Thames Conservancy

At present the Metropolitan Board is shipping some of the solid matter to be dropped into the sea at the mouth of the Thames.

When the Thames Conservancy see this fine ship, built in the eclipse and rigged with curses dark, bound on its mission of blocking the port of London, what can they think? They think it worthwhile, apparently, to have a man fined for throwing a basket of rubbish over one of the bridges.

Again, the House of Commons passed a stringent act to prevent the pollution of rivers, but when a year or so since their own sewage arrangements were at fault, they merely constructed an ingenious apparatus to thoroughly suck the sewage out of their own premises and pass it on more effectually than before to pollute the river on whose bank their stately palace stands.

What is the good of legislation without example? If the House of Commons at some sacrifice, more fancied than real, of personal convenience had adopted measures in accordance with the spirit of their legislation, I believe we should have been within a measurable distance of seeing the Thames once more meriting the name of silvery.

Historically, there was disputes galore between the Crown and the City of London who, uh, who- whoever owned the riverbed.

So there was that piece of legislation that you, I'm sure you've heard of, the Thames Conservancy Act of 1857, which stated basically that the Thames Conservancy would own the riverbed, and they were basically taken over by the Port of London Authority in 1909.

And the, the 1857 piece of legislation basically said if you've got ancient moorings that have been granted by the Crown, which were there prior to September the 29th, 1857, then you still had the exact rights, the same rights, um, as previously.

And the Port of London Authority Act of 1908 allows the Port, well, the Port of London Authority can sort of ask you to move.