Page 23 - KBHA BULLETIN 6

20

bringing work to a complete standstill. One of the divisive issues was the depth of the

required foundation trench on the rock. On top of this, King was accused of being negligent

in his work and duties and he was dismissed.

One of the design requirements was that the bottom ten feet of the tower should be filled
with concrete. However, after only six feet had been filled cracks started to appear in the

bottom segments of the tower. The theory put forward was that the concrete was expanding
and to overcome the problem Cousins fitted wrought iron hoops around the bottom of the

tower to strengthen it.

The work was eventually completed and the light commissioned on 16 September 1861,

but the two lighthouse-keepers were unhappy with the way the tower shook and vibrated

under the onslaught of the waves washing over the rocks. Taking this into account, together
with the misgivings about the cracks in the tower, the Colonial Government would not

accept responsibility for the running of the lighthouse until their engineer was satisfied that
alterations to stabilise the structure had been correctly carried out.

The Governor appointed Tucker, Mr. W. I. Andrews, the Table Bay Harbour Works

Resident Engineer, and Capt. F. Skead, the Admiralty Surveyor, to investigate the matter

and offer a solution to the problem. Their proposal was to build a new granite base adjacent
to the existing tower and re-erect the cast-iron structure and light on this. The Board of

Trade consulted a Mr. Parkes, who had built three lighthouses on rocks in the Red Sea, for
his opinion on the new recommendation. Parkes met Tucker in London and agreed with the

proposed solution but, like Alexander, without visiting either the site or even South Africa.

The project was referred to Mr. Bourne, the Colonial Railway Engineer, who immediately

visited the site to arrange for the work to be done. He consulted with a Mr. Mair, a civil
engineer whom he rated highly, to supervise the works. After Mair visited the site he

pointed out three serious shortcomings of the Tucker proposal. Firstly, the existing

structure was in the best position on the rock with a flat area all round the tower
approximately 8 ft. wide. Secondly, the proposed new position was on a rock ledge that

20