A Treatise On The Principles And Practice Of Dock Engineering

THE FIRST WET DOCK. 3 cial enterpri.se found a home in the still flourishing ports of Venice and enOa‘ r. Spaln set her grasp upon ocean trade’ investing Barcelona and Cadiz with a glory, some vestiges of which cling to them still. Later again, the phlegmatic Dutch took over the supremacy, and, with patient toil and perseverance, laid the foundations of their ports within the very domain of the sea itself. In our own country, notwithstanding the spirit of naval adventure which animated the Cabots, the Drakes, the Raleighs, the Frobishers, the Hawkins and many other heroes of the Tudor period, little was done to improve such acihties as were naturally possessed by towns upon the seaboard. Dover was for a long time perhaps the only port of real note developed in any way by artificial agency. Subsequently Bristol, Plymouth, London, and Leith, amongst others, rose to importance, but most of our present leading ports a^ fqulte lecent growth. Liverpool, Hull, Glasgow, and Newcastle aHorded very trifling accommodation for shipping a century ago. Cardiff, Barrow, and Middlesbrough have existed as ports for little more than fifty years. Twenty years ago Barry was unknown, and Manchester an inland town. The First Wet Dock.—The distinction of having created the first wet dock has been the subject of some discussion and the cause of not a little rivalry between the ports of London and Liverpool. According to such evidence as is fortheoming-and some of it is conflicting and inconclusive to a degree—the balance appears to incline in favour of the former place. As ^. ^j^P001’ 14 is generally admitted that parliamentary authority was btained for the construction of a wet dock in the year 1708, during the ?ee" Anne- This dock was built and opened, apparently, very l,or“y afterwards> the engineer being Thomas Steers. But, according to e ity Annals” appended to Gore’s Directory of Liverpool, the dock vas already in existence in 1700, and a date (June 8) is given on which the ist ship, the “Marlborough,” entered it. Possibly these conflicting state- ents are reconcilable if we regard the earlier dock as having been of the th^nu- a tldal basin’ which was afterwards converted into a wet dock by as •. • °f entrance gates.* Some interest attaches to this “Old Dock” * 18 ^rmed- 14 was four acres in extent, and was designed to afford 10 fm?°latl0n f°r.100 ™ls- and so arranged as to have not less than tid« . °. ya4er within it at low neap tides, with a sufficiency at spring exeL° lke the smaller class °f warshiPs- The dock no longer exists datu™ m name’ althou$h 4he level of hs sill still supplies the zero or elsewh m vogue throughout the Mersey Dock Estate in preference to the, ere, more generally accepted Ordnance Datum. mere"^ hand’ as regards London, the inception of the Surrey Gom- decisiv J 18 sald to date fr°m 1660 or 166®J at any rate, there is doek • i that an Act of Parlament for the construction of a wet a Kotherhithe received the Royal Assent in 1696. The date when This is mere conjecture, and a dubious solution at the best.