thereupon at Mr. Alderman Parsons House tomorrow morning by 10 o'clock, and desired that some of the Brethren would attend thereat, upon which Captain Stratton and Captain Denn were appointed accordingly.'

[It is instructive to note how at a stroke of the Trinity House's pen the Corporation water-bailiff has become Mr. Walter Bailiff.]

'Sir Edward Beecher, Mayor, 9 October, 1728. 'Lord Mayor held a Court of Conservacy at the Bridge House in the County of Surry, wherein it is mentioned, that this Court was especially held on Complaint, that a great number of Colliers lay in the River abreast, and refused to unlade, so that the Passage was obstructed, and the River in danger of being choaked up, and a Jury being impanelled found several Presentments against several of the Masters. Whereupon his Lordship went down the River and called on board those Ships which were presented, and the Masters promising to unlade and remove, the further Proceedings were ordered to stay.'

THE

CHAPTER IV

THE THAMES AS A PORT

HE early history of London's river is enveloped in much obscurity. That in remote times its broad stream overflowed much of the low-lying lands of the Kent and Essex shores is, however, certain. At high water, in fact, London-'the city on the pool,' or 'the lake fort,' as some translate it—must have been nearly surrounded by the tidal flow, and the early fortifications on Tower Hill looked, no doubt-to the east, at any rate-over flood-land and marsh. Whether or not the Romans were the first to embank the low shores, or whether the work began at a later date, is all conjecture, but ever since the Norman Conquest, or not much later, the flooding of the Thames lands has been more or less the subject of anxiety.

The history of the embanking of the Thames is, in fact, the history of the draining and reclaim

ing of its flood-lands for purposes of pasturage. In this work engineers from Holland have played no small part. From time to time, either owing to obstruction of the water exits from the land, to neglect of the embankments, or to exceptional causes, gaps have occurred with highly disastrous consequences to the land reclaimed.

And not only to the land reclaimed; for about 200 years ago so serious a breach occurred at Dagenham that 'half Essex' was flooded, and in the years which it took to repair it great quantities of soil were carried out into the river, forming a bank which threatened to destroy the navigation altogether, and this in spite of the utmost efforts of the ballast men.' Mr. W. W. Glenny, of the Thames Conservancy, contributed to the Essex Review in 1901 a series of articles in which the gravity of the then situation is well described. The cost of the prolonged efforts at repair of the great breach and the removal of the river shoals involved a ruinous taxation of the land-owners and the collection of special dues on shipping tonnage and on coal.

Up till 1853 dredging of the navigable channel was undertaken by the City Corporation. In the year mentioned the duty was transferred to the Thames Conservancy, which body acquired two

steam-dredgers, and set to work on the systematic removal of shoals and the widening of narrow channels. As the size of shipping increased, complaints became more frequent as to the deficiencies of the channel, and in 1887 a remonstrating memorial was addressed to the Conservators. 'We feel it our duty to point out,' said the memorialists, 'that an urgent necessity exists for the immediate adoption of energetic measures to improve the navigable channel between Gravesend and the docks.'

In consequence of growing complaints on the part of shipowners and others interested in the navigation, a Commission of Inquiry was eventually constituted by the Board of Trade. It is now referred to as the Lower Thames Navigation Commission, 1896, or, from the name of its chairman, the Wolfe Barry Commission.' The Commission, after taking evidence and making the fullest inquiries, came to the conclusion that the river needed to be considerably deepened. Amongst other things, they recommended that the low-water depth between Gravesend and the Albert Dock should be increased to 30 feet. It was then in places no more than 16 feet or 17 feet deep.

The Thames Conservancy, as the responsible

body, were, no doubt, intended to act on this recommendation or report, but though they did something, they attempted nothing on such a scale as that contemplated by the Commission.

During the recent investigations by the Royal Commission on the Port of London, some interesting light was thrown on the subject. The Chairman of the Thames Conservancy admitted the desirability of the work, and that the Conservancy understood that the 1896 Commission intended the Conservancy to take steps to carry it out; also that no such steps had been taken. The Conservancy, it was explained, had no funds for such an extensive operation, and had regarded it as useless to approach Parliament to obtain funds.

No doubt the 1896 Commission had intended the Conservancy to do something; but what the Commission said was regarded by the responsible body not as a 'mandatory recommendation' binding on the Conservancy, but rather as a 'pious wish.' 'Besides,' said their witness, 'what would be the good of dredging out to a depth of 30 feet the river up to the Albert Dock when the lock sill was considerably higher-i.e., shallower? Unless the lock sill was lowered, of what practicable good could it be to deepen the river?