CHAPTER XXV.

THE RIVER THAMES. “My eye, descending from the hill, surveys Where Thames along the wanton valley strays.” —_Denham._ The river Thames is in many respects one of the most remarkable in the world. No other river has so large a commerce, no other river can boast such a display of shipping, no other river is the highway for such a large population, no other river has such a romantic and interesting history. The Thames is, however, eclipsed by many other waterways as regards natural advantages for maritime commerce. It has an extremely tortuous, irregular, and dangerous channel; it is subject to great fluctuations of tides; it is liable to be silted up with the deposits of sand and sewage from its lower reaches; and it is inadequately provided with artificial light to enable the mariner to find his way up the stream after nightfall. These disadvantages have again and again been the subject of serious accidents to life and limb, heavy losses to shipping and marine insurance companies, complaints and proposals on the part of the shipping interest, and representations to the Trinity House, the Board of Trade, and other constituted authorities. Only quite recently, the Chamber of Shipping sent a deputation to the Board of Trade, in order to urge that the Duke of Edinburgh channel should be better lighted, and it was then stated that the shifty and temporary character of the channel made the lighting of the Thames difficult at this point. For this reason, and owing to the influence of the tides, steamers have generally to cast anchor off Gravesend, if they reach the Thames after darkness has set in. This is so unpleasant an alternative for passenger steamers that they frequently brave the dangers of the river—much more serious, as a rule, than the dangers of the ocean—and run the risk of grounding or collision, in order that they may reach their destined berth or dock. Those who have had the misfortune to be on board a vessel under such circumstances must have felt devoutly thankful that they ever reached their destination without accident, and must have registered a vow that they would never repeat the experiment. Within the last few years, search lights have been shown from some of the docks, which, although intended to assist the navigator to his intended haven, have been found to produce the opposite effect, inasmuch that they cast into deeper shadow a great part of the intermediate channel. These dangers and difficulties are increasing, as it is natural they should do, when no adequate provision is made to overcome them. The importance of this matter can only be fairly appreciated by giving an idea of the magnitude of the trade that is now carried on between the Thames and other ports. The largest amount of tonnage that entered and cleared from the Thames in any recent year was as under:— ───────────┬────────────┬───────────┬─────────── │ Entered. │ Cleared. │ Total. ├────────────┼───────────┼─────────── Foreign │ 6,591,225 │ 4,127,045 │ 10,718,270 Coastwise │ 5,025,724 │ 1,756,565 │ 6,782,189 ├────────────┼───────────┼─────────── Totals │ 11,616,949 │ 5,883,610 │ 17,500,559 ───────────┴────────────┴───────────┴─────────── This represents nearly one-fifth of the total shipping trade of England in the same year, and an average of about 48,000 tons of shipping per day. The total value of our imports from, and exports to, foreign countries and British possessions has in some recent years amounted, for the port of London alone, to upwards of 200 millions sterling. The value of our coastwise trade is not recorded, but it will probably be sixty or seventy millions more, which would bring up the total annual value of the shipping trade of the Thames to close on 300 millions. The extent to which this trade has increased within the last twenty-five years has been quite phenomenal. In 1860 the total entrances and clearances of the port of London amounted to only 9,506,000 tons, so that the trade has nearly doubled within twenty-seven years. The tonnage entered and cleared over the last few years represents an average of over four tons per head of the population of the metropolis—taking the latter at, say, 4 millions over the four years ending 1887. For a considerable period, the population of London has been increasing at the rate of about half a million in each decade. If the same rate of increase is continued, the shipping entering and clearing from the port of London in twenty years should amount to five millions additional, which would bring the annual total up to about 22½ millions of tons. Will the river Thames be equal to carrying on this enormous traffic without serious inconvenience and danger? This is at least doubtful, and that being so, the duty is cast upon us of considering what steps should be taken, in order to meet the requirements of a possible congestion of traffic, and to minimise the dangers of river navigation. This is all the more important and urgent that the tendency now is to provide much larger vessels than formerly, both for the foreign and the coasting trades. A few years ago, the average size of the vessels that entered the port of London did not exceed 300 tons. In 1860, the average was not over 210 tons. But in 1886, the average was not less than 620 tons. In about twenty-five years, therefore, the average size of the vessels using the Thames has been increased by about 200 per cent. There is little doubt that this movement will continue. It has been established as the result of the experience gained in the navigation of ships of large size that, all other things being equal, the larger vessels are the more economical. The average size of the ships now entering the port of Liverpool has risen to over 1000 tons, where a few years ago it was not over one-half of that tonnage. Probably the average size of the ships frequenting the Thames would be materially increased if larger vessels could be admitted with safety at all states of the tide. But the condition of the tide, except at high water, does not admit of ships of very large size coming far up the river. There have been cases of the tide ebbing so low that it has been possible to walk across at London Bridge. This occurred in 1114, 1158, and 1717. Since the removal of Old London Bridge, there has been a much greater scour, and the systematic dredging of the river has permitted of a moderately good depth of water from the bridge downwards in ordinary times. But the depth is not uniform, it is liable to fluctuation, and it would be difficult to adapt the river for the entrance of vessels of the largest size at any state of the tide. The consequence has been that Liverpool has been leaving London somewhat behind in the competition that has for many years been carried on between the two towns. In 1825 the aggregate foreign tonnage of Liverpool was only one-half to five-eighths that of London. In 1850 the two ports were nearly abreast, and in 1870 Liverpool exceeded London. From that date the two ports have been running a nearly equal race, London having had the start for some two or three years past. But when the enormous distributive facilities of London are considered, it seems remarkable, and almost unnatural, that Liverpool, with only about one-sixth the population, should be in the running at all, and it is extremely probable that London would have a much greater start if the Thames navigation were only made equal to the requirements of the trade. The question of how far it would be expedient to construct a ship canal that would relieve the congested traffic of the river, and permit of vessels entering the docks at all times, has been mooted, but has never been very seriously entertained. It is not, however, improbable that this may, after all, be the true solution of the problem. Ship canals are now the order of the day. They are being either projected, as we have already seen, or constructed for the purpose of aiding navigation to an extent that is quite remarkable, not in this country only, but in most continental countries as well. A ship canal has been proposed to connect Birmingham with the river Trent; another to connect Bristol with the English Channel; a third to connect Sheffield and Goole; and a fourth to connect the Thames and New Haven. The Manchester Maritime Canal will soon be an accomplished fact. On the Continent canals are actually under construction across the Isthmus of Corinth, to connect the Adriatic with the Archipelago; and in Schleswig-Holstein, to connect the North Sea and the Baltic, not to speak of the great enterprises of Panama and Nicaragua, designed to connect the Atlantic and the Pacific. In Russia, a canal has recently been constructed between Cronstadt and St. Petersburg, whereby the latter city has been converted into a seaport, and a canal is now being talked of to connect the Volga and the Don. In the United States ship canals are being promoted to connect Lakes Michigan and Erie, and the Gulf of Mexico with the Atlantic Ocean, through the Florida Peninsula. In India, it is proposed to connect the Gulf of Manaar with the Palk Straits, by a maritime canal, and in other countries the same movement has been apparent. In most of these cases the object has been to save distance and time. In others it has been to facilitate navigation generally. Both ends would be served by a canal to connect London with the English Channel. It is more than a hundred years since a similar project was recommended by Brindley to the Corporation of London, who employed the great engineer to make a survey of the Thames above Battersea, with the object of having it improved for purposes of navigation. Brindley’s recommendation was not adopted, although he declared that a canal would cost less than the improvement of the river, that it would give the command of cheaper transport, and that it would reduce distance and economise time.[216] Probably Brindley’s scheme would have been adopted long before now, but for the construction of the Grand Junction Canal. It is likely to be objected to the suggested Thames canal that the necessity for it has recently been obviated by the construction of the docks at Tilbury, opposite to Gravesend, and within a few miles of the estuary of the river. The Tilbury Docks have no doubt been a great relief to the congested condition of the traffic, and they are entitled to every consideration. But they do not by any means meet the case, any more than the port of Cronstadt met the requirements of St. Petersburg previous to the construction of the Poutiloff Canal, or the docks at Havre or Rouen now meet the requirements of Paris, which it has been proposed to convert into a seaport. The Tilbury Docks are about 20 miles from the centre of the metropolis. They are 30 miles from the western and southern limits of the city, being, indeed, almost exactly the same distance as that which separates Cronstadt from St. Petersburg. In the latter case, it was found that the cost of transporting goods over this distance was often as great as the cost of carrying them to or from England, not to speak of the inconvenience and delay which were involved. It may not, possibly, be quite so bad as this in the case of the Tilbury Docks, but it is obvious that the traffic unloaded there must, to a very large extent, go through two subsequent breakages of bulk—the first, from the ship to the railway truck, and the second from the truck to the wagon or van that is to deliver the goods at their ultimate destination. It would be difficult to fix an average sum that would fairly represent what this process adds to the ultimate cost of the traffic, but if it is put at 10_s._ per ton all round it is not likely to be much under the mark; and 10_s._ per ton, as we know, represents the full amount that is frequently charged for the conveyance of a ton of goods from Antwerp or Liverpool to New York. There is no good reason why the people of London should continue to pay as much for the carriage of their food and fuel from the ship’s side at Tilbury to their own doors as they would pay for its transport across the Atlantic. It may now be unavoidable, but the necessity is not imperative. If a canal were carried alongside the Thames, into the heart of the city, the west end and the southern suburbs, a great deal of this outlay might be avoided. The vessel carrying the traffic could be stopped at any one of twenty places on the route of the canal, in order that she might be enabled to unload, and the relatively short distance for which the traffic would thus require to be transported from the ship’s side to the ultimate destination of the traffic would not add much to the cost of its water transport. The question that those interested in this question would be likely first to ask themselves would be—At what cost could such a canal be constructed? The next question would be—Could it be made to pay? On both points there is much that is reassuring. If we take the cost of the Suez Canal as a criterion, we find that for a distance of about 100 miles the expenditure actually incurred in construction proper was 11,653,000_l._ The total outlay appearing in the yearly balance-sheet at the end of 1886 was 19,782,000_l._, but a great deal of the difference was expended in financing, in interest on shares during the eleven years that the canal was under construction, in transit, telegraph, and sanitary services, and in other items that would only be necessary, if at all, to a much more limited extent in the case under consideration. The actual outlay in construction represents an average of about 116,530_l._ per mile, and at this rate a Thames Navigation Canal could be built for a length of twenty-five miles for, approximately, about three millions sterling. This would, of course, be the cost of a canal capable of taking the largest vessels like the Suez Canal, and constructed on the same principle—that is, without intermediate locks, and at tide-level. It will, however, be fairly objected that the Suez Canal is not a parallel case. The land was given by the Khedive, and the labour of the fellahs, which was largely _corvée_ or forced labour, cost very little. In the neighbourhood of London, on the contrary, the price of land is high, and labour is much more expensive, although, at the same time, much more efficient. This would no doubt greatly modify the force of the application of the experience gained in the construction of the canal at Suez, although the item of land, for a considerable distance in the county of Essex, would be comparatively trifling—land being exceptionally cheap in that county—while higher wages would be counterbalanced by the more general and effective use of labour-saving machinery. Let us, however, rather be guided by the more recent, and more parallel experience of the Amsterdam Ship Canal, which was constructed in 1870-76, for the purpose of affording a direct outlet from Amsterdam to the North Sea, through Lake Y and Lake Wigker Meer (inlets of the Zuyder Sea). The distance from Amsterdam to the sea by way of the North Holland Ship Canal, which was completed in 1825, was 52½ miles, while the Amsterdam Ship Canal reduced it to 15½ miles. Saving of distance and time was not, however, the only reason for adopting the latter project. The growing size of the ships frequenting the port, and the frequent interference with navigation by ice, rendered a new waterway necessary, apart from the considerations of saving time and shortening distance. The total cost of the undertaking was about three millions sterling, including all incidental expenses. This is approximately about 200,000_l._ a mile, and at the same rate of cost, the Thames Navigation Canal could be completed for 5,000,000_l._ as against 2,913,000_l._ in the case of adopting the mileage cost of the Suez Canal. The conditions of the problem in Amsterdam were not greatly different in kind to those of the Thames. The land had to be purchased, and the price of labour did not much differ from what would be paid in England. The quantity of material to be excavated would be relatively much the same, and the works of art required in the form of locks, sluice-gates, cofferdams, &c., would probably not be much more, if any more, onerous and difficult. It is probable that some of the heavier works required in the case of the Amsterdam Canal would be unnecessary for that on the Thames, such as the large dam that had to be built to keep the waters of the Zuyder Zee from overflowing, and washing away the banks of the canal; but, on the other hand, there would be heavier expense incurred in providing passing places, docks, &c. [Illustration: COURSE OF THE RIVER THAMES FROM OXFORD TO THE SEA.] Whatever its necessity, the canal would not be undertaken if capitalists were not assured that it was to be a “good thing” financially, unless, indeed—which is very unlikely—the Government put a hand somewhat deep into the public purse. The revenue of the canal would be derived from several different sources: from tolls, which would probably take the form of a through rate; from haulage, by means of tug-boats; from warehousing; and from delivery of goods _ex_ ship at the different quays on the route. It is, of course, impossible to say at present what proportion of the total number of ships now using the Thames would prefer to take the canal, if constructed. If, however, it were only one-third of the whole, in ten years’ time from now that would be about seven millions of tons per annum. The revenue that would thus be obtained, if a uniform charge of a shilling per ton were made, would be 350,000_l._ a year, which would, after deducting 10 per cent. for working expenses, yield a net revenue of 315,000_l._, equal to more than 6 per cent. on the larger estimate of 5,000,000_l._ If, however, the canal were carried right into the heart of transpontine London, a large revenue might be expected from the delivery of goods. The principal docks are now such a long way from the west end and the southern and south-western suburbs that a very heavy charge is made for delivery of merchandise, whether by railway or by van. In many cases, indeed, as we have already pointed out, the delivery charge is higher than the ocean freight, and instances are not uncommon in which a parcel which has been carried from a port 400 or 600 miles distant for a charge of 4_s._ or 5_s._, cost double that amount between the docks and the houses of the recipients. This is a serious grievance with the people of the metropolis, and one that they would gladly get rid of. A long step would be taken in that direction if water communication for large steamers could be brought nearer to the west end. For such a purpose the river Thames above London Bridge is practically useless. The only considerable traffic that is carried on in the upper reaches of the river is the transport of coal in barges from the Great Western Railway Company’s depots at Brentford to the docks, and this is about as unsatisfactory as it could well be, involving the repeated breaking of bulk, and the damage of the coals from frequent handling. A well organised and economical system of delivery between the point of the receipt of shipping traffic in London, and the point of its ultimate consumption, would be certain to prove both successful and remunerative, whether undertaken by a canal company or otherwise. But the lower reaches of the Thames are not more in want of some artificial relief of the kind suggested than the upper reaches. The Thames, as we have seen, is commercially the most important river on the earth’s surface, although far from being the largest, the broadest, the deepest, or the longest. It takes its rise in Gloucestershire, about 375 feet above sea level. As the crow flies, the length of the river is about 119 miles, but as the river runs it is about 193 miles from its source to the sea. About 74 miles of its actual length are therefore made up of windings, the character of which will be appreciated by the plan on the opposite page. The river is only navigable for large vessels up to London Bridge, which is about 18 miles from Gravesend. Above London Bridge a good deal of traffic is carried on by means of barges. The only steamers, however, that navigate the river above that point are the shallow-draught passenger steamers that ply between the various piers that lie alongside the banks up to Chelsea, with occasional trips in the summer months to Kew and Hampton Court. Above Hampton Court a small part of the river is canalised, and it has also been necessary to construct a small canal at Teddington, where the first lock occurs. Small craft may navigate the Thames as far as Oxford, but above Hampton Court there are numerous locks and weirs that have to be overcome, and navigation is tedious. The influence of the tide extends from the outer boundary line of the Thames Conservancy, near Southend, to Teddington lock, a distance of 57 miles. The Conservancy Board, however, control the river as far up as Lechlade, in Gloucestershire, a distance of 173 miles from its estuary. Practically the whole of the large population on the river Thames above London Bridge are shut out from the benefits of the navigation, except by means of barges. Above Hampton Court the navigation is difficult, even for these, especially when propelled by a tug-boat. The difficulty is increased by the fact that there are over thirty locks and about twenty-two mills on the river between Oxford and the sea. It has been suggested more than once that the Thames should be made navigable for a much longer distance, and there is, indeed, no insuperable obstacle in the way of the navigation being carried up as far as Oxford. Between that city and London there is only an average fall of about 1 foot in 4100, which interposes no obstacle. The cost of cutting canals through the most obstructive windings of the river would not be serious, and it is more than probable that it would be cheerfully borne by those whom it would be most likely to benefit. There would probably be an outcry raised that the upper reaches of the river, which are now largely consecrated to rural sports and pastimes, and are in many cases remarkable for their sylvan beauties, would be threatened. But in this utilitarian age—when steamers ply on the Grand Canal of Venice, when railways are carried up Vesuvius and the Righi, when the Alps are pierced by tunnels, and engineers are drawing the water supply of our great towns from the Lakes of Cumberland and Westmorland, heretofore the chosen retreat of our poets and philosophers—the test of most things is that of use and convenience; and, after all, the passage of steamers up the river Thames above Hampton Court, if it would disturb the inmates of the house-boats, and interfere with the _dolce far niente_ fancies of a favoured few, would more than compensate for such drawbacks by bringing to the masses who cannot afford to gratify such luxurious tastes, more abundant commodities at a cheaper rate, and, what is quite as necessary, by getting rid of the weirs which at the present time are a great hindrance to navigation, by deepening the river, and by improving its channel generally. The latter important requirement could probably best be met by diverting the course of the river, where it is most tortuous, or by constructing canals which would at the same time allow of the navigation being shortened, and the flood-water (which now and again plays sad havoc with the surrounding country) being carried off. By either diverting or canalising the Thames between Tadpole in Berkshire, and Sutton Pool, near Abingdon, the distance could be shortened by some 16 miles. Another saving of fully 13 miles could be made by a new cut between Reading and the river above Staines, while a third saving of 11 miles could be effected by a cut between Staines and Brentford. The effect of giving to the numerous Thames-side towns and villages above London such facilities as those indicated would be almost certainly to develop trade and industry in the counties of Oxford, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Surrey, and Middlesex, through which the river flows. In those counties there is a population bordering on the Thames, which can hardly be put at less than two millions. It is, perhaps, of still more importance that the course proposed would secure for them immunity from the devastating floods to which they are now habitually exposed. Four great floods have overtaken the folks that dwell by the Thames since 1821. The most recent of these occurred in 1876, and caused damage which has been estimated at 300,000_l._ to 400,000_l._, not to speak of the terrible hardships, inconvenience, misery, and disease which were entailed on those whose dwellings were inundated. If the ideas and proposals now put forward should contribute, in how small so ever a degree, to obviate the recurrence of such disasters, the writer would be abundantly satisfied. FOOTNOTES: [216] Smiles’ ‘Lives of the Engineers.’ SECTION III. TRANSPORT AND WORKING.