163 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[April, 



We confine them that they shnll not come out more than five or six craft into the river } 

 and they will take the liberty of Imving seven or eiyht ; that is, they make the warehouses 

 for coals on the river, instead of having them on the land, as they are at Liverpool and 

 other outports ; it is the cheapest warehouse they can get." 



ftlr. Tayler, on the other hand, of tiie firm of Ualgleish and TayU'r, coal merchants 

 and general wharfingers in Scotland Vard, to a quesiioii as to the bearing of this plan of 

 embankment on their intercsls as wharfingers, replied, " I should rather have the river 

 (speaking of it as merely cnnnucted with our business) as it is. It would give us a great 

 deal more trotihle getiing out and in of this dock -, it would impede our business a little, 

 but I think not to a material degree." Tiiese gentlemen are the occupiers of two wharfs 

 adjoining to each other, at which the average number of barges is about 30, the mooring 

 roiim at one of them alone being sufficient for !^:i. 



Of the professional opinions obtained by the commission upon this part of the question, 

 there were none arldressed directly to the reasonable suHiciency of Mr. Page's inner water 

 way. No doubt, however, as to its sufficiency is expressed by these gentlemen in the 

 discussion of any portions of I\Ir. Page's i..lau, or of the modifications of which it was 

 represented to be susceptible; and the commission think It will be clear, from the general 

 tenor of their eviriei.ce, that no such doubt was entertained. 



The evidence of these gentlemen as to the merits of the plan under consideration, as it 

 would atfect the wharfingers and other proprietors on the bank of ihe river, involved 

 questions ot fietail upon which it was necessarily difficult for the commission to obtain, 

 or indeed for them to give, direct and unqualified answers. Having no personal interest 

 to serve, the tendency of the-r evide-cevas rather to suggest alterations, than to take 

 objections, upon all the really practical parts of the iiujuiry. The reply of Captain 

 Ulaughan to one of the questions of the Commission affords an illustration of this state- 

 ment : — " Mr. Page's plan," he observes, '* admits of two m-^des of application — either 

 with open entrances (or entrances open only during particular periods ol the tide), or 

 locks, which would make his side channels floating basins ; but the object of it, I under- 

 stand, is to leave the wharfs as they are at present, and otherwise to meet the exigenuies 

 of the trade, whichever mode of entrance may be more convenient;" and the bulk of the 

 evidence on this point is accordingly associated with one or other of the modes of appli- 

 cation above adverted to. 



'J'o the inquiries of the Commission as to the hest mode of improvinf the naviga- 

 tion of the river, with reference to the trade of tlie locality, and assuming approximate 

 uniformity of width to be desirable for such improvement, Mr. Hartley observes, "I 

 am of opinion, that approximate uniformity of width is desirable for the purpose 

 mentioned, and I conceive this may be obtnint;d without injury to the trade of the locality, 

 by leaving < pen the spaces between the embankment and the shore for the use of those 

 now occupying the margin of the river." Mr. Gor'ion— that ** as in order to regulate the 

 river, it should be brought to approximate uniformitv of width, the best mode of accom- 

 plishing this, with reference to the convenience of trade, would be the pr'uciple of the 

 plan B, whereby the present river fronts remain intact, and, all things considered, the 

 craft would have better and safer actommodation than at present." Mr. Keudel — 

 " that the local trade wouM be be«;t cons'diedby leaving tlie space I elween the wharf and 

 the embankment open to the tidal ti 'W and ebb.*' And Mr. RIacneil— that " the best 

 mode of accomplishing the object, having reference to the trade of the same localities, 

 will be to construct a wharf wall sufficiently wide to form a thoroughfare upon it, and at 

 such a distance from the shore as to allow barges and other craft to ply to the diflVrent 

 wharfs, as at present, upon the principle of plan B." In Mr. Cubitt's judgment, on the 

 other hand, ** the better mode would be to construct the shores of the river with strong 

 walls, and to form floating docks between such walls ami the present shores, and wharfs 

 for the accommodation of the trade." The opinions of Captain Beaudtrt, Mr. Reni'ie, 

 and Mr. Giles are not directly expressed on the point, and are consequently not avnilable. 

 To a subsequent question, whether the principle of plan K would be better carried out 

 by the substituti ui of locks and lioaliiig basins for tidal docks or side channels, as origi- 

 nally proposed, the replies of Mr. Cubitt, Mr. Itendel, Mr. Kennie, and IVIr. Giles were in 

 the affirmative ; of Mr. Hartley, Mr. Gordon, am' Mr. Macneil, in the negative. In the 

 series of gusstions submitttd to the Hydrographer to the Admiralty, this question was in- 

 advertently admitted. 



We think it right, in reference to this point of our inquiries, to advert to the distinct 

 and practical testimony of Captain Maughan. " Side channels,'* he observes, " admitting 

 the rise and tho fall of the tide would, in my opinion, be preferable to docks." The for- 

 mer appear to possess advantatfcs over the latter plan, viz., access for the barges at all 

 times of the tide (at If ast as long as there is water inside the t«rraces), the saving of a 

 very cousiderable expense in constructing h^cks, double lock gates, &c., ».s also the u^ual 

 cost of maintenance, and of the establishments for working them. Locks would also 

 very much encro^ich upon the side channels, and, if mjny of them should be rcquireii for 

 the admission of barges, the annual cost would be very heavy indeed." 



He adds, " If the side channels were converted into floating basins, the abstraction of 

 tidal water would of course be equal to the cubic contents of these docks ; and so f r as 

 the navigation is concerned, this mudificalion of Mr. Page's plan would be as injurious as 

 a solid embankment." 



The next in the series of considerations connected with Mr. Page's plan are the alleged 

 difficulties of entrance to thsse side channels from the river. 'Ihe number, position, and 

 dimensions of these, it is obvious, might be modified at almost any period previously to 

 the commencement of the works, and we confined ourselves, therefore, to i oints less 

 susceptible of modificatim. Mr. Hay. a lighteiman, observes, " I think Mr. Page's plan 

 is the b-'St I have seen, and if a project ot that kind is to be executed, I have never seen 

 any plan equal to it ; but if the river is narrowed, the tide will go up with greater velocity. 

 We have great diffiLuIty, now, in bringing up with our craft. Now, we can bring up to 

 the wharfs, and bring up in a recess, and get out of the way ; but I doubt whether we can 

 ever bring up at all when the tide is running so hard as it would. Still Mr. Page's plan 

 is a very excellent one; I have seen nothing equal to it, if these difficulties of getting in 

 at the openings can be done away with." On being further questioned whetlier his ob- 

 jections would equally to open entrances, he replied, • If there is a plan intended to be 

 carried into effect on the rivrr, there cannot be a heller; but 1 fear when we come to the 

 openings the tide will carry us by." Mr. Lutey, also a 1 ghterniMn, apprehended no diffi- 

 culty whatever ; relerring to the entrances ol London and St. Katherine Decks, he de- 

 pended upon the eddy to assist him, and gave his reasons for that dependrnce. Mr. 

 Tayler th> ught there would be no difficulty, " unless the speed of the tide were very much 

 incredsed. In the flow of the tide it would then require some very experienced bargeman 

 to bring up, and ring-holts or piles must be resorted to for the purpose." Assuming an 

 increase of l.'i per cent, upon a velocity of three miies an honr, he anticipated no difficulty 

 whatever. Mr. Harvey had conversed with intelligent lightermen, and inferred, from the 

 same causes, that admission would be more difficult. Mr. Pocock adverted to the increase 

 of existing diffiultie? since the removal of Old London Bridge, and was also of that 

 opinion, attaching little importance to the dritt or eddy anticipated by Mr. Lucey ; and 

 Mr. Peache, referring to the fact thtt a great portion of ihe craft was worked by only 

 one man. considered that there would be difficulty, in such cases, in getting in without 

 further assistance. 



On this point ,t is obser^•ed by Captain Beaufort, " the entrance to the docks in plan B 

 would be often difficult when the tide might be strong; and. if these entrances were 

 converted into locks, great inconvenience Ws»uld probably arise from several barges arriving 

 at the same time. At the docks which are used by large vessels, specific times of the 

 tide are selected for letting vessels In, and they are then attended by a sufficient number 

 of men to overcome all difficulties; whereas a barge is moved about the river by a single 

 man, who would be quite incapable of conducting her into a narrow gate or lock." 



Looking to this question as one having rather a practical than a scientific bearing, the 

 opinions of the engineers consulted were, perhaps, not unexpectedly, discordant. Mr. 

 Hartley and Mr. Cubitt disapproving of the partiiular entrances shown in plan B, were 

 nevertheless of opmion that there would be no difficulty in designing entrances such as 

 should afford entire protection against strong currents and high winds; the first, however, 

 saw no necessity for locks, the second admitted locks in deep recesses. Mr. Gordon also 



was of opinion that there would be no difficulty, thought the gates in the plan "judici- 

 ously placed,-' and recommcntied the addition of otheis. Sir. Rennie, observing that 

 all the entrances to the various docks at present on the river are occasionally affected by 

 currents and hi^h winds," assumed that " a careful observation of the prevailine winds 

 would determine their position ;" Mr. Gdes, that " they would be affected by the same 

 causes, but that these would not impose gruater difficulties than exist at the entrances of 

 the various docks on ihe river, and which might, by the means resorted to In these cases^ 

 be overcome." On the otfier hand, Mr. i\Iacneil nas of opinion, that " these entrances 

 would impose difficulties and obstructions such as do not now exist at the entrances to 

 the various docks or w' arfs on the river ;" and Mr. Rendel, that " they would he difficult, 

 if nut dangerous, except for an hour and a half, at most, before and after high and low 

 watwr." 



The experience of Captain Maughan may here be again of se; vice in elucidating a prac- 

 tical question. To questions whether the entrances should he at right angles with the 

 stream, he replies, ''As regards facility of entrance, I think that is of very little impor- 

 tance. The craft will have to stop outside first oi all, and, if there is no tide, which I ap- 

 prehend there will not be, close to the embankment wall, they will go in ■■s they like ; I 

 do not think the st-eam will lun rapidly close to the terrace, so as to prevent the easy 

 ingress of barges. " He apprehended no difficulty in getting in, no pressure of the tide 

 upon the vessels at the entrances. In his letter he observes, " The difficulties which have 

 been raised abtiut entrances at right angles I confess I cannot understand ; they appear to 

 me very much exaggerated. With a floating platform or dumb-lighter, and [dies driven 

 down at proper distiinces to check the barges, any lighterman could pass in his craft, even 

 should the stream run up rapidly outside, but which I very much doubt its doing, as stated 

 in my evidence." 



The discussion of these entrances, without reference to the principle involved in the 

 one or other of the modes of appropriation already sugges'ed, involved a further considera- 

 tion of some difficulty. The sufficiency of their width was generally ad.-nilted, but their 

 height above high water mark, assuming moveable bridges to be dispensed with, afforded 

 suloect for much difference ot opinion. Mr. Tayler and Mr. Pocock considered, as coal- 

 merchants, that from six to eight feet headway wo.ild be sufficient for their purposes ; 

 but for straw barges, and other description of craft engaged in simiUir traffic, and, in 

 short, for general uses, Mr. Hay regarded, 10 ; Mr. Lucey. 11 ; Mr. Penche, 12 ; Mr. Tay- 

 ler, 14 or 1.^ ; and Mr. H^irvey, lii) feet, as the smallest allowable reservation. The diver, 

 sity of opinion upon such a point, between parties whosa interests and daily habits should 

 make them conversant with these details, is sufficient, we think, to justify a doubt as to 

 the reuson^bleness of some of these requisitions. 



As the object of any measure for the improvement of the river should be obviously to 

 get rid of the mud at present accumulated upon its shores, the attention both of Mr. 

 Walker anil Mr. Page had. of course, been directed to these points: Mr. Walker trusted 

 chiefly to the inclination of his recesses towards the river, and to the tide in cleansing 

 them ; Mr. Page, to an inclination to 1 e artific ally given in the first instance, and to the 

 subseijuent operation of culverts and sluices. 



The relative advantages of, and objections to, Mr. Walker's recesses in regard to this 

 question have been already stated in referring to his plan. The tendency to such an accu- 

 mulation in the side channels of Mi. Page, ami the efficacy of the n'cans devised for its 

 prevention or removal, gave occasion to much diversity of opinion, and incidentally involved 

 the discussion of a point already adverted to, viz. the relative merits of open flocks and 

 floating basins. Upon the former of these points, it is observed by Mr. Cubitt, " I think 

 the docks proposed by plan B. with single pairs of gates only at their entrances, and sub- 

 ject to be tilled up and emptied at every tide, for the purposes either of navigation or 

 scouring, would be very subject to silt up with mud." — Mr. Gordon's opinion was to the 

 same effect, though qualified ; Mr. fliacneil's, that they would have a greater tendency to 

 silt than the recesses of plan A ; Captain Beaufort's, that tiie tendency would be at least 

 as great ; Mr. Hartley's and Mr. Rendel's, that it would be less. Captain Beaufort and 

 Mr. Cubitt were of opinion that, by the conversion of these docks into floating basins, the 

 evil would be diminished ; and all concurred in stating that either by the means imme- 

 diately recommended, or other artificial resources, they might be rendered practically un- 

 objectionable. 



The necessity of resorting to these means, however, even upon the simplified basis of side 

 channels, as originally proposed, implied at the same time a ne essity for supervision, and 

 this supervision an expense, to which any modifieation of the plan in the shape of floating 

 basins with lock entrances, would of course involve some addition. Assuming, therefore, 

 the plan B to give to the wharfingers in common the use of large reservoirs of water, and 

 to require the supervision ot officers, whose duty it wonid be to regulate the scour, and 

 the ingress and egress of craft at particular states of the tide, we submitted to the profes- 

 sional gentlemen consulted, whether this supervision, if restricted within proper limits, 

 would entail any serious expense, or offer any obstruction to the trade, or injuriously 

 atfect the interests, or trench upon the convenience of the owners or occupiers of the ad- 

 joining property. We submitted, at the same time, a second question ; viz., whether it 

 would give them any advantages which they do not possess at present ? 



In reply to the first of these inquiries, Mr. Rennie answered simply, and generally, in 

 the affirmative; Mr. Giles, *' that it would become an objectionable restriction upon the 

 freedom of the navigation of the river;" and Mr. Rendel, " that the interests and views of 

 the numerous owners and occupiers of wharfs would make the supervision and police of 

 such docks difficult and expensive . that supposing the entrances to be made sufficiently 

 commodious and numerous, and the docks kept clear ol mud, the owners of the wharfs 

 would have no reasonable ground of (.omplaint." Captain Beaufort, Mr. Hartley, Mi. 

 Cubitt, Mr. Giles, and Mr. -Macneil, were of opinion that the supervision ueed entail upon 

 the parties aff^ected no injur>', serious trouble, or expense, or none, at least, for which its 

 advantages would not attoid ample compensation ; and concurred with Mr. Rendel, that 

 the conversion of the side channels into floating basins, notwithstanding its attendant in- 

 crease of expense, would give them a positive accession of advantages. 



The remaining considerations connected with the plans before the Commission involve 

 a discussion of their relative claims to adoption. With the plans of Mr. Walker and Mr. 

 Page, a teirace and public thoroughfare are undoubtedlv consistent. In both plans the 

 sewage is treated upon the same principle— viz. by extending the sewers to the outer Une 

 of the embankment, and connecting it with the river under low water mark. 



After an attentive examination of the plans of which we have thus explained the 

 principal features and detaMs, and also of the evidence adduced in support of each of them, 

 ihi first question upim which we felt called upon to exercise a judgment was, whether an 

 embankment of the Thames between London and Vauxhall Bridges be indispensable to 

 the improvement of the navigation of that part of the river; or whether, referring to the 

 means by which an embankment might be made available for other objects of Dublic 

 utility, it should be treated as a question of expediency, having reference to other interests 

 combined with those of the navigation. 



Upon the urgent necessity which exists for some measure having the improvement of 

 this portion of the river for its object, we th nk there can be no doubt whatever. It is a 

 fact open to daily observation and complaint, that in this part its bed presents an altera- 

 tion of deeps and shoals, prejudicial to the navigation; and that its shores, on the Mid- 

 dlesex side especially, exhibit lor the greater portion of every 24 hours, accumulations of 

 mud which cannot fail at certain seasons to generate disease, and at all times to become a 

 powerful auxiliary to it wiien arising from other causes. 



An inquiry into the the cause of mischief, at the present period, offers no practical 

 advantage, except as leading to the suggestion of a remedy. Whether natural or artificial, 

 it falls under the supervision of that body in which the conservancy of the river is vested, 

 and whose especial duty it is to investigate and to cure these evils. 



Of the causes to which the present state of the river between London and Vauxhall 

 Bridges IS to be attributed, the number of its projections and recesses, especially on the 

 Midiilesex side of the riv^-r, is undoubtedly the most prominent. The discrudiiable state 

 of the shore in the neighbourhood of Hungerford Market and the Adelphi was first occa- 

 sioned by large embankments in the river in the neighbourhood of Whitehall and Privy 

 Gardens, and these parts bave, In their turn, been subsequently embedded in rau^ by the 



