A family connection with Harvey's of Charlton

The following article by Keith Clarke is about his family’s background at Harvey’s and his experiences there.

Harvey’s was a metal fabrication factory on the Woolwich - the East Greenwich Fire Station is in front of what would have been the site and Holmwood Villas led to the entrance. The firm had a sports ground in Hervey Road and a housing for their workers – the most obvious being Harvey Gardens in Floyd Road, and Prentice Court nearby.

So – Keith Clarke writes:

I worked at Harvey's for six years in the early 1950's, but the story starts back at the beginning of the century. The Clarke family lived in Lewisham in the same area as George Harvey, and at some unknown date, my paternal grandfather Arthur Clarke joined the company, in its earliest years. By 1924 he was Works Manager, and later a Director, as was his brother Edwin.

My father was Arthur Clarkes, eldest child and only his son – and was also christened Arthur, but always called Bob. The remaining six children were all girls. One would expect the only son to have been fussed over and spoilt by his sisters, but this was far from the case. Before going off to school my father he had to clean the shoes for all the girls and not leave until his grandfather approved. Grandfather doted on the girls and appeared to dislike his only son.

Dad went to school in Brockley and then London University until he joined the Army in the First World War as a lieutenant in the South Staffs.

After the war he joined what was thought of as the family firm - Harvey's. Grandfather said "expect no help from me". Dad got none, and starting as a draughtsman, worked his way to becoming, eventually, Manager of the Perforation Department. He also seems to be remembered for his sporting and social activities - in the years up to the Second World War he was, at various times, Captain of the football team, Secretary of the tennis club, and pianist in the Harvey Dance Band.
Grandfather and the rest of the Clarke family were wealthy, middle class, and living in a large Victorian house adjoining Blackheath. Dad meantime was courting a pretty young girl from the typing pool, and they married in 1925. This did not meet with Grandfather's approval, to marry into a lower class, and this rubbed off on the daughters who were never very nice to my Mother.

Grandfather died in 1931, but left all his considerable wealth to his daughters by way of a trust fund. A small amount in the trust was to go to the son at a date determined by the trustees. Eventually my Mother needed a life saving operation just months before the National Health started and the cost was far beyond their ability to pay. Dad approached the trustees, and they released the money, but a smaller amount than was needed since "the due date had not been reached". I wonder if Grandfather was laughing.

My own memories of Harvey's start in the 1930s with the Christmas parties for employee's children. These were held in the Victor Institute on a Saturday afternoon and all the children were given a present. The Victor Institute was an old building just outside the works - to the left of the imposing main entrance. It belonged to the Company and was always in use for social events, dances, amateur dramatics, snooker etc. The main entrance to the offices was for use of senior staff only, which I found to my cost later.

More strenuous activities took place at the Harvey Sports Ground, in Hervey Road. At the start of the war in 1939, my father was considered too useful at Harvey's to be called up, but after Dunkirk he started Harvey's own Local Defence Volunteers, later to become The Home Guard.

I was evacuated at the start of the war, but returned to home in Wricklemarsh Road, just in time for the blitz. There were no schools open in London, so Dad sometimes took me to his office and I was given some minor tasks to occupy the time. Later, emergency schools started and I had to go back to being a schoolboy.

My next Harvey contact was sheltering in the basement of the transport bay, together with many other Harvey families, every night for many months during the V1 and V2 attacks.

I left school in 1945 and was drafted into an electrical company in New Cross, on war work for the Navy, and had taken an engineering apprenticeship.
From 1946 onwards sport was my father's passion. Cricket was now paramount - he was captain of the 1st team on Saturdays and Sundays and I was proud to be 1st team scorer.

Eventually Dad was requested to go Sydney Harvey's office and asked: "In which department is your son working"? "He is not yet with the company sir". "Well make sure he joins soon, we should have the third generation of Clarkes here". I felt rather pleased with this and Dad said he would keep his ears open for a possible opening. That was in 1949 and I joined in 1950. My Dad was by then the senior manager, and Chairman of the Sports Club.

The Engineers Drawing Office was in the Victor Institute, in what had been the snooker hall. It was a very happy place, and being away from the main offices, was not so formal. This was still the time of surnames, pin striped trousers, black coats, or suits and so we were ‘rebels' in grey flannels and fair isle jumpers. If we had to go to the main building we had to borrow a coat or the security officer would not even let you into the corridors. It was during this time that I went into the main office via the senior staff entrance - or nearly did - I was grabbed by the collar and frog marched out to the street, lectured at great length about my insignificance in the world, and should there be a next time - the sack.

I married in August 1951, and we lived with my parents in Wricklemarsh Road. Helen joined the company shortly after, working for Mr. Hughes, the personnel manager, initially filing, and later, when Myrtle Holt left, she interviewed prospective female employees. John Roberts looked after the male side. Our marriage got a photo and write up in the house magazine.

Another family connection with Harvey's Dad’s sister, Mildred. She was Sydney Harvey's Private Secretary and a very formidable Lady - she frightened me and terrified my wife. Because of the family rift, we had never got to know her as an Aunt, and fortunately did not move in her elevated circles at work.

Harvey's owned many properties around Greenwich & Woolwich, which were rented to employees. The main estate was Harvey Gardens, alongside the 'valley' in Charlton. An application for housing had to be made to the Estates Manager. We had to wait some time, but in October 1953 were offered a 3rd floor flat in Harvey House, Nightingale Place, Woolwich Common. We loved it. The front rooms looked across the common to the Royal Artillery Barracks, and beyond to the Thames and Docks. Then in 1956 we applied for a ground floor flat, since the stairs had become a problem with a baby. The new address was The Anchorage, Vanbrugh Hill, Greenwich, so the stairs were replaced by the struggle to push a pram up Vanbrugh Hill. We were on the ground floor; the middle was empty I think, and Mr. & Mrs. Brighty loved on the top floor with their children Kay & Geoffrey. Mr. Brighty worked in the wages office and Helen already knew him from work. Helen and Mrs. Brighty became friends. Geoffrey is now a Conservative Councillor on the London Borough of Greenwich.

In the far south east corner of the Harvey works, hidden away, was a small subsidiary company which made high quality oak shelving for libraries. This was Libraco, run by Mr. Mandry. His pleasant and clever son Bill took over our Drawing Office and instigated a planned maintenance scheme for all the plant, a lot of work, looking at every machine and deciding how and when it should be maintained. Each draughtsman was allocated a number of machines to study and become familiar with. In the event of a breakdown or repair, we would then assist the maintenance staff by drawing up any parts wanted and arranging manufacture. It all seemed to work well.

At a later date and out of the blue, our cosy office was moved to the top floor of one of the two 'new buildings'. Concrete floor, concrete ceiling, and the smell of paint drifting up from the Steel Equipment spray shop below. Not ideal for a drawing office, and one or two of my friends left. The happy days had gone. I started to scan the job adverts and went to a few interviews. At that time it was quite usual for young draughtsmen to move around to gain experience.

Sydney Harvey had died, and his son Gordon took over as Chairman. He started bringing in young "whizz kids" who were going to make this old fashioned firm into a modern commercial success. My Father, by then acknowledged as the leading expert in metal perforating in the UK, was to be 'advised' by a 30 year old, "still wet behind the ears”. Other senior staffs were similarly treated. My Parents, we visited my parents, who by now lived at Orpington, and Dad, visibly upset, told us of the changes occurring at Harveys. "It was going downhill fast, it may last 20 years, it could be gone in 5, and my prime concern is to get you out of the Harvey tied house". This was all a great shock. Although I'd only worked there a short time, our whole family life had revolved around Harvey's. It was suggested that we move into their Bungalow for as long as it took to buy our own place.

Friday 22nd Feb 1957 was my last day at Harvey's. I like to think that Sydney Harvey would have been sad. I wonder if he ever found out which department I worked in. Two weeks later we moved from our nice, but tied flat.

Dad soldered on until retirement in 1962, in increasing bitterness and dismay at what was happening to our family firm. Aunt Mildred had long gone, so Dad had the sad honour of being the last of the Harvey Clarkes.

My connections and interest with Harvey's stopped in 1962, and only now, in old age, do I wonder how it all ended, and would my life have taken a different path if Sydney Harvey’s son had been different.

Exhibition item 1952

Deptford Dockyard - letter re. English Heritage

GIHS has received the following letter about Deptford Dockyard from Chris Mazeika:

As you may know an application to ensure statutory designation of the Deptford Royal Naval Yard was made to English Heritage in December 2009. The process has been described by EH as “complex” and has resulted in over two years passing, with EH admitting that their previous understanding of the site requires them to review the advice they had given to the DCMS in 2010.
With national bodies and amenity societies also recognizing the importance of the site, may I encourage you to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the unusual lengthy process of designation by writing to EH for your letter to be forwarded to DCMS, in support of the statutory designation of the Deptford yard. Also could you forward this message to interested parties.

Substantial new information has come to light following further research by members of local organisation, Deptford Is and other specialists, which will shortly be sent to EH/DCMS. Given adequate notice from EH of the next submission to the DCMS this new information should be included in EH's future recommendation to the DCMS.

Recent Case History of Designation
In 2010, following our request made to confer statutory protection in 2009, EH commissioned a report by Jonathan Clarke that resulted in a recommendation not to confer statutory protection. However the research documents compiled by us in response to that decision (attached), when submitted to EH, were sufficient cause for EH to re-appraise the application. An enlightened decision was then made by Veronica Fiorato to re-appraise the earlier decision countersigned by by Emily Gee and Julian Heath. This re-examination of the case should have provided the opportunity for EH to correct their errors and to include new information. We now understand that the new EH report and recommendation which we have not had sight of has been sent to the DCMS.

Your assistance is required to add weight to this application for protection at Deptford. The Deptford site has many pressures on it and a planning application that was to be determined last Christmas has been withdrawn mainly due to heritage issues.
However this important site of British history needs to have protection if the assets are to be preserved for the future.
Your letter to DCMS at this stage could be critical in ensuring they have the mass of informed opinion to recommend designation of the assets.

For your information the factual research attached/below successfully challenged the 2010 EH designation recommendation not to list and enabled them to reopen the case for further consideration.

Here are a few extracts from the new information that will be submitted to DCMS.

Condition is not a major factor in listing or scheduling. FOr instance, a filled in mastpond at Chatham is a Scheduled Ancient Monument, clearly condition could not be determined in this case. Even where condition is determined, examples such as the GI listed slipway covers at Chatham have received substantial restoration. Also, docks at Chatham that have been substantially altered through the centuries are all listed. The docks, slipways basin and mastpond at Deptford all predate those listed and scheduled structures at Chatham.

Recent on-going archaeological explorations have confirmed earlier archaeological reports that stated,

In respect of Divers 2001, Hawkins 2000 Lowe 2000,
9.1.4
The evaluation showed that major dockyard features survive below ground level across much of the site, specifically near the River Thames, and that later activities on the site have had relatively little impact on these remains.
9.1.5
Not only had later activities on the site had relatively little impact on surviving Post-medieval features, but there was no evidence to suggest that Medieval and earlier deposits and features were absent due to later truncation. In fact it would appear that earlier horizons had generally survived undisturbed and that medieval features, if present would have survived.
9.1.6
The documentary and cartographic sources for the dockyard have been shown to be relatively accurate, and that the large features targeted by the evaluation trenches have been found in their anticipated locations, often at relatively shallow depths below the present ground surface.
9.4.2
The evaluation has established that the major features of the dockyard have survived in their predicted locations with little evidence for widespread truncation by later activities on the site.
(Divers 2001:69-71).


Dry dock
The stone entrance to the double dry dock, the only major excavation of this structure to date, was shown to be almost pristine save for a course or two of coping stone that had been removed. The image linked immediately below shows the extent of the depth of the excavation. Clearly, a more extensive excavation will be needed to accurately assess the survival of the double dry dock.
http://www.museumoflondonarchaeology.org.uk/NewsProjects/ConvoysWharf.htm

Slipways
High quality survival of the dockyard slipways dating in construction to c.1855 is now also established.
http://www.museumoflondonarchaeology.org.uk/NewsProjects/ConvoysStorehouseSlipway.htm


Basin (Wet Dock)
Since EH's earlier decision, drawings of the 1845 basin slipways have recently been unearthed in the archives establishing that Capt. Sir William Denison R.E. was the engineer. EH has cited sites such as this as "sites of collaborative genius" warranting a high grade of protection.
Evidence from the John Rennie drawings of 1814 determines that the majority of the river wall dating to pre-1840, and recent scholarly work published 2011 now asserts that Deptford was the first of the royal dockyards to have a wet dock (basin) and also the first to have a purpose built mast pond. Link to the academic article.
http://www.cairn.info/resume.php?ID_ARTICLE=DSS_114_0677

The John Rennie basin entrance (wet dock) has recently been determined to survive to coping level commensurate with the 1814 archive drawings, and whilst it was originally thought by EH that much of the basin wall had been robbed it and the John Rennie work destroyed, the coping level of the basin entrance now demonstrates that the ground level has actually risen by 4 to 5ft, indicating that only the uppermost courses of the basin wall or coping level may have been removed. That an example of the coping level exists and Rennie's specification and drawings can be consulted may make repair of the basin a more likely option than previously thought possible. This is important new information as the previous evidence cited as reason not to list the basin was the incorrect assertion that the John Rennie work was entirely destroyed c.1900 Whilst it may appear in photographs that their is partial survival it must be remembered that the majority of the basin structure is behind and beneath the visible stone and brick walling, with stone blocks of 7 cubic feet on beds of brickwalls and timber pilings.

EH Advice and Guidelines

“Docks and harbour walls pre-dating 1840 generally form the most impressive
engineering structures of their date and even where they have received alteration, as
nearly all have, will normally merit designation, with those displaying technical innovation or association with major developments in shipbuilding, warranting a high grade.”

EH Guidelines on Assessing Heritage Significance

:40-.80 Consistency of judgement is crucial to the public acceptability and fairness of the process



New publications by EH since the 2010 decision should also impact positively on the consideration for designation, particularly the October 2011 guidance on the Setting of Heritage Assets and Maritime and Naval Buildings Selection Guide 2011. The recent EH upgrading to GII* of the Master Shipwright's House and Dockyard Officers' Offices, the SAM of the Undercroft of the Tudor Storehouse and the GII listed Basin Slipway Covers will all be enhanced by the 'presence' of the primary dockyard infrastructure, its docks, slips, basin and mast ponds.
We can also be encouraged by the precedence set by the listing of in-filled structures at Chatham where "the Great Basin and its three associated dry docks have been covered over " are now SAM II* (EH Lake/Douet 1998:42) The comprehensive listing and scheduling of dockyard structures in the other royal yards where alterations and changes have occurred to the structures throughout the centuries is considered in a contributive light and now viewed thus, "Docks and harbour walls pre-dating 1840 generally form the most impressive structures and even where they have received alteration, as nearly all have, most will merit serious consideration for designation." (EH M+NBSG 2011:9-10)

Whilst the majority of secondary resource material on the royal dockyards used by EH (Coad 1989/Lake and Douet Thematic Listing Programme 1998 and Maritime and Naval Building Selection Guide 2011) is now known to be insufficient to determine the significance of Deptford because the Deptford yard has remained immured from published EH research agendas and more recent efforts by EH such as the Clarke report have fallen woefully short of accuracy, nonetheless the Lake and Douet Thematic Survey of English Naval Dockyards (whilst it repeats several now contested conclusions made by Coad 1989) and the more recent Maritime and Naval Buildings Selection Guide 2011 are nonethelesss for their approach to the roayl naval yards in general they are important documents to take into consideration.
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/thematic-survey-navy/thematic-survey-navy.pdf
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/dlsg-maritime-naval-buildings/
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/setting-heritage-assets/

Historic events, persons, innovations, global connections
Whilst I have concentrated on the material structures of the dockyard, it is anticipated that EH will pursue their own assessment of the wealth of historic associations of the yard with national and international significant events and historic figures, consider advances in maritime and industrial technology, the development of European architecture, the global significance of the Deptford Yard to the Commonwealth Nations of Australia, Canada and the United States, the setting of the yard as the very raison d’être of Deptford, its immediate geographical context of the neighbouring GII listed Victualling Yard buildings, and steam era GII listed Payne's Wharf, the dockyard church of St. Nicholas GI (described as "the Westminster Abbey of the British Navy" the high grade GII* listed Albury Street 'Captain's Houses'. the geographical, intellectual and functional proximity of Maritime WHS of Greenwich, the Deptford yard as the most significant site on the London Thames to witness to centuries of London shipbuilding and the yard as the signifier of the national and internationally renowned and historically related The Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strand .

Once again, given the controversial history of designation in this case, it is vital that we all remain vigilant to a fair and equal access and application of national resources invested in the heritage agencies in order to ensure that Deptford does not suffer social exclusion from these resources and that further national funds are not risked through the lengthy and expensive legal process of judicial review.

Yours,
Chris Mazeika

BALLAST QUAY - HARBOUR MASTER'S HOUSE

This article is by A.G.Linney - author of a couple of books about the port of London before the Great War.  It is taken from Co-partnership Journal which was the house magazine of  South Metropolitan Gas Co. - the local gas company and appeared in 1910.

Following along the riverside path from near Point Wharf to Greenwich-Pier one day I was surprised to find, just across the street from Union Wharf, a solid and rather imposing building below the eaves of which was lettered the inscription, "Harbour Master's Office."

I knew quite well that the only Harbour Master's Offices in the Port to-day are at Tower Pier and at Gravesend, with sub-offices at Woolwich, Erith, Greenhithe, and Leigh-on-Sea. I knew that since the Port of London Authority was created there had been no Harbour Master at Greenwich. What, then, was the history of this once official edifice, now having houseroom for two families of private persons?

A Greenwich and District Directory for 1843 gives the name of Captain Rowlands as Harbour Master, resident at Park Street, Greenwich—the building in question.  Clearly that was at the time during which the Corporation of the City of London had administered the Port, and a document referred to later shows that Charles Rowlands was First Harbour Master during 1851-52, having started as Fifth Harbour Master in 1821, so that while he was moving up in the service he was for a while at Greenwich.

In 1857 the Thames Conservancy was constituted, and three years later that, body took a 76 years' lease of the Greenwich property, the area leased including Union Wharf (which was definitely a Thames Conservancy wharf), the house and a garden behind it. Captain James, transferred by the Corporation of the City of London, was the first Chief Harbour Master of the Conservancy. In 1890 the Conservancy agreed to surrender the lease of the estate in part, including the Harbour Master's Office house. It has been suggested that the surrender came about, through the Conservancy, which had hitherto divided the River Thames below Kew into Upper, Central and Lower Controls, deciding to abandon the central district as a separate division. None the less, for a while, one of the Conservancy's Deputy Harbour Masters continued to live in the house.

A Greenwich directory for 1895 shows a Captain Bowen residing at the Harbour Master's Office, and there is definite evidence showing when he had entered the Thames Conservancy's service. I have been able to handle an old, tumbling-to-pieces handbook, which this Captain Bowen started to write in while he was Master of the steamer Edinburgh Castle on a voyage from London to Penang in 1879. His notes regarding this voyage conclude,  " July 8th, 9 a.m. Anchor'd in Penang Harbour all well." At sea he ceased to use this notebook, apparently, for it switches over a page or two to this unmistakable entry: " Appointed D.H. Master under Thames Conservancy, December 19th, 1881." Quite natural, then, that Captain Bowen should be living at the Greenwich Harbour Master's Office—seemingly used as a residence, but no longer owned by the Conservancy in 1895 ; I believe that, between times, he lived for a. while at the Harbour Master's Office, Limehouse (Narrow Street), which was demolished in 1925.

Captain Defrates, formerly one of the P.L.A. Assistant Harbour Masters, who retired from the service in 1927, has recollection of the time previous to the Authority taking over from the Conservancy when there were two Harbour Masters—Captain Fitzgerald and Captain Marsden—and Captain Bowen was deputy to the first of these. The pair above named retired in 1898, and Captain Bowen then became Chief Harbour Master, with deputies at. Woolwich and Gravesend. He remained in office for about five years, retiring early in the present century. From that time to the establishment of the Port Authority, the Harbour Service work was divided into two sections, one with its office in London (Temple Pier, Old Swan Pier, and now Tower Pier) and one with its office at Gravesend. The Harbour Masters then appointed were Captain R. S. Pasley (Upper District) and Captain A. W. Wilson (Lower District).

In the 1890's—the Thames Conservancy being in charge of river responsibilities—T.C. Head Office was at 41 Trinity Square, but the Harbour Master had his quarters on the hulk Marlborough, moored, off the Tower Gardens. Then when the Conservancy moved its head office to the Thames Embankment, the Harbour Master operated from Temple Pier and the Marlborough was sent away into exile and became storeship to the T.C. Survey Department.

From a " Return of the Names and Emoluments of the Harbour Service 1851-1852 " (Corporation of the City of London) which was shown to me at the Guildhall, I am permitted to extract these details: " The Principal Superintending Harbour Master, Chief office, St. Katharine's," received, in addition to his salary, a house, £5 for a servant, £2 for candles, £l for wood, 10 tons of coal, and £25 for travelling allowance. It is in this document that the name of Captain Rowlands occurs. He and each of his deputies received also a boat cloak, minor assistants getting simply a greatcoat. Boat cloaks were served out every two years and greatcoats every three years, distribution always being in October. An assistant employed in the Greenwich Office was given " a pair of water boots," but they had to last him four years! The Clerk of Stores received quarters in what is now Port of London Wharf, occupied by Messrs. Gregson & Company, Ltd.

A..Linney

GLIAS NEWSLETTER AND GREENWICH

The March 2012 edition of the GLIAS newsletter just came through the door  - its most remarkable feature being seven and half pages of events.  These include - of Greenwich interest -

21st March - Deptford Dockyard, its history and archaeology. Duncan Hawkins - this is in the Willoughby Lecture Theatre, Charterhouse Square, Barts Medical School, EC1  18.30  02086928512

18th April  Maassey-Shaw Fireboat. Its History and Restoration. David Rogers. Willoughby Lecture Theatre, as above.

18th February Symposium on Thames Shipbuilding. Museum in Docklands, West India Quay, E14. £30 Booking necessary.  info@docklandshistorygroup.org.uk

21st February Ropemaking in Greenwich.  John Yeardley. GIHS Old Bakehouse, Blackheath Village, SE3 7.30

13th March Bricks and Brickmaking in Greenwich, David Cufley. GIHS (as above)

17th April. Sugar and Soap - Amylum site - Peter Luck. GIHS (as above)

Then there is a very considerable article about the Deptford Creek Railway Bridge:

The London and Greenwich railway and its locality is of great importance. As well as the threats to London Bridge station, the whole length of the original line will be upgraded in the near future. This swathe of South East London deserves special consideration. Although the present Deptford Creek railway bridge is not yet 50 years old it serves as a significant landmark for the Creek, proclaiming that the Creek is tidal and navigable. In a similar way Tower Bridge symbolises the Thames and even London itself. The Eiffel tower in Paris plays a similar role there.
At the National Maritime Museum to the east of the bridge in Greenwich, when a visitor was to come down by rail from London to the museum on business a tide table was consulted. Train services from London Bridge could be seriously disrupted around high tide and for whoever was meeting the traveller there might be a long wait on Maze Hill station before the important person finally made it.
The previous bridge of 1884 was replaced in December 1963, the present electric liftbridge being designed by A.H. Cantrell, chief civil engineer of BR Southern Region, and built by Sir William Arrol & Co of Glasgow. When the 1884 bridge was opened to allow a small ship to pass there was what now seems a ridiculous performance. Even the rails had to be completely removed and no less than twelve men were needed to do this.
Where the railway crosses, the Creek has a large tidal range with plenty of water at high tide. Nick Bertrand from the Creekside Centre still leads his ecological walks with everyone in waders to explore the bed of the Ravensbourne at low tide. It is well worth taking part in one of these Low Tide Walks if you get the chance. There is an important ecological aspect to this part of the creek which is also under threat. Bob Carr

AND not done yet.  Also there are little Greenwich notes:

- a note that Fieldwork on the Thames Foreshore is noted in the London Archaeologist as taking place in Greenwich.

-  a note to say 'Boris Johnson's cable car' is progressing 'at a fine pace'. 

- a note admonishing a previous writer on the Woolwich ferry for getting the date of the first London County Council wrong

- and in a book review on Psychogeography - a reference to a quotation about 'Greenwich not being the spirtual centre of the British Empire'.

(!!!)

Woolwich Western Ferry - a disaster

We mentioned a new book about Thames Ferries and promised to highlight some of the local ferries mentioned in it.  The book is by Joan Tucker and is “Ferries of the Lower Thames” (Amberley Publishing 2010) and is highly recommended

 
One ferry few of us will know about is Woolwich’s Western ferry:

Joan describes how in 1811 landowners and tradesmen set up the 'the Woolwich Ferry Company' to run boats between Woolwich and what is now called Silvertown.

This was for ’the conveyance of persons carriages and cattle and goods, wares and merchandise ... and for making proper roads and approaches to form a direct communication between Kent and Essex and to be of great public utility'.

It was to run from The Old Ballast or Sand Wharf and the Company was to alter highways between Green Gate, Plaistow and the river, and between Greenwich and Sand Wharf. They were to build houses for the ferryman and offices and the rent would be £5 a year. There were special clauses for military transports.   Tolls were to be levied to foot passengers, horses, two-wheeled chaisea, coaches with two horses, and sheep. The ferry must not to work before 4 a.m. or after 10 p.m. between 24 March and 29 September and they need not run in ‘times of ice or tempestuous winds’ and so on and so forth. However soon the local watermen and inhabitants of Woolwich were protesting that the ferry was 'prejudicial to divers of the watermen working on the river’ and the Act was superseded by another in 1816.

In 1812 a horse boat was ordered at £200 but before it arrived a wherry, bought from Gravesend for £35.35, was used, together with another from Greenwich costing £2 - although oars, sculls, etc., were paid for separately. There was only a small building on the south bank for collecting tolls and then passengers had to go down steep slopes to the water where there was a platform made from old ships' timbers. On the north bank a pub was built and weather boarded- this became the Prince Regent, after which much of the area is now named.  Initially it had neither a fireplace nor cooking facilities. On the south side the Company built the Marquis of Wellington pub usually known as 'The Duke' or the 'Ferry House'. Both made a loss, but they gradually became the only source of income.

Thus the ferry, as Joan says, ‘did not prosper’. It was in the wrong place - nearly on the Woolwich-Charlton parish boundary, and on the north side on marshlands in an isolated part of Plaistow.

There was soon after a row about road making and it also appears that the Company did not keep proper records. No dividends on shares were ever paid and eventually it turned out that the agreement made in 1811 to lease the land was invalid. Shareholders did not pay their share instalments and, following quarrels with shareholders, some directors resigned. The last set of minutes was taken in January 1828 and the company wound up in 1842.

This sad saga is just one among many local ferries which are described in the book – and – so – Joan – if you see this, please get in touch, we would love to hear more from you in person.

Royal visits to Greenwich Industry

Thanks to Brian Sturt who has sent us this amazing clip of the East Greenwich Coking plant being visited by the Duke of Gloucester  -  smoke and coal dust everywhere and all the Duke gets is an overall - which - please note - does not cover his bowler hat.   Great shots - including one of a collier vessel.

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/mr-therm-gets-big-recruit

 

to add to the general local royal jollifications here are some more pictures:

 

The Duke of Edinburgh visits the Fuel Research Establishment at East Greenwich in 1952 - with apologies for quality (scan from a photocopy from a microfilm of a local press report)

 

Below - the King - in this case George VI - visits Harvey's metal fabricators in Woolwich Road - they were where Charlton fire station now is and there are a few bits of wall and so on remaining from their works. They specialised in perforations.

and - above the Duke of Kent visits the Telcom works on the Peninsula in the 1950s - the site which is now the Alcatel works.