Chapter I: Part 1

Transcriber’s Note
Italic text displayed as: _italic_
^ means abbreviation

BARGES WAITING TO LEAVE THE DOCK. _See p. 65._]

THE THAMES AND ITS DOCKS

A LECTURE

BY

ALEX^R FORROW

(_Of the East and West India Dock Company_)

DELIVERED AT THE EAST AND WEST INDIA DOCK COMPANY’S LITERARY
INSTITUTION, DECEMBER 18, 1876. CHAIRMAN: PERCIVAL BOSANQUET, ESQ.,
CHAIRMAN OF THE EAST AND WEST INDIA DOCK COMPANY.—ALSO AT CITY OF
LONDON COLLEGE, LEADENHALL STREET, FEBRUARY 8, 1877. CHAIRMAN: GEORGE
H. CHAMBERS, ESQ., CHAIRMAN OF THE LONDON AND ST. KATHARINE DOCKS
COMPANY

LONDON
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY
SPOTTISWOODE & CO., 38 ROYAL EXCHANGE
_And to be had of All Booksellers_

1877

TO

J. L. DU PLAT TAYLOR, ESQ.

SECRETARY
EAST AND WEST INDIA DOCK COMPANY

THIS LITTLE WORK

IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED

BY

THE WRITER

PREFACE.

At the urgent request of many who have heard this lecture, I have been induced to publish it. I have had considerable hesitation in doing so, because, as its structure sufficiently indicates, it was never written with a view to publication. It is a sketch, and nothing more, of a great subject, condensed into a two hours’ address. As, however, it contains some curious information of considerable interest, otherwise difficult of access, it has been considered worthy of preservation in its present form. With a view to placing the readers of this lecture, as far as possible, in the position of hearers of it, I have accompanied it with some of the rarest and most interesting of the plans with which it was illustrated. Whatever may be its shortcomings in other respects—and I am conscious they are many—I venture to hope that this feature of it will prove generally acceptable.

A. FORROW.

WOODFORD:
_February 1877_.

THE THAMES AND ITS DOCKS.

The subject of this evening’s lecture is so vast and discursive, that to attempt, within the brief period of a lecture, to give more than a sketch of a particular portion of it, would be manifestly absurd. Moreover, as a visit to any of the Docks will result in the attainment of more practical information than could be imparted in a dozen lectures, we may very consistently dispense almost entirely with reference to contemporary dock history; and I intend doing so except in so far as incidental reference to that part of the subject may appear necessary. My object, in this lecture, is to convey some interesting information respecting the origin and growth of the facilities which have been provided in the river, from time to time, to meet the requirements of the mercantile marine of the port; to trace the steps by which its commerce has gradually been emancipated from its ancient river-side restrictions, and then lead up to notice the establishment of the magnificent system of docks, to which it so largely owes its marvellous growth. I propose to deal with this portion of the subject in preference to any other, because it is one of which, although exceedingly interesting, the literature is singularly scarce, fragmentary, and difficult of access. It is, however, obvious that the ground which we have to cover necessitates such rapid travelling, that it will be necessary to omit many interesting particulars to which I should, otherwise, have invited your attention.

Leaving that misty period of English history when the only craft to be seen on the Thames was the rude coracle of the ancient Briton; and the 400 years during which the Romans occupied the island, I would pass on to observe, that up to the tenth century, there appears to have been so little disposition on the part of our forefathers to engage in maritime pursuits, that in 938, King Athelstane, in order to excite a spirit of enterprise amongst his subjects, offered the rank of thane to any Englishman who undertook three voyages to the Continent with a vessel and cargo of his own. But our real masters in the arts of commerce were the Easterlings, a fraternity of German merchants, who, in the eighth century, established themselves on the shores of the Baltic for the protection of their commerce against the Normans and Scandinavian nations. Some of the vessels of this confederacy, which was afterwards connected with the Hanseatic League, appeared in the Thames at Billingsgate in 979, during the reign of Ethelred II. Here I should observe that Billingsgate was the first place appointed for payment of king’s dues, Queenhithe being the next. Considered by the king worthy of ‘good laws,’ the Easterlings agreed to pay a toll of two grey cloths and one brown one, ten pounds of pepper, five pairs of gloves, and two measures of vinegar, every Christmas and Easter, and forthwith established themselves in London. Hard-headed, keen-witted fellows were these old German merchants, and, like their countrymen of a later date, soon found out that England was a rare place for making money. And when these ancestors of our modern German competitors first came to this country, they had to encounter so little opposition from the native traders, that they speedily monopolised the whole of the foreign trade of the port. But while the Hanseatic League owed much of its power and influence to the early footing which the Easterlings obtained in London, there cannot be a doubt that by helping to develop the enormous productive resources of the country, and revealing the unrivalled natural facilities of the port for trade, they laid the foundation of the supremacy which London now enjoys as the great entrepôt for the produce and commerce of the world. Moreover, as their remarkable confederacy at one time comprised no less than eighty of the largest and wealthiest cities in Germany and Sweden, their establishment in London was the means of opening up commercial relations with the Continent of a magnitude, which, while the balance of immediate profit fell to the traders of the League, proved an incalculable boon to this country when their exclusive privileges were taken from them. Not only so; the success of the Easterlings in London attracted the commerce of other continental nations, particularly the Venetian and Genoese, and thus brought about the trade with the Mediterranean ports, and, incidentally, with the East. In the reign of Henry III. (1236) the foreign trade had become so important, that the practice which had hitherto prevailed of buying goods on board the importing ship, was found to be so irksome and inconvenient, that, on condition of paying certain tolls to the Mayor, permission was granted for the direct landing of cargo, so that it might be disposed of on shore. This gave rise to the existing landing and wharfage dues. Ten years afterwards, the Corporation purchased Queenhithe, which, it should be remembered, besides Billingsgate, was the only place in the river at that time suitable for the landing of goods. Meanwhile, the enormous influence which the Easterlings had acquired in London, by means of the charters granted them by successive monarchs, was beginning to excite a spirit of competition and jealousy amongst the citizens. But they found that, great as was the productive resources of the country, their German competitors had obtained such complete control of the continental markets, that no Englishman stood a chance against the combinations which he had to encounter there. This led to counter-combinations on the part of the citizens, as the only means by which they could hope to introduce their goods into foreign markets. I need hardly observe that this was one of the causes which led to the origin of many of the trade guilds, and livery companies of London. In the time of King Edward IV. a considerable impetus was given to commercial transactions of all kinds, and the trade of the port rapidly increased. Troubles on the Continent brought large numbers of skilled artisans to this country, and the result was that, in course of time, the English manufacturers found themselves, as regards the actual cost of production, able to compete with their opponents. Conscious of their growing wealth and influence, the citizens began to raise outcries against their grievances. This feeling sometimes found expression in great popular riots. During one of these outbreaks, which occurred in the year 1493, the premises of the Easterlings in Thames Street, then, and long after, known as the Steelyard, were attacked by the mob; immense damage was done, and the tumult only quelled by the Lord Mayor and aldermen, with all the force they could muster, coming to the protection of the merchants. Some idea of the magnitude of the influence gained by the Easterlings may be gathered from the fact that, for several hundreds of years, they not only determined the weights and measures to be legally used throughout England, but so late as the year 1531, King Henry VIII. granted them a charter exempting them from payment of all king’s taxes within the City. But from this period the increased wealth, and growing intelligence of the citizens of London, made it manifest that it would shortly be necessary to withdraw all these privileges. Thus, in the year 1552, the English merchants presented a petition to the king, complaining that their competitors, by trading in a body, kept down the price of woollen cloths (one of the staples of English manufacture), and having command of the foreign markets, shut English merchants out of them. In proof of this statement they alleged, that in the previous year (1551), the Steelyard merchants had exported 44,000 woollen cloths, whereas the English merchants had been able to export only 1,100. It was also represented that the whole of the trade was carried on in foreign bottoms, greatly to the detriment of the English marine. This effort was successful. The greater part of the monopolies enjoyed by the Steelyard merchants were abolished, and the whole of the trade with Flanders immediately passed into the hands of the English, who, in the same year, exported no less than 40,000 woollen cloths, as compared with 1,100, in the previous year. In the year 1597, all the exclusive privileges of the League in England ceased to exist.

From this period the commerce not only of London, but of England itself, may be said to date its rise. The failure of Sir Hugh Willoughby to discover a North-east Passage led, in 1553, to the formation of the Russia Company, and the opening up of the important trade with Russia and the Baltic; and the stories of the fabulous wealth to be acquired on the newly-discovered continent of America, excited a spirit of enterprise that gave a tremendous impetus to commercial transactions of all kinds. It is quite unnecessary to speak of the encouragement which good Queen Bess gave to this movement, or how far the success of those old sea-dogs, Hawkins, and Drake, and Frobisher, to say nothing of the exploits of the noble Raleigh, contributed to this impetus. Billingsgate and Queenhithe, the two places which had hitherto served for the landing of goods and the collection of the king’s Customs, soon proved to be inadequate, and permission was given for the landing of goods at other spots on the river. But this naturally gave rise to attempts to evade payment of Customs dues by smuggling goods ashore at unauthorised places. To repress this practice, an Act of Parliament was passed in 1559, enacting, under pain of very heavy penalties, that all goods should be landed and shipped between sunrise and sunset, and that the landing and shipment was to take place at such open spots as might be authorised by Royal Commission. This Commission, which was appointed by the Court of Exchequer, authorised twenty-two places for the landing of goods. As some of these old landing-places are still known as Legal Quays, it may be interesting to some of you to know that these ancient substitutes for docks were known as:

Old Wool Quay.
New Wool Quay.
Galley Quay.
Androw Morris’ Quay.
Ambro Thurston’s Quay.
Ranff’s Quay.
Cock’s Quay.
Dyce Quay.
Bear Quay.
Somer’s Quay.
Busher’s Wharf.
Botolph Wharf.
Sab’s Quay.
Young’s Quay.
Crown Quay.
Smart’s Quay.
Fresh Quay.
Gaunt’s Quay.
Billingsgate.
The Three Cranes.
Johnston’s Quay.
The Bridge House.

Billingsgate was appointed only for Fish, Corn, Salt, and Fruit. The Three Cranes and Johnston’s Quay for Wine and Oil. Busher’s Wharf for Pitch, Tar, and Flax. The Bridge House for Corn and other provisions. Wool, Coals, and Beer might be landed at any place in the presence of a Searcher.

But the rapidly-increasing trade of the port soon outstripped the landing facilities afforded by these places. This led to the laying out of other frontages to the river by private enterprise for the landing of certain articles of merchandise, mostly of a bulky nature, which the Legal Quays gradually became unable to accommodate. These places were known as Sufferance Wharves, as distinguished from the Legal Quays, because for every particular article landed at them it was necessary to obtain from the Customs a special sufferance or permission for such landing, which might at any time be withdrawn; whereas at the Legal Quays any goods might be landed free from any limitation of privilege. As the commerce of the port increased the Sufferance Wharves multiplied with marvellous rapidity, and extended so far down the river as Blackwall. In the year 1590 we find that the total amount of Customs Receipts for England and Wales on Exports and Imports was £50,000. In 1613 they realised £148,075. 7_s._ 8_d._, of which London alone contributed £109,572. 18_s._ 6_d._ Indeed, so late as 1796 three-fifths of the commerce of the country was centered in London; and, until the commencement of the present century four-fifths of the Customs Dues were also collected here. The ravages of the Great Fire of 1666 necessitated the rearrangement of the Legal Quays, and an Act was passed appointing commissioners to define the limits of the port, and to appoint places for landing and loading goods therein. The wharves set out by the commissioners were twenty-one in number, as follows:

Chester’s Quay.
Brewer’s Quay.
Galley Quay.
Wool Dock.
Custom-house Quay.
Porteus’ Quay.
Bear Quay.
Sab’s Quay.
Wiggan’s Quay.
Young’s Quay.
Ralph’s Quay.
Dice Quay.
Smart’s Quay.
Somer’s Quay.
Lyon’s Quay.
Botolph Quay.
Hammond’s Quay.
Gaunt’s Quay.
Cock’s Quay.
Fresh Wharf.
Billingsgate.

It will be seen that this list includes several of those selected by the earlier commission, and comprised a total river frontage of 1,464 feet only, the whole of it lying between the Tower and London Bridge. As might be expected, this limited accommodation practically left the importer of goods entirely at the mercy of the proprietors of these wharves, because there was no legal limit to the charges to be imposed, similar to the restriction placed upon the Dock Companies when they started. The result was that, as the business of the port increased without any proportionate increase in the accommodation for it, so the wharfingers raised their charges. And they not only did this, but by acting in concert they contrived to evade their responsibilities for losses inseparable from the limited and imperfect nature of the accommodation which they afforded. It was a common complaint amongst the merchants that, owing to the carelessness of the servants of the wharves, lighters were sunk when alongside, goods stolen from the lighters or off the quays; that losses by fire, &c., &c., constantly occurred; and that as the associated wharves were not a corporate body, the parties aggrieved never knew where to look for redress. Now, when it is remembered that these complaints were the subject of a petition from the merchants of London to the Privy Council so early as 1674, and that from that period until the opening of the West India Dock in 1802, not an additional foot of Legal Quay accommodation had been provided, some impression may be obtained of what our commerce must have suffered in the interval. It cannot be doubted that, but for the unrivalled natural facilities of the river for trade, London must have sunk into a third or fourth-rate port. And that such a state of things should have been so long tolerated by London, while Bristol, and Hull, and Liverpool supplied three or four times the extent of Legal Quay accommodation, is all the more surprising. So unsparing were the exactions of the earlier wharf proprietary, that it was ascertained on enquiry that they had trebled their charges in the course of eight years; and justified this proceeding by alleging it to be the only means by which they could repair the losses which they had sustained by the Great Fire.

Now it is commonly supposed that there were no docks in London in existence at this time. Nor were there on the north side of the river, where they were most wanted, and where the City interest always attracted the landing of the most valuable classes of merchandise. But for many years prior to the date to which I have brought my lecture a most interesting dock had been in existence at Rotherhithe, known as the Howland Great Wet Dock. Stowe tells us that when Canute laid siege to London he commenced to dig a canal on the site of this dock in order to divert the course of the river to Battersea; and in 1209 the current was so diverted to admit of the rebuilding of London Bridge, which in 1176 had been destroyed by fire; and the large opening thus made from the river is said to have formed the nucleus of the dock before you. But, be this as it may, the dock actually existed in 1660 as here represented, and may fairly claim to be the first public dock in Great Britain. As shown in this view, the dock was 1,070 feet from east to west, 500 feet in width, and had a depth of water of 17 feet. It will be observed that on the north and south sides it is thickly planted with trees, the object being to protect the ships in the dock from the fierce gales which in winter swept over the open country surrounding it. On the development of the Greenland Fisheries the dock was specially laid out for the ships engaged in that trade, and was for many years known as the Greenland Dock. Extensive premises, with the necessary boilers and tanks, were erected for boiling the blubber and extracting the oil; and for many years upwards of a thousand tuns of oil were produced annually. At the commencement of the present century this profitable business not only rapidly sunk, and finally left the port of London, but the United Kingdom itself. But simultaneously with the decline of the Greenland trade the timber and corn trade with the Baltic ports increased, and the dock became the principal resort of vessels engaged in them.

IN THE PARISH OF ROTHERHITHE.

FORMERLY BELONGING TO MRS HOWLAND OF STREATHAM]

About the year 1807, the period of the inception of the Commercial Dock Company, a Mr. Moore, who owned some forty-five acres of land in the neighbourhood of this dock, projected a Company to be known as the Baltic Dock Company, and succeeded in obtaining from the Treasury a promise of an exclusive right to bond timber in the docks he proposed to construct, provided that they furnished sufficient accommodation for the business. Strange to say, this concession was granted by the Treasury and even notified to the Customs for their information, although the proposed docks were never even commenced. Mr. Moore subsequently sold his land and transferred the exclusive privileges he had acquired to the promoters of what was afterwards known as the Commercial Dock Company.

The City interest always opposed the recognition of this dock as a Legal Quay, for a reason sufficiently obvious, and it was not until 1851 that the Commercial Dock Company obtained an Act empowering them to land here nearly every description of goods, if sanctioned by the Customs. But the development of the timber trade pointed to the necessity of providing accommodation for it, and the owners of this dock, which in the year 1808 received the name of the Commercial Dock, encouraged by the prospects of the restriction acquired from the Treasury through Mr. Moore, which, as you are aware, was never practically operative, considerably enlarged and improved it; large tracts of land adjoining were purchased and converted into timber ponds, and in 1810 their first Act of Parliament was obtained by the Commercial Dock Company. Granaries, wharves, &c., were subsequently built, and between the years 1810 and 1815 four additional ponds, or docks, were opened. You will thus observe that the Howland Dock was the nucleus of the existing Surrey Commercial system of Docks—a plan of which is now before you. In 1811, the year after the Commercial Dock Company obtained their Act, an Act was obtained for completing and maintaining what was known as the East Country Dock, the history of which seems very obscure. Under their Act of 1851 the Commercial Dock Company purchased this dock. Meanwhile, side by side with the Commercial Docks, the Grand Surrey Canal and Docks had been steadily growing. In the year 1800, Dodds, an eminent engineer, had recommended the Greenland Dock as a suitable entrance to a tidal canal for ships to Vauxhall and Lambeth, along the line now partly occupied by the Surrey Canal. This scheme was never carried out, but the expense and danger of the river navigation indicated the desirability of some similar means of reaching points above bridge by water; and the result was the Grand Surrey Canal, commenced in the year 1800. It was intended to make a cut from Rotherhithe to Battersea, with collateral cuts to Croydon, Merton, Tooting, Wandsworth, and Camberwell. Although empowered by their Act of Parliament to build docks, the Surrey Company did not exist as a Dock Company until 1854. Ten years afterwards this Company united with the Commercial Company, and thus formed, under the title of the Surrey Commercial Docks Company, the interesting and extensive network of water-communication which you see before you. Including the new dock recently opened, the total extent of these docks—land and water—is nearly 370 acres.

Now returning to the north side of the river, I would ask you to bear in mind my reference to the petition of the London merchants in 1674. But anything like redress from a Privy Council of which King Charles II. was the president, was by no means easy of attainment. The king wanted money. As is well known, his favours generally went to the highest bidder. Moreover, the wharf proprietary consisted for the most part of the leading City magnates, and to conciliate them—or, rather, not to do anything to offend them—was obviously a great point with this most worthless of merry monarchs. So the merchants petitioned in vain. But in spite of these serious drawbacks the trade of the port steadily increased. An immense impetus was given to the manufacturing industries of the country by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. This measure had the effect of sending from 50,000 to 70,000 of the most skilled of the French artisans to this country, and some £10,000,000 of French money. The result was increased activity in the manufactures of the country, and a great accession in the trade of the port. Thus, while in the year 1613 the total value of the exports and imports had been a little over £4,800,000, in the year 1700 they represented a value of £13,272,891, of which London alone contributed £10,263,325. It will, of course, be readily understood that in the absence of easy and cheap means of internal communication, the only method by which the manufacturing districts could get their goods into the London markets would be by coasting-vessels. Hence this class of business constituted the bulk of the shipping frequenting the river. Thus, in the year 1728, while 1,839 British and 213 foreign vessels entered the river, the number of coasting-vessels, colliers, &c., was not less than 6,837. At this time most of the foreign trade was in the hands of the East India Company, the Russia Company, the Levant Company, the South Sea Company, the Hudson’s Bay Company, and the African Company. With the exception of the cargoes carried by the ships of the East India Company, much of the business conducted by these great companies could be accommodated at the Sufferance Wharves, and did not present the inducements to plunder offered by the valuable productions of the East and West Indies. The conquests of Clive in the East Indies resulted in an immense augmentation of the shipping of the East India Company, and the acquisition of many of the West India Islands about the same time led to a vast increase in the importations of sugar and rum, which, from their value and the high duties to which they were subject, offered tempting baits to the organised bands of river thieves which the crowded state of the port and the unprotected condition of the shipping and merchandise gradually called into existence. The Legal Quays could accommodate 32,000 hogsheads of sugar only; whereas, so early as 1756, the annual importations reached upwards of 60,200, and over 5,000 puncheons of rum. The Sufferance Wharves could accommodate 60,200, and in the year 1793 the Government were compelled to sanction the landing and storage of sugar at these places, although laid out for, and principally used by, the coasting trade. In the year 1796, the Sufferance Wharves on the south side of the river were known as:

Chamberlayne’s,
Cotton’s,
Haye’s,
Beale’s,
Griffin’s,
Symon’s,
Stainton’s,
Davis, Butt & Co.’s,
Hartley’s,
Pearson’s,
Holland’s,
Cole’s,
Carrington’s
Hoggarth’s,
Scott’s,
Merriton’s,

representing a river tonnage of 2,890 feet. Those on the north side of the river were:

Irongate,
St. Catherine’s,
Watson’s,
Bryant’s,
Down’s,

representing a frontage of 786 feet; or a total for both sides of the river of 3,676 feet.

In many instances, the charges at the Sufferance Wharves were even higher than those at the Legal Quays, to say nothing of the increased liability to plunder incurred by merchants in sending their goods there. And not only was this the case, but as Customs officers were only officially stationed at the Legal Quays, whenever they did duty at the Sufferance Wharves they were paid extra fees at the consignee’s expense; and when permission was given to land the whole of a cargo at these places, the consignee of each parcel of goods had to pay extra fees for his particular parcel, and those _pro rata_, in order that a separate sufferance might be taken out for them. If, therefore, after waiting four or six weeks to get his goods landed at one of the Legal Quays, a merchant, in despair, sent them to a Sufferance Wharf, it was like jumping out of the frying-pan into the fire. Again and again the necessity of extending the Legal Quays was brought under the notice of Parliament, and in 1762 Lord Bute, then Prime-Minister, warmly supported a scheme for thus laying out a large tract of ground, including the Tower Ditch; but with all his influence, the parties interested in the maintenance of the then existing order of things were too strong for him, and the scheme had to be abandoned. Three years later another commission was appointed; but, after a bitter controversy, their proposition was rejected on the frivolous ground that the land which they proposed to acquire and lay out as Legal Quays was not an ‘open space’ as defined in the Act of Queen Elizabeth. From this time until 1793 various plans were suggested, but all of them were frustrated by the powerful combination of the wharfingers.

Thus the condition of things on the river went on growing from bad to worse, until we reach the years 1793-94, when the crowded condition of the river was declared to be altogether intolerable. Meanwhile, in spite of these drawbacks, the increase in the commerce of the port during the twenty-four years ending with the latter year had been as great as in the first seventy years of the century. In the year 1702, the shipping entered inwards, foreign and British, exclusive of coasting vessels, was 1,335 ships, with a tonnage of 157,035 tons; in 1751 it was 1,682 ships, with a tonnage of 234,639 tons; in 1794 it was 3,663 ships, with a tonnage of 620,845 tons. From a little over £10,000,000 in the year 1700, the value of the exports and imports had rushed up to £31,442,040. With Legal Quay accommodation for only 32,000 hogsheads of sugar, the annual importations had reached upwards of 140,000 hogsheads. During war time, the West India fleets only could more than trebly fill the warehouses. One fleet from the Leeward Islands brought 35,000 hogsheads; another from Jamaica brought 40,000: on the arrival of the latter fleet only 7,000 hogsheads could be warehoused at the Legal Quays; the rest had to remain in barges in the river at the mercy of the river thieves, or be left on board the importing vessels until it could be landed elsewhere. I may add that in five months in the year 1794 not less than 122,000 hogsheads of sugar arrived in the port. Indeed, at this period the Legal Quays could not accommodate one-fourth of the trade.

I need hardly remind you that in the absence of quays at which vessels could lay alongside and discharge, their freights had to be unshipped in the river and crafted ashore, and some arrangement existed as to those portions of the stream in which vessels from different parts took up their position for this purpose. Mooring chains extended from the Upper Pool to Limehouse, on both sides of the river. Each of these mooring chains was intended to afford anchorage for fourteen or sixteen vessels; but, sometimes, as many as thirty were moored to each. The moorings from London Bridge to the Tower were for the most part occupied by coasters; those at Blackwall were for East Indiamen; and West Indiamen and king’s ships moored off Deptford. Altogether there was mooring accommodation for 800 vessels, large and small. Now, as I have already shown, in the year 1794, 3,663 ships, British and foreign, with a tonnage of 620,845 tons; and 10,286 coasters, with a tonnage of upwards of 1,000,000 tons, competed for this limited anchorage. Of course, hundreds of vessels grounded with the tide, and in rough weather sometimes sustained more injury than accrued from two or three bad voyages. These figures will help to convey some impression of the crowded state of the river, although I am unable to say what number of vessels were, as a rule, in the river at one time. This condition of things was greatly aggravated by the exigencies of war, which, by throwing ships into large convoys, resulted in the river at times being completely blocked. To increase the confusion it would sometimes happen that as many as 300 colliers would come up the river at one time, and although a regulation existed that a fair way of 300 feet should always be preserved for vessels passing up and down the stream, the crowd of shipping has been so great that one might walk from the Middlesex to the Surrey shore over the decks of vessels. Here I may remark that, in the winter of 1794 coals reached the enormous price of six guineas the chaldron; for although there were hundreds of colliers in the river, the glut of shipping was so excessive that they could not be unloaded. Accidents and loss of life were matters of everyday occurrence: over 500 persons lost their life from drowning annually, three-fifths of these cases occurring in the Pool. But by far the most serious of the many evils arising out of this condition of things was the immorality which it generated amongst all classes of labour employed on the river. East Indiamen seldom came higher up the river than Blackwall, where they discharged their cargoes into decked lighters, or hoys, of from 50 to 100 tons; hence the pillage was, comparatively speaking, trifling. By far the greater bulk of the most costly and valuable merchandise, such as rum, sugar, wine, &c., was discharged into open lighters, punts, billyboys, lugger-boats; and, to say nothing of the plunder effected during discharge, and in the passage up the river to the wharf, these craft unprotected had to lie up, sometimes as long as six or eight weeks, before they could be unloaded, not a night passing without sustaining loss of some kind. Lightermen, labourers, watermen, the crews of ships—in some instances recorded, the officers included, and even the Revenue officers—combined in this nefarious system. The sides of the river swarmed with receiving-houses, many of them kept by persons of considerable opulence; and when it is borne in mind that the value of property floating on the river was estimated at £70,000,000 per annum, it will be seen what a rich harvest these rascals had to reap. The men engaged in the discharge of ships were under little or no control, and their depredations had come to be of so systematic a character that they were regarded as one of the taxes of the port. The several classes of thieves were even known by special designations to indicate the field of their operations. The body known as the ‘River Pirates’ were the most formidable of these marauders. Most of them were in open league with the marine store dealers. Reconnoitring by day, they made their attacks upon ships by night in armed boats, cutting adrift lighters and taking out their contents. The ‘Night Plunderers’—watermen of the lowest class—attacked unprotected lighters and made over the booty to the receivers. The ‘Light Horsemen’ comprised the mates of ships and Revenue officers. Then there were the ‘Heavy Horsemen,’ consisting of the porters and labourers employed on board ships, who wore dresses specially made with big inside pockets to secrete anything of value that was not too heavy to carry off; to say nothing of the ‘Mud Larks’, who picked out of the mud on the shore property thrown overboard by persons in concert with them at work in the ship. Some of these young thieves are said to have received as much as £5 a night for their booty. The losses sustained in wines and spirits were something enormous. Instances are recorded of lighters with double bottoms being employed; and by dexterously loosening two or three hoops of casks and turning them bung downward, hundreds of gallons of rum, wine, or oil—as the case might be—were deposited in the false bottom during transit from the ship to the wharf. The greatest sufferers were the West India merchants. Mr. Hibbert, one of the most eminent of our West India merchants, speaking in 1822 of this condition of things, gives a graphic description of the grievances of the trade. Both rum and sugar samples were drawn on board ship. The aggregate weight of the sugar samples drawn from each cask averaged 12 lbs. In breaking out hogsheads of sugar the casks were often knocked to pieces, in order that their contents might be picked up as scrapings, and claimed as perquisites. Sometimes whole packages were appropriated. Of a cargo of 120 puncheons of rum brought by one vessel 7 puncheons were thus _missing_. Mr. Lindsay, in his admirable work, ‘A History of Merchant Shipping,’ gives some interesting details of the method in which these transactions were conducted. He says:

‘Most of these infamous proceedings were carried on according to a regular system, and in gangs, frequently composed of one or more receivers, together with coopers, watermen, and lumpers, who were all necessary in their different occupations to the accomplishment of the general design of wholesale plunder. They went on board the merchant vessel completely prepared with iron crows, adzes, and other implements to open and again head up the casks; with shovels to take out the sugar, and a number of bags made to contain 100 lbs. each. These bags went by the name of “black strap,” having been previously dyed black to prevent their being conspicuous in the night, when stowed in the bottom of a river boat or wherry. In the course of judicial proceedings, it has been shown that in the progress of the delivery of a large ship’s cargo about ten to fifteen tons of sugar were on an average removed in these nocturnal expeditions, exclusive of what had been obtained by the lumpers during the day, which was frequently excessive and almost uncontrolled whenever night plunder had occurred. This indulgence was generally insisted on and granted to lumpers to prevent their making discoveries of what they called the “drum hogsheads” found in the hold on going to work in the morning, by which were understood hogsheads out of which from one-sixth to one-fourth of the contents had been stolen the night preceding. In this manner one gang of plunderers was compelled to purchase the connivance of another, to the ruinous loss of the merchant.’

Thousands of persons were employed simply to _watch_ goods until landed. Of 37,000 persons employed on the river, 11,000 were either professional thieves or receivers of stolen property. Over 1,600 Customs officers were employed on the river in the interest of the Revenue. To an East Indiaman of 400 or 500 tons thirty officers were attached, and to a West Indiaman from seven to ten. While on board these officers were generally fed at the expense of the ship. The value of property annually stolen on the river was upwards of £500,000, and involved a further loss to the Revenue of £300,000. The Marine Police—as the Thames Police were formerly called—in the first year of their existence recovered stolen property worth upwards of £100,000. So bitter was the feeling amongst the river thieves against the magistrates and members of this useful body when established in 1797, that they made a most daring attack upon the office, with a view to intimidation. In defending themselves the magistrates were compelled to use fire-arms. Several persons were killed, and a number injured in the fray. As a further illustration of the delays incurred under this condition of things, I may add that goods were often seized by the Customs though duly entered, and in some cases, even the duties paid. Wines were required to be landed within twenty-one days; rum and coffee were allowed thirty days; whereas sometimes vessels remained in the river two months before they entirely got rid of their cargoes. On one occasion 5,000 puncheons of rum in this way became subject to seizure, and would have been seized had not the Customs granted a special indulgence.

Before proceeding to call your attention to the various schemes which at this time (1794-96) were submitted to the Government for the improvement of the port, I wish to bring under notice the existence of a small private dock at Blackwall. This dock, commenced on March 2, 1789, and known as the Brunswick Dock in honour of the reigning royal family, was constructed by Mr. Perry, of Messrs. Perry, Wells, & Co., who owned the adjoining ship-building premises, and opened on November 20, 1790. Here I may observe that, from a very early period, Blackwall has been a noted place for ship-building yards. Pepys speaks of a visit which he paid to them in 1661, and again in 1665, when, much to his discomfort, he complains that he was compelled to pass a night in what he calls the ‘unlucky Isle of Doggs.’ I may also mention in passing that Mr. Perry built a small dock in 1783, just large enough to receive one whaling vessel. This little dock, of which I have not been able to obtain a view, was subsequently converted into one of the slips now occupied by Messrs. Wigram’s dry docks. The Brunswick Dock was built for the accommodation of the vessels of the East India Company, and was capable of receiving twenty-eight large Indiamen and a number of smaller vessels. This dock formed the nucleus of the existing East India Export Dock, and many of you remember the old Mast House, which, you will observe from its appearance here, was coeval with the origin of the existing dock. But the relief afforded by this dock was merely a drop in the bucket, and from the years 1793 to 1799, when the Bill for the construction of the West India Dock was passed, we find a number of schemes for increasing the accommodation of the port engaging the attention of the mercantile community and Parliament. These, I now proceed, as briefly as possible, to notice in the order in which they were reported upon by the Committee of the House of Commons appointed to take evidence and consider and report on them.

The first of these schemes, to which I would invite your attention, is what was known as Mr. Ogle’s scheme. Mr. Ogle was a wealthy ship broker and ship’s-husband. He was also Chairman of the Committee of Proprietors, Lessees, and Wharfingers of the Legal Quays, and, without doubt, one of the most intelligent and able men of his party. It is a fact, which should always be borne in mind, that the scheme submitted by this gentleman—who was, of course, deeply interested in getting it adopted—was the only plan before the public based on the theory that the river could be so deepened, and otherwise improved, as to answer the purposes of the commerce of the port. _All the other plans were founded on the one general principle of the necessity of docks or recesses being made out of, and clear from, the channel of the river._ I lay particular stress upon this fact, because it is the practice in some quarters to regard the origin of the docks of London as exhibiting something like an act of grace on the part of the wharf proprietors, and only tolerated by them on conditions from which the Dock Companies in a spirit of doubtful faith would now gladly be absolved. But I think I have already said enough to prove that no view of the question could be less in harmony with the facts. The docks of London were started, in the first instance, not so much as a profitable speculation to investors, as a response to an urgent national demand which the vested interests in the old order of things were no longer able to resist; not so much in a spirit of competition with the wharves, as the only means of saving the commerce of the port from utter ruin; not so much as wealthy grasping corporations, who, finding they have made a bad bargain, now wish to draw out of it, as the pioneers of the marvellous prosperity of the port, if not its founders, its liberators. Certainly, without its docks, the London of to-day would have been an impossibility; but of this I shall speak more fully presently.

Mr. Ogle, whose plan is before you (_see_ Appendix A), proposed to deepen the river, extend and improve the Legal Quays, and to increase the number of mooring chains. He further proposed that the moorings should be appropriated in proportion to the claims of the several classes of commerce, and that harbour masters should be appointed to see that vessels took up their proper position as they came up the river. The different colours on the plan represent the moorings. It was, however, the opinion of nine-tenths of the practical men of the port that under no scheme would it be possible so to improve the river and extend the Legal Quays as to obviate the necessity for wet docks.

The next scheme to which I would ask your attention was known as the Merchants’ Plan of Docks at Wapping (_see_ Appendix B). The desirability of having goods landed as near the City as possible is, of course, obvious. As a natural consequence, all the schemes for docks at Wapping were warmly supported by the City. The dock here represented was to be 39 acres in extent, with a smaller one of 2 acres for the accommodation of lighters. One of the entrances was to be by a canal 22 feet deep, 170 feet wide, and 2¾ miles in length, and navigable for ships of 300 tons: and, as you will see, communicating with the river immediately above Perry’s Dock, at Blackwall. The object of this canal was, of course, to avoid the circuitous and dangerous navigation round the Isle of Dogs, which was always a great difficulty with the early dock engineers. To get from the Pool to Blackwall when ‘kedging’ was the only means of getting a vessel along, sometimes occupied fourteen days, and it was felt that no scheme would be satisfactory which did not in some way enable vessels to avoid this obstinate bend in the river. The line taken by this canal was, as nearly as possible, that now occupied by the Commercial Road. This scheme was estimated to cost £1,000,000. While this plan is before you, I wish to call your attention to a small canal known as the ‘Bromley Cut,’ connecting the River Lea with the Thames at Limehouse. It is not generally known that this Cut was commenced so early as the reign of Elizabeth, in the year 1571. Before this Cut was made, the connection of the traffic on the Lea with the City was most difficult, inasmuch as barges had to leave the mouth of that river at Blackwall, and wind their way round the Isle of Dogs—a most hazardous undertaking. All this was obviated by the now despised and unsavoury Cut. This system of docks, although not accepted, was the basis of the existing London Docks.

The third plan was known as the ‘Corporation Scheme’ (_see_ Appendix C). This scheme, with the munificence which distinguishes every undertaking of the Corporation of London, was at once the most extensive and expensive of the many schemes which engaged public attention. The Corporation proposed to excavate one dock in the Isle of Dogs of 102 acres, and another at Rotherhithe of the same extent, with a canal to Vauxhall. They further proposed to extend the frontage of the Legal Quays by the acquisition of Billingsgate, and to provide for the construction of slips for the accommodation of lighters. They also intended largely to increase the warehouse space, by arching over the quays and constructing warehouses on them.

This plan (_see_ Appendix D) represents what was known as Mr. Wyatt’s Scheme. Mr. Wyatt was an eminent architect and civil engineer. His plan of docks in the Isle of Dogs was, as you will observe, very extensive—so extensive that, although the price of land in the island was then only £5 per acre—indeed the whole of the island might have been purchased for £10,000—and labour was cheap, the estimated outlay was nearly £900,000. The water space afforded by the docks and basins proposed by Mr. Wyatt would have been upwards of 200 acres; and in view of the vast increase in the commerce of the port, and the present great cost of dock extensions, one cannot but regret that some modification of this scheme was not adopted.

This plan of docks at Rotherhithe (_see_ Appendix E), designed by Mr. Cracklow, a surveyor, and which bears some slight resemblance to the network of docks constituting the Surrey Commercial system, was known as the ‘Southwark Plan,’ and included a canal opening to the Thames at Bankside, above London Bridge. These docks, principally intended for colliers, timber ships, and vessels for sale, were the most inexpensive of the many schemes proposed, the estimated outlay being only £300,000.

These docks at Wapping (_see_ Appendix F) were proposed by Mr. Walker, a wealthy shipmaster and Jamaica planter. The docks here shown included a water space of 55 acres, leaving 35 acres for quays and warehouses. You will observe that Mr. Walker also proposed a canal similar to that suggested by the Merchants’ Plan, but taking lower ground near the river. Besides the access to this dock afforded by the canal, Mr. Walker proposed two others: one at a little bay known as ‘Hermitage Dock,’ and the second at a place called ‘Pellican Stairs.’ His scheme also included a dock in the Isle of Dogs for timber-ships, reaching across the island by what was known as ‘Poplar Gut,’ a large piece of swamp or boggy ground at the Limehouse side of the island, and now absorbed by the West India Docks. The total cost of this great scheme was estimated at £880,000. This plan of docks was very warmly supported by the Brethren of the Trinity House, who alleged that it furnished every requisite for the accommodation of the trade of the port and the proper navigation of the river; and I am sure that those of my hearers who would like to see a dock of 55 acres at Wapping, will agree with me in expressing regret that this scheme was not carried out.

This plan (_see_ Appendix G) represents a scheme for docks proposed by Mr. Spence, a maritime surveyor to the Admiralty. He proposed to divide the shipping of the port into twelve different classes, each class to have a separate dock for its accommodation. He proposed that six of these docks should be 600 feet square, the other six being 400 feet, connected with each other on the plan of the docks at Liverpool. As you will see by this plan, Mr. Spence suggested two alternative sites for these docks. There cannot be a doubt that, had the principle here indicated of localising the warehousing of the various classes of merchandise been more fully carried out, the working of goods would have been more efficient, more economical, and more satisfactory in every way to both merchant and Dock Company. In the monopolies granted to the earlier Dock Companies, the Government seem to have made an attempt in this direction; but it is to be feared that the spirit of competition and the morbid jealousy of anything tending to a monopoly will always be a barrier to any extended application of this principle, however much it might be the interest of the public to promote it. The docks proposed by Mr. Spence were estimated to cost £500,000.

The last, but by no means the least interesting, of these rejected dock schemes to which I shall invite your attention, consists of four alternative plans proposed by Mr. Willey Reveley, an engineer and architect. You will observe by the plan before you (1), that Mr. Reveley proposed (_see_ Appendix H), by a bold stroke, at once to demolish the Isle of Dogs, as an impediment to the navigation of the river, by cutting a channel straight through it from Limehouse to Blackwall; leaving the long reach round the island as a magnificent dock of 434 acres, with flood-gates at each entrance to the new course of the river.

Under the second scheme proposed by him (_see_ Appendix I), Mr. Reveley, as you will observe by this plan, suggested the cutting of a new channel for the river, inclining towards Woolwich Reach below Blackwall, so as to convert the upper bend of the river by Perry’s Dock into a second dock, thus securing for the two docks a water space of 524 acres.

Under his third plan (_see_ Appendix J), Mr. Reveley proposed to conduct the new channel of the river straight from Wapping, intersecting the river so as to convert the three bends between Wapping and Woolwich into three docks, to be known respectively as the ‘Ratcliff,’ the ‘Blackwall,’ and the ‘Greenwich’ Docks, giving a total of 644 acres.

To meet the objection of the Trinity House that any of these schemes would be impracticable without essential injury to the river and its navigation, Mr. Reveley proposed a fourth plan (_see_ Appendix K), under which, as you will see, the new channel of the river is made to take its course from near Wapping to the old channel of the Thames between Greenland Dock and Deptford, thence inclining gently to the northward till it falls into Woolwich Reach; thus leaving two spacious docks to the northward by shutting out the Ratcliff and Blackwall bends of the river. The docks thus formed would have yielded a water space of 559 acres.

Each of these rejected schemes, of course, represented particular, and, in some instances, conflicting, interests. The West India merchants who suffered most severely from the depredations on the river, were very anxious to have a dock in the Isle of Dogs, and in two days, December 22 and 23, 1795, raised subscriptions of £800,000 for the purpose. Opposed to the West India merchants was the Corporation of London, with its large collateral vested interests. They professed to be jealous of any measure which would have the effect of removing the shipping from the City; hence their gigantic scheme, to which I have called attention, and which, as you will remember, so far met the views of the West India merchants as to include a large dock in the Isle of Dogs. The fact is, the Corporation wished to get the control of the docks of London into their own hands; and although Parliament was not inclined in this way to swell the sufficiently plethoric bulk of the Corporation, that body, with its allied interests, was strong enough in Parliament to defeat any body of merchants going to it for powers opposed to their interests; and, as you are aware, all the Dock Companies when first started were largely represented by nominees of the Corporation.