the making of town gas has been a constant subject as gas works after gas works has been wound up, anyone who lived in Greenwich in the early 2000s were remember all the problems caused by the huge East Greenwich Gas works and how ‘pollution’ was always the only word that could be used about its past - and the Dome and much else was built on the site. East Greenwich gas works was responsibly run and very modern, so just think what it was like with some of the very early gas works in London.  I have often said that the early London gas industry is a story of incompetence and fraud and obviously respect for the environment was not an issue that were concerned with.

I wanted to write this week about a court case in early 19th century Woolwich. This is about the first gas works in our area which was built in Woolwich in around 1817 and which I wrote about here in 2022. It involved a very early gas works –- in fact the first built in the area which is now the Royal Borough. It originated with a Mr. Livesey and a Mr. Hardy.  Readers might be aware that I have recently written a book about George Livesey, the late 19th century South London gas manager.  This earlier Mr Livesey, who was involved in Woolwich, was his great uncle, Thomas and Mr. Hardy was a coal merchant. Basically they seem to have built the works with a view to selling it for someone else to operate. They weren't actually able to sell it and had to continue to run it themselves for many years.  The works was sited near or on Roffs Wharf which was adjacent to Bell’s Watergate on the Woolwich riverside.

I need to put Thomas Livesey and the early gas industry into a bit of context to understand what was happening in Woolwich.  The first commercial gas works in the world was built in Westminster near what is now Horseferry Road and was operational by 1812.  Its first years were very difficult and it was not until Samuel Clegg from Manchester was appointed as Engineer that it was run with any sign of competence. At the same time a group of activists had managed to get Thomas Livesey elected to the Court of Governors and he became Deputy Governor - a role which he was to continue for many years.  He dealt with all the administrative problems which were necessary to make the gas works viable.

One of the problems encountered by the very first gas works was what to do with various wastes produced by the manufacturing process and this was something which would haunt the gas industry for many, many years. Worst was the waste from various methods of cleaning the gas up and make it smell less offensive.  There were negotiations with various water companies all of whom refused to allow this effluent to pass into their systems and so it was for a while stored in tanks on site and moved at the rate of 55 loads of week by contractors. There was also the opportunity to buy land on the site where the Tate gallery now stands and use it to store wastes in ditches and tanks.   Neither option was long term and clearly couldn't continue. Neighbouring companies and residents sued the company using the Common Law and so the gas company was paying out huge sums of compensation.

 Eventually the company applied to the Committee for the Navigation of the River Thames who said the effluent could be discharged into a special pipe which led to the River.

So what was going on in Woolwich? The new Woolwich works was very close to the River and it therefore seems obvious that all these nasty substances that they didn't know what to do with – just went into the River.  In 1818 a press report said ”Here is also another evil: the Gas Works, the days their drains empty themselves into the River,  and cover a great part of it in putrid scum, which may be seen swimming on the surface for miles.”  .... and in 1821 ‘An Important question, now that Gas works are becoming general throughout the kingdom, occupies the attention of the Magistrates of London-  namely, what extent does the flow of matter from such Works into any River, reduce the vital properties of its water?”

In 1821 Thames Fishermen asserted, that the London gas works, had already “destroyed much fish”. In that year there was also a pollution case involving the City of London Gas Company. They were effectively the second ever public gas works with a site at the City end of what would be Blackfriars Bridge.  The Lord Mayor’s office fined a Fisherman for using an illegal net - that is one which had a mesh which was not an allowed size. He was based on Dorset Wharf by the gas works and his defence was that he was removing dead fish from the River - not catching live ones to eat. The representative of the City of London Gas Company said that he had never seen a dead fish on Dorset Wharf and what he had to contend with was live eels which got in the works’ pumps also, he said, the mud around the area was full of live red worms. 

Cases like this and others continued in the City and in Westminster with the Gas Light and Coke Co. So there is reason to believe that these sorts of problems were common with all gas companies.

In 1822 an indictment was brought by the Corporation of the City of London against the defendants. The Proprietors of the Woolwich Gas Works, for ‘turning the refuse of the Gas into the Thames to the great annoyance of that neighbourhood, and to the destruction of the Fish in the River. Many Fishermen proved the nuisance of the injury sustained.’

This case of the King v. Livesey and Hardy was an indictment at the instance of the Lord Mayor of London, as Conservator of the River Thames ‘against the proprietors and assistants at the Woolwich Gas Works, for committing a nuisance, by causing tar, ammonia, &e. the residuum of the gas, to flow from their tanks into tile Thanes, by which a great number of fish were destroyed’.

The counsel for the Crown failed to prove that the defendant, Thomas Livesey, was the occupier or proprietor of the gas works, and it was therefore ruled by the Judge that he must be acquitted. He was then sworn as a witness, and said that he was the sole proprietor of the Woolwich Works, and that two of the defendants were his servants. He described the plan of the gas works, and that the nuisances complained of had only been committed in one or two instances, and that through unavoidable circumstances. This was corroborated by other witnesses.

A number of fishermen were called, who proved that they had ‘wells’ in the barge tier ‘in the river at Woolwich, not far from the bank of the river, where the gas works are. erected, in which they preserved fish, and that in consequence of the oily and noxious matter running from the gas works into the water, as many 100 fish had been destroyed in their vessels in o1ne-night’.

Mr. Nelson, the Deputy Water Bailiff of the River Thames, said, that in May 1823, the fishermen complained to him, and he saw the offensive matter swimming on the river, which flowed from the defendants’ pipe.

For the Defence, witnesses were called, who proved that in two instances the defendants' tar tank had overflowed by mere accident, and that there was now no communication between the gas works and the drain leading to the Thames.

 

In the years that followed Parliaments and various regulatory bodies tried to find ways of imposing some forms of pollution control on the gas industry. In this case the City of London with its role as Thames Conservators was involved and as ever the City was able to take action which other authorities were sometimes not able to afford or had the powers to do anything

To describe all the measures taken would take up too much space in this relatively brief article. I am aware of an article written by Canadian academic , Leslie Tormory,  ’The Environmental History of the Early British Gas Industry, 1812–1830’, which describes the problem and attempted solutions in detail. Can I add that from my own point of view I am very amazed to see that he has footnoted my PhD on the use of gas industry waste products. I'm totally amazed because nobody else has ever taken the smallest bit of interest in it. Anyway I would very much recommend his work on the problem of pollution by the early gas industry.

To return to Thomas Livesey and the 1820s.  It appears that by having interest in another gas company he had violated his elected position in the Gas Light and Coke Co. In order to sort this out in 1827 he published public notices:

LORDS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN, At The Half Yearly Meeting of the GAS LIGHT and COKE COMPANY, held on Friday, the 4th of May last, of Proprietors were of opinion, that, in consequence of an interest in the Gas Works at Woolwich, I was legally disqualified until re-elected, from acting as Deputy Governor of the Company, and, yielding to such opinion, I have, for the present, ceased to act as Deputy Governor.

I cannot however, but feel highly gratified and flattered on the Resolution passed by the Court of Proprietors on the same occasion, which has determined me to abandon the interest I held in the Woolwich Works, and to present myself again to your notice for re-election. I have therefore earnestly to request the favour of your Support and Interest on Wednesday, the 30th day of May Instant, (which is the day fixed for the Election to take place), at Twelve o’clock case of my very best exertions will be devoted, (as they always have been since I was elected Director in 1813, and Deputy Governor in 1815) , to promote the success and prosperity of the Gas Light and Coke Company.

I  have the honour to be Your very obedient, humble Servant, Hackney, May 8,1827- THOMAS LIVESEY.

You will have to read my earlier article to see if he was telling the truth or not