) was of opinion that it would be 

 injurious to the craft. The answers of Messrs. Pocock and Peache (the tirst a coal, and 

 the second a timber merchant) were not adverse: Mr. Lncey (a lighterman) gave no 

 decided opinion ; Mr. Tayler (a coal mtrchant) and Mr. Harvey (a wharfinger), buth of 

 them occupiers of extensive river frontages, were generally in favou'- of its adoption. The 

 opinions of these witnesses, it is right to observe, were given in evidence, and without any 

 previous reference to plans, sections, or other sources of information, fllr. Tayler and 

 Mr. Harvey appear to have formed the most correct conception of the course proposed to 

 be pursued. 



Of the professional witnesses consulted, the attention of the majority aprears to have 

 been diiected to the effect of this dwarf piling upon the navigation, in connexion with the 

 recesses : of those who expressed their opinions with immeiliate reference to the use or 

 convenience of it to the trade, Mr. Cubitt thought that dwarf piling would be inconve- 

 nient, as forming a step or threshold under water, and Mr. Rendel, that barges would be 

 liable to ground upon, and be endangered by it. Tliese opinions, it should be ob-erved, 

 were given, not in evidence, but upon a deliberate examination of the sections which ac- 

 companied Mr. Walker's plan. 



The objections of the trade lo the general principle of a solid embankment, whether 

 with or or without recesses, have already been adverted to in Uie history of i he proceed- 

 ings upon Mr. Walker's plan before the select comndttee of 1840. Ot the wittiesses in 

 trade examined by the commission. Mr. Harvey objected to a solid embankment, that it 

 would prevent him from getting his barges to the warehouses; that he should have to carry 

 all his goods twice ; that his craft, by being exposed to the swell of the steamers, without 

 proper moorings in the stream, would be subject to increased wear anti tear ; and that any 

 measure which deprived him of his accustomed means ot access would be attended with 

 additional expense in the landing and warehousing of his goods. Mr. Pocock attached no 

 great importance to the wear and tear ajjprehended by Mr. Harvey; butin everyother res- 

 pect concurred in his objections. It was suggested, and assented to by those gentlemen, 

 that piles driven out in the main stream might diminish the difficulty as to moorings, as. 

 suming the extent of these to be equivalent to the accommodations of their present 

 fiontage (in many cases usurped) ; but this equivalent would have involved a jtrojection 

 into the navigable waterway of IGO feet in the one case, and from iHll to 19ll feet in the 

 other, and, allowing for the depth of solid embankment proposed in this particular local- 

 ity (viz., in the neighbourhood of Whitefri*rs), wouid have carried the piling, on the 

 northern shore alone, very nearly into the present centre of the river. 



The opinions of the lightermen consulted on the last-mentioned of these points had 

 reference principally to the exigencies of their own calling. Assuming a solid embank- 

 ment to be constructed throughout the line, they were agreed that, with the additional 

 velocity to be given to the stream in heavy frosts, and with a channel loaded with ice, the 

 craft would drift at the mercy of the current, and that no system of piling would avail for 

 their security. 



The professional opinions consulted by the Commission were very nearly in accordance 

 with each other on both of these points. 



On that of the wharfage. Captain Beaufort, Bfr. Hartley, Mr. Rendel, Mr. Macneil, and 

 Mr. Giles were of opinion that continuous lines of solid embankment shown upon the 

 plans could not be made consistently with the interests of the trade or the convenience of 

 the public j Mr. Ilennie, on the other hand, that the two objects were conjointly practi- 

 cable; Mr. Gordon— that, "after a serious interference with, and breaking up of, existing 

 arrangements, the trade would be ultimately great gainers by a solid embankment." 



On that of the river— Mr. Hartley thought, that " to force all the craft to moor in the 

 navigable stream would be a source of inconvenience to the trade, and of obstruction to 

 the navigation ;" Mr. Gordon — that, *' as in the preseiit system of traffic on the Thacnes, 

 the bights or buys are indispensable as pbices of rest and refu.e. the solid embankments 

 of plan A would tend to injure t e tiade;" Mr. Rendel— that, '* if the 'Ihames were em- 

 banked with a solid embankment, accoruing to the plan suggested, the wharlingers wouitt 

 find it absolutely necessary for their own jiro'ection not to moor out into the stream;" 

 that ** as the object of making a solid embankment would be to give the Thames such an 

 uniform velocity as would keep open its chiinnel, that velocity would prevent the use of 

 the then shores by those barges ," that " the str jngest run of the tide could not be taken 

 at less than three miles an hour, and that three miles an hour would be quite enough lo 

 prevent the mooring of those craft along the shore ;" that the utmost extent to which 

 such a course would be practicable would be " a coupe of barges in length," and that 

 guard piles carried out to an extent to meet the requisites of the trade '* would not con- 



tinue a week." The opinions of Captain Beaufort, Mr. Cubitt, Mr. Macneil, Mr. Rennie, 

 and Mr. Giles were addressed rather to the question of recesses, and their convenience to 

 the trade a** shelter from the open tideway, than to the positive difficulties and disadvan- 

 tages connected with solid projections. 



The foregoing, we think, may be referred to as a faithful summary of the opinions 

 whether for or against the adoption of Mr. Walker's plan, having reference exclusively to 

 its own merits. Its relative advantages and disadvantages, with reference to other plans, 

 will be referred to hereafter. 



The Plan of Mr. Page.—iB.) 



The principles of Mr. Page's plan are distinct in character from those of Mr. Walker, 

 and, in some respects, opposed to them. It proposes an fmbankmentwith side channels, 

 the embankment of itself (orming a continuous public terrace. Assuming every abstrac- 

 tion of tidal water f'om a navigable river to be injurious to the navigation below the locality 

 oi the embankment, by depriving a portion of the lirer of its scour, Mr. Page proposes, 

 first, to avoid encionching upon the capacity of the river for the reception of its tidal 

 waters, and to make the prevention of encroachments at any future period, as far as prac- 

 ticable, a leading feature. Secondly, to leave to the wharfingers and others interested in 

 the trade of the locality the possession of their present aLCOinmodatioi s on the river 

 shore ; and, thirdly, to provide increased ficiliiies of communication between the east and 

 west ends of town by a putilic road constructed in the river. 



The details of a plan professing lo be founded upon these principles must, it is obvious, 

 be far more extensive and complicated in their character tlian tho<:e ot any plan based 

 upon an alternation of solid embankments and recesses only. A river wall interposed 

 between the navigable channel and the shore must hiive openings to atlbrd facilities of 

 intercourse between the two , the position of these openings would furn) one subject for 

 inquiry— their width another — the facililies of access at ditt'erent states of the tide, another. 

 These openings could, of course, be passible only by bridges; antt those bridges, in 

 accordance with one of the leading principles of Mr. Page's plan, shuuld be of sufficient 

 width and height to adnnt of the accustomed traffic of any locality at any state of the tide. 

 On the other hand, Mr. Page's terrace was to pass under the resuective bridges which 

 connect the Middlesex and Surrey shores of the river ; and hence it would appear impos- 

 sible entirely to satisfy one ot these conditions without conflicting, in some measure, with 

 the other. 



Another peint, the importance of which was not to be overlooked, w.ns the convertibility 

 of these side channels into docks or floating basins. The treatment of this question in- 

 volved the discussion of locks, their pusiiion, their capabilities, their size, and their pro- 

 bable cost. The relative advantages of tidal docks and floating basins, in reference to the 

 trade and the navigable interests ofthe river; the supervision necessary to the legulation 

 of either ; their respective tendencies lo silt, and the facililies for cleansing and keeping 

 them tree from mud, furnished further subject for inquiry, and, the Commissioners are 

 compelled to add, for much conflictingopinion. 



Of the plan before the Commission a copy will be found inserted in the Appendix, to- 

 gether with a statement of its objects and alleged advantages, drawn up by Mr. Page at 

 our suggestions. As its features were comparatively new, and as we had not before us, as 

 in the consideration of Mr. Walker's pbin, a body ot existing evidence to refer to, we were 

 induced by these and the clauses previously mentioned to examine Mr. Page at great length, 

 and to enter minutely into detail on matters some of them exclusively technical in their 

 clia-acter. and to which therefore it is scarcely necessary to refer in tnis Report, except 

 as to their relative importance to, and bearing upon the main subject of inquiry. 



Looking to the principles whicli Mr. Page assumes as forming the basis uf his plan, its 

 consideration may he divided, as stated by himself, under three lieads ; viz. — 



1. As any embankment constructed upon these principle-i may affect the Thames as a 

 navigable river. 



2. As it may aflfect the wharfingers and otlier proprietors on its banks; and 



ii. As it may improve the means of communiiution in the metropolis by opening new 

 facilities for traffic, and for promotini? generally the health and convenience ofthe public. 



The firsi of these considerations opened of itself an extensive field of inquiry, and in- 

 volved a class of interests not so much connected witli the locality immediately concrned 

 as with the Pool and lower portions of the river. We trust that the magnitude and im- 

 portance of these interests have not been torgotien. 



The abstraction of the tidal water from a river, wherever an emliankment is projected 

 upon its shores, and the prejuHicijl consequences necessarily arising from that abstraction, 

 are topics upon which, of course, this Commission can be competent to express an opinion 

 only upon the eviilence before it. The expediency of niainlaining if not increasing the 

 volume of tidal water in the higher portions ofthe Thames, is stated by Mr. Page to have 

 suggested a leadmg feature of his plan, and many of the letters and papeis already 

 referred to as inserted in the Api)endix to this Ki-porl, aie addressed to this inter- 

 esting but necessarily difficult branch of the inquiry. Of the soundness of the prin- 

 ciple which it is the object of these papers lo enforce, and looking to the embankment of 

 the locality under consideration as part only of a lai ger system ul im;(rovement, which is 

 at this moment professed to be in operation in various i)arts of the river, of its great 

 practical value we can entertain no doubt whatever; and, if the evidence before us is not 

 altogether so concurrent as might have been desired as to its applicaii.)n to that particular 

 locality, irrespective of other ijoitions of the river, yet the very conflict of opinions has 

 had its use in impressing upon us the necessity of can iun. 



The plan under consideration was, of course, open to little positive objection on this 

 head. Captain Maughan, indeed, considered even Mr. Page's embankment as invulving 

 prima facie a violation of his own principle, inasmuch us it wuu'd displace by its own bulk 

 a portion of that water, and, pro tanto, abstract it from the sccmr of the river below. In 

 the letter, however, addressed by Captain Maughan to the Chairman of the Commission, 

 he observes, that, assuming the water in the side channels " to pass in and out with the 

 tide, Mr. Page's plan, compared with the other plans, would curtail in a lessened degree 

 the tidal water; while one of his propositions being to remove the mud banks and other 

 inequalities of the river above low water mark, it is probable tliat the cubic spaces so 

 gained would equal those lost by the terraces, and that thus the river below would bustain 

 no injury." 



Its merits, therefore, are to be tested, in the first instance, with reference to the trade 

 of the river shore. The principal objection to which it is obnoxious may perhaps be best 

 stated in the words of Mr. Harvev,a general wharfinger, in considerable trade, occupying 

 the Grand Junction Wharf, Whitefriars :— *' I consider that any obstruction, whether by 

 wall or otherwise, which would i)revent me from getting my barge into tlte slieain, at any 

 time while she was afloat, would be a disadvantage. The embankment itself would be 

 an obstruction ; wherever a barge lies i:ow, whether we want to go up or down, we have 

 only to put her a tern and get into the stream. If there is a flooil-gate, and we have to 

 go out at ontf particular spot, we must .iccnmmodate the othf-r craft, so as to come out at 

 that funicular place. At present it req'Jires a good deal of contrivance to place a large 

 barj^e alongside of our wharf; and, if the room were much les^^ent d, it would be almost 

 impracticable." To a question whether his objections were coidined to the inconvenience 

 of access, he rep.'ied, ** The iiicmvLnience of access is one point. Then it shortens my 

 water-way. If the embankment take place outsine what we consider our present water- 

 way, I could not of course complnin, except as to the impediment ot access." Mr. Po- 

 cock, tlie ownei- of an extensive coal-whaif in the same neigh!»ourhood, concurred in tliese 

 objections of filr. Harvey. The outer pile > f Mr. Hai'vey's wharf was stated to be I'iU 

 feet — that of Mr. Pocuck's wharf to tie from iHLt to i;<U leet from the shoie, the space 

 assigned to these wharfs, upon Sir. Page's plan, was aOout 14') feet ; the space usually 

 granted by the city, according to i\J r. Iticiiard Lambert Jones, from 70 to lUU feet. 



A further relerencv, however, lo the evidence of flir. .lones on this point may help to 

 clear n[) much of this difficulty. In reference to i\lr. Page's plan, he observes, " I d..re 

 say the cojt meichants would say, at rst starting, thst there is not sufficient room for 

 liivm i for I know enough or tlie applications by the various coal merchants to the corpo- 

 ration of London to put piles in, and to have what they tall floating craft j but we never 

 can coDtine them to thatj thouj^h they may ask for one pile, they will carry it further out. 



