In a letter dated 2 March 1818 were the results of an investigation already presented 27 February sent. This select committee on finance was ordered to examine the naval estimates and finances for the period 1817-5 January 1820. It gives an interesting description dealing with the dock yard at Woolwich. This sort of descriptions are quite useful if we want to compare the dock yard facilities available for the European, African and North American navies. (1)
P. 55: “The accumulation of Mud in front of Woolwich Dock Yard, has for many years been a constant theme of complaint; and the respective Admiralty and Navy Boards have had reports from various engineers and other scientific persons, as to the best mode of removing this mud, and of preventing its accumulation in future. The causes of this accumulation, as well as the means of preventing it, has been variously accounted for. Three reasons were however obvious to all who viewed it, namely, the injudicious line of river front by which the wharf wall near to its Southern extremity projects about one hundred feet into the line of current. This wall was built upwards of forty years ago; and the mud has gradually accumulated from that period until a few years since, when it was found to have shallowed the water so much, that ships of war above the size of sloops could not be brought to it. A second cause was, the erection of a sand wharf, a little above the dock yard, which also projects into the line of current; and a third cause was the ballast lighters working on the Essex shore abreast of the said sand wharf; so that the current of the ebbing tide being set off from the shore by these two projections, and the ballast lighters forming a deeper and better channel for it, whilst the numerous Ordinary lying in front of the dock yard impeded its course, the settlement of mud was increased.
p. 56: A few years since the ballast lighters, in consequence of a representation from the Navy Board, were removed, and mud machines worked by steam engines were employed to take up the mud, at a very serious expense, amounting to no less than £ 25,000; but although some good was done by these measures, they -were not found so effectual as was expected; the present Admiralty Board therefore directed the Ordinary to be removed from Woolwich, which has not
p.57: only prevented any additional accumulation of mud, but the current has to a considerable extent returned to the Woolwich side, and by removing part of the mud where the projecting point of the wharf is, the wall for upwards of one hundred feet in length has given way. It was proposed, in rebuilding this part of the wall, to cut off about 28 feet of the projection, which no doubt to a certain extent would have been beneficial; but had this been done, the current would have approached nearer to the -front of the dock yard by 28 feet, and consequently would have removed so much more mud; by doing which a further part of the wharf wall would have given way, while the great evil would not have been remedied. I therefore reported on this subject to the Navy Board in February 1817. The question was again referred to me in January last, when I took a more particular view of the work, which a very low ebb enabled me to do, and found that the whole of the wall as far to the North as the Look-out House, was founded about the level of low water of ordinary spring tides, and done in a very improper manner; I therefore had no doubt in my mind that if the current of tide is brought back to the dock yard side of the river, as it was before this wall was built, It will in a few years share the same fate as the extreme projection has done. I therefore advised that the proper line of direction should be taken for the new wall, in place of that which has now given way, and that this line should be continued as the other parts fail, which, when completed, and Hardman’s sand wharf removed, I have no doubt, will restore the depth of water to what it was about forty years ago; and as from the present low price of materials and labour, it will be done on comparatively moderate terms to what it is likely to be a few years hence; I humbly: beg leave to recommend that it be done. The estimated expense of the whole is £. 110,236; and £ 25,000 is required for the present year.”
Source
Parliamentary Papers. Eight report from the select committee on finance. Ordered by The House of Commons, to be printed, 6 March 1818 .
Note
1. See on this weblog for instance the notes dealing with the facilities in the United States Netherlands Antwerp Belgium
