162
DAGENHAM BREACH.
and petitioned Parliament against Perry's plan,13 alleging that mathe-
maticians had declared it to be impracticable. He also got a
surveyor to estimate what he had already spent, and what it was
worth to a new undertaker14—the amount expended being £8,396,
and that it was worth £3,762.
A Parliamentary Committee was then appointed, and Perry
closely examined as to his methods. At the end, "one of the
members thus spoke the sense of the committee: 'You have
answered us like an artist, and like a workman; and it is not only
the scheme, but the man, that we recommend.' "15
Amongst other witnesses was one who said the scheme was
impossible. He was asked if he had ever spoken to Perry, or
knew his plans, or had been to see the Breach; to all of which he
answered, "No." After ten weeks their report was presented to
Parliament, who declared that the trustees had done their duty.
Later on, Perry complained of this delay as a detriment to him,
the prices of timber and ironwork having, in the interim, risen
twenty per cent.
A brief survey of the methods adopted by Captain Perry are
worthy of note, inasmuch as they proved so thoroughly effectual.
Up to the present, as you may see, the dam so skilfully contrived
remains as strong and powerful to resist every tidal pressure as it
was at the time he built it.
He first fixed up two sluices in firm land forty feet in breadth, with
a foundation down to low-water mark. Each had two drawers to
move up and down (a clow, though not mentioned under this name);
he then cut a canal to allow the water to flow to the sluices; and in
this way at once relieved the pressure by allowing the tide to have
free course.
He then began the foundations of the dam across the Great
Breach, driving first a series of fir piles, seven to eight inches thick,
and throughout their length dovetailed into each other, as deep as
they would go—some six or eight feet. These formed a founda-
tion stretching quite across the Breach, and extending some twenty
or thirty feet into the banks, and were designed to prevent the under-
scouring which had occurred at previous attempts. He at the same
time began to fix foot-wharves on each side, some twenty feet in
13 The two printed folio sheets, addressed to the House of Commons, dated 1715 and 1716(?),
relating to the case of W. B. with the Trustees may be seen in the British Museum.
14 Boswell's "Impartial Account," etc., 1717, already quoted.
15 Smiles's "Lives of the Engineers," vol. i., p. 79.