OFFICIAL PAPERS

ED WITH THE

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAS HARBOT'R.

y.

AGENTS FOR THE SALE OF GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS.

IN INDIA.

UOMBRIDGE & Co., Bombay.

M. GULAB SINGH & SONS, Mufid-I-Am Press, Lahore.
E. SEYMOUR HALE, 53, Esplanade Road, Fort, Bombay.
HIGGINBOTHAM & Co., Mount Road, Madras.
NEWMAN & Co., Calcutta.

SUPERINTENDENT, AMERICAN BAPTIST MISSION PRESS, Rangoon.
THACKER & Co. (Limited), Bombay.
THACK.ER, SPINK & Co., Calcutta.

IN ENGLAND,

B. A. ARNOLD, 37, Bedford Street, Strand, London, W.C.
CONSTABLE & Co., 2, Whitehall Gardens, London, S.W.
DEIGHTON, BELL & Co., Cambridge.

P. 8. KING & SON, 9, Bridge Street, Westminster, London, S.W.
SAMPSON Low, MARSTON & Co., St. Dunstan's House, Fetter Lane,

London, E.G.

LUZAC & Co., 46, Great Russell Street, London, W.C.
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & Co., Charing Cross Road, London, W.C.
B. QVARITCH, 15, Piccadilly, London, W.
WILLIAMS & NORGATE, Oxford.

ON THE CONTINENT.

FRIEDLANDER & SOHN, 11, Carlstrasse, Berlin.

OTTO HARRASSOWITZ, Leipzig.

KARL W. HIERSEMANN, Leipzig.

ERNEST LEROUX, 28, Rue Bonaparte, Paris.

MARTINUS NIJHOFF, The Hague, Holland.

OFFICIAL PAPERS

CONCERNING THE

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAS

HARBOUR,

ARRANGED BY

A. T. MACKENZIE, M.INST.C.E.,

L*cal Consulting Engineer to the Madras Harbour

PRINTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT PRESS.

1002.

.v*.] [6 shillings.]

WDU

PRABHU

SERVICE . - -

GURGAO-V Pb.)

LRSITY OF CALIFORNIA*
DAVIS

OFFICIAL PAPERS

CONCERNING THE

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAS HARBOUR.

T^HE first printed definite proposal now on record for a harbour

at Madras emanates from the Chamber of Commerce and is

dated 31st July 1868. That this is not the

first mention of it is shown by a minnte on the
Madras Harbour in J

1868- above proposal by the then Governor, Lord Napier,

dated 23rd August of the same year, in which
he alludes to the project as often suggested, abandoned, and revived.
It is however always difficult to discover the exact date of inception
of large schemes, nor is it in the present case material ; and for the
purposes of this account the representation of the Madras Chamber of
Commerce in 1868 may be taken as the origin of the Madras Harbour.
The Government of the day accorded its cordial support and in its
order dated 28th August 1868 appointed a Committee of investigation
consisting of Colonel J. Carpendale, R.E., Colonel

Local Committee of , „ , ,, _, ,r . T -rr -»•• m

1868 J. C. Anderson, R.E., Major J. H. M. Shaw-

Stewart, E.E., Mr. U. D. E. Dalrymple, Mr.
R. B. Elwin, M.C.S., and a representative of the Chamber of Com-
merce, who nominated Mr. P. Macfadyen.

This Committee presented its report on 16th January 1869. It

considered the alternative project of improving

Eeport of Committee -m i j» TT i , A •• \-\tr

* .Dlackwood s Harbour at Anneghon shcal, 45

miles north of Madras, but dismissed the idea on
the ground of the futility of expecting to divert the trade of an old-
established city to a new port. It then discussed the condition of the
port and its disabilities, which were (1) the open roadstead, (2) delay
in loading and unloading owing to the use of masulah boats,»(3) cost
of landing and shipping cargo and extortion of boatmen, (4) damage to
goods. All these disabilities it would be the object of a breakwater
to remove, while also furnishing a harbour of refuge.

The Committee then considered the question of a close harbour in
preference to a breakwater and decided against

Report of Committee ., 3 ,-, , j n

(continued). lt' OQ the g™"™1 th&t ^^ d^QS ™ning

out at any angle with the shore would result

4- OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

in the eventual extension of the beach, the closure of the moutb,
and the shoaling up of the harbour itself." Finally after examining
several plans submitted to it the Committee recommended a detached
structure of rough stone on the principle of Plymouth breakwater, as
proposed by Colonel Orr, E.E., and Mr. deClosets, and advocated
previously by Sir Arthur Cotton and by Colonel deHavilland, R.E.,
as far back as 1836. This breakwater was to be placed parallel to and
at a distance of 1,200 yards from the beach, that is, in a little over 7
fathoms at ordinary low water, and was to be 2,000 yards in length,
with ends slightly splayed. The Committee believed that such a
structure would cause no silting, since as far ont as 6 fathoms only was
there shifting sand (varying in depth as much as 8 feet) but beyond
that stiff blue clay with an unvarj'ing depth of firm sand over it ; and
it argued from the analogy of the Armeghon shoal that the break-
water would form no obstruction to the travel of sand either along the
bottom or in suspension and would thus cause no appreciable alteration
in the beach. The cost was estimated at Rs. 1,06,20,325.

In discussing the financial aspect of the scheme the views of the
Committee bear a striking resemblance to those which still govern the
situation, viz., that improved facilities will attract trade that now finds
other outlets, that the yearly increasing extension of the railway
system ,in this presidency will tap new fields of commerce for the
benefit of the best and safest seaport on this or the other coast, and
that the trade of the country which has the alternative railway systems
of Bombay and Madras to choose from will select that port which is
easiest and cheapest ; while even at that date Bombay and Calcutta
imported a great part of the goods required for Madras. With these
factors there must be included the difficulties with boatmen, the
increase in insurance, and the expense due to delay. The figures
showing the tonnage then visiting Madras on the average may here be

quoted —

TONS

Steamers 146,000

Ships .. 119,000

Native craft 39,000

the aggregate annual value* being about Es. 3,00,00,000. This
tonnage might, it was considered, produce an, annual income of
Es. 2,21,250 from harbour dues, and of Rs. 5,07,500 from port dues.

The report concludes by furnishing particulars of the damage from
storms since the year 1746. On October 3rd of that year three large

* Presumably of imports and exports.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAS HARBOUR. &

French ships In the roads foundered with the loss of 1,200 men and three
others were dismasted. Two other ships, prizes, were wrecked and of
20 other vessels in the roads not one escaped. On 13th April 1749
two men-of-war, one a 74-gun ship, were wrecked with the loss of 850
men off Cuddalore, and two other ships and all the small vessels that
were near Fort St. David were wrecked. Hurricanes occurred in 1 752
and 1761, and in the last 3 of the ships of the British Squadron came
ashore and three others were lost with about 1,100 men. On 2 1st October
1773 all the vessels that remained at anchor were lost with their crews
and upwards of 100 country vessels were stranded on the beach. There
were heavy gales on 27th October 1797, on 4th December 1803, on
10th December 1807, and on 2nd May 1811. In the last the "Dover "
frigate and a store ship were lost in the roads and 90 country vessels
went down at their anchors. Other hurricanes occurred on £4th October
1818, 9th October 1820, and 30th October 1836. In 1842 in a heavy
gale, but hardly a hurricane, seven vessels with 17 lives were lost. Hurri-
canes occurred on 22nd May 1843, on 25th November 1848, in March
1 853, May 1858, and on 25th November 1865. The number of vessels
wrecked since 1842 amounted to 42, average tonnage 480, loss of life to
19H, and of property to 38 lakhs of rupees, exclucfcag country craft and
vessels wrecked off other parts.

Colonel Carpendale, R.E., submitted a minute of dissent from the
above report, expressing his opinion in favour of a close harbour.

The Madras Government in its order dated 17th March 1869

accepted the view of the majority of the Corn-
Views of the Madras ... ,•• . ., . i ,
Government in 1869. mittee M to the superiority of a breakwater over a

close harbour, and resolved to submit the whole
subject to the Government of India, in the hope that it might meet
with the support of the Governor-General in Council, and that the Secre-
tary of State might be moved to send out a thoroughly qualified marine
and harbour Engineer to examine and report on the measures to be
adopted.

The question was submitted to Mr. G. Robertson, M.I.C.E., who
about that time was examining ports on the

KeportofMr.Eobert. -^^ Coagt ^ for ^ Goverament of India.
son, M.I.CJSt

That gentleman submitted a report in 1871, in
which he stated that after examining the report of the Committee, and
the large number of schemes submitted, he had come to the decided
opinion that before any works could be safely commenced more must
be known regarding the most important points in connection either
with a close harbour or a breakwater, viz., the currents close in shore
and the amount of sand in motion at the coast line. He pointed out

6 OFFICIAL PAPEKS COMCEKNING THE

that the travel of sand was due to the oblique action of the surf as
well as the currents,, and that if the latter were not strong enough of
itself to carry the sand either up or down the coast the withdrawal
of the other agent, the surf, at any rate would cause the sand to be
deposited there ; and that consequently a breakwater would cause an
accumulation as certainly as an arm projecting from the shore. With
this proviso he agreed with the committee in preferring a breakwater
to a close harbour, in case one or the other were essential, on the
grounds however of more deep water shelter at an equal cost. He
estimated the cost of a breakwater such as recommended by the Com-
mittee but slightly altered in section at Rs. 1,31,10,000.

In 1872 a note on the subject was submitted by Mr. W. Parkes,
M.I.C.E., after study of Mr. Robertson's report

Views of Mr. W. Parkes. , ... . ,. ,' , ,, ,

„ T „ -, and with immediate reference to the cyclone or

M.I.C.-C" »

that year. From his experience on the Karachi

Harbour Mr. W. Parkes argued that a breakwater in the form of a
rubble mound was unnecessarily expensive and that a submerged rubble
mound with a wall of concrete blocks with vertical sides was much more
economical and quite strong enough. Such a wall would cost but little
over 65 lakhs of rupees and could be much sooner completed. Mr.
Parkes went on to argue that the littoral currents at Madras must be so
insignificant as to be negligible, and further that if a close harbour were
built the quantity of sand accumulated could not be so great as to
envelope the pier heads for at any rate generations to come : such
a close harbour could, he maintained, be constructed for half Mr.
Robertson's estimate and in little more than half the time.

Mr. Parkes' views were supported by a note by Captain A. D.

Taylor, R.N.R., on the nautical aspects of the
T 1 r ^"Vl!^ question, in which that officer showed the in-

efficacy of a breakwater in case of a cyclone,

the further superiority of a close harbour in providing smooth water for
landing and shipping cargo. He also instanced Port Said to prove the
slowness of the operations of nature in accumulating silt.

These reports induced Colonel Walker, E.E., then Chief Engineer to

the Madras Government, in a memorandum of
Maturer views of Mr. - D_0 , . ., i -.«-

the year 1873, to recommend a visit by Mr.
Farkes. *

Parkes to Madras for the study 01 local con-
ditions. Mr. Parkes accordingly visited Madras and on 4th November
1873 submitted a complete report and estimate in which after reviewing
previous opinions he gave his opinion in favour of a close harbour,
reiterating its advantages over a detached breakwater and the
groundlessness of a fear of shoaling. His estimate came to £565,000,

CONSTRUCTION OP THE MADRAS HARBOUR. 7

for which accommodation would be provided for 13 ships of from
4,000 to 700 tons at fixed moorings, able to swing clear, and for three
ships alongside the sorew pile pier. The section of arm proposed
was a submerged mound of rubble up to a depth of 22^ feet below
low water surmounted by a solid wall of two rows of concrete blocks
laid close together 24 feet wide, 6 feet above high water. He
assessed the saving in landing and shipping operations at a rupee
per ton of goods, applying which to the number of tons handled in the
previous year, viz., 275,000, he deduced a revenue from savings only of
£27,500, which would pay the interest on a sum sufficient to construct
the harbour. Mr. Parkes also considered the alternatives of a single
eastern entrance and two entrances near the outer angles, and decided
in favour of a single entrance, on the ground that the double entrance
would mean a sacrifice of one-fifth or one-sixth of the capacity of the
harbour, while the single entrance would be disadvantageous to sailing
ships only and only at certain times. In estimating the danger from
heavy seas rolling into the eastern entrance Mr. Parkes' views are given
verbatim : —

" For protection from seas with one entrance. — More importance has
probably been attached to another objection, which, however, I cannot
admit as undisputed, viz., the danger from heavy seas from the eastward
rolling into the harbour. Those who urge this objection or probably not
folly aware of the effect produced upon such seas when they enter a
harbour. They are immediately dispersed, and the extent of reduction is
not, as in the case of an open breakwater, a matter of speculation, but it
is one of exact calculation.* Captain Biden, the former Master Attendant,
estimates the maximum height of wave at Madras at 10 feet. Such a wave
entering the harbour would be reduced to 1 foot 9 inches before it reached
the piers or the beach. A wave 15 feet high (the maximum measured at
Kurrachee) would be reduced to 2 feet 7 inches — neither very formidable.

" With two entrances. — Whether the two entrances would admit more or
less swell with an easterly sea would depend on their width and form. If
equally accessible to vessels as the eastern entrance, they would, I believe,
together admit more sea, and the reductive power of the harbour would
be less, as each wave would spread over only one right angle instead of
two right angles.

" Effect on seat from different directions.— With the north-east monsoon
swell the eastern and northern entrances would be about on a par, but the
former would have more reductive power. If the tranquillity of the
harbour were inversely proportioned to the duration and force of the wind
to which thg entrances are respectively exposed, the easterly one would
"have a marked advantage over either of the others separately, and of course

* Stevenson on Harbours;

OFFICIAL PAPEBS CONCERNING THE

in a far greater degree over the two together, but the easterly seas are the
heaviest and most dangerous, and go far to counterbalance this advantage.
On the whole, however, I am of opinion that the balance of advantage is
on the side of the single entrance facing east by south."

Plate I shows a plan of this harbour as proposed by Mr. Parkes.
Those proposals were generally approved by the Chief Engineer to
the Madras Government, Colonel Walker, E.E., and by the Chamber
of Commerce, the latter pointing out that " the many considerable
advantages which the Government would derive from the harbour —
whether as a refuge for ships in distress, as an anchorage for
men-of-war, as a secure port for landing at all times and seasons
troops or military stores, or as a means of improving the defences
of the port — are an undoubted claim for a portion of its cost being
borne by Imperial funds." They were also approved as a whole by the

Government of India, which forwarded them

Views of the Government tf) th Secretarv of State with a letter of wbich
of India in 1874. J

the following extract will bear reproduction.

* * * *

" The advantages of giving protection to the shipping at Madras, and
of affording facilities for the lauding of goods and passengers, are undeni-
able, but the scheme involves three questions, which appear to us to
demand consideration and discussion before coming to a final conclusion on
the subject.

" There is first the soundness or otherwise of providing a close harbour
instead of an open breakwater. As your Lordship is aware, there is some
difference of opinion on this important point, but it is to be remarked,
first, that a breakwater has been estimated to cost a sum so large that,
in the opinion of the Madras Chamber of Commerce, it would be
entirely beyond the power of the Port Trust to provide even the
interest on the outlay, irrespective of the cost of future maintenance and
repairs ; and, secondly, that, on the whole, the balance of the professional
and nautical opinions obtainable is in favour of a close harbour rather than
an open breakwater. Neither scheme is likely to afford complete, or
probably even material, protection from the effect of very severe cyclones,
but a close harbour would undoubtedly afford great accommodation to
shipping in ordinary bad weather.

" We believe that considerable uncertainty must always attend conjec-
tures as to the effect of harbour works upon the movement of sand on an
open foreshore like that at Madras, but we do not consider that the
possibility of the proposed harbour being liable to silt up is a conclusive
objection to the projected scheme, unless, indeed, the objection be con-
sidered sufficiently strong to negative any attempt to provide shelter for
the port of Madras. Your Lordship has the means of consulting higher

3<?/Al

UJ

CO
Q

O

PROPOSED

a:
0

M

0

g-TI

'1

o
o-U
o

VL

0.

it?

*• *J

CT

0

Z

i?

O

MADRAS

HARBOU

PARKES1 Rt

•= I

> -

1?

£ 0
* 1

O

-

»-

UJ

,0

•0 W
9

in

X

T
f-

5

+j
01

O

O--

H

O

—

—

2

o ti

IL

9 —

O

^

S-q

Z

ill

I

or
o-Q

^

(0

0

_l

Q.

s
e

0}

1

g

t^

1
1

#

«s

"Wu

^#

* »

Xb^^/
V

;- -

CONSTRUCTION OP THE MADRAS HARBOUB. "9

professional authority than is obtainable in this country, if yon should
cbnsider it desirable to obtain further opinions on this point.

" So far as we can form an opinion, we agree with the Government of
Madras in recommending Mr. Parkes' scheme of a close harbour as the
best thut has yet been devised, having regard to all the conditions of the case.

" The next point for consideration is, whether the details of the mode
of construction advocated by Mr. Parkes are satisfactory, and whether the
estimates of cost are likely to- be sufficient. It is to be observed here that
the proposed harbour is to consist of sea-walls or breakwaters, composed
of loose rubble-stone at the base, and of solid concrete blocks resting there-
upon, in the same manner as the breakwater recently constructed at
Kurrachee. "We should have been glad had we been able to show from
further experience in this country what is the effect of heavy seas and
severe storms upon this method of construction, for there is no question
but that it will be very severely tested at Madras, but so far as we know
there are no grounds for questioning its stability. Here, again, Her
Majesty's Government may have better advice available than is at the
disposal of this Government.

" Mr. Parkes' estimate amounts to £505,000, and from a report
enclosed it will be seen that the experience obtained from the worts at
Kurrachee shows that the rates for concrete blocks may be accepted as
sufficient, but that some additions should be made to the estimate which
raises the probable cost to £710,000 ; and if interest is to be charged
upon this sum during the period of construction, then the amount of capital
debt on the completion of the works will rise to £776,465, on the assump-
tion that the time occupied will be four years, and that the advances are
evenly distributed. It should also be noted that the scheme projected by
Mr. Parkes does not provide accommodation for the landing of cargoes along
the sea-walls forming the harbour and that additional outlay on this count
will ultimately be required. Cargoes may, however, be landed, meanwhile,
at the existing pier.

" The third and last point for consideration is, how to meet the interest
of the money to be lent to the Government of Madras, and provide a
si'nking f and for extinguishing the capital debt, without causing serious
injury to the trade of Madras. The calculations of the estimates of charge
and revenue are as follows : —

" The Madras Government have taken a payment of 6 per cent, per annum
on £600,000 or £36,000, as representing the annual charge for interest
and sinking fund, and has proposed to raise the money as follows : —

, £

A rate of As. 8 (Is.) per ton on foreign steamers and ships, and

As. 4 (6d.) a ton on coasting steamers and native craft •... 20,000
As. 14 (Is. 9d.) per ton on all goods landed and shipped ... 16,000

Total ... 36,000

LO OFFICIAL PAPEKS CONCERNING THE

' " But it will be seen that higher dues will be required if the cost of the-
work rises as high as we have thought it prudeat to estimate. Taking the
calculations given in Colonel Dickens' note, it will be necessary to obtain
£42,196 per annum to cover interest at 4£ per cent., and provide for the
repayment of capital in 40 years. To this we add £10,650 per annum, on
the average, taking one year with another, for repairs and maintenance,
and £4,000 for the port charges as at present. The result is that a sum
of £56,846 is required to be provided annually,

"The following are the very highest dues we can expect to be paid,

calculated on the existing trade : —

£
440,000 tons of shipping, at As. 8, or Is. per ton ... ... 22,000

220,000 tons of goods at Rs. 1J or 3s. per ton 33,000

Total ... 55,000

" We consider that the nature of the trade at Madras makes it evident
that from steamers calling at the port, but a very moderate amount can be
levied without running serious risk of driving them away altogether, and
we agree with the Madras Government that the returns from tonnage dues
cannot well be taken at a higher figure than £20,000 a year, leaving
£36,846 to be annually provided for by a charge upon the goods landed in
such manner as the Government of Madras, after further consultation with
the Government of India, may consider proper.

" We think it desirable to record our opinion that, if this loan be
granted, there cannot fail to be considerable risk of loss to the revenues of
India, both on account of the uncertainty of all harbour works, and also on
account of the probability of pressure being put upon the Government of
India to relieve the trade of Madras from the burden of paying the interest
if the harbour dues not prove to be a success, or if the port-dues operate
injuriously, audit is for Her Majesty's Government to consider whether
these risks are, or are not counterbalanced by the undoubted advantages
that will accrue should the undertaking prove to be a successful one."

The Secretary of State in accordance with this despatch submitted
to Mr. J. F. Bateman, C. E., the following three questions to which
the answers attached were given —

Questions. Anstcers.

"(I) Whether the proposed (1) I am of opinion, after the

method of constructing the break- full information I have received of.
water, as describe i in the Keport the mode of construction adopted at
dated the 4th November 1873, affords Kurrachee and the success and stabi-
promise of stability. lity of the breakwater there, exposed,

as it is alleged to be, to as heavy or
a heavier sea than the breakwater
at Madras can be, that the mode of

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAS HARBOUR.

II

Questions.

"(2) Whether the obstruction
to the littoral currents offered by the
breakwater is likely to cause an
accumulation of sand ; and, if so,
within what period such accumu-
lation is likely to impede the entrance
to the harbour.

" (3 i Whether the p -opoae 1 har-
bonr, being enclosed by breakwaters
only 3 feet 6 inches above high
water mark, and having an opening
. 150 yjrds wide exposed to the sea,
•would afford sufficient protection to
the shipping moored within it during
the prevalence of high winds blow-
ing inshore.

Anmer*.

constructing the breakwater, as de-
scribed in Mr. Parkes' report of 4th
November 1873, does afford promise
of stal il.ty. It is. however, very
probable that, both during construc-
tion and subsequent to completion,
very severe storms may disturb and
injure the work ; but this contingency
is not, in my opinion, sufficient to
prevent the execution of the break-
waters in the manner proposed by
Mr. Parkes.

(2) A breakwater or pier pro-
jecting at right angles from the
coast must of necessity obstruct
littoral currents and arrest travelling
sand or shingle, but I have no in-
form ition as to the quantity of sand
which would be thus arrested in a
year, and cannot therefore make any
calculation of the period within
which the accumulation would extend
as far out as the points of the piers,
or impede the entrance to the
channel.

The piers or sides of the en-
closed harbour are proposed to be
extended nearly two-thirds of a mile
from shore, and I am of opinion that,
whatever may be the quantity of
sand which will be arrested, a very
long period will elapse before the
accumulation behind the walls can
have an injurious effect, so long, in-
deed, that it may be disregarded.

(3) The breakwater, though the
top be only 3 feet 6 inches above
high water, will very effectually stop
the progress of driving waves, and
will afford material shelter within the
harbour. It will not prevent water
rolling over in heavy eeas, but the
destructive effect of snch water will
be destroyed, and no injurious wave

12 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

Questions* Answers.

can be propagated within the space
of the harbour.

I consider an opening of 150
yards will afford easy ingress and
egress to vessels, and that any waves
entering this space from high winds
blowing inshore will, as soon as they
have entered, spread out in all direc-
tions with such rapidity as to be
wholly dissipated as objectionable
waves within a short distance of the
entrance.

The water within the harbour
in all winds, however high, will be
comparatively quiet."

Sanction by the ^n receipt of these answers the scheme was

Secretary of State for sanctioned in a despatch dated llth March 1875,

of which the following is an extract : —

"Considering these favourable judgments in conjunction with the
experience of Mr. Parkes' mode of construction which has been furnished
by the harbour of Knrrachee, I am satisfied that his plans are likely to be
•oitable for their purpose, and may be safely sanctioned.

" The question of expense is, as might be expected, a matter of some
controversy. Your Government is disposed to place it at as high as
£776,465 ; Mr. Parkes' own original estimate did not exceed the sum of
£565,000. The Madras Government have adopted an intermediate view,
and are of opinion that £628,000 will be amply sufficient. A similar
discrepancy exists with respect to the estimate for maintenance, which is
placed by your Government and that of Madras at the sums of £10,000
and of £2,000 a year respectively.

" The contingencies upon which the cost of constructing and repairing a
harbour depends are BO uncertain that it would be hazardous to express a
confident opinion in respect to these conflicting estimates. But the question
is too large to be dealt \» ith only upon financial grounds. Many human
lives are sacrificed in the tempests which annually ravage the Coromandel
coast, and it is probable that a large proportion of these might be saved if
the vessels which are now surprised in the roadstead could seek the shelter
of a harbour. The material interests of the vast population that inhabits
the Presidency of Madras are not less deeply affected by the unsheltered
condition of the port. It can hardly be doubted that, if a safe and regular
access to the sea could be secured to them, their industry and trade would
be greatly stimulated. The public utility of a harbour can seldom be
* measured by the actual return in the shape of dues which it can be made to

CONSTRUCTION OP THE >ftDBAS HABBOUB. 13

pay, and in the Presidency of Madras, where the destitution of shelter upon
the seaboard is so remarkable, such a principle of valuation would be
specially misleading.

" I do not, therefore, propose to make the construction of the harbour of
Madras depend upon the accuracy of the estimates submitted by the
Government of Madras. Those estimates may, however, properly serve as
a guide in determining the sum -which is to be advanced for the work out
of the extraordinary Public Works fund. The principles upon which that
fund was constituted, and of which I reminded you in my Financial De-
spatch of the 23rd July 1874, No. 387, forbid its application to any work
except so far as the yield of that work i* likely to repay the interest upon
its cost.

" Looking to the tonnage both of the ships which visit the port and of
the goods which pass through it, and also to the burdens which are borne
without injury to the trade of other ports, I am disposed to concur with the
opinion of the Government of Madras, that dues raised upon shipping and
upon goods ia'that port may be trusted to repay interest upon the £628,000
which they estimate as the outlay necessary in addition to the annual sum
•which, in their opinion, they will have to provide for the maintenance and
working expenses of the harbour. I do not conceal from myself that
circumstances now unforeseen may render inevitable an excess either upon
the capital outlay or the annual expenditure in maintenance. But the

'imperial character of the undertaking, and the high interests involved in it,
do not permit me to look upon the existence of that contingency as an
insuperable obstacle to the prosecution of the work. If the excess should
arise, it must be borne upon the ordinary budget ; but until the probability

-of its being incurred is ascertained, the necessity for providing for it will
not arise. I desire, however, to record the opinion that, if the full amount
of the highest estimate formed by your Government should be reached, the
expenditure will still have fallen short of the benefits which the work may
be confidently expected to confer upon the people of Madras."

The work was commenced in 1877 -with the north arm. The
immediate result was a considerable accretion of

commencement of '^a ou the south side of that arm. This attracted
worki

the attention of the Government of India, who in

December 1877 depnted General, Sir A. Clarke, Member of the Viceroy's
.Council, to inspect the work, without however interfering with its
.progress. Sir A. Clarke inspected the work in February 1878 and
.submitted a long report dated 18th February 1879, in which he con-
demned the scheme on political, financial, nautical,
Criticisms and sug-
gestions by General sir commercial, and engineering grounds, and recom-
A. Clarke, R.E. mended a design by which the harbour would be

detached from the shore, its accommodation increased, its defensive

14 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

power improved, and egress and ingress facilitated. In this design
the two arms'were broken at 3| fathoms, leaving an entrance both north
and south, the curved or breakwater portion being longer than hitherto
designed, the outermost point being armed with a fort, and the interior
divided by wharves. This report was forwarded home and referred by
the Secretary of State to Mr. Parkes in September 1879. But in the
meantime the progress of the south and north arms had provided new
data aud Mr. Parkes was able to satisfy the Secretary of State that

sufficient warrant had not been furnished for
Mr. Parkes' reply. , . .

stopping the works. Mr. rarkes reply is of such

interest as bearing on subsequent developments that part of it is here
reproduced in cxtenso :

The Sand Difficulty.

" The point at issue between Sir Andrew Clarke and myself may be
expressed in a very few words. My conclusion was from the first, and still
is, that supplementary works will at some future time be required to prevent
the advance of sand from, destroying the harbour, but that the period at
which this will become necessary is so distant that it need not at present be
taken into account.*

" The area of discussion is very ranch narrowed by Sir Andrew Clarke's
admission of what I consider to be the one great principle, which is the key
of the whole question. It is one for which I have contended from the first,
though, in consequence of the special circumstances under which I made
my original report, it is rather tacitly assumed than positively asserted
therein. That principle is that the force by which the sand is disturbed and
transported is that of the waves and not of the currents, and that its move-
ments are confined to a belt bounded by the shore on one side and by a line
approximating to the four-fathom contour on the other. Outside this there
is no important movement. So far, Sir Andrew Clarke and myself are
agreed.

" It is well known that the waves in the two monsoons approach the shore
from different directions, approximately north-east and south-east, each
obliquely transverse to the general line of the shore. The first and main
movement of the particles of sand lifted from the bottom by the waves must
obviously be in the same direction as that of the particles of water which
have lifted them, and this must be either in the same direction as the wave
itself is moving, or the exactly opposite direction, without any tendency to a
diversion to the right or the left so long as the wave has an unimpeded onward
movement. But when this movement is met by the shelving bottom a portion

* To show that this does not impose any very serious burden on posterity, I may
mention that whatever the length of time may be it may be doubled by the extension of
the South Pier seaward for a length of 1,000 feet, at a cost of 80,000?.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAS HARBOUR. 15

of the particles of sand-laden water are diverted right or left according
to the direction of the obliquity, and thus an alongstore movement is com-
municated to the sand. At first the proportion of this movement is small,
but as the rolling wave advances towards the shore into still shallower water
the degree of obstruction increases, and the alongshore component of the
movement increases with it, until where the wave make its final break on
the beach the onward movement is completely arrested, and the final result
upon the particles of sand carried by it is a transport for a certain distance
alongshore.

"It directly follows from this, first, that the alongshore movement is
very much greater close to shore than it is further out ; and second, that the
movement in the outer part of the area of disturbance, whether great or
small in itself, has a large component of transverse movement, and a small
one of alongshore movement. The importance of making a distinction
between these two movements arises from the fact that the alongshore
movement is directly arrested by the piers, and so far as the movement in
one direction in one monsoon is not balanced by that in the other direction
in the other monsoon, the effect will be cumulative from year to year. The
transverse movement on the other hand will not be interfered with by the
piers, and the seasonal changes will continue to balance one another as
heretofore.

'• The triangular accumulation and its partial removal, as shown on the
plan, was, however, a definite addition to our materials for estimating the
amount of sand movement due to the alternate southerly and northerly
alongshore wave action. Its completeness as evidence depends on the degree
of reliance which may be placed on the first of the two principles enunciated
in the previous paragraph, and which as yet rested entirely on hypothetical
considerations. My own belief was, and is, that it is a legitimate deduction
from admitted principles, and that it might fairly be concluded that the
amount of sand which passed the line of the pier, but would have been
arrested by the pier itself had it been in existence, was so small in comparison
with that actually arrested as to be properly disregarded. A calculation
made upon this assumption showed that at the same annual rate of accumula-
tion it would require 50 years for the four-fathom line to reach the sea face
of the harbour, and if it were further assumed, as the plan shows, to be well
within the mark, that half the accumulation under the southerly seas is
removed by the northerly seas, the period would be extended to 100 years.
But even if this be not admitted, and a substantial allowance be claimed for
sand which passed freely, and is therefore not shown by the area of accumula-
tion, a very considerable one might be made without so reducing the ' life '
of the harbour as to trench upon my contention that the means of extending
it may be left to posterity. Up to 1876, however, ray reliance was on a
hypothesis based on abstract reasoning. I hope to show that it may now
be based on fact."

16

OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

Harbour

During this investigation Mr. Parkes had recommended a slight
alteration in the form of the seaward side of the
harbour and the entrance, which was agreed to>
and the work was steadily prosecuted, the only
jncident being a visit by Colonel Sankey, B.E.>
and Captain J. H. Taylor, E.N.E. (then respect-
ively Chief Engineer and Master Attendant at
Madras), to Colombo, and their remarks after an
inspection of the works there on the much more
massive section of the arm at Colombo and the
extra rubble protection. This was in 1881 and
on 4th August of the same year Mr. Parkes
wrote a reply to these criticisms defending his
design by the example of Kurrachee and declining
to consider Madras and Colombo comparable.
On November 12, a severe cyclone visited Madras and the seaward
Cyclone of November portion of the works, which had then progressed
*2> 1881> nearly to the pier heads, was almost destroyed.

Some of the correspondence that ensued upon this disaster is of

Sir G. Moles worth' s sufficient importance to be reproduced. First

report on the disaster. comea foe rep0rt of Sir GK Molesworth, then

Consulting Engineer to the Grovernment of India for State Railways,

of which the following is an extract : —

In conclusion, I may briefly summarise my opinions as follows : —
Itf, — The proximity of a cyclone is no measure of the intensity of wave

action.
2nd. — The storm of the 12th of November 1881 was a very severe test,

probably almost as severe as any that can occur at Madras.
3/-^. — Wave action at Madras extends to depths far lower than
experience in English and continental harbours has led
Engineers to expect.
4th.— The pier faces have failed almost entirely by the displacement

of the 27-ton blocks.

5th. — The elbows have failed, on the sea side from nnderscour of the

rubble base, and on the harbour side by displacement of blocks.

£th. — The rubble base has on the sea side of the face and the elbows

been pulled down to a flatter slope, while the rubble base on

the harbour side has stood well.

"jih. — The sides have from the shore to the elbows been practically

uninjured.

8M.— The waves of a dangerous character must always come in broad-
side on to the shore, or nearly so, whatever the position of
the storm.

MADRAS HARBOUR

SKETCH SHEWING SITES OF DAMAGE
In STORM of 12th. Novr. 1881.

Portion uninjured

B. C. Portion undermined, and

blocks fallen to seaward -

C. D. Top courses displaced, and

blocks fallen inside.

E. F. Portion uninjured

Portion undermined, and
blocks fallen to seaward
C. H. Top courses mostly displaced
and blocks fallen inside.

Scale 1000 Feet to an Inch

1000 2000

L-2-/Reg : No 6853
1902 \Copie» — 110

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAS HARBOUR. 17

9^. — The sides of the harbour will not probably be exposed to broad-
side action of cyclonic waves.

10/A. — The entrance has been uninjured by the storm.

llth. — The storm has not increased the accumulation of 'sand iu the
harbour.

\-2th. — The section adopted by Mr. Parkes is the cheapest and most
expeditious that could be adopted.

13/A. — It is probably sufficient for the sid^s of the harbour, which
will not be exposed to the full action of the cyclonic wave,
but the rubble base should be supplemented with gneiss.

1 1th. — It is insufficient for the faces and elbows.

Ihth. — The disaster is not serious, as all the materials that have been
deposited are available without removal.

16th. — The concrete of which the blocks is composed is good and suffi-
cient, but in some instances it has been used too soon after
manufacture.

17^.— Some of the laterite obtained from the new quarry is unsuit-
able for the rubble base, and I advise that no laterite be
used in reconstruction.

18th. — I am of opinion that the failure of the breakwater is net
attributable to the character of the concrete or laterite,
though in some few parts the catastrophe may have been
hastened by broken blocks or unsuitable rubble.

19th. — I would only propose to reconstruct the vertical wall where it
can be economically used for the distribution of materials.

20th. — The blocks that have fallen should remain where they are.

21st. — The reconstruotion should be on the lines of the present break-
water, but on the random block principle.

22nd. — The face should be extended to cover the elbows.

23rd.— The sides should be protected by throwing down additional
gneiss rubble on the sea f-ide.

2lth. — The blocks might be rather larger for the outside slopes, say
30 or 35 tons.

25th. — An inner breakwater should be formed for the protection of
barges during construction.

26th. — The blocks should not be used within six months from their
manufacture, unless they have a greater portion of cement.

27th. — Early action should be taken in the construction of blocks and
the quarrying of materials, so as to prevent further demo-
lition of the structure.

28th. — A detached breakwater covering the mouth of the harbour is
inadmissible.

18 OFFICIAL TAPERS CONCERNING THE

29/A. — The entrance should, if possible, be narrowed, but a decision
on this point must be postponed pending further investiga-
tion and experience.

30M.-— The cost of reconstruction will be about 27 lakhs of rupees.

31st.— The harbour, even with this addition, will, when compared
with similar works, have been constructed at a very low rate.

Mr. Parkes' report Then follows Mr. Parkes' report dated 9th

and proposals for restor- March 1882 from which a portion is here re-
*tion' printed.

" My report has been delayed longer than I could have wished, owing
to the great difficulty of obtaining detailed measurements and sections, which
require an exceptionally calm state of the sea. Upon the results shown by
these depend in a great measure our conclusions as to the particular action
of the sea which produced the damage. I have thought it desirable to
delay the submission of my report until I had obtained such facts as were
necessary, not only to form a basis for my own positive conclusions, but
also to test beyond the possibility of doubt the correctness of the conclusions
which have been put forward Ly others upon a more or less imperfect
knowledge of the facts. I may here mention once for all that I have given
careful consideration to various suggestions that have been made to account
for the damage, but I do not think it necessary to notice these as a rule, but
rather to submit my own conclusions, with the facts on which they are
based.

" Previous reports. — I wish however to explain my position with regard
to two documents of very great interest, the first being a report which was
made only two days after the storm by the Chief Engineer of the Presidency,
who with great promptitude availed himself, in company with the Master
Attendant, of a specially favorable opportunity of taking what was
necessarily a very general view of the state of the works. This report was
forwarded ' with all reserve ' to the Secretary of State, and I had an
opportunity of perusing it before I left London. If I were to comment
upon the suggestions made in this report as to the particular action of the
«ea, it would give them a prominence which the author probably never
intended they should possess.

" The other document is a very excellent report made by Mr. Thorowgood
on the 21st November, nine days after the storm, which is especially
noteworthy as showing how much information can be obtained in a short
time. But this information, though generally confirmed by subsequent
observations, was not sufficiently complete to form a basis for practical
conclusions, and what was then wanting had to be obtained with consider-
able difficulty afterwards. It is scarcely possible to make an intelligible
statement of facts without conveying some suggestion of conclusions to be

CUN'STRl'CTIOX OF THE MADE AS HARBOUR.

drawn from them, and in some cases such suggested conclusions fail to be
confirmed by the facts subsequently ascertained. To a slight extent this
is the case with Mr. Thorowgood's report, but it is no disparagement of
its merits to ask that it may be considered as superseded, even if generally
confirmed in its conclusions, by the present report, and in its facts by the
plans and sections which will be submitted to Government, and will, I think,
form a very interesting and instructive record.*

" Mr. Ttoroirffood. — I should mention th«t I had the advantage of five
weeks' constant communication with Mr. Thorowgood before he left for
England, and during that time, as further « ateiials accumulated, we were
able to form more definite conclusions, and those conclusions, independently
formed by each of us, were in all essential matters the same. They
included, subject to corrections suggested by the further surveys which
have since been made, most of the recommendations which I am about
to submit.

" 1 he storm. — The storm is thus described in the official Meteorological
Eeport issued by the Government Astronomer on November 23rd 1881 : —

' A cyclone visited Madras on Saturday and Sunday the 12th and 13th
instant. It appears to have exhausted its greatest force while crossing the
Bay before reaching the coast of Southern India, which would account for
the high and destructive sea, far beyond what might have been expected
from the meteorological indications accompanying its progress. The centre
of the storm must have struck the coast considerably southward of Madras.
The lowest reduced reading of the barometer was 29-51 at 4 P.M. on Satur-
day ; and the strongest wind was experienced between 11 P.M. and 2 A.M. oa
Sunda}, during which time it averagrd 32 miles per hour in velocity,,
equivalent to a pressure of about 5£ Ib. per square foot. Rain commenced
at 1A A.M. on Saturday and continued until 8 P.M., amounting in all to 8-19
inches — the twelfth heaviest fall on record at Madras since 1803. No single
hour was extraordinarily excessive, but the persistence of both wind and
rain was remarkable. The veeriug of the wind was as usual for cyclones
southward of Madras. The records of the anemograph furnish the following
mid-times for each principal point of the compass with the corresponding
hourly velocities : —

.W. by W. at 2-|- P.M.

N.\V. at 3£ PM.
N.X.W. at 6i P.M.

Xorch at 7f P.M.
N.N.E. at 8£ P.M.

N.E. at 10J P.M.

velocity 20 miles,
do. 29 do.
do. 23 do.
do. 27 do.
do. 30 do.
do. 31 do.

E.X.E. at 1} A.M. ; velocity 33 miles.

East at 2$ A.M. ; do. 25 do.

E.S.E. at 4^ A.M. ; ,do. 18 do.

a.E. at 7£ A.M. ; do. 14 do.

S.S.S. at 9£ A.M. ; do. 14 do.

South at 10£ A.M. ; do. 13 do.'

" The Astronomer here alludes to the fact, to which I have myself
frequently had occasion to advert, that there is no relation between the
force and direction of the wind in the neighbourhood of a cyclone and those

* These are still in progress. At the end of the present fine season so much as ia
complete will be submitted to Government.

20 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

of the sea which may accompany it. The sea is raised, not by the wind
which may happen to be blowing at the time at any given spot, but by an
intense atmospheric disturbance at a distance, that is in the centre of
the cyclone, and from the site of that atmospheric disturbance (which when
the wind is from the north -west at any place will lie between north-east and
east of that place) the sea disturbance will proceed, propagated by laws
which, so far as we know, have no similarity whatever to those by which
the atmospheric disturbance itself is propagated. On this occasion the
maximum velocity of the wind at Madras was 33 miles per hour ; on
occasion of the great storm in Miy 1872 the velocity was 53 miles per hour ;
in May 1874 it was 49 miles per hour ; while in May 1877, when the
concrete block work of the north pier had advanced about 300 feet, the sea
was nothing like so severe as in last November, though the velocity of the
wind was 34 miles per hour.

" The testimony of all observers is to the effect that the sea of 12th
November must rank with those of the great historical cyclones, thougli
there is a conflict of evidence as to whether it was actually as heavy or
heavier. Mr. Chisholm, the Government Architect, a very intelligent and
close observer, speaks confidently as to the recent sea being considerably
heavier than that of 1872 ; but on the other hand, the officers of the Marine
Department, who witnessed both storms, give the palm to that of 1872.
A rough test is afforded by its action on the planking of the screw pile pier
17 feet above mean sea level. This was torn up in 1872, in 1374, and
again in 1881, but it is uncertain whether on the last occasion the effect of
the Harbour Works would be to reduce the waves at the site of the pier (as
I have no doubt was the case over the area of the harbour generally), or to
aggravate them by the confusion which would be caused by their rolling in
over the piers as well as through the entrance. The end of the pier is just
outside the line in which the first break of the waves occurred, and the
height there was no doubt abnormally raii-ed.

" As compared with the forre of sea in other places the evidence is also
unsatisfactory. Mr. Bhoomya Saenna, Sub-Engineer, is the only person who
could compare this sea with that raised by the south-west monsoon at
Kurrachee He considers the waves were not higher, but the succession of
them was more rapid. The maximum height measured at Kurrachee was
15 feet. Mr. Chisholm estimated about the same height for the late storm
at Madras,* and at both places independent testimony fixed the depth of
solid water passing over the breakwaters at about 20 feet.

" Mr. Thorowgood did not consider this sea to be so heavy to all
appearance as those he had witnessed at the mouth of the Tyne, and he is

* Other estimates give 30 feet, but I do not put any faith on such estimates made by
unskilled persons, either in respect of this or any other storm witn which they n:ay be
compan d.

COXSTRl CT10!!? OF THE MADRAS HARBOUR. 21

confirmed by Mr. Underdown, the Foreman Diver, who w as also engaged
on the Tyne works.

"I do not consider however that these comparisons are of much valne.
I have given them because they are sure to be made by others if not by
myself, but my own experience is that the appearance of the sea gives
very little indication of its real force.

" Effects of sea on foundations. — When we come to compare results however
•we are led to a more definite conclusion. The best test for practical
purposes of the force of sea is its power of undermining foundations.
Jt is proved by the general practice of Engineers at home that a depth of 15
feet below low water is safe. At Alderney, where there is evidence of a
power of sea greater in some respects than at any place I know, foundations
at that depth have never been disturbed. At Wick, where a mass of concrete
and masonry of 2,500 tons was moved bodily by the sea, and the height of
the waves was estimated at 42 feet, foundations at 18 feet depth were un-
touched, and no action was found below 10 feet. The deepest foundations-
I have ever heard of as being undermined were 11 feet below low water
at the Tyne, but at Madras the walls were in two places for a short length
undermined at 22 Jeet belotc loic water*

" This i-» an effect I should never have anticipated, and I can now only
account for it by the supposition that there is some peculiarity in the
cyolone-raised disturbance to which the apparently heavier seas on the
English coast have nothing analogous. There is nothing improbable in the
supposition of a difference in the effects pro luced on the underlying water
by a very intense action within a limited area, and by a long continued
surface friction over a large space. It is true that the North Atlantic storms-
are cyclonic in their movements, but the movements extend over a larger
area, and have a less intensity, than those in the Bay of Bengal.

" But however this may be, it is certain that the 8 feet extra depth
of foundation which I allowed, more for the sake of convenience and
economy than for that of security, was really required for the latter pur-
pose. Though the damage actually resulting from undermining on this
occasion was not great, the whole length of the eastern face of the piers
was threatened and a rather heavier sea would have produced a serious
amount of damage of a different kind from that which actually was produced..
The most important lesson taught by this storm is that foundation* at a depth
of 22 feet under water are not proof against a cyclone sea.

" Effesis of tea on superstructure. — The great bulk of the damage however
is of a totally different kind, and is due to the direct force of the
waves on the superstructure. The results produced are precisely what

* It is of course well known that wave action extends and even moves nibble Btone
to a mnch greater depth than this, but the instances of such action have little bearing1
on practical engineering questions.

22 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

might have been anticipated on a work of insufficient strength. The impact
of the sea was delivered to all appearance j ast where it was expected, but it
was stronger than any we had previously experienced on this description
of work, and required a greater resistance than we had provided. The
lesson has been very dearly bought, but it is precisely the same kind of
lesson that has been taught in almost every case where works have been
undertaken exposed to a sea of unknown force. It is only when a sea of
nearly maximum force has been experienced that the final precautions are
shown to be necessary.

" I believe the damage produced by this storm on the Madras Harbour
"Works, the general nature of which is shown on the accompanying sketch,
is greater in its extent than that of any similar disaster on record, but it
must not be concluded that this is due to an unusual degree of weakness ia
the work. It is due rather to the fact that at Madras the maximum force of
sea is not, as is practically the case on the coasts where most of our experi-
ence has been gained, an eveut of almost annual occurrence, but it occurs
only at intervals of several years, and in one such interval of more than
usual duration a great extent of work had been completed, and was therefore
exposed at onue to the previously unknown destructive action of a sea of
nearly maximum force.

" The design of the work as executed at Madras was the result of a
careful investigation into the causes of damage to previously executed
works. Much material that appeared to be superfluous in them was dis-
pensed with, but additional strength was given to the parts that were
retained. The latest additions to tbe section were based on the experience
pained at Kurrachee. At that place the first heavy sea showed where the
greatest impact of the waves fell, and that part was strengthened in a way
that has been quite successful in a subsequent experience of nine years afc
Kurrachee, and for five years was successful at Madras, but it failed under *
sea of greater force than had previously been experienced at either place. To
prevent a recurrence of the damage additional strength must be given to
the vulnerable part. But it must be understood that all such precautions are
necessarily tentative as to their sufficiency. We may feel confident as to
their being right in principle, but the force of the sea cannot be estimated
in figures, and we are unable to say, when a work has stood successfully,
what margin of stability it possessed, or when it has failed, by how much
the destructive force was in excess of its stability. The strength of an
iron girder or the capacity of a water channel may be definitely calculated
in figures, but the stability of a sea barrier is a question to be decided by
precedent, guided by judgment and experience.

" The experience gained at Kurrachee was to the effect that the heaviest
blow of the sea was delivered on the tops of the blocks on the harbour side
of the breakwater, tending to drive them out from the wall into the
hirbour. Several blocks were forced out in this way, but in no case was-

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAS HARBOUR.

23

=any block forced to seaward. The tendency was met by inserting a stone
joggle which locked the top course to the course below, and prevented it
from sliding. This precaution was quite successful at Kurrach«e, and a
contrivam.-e for effecting the same object having been from the first adopted
at Madras, the tenpency was so completely met that no evidence of its
existence was given by the action of the seas which preceded that of the
12th November last.

•• A knowledge of this tendency, however, forms a clue to enable us to
trace the process of destruction of the Madras piers. The waves rising
upon the sea face must have as fallen with terrific force npon the top of the
work on the harbour side, and the blocks were tilted off, probably two
courses, and possibly, in some cases, three courses, being displaced at once.
The sea wall then standing alone yielded to the lateral force of the waves,
and generally one course, but sometimes two, and in one or two cases even
three courses wore driven after tbe blocks of the harbour wall. Generally
speaking there is a course more remaining on the sea side than on the
harbour side.

" The following may be taken as a typical section of very much of the
work in its present btate. Parts of it

> / i

BABBOl'R

are necessarily hypothetical, but there is enough which, is matter of actual
observation to justify the assumption of the remainder. For a length of at
least two-thirds of the damaged parts blocks 1 and 3 have been traced
by the divers and found with slight exceptions to he undisturbed. For
the greater part of this length block 5 may be traced from the surface and
sometimes from below, generally more or less disturbed somewhat in the
way shown. No. 7 is in some cases in its place, but it is then generally
tilted by riding on the tenon on the top of No. 5 ; 6, generally 7, and 8 are
represented by an apparently confused heap of blocks which effectually
prevent access to 2 and 4. There is, however, sufficient evidence direct
and indirect to negative the very improbable supposition of these having
been undermined and thus caused the fall of the inner wall towards the
harbour. This evidence is, first, that where the inner slope of the rubble is

24

OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

unencumbered with blocks it ia found to be practically unchange-1 ; second,
where the sea wall is gone and the harbonr wall standing, as is the case
for a short length in each pier, the harbour wall leans over to seaward ;
third, at the spot at which, if anywhere, scour under the harbour wall
might be expected, viz., at the extreme end of the north pier, the rubble
is 4 feet above the foundations, and the wall is standing exceptionally
well, the blocks corresponding to No. 6 being in place. 'I here can therefore
be, I think, no doubt that the failure began with No. 8 block, or more
probably 6 and 8 together, and worked downwards and towards the
harbour. The rubble foreshore on the sea side however presents a marked
contrast to that on the harbour side. It is almost everywhere drawn
away from the wall and lowered sometimes below the level of the foundation
blocks.

" The above description may be taken as a generalization of the effects
produced upon about two-thirds of fche damaged parts. It comprises the
outer portions of the two piers, a length of 1,200 feet of the north and 9' 0
feet of the south pier. The remaining third, comprising 400 feet of the
north and 500 feet of the south pier, have been differently affected and the
investigation is more difficult, as the blocks are thrown down on both sides
of the piers, and a precise examination of the portions which remain
standing is for the most part impracticable.

" There is, however, one portion of the north pier, just at the commen-
cement of the carve, which is accessible to the diver, and has been carefully
examined. The following section, made from his description, will very
clearly exhibit the action to which it has been subjected. In this case the
harbour wall is standing, though considerably damaged.

HAllROVR

No. 1 block is drawn out to seaward 4 feet from its original position,
and its inner end is lifted 9 inches from the rubble bed, the block itself
being tilted towards the sea. The upper blocks are lying in confusion on

CONSTRUCTION OP THE MADRAS HARTTOUR. 25

the sea slope of the rubble. I do not see how it is- possible to attribute
these results to any other action than undermining of the foundation blocks.
The portion of the pier where this is evident is a length of something
under 100 feet, bnt it is probable that whenever the upper blocks have
fallen to seaward it is due to the same cause, although the foundation
blocks themselves are inaccessible. The action of the sea appears to have
been exceptionally severe at this spot, for the original sandy bottom is
scoured away 6 or 7 feet outside the rubble.

" There is a portion of the south pier, also on the curve, which appears
to have been acted upon in a very similar manner. At these two places
the breakwaters form about the same angle, one on the right and the other
on the left, with the prevailing line of the waves, and here the scouring
action on the bottom appears to have been more violent than where the
waves fell more directly on the face of the work.

" Iteinedieg.—Tke whole of the actual damage to the works is due to one
or other of the above causes, and I think that if the original section were
amended so as to give increased strength to the two weak places shown to
exist, every confidence might be placed in its stability under even a much
heavier sea than the recent one. The section as carried out was a perfectly
good one to withstand a moderate sea, and the effects of the heavier sea
show no grounds for any radical alteration. Such material as there was
was good in quality and properly disposed, but there was not enough of
it ; or perhaps it would be more correct to say the principles of the design
•were good, but not carried far enough. There is not the slightest justi-
fication for re-opening the worn-out questions of the relative merits of
random and placed blocks, or of bonded and unbonded work. Breakwaters
of random blocks or of bonded masonry might have stood if very much
more massive than those which have partially failed, but their security
would have been due to their greater massiveness, not to the different
principles of their construction.

" Quality of materials. — I have said that th& materials were good. I
am aware that a great deal has been said about the unsuitableness of
laterite for the rubble base, and some doubts have been expressed about
the quality of the concrete owing to many of the blocks having been
broken. Now laterite is undoubtedly a- troublesome material, and I am glad
to think that no more of it will be required, but there is not the slightest
ground for thinking that it contributed in any way to the late disaster.
The trouble it occasions IB that, being friable, it is very quickly compressed
by the weight of the blocks laid upon it, so that to allow for subsidence the
latter have to be set a higher level than is ultimately required. This is
troublesome in execution, and it has the still greater evil of subjecting the
blocks to excessive and irregular strains in the process of subsidence, ia
consequence of which many were broken. But when once consolidated, the
laterite forms as good a bed as the granite rubble. This is proved by the
comparison of the amount of settlement of the standing portions of .the twa

D

26 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

piers, one being built on laterite and the other on granite. There is no
appreciable difference between the two. It is right to add that the laterite
was used, not from choice, but because it was not practicable to obtain the
granite rubble in sufficient quantity to carry on the work at the speed for
which all other parts of the work were organized. It would of course
have been right to sacrifice speed of execution if ultimate stability were
endangered, but after full consideration it was decided that this was not the
case.

" Breaking of blocks. — The breaking of the blocks is undoubtedly a
blemish, and though it occurred over both the granite and laterite bases,
it occurred, I have no doubt, more over the latter for the reason I have
given above, though it is impossible to]determine the proportions accurately.
The evil, however, is really greater in appearance than in reality, for the
force which broke the blocks at the same time jammed them BO closely
together that the broken pieces are really as effective for the stability of
the work as many unbroken blocks which have not been subjected to the
same amount of pressure. I doubt whether it would have been possible by
any means entirely to prevent these breakages, but the number would have
been reduced if it had been possible to keep the blocks longer before
subjecting them to these severe strains. Be this as it may, however, the
concrete is undoubtedly of excellent quality, as even the fractured surfaces
of the broken blocks show. In the restoration of the work, as I shall
presently point out, this evil will not recur. But so far there is no evidence
to show that these breakages have contributed in any way to the failure of
the work.

" Subsidence. — Another point which has given rise to a good deal of remark
is the subsidence of the structure, but in this I can see no evidence of
weakness. It is quite certain that a rubble bank 20 feet high must consoli-
date under the weight of 30 feet of concrete, and it is equally certain that
the effect of agitation of the water must be to cause the rubble to sink into
the sandy bottom, but beyond involving the necessity of adding to the
top if it sinks below the required level, there is really no harm done. We
have the experience of years to show that subsidence does not involve
loosening of the superstructure-, but rather the contrary, while the sinking
of the foundation to a still lower level is a substantial advantage. Ihe
portions of the piers standing entire have settled under the action of the
storm about 9 inches at their outer ends, gradually diminishing to nothing
near the shore, the amount of sinking being inversely proportioned to the
length of time since they were built. The damaged portions, which of course
are newer, have sunk about 2 feet, as far as can be ascertained. There
may probably be a further subsidence, though its rate will decrease as time
goes on, but it is, I repeat, a perfectly harmless process. The above are
the settlements due to this particular storm. There had been previous
settlements due mainly to the natural consolidation of the rubble base,
generally amounting in the aggregate to from 2 to 3 feet, the maximum

CONSTRUCTION OP THE MADRAS

27

being near the south pier he<»d, where it was 4 feet. The further settlement
due to the storm is probably caused by subsidence into the sandy bottom.

•• Reconstruction. — In the scheme for reconstruction, then, we have
especially to keep in view the two weak points, the foot of the outer wall
and the top of the harbour wall. The required object may be attained
either by breaking the force of the waves before they reach the weak points
or l>y giving additional strength to the weak points themselves. The former
princip e has received full consideration. It appeared at first sight that the
remains of the original piers would form, a good outer barrier under shelter
of which a new pier would be safe from damage. But further examination
was not favourable to this idea. The shelter it would give in its present state
is too irregular. In some parts it might be fairly efficient, but in others it
would allow the sea to pass over it on to the new work with increased
violence. To prevent this such places would have to be made up with new
material, and this would lead to a serious amount of work, and I think a not
very satisfactory result. Besides which there is a considerable proportion
of the old work remaining, and the rubble base especially having been well
consolidated would offer a better foundation than a new one, especially in
not being liable to the immediate settlement which caused the fracture of
the blocks. Two out of the four courses of blocks are also for the most part
in a good state, and an uncertain proportion of the displaced blocks may be
recovered and used again.

•' Preference was therefore given to the principle of rebuilding the piers
on their original foundations, and making such additions as experience
shows to be necessary. The one great objection to this is the immense
difficulty of clearing the ground of fallen blocks. The magnitude of this
difficulty can hardly be realised without inspection of the ruins. It will
undoubtedly be a slow and costly operation, but all who are concerned in it
are satisfied of its practicability, and the difficulty being simply a mechanical
one, we may safely conclude that it will diminish with practice and
experience.

'• I propose, therefore, that the work be rebuilt on the former lines and
to the former section, but with the additions shown shaded on the accom-
panying sketch, to give increased strength to the two weak points.

28 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

The rubble base and blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4 are generally in a serviceable
state. 5, 6, 7, and 8 are new blocks similar to the old ones, except that
they will be 9 feet high instead of 8 feet, so as to make up for the 2 feet of
subsidence, a, c, and d being of the same dimensions as the old blocks, the
latter can be used so far as available ; b is a thin block inserted for the
purpose of bringing the top of d above water level, so that e may be set
upon it in a bed of cement, thus making d and e together into one block of
36 tons weight. The top of e is sloped off to give an escape for the falling
wave. If it were level like the top of 8, the effect would be simply to
transfer the vulnerable point from the top of 8 to the top of e, as is shown
by the fact that at the pier heads where the structure was increased to three
and four blocks in width the one next the harbour still gave way.

" Block / is intended to protect the toe of the outer wall from scour and
ultimate undermining. It should be placed at as low a level as practicable,
BO as to avoid encroaching on the profile formed by the sea itself. It is a
noticeable feature in the cross sections of the damaged parts of the piers
that a scanty slope of rubble and severe damage to the super structure do
not go together. On the contrary, where the sea wall was actually under-
mined at the south pier, and the nearest approach to a clean breach was
made, the rubble base happened to be particularly full. The evidence is at
present not more than negative, but it is to the effect that a full foreshore
is not an element of strength. The object of the footing, therefore, is simply
to substitute a surface of concrete for one of loose rubble, preserving as
nearly as possible the level and slope which the sea has formed. From the
outer end of the block the slope will be continued in rubble. J t may
probably be desirable where the blocks are fallen to seaward not to disturb
them, but rather add some more so as to make protective mounds of random
blocks at those places.

" Besides these actual additions to the section I propose to introduce two
extra securities into the top course of the old section. It has always been
an object, though hitherto unattainable, to connect the top blocks together,
both longitudinally and transversely, so as to make all the portion of the
section which is out of water into a monolithic mass ; but it is impossible to
do this in new work efficiently in consequence of the settlement to which the
structure is liable. An unequal settlement would sever any attachments we
could apply. Now, however, in rebuilding on an old foundation this diffi-
culty will be much diminished. What settlement does occur will be more
uniform, and slight inequalities in it may even be prevented by the
adherence of the attachments. It is proposed, therefore, so to make the
cross joints of the top blocks that they may be filled with cement, not during
the progress of building, but on a suitable opportunity afterwards. It is
also proposed to connect the two top blocks by an iron cramp made of a bent,
worn-out rail with the ends turned down and cemented into the blocks. Thus
each longitudinal rowcf blocks will become, so far as the cemented joints can

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAS HARBOUR. 29

be depended on, a monolith, and the two monoliths will be tied together at
intervals of 4i feet. It cannot be anticipated that the monoliths will be abso-
lutely continuous. Some of thecement joints will separate, but the majority
will hold together, and the top of the breakwater will consist of much larger
masses than hitherto, which will lend support to one another in a -way that
the detached blocks could not do.

' ' The section thus modified would have the following additional
elements of stability over the old section : — First, it woiild have 50 per cent,
greater width as a whole. Second, the vulnerable block No. 8 wonld be
supported («) by a buttress one-third heavier than itself, (b) by a tie to
block No. 7, (c) by its longitudinal continuity afforded by the cemented
joints. Third, the toe of the sea wall would be protected from undermining
by an apron of concrete blocks. I must repeat that it is impossible to show
the sufficiency of this by figures, as the force of sea is an indeterminable
quantity. But 1 think it quue outside the limits of reasonable probability
that we shall have to encounter a force of sea so much greater than that of
the late storm, as the strength of the new section would be greater than that
of the old.

" Uninjured portions. — I do not propose that the additions to the section
should be applied to the portions of the piers which have stood uninjured.
They have shown no sign of weakness beyond some scouring away of the
foreshores at the foot of the sea walls. These should be fed with some
heavy granite boulders. It would be desirable, however, now that the
block work has settled down to a solid bearing, to tie the top blocks together
with iron cramps in the same way as described for the new work. This
would give additional resistance to block No. 8 in the event of the nest
heavy sea coming from a point more northerly or more southerly than the
last, and the cost would be small, as there are a great number of rails which
are of no value for any other purpose.

' ' There is one farther additional security which I would propose to
apply to the curved portions of both piers. These have a special element of
weakness in the fact that if there should be any leaning over to seaward,
the upper course of blocks would open out like a fan. The late storm
showed that there is a greater scouring force on the foreshore of the curves
than elsewhere. I hope undermining from this cause will be effectually
prevented by the precautions above recommended, but I would propose, as
an additional precaution for the support oi the superstructure, to form a
groove longitudinally along the top of the sea wall about 1 2 inches deep all
round the curves, in which a strong chain cable will be laid, strained up
tight and then buried in concrete. The whole curve would thus be bound
together.

" I would beg to call attention to the fact that each one of the additions
I have recommended is intended to meet some weak point disclosed by the

SO OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

action of the sea upon the work. I have made no attempt to meet theo-
retical objections that are not supported by the special experience of this
particular occasion. My object has been to preserve what experience has
shown to be good in the work, as well as to supplement what was shown to
be insufficient, and I submit that it is by this process rather than by radical
changes of plan, which would involve much experimental work, that
ultimate success will be best assured."

He estimated the total additional cost at between 15^ and 18 j lakhs.
He then went on to show the advantage and accommodation afforded by
the harbour even in its ruined state, and concluded with the following
interesting paragraphs : —

" The experience gained since the harbour piers approached completion
is to the effect that the entrance facing the eastward admits an amount of
swell (particularly with easterly seas, which are more frequent than was
supposed1) which will render it desirable so to arrange the berthing of ships
that they may lie with th>ir heads towards the incoming swell, instead of
towards the prevailing winds as had been at first intended. For the great
majority of days in the year this can be done without difficulty, but there
are occasions (about 25 to 30 days as estimated by the officers of the Marine
Department) when a ship cannot lie with her broadside directly or even
obliquely exposed to the wind. On such occasions it becomes necessary to
cast off the stern moorings and allow her head to swing to the wind. As
the ship will then roll to the swell, landing and shipping cargoes will be
more difficult, and sometimes even prevented. With a strong wind from
one direction, and a heavy swell from another, the ship would roll very
uneasily, and though it might be only in extreme cases that she would be in
actual danger, such danger could only be avoided by pending her to sea.
This in itself is no unforeseen contingency, but it is now suggested that
there would be a difficulty in getting a ship clear from such an uneasy berth
as that just described while subject to the combined influence of wind and
swell. This difficulty could only be avoided by an earlier anticipation of the
danger, and by taking the ship out of the harbour at an earlier period of
threatening bad weather.

" The officers of the Marine Department are of opinion that this evil
can only be effectually cured by closing the present easterly entrance and
making an opening facing southwards in the south pier. If I do not enter
into the merits of this proposal, it is not because I question the reality of the
evil, but because I think it premature to discuss a question upon which no
practical action could in any case be taken for the three or four years that
will be required for the restoration of the damaged portions of the piers.
During those three or four years the harbour will be in daily use, and the
bearing of this one particular evil upon the whole question of the develop-
ment of the advantages afforded by the harbour will be more easily seen.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAS HARBOUR. 31

It is not a question of a harbour or no harbour, but of a harbour affording
a greater or less degree of shelter, and the value of the increased shelter
will be more precisely ascertained by the experience of actual,. work. The
proposal may then be put forward (if its desirability be confirmed by
experience) as one giving an advantage directly comparable with the cost.

" So far as carrying out the alteration is concerned, nothing would be

gained by an immediate decision, nor do I think, even if the idea had been

entertained from the beginning, any materially cheaper plan could have

been devised — certainly none more expeditious — than that of advancing

both piers to near their meeting point, using the interval between them as a

temporary entrance, and then making the final opening in such a position as

might appear most desirable by drawing back one of the Titans, removing

the necessary length of blocks, and dredging away the rubble. The

materials, of course, could be used for the final closing of the oiiginal

entrance, which would be carried on by the other Titan from the side

opposite to that in which the new opening would have been made. This

process will still be available if the alteration be ultimately determined on."

Last comes the report of a Committee consisting of Sir John

Hawkshaw. F.E.S., Sir John Coode, and Professor

Seport of first Home Stobes' appointed by the Secretary of State for

Committee. India to consider the whole matter. This report

is reprinted in extenso.

Madras Harbour.

"On the 8th July last we had the honor to receive a communication
from Lord Eufield referring to serious damage to the works of the Madras
Harbour by a severe cyclone which had occurred in the preceding autumn,
and informing us that certain proposals having been made for restoring the
works, the Secretary of State for India was desirous that the subject should
be investigated by competent professional authorities in this country, and
that Lord Hartington had decided to appoint a Committee for the purpose,
aud proposed that we should constitute that Committee.

" Lord Enfi eld's letter is given in the appendix, and having consented
to act under its instructions and provisions, we have now to report our
proceedings, and the conclusions at which we have arrived.

" The following documents have been forwarded to us, and have had
our consideration, viz. : —

Eeport by Guilford L. Molesworth, Consulting Engineer to the
Government of India for State Railways, to the Secretary of the
Government of India, "Public Works Department," dated
Calcutta, let March 1882.

Eeport by A. W. Stiffe, Port Officer of Calcutta, to the Secretary of
the Government of India, "Public Works Department," dated
Calcutta, 13th March 1882.

32 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

Note by Colonel R. H. Sankey, R.E., Chief Engineer of Governmeat
of Madras, "Public Works Department, Buildings and Roads,
Civil Works," dated 23rd March 1882.

Report by William Parkes, Engineer-in-Chief of Madras Harbour
Works, to the Secretary of the Government, "Public Works
Department," dated Madras, 9th March 1882.

Note by Colonel R. H. Saukey, R.E., referring to and accompanied
by sections of Pier, dated 26th July 1882, and by an extract from
the Proceedings of the Madras Government, " Public Works
Department."

Government of Madras, "Public Works Department." Papers,
numbered 33, 34, 72, and 73. Remarks on correspondence on the
comparison of the storms of 1872 and 1881 by William Parkes.
Letters from D. E. Dalrymple, late Master Attendant, Madras, and
Chief of the Marine Department,, Madras Presidency, dated July
llth and An-gust 24th, 1882.

" In the course of our inquiry we have been in frequent communication
with Mr. Parkes, the E»gineer-in-Chief of the Harbour Works, who. has
from time to time supplied us with documents and information explanatory
of the state of the works and of his views of methods and cost of restora-
tion. We have also, had interviews with, Mr. Thoxowgood, the Resident
Engineer of the works.

"We thought it desirable to request Mr. Dalrymple, to whose letters
we have referred, to attend one of our meetings and to afford us such
further information as he thought proper on the statements in those letters,
and we have had the benefit of his explanations and opinions.

"We have also taken advantage of Mr. Guilford Molesworth's visit to
England to obtain his views on several matters.

" A question raised in the correspondence is, whether the cyclonic storm-
ed 1872 or that of 12th November 1881 was the stronger, and, on this point
the evidence of boatmen and others is adduced, aud contradictory statements
are made. Mr. Chisholm is of opinion that the waves of the storm o£
November 1881 were more formidable than those of the storm which passed
over Madras in 1872. Lieutenant Taylor expresses an opinion that the
attack upon the works by the btorni of November 1881 was a mild one. In
the absence of accurate means of measurement there is nothing on which
greater diversity of opinion is more likely to arise than on the intensity of
storms. It would be useful to know, could any one tell whether the storm
of November 1881 was the most severe the Harbour Works can ever be
subjected to, but this is information that cannot be obtained. The facts we
have as regards the storm of November 1881 are its effects- on the Harbour
Works, and though we can have no doubt the storm was a very severe one,
it will be safer in considering the question referred to us to assume that
neither the storm of 1872 nor that of 188.1 was necessarily a maximum one,.

CONSTRUCTION* OF THE MADRAS HARBOUR. 33

as the period of nine years within which both occurred is too short an
interval to justify such a conclusion.

" In all estimates of the intensity of storms, it should be observed that
long waves, more of trie nature of heavy ground swells, may severely try
Harbour Works, and that such waves are compatible with the absence of
strong winds at the place itself and with comparative smoothness in the
offing.

" The present condition of the piers, and the damage they sustained by
the cyclone, have been fully described in the reports before us. Generally,
we may say that, from the shore ends to the commencement of the elbows,
the walls are standing, but, from the commencement of the elbows outward,
they are so far destroyed as to render it necessary to reconstruct them.

'• In considering proposals for restoring and strengthening the Harbour
Works, questions naturally arose whether any portion of the damage done
could be attributed to the mode of construction, or whether it arose entirely
from the dimensions and mass of the piers being insufficient.

•'The method adopted of building the piers was to form a rubble
mound, on which the walls were built, and though we do not concur in
Mr. Parkes' view as to the depths below which wave action in engineering
works may be disregarded, for those depths must have relation to the
magnitude ani character of the waves and the weight and size of the
material acted upon, yet, having regard to the magnitude of the seas then
contemplated, the walls were founded sufficiently deep below low water,
and the general outline of the design was not inappropriate, but there
appears to have b^en difficulty in procuring suitable material for the rubble
mound. Mr. Molesworth states that the size of the stones of which the
rubble base is composed varies from 5 Ib. to 2 cwt., which is small for the
purpose, especially where laterite is used, which varios much in quality and
is sometimes so soft as to be easily still further reduced in size by the
slightest movement.

" The superstructure of the piers was not built of one bonded mass,
but consisted of two parallel walls placed side by side in juxtaposition,
having a vertical joint between them ; and from the portion of the walla
on the Harbour side of tne piers having in places fallen away from the
portion on the outer or sea side, it seems probable that the pressure of
water in the joints led in great measure to this result. The oscillation of
the two halves of the wall, also caused by the want of bond and the conse-
quent opening and closing of the vertical joint referred to in Mr. Moles-
worth's report, must be remedied, as it may in time prove mischievous.
No doubt the method of building adopted by Mr. Parkes conduced to
rapidity of construction, but were the work to be begun again, we could
not recommend this method, but should prefer the work being bonded
throughout.

34 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

"Though of this opinion, we do not wish it to be inferred that the
walls if bouded would have proved strong enough to have withstood the
storm to which they were exposed. To make the piers secure against severe
gales, it will be n cessary to add materially to their strength of resistance,
and having regard to the magnitude of the waves which roll into Madras
roads and overtop the walls, the piers should be raised to a higher level than
that hitherto contemplated. They were orig nally bnilt by Mr. Parkes to an
average height of about six feet four inches above high- water mark be! ore
settlement, but we are of opinion they should be raided so that tluir finished
level shall not be less than twelve feet above high-water mark. 'Ihis
will add to the security of vessels within the Harbour in rough weather,
and will greatly strengthen the work, as we propose the piers should be
raised to this extra height by adding a monolithic capping of concrete in
mass which, aided by iron cramps to be inserted in the upper courses of
blockwork, will help to secure and hold together the concrete blocks in
the wall beneath, and tend to remedy the want of bond we have before
referred to.

" The works we recommend, and have had under consideration, will be
understood from the accompanying drawings, Nos. 1 and 2, to which we
beg to refer, and which consist of —

A plan of the Harbour, Drawing No. I.

Fivo cross- sections of the piers, numbered respectively 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5, Drawing No. 2.

The portions of the piers to which the cross-sections apply will be seen
by reference to the drawings.

CROSS-SECTION No. 1 will be applicable to the shore ends of the piers,
from their commencement to the point A in the case of the north pier, and
to the point D in the case of the south pier, being a length of 400 feet and
650 feet respectively.

CROSS-SECTION No. 2 will be applicable to both piers, viz., from A to B
on the north pier, being a length of 1,800 feet, and from D to E on the
south pier, being a length of 1,750 feet.

CROSS- SECTION No. 3 will be applicable to both piers, viz., from B to C
on the north pier, being a length of 1,600 feet, and from E to F on the south
pier, being a length of 1,520 feet.

CROSS-SECTION Mo. 4 is an alternative to Cross-section No. 3, and would
be applicable under the conditions hereafter explained.

CROSS-SECTION No. 5 .shows a method of reconstruction by adopting
random concrete blocks.

" For the landward portion of the piers, the works we recommend to be
undertaken (shown on Cross- section No. 1), consist of cramping each pair of
blocks in the upper course, and the addition of a mass of concrete carried up
to 12 feet above high-water spring tide?, the level to which we consider it
necessary to raise the piers throughout their entire length. This mass of

MADRAS HARBOUR.

PROPOSED WORKS OF RE-CONSTRUCTION.

OLD WORK IS SHOWN !N BLACK, NEW WORK IN RED.

to accompany the Report of

SIR JOHN HAWKSHAW, SIR JOHN COODE, & PROFESSOR STOKES,
Dated 23rd January 1883.

CROSS SECTION N? I.

This Section applies from shore to A. North Pier.
Do Do Do Do to D. South Pier.

DRAWING NO. 2
SHEET N°. I

SEA SIDE.

H. W. O. S, T.

HARBOUR SIDE.

SURFACE OF SAND

Additional Rubble

CROSS SECTION NO 2.
This Section applies from A to B- North Pier
Do Do_ _ Do__.Do_D to E. South Pier.

. — 24

HARBOUR SIDE

CROSS SECTION N§ 3.
This Section applies from B to C- North Pier.
Do Do Do Do_E to F- South Pier.

SEA SIDE .

HARBOUR SIDE.

blocks to be lifted and replaced
breaker where sound; or used
in lieu of rubble where broken

Apron of concrete
% in bags iaid close

EXISTING RUBBLE MOUND-

rcccs?=cxx3^«C>2c=riaTirc^

Scale 1 Inch=40 Ft.
1O 5 O 10 CO SO 4O 5O 50 7O 8O SO 1OO

3.0. ( Reg : N*o 6855
1902 ^.Copies— 110

DRAWING NO. 2
SHEET NO. II

SEA SIDE

CROSS SECTION NO. 4,
This Section is ae an alternative to Fig; 3.

k. 80 .-->

< 24 >

HARBOUR SIDE

H. W. O. S. T.

V^ CRAMP^. H. W. O. S. T

pwx///y/d r: L. ,v. o. s. T.

'T>,'«— -~ l.~ -»[ \

Brf

yj-p;^^

SURFACE OF SAND '

CROSS SECTION NO. 5,

30 - - *. ^ags of excrete to form beds for opper-
MM .>,,fth.'.'iH Ia:>sr blocks in order to roduce

urrounding remains of old yrorka

EXISTING f?UBBl_E MOUND

NOTE —The joints of each inclined slice (4-6*tfcick) of the piers are to break
bond to an extent of at least 4 Feet, and are also to break bond to a
corresponding extent with the joints of the adjoining slice.

J5 0 face -. No 6S56
1902 \CopieB — 110

CONSTRtVTION OF THE MADRAS HARBOUR. 35

concrete and the cramping will prevent the oscillation of the two halves of
the wall, and are necessary to remedy the want of bond we have referred to.
We have not shown wave-breakers along the landward portion of the piers,
but the rubble mounds should be carefully examined, and, where requibite,
made good by gneiss rubble of large size, or by concrete blocks.

" For the next length of the piers, extending to the elbows, in addition
to the cramping and the top mass of concrete, a wave-breaker, shown on
Cross-section No. 2, of random concrete blocks, should be added on the
seaward face, which will render it necessary to widen the rubble mounds.
The concrete blocks for the wave-breakers should nowhere be less in weight
than twenty tons.

' ' As respects the piers from the points B on the north pier and E on the
south pier to the seaward ends, it would be desirable, if it could be done, to
continue the walls on the original foundations, bonding the blocks in the
manner shown, strengthening and protecting the walls as they are built by
wave-breakers, and depositing bags of concrete at the toe of the walls on the
Harbour side t> form a continuous apron. (See Cross-section No. 3.) But
picking up the blocks buried or nearly so in debris, for the purpose of
resetting them, or preparing a sufficiently level bed on the site of the
destroyed wall, will involve great labor and expense, and possibly even it
may be found impracticable to continue the wall on the original founda-
tions.

" A more certain plan of procedure for the reconstruction of these outer
lengths of the piers would be to move them into the Harbour to the extent
of about 60 feet, so that the new walls may clear the fallen blocks of the old
structure, adopting the design shown on Cross-section No. 4, and this would
involve a somewhat less expenditure than building on the original founda-
tions. But it would shorten the Harbour — already very short— to the extent
of about 60 feet; and also it would be undesirable if it could be avoided
to build on a new foundation of unconsolidated rubble instead of taking
advantage of the old consolidated mounds.

''The plan, therefore, we recommend for the reconstruction of the outer
lengths from B on the north pier and E on the south pier, to the seaward
ends, is in the first instance to endeavour to continue the walls on the old
foundations, as shown on Cross-section No. 3. Before the elbows of the
piers are finished it will be seen whether this plan can be successfully
carried out ; if so, the system should, we think, be followed. If not, the
piers should be brought in to the extent of about 60 feet, following the
design shown on Cross-section No. 4.

" We have carefully considered the question of reconstructing these outer
lengths from B on the north pier and E on the south pier to the seaward
ends by mounds of random concrete blocks, more especially as the plan has
been recommended by others. It possesses advantages, and as regards con-
struction is a safe system to follow. But it would be necessary to build a

3C OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

short length of wall at the extremity of each pier upon which to place the
entrance lights, and, owing to the size of the vacuities, amounting to between
one-fourth and one-third of the mass, the seas may pass through sufficiently
to produce some disturbance inside. If the Madras Harbour were of larger
size, and there were ample space for the waves to disperse, the system would
be more applicable ; but, the sheltered area being limited, it is important
that the whole space should be made as quiescent as possible. We have,
however, thought it right to go carefully into the cost of reconstruction by
adopting random mounds for these outer lengths, and find that there would,
comparatively speaking, be but little saving in expenditure in adopting tin's
mode of procedure, in preference to building walls on the original founda-
tion with the wave-breaker (shown on Cross-section No. 3), as recommended
for adoption.

" The order of proceeding with the works should be first to secure by
iron cramps the top courses of the walls which are now standing, that is to
say, from the shore to the commencement of the elbows ; to reinstate the
walls which have been disturbed or thrown down, carefully cramping the
top courses together as the work proceeds, and simultaneously in both cases
to proceed with depositing the blocks for the wave-breakers BO as to afford
early protection to the rubble mound and the walls. Raising the walls by
concrete in mass will be the last process, as that portion of the work can
only conveniently be done by beginning it at the outer extremities of the
walls and working back towards the shore.

" For the purpose of arriving at an estimate of the cost of reconstruction,
we have assumed the definite lengths previously referred to for the different
methods of procedure recommended to be followed and shown on the cross-
sections. The details of the estimates are given in the appendix. We
estimate the cost of restoration, strengthening, and raising the piers at
£480,000 (see Estimate No. 1), assuming that the lengths from B on the
north pier and E on the south pier to the seaward ends were reconstructed on
the original foundation. If, however, these outer lengths of the walls were
brought in 60 feet, the cost, we estimate, would be reduced to £430,000 (see
Estimate No. 2). We have also given an estimate of the cost, assuming
that these outer lengths were reconstructed ).y random mounds of concrete
blocks (see Estimate No. 3).

" These sums are large, but, in our opinion, a smaller expenditure will
not reuder the work secure.

" Even with this additional expenditure the cost of the piers, having
regard to their length and to the depth of water, will not be excessive.

" In comparing our estimate of cost with that prepared by Mr. Parkes,
it must be remembered that his did not provide for raising the piers to the
height which we think is essential. We have also, in some cases, assumed
higher prices than he has done, ours being given in the annexed estimates.

CONSTRUCTION OP THE MADRAS HARBOUR. 37

If the work can be well and properly executed at lower prices, so much the
better.

" With the additions to the works which we adidse, their strength and
durability will still be dependent on the materials and workmanship being
of the best quality ; for such works, if thej are to last, must be thoroughly
well done.

'• Wheth ^r from defects in the quality of the concrete or from the blocks
being used too soon, or from placing them upon the rubble base before it
was sufficiently consolidated, several of the blocks appear to have been
broken. No concrete block of such large size ought to be used until at
least three months after it has been made, and giving them six months
to iiarden would be still better. The local laterit^ also does not appear
to be of gooa quality, and hence nothing but gneiss should be used in the
additions to the rubble mound.

" Suggestions have been made to stop up the present or eastern entrance
in front of the Harbour, and to make an opening facing southwards in the
8'iuth pier. This would involve very large additional expenditure, and we
cannot recommend it, more especially us we do not think it would be au
improvement.

" We think the Harbour, if completed in accordance with our recom-
mendations, will be useful for shipping, and that raising the piers so as to
prevent their submergence by seas rolling over them will, with the present
width of entrance, render it quieter than before. But its stillness would be
further increased by reducing the width of its entrance from 550 feet to
450 feet, and, as we think this ought to be done, we have included the cost
of it in the estimates. The reduction of width might be carried out here-
after, but in that case the cost would be increased.

" Mr. Parkes does not appear hitherto to have made provision for light-
ing the entrance of the Harbour. This will be necessary, but we have not
sufficient information to propose a plan for or to estimate the expense of
doinir it.''

38

OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THK

Quantity.

Particulars.

Rate.

Amount.

Cubic Yds.

266,888
. 88,862
161,678
5,408
40,410

53,733

ESTIMATE No. I.

Additional rubble in mounds
Concrete blockwork in walls of piers
Concrete blocks in wave-breakers ..
Aprons of concrete in bags
Concrete in mass on the top of the piers ...
£ s. d.
Removal of old blocks, at 10 s. 26,866-10- 0
Deduct value of old
blocks put into
mounds instead of
rubble 53,733 cubic
yds. at 5 s. 6 d 14,776-11-6

£ s. d.

056
130
130
130
100

£ ». d.

73.394 4 0
102,191 6 0
185,929 14 0
6,219 4 0
40,410 0 0

1 ° OSQ IS R

Tons.
171
No 2

Wronght-iron cramps ... ... ...
New setting machines ... ...

20 0 0

3.420 0 0
12," 100 0 0

Establishment 7i and contingencies 2J —

435,654 6 6
43 565 8 8

Say £480,000

479,219 15 2

Cubic Yds.

286,177
88,862
128,051
5,408
40,410
Tons.
171
No. 2

ESTIMATE No. II.

Additional rabble in mounds
Concrete blockwork in walls of piers
Concrete blocks in wave- breakers ...
Aprons of concrete in bags
Concrete in mass on the top of piers

Wrought-iron cramps ... ...
New setting machines ... ... ...

£ s. d.

056
1 3 0
130
130
100

20 0 0

£ s. d.

78,698 13 6
102,191 6 0
147,258 13 0
6,219 4 0
40,410 0 0

3,420 0 0
12,000 0 0

Establishment 7J and contingencies 2| =

390,197 16 6
39,019 15 8

Bay £430,000

42»,217 12 2

Cnbio Yds.

353,270
2<J,062
242,178

ESTIMATE No. III.

Additional rubble in mounds
Concrete in muss on the top of the piers ...
Concrete blocks in mounds and wave-
breakers and blockwork heads at extre-

£ 8. d.

0 5 6
100

130

£ s. d.

97,149 5 0
26,062 0 0

278,504 14 0

7,067

Concrete in bags in the upper part of

130

8,127 1 0

Tons.
71 *

.No 2

Wronght-iron cramps ...

20 0 0

1,430 0 0
12,000 0 0

•

Establishment 7$ and contingencies 2J —

423,273 0 0
42,327 6 0

Say £466,000

465,600 6 0

N°. I

MADRAS HARBOUR

PROPOSALS FOR RESTORATION BY MADRAS SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Sections shewing actual state of PIERS in outer straight portions,

with random blocks over old work.

Seaie 40 Ft.= 1 Inch.
5O 1OC 15O

SEA SIDE

200 FT-

NORTH PIER

3675

HARBOUR SIDE

DE HAVILLANDS M. S. L.

31OO

NOTE — Tlie sections are at points as shewn measured from the point B. i .e
from the commencement of the concrete block pier, and are shewn
looking ont to Sea »o that the left hand is the Sea side and the right

8. O TEeg : No. 6858 hand side is the Harbour side.

1902. (Copies -110

SOUTH PiER
3425

NO. !!

HARBOUR SIDE

OE HAVIL LANDS

^////,V//-'///.v//
M. S. L. frfS !

SEA SIDE

3325

29OO

NOTE — The sections are at points as shewn measured from the point E.i. e
from the commencement of the concrete block piertand are shewn

looking out to Sea so that the left hand side is the Harbour side and
902 I Copies -

pighj.

gide

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAS HARBOUR. 09

A local Committee was formed in Madras to consider this report and
submitted the results of its sittings on 30th April
nU8 ** 1883- l^ese were, that it would be most undesir-
able to attempt to erect the new superstructure 011

the existing damaged work, that the random block system for reconstruct
tion would be best, and that it would be dangerous to narrow the
entrance. Finally the Committee was of opinion that —

•• No nr.atter what the direction of the wind, the unceasing swell on this
poition of the coast rolls in with the ciests of the waves parallel, or very
nearly so, to the coast line. In no case it is believed that the angle exceeds
3D3 to the general line of the coast. The result is that seas enter the present
month freely, and owing to the small length of the harbour, are not dis-
persed before reaching the shore at its bai»e. 'J he action is. of course,
greatly intensified during storms, ind particularly with the wind from the
east. As such times the sea inside the harbour, though not so high as
outside, is certainly of a dangerous character, being exceedingly broken.
Taking these and other facts into consideration, the Committee have to
record their opinion that unles means be found for closing entirely the
present entrance, no radical cure will have been applied to the chief defect
of the work as at present designed

In this view they beg now to submit a plan for the completion of the
harbour (see annexed drawings and estimates D. E. F.), the leading
features of which are—

(i) The opening of a new entrance 500 feet in width, in from 7 to 7£
fathoms of water at the North-East angle of the harbour,
(ii) The closing of the present entrance."

STATEMENT D.

RS. RS.

Estimate for repairing by Sections I, II and

III — see Summary of Estimates A . . . . 42,32,200

Deduct 100 feet for making 660 feet entrance . . 91,600

41,40,600
Add—

For t uilding across entrance . . . . . . 6,87,300

Do. 400 feet of protecting arm .. 7,64,400

Excavating and opening North entrance .. 2,12,292

58,04,592
Dedutt—

Saving .. .. .. .. .. 5,49,750

Ais>o saving .. .. .. .. 7,44,913

J2,94,«63

Carried over 45,09, 9'J9

40 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

STATEMENT D — cont.

RS. RS.

Brought forward . . 45,09,929

CLOSING NORTH ENTRANCE.
Plant —

One titan crane .. .. .. .. 45,000

One crane for wave-breaker . . . . 30,000

Other plant as in Summary of Estimates

A 1.27,000

2,02,000

4.7,11,929
Add-

15 per cent, for establishment and con-
tingencies 7,06,788

Grand Total .. 54.18,717

STATEMENT E.

RS. RS.

Value of restoring work by I, II and IV

(as shown in Summary of Estimates B) . . . . 37,34,460

Deduct for 100 feet to restore 550 feet entrance . . 76,400

36,58,060
Add—

For building across entrance .. .. .. 6,87,300

600 feet of protecting arm .. .. .. 7,64,400

Excavating and opening Northern

entrance .. 2,12,292

53,22,052
Deduct—

Saving 4,08,400

Also 7,44,913

11,53,313

41,68,739
Plant as before . . . . 2,02,000

43,70,739
Add—

15 per cent, for establishment and

contingencies .. .. .. .. .. 6,55,609

Grand Total 50,26,348

CONSTRUCTION OP THE MADRAS HARBOUR. 41

STATEMENT F.

RS. RS,
Restoring work, Sections I, II ami Y with

•450 feet entrance 40,22,280

Deduct for 550 feet entrance 100 feet . . . . 85,200

39,37,080

AJJ—

Building across entrance .. .. .. .. 7.42,400

Do. ext'a protective arm . . . . . . 6,29,200

Excavation in North pier . . . . . . . . 2,12,29'J

55,20,972

Deduct—

Saving 5.11,200

Also 7,44,913

12,56,113

42,64,859

Plant—

One special titan 80,000

Other plant as in sumaiary of Estimates A. 1,27,000

2,07,000

44,71, 8c9

Add—

15 p^r cent, for establishment and

con»iu<r*>ncies .. .. .. .. .. 6,70.777

Grand Total .. 51,42,636

The Committee's estimate for completion on this plan was
Ea. 51,42,636.

This report being submitted to Sir Or. Molesworth, that officer agreed
in the main with the Committee's conclusions. He however considered
that—

" The entrance to a harbotir at right angles to the general direction of the
swell is generally considered to be a very disadvantageous arrangement;
for when a vessel is entering such a harbour, half protected by the entrance,
and half exposed to the action of a heavy wave, it is liable to be swung
round, and strike the entrance before it can recover itself : this is a

F

42 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

contingency to which, modern vessels from their extreme length are
especially liable.

"The projecting breakwater proposed by the Madras Committee will
allow some distance for a vessel to recover itself under these circumstances,
but I think scarcely sufficient. Colonel Trevor, the Secretary, suggests an
increase to the length of this projection, and I am of opinion it should be
increased not only for covering the entrance, but also in order to allow a
vessel to recover itself if struck by a wave when half protected.

"I presume that the nautical authorities on the Madras Committee have
satisfied themselves as to the practicability of a ship entering the harbour
by such an entrance in stormy weather; but I think it would be desirable
to refer this question to the highest nautical authorities in India.

V Supposing the entrance to be practicable, the change of entrance would
doubtless add very greatly to the quiescence of the harbour; but I must
confess that I am somewhat sceptical of the absolute safety o? vessels in
Madras Harbour during a cyclone, even under the conditions of having
raised the fnce and elbows and closed the seaward entrance.

" Assuming, however, the feasibility of such an entrance, I am of opinion
that the form of breakwater proposed for covering this entrance requires
some modification. In its proposed form it is open to serious objections,
involving, as it does, a re-entering curve which would never stand the blow
of a cyclonic wave.

"I have, in my previous report, advertel to the confluent action of the
waves along the faces and round the elbows of this breakwater, and I
annex a diagram (No. 3) showing in black arrows the action of waves on a
breakwater such as that proposed by the Madras Committee.

"It will be seen by this diagram that the meeting of the confluent waves
along the face with those rolling in direct from the sea would set up a very
severe action, and the blows on the concave surface at A would be so severe
that nothing in the shape of a breakwater could withstand it.

"Moreover, the action of the waves would not only be severe on the
breakwater, but, as the confluent action would be diametrically opposed to
the direct action of the waves rolling in at B, a very turbulent action of the
waves would be set up, which would seriously affect the passage of a vessel
into the entrance."
And he proposed certain modifications.

These views were laid before the Home

Further report of first Committee. Their second report is also printed
Home Committee.

in full.

" In obedience to instructions contained in a communication from the
India Office, dated 6th of February last, copy of which is annexed, we
have read and considered the papers forwarded to us, and have now the
honour to report our opinions on the modifications suggested by the Madras
Committee of the plan we last year recommended.

DIAGRAM NO. 3

MADRAS HARBOUR

Diagram No. 3 to accompany note by Mr. MOLESWORTH dated July 17th 1883.
Diagram Illustrating action of waves on the breakwater proposed by Madras Com nittee

ooor

006
008

ooz

009

•a
I

fc, OOS

oos

001

001

7. Fathoms

t>J. Fathoms
6. Fathoms

. Fathoms

5. Fathoms

NOTE — The dotted lines &hew the breakwater as proposed by the Madras
Committee. The portions coloured black shew the increased length
sng^asted by Col. Trevor. The portions coloured red shew the modi-
fi cat ion proposed by Mr. Molesworth.

S. 0. ( Reg : No. 6860.
~1902 ( Copies — 110

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MAl>R«S HARBOUR.

ll The change sngsrested by the Madras Committee requiring the gravest
consider.it. on is their proposal to make a new entrance to the harbour at its
north-eastern elbow and to stop up the existing entrance. Their object in
making this proposal is to secure stiller water inside the harbour, a thing-
desirable in itself if attainable with due regard to other considerations, and
tnev state that the work remodelled in this and in other respects as they
recommend will cost much the same as the works advised by us in our
report of the 23rd January 188;i.

i% The Madras Committee arrive at this conclusion of equality of cost by
leaving out fr »m their project the wave-breaker on the south side and the
concrete cap on both sides of the harbour, and appear to have assumed,
though we are at a loss to kuo\v why, that we did not attach any very
indispensably constructive value to this portion of our recommendation.
They seem tu have looked at our proposal to riise the piers by a concrete
capping mainly as a question of wares spilling over them into the harbour,
thongli tie ob*evvati -n in our report was th-\t raising the piers to the
height we advised would wdd to the security of vessels within the harbour
in rough weather, and would greatly strengthen the work.

•• \Ve cannot approve of further expensive works, the money for which is
chiefly to be found by reducing the strength and efficiency of those recom-
mended in our report of January 1833, which we now see no reason to
abate.

" It follows, therefore, in our opinion, that the proposal to form a new
entrance and to stop up the old one must be treated as an additional
expenditure to that previously contemplated by ns.

•; We have consequently estimated the cost of making the new entrance
and of stopping up the old one ; and taking the overlapping arm, as the
Madras Committee show it, to b« 600 feet long, which, in our opinion, would
be the minimum length required, we make this additional cost to amount to
£127,000. In considering the propriety of incurring such further expendi-
ture, the following observations should be borne in mind.

"The danger to vessels within the harbour in a cyclone would arise
from the win Is as well as from the waves, probably more froaa the farmer
than the latter, and we think tint prudent commanders, on those occasions,
would prefer getting out to sea to remaining inside the harbour.

" If the piers at the sides of the harbour were left as low as is contem-
plated by the Madras Committee, they would iu cyclones be nearly, and
might be altogether, submerged, and vessels lying in the harbour would be
floating in a receptacle brimful, or nearly so, of water, and exposed on the
north and south to the full force of the cyclone. In such case, with sub-
merged piers, vessels breaking from their moorings would in all probability
be lost.

" Though the piers raised to the height we have recommended, while
•trengthening the work, would afford some additional protection from tLe

44 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCEKXING THE

•wind, we do not assume that even then it would be safe to remain in harbour
during a cyclone. Mr. Dalrymple, late Master Attendant, Madras, who
lias had lengthened experience of that coast, and who favored us with his
views on the occasion of our former inquiry, was of opinion thaf nothing
short of 18 feet above high water would be high enough fur the piers, and
we consider the height of 12 feet, which we have recommended, to be quite
low enough. Hereafter, in special cases, should vessels be required to lie
at loading places inside the harbour and near the piers, screens or walls,
say 6 feet high, increasing the total height above high water to 18 feet,
could be erected, and might prove necessary to give further protection from
wind.

" In large harbours it may almost be taken as an axiom that in propor-
tion as you seek greater stillness inside you have to obtain it by rendering
access to and egress from the harbour less easy.

*' On the occasion of our inquiry last year we were informed that a new
entrance to the harbour had been suggested at the south-east elbow, and
•we then considered the question of changing the entrance, and reported
against it.

" Though the Madras Committee say that the strongest winds are from
the north-east, and though winds blow twice as long from that quarter as
from the south-east, they now propose a new entrance f ally open to those
prevailing winds.

"It is, perhaps, more a nautical than an engineering question, but we
fear that access and egress through this new entrance would, in cyclones,
be very difficult, the difficulty increasing just in proportion as the entrance
was made to face the north, and diminishing as it i'nced easter y. Even
with the north-easterly kant shown on the Madras Committee's plan, vesse's
could not make or leave the harbour without being exposed to waves
striking them on their b°am, and tending1 to heel them over, or to carry
them into shoal water on shore, or to cause them to strike against the end
of the noithern pier.

" With regard to the new entrance, there is another consideration o!
some moment. The present entrance could not be stopped up until the
new entrance was made, and there would, therefore, for a considerable time,
be two entrances, and during that period there would necessarily be greater
disturbance in the harbour.

"With regard to the methods of reinstating the work, the Madras
Committee appear to* prefer the random block system. This is shown in
our report of 23rd January 1883 by cross section No. 5. Though we did
not give it a preference, we stated in that report that it possessed advant-
ages, and was a safe system to follow.

" In framing that report we had to deal with a work which had been
much more damaged in some places than in others, the extent of damage
at some peints not being very clearly ascertaiuable, nor capable of being

CONSTRUCTION or THE MADRAS HAKBOUH. 45

determined until the work of restoration should be in progress ; and hence
we devised different methods of restoia'ion.

" Besides the objections we pointed out to the random Llock system, KOT
perhaps v.-rv weighty in themselves, we were also influenced, to some
extent, by difficulties of n>anipulition in that system.

" On this subject we beg to remark generally that, referring to the three
methods of reconstructiou shown in our previous report, riz. : —

1. According to cioss sections 1, 2, and 3,

2. Do. do. do. 1, 2, and 4,

3. Do. do. do. 1, 2. and 5,

we consider that any of them may be adopted with safety, provided they
are in nowise weakened by diminution of their dimensions or otherwise.

" In considering the matters now referred to us, we have had interviews
with Mr. Parkas, wa > has explained to us his views. He sees some dim-
enlty. as we did, in carrying out the system shown on cross section No. o,
and seems farther to be of opinion that he should prefer to adopt crops
se< tious 1, -j, and 4. "With regard to this question, we think you may be
guided by Mr. Parkes with the clear understanding, s-« far HS we are
concerned, that nothing is done to weaken any of the works- recommended
by us. whichever of the methods be adopted, and that the piers be not built
to a lower level than we have already advised.

'• The only q-ie«tion remaining to l-e dealt with is the important one
of change of entrance.

•• Wo have already pointed cut that the change of entrance would add
£127.003 to the cost of what we consider to be. necessary works. \\ e "hink
also that in cyclones there would be difficulty in getting into and <-nt of the
harbour througn the proposed north-eastern, entrance, »nd if, daring a
cyclone, i-aptains \vere not disposed to remain in the }.arb«»ur, and could
not get their vessels out. it would be a serious matter. We have also
mentioned that, if a n-w entrance be formed, the harbour will, for some time,
be left with t\vo openings instead of one, and will consequeiitly be more
disturbed.

" "We are still of opinion that the present entrance mi^ht, with advant-
age, be reduced to 450 feet, having walls vertical, or nearly so, < n both
tides of the entrance as we always conten. plated, and see no reason to
alter the opinion given in the last paragraph but one of our former report
of the utilityof the harbour if completed in accordance with our recom-
mendations.

" It must not be forgotten that, whether the harbour were completed
with the present or with a new entrance, there are now no sufficient
facilities within it for loading or unloading vessels ; and if farther expendi-
ture is to be incurred, it is a question whether it would not be better to
incur it in providing such facilities at or near the base cr shore end of the
harbour, rather than in making a new entrance.

46 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

" Aft^r giving the fullest consideration to this question, we cannot
recommend the construction of the proposed new entrance.

"In conclusion, we beg to call attention to the fact that in all the
estimates we have made, whether in this or our previous report, we dealt
with our own prides in English money only, and our prices were in nowise
modifieH or increased (as Mr. Parkes seems to have inferred) by adopting his
rates and converting them into sterling money at the rate of two shillings
to the ruuee. The conversion of our estimates into rupees must, thereforer
be made at the current value of the rupee, whatever that may be."

The opinion of the M adras Government as expressed by their then

Chief Engineer Colonel Shaw-Stewart, R.B., is
Local persistence in

favour of northerly also printed in full in order to show the unswerv-
ing local preference for a northerly entrance.

" The three points specially dealt with in the papers now und«r
acknowledgment are —

(1) The position of the entrance to the harbour, together with it«

shape and width.

(2) The section to be given to the sea-face.

(3) The officer under whom, as chief executive authority, the re-

st orati< n of the haibour is to be proceeded with.

" With respect to the first point, I am to ^tate that His Excellency
the (r >veruor in Council still remain * btrougly of opinion that the entrant e
should be placed at the north-eist angle ot the harbour, in 1'rom 7 to 7£
fathoms of water, as recommended by the Madras Committee ; and that
it should have a width of 500 feet.

" As bearing on this point, it appears to this Government that sufficient
weight has not been attached to the unanimous opinions of nautical experts
on the spot, copies of which were forwarded to y >u with my letter, dated
llth October 1883, No. 2862 ~VV. It is admitted by Sir John Hawkshaw's-
Committee that the question of access and egress through the proposed new
entrance i.s * more a nautical than an engineering question.' That it is -empha-
tically a nautical question scarcely admits of doubt ; and on this point the
nautical authorities who have been consulted are singularly unanimous.
In a letter, dated 6th May, No. 4351, copy of which accompanies this, and
to which special attention is solicited, the Master Attendant of Madras
states: 'All commanders of vessels who have been consulted, and that
includes nearly all that have visited Madras since the accident, approve
entirely the alteration from every point of nautic d convenience.' Captain
Taylor adds : ' I submitted some of the chief opinions, but could have
r.nllect«d hundreds, all giving testimony of the same nature.'

"I am directed to again solicit attention to those opinions; and, in
doing so, to point to the fact that they represent the views of experienced
men, commanding the largest steamers visiting the port ; men who hava

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAS HARBOUR. 47

known this coast and these seas for years, and who have watched the pro-
gress of the harbour works from the beginniug. If there be any more
competent nautical authority, thoroughly conversant with the somewhat
complicated local conditions and with the na'ure of cyclonic storms, I am to
state that His Excellency in Council earnestly requests that the question
at issue may be referred to such authority before it is irrevocably decided.

" In further connection with this point, I am directed to observe that
Sir John Ha\vksha\v's Committee appear to have misapprehended the
circumstances from want of the necessary local knowledge. la paragraph
11 of their last report, they state that during 1883 they considered the
question of forming a new entrance at the south-east elbow, and reported
against it; and in paragraph 12 they continue: 'Though the Madras
Committee say that the strongest winds are from the north-east, and
though winds blow twice as long from that quarter as from the south-east,
they now propose a nev entrance fully open to those prevailing winds.'
The argument being apparently that, if a southern entrance cannot be enter-
tained, a fortiori a northern entrance must be objected to still more strongly.

" With advertence to this, I am to point out that the Madras Committee
did not say the strongest winds were from the north-east, but ' the heaviest
seas yet observed have invariably been from the north and the north-east.'
As matter of fact, the wind does not at Madras blow from the north and
north-east for more than four months of the year, from October to Febru-
ary, the direction of the wind during, the remaining eight months being
more or less southerly. The direction of the wind, however, seems to have
little effect on the swell, which rolls in with the crests of the waves parallel,
or nearly so, to the coast line ; with the result that seas enter the present
mouth freely, and do not disperse before reaching the shore at the base of
the harbour. Those seas would be deflected frooi a north-east entrance by
the proposed protecting horn.

" A further objection to the north-east entrance raised by Sir John
Hawkshaw's Committee is that ' there would, for a considerable time, be two
entrances ; ' but I am directed to state that this Government do not attach
much weight thereto, inasmuch as the old entrance could probably be closed,
and the new one opened, during the interval between two stormy seasons.

' ' After most carefully considering all that has been urged against the
proposed new entrance, His Excellency the Governor in Council adheres
strongly to the opinion he has already recorded in favour of it. He con-
siders that the retention of the eastern entrance will involve the loss of the
greater part of the advantage which Madras might otherwise confidently
expect to obtain from the harbour, and that it will also, in all probability,
involve heavy and ever recurring outlay to repair storm damages. And f.
am directed to add that this opinion is in no way contingent npon the
decision that may be arrived at with respect to the necessity for providing
the south arm of the harbour with a wave-breaker. If such provision can

48 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

be dispensed with, as recommended by the Madras Committee, the nexr
entrance can probibly be opened within the eurn (£480,000) named by Sir
John Hawkshaw's Oo-nmittee; but if otherwise, this Government are of
opinion that the ad Htional outlay, estimated by the same body at £127,000,
m'ut bo incurred ii view to the efficiency ot the hirbour an 1 the security of
vessels tying therein.

" The quest'on of whether ships could safely ride out a cyclone in the
harbour may. in the opinion of this Government, be left to be decided by
the commanders of such vessels. In most cases sufficient warning is g:ven
of the approach of a cyclone to enable vessels to get to sea. if they desire
to do so; but it is impossible to entertain doubt that a vessel in the
harbour would have a much better chance during a cyclone if the eastern
«c trance were closed, than if it were open. It should, moreover, be remem-
bered that the main object of the harbour is not to provide a refuge for
vessels during the brief period of cyclonic storm*, but to secure smooth
water for landing and shipping operations in ordinary weather, and to
protect the jetties and other appliances n°cessary thereto from the destruc-
tive effects of a cyclone to which th*y are liable so long as they are exposed
to the direct influence of the sea from the east. Every convenience of this
sort was wrecked in 1881 ; and unless the proposal to close the eastern
entrance is accepted, it will be useless to attempt their reconstruction.

" Respecting the proposal to reduce the width of the present eastern
entrance to 450 feet, which is renewed by Sir John Hawkshaw's Committee
in paragraph 22 of their late leport, J am directed to observe that this too
is more a nautical than an engineering question, and that the weight of
local nautical opinion has been recorded strongly against the proposal.
Upon this point I am to refer to paragraphs* 25 to 27 of the Madras

* See extracts below :—

Copy of paragraphs 25 to 27 of the Madras Committee's Report referred t) ab»ve.

The Committee now proposed to consider the subject submitted for their opinion in
paragraph 3 of G.O., No. 1259 W., as to the propriety of reducing the width of the
present entrance from 550 feet to 450 feet, and to submit an alternative scheme, should
such reduction appear to be undesirable.

In reference to the feasibility of narrowing the width of the entrance in the manner
proposed, the Committee have been favoured with the following recorded opinion of
two of their members, the Master Attendant and Deputy Master Attendant.

These officers observe : — " As regards the proposal of the Home Committee to
narrow the entrance 100 feet, we consider that it will render it difficult and dangerous
to a degree out of all proportion to any advantage that can be gained by it. A large
amount of sea and swell must always enter from the eastward, and no comfort to the
ships or the boating operations or to beach improvements can be expected till this evil
in removed. The completed harbour walls existed long enough to teach this lesson.
This is the opinion of all nautical men who have been consulted, and especially the
Harbour Master, who has daily opportunities of judging and appreciating the difficulties
that attend the entry of large bteamers (many of them ovt»r 400 feet long) even with
the present width."

CONSTRUCTION OF "HE MADRAS HARBOUR. 49

< 'ommittee's first report. With that opinion on record, His Excellency
the Governor in Council must continue to object to the proposal.

"With respect to the second point dealt with in the papers under
acknowledgment, namely, the section to be given to the sea-face of the
harbour, 1 am directed to state that His Excellency the Governor in Council
greatly prefers the third of the methods of reconstruction quoted by Sir
John Hawksh*w's Committee in paragraph 18 of their last report, namely,
the random block-work system. Its adoption was strongly recommended
by the Madras Committee; and as Sir John Eawkshaw's Committee
consider that it may be adopted with safety, it is hoped by this Government
that all objection will now be removed."

The Secretary of State however, supported by Mr. Parkes, felt that
he had no choice but to accept the decision of such

Decision of secretary eminent authorities as Sir J. Hawkshaw and Sir
of State in favour of
eastern entrance. J- Coode. In the meantime the restoration work

was practically in abeyance and was not rigor-
ously resumed till the early part of 1885. During this year progress
was steady though not rapid, the chief feature of interest being the
difficulty experienced in recovering the blocks belonging to the old pier
that lay under water. After several trials the attempt to recover blocks
was abandoned as too difficult, expensive, and dangerous. By the
early part of the next year new and powerful plant had been prepared
and progress improved.

In 1886 the Madras Harbour Trust Act was passed, transferring the
direct control, property, and liabilities from the Government to a Board
of Trustees. At the end of that year the Board raised again the
question of a north-east entrance. The then Harbour Engineer, Mr.
F. N. Thorowgood, being consulted gave it as his opinion that a north-
east entrance would make the harbour perfectly smooth for 340 days in
the year, while a north entrance with a protecting arm would make it
perfectly smooth all the year round. He considered however that long
deep steamers would have a difficulty in making the entrance in heavy
weather, and finally drew attention to the danger of complete closure
of the harbour if the protecting arm were demolished by a sea of
unprecedented force. On ihe whole he considered that, as things stood
at the moment, to change the design would be too bold an experiment.

The Madras Government referred the question to the Government
of India, expressing the view that new matter had arisen with the
advance of the reconstruction works. The Government of India
supported the views of the Madras Government and addressed the
Secretary of State in the following despatch, dated 7th June 1887 : —

50 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

" In Lord Kimberley's Despatch, No. 56 P.W. of 25th September 1884,
reference was made to the views of Sir John Hawkshaw's Committee and to
those of Mr. Parkes, on the subject of the proposed change in the position
of the entrance to the harbour, and it was said that ' Mr. Thorowgood, who
is in full possession of Mr. Parkes' views, and of the reasons which have led
him and the Committee to adhere to the eastern entrance, has already started
on his return to Madras, and will be able to furnish the authorities there
with any additional particulars they may require, and it is to be hoped that
conflicting views may be reconciled by further discussion.'

" At the time when this despatch was received we thoug-ht it better to
take no immediate action concerning the question of the entrance, partly
for the reason that it was evidently our duty to allow scope for the f urther
discussion which Lord Kimberley thought would have beneficial results, and
partly because there was no apparent advantage to be gained by attempting

to arrive at an early decision on the

Letter, dated 9th March 1882, from Mr. matter. The opinions expressed by
Parkes, to the Secretary to Government Mr. Parkes in the documents noted
of Madras, Public Works Department, jn fhe margin showed ^ Jf {t
paragraphs 44 and 45.

Letter, dated 10th February 1883, from should PrOT6 desiraWe to alter *he
Mr. Parkes, to the Under Secretary of entrance, the alteration could be both
State for India, paragraph 14.* more cheaply and more expeditiously

made when the works had been
completed in accordance with the authorized design.

4< The difference of opinion to which Lord Kimberley referred may be

* Vide extracts beiow :—

Letter dated 10th February 1883 from Mr. Parkes to the Under
Secretary of State for India.

14. With regard to the entrance, it is satisfactory to find that the Committee confirm
the propriety of its present position as a question of general design. As to the special
nautical considerations on which a change has been advocated, no evidence, except,
that contained in the papers, was brought before them, and as that is all on one side,
their conclusions adverse to a change is based entirely on general grounds. I am
bound to say that, if an immediate decision were necessary, I should agree with the
Committee; but considering that no measures can be taken to carry out either the
narrowing or the entire change of position till all the other works are completed, I
would submit that it is undesirable, in view of the strong opinions, expressed by the
Marine authorities, to come to any decision at present. The eastern entrance, 550 feet
wide, exists, bad or good, and must be used for the next four or five years. During
that tims it will have a more extended trial than it has yet bad, and there will be more
material for a final judgment. I would express a hope therefore that no definite
order be given, either for reducing the width, or for altering or retaining its position,
until nearer the time for carrying out the actual work. Jt need not be concluded,
however, that the efficiency of the harbour is dependent upon the width or position of
the entrance. Even admitting that a change in either respect would be an improve-
ment, it will not make the difference between a harbour and no harbour ; it would
eniy give more accommodation, which, of course, if required, would bring more revenua.

CONSTRUCTION OF T1I3 MADRAS HARBOUR.

51

said to have been the difference between the opinion of Sir John Hawk-
shaw's Committee, in which Mr. Fartes concurred, and the opinion o! all
persons or bodies in India who were interested in the harbour, or who had
been officially or professionally consulted concerning it.

" Among those who maintained an opinion favourable to an alteration in
the site of the entrance were : —

The Madras Committee of local professional gentlemen, which re-
ported on the 30th June and 22nd September Ifc83.

The Madras Chamber of Commerce.

The professional advisers of the

* Mr. G. L- Molesworth. Government of India.*

Colonel H. A. Brownlow, R.E. A 1 Commanders of first-class

„ W. S. Trevor, K.E. steamers using the port of Madras

who had been consulted.
The local Nautical authorities.
The Madras Government.

" We are not in a position to know whether the opinion of the gentlemen
who were members of Sir John Hawkshaw's Committee may have been in
any way modified, but it is a fact that the experience of the last three years
and the further discussions which have taken place have in no way altered
the opinion of all competent authorities in this country. That opinion is
steadfastly opposed to the retention of the eastern entrance, and generally,
although not quite unanimously, in favour of a north-east entrance to the
harbour.

''The Government of India has hitherto refrained from the assertion
of any very decided opinion on this question of the entrance. We think
that the time has now come when our opinion may be advantageously
expressed. The balance of evidence is strongly adverse to the eastern
entrance, and it may well be deemed hardly politic or safe to compel the
Madras Harbour Board to construct a harbour in a manner which is opposed
by nearly all, if not by all, persons in India who are competent to judge of
the matter, or who have interests at stake in the work. But we would add
that the opposition of the Madras Government and of all Madras local
authorities to the eastern entrance has our entire concurrence, and that we
are convinced that no harbour at Madras, which is made with an eastern
entrance, can be at all effective. We append a brief summary * by our

* Memorandum by Mr. G. L. Molesworth, C.Z.E., dated 9th May 1887.

With regard to the engineering points at issue I may sum up my opinions as
follows :—

\xt. — It is impossible, with an eastern entrance, to exclude from the harbour
waves of considerable magnitude, even should the entrance be narrowed to 450 feet.

°2nr1 . — The adoption of a north-east or south-east entrance is the only mode of
excluding such waves from the harbour.

52 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

Consulting Engineer. Mr. Moleswortli, of the opinions he has previous^
recorded on the subject.

" We understand from the reports of Mr. Parkes and of Sir John
Hawkshaw's Committee, that there is no engineering difficulty in construct-
ing a north-east entrance. The Committee, indeed, appear to admit that
the question of the proper site for the entrance is more a nautical than an
engineering one. The absolute unanimity of all commanders of steamers
using the port, against the eastern entrance, must, we thiuk, have great
weight in this respect.

"We would ask your Lordship to take this question of the position of
the entrance again into consideration ; for we are convinced that the matter
cannot be set at rest until either our views and those of the other authorities
in this country are accepted, or the views held by Sir J. Hawkshaw's
Committee and Mr. Parkes have received the support of the highest nautical
authorities. It would seem to be essential, in the latter case, that the
opinion of those authorities should be given after they have fully satisfied
themselves, by local investigation, concerning all the circumstances, and
have shown good cause for setting aside the opinion of all the commanders
of local experience who have been acquainted for many years past with the
various conditions of the problem."

The Secretary of State upon this agreed to a new Committee consisting
of Admirals Salmon and Nares, and Sir John.Coode, at the same time
intimating that the works should be prosecuted with a view to a possible
change of entrance.

3rd. — The north-east entrance appears to be preferable to the south-east
entrance, because the north is less exposed than the south to encroachments from
Band.

4£7i. — The re-entering curve proposed by the Madras Committee in the over-
lapping arm to the north-east elbow is open to serious objections, but I notice that
Mr. Thorowgood, in his letter, dated January 31st, 1887, has submitted a sketch in
which this is modified to meet the objection to a re-entering curve raised in my note
of Juy 17th, 1883.

5th. — A prolongation of the present face of the harbour so as to avoid the
necessity for this re-entering curve would throw the entrance 200 or 300 feet nearer
to shoal water.

6th. — The alternative plan for forming a north-east entrance by the prolongation
of the south-east face so as to overlap the present eastern entrance as suggested in
my note of July 17th, 1883, would afford shelter to the harbour and would a.t the same
time allow more sea room for vessels entering the harbour, but it would involve greater
expense.

The feasibility of entering or leaving the harbour by the north-east is a question
for nautical men to decide, and whttlior an entrance at the north-east elbow would
allow sufficient sea room is. also a nautical point on which I do not feel qualified to
offer an opinion.

DRAWING N£. I
SHEET N£. I

MADRAS HARBOUR

TO ACCOMPANY REPORT OF COMMITTEE, APPOINTED BY VISCOUNT CROSS — APRIL1887,
TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF THE ENTRANCE.

PROPOSALS FOR ENTRANCE REFERRED TO IN LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF
MADRAS HARBOUR TRUST BOARD, DATED MAY 4T£! 1887,

1000 500

SCALE
1000

2000

3000 Ft.

No. i

PROPOSAL OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE IN MADRAS 1883.

R. O. I Jteg : No. 6861
lj \ Copies _ 110

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADBAS HARBOUR.

53

This Committee examined a great number of witnesses at length
and finally on 19th October 1887 submitted the following important
report recommending on the whole a north-east entrance : —

" We have taken evidence upon this highly complicated subject, and
beg to report as follows : —

" It is agreed on all hands that, owing to the frequently disturbed state
of the water, the facilities for landing and embarking passengers, cargo,
etc., offered by the harbour, are very much restricted, nor would it be
feasible, for the same reason, to use without serious interruption, wharves
and jetties along the shore line, or to keep in safety within it, such
improved lighters, tugs, and other harbour craft as would greatly increase
its value as a trading port. Much cargo is said to be lost overboard in the
process of transhipment, and, for want of tugs, no sailing vessels use the
harbour at all.

" The confused sea within the harbour is attributed, by all who have given
evidence, to the nearly constant swell from the eastward which runs in
through the present entrance, and, being deflected from the side walls,
causes what is variously described as a ' nubbly sea ' or ' joggle of a sea,*
and in bad weather as being like ' a boiling pot.' la consequence of
which it is the opinion of many of the most experienced captains that,
excepting for the distance from the shore, loading and unloading could be
as advantageously done outside as inside. During the cyclone of November
1881 the greater portion of the craft within the harbour were wrecked
before the walls gave way.

" The swell, which is the source of so much trouble at Madras, appears
to be generated in the Bay of Bengal, and, as it approaches the harhour,
advances ordinarily in a line parallel with the coast, but is occasionally
deflected as much as 30° each way.

" It is contended by the Madras Harbour Trust Board that the remedy
for all the defects in the present harbour lies in closing the eastern entrance
and opening one elsewhere. Captain Taylor, the Port Officer, who was
charged to represent to us the views of that Board, goes so far as to say
that the one thing needful is smooth water, that smooth water can only be
got by closing the present or eastern entrance, and that no engineering
difficulty nor expenditure, however great, should be allowed to stand in the
way of such a change being made, and that without it ' the harbour will
never be worth having.'

" We have carefully considered the different proposals for remedying the
defects in the present harbour.

" In order to render this report as clear and comprehensive as possible
we have caused the three accompanying drawings to be prepared.

" Drawing No. 1 exhibits the projects (numbered I, II, III, and IV)
described in a report on the different proposals for a north-east entrance,

54 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

dated 2nd May 1887, and addressed to the Chairman of the Madras
Harbour Trust Board by the Superintendent of the Harbour Works.
These proposals were referred to by different witnesses in the evidence
taken in the course of our inquiry.

" Drawing No. 2 contains a plan of the harbour in its present condition,
and also three sections which we have had prepared in order to illustrate,
as clearly as possible, the changes which have taken place in the depths
immediately to the northward and southward of the harbour within the last
few years.

" Drawing No. 3 shows, by red colour, the position, aspect, and covering
arm of the new north-east entrance, which we have to recommend for
adoption.

" The proposal to open the harbour at the south-east corner, whether
alone or in conjunction with another opening at the north-east corner, we
feel bound to dismiss. Our calculations, founded upon soundings taken and
submitted to us by Mr. Parkes, more especially a comparison of those taken
in 188(3 with those taken in 1882, show that, so rapid aud regular is the
encroachment of the sand on the south side, that, if continued at the same
rate, which we have strong reason to apprehend will be the case, within
twenty years the depth of water at the south-east corner will be reduced to
four fathoms.

" The present, or east entrance, we believe to be the easiest and safest
for ingress or egress, but not only does it admit the sea in the manner
described, but we are of opinion that the time is not very far distant when
the depth at this1 entrance will be so far reduced as to become too shallow for
the larger class of vessels frequenting the port.

" The designs on which the harbour is being reconstructed include
reducing the width of the present entrance from 550 to 450 feet; the
opinions of nautical men differ as to whether the reduction is advisable
from the navigating point o£ view, but all concur in thinking that the
alteration would not have a sufficiently quieting etfect on the state of the
water inside.

*' A proposal has been brought before us to protect the present entrance
by constructing a detached breakwater to the eastward of it. This appears
to us a difficult and costly operation ; a breakwater outside would not, we
believe, prevent the entrance of sand into the harbour.

" The alternative is an opening in the north-east corner with a covering
arm. This is the plan favoured by the Madras Board, and to this we have
given our most careful consideration.

" The opinions of the captains of steamers frequenting the port differ
materially. Some see considerable difficulty and danger in taking an
entrance so placed, others see none. We give it as our opinion that,
although it ma}' not be so easy of ingress, and ships may be detained

NO. 2

MODIFICATION OF N°. i PROPOSED BY SUP?J, OF,

SHEET N°. ||
HARBOUR WORKS-1887.

No. 3

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL BY SUP5T. OF HARBOUR

WORKS— 1887.

Ja?

S. 0. (ttog.-N oj6862.'\£,
1902 (. Copies 110 */

DRAWING N?. I
SHEET N9. Ill

NO. 4

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL BY SUPSJ. OF HARBOUR WORKS— 1887.

NOTE. — Oontonrs in blue show depths in fathoms below DeHavilland's
Mean Sea Level, September 1886.

S. O. ( Reg •. No. 6&63
1902 ( Copies _ 110

DRAWING N9. 2
SHEET Ng. I

MADRAS HARBOUR

TO ACCOMPANY REPORT OF COMMITTEE, APPOINTED 3Y VISCOUNT CROSS— APRIL 1887,
TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF THE ENTRANCE-

1000 500 0

I 1 I I I i I I i I I

SCALE
1000

2000

3000 Ft.

CD

NOTE. — Contours in blae shotr depths in fathoms below DeHavilland'a
Mean Sea Level, September 1886.

S. O. ( Reg . No. 6864
1902 (Copies —110

DRAWING N2- 3.

MADRAS HARBOUR

TO ACCOMPANY REPORT OF COMMITTEE, APPOINTED BY VISCOUNT CROSS - APRIL1887,
TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF THE ENTRANCE.

1000

500

SCALE
1000

2000

3000 Ft .

i. i i i i i i

WORKS RECOMMENDED BY COMMITTEE SHEWN IN RED COLOUR

NOTE.- — Contonrs in blue show depths in fathoms below DeHavillaud's
Mean Sea Level, September 1886.

5. O ( Reg : No. 68G6
~ (Copies — 110

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAS HARBOUR. OO

outside more frequently than at present, the increased difficulty is not
sufficient to condemn it.

" Experience alone'can prove whether the harbour reconstructed, with the
east entrance closed, and an opening maie in the north-east corner, with
a covering arm, will prove a safe anchorage during a cyclone. One captain
only says that he would rather risk staying in than go out under such
circumstances, while others look upon such a harbour as " a trap " f roia
which there would be no escape. The Port Officer expects to be able to
move ships about as in a dock, and the pilot thinks that, with warps and
the ' assistance of a tug,' ships could be taken out on the approach of a
cyclone. Our view is, that we should be indisposed to risk remaining in
the harbour until it has been proved that vessels can lie there in safety
during cyclones, but while admitting the donbt, especially if the harbour is
crowded, we see no reason why, with proper appliances, ships should not be
got safely out on receiving warning.

" Having carefully weighed all the evidence we have been able to collect,
which comprises the views of all classes interested, or who have had oppor-
tunities of forming an opinion, we pronounce in favour of an entrance at the
north-east corner, with a covering arm, and that the entrance on the east
face be closed up.

" Of the fonr plans submitted to us by the Madras Harbour Trust Board
we give the preference on nautical grounds to Plan III, but with an addi-
tion to the length of the covering arm. What the precise length should be
can be best determined by experience. We are of opinion, however, that
the overlap should not be less than 600 feet, and need not be more than
800 feet.

" According to an approximate estimate which we have obtained from
Mr. Parkes, the cost of completing the harbour with a north-east entrance,
if the overlap be 600 feet, will beEs. 22,81,345, and, if the overlap be 800
feet, Es. 25,56,611, in excess of the cost of completing the habour on the
design adopted in 1884, with an east entrance 450 feet wide, estimated by
Mr. Parkes in August 1884 to be Bs. 45,90,0.51, out of which about 21£
lakhs had been expended up to 31st March last.

" It appears, therefore, according to the estimates put before ns by
Mr. Parkes, that the expenditure to be incurred as from 31st March last,
in executing the work according to our recommendation (shown in red
colour on Drawing No. Ill annexed to this report) will amount to about
47y lakhs of rupees with an overlap of 600 feet, and to about 50 lakhs of
rupees if it should be found necessary to make the overlap 800 feet.

" In this estimate it is assumed that the debris of the old work will be
removed to a depth of 36 feet below low water of lowest tides throughout
the new entrance, which depth we regard as a minimum, and we are
distinctly of opinion that not less than this should be sanctioned."

56 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

This report was forwarded by the Secretary of State to India
accompanied by a note by Mr. Parkes criticising the report. Mr.
Parkes was of opinion that the sand difficulty had been exaggerated and
would not be of practical importance for 50 years, that the nautical
evidence as to the superiority of a north-east entrance was very far from
being unanimous, and that the work might well be virtually completed
according to the original design before the north-east entrance \vas
commenced. The Harbour Trust Board and the Government of Madras
both concurred in Mr. Parkes' opinion as to the sand travel, but consid-
ered that the north-east entrance as proposed by the Committee should
be accepted and commenced at once.

On 31st July 1888 Mr. F. N. Thorowgood resigned his post as
Superintendent of the Harbour works and was provisionally succeeded
by Mr. A. L. Pogson.

On 1st October 1888 Mr. Pogson submitted to the Harbour Board
a proposition which is produced without alteration.

"In reply to your letter No. 1952, dated 9th August, forwarding the
Board's Proceedings of 7th August 1888, and calling for further informa-
tion regarding the cost of carrying out a north-east entrance under design
No. III.

" 1 have the honour to state that I consider Mr. Thorowgood's letter No.
1404, dated 16th February 1888, with his estimate of Es. 75,98,414, to be
as explanatory as I can make it, considering the uncertainty of ever being
able to remove the ruins by floating dredgers ; and the detail plan I now
submit, will, I hope, convince all concerned that the only reliable way to
raise or remove the old wall is from a fixed base, viz., a masonry pier. Of
course had there been 10 or 15 feet of water over the ruins, a dredger
would have no difficulty in working.

" With my proposition to remove the old wall, I propose to use a crane
(working from a temporary structure), and therewith dredge down to a
depth of 20 feet, then remove the rubble with a floating dredger.

" To commence dredging, and to open a north-east entrance at once, as in
design No. Ill, would be an irrevocable decision and would condemn, with-
out a fair trial, a design which has been approved of by eminent engineers
and authorities. I certainly think a design (for an entrance) preferable
where the eastern entrance can first be proved a failure, or otherwise ; before
condemning it and thereby delaying completion for 4% years, besides
burdening the port with an additional outlay of upwards of 26 lakhs, that
may or may not give all the requirements, and shelter to future jetties,
wharves, and heavy lighters, which it is wished to obtain.

" Under these circumstances, I have endeavoured to produce a design for
a north-east entrance which will overcome all these difficulties and put

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAS HARBOUR. 67

Mr. Fartes' design to the test ; and should the water eventually be found
smooth enough for the shipping, the harbour could be completed on the
sanctioned design and probably within the cost of the estimate. Then I
should urge the Trustees to look to improvements inside the harbour, to
secure the cranes, lighters, sailing ships and native craft in cyclones. This
I propose to carry out by building the inner walls shown on the lithographed
plan and estimate No. 5 at a cost of Bs. 12,80,213.

'• If Mr. Parkes' design does not give smooth enough water for all
practical purposes, then my design No. IV- A could be proceeded with, and
compl-ted in five years from now, at an extra cost of Rs. 21,58,999.

*' Tbe mode of procedure under design Xo. IY-A, estimate No. 2, for
Rs. 71,31,595, will be as follows : —

" Design Xo. IV- A, north pier. — The north pier will be proceeded with
strictly in accordance with the sanctioned design as far as point A.

" From A to B a pier of the sanctioned bonded superstructure will be
built, but not protected with wavebreakers, until the eastern entrance has
been tested and accepted or condemned. If the former case, the pier from A
to B can be made permanent by adding the ' wavebreaker ' etc., in a very
short time. If the latter decision is come to, then I propose to dredge up
the old wall with the combined ' wavebreak^r and uredging crane,' down
to the rubble base ; then remove the temporary wall (in blue on plan), the
blocks to be transferred and re-set at the south pier ; advancing it as the
north pier recedes ; and thus maintaining an entrance varying from 500 to
550 feet, but gradually developing into a north-east entrance. The rubble
base would be dredged up in sections of 50 feet with a self-propelling
Priestman's dredger.

" South pier. — The south pier will proceed as far as point C as fast as
possible, and will also be strictly in accordance with the sanctioned design,
and be thoroughly protected with wavebreaker blocks and the old wall.

" At the south pier we have the wavebreaker crane already transferred
from the north pier.

" Time of completion. — In two years and ten months from the time cf
commencement, the points B and C would have been reached, and the
harbour woxild then have an eastern entrance of 527 feet (but without the
pier heads, hereafter explained), at a cost of Rs. 14,95,791 from 31st August
1888. See estimate No. 4.

"It will then be for the Trustees to decide whetbfer the sanctioned
design is to be completed, or whether my design for a north-east entrance
is to be carried out ; in other words, whether they prefer to spend Es.
12,80,213 to 'improve the facilities for landing and shipping cargo ' as fast
as they can be discharged from the ships side, and enabling them to have
100-ton iron lighters ready loaded and alongside within an hour after the
return of a steamer which has had to proceed to sea during a cyclone; or

58 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

whether they will spend an additional Ks. 21,58,999 over the north-east
entrance No. IV-A and do without the landing and beach improvements,
till the port can afford the extra outlay.

" Should the position of the north-east entrance, then ultimately decided
upon, be No. IY-A, no money will have been wasted on the test, and condem-
nation of Mr. Parkee' design ; and the north-east entrance can be proceeded
with at once as in estimate No. 2, and will have cost from 1875, KB. 71,31,595
when completed.

" Extension. — If on reaching the end of the southern arm the overlap is
not considered sufficient, the extension shown in red (dotted lines) can be
added, which will give the same overlapping angle as in debign No. Ill at
a total cost given in estimate No. 2 which will be Es. 74,36,566 ; but the
pverlapping angle in design No. IV-A already exceeds that considered
sufficient by Sir G. Molesworth, and I think the Trustees could not do better,
than to accept an opinion cooling from so high an authority as decisive.

"I may add that the depth of water at tke pier head No. IV-A will only
be one foot greater than pier head No. Ill ; but this extra depth will not
weaken the arm, as I have allowed (in the quantities) for the base being
11 feet wider than in No. Ill and the pier head, which I propose, will be
50 feet across as against Mr. Parkes' pier head 38 feet in width.

"Pier heads.— The pier heads shown in estimate No. 1 include the
superstructure, wavebreaker and bise, etc. complete, from the commence-
ment of widening out from the 24 feet wall. These pier heads, under present
design, necessitate a decision being arrived at when the piers have advanced
to within 300 feet from the end of each pierhead, so that with 600 feet short
length of piers, added to the sanctioned entrance of 450 feet, there would
remain (as a minimum) an opening of 1,050 feet, and if a north-east entrance
is then decided upon, this would mean condemning Mr. Parkes' design
before it has had a fair trial.

" But, with a view to proving whether the eastern entrance will be the
anticipated failure or not, I have designed a pier head (a model of which I
shall be able to submit to the Trustees in a few days, with a detailed draw-
ing), under which design a pier head can be formed, at any distance along
the arm, at a cost of Rs. 95,644 (see estimate No 2, South Pier). By this
means, the main piers can be advanced to within 38' 6" short of the proposed
ends of the pier heads, so that, to test an entrance of 450 feet, I can give
(temporarily) an entrance 23 feet narrower than the entrance was in Novem-
ber 1S81, viz., MK Parkes' entrance = 450' + 38' 6" N.P. + 38' 6" S.P =
527 feet ; entrance of November 1881 = 550' — 527' — 23 feet less than the
old design. I can then, under my design, add the pier heads, and complete
an entrance of 450 feet ; or, at the Trustees' option, remove the north pier
between A and B, still unprotected by the wavebreaber, and extend the
south pier, if a north-east entrance is to be carried ont ; while with Mr.
Parkes' old design for the pier heads the work must be permanent.

CONSTKDCTION OF THE MADRAS HAKBOtTR. 59

• • Another point strongly in favour of my design for a pier head, is that the
cost will be considerably reduced, as the Tican cranes will work straight
ahead; while to build the pier heads as constructed in 1881, the present
cranes w,ll have to be turned after every course set, and no one knows
better than I what will be the difficulty, responsibility, and extra labour."

AVith Mr. Pogsoa's letter are here printed the letter with which it
was forwarded to- the Government of Madras, the order of that Gov-
ernment upon it, and the reply of the Secretary of State sanctioning
prosecution of the work on- the lines proposed : —

" I have the honour to acknowledge the rece pt of G.O., No. 2335 "W.,
Public "Works, dated 1st August 1888, and to submit herewith, for the
information of Government, copy of letter No. 909, dated 1st October Ib88,
from the Board's Engineer furnishing all details that tne late Superintendent
has left on record with regard to No. DI design, and further forwarding his
report, plans and estimates for carrying out a modification of plan 1VT; also
copy of a resolution passed thereon by the Trustees at their meeting of 5th
idem, in accordance with which a telegram was despatched, to you that
evening, copy of which is enclosed.

'• 2. In my letter No. 69, dated 6th April 1888, paragraph 7, I informed
Government that the Trustees preferred' plan No. Ill, but .... any
modification of plan JII or IV, or any plan, which will give them ....
this (smooth wat.-r) within a reasonable time, at a cost which the port can
atford to pay, is all the}- have contended for as being absolutely necessary.'
The enormous mass to be removed to carry out plan No. Ill has never until
now been clearly explained to the Trustees, nor has the great protection the
old, partly submerged, wall will atford to the new work ever before been
clearly demonstrated, as has now been done, in the cross sections shown on
the pi an forwarded herewith, and the Board are now of opinion, in view of
this very clear information afforded by their Engineer, that the danger of
repeated wreckage of dredging plant, and the uncertainty as to the time of
completion, are fatal Abjections to Mr. Thorowgood's proposals, although
approved by the Home Committee, who, however, were not ia possession oi
the information now placed before the Board, and only approved of plan
No. Ill on nautical grounds.

"3. The Trustees observe that in his note, dated 27th June 1888, the
Honourable Colonel Hasted remarks that ' It may possibly prove, as the
best way of completing the harbour expeditiously, that the northern arm
should be nearly completed on the lines of the present design, so that one
crane could be used in constructing the protecting arm of the committee's,
approved plan while another is pushing on the southern arm, but it can
hardly be the most economical plan, and it should be considered, if this
method of working is to be adopted, whether the section of the work, which.

60 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

would only have to stand for a year or two, should not be modified with a
view to the easy removal of the blocks as soon as the protecting arm is com-
pleted.' The Trust now note that Mr. Pogson's proposals for carrying this
suggestion into effect would appear to be not only the most expeditious, but
also the most economical. I should mention here that a sketch of the
modification of the design of the proposed completed entrance, No. 1Y-A,
has been shown to Sir Guilford Moles worth by one of the Trustees, Mr.
Hanna, M.I.C.E., now at Simla, and has met with his ' entire approval,' and
Sir Guilford has authorized me by wire to use this expression of his
opinion.

" 4. The Trustees unanimously approve of Mr. Pogson's proposals for a
north-east entrance and prefer his plan to all others that have coine before
them. A s regards his remarks at paragraph 2 7 , the Trust can have no possible
objection to this plan affording as it progresses further practical information
as to what would be the effect of an eastern entrance when completed. If,
then, it is found that an eastern entrance will not give sufficiently smooth
water, the Board are unanimously of opinion that plan No. IV-A should be
adopted, if the financial position of the port will admit of it. Smooth water
is essential, and if they obtain this, as they have clearly expressed them-
selves in their No. 69, dated 6th April 1888, the precise plan by which that
result can be obtained is a matter of comparative indifference ; but the oue
now submitted seems more likely than any other, to effect this economically,
by using the debris of the old submerged works, as well as utilizing the
shelter afforded by it, and the Board have therefore adopted it ; and if
Government approve of the Board's resolution, I am desired to request that
the matter may be referred to the Secretary of State for sanction and that
hie decision may be communicated by wire, so that the Trustees may be in a
position to direct Mr. Pogson to resume work upon the sanctioned design at
the north arm immediately the conclusion of the coming north-east monsoon
renders active operations practicable.

" ORDER— dated 17th November 1888, No, 3644 W., Public Works.

" The Right Honourable the Governor in Council resolves to submit the
papers forwarded by the Harbour Trust Board to the Secretary of State for
decision. The plan proposed is in accordance with Mr. Parkes' suggestions
and merits much consideration.

"2. Ordered that the Secretary of State be addressed,

(True Extract.)

(Signed) H. K. MEAD, Colonel, R.E.,

Ag. Secretary to Gort., P. W.D.
To the Chairman, Harbour Trust Board.

,, Marine Department,

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAS HARBOUR. 61

Letter to the Secretary to the Government of India, Public Works Ltpartmeni,
dated tort 8t. George, llth November 1888T No. 3645 W.

"I am directed to forward herewith, for the information of the Govern-
ment of India, a copy of the Proceedings of this Government, No. 3644 W.,
dated 17th November 1888, together with copy of the despatch to the Bight
Honourable the Secretary of State submitting proposals for the completion
of the Madras Harbour Works.

(Signed) H. E. MEAD, Colonel, B.E.,

Ag. Secretary to Gort., P. TT.D.

Despatch fiom the Right Honourable the Secretary of State.

"I hare received Your Excellency's P.W. letter, No. 24, dated
17th November 1888, forwarding a letter from the

Beconstruction of Madras Harbour Trust Board, submitting detailed
Madras Harbour.

proposals for completing the Madras Harbour.

"The design for the entrance which now finds favour with the Trust
Board is a modification of the plan IV, considered by the London Com-
mittee of 1887, and, in common with the plan A proposed by Mr. Parkes,
possesses the advantage of allowing the works of reconstruction to be
continued, for the present at least, on the lines of the sactioned design, and
thus affording an opportunity of practically testing the effect of an eastern
entrance before taking an irrevocable decision to adopt an entrance facing
the north-east. On the other hand, if the plan III, recommended by the
Committee of 1887, were adopted, it would be necessary to stop all further
progress on the northern arm of the harbour and to proceed at once to
clear a north-east entrance.

•• I do not now propose to enter upon a discussion of the merits of the
different forms of entrance which have been proposed, but 1 have arrived at
the decision communicated to you in my telegram of the 24th December 1888,

noted in the margin, that the work
Telegram to Governor of Madras, dated 24fA ,

D mber 1888 reconstruction should proceed in

" ResTime Harbour works as proposed and accordance with the old design,
prepare abntment blocks. With regard to leaving, for further consideration,
general scheme despatch follows." ^ ^^ ^^ Q£ entrance ^^

should be adopted. This decision will, however, finally set aside the plan
III, recommended by the Committee of 1887."

On 5th February 1889 Mr. Parkes died and was succeeded in the
pout of Consulting Engineer by Sir A. Eendel. The question of th«
precise form of north-east entrance to be adopted being Btill a subject

62 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

of discussion was referred to that gentleman, who replied in a prelimi-
nary report of which the following is an, extract : —

* * * *

" 10. In respect to the second section of paragraph 4, if I understand it
lightly, it means that a part of the north breakwater is not to be protected
by a wavebreaker at all until the position of the entrance is finally deter-
mined by experiment. If this be the meaning of the paragraph, then w»
must consider if the wall is strong enough alone to stand an exceptionally
heavy gale. However temporary may be the existence of the wall, it must
plainly from the first be made to a section that will stand under the worst
possible circumstances. It seems to be supposed that the wall, as now
designed, will stnnd under the worst circumstances without the aid of the
wavebreaker. I confess that I have doubts on the subject, and should like
to see the wavebreaker constructed, par.i passn, with the wall.

"•1 1. This brings me to the vexed question of the position of the entrance ;
and here it appears to me that, so long as the question of its ultimate posi-
tion remains undetermined, there will be vacillations and delays, and
perhaps mistakes ending in disasters,, and that it is highly desirable to set
the question at rest as soon as possible. For my pait, I cannot believe that
the science of marine engineering is in so low a condition that a point of
this kind can only be determined by an experiment which contemplates the
possibility of our having to resort to the costly process of taking- up several
hundred feet of breakwater. And I feel it so necessary that the question
should be settled at the earliest possible moment once and for ever, that,
at the risk of being thought too ready to express an opinion, upon it, I do
not hesita'e to say that, in rny judgment, the eastern entrance as at present
designed is a proper one, is a better one than any alternative which has yet
been proposed, and is the best which, under present circumstances, can be
devised.

•' 12. To.rn.ak9 a harbour secure at the expense of its accessibility, which
to my mind is what the best of the north-east entrances yet proposed would
do, is a worse fault than to make it accessible at the expense of its security,
because we can as a rule improve the security by internal works, and we
o-innot improve the accessibility except by costly alterations which will
diminish Ihe security.

" 13. The simple fact, in my judgment, is that the present scheme for a
harbour at Madras will make no harbour worth the name at all. What
it does make is a satisfactory entrance to a harbour yet to be designed
•within it.

"14. A harbour, it seems tome, is of little value to Madras unless it
provides a quay wall alongside which ships may he as in a dock, and take
in or discharge their cargoes in perfect quiet and security, and there seems
no difficulty in providing such a quayage at a cost which the result would

OOXSTEtCTION OF THE MADRAS HAKBOtTB. 63

fully justify. But, be the cost what it may, it seems to me that Madras is
worth a safe and commodious harbour.

'• 15. The type of harbour to which Madras belongs is very much that of
Whitehaven, a copy of the chart of which I append to this report. Meny
years ago I was Consulting Engineer to this harbour, and I know it well.
We have here an outer harbour, forming an approach, and nothing but an
approach, to two inner harbours, each so enclosed by quays that ships lie
undisturbed within them, with a space between them opening directly on
to the outer harbour, and forming a beaching ground for ships and waves.
It would be easy to devise a similar scheme for Madras, which would give
it, say, 60 acres of enclosed dock (gates of course are not required), 9,000
feet lineal of wharfage, and 40 acres of quay space, enough to make it a
first-class port for a very large trade. Or, if it be preferred, the adjacent
shores outside the harbour might be utilised for the purpose, and of course
a combination of both ideas is possible. I claim no priority in suggesting
either plan. Mr. Parkes ha?, I believe, roughed out the latter idea, Mr.
Thorowgood, the former, quite independently of me. But I may say, as a
corroboration of their views more than anything else, that the first of the
two schemes I have now suggested I broached when the harbour was first
proposed ; and I may add that, if it be adopted, the entrance might be
kept at the width originally given to it of 500 feet, which is by no means
more than it should be."

The Harbour Board replied to Sir A. Eendel's report on 29th August
1889 in a letter which is summarised in a communication from the Madras
Government to the Government of India printed below : —

" With his despatch to this Government, No. 7, Public Works, dated 23rd
May 1889, the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for India forwarded
a preliminary report drawn up by Sir Alexander Eendel, K.C.I.E , regarding
the reconstruction of the Madras Harbour and the position of the entrance,
and reqitested that the views of this Government on the important recom-
meudations made therein should be communicated to the Government of
India.

" 2. In compliance with these instructions, I am now directed to forward
a copy of a letter* from the Chairman, Madras Harbour Trust Board,
setting forth the conclusions at which the Board has arrived after careful
cons deration of the report. Those conclusions may be briefly stated as
follows : —

(1) That the present section of the harbour walls, with 40-feet
wavebreaker protection, and the further protection at the most
exposed parts, afforded by the ruins of the old walls, is suffi-
ciently strong.

* Proceedings of Government, No, 2652- W., dated 23rd September 1889.

Ct OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

(%2) Th.it the only poriion which may require an increased section,
will be the overlapping arm which must he built should a north-
east entrance be eventually decided upon.

(3) That the Board is strongly opposed to the proposal to place the

wavebreaker blocks in orderly rows, and considers that the
m-iin feature of the present de>ign is the wavebreaker protec-
tion of ' random ' work, which experience has shown answers
admirably, while the orderly rows do not satisfactorily brsak
iip the waves.

(4) That the question of the position of the entrance should be

decided hereafter by practical experience.

(5) T*>at no useful purpose will be served by, at present, discussing

Sir A. Rendel's suggestions regarding the provision of an inner
harbour for ships, with quays, etc.

"3. The general conclusion at which the Beard has arrived is that the
work should be prosecuted near y to completion on the lines of the present
sanctioned design, and that the question of the position of the entrance
should be left to be finally determined hereafter when experience has shown
whether or not an eastern opening gives sufficiently smooth water.

'• 4. I am direc'ed to say that this Government fully concurs in the views
expressed by the Harbour Trust Board. Notwithstanding anything which
may be said to the contrary, this Government is of opinion that the Madras
Harbonr as it is being constructed at present, must be regarded as an ex-
periment, and that to attempt to finally fix the position of the entrance now
would be a fatal mistake. Experience alone can show, after completion of
the piers on the san< tioned design, whether an eastern opening will give
practically smooth water ; and if it is found that this object has been
secured, no one will dispute that it wou'd be useless to make a north-east
opening at an additional cost of 21 £ lakhs of rupees.

" 5. This Government sees no reason to doubt the correctness of the other
conclusions arrived at by the Board, and as regards the inner docks and
quays suggested by Sir A. Rendel, it has yet to >»e shown that the trade of
Madras requires them and that the port is financially capable of providing
them.

" 6. In conclusion, I am to say that if the work is allowed to proceed on
the present lines, this Government and the Harbour Trust Board will prob-
ably in less than two years' time have actual facts to guide them as to the
further steps to be taken."

In February 1890 Sir A. Rendel visited the harbour and informed
the Trustees that he was strongly of opinion that the tentative portion of
the north arm should be thoroughly protected by a 40 feet wavebreaker
in the same manner as the rest. Should a north-east entrance be later
decided on this wavebreaker would undoubtedly be difficult to remove,

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAS HARBOt'R. 65

but without it the wall might be immediately destroyed and the east
entrance would not receive a fair trial. These views were confirmed
by him in a report forwarded by the Secretary of State on 31st December
1890, in which however he added that he had not raised the question
of the entrance, because he found that the Trustees held a very strong
opinion that a north-east entrance was proper, while his own view was
that the evils of an east entrance should be overcome by interior works ;
and the tentative prosecution of the works on the sanctioned design
luckily satisfied both views for the time being.

By this time the erosion to the north of the harbour had assumed
formidable dimensions and had been treated by rubble walls to be
dragged down by the sea at its pleasure. Should this be unsuccessful
Sir A. Rendel considered it might be necessary to protect the shore
with concrete blocks parallel to it and possibly also at right angles.

On these lines the harbour works were steadily prosecuted until the
end of 1892, by which time it became necessary to consi-ler the pier
heads ; and on 31st December of that year Mr. Pogson, in his quarterly
report of progress, made the following proposition : —

" 10. Owing to the more rapid progress the north pier has made over the
south arm since the suggestion was made in Sir A. M. Rendel's minute of
2. 5th February 1890 to finish the south pier off with a caisson, and the north
pier in blockwork temporarily, in case the entrance should eventually be
altered, it is now quite evident the north pier will be completed first, and as
the crane for setting the caissons is at the north pier, and apparently no
doubt now exists as to which is to be the final entrance to the harbour, it
would be more economical to complete both piers with caissons without delay
and look to docks for any further improvement necessary in the state of the
sea, inside the harbour in rough weather."

To this proposition the Secretary of State agreed. From now
onwards the work proceeded smoothly if slowly, the chief point of interest
to be noted in the quarterly reports being the difficulty, danger, and
delay in removing old work and preparing the rubble bed for new
work. The north pier caisson was set in April 1894 and the concrete
capping was proceeded with, and in March 1895 the south pier caisson
was set ; and by the end of that year the harbour with an east
entrance was practically completed. The construction accounts were
closed in June 1896. Up to that date the expenditure had been as
follows : —

Total expenditure Rs. 1,26,21,212

Expenditure previous to 1883 .. .. „ 61,41,985

I

66 OFFICIAL PAPERS CONCERNING THE

The Harbour Trust was debited with the difference between these
sums, viz. Rs. 64,79,227, on which interest at 4£ per cent, was required
by Government.

It is to be remarked that by this time the entrance had already
shoaled 2| feet by accretion of sand from the southward, while high-
water mark on the sandy beach against the south arm was steadily
advancing at an average rate of nearly 70 feet a year, and accretion
was perceptible at a distance of 5 miles south of the harbour. The
seriousness of this shoaling received the close attention of the Harbour
Trust and the professional officers of the Government, by whom full
particulars were communicated to Sir A. Kendel. The latter after full
consideration advised the tentative use of a suction dredger, the cost
of which would be about 2 lakhs. Such a dredger he thought would
be able to remove the deposit of each year in less than 90 days, the
limit of time during which the weather would permit of its working at
Madras.

In 1897 a special marine survey was made by Lieutenant Beauchamp,
R.I.M. This officer in summarising the results stated that between
1876 and 1897 the depth between the pier heads had decreased by 3 feet,
the corners of the harbour had all shoaled by 3 feet to 4 feet and the foie-
shore had advanced 350 feet, that south of the harbour the point where
highwater mark met the breakwater had advanced 750 feet since 1886
and probably 1,800 feet since 1876, but that all to the northward and
all outside the 7 fathom contour south-eastward and eastward
remained the same.

The Harbour Trust having expressed its unwillingness to go to the
expense contemplated by Sir A. Rendel, the Madras Government sold
to them the bucket dredger " Wenlock " for Rs. 1,04,000, and this vessel
was then converted into a suction dredger at a considerable cost. To close
this subject it may be stated in brief that this dredger has never worked
well and in spite of expensive alterations has hitherto been useless.
If there had been a dry dock in Madras it would probably be possible to
render the dredger of some service.

Besides dredging there have been, since the completion of the
harbour, numerous proposals for improving its utility. The waves
inside, caused by swell coming in through the east entrance, frequently
cause trouble, expense, and delay in landing and shipping operations,
and necessitate the retention of the masulah boats which it was one of
the first objects of the harbour to do away with. A ship dock in the sand
accretion to the south has been proposed. The objections to this are :

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAS HARBOUR. 67

(1) the entrance would have to be protected by a mole, 500 to 800 feet
long which would be very much in the way : (2) the entrance would be
awkward, and it is doubtful whether vessels staying but a short time at
the port would use the dock : (3) it is possible that even a mole would
not prevent waves from entering the dock. A boat basin has also been
proposed, but this has hitherto been negatived as insufficient for the
needs of the case, which are to get rid of boats, whether large or small,
altogether and also because of the cost of eventually converting it into a
ship dock. Other forms of docks have also been proposed but have not
met with a favourable reception.

Various forms of protection to the existing entrance have been
suggested, but have been resisted by nautical men on the score of diffi-
culty in entrance and exit. A north or north-east entrance is still the
favourite remedy. The objections to this are : (1) that it will need the
removal of part of the existing breakwater, which even where the seel ion
is slight must necessarily be a difficult and uncertain operation : (2) the
protecting arm, being broadside on to the highest waves, will necessarily
be very strong and expensive : (3) such an arm will assist the travel of
sand along it in a narrow strip and the outer end will soon begin to silt
up and must be prolonged much sooner than would an arm projecting
seaward : (4) there may be difficulty in making or quitting harbour in
a heavy sea. This remedy however would undoubtedly give smooth
water and seems on the whole the most satisfactory. Whatever form
of entrance is adopted, wharves or jetties to which ships can be made
fast and the usual appliances in an up-to-date port are necessary before
the Madras Harbour can be considered to answer its purpose. The
most authoritative pronouncement on these matters is however contained
in a note by Sir A. Rendel dated 12th May 1899, parts of which are

extracted :

* * * *

"2. In the first report which I wrote upon Madras Harbour (in 1889)
I stated that it seemed to me that the present harbour could only be looked
upon as a satis tactory entrance to a harbour yet to be constructed within it,
i.e., to an inn«r harbour. That it is merely an outer harbour, with possibly
not a satisfactory entrance, seems now to be the general opinion in Madras
also, and the question discussed in the papers sent to me is, the best mode
of constructing within it ail inner harbour suited to the purposes of trade
As to the position of the entrance, there still seems to be competent opinion
in favour of a north-eastern position. I adhere to my preference for the
present eastern position ; but f also think it just possible that it may yet be
nece^ary, if the harbour is to fally serve its intention, to place its entrance

68 OFFICIAL PAPEES CONCERNING THE

in deeper water, that is to say, to construct a new outer harbour. I shall
say something more on this point at the end of my report, but r«ther as a
coutribution to the discussion on the vexed question of the entrance, than
as a practical p«rt of the subject immediately under discussion.

" 3. My instructions are to report whether having regard to the state of
the harbour it is expedient to expend further large sums upon it.

" 4. Although the stability of the breakwaters has not yet been tested by
a severe cyclone, yet I think enough is now known to justify my opinion
that they are of sufficient strength to resist one. I think also that the
deposit of sand which has so far taken place in the harbour, has not yet
been such as to make it improbable that a depth sufficient for the berthage
of large shipping can be maintained in it by dredging at a moderate cost.
There seems good ground also for the opini"n that the trade of Madras
requires and would use the facilities afforded by a deep water wharf. For
these reasons L think that a scheme for the provision of such facilities in a
moderate degree is expedient.

" 5. Various schemes for both boat and ship docks have been prepared
by Mr. Wilson, by Mr. Lee Pogson, the Engineer of the Harbour, and by
others connected with it. Those of Mr. Wilson being specially referred to
in the papers sent to me and not varying from others in principle, I shall
confine my remarks to them.

"6.1 should premise by saying that in all schemes yet put forward, a
ship dock means a walled dock of such depth that the heaviest class of ships
can lie afloat alongside its quays or in any part of it at all times of tide ;
and that a boat dock means a similar but smaller dock, of such depth that
only the large boats or barges employed in Madras for the transfer of
goods between ships and the shore can use it.

"7. In respect to a boat dock, I do not think it should be accepted, unless
it be clear that a ship dock would cost m^re than the general circum-
stances of the case warrant. At any rate a boat dock should uot, I think,
be so placed as to interfere with a ship dock being constructed later on, and
this is a fault, to my mind, of the best schemes for a boat dock which have
been prepared in India, so far as I know them. If a boat dock only is
constructed, I should still prefer the scheme which I shall propose for a
ship dock ; because, amongst other reasons in its favour, it may be built,
in the first instance, as a boat dock, not quayed, it is true, but with the
advantage of a depth which will allow ships to lie afloat within it, and to
carry on their business with the shore by means of boats in perfect quiet.
The development into a ship dock, requiring as*it would only the construc-
tion of the quay wall on its western side and some further dredging, might
follow when money could be found for it without waste of executed, or
greater cost of, work to be executed. But the harbour of Madras cannot,
in my opinion, be considered as properly equipped for the rapid despatch

CONSTRUCTION OP THE MADRAS HABBOUB. 69

which trade of all kinds now requires, until a certain number of ships can
lie afloat alongside a quay constructed within it, that is to say, until what
is understood in Madras as a ship dock, is provided.

" 8. The basis of Mr. Wilson's scheme for a ship dock is the ultimate
enclosure of a quadrangular piece of water, about 23 acres in area, in the
south-western or shore angle of the harbour, commencing with the construc-
tion of part of a covering pier on its east side running out from the south
breakwater, and of a quay wall on its south side. The completion of the
east covering pier and the construction of the north and west sides of the
enclosure are to follow as trade requires, with further extension southwards
when necessary into the ground which has grown up south of the harbour.
The entrance to this enclosure when finished would face north. Mr. Wil.-on
also proposes to build a quay wall 600 feet long in front of and parallel to
the shore end of the north breakwater.

" 9. I think one objection which may be raised to this scheme is that,
until the enclosure of the south side of the harbour is completed, the
accommodation provided for trade will be very small compared with the
expenditure ; for the east covering pier, being only 42 feet wide, will be
much too narrow for rapid loading and unloading. But the main objection
to it, in my mind, is that the covering pier alone, specially when only
constructed in part, will add little if anything to the power of the harbour
to disperse waves, and may even diminish it, because recoil within an enclosf d
space merely diverts a wave, it does not destroy it. Ships, therefore, would
not be able to lie against, at all events, the 600 feet of this pier to be first
constructed, or against the south quay whicb it covers, in much if any
greater quietude than they can lie now in the open harbour, that is to *&y,
vessels would be often unable to lie alongside either pier or quay.

" 10. The case would no doubt be different when the enclosure was com-
pleted by the construction of the north quay ; ships might then lie in safety
under all circumstances against all the quays which surround it. But it
would not even then to my mind be a satisfactory scheme, because by
diminishing the area of the harbour, already admittedly too small for the
purpose, and surrounded as it would be by nearly vertical walls, it would,
like the proposed east pier, and for the same reason, but in larger degree,
diminish rather than increase the wave -dispersing power of the harbour.
Its entrance also is so placed as to require ships to make a quarter turn to
get into it, not perhaps a bad fault, yet one that in such a situation should
be avoided if possible.

"11. The quay on the north side of the harbour is open to the objection
that it simply converts a part of the north breakwater into a deep water
quay. If the sides of the harbour be as disturbed by sea as we are told
they are, the use of this quay would be subject to great interruption.

" 12. The scheme in fact overlooks, as it appears to me, what I understand
from the papers which have reached me, and should expect from the nature

70 OFFICIAL PAPKRS CONCERNING THE

of the case, are the leading characteristics of the wave-action within the
harbour, namely — that the main disturbance in it is on its sides, the waves
as they enter the harbour running along one or other or both of the inner
faces of its two breakwaters to the west shore on which they ultimately
disperse, and, that the centre of the harbour is the quietest part of it
throughout the year. Assuming this to be correct, the conclusion I come
to is, that a thoroughly satisfactory scheme for trading purposes cannot be
based on the utilisation of either of the breakwaters, and that we must look
for it on the west or shore side of the harbour.

* * * *

"21. I said in the early part of this note that I should make a few
observations at the end of it on the subject of a new outer harbour.
Whether such work is necessary or not depends, in my opinion, on the
amount of sand deposit which takes place in the present harbour. If
dredging fails to maintain its depth at a reasonable cost, which I do not
think it will do, then, if the harbour is to fully serve the purposes for
which it was intended, the difficulty can in 'my judgment be only met by
making a new entrance in deeper water. This can only, in my opinion, be
effected by the construction of a new outer harbour. The mere shifting of
the present entrance to another point in the present breakwaters will, in my
judgment, have no effect. Although I believe I was the first to suggest
the construction of an entrance with a north-eastern aspect, having doue so
before the harbour was commenced, since 1 came to know it I have seen no
reason to think its present eastern aspect wrong ; but there is so much
opinion in favour of a north-eastern aspect, that I have laid down on the
chart which accompanies this note two plans for a new outer harbour, one
with an eastern entrance, consisting of two partially detached breakwaters
converging to each other from near the angles of the present breakwaters,
the other with a north-east entrance, also consisting of two breakwaters,
the southern attached to the present southern breakwater, the other partially
detached. My own preference is for the former. But the latter is better,
I think, though much more costly, than the one I suggested in my report
of September 1896, in which, thinking mainly of cost, I showed the present
entrance closed and a new one made in the eastern arm of the north break-
water by taking up a portion of it, a scheme which is not, I think, as good,
as the more costly scheme I now suggest. I propose partially detached
breakwaters, where possible, in order that some part of the seas which enter
the passage between them may be able to get out again, and may therefore
disturb the entrance to what would then be the inner harbour less than
they would if confined within the two entrances, and also to maintain as
much current past the inner entrance as possible for the prevention of
deposit ; and I propose that the detachment shall be partial only, because
I think it will be necessary to fill the gaps between the new and present
breakwaters with stone deposit up to the level of say 20 feet below low

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAS HABBOUB. 71

water in order to check the travel of sand along the bottom. But both
schemes, as I hare before said, are to my mind for the future if ever, and
it is fortunate that they are so, for their cost would be very large."

In the meantime silting in the harbour mouth has increased at the
rate of something under a foot annually and it has become evident that
dredging even with a thoroughly efficient dredger, can hardly be a
complete remedy. This view has been gradually gaining weight and
local opinion is at the present moment, as it has been almost uninter-
ruptedly for the last twenty years and more, markedly in favour of a
protected entrance. It will be seen from the preceding narrative that
the east entrance was only accepted tentatively, as a measure of
prudence and economy in the unlikely event of its proving satisfactory.
It has proved unsatisfactory ; and there is reason now in urging a
completion of the sanctioned plan for a north-east entranc-e approved
by the strongest Committee that has ever considered the matter,
approved by the Secretary of State, by the Government of India, by
the Government of Madras, by the Harbour Trust Board, and by local
opinion generally ; or for any modification of that plan which satisfies
the admitted necessity of a north-east entrance.

THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE
STAMPED BELOW

RENEWED BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE
RECALL

LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

Book Slip-50m-8,'66(G5530s4)45S

N° 471581

ERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAV

31175021290385

Mackenzie, A.T.

Official papers
concerning the construction
of the Madras harbour.

TC304
M3

PHYSIU-t
SCIENCES
LIBRARY

LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
DAVIS

A715R1

Mackenzie, A.T.

Official papers
concerning the constru

Call Number:

TC304
M3

;tion