Difference between revisions of "HCA 13/72: Ballast Regulations"
Jillwilcox (Talk | contribs) |
Jillwilcox (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==='''Regulations on the regarding ballast'''=== | ==='''Regulations on the regarding ballast'''=== | ||
| − | On 20 May 1514, letters patent were granted to | + | On 20 May 1514, letters patent were granted to Trinity House which conferred upon the corporation two main responsibilities. |
| − | By the early seventeenth century, as a result of a statute of 1566, further letters patent of 1594, and the growth of usage, the corporation was also concerned with the conservation of the river and the administration of the ballastage supply for shipping there; beaconage, buoyage and lighthouses, amongst other things | + | By the early seventeenth century, as a result of a statute of 1566, further letters patent of 1594, and the growth of usage, the corporation was also concerned with the conservation of the river and '''the administration of the ballastage supply for shipping there'''; beaconage, buoyage and lighthouses, amongst other things |
==='''17th Century Disputes'''=== | ==='''17th Century Disputes'''=== | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
The deterioration was partly attributable to natural silting, but a major factor was seen to be the propensity of Londoners to use the river and streams flowing into it as a repository for rubbish. Apart from measures against such dumping, the remedy was dredging. But that was an expensive operation and one way of cutting costs was to utilise the spoil (i. e. the product of dredging). It could be used for brickmaking, paving, and above all as ballast for ships. The spoil, even when left to dry, was not ideal as ballast; the scourings of a river which was used partially as a sewer were bound to be smelly and unhygienic, as well as damp. | The deterioration was partly attributable to natural silting, but a major factor was seen to be the propensity of Londoners to use the river and streams flowing into it as a repository for rubbish. Apart from measures against such dumping, the remedy was dredging. But that was an expensive operation and one way of cutting costs was to utilise the spoil (i. e. the product of dredging). It could be used for brickmaking, paving, and above all as ballast for ships. The spoil, even when left to dry, was not ideal as ballast; the scourings of a river which was used partially as a sewer were bound to be smelly and unhygienic, as well as damp. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Ballast Regulations during the Restoration''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | A fundamental issue was raised when it was claimed that the ballastage office conferred no right to a monopoly of the supply of ballast; the function of the office was held to be simply one of inspection. | ||
| + | |||
| + | That contention was eventually accepted, and the right to supply ballast in the Thames was granted by letters patent to Thomas Smyth and others in June 1636. Trinity House consequently lost revenue | ||
Latest revision as of 20:49, September 2, 2014
A description of Ballast Regulations
This is a summary of Ballast regulations during the period of the Commonwealth. It is summarised from (Ballast Regulations)
Regulations on the regarding ballast
On 20 May 1514, letters patent were granted to Trinity House which conferred upon the corporation two main responsibilities.
By the early seventeenth century, as a result of a statute of 1566, further letters patent of 1594, and the growth of usage, the corporation was also concerned with the conservation of the river and the administration of the ballastage supply for shipping there; beaconage, buoyage and lighthouses, amongst other things
17th Century Disputes
One disputed privilege was that of ballastage in the Thames.
There was an important link between ballastage and the conservation of the river. Silting in the harbour of Sandwich had destroyed the commerce of that port, and the government and the city aldermen feared a similar fate for London if the deterioration in the condition of the Thames was allowed to go unchecked. Such fears had foundation: in 1633, the elder brethren reported that during their lifetimes the depth of water in the Pool of London had been reduced from twelve or thirteen feet to eight or nine feet, and they considered that the river would soon not be navigable within six or eight miles of London.
Why was the Thames silting up
The deterioration was partly attributable to natural silting, but a major factor was seen to be the propensity of Londoners to use the river and streams flowing into it as a repository for rubbish. Apart from measures against such dumping, the remedy was dredging. But that was an expensive operation and one way of cutting costs was to utilise the spoil (i. e. the product of dredging). It could be used for brickmaking, paving, and above all as ballast for ships. The spoil, even when left to dry, was not ideal as ballast; the scourings of a river which was used partially as a sewer were bound to be smelly and unhygienic, as well as damp.
Ballast Regulations during the Restoration
A fundamental issue was raised when it was claimed that the ballastage office conferred no right to a monopoly of the supply of ballast; the function of the office was held to be simply one of inspection.
That contention was eventually accepted, and the right to supply ballast in the Thames was granted by letters patent to Thomas Smyth and others in June 1636. Trinity House consequently lost revenue
