I have thus finished my notice of the entire dock system of _The Thames and its docks

of London, for a complete view of which _see_ Appendix L: and a glance

at this plan, which has been specially drawn in connection with this

lecture, will convey some impression of its magnitude. It will be found

very interesting to compare London as it _is_ with what it _might have

been_ had some of the schemes to which I have called your attention,

been carried out. The aggregate water-space of the docks of London,

when the extensions in progress shall have been completed, will not

be less than 560 acres. It should be borne in mind that the whole of

these costly undertakings are the birth of the present century. Within

the like period we have seen the commerce of the port multiplied

nearly seven-fold; and it is no exaggeration to say, that to this

marvellous result, the docks, in conjunction with the development of

the warehousing system, which they have so much assisted, and to which

I should like to have referred, have contributed more than any other

agency. I fear that the public generally are rather inclined to lose

sight of this fact, which becomes obvious enough after a few moments’

consideration. If the tremendous evils to which I have called attention

as existing less than a hundred years ago, when the business of the

port was not one-seventh of its present magnitude, were the result

of overcrowding, it stands to reason that, in the absence of dock

accommodation, the increased business must have gone to the out-ports,

and, failing the necessary accommodation there, have located itself on

the Continent. This, it is unnecessary to say, would have been nothing

short of a national calamity. Look at Liverpool, a little fishing

village at a time when London absorbed four-fifths of the business of

England and Wales. But the dangers incident to the navigation of the

Mersey early called attention to the necessity of artificial water

accommodation for its shipping. This the people of Liverpool were

wise enough to recognise; and who can doubt that Liverpool, which,

considering its importance three hundred years ago, has grown even more

rapidly than London, owes its marvellous prosperity to its magnificent

dock system. Look, again, at Bristol. Time was when Bristol, as a

port, ranked next to London; and why? Simply because of her unrivalled

geographical situation and the early establishment of the dock system.

Why does Bristol no longer occupy that prominent position? Because, as

is generally the case where Nature has done so much, Art, her handmaid,

has been less assiduous in her attentions than at London, Liverpool,

Hull, and other places; and so, in the race for commercial prosperity,

Bristol has been left behind by her younger, and more enterprising,

sisters. Clearly Nature intended Bristol to be, what she once was,

the most flourishing port on the west coast of England, and no mean

rival of London. But the Bristolians appear to have forgotten that

large ships need plenty of water, and that the Avon, like some people

of unsettled habits, has a strange fancy at times for leaving its bed

unoccupied. Could the good people of Bristol be induced to dockise that

very erratic stream within a respectable distance of its mouth, I am

inclined to believe that many a shipowner who now sends his vessels

to London would think it worth his while to escape the dangerous

Channel passage by ordering them into Bristol, more especially with

an equalization of railway rates. I never visit this grand old city,

so rich in historic memories of maritime enterprise, the birthplace

of Sebastian Cabot, the real founder of the great Russia Company, the

moving spirit amongst the ‘Merchant Adventurers,’ and ‘Grand Pilot of

England,’ without feeling that, sooner or later, she will again assert

that supremacy in the West which is her natural heritage. The new docks

at Avonmouth and Portishead are a step in this direction, and cannot

fail, if well worked, to command a large share of the business of the

Western world. If I am right, then for peaceful, prosperous, contented

Bristol there are even greater things in store than she has ever yet

dreamed of in her commercial philosophy.

Of course, a sketch of the Thames and its docks would be incomplete

without a statement of the Legal Quays, Sufferance Wharves, and Private

Warehouses now in existence. Few people are aware of their enormous

extent, and it would be difficult to exaggerate the important part

which they have played in the history of the port. There cannot be a

doubt that the proprietors of these places have availed themselves

to the fullest extent of the advantage which they enjoy, under the

present state of the law, of being allowed free use of the dock-waters.

Undermentioned is a list of them, and I may add that, with very few

exceptions, all restrictions as to the goods which may be landed at

some of these places have now been removed.

_Legal Quays._

Fresh Wharf.

Hammond’s.

Cox’s Quay.

Botolph Wharf.

Nicholson’s Wharf.

Custom House Quay.

Brewer’s Quay.

Chester’s Quay.

Galley Quay.

_Uptown Warehouses and Vaults._

Aire & Calder.

Beer Lane Vaults.

Bell’s Warehouse.

Billiter Street Warehouse.

Cooper’s Row Warehouse.

Crown Diamond Warehouse and Vaults.

Crutched Friars Warehouse.

Cutler Street and New Street Warehouse.

Dowgate Hill Vaults.

East India Avenue Vaults.

Fenchurch Street Warehouse.

George Street Vaults.

Globe Yard Warehouse.

Gracechurch Street Vaults.

Lingham’s Warehouse and Vaults.

Metropolitan Warehouse and Vaults.

Mint Street Warehouse.

Monastery Warehouse.

Monument Warehouse and Vaults.

Priory Warehouse.

Red Mead Lane Warehouse and Vaults.

St. Dunstan’s Warehouse.

St. Andrew’s Vaults.

St. Olave’s.

Savage Garden Vaults.

Smith’s Warehouse.

Thames Street Vaults.

Tower Hill Vaults and Warehouse.

Trinity Warehouse and Vaults.

Water Lane.

_Sufferance Wharves, at which certain goods may be landed and

warehoused._

Allhallows.

British and Foreign.

Brooks’.

Bull.

Butler’s.

Chamberlain’s.

Commercial.

Commercial Dock.

Cotton’s and Depôt.

Davis’s.

Dowgate Dock and Warehouse.

Dyers Hall, and Monument Warehouses.

Fenning’s.

Fishmonger’s Hall.

Gun.

Gun and Shot and Griffin’s.

Hartley’s.

Hambro’.

Hay’s.

Hermitage.

Hibernia, New.

Irongate.

London and Continental.

Lucas and Spencer’s.

Mark Brown’s.

Metropolitan.

New Crane.

New Dundee.

Old Swan.

Oliver’s.

Paul’s Wharf.

Pickle Herring, Lower.

Platform.

Red Lion and Three Cranes.

St. Bride’s Upper.

St. Bride’s.

St. John’s.

St. Katharine’s.

St. Olave’s.

St. Saviour’s.

Smith’s.

South Eastern.

South Devon.

Springall’s.

Symon’s.

Topping’s.

Willson’s.

_Sufferance Wharves at which certain goods may be landed._

Aberdeen.

Atkin’s.

Barnard’s.

Barry & Co.

Bethell’s.

Brandram’s, New.

Brandram’s, Lower.

Broken.

Brook’s, Upper.

Brown’s.

Brunswick.

Burt’s.

Canada.

Carron.

Chapman’s.

Clyde.

Cole’s, Upper.

” Lower.

Coventry.

Dock Wharf (Regent’s Canal Dock).

Dudin’s.

Durrand’s.

Eagle.

Fisher’s.

Fogg’s.

Foreign Cattle Market.

Freeman’s.

Free Trade, Lower.

Garford’s.

Gibb’s, Upper.

” Lower.

Granite.

Guernsey Granite.

Hall’s.

Harrison’s.

Hibernia.

Hudson’s.

King and Queen.

Kitchen’s, Lower.

Landell’s.

Mellish’s.

Metropolitan, New.

” Upper.

Mill.

Miller’s.

Morton’s.

Newell’s.

Noehmer’s.

Orchard.

Ordnance.

Patent Fuel.

Pearson’s.

Peruvian Guano Works.

Phillip’s.

Plaistow.

Pontifex and Wood.

Pooley’s.

Powell’s.

Prince Regent’s.

Reed’s, Upper.

” Lower.

Scott’s.

Sharp’s.

Stanton’s.

St. George’s.

Sun.

Sunderland.

Surrey Canal Docks.

Tubb’s.

Union.

Victoria.

Victoria Wharf.

Watson’s.

West Kent.

Whiting’s.

Worcester.

This is a view (_see_ Frontispiece) of the South-West India Dock

seen from the western end. I have had this view taken especially to

illustrate the few remarks with which I shall close my lecture. You

will observe the accumulation of barges just inside the dock waiting

to go out, and you will be able to form some idea of the terrible

inconvenience which the presence of these craft must cause in the dock,

crowded as it constantly is with shipping; and it so happens that the

accumulation of these barges is greatest when there is the least room

for them. I must ask you to imagine that behind these barges there are

several ships waiting to leave the dock, and that _outside_ the dock

there is a similar accumulation of lighters and large vessels waiting

to come in. The presence of these barges, as shown in this view (which

it must be remembered was photographed on the spot, and with no thought

of using it in this connection), will help to convey some idea of

the delays and risk which they cause in the docking and undocking of

vessels—a delay and risk which, as I shall presently explain, the Dock

Companies are compelled to incur altogether _free of charge_.

Now you will have observed that all the earlier Dock Companies started

with a monopoly for twenty-one years of the shipping from certain

parts of the world. You will also have noticed that the object of

the Government in granting these monopolies was twofold; first, by

compulsorily clearing the river of a large proportion of the shipping

to remove the facilities for plunder afforded by the lighterage and

unprotected condition of goods; and, secondly, to secure for the

docks some equivalent for the money invested in them. Now what do

these facts indicate? Clearly that the Government saw the necessity

of legislative interference in the interest of the port, and that, to

render that interference operative, they must offer an inducement to

the public to invest their money. Thus, you will observe that the Dock

Companies sprang into existence, not so much independent speculations,

as a response to an appeal from the Government of the day on behalf of

the port.

But this compulsory alienation of certain shipping to certain docks,

of course involved the withdrawal from the Legal Quays of the profits

on the warehousing of goods left in the docks, and from the lightermen

much of the valuable carrying trade represented by the shipping covered

by the monopolies. It also affected a number of minor collateral

interests. These were, of course, entitled to compensation, and they

obtained it. The total amount of the claims received was little short

of £4,000,000. As is generally the case under the circumstances, many

of these claims were grossly exorbitant, and others had no foundation

at all. The Government were, however, disposed to take a liberal view

of the situation, and, as I have already told you, actually awarded

out of the Consolidated Fund not less than £1,681,000, which, of

course, included the sums paid for the purchase of the Legal Quays.

But the Government not only made ample _money compensation_ for the

rights which they invaded by granting the dock monopolies, they also

made access to the vessels in the docks as free as if they had still

discharged in the river; that is to say, the waters of the dock were

to be accessible, free of charge, to anybody who wished to bring in

lighters, for the purpose of taking goods or ballast to or from any

vessels lying in them. The reason for this is obvious. Virtually the

Government said to the Dock Companies: ‘As we have compelled ships

to enter your docks, you must not tax certain lighterage to or from

those ships.’ And this was perfectly reasonable and fair so long as

such compulsion existed; that is to say, so long as the Dock Companies

got a _quid pro quo_ for the free use of the dock waters by the goods

secured to them by the monopolies. But so soon as ships became free

to go where they pleased, and the docks were left to compete with the

wharves on even terms, this restriction upon their obvious right to

charge for the use of their property should have been removed also.

It must always be borne in mind that the _basis_ of the arrangement

in regard to the _free use of the dock waters_ was the _compulsory

alienation_ of certain shipping to the docks, which had hitherto

been _free to discharge in the river_; hence it is obvious that so

soon as that freedom was restored to the shipping referred to, the

_raison d’être_ of the restriction upon the docks ceased to exist. Mr.

Lindsay, an impartial witness, from whose valuable work I have already

ventured to quote, cannot help noticing this anomaly. He remarks:

‘These privileges, granted originally to stifle opposition, they (the

lightermen) still retain to their gain, and that of the wharfingers,

but to the loss of the Companies. Surely, when the monopoly of the

Companies had expired—a monopoly to which, for the time, they were

fully entitled, considering the service they had rendered to the Crown,

in the protection of the revenue—these privileges to the barge-owners

should also have been withdrawn.’

Now the liabilities of the Dock Companies of London represent a total

of upwards of £15,000,000. More than one-half of this has been spent

in providing the water accommodation of the several docks, and the

interest on it of course represents a vast permanent tax upon the

revenues of the Dock Companies, towards which, although enjoying full

use of the docks, the wharves do not contribute anything. The dock

waters are supposed to be paid for by the dues on shipping. As a

matter of fact this is not the case, although if it were, the claim of

the Dock Companies to be paid for services altogether distinct from

the operation of docking and undocking ships, would be in no respect

weakened. For a considerable time more than half the goods brought into

the docks by ships have been taken out of them again for warehousing

elsewhere, and upon the tens of thousands of lighters employed in

this service constantly inside, entering, and leaving the docks, the

Companies are prohibited from charging one penny; so that, coupling

this circumstance with the fact that the dues of the Company are levied

upon the register and not upon the gross tonnage of vessels, it will be

seen that, practically, the income from the shipping rates is reduced

to considerably less than one-half the amount which it nominally

represents.

But this is not the only hardship experienced by the Companies. The

expense and inconvenience in working the docks owing to the number

of these barges in them cannot be measured by money loss. In the West

India Docks alone there have been 500 barges at one time occupying the

water space when most urgently needed for the working of ships. The

delays caused in the docking and undocking of vessels in consequence

of the glut of craft waiting at tide time to enter or leave the docks

are sometimes attended with considerable danger. In fact, this view

represents the normal condition of the dock entrances whenever there

is an influx of shipping. Every barge entering and leaving the docks,

of course entails a distinct service on the Companies for their own

protection, for which the parties so compulsorily served pay nothing;

and the most startling feature in the case is the fact of the growing

magnitude of this burden. Some idea of its extent may be seen when I

state that the number of barges which entered the East and West India

Docks alone in 1869 was 51,985. In 1874 the numbers had rushed up to

61,390—-an increase of 20 per cent. in five years. Surely these facts

speak for themselves, and bear me out in the assertion that there

are no other public bodies in London which, having rendered such

incalculable service to the port, have been left in such an anomalous

position. In fact, you will see that the Dock Companies are pretty much

in the position of a man who, having been induced to build a house on

a particular spot on the understanding that a tenant would always be

found for it, not only loses his tenant but finds himself compelled to

maintain his house in a high state of efficiency, and to keep a large

staff of servants to wait upon anybody who may take a fancy to anything

in it, without so much as feeing the porters.

In dealing with this question you will observe that I have carefully

abstained from any arguments as such, preferring to leave the facts to

speak for themselves. I might have told you that before the docks were

in existence it was the practice at the wharves to charge half-wharfage

rates on goods passing over them; and I might have argued that if this

were recognised as right in a free river, surely the Dock Companies

should not be refused some equivalent return for the use of the dock

waters—a private property which has cost many millions. From this

argument and many kindred arguments I have abstained; but in closing my

lecture I must be permitted to anticipate just one objection. It may be

said, why did not the Dock Companies move in this matter when their

monopolies expired? My answer will be appreciated by all practical

men. When the dock monopolies expired, the business of the port was

not one-fourth of its present magnitude, to say nothing of the fact

that the lighterage to the docks was so insignificant that it entailed

no practical inconvenience. The force of this will be seen when it is

borne in mind that the tonnage of inward shipping, British and foreign

(exclusive of the coasting trade), which entered the port in 1827—the

date of the expiration of the monopolies—was only 990,170 tons; and

as by far the greater portion of the cargoes brought by vessels which

entered the docks was left in them for warehousing, the lighterage

was, necessarily, of very limited extent, and remained so, until

the repeal of the monopolies began to take practical effect in the

diversion of goods from the docks. But, side by side with the gigantic

increase in the commerce of the port, there has been a corresponding

increase in this gratuitous lighterage business. Its magnitude is seen

at a glance when I say that in the year 1874 the tonnage of British

and foreign inward shipping (exclusive of the coasting trade) had

reached the enormous total of 4,671,676 tons. Of this vast tonnage

nearly 3,500,000 tons discharged in the docks, and of this 3,500,000

tons of register tonnage, probably representing 4,000,000 tons gross

of goods, more than half was removed from the docks. Thus, it will

be seen that to argue that because the Dock Companies, _when their

monopolies expired_, did not regard the free use of their waters as

a grievance grave enough to call for the interference of Parliament,

ought not to complain and have no right to such interference _now_, is

to ignore the fact, patent to everybody, that circumstances have so

entirely changed the relations which formerly existed between docks and

wharves that no analogy exists to warrant such a conclusion. It was

utterly impossible for the Dock Companies, fifty years ago, to foresee

this gigantic growth in the business of the port, and the complete

revolution which has since taken place in the imperial tariff, by

which the docks have been so prejudicially affected. There cannot be a

doubt that in continuing this concession without the protection of a

monopoly, the Dock Companies made a great mistake; but it is one which

a grasping and selfish policy should not be suffered to perpetuate.

Both competitors for the trade of the port, the docks should be as free

from unfair restrictions as the wharves; and it is to be hoped that

before long the love of fair play, and hatred of oppression, of which

we Englishmen claim to be so proud, will find expression in a great

practical remonstrance, in which this burdensome tax upon the vitality

and prosperity of the dock establishments, to the foundation of which

London mainly owes its marvellous development as the great entrepôt for

the commerce of the world, will be indignantly swept away.

I will detain you no longer. What I have stated is but a sketch of a

portion of a subject which a dozen lectures would not exhaust; and,

as I only put it forward as a sketch, I must ask you, in making your

criticism, to bear that fact in view. I have simply sought to lay

before you a few facts not generally known and not easily accessible,

and which I hope will not fail to invest the river and the docks with

additional interest to all whose business or pleasure may be affected

by either. I can only trust that you have found them interesting, and

that you may perhaps find them useful.

_Spottiswoode & Co., Printers, 38 Royal Exchange, E.C._

[Illustration:

Appendix A.

MR. EDWARD OGLES’ PLAN.