History of the port of London

iiiiinu

Illi

Presented to the

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
LIBRARY

by the

ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE
LIBRARY

1980

HISTORY OF THE PORT OF LONDON

57100

HISTORY OF THE PORT
OF LONDON BY SIR JOSEPH

G. BROODBANK CHAIRMAN OF
THE DOCK & WAREHOUSE COM-
MITTEE OF THE PORT OF LONDON
AUTHORITY FROM 1909 TO 1920
IN TWO VOLUMES: VOLUME II

5 7-1 o o

*
•<

PUBLISHED IN LONDON BY
DANIEL O'CONNOR 90 GREAT
RUSSELL STREET, W.C. 1921

55-?

L *

Contents of Volume II

CHAPTER PAGE

xxvii The Royal Commission Inquiry 273

xxvni The Royal Commission Report 296

xxix London & India Docks Company 317

xxx The Port of London Act 322

xxxi The Port of London Authority from its estab-
lishment till August, 1914 346
xxxii The Watermen and Lightermen 372
xxxni The Public Wharfingers 399
xxxiv The Trinity House 416
xxxv Dock and Wharf Labour 425
xxxvi The Port of London from August, 1914, till

the end of 1920 458

xxxvii The Future of the Port 486

Appendices 513

Index 517

List of Illustrations contained in
this Volume

THE CUSTOM HOUSE, 1828. From an engraving by R. PAGE
G. Reeve, after a painting by S. Owen. Repro-
duced by courtesy of Sir Edward Coates, Bart.,
M.P. Frontispiece

VIEW TAKEN NEAR THE STOREHOUSE AT DEPTFORD.

From an engraving by J. Boy dell, 1750 278

WAPPING OLD STAIRS. From an engraving by T. Row-

landson 286

THE NEW DOCK AT WAPPING. By William Daniell,

1803 292

VIEW OF LONDON BRIDGE AND CUSTOM HOUSE, WITH

THE MARGATE STEAM YACHTS. Drawn and engraved

by R. Havell & Son 300

SS. CARONIA ENTERING THE TILBURY DOCK BASIN 308
SS. CARONIA ENTERING THE LOCK AT TILBURY. From

a photograph lent by the Port of London Authority 316
THE EMBARKATION OF GEORGE IV FOR SCOTLAND AT

GREENWICH, AUGUST IOTH, 1822 326

THE UPPER POOL 331

TILBURY FORT : WIND AGAINST TIDE. By Clarkson

Stanfield 336

THE RT. HON. VISCOUNT DEVONPORT, P.C. From a

photograph by Elliott & Fry 346

A VIEW OF LONDON FROM THE THAMES. From an aquatint

byJ.Bluck 351

THE NEW HEADQUARTERS OF THE PORT OF LONDON

AUTHORITY. From a drawing lent by the Port of

London Authority 360

SOMERSET HOUSE, ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL AND

BLACKFRIARS BRIDGE 365

TEA BULKING. From a photograph lent by the Port of

London Authority 370

THE OPENING OF NEW LONDON BRIDGE, IST AUGUST,

1831. From a drawing by A. Parsey 372

WATERMEN'S HALL, 1647 382

viii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

A FROST FAIR HELD UNDER CHARLES II, 1683. From PAGE
an old print in the Guildliall Library 386

PICTURE OF THE FROZEN THAMES, 1814. From a con-
temporary print in the Guildhall Library 390
CUTLER STREET WAREHOUSE 400
GALLEY QUAY, LOWER THAMES STREET, CIRCA 1720 404
OLD WOOL WAREHOUSE IN BERMONDSEY. From a print

in the Guildhall Library 408

MARK BROWN'S WHARF 414

THE TRINITY HOUSE 417

BALLAST DREDGER OFF THE TOWER. From a drawing

by Clarkson Stanfield, 1827 422

WEST INDIA DOCK FROM THE SOUTH EAST. From an

engraving by W. Parrott 43 1

THE CHAPEL FOR SEAMEN, 1818. Drawn by J. Gendatt

from a print in the Guildhall Library 440

INTERIOR OF TRANSIT SHED 449

THE ROYAL ALBERT DOCK, 13™ AUGUST, 1914 458

ROYAL ALBERT DOCK BASIN. From a photograph by

the Aircraft Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 464

ROYAL ALBERT DOCK. From a photograph by the Air-
craft Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 470
INTERIOR OF STORAGE SHED. From a photograph lent

by the Port of London Authority 474

WOOL ON SHOW, LONDON DOCK. From a photograph

lent by the Port of London Authority 478

FLOUR MILLS, SOUTH SIDE, ROYAL VICTORIA DOCK 486
SHIPBUILDING AT LIMEHOUSE. " THE PRESIDENT "
ON THE STOCKS. Painted and engraved by W.
Parrott, published March, 1840, by Henry Brooks 492
NEW DRY DOCK. SOUTH EXTENSION OF ROYAL ALBERT

DOCK 498

TILBURY DOCK. From a photograph by the Aircraft

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 506

DELIVERY OF IMPORT GOODS TO BARGES 511

THE ARK ROYAL, THE LARGEST SHIP IN QUEEN

ELIZABETH'S NAVY Endpaper

COMMERCIAL BILL FILES, CIRCA 1740 TO 1760 Endpaper

CHAPTER XXVII

The Royal Commission Inquiry

T

HE Royal Warrant for this Commission is dated the

2ist June, ipoo.
The names of the Commissioners were : —

EARL EGERTON OF TATTON, Chairman

LORD REVELSTOKE

THE HON. ALFRED LYTTLETON

SIR ROBERT GIFFEN, K.C.B.

SIR JOHN WOLFE BARRY, K.C.B.

REAR-ADMIRAL SIR JOHN HEXT, K.C.I.E.

JOHN EDWARD ELLIS, M.P.

Lord Egerton was compelled through ill-health to resign
his membership of the Commission on the 4th March,
1901, Lord Revelstoke was thereupon appointed chairman
of the Commission, and the Hon. W. R. W. Peel, M.P.,
was appointed to fill the vacant seat on the Commission.

The terms of the reference were as follows : —

To inquire into the present administration of the Port and the
water approaches thereto, the adequacy of the accommodation pro-
vided for vessels and the loading and unloading thereof, the system
of charge for such accommodation and the arrangements for ware-
housing dutiable goods, and to report whether any change or
improvement in regard to any of the above matters is necessary
for the promotion of the trade of the Port and the public interest.

After having settled their procedure at a preliminary
meeting held a week after their appointment, the Commis-
sion paid a series of visits to the lower river, to the docks
and warehouses of the four dock companies, and to the
principal private wharves of the Port. They also visited
Liverpool and Manchester. Some of the members of the
Commission visited other British ports and foreign ports.
Questions on details germane to the inquiry were also put
to the authorities of the principal British ports, whilst
similar information from the British Consuls at Hamburg,
Bremen, Antwerp, Dunkirk, Havre, and Rotterdam was
obtained. The Committee also instructed Mr. R. C. H.
Davidson, A.M.I.C.E., to report on the premises of the
dock companies.

274 THE PORT OF LONDON

The Commission then proceeded to take evidence from
witnesses representing the interests which desired to be
heard. Thirty-one days were devoted to the reception of
evidence, and 114 witnesses were examined. The chief
interests represented were : —

THE COMMISSIONERS OF H.M. CUSTOMS

THE CITY CORPORATION

THE LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL

THE TRINITY HOUSE

THE GENERAL SHIPOWNERS SOCIETY

THE SHORT SEA TRADERS

THE LONDON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

THE WHARFINGERS

THE LIGHTERMEN

THE THAMES CONSERVANCY

THE DOCK COMPANIES

The evidence may be summed up as a series of
attacks upon the existing order of things, and the
defence of those responsible for the administration of the
Port. Only four bodies put forward schemes for future
management, viz., the City Corporation, the London
County Council, the London Chamber of Commerce, and
the London and India Docks Company ; the rest of the
criticism was destructive or negative.

Let us summarize the evidence of the interests in the
order given above : —

The Customs were represented by their chairman, Sir
George Ryder, and Mr. J. Fleming, surveyor general.
After explaining the nature of the Customs arrangements
in the Port, Sir George Ryder remarked that the scatter-
ing of wharves and warehouses over many miles of river,
and the necessity of unloading the cargoes of vessels into
lighters carrying goods night and day, caused trouble and
expense to the Customs and risk to the revenue. The only
complaints made in regard to the Customs being that
charges for overtime attendance of their officers were
excessive, Sir George intimated that he would be prepared
to ask the Treasury to make concessions, but pointed out
that the boon might in reality prove of little value to the
merchant, though costly to the Exchequer, because the
Customs charges were small compared with the other
charges entailed on traders for labour by prolonging hours.

ROYAL COMMISSION INQUIRY 275

The City Corporation were in the happy position of
having no criticism to meet with regard to the performance
of the one duty left to them in the Port, namely, that of the
Sanitary Authority. The function is a purely municipal
one, and it is not surprising to find that the municipality
with the longest experience in the world should have been
found adequate to the fulfilment of the prime duty imposed
on those who minister to the weal of local communities. In
regard to the other matters before the Commission the
views of the City Corporation were presented by the Lord
Mayor, Sir Marcus Samuel, the chairman of the Shell Line.
Sir Marcus had been one of the most assiduous exponents
of the Port of London question during the agitation which
preceded the appointment of the Commission. He had
formed a Corporation Committee for the study of the
question, and by holding public and private conferences at
the Mansion House, had popularized the subject in the
City and London generally. It is doubtful, however,
whether the Corporation's interest in the subject was ever
taken seriously. Nor did the members of the Guildhall
Committee dive deeply into the question, for while in their
report to the Corporation they made recommendations in
regard to the treatment of the dock systems of the Port they
omitted from consideration the Royal Albert and Victoria
and the Tilbury Docks. It is not even clear that they were
aware of the existence of these docks — the largest in the
Port. Sir Marcus Samuel had his complaints to make as a
shipowner as to the inadequacy of the sheds in the docks.
He also favoured the provision of wharves on the river.
This remedy for the ills of the Port will be dealt with in
another chapter, but, as indicative of the misapprehensions
which exist on this subject even in the minds of as experi-
enced a business man as Sir Marcus Samuel is, reference
may be made to an incident in which he was concerned.
When the Corporation Committee were considering the
report Sir Marcus Samuel asked that an opportunity might
be given to them to visit the docks of the London and
India Docks Company. One of the objects of the visit was
to inspect a long jetty at Galleons Reach, which was a
continuation of the pier-head adjoining the lower entrance
of the Royal Albert Dock. On the party arriving at the
jetty, Sir Marcus explained that it was in his opinion the

276 THE PORT OF LONDON

ideal accommodation for the Port. Passengers could be
landed there and goods discharged there, and if the vessel
wanted to go into the adjoining dock it was only a question
of towing the vessel for a few hundred feet. The party's faith
in this ideal had to be disillusionized by the statement that
the jetty had been built forty years before, having in view
the very purposes mentioned by Sir Marcus, but that not
a single shipowner had ever made application for using it
in this way, and that eventually it had to be let for the
purpose for which jetties are eminently suited, viz., the
discharge of vessels bringing coal and oil. Sir Marcus sub-
mitted to the Commission a scheme for the reorganization
of the Port, which had been approved by the Corporation.
He proposed the creation of a port with a jurisdiction
extending from Richmond to a line drawn from the Naze
to the North Foreland to be called the Thames River Dock
and Harbour Board. The Board was to control both the
river and the docks. A special tribunal was also to be
constituted with powers like those of the Railway Commis-
sioners to whom might be submitted questions relating to
rates and charges arising between the new authority and its
customers. The Board was to consist of forty persons. Ten
were to be appointed by the Corporation, two by the
Admiralty, two by the Board of Trade, two by the Trinity
House, two by the railway companies, two by the Under-
writers of Lloyds, and the remaining twenty by shipowners
and others paying dues. The Board were to have power to
purchase the property of the dock companies and such
bonded wharves and warehouses as they might think fit,
and to raise the capital necessary for that purpose and for
deepening the channel of the river and for the general
improvement of the Port. It was further proposed that the
Board should be allowed to impose such taxes upon all
goods entering or leaving the Port and upon shipping,
lighters, and barges using the river as might be necessary or
desirable to procure the income required to enable the
necessary capital to be raised. The Imperial Government
were to be asked to guarantee the stock of the Board, and
the security would in that event be a trustee security. A
statement put in by Sir Marcus showed that the Liverpool
schedule of dues on goods if applied to London would
yield £900,000 per annum. It was evident and not

ROYAL COMMISSION INQUIRY 277

unnatural that a shipowner like Sir Marcus should have
looked to merchandise furnishing most, if not all, of the
new revenue required by any new authority. Nor is it
surprising that the Corporation were to have one-fourth of
the representation on the managing committee, or that
the City, having ignored the County Council as entitled to
any share in municipal representation, should have asked
for so little. What is incomprehensible is that it could be
seriously proposed that the Government should guarantee
interest, whilst a body not responsible to them should do
the spending of the capital, and that such a proposition
should emanate from a body claiming to be an ideally
democratic institution.

The London County Council had ever since their
establishment in 1889 been consistent advocates of reform
in the Port of London. Some leading spirits were in favour
of the municipalization of the Port, but this programme was
never officially openly adopted by the Progressives,
though, as we shall see, their proposals for reconstruction
virtually entailed it. The Council were perhaps more
responsible than any other body outside the dock com-
panies for the circumstances that brought about the appoint-
ment of the Commission. Sir Edwin Cornwall, Mr.
McKinnon Wood, and Mr. J. D. Gilbert had particularly
identified themselves with the movement inside the Council
and educated the electors unconnected with the Port as to
the necessity for the question being dealt with as an urgent
and imperative one in which the whole of London was
interested. There can be no doubt that their concern was a
perfectly sincere one, but unfortunately some of the Pro-
gressive Party's advocacy excited the suspicion of traders
that it was not altogether commercial interests which were
intended to be promoted, and so there had ensued a lack
of co-operation which involved years of fruitless friction
before the problem of the Port of London was finally solved.

The principal witness of the Council was their clerk,
Mr. Lawrence Gomme. His evidence may be termed to be
a mine of research and statistics most useful to the student
who will study the figures without accepting unquestion-
ingly the deductions of the witness. The facts were mar-
shalled with two preconceived notions in mind : one, that
the Port of London was going downhill as fast as the

278 THE PORT OF LONDON

Conservancy and dock companies could push it, and,
secondly, that the appointed saviour of the community was
the London County Council. The facts in his historic
resume^ of the Port cannot be challenged as facts, but the
selection was simply evidence of the old connexion
of the municipality with the Port. This was uncon-
trovertible, and it will be seen from what the reader has
before him in this book that the connexion was not only
ancient, but intimate. What Mr. Gomme, however, failed
to point out was that Parliament in 1799 cut the first strand
in the severance of that connexion, and that the process
had been repeated time after time during the century until
the connexion of the municipality with the Port had
become a nominal one only. If the County Council had to
rely upon the historic tendencies their case was indeed a
weak one. Mr. Gomme relied on statistics to show that
the business of London was a decaying one. He did not
deny that the figures of tonnage entering the Port were
increasing year by year (they had trebled in fifty years),
but his contention was that it indicated the incipient decay
of London to find that other ports were increasing at a
greater ratio than London. In making this point he was
following a favourite line of attack on the part of the critics,
who compared the percentage increases of traffic in London
with the much larger percentages of increases at Hamburg,
Antwerp, Rotterdam, and Southampton. Such critics
ignored the invariable rule that fully developed organiza-
tions rarely increase at so rapid a rate as those which have
only just started. Sir Henry Le Marchant, in an article in
the "National Review" written about this time, showed the
fallacy of deductions from comparisons from tonnage
figures. He assumed a new line to be established between
London and Rotterdam and giving by repeated voyages a
total tonnage to each port of 200,000 tons a year. The per-
centage of increase to London on its figure of 16,000,000
would only be 1.25 per cent. On Rotterdam's figure of
6,400,000 the percentage increase would be 3.12 per cent.,
and then an individual superficially looking at the subject
would infer that London was losing ground when com-
pared with Rotterdam. Another disturbance of inference
from mere tonnage figures arises from the fact that some
ports have more vessels bringing part of their cargoes only

Q

K

s

i

g

5 -
o j

if

1/3 -A

Z

w

a

ROYAL COMMISSION INQUIRY 279

yet the full tonnage of the vessel itself is returned in the
comparison. Again, some ports have more passenger
vessels with little or no cargo, and others, like Antwerp,
are ports where a larger proportion of the vessels are calling
vessels, and, by coming in to discharge cargo and subse-
quently to load it, are reckoned twice in the tonnage state-
ments issued by the Port concerned. Such qualifications of
the inferences to be drawn from his statistical statements were
apparently not dreamed of by Mr. Gomme. A particularly
unfortunate illustration of his simple deductive methods
was exposed by Mr. Scrutton, representing the Corporation
of London. Mr. Gomme had submitted a statement showing
a very large falling off in the number of steamers registered
in the Port of London and using it as evidence of the
unpopularity of the Port. There is, of course, no relation
whatever between the registering of a ship at a particular
port and its trading with that port. The reason why ship-
owners were ceasing to register their vessels at London was
simply the business one that if registered at London their
vessels were not subject to compulsory pilotage and the
shipowner was liable to be mulcted to the full extent in any
claim for damage which might be done by the vessel, whilst
if she were registered at, say, Greenock or Plymouth the
shipowner was compelled to employ a pilot for navigating
the river, and was not liable for damage.

One of the fallacies current at this time and expounded
by Mr. Gomme on the part of the County Council was that
relating to the divided authorities in the Port. Sir Edwin
Cornwall, the chairman of the Rivers Committee of the
Council, had gone so far as to say that the Port was con-
trolled by fifty authorities. When asked to supply the list,
the Council enumerated the Conservancy, the Trinity
House, the Watermen's Company, the Metropolitan Police,
and the Corporation of London, and forty-six others,
including the dock companies, the South Eastern Railway,
the Greenwich Pier Company, the Metropolitan Asylums
Board, the wharfingers (who were treated as one authority),
and many other occupants of premises abutting on the
river. Sir Henry Le Marchant pointed out in the article
already mentioned that if the list were correct in principle,
the number was too few, because if, say, the South Eastern
Railway were an authority in respect of their wharf, every

280 THE PORT OF LONDON

separate wharfinger on the Thames was also an authority, so
that the number of authorities would be nearly 400, and
not 50. The explanation is that the County Council had
merely made a list of the occupants of river frontage
(arriving at the number of fifty by adding individual owners
to classes of owners) and had dignified them with the
name of authorities. The only authorities were the five
with which the list commenced. The attack on this point
was misdirected. The County Council evidently imagined
that with fifty authorities the management of those respon-
sible for the Port was the scene of unceasing wrangling and
contention between fussy members. There had been no
internecine warfare of this kind ; if anything, the fault was
rather too much content and self-seclusion if not supine-
ness amongst the authorities, in the policy followed by
each of the authorities in the execution of their duties. The
defects of the Port arose not from division of responsibility,
but from the fact that none of the authorities was charged
with the duty of seeing that the Port was efficiently main-
tained or its accommodation improved to meet the demands
of modern commerce. But this had been the logical result
of the decision ruthlessly carried out year after year, come
to by Parliament in 1824 of leaving the accommodation of
the Port to the contingencies of an open competition."

The County Council had their remedial scheme, and it
was put forward on their behalf by Mr. McKinnon Wood,
a former chairman of the Council. The Council proposed
that a new authority should be formed to have jurisdiction
over the tidal river between Teddington to a line between
the Naze and the North Foreland, and that the authority
should have transferred to it all the powers exercised by the
Thames Conservancy, the City Corporation, the Trinity
House, and the four dock companies whose undertakings
were to be taken over. The authority was to consist of not
more than thirty members, of whom ten were to be appointed
by the Council, two by the Corporation, ten by shipowners,
merchants, and others interested in the commerce of the
Port elected on the Liverpool system by all who had paid
,£10 of port dues in the preceding year. The remaining
members were to be appointed by the Board of Trade, the
Admiralty, the Commissioners of Customs, and perhaps
the Treasury. The capital necessary for the purchase of the

ROYAL COMMISSION INQUIRY 281

docks and for improvements and extension of docks and
river channels was to be raised by the Council themselves
on behalf of the Port Authority upon the security of the
London rates. As a safeguard to the interests of the muni-
cipal ratepayers it was suggested that the Council should
retain control over the capital expenditure in the Port.
Unlike all other schemes put forward, this scheme con-
tained no provision that all goods landed in the Port should
contribute to its maintenance. The Council looked for
revenue to the present sources of income of the dock com-
panies, the Thames Conservancy, and the other authorities
absorbed, and if this income was not sufficient to meet
liabilities the Council proposed that it should be supple-
mented by a subsidy from the rates of the metropolis. The
further suggestion was made that the Imperial Government
should be asked to contribute to the upkeep of the Port on
the ground that the trade of the capital was not only a
matter of local, but of national concern, and that it was
threatened by the competition of foreign ports. The ulterior
aim of the Council was not concealed by the willingness to
be satisfied with only one-third of the managing committee.
It was patent to all that by controlling capital expenditure
they would control everything. This had been clearly
proved by the experience of the London Company in its
working union with the East and West India Dock Com-
pany. The guarantee of interest was also a guarantee that
as soon as it was honoured the cry would be set up through
London that he who pays should call the tune, and the
inevitable end would be the conversion of the Port into a
department of the Council. But there was another objection
to this part of the Council's proposal. The revenue of the
dock companies was mostly derived from services con-
nected with the handling and warehousing of goods. In
this business they were in direct competition with the
wharfingers, and it was held that it would be unfair for
them to have to meet a competition which would be sub-
sidized out of the metropolitan rates. The general sympathy
with this aspect of the case had perhaps more weight in the
rejection of the Council's scheme than even the desire to
keep local politics out of the administration of the Port.

The appearance of the Trinity House at the Commission
was merely to give information to the members. They had

282 THE PORT OF LONDON

no attacks to meet, and attention was chiefly directed to
anomalies in pilotage law. Only a few complaints as to the
pilotage charges in the Port were made. On the question
whether the lighting and buoying of the Port should be
handed over to any new authority to be created the opinion
was expressed by some shipowners that the buoying and
lighting within the limits of the Port should be transferred
from the Trinity House to the Port Authority, but Captain
Vyvyan, on behalf of the Trinity House, contended that
the Port, surrounded as it was by dangerous sands, was in
need of special protection, and that the Trinity members
were men known to be possessed of knowledge peculiarly
adapted by nautical experience of the duties of buoying and
lighting the channels to perform the functions requisite
in the supervision of pilots and pilotage. On the score of
economy, he urged that it was cheaper to continue to employ
the existing machinery than to set up new machinery
for this purpose. The fact that at most of the great ports the
pilotage was controlled either by the Port Authority or a
special commission detracted from the force of Captain
Vyvyan 's arguments. The fact that the Trinity House had
always so admirably performed their work in the Thames
was perhaps the best argument for letting things alone.

The London Chamber of Commerce, chiefly consisting
of merchants and manufacturers in the Port of London,
appeared by Mr. John Innes Rogers, their vice-chairman,
supported by a large number of witnesses. The evidence
was mostly on the question of delays in the delivery of their
cargoes and the excessive charges for their service. The
body of testimony organized to prove the truth of these
complaints was a tribute to the industry and zeal of the
Chamber in furthering the interests of its members, but
the evidence was characterized by a tone of hostility to the
dock companies. Summed up, the defects of the Port were
described by the Chamber of Commerce as follows :—

1. Insufficient facilities and inefficient appliances.

2. Insufficient depth of channel.

3. A confusing division of Authority in the Port.

4. Delays in berthing vessels and unloading of same.

5. The unsatisfactory lighterage system.

6. Slowness of delivery.

7. Defective rail communication.

8. Excessive dock charges.

ROYAL COMMISSION INQUIRY 283

The instances given in illustration of these complaints
need not be recapitulated, but it is necessary to deal with
the conclusion drawn by many of the merchants that to
the costliness of doing business in the Port of London was
attributable the losses in the entrep6t trade of London to
the benefit of foreign ports. Undoubtedly it could be shown
that London dock warehousing charges were higher than
those in force at Hamburg, Antwerp, or Rotterdam, but
the obvious answer was ignored that dock companies had
to earn a living as well as merchants, and that the dividends
paid by them were not such as could be considered even
fair return on the capital invested. It was equally ignored
that London, both river and docks, was an absolutely free
port for goods, and that if the dock warehousing or quay
charges were excessive, consignees of goods were at liberty
to warehouse their goods elsewhere or provide their own
depots. There was no compulsion on anyone to incur dock
charges either on the goods or the barges carrying them in
or out of the docks. These representatives of merchants
overlooked that the Continental ports, being owned by the
State or the municipality, were able to offer inducements to
shipping and goods not within the practical politics of a
commercial company. The development of German steam-
ship enterprise in offering facilities of direct shipments of
raw materials from the colonies to Continental ports was
even a more important factor equally ignored or forgotten.

The question of slow dispatch was put down by the
Chamber to inadequate accommodation and plant. No
advocate of the docks would wish to assert that everything
was perfection in this respect, especially in the older docks.
But the dock companies could point out that the largest
vessel then afloat, the Celtic, could be accommodated in
the Port, that for many years no vessel had ever had to
wait for a berth in the Thames docks, and that no port was,
on the whole, so well equipped with sheds and cranes.
That London was a slow port in obtaining deliveries of
cargoes had to be admitted, but this was due chiefly to the
employment of barges in taking deliveries. Barges provide
the cheapest method of conveyance in the Port, carrying
goods for thirty miles at the same cost as would be payable
for one mile of road conveyance. But the method of con-
veyance is undoubtedly slow. In London, with its scattered

284 THE PORT OF LONDON

areas and long distances, it is, however, the only practical
form of conveyance for 95 per cent, of the goods discharged
from ships in the Port. In any case, it could not be the dock
companies' fault, as shipowners have the option of dis-
charging their own ships, and almost invariably exercise
that option. The delays complained of arise largely from
the necessities of the situation and, amongst others, from
the fact that London cargoes are generally mixed cargoes,
and in order that they may be sorted for delivery such
cargoes are first landed instead of being delivered over the
ship's side direct to craft. If the delivery were to rail trucks
or carts at the rear of the sheds there would be no more
delay with mixed cargoes than at Liverpool, but as barges
are employed it is necessary to have parcels completely
sorted in order to get full freights, and this cannot be done
until after the ship is emptied. Hence, deliveries often
cannot commence till five or six days after the ship's arrival
in dock. Various expedients were proposed to the Commis-
sion for accelerating deliveries, including right-angled
jetties such as are provided at the Victoria Dock and barge
canals at the back of the sorting shed. All the remedies
bring their own drawbacks with them. In the Albert Dock
extension an attempt is now being made to deal with the
problem by the erection of jetties parallel to the quay line
and connected by a bridge with the quay itself, but it is not
anticipated that this will do more than act as a palliative,
whilst the rent for the occupation of such berths must be
on a higher scale than that applicable to ordinary berths.
On the completion of his evidence, Mr. Innes Rogers
submitted the proposals for reform of the Port suggested by
the Chamber of Commerce. Like the County Council, the
Chamber contemplated placing the control of the Port and
docks under one authority, "the London Harbour Trust,"
the limits of the Port being defined as between Richmond
Lock to Yantlet Creek, with power to dredge beyond
Yantlet Creek where necessary. The powers to be trans-
ferred were the whole of the powers of the existing authori-
ties on the Thames, including the control of pilotage. The
Trust proposed was to be constituted of forty-nine members
as follows : —

Corporation of London . . . . . . . . 6

London County Council . . . . . . . . 6

ROYAL COMMISSION INQUIRY 285

Admiralty

War Office

Treasury

Board of Trade

Chairman of Customs

Secretary of Customs

Thames Conservancy

Trinity House

London Chamber of Commerce

Shipowners, sailing barge and tug owners, lighter
men, short sea traders, public and private wharf
ingers, merchants, and manufacturers

2

a
2

49

The Chamber proposed that the Trust should possess the
sole right of constructing new docks in the Port, that it
should have the power of compulsory purchase over river-
side property, and that the wnole of the property of the
existing docks should be vested in the Trust. The Trust
was, however, to sell or lease as soon as possible all water
basins, warehouses, sheds, cranes, locks, lighters, or other
property that might not be required for the fulfilment of
its duties as a Trust for the water area of the Port.
The Trust was to be expressly forbidden to undertake
warehousing. The Chamber estimated that after sales had
been effected the cost of the purchase of the water area and
dock quay would be £9,000,000, the cost of modernizing
the docks £4,000,000, and of deepening the river
£2,000,000. The sources of revenue proposed were the
existing sources of the lower navigation of the Thames
Conservancy, the Watermen's Company, and the dock
companies, with additional revenue to be derived from
dues upon all goods landed within the jurisdiction of the
Trust. The Chamber further suggested that the City
Corporation and the London County Council should have
the opportunity of assisting by guaranteeing the interest on
the capital outlay of the Trust.

The case of the shipowners was presented by several
witnesses drawn both from the ocean and short sea traders.
The subjects of complaint were naturally divided into two :
the river channel and the dock accommodation. Sir Thomas
Sutherland wanted the river channel deepened to 26 feet at
low spring tides with a width of 500 feet. Mr. Becket Hill,

286 THE PORT OF LONDON

a director of the Allan Line, concurred. Sir Edwyn Dawes
thought that Sir Thomas Sutherland's ideas were narrowed
by the fact that the draft of the P. and O. Company's
steamers was fixed by the depth of the Suez Canal, and
that as the White Star steamers trading to Australia
were drawing 32$ feet of water, he proposed that the
minimum low water depth of the improved channel should
be 30 feet. Mr. Richard Cattarns, on behalf of the short
sea traders, emphasized the claim that they required the
deepening of the river even more urgently than the ocean
shipowners, because the short sea traders were running in
competition with the railway companies and had to catch
markets, and were therefore unable to maintain their ser-
vices if they could not rely on sufficient depth of water to
enable them to reach their berths in the upper river.

The complaints of shipowners against the docks chiefly
related to the inadequacy of the existing quay and berth
accommodation for vessels, and in some cases of the entrance
locks and depth of water in the docks, to meet the increased
and increasing dimensions of modern steamships. The
shipowners asked for another large and commodious deep
water dock provided with all modern appliances for rapid
discharging and loading. The complaints also extended to
the inadequacy of the existing quay space and sorting
sheds to receive the increasing bulk of modern cargoes
and to give facilities for their rapid sorting and delivery.
It was urged that there was special need for accommoda-
tion for refrigerated produce. Better access to the quays for
barges was also suggested in order to remove delays and clear
cargoes more easily. The shipowners complained further of
the congestion at the docks caused by barges being allowed
to float unattended in the docks, impeding the movement
of ships. A general complaint was also made as to the
insufficiency of the graving docks, cranes, tugs, and other
dock plant. Figures were put in showing that the general
conditions in the Port of London enhanced the cost of
using the Port. A case was given by Mr. Pembroke of a ship
from Rangoon with the same class of cargo discharging on
one occasion at London and on the other at Liverpool, and
it was stated that though the vessel carried 500 tons more
cargo when she discharged at Liverpool, the expenses were
£367 less than in London. Other cases which he quoted

WAPPING OLD STAIRS
From an engraving by T. Rowlandson

p. 286

ROYAL COMMISSION INQUIRY 287

?ave results in a less degree of the same kind. Sir Alfred
ones, who had experience of London, Liverpool, and
Bristol, put in figures to support his statement that while
London cost about the same as Liverpool and Avonmouth,
the dispatch was five times as bad in the case of the large
vessel in London.

The short sea traders, again speaking through Mr.
Cattarns, while desiring improvement in the river channels,
had no criticism to make of the docks, and attributed it to
the fact that their steamers used the upper docks, which
were kept in order by the competition of the wharves. They
considered that the difficulties in London had been exagger-
ated and that there was not sufficient justification for com-
plaint against the docks, though there was room for some
improvement in their appliances and possibly in the
arrangements of their quays and sheds.

Neither of the two sections of shipowners had any
detailed scheme to offer for the future management of the
Port. They confined themselves to broad principles. The
short sea traders wanted a central authority to take over
the general administration of the Port and to extend,
improve, and add to the facilities of the Port. They were
strongly adverse to the purchase of the docks or to financial
assistance being given to them. They thought that the
Authority should devote itself to broadening the channel
and deepening the bed of the river, to embanking its sides
and providing deep quays along it. They alleged also that
any taxation of goods traffic or a substantial tax on lighters
was undesirable in view of the competition of foreign ports,
directing special attention in this regard to the tranship-
ment and entrepot trades which had suffered by the diver-
sion of traffic to Hamburg and Antwerp. On the other hand,
the ocean-going shipowners, speaking generally, through
Sir Thomas Sutherland, favoured an entire change in the
system of the Port, and advocated that in the interests of
public policy the administration of the Port and the docks
should be in the hands of an authority constituted ad hoc,
which should have powers not likely to be given either to
the present conservancy or to the dock companies, to
impose such dues either on ships or river craft or on goods
as would appear to be necessary for the purpose of raising
a sufficient revenue for the improvement of the Port and dock

288 THE PORT OF LONDON

extensions or the construction of wharves in whatever
direction may be found necessary. The revenue should he
thought be raised from ships and goods. Sir Edwyn Dawes,
perhaps because he had been an old dock director,
was no enthusiast as to the transfer of the docks to a public
authority, but was prepared to acquiesce if it were found
impossible to give the dock companies the requisite power.

The programme of the wharfingers was to guard against
the possibility of their privileges being withdrawn or
modified. On this question their interest coincided
with that of the merchants. Their attacks on the existing
order of things was confined to grumbles as to the
slow delivery to barges — a curious criticism, in view of the
fact that the delays were due to a system of delivery which
protected them from paying any toll for the facility of
receiving goods in safe quiet waters. Their efforts were
directed to the modification of the system under which the
working lightermen were licensed by the Watermen's
Company. The case was put as follows : They urged that
the restriction forbidding the navigation of the river to
any but licensed men was based on reasons now obsolete.
In old days, when the river was the great highway of
London passenger traffic, it was thought necessary to adopt
a system of licensing with a view to ensuring the safety of
passengers in small boats, and these conditions had entirely
changed. The barge owners, being subject to full liability
in respect of accidents to life and goods, had sufficient
interest to make them employ only skilled men upon their
barges. To a large extent oars as the means of propulsion
had been replaced by steam tugs, on which it was not
necessary to carry licensed men, so that less special skill
was required of men in attendance on lighters. The rules
did not ensure competence, because a boy of sixteen who
had been an apprentice could obtain a licence, whilst the
right of navigation was denied to skilful men from the
Medway who might have no licence. No such restrictive
system existed in any other British port, and it was a serious
menace to London that the existence of the monopoly
entailed the risk of its water trade being entirely stopped
by a dispute between the lightermen and the masters.

The answer of the lightermen may conveniently be
interposed here. It was that if there was no system of

ROYAL COMMISSION INQUIRY 289

qualifying there would be great danger to life and property,
because men inadequately skilled would be employed in
times of emergency. Stress was laid upon the argument
that the system offered a guarantee of honesty of the men
employed in charge of valuable cargoes of dutiable goods.
The point about other ports was met by the statement that
in the difficulties of navigation the Thames differed from
other ports. The Watermen's Company added that as
licences had to be renewed every three years and discipline
was enforced by fines and penalties the public had guarantees
of the continued efficiency and good conduct of the men.

While submitting no scheme of reform of the Port,
the wharfingers contended that if the docks were acquired
by a public authority the warehouses should not be worked
by the authority but sold or let to persons who would carry
on the warehouses as private ventures in the warehousing
business.

As regards the bodies which controlled the two great
spheres of operations in the Port (the Conservancy and
the dock companies) the Conservancy had little to meet on
the question of their administration of the navigation or
in relation to their licensing of embankments on the river.
The gravamen of the charge against them was the neglect
to carry out the mandate of the 1894 Act to deepen the
river. The explanation of the Conservators is anticipated
in the chapter on the Thames Conservancy and need not
therefore be repeated here. The best defence which the
Conservancy found for themselves against the accusation of
inertness on the question of deepening was that until the
depth of water over the sills of all the docks had been much
increased there would be no practical advantage in forming
the proposed 3O-feet channel, as vessels would have to wait
at the dock entrances until the tide had risen sufficiently to
enable them to enter the docks, and that lying outside the
docks they would block the river traffic. The Commission
did not hesitate to offer their opinion at a very early stage
on this question, so that any strong representations from
shipowners became almost unnecessary. Before making their
report the Commissioners called upon the Conservancy
forthwith to reconsider their policy, and while the sittings
of the Commission were proceeding the conservators passed
a resolution that "In view of the tendency to increase the

29o THE PORT OF LONDON

size and draught of the ocean-going steamers, the Con-
servators, though not admitting that the report of the
Lower Thames Navigation Commission contains a specific
recommendation that a navigable channel of 30 feet below
low water of spring tides should be provided up to Graves-
end, are prepared to provide such a channel if Parliament
considers it desirable, and will provide the means for
raising the necessary funds." The Commissioners having
asked for the cost of such a channel continued up to the
Albert Dock, the Chairman of the Conservancy produced
an estimate of £1,649,838 for the deepening, and £45,000
for new moorings. The consequent increased expenditure,
including additional cost of maintenance as well as the
charge for interest, was put at £160,000 a year, bringing
the total expenditure on the lower river up to £235,000 per
annum. The Conservancy suggested that the additional
income required might be derived in the following manner :

Increase of tonnage dues from Jd. to f d. per ton on £
coastwise vessels, and on foreign trade vessels
from }d. to id., yielding .. .. .. .. 24,000

Abolition of exemption from tonnage dues of
certain vessels (except fishing boats) . . . . 4,000

Imposition of dues for use of river and moorings

for vessels not paying tonnage dues . . . . 10,000

Imposition of dues on vessels using moorings for

loading or discharging cargo . . . . . . 15 ,000

Dues on goods to extent of one-fifth of those charged
upon the Tyne . . . . . . . . . . 100,000

Total £153,000

All the dock companies were represented by witnesses
at the inquiry. The case of each was on almost similar lines,
and in order to avoid repetition the evidence of the Surrey
Commercial or Millwall Dock Companies need not be
referred to, but it will suffice to deal with that of the
London and India Docks Company, who were by far the
most important company, owning 80 per cent, of the accom-
modation worked by the dock companies.

The London and India Docks Company were repre-
sented by four witnesses. Mr. H. C. Baggally, the chief
engineer, gave evidence on questions relating to the con-
struction and maintenance or docks. Mr. Thomas Hardy,
one of the managers, explained details of management

ROYAL COMMISSION INQUIRY 291

in reply to some of the complaints as to practice and charges.
Mr. J. G. Broodbank, the secretary, submitted reports on
the accommodation and trade at some of the foreign ports
which had been commended as models for imitation by
various witnesses. Mr. C. J. Cater Scott, the chairman of
the company, was the chief spokesman for the company,
and he may be deemed to have been the most important
witness in the whole of the proceedings. Mr. Scott was
under examination for three and a half days, and in their
report the Commissioners selected him from all the wit-
nesses to express their high appreciation of the conspicuous
care and ability which characterized his evidence. He gave
a long historical survey of the establishment of the companies,
embracing much of what has been recorded in the previous
pages, and he replied to many of the attacks on the accom-
modation of the docks, the custom of the Port and the charges
of the dock companies on the lines of the comments made
earlier in this chapter upon the evidence given by the
witnesses of the County Council, London Chamber of
Commerce, and the other interests before the Commission.
Mr. Scott's chief task was, however, to endeavour to
persuade the Commissioners to accept the principle of
his company's Bill for imposing charges on barges and the
goods carried by them. It may be convenient to sum up
his arguments exactly in the way he did at the Commission :

1 . The history of the docks proved them to have been a public
necessity and benefit and an incalculable saving to the revenue.

2. The privilege of exemption from charges on their bargee
and goods originally granted to wharfingers was in return for
the compulsory diversion of their business to the docks, and
when the expiry of the monopolies was followed by the extension
of the legal quay and bonded warehouse system, the exemption
largely assisted the wharfingers to compete with the docks on
advantageous terms, and had therefore become both inapplicable
and inequitable.

3. The position of the docks in relation to their warehousing
business had been prejudiced by the wholesale revolution in the
conditions of shipping by the introduction of steamships, which
were growing in size and numbers.

4. The growing size of lighters themselves added to the onerous
obligations cast upon the docks.

5. The tendency of steamers was to bring goods for shipment
overside into lighters with a view to delivery elsewhere, or to be
taken into immediate consumption.

6. The Free Trade policy of the country by reducing the

292 THE PORT OF LONDON

number of dutiable goods had depreciated the value of bonded
accommodation of the docks.

7. The low freights earned by shipowners made it inequitable
to raise shipping charges, whilst it was quite equitable that the
low price of goods should be slightly increased, and that such
increase would fall lightly on the consumer.

8. The dues payable by vessels were insufficient to pay the
proper proportion of the interest upon the vast capital outlay
upon the docks, because so large a proportion of vessels in the
shape of lighters pay no dues.

9. The docks were legally vested in the companies, and to use
their premises without return constituted in effect a trespass
which, though originally sanctioned by Parliament, was no longer
justified by any countervailing rights or privileges.

10. The river was freely used by all, and the wharfingers had
therefore spent no money on their waterways, whilst the dock
companies provided the dock waterways at their own expense.

11. Wharfingers who possessed jetties or small docks had a
perfect right to make what charges they pleased on barges or goods.

12. Lighters that used the docks were ill-found in equipment
and were not even supplied with sufficient men to work them,
thus throwing on the docks a large amount of voluntary labour
which the necessities of business alone rendered practically
compulsory.

13. The tonnage of lighters using the docks was nearly double
the total tonnage of foreign trading and coasting vessels entering
with cargoes. In earlier times the proportion of barges to vessel*
was negligible.

14. At the time the docks were made every vessel could dis-
charge in the river. Now, the docks were the only place in which
the bulk of modern steamers could be discharged, and if the
docks were unable from want of funds to meet the requirements
of the Port the business of wharfingers would soon cease.

15. All the advantages of the Port were in favour of the com-
petitors of the docks.

16. The docks of the greatest port in the world ought not to be
so crippled as only to be able to pay 2 per cent, dividend to the
largest company.

17. All the conditions of commerce which justified the original
exemptions have long since ceased to exist, and that the main
argument which accounted for the rejection of the 1855 Bill
(i.e., the financial prosperity of the companies) could no longer
be used against the companies.

18. A crisis had now arrived, and if the company were to exact
increased duties the people to pay should be those who enjoy
the use of the docks gratuitously.

19. Parliament had at frequent intervals during the past century-
recognized the justice of imposing the charges for which the dock
companies asked by granting them to numerous other docks and
harbours.

ROYAL COMMISSION INQUIRY 293

Convincing as these arguments seemed to the dock
companies, they naturally failed to receive any support
whatever from any of the other parties before the Com-
mission. Nor indeed did the dock directors ever entertain
any serious expectation that the powers they sought,
whatever the equities of the case might be, would be con-
ferred upon a private company. The opponents of the
companies made the most of the fact that there was no
precedent for restoring the fortunes of a company by
enhanced powers of taxing the public. The object of the
directors from the beginning of the proceedings leading
to the appointment of the Commission, and also by the
steps they subsequently took when the report of the
Commission seemed likely to share the fate of many other
Commission reports, was not merely to increase dividends,
but simply to obtain such a revolution of the impossible
conditions as would ensure the prosperity of the Port, with
fair dealing for the dock companies who had served the
Port. The question of merely improving their income was
soon disposed of when the directors saw that there was no
chance of what they believed to be the right method of
adjustment of charges being generally acceptable. They
simply resolved to use their unexercised powers forthwith,
and at the end of 1901 gave notice that they would raise
the dues on shipping from is. to is. 6d. per ton. The year
1902 was a good year for business and at its close the
directors were able to declare dividends of 4 per cent, on
their deferred stocks, equivalent to a dividend of this
amount on the old ordinary stocks of the London and
St. Katharine and East and West India Companies.

Let us return to Mr. Scott's evidence. On being invited
to express his views upon the question of the formation of
a public authority, he remarked on the financial side of
the question that he did not think that the London County
Council would be in any better position to raise money than
the dock companies if the latter had proper powers of
income given to them, nor did he think that the London
County Council would easily raise the £30,000,000 which
he estimated would be required to purchase the docks. He
considered that it would not be to the advantage of the
Port to give a monopoly of the accommodation in the river
and docks to any public body whether rate-aided or

294 THE PORT OF LONDON

otherwise, and yet it would be unfair to leave wharfingers
out of any scheme at the mercy of competition of such a
powerful body. He could not treat seriously the proposal
to form a trust that should purchase certain selected parts
of the dock companies' premises, and in regard to the
suggestion that the dock undertakings might be taken as
a whole and the warehouses subsequently disposed of, he
pointed out that the docks were originally built to serve
the warehouses, and that at the older docks where most of
the warehouses were situated, such a division would be
impossible, while it would be difficult even at the lower
docks. Water frontage was vital for warehousing business,
and there could not be two authorities on the same dock front-
age. Such a division of authority would be both practically
unworkable and economically unsound. Common to all
schemes was the difficulty that to ascertain the compensation
to be paid to the various parties to be expropriated would be
a long and tedious process, and it would consequently be
several years before any trust could assume definite shape.
In the meantime the needs of the Port, which were con-
stantly growing, would remain unsatisfied. Nor were there
wanted warnings against municipalities or quasi-muni-
cipalities in the form of public trusts embarking or being
interested pecuniarily in dock enterprises. Bristol ratepayers
were then contributing £28,000 a year towards making up
deficiencies in the working of the Bristol and Avonmouth
Docks. Preston had speculated in docks and in the deepening
of the Kibble, and in consequence were suffering from a
special rate of 2s. in the £. The Corporation of Manchester
had advanced £5,000,000 to the Manchester Ship Canal
Company and a rate of is. per £ was being levied on the
Manchester ratepayers to meet the unearned interest,
to which the principal contributors were the railway
companies with whom the canal company was the principal
competitor. The Greenock Harbour Trust had for many
years defaulted in part of the interest on its debenture
stock.

Mr. Scott made on behalf of his company a proposal
that the companies should be given power to charge dues
on barges to the extent of a maximum rate of 4d. a ton,
estimated on the basis of 3d. a ton to produce the sum of
£56,250, and also to levy dues on goods estimated to produce

ROYAL COMMISSION INQUIRY 295

£177,833. In consideration of the' above powers his dock
company were prepared to agree :

1. That the reasonableness of the charges on goods as between
the different classes of goods should be subject to the right of
appeal to the Railway Commissioners.

2. That in place of the maximum tonnage dues of is. 6d. with
rent at the rate of 2d. a ton from the date of entrance now author-
ized as chargeable on shipping, there should be substituted maximum
dues of is. 4d., to include freedom from rent for four weeks.

3. That the maximum dividend to be paid on capital stocks of
the company should be 4 per cent., and that any surplus should be
applicable to any of the following purposes only, viz. : (a) making
good the deficiency of any previous dividend from the date of
obtaining the powers, (b) the redemption of loan capital, (c) the
provision of a reserve fund not exceeding 10 per cent, of the
nominal amount of the capital stocks of the company, (d) the
reduction of charges on goods and shipping.

4. That the company undertake to complete with all dispatch
the proposed extension to the south of the Albert Dock.

Under Mr. Scott's scheme the supreme authority in the
Port would have controlled all matters relating to the
waterways, leaving questions of accommodation to private
enterprise. He contended that there would then be no
difficulty arising from competition of a public body with
the private wharfingers, no need for any financial scheme,
or any necessity to have recourse to local or imperial
taxation. Moreover, the financial position of the companies
would have been fixed and stabilized, and purchase by a
Port Authority would have been a comparatively simple
matter should circumstances hereafter render that course
practicable and desirable.

Counsel were heard on behalf of the various parties before
the Commission, and the last public meeting of the Com-
mission took place on the and July, 1901.

CHAPTER XXVIII

The Royal Commission Report

THE report of the Commissioners is a lengthy document
of 124 folio pages, and is dated the i6th June, 1902.
Its contents include a comprehensive survey of the
character of the Port and its trade, a statement of the
existing authorities on the Thames, and a history and
description of the dock undertakings with particulars of the
various complaints of shipowners and consignees. This is
followed by a discussion of the schemes of reform put before
them, and the Commissioners own recommendations for
dealing with the great problem submitted to them. Whatever
prejudices prevailed in the minds of the interests who were
so vitally concerned, all of them were constrained to admit
that the Commissioners had performed their duty impartially
and patiently, and that the report was one entitled to the
careful consideration of the Government.

The Commissioners begin by saying that London is a
Port traversed by a long and sheltered tidal river con-
veniently situated for trading with the various coasts of
this country, with the Continent and with other parts of
the world, and that this fact had largely contributed to its
rise to the position of the greatest city in England and so
to that of the central city of the British Empire. So great
are the natural advantages of the river that little had been
done, except some desultory dredging, to improve its
condition since those almost prehistoric conditions when it
was embanked. They pointed out that the chief obstruction
to navigation between the Nore and Gravesend was at the
Leigh Middle Shoals, where there was only a low water
depth of 24 feet at spring tides. Above Gravesend a depth
of 30 feet could be relied on up to Broadness Point. Off
Broadness Point considerable shoaling limited the depth to
20 feet, though the greatest depth is from 30 to 40 feet.
Throughout the length of Long Reach to Crayfordness
the limitation of depth was about 24 feet. Then the channel
became patchy and ill-defined, and the depth between
Crayfordness and Jenningtree Point could only be taken

ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT 297

as 1 8 feet. A still further deterioration took place on entering
Halfway Reach where, up to Crossness, the limitation of
depth would be about 17 feet. From Crossness to Margaret-
ness the channel, though deeper in parts, was much con-
tracted in width, and the depth must be taken as 14 feet.
An improvement takes place on entering Galleons Reach,
and from the Albert Dock to Woolwich the depth might
be taken as 16 feet. From Woolwich Dockyard to the
Greenland Dock the limitation must be taken as about
12 feet, and beyond to Limehouse Dock at about 10 feet.
From Limehouse Dock to St. Katharine Dock, the depth
was from 12 to 16 feet.

Two points must be borne in mind when these depths
are considered, one that from 17 to 22 feet must be added
to the depths to obtain the navigable depth at spring tides,
and the second that in arriving at the figures, the Commission
adopted the widths of channel proposed by the Conservancy
in their scheme of deepening, and that the depths mentioned
were the minimum depths within the sideway bound-
aries of the bottom of the channel in question. The
Commissioners explained that it was true that ships
navigated up and down the Thames requiring greater
depths than those mentioned, they were in consequence
confined in their course to channels of less width than those
recommended by the Conservancy with resulting danger
and delay, and that it was more instructive in view of the
real requirements of safe navigation to adopt these widths
of channel than to state the greater depths to be found in
a narrow, and, in places, tortuous channel. Then it was to
be remembered that in considering the draught of water
of a ship which could use the channels allowance must be
made for at least two feet of water under the keel in the
case of large vessels.

In the chapter on the volume and character of the trade
of the Port, the Commissioners say that the Port of London
was still as it had been for at least 200 years, the greatest
in the world in respect of the amount of shipping and goods
which entered it. Statistics showed a constant growth in
the volume of the trade, although the rate of increase had
not been so rapid in the more recent years as it was in some
former times. After furnishing figures supporting this
statement and further figures of tonnage relating to home

298 THE PORT OF LONDON

and foreign ports, the Commissioners, in paragraph 18
of their report, come to conclusions which disposed of the
accusation against the dock companies that their inadequate
arrangements and high charges had driven away trade to
the outports or foreign ports. The paragraph is quoted in
full : —

The obvious indication of these figures is that in recent years
the percentage of increase has been much greater at a port like
Southampton and at certain Continental ports such as Hamburg,
Rotterdam, and Antwerp than it has been at older ports such as
London, Liverpool, and Hull in this country, or at Havre,
Marseilles, and Genoa on the Continent, all of which were more
conspicuous at an early date than the ports which have lately been
developing so rapidly. The explanation would appear to be that
to some extent the ports in question are calling ports, especially
ports like Southampton, Rotterdam, and Antwerp, and that their
business as a whole does not properly enter into comparison with
that of a port which is chiefly one of ultimate destination like
London and Liverpool. We are unable to conclude, therefore,
that the figures show any relative decline of London compared with
the other ports named, allowing for the difference in the nature of
the business done. This view is further strengthened when we
allow for such obvious explanations as the larger percentage of the
increase in a case when the initial figure is small than in a case
when it is large, although the amount of the increase is the same in
both, and for the fact that a large part of the trade of Hamburg,
Rotterdam, and Antwerp is with the ports of the United Kingdom,
and even with London. What the future development will be it is
not easy to foresee. Southampton, Hamburg, Rotterdam, and
Antwerp have all gained largely in the shipping returns in recent
years by the establishment of lines of steamers, many of these
with subsidies, just as London and older ports gained at an earlier
date, but there is nothing to indicate that the older ports are being
superseded or prevented from largely increasing. The development
of Hamburg in particular, it should be added, cannot be uncon-
nected with the increasing dependence of Germany, as its popula-
tion increases, on supplies of food and raw material imported from
abroad, and especially from oversea, Hamburg being the chief
inlet of the whole empire.

Discussing the position of the entrepot trade, the
Commissioners called attention to the statistics which
indicated that whilst for the past twenty years this business
had not absolutely declined, yet it certainly had not advanced
in proportion to the general development of the trade and
shipping of the Kingdom. The Commissioners in this
connexion pointed out that the English carrying trade grew
up protected by the navigation laws against the competition

ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT 299

of old maritime nations like the Dutch and secured a
practical monopoly as against other European countries
during the long wars at the end of the eighteenth and the
beginning of the nineteenth centuries. Hence it was placed
in and long maintained a position of almost unnatural
superiority. It was to be expected that other European
nations should in time develop their own mercantile marine
and secure for their shipping, part of their own import and
export trade. No doubt also the growth of direct trade so
far as regards the south of Europe had been accelerated by
the substituion of the Mediterranean for the Cape route
to the East. Against causes of this general character, im-
provements in the Port of London would not have much
effect, but the Commissioners realized that if the Port
became less convenient or more expensive for the reception
of large shipping than neighbouring rival ports, then London
was not only in danger of losing anything which remained of
the re-export trade to Germany, Holland and Belgium, but
also that part of the general re-export trade may pass to their
ports. It was also highly probable that large ships, if time
and money could be saved by doing so, would discharge at
Rotterdam and Antwerp goods intended for England and
Scotland, which would then be conveyed to their destina-
tions by Channel and North Sea steamers, and even goods
destined for the London market itself might easily be
transhipped at Rotterdam or Antwerp instead of at Tilbury
or the Albert Dock and brought by small Channel steamers
and run straight up to wharves on the Thames. The contin-
gency feared in the last-named possibility was hardly a
practical one in any event, for on the worst hypothesis for
the conditions in London, it could never be an economical
proposition to give up the direct route, but no one could
question that the committee were justified in saying that
all the considerations of the case pointed to the advantage
of adapting the Thames in every way to the requirements
of modern ocean-going ships.

The committee then proceed to review questions con-
nected with the authorities then exercising control in the
ports.

They reported that these were :

I. The Thames Conservancy, whose duties included the
government and regulation of all vessels within the port, the

300 THE PORT OF LONDON

improvement and completion of the navigation of the river, the
appointment of harbour masters, the removal of obstructions in
the river, the maintenance of navigation by dredging, the licensing
of docks, piers and embankments and other erections, the placing
and maintenance of moorings and navigation beacons, the con-
struction of piers and landing-places, and the carrying out of the
Explosives and Petroleum Acts so far as they affect the river.

2. The Trinity House, charged with questions relating to
pilotage, buoying, and lighting.

3. The Watermen's Company, who licensed lightermen and
watermen.

4. The Corporation of London, who were the Sanitary
Authority of the Port.

5. The Police Authority, who were the Metropolitan Police in
areas within their jurisdiction and in the lower river the police
of the counties of Essex and Kent.

As regards the Thames Conservancy, the Commissioners
reported the reasons already referred to, given by the
Conservancy, for not applying to Parliament for further
powers for the purpose of carrying out the programme of
the Lower Thames Navigation Commission. Their inaction
appeared to the Commission to have been, on the part of a
public body charged with vital interests, evidence of an
inadequate view of their duties. The argument of the
chairman of the Conservancy, Sir F. Dixon Hartland, that
the smallness of the dock entrances would have made the
cost of any deepening of the river useless, was treated by
the Commission as less of a reason than of an excuse for
the Conservancy not having taken in hand the improvements
of the river. It was obvious that the dock companies could
gain no advantage in deepening the entrances of their docks
if with the river in its present condition vessels could only
approach the docks at or near the time of high water, and at
this time of tide the locks, although perhaps susceptible of
some improvement, were not conspicuously inferior in depth
to that of the channel of the river at such times. But further,
Sir F. Dixon Hartland 's argument altogether ignored the
well-known difficulties of navigating the Thames with
ships of large draught if delayed by fog or other causes.
In this connexion the Commission said they had received
a considerable amount of evidence to the effect that it was
no uncommon thing for large vessels ascending the river
to be obliged to return to Gravesend if they found it
impossible to reach the docks sufficiently near the time of

p. 300

ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT 301

high water to be certain of entering the docks as most of
the intervening reaches were too shallow to permit them to
anchor. The Commission, impressed by the almost complete
concurrence of opinion that considerable river works were
necessary, had no hesitation in stating that it was highly
important to the trade of London that a channel of not less
than 30 feet in depth at low water of spring tides should be
made from the Nore to the entrance of the Royal Albert
Dock, and that the width to be adopted for this channel
should be as proposed by the Conservancy, 1,000 feet as
far as Crayfordness, and from Crayfordness to the Royal
Albert Dock, 600 feet. They further thought above the
Royal Albert Dock the river should be deepened and
improved as far as the old Thames Tunnel, now used by the
East London Railway. It was probable that the depth of
30 feet might be attained as high up as the Greenland
Dock and 25 or 26 feet up to the Shadwell entrance of the
London Dock, but the Commission made no definite
recommendation in regard to the depth of the upper
river. As vessels of large draught now suffered much risk
and inconvenience for want of deep places in which to take
refuge if delayed on passage up and down the river, the
Commission recommended that, as a first part of the
dredging programme, holes or basins should be dredged to
the depth of 30 feet (which basins would afterwards form
part of the continuous channel) in six different places
between the Shadwell entrance to the London Dock and
the entrance to the Royal Albert Dock, with four additional
basins at approximately equal distances between the Royal
Albert Dock and Northfleet Hope. The history of the
Thames seemed to show that there was little risk of the
suggested basins silting up in the interval of their being
made and the continuous channel being formed, and the
Commission thought that when these works were accom-
plished the river would bear the same relation to the
dimensions of the largest modern ships as it bore fifty years
before to those of the largest ships then existing.

The Commission then recapitulated the evidence of
the Trinity House and of the views of the shipowners on
the question. They further discussed the question whether
pilotage should be compulsory and whether if so, ships
subject to compulsory pilotage should be exempt from

302 THE PORT OF LONDON

liability for damages, pointing out that modern policy
was opposed to compulsory pilotage as indicated by the
Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, which provides that there
shall be no compulsory pilotage and no restriction on the
power of duly qualified persons to obtain licences in
in any new pilotage districts, and that pilotage was free in
many ports, for example, the Tees and the Tyne, Swansea,
Cardiff, Leith, Dundee and Cork. The Commissioners
thought that if a new authority were formed in the Port,
the power of licensing pilots within the Port should be
transferred to them, but on the larger question of compulsory
pilotage they thought it ouside the scope of their reference
to make any recommendation as to the connexion between
compulsory pilotage and the immunity of a shipowner for
damage which concerned general law.

Though the Commission had no criticism to pass upon
the manner in which the Watermen's Company had
performed their duties, they recommended that all the
powers of the Company should be transferred to any new
authority appointed to control the Port. While thinking
that in the interests of public safety, watermen employed
in passenger traffic, including river steamboats, should be
licensed for employment by such new authority, they
agreed with the Thames Traffic Committee of 1879 in not
thinking it necessary that men employed in the navigation
of non-passenger carrying lighters should have any licence
or be subject to any examination. Employers should in
this class of craft be left free to employ any men whom they
choose subject to the fullest responsibility for the acts of
those they employ. The Commissioners accepted the view
put forward by several witnesses that the existing artificial
restrictions had placed the river traffic too much under the
control of a limited class of men and had, perhaps, by
removing the stimulus of open competition, encouraged
among them habits which the paternal and well meant
care of the Court of Watermen was not always sufficient to
correct. If the Commissioners' proposals for the new
authority {given later) were carried out, all lighters would
be annually licensed by the authority, and this process
would give the authority a control over river craft and,
before renewing licences, to take into consideration any
complaints as to the trustworthiness of the lightermen.

ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT 303

The transference of powers and loss of fees would materially
affect the Watermen's Company. They would cease to
have any functions except those of administering certain
charities, and little revenue apart from that derived from
endowments which were affected by charitable trusts. The
Commission recommended that compensation to the
officials of the Company should be provided by the new
Port Authority, and that the Charity Commissioners should
be asked to make a scheme for the future regulation of the
charities.

The Commissioners had no remarks to make on the
sanitary or police controls of the Port beyond saying that
they did not recommend any change in the authorities
administering them.

The description of the three systems of docks given by
the Commissioners is a careful historical narrative of
events which were consummated by their appointment to
investigate the Port of London question. The reader is
already in possession of the circumstances described at
greater length in the preceding pages and no quotation or
summary of the Commissioners' report is therefore
necessary. They allude to the Regents Canal Dock, and to
minor docks or wharves belonging to various railway
companies, viz., Brentford Dock, Chelsea Dock, Deptford
Dock and the two Docks at Poplar. The Commissioners
considered that the Limehouse Dock of the Regents Canal
Company was merely the mouth of the canal, and that the
other docks mentioned fell into a category different from
that of the large public docks and might be regarded as
riverside terminal stations. The Commissioners therefore
omitted them from their proposals.

With the assistance of Mr. R. C. H. Davison, the engineer
employed by them, the Commissioners had endeavoured
to arrive at an estimate of the total cost of bringing into a
good state of repair the properties belonging to the three
companies, of effecting such improvements as would be
requisite in order to bnng the docks of those companies to
a degree of efficiency which would meet the needs of the
Port, assuming that the river channels were deepened and
enlarged in the way recommended, and of making the
proposed extension near the Royal Albert Dock. In the
opinion of the Commissioners the cost could not be safely

3o4 THE PORT OF LONDON

estimated at less than £4,500,000, and they thought that
an expenditure of this amount, apart from any later
extension at Tilbury or elsewhere, would have to be made
in the next few years if the Port was to be restored to its
proper position. These works should proceed concurrently
with the deepening of the river.

The Commissioners at great length discussed the grievance
put forward by all the companies in regard to the exemption
of lighters from dues and the statutory right of lighters to
enter and leave the docks without any payment in respect
of the goods which they carry, and the allegation of the
companies that the cause of their deficient financial vitality
was the drain upon profits which should legitimately come
to them, by rivals which had grown under favouring circum-
stances from a position of toleration on account of insignifi-
cance into one of superior participation in the general
profits of the trade. The Commissioners' comment on this
is that although the misfortunes of some of the companies
may to some extent be due, as some adverse witnesses
alleged, to rash and premature expenditure of capital and
to errors in administration, yet they thought that to a
considerable extent the explanation of the companies was
a true one. They were, in the opinion of the Commissioners,
the victims of a change of circumstances which had dis-
possessed them gradually of the advantages which they
once enjoyed. They had rendered great services for a
hundred years to the Port of London and were entitled to
much sympathy, but when they asked, as they did, for
power to tax their rivals in trade in order to restore a lost
position serious difficulties and objections arose. The judg-
ment of the Commission on this question is understandable,
as it was in accordance with the inexorable convention of
the attitude of Parliament when it is a question of justice
to investors. It is always the victim who is to continue to
suffer. The vested interest which has thriven on the victim
is allowed a continuance of its prosperity. But this was not
the common case of speculation having turned out to be
unremunerative through the progess of invention or vagaries
in fashion. Here were works of the highest public utility
which the state or the municipality had been unwilling to
provide at their own cost, and in consequence the capital
had been found by private persons. The Port had flourished

ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT 305

because of these works and their' extension from time to
time. For many years investors of every kind put their
savings in docks, and at one time dock stocks took rank in
London not far below Bank of England stock. No stock was
more sought after by trustees. True, there was the privilege
of drawing water from the Thames and a certain amount
of monopoly, subsequently more and more diluted by the
unrestricted competition so prized by the Parliamentary
Committee which reported in 1824. But if it had privileges
it also had obligations imposed on them to keep docks open
to all comers whether they brought remunerative business
or not. When in 1855 tne directors began to realize how
the changes which the State had made in its fiscal policy,
affecting imports of foreign produce, were likely to under-
mine the foundations upon which dock solvency was built
and applied to Parliament for powers to make charges on
lighters, they were told they could not have the powers
because their financial condition indicated no need or them.
When by 1899 financial collapse, foreseen in 1855, was
almost imminent, the directors were told by the Commission
appointed by Parliament that great sympathy was felt for
them, but that the "tree must lie where it is fallen," and
the public could use the timber for its own purposes.
It is not as if the dock companies were bent on asking for
a restoration of their fortunes when 10 per cent, dividends
were paid. As has been shown, Mr. Cater Scott was prepared
to pledge to make a modern dock and to concede reductions
of dues to shipowners. For a long time after opening, the
new dock would not have earned its working expenses, and
any profit subsequently was limited by the proviso that the
ordinary dividend was never to have exceeded 4 per cent.
The levity displayed by men believed to be serious and
weighty in affairs in thus viewing the claims of investors
of £20,000,000, in enterprises indispensable alike to the
operations of the greatest commercial centre in the world
and to the feeding and maintenance of the capital city of
the British Empire, has scarcely been exceeded by the
exponents of the sternest cults of Socialism. The comment
of Sir Henry Le Marchant in a contemporary article that
"No greater discouragement could be found to the employ-
ment of capital in new industrial enterprises than the
conviction in the mind of the public from past experience,

306 THE PORT OF LONDON

that, if a project be unsuccessful it will be left on the hands
of the promoters, and if the contrary, the fruits may be
reaped at any moment by the State on its own terms,"
was abundantly justified. Even a Royal Commission report
has its humorous aspects. Its tears of sympathy were ac-
companied by a rebuke to the London and India Docks for
having, while the committee was sitting, increased its ship-
ping dues from is. to is. 6d. per ton, thereby at once increas-
ing its annual income by £100,000, and the Commissioners
commented on the fact by saying that the "step had been
taken in opposition to an important expression of opinion
by shipowners against any increase in dues of shipping."
So that according to the Commissioners' reasoning, whilst
it was wrong to remove by legislation an admitted grievance
due to out of date statutes, it was equally wrong for the dock
companies to avail themselves of the same statutes in order
to redress those grievances by methods not ideal but legal.
In other words, the "victim, not being allowed to have the
weapons he would prefer to have, is to be deprived of those
he happens to possess. Apart, however, from these con-
siderations, it should be pointed out that before the Royal
Commission was appointed, the dock company had given
the clearest public intimation that failing the remedy they
sought, they would exercise the powers at their disposal
by increasing the shipping dues.

Having disposed of the case of the dock companies,
the Commissioners set out the proposals for unified control
made by the various interests represented before them,
and then without criticizing the proposals, promptly
dismissed them all from serious consideration by saying that
none of them were brought forward in a completely workable
form. Those who had framed them regarded the matter
from special and divers points of view, and did not possess
the full information which had been elicited by the inquiry,
and while, therefore, the Commissioners found the various
schemes useful in assisting them in reaching their own
conclusions as to the best course to be adopted, they had not
been able to recommend the adoption of any one of them
as it stood.

The Commission then proceeded to give their reasons for
their own decision to recommend the creation of a Port
Authority on the Thames. It had been proved in their

ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT 307

opinion that the Port of London Was in danger of losing
part of its existing trade, and certainly part of the trade which
might otherwise come to it by reason of the river channels
and docks being inadequate to meet the demands of modern
commerce, and they had found that there was great difficulty
in improving the Port in consequence of the division of
powers amongst different authorities, and in so far as the
chief dock company was concerned, by reason of its financial
position.

The Thames Conservancy did not possess sufficient
revenue from existing sources to enable them to fulfil their
obvious duty, and they had not attempted to procure the
necessary powers, although the need had continuously been
pressed upon them. Moreover, the constitution of this
body was not such that the Commissioners could advise its
being endowed with the power of raising capital for the
works they felt it their duty to recommend. The Trinity
House was entrusted with the buoying and lighting of
channels in respect of which the Conservancy had the duties
of formation and maintenance. The exclusive right of
navigating lighters was in the possession of an ancient
labour guild, whose monopoly had been a cause of wide-
spread complaint. It had, in the judgment of the Com-
missioners, been proved by the evidence that this
distribution of power between distinct authorities was
contrary to the interests of the Port as a whole.

The Commissioners considered that the docks were as
essential to the working of the Port as the river itself. Even
if the dock companies were in a position to raise the sums
and to carry out the works required, yet the inter-dependence
of the proposals for improving the river and of those for
improving the docks and the peculiar conditions under
which the trade of the Port was carried on, rendered it
highly desirable that these two closely connected elements
of the Port should be no longer controlled by independent
authorities.

The attention of the Commissioners had been directed
to the public character and success of the port authorities
existing in the chief maritime cities of the United Kingdom,
and also to the public administration of foreign ports which
had in recent years become formidable rivals to London
in the competition for the shipping trade, and especially

3o8 THE PORT OF LONDON

for the large ocean steamers. It had been shown that there
existed amongst shipowners, merchants and representative
bodies a powerful consensus of opinion in favour of the
consolidation of powers at present divided, and the creation
of a single public Authority for the control and improvement
of the Port. In these circumstances the Commissioners
strongly recommended that such an authority should be
constituted.

The proposals of the Commissioners may be shortly
summarized as follows :—

All the powers and property of the Thames Conservancy
in connexion with the river below Teddington to be vested
in the Authority. The powers of the Trinity House, so far
as they relate to the area of the Port of London, as defined
by the constituting Act, also to be transferred to the
Authority. All the powers of the Watermen's Company
connected with the licensing and control of watermen and
lightermen and the regulations of lighters and other craft
also to be transferred to the new Authority. All the powers
and property of the London and India, Surrey Commercial
and Millwall Companies to be vested in the Authority, the
actual transfer of the docks to be completed by a date as
early as possible to be fixed by the Act.

The Commissioners said they had considered whether it
would be possible to transfer to the new Authority the
lower docks only, leaving the London and India Company
in possession of their older docks and not taking over the pro-
perties of the Surrey and Millwall Companies. If this course
were followed the competition between a public Authority
controlling the river and the river works of improvement
and supported by a large revenue would be unfair to those
companies whose property was unpurchased or only
purchased in part. This passing tenderness for the dock
company's shareholders is noteworthy, but the possibilities
of such competition, though subsequently brandished before
the companies by some of the interests who desired to
purchase the docks cheaply, caused no alarm to the directors.
It is certain that any struggle would have left the new Port
Authority with the worst of the battle and a diminished
prestige. But the Commissioners were absolutely right in
their conclusion that such a division of the docks would
have been disadvantageous to the Port as a whole. The

CUNARD SS. " CARONIA " ENTERING TILBURY DOCK BASIN

P. 308

ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT 309

Commissioners acknowledged that the combination of
dock with warehousing business had rendered their problem
more perplexing. If the warehouses were administered by
the Authority, they had to face the objection that an
Authority controlling the improvements and regulating the
traffic of the river, supported by revenue obtained from dues
on shipping and goods, and in possession of the quays and
waters of all the docks and possibly assisted by guarantees
from the rates of London would, in its warehousing business,
compete at an advantage against the public and private
wharfinger and warehouse owners who had invested so
much capital in their properties. It will be perceived that
the Commissioners realized that they had not got rid of
the question of hardship on vested interests by refusing
to grant new powers to the dock companies. They saw that
they would only be intensifying it by giving these powers
to a public authority subsidized by the public rates in
competition with the many private wharves and warehouses
on the river side. They turned therefore to the suggestion
that the new Authority should acquire the properties of
the wharfingers as well as those of the docks, but hesitated
to take this plunge. They relied upon the argument that
the reasons for entrusting the Authority with the control
of the river and docks did not apply with the same force to
the case of the warehouses, as the requirements of the Port
in this respect appeared to have been fully met by private
enterprise. Nor could the Commissioners solve the problem
by accepting the proposal that the new Authority should
take over the dock quays and waters without the warehouses.
Besides the fact already alluded to that many of the ware-
houses were more or less in juxtaposition with the quays,
there was the fact that commercially the warehousing had
been closely united with the dock business, and also that
it would be contrary to the general law that the Authority
should take over by compulsory purchase the quays and leave
the warehouses in the hands of the companies. The Com-
missioners were therefore brought to the conclusion that it
would be necessary for the Authority to purchase the whole
of the company's undertakings. In view, however, of the
peculiar circumstances of the Port and of the division of
trade between the docks and the riverside traders, they
thought that it would be inexpedient that the new Authority

3io THE PORT OF LONDON

should carry on permanently the business of warehousing,
and were of opinion therefore that the Authority, after taking
over the warehouses, should sell or lease such of them as
would not be usefully employed in the enlargement of the
quays or transit sheds ; that in order to secure this object
the constituting Act should provide that within a definite
period the warehouses should be offered for sale or lease :
and that in the meantime, the Authority should carry on
the warehousing business, but that if it should prove im-
possible to dispose of the premises without great loss then
the Authority should permanently retain such warehouses.
As it would never be possible to obtain rents or sale values
from wharfingers which would compensate the Authority
for the loss of business entailed, the remedy of the Com-
missioners was an impracticable one, and in effect would
have left the wharfingers to the mercy of a rate aided
Authority. When the report was translated into a Bill, and
the various parties appeared before Parliament, it was
the opposition of the wharfingers to this part of the scheme
which gave the deathblow to the Bill.

The limits of the Port proposed by the Commissioners
were from Teddington Lock, as being the present tidal
limit, to a line drawn from Havengore Creek in Essex, to
Warden Point in the Isle of Sheppey in Kent. The line in
question was about two nautical miles further east than the
existing frontier of the Conservancy for dredging purposes,
and corresponded with the actual eastward limit of the
Customs Port, and with that of the Conservancy for
collecting dues. The southward limit proposed excluded
the Medway from the jurisdiction of the Port.

On the most important question of finance, the Com-
missioners considered first the mode in which the docks
should be purchased, and secondly the capital expenditure
for improvements and the method of raising it.

In regard to the purchase of the docks, the Commissioners
pointed out that the usual method of acquiring large under-
takings by a public authority had been to fix by arbitration
the value of such undertakings, and then to raise loans in
the market and to pay the whole value in cash. In the case
of the docks, without expressing an opinion adversely to
the alternative of raising a loan, the Commissioners recom-
mended as a probably more convenient and economical

ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT 311

method (a) that the docks be vested in the Authority subject
to any liabilities with respect to debenture stock and
mortgages and other debts and obligations, (b) that the
Authority be empowered to create up to a certain limit
Port stock to be guaranteed in certain proportions by the
City Corporation and the London County Council, (c) that
the authority issue to each company in consideration for
the undertaking so transferred such an amount of stock as
might be agreed upon, or in default of agreement as might
be determined by a Court of Arbitration, (d) that the
stock so issued to each company should be distributed
amongst the dock stockholders as might be determined
by arbitration.

With regard to the principles which should guide the
arbitrators, the Commissioners thought that the pecuniary
position of the dock proprietors should be rendered neither
better nor worse, due consideration being had to all the
circumstances of the case ; in other words, they should
be merely indemnified. Indemnity was the principle which
governed the purchase clause of the Lands Clauses Act.
This somewhat obvious definition of justice to the
owners of property was the prelude to the suggestion that
the ordinary procedure under the Lands Clauses Acts
should be modified to the detriment of the proprietors,
the proposal being that the machinery of the Act should be
simplified by omitting the two arbitrators appointed under
the Acts and. having only one umpire with power to delegate
the detailed valuations of some of the items of sale, and
further that what was called the conventional allowance
of 10 per cent, for forced sale always awarded in arbitrations
under the Lands Clauses Act should not be added. The
Commissioners justified their special treatment of dock
shareholders by the argument that their position would be
affected nominally rather than substantially by the subsi-
stitution of a Public Trust for a limited company. The
most they were prepared to allow for the inconvenience,
delay and cost or the dispossession of stockholders, many
of whom preferred directorial management to that of new-
comers utterly unknown to them and not controllable by
them, was that the Court of Arbitration should be em-
powered to make such compensation for the inconvenience
as might appear to them to be just. One set-off appears

3i2 THE PORT OF LONDON

to have been in the minds of the Commissioners in their
suggestion that Port stock might be properly included among
the securitites in which a trustee might invest under the
powers of the Trustee Act, but doubtless any superior
value the stock might derive by this distinction would have
been taken into account in the umpire's award.

Estimating the capital sums to be expended within the
next ten years upon the river at £2,500,000, and on the docks
at £4,500,000, the Commissioners proceeded to consider
the resources available for meeting the expenditure, and they
came to the conclusion that all the revenue from existing
sources would be fully engaged to maintain the undertakings
and pay the interest on Port stock created to purchase them,
together with payments to a sinking fund to be established
ten years from the date the Authority came into being.
The Commissioners said it was clear that the provision
of an adequate revenue for the Authority implied some
increase in the charge upon the trade of the Port, nor did
they find any hesitation on the part of those most competent
to form a judgment in recognizing that this must be the case.
They entirely concurred, however, with the view that,
having regard to the existing and increasing competition
of other Ports, such additional charge should be confined
to the provision of such improvements as were strictly
necessary and might be expected to be productive. In these
circumstances they had considered whether some portion
of the £7,000,000 should not be provided otherwise than
by the Port Authority. There appeared no reason for
placing any charge on the National Exchequer, but seeing
that the Thames must always be a great and vital highway
of commerce to the many millions dwelling near its banks,
and that within comparatively recent times the maintenance
and improvement of the lower Thames was a duty and charge
incumbent on the Corporation as the only municipal
authority, the Commissioners suggested that the expenditure
of £2,500,000 on the river should be borne by the
Corporation and County Council between them in propor-
tions to be agreed, and they were encouraged to make the
suggestion by the strong and practical anxiety they had
shown for the improvement and welfare of London. This
contribution was to be accompanied by the guarantee already
referred to of the interest on Port stock. This guarantee

ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT 313

would enable the transfer of the dock properties to take
place under advantageous conditions, and would enable
the capital necessary for the improvement of the docks and
river to be raised upon favourable terms.

The Commissioners, seeking for other sources of revenue,
did not advise any increase of the river tonnage dues on
shipping. These were low as compared with other British
Ports, but since the Port of London, on account of its
difficulty of approach at some seasons, its cost and quality
of labour, and some other circumstances was already a
dear Port for a large class of ships, it would be inexpedient
seriously, if at all, to increase the river dues. Dealing with
dock dues on shipping, the Commissioners mentioned that
at the London and India Docks the maximum chargeable
was is. 6d. per ton. At the Surrey system is., whilst at the
Millwall Docks there was no statutory maximum. Though
the Commissioners had been so shocked by the London and
India Company having raised their current dues to is. 6d.,
they not only urged the maintenance of is. 6d. at that
system, but that it should be made universal, contenting
themselves with the expression of the hope that a rate of
is .per ton might be found to be sufficient.

The Commissioners found themselves unable to
recommend that any source of income for the new authority
should be provided by the repeal of the free water clauses
in the Dock Acts. Under the new government of the Port
it would, however, be fair and advantageous also from
reasons connected with the regulation of the traffic that the
Authority should have power to levy a licensing fee upon all
barges using the Port. Barges had grown considerably
both in size and in the part which they had taken in the
traffic of the Port, and it appeared reasonable that they
should contribute to the revenue of the Port and a not
inconsiderable sum could be thereby provided.

The main source of the additonal revenue which would
be required by the Authority was in the opinion of the
Commission to be found in dues upon goods landed in the
Port. In this, the Port of London would be following the
precedent set at Liverpool, Glasgow, Newcastle, Bristol,
and most of the leading ports of the United Kingdom. If
dues were heavy their objects might be defeated, since goods
might be diverted and come to London through other ports

314 THE PORT OF LONDON

and railways, but the Commissioners apprehended that the
distribution of so comparatively small a sum over such
a mass of goods would not have this result. The
Commissioners did not favour dues upon export goods,
nor goods which entered the Port for transhipment or
re-exportation. The Commissioners did not desire to
exclude the consideration of any other mode of raising
revenue should it be found essential to the financial
position of the Authority, and, subject to due safeguards,
the new body ought to have some general powers for such
a purpose.

The Commissioners said they had given careful con-
sideration to the constitution of the Authority, having
regard to the distinguishing features of London and
especially to the multiplicity of the interests involved.
Their opinion was that the Authority should consist of
nominated and elected members, the nominated members
being chosen partly by national and partly by municipal
authorities, and should include persons belonging to the
mercantile community. In departing somewhat in this
suggestion from the precedents of other great British ports,
they had kept before them the fact that London differed
from them in its enormous population and the magnitude
of each class of the interests affected. In Liverpool a
distinguished merchant or shipowner was known throughout
the whole community. In London such a man was often
neither a member of the London County Council nor of
the Corporation, and in the vast aggregate of individuals
gathered there, his capacity was known only among a section
and he might therefore be unwilling to submit himself
to election. If the obstacle of election be removed, the
interests of the commercial world would, they thought,
be sufficient to secure the co-operation of men of high
business capacity in the service of this most difficult work
of administration. The elected members should, in the
opinion of the Commission, be elected by different groups
of traders interested in the Port acting as separate con-
stituencies, so that no important interest would run the
risk of being altogether excluded from representation.
Having these views in mind, the suggested constitution
put forward by the Commissioners on the assumption
that the Corporation and County Council would accept

ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT 315

the financial responsibilities indicated was as follows : —
The nominated members to be appointed by the

London County Council .. .. .. n

City Corporation 3

Admiralty
Board of Trade

Trinity House . . . . . .

Kent County Council . .

Essex County Council
London Chamber of Commerce
Bank of England, from among persons belonging to
the mercantile community

The elected members to be elected by

Ocean Trading Shipowners . . . . . . . 5

Short Sea Trading Shipowners

Wharfingers

Owners of lighters and river craft, including pas

senger steamers . . . .
Railway Companies

2

3

2
2

The Commissioners said it was obvious that the figures
would have to be altered materially if the two municipal
authorities should abstain from accepting the responsibility
of the suggested contribution and guarantee. As a rule the
members of the Trust should be unpaid, but it might,
perhaps, be desirable to pay a small salary to the members
nominated by the Government, and possibly it might be
advantageous to attach a more considerable authority to
the posts of chairman and vice-chairman. The Authority
would naturally appoint standing committees for the
transaction of various departments of its business, but the
Commissioners thought that provision should be made in
the constituting Act for a statutory committee for the
management of the docks and works of dock improvement,
such committee to have power to co-opt a limited number
of expert persons from the outside.

The constitution of the new Authority would render it
necessary to reconstitute the Thames Conservancy as a
body for the control of the river above Teddington, but the
Commissioners did not consider it within the scope of their

THE PORT OF LONDON

reference to suggest the composition of the new body. In
view however, of the importance to the channels of the lower
river to maintain a sufficient flow of water over Teddington
weir, they considered that the Port Authority should have
the right of nominating one or two members of the new
Conservancy Board.

With regard to the Custom House arrangements, the
Commissioners did not feel that the evidence before them
was sufficient to enable them to offer usefully an opinion
upon the matter, and they left it to the Treasury to deal
with the complaints which had been mentioned.

The concluding paragraph of the report is quoted : —

In conclusion, we desire to say that our inquiry into the condi-
tions of the Port of London has convinced us of its splendid natural
advantages. Amongst these are the geographical position of the
Port ; the magnitude, wealth, and energy of the population behind
it ; the fine approach from the sea ; the river tides strong enough to
transport traffic easily to all parts, yet not so violent as to make
navigation difficult ; land along the shores of a character suitable
for dock construction and all commercial purposes. In addition to
these advantages, London possesses docks which, though they are
not in some cases upon the level of modern requirements, are
yet capacious and capable of further development. The deficiencies
of London as a port, to which our attention has been called, are not
due to any physical circumstances, but to causes which may
easily be removed by a better organization of administrative and
financial powers. The great increase in the size and draught of
ocean-going ships has made extensive works necessary both in the
river and in the docks, but the dispersion of powers among several
authorities and companies has prevented any systematic execution
of adequate improvements. Hence the Port has for a time failed
to keep pace with the developments of modern population and
commerce, and has shown signs of losing that position relatively
to other ports, British and foreign, which it has held for so long.
The shortcomings of the past cannot be remedied without con-
siderable outlay. We are, however, convinced that if in this great
national concern, energy and courage be shown there is no reason
to fear that the welfare of the Port of London will be permanently
impaired.

CUNARD SS. " CARONIA " ENTERING THE LOCK AT TILBURY DOCK

P. 316

CHAPTER XXIX

London Sf India Docks Company

THE amalgamation of the London and St. Katharine
and East and West India Docks Company had been
facilitated by the scheme of arrangement with its creditors,
which the latter company had succeeded in obtaining in
the early part of 1898. The chief feature of this scheme was
that the proportion of borrowed capital to share capital
had been brought down to a level more in accordance
with the rule of financial prudence. In merging the capitals
of the two companies it was therefore found possible to
amalgamate the greater part of the debenture debt of the
India Company with that of the London Company, but
most of the stock was obviously not so well secured, and
a portion of it had, therefore, to be dealt with by an unusual
arrangement. The new securities created by the Amalgama-
tion Act were as follows : —

"A" 3 per cent. Debenture Stock
"B" 3 per cent. Debenture Stock
"C" 3 per cent. Debenture Stock
"A" 4 per cent. Preference Stock
"B" 4 per cent. Preference Stock
4 per cent. Preferred Ordinary Stock
Deferred Ordinary Stock

The priority of the stocks was to be in the order shown
above, with the exception that the " C " Debenture Stock
was subject to a condition to be mentioned hereafter.

The "B" preference stock and the preferred ordinary
stocks were to be entitled to participate equally with the
deferred stock in any dividends paid after the deferred
stock had received 4 per cent.

The London Company's 4 per cent, debenture stock
holders were to receive 01 per cent, of their holdings in
"A" debenture stock, and 72$ per cent, in "B" debenture
stock.

The London Company's 4^ per cent, preferential stock
holders were to receive £,112 IDS. of "A" preference stock.

The London Company's proprietors were to receive
25 per cent, of their holdings in "B" preference stock,

v/

318 THE PORT OF LONDON

3 3 per cent, in preferred ordinary stock, and 42 per cent, in
deferred ordinary stock.

The India Company's prior lien debenture holders were
to receive an equal amount of "A" debenture stock.

The India Company's consolidated debenture stock
holders were to receive 36$ of "B" debenture stock and 63^
of "C" debenture stock. The special character of the "C"
debenture stock was that though as regards capital priority
it ranked after the "B" debenture stock, the interest ranked
with the dividends payable on the "A" and "B" preference
stocks, and if there was a deficiency it was carried forward
as a debt to be paid off when the income allowed it. It will
be seen that for all practical purposes the "C" debenture
stock was a cumulative preference stock.

The India Company's preference stock holders were to
receive an equal amount of preferred ordinary stock.

The ordinary stock holders of the India Company were
to receive an equal amount of deferred ordinary stock.

The above arrangements were complicated, but there
was a desire that the position of each class of holders in
the old companies should be mathematically reproduced
in the new company, and the creation of these stocks with
their special privileges and restrictions carried out this
intention. As matters turned out the restrictions were never
exercised and the privileges were never enjoyed.

The unexercised powers of the old companies for
borrowing or for raising fresh capital were carried forward
for the benefit of the new company, and they were to be
available for repaying the terminable mortgage debts of the
two companies. Additional powers to borrow ^450,000
working capital in place of the £300,000 working capital
of the Joint Committee were conferred on the Company.

The number of directors was fixed at not less than seven-
teen or more than twenty-seven. The new board was to
consist of the members of the Joint Committee on the
ist January, 1901, the date upon which the amalgamation
commenced, but at the summer half-yearly meeting of
1902 the whole of the board was to retire and a fresh one
to be elected. When this took place the number of the
board was fixed at twenty-one, two of the outside members
from each board being added to the seventeen Joint Com-
mittee members to make up the number.

LONDON AND INDIA DOCKS 319

The rest of the Amalgamation Act was mere machinery.
All the old administrative powers of the two companies,
varying at each dock, were carried over to the new company.
Had the Royal Commission not been sitting at the time,
the occasion would have been taken to consolidate those
powers either in the Amalgamation Act or by a Bill in the
session of 1902, but it was obviously waste of time to make
the attempt when all the circumstances pointed to impending
constitutional changes throughout the Port.

After the amalgamation had been completed, the capital
of the Company was ascertained to be as follows : —
"A" Debenture Stock £2,550,291

"B" Debenture Stock
"C" Debenture Stock
"A" Preference Stock
"B" Preference Stock
Preferred Ordinary Stock
Deferred Ordinary Stock
Mortgages

3.259,254
1,843,266

1,937.070

M38.723

2,866,548

4,802,855

395.075

£19,093,082

The unexercised capital powers on the 3oth June,
1901, were £299,963 by ordinary or preference stocks, and
£811,534 l°an capital.
The first directors of the Company were : —

CHARLES JAMES CATER SCOTT, Chairman

THE HON. SYDNEY HOLLAND, Deputy Chairman

SYDNEY EGGERS BATES

EDWARD BOYLE, K.C.

SIR GEORGE HENRY CHAMBERS

THOMAS Du BUISSON

COLONEL JOHN LOWTHER DU PLAT TAYLOR, C.B.

JOHN JAMES HAMILTON

RODOLPH ALEXANDER HANKEY

WILLIAM EGERTON HUBBARD

WILLIAM LE LACHBUR

SIR HENRY DENIS LB MARCHANT, Bart.

SIR NEVILE LUBBOCK, K.C.M.G.

COLONEL BEN HAY MARTINDALB, C.B.

EDWARD SAMUEL NORMS

FRED POOK

MARLBOROUGH ROBERT PRYOR

ROBERT BRUCE RONALD

SETH TAYLOR

JOHN HENRY TOD

EDWARD WAGG

320 THE PORT OF LONDON

Mr. H. W. Williams, the manager of the Joint Committee,
and Mr. Henry Morgan, who had been its secretary,
retired on the inauguration of the amalgamated Company.
Mr. Thomas Hardy and Mr. Francis Greenway were
appointed joint managers, and Mr. J. G. Broodbank, the
secretary of the Company.

With the disappearance of the Joint Committee all the
causes which led to friction were removed. The union
became a complete one, the method of division of profits
no longer tended to make one section of the board reaction-
ary and the other anxious for experiments, yet it placed
everyone in no worse position than they had been when the
companies were separate. The great guarantee for un-
divided management was the fact that both boards were now
responsible to the same body of proprietors.

The effect of the new state of affairs was at once made
evident by two important steps taken by the board. The
first was the application to Parliament for powers to build
a new dock to the south of the Royal Albert Dock. The
shipowners whose vessels were accustomed to use the Royal
Albert Dock had been pressing for a long time for a new
dock in this neighbourhood. The vessels which could be
accommodated at the Royal Albert Dock were limited to
500 feet in length, and no vessel over 12,000 tons could use
the dock. The directors desired to accede to the request,
and accordingly promoted a Bill for the purpose. The
proposed dock was in its broad outline designed on the
plan subsequently adopted by the Port Authority in the
construction of their South Albert Dock. The second step
was to raise the dues on shipping by 50 per cent., the effect
of which was to increase the net income by about £100,000,
and thereby increasing the dividend on the deferred ordinary
stock by about 2 per cent. As stated in another place the
Royal Commission criticized the board for taking this
course while they were considering the question of the
Port. They no doubt suspected that it was done with a view
to enhancing the value of the undertaking in case it was
purchased, but the answer already given was that when they
were promoting the Bill for dues on barges, the board
definitely stated that if they failed to obtain the remedy they
sought they should have recourse to their unexercised powers
of charging dock dues, and that they saw no reason for

LONDON AND INDIA DOCKS 321

waiting during the indefinite time that might elapse before
any recommendation of the Committee might be carried
out. The additional income secured by this means not only
benefited the proprietors, but also re-established the financial
status of the whole of the dock stocks, and if the Company
had been called upon to make the new dock some such
improvement of the financial power of the Company would
have been absolutely necessary for raising the necessary
capital required.

All the operations of the London and India Docks
Company were, however, affected by the overshadowing
influence of the position created by the appointment of
the Royal Commission before the Company came into
existence. They were sterilized so far as administration
was concerned. Before the report of the Commission was
published, the Company had re-deposited the Bill in the
1902 session for charging dues on barges, in the hope that
if the Commission had reported in favour of the Company's
proposals in time for legislation during that session, the
Bill might become law. The report was made too late in
the session for any legislation, and as it did not support the
Company's plan, the Bill was withdrawn. After the report
was published, there was nothing to do but to wait for the
promised legislation on the lines of the Commission report,
and meanwhile to maintain and work the undertaking as
efficiently as possible to meet the current demands of traders.
The story of this legislation and the delays in accomplishing
it belong to another chapter.

CHAPTER XXX

The Port of London Act

MR. GERALD BALFOUR, the President of the Board
of Trade, with energy seldom exercised in trans-
lating the recommendations of Royal Commissions into
action, prepared a Bill for the establishment of a Port of
London Authority, and gave the necessary Parliamentary
notices in the November following the date of the report
of the Commission. In the King's speech on the opening of
Parliament in the 1903 session, the King was made to say,
"A Bill will be laid before you for improving the administra-
tion of the Port and Docks of London, the condition of
which is a matter of national concern." The Bill was read
a first time on the 6th April under the ten minutes rule.
On the second reading which took place on the i3th May
it was opposed by Sir F. Dixon Hartland, the chairman of
the Thames Conservancy. His grounds of opposition were
that all the benefits claimed for the proposed legislation
could be obtained without it, that the purchase of the docks
was undesirable in view of the superior advantages of jetties
in the river for the accommodation of shipping, and that
the pledging of the municipal rates in lieu of interest on
the purchase money for the dock undertakings was highly
objectionable. The only support given to the motion for
rejection was from Mr. D. J. Morgan. Though he was the
chairman of the Surrey Dock Company he was not speaking
as the representative of the dock companies, but rather as a
trader largely interested in timber importations, and he
deprecated the formation of a gigantic municipal trust as
another step towards the realization of communistic and
socialistic ideas and inimical to private enterprise and traders
generally. The general feeling of the House was in favour
of allowing second reading. Mr. Gerald Balfour had no
difficulty in securing the withdrawal of the motion for
rejection, and the Bill was read a second time. It was then
committed to a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons,
with the understanding that in agreeing to the second reading
the House would be endorsing the policy of the purchase

THE PORT OF LONDON ACT 323

of the dock undertakings. The Committee consisted of
Viscount Cross (chairman), Lord Hawkesbury, Lord
Wolverton, Lord Ludlow, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Lawrence
Hardy, Mr. Mellor, Mr. Russell Rea and Sir C. Renshaw.
Viscount Cross devoted himself with extraordinary energy
for a man of his great age to getting the Bill through his
Committee. A current review of the proceedings in the
Times remarked that the criticism was sometimes made
of the Parliamentary tribunal that the Bar is too strong for
the Bench, but that to have seen Lord Cross's handling
of perhaps the strongest Bar that had ever assembled in
one committee room in recent years was to witness the
triumphant refutation of the criticism. But the triumph
was gained at the price of losing the Bill for want of thorough
consideration. The Committee finished its work on the
1 3th July, and reported the Bill to the House. No purpose
would be served by describing the details of the discussion in
Committee. In its main principles the Bill carried out the re-
commendations of the Committee but for historical purposes
it may be useful to set out the effect of the Bill as it left the
Committee so far as it varied those recommendations. The
constitution of the new authority was to be as follows : —

Appointed by London County Council
Corporation
Admiralty
Board of Trade . .
Trinity House
Railway Companies

Elected by payers of dues on ships
to docks
to river

by Traders

Waterside Manufacturers

Wharfingers

Owners of River Craft

40

The municipal representation was to be doubled if the
London County Council were called upon to honour their
guarantee of interest on the new port stock. In the first
draft of the Bill the debenture stock holders were to
be paid off at an indefinite date on terms to be settled by
an arbitration tribunal, but the Committee unanimously

9

i

i

i

i

I

tradin

g

7

I

2

4

2

324 THE PORT OF LONDON

refused to countenance the suggestion of calling the
arbitrators to value perfectly solvent concerns, and de-
cided that debenture holders should have sufficient port
stock given to them to produce the existing income and
not be paid off for sixty years.

The Bill had been forced through the Committee against
time, and there was a general feeling that the scheme was
immature and had not had a fair hearing. Opposition was
threatened in the House, chiefly inspired by the city
merchants and the wharfingers, and also founded on the
reluctance of the business community to let the fortunes of
the Port be liable to the contingency of being subsidized
by the County Council. The House of Commons where at
this time there was a Unionist majority was peculiarly
averse to the County Council and all its works, and no one
was surprised to find that a Bill which had in February-
been declared to be a matter of national concern was in
August shelved till the following session, because no one
would demand the extension of the Parliamentary session
for a single day to give the Bill the necessary facilities.
Thus a measure which had been introduced into Parliament
almost without argument and without controversy was
postponed without a protest either by the Press or even by
the interests which had clamoured for reform.

What were the causes of this change of attitude ? Sir
Henry Le Marchant, writing in the National Review, and
reviewing the position which had been created at the end
of 1903, probably represented a large volume of the opinion
which had been aroused in the course of the discussions
when the practical attempt to deal with the complicated
problems was submitted for public consideration. On the
vital question of the management by the proposed body,
Sir Henry contended that to whatever goal tne proposed
constitution tended that goal was not efficiency. The ship-
owners, he urged, would apply their efforts to get the best
accommodation for the lowest charges. The aim of traders
would be the same. The four wharfingers would wish to
keep rates high and would be scarcely intent on developing
the facilities for warehousing business at the docks. The
railway companies, having ports of their own, had interests
which seriously clashed with the docks as had been proved
in recent legislation. The members of the County Council

THE PORT OF LONDON ACT 325

were to be appointed to protect the ratepayers, but there
was a danger, judging from experience, that their chief
care would not be the Port, but the working classes employed
in it. In providing for the doubling of the representation
of the London County Council if the rates were called in
aid for three consecutive years the Bill was offering a bait
to the County Council to provoke the new authority
into not being self supporting. The idea at the bottom of
this was the " balance of power " : by which one selfish
interest is introduced to check other selfish interests.
Sir Henry submitted that the system of setting up a body
composed of persons who were to take care that one section
did not get the better of another might be an excellent one for
preventing fraud or jobbery, but was bound to have only
a negative result in carrying on a commercial undertaking.
It could have no positive effect in the region of efficiency ;
there would be plenty of obstruction but little progress.
He pointed out that there was no important port in the
kingdom where the controlling body was composed of so
many and conflicting elements. In such circumstances
Sir Henry called attention to the method of dealing with
the imaginary grievance of fifty authorities in the Port.
Nominally a single authority was constituted, but in reality
it would consist of representatives of twelve differing author-
ities, and such a house would be divided against itself.

Another weakness of the Bill resulted from one provision
which was intended to be a proper safeguard, viz., that until
the terms of the purchase of the docks were settled dock
directors were excluded from membership of the new
Authority. The existing directors had no grievance or com-
plaint at not being included in the new Authority. It was only
the question of efficiency of management which was
involved. The first two or three years of the existence of
the new Authority would be its most critical stage, and yet
the paramount condition essential for appointment to a seat
on the Authority was the want of all experience of the work.
In other words, all of its members were not only to be
persons who may be but were required to be ignorant of
the special duties they had to discharge. There was no
precedent for such a "qualification of ignorance" in any
other case of transfer of Port undertakings to public bodies.

The clauses which were intended for the satisfaction of

326 THE PORT OF LONDON

the wharfingers were agreeable to no one. Their case created
the chief problem of the situation. To raise easily the huge
capital acquired for purchase and new works some better
security than the income of the Port was imperative, and the
only alternative resources were the guarantee of the nation
and the metropolis. But this brought into the Port a more
dangerous competitor for the wharfingers than ever sub-
sidized dock companies would have been. To pacify the
wharfingers the Parliamentary Committee had given them
four representatives on the new Authority, and they had
specified that at least one-third of the warehousing Com-
mittee of the new Authority should be wharfingers. A
clause had been introduced which prevented the Authority
in fixing its rates on goods to have any regard to the ships
from which they might be discharged. This would have
meant the loss of one-third of the warehousing business of
the docks. A further clause tended to increase the rateable
value of the dock warehouses, and so would have compelled
the new Authority to charge higher rates on goods. These
conditions threatened to hamper the free working of the
Port, and yet did not satisfy the wharfingers, whose case
was skilfully worked, securing them many friends, not the
least useful being the Corporation of London who, besides
having the natural antipathy of an ancient body for an
upstart rival like the London County Council, were the
owners of extensive riverside property, whose value was
likely to be threatened by the projected legislation. During
the autumn of 1903 the interest of the public, both com-
mercial and general, cooled, especially when it began to be
realized that the inevitable end of events would be that the
Port of London would become a department of the London
County Council. The proposal of the Premier to carry over
the Bill to the session of 1904 which had been adopted by
the House of Commons without discussion, left the elabor-
ate scheme of reform in suspense for twelve months, but
the Bill made no progress in the session of 1904, and was
dropped at the end of that session.

There were many in the Port who had a deep interest in
its welfare and who desired to have an equitable settlement,
and they were disappointed and dismayed at the abandon-
ment by the Government of the attempt to settle the ques-
tion. To them it seemed an act of absolute levity to have

THE EMBARKATION OF GEORGE IV. FOR SCOTLAND.

AT GREENWICH, AUGUST 10, 1822.

THE PORT OF LONDON ACT 327

touched the question and then have shirked the settlement.
Four years had been wasted. It were better to have
left matters alone, because if the Government failed
every one else was bound to fail, too. Judging by after
event, it seems clear now that the Unionist Government
had been so disintergrated by the Chamberlain agitation
for tariff reform that it had not even the strength to handle
such a non-party subject as the Port of London. The
capacity of the Government to undertake the settlement of
any question got weaker and weaker as the year 1905 pro-
gressed, and with its fall at the end of that year any hope
of the early reconstitution and regeneration of the Port
was indefinitely postponed.

While this period of suspense lasted, various measures
all bearing on the great issue were promoted by the London
and India Docks Company, the Thames Conservancy, and
the London County Council, and by Mr. Arnold Hills, who
fathered the scheme known as the Thames Barrage.

Most of the measures were identified with the dock com-
panies. They had determined to give the Government no
rest, believing it to be the only policy ever likely to yield
tangible results. In the sessions of 1001 and 1902 they
re-introduced their Bills for charging dues on lighters and
the goods conveyed in them in the possibility that the Royal
Commission might report in favour of the Dock Company's
proposals, and withdrew the Bills when it was evident that
the report would not appear in time for legislation. A
separate Bill was promoted in the 1902 session which
became law, including useful provisions for regulating
" jhters at the entrances and for the better collection of such
as were incurred on lighters. In the session of 1903

the Government Bill held the field, and no attempt
made by any of the other interests. When at the end of the
1903 session the fate of the Government Bill seemed sealed,
in spite of the motion to carry it forward, the London and
India Docks Company promoted a Bill embodying their
own scheme. Mr. Sydney Holland, in commending it to
the support of the dock stockholders, pointed out that no
business could properly be carried on with a Bill for pur-
chase hanging over it, especially when a clause was in the
Bill declaring that any contract entered into pending its
sanction might be upset at the expense of the company.

328 THE PORT OF LONDON

The Bill was broadly on the lines of the proposals submitted
by Mr. Scott to the Royal Commission, but a bid was made
for the support of the shipowners by the reduction of the
maximum dues from is. 6d. to is. per ton, a gain to them
then representing £120,000 a year. The new income was
to be found by dues on goods, each dock company receiving
dues on the goods discharged in its own docks and the
Conservancy receiving them in respect of goods discharged
in the river. The Conservancy was to be strengthened by
the addition of seven shipowners or traders nominated by
the Board of Trade and was to use its new income for the
benefit of the river. The London and India Company were
to be put under obligation to spend £2,000,000 on their
new dock and other works, and to be subject to being
required by the Board of Trade to carry out such further
works as might be judged to be necessary for the traffic
of the Port. Their dividends were to be limited to 4 per
cent. The scheme was avowedly a crude one and it was put
forward only as a substitute in case the Government failed
to persevere with their own scheme, and also in order to
keep the whole question alive. It had the possibilities of
being a workable scheme, but it was handicapped by the
unpopularity of any scheme for keeping the Thames
Conservancy alive even as a reformed body, and also by
the national dislike of conferring new taxing powers upon
a commercial body. The Government could not carry their
own scheme, and they would have no other.

In the same session of 1904 the London and India Docks
Company endeavoured to persuade Parliament to deal with
a question which had arisen with the railway companies.
For many years the dock companies had provided railways
at their berths and sidings on the premises in order to
facilitate the shipment of goods direct from the provinces
to alongside vessels in the docks, and arrangements had
been in operation with the companies for handling the
traffic and for the through rates chargeable to the public
and the proportion payable to the dock companies. As time
went on the railways had developed the practice of bringing
such goods from the provinces to their waterside depots
on the Thames and thence conveying them by barge
alongside the vessels in the docks, thus avoiding all dock
charges and making a saving for themselves on the total

THE PORT OF LONDON ACT 329

cost of transit from the provincial factory to the vessel.
The adoption of the water route was unfair to the dock
companies as it rendered the expenditure on their railways
unproductive, and it was disadvantageous to the shipper
or consignee because it entailed delay in delivery and sub-
jected his goods to extra handling. The dock company were
advised that they were entitled to a share of the charges
for collection and delivery which were in effect carried out
on the dock premises by the dock staff, and the attempt
had been made in the Railway Commissioners' Court to
obtain a judgment to this effect, with the idea of appro-
priating a portion of their share of the through rate towards
a reduction of the dock charges. The Railway Commissioners
recognized the fairness of the contention, but were unable
to give the relief because the dock company were not a
railway company for the purposes of their application. The
Bill referred to had for its chief object the removal of this
legal disability. The House of Commons passed the Bill,
but in the House of Lords the point was taken that the
general law ought not be amended by a private Bill, and the
railway companies succeeded in getting the clauses thrown
out. A further attempt was made in the following session,
but the Bill was dropped by an agreement with the railway
companies under which consignees and shippers were to
have a voice in deciding whether they would have their
goods shipped or delivered by water. The agreement did
not, however, bring the advantages to the docks which
were hoped for.

The Thames Barrage Scheme was the subject of a Bill of
which notice was given at the end of 1904. It originated
with Mr. T. W. Barber, an engineer, and was en-
thusiastically taken up by Mr. Arnold Hills, then chairman
of the Thames Iron Works. It engaged the interested
attention and support of Lord Desborough, who had become
the chairman of the Thames Conservancy, but received
no official countenance from that body. The Bill proposed
that the river below Teddington should be placed under
the control of thirty-seven commissioners representing
various interests, with authority to make a dam across the
Thames at Gravesend. The plans provided for the dam being
penetrated by four locks of a size to take in the largest
class of shipping, and for the maintenance of a head of

330 THE PORT OF LONDON

water above the dam equal to that of high water at spring tides .
The chief object secured would be constant flotation of ves-
sels of deep draft without the necessity of dredging, enabling
owners of riverside property to build quays, and so practi-
cally to make the whole of the river between Gravesend and
London Bridge one huge dock, accessible at all times of the
tide. The commissioners were to raise £ c ,000,000 for building
the dam, and were to receive a toll of id. a ton from each
vessel locked in, and also to take rates on all goods enter-
ing the Port. The attractions of the scheme were obvious,
in fact too obvious to make the scheme a sound one.

The first comment of even an uninstructed student
was, "Why was it not thought of before ?" It had, of course,
often been thought of before. The canalization of rivers
was one of the oldest ideas and on the Thames itself there
was already a barrage at Richmond, whilst on the Severn
there is one at Gloucester which enables the branches of
the river there to be converted into docks. The only question
that arises is the selection of the proper point at which the
dam should be placed. Practical opinion in the Port was
against the scheme and expressed itself at a meeting called
at the Mansion House to bless the scheme, the opinion
offered by all the speakers not engaged in the promotion
was opposed to it. Amongst the objections to the
scheme was : — the outlay required for draining the many
thousands of low lying lands against the Thames ; the
pollution of the river above Gravesend by reason of depend-
ing entirely upon the very small fresh water current,
especially in summer ; the loss of motive power supplied
by the action of the tides ; the certainty of the river silting
up below the dam requiring enormous expense to maintain
the channel ; the uncertain effects on the approach channels
in the estuary by the interference with tidal action ; the
inadequacy of the locks to deal with the traffic of 1,000
vessels a day ; the confusion and delays in foggy weather ;
the obstruction from ice in severe winters ; and the im-
possibility of shipping navigating the river during the
construction of the barrage. And it was further pointed
out that the question of securing a deeper channel was a
much more urgent one at Leigh Middle below Gravesend
than it was above that town. The Bill was withdrawn and
the scheme has not re-appeared since.

J
o
o

I
a

P-33I

THE PORT OF LONDON ACT 331

The London County Council 'and the Conservancy
made their contribution to the settlement in the session of
1905. The Conservancy, under the chairmanship of Lord
Desborough, felt they might make a fresh start. Having
been censured for slackness and an inadequate conception
of their duty they applied to Parliament for powers to erect
or subsidize the erection of public quays and jetties in the
river and subject to the Board of Trade sanction, to take
lands for this purpose, also to make agreements with the
dock companies for the improvements of the docks. Port
dues on goods imported or exported were to be authorized,
and the Conservators were to be empowered to levy rates
for the use of the quays and jetties. The Port tonnage dues
on shipping of £d. and fd. per ton inwards and outwards
were to be doubled, and in order to carry out the programme
of quays and jetties, and also of deepening the river, power
to borrow £3,000,000 was to be given to the Conservators.
To placate traders for the increase of the charges on trade,
it was proposed to add more shipowners to the Conservancy
with representatives of traders, wharfingers and waterside
manufacturers, raising the total number of the Conservators
to forty-seven. The scheme was eventually reduced to the
simple one of increasing the Port tonnage dues on shipping
and Parliament realizing that whatever future form of
Government of the Port might be decided upon would not
be compromised by an assent to this application, gave the
modified powers sought for, and the Conservancy proceeded
with vigour to endeavour to re-establish their reputation by
the active prosecution of their deepening programme,
including the purchase of new bucket dredgers, and a
specially designed suction dredger named after the chair-
man, for the removal of the shoals at Leigh Middle.

It need not be said that the London County Council
scheme was a thoroughly drastic measure. It was founded
on the abortive Government Bill. Hostile critics called it
an illegitimate brother of that Bill. One point upon which it
differed from the Government measure was in its rejection
of the plan to reinforce the existing incomes of the river
and docks by levying dues on goods, but merely to rely
on the sources then available, supported by the rates of the
metropolis. Unless the docks were going to be bought up at
a break up price, the new Authority would have been

332 THE PORT OF LONDON

insolvent from the day it was established, and there was
no hesitation expressed that this was the intention of the
framers of the Bill. The Royal Commission had endeavoured
to save the new Authority from London County Council
control, though, as has been shown, the reliance upon a
subvention from the rates would have inevitably brought
it about, but now the London County Council boldly
claimed twenty-four members out of forty. This would have
given them not only the control of the labour in the docks
employed by themselves, but whatever wages they paid
would form the standard of payment of labour throughout
the Port, and by this means throughout the metropolis.
The Council's dislike of having business matters managed
by business men is evident by the allocation of only ten
places out of the forty to shipowners and two to traders.
The justice to be dealt out to the dock stock holders
was of the flimsiest. Every one's interest, even debenture
holders, was to be extinguished and in arbitration in
which three unknown arbitrators were to give awards of
port stock of an unknown character, no individual holder
was to be allowed to appear before the arbitrators, and
the company's expenses at the arbitration were to be
borne by themselves. No security was given that while
the arbitration was pending, interest on debenture stocks
would be paid. There was never any prospect of such
a scheme being acceptable as a settlement of the ques-
tion, but the Council took it to the House for second
reading on the i3th April, 1905. Mr. Bonar Law, then
Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, said the
subject was too large to be dealt with by private Bill, and
that though the Bill was claimed to be modelled on the
Government Bill of 1903, it was only so in form and in
principle it was diametrically opposed to that measure in
not giving the control of the Port to those who paid for its
upkeep. He considered business men the best class to
manage the Port, as in Liverpool, and Glasgow, and not
men who might be elected by ratepayers on quite other
grounds than those connected with the Port. The Bill
was supported by the Liberal opposition, and on a practically
Party vote was rejected by 191 votes to 123.

During 1905 and 1906 there was much discussion in the
public journals on the subject of the relative advantages of

THE PORT OF LONDON ACT 333

docks and riverside quays, and Parliament was urged to
approve of the principle of riverside schemes as offering
the best solution of the problem. Some of the discussion
was due to the activity of the promoters of schemes for
riverside accommodation for large vessels. On the other
hand, the idea appeared to many commercial authorities as
one to employ in preference to the acquisition or extension
of the docks. Antwerp, Rotterdam, Hamburg, the Tyne
and Glasgow were cited as examples to follow in this respect,
and in the summer of 1906, Mr. Lloyd George, as President
of the Board of Trade, visited some of the Continental
ports in order to study the subject. His conclusions were
never made public, but his eventual inclusion of the docks
in his own scheme for the Port may be taken to indicate
that he had found that river jetties or quays were not the
infallible panacea they were held to be in some quarters.
There was much confusion of mind in the advocates of this
form of accommodation. The ports mentioned above were
referred to indiscriminately as furnishing instances which
should be imitated on the Thames, but the accommodation
is not the same at all of these ports. At Hamburg, Rotterdam
and Glasgow the greater and all the more modern part of
the accommodation is not in the river at all. Quays are
formed round great basins which have been excavated out
of the land. They are in fact docks, the only difference
between such accommodation and the docks of London
being that owing to the rise and fall of the tide being small
no lock gates are required. At Antwerp, on the other hand,
the banks of the river have been quayed, and large vessels
are able to come up straight from the sea and remain afloat,
but it is often ignored that at Antwerp there are docks with
lock gates, and that the latest and best accommodation is
in the form of docks. No one claiming to speak with authority
has ever yet propounded any scheme for cutting tidal docks
into the Thames, and the quays at Antwerp are usually the
model selected. The idea of riverside quays is often referred
to as if it were a new one for London. The readers of earlier
pages will recall the fact that quays and open docks on the
riverside for the discharge of vessels existed in the Port of
London for some hundreds of years. It was closed dock
accommodation which was the modern idea. Dealing
broadly with the subject as it affects the Thames, it may

334 THE PORT OF LONDON

be said that riverside quays are suitable and perhaps
preferable for the discharge of cargoes which are carried in
bulk, such as coal and oil. In the sheltered upper reaches
they also meet the requirements of small vessels discharging
the whole or the greater part of their cargo direct on to the
shore. But they are unsuitable for fully laden ocean going
vessels with mixed cargoes such as come from the
Colonies, America and the East, especially when, as is
generally the case, the cargoes are taken away by barge
to consignees and are not warehoused at the point of
discharge. They are also unsuitable for large vessels loading
mixed cargoes. The reason for this conclusion is that under
the conditions of delivery it is not only inconvenient but
expensive to carry on the discharge and loading of a large
vessel in the fast running stream, with its tidal rise and fall
of seventeen to twenty-two feet twice every twenty-four
hours, and its crowded shipping and barge traffic. Often
there are a hundred barges in attendance on one vessel. In
dock waters these barges remain waiting comfortably,
and can with perfect ease be brought to the vessel or to the
quay to take delivery as they are wanted. But let such a
fleet of barges be in attendance for the same operation in
the Thames, and it requires little imagination to foresee the
trouble there would be in manoeuvring them. The risk to
the vessel and the goods during the course of delivery or
loading is obviously greater at a riverside quay than in the
docks. A most important question which arises in connexion
with the provision of riverside quays is that of cost. It is
usually taken for granted that they are cheaper than dock
quays. This is quite illusory. Quays in the river must be
substantial, inasmuch as they have to carry cranes, railways
and sheds capable of carrying thousands of tons of cargo.
They have also to stand the pressure of heavy steamers
subject to constant movement in a busy river. Moreover,
owing to the varying tide level there is an amount of lateral
pressure behind the walls which they must be designed to
resist. It is true that some of the matters have to be pro-
vided for in dock systems and that in addition, costly outlay
is required for the lock. But against the cost of the lock there
is an enormous set off in the case of river quays, viz., that
the variation in the tide necessitates that the floor of the
quay shall be many feet higher above the river bottom than

THE PORT OF LONDON ACT 335

the floor of the dock quay is above the dock bottom. Thus,
to give a constant depth of twenty-nine feet six inches, as at
the Royal Albert Dock, the floor of the dock quays is thirty-
two feet above the dock bottom. In the river, the floor of a
similar quay would have to be fifty-five feet to allow of the
variation of tide and a margin for excessively high tides.
This question of cost is not mere theory. At Antwerp the
cost per foot for river quay walls was £83, whilst
at the Royal Albert Dock in London the quay wall cost
was only £23 per foot. Though nothing could be more
misleading than to cite the example of other ports without
taking into account their varying geographical and com-
mercial conditions, it is instructive to note that the determin-
ing factor in the question is invariably the tidal one. At
Liverpool, Bristol, Hull and Leith, where the tidal conditions
are more or less similar to those in London, the port
accommodation is in the nature of docks. On the Tyne
there are many jetties and quays but they are all used as
in London for coal and very small steamers, whilst ordinary
sized general cargo boats are dealt with in the docks. At
New York the tidal variation is only six feet and there are
river jetties. At Hamburg the variation is eight feet and at
Rotterdam seven feet, and at both these Continental ports
open excavated basins are cut out of the marsh lands
adjoining the river. At Havre and Calais, which have wider
fluctuations, there are fine systems of docks. At Antwerp
which has already been referred to, the variation is fourteen
feet, and both dock and river berths are provided. One
concluding consideration, and not the least important, has
to be borne in mind. The Royal Commission expressed
the opinion that London suffered as a port from the dis-
persion of its accommodation over a lengthened river front
and wide area, compelling traders to rely chiefly on the
method of barge transit which, though far cheaper than
road transit is much slower, and is largely responsible for
the reputation of London being a slow port. The advantage
of the quays of Liverpool, Hamburg, Antwerp, and Rotter-
dam all being situated within a radius of three or four
miles of the centre of their city commercial communities
is indisputable as affecting economical distribution and
especially in the handling of transhipment goods. It is now
too late to reconstruct the port, but it behoves every one

336 THE PORT OF LONDON

reponsible to take care that all future extensions should not
aggravate the present position, but should be planned in
the direction of the concentration of port accommodation.
Any scheme for lines of quays stretching down each side
of the Thames is to be deprecated on this ground alone.

The close of the year 1905 found the port question still
open. An attempt was then made to bring about a useful
consolidation of the London and India and Millwall
Companies, and the terms arranged between the two
companies were embodied in a Bill deposited in Parliament.
The Board of Trade would only allow the Bill to go forward
on condition that a sterilization clause was inserted to the
effect that in the event of the docks being acquired by any
public body there should be no right of compensation for
any benefits that might accrue from the amalgamation.
The dangers of accepting such a clause were so obvious
that both companies preferred to drop the Bill, and this
decision was also partly due to the promise given to the
companies that the new Government would legislate during
1907 session. No sign, however, was given in the autumn
of 1906 of any intention to fulfil this promise, and in order
to keep the question alive the London and India Docks,
in November of that year, gave the requisite notices for
another Bill which revived their own proposals in a modified
form. The chief modifications were that a share of the dues
on goods using the Port was to be distributed amongst the
companies on a scale laid down, and that no dock dues
were to be charged on barges, but they were to pay a small
charge in consideration of services rendered at the locks.
No Government measure appeared during the 1907 session,
and the dock company's Bill shared the usual fate of with-
drawal, but it had the effect of obtaining a solemn under-
taking upon the part of the Government to legislate during
the session of 1908. Though this was duly honoured by
the formal notices being issued in November, 1907, the dock
company deemed it wise to anticipate a second failure
of the Government by re-depositing their own Bill, but
informing the Government that this was no obstructive
policy, but only a pressing desire on the part of the com-
panies to achieve a settlement.

Mr. Lloyd George had been appointed President of the
Board of Trade in the new Government when it came into

TILBURY FORT : WIND AGAINST TIDE
By Clarkson Stanfield

P- 336

THE PORT OF LONDON ACT 337

power in December, 1905, and was still in that office at the
end of 1907. He had signalized his occupancy of the position
by bringing about a settlement of the railway dispute in
the previous year, and the ability and adroitness which he
had shown on that occasion encouraged some hope that he
would be able to settle the Port of London question. Though
the old points of difficulty remained, he had the advantage
of appearing on the scene with no prejudices in his own
mind and with the feeling predominant in the minds of all
the parties who had been in the struggle that the question
must be disposed of once and for all, unless the Port was
to go under altogether. It was generally recognized that out-
standing above all the other points of difficulty were two : —

1. If the Dock Companies were bought out compulsorily they
were entitled to have cash or some indubitable security equivalent
to cash. To raise £30,000,000 of cash by pledging the trade of the
Port was impossible and the only practical scheme of finance
appeared to be the hypothecation of the Metropolitan rates.

2. If the Metropolitan guarantee were resorted to the position
of the wharfingers would be rendered intolerable.

Mr. Lloyd George's task was to reconcile these con-
flicting alternatives. In the notice for the Bill he proposed
to take power for every conceivable scheme of Port Authority
except that of being dependent upon the metropolitan
guarantee. One alternative contemplated by him was that
the new Authority should not buy the existing docks, but
only build new ones, leaving the old companies to work
out their own salvation. If this alternative was inserted with
the design of bringing pressure to bear upon the companies
to come to an agreement with him as to price and to accept
port stock in payment, it may be said now that the threat had
no effect in influencing the minds of the dock boards. The
companies had all the best sites in their own possession,
they had the experienced managers and they had the up
town warehouse properties so necessary for the efficient
working of the docks. A competition with any new dock
erected by a Trust would soon have brought the Trust
into the position of the owners of the Tilbury Dock in 1888,
or else have made such a drain on the dues payable by
merchants that they would have insisted upon an arrange-
ment being come to for the stoppage of the competition.
But the dock companies had always been willing to discuss

338 THE PORT OF LONDON

the question of purchase by agreement, and even to take
port stock secured on the business of the Port with proper
safeguards, and when Mr. Lloyd George intimated to the
companies his desire to open negotiations they at once
responded and allowed Sir William Plender on behalf of
the Board of Trade to examine their books, and Mr. Crutwell,
an engineer, to survey their properties. When this had been
done the question of terms was opened with the London and
India Docks Company and the negotiation was settled
simply by a private intimation conveyed to Mr. Lloyd
George, of the irreducible minimum which the directors
were prepared to recommend their proprietors to take,
and by this prompt acquiescence in the terms suggested.
The negotiations with the Millwall and Surrey Companies
were not so easily disposed of. The Millwall Company was
earning no dividend on its ordinary stock and not likely to
do so for many years, but it naturally was not prepared to
part with a remote possibility for no consideration whatever.
The Surrey Company's future was also difficult to assess,
as the expenditure on their new deep water Greenland
Dock had not had time to bear full fruit. Both companies
were eventually satisfied, the Surrey Company on the
morning of the introduction of the Bill which took place
on the 2nd April, 1908.

By having persuaded the dock companies to accept port
stock not secured on the rates of the metropolis, Mr. Lloyd
George had disarmed the wharfingers, and though there
were still many fences to get over before the Bill was safe,
the bargain with the dock companies had removed the chief
obstacle to success.

On the 1 3th April the changes which took place following
upon the resignation of Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman
and the formation of a Ministry by Mr. Asquith, led to
Mr. Lloyd George quitting the Board of Trade for the
Treasury and being succeeded by Mr. Winston Churchill.
In Mr. Churchill's charge, the Bill was read a second time
on the 5th May without a division. It was referred to a
Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons. The chairman
was Mr. Russell Rea, who had been a member of Lord
Cross's committee, and his colleagues were Viscount
Milner, Lord Clinton, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, Lord
Leith of Fyvie, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, Mr. Ashley,

THE PORT OF LONDON ACT 339

Sir William Bull, Sir Albert Spicer, Bart., and Mr. William-
son. Lord Leith retired before the Committee had finished
the hearing of the case. The proceedings of the Committee
were mostly occupied by opponents of the Bill who en-
deavoured to kill it by evidence and argument directed to
showing that the price to be paid for the docks was excessive
on the ground that the condition of the dock premises
would necessitate enormous sums being spent on them by
the new Authority, or who desired to have as large a share
as was procurable in the managing body. After the Bill
had passed through the various stages it received a not too
warm welcome in the House of Lords. Lord Ritchie moved
its rejection, influenced by the opinion that the purchase
price of the docks was too high, and his motion was seconded
by Lord Leith of Fyvie, who had retired from the Joint
Committee because he disapproved of the terms of purchase.
Lord Avebury appeared to support the opposition of the
Corporation of London, the Short Sea Traders, the Water-
side Manufactures, and the Master Lightermen on the
ground of the Bill's interference with private enterprise.
The fears of the wharfingers had been assuaged by clauses
given by Mr. Lloyd George, and this fact removed the
principal difficulty in the way of the Bill proceeding. More-
over, though Mr. Bonar Law had objected to some of the
provisions when the Bill was in Committee of the whole
House, the official opposition was pledged to the main
principle of the Bill, and the various stages in the Lords
were therefore passed without serious trouble. The Royal
Assent was duly given on the 2ist December, 1908, and the
Bill became the Port of London Act, 1908."

The Act was such a far reaching measure and affords
the solution of so many of the vexed problems of ten years
that its provision must for the purposes of this record be
summarized : —

The Authority is established for the purpose of adminis-
tering, preserving and improving the Port of London. The
limits of the Port commence at Teddington and extend
down both sides of the Thames to an imaginary straight
line drawn from the pilot mark at the entrance of Havengore
Creek in Essex to the Lands End at Warden Point, in the
Isle of Sheppey in the County of Kent, and include all
islands, streams, creeks, channels, harbours, docks and

340 THE PORT OF LONDON

places within those limits, but do not include any part of
the river Medway, the river Swale, the river Lea, or the
Grand Junction Canal.

Eighteen of the members of the Authority are to be
elected members, of whom seventeen are to be elected by
payers of dues, wharfingers, and owners of river craft,
and one elected by the wharfingers. Ten members are to
be appointed members, as follows : —

Admiralty i

Board of Trade a

London County Council, being members of Council . . . . a
London County Council, not being members of Council . . . . a
Corporation of London, being member of Corporation . . . . I
Corporation of London, not being member of Corporation . . i

Trinity House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

10

One of the members representing the Board of Trade, and
one of the members representing the London County
Council, are to represent the interests of labour on the
Authority. The chairman and vice-chairman are appointed
by the Authority, but need not be members. The Authority
may pay salaries to the chairman and vice-chairman, and
chairmen of committees. The first elected members and
the chairman are to be appointed by the Board of Trade.
Members are exempted from service on juries.

The duty is placed upon the Authority to take into
consideration the state of the river and the accommodation
and facilities in the Port, and to take such steps as they
may consider necessary for its improvement. For this purpose
they are authorized to carry on the dock undertakings
transferred to them, to acquire and carry on any undertaking
affording accommodation for loading, unloading or ware-
housing of goods in the Port and to construct, equip and
manage docks, quays, wharves, jetties, railways, etc. As from
the appointed day (which was fixed for the 3ist March,
1909), the undertakings of the London and India, Surrey
Commercial and Millwall Companies with all their rights,
powers and obligations are transferred to the Authority on
the following terms : —

LONDON AND INDIA DOCKS COMPANY.

For /loo 3% "A" Debenture Stock . . . . £100 "A" Port Stock
For 2,100 3% "B" Debenture Stock . . . . 2IO° "A" do-

THE PORT OF LONDON ACT

For £100 3% "C" Debenture Stock
For 100 4% "A" Preference Stock
Tioo 4% "B" Preference Stock
Q Preferred Ordinary Stock
0 Deferred Ordinary Stock

£,100
£100
£100
£,100

LlS

•A" Port Stock

•A"
'B"
'B"
'B"

do.
do.
do.
do.

SURREY COMMERCIAL DOCK COMPANY.

For £100 4^% Debenture Stock
For £ loo "A" Preference Stock. .
For £100 5% "B" Preference Stock
For {,100 5% "C" Preference Stock
For £100 5% "D" Preference Stock
For £100 5% "E" Preference Stock
For £100 Ordinary Stock

£150 "A1

Port Stock

For {,100 5% Debenture Stock .
For £100 4% Debenture Stock .

For £100 5% Preference Stock . .
For £100 4J% Preference Stock
For £100 new 5% Preference Stock
For £100 Ordinary Stock

IDS. B* do.

£125 "B' do.

£125 "B' do.

£125 "B' do.

£125 "B' do.

£95 "B' do.

MILLWALL DOCK COMPANY.

133 6s. 8d. "A" Port Stock and

25 "B" Port Stock

100 "A" Stock and £25 "B"

Stock

. . £94 "B" Port Stock

.. £45 "B" do.

£24 ios. "B" do.

The total amount of port stock issued to the holders
of the dock securities was to be : —

•A" Stock
'B" Stock

£9,152,152
13,210,707

£22,362,859

Power is given to the Authority to acquire compulsorily,
land adjoining the river east of Barking for the purposes
of the Port, subject to the consent of the Board of Trade
after a public inquiry.

The rights, powers and duties of the Thames Conservancy
below Teddington are transferred to the Authority, together
with the lower navigation fund of the Conservancy, and all
their assets and liabilities. The Thames Conservancy is
reconstituted by the Act for the purpose of administering
the Act above Teddington, and the Authority are given one
representative on the new Conservancy.

The powers and duties of the Watermen's Company are
transferred to the Authority so far as they relate to the
registration and licensing of craft and boats, and the
licensing and government of lightermen. A power is

342 THE PORT OF LONDON

conferred upon the Authority to vary the qualifications to
be possessed by applicants for lightermen's and watermen's
licences, and also by provisional order to increase the
registration fees on barges.

Port rates on goods are authorized on all goods imported
or exported, subject to maxima to be fixed by a Provisional
Order to be made by the Board of Trade, with exemptions
in favour of transhipment goods. For the protection of
port stock holders it is stipulated that the rates to be specified
in the schedule should be such that in the opinion of the
Board of Trade, would enable the Authority to meet its
expenditure and provide a reasonable margin for con-
tingencies. If in each of two successive years the aggregate
amount of Port rates exceeds one-thousandth part of the
aggregate value of the goods imported from or exported to
parts beyond the seas in the year, or if the amount received
referable to goods discharged from or to be on board ships
outside the docks exceeds one three-thousandth part of the
aggregate value, the Authority are required to take steps
to prevent the continuance of the excess, including, if
necessary, an application to Parliament for further means
of meeting their obligations. The last of these two pro-
visions was agreed to for the purpose of preventing the
Authority from penalizing the classes of goods usually
dealt with in the river. Goods entering or leaving the
Medway are exempted from Port rates.

The powers of levying dues on vessels entering the
London and India Docks are made applicable to the whole
of the docks transferred to the Authority, thereby fixing
the maximum dues at is. 6d. per ton, with zd. per ton rent
from the date of entrance.

Preferential rates on goods and shipping are forbidden,
but differential rates are permitted when the circumstances
differ.

For the purpose of enabling the Authority to borrow
they are empowered to issue Port of London stock to be
called "Port Stock," consisting of "A" stock bearing interest
at 3 per cent., and "B" stock bearing interest at 4 per cent.,
and also other classes of stock ranking part passu with "B"
stock, and bearing interest at such rate as the Authority
may resolve. The total amount of port stock created is not
to exceed by more than £5,000,000 the amount of stock

THE PORT OF LONDON ACT 343

issued as the consideration for the transfer of the under-
takings of the dock companies. With certain exceptions,
port stock is to be redeemable within ninety years, and a
sinking fund is to be established within ten years for its
extinction. In the event of default in the payment of interest
holders of port stock of a value of £500,000 may apply for
the appointment of a receiver and manager of the Authority's
undertaking.

The Act prescribes the order in which the receipts on
revenue account shall be applied after payment of working
expenses, giving priority to the payment of interest on "A'
stock before all the other interest charges, and directs the
Authority to carry to a reserve fund such parts of the receipts
on revenue account as may be available until the fund
amounts to £1,000,000 and to restore the fund to that
amount if it should be subsequently reduced. The reserve
fund is primarily applicable to meeting deficiencies on
revenue account, but the Board of Trade may allow it to
be applied to other purposes if they consider it expedient
to do so.

The Authority are required to submit an annual estimate
of their receipts and expenditure to the Board of Trade who,
if satisfied that the expenditure may not be met by the
receipts have power to call upon the Authority to levy
increased or additional dues or charges. The Board of Trade
appoint an auditor to audit the annual accounts of the
Authority.

An important provision for the protection of traders and
wharfingers enacts that on complaint being made to the
Board of Trade that the Authority are acting oppressively
by reason of the mode in which they carry on their dock or
warehousing business, including the charges made in
respect of such business, the Board shall call upon the
Authority for an explanation and shall endeavour to settle
amicably the difference between the complainant and the
Authority, and submit to Parliament reports thereon. If
the complaint is made on behalf of a trade association and
the Board of Trade are unable to settle the difference they
may make such order as in their opinion the circumstances
require.

No attempt is made in the Act to unify the powers
of the dock companies, which in the course of a hundred

344 THE PORT OF LONDON

years have become various and complicated, but the
opportunity was taken to remove the disability from
which the dock companies had suffered by not possessing
the status of a railway company for the purposes of such
of the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts,
1854 to 1888 as relate to through rates. A new duty is cast
upon the Authority to take into consideration the existing
methods of engagement of workmen employed in the Port,
and to take such steps as they think best calculated to
diminish the evils of casual employment.

A large proportion of the Act relates to the machinery
connected with the triennial appointment and election
of members with the design of securing a fair allotment
of representation as between shipowners and traders.
Elaborate scales of voting are given in the schedules with
this object in view, and a proviso is added that if at any
time it appears to the Board of Trade that, as a result of the
qualifications and scales of votes fixed by the schedule,
the voting power of any class of voters is disproportionate
to their interest in the Port, the Board may by provisional
order, make such variations in the qualifications and scales
of voting, as may seem to them to be just. The Act lays down
the procedure at meetings of the Authority, authorizing
them to appoint committees and to delegate their powers
to them, but a reservation is made that they may not delegate
the power of raising money, of fixing rates or charges, or of
making applications to Parliament.

A series of provisions relates to the officers and servants
of the several undertakings transferred to the Authority.
The whole of the staffs concerned become members of the
staff of the Authority as from the appointed day on the
same terms and conditions as were applicable to them in
their previous employment. The Authority may abolish the
office of any existing officer or servant which they deem
unnecessary, and if any employee is required to perform
duties not analagous to his old duties he is entitled to
relinquish his service and be entitled to compensation.
Any employee whose services are dispensed with within
five years of the appointed day can claim compensation.

Transitory provisions provide for the maintenance of the
undertakings of the dock companies until the appointed
day, for the payment of dividends during the interregnum,

THE PORT OF LONDON ACT 345

for the dissolution of the dock companies, for the payment
of compensation in "A" port stock to the dock directors as
follows : — London and India Docks Company, £67,600 ;
Surrey Commerical Dock Company, £40,000 ; Millwall
Company, £20,000 ; for two at least of the members of the
Authority being persons of experience in dock management
until the first retirement of members ; and for the Board of
Trade to have power to remove any difficulty which may
arise with respect to the establishment of the Port Authority
or the holding of its first meeting. There are several saving
sections for the benefit of Government Departments and
others, including one entitling riparian authorities and
owners to compensation from the Authority for any damage
to their premises caused by dredging or deepening of the
river.

The Board of Trade appear through the Act as the con-
trolling Government Department. They are to be found in
thirty-four of the sixty-three sections of the Act. They ap-
point the first chairman and determine his salary and appoint
half of the first Board. No money can be raised without their
consent, or any stock issued. They fix the rates to be charged
and act as arbitrators in all disputes with traders, or on
questions of compensation to staff. Their sanction is required
for the acquisition of land. They are the channel by which
the Authority apply to Parliament for provisional orders.
At the beginning of the year they study what the Authority
is going to do, and at the year's end they review what has
been done. They can adjust the electorate to suit their own
ideas of what sort of an Authority is wanted. Having been
the parent of the Bill, the Act leaves them in the position of
critic, judge, and friend. With such a constitution the
word "authority" is a misnomer. In actual unfettered
power no authority in England can have less freedom and
more limitations, and yet liberty and elasticity are two of
the most important governing principles of commercial
success. Theoretically, therefore, the Port Authority is in
leading strings. But it is the distinguishing character of
British institutions that they flourish on anomalies, incon-
sistencies, and handicaps that would paralyse the enter-
prises of other nations, and so far, the inconveniences and
obstructions which the objectors foretold as inevitable have
remained as unfulfilled prophecies.

CHAPTER XXXI

The Port of London Authority
from its establishment till August, 1914

AS already stated, the first elected members of the
Authority were, owing to the absence of any elec-
torate, to be selected by the Board of Trade. The Board
consulted the various interests which they conceived should
be represented on the Authority before making their
nominations, and when the bodies entitled to appoint
members had made their selections the following gentlemen
formed the first Port of London Authority :—

APPOINTED MEMBERS.
By the Admiralty
By the Board of Trade . .

By the London County Council

(Members of Council) . .
By the London County Council

(Not Members of Council)
By the Corporation of London

(Member)
By the Corporation of London

(Non-member)
By the Trinity House

ADMIRAL MOSTYN FIELD
JOSEPH GUINNESS BROODBANX
HARRY GOSLING (Labour)
SIR JOHN MCDOUGALL
WILLIAM HENRY PANNBLL
JOHN DUTHIE
JAMES ANDERSON (Labour)
JAMES WILLIAM DOMONEY

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE
CAPTAIN HERBERT ACTON BLAKE

ELECTED MEMBERS.
ION HAMILTON BENN
CHARLES EDWARD BRIGHTMAN
CHARLES CHARLETON
SIR EDWIN ANDREW CORNWALL, M.P.
GEORGE THEODORE CROSFIELD
SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESS, M.P.
CHARLES FREDERICK LEACH
LIONEL ALFRED MARTIN
HENRY TAIT MOORE
OWEN COSBY PHILIPPS, M.P.
EDWARD GEORGE SALTMARSH
HUGH COLIN SMITH
CHARLES FRANKLIN TORREY
SIR MONTAGU CORNISH TURNER
FENWICK SHADFORTH WATTS
WILLIAM WEDDEL
RICHARD WHITE
WILLIAM VARCO WILLIAMS

The Rt. Hon. VISCOUNT DEVONPORT, P.C.

Chairman of the Port of London Authority.
From a photograph by Rlliott & Fry.

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY 347

The Board of Trade appointed Sir Hudson Kearley,
M.P. for Devonport and Parliamentary Secretary of the
Board of Trade, as the first chairman of the Port Authority.
Sir Hudson Kearley had, with Sir H. Llewellyn Smith, the
Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade, been asso-
ciated with Mr. Lloyd George in all the various stages of
the Bill, and had been primarily responsible for carrying it
through Parliament. Sir Hudson relinquished the salary of
£4,000 a year attached to the office of chairman of the
Authority.

Mr. Sydney Bates, one of the directors of the London and
India Docks Company, was added to the Authority as a
"person of experience in dock management" under the
section authorizing extra members with this qualification.

The total number of the Authority on its establishment
was therefore thirty. Of these, seven had been members
of the Thames Conservancy, viz. : —

SIR JOHN McDouGALL
W. H. PANNELL
C. E. BRIGHTMAN
SIR E. CORNWALL
R. WHITE
W. V. WILLIAMS
H. GOSLING

The Board of Trade appointed Sir William Plender, of
Messrs. Deloitte, Plender, Griffiths & Company, to be the
auditor of the accounts of the Authority, and has annually
renewed the appointment.

The first meeting of the Authority was summoned by the
Board of Trade to be held in the Board Room or the
London and India Docks Company, 109 Leadenhall Street,
on Tuesday, the i6th March, 1909. livery member was
present. At this meeting only formal business was transacted,
but the chairman took the opportunity of addressing the
members explaining the duties and responsibilities imposed
upon them by the Port of London Act.

The first work of the Authority was to take over the
various undertakings which it had been formed to admin-
ister, and to make the arrangements for carrying them on
after the amalgamation. A fortnight was far too short a
time to leave for such an operation, but directly after the
Act received the Royal Assent, on the 2ist December, 1908,

348

THE PORT OF LONDON

the officials of the Conservancy and dock companies had
begun to consider the provisional arrangements, and these
were in such an advanced state that the fusion was carried
out without hitch and without complaint from the public.
In satisfaction of the purchase price fixed by the Act the
Authority issued in substitution for existing stocks the
following amounts of port stock : —

London and India Company
Surrey Company
Millwall Company

3% Port Stock.

£7,978,876
522,000
651,276

£9,152,15*

Annual Interest.
£239,366
15,660

19,539

£274,365

"B" 4% Port Stock. Annual Interttt.

London and India Company £9,893,718 £395.749

Surrey Company . . . . 2,388,485 95.539

Millwall Company . . . . 928,504 37. '4°

£13,210,707
Total £22,362,859, with interest of £802,993.

£528,428

The new Port stock was officially quoted on the Stock
Exchange on the 25th June, 1909; its issue to the various
shareholders of the three dock undertakings was completed
in March, 1910, and the Board of Trade gave notice of the
dissolution of each company as from the 22nd March, 1910.

The Act required the Authority to extinguish one year
from the transfer, the £100,000 redeemable 'A" debenture
stock of the Thames Conservancy by issuing to the holders
of such stock an equal amount of "A" Port stock, and the
new stock was accordingly issued in March, 1910.

By the close of the first financial year the amount of capital
liabilities had been further increased by the following sums :

Compensation to Directors. (In Port Stock). .

Repayment of Mortgages of London and India Company

Stamp Duties

Winding-up Expenses of Companies. .

Repayment of Thames Conservancy Bank Loan

Expense of Transfer of Conservancy

Expenses of the Port of London Act

Capital Expenditure on Works of first year . .

£127,600

348,35<>

28,113

8,904

80,000

i8,544
21,193

633,69*

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY 349

Less Excess of Floating Assets over Floating Liabilities of

Dock Companies and Conservancy . . . . . . 68,385

Making the total capital expenditure to 3131 December, 1910,

£23,028,166

In taking over the Watermen's Company the Authority
exercised an option given to them of delegating its powers
to the Company, retaining for themselves the registration
and licensing of craft and boats.

At the second meeting of the Authority, Mr. Owen
Philipps was appointed vice-chairman of the Authority.
The Act authorized salaries being paid to the vice-chairman
and chairman of committees, but the Authority decided
that no salary should be paid to the vice-chairman or the
chairman of any committee other than the Dock and
Warehouse Committee.

The question of creating adequate machinery to cope
with the responsibilities immediately devolving upon the
Authority was at once considered, and the work of manage-
ment was allocated amongst the following committees : —

WORKS AND IMPROVEMENTS COMMITTEE

DOCK AND WAREHOUSE COMMITTEE

RIVER COMMITTEE

FINANCE COMMITTEE

STAFF AND STORES COMMITTEE

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

Later, the Works and Improvements Committee was dis-
solved, and the subject of stores was referred to a separate
committee. A General Purposes Committee was appointed
to deal with large works of improvements and broad
questions of policy affecting the undertaking as a whole.

The appointment of officials was for a time tentative.
Within the first two years the headquarters staff was com-
pleted, the principal officers being Mr. Robert Philipson
(who had been secretary of the Thames Conservancy),
general manager ; and Mr. Frederick Palmer, who had
been chief engineer to the Commissioners for the Port of
Calcutta, chief engineer. Other appointments were Mr. F.
Ayliffe, secretary ; Mr. C. R. Kirkpatrick, assistant chief
engineer, who succeeded Mr. Palmer on his resignation in
March, 1913 ; Mr. H. H. Watts, dock and warehouse

3So THE PORT OF LONDON

manager ; Mr. J. H. Estill, commercial superintendent ;
Mr. H. Norris, chief superintendent of the docks ; Mr. J.
H. Thomas, storekeeper ; Mr. H. E. Upton, comptroller ;
Mr. T. Hirst, statistical officer ; and Mr. W. H. Elwell,
land and estate manager.

Each of the transferred dock undertakings had had its
own police force, and these were amalgamated on the
inception of the Authority. The status of the police force
was, however, not of the highest class owing to the
straitened finances of the companies, and the Authority
aopointed Mr. E. Stuart Baker, of the Indian Police, as
their chief police officer, to reorganize the whole force.

The Port Authority's most important and urgent duty
was the improvement of the Port, but before this duty
could be exercised it was necessary to obtain the means of
raising the necessary capital required, which Parliament
had provided by the mandate to the Board of Trade to
embody in a provisional order a schedule of rates on all
goods entering the Port. The Authority at a very early date
after its establishment prepared a draft schedule and cir-
culated it widely amongst the leading trade organizations,
inviting their observations and suggestions. Objections and
criticisms were considered in detail, and modifications were
made in many of the rates objected to. The schedule as
finally adopted by the Authority was submitted to the
Board of Trade, who embodied it in a draft Provisional
Order, and appointed Lord St. Aldwyn to hold a public
inquiry under the provisions of the Act. Lord St. Aldwyn
held thirteen public sittings and made reductions in some
individual cases. Clauses were inserted in the order requir-
ing that export rates should not exceed one-half the import
rates, and that except in the case of coal the rates on coast-
wise goods should not exceed one-half of the rates on
oversea goods. The maximum schedule was at the time it
came into operation, viz., the 3rd August, 1910, estimated
to yield £484,000 per annum. As, however, the Authority
were restricted to raising not more than the one-thousandth
part of the aggregate value of the goods imported into and
exported out of the Port from and to parts beyond the seas,
the full rates under the schedules could not be applied.
The restriction mentioned allowed of about £320,000
per annum being collected, and therefore the actual

A VIEW OF LONDON FROM THE THAMES.

From a* Aqualinl try J. Black.

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY 351

import rates imposed were fixed at about 66 per cent,
and the export rates at 25 per cent, of the maximum
import rates.

Another new source of income provided for the Authority
was from the licensing of craft and boats which whilst
enjoying exceptional privileges under the "free water"
conditions had hitherto made but little contribution to Port
revenues. The Authority, before attempting to fix any scale
of charges, called a conference of the parties affected, and by
general agreement the following scale was adopted, viz. : —

Maximum Fees. Fees to be imposed.

Dumb craft . . .is. per reg. ton 8d. per reg. ton

Sailing craft . . .is. do. 8d. do.

Canal barges . . . 2os. each los. each

Canal boats . . . 78. 6d. each 53. each

Tugs . . . . . £6 each £5 each

The estimated yield of these rates was £17,000 a year. Ap-
plication was made to the Board of Trade for the necessary
orders and for the confirmation of by-laws fixing the actual
fees to be imposed, and after a public inquiry the Board of
Trade issued an order and provisional order and confirmed
the by-laws subject to the following amendments : —

1 . The fee to be paid for the registration of barges under by-laws
to be 6d. per ton instead of 8d.

2. Steam barges to pay 6d. per ton, with an additional payment
of £2 per barge.

The amendments involved a reduction of about 25 per
cent, in the anticipated revenue.

While these new financial powers were being obtained
the Authority were considering the question of the works
which should be carried out in order to fulfil the duty
imposed upon them. These works naturally divided them-
selves into two categories, viz., works of reparation and
works of improvement.

As will have been seen, one of the reasons urged against
the purchase of the docks and the terms of that purchase
was that the docks had not been maintained in a satisfactory
state, especially the London and India system ; indeed, it
was roundly declared in some quarters that the directors
had deliberately starved maintenance in order to swell the
profits in view of purchase. That more money could have
been spent if it had been desired to keep the docks up to the

352 THE PORT OF LONDON

the standard of, say, a Government dockyard, is perfectly
true, and that the directors would have been prepared to
adopt that standard if merchants and shipowners had also
been prepared to pay may also be accepted. But that there
was ever any intention to lower the standard, such as it had
been, may be dismissed merely by a study of the figures in
the dock accounts for many years previous to the appoint-
ment of the Royal Commission. It must be admitted that
the appearance of some of the sheds was shabby, that the
roads did not present so perfect a surface as that of the Mall,
and that in the lower docks there was a great deal of untidy
and unfinished work, but the inspection of the two engineers
who were appointed to examine the docks respectively by
the Royal Commission and the Joint Committee of 1908
revealed no defects in the all-important matter of lock gates
and hydraulic power ; in fact, such defects as there were,
were on the surface, and not constitutional defects affecting
the earning-power of the undertaking. There is, however,
no gainsaying the general impression of the commercial
public and of the members of the Authority that there were
years of neglect to make up, and it was in these circum-
stances that Mr. F. Palmer, the chief engineer, was
instructed to report as to the sums necessary to place the
docks into a proper state of repair.

The chief engineer accordingly examined the dock pro-
perties and premises, and he reported generally that they
had not been maintained in a proper state of repair, and
that to insure the efficient and safe working of the under-
taking a large and immediate expenditure was absolutely
necessary. The resident engineers who had been for some
years in charge were instructed to prepare estimates of
the cost of the repairs and renewals required in order to bring
the properties into an efficient state of maintenance. The
total estimated cost was £735,611, distributed as follows :—

London and St. Katharine Docks £90,560

East and West India 150,240

Victoria and Albeit 265,652

Tilbury 86,448

Surrey Commercial . . . . . . . . . . 80,884

Mill wall .. .. .. 61,827

£735.6"

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY 353

The estimate was adopted by the Authority, but for
financial reasons it was found practicable only to sanction
an immediate expenditure of about £70,000 on such of the
repairs as were most urgent. In following years progress
was made with the works, and at the opening of the war in
1914 a sum of £419,000 had been spent. War has neces-
sarily curtailed expenditure on this and other works. But
though the delay has been in no way attributable to apathy
on the part of the Authority, the case against the good faith
of the dock directors fails when it is found that five years
after they have given up the control, the Authority with
ample means had only spent little more than half the sum
which, according to their chief engineer, was immediately
necessary to "insure the efficient and safe working of the
dock undertakings." It may be added that at no period of
their existence have the demands upon the docks been so
insistent as during the war, and yet work has been carried
on without any hitch due to neglect of maintenance.

Apart from dredging, of keeping the machinery in perfect
condition, and of securing the safe manipulation of handling
goods in warehouses and sheds, the question of mainten-
ance of the docks is largely one of what a board choose to
spend on it. In the nature of things there is much work done
at the docks in which the rough handling of goods by even
a small proportion of the labour employed soon dents and
damages the surface of quays and sheds, especially when the
construction is of iron or timber. The employment of brick
and the frequent painting of buildings and the constant
renewals of surfaces will render the docks much more
presentable, and if merchants and shipowners think it worth
while paying it can be done. But they usually decline to be
interested the moment they are asked to pay for appear-
ances only, and it is some defence of their attitude that the
materialization of the ideals of engineers, if unchecked by
commercial expediency, might easily be the ruin of the
greatest port in the world.

The much more important question of improvements
required longer and more careful consideration of the
Authority than that of reparation. The river section of this
subject was the first to be taken in hand. The materials for
consideration were already largely provided in the reports of
the two commissions of 1887 an^ I9°°> an^ also in the report

354 THE PORT OF LONDON

of a Committee of Engineers which was appointed in 1908
by the Thames Conservancy to report on the condition of
the river and submit proposals for improvement. On a
report from their chief engineer the Authority decided to
proceed with the following scheme of deepening the river :

Width Minimum depth of

of channel at low

channel water spring!.

Ft. Ft.

London Bridge to Tower Bridge
Tower Bridge to Thames Tunnel
Thames Tunnel to Greenland Dock

Greenland Dock to Royal Albert Dock 600

Albert Dock to Crayfordness . .
Crayfordness to the Nore

450
500
500

600

1,000

14

20
30

3°

The additional plant required was contracted for at a cost
of £426,000, capable of dealing with 5,000,000 cubic yards
of material per annum. The plant used for the purpose
included the suction dredger which had been acquired by
the Thames Conservancy, four new dredgers ordered by
the Authority, and fifteen hopper barges, in which the
material raised was conveyed to the mouth of the estuary
for deposit in the Black Deep.

During the preparation or a comprehensive programme
of improvements, the Authority proceeded to carry out
some works which, though not involving heavy expendi-
ture, were of a most serviceable character, such as the
installation of new pumping machinery for the Albert and
Victoria Docks, by which the height of water was
permanently raised by two feet six inches ; the provision of
forty-one new electric cranes for the Albert Docks capable
of lifting three tons, in place of hydraulic cranes lifting
one and a half tons ; new timber sheds at the Surrey Com-
mercial Docks ; the reconstruction of the North Quay,
London Dock, where double-storied ferro-concrete sheds
were built in place of the century-old single-storied wooden
sheds ; and the remodelling and equipment of accommoda-
tion at the Albert Dock, with receiving and sorting lines for
the South American beef trade. The most important of
these works decided on in anticipation of the programme
of improvements were those in connexion with the New
Zealand trade. Representations had been made to the

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY 355

Authority by the agents of New Zealand agricultural and
other organizations that it was desirable to make improve-
ments in the facilities for the handling of frozen meat in
the Port of London. The principal points urged were that
barge transit from the ship to the cold store should be
abandoned in favour of the quickest land route, that the
Authority's store in Smithfield should be extended, and
that all meat should be discharged direct into a refrigerated
shed and sorted there instead of being sorted in the ship's
hold. Different opinions were put forward as to the docks
to be selected for the improved accommodation, some of
the traders' representatives preferring the South West
India Dock as being nearer the meat market, and another
group preferring the Royal Albert Dock as being more
accessible for shipping and possessing more possibilities for
railway communication for meat intended for the provinces.
The proposed sorting shed was the revival of a project
considered by the dock companies some years before, and
then abandoned because, though both shipowners and
merchants acknowledged its benefits, neither was prepared
to pay for the accommodation. At first the Authority was
disposed to adopt the attitude of the dock companies and
to decline to incur the heavy outlay required without an
assurance of its being used when constructed. Reconsidera-
tion of the question, however, induced them to decide on
erecting the sorting shed at the Royal Albert Dock with a
large refrigerated store connected with it by conveyors, and
to take the risk of whether the interests concerned would
use it sufficiently to give an adequate return. They were
induced to come to this decision because the meat trade
was becoming a most important one and well worth running
some financial risk to maintain. They were able to reduce
that risk by constructing the sorting shed as the top storey
of a double-storied shed and by providing for a temperature
which would enable the sorting shed to be used alterna-
tively as a frozen meat store if it should turn out not to be
required by traders for sorting purposes. The total sum of
about £400,000 was authorized for these works.

Another item of expenditure was incurred in the reform
of the ambulance service at the docks. The arrangements
for dealing with accident cases amongst the employees at
the docks were found to be unsatisfactory. Many of the

356 THE PORT OF LONDON

ambulances and stretchers were defective, and in some
departments no appliances existed at all, and the lack of
an organized system of instruction in first aid or for con-
veying the injured to the hospital was much felt. Acting
upon the recommendation of a committee, the Authority
sanctioned the purchase of four electric motor ambulances
fitted for dealing with accident cases. They are made avail-
able throughout the twenty-four hours, and every depart-
ment is in direct telephonic communication with the service,
which is under the control of the Authority's police,
instructed in the principles of first aid.

A draft programme of works of improvement of the
accommodation in the Port, prepared by Mr. Palmer, was
submitted to the Authority by Lord Devonport on the
igth January, 1911. The instruction given to Mr. Palmer
had been to consider in his report the whole range of possi-
bilities of dock reconstruction and developments through-
out the Port, including the provision of new dock accom-
modation, and he accomplished his task with great ability
and thoroughness. To facilitate its consideration, Lord
Devonport classified the various proposals under three
categories : —

The first, or urgent programme embracing works neces-
sary to be carried out without delay in order to give at the
earliest moment the much-needed increase of accommoda-
tion and estimated to cost £3,896,700.

The second programme comprising such works as, given
a continuance of the normal growth of trade in the rort,
would be necessary by the time the first programme is
completed. The works under this head are estimated to
cost £5,722,000.

The third or contingent programme, depending upon
eventualities. The estimated cost of these works is
£4,808,000.

The following is a statement in detail of the works
included in the several programmes : —

FIRST PROGRAMME.

LONDON DOCKS— ^

Reconstruction of Tobacco Dock Entrance ;
New jetty, Western Dock ; New berths, Eastern
Dock ; Shadwell Basin, North Quay ; Pumping
plant .. .. 335.°°°

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY 357

WEST INDIA DOCKS — £

Entrance lock ; New basin and berths, passages
and bridges ; Improvements to Import Dock and
South West India Dock ; New dry dock ;
Pumping plant . . . . . . . . . . 960,000

MILLWALL DOCK —

Dry dock extensions . . . . . . . . 12,700

ALBERT DOCK —

A new dock to the south of the existing dock,
including entrance lock, sheds, dry dock, rail-
ways, etc. ; land for a dock to the north of the
existing dock . . . . . . . . . . 2,589,000

£3,896,700
SECOND PROGRAMME.

WEST INDIA DOCK — £

Internal improvements to Import Dock and
South West India Dock 145,000

VICTORIA DOCK —

New entrance lock . . . . . . . . 385,000

ALBERT DOCK —

Reconstruction of entrance lock ; widening of

quays; new dry dock .. 615,000

SOUTH ALBERT DOCK—

Completion of works 247,000

NORTH ALBERT DOCK —

A new dock to the north of the Albert Dock,
with entrance lock of 1,000 feet by 120 feet,
with 52 feet depth on sills . . . . . . 4,100,000

TILBURY DOCK —

Landing stage ; new dry dock . . . . . . 230,000

£5,722,000
THIRD PROGRAMME.

LONDON DOCKS — £

Improvement of Wapping Basin ; Riverside berth
at Shadwell ; Additional berths, Shadwell Basin 267,000

MILLWALL DOCK —
New dock and passage ; New entrance lock . . 735, ooo

EAST INDIA DOCKS —

Internal improvements to Import and Export

Dock 268,000

VICTORIA DOCK —
Reconstruction of dock . . 920,000

TILBURY DOCK —

Extension of main dock ; New dock, including

entrance lock, dry docks, railways, etc. . . 2,618,000

£4,808,000

358 THE PORT OF LONDON

The total of these estimates is £14,426,700.

While generally approving of this programme the
Authority found it impracticable to proceed with the whole
of the works of the first programme at the same time. In
view of the growing trade, it would have been impossible
to close the whole of the berths concerned without causing
grave delays to shipping and dislocation of traffic. More-
over, there were certain features in the West India Dock
scheme which appeared to have objections from the point
of view of working. The Authority, therefore, decided to
vary the order of the programme by undertaking such
works as did not interfere with the carrying on of business
or as were in situations where the accommodation was
being utilized only to a small extent. On this principle they
sanctioned the immediate construction of the new dock to
the south of the Royal Albert Dock, the rebuilding of the
Tobacco Entrance of the London Dock and a new ferro-
concrete jetty there in place of a derelict old jetty, the
entire reconstruction of the North Quay and its sheds at the
West India Import Dock, and a similar reconstruction at
the north and east quays of the East India Dock. At Tilbury
the work decided upon was an extension by 1,600 feet of
the south quay of the Main Dock with three new sheds, the
largest yet erected in the Port. The estimated cost of all
these works was £2,671,471. Contracts were entered into
and the works commenced and completed without undue
delay, except the new dock to the south of the Albert Dock,
where the circumstances created by the war have much
delayed the progress of the works.

By far the most important of these new undertakings is
the new dock to the south of the Albert Dock. The area of
the dock will be 65 acres, a length of quay of 9,900 lineal
feet, and depth of water in the dock maintained by pumping
at 35 feet, but capable of being dredged to 38 feet ir re-
quired. The transit sheds will be single and double storey.
The entrance lock will be 800 feet long by 100 feet broad,
large enough to dock vessels up to 35,000 tons. By the
addition of a caisson, the length of the lock can be enlarged
to 950 feet, and so if necessary enable vessels of 50,000 tons
to be admitted, but it is held that for this dock, vessels of
the latter size are unsuitable and that they should be
accommodated at Tilbury, the docking of the longest

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY 359

vessels in the higher reaches being likely to lead to delays
and difficulties with the river traffic. The dry dock is to be
750 feet long by 100 feet broad, but it can be lengthened as
required. The south side of the new dock will be furnished
with novel accommodation, specially designed to meet the
peculiar requirements of ocean-going vessels coming to
London. A narrow quay is being constructed parallel to the
main quay with sufficient room for barges to lie between the
two quays, the object being that the cranes to be erected on
the narrow quays and used to discharge vessels shall also
be able to deliver goods either into the dock sheds or into
barges, or that if so desired, goods may be delivered from
the shed into barges while the discharge of the vessel is
proceeding. The scheme is intended to satisfy the demand
for better facilities for barge delivery and remove one of the
causes of complaints against the London barge system, so
cheap and efficient, but hitherto involving delays which the
more expensive rail or road transit avoids.

The question of meeting the demand for accommodation
in the river early engaged the attention of the Authority.
The demand had never been of a specific character from
any responsible shipowners, and the several abortive
schemes which had been put forward in the Thames Con-
servancy period had been promoted by landowners or
private speculators, and not by shipowners, and were
intended to attract the investor rather than to meet the
requirements of shipowners. The Port of London Act,
whilst not saying so in terms, had obviously underlying it
the principle that the public accommodation in the Port
below Barking for ocean-going shipping should in future
be provided by the Port of London Authority. It would
have been wasting all the hopes that had been founded on
the settlement arrived at to extinguish the old dock com-
panies in favour of a Port Authority, and then gradually to
allow a series of wharf establishments in the river to be set
up for the purpose of providing accommodation in com-
petition with the docks. The Authority would merely
become a large dock company, unable to operate as an
impartial body administering the Port, and always have on
its flank the competition of irresponsible rivals — rivals
which it might even serve the purpose of powerful shipping
interests to create with the object of bringing pressure to

360 THE PORT OF LONDON

bear upon the Authority. The subject provoked much dis-
cussion at the Authority, and in view of the constitution of
the Authority and the peculiar feature of the business of
the Port, there was some hesitation in formally claiming
the monopoly of providing new accommodation below
Barking ; but in their first report the Authority expressed
the opinion that wherever practicable they should them-
selves undertake the provision of such further accommoda-
tion for shipping using the river as may from time to time
be necessary, but they added that applications to construct
works in connexion with business carried on at the premises,
as distinct from shipping accommodation for the use of the
public, would continue to be readily granted. Lest it might
be considered that the Authority's attitude might have the
effect of sterilizing enterprise in the class of river accommo-
dation which had been advocated by many of the witnesses
before the Royal Commission, the Authority took upon
themselves the erection of accommodation of their own in
the river at Tilbury- They sanctioned the construction of a
deep water riverside jetty i ,000 feet long by 50 feet broad,
with two decks providing 50,000 superficial feet of transit
shed accommodation and railway connexions with the
Tilbury Dock sidings. There will be never less than 30 feet
of water at all states of the tide. The cranes will permit of
delivery direct from the vessel to barges inside the jetty as
well as to railway trucks on the jetty. The jetty will be
available to all classes of vessels desiring to use it, but it is
anticipated that its chief value will be to vessels discharging
part of their cargoes in the Port. No better site or condi-
tions are likely to be found for such a jetty, and it will offer
the means of testing by experience to what extent riverside
accommodation in the Thames is suitable for discharging
or loading cargo in the case of ocean-going steamers in the
Port of London.

Apart from labour, which is dealt with in another
chapter, the above are the questions to which the Authority
considered they were bound by the Port of London Act to
devote most consideration before the outbreak of war in
August, 1914. There were, however, other questions which
may be mentioned indicating the scope and variety of the
operations carried on in the Fort.

First, the question of the headquarters of the Authority.

w

X.

Cf

—

K

H

f-

^

=s
O
ffi

§

O

§

O

OH

W
E
P

O
tf)

E

«

£

£

w
K

p. 360

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY 361

None of the buildings owned or occupied by the con-
servancy or the companies was suitable. The position of
the largest office, viz., that belonging to the London and
India Docks Company, at 109 Leadenhall Street, was con-
venient for merchants and shipowners, but it had proved
too small for the Company, and there was no possibility of
expansion for the much greater needs of the Authority.
Pending other arrangements, these offices have been
utilized for that portion of the establishment which is most
closely connected with the management, whilst the rest of
the headquarters staff are housed at various other buildings
in the vicinity. The Crutched Friars Warehouse, taken over
by the Authority from the London and India Docks Com-
pany, suggested itself as the nucleus of an ideal site for the
purpose, and having obtained by the acquisition of adjacent
properties, valuable frontages in Seething Lane, Crutched
Friars, Trinity Square, and Savage Row, the Authority
decided to erect a public building worthy of the site and
fitting for its purpose. The professional services of Sir
Aston Webb, R.A., were engaged to advise the Authority
and to act as an assessor in an open competition for the
design. 170 drawings were submitted, the successful com-
petitor being Mr. Edwin Cooper, and the contract for the
building was obtained by Messrs. Mowlem & Company.
The building will occupy about one half of the site avail-
able, and about three-fifths of it will probably be required
for the Authority's purposes. The remainder of the site
will be let under a scheme of development.

Another question taken up at once by the Authority was
that of through railway rates to the docks. As has been
stated above, the Port of London Act had conferred upon
the Authority the status of a railway company for this pur-
pose, and it was hoped that the railway companies would
no longer oppose the granting of through rates for dock
traffic without the necessity of further litigation. Negotia-
tions to this end were entered into by the Authority, but
they proved fruitless, and there was therefore no alternative
but to bring the matter to an issue by an application to the
Railway Commissioners. The case was heard in 1912, when
judgment was given by the Commissioners against the
Authority, chiefly on the ground that any adjustment of the
rates such as was sought by the Authority would have

362 THE PORT OF LONDON

involved the disturbance of the "group rate" system applied
to the London district (including Tilbury), and would
therefore be inimical to the convenience and advantage of
London traders as a whole.

One of the complaints against the dock companies'
administration had related to the delays in the movement of
vessels to and from the entrances and their berths owing to
the crowding of barges near the locks and in the fairway of
the dock waters. The London and India Company had
endeavoured to deal with the difficulty in their 1902 Act
by placing upon the lightermen the obligation to enter and
leave the docks without obstructing other traffic, but the
remedy had failed. At certain docks it had been the practice
to work the entrances during a limited period only at tide
time, and no assistance was rendered to lightermen in
docking and undocking the barges. With the object, of
accelerating the movement of the traffic, the Authority
purchased several new powerful tugs. The Authority
arranged that the dock entrances should be worked as long
as possible each tide and that the Authority's staff should
assist in marshalling barges there and render aid by tugs,
capstans, and ropes whenever they are available. Other
concessions were extended, including the free entry into
the basins and docks of lightermen's tugs engaged in towing
barges in and out of the dock. The dock dues on tugs and
barges were equalized and the free time in dock extended.
The principle underlying these arrangements was co-opera-
tion in the general interest of the Port instead of each of the
parties standing strictly on his own rights, and the result,
though involving the Authority in some annual expense,
has proved to be of great general advantage to shipowners
and traders.

Having regard to the strong opinions to which expression
had been given for a period extending over many years, as
to the necessity of relaxing the rules for licensing lighter-
men, the Authority considered that they should exercise the
powers which had been conferred upon them by the Port
of London Act. The governing provision of the statute laid
down as an essential qualification for a licence or certificate,
that the applicant should have served under a contract for
two years with a person authorized to take apprentices in
assisting to navigate craft on the river. The Authority

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY 363

therefore decided to make a by-law to the effect that any
person shall be deemed to be qualified for a lighterman's or
waterman's licence if he has for a period of at least two
years been engaged in working on a craft or boat in the
Port of London. The Board of Trade held an inquiry
through a committee who reported that in their opinion the
by-law was reasonable and proper, and likely to prove
beneficial to the community at large, including the mercan-
tile community of London, the employers of labour in the
Port, and the workmen in and about the Port. The by-law
was accordingly approved by the Board of Trade.

The storage of petroleum and petroleum spirit in the
Port of London is the largest in the kingdom. Petroleum is
stored at various depots near the metropolitan area, but
under the regulation of the Authority the storage of petro-
leum spirit is not allowed above Thames Haven. Soon after
the Authority assumed office the representatives of the
petroleum trade urged that the regulations were unduly
onerous, and placed a serious and unnecessary burden in
charges upon an article of daily increasing importance as
an agent for locomotion and traction, and that Thames
Haven was too distant and inaccessible from the London area
for the main storage of such an article. The suggestions
made included Purfleet as the limit, but some of the appli-
cants demanded the abolition of any restriction of move-
ment, leaving a vessel loaded with petrol spirit to proceed to
any part of the river which its draught would allow it to
reach. Representations were also made as to the necessity
for an expansion of the facilities for transport by craft which
were restricted to a capacity of 45,000 gallons (150 tons). In
considering this question, the Authority learned that if
vessels with petrol were allowed to proceed above Thames
Haven the possible reduction in charges would not exceed
one-sixteenth of a penny per gallon. The capacity of the
tank vessels engaged in the trade had reached 12,000 tons,
and the Authority came to the conclusion that the risk
inseparable from the vessels laden with petrol in the
narrower and more crowded parts of the river was such a
serious one that they could not incur it consistently with a
proper regard for the interests of shipping and of the many
industries situated on the river banks. It was therefore
decided to maintain Thames Haven as the limit for vessels

364 THE PORT OF LONDON

carrying low-flash petrol. It was, however, found possible
to meet the traders on the question of the craft-carrying
petrol. Though the capacity of such craft was limited to
45,000 gallons each, four being allowed to be towed
together, the greater number of the craft licensed were
much below the maximum capacity, and in practice only
two craft were towed at the same time. The Authority
decided that the limit of capacity might be raised to 75,000
gallons in the case of barges not propelled by their own
motive power, and further, to grant licences for self-pro-
pelled tank craft protected against the effects of collision
and with tank space sub-divided, of a total capacity not
exceeding 150,000 gallons, the motive power to be internal
combustion engines of a type in which ignition is effected
otherwise than by any form of spark, flame, or hot tube.

In the course of the discussions on this question a sug-
gestion was made to the Authority that they should acquire
the whole of the oil storage in the Port, but it was not
entertained. Though the storage of products was a business
which the Authority carried on and was intended to carry
on, the services required in connexion with petroleum and
petrol storage included refining processes under factory
conditions, and the Authority deemed the business one that
was outside the scope of their powers.

The Port of London Act authorized the Authority to
purchase by agreement the Crown interests in the revenue
paid to the Commissioners of H.M. Woods and Forests in
respect of one third of the revenues derived from licences
granted for works and accommodation upon the shore of
the Thames and an annual sum for sand and ballast remov-
able from the bed of the river. Deeming the purchase to be
a desirable one in the interest of the Port the Authority
approached the Commissioners, and after protracted nego-
tiations an arrangement was entered into by which the sum
of £235,000 was paid in redemption of the annual payments.

Another financial operation was the extinction of the
Millwall Equipment Company's rent charge at the Millwall
Docks. This company had advanced the sum of £200,000
to the dock company for the purpose of erecting the Central
Granary and other works, at the rate of 6 per cent, per
annum, with the proviso that the Dock Company could by
notice pay off the capital at any time. With their better

O

a
3

S3

23

-3

•J3

O

S

w

p- 365

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY 365

financial position the Authority were able to raise money on
easier terms than the Dock Company, and at the earliest
moment gave notice of repayment of the principal.

An important operation was involved in the purchase of
the undertakings of the London Grain Elevator Company.
Under an old agreement with the London and India Docks
Company, the Elevator Company possessed the monopoly
of discharging grain in that system of docks, and also
occupied grain silos erected on the Victoria Dock premises.
The extinction of the monopoly, which with the plant, was
purchased for the sum of £80,104, nas secured the
Authority's freedom of action in dealing with the bulk
grain trade in all the dock systems of the Authority, while
the acquisition of the plant, which became available in all
the docks of the Authority, with the addition of new plant
subsequently purchased, has enabled the Authority to
carry out the discharge of grain in a way which has put
London in the very first rank for the rapid handling of
grain cargoes.

In view of the desirability of the Authority ascertaining
at first hand the needs and wishes of the colonies in con-
nexion with the handling and storage of their products in
the Port of London, the Authority in September, 1913,
sent their commercial superintendent, Mr. J. H. Estill, on a
commercial mission to Australia and New Zealand. Mr.
Estill conferred with all the interests concerned at all the
important centres of trade, and his programme embraced a
series of lectures imparting information on the development
of the Port, and the works in course of construction for
immediate and future requirements. He also discussed the
methods of shipment in the colonies and treatment at the
ports of discharge with a view to ensuring colonial produce
being put on the market in the best possible condition.

While the above account of transactions of the Authority
refers to the larger matters upon which decisions of policy
had to be taken, the regular weekly meetings of the Authority
and the constant meetings of committees and sub-com-
mittees were mostly occupied with the routine of the
multitude of daily current questions, the unremitting
attention to which is the test or a Board's control of affairs
and the ultimate test of efficiency and successful administra-
tion. No body of men have devoted more time or ability

366

THE PORT OF LONDON

from the beginning to the present moment to making the
enterprise committed to their guidance one that shall fulfil
the purpose to which it has been dedicated. The Authority
has never been content to leave the superintendence of its
operations to highly paid officials, but in every detail of
business done, of works executed, and of the expenditure
incurred have exercised a close and controlling supervision.
In these conditions it is gratifying, though not surprising,
in examining the results of the Authority's operations
during the five years before the war to find that the business
of the Port shows considerable expansion, whilst that of the
docks shows even a greater proportionate progress. The
following is a comparative statement of the business of the
first and fifth years of the Authority's administration of
the Port :—

Tonnage of shipping entered and

cleared (foreign and coastwise) . . 35,151 ,799
Tonnage paying Port tonnage dues . . 28,579,648

Tonnage of shipping using docks . . 17,436,097

Total value of goods imported and

exported excluding coastwise . . £322,614,363
Tonnage of import goods handled at

docks by Authority . . . . . . 2,050,795

Tonnage of export goods handled at

docks by Authority
Tonnage of shipping using Authority's

dry docks

640,869

2,055,858

The following is a summary of the receipts and expendi-
ture on revenue account for the same years :—

40,080,282
30,816,381
18,517,590

£411,792,149
2,218,266
823,865
2,699,563

Earnings

Working expenses . .

Interest on Port Stock, etc.

1909-10 1913-14

£2,631,676 £3.434.453

1,766,926 2,217,822

£864,750
806,821

£1,216,631
932,786

Surplus Revenue £57.9*9 £283,845

Amounts totalling £152,650 had from time to time been
charged to revenue on account of the special repairs to the
dock premises mentioned above, and on the 3131 March the
reserve fund stood at £388,988. The financial position was
therefore a perfectly well-established one, notwithstanding
the large increase in the capital responsibilities of the
Authority.

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY 367

The above figures are the merest outline of the results of
the Authority's business, and give no idea of its multiform
character, and this chapter may well include a short des-
cription of the operations carried on by the Authority.

It may first be said that those operations differ from those
of any other port authority in the world. In the United
Kingdom the ports are governed in different ways, but few
of the authorities do more than provide docks, quays,
sheds, and cranes for the use of vessels, leaving shipowners
to make their own arrangements for labour, while if ware-
housing facilities are afforded they are usually confined to
grain and timber. Abroad, the State in many cases owns the
dock premises, whilst local authorities or chambers of
commerce administer the port and have the responsibility
of erecting the accommodation above quay level. Few
authorities are large employers of labour, Hamburg being
the chief exception.

In London the Authority are only an authority in the true
sense of the word, in its administration of the river. In the
docks the Authority are simply the successors of dock
companies, subject to all the limitations of competition by
other interests in the Port. In some ways, the companies
were less hampered in their operations by restrictions than
the Authority are, owing to the special provision of the Port
of London Act for the protection of the wharfingers.

The duties of the Authority in the river comprise the
maintenance of the navigable channel by dredging and
deepening, the regulation of traffic on the river, the licensing
of all embankments, quays, and jetties on the river, the
making and enforcement of by-laws in regard to explosives
in the river, the raising of wrecks in the river, the purifica-
tion of the river, and the licensing of lightermen and water-
men. It may be said that in the river, excepting pilotage,
police, and sanitary inspection, all the functions ordinarily
pertaining to a port authority are applicable to the Port of
London Authority.

In the docks the Authority own and offer to traders
every class of dock and warehouse accommodation except
storage for mineral oils or explosives. The whole length of
the water area of the docks (except the shallow timber
ponds of the Surrey Commercial system) is lined by quays
and sheds where vessels may lie alongside and discharge or

368 THE PORT OF LONDON

load cargoes. Shed accommodation and cranes are to be
found at every berth, suitable for the class of business
which usually attaches itself to a particular department of
the dock system. At the lower docks, shipowners can hire
either by the week or for a longer term berths and sheds
where they can discharge their vessels with their own labour,
hiring cranes from the Authority as they require them. At
the upper docks some berths are let in this way, but there
the Authority has not changed the general policy of its
predecessors, and for the most part, the work of discharging
vessels is kept by the Authority in their own hands. The
loading of vessels is almost invariably undertaken by steve-
dores in the employ of the shipowner, but the manipulation
of export goods in the sheds is performed by the Authority's
staff, who place goods for loading at the ship's side where
they are put on board by the stevedores. The Authority
supply tugs for towing vessels to and from the entrance
locks. Besides the cranes on the quays used for loading or
discharging cargoes, floating cranes for lifting heavy weights
are maintained by the Authority, and the work of lifting is
performed by their staff. In all the modern dock systems
dry docks are provided by the Authority, thus saving the
necessity of vessels having to go out into the river for this
operation. The service of the Authority is confined to the
provision of the dry docks, the pumping operations there,
the placing of the vessel on the blocks, and the shoring of
the vessel safely. The painting, cleaning, and repairing
operations to the ship are performed by shipowners them-
selves or by their contractors. The Authority's docks are
intended primarily for the ordinary cleaning and painting
done between each voyage, and not for extensive repairs.
The Authority have nothing to do with the coaling of
vessels, which is seldom done from railway trucks, the coal
being sent into the docks by barges and put in the bunkers
by men employed by the shipowners.

The Authority is the greatest warehousekeeper in the
world. The primary occupation of a warehousekeeper is
that of providing safe custody for goods, but the Authority's
operations range from the simple service of merely allowing
goods the right of passage through its sheds, to the most
complicated examination and manipulation of the valuable
products of the East. Except at Tilbury Dock, which is a

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY 369

transit dock only, there are warehousing establishments at all
the docks, and in addition, the Authority possess Up-Town
warehouses at Cutler Street in Houndsditch, and at the
Commercial Road Depot. Generally speaking, the various
classes of warehousing business are concentrated at the same
department. Thus the wool business is carried on in con-
tiguous floors at the London and St. Katharine Docks ; the
tobacco business is at the Victoria Dock ; the rum and West
India sugar business at its original home, the West India
Dock ; whilst wine and brandy, which under the old mon-
opolies were assigned to the London Dock, still remain there.
The Surrey Commercial Dock is the only dep6t for soft
wood, i.e., deals, boards, etc. Ostrich feathers, chinaware,
Oriental carpets, and other articles of high value are kept at
Cutler Street. The special sheds required for the handling
and storage of hardwood are at the West India Dock. But
there are other goods which it has been found convenient to
store at more than one department. Thus grain is stored
at the Millwall, Surrey Commercial and West India Docks.
Meat at the Victoria and Albert Docks, West India Docks,
Surrey Docks, and West Smithfield. Coffee at the London
Dock and West India Dock, whilst tea is divided between
the Cutler Street and Commercial Road warehouses.

Though the Authority and their predecessors have let
a small percentage of their warehouse accommodation to
tenants, at the rest of the accommodation all the services
required by merchants are performed by the Authority's
staff, who require years of training and experience to
qualify them for the work they are called upon to undertake.
The services rendered by the Authority include, besides
the safe custody of the goods, all the operations required
by the merchant in the course of the marketing, sale and
delivery of his goods. These operations are often various
and responsible. The catalogues issued by the brokers
describing goods offered by them for sale are prepared
from descriptions of the quality and condition, weight and
other essential particulars required to be known by the
buyer, furnished by the Authority's staff; whilst the grading
and lotting of goods in a way suitable for the market is
also done on their advice. Samples to show indications of
the bulk have to be drawn, and in such goods as rubber
and fibres the judgment of the expert is necessary to

370 THE PORT OF LONDON

produce fair samples. The examination for damage to goods
in order to ascertain liability as between the parties interested
is another duty demanding not only skill but the strictest
impartiality, and perpetually the Authority is placed in
the position of arbitrator between buyer and seller. By the
issue of the dock warrant to merchants, the Authority affords
facilities for financing commercial operations, and by its
arrangements with the fire insurance offices who superin-
tend the design of all warehouses and inspect the work
carried on from day to day with a view to a rigid adherence
to regulations, aided by the vigilance of their own police,
the Authority has been able to secure such a record
immunity from fire as places the warehouses in the docks
of London at the head of the record in this respect. The
weighing and measuring of goods, the mending of imperfect
packages by sewing or coopering, the separation of damaged
from sound goods, and the making merchantable
of salvaged goods, the vatting of wines and spirits, are
amongst the operations carried on as part of the every day
routine work in the warehouses. The services of the
Authority as warehousekeepers are supplemented by that
of carriers in that they undertake the collection and delivery
of goods from and to the domicile of merchants and manu-
facturers, employing for this purpose railway, lighterage
or cartage facilities enjoyed by them at their docks and
dep6ts at the Commercial Road and East Smithfield goods
stations. When required the Authority pass Customs
entries for goods to be warehoused with them, and under-
take all services performed by forwarding agents.

In respect of the whole of this warehousing business
the Authority are in competition with the wharfingers on
the riverside. No statutory monopoly of any sort has
survived, but in regard to rum and tobacco and a few
specially valuable articles, such as ivory and ostrich feathers,
a practical monopoly has long been in existence.

The occasion of the retirement of the members of the
Authority from office in the spring of 1913 afforded the
opportunity for testing the state of public opinion as to the
first four years' management of the Authority. All the
retiring members were re-appointed or re-elected except
Sir John McDougall, whose place as representative of the
London County Council was filled by Mr. J. D. Gilbert.

o

£

HH

^

S

—

P- 37°

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY 371

At the election of members by shipowners and traders,
three candidates besides the retiring members presented
themselves for election, but the poll was overwhelmingly
in favour of the members.

The health of Mr. Robert Philipson, the general manager,
gave way in the autumn of 1913 and he was obliged to retire
in November of that year. He had shown much skill and
capacity in dealing with the many questions connected
with the inauguration of the Authority.

CHAPTER XXXII

The Watermen and Lightermen

FOR centuries the Thames was the principal highway
through the metropolis for both men and goods. The
silent water thoroughfare required no making and no
maintenance. The two daily tides provided the opportunity
of two return journeys of twenty miles each way with little
exertion on the part of those navigating the small craft then
in use. Till the rapid pace of steamships introduced a new
factor of danger, the only serious hazard run by passengers
was that of shooting London Bridge where the current
created miniature rapids through the narrow arches, and this
could be avoided by breaking the journey just above bridge
and re-embarking at Billingsgate. Till docks were made,
the custom was for vessels to discharge and load at moorings
in the river, and very few vessels came alongside wharves at
the Thames to discharge or load their cargoes. All goods
had therefore to be conveyed to and from the ship and shore,
and the ships' crews and the labourers engaged in working
on the ship had to be rowed to and from their work. Lighters
or barges (meaning the same) were used for goods. Boats
of the larger type called wherries were employed for
passengers. The men in charge of lighters were termed
lightermen and those in charge of boats or wherries were
called watermen.

This traffic must have dated from the very beginning of
London as a port. It must have commenced with the ferry
between early London and Southwark. It was obviously
the method of business in the Port when Ethelred made his
regulations for tolls at Billingsgate. The volume of the
traffic in the river gradually became enormous and the
London public who judge by the appearance of the Thames
to-day with its deserted surface, except just before and after
high tide, can have no conception of the constant activity
of movement on the river both above and below London
Bridge from Tudor times to the early decades of the
nineteenth century.

The earliest records of organized traffic refer to the river

oo

I

1*

o

w

s

o
g

w

z

w

H

K

P- 372

WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN 373

service between Gravesend and London called the "Long
ferry" used by Continental travellers who came or went by
road to Gravesend and completed their journey to and from
London by boat in this service.

It is mentioned in 1293 that the boatmen on this route
were in the habit of overcharging their passengers as
appears from the following record :— "The jury presented
unto the Justice of Assize that the boatmen of Gravesend,
Milton, and London did take from passengers unjust fares
against their will, that is where they had formerly taken a
halfpenny from a person for his passage to London they then
took one penny, whereof the Sheriff was directed to summon
the parties. Then came several boatmen of Gravesend and
they could not deny that they had taken one penny as charged,
they were therefore in mercy, etc., and it was required
of them they should take no more than one halfpenny and
some of them gave a bond of 403. for compliance with their
sureties." A few years afterwards the fares were increased by
authority to 2d. between Billingsgate and Gravesend.

From the thirteenth century onward contemporary
records are full of incidents relating to traffic on the river,
ceremonial, political, trading and domestic.

Thus we have in 1264 in the course of the rebellion
King Henry III retreating into Kent and prevailing upon
the authorities of the Cinque Ports to send a number of
ships to block up the Thames to prevent the City receiving
a supply of provisions. Queen Eleanor was safely protected
by the Tower, but terrified by the commotion resolved to
go to Windsor by water, but approaching London Bridge in
her gilded barge, the populace assembled against her, intend-
ing to sink the barge as it shot the bridge. She was glad to
accept the mayor's protection and was conveyed safely to
St. Paul's.

Regulations made in 1370 indicate the growing importance
of the watermen's traffic in the Port. It was laid down that
no waterman was to take more than three passengers between
London and Westminster, and that no waterman should
leave his boat on the south side of the river but should
have it moored on the city side to the end that "thieves and
malefactors might not obtain possession" for incursions into
the City. It was also ordered that all boats taking in loads
of rushes, hay or straw should load only the moment before

374 THE PORT OF LONDON

their departure and that each boat bringing rushes to
houses should pay twelve pence for cleansing the place
where the barge was unloaded.

In 1422 we find an ordinance of the Common Council
that the duty of destroying all weirs or kydells on the
Thames should be carried out by the mayor with the
members of each of the twenty-six companies and that they
were all to perform this office. In the same year on the death
of Henry V the sheriffs-elect were ordered not to ride on
horseback to take charge at Westminster, but to go in
barges with their companies, which were the Mercers and
Drapers. The Brewers' Company have recorded the
following notice of the King's funeral: "That William
Walderne was chosen Mayor on St. Edmund's Day when
it was ordered that the Aldermen and craft should go to
Westminster with him to take his charge in barges without
minstrels." Mr. Henry Humpherus, commenting on this
incident, says that from this it might appear that the
Mayor's procession to Westminster occurred earlier than
1454 when Sir John Norman is recorded to have proceeded
by water. William Walderne's river journey may, however,
have only been on account of the King's death. According
to the chronicles of Alderman Fabian, the ancient custom of
the Mayor riding to Westminster upon the morrow of
St. Simon and St. Jude's Day on his presentation to the
judges at Westminster was broken through by Sir John
Norman who, having at his own expense built a noble
barge, had it decorated with flags and streamers in which
he was rowed by watermen with silver oars attended by
such of the City companies as possessed barges in a splen-
did manner so that he "made the barge he sat in burn on
the water." In the Harleian MSS the change in practice is
described : "And this yere the riding to Wes' was foredone
and goying thider by barge bigonne." As the number and
splendour of the companies' barges and pageants increased,
the Lord Mayor's River Show became the most attractive
of City sights. The water processions were continued with
few exceptions until the year 1856. The question of pre-
cedence in the water procession involved a feud between
the Merchant Taylors' and Skinners' Companies for thirty
years after Sir John Norman adopted the water route, one
company's barge always attempting to get in front of the

WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN 375

others. On Lord Mayor's Day of 1483 it culminated in the
rival companies coming to blows which resulted in blood-
shed and loss of life. The Mayor, having been asked to
arbitrate, decided that for the future the two guilds should
alternately have precedence, and that each year on approach-
ing Westminster they should lash their two barges together
and drink as a toast : "The Merchant Taylors and Skinners :
Skinners and Merchant Taylors : root and branch may
they flourish for ever." The custom continued for many
years.

A notable river pageant took place in 1487 on the occa-
sion of the coronation of Elizabeth of York, Queen of
Henry VII, on her coming forth from Greenwich, accom-
panied by the Countess of Richmond and many lords and
ladies. Attending her were the Mayor, sheriffs, and aldermen
of the City and members of the Common Council chosen
from every craft in barges freshly furnished with banners
and streamers of silk richly "beaton" with the arms and
banners of their crafts. Especially prominent was the
bachelor's barge garnished and apparelled " wherein was
ordeynd a great redd dragon spouting flames of fyer into
the Thames." Accompanied by the sounds of triumph
clarions and other instruments, the Queen landed at the
Tower. The bachelor's barge was appropriated to the
younger sons of the nobility, a similar barge being devoted
to the maids of honour. The City also possessed its
bachelors' barge, the bachelors being chosen every year
of the same company as the Mayor, and numbered from
60 to 100 young men.

None of the records of earlier days give any information
as to the number of watermen and lightermen plying on the
Thames. In 1471 Thomas Nevile, having collected a num-
ber of persons of desperate fortunes, endeavoured to
surprise London, and having obtained possession of the
Tower, he was able to collect enough boats to transfer
3,000 of his followers across the river from Southwark with
the object of assaulting Aldgate and Bishopsgate. This
incident indicates that by the end of the fifteenth century
the number of watermen must have been considerable.

Tragedy went hand in hand with splendour in these
Royal processions. Within a week Lady Jane Grey in July,
1 553, had three river journeys. The first was on her way from

376 THE PORT OF LONDON

Sion House to fulfil the custom of the monarchs of England
to spend the first few days of her reign at the Tower, being
the first opportunity after the accession of showing herself
to the people. The description of the event reports that a
gallant tram issued from Sion House and descended the
stairs leading to the river, where appointed for their con-
veyance was drawn up a squadron of fifty superbly gilt
barges, decorated with banners, cloth of gold, and arras
embroidered with the devices of the civic companies, others
with innumerable silken pennons to which were attached
silver bells, while others reserved for the more important
personages of the ceremony were covered on the sides with
shields gorgeously emblazoned with the armorial bearings
of the different noblemen composing the privy council,
those of Lady Jane's father-in-law, the Duke of Northum-
berland, being proudly conspicuous. Each barge was
escorted by a light galley, termed a foist or wafter, manage-
able either by oar or sail and attached to its companion by
a stout silk tow line. The Lady Jane embarked in a magni-
ficent barge with two large banners beaten with the royal
arms, planted on the foreship. Its sides were hung with
metal escutcheons, alternately emblazoned with the cog-
nizances of the Queen and her Consort, and its decks
covered with the richest silks and tissues. It was attended
by the bachelors' galley and the galley devoted to the
maids of honour. In the galleys, besides the rowers and the
men at arms, sat bands of minstrels provided with sackbuts,
shalms, cornets, rebecs, and other instruments.

The conduct of the whole squadron was entrusted to six
officers, who in small, swift wherries rowed rapidly from
place to place, maintaining order by threats and commands,
and keeping off the crowd of craft of all sorts hurrying
towards the procession from every part of the river.

Within a week of this dazzling spectacle Queen Mary
arrived at the Tower, Lady Jane Grey was made prisoner,
but escaped, and on her second journey returned in a
small waterman's boat to Sion House, where on the follow-
ing day she was discovered, conveyed back to the Tower in
the royal barge by torchlight, unattended and unnoticed —
her last journey on the river on this earth. The Duke of
Northumberland and his fellow conspirators were subse-
quently taken by barge from the Tower to Westminster

WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN 377

Hall, and after their conviction taken back to the Tower
preparatory to their execution.

But sovereigns did not restrict the use of the river to
State occasions. We read in 1552 : "The i3th day of Juin
rod through London into the Towre Wharffe my lade mare
(Mary) grace the Kynges sister and toke her barge to
Grenewyche the Kynges courte and so cam agayn at
6 a'cloke at nyght and so landyd at the Towre and so unto
Saynt John's beyond Smythfeld."

Again, "The zyth day of Juin the Kyngs majeste removed
from Grenewyche by water unto Pottney and ther he toke
ys horss unto Hamtun Courte."

The attempted arrest of Hampden and other members
of the House of Commons for opposition to the arbitrary
proceedings of Charles I in the levying of the ship money
was the occasion of a great demonstration in the Port. On
the escape of the members when the King's armed force
endeavoured to arrest them they took shelter in the City.
The King attended the next day, but the Court of Common
Council refused to give them up. There was a suggestion
that the accused members should in a triumphant military
procession take their seats in the House, and a committee
of members of the House of Commons and citizens met at
the Guildhall and afterwards at the Grocer's Hall to concert
measures for carrying out the arrangements. A thousand of
the watermen and mariners in the Port, by petition, offered
to conduct and protect the accused members by water to
Westminster with proper arms and artillery. The offer was
accepted, and on the nth January, 1642, the committee,
with Lord Kimbolton and the five accused members, took
water at the Three Cranes Wharf with great naval state,
attended by forty long boats manned by watermen and
armed with small pieces of ordnance. The river was guarded
by a hundred lighters besides boats many of them laden
with small pieces of ordnance. These forces, together with
the City trained bands which received them on the landing
at Westminster, conducted the members to Westminster
Hall.

When the reaction came the watermen were quite pre-
pared to change sides with the rest of the country and
welcome Charles II to the throne. The watermen attended
at the bar of the House on the 3151 January, 1660, with a

378 THE PORT OF LONDON

humble address of congratulation on the establishment of
the free Parliament which was to restore the monarchy. In
this connexion Pepys relates that two days afterwards he
was talking to his waterman, White, "who told us how the
watermen had lately been abused by some that had a desire
to get in to be watermen to the State and had lately pre-
sented an address of nine or ten thousand hands to stand
by this Parliament when it was only told them that it was a
petition against hackney coaches, and that to-day they had put
out another to undeceive the world and to clear themselves."

The two outstanding historical events which touch the
imagination of Londoners are the Plague of 1665 and the
Great Fire of the following year. The watermen were
vitally affected by both of these events. The Plague ban-
ished the shipping trade out of the Pool, and as far as it
could be done trade was kept out of the river altogether.
Colliers were not allowed to come up above Deptford, and
their cargoes were landed and piled in great heaps at
Greenwich and Blackheath. The coal was fetched away
after the colliers had sailed so that the sailors had no com-
munication with bargemen. Defoe says that the watermen
found means to convey themselves away up the river,
many of them taking their families in their boats covered
with tilts and furnished with straw, and thus lay along by
the shore in the marshes, some of them setting up fittle
tents with their sails and lying under them on shore during
the day. The river sides were lined with boats as long as
there was anything for the people to subsist on. Country
people were active in relieving them, but by no means
willing to take the refugees into their towns or houses.

The Fire of London broke out at the King's baker's
house in Pudding Lane, a few doors from the river and
adjoining the public warehouses in Thames Street. As
Pepys relates, the great agents in the salvation of lives and
property of the people were the carts and the fleet of lighters
and boats put at the disposal of the City by the lightermen
and watermen. Large quantities of property thrown into
barges or into the river were rescued by the lightermen and
watermen and taken across to Bankside. Pepys notes that
there was hardly one lighter or boat in three, but there was
a pair of virginals. Pepys himself put all his goods into a
lighter and sent them to Deptford, where he had them well

WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN 379

watched. As it turned out, he might have saved himself the
expense and trouble, as the fire spared his house in Seething
Lane. The richer classes sent their furniture to houses
some miles up the river in fear that the fire might extend to
the Strand. The King sent most of his choice goods by
water to Hampton Court.

For our last instance of the association of the watermen
with historical events in England let us note that James II
on his abdication made his escape, accompanied by Sir
Edward Hall, in his own barge from Whitehall to Gravesend
rowed by two watermen only. Four days afterwards he
returned to London and slept at the Palace, but the Prince
of Orange having arrived he was permitted to leave.
The morning was wet and stormy, but a barge was
brought to Whitehall Stairs, and he was rowed back to
Gravesend, attended by a hundred Dutch soldiers, where
he stayed the night on the way to France.

We leave outstanding incidents of life on the river such
as are given in these instances to deal with the development
of water transport as an industry on the river. Its growing
and continued importance is shown by numerous statutes
and regulations to be found in the records of the last four
centuries. Before the year 1514 the workers on the river
were nominally controlled by the Corporation of London.
But the conditions were not conducive to an effective con-
trol. The nature of the work spread the industrial members
over a wide area, not so easily patrolled as the streets of the
City. The work was irregular, dependent upon favourable
winds, not only in the high seas, but in the river itself. It
was hard, dangerous, and dirty. There was much tempta-
tion to plunder sugar, tobacco, and wine when in bulk with
little chance of its being missed. The occupation appealed
therefore to the shiftless, the reckless, and the lawless. The
good features in it were the fresh-air surroundings and a
healthy occupation, making for strong men. There was also
a certain sense of comradeship acquired amongst those who
worked on it. Such men when disciplined made the very
finest material for sea fighting, and from the beginning of
the sixteenth century onwards we find records of the
impressment of watermen and lightermen for the Navy.

The earliest Act of Parliament dealing with the watermen
was passed in 1514. It was designed to suppress the abuses

380 THE PORT OF LONDON

of extortionate demands from persons wanting boats for
journeys on the river or for ferrying across it. The Act
recites the charges which had been customary for the ser-
vices rendered, and enacts that they shall be strictly
observed in future. The maximum remuneration for a
waterman's services was fixed at 6d. a day, without meat or
drink unless the trip was as far as Greenwich or Mortlake,
in which case the figure was raised to 8d. Watermen or
bargemen demanding more were to be subject to a fine
equal to three times the fare refused, and to other pains
and penalties if remaining contumacious.

The first Act passed for controlling the industry on an
organized basis was in 1555, viz., that of Chapter 16 of the
and and 3rd Philip and Mary. The Act details the reasons
why legislation had become urgent. Divers and many mis-
fortunes and mischances had happened on the river (so it
recites) to the nobility and common people through the
ignorance and unskilfulness of the watermen. Many boys
of small age and little skill out of the rule and obedience
of any honest master and governor do for the most part of
their time use dicing and carding and other unlawful games
to the great and evil of other such like." Such persons
when wanted by the press commission for the Navy were
not to be found, hiding in the country, practising robberies
and felonies, and returned when peace returned, to their
former trade of rowing, and, owing to their being unskilful
and lack of exercise, were the cause of grave accidents by
which some persons lost their goods while others were
drowned. Complaint is also registered in the Act as to the
construction of the boats, it being stated that they were
straight and narrow in the bottom and were so "shallow
and tickle" that great peril and danger of drowning had
many times ensued. The reform prescribed by the Act for
the evils was as follows : —

The Corporation of London were annually to appoint
eight of the "most wise discreet and best sort of watermen
being householders to be called the overseers and rulers of
all the wherrymen and watermen that from and after the
ist March shall use occupy or exercise any rowing upon
the said river of Thames between Greenwich and Windsor."
The qualification for a waterman was that he should have
been used in rowing upon the Thames for the space of two

WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN 381

whole years, and no boat or wherry could take passengers
except by a man holding a licence from the overseers and
rulers that he possessed this qualification. If two men were
rowing in one vessel it was to be sufficient that one of them
was qualified. Any man offending this rule subjected him-
self to a month's imprisonment by the order of the over-
seers and rulers. A similar penalty awaited anyone even
rowing between Gravesend and Windsor unless they were
apprentices or under yearly engagement to a master. For
the protection of the workmen, the Corporation had power
to revise sentences passed by the rulers, and even to
"punish correct and reform" the overseers and rulers
themselves in cases where they had acted unjustly. The
minimum measurements of wherries or boats to be used
for the conveyance of passengers were fixed at twenty feet
six inches for length and four feet six inches broad amid-
ships, and the vessels were to be "substantially and well
able and sufficient to carry two persons on one side tight
according to the old quantity, scantling thickness of board,
goodness and good proportion heretofore had and used."
Any boats made contrary to this regulation were to be
forfeited .

The principal and probably the only real object of the
measure appears in the sections referring to impressment of
men for the Navy. If watermen and lightermen voluntarily
and obstinately withdrew, or hid themselves, when the
press was in force into secret places and out corners and
when it was over came back to their work, then they were
to be imprisoned for two weeks and banished from the
Thames for a year and a day afterwards. The overseers and
rulers were to keep a register of every man they licensed
and to inspect periodically the craft rowed by them. The
fares to be charged for passengers were to be fixed by
the Corporation subject to endorsement by the Privy
Council.

It will be observed that the legislation is confined to
craft employed for the conveyance of passengers ; no pro-
visions were made for the protection of property either
in regard to its safe handling or the price to be charged for
services rendered.

Within two years Queen Mary was at war with France, in
the course of which Calais was lost to the English crown,

382 THE PORT OF LONDON

and the first use of the 1555 Act was made in the impress-
ment of Thames watermen to man the English Fleet, an
emergency measure to be re-employed in every succeeding
war till the abolition of the press gang in the nineteenth
century. The impressment was the frequent cause of
grievance amongst the men, and the rulers were often
challenged as to their unfair use of the law. The impress-
ment made in 1708 excited great discontent. The rulers
appear to have been allowed 8s. per head for each man
they procured for the service, and they were charged with
having avoided service themselves, though they were the
youngest and stoutest fellows in the company, and even
with accepting bribes to let men off after they had been
impressed.

Though no records appear to this effect, there seems to
be little doubt that the occasion of the passing of the 1555
Act was taken to form the guild which became the Water-
men's Company, and that membership was at first confined
to the men rowing boats and wherries carrying passengers.
The Company is referred to in the Act of 1603, and it then
had a hall, the locality of which is unknown. This Act of
1603 was the first step taken by the watermen and lightermen
to make their trade a close corporation on the Thames. It
provided that no waterman or wherryman transporting any
passengers or goods in any wherries, tilt boats, or barges
should take any servant or apprentice to serve him on the
river unless he should himself have been an apprentice to
a wherryman or waterman by the space of five years before
such taking. Apprentices were not to be less than 18 years
of age, and were to be bound for at least seven years under
a penalty of ten pounds for every offence. The retention of
the privileges in certain families was favoured by an excep-
tion to the Act in favour of the sons of watermen who, if
trained in rowing, could be admitted to apprenticeship at
the age of 16. It is to be noted that under the first charter
of the East India Company granted in 1600 their watermen
were exempted from impressment.

The cause of this effort to establish a monopoly is pro-
bably connected with one of those changes in forms of
transport which periodically lead to the displacement of
apparently permanent forms. The coach was superseding
the horse for the transport of people from place to place.

1 m

Pfl?%ifii

ilTt'rel

vr

p. 382

WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN 383

Not every one could afford to hire a horse, and many could
not ride one, hence the convenience of the boat or wherry
as a means of locomotion in London ; but driving in a
carriage, even in the indifferent streets, was practicable for
the infirm, whilst one horse could draw four people instead
of carrying only one. Queen Mary at her coronation in
1553 was the first to make the new departure by driving in
a chariot ; her sister and Ann of Cleves were in another,
and two other chariots were in the procession. Coaches
were introduced into England in 1565 by Boonen, a Dutch-
man, who presented one to Queen Elizabeth, and she used
it when she went to St. Paul's Cathedral in 1588 to return
thanks for the deliverance of her kingdom from the Spanish
Armada. "And after awhile divers great ladies with as great
jealousie of the Queen's displeasure made them coaches
and rid in them up and down the countries to the great
admiration of all the beholders, but then by little and little
they grew usual among the nobilitie and others of sort."
By the year 1600 the number of coaches, private and public,
had so increased that the narrow streets were often blocked
with them, and in the next year a Bill was introduced into
the House of Commons and passed by them "to restrain
the excessive and superfluous use of coaches," but the
House of Lords rejected it. For the next hundred years the
history of the watermen was chiefly one continuous agita-
tion and struggle against its powerful rival, which not only
diverted traffic from the river to the land route, but reduced
the fares of passengers, and threatened the existence of the
watermen as a class. In 1614 a Bill was brought into the
House of Commons, entitled : "A Bill against outrageous
coaches," and was rejected by the House.

The water poet, Taylor, took up the cause of the water-
men in his work, "An Errant Thief e," published in 1622.
In it he says : —

Carroches coaches jades and Flanders mares
Do rob us of our snares, our wares our fares
Against the ground we stand and knock our heels
Whilst all our profit runs away on wheels
And whosoever but observes and notes
The great increase of coaches and of boats
Shall find their number more than e'er they were
By half and more, within these thirty years
Then watermen at sea had service still

384 THE PORT OF LONDON

And those that stayed at home had worke at will
Then up start hel-cart coaches were to seek
A man could scarce see twenty in a week
But now I think a man may dayly see
More than the wherrys on the Thames can be.

Three years later, when London was visited by one of the
plague epidemics, Taylor made another moan on behalf of
the industry in his work "The fearfull Summer," viz. :—

The very watermen gave over plying

Their rowing trade doth fail, they fell to dying.

In 1633 the watermen scored by an order from the Star
Chamber. "As to a complaint of the stoppage of the streets
by the carriages of persons frequenting the playhouse of
the Blackfriars, their lordships remembering that there is
an easy passage by water into that playhouse without
troubling the streets and that it is much more fit and
reasonable that those which go thither should go by water
or else on foot do order all coaches to leave as soon as they
have set down and not return till the play is over nor return
further than the west end of St. Paul's Churchyard or
Fleet Conduit, coachmen disobeying these orders to be
committed to Newgate or Ludgate." But next year they
had a set-back by the establishment of hackney carriages.
Permission was obtained for such carriages plying in the
streets, and a stand was formed at the Maypole in the
Strand near Somerset House. The watermen were up in
arms again and petitioned to the King, informing His Majesty
"that the Hackney coaches are so many in number that
they pester and incumber the streets of London and West-
minster and which is worst of all, they stand and ply in
Term time at the Temple Gate and at other places m the
streets and do carry sometimes three men for four pence
the man or four men for twelvepence to Westminster or
back again, which doing of this doth undoe the Company
of Watermen." This petition had the result of bringing out
a proclamation denouncing hackney coaches for so pestering
the streets and breaking up the pavements that the thor-
oughfares were made dangerous and hay and provender
was made dear, and forbidding any hackney coaches in
London or Westminster except those travelling three miles
out of town, and no person was allowed to use a coach in

WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN 385

the streets unless the owner would constantly keep four
horses available for the King's service. The poet Taylor,
who had spent himself and £34 of his money in securing
this edict in favour of the watermen, appealed to them for
reimbursement, but only succeeded in obtaining £19 from
a collection made on his behalf with shameless suggestions
from some of the watermen that he had fraudulently asked
for more than he had spent. The public would not stand
the edict, and the triumph of the watermen was short-lived.
Two years afterwards, in 1637, the proclamation was prac-
tically withdrawn by the issuing of an order for the licensing
of fifty hackney coaches, "finding it very requisite for our
nobility and gentry as well as for foreign Ambassadors
strangers and others." The troubles which were rising be-
tween Charles and his people gradually dwarfed any such
question as coach versus wherry, but the adherence of the
aristocracy to the King's cause meant the loss of the most
valuable patrons of the coach. Cromwell, however, had no
sentiment for monopoly, even a working-class monopoly,
and in 1652 his officials increased the number of licences of
hackney coaches to two hundred. When next year the
watermen presented a petition to the House of Commons
against coaches, Cromwell replied by issuing an ordinance
raising the number to three hundred. Cromwell possibly
had in mind the petition which the watermen had presented
to the House of Commons in July, 1648. This petition was
correct in form, but it begged the House to invite the King
to London with honour, freedom, and safety, and breathed
a Royalist atmosphere throughout. Charles II in the first
few months of his reign, being complaisant to all of his
subjects, and particularly appreciative of the maritime
section of them, who had so much aided his restoration,
issued a proclamation against the hire of hackney carriages
in the streets, but it appears to have had no effect, and
probably was never intended to be enforced. Before the
close of Charles's reign the number was by statute increased
to four hundred. The ineffective struggle continued till
1694, when an Act was passed raising the number of
coaches to seven hundred and appointing commissioners to
regulate them. The coach had won its claim to traffic in
London as a competitor of the wherry, and the position
had to be accepted by the wherrymen. Meanwhile foreign

386 THE PORT OF LONDON

trade had been expanding, and what business had been lost
in conveying passengers was made up in carrying cargo.
An amusing incident of the competition occurred when, in
the intense frost of the early weeks of 1684, the coach
successfully competed with the wherry on its own element
by plying on the ice-covered river from the Temple to
Westminster, whilst large boats were used as sledges to
carry passengers drawn by horses or watermen.

While the overseers and rulers of the watermen were
united in the long fight against coaches, there was going on
an internal struggle between the rulers (the word ruler was
ultimately adopted as the most convenient for the double
title of the governing body) and the men, and there are
constant instances of friction between these two constituent
classes of the Watermen's Company, covering a long period.
The democratic principles which developed in the nation,
as the Puritan principles were extended by the success of
the Parliamentary army, took a firmer hold in London
than anywhere, and with the watermen these principles
found their chief expression in February, 1641, when they
petitioned the Corporation asking that the rulers to be
appointed by the Corporation under the 1555 Act should
be selected by the watermen themselves, and as a matter of
form only to comply with the Act, that the election should
afterwards be confirmed by the Corporation. The Corpora-
tion referred the question to a committee, who as a com-
promise suggested that the watermen who plied at the
stairs between Gravesend and Windsor, fifty-five in num-
ber, "being of the most honest and sufficientest watermen,"
should select twenty of the "most able and best sort of
watermen," and that in the appointment of the eight rulers
the Corporation should consider these twenty candidates
as well as any others submitted to them for consideration.
The suggestion appears to have been adopted, and the
candidates so nominated at the Stairs appear, when
appointed as rulers, to have gradually assumed the title of
Assistants and Court of Assistants. But the causes of fric-
tion were not removed by the concession. Scandalous
charges were circulated against the rulers, thereby so
exciting the hostility of the watermen that when a Bill was
promoted for amending the regulations governing the
Company, agitators threatened to raise many thousands of

;'.

P. 386

WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN 387

watermen to attend the Parliamentary Committee to oppose
the proceedings and to cut the petitioners in pieces, "as
Dr. Lambe was murdered in St. Paul's Churchyard though
protected by the Royal troops." One of them boasted that
during the Parliament then sitting they were free from all
government. The rulers appealed to the House for protec-
tion— vainly apparently, for the Bill did not pass.

The year 1667 found the watermen at variance with the
lightermen. The lightermen, as well as the watermen,
appear to have had a Livery Company of their own, though
little is certain on the subject. The difficulties appear to
have arisen owing to the lightermen invading the business
of the watermen by carrying passengers as well as goods.
The disputes were brought before the King in Council,
and the Mayor and Aldermen were asked to reconcile the
differences or else to report what steps should be taken in
the public interest. The negotiations between the parties
went on for six years, at the end of which time the Corpora-
tion, having been unable to bring the parties together,
reported in favour of the union of the watermen and
lightermen into one company. This was strongly opposed
by the rulers of the watermen, and the dispute was not
settled till 1700. Meanwhile a diversion was created by the
demands of the watermen for an investigation into their
own company's accounts, and a committee of the Corpora-
tion, after sitting for sixty-four days on the question,
reported that they had examined the books of the Company
from 1667 to 1673 and found them very ill-kept, "by
means whereof we have found it very difficult and trouble-
some besides the expense of a great deale of time to dis-
cover what money was received and paid within the afore-
said time," and further that neither is there "any plaine
entry made of what money was from time to time taken out
of the box," but the committee arrived at the conclusion
that "several sums of money have been taken away by the
persons undermentioned to the injury of the whole Com-
pany and especially to the poore thereof who ought to have
been relieved out of those moneys." The money taken
amounted to about £,100 in the three years previously, and
according to the rulers concerned they were, on the advice
of the clerk, entitled to it as a perquisite attached to their
office, the clerk himself taking a share. The committee

388 THE PORT OF LONDON

could not find the slightest colour for such a pretence nor
for many other things that had been done by the rulers
during the same time, and they recommended that the
rulers should refund the moneys taken and that auditors
should in future supervise the accounts of the Company.
A year afterwards some of the rulers were still recalcitrant
and had not made the refund, nor does it appear on the
record that they ever did.

At this period any successful move of the men was always
immediately arrested by some untoward circumstance. On
this occasion the blow came by the stoppage of Sunday
work on the river. This measure had first been contemplated
in 1641, when the Puritan idea of Sunday observance was
gaining power ; but though a Bill to restrain bargemen,
lightermen, and others from labouring and working "on
the Lord's day commonly called ' Sunday ' passed through
the Commons, it did not survive the Lords. But in 1677
Parliament passed an Act forbidding anyone to use, employ,
or travel upon the Lord's day with any boat, wherry,
lighter, or barge except it be on an extraordinary occasion
to be allowed by some Justice of the Peace of the county,
city, or borough where the act should be committed, upon
pain that every person offending should forfeit five shillings
for each offence.

Whether the law was enforced in the time of the Merry
Monarch does not emerge in contemporary history, but it
can be imagined that the rigidity of James II 's compliance
with religious observance was reflected in his zealous
officials' carrying out the law strictly. When his daughter
Mary came to the throne she emphasized her views on the
subject by issuing an order in council requiring the rulers
to stop the working of watermen on Sundays. The rulers
confessed themselves unable of their own authority to
secure obedience, and in June, 1693, they petitioned the
Mayor to appoint constables to attend at the river stairs
every Sunday from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. to assist them in the
performance of their duty, alleging that troublesome and
disorderly persons at the plying places were endangering
their lives. The result of the application is not known. The
question remained one of contention until 1700, when with
other questions it was settled by the Act of Parliament
passed during that year.

WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN 389

This Act of 1700 was one of the most important events
in the history of the watermen, as it marked the union of
the lightermen and the watermen — a union much to the
advantage of the watermen, for while their industry was a
failing one, that of the lightermen was a growing one. It
was also designed to benefit the public by bringing the
lightermen under public control. The Act began by enact-
ing that all lightermen or owners of lighters working
between Gravesend and Windsor should be deemed to be
members of the Watermen's Company. The qualification
for working a barge, wherry, or boat should be service as
an apprentice to a waterman in accordance with the statute
of 1555. The owners or occupiers of the quays between
London Bridge and Hermitage Bridge at Wapping might
use their own craft if rowed by qualified men. Wood-
mongers keeping wharves for the retailing of fuel might
themselves row their craft, or if employing men for this
purpose the men must be qualified men. A similar con-
cession was extended to owners of lay stalls carrying soil to
vessels. Any other men working on the river were to be
subject to a penalty of £5 for each offence. Three working
lightermen were to be appointed rulers, bringing the total
number of rulers up to eleven. The rulers were to appoint
forty or not more than sixty watermen as assistants. The
lightermen were to appoint nine of the assistants. Five
watermen and two lightermen were to be appointed as
auditors. The court might therefore consist of eighty-seven
persons. As in the Act of 1855 the appointment of rulers
lay with the Corporation. The assistants, though appointed
by election machinery ostensibly democratic, were in
reality indirectly appointed by the rulers, but as their
functions were purely advisory it made no difference.
Public opinion then favoured a strong control of the men's
monopoly.

The Act endeavoured to settle the question of Sunday
plying for hire. It is clear that previous legislation to stop
Sunday traffic on the river had been abortive. The Act
recites that great numbers of idle and loose boys worked on
Sunday and exacted excessive fares from passengers "whose
necessary occasions oblige them to pass and repass the
river of Thames and generally spend such their gains in
drunkenness and profaneness the succeeding week."

390 THE PORT OF LONDON

Suppression of the traffic appearing to be impossible, the
ingenious design was adopted of utilizing the energies of
the watermen working on Sundays in aid of the cause of
charity for their own class. The Act therefore authorized
the rulers to allow forty watermen to ply and work on
Sundays between Vauxhall and Limehouse for the purpose
of ferrying people across the river at one penny each, such
watermen paying their receipts to the Company on the
Mondays and receiving for the Sunday work the ordinary
daily pay due to them, the overplus being applied to the
poor, aged, decayed, and maimed watermen and lightermen
and their widows. The scheme appears to have been an
adaptation of the arrangement already in operation at
Westminster, where the watermen at the ferry originally
established for conveying the Archbishop of Canterbury
across the river to Lambeth plied on Sundays for the
benefit of the necessitous of their class.

We have now arrived at the end of the seventeenth
century. The eighteenth century was a period of compara-
tive calm in the history of the watermen. The peaceful
policy of Walpole during the first quarter of that century
has already been referred to as developing foreign trade,
and the rest of the century, owing to the success of the more
aggressive policy of his successors, was characterized by
even more signal developments. The prosperous condition
of trade in London brought occupation to both lightermen
and watermen, and fully compensated for the injury done
by the extension of land conveyances. No other new inven-
tions yet threatened the industry. Hence, though we have
petty internal disputes and quarrels arising in the affairs of
the Watermen's Company, we find a more harmonious
relationship subsisting everywhere in the Port. Such happy
times, as the proverb teaches us, make little history.

Had any waterman or lighterman been able to foresee at
the close of the eighteenth century the changes which
invention and progressive ideas were likely to bring within
thirty years, he would have prophesied not only disaster,
but the extinction of his trade. In those years roads were
improved, new bridges across the Thames were built, the
shipping trade accommodation was revolutionized by the
construction of the docks, and steam-power was applied to
the propulsion of both vessels on the sea and locomotives

b

2

00

w

P-H *>

~ -s;

* '

w .s

N ~

w _

£ ^

H 2

— O

o |,

w I

« •«-:

D e

2

P-39°

WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN 391

on land. The construction of bridges rendered the ferry
unnecessary. The opening of the docks was avowedly made
with the object of avoiding the lighterage service, and so
saving the pillage that went on owing to the facilities to
thieves while craft were in the river. Steam-power in the
river offered quicker transit than man-power. Steam-power
on the railroad offered even greater speed still, with less
dangerous travelling. Every one of these events was to the
prejudice of the man who rowed his craft on the Thames,
and besides, the industry suffered the cumulative disadvan-
tage that instead of being, as in the case of the coach com-
petition, a single rival slowly advancing in power,.giving
time to the river industry to readjust itself to new conditions,
these new factors presented themselves almost at the same
time, and with sudden and apparently overwhelming
expansion. The lightermen and their masters saw all the
possibilities of the new threats of competition as they rose
up one after another, and resisted every one of them,
especially the construction of the docks. Yet, though tem-
porary losses occurred by diversion of business, the gigantic
impulse to trade, aided by the inventions and facilities
which had threatened river traffic, soon provided a huge
development of business which required the lightermen's
services in the Port. The original waterman's occupation
has practically gone, never to return, but his transfer into
the ever-expanding trade of the lighterage of goods has been
accomplished without injury to himself, and he has even
had the satisfaction of witnessing the disappearance of the
passenger steamer which ousted him.

The history of the watermen and lightermen since the
beginning of the nineteenth century has centred round the
attacks on their privileges. The privileges received a new
recognition in the Act of 1827, which consolidated the
powers given under several old Acts. The Company was
incorporated under the title of "The Master Wardens and
Commonalty of Watermen and Lightermen of the River
Thames." Twenty-six members of the Company were
appointed by name as the first members of the newly con-
stituted Company, Francis Theodore Hay being the master.
Vacancies on the Court were to be filled by the nomination
of three freemen by the Court, the final selection being left
to the Mayor and Aldermen of the City. Freemen must have

392 THE PORT OF LONDON

rowed and worked on the Thames as an apprentice of a
freeman or his widow for seven years. Apprentices were to
be between 14 and 18 years old, and no firm could have
more than four. No one but freemen were to work any
craft for hire on the Thames. Passenger boats were to be
specially licensed. The Court were to have power to make
by-laws for good government of the freemen and appren-
tices, including the power to punish offenders. In the
interest of the public the fares for passengers were to be
fixed by the Mayor and Aldermen. The Sunday ferry
arrangements were confirmed. Provision was made for the
ringing of bells at Billingsgate at high water and at
Gravesend at low water for fifteen minutes to give notice
of the starting of the ferry boat to and from Gravesend.
Persons not freemen were not allowed to carry goods for
hire.

The first amendment of these powers came in 1859. The
Act then passed removed the previous legal incapacity of
boats other than those belonging to freemen to carry goods
for hire, but required that all barges so employed should
be registered with the Company. The provisions as to the
qualification of watermen or lightermen were modified by
this Act. No person was to be allowed to act in either of
these capacities unless he was a freeman of the Company
or an apprentice duly qualified and licensed. Freedom of
the Company was to be obtained by an apprenticeship of
at least five years to a freeman or freeman s widow or to a
registered barge-owner employing a freeman. Registered
owners of barges were also to be deemed qualified to
be admitted as freemen. Every man employed had to
receive a licence as well as being qualified as freeman of
the Company. The master of an apprentice might obtain a
licence for him to take sole charge of a vessel if the
apprentice had worked and rowed upon the river for
two years and passed an examination by the Court of
Watermen.

An Act passed in 1864 still further diluted the old
reservoir of watermen. It extended the privileged class to
"contract service men," that is men above 20 years of age
who had not passed through the apprenticeship, but had
served a master authorized to take apprentices and had
assisted him in navigating a lighter or steamboat. A man

WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN 393

who had fulfilled those conditions could obtain from the
Watermen's Company a certificate authorizing him to act
as a lighterman or to work or navigate a steamboat.

In the Thames Conservancy Act of 1894 further excep-
tions were made to the strict rule laid down by the Act of
1827. Lighters passing from beyond one limit of the Port
to beyond the other, i.e., from Teddington to below
Gravesend, need not be freemen or licensed men. Lighters
navigating the Grand Junction Canal and passing from or
to the Thames and not navigating up and down the river,
and lighters navigated from above Teddington Lock as far
as London Bridge were equally free from the Watermen's
Company jurisdiction. Under by-laws made by the con-
servators under the same Act they stipulated that any
lighter when under way in the river should have one
"competent man" constantly on board in the case of lighters
up to fifty tons, with an additional man in the case of
lighters up to 150 tons, and a second additional man for
lighters exceeding 150 tons. Interpretation of this by-law
by police magistrates defined the first competent persons
as a freeman of the Watermen's Company, but that the
second or third hands need only be physically competent.

It will be seen that the attempt to break down the men's
monopoly was only leading to complications in the law
and practice which were defeating the object in view. This
aspect of the case appealed to the Thames Traffic Com-
mittee (a Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade
appointed in 1879 following upon the Princess Alice disaster
in the Thames in 1878), who pointed out that the law was
full of ambiguities and led to singular anomalies. If, for
example, a steamer plied between Southend and London
Bridge she was not obliged to employ licensed watermen.
If she were transferred to a service from Woolwich to
London Bridge her owners were bound to employ in her
navigation men licensed by the Watermen's Company. The
same conditions prevailed in the case of a sailing barge
working from the Medway to London and then transferred
to the river above Gravesend. This Committee were in
favour of clearing away ambiguities by sweeping away the
privileges of watermen and leaving the responsibility of the
selection of employees on the river to employers under the
same conditions as apply to all other employment. They

394 THE PORT OF LONDON

express the common-sense of the situation in the following
extract from their report : —

Considering the great difficulty of establishing a satisfactory
examination, considering that the western barges and the sailing
barges requiring at least equal skill are admirably navigated by
men who are simply selected for the purpose by their owners and
are not required to pass any examinations, considering also that
the best way of securing good and skilful service is in general to
throw the responsibility on the employer and to leave him per-
fectly free to select whom he pleases, we are not disposed to recom-
mend any test examination or preliminary proof of qualification.
We are confirmed in our opinion by the practice on other
rivers, namely the Clyde, the Mersey and the Tyne. The physical
and other features of those rivers differ from those of the Thames
but in all of them skill and experience are required and on none
of them is there any monopoly or any attempt made to ascertain
the qualifications of the men employed on the navigation by
previous examination. On all these rivers the results appear to be
satisfactory. We are informed by Captain Moodie that at New
York also where there is an immense and well conducted barge
traffic, the business of the bargemen is perfectly free. We recom-
mend therefore that the navigation of barges on the river be
thrown open entirely, leaving the men employed in it subject to
penalties in case of misconduct or breach of byelaws and the
owners liable also to civil damages in case of injury.

Though not going quite so far as this Departmental
Committee, a Select Committee of the House of Commons
in 1890 recommended that steps should be taken to render
the Watermen's Company a less close corporation, that the
examination for a lighterman's licence should be more
strict than at present, and that any person should be eligible
for a lighterman's licence if found on examination to
possess the necessary qualification. No action was taken to
convert either of these suggestions into law, but following
upon the prolonged lighterage strike of 1900, the master
lightermen promoted a Bill to enable them to employ upon
their barges any man that they might choose. The Bill was
supported by shipowners, merchants, and brokers who had
suffered by the strike. As the Royal Commission was then
sitting, the Bill was referred to the Commission, and as their
report shows, they adopted the view of the Committee of
1 879 and recommended that the industry should be thrown
open to all workers. In the passing of the Port of London
Act the Government had so many contentious questions of
principle to dispose of that they only attempted to touch the

WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN 395

lighterage question with a light hand, and the Act merely
gave the Authority general power to vary the by-laws
relating to the licensing of watermen and lightermen, but
restricted them from granting licences to any person who
had not been engaged for at least two years in working on a
craft or boat in the Port of London. The action taken by the
Port Authority since their appointment is mentioned in the
chapter describing their share in the history of the Port. So
far as the main objects of the Thames Traffic Commission
of 1879 and the Royal Commission are concerned, the
position remains practically where it was. The enormous
increase in the amount of traffic handled in the river and
the knowledge that it must still further increase as London
grows, with the maintenance of the peculiar licensing
system of watermen, leaves the workers untouched by
influences tending to make them serve the Port to the best
of their ability save such as may be derived from their own
inner consciousness or from the precept and example of their
leaders. No other community of workers in Great Britain
is so protected. In such circumstances the temptation to
use the privileges for their own advantage against the
community is obvious. By the strike of 1900 they held up
all water conveyance for three months, and in 1912 they
were the backbone of the long strike of that year. Although
both of these strikes were unsuccessful, they caused
enormous inconvenience to the public and put at risk the
future of the trade of the Port. The power to do much
mischief still remains, and if it should be again employed
to hold up the Port, either for selfish reasons or even out of
sympathy with other workers, it is hardly to be doubted that
the public will insist upon the abolition of this virtual mon-
opoly as it has from time to time abolished other monopolies
which have proved hurtful to the commonwealth.

The Long Ferry has already been referred to. The name
of Long Ferry was given in centra-distinction of the short
ferry between Gravesend and Tilbury. It is contended by
Cruden that the hythe at Milton Gravesend mentioned in
Domesday as of twenty shillings in value with three ser-
vants was the place where London passengers landed or
embarked was the landing and embarking place for the ferry.
Though the ferry was evidently in existence in 1294, it is
not till 1364 that there is any specific record of it. In that

396 THE PORT OF LONDON

year the farming of the ferriage produced twenty shillings
a year. The ballad of London Lackpenny, written in the
early part of the fifteenth century, thus describes the scene
between the poor traveller desiring to go into Kent and the
waterman :—

Then hyed I me to Belynges Gate

And one cryed "Hoo go we hence"

I prayed a bargeman, for God's sake

That he would spare me my cxpence

"Thou stepst not here" quoth he "under II pence"

I lyst not yet bestow my alms dede

Thus lacking money I could not spede.

The most interesting document regarding this ancient
water passage is the Royal grant in 1401 to the men of
Gravesend of the right of the ferry. The grant relates that
"from time to time whereof the memory of man is not to the
contrary, the men of the Town of Gravesend" had been
accustomed to carry in their own vessels persons desiring
to go by water to London, and that certain persons of
London had recently been engaged in diverting the traffic
to their own vessels to the injury of the Gravesend men.
The document grants "as much as in Us is, to them who
now inhabit the town aforesaid and to their heirs and
successors whomsoever, that they, in their own vessels may
for ever freely ship such persons coming to the said town
of Gravesend and willing to go thence to our said city of
London by water, taking for every such person as in times
past shall have been duly used and accustomed."

The grant was confirmed by succeeding monarchs. In
1562 Gravesend received its first charter of incorporation.
By this charter it appears that the ferry traffic had dimin-
ished, due to the lesser traffic to the Continent and probably
also to the inefficiency of the service. Matters must have
improved by 1573, as we find that the owners of the barges
were authorized by the Corporation to appoint seven tilt-
boats to take turns as auxiliaries to the barges used in the
service. The tiltboats of smart build were propelled by sails
instead of oars, and moreover carried an awning for protec-
tion against the weather. They were originally intended for
"serving the nobilitie and worshipfull and their attendants."
The interests of the barge owners were protected by a
stipulation that the fare for the journey was fixed at six-
pence, out of which the ordinary fare of twopence had to be

WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN 397

paid to the owner of the barge taking the corresponding
trip. The tiltboats were not allowed to transport goods
traffic. Thirty passengers were the maximum number
allowed. The superior speed and other attractions of the
tiltboats soon threatened the existence of the barges, and in
1595 the Corporation of Gravesend persuaded the Corpora-
tion of London to agree to a set of regulations intended to
protect the owners of the barges. The principal regulation
forbade any tiltboat or wherry plying for passengers until
the Gravesend barge was full of passengers and had started
on its voyage. This protection did not, however, save the
barge from extinction. In spite of legal proceedings intended
to drive the tiltboat off the river, its superiority was recog-
nized by the public. The Gravesend Corporation took over
the management of the barges, and the tiltboats were
accepted by the Corporation as legitimate carriers on the
Thames. No barge of the heavy type for this traffic appears
to have been built after 1639. For some years before 1737
a change in the construction of the tiltboat had been made.
In place of the awning, close decks had been provided, and
this had led to accidents involving danger and loss of life.
In 1737 an Act was passed forbidding the use of close
decks or fixed bails (the name given to the hoops upon
which the tilt was supported). Competition gradually
improved the character of the fittings of the craft. We find
in 1789 Mr. John Dominy advertising in this service the
Princess Royal as "fitted up in an elegant manner for the
reception of genteel and creditable people only, which will
sail to-morrow at six o'clock and continue sailing during
the season at is. per passenger. The master to be spoken
with at the Darkhouse and Gun Tavern, Thames Street.
It is Mr. Dominy's fixed resolution to carry no hop pickers
or people going a harvesting on any account whatever."

At the end of December, 1816, there were twenty-six
sailing boats employed in the Long Ferry service, varying
in size between 22 to 45 tons, besides several decked boats
which carried fish and passengers. But the knell of this
ancient sailing craft service had already been rung. In the
previous year the first steamboat between London and
Gravesend, the Margery, had commenced to run. Instead of
being tidal, the new steamboat service was to run at the
appointed hour of 10 o'clock each alternate day from London

398 THE PORT OF LONDON

and Gravesend. The steamboat service did not at first
prove a success. Interruptions continually took place through
breakdowns of machinery and the working expenses were
heavy, but the end was inevitable, and in 1834 the last of
the tiltboats, the Duke of York, was withdrawn. On one of
them, the King George No. i, Cruden pathetically remarks
that "stripped of her wings she lies a hulk at the Hole
Haven as a depot for lobsters awaiting the demand of the
London market."

The steamboat traffic on the Thames, as is related in
another chapter, was immensely in favour with the public,
and as cordially detested by those handling dumb craft in
the river for commercial purposes. Steamboats were to a
great extent displaced by the railways running eastward of
London along the Kent and Essex shores, which were made
between 1830 and 1840, and to-day such has been the effect
of the change of public habit that no river service of any
kind exists between London and Gravesend. The public
with fuller purses journey by train to Tilbury, and embark-
ing upon sumptuously decorated steamers, seek fresher
breezes in the estuary of their river, with Clacton, Yar-
mouth, or Ramsgate as their goal. Gravesend and Rosher-
ville have ceased to be the scene of the Londoner's holiday,
and not even the restricted user of sea excursions due to
the war led to even a temporary restoration to favour.

CHAPTER XXXIII

The Public Wharfingers

THE public wharfingers in the Port of London to-day
are the lineal descendants of the men who first pro-
vided the wharves and warehouses on the Thames side for
the landing and warehousing of the goods brought in by
ships trading in the Port and for the shipment of goods
exported from the Port. Passengers could embark or dis-
embark in boats plying between vessels anchored in the
stream and the causeways or stairs running down the
slopes of the riverside from the firm land of the City, but
for such operations as the landing of wine or the shipment
of wool, wharves with shelter against weather and with
powerful machinery for the lifting of goods to and from
the vessels and craft were absolutely necessary. Such
wharves also offered, as they do to this day, facilities for
examination of the goods for the assessment of Customs
duties. In the earliest times at Billingsgate and at Queen-
hithe there was accommodation for ships alongside to dis-
charge and load their cargoes, but for the most part, vessels
lay in the stream below London Bridge in the upper Pool
and delivered or received their cargoes by means of barges.
There seems to be little doubt that the first wharves, except
at Billingsgate and Queenhithe, were erected by individual
merchants or shipowners for the convenience of their own
trade and that the system under which public wharfingers
were established was a development subsequent to the
privately owned institution. Such a development would
naturally begin by a merchant finding his own accommoda-
tion more than he wanted and taking in a lodger. Then
experience probably indicated the benefit of the co-opera-
tion of several merchants utilizing one quay, or of a trade
concentrating its business at one depot. The latter reason
probably prevailed in the case of the Easterlings, who for
centuries had their own premises at Dowgate. Then came
the idea of employing trustworthy agents or contractors to
render the Port services required, and thus was established
the business of public wharfingers, who for a consideration

400 THE PORT OF LONDON

let their wharves be used for the purpose of landing or
shipping off the goods of the public, charging a sum per
ton known as "wharfage." In the course of time, wharfingers
also became public warehousekeepers, accepting the respon-
sibility of the custody of goods in warehouses attached to
the wharves. It is clear that until the middle of the eigh-
teenth century the wharfage and warehousing services
were almost always performed under different controls.
The chief reason for this distinction is to be found in the
fact that in respect of the duties then payable on entering
the country the wharves were the places where it was
convenient that Customs revenue should be appraised and
collected. This fact entailed the wharves being privileged
institutions. The warehouses remained for a much longer
period the property of the merchant. The East India Com-
pany's warehouses are the outstanding example of privately
owned warehousing establishments. Ten acres of land in the
City of London were covered by their storehouses which were
in their possession at the fourth decade of the nineteenth
century. The existing Cutler Street warehouse of the Port
of London Authority, built about 1782, is the last survivor
of this gigantic warehouse system. Even to-day a few large
firms of merchant importers own or rent their own ware-
houses in preference to entrusting their produce to the
management of the Port of London Authority or the public
wharfingers. The chief motive is economy, but this method
can only be cheaper in the case of the very largest firms
doing a regular business, and it is a question whether the
interests of buyers or consumers are thereby so well safe-
guarded.

The first legislation dealing with the wharfingers is that
contained in an Act of Parliament passed in the first year
of Elizabeth's reign. This was a general Act dealing with
London, Southampton, Bristol, West Chester (Chester),
Newcastle, and all other ports (Hull excepted) where the
Customs had been represented for ten years previously. The
Act begins by lamenting the decrease in the revenue derived
from the Customs, attributing the decrease to "greedy
persons " smuggling, and the corruption of the Customs
officers as compared with the times since Edward III. The
Act then lays down that goods are only to be loaded or dis-
charged in daylight (fish excepted), and then only upon

w

3

o

02
H
CO

OS

w

U

p. 400

THE PUBLIC WHARFINGERS 401

"some such open place, key or wharf" as may be appointed
by the Queen. Amongst other provisions is one that
shipowners are to be required to give due notice when
they were leaving ports and to lodge manifests of the
inward and outward cargoes, and another that only the
owners were to pass entries of goods at the Custom
House. The Commissioners entrusted by the Queen to
carry out the Act appointed the following wharves in
London, known as "legal quays," for the purposes of
the Act, viz. :—

Old Wool Quay

New Wool Quay

Galley Quay

Andrew Morris's Quay

Ambrose Thurston Quay

RaufTs Quay

Cocks Quay

Dyce Quay

Bear Quay

Somers Quay
Botolph Wharf
Sabs Quay
Young's Quay
Crown Quay
Smart's Quay
Fresh Wharf
Gaunts Quay

All these quays were situated between London Bridge
and the Tower of London on the north side of the river.
The total length of river frontage occupied by them was
about 1,100 feet. Many of the names were those of the
owners of the premises, and were accordingly changed
from time to time. The only names that survive to the
present time are Galley Quay, Botolph Wharf, and Fresh
Wharf. The position of these quays had been fixed by
experience to be the most convenient for trade. The north
side of the river was nearer the City warehouses, and
being east of London Bridge avoided the perilous passage
of cargo through the bridge.

The advance in the trade of the Port during the next
hundred years led to demands for additional quay space,
and in the year 1663 an Act was passed empowering the
King by commission to define the limits of the Port of
London and to appoint "Keys wharffs or places for landing
and discharging goods and prohibiting the landing and
discharging of boats, lighters, ships or vessels elsewhere
without the sufferance and permission of the Commis-
sioners of Customs." It was two years before the King's
Commissioners settled the appointed quays. The following

402 THE PORT OF LONDON

is a list, and it will be seen that not many were added to the
existing quays, viz. : —

Brewers Quay Ralphs Quay

Cheaters Quay Dyce Quay

Galley Quay ' Smart's Quay

Wool Quay Somers Quay

Custom House Quay Lyons Quay

Porters Quay Botolph Wharf

Bear Quay Hammonds Quay

Sabs Quay Gaunts Quay

Wiggans Quay Cocks Quay

Youngs Quay Fresh Wharf

All of the additional legal quays authorized were, as in
the case of those authorized in 1559, situated on the north
side of the river between London Bridge and the Tower.
The name of the Brewers Quay is another which has lasted
till to-day. Bear Quay got its name from Bear Lane. Galley
Quay was naturally the name of the wharf where were dis-
charged the galleys that brought wine from Genoa. Stow
relates that the Galley sailors had certain silver coins called
Galley halfpence, the circulation of which was forbidden
by Acts passed in the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V. and
that persons bringing into the realm "suskinges or dodkins,"
i.e., little sous or doits, were to be punished as thieves. At
Wool Wharf a building was used for the tronage or weighing
of wools in the Port of London. Somers Quay took its name
from its owner dwelling there, as did Lyons Quay, with
its sign of a lion. Botolph Wharf, known formerly as
Botolphs Gate, is close to the parish church of St. Botolph,
and is one of the earliest mentioned of wharves. Its grant to
the Abbot of Westminster by Edward the Confessor was
confirmed by William the Conqueror.

The position of these wharves fixed the position of the
markets for the sale of the goods, hence the establishment
of the markets for the sale of imported produce in Mark
Lane and Mincing Lane, a position which they still occupy
to-day. Mark Lane was originally Mart Lane. Mincing
Lane, once Mincheon Lane — from the Minchuns or Nuns
of St. Helens, Bishopsgate, who lived there — became a
favourite quarter for lodging foreign merchants and sailors
arriving in the Port of London, including the galley men
above referred to. Eastcheap is another name which has
survived, indicating the presence of a market.

THE PUBLIC WHARFINGERS 403

Thirty-one of the Commissioners signed the deed of
appointment of these quays, including Lord Clarendon, the
Lord High Chancellor ; Lord Southampton, the Lord
High Treasurer ; Lord Arlington, and Lord Ashley.

These quays, thus appointed as legal quays, were the only
places recognized as the landing and shipping-off places of
goods arriving or leaving by sea, the primary object of the
restriction being the security of the Customs revenue. But
there were at this time many other quays on the river above
London Bridge connected with warehouses where goods,
both imported and home-produced, were stored. Some of
them may be indicated. The Steelyard, long the chief depot
of the Easterlings, and already referred to, was the principal
warehouse. Large stocks of steel and iron were kept here
and in 1708 a contemporary guide-book says that it was a
"prodigious market" for such goods. Further west were the
warehouses and vaults of the vintners, where Bordeaux
wines were stored and sold. Then came Queenhithe, the
City market for corn for many years. Salt wharf was the
place where salt was discharged, measured, and sold. At
Timber Hithe, timber was landed and stored. Brooks
Wharf and Broken Wharf were existing in Stow's time, and
both survive till to-day. Broken Wharf was then in dis-
repair, hence its name. Stow also describes Paul's Wharf
and Puddle Wharf, whose names survive, the latter,
like Queenhithe, possessing an open dock. There do not
appear to have been any wharves or warehouses on the
south side of the Thames when Stow wrote his Survey of
London at the end of the sixteenth century. All warehouses
above London Bridge were filled with every description of
goods. Many of them were far from substantial construc-
tions, wood being the principal material used in their
construction. The erection of buildings was not controlled
by any authority. Insurance companies did not exist and
did not exercise the salutary check which they exercise
now in the separation of risks.

It is not surprising, therefore, that when the Great Fire
broke out in Pudding Lane on the 2nd September, 1666,
and was fanned westward by a gentle east wind, the charac-
ter of the warehouses, buildings, and their contents was the
principal contributory cause of the immensity of the con-
flagration and devastation. The effect of that fire so far as

4°4

THE PORT OF LONDON

the Port was concerned was to destroy in three days vir-
tually the whole of the accommodation for landing and
storing goods, and the whole of the goods in the warehouses.
Fortunately the community did not then depend upon
imported food. Were such an event possible in the twentieth
century, when London is fed from the sea, the disaster
would be dire and almost irremediable, but the distribu-
tion of fire risks in the great stores of foreign produce,
under the advice of the insurance companies, is now so
systematically arranged that any fire in the Port can be
limited to the section of the building in which it commences.
In the report of the Commissioners appointed under the
Act of 1663, the measurements of the space at each wharf
to be licensed are laid down. There was a uniform width of
quay provided for of forty feet. The frontage of each wharf
is given as follows, viz. :—

Brewers Quay
Chesters Quay
Galley Quay
Wool Dock
Custom House Quay
Porters Quay
Bears Quay
Sabs Dock
Wiggans Quay
Ralphs Quay
Dyce Quay
Smart's Quay
Somers Quay
Lion Quay
Botolph Quay
Hammonds Quay
Gaunts Quay
Cocks Quay
Fresh Wharf
Billingsgate Dock

Length of frontage

in feet.

73

101
61

202

I03

62

30

E

in

73

Total

7

23

3i

4»

140

72

. 549

The river stairs which divided these wharves were not
allowed to be used for the landing or shipping of goods.

On the south side of the river, the Commissioners
allowed corn for the City to be landed at Bridge House.
Another exception to the regulations was sanctioned by

GALLEY QUAY. LOWER THAMES STREET

THE PUBLIC WHARFINGERS 405

the Commissioners, viz., that between London and Wool-
wich, horses, coal, beer, stone, fish, and corn might be loaded
direct into any ship in the river, provided Customs officers
were in attendance, and, further, that timber could be dis-
charged in the river between Westminster and Limehouse
Dock, provided the owner first paid the duty, and that
Customs officers were in attendance. A special suffer-
ance or permission was required for this privilege, hence
the name of sufferance wharves, which was later applied
to such wharves as were to be allowed by the Commissioners
of Customs to deal with the overflow of traffic from other
wharves. In the case of coal and other goods to which the
special sufferance privileges were first accorded, the
arrangement was doubtless made because of the inability
of the legal quays to deal with any large quantity of bulky
traffic.

The Commissioners took the opportunity of imposing
other conditions upon the owners of the legal quays
intended to facilitate the transit of goods and the avoidance
of congestion. Thus, crane houses were not to be more than
12 feet in breadth for single cranes, and 20 feet for double
cranes, with a depth in either case of not more than 20 feet.
The floor of the crane house was to be at least 10 feet 6 inches
above the ground so that carts could pass under it. The
cartways leading to the quays were to be at least 11 feet
wide. As the river walls of the quays were not of uniform
height, the Commissioners recommended that they should
be brought up to five feet above high water mark, some of
them then being only three feet above the mark and that
the gradients of the streets should be lowered to make the
drawing of loads more easy. But the records do not show
whether these sensible recommendations were carried out.

Quay or key is a term often loosely employed as an alter-
native for wharf, but it would appear that quays were then
places dedicated primarily for the discharge and loading of
ships and hoys. Wharves were limited to the passing over of
goods to and from barges.

The term dock was applied to small open harbours cut
into the land. Of these docks Billingsgate was for centuries
the principal one in the Port both as regards size and the
business carried on. The fish trade became so important
at this dock that an Act was passed in 1699 for making

406 THE PORT OF LONDON

Billingsgate a free market for the sale of fish. Vessels with
salt fish using the dock paid 8d. per day groundage, or 2od.
for the voyage. Lobster boats with fresh sea fish and every
Dogger Bank boat with sea fish paid 2d. and i3d. respec-
tively. At the head of the dock was a square plot of land
compassed with posts known as Roomland which, with an
adjacent part of the street was the usual place where ship-
masters, coal merchants, woodmongers, lightermen and
labourers met for the marketing of coal. Execution Dock
between Wapping New Stairs and King Edwards Stairs
was the place where pirates were hung in chains ; St.
Katharine Dock was the landing place for the monastery
dedicated to that saint ; Puddle Dock and Queenhithe Dock
in Upper Thames Street, exist to-day much in their ancient
design ; St. Saviour's Dock on the South side of the Thames
was formed from a sheltered creek for the convenience of
small ships. Other docks were Sabs Dock already mentioned,
Dowgate Dock, Wapping Dock, Ratcliff Dock, and Lime-
house Dock in the districts which they are named after.
Savorys Dock near Shad Thames, Scotland Dock at White-
hall easily identified with Scotland Yard, Tower Dock at
the Tower, and Whitefriars Dock, complete the list.

Of the facilities given to traders at these quays up to
the end of the eighteenth century it must be said that they
were of a primitive character even for times when steam or
hydraulic machinery had not been thought of. No vessel
could lie alongside any quay afloat for the whole period of
the tidal flow. The quays were generally uncovered and
unless goods could be removed as they were landed, were
exposed not only to the effects of heat and cold and wet,
but to the depredations of the army of thieves that haunted
the river. The trucking of goods was apparently not
practised, probably because of the rough surface of the
quays or streets. Goods which could not be carried by a
man on his back were slung on poles resting on the
shoulders of two men. Most of the goods appear to have
arrived in barrels which could be rolled over the quay to
the conveyance. Though complaint was evoked by the
leisurely and expensive methods of doing business the chief
grievances of the merchants were directed rather to the
exorbitant charges made than to the inefficient services.
In 1674 there were disputes between the owners of the legal

THE PUBLIC WHARFINGERS 407

quays and the merchants as to their charges, and it was
referred to the Court of Aldermen to settle the rates for
the services rendered on the quays. Schedules were sub-
mitted by both the parties. The wharf owners claimed that
the rates were moderate and took credit for their not having
been increased after the great fire, when such calamitous
losses were sustained. The merchants answered that they
had been raised 50 per cent, in 1650, and they considered
that the increase of trade since the Fire had afforded the
wharfingers an ample recompense for their losses. The
Aldermen came to no decision. Possibly the City's interest
in the wharves led them to favour them rather than the
merchants. In 1705 the merchants again brought pressure
to obtain relief against the exactions of the wharfingers,
and applied to Parliament in January of that year. Their
petition complained that the proprietors of the legal quays
had created a monopoly by entering into a combination "or
co-partnership to make them all one joint concern which, if
continued, the burthens and losses trade will be subject to
by this co-partnership will be intolerable." One result of
the monopoly complained of in this petition was that ships
were twice as long in discharging in consequence of the
number of lighters in attendance for cargo having been
reduced, one lighter only doing the business of three under
the previous arrangements. Again, rates of wharfage and
rents of warehouses on the wharfs had been advanced and
there was no limit to further advances. Further, and this
was considered the most intolerable grievance, when by the
negligence of their servants, lighters were sunk and goods
lost, or when goods were stolen from the lighters or ware-
houses, merchants knew not from whom to obtain reparation,
having no certain knowledge of the persons concerned as
no deeds of partnership were enrolled in the Courts of
Record, and therefore they were "left without remedy
unless by the great charge and delay of a suit in Equity in
order to every action that your petitioners may have occasion
to commence at law to recover their damages."

Parliament appointed a committee to deal with the
petition. It met several times but made no report. During
the 1705 session while the committee were sitting, attention
was drawn to a section in the Act for rebuilding London
after the Fire which appears to have been overlooked. This

4o8 THE PORT OF LONDON

section required wharfingers to publish schedules of their
charges and gave merchants a right of action against wharf-
ingers who might demand exorbitant charges. The
merchants thereupon stopped further proceedings before
Parliament and decided to enter upon an inquiry of what
had been done to give effect to this section. Here the matter
evidently dropped for the time being, a merchant who
wrote in the last decade of the century guessing with some
probability of accuracy that further action was stayed by
some palliating measures of the wharfingers. It may be
guessed further from what occurs in modern times that
conditions of trade may have meanwhile so improved that
merchants may have felt able to pass the heavy charges on
to the consumer with perhaps something added. However
this may be, it is clear that as the eighteenth century
advanced and trade advanced with it, the wharfingers
became more and more masters of the situation. As an
instance of this, there is a notice sent out to merchants in
November, 1756, by the proprietors of the legal quays.
These gentlemen coolly told their merchant customers that
they did not admit that sugar which they lightered from
ships in the river to their quay was in their charge, and
that to prevent disputes for the future they gave notice
that they would not accept liability for any loss or damage
which might happen to goods put into their lighters, and
that only on those terms would they consent to perform
the service of lighterage.

The granting of sufferance privileges by the Crown to
wharves outside the favoured territory between London
Bridge and the Tower was of little benefit to merchants
and in no way tended to correct the ill-effects of the mono-
poly. The sufferance grant was of too spasmodic and uncer-
tain a nature to tempt the capitalist to erect new wharves.
Such wharves would in any case start with a geographical
disability and with the handicap that carmen and lighter-
men had vested interests in the legal quays, where the
conditions of congestion and chaos provided opportunities
for plunder. And then there was the certainty that the legal
quays were strong and unscrupulous enough to freeze out
any undertaking which threatened their monopoly.

At the end of the eighteenth century the merchants, with
the shipowners, at last succeeded in gaining the ear of

OLD WOOL WAREHOUSE AT BERMONDSEY

p. 408

THE PUBLIC WHARFINGERS 409

Parliament on this and other scandals of the Port and
secured reforms that ended the autocratic reign of the legal
quays and established a revolution in port management and
facilities. This is recorded in another chapter. It may,
however, be convenient here to summarize the case against
the legal quays as it was put to the public in 1705, and as it
remained for the next hundred years.

1. The limitation of landing and shipping off of mer-
chandise to the legal quays between London Bridge and
the Tower brought about congestion, and although relief
was given by the granting of sufferance privileges, this
entailed an additional charge on the merchant, who was
also obliged to fee the Customs officer who attended at the
sufferance wharves. Such officers, in order to enhance their
gratuities, knew how to bring about delays and to let the
goods lie in the craft, giving opportunity for innumerable
thefts.

2. The lack of space at the legal quays was attended not
only by impositions in the rates for wharfage and lighterage,
but with many difficulties, delays, and inconveniences.
Thus, when goods were waiting on the quays to be shipped,
the loaded lighters with import goods were obliged to lie by
until the quays were cleared. Ships were frequently stopped
in their working for want of lighters. The blocking of the
quays led to constant quarrels amongst the labourers,
' raising such clamour that if the property of the ground
itself were in question it could not be contended for with
more heat and animosity." Another grievance resulted from
the fact that many of the wharfingers were owners of
lighters and gave a preference at the quays to goods carried
in their own lighters. These wharfingers were accused of
paying wages lower than the standard wage, knowing that
the men would compensate themselves either by plundering
the goods or by insisting on bribes from merchants before
they would carry out their duties. Again, great inconveni-
ence arose from the landing of goods belonging to different
merchants at one spot at one and the same time, especially
in regard to wine and fruit. It was a common practice for
ships lying alongside one another to be discharged simul-
taneously, and in such case the goods were rolled from ship
to ship or carried on men's backs to the landing place,
resulting in the goods of every ship lying on the quay

4io THE PORT OF LONDON

mixed and undistinguished, for two or three days at a
time. The wharfingers laid the blame upon the merchant
for not removing nis goods, and the merchant retailated
upon the wharfinger for confounding his goods with
others. The true cause of the disputes — the noise and
the confusion — was attributed to the want of room, and it
was urged that unless this cause was removed all reform
would be baffled.

3. The existence of the monopoly of accommodation
was perhaps the greatest grievance of the merchants. They
pointed out that this monopoly had been retained in a great
measure by the representations made after the Great Fire
of the great losses then sustained and of the extraordinary
expense of rebuilding the accommodation. But any sacri-
fices made had long been liquidated, and the merchants
pertinently observed that as they were confined to the
narrow bounds of the legal quays it was absolutely neces-
sary that the wharfingers should have bounds to their rates.
The charge of combination of ownership was emphasized.
It was alleged that the majority of the wharfingers had for
many years been united by partnership under one joint
interest and direction, and that they commanded the
renewal of every lease, regardless of cost. This provided the
inevitable excuse that high rents must be supported by
high rates — a policy carried out so thoroughly that not only
wharf and warehouse rates were continually raised, but also
rates for lighterage. It was estimated that the rates at the
legal quays were double those in force at other wharves.
Yet so strong was their position as the holders of exclusive
rights that they could enforce their exactions without fear
of losing their business.

4. The merchants supported their case by pointing to
the outports, where, as trade increased, the wharf limits had
been extended at the request of the merchants. The Crown
had never denied any application there, nor had the mer-
chants been opposed by any private interest. It was stated
that in the last seventeen years of the reign of Charles II
no less than forty-eight extensions of public wharves in the
kingdom outside of the Port of London had been granted.
In the reign of William and Mary the public wharves at
Bristol had been established, and there were 4,000 feet of
public wharves there as against 1,400 feet in London.

THE PUBLIC WHARFINGERS 411

Falmouth and Plymouth had recently had extensions of
wharves granted to them. Arguing from these precedents
and from the greatly increased trade of the previous fifty
years, the merchants contended that none but wharfingers
could desire any proof of the necessity of enlarging the
authorized public quays in London. They lamented the
case of London when they considered what it had lost by
trade being forced out of its channel into the outports, "all
owing to the acts of a few wharfingers for their own
private interest suffered to increase by slow steps and
degrees, too much unattended to by those whose business
it was and who might long ago have prevented it. The
merchant no doubt will seek and prefer that port where he
can carry on his trade with the best economy, ease and
dispatch and not where his accounts must be loaded with
exactions and impositions and his thoughts disturbed with
loss and delay, and therefore it is not to be wondered at that
the outports have flourished and increased at the expense
or loss of the mother city."

Old as it is, the doctrine laid down in this last sentence
as to the policy which should govern the management of a
port is as sound to-day as it was in the circumstances of the
year 1705, and it is worthy of observance by all employers
and employed who are concerned in the welfare of the
Port of London.

The establishment of the great dock systems at the
beginning of the eighteenth century was an immense
upheaval in the Port and vitally prejudiced the interests of
the legal quays. In the five years beginning with the opening
of the West India Docks in 1802, the principal trades of the
Port were compulsorily transferred from their existing
spheres of operation to the West India Docks, the London
Dock, and the East India Dock. Instead of lying in the
stream, the vessels concerned in these trades were taken
into the particular docks assigned to them, and their mer-
chandise was landed there. Thus the wharves which had
received sugar, rum, logwood, ginger, pimento, brandy,
and wine — and they were the majority of the wharves —
lost the whole of the businesses of landing and warehousing
these goods. East India produce, which had been landed at
various wharves on its way to the Up-town warehouses of
the East India Company, was now landed at the East India

4i2 THE PORT OF LONDON

Docks and carted to Town. No more drastic change was
ever made in the working of a port, before or since. The
business that was left to the wharfingers of those days was
the coastwise trade with corn, hemp, flax, fruit, and hides
from foreign ports. The taking over of the wharves by the
Government doubtless sweetened the loss of business and
prestige to the wharves concerned. The removal of the
congestion caused by the transfer of so much traffic to the
docks must have been as beneficial to the new tenants of
the legal quays in the cost of manipulation as it was to the
merchant, in the dispatch given to the restricted quantity
of goods which were allowed to pass over the quays.

The monopolies accorded to the docks were in force for
twenty-one years from the date of opening of the respective
docks. During that time the trade of the Port grew substan^
tially, and the wharves, in their favoured position so near
the heart of London, received their share of imports not
tied by law to the docks.

The cessation of the dock privileges did not at once
benefit the wharves. The convenience of dock accommoda-
tion for the valuable produce housed there was too obvious
to tempt away merchants, many of whom still had memories
of their sufferings under the monopolist regime of the
legal quays. Moreover, the merchants themselves were
managing the docks whilst they and their relatives were
shareholders. The only loosening of connexion was in the
direction of warehousing goods at the new St. Katharine
Dock. Even when the East India Company went out
of direct trade and sold its immense City establishments,
the wharfingers made no bid for the warehousing of
East India produce. The City warehouses were bought
up by the dock companies between them, and tea, indigo,
and silk, which had been housed there for nearly a
century, remained there.

But in the middle of the nineteenth century a movement
began for the erection of riverside wharves of modern con-
struction equal in accommodation to those at the docks and
owned by substantial firms whose warrants were good
enough for bankers to accept as security for advances to
merchants. They were aided by the lack of energy on the
part of the dock institutions, who, trusting in their old
prestige, were inclining to the conservative views towards

THE PUBLIC WHARFINGERS 413

modern ideas of accommodation which had marked the
wharf institutions which they had displaced. Dock manage-
ment was bound to become largely impersonal as the result
of the vastness of their undertakings, whilst the more com-
pact wharf establishments had the inestimable benefit of
being managed by their owners. The conditions of trade had
changed. The West India trade was no longer so large,
relatively to other trades. The Free Trade policy of the
Government had not only affected the character of sea-
going trades using the Port of London, but by removing
the duties on many descriptions of merchandise had made
it practicable for many wharves and warehouses to carry on
business which Customs regulations had confined to the
docks, and, moreover, a more liberal policy was adopted by
the State towards new ventures desiring to accommodate
the continual advancement in the volume of trade. The
position of the wharfingers was strengthened by the sections
in the Dock Acts which exempted their barges from charges
and by the fact that the remunerative part of dock business
was the warehousing of goods which enabled the wharf-
ingers to undercut them and yet make a good profit. As is
pointed out elsewhere, it was the pressure upon the dock
undertakings by the diversion of trade to the up-river
wharves which led the companies to the unsuccessful
request to Parliament in 1855 to sanction charges on barges
taking away goods from the docks. The later developments
of the relationship of the wharfingers with the dock under-
takings are dealt with in the chapter "London and India
Docks Joint Committee."

It remains only to refer to the enormous accommodation
which private enterprise has provided and maintained on
the riverside for the needs of the Port during the last fifty
years, accommodation which in many cases could not have
been so conveniently provided in the docks. The facilities
so undertaken are a standing answer to the criticism often
passed upon the Port by those who do not know, that the
great asset that it possesses in its river banks is not ade-
quately utilized. From Blackfriars to Shadwell the river is
lined on both sides with public wharves and warehouses.
Their chief purpose is the warehousing of goods, and they
share with the dock warehouses, about equally, in giving
storage to the enormous entrepot trade or London. They

414 THE PORT OF LONDON

also serve, as they did originally, in the useful purpose of
providing for the landing and shipping off of cargo im-
ported or exported in ships lying in the river. Some of
these wharves also give accommodation for the discharge
of ships alongside, and both sides of the river in the Pool
are busy scenes. Thus at Hay's Wharf an establishment
equal to the St. Katharine Dock in the floor space
devoted to warehousing, vessels with provisions discharge
regularly in the proximity of the provision market in Tooley
Street. At Fresh Wharf, on the north side of the river,
vessels with fruit find it convenient to unload their cargoes
because of the fruit market in Pudding Lane. A little further
down on the same side of the river the large fleet of steamers
owned by the General Steam Navigation Company use the
St. Katharine and Irongate Wharves belonging to the
Company. The Carron Line to Edinburgh finds its London
home still further eastward. The Morocco vessels of the
Royal Mail Company are to be found at Morocco Wharf at
Wapping. On the south side of the river are two very
important wharf properties ; one, Mark Brown's and Davis
Wharf, just above the Tower Bridge, has a thoroughly
modern equipment for discharging the medium-sized
vessels that can reach this part of the river ; and the other,
Bellamy's Wharf, opposite the Shadwell entrance of the
London Dock, not only undertakes to discharge and load
ordinary cargoes, but has modern installations for the dis-
charge of grain, besides storing the grain and other cargo.
To the eastward of Bellamy's Wharf are situated most of
the riverside granaries. Immediately below Shadwell we
get few public wharves of any importance. The riparian
interest becomes one of dry docks and manufactories of
every class, many of the latter, such as those of Messrs.
Tate, Messrs. Lyle, and Messrs. Knight at Silvertown,
being of the highest national importance and of world-
wide reputation. In this neighbourhood begin the wharves
devoted to the discharge of coal for bunkering, for gas
factories, and for private consumption. The coal trade is
the largest individual trade in tonnage in the Port, the
quantity of fuel arriving by sea in the Port of London
during 1912 being 8,159,000 tons. The line of continuous
wharves may be said to come to an end at Plumstead, a
distance of nine miles from London Bridge, but beyond

I
en
g

1

p. 414

THE PUBLIC WHARFINGERS 415

Plumstead at intervals, other developments of port accom-
modation besides coal are to be found in the wharves of the
cement and margarine factories and timber yards. An unique
series of facilities for the landing and shipment of coal and
other goods are afforded at the wharf called Dagenham
Dock, belonging to S. Williams & Son, Limited. Not only do
they give direct rail facilities for goods landed and shipped,
but as owners of a large tract of land adjoining the wharf,
they are able to let sites for factories with the enormous
benefit of combining rail, road, and water access. Of great
and growing importance are the installations for the dis-
charge and storage of petrol and other liquid fuels, which
are situated at Purfleet and Thames Haven.

Though up to the end of the eighteenth century the
public wharfingers owning the legal quays were a close
corporation, their successors were long afterwards individ-
ualistic in their relations with the public and each other,
but in recent years they have, commencing with their associa-
tion with the dock companies, found advantage in common
action, and recently they have formed a Wharfingers'
Association for the furtherance of their interests and as an
official body authorized to speak for them. Parliament has
so far recognized the vital connexion of the public wharf-
ingers with the Port that in the Port of London Act it gave
them one representative on the Authority. In the appoint-
ment of the first Authority in 1909 the Board of Trade chose
four other gentlemen to represent various other interests,
but who also happen to be public wharfingers, thus giving
the Authority five members not only able to represent this
great private interest in the Port, but also from personal
experience, in a position to advise the Authority on many
matters of practical management.

CHAPTER XXXIV

The Trinity House

THE Trinity House is the colloquial and convenient
name given to the body responsible in the United
Kingdom for the lighting and buoying of the coasts and
estuaries, and also (in some of the ports) for the appoint-
ment of pilots and the regulation of pilotage.

The first charter which was granted by Henry VIII in
1514 was bestowed upon the mariners of England with
the title of "The Master Wardens and Assistants of the
Guild Fraternity or Brotherhood of the most glorious
and Undivided Trinity and of St. Clement in the parish
of Deptford Strond in the county of Kent." Of the
earlier history of the body nothing certain is known. Mr.
Henry Leach enunciates the theory that the institution was
primarily a religious one, and identifies it with an order
existing in King Alfreds reign. Mr. Cornwall Jones
attributes the foundation to Stephen Langton, who, in
the reign of King John organized in London a corporation
of "godley disposed men who for the actual suppression
of evil disposed persons bringing ships to destruction by
the showing forth of false beacons do bind themselves
together in the love of Lord Christ in the name of the
Masters and Fellows of Trinity Guild, to succour from
the dangers of the sea all who are beset upon the coasts
of England to feed them when ahungered and athirst, to
bind up their wounds and to build and light proper beacons
for the guidance of mariners."

The navigation of the Thames estuary must have called
for the assistance of skilled seamen from the earliest
times. The channels in the estuary are narrow, tortuous,
and there are many shoals. Unlighted and unbuoyed as
they were then, they must have been dangerous in all
weathers. The navigators had to rely upon landmarks (often
these were trees) familiar to them, and these landmarks
were sometimes removed between voyages without notice
and occasionally with intent of enticing the mariner out
of his course to the advantage of the wrecker. The natural

t/.l.

P- 4«7

THE TRINITY HOUSE 417

residence of the men who followed the calling of pilots,
responsible for navigating ships from the sea to the pool
in London, would be at either end of their water journeys.
Leigh and Deptford appear to have been chosen for tnis
purpose. It is a reasonable inference that the pilots according
to the example of all other trades in these early days,
formed a guild for the protection of their interests. The
guild had evidently gradually acquired property and the
grant of Henry VIII confirmed their holding of it. At first
sight, the introduction of St. Clement into the title of
the guild appears puzzling as he had no special association
with mariners. The explanation put forward for this is
that as the order was a religious one, it took its name from
the churches at the places where the pilot establishments
were centred, viz., Deptford in the parish of Holy Trinity
and Leigh, where the church was dedicated to St. Clement.
This is supported by the fact that Masters and Brethren of
the Trinity House are buried in Leigh churchyard.

The historian is at a great disadvantage in tracing the
early history of the Trinity House, owing to the loss of
documents in two disastrous fires which destroyed their
archives, the first in the great fire of 1666, when the Trinity
House in Water Lane was burnt to the ground, and again
in 1714 when a similar fate overtook the new building
erected on the site. According to a monument in the
chancel of Stepney Church, the charter of 1514 was
granted at the instance of Sir Thomas Spert, who was the
first master of the Trinity House. Sir Thomas Spert was
a man who had risen from the position of yeoman to that
of Comptroller of the Navy. He had been master of the
celebrated Henry Grace a Dieu under two captains and
two petty captains before rising to his high office under
the Crown. In 1517 he received the office of ballasting ships
at some of the most lucrative stations on the river, paying
£10 for the privilege. He was knighted in 1541. No docu-
mentary evidence exists as to the connexion of Spert with the
inception of the charter and the sole authority is the inscrip-
tion on the monument above referred to. This monument was
not erected till 1622, eighty-one years after his death, and
took the place of a decayed one. It seems hardly likely, how-
ever, that such a memorial could have gone unchallenged at
the time had it not been correct in its statements.

4i8 THE PORT OF LONDON

We reach more solid ground with the charter itself.
Under this document a licence was given to found a guild
in honour of the Holy Trinity and St. Clement in the
Church of Deptford Strond, for the reformation of the
navy by the admission of young men and foreigners as
pilots, and also for the larger purpose of making England
a great naval power by the relief, increase and "augmenta-
tion of the shipping of this realm of England." The guild
was constituted of Brothers and Sisters. It had power to arrest,
punish, fine and chastise all offenders against any laws
and ordinances made by them in pursuance of the objects
of their charter. The establishment included a chaplain
to celebrate divine service for the safe estate of the King
and his "most dear consort" Katharine and for their souls
when they were dead. The larger purpose of the guild 'was
more clearly revealed in 1520 when the Admiralty and
Navy Boards were established, and the building yard at
Deptford was placed under the direct control of the Trinity
Guild.

The dissolution of the monasteries in 1536 left the
Guild untouched, perhaps because of its recent institution
by the King himself, but doubtless the secular utility
of the Guild for the advancement of the navy was a
legitimate factor in securing immunity from the general
confiscation of the property of the orders. The disappear-
ance of the ecclesiastical elements of the institution was
indicated by the simplification of the name to "The
Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond,"
and by the withdrawal of Sisters from the Order except as
pensioners. At Newcastle and Hull, the two most important
ports on the east coast similar institutions were established
by Henry VIII with the same object in view.

Shipping and all other institutions connected with it
dwindled in importance during the rancorous religious
struggles of the reign of Henry s son and elder daughter,
but the Trinity House succeeded in preserving its position
and property, and was evidently held in high esteem by
the Ministers of Elizabeth, as we find in the eighth year
of her reign an Act was passed describing the Corporation
as "a company of the chiefest and most expert masters
and governors of ships charged with the conduction of the
Queen Majesty's navy royal" and conferring upon them

THE TRINITY HOUSE 419

the further duty of erecting "such and so many beacons
marks and signs for the sea in such place or places of the
seashores and uplands near the sea coasts or forelands of
the sea only for seamarks as to them shall seem most meet
needful and requisite whereby the dangers may be avoided
and escaped and ships the better come into their ports
without peril." This, it will be observed, extended the
jurisdiction of the Corporation as a lighthouse authority
beyond the limits of the Port of London. The Act also
enabled the Corporation to grant licences to row in the
river to poor seamen who were not freemen of the City.
It was two centuries, however, before the Corporation
obtained full control of all English lighthouses, owing to
the practice of the Crown of granting lighthouses to private
individuals who collected tolls in consideration of paying
rents and maintaining the lighthouses. It was an Act passed
in 1836 that gave the Corporation power to expropriate
all other interests in English coast lights and to take over
their management and revenues.

Later in Elizabeth's reign an extended function was
conferred upon the Corporation by the transference
to them of the rights of ballastage in the Thames. Every
vessel then coming to the Port required to be ballasted
as she was discharged. This was done by the employment
of vessels which dredged up the gravel and sand from the
river bed and then transferred the dredged material either
direct or by means of barges to the vessel requiring ballast.
The profit on this service or from farming it out to private
individuals had from time immemorial been allocated to
the Lord High Admiral. These rights were formally
bestowed upon the Trinity House Corporation in 1593.
With the ballastage privileges were transferred the revenues
from shipping for the services rendered for beaconage and
buoyage. What these revenues were at this time does not
appear, but in 1660 the dues payable to the Corporation
for vessels entering the Thames were : through the North
Channel 43. per 100 tons, and through the South Channel
33. per 100 tons. Colliers from the north paid |d. per
chaldron on the coal carried. Vessels from Norway, the
Baltic and other northern ports paid is. 4d. per 100 tons.

A revised charter was granted in 1604, and we first read
of the division of the Brethren into Elder and Younger.

420 THE PORT OF LONDON

At this period the personnel of the establishment was
considerably enlarged. The Corporation were called upon
to advise upon questions affecting seamen for the navy. By
1636 they were raising wrecks in the channels of the
Thames. Their services were enlisted for the suppression
of pirates on the English coast. They granted certificates
to pilots. They recommended masters for the navy. Their
endorsement was wanted for the appointment of English
consuls at certain foreign ports. In disputes upon matters
of seamanship they were constantly acting as arbitrators,
and also on questions of sea limits.

At the advent to power of the puritans the Corporation
was at its zenith. But the new regime had little confidence
in them. The Brethren were divided in their religious
attachments, and they were suspect alike from their close
association with the Court and from a name which suggested
objectionable Popish associations. In 1647 Roundheads
were added to the Corporation, and this was followed by the
revocation of the charter by Parliament. The event which
probably decided this revocation was a petition in June,
1648, from the Younger Brethren together with Masters
and Mariners on the Thames praying for a personal treaty
with the King. No fresh charter was granted during the
Commonwealth, and the Trinity House staff was run as a
Government office closely watched by the Parliamentarians.
In this position they were engaged in pressing crews for
the navy and in the following January were inflicting
penalties on defaulters.

The confiscation of the property by Parliament was
cancelled by the Restoration but the Trinity Corporation
never recovered their former position in naval affairs. In
that respect they were gradually relegated to the position
of advisers on some of the technical sides of the Admiralty
operations. Till the middle of the nineteenth century they
conducted the examination of masters for the navy.

At the call of patriotism the skill and experience of the
Corporation was always at the service of the country.
When the Dutch fleet arrogantly sailed up the Thames in
1667 and panic seized upon the metropolis it was to the
Trinity Brethren that the King turned for advice as to
the scheme for sinking ships in the Thames to obstruct
the navigation of the Dutchmen up the river. When the

THE TRINITY HOUSE 421

mutiny at the Nore took place in 1797 and it was feared that
the mutineers would take their ships over to the enemy,
it was the Elder Brethren who suggested that the vessels
could be imprisoned in the river by the device of removing
all buoys and beacons and seamarks in the river and
to the carrying out of this suggestion may be attributed
the early quelling of the mutiny. The threat of Buonaparte
in 1803 to land an army in this country provided an occasion
for the Corporation to perform a notable act of patriotism
in equipping ten frigates for the protection of the Thames.
These ships were manned by 1,200 volunteers raised by
the Corporation and for the two years while there was
danger of invasion the vessels were moored in the Lower
Hope ready to resist the invader. The volunteers were
embodied under the name of the "Royal Trinity House
Volunteer Artillery," and included the Elder and Younger
Brethren of the Trinity House, commanders and officers of
Indiamen, masters and mates of merchantmen, and other
seafaring people. William Pitt, who was then Master of the
Trinity House, was the colonel of the corps.

Returning now to the Restoration period let us note
that Charles II did not grant a new charter in place of that
revoked by Cromwell. Pepys, whose influence on adminis-
trative details was great, seems first to have favoured the
functions of the Corporation being carried out as a Govern-
ment Department. Whether he was eventually propitiated
by being made an Elder Brother and Master does not appear,
but he was responsible for the new charter granted by
James II based upon the revoked charter, the chief alteration
being that the governing body was increased from thirteen
to thirty-one by the addition of eighteen Elder Brethren
to the then body of Master, four Wardens and eight
Assistants, and the Crown reserved its right to remove the
Elder Brethren and clerks at pleasure. The charter
endorsed the exemption of members of the Corporation
from land service, even making them immune from service
on juries and inquests, except Admiralty sessions where
their skill and experience are still utilized in the position
of nautical assessors.

Since the charter of James II, the constitution of the
Corporation has remained unchanged except that in 1871
the number of the Corporation was reduced to the original

422 THE PORT OF LONDON

number of thirteen acting members. The number of
honorary members was fixed at eleven, and vacancies on
that section of the Corporation are filled by the process
of conge d'elire.

The original guild character of the Corporation is
indicated by the fact that it has administered charities,
chiefly almshouses and pensions for old and wounded
seamen and their widows, the funds being derived from
special benefactions or accumulated from surplus income
in prosperous years. The only public challenge of the
excellence of their administration has been on the subject
of these charities. There were investigations in 1732, 1845,
1861 and 1895, but the Corporation's administration was
reported to be satisfactory in each case. The only almshouses
left are those in the Mile End Road, built in 1695.

Two other inquiries may be recorded, the one of 1834
which resulted in the legislation of 1836 enabling the
Trinity House to buy up all private lights ; and the other
of 1853 which led to the control of funds collected from
dues and tolls being transferred to the Board of Trade,
causing a large reduction in the annual income available
for charity.

The value attached to the advice and counsel of the
Corporation is attested by numerous instances in the
history of the Port. In particular, the House of Commons
Committee which sat on the Port of London question in
1796 were much influenced by the advice of the Trinity
House in coming to their decisions on the practical ques-
tions involved in schemes of docks and river quays. Their
position in this respect may be gathered from the fact that
in the many plans, whether suggested or consummated,
proposed during the late nineteenth century for the recon-
stitution of the Port, the authors have always provided for
the presence of the Trinity House on the controlling body.

One recent change in duties of the Trinity House touching
the Port of London was the surrender of the rights of
ballastage to the Thames Conservancy in 1894. Those
rights were always conservancy rights. Owing to the
supersession of sailing ships by steamers and the use of
water ballast by steamers, the raising of gravel from the
bed of the river had ceased to be profitable, and the passing
of the privilege to the Thames Conservancy was viewed

Q i

THE TRINITY HOUSE 423

merely as an arrangement for the general convenience in
that it brought under the same public authority the control
of the deepening of the river and the disposal of the
materials raised. It may be added here that the demand for
Thames ballast for building purposes has grown of late
years and has made the granting of licences for dredging
ballast a source of considerable income to the Port of
London Authority as the successors of the Thames
Conservancy.

The present constitution of the Trinity House Corpora-
tion is as follows : —

There are two classes of Brethren, Elder and Younger.
The Elder Brethren are divided into active and honorary.
The active Elder Brethren are the managers of the Corpora-
tion. They consist of a Master and Deputy Master, four
Wardens and eight Assistants. The Master is an eminent
man, sometimes a royal personage, and his position is
usually an honorary one. The Deputy Master is the head
of the executive. The Elder Brethren are principally men
distinguished by capacity in matters connected with the
mercantile marine, including the commanders of large
steamers and retired officers of the Royal Navy. Vacancies
are filled by the Elder Brethren promoting Younger
Brethren, and the latter are appointed by the Elder Brethren
from outside. The number of the Younger Brethren is not
fixed. The only privilege assigned to the Younger Brethren
is the power of voting at the election of the Master and
Wardens.

The honorary Brethren are princes, distinguished states-
men and naval officers of high standing.

The Trinity House is the general lighthouse authority
for England and Wales, the Channel Islands, and Gibraltar.
While it is not the universal authority in the Kingdom for
pilotage or the buoying of channels it still performs these
functions in the Port of London, and in this respect con-
tinues to execute its ancient duties in spite of the recom-
mendations of the Royal Commission of 1900 that these
duties should be transferred to the Port of London
Authority. In the Port of London they control the
lighthouses, one light- vessel, six gas buoys and ten other
buoys, and they continue also to carry out the duty imposed
upon them by the early dock acts of examining persons

424 THE PORT OF LONDON

who are aspiring to be dockmasters in order to certify
that they are competent to handle ships.

The considerations involved in the maintenance of the
Trinity House as the pilotage authority in the Port of
London are discussed in the chapter dealing with the
Report of the Royal Commission of 1900.

CHAPTER XXXV

Dock and Wharf Labour

IN recent years the question of dock labour on the Thames
has come into prominence in connexion with all dis-
cussions relating to the conditions of employment of labour.
In these discussions dock labour has often been taken as the
typical example of the most undesirable form of labour. It
has long been alleged (and little trouble has been taken on
the employer's side to confute the allegation) that it is the
most underpaid, the most irregular and the least skilled type
of labour and only resorted to either by the lowest classes of
the community or by men who are unemployable in any
other sphere of industry. The general character of labour
at the docks is not of high rank, but it is absolutely foreign
to the truth to charge this class of labour with possessing
the aggregate of forbidding qualities attributed to it. The
docker has long been better paid than the carman for the
hours he works. The majority of dockers get as much
regular work as they want, and the most casual candidate
has more days work in the year open to him than the hop
picker, the herring curer or the numbers of the numerous
seasonal trades centred in London. To wheel a truck along
a smooth quay is the simplest form of work till it is tried,
then the experimenter will learn that even this elementary
operation is not as mechanical a one as are multitudes of
operations in factories. The attack on the character of the
men employed is altogether beside the mark in these days.
Their work is often rough and dirty but on the whole the
men are a steady and honest class of worker, especially
having regard to their opportunities for pilfering both food
and drink. Their patriotism is beyond question, for though
as a class they were immune from recruiting in the Great
War, on account of the national importance of transport
facilities being maintained at the highest standard of
efficiency, a very large percentage of the men insisted upon
joining the colours.

The truth is that a legend has grown around the occupa-
tion of the docker founded possibly upon the House of

426 THE PORT OF LONDON

Commons Committee's report of 1796 which contained
severe charges against ship labourers of that day on the
subject of the theft of goods in the Port. Later, picturesque
writers on London found good material for contrasts
in the setting of the docker in his humble rough attire
against the valuable silks, ivory and other luxurious mer-
chandise he had to handle. The author Timbs, writing in
1855, relates that dock labour included bankrupt master-
butchers, publicans, old soldiers and sailors, Polish refugees,
broken down gentlemen, lawyers, clerks, suspended govern-
ment clerks, discharged domestic servants and thieves.
In 1872 there was an alleged discarded heir to a baronetcy
regularly engaged in weighing hogsheads of sugar on the
West India Dock quays, and with scions of the aristocracy
come down in the world through drink, earning a guinea a
week (hence termed guinea pigs) was pointed out to all
fresh arrivals on the staff. Journalists drew sketches of ragged
out-of-works in a frenzied crowd answering the call of the
foreman at the dock gates. The sketches were taken as facts.
No one ever went to the docks to check the statements. It
was too far away for any one to go down to Poplar at taking-
on time at 7.45 in the morning and so the public, rather
liking to have its sympathies aroused by a horrid tale of
white slavery in their midst, accepted the idea that a man
who worked at the docks was little better than an outcast.
No one can pretend that even now the conditions of em-
ployment of dock labour are ideal. What follows will, it is
hoped, convince the reader that whatever faults there may
have been on the part of the employers in the past, there
has in the last generation been a genuine desire to ameliorate
the effects of the difficult conditions of work in the Port
arising from its peculiar character and contingencies.

The annals of the early days of the Port leave us destitute
of any certain information regarding the terms of employ-
ment of the labourers in it. The chief employers were prob-
ably the owners of the vessel who engaged their crews to
discharge and load cargoes. Such a practice is not infrequent
in Bristol and foreign ports to-day. Even in London to-day
a foreign shipowner occasionally avails himself of the
permission accorded by the Port of London Authority at
all its docks to discharge the cargo by the crew of the vessel.
In earlier times the operations of receiving and shipping

DOCK AND WHARF LABOUR 427

off goods at the quay edge of the wharf may have been
carried out by men sent there by the merchant, and such
goods would be conveyed to and from the merchant's depot
by the carmen. Where the goods were discharged or loaded
in the stream, the conveyance to and from the quay was
effected by the lightermen.

That the work in the Port was not of bad reputation
amongst workmen in the fourteenth century is indicated by
Langland in "Piers the Plowman," for he says of labourers in
London that "some chose merchandize, they throve the best."

At what period the men employed on the quays came
under any central control cannot be ascertained. The City
Corporation claimed immemorially the right of making
by-laws for the regulation and government of all persons
concerned in the unloading and delivering of merchandise
imported into the Port, and they exercised that right until
the West India Dock Act of 1799 practically put an end to
their monopoly of control in this respect. In 1607 we find
a petition of the Tacklehouse porters objecting to a proposal
to establish a new office for lading and unlading of all
merchants' goods of the twelve leading City Companies.
The Corporation had always appointed poor decayed
citizens to this office, and it was held that the proposed
arrangements would throw out many deserving men and
give great dissatisfaction to merchants. Apparently the
contemplated changes were not carried out, for, fourteen
years later an attack was made on the City privileges of
managing the labour of the Port on the ground that trade
was being interfered with by reason of the difficulty in
controlling labour, and the Lord Mayor defended the
City's position by holding that they had time out of mind
and still possessed the portage "of all things measurable"
brought into the Port of London, and that the Company of
Porters had also been time out of mind a fraternity called
the Billingsgate Porters, freemen of the City and bound on
all occasions to attend to that service and to carry corn to
His Majesty's granaries at rates settled by the Common
Council. The privilege being so ancient and one upon which
so many freemen (300 to 400) and their families depended,
the Mayor prayed that it might not be interrupted because
of the turbulence of a few men. Again, the defence appears
to have been successful.

428 THE PORT OF LONDON

Early in the eighteenth century we find the porters
organized into close associations. They were not then an
incorporated company like the watermen, but were formed
into four brotherhoods under the control of the common
council. The first brotherhood consisted of the Ticket
Porters. These were all freemen of the City. They landed
and shipped off goods imported from or exported to all
parts of America. They also housed goods at merchants'
warehouses. The Fellowship Porters were the second
brotherhood. They landed or shipped off such goods as
were measurable by dry measure such as corn, salt, coals,
etc., and also had the right of housing these goods in
merchants' warehouses. Both the ticket porters and fellow-
ship porters were credited with being well governed under
an organization which required admission fees and fined
offenders for misconduct. They were the precursors of
the Dockers' Union of to-day. The ticket porters had to
give "good security" for fidelity. They wore metal tickets
on their girdles. One curious custom that marked them
was that on the Sunday following the 2Qth June they
attended at St. Mary at Hill to listen to a sermon for their
special edification. The night before the sermon was
delivered, they waited on the merchants living near Billings-
gate and furnished them with nosegays for the service. The
ticket porters themselves at the service went nosegay in hand
to the communion table and offered gifts in relief of the poor.
The merchants with their wives, children and servants
attended and bestowed their offerings also. The third brother-
hood, the Tackle Porters, were ticket porters who were
furnished with weights and scales and they weighed goods.
The fourth brotherhood is described as the Companies'
Porters who rendered services for goods landed from or
loaded into vessels from the Baltic, Holland, France, Spain,
Italy, Germany, Turkey and towards or beyond the Cape of
Good Hope.

The charges then made by the different classes of porters
are stated to have been as follows :—

Shipping off. Landing. Housing. Weighing.

Sugar (hogshead) 3d. . . 3d. . . 3d. . . 4d.

Tobacco (hogshead) ad. . . zd. . . 2d. . . ad.

Logwood (ton) ..is. .. is. .. is. .. IB.

By the end of the eighteenth century the organizations

DOCK AND WHARF LABOUR 429

of the porters had developed and consolidated. Evidence
was given at the 1796 inquiry as to their constitution by
Mr. Samuel March, clerk to the tacklehouse and ticket
porters. From this evidence it appears that the tacklehouse
porters were then appointed by the twelve principal livery
companies of the City of London, and were entitled to
the work or labour of unshipping, landing, carrying and
housing all goods imported by and belonging to the South
Sea Company, or the East India Company, and of all other
goods and merchandises coming from any other ports
except from the East Country (Baltic coasts), Ireland, coast-
wise, and the British Plantations. No person was admitted
in any tacklehouse as a master or as a fellow porter unless
he was a freeman of the City. Tacklehouse porters were
required to enter into bonds of £500 with four sufficient
householders as sureties as security for making good losses
sustained in the handling of goods. Any unqualified person
attempting to perform the work of a tacklehouse porter
was liable to a penalty of £5. No tacklehouse porter was
allowed to charge for his services higher rates than those
authorized by the Corporation.

The ticket porters were appointed by the City itself
and were entitled to the monopoly of work connected
with pitch, tar, deals, flax, hemp, and other goods imported
from Danzig and other East Country ports, as also
all iron, ropes, green wood, all Irish goods, coastwise
goods except lead, and goods from the foreign planta-
tions. They were required generally to work under the
tacklehouse porters. They also had to be freemen. Before
admission to their society each candidate was required to
produce to the governor (who was always to be an alderman)
a certificate from the minister and churchwardens of his
parish testifying to his being an industrious man and willing
by his labour to support himself and his family. He had
to enter into a bond with two sureties in the penalty of £100
that he would "behave and demean himself in the vocation
and business of a porter" and to make other numerous and
exacting promises as to the faithful performance of his
duties. If he refused to work when applied to by the tackle-
house porters or left work before it was finished he was
fined 53. and in default of payment his ticket was taken
from him and he stood suspended during the pleasure of

430 THE PORT OF LONDON

the governor. The rates of remuneration of the ticket
porters were laid down in a tariff fixed by the Corporation.
The Corporation appointed the alderman who was to act as
governor, and he had full power to determine all differences
between members touching their labour and work or
questions affecting discipline. Members not conforming
to his decisions were subject to a fine of 135. 4d. At this
period the number of ticket porters sanctioned was 1,500
and upwards, and no labour in the Port could be performed
by any other person whilst there was a sufficient number
of these men offering themselves. It is noteworthy that
in the grievous complaints made at the 1796 inquiry as
to the pilferage of goods no serious charge was made against
that section of labour which carried out the operations on
the quays or in the warehouses. All the witnesses attributed
their losses to the plundering which took place on board
ships and from barges, the crews of the ships and lightermen
with the connivance of the lower ranks of customs' officers
being the persons involved. It will not be overlooked that
in the river the opportunities of robbery were greater than
on the quays, but the comparative immunity from robbery
when once goods were ashore cannot altogether be dis-
associated from the fact that some care was exercised in the
selection of the porters, and that they were more strictly
governed and disciplined.

The tacklehouse and ticket porters were amongst the
most strenuous opponents to the project for the construction
of the docks, claiming that their craft would suffer great
injury from the diversion of labour to the docks and the
cessation of the City privileges in respect of the labour
carried on there, and they were amongst the interests
compensated for loss of privileges. On the occasion of the
scheme of the St. Katharine Dock being brought before
Parliament in 1825 the porters again presented themselves
as an aggrieved body by reason of the proposal which
involved further curtailment of their powers. It was then
declared that there were 3,000 of these porters licensed by
the Corporation. It was stated on their behalf that under
the rules of the Fellowship they were obliged to attend as
ordered at all times, and at all places without any choice
on their part on the chance of getting work, at 4 a.m. till
8 p.m. in the summer and from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. in the

DOCK AND WHARF LABOUR 431

winter at the various offices where they were taken on, and
that a ruler of the Fellowship was always in attendance to
compel the men to carry out jobs in cases where the
men might think the work was likely to be unprofitable.
When accused of charging excessive rates such as £1 os. lod.
for discharging 100 quarters of malt against 8s. 4d. charged
by other porters, the reply was that they must be judged
by the average gain from their labour which they averred
was only 33. a day taking the year through. By the time the
St. Katharine Dock Act was passed, the public disposition to
recognize claims of privileged institutions had passed away,
and like the older dock companies the porters failed in
enlisting the sympathies of the Houses of Parliament.
Gradually the privileges of the porters so far as they had
remained in the riverside wharves disappeared, leaving no
privileged class of labour in the Port save the watermen and
lightermen. With the privileges, disappeared the machinery
of organization.

The West India Dock Company, in opening their new
dock in 1802, were faced with the question of finding
labour for the very important section of trade which was
forced into their system. Poplar was then a sparsely in-
habited suburb, but there is nothing to show that there was
any serious trouble in procuring the labour that was wanted.
Doubtless many of the tacklehouse and ticket porters who
had been engaged at the wharves handling West India
produce followed the work when it left the wnarves for the
docks. The wages were fixed at 5^d. per hour, or 35. 6d.aday.
The question of guarding the docks was one that exercised
the minds of the directors long before they were ready for
business. The Government for a time supplied a guard,
but eighteen months after the docks were opened the
directors required every labourer and cooper in their service
to join a regiment formed by them for the protection of the
property.

The casual nature of the dock work was early the subject
of consideration. Two hundred permanent labourers were
appointed, but these were too many for constant employ-
ment. The West India Dock trade was the most seasonal
of all the trades of the Port and there was no other trade
in this system of docks to compensate for the slack seasons.
Attempts were made to keep employment regular by

432 THE PORT OF LONDON

utilizing the spare time of men on levelling and mending
roads. A remedy for the worst of all the evils of casual
labour, viz., that of expecting men to turn up to the morning
call and then disappointing them, was tried in 1804,
resembling the existing regulation with the same object,
which has been in operation at the London and India dock
system for the last twenty years. A book was kept at the
principal storekeeper's office in which was inserted the
orders for the delivery of goods expected to be executed
on the following day and this enabled the officers to know
approximately the evening beforehand how many men
would be required and to inform the men who were likely
to be taken on.

The idea of converting their officers and servants into a
military corps was not imitated by the London Dock
directors, but as their property was within half a mile .of
the City boundary the case for special protection was not
urgent. A staff of permanent and preference labourers was
appointed to the London Dock in 1 805 , several months before
the dock was opened. Wages had risen since the West
India Dock was opened in 1802, and the London Dock
directors found it necessary to give their permanent men
243. a week. The rest had 33. 6d. a day. Foremen coopers
received £100 a year, and had to give security in the
sum of £300. Labouring coopers only earned i8s. a week.
A foreman of labourers was paid £80 a year, and gave
security for £100. Shortly after the London Dock was
opened, the permanent and preferable staff of labourers
was fixed at 100, any balance being taken on as required
daily. A minute of the board passed in 1809 laid down the
vicious rule that in future the vacancies for preferable
labourers (who were promoted in turn to the permanent
ranks) should be filled up by the directors in rotation
beginning with the chairman, deputy chairman and treasurer
and afterwards in alphabetical order. At the same time
the labour arrangements were reconsidered in view of
altered conditions of work then pending. When the dock
was first opened the hours for labour were in summer from
6 a.m. until 6 p.m. and in the winter from 7 a.m. till 5 p.m.,
those being the hours of attendance of customs, officers,
an hour and a half being allowed for dinner. But under a
recent statute, business was so regulated that the work could

DOCK AND WHARF LABOUR 433

be continued without interruption from 8 a.m. to 4 p. m in the
summer and 9 a.m . to 4 p.m. in winter, and with this reduced
number of hours of attendance, the board conceived it
possible to reduce the wages to ordinary labourers down to
33. a day. The meal interval was reduced from an hour and
a half to a quarter of an hour only. A permanent staff of 300,
which was equal to the minimum number employed at slack
times was appointed on these terms. Two years afterwards
there was a strike of these men but it does not appear to
have been a serious one. The most unsatisfactory feature
of this revision of the arrangement from the men's point
of view was not the reduced hours, but the limitation of
the time of rest and refreshment, and though the company
anticipated a saving of £2,400 a vear> it >8 doubtful whether
it remained more than a paper saving. This restriction of
meal times lasted for many years at the docks generally.
Up to 1889 the meal time was not more than twenty minutes.
In that year it became half an hour. It was afterwards
raised to threequarters of an hour, and in 1911 to an hour,
where it now stands.

The East India Dock Company began its career as an
employer by the enunciation of the praiseworthy principle
that the first consideration was that the company should
have efficient and reputable characters in their employ, and
that it would be a mistaken economy "to adopt the line
of frugality too close" in relation to its staff, especially at
the outset when the utmost vigilance and circumspection
would be needful. The chairman of the company, Mr.
Joseph Cotton, was a director of the East India Company
and this admirable doctrine which he propounded and his
board approved was doubtless a reflection of the policy
which had guided that company in its administration of its
Indian possessions. How the doctrine worked out in
practice may be gathered from the organization of the
staff which was approved. The establishment of the East
India Dock on the opening of the dock was as follows : —

Per annum.

Dockmaster . . . . . . . . . . . . £400

His deputy.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 300

Assistant . . .... . . . . . . . . zoo

Gate opener . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Six officers for 180 days, at 6s. a day each . . . . 312

Six subordinate working men . . . . . . . . 216

434 THE PORT OF LONDON

24 constant men at 38. a day .. .. .. ..£1,127

100 men aa lumpers to load and unload for 240 days. . 3,600
6 watchmen at 33. 6d. a day . . . . . . . . 383

£6.608

As the East India Dock was the latest of the three
systems of docks opened at the beginning of the nineteenth
century, it may be assumed that this organization was the
best that the experience of dock management could con-
ceive up to that time. The salaries and wages of the labourers
and subordinate officers do not suggest that the "line of
frugality" had been advanced far towards the line of
extravagance. The dockmaster acted as superintendent as
well as actually supervising the docking and undocking
of shipping at the entrance. In the earlier years of the dock
undertakings this officer was sometimes called the captain
of the dock. The six officers who acted as supervisors of
the discharge and loading of ships were pensioned chief
officers of East India ships. They were guaranteed 6s.
a day for a six months' season. The six subordinate working
men acted as foremen of the gangs in the holds of the
ships. These were ablebodied men conversant with an
India ship's stowage and preference was given to gunners.
The gate opener was primarily to check persons and goods
entenng or leaving the dock. The twenty- four "constant"
men were men who were dispersed amongst the lumpers
when working in the hold to 'prevent idleness or pecula-
tion." Presumably the results were to be secured by the
example as well as precept of the constant men, but 38.
a day pay in times when wheat reached 1263. a quarter
hardly provided the guarantee. The 100 who were to be
employed as work needed them were required to be persons
of some character and respectability, and their adhesion
to the terms of employment was secured by the issue of
tickets which protected them from the press gang. It was
remarked "that however inferior their station, by a
selection and regulation to this effect they will become and
feel respectable in themselves."

The pressure of economic conditions caused by the
European wars led to labour everywhere temporarily
receiving higher remuneration. After Waterloo, the re-
action set in and wages came down to the old level. Thus we

DOCK AND WHARF LABOUR 435

find that in February, 1816, the payments by the East
India Dock Company, who contracted for the lumpers'
work in loading vessels were reduced by about 20 per cent.
And in the following month the board of that company
passed the following resolution which gives as good an
estimate as is available of the value at which port labour
was appraised in 1816, viz. : —

The Court taking into consideration at the commencement of
the season 1816 for delivery of the ships the relative proportions
between the wages arranged in a time of war and the great advance
on bread and other necessaries of life during that period, and the
present period of peace, as well as the reduction in the price of
bread and other articles, and likewise the reduced scale of wages
throughout all establishments and circumstances connected with
the labour, the time upon duty and other particulars, have Resolved
that upon and after the 251(1 of March the wages of the under-
mentioned persons employed at the docks be upon the following
scale : —

Labourers and working gangs . . . . 3/- per day

Foremen of labourers and working gangs 3/6 „

Transport gang above 4 years' service . . 3/8 „

Transport gang under 4 years' service . . 3/2 „

Lock gatemen . . . . . . . . 4/2 „

Export dock gatekeeper and collector of tolls 25/- per week

Other gatekeepers with houses . . . . 22/- „

Gatekeepers without houses . . . . 24/- „

Principal gatekeepers having no house .. 3i/- „

Foreman carpenter . . . . . . 5/- per day

Working carpenter . . . . . . 4/6 „

Carman having a house and Sunday work 24/- per week

The St. Katharine Dock was opened in October, 1828.
Their organization provided for an elaborate set of rules
for the governance of labourers. There were two classes,
preferable and extra. The former had a permanent status,
the most active, willing and intelligent of them having the
opportunity of becoming foremen. All preferable labourers
were required to attend daily a quarter of an hour before
work commenced when the roll was called, and if not
punctual, only received half a day's pay. Extra labourers
were engaged outside the dock gates and were required
to have a reference as to character. Vacancies in the prefer-
able staff were filled by the best of the extra men. A high
standard was set in the regulations by the statement that
"honesty and sobriety were indispensable qualifications,

436 THE PORT OF LONDON

the slightest deviation from them will be attended with
immediate and irrevocable dismissal." No cans, bottles or
other vessels capable of containing liquids were allowed
to be brought into the docks by the labourers. Beer was
supplied inside the docks when required with a limit of
one pint per man daily. Labourers were subject to be
searched upon being dismissed for the day, first by the
foreman in the presence of heads of departments, and
subsequently at the dock gates. It had been proposed that
the wages of the labourers should be i8s. per week, but
this was reduced to i6s. a week for permanent labourers.
Extra labourers were paid at the rate of 4d. per hour. The
regulations showed some humane sentiment on the part of
the directors in one to the effect that should any man of good
character and known industrious habits find the description
of work to which he was appointed, beyond his physical
powers he would be relieved if possible on application to
his principal without in any way prejudicing his position,
and that when in course of time from infirmity he became
incapable of more laborious duties he would be employed
in departments to which his declining powers were best
adapted. No provision was made, however, for any allowance
to men when they were past work. The St. Katharine labour
establishment consisted of 225 permanent men and 200
preferable men, the classes of men having been renamed
to fit the actual conditions of employment. The maximum
number employed at the dock at this time would be about
1,000.

From this time forward for the next half century there
are few outstanding happenings in the employment of
port labour. The conditions varied only slightly at the
docks of the different companies and at the riverside
wharves. The supply of efficient labour was generally equal
to the demand whilst there was always available enough
labour of a sort to deal with emergency demands. Though
it was not highly paid, the hours were not long, and as
machinery came to be introduced the work was not so
arduous or dangerous. The out of work and the out of
character of the great city found their way to the dock
gates in the morning on the chance of being wanted,
knowing that if the demands of trade were urgent no
questions would be asked. The opportunities for the petty

DOCK AND WHARF LABOUR 437

pilfering of food in the docks were not infrequently found
to be an attraction. We have in 1839 the superintendent of
the London Dock reporting that the appointment of
labourers to permanent positions frequently lessened the
value of their services by producing decreased exertions,
and in order to get better results from his department he
recommended that a special allowance of is. 6d. a week
should be given to the more efficient of the extra men
employed. This had the effect of making the position of
extra men more attractive than that of permanent positions.
No organizations for the dock labourer were in existence.
The Stevedores' Union for the men engaged in loading
ships was the first of these organizations. The men in
this occupation are a more skilled class of labour than
the ordinary dock labourer and have always enjoyed
a higher wage — sometimes double — than that of a dock
labourer. The competition amongst the dock companies
for the business of the Port had its effect in the character
of the labour employed. Cheapness was the chief con-
sideration, and the casual labourer was very cheap
apparently. There was no Employers' Liability Act or
Workmen's Compensation Act to invoke if he met with
accident, and the best of the directors thought all claims
were met when they had paid a few shillings a week for
a few weeks as compassionate allowance and subscribed
50 or 100 guineas to the local hospital. Men could be had
by the day or half-day, or even for a couple of hours, so
that no waste of time waiting for the job was entailed to
the company. It was the men that paid for the waiting
time by waiting. By 1872 day wages were at the rate of
4d. an hour to ordinary dock labourers. The employers'
point of view must not, however, be lost sight 01. Their
difficulty arose from the seasonal nature of the trades
they dealt with. The West India arrivals of vessels were
limited to the spring and summer, and at the West India
Dock, therefore, the autumn and winter only provided
work for men engaged on deliveries of sugar and rum.
Even in the season itself, trade was irregular. An east
wind in the spring would keep back the West India fleet
for several weeks, with the result that a great rush of work
came into the docks when west winds blew again. Had how-
ever there been a single control of the docks, or a friendly

THE PORT OF LONDON

agreement made for the exchange of labour by the com-

Eanies, much of the evil of casual labour might even then
ave been mitigated.

A vivid picture of the condition of port labour in the
middle of the nineteenth century is given by Henry Mayhew
in his London "Labour and the Labour Poor." His account
is, no doubt, prejudiced by the attempt of his book to estab-
lish the connexion between casual labour and the evils of
drunkenness, but allowing for this prejudice, the account
is entitled to be recorded in this connection. Mayhew visited
every dock and some of the wharves, and interviewed both
employer and employed. The former did not receive him
effusively ; the employees were more confiding. One thing
may be gathered from Mayhew's inquiry, and that is that
the character of labour had deteriorated during the half
century that the docks had been opened, and that the com-
panies almost entirely relied upon casual labour. The usual
defence of intermittent character of the work was given. It
was shown, for instance, that at the West India Dock, in
one week in 1861, there were 42 ships entering, in the next
week, 131 ; in the following week, 209 ; and in the fourth
week, only 85. Again, at the London Dock, in 1860, whilst
the lowest number of ships entering the dock in any one
week in the previous year was 29, the highest number was
141. But this variation in arrivals was no new thing ; it
had prevailed since the opening of the docks and long before
that, and was bound to be a condition of working while
the arrivals of vessels was regulated by seasonal sailings and
the direction of the wind. The explanation is rather to be
found in the struggle for existence between the companies,
caused by the senseless competition that supervened upon
the expiry of the dock privileges. To maintain the dividends
at as high a level as possible, economies were resorted to,
and the easiest economy was to take advantage of a falling
labour market. It should not, therefore, be without signifi-
cance in relation to the public pressure for cheap services
that it is not necessarily the competing capitalists who
suffer from the first squeeze of the vice. The East
India Dock had been amalgamated with the West India
Dock Company in 1838 — who were not moved by the
noble sentiment of the junior partner, expounded in
1806, of only having "efficient and reputable characters,"

DOCK AND WHARF LABOUR 439

and of renouncing the line of "too close frugality" in rela-
tion to its staff. Mayhew found that for ordinary dock
labour the wages averaged 2s. 46. a day in winter and
2s. 6d. in summer, or at the rate of 4d. an hour, and this
was the prevailing rate in the Port. Timber workers at
the West India Docks and Surrey Docks then, as now, a
purely seasonal occupation, might earn from 153. to 308.
a week with overtime, but the season was only a six-months
one. At the London Dock a small number of permanent
men at i6s. 6d. a week was maintained, the rest were
casual. Mayhew cites this dock as the worst example of
the system and it is also to be remembered in this con-
nexion that the London Dock was at this time the most
impecunious. The "taking on" arrangements are described
in detail. Masses of men, of all grades, were congregated
within the principal road entrance of the dock at 7.30 in
the morning, "some in half-fashioned surtouts burst at
the elbow, with the dirty shirts showing through ; others
in greasy sporting jackets, with red pimpled faces ; others
in rags of gentility ; some in rusty black ; others with the
knowing thieves' curl on each side of the jaunty cap ;
whilst here and there was a big, whiskered Pole. As the
foremen made their appearance, began the scuffling and
scrambling forth of countless hands high in the air. All
were shouting, appealing, or coaxing," and the scene is
described as one to sadden the most callous, with thousands
of men struggling for one day's hire — the struggle being
the fiercer from the knowledge that hundreds must be
left to idle the day out in want. Those who were lucky
enough to be chosen, were engaged on the hardest of hard
work, for everything was then done by hand. Cranes
were used, but steam power was not applied, because of
the danger from fire, and hydraulic power was only in its
infancy. The cranes for discharging vessels were worked
by the system of the treadmill, with the difference that
the force was applied inside instead of outside the wheel.
From six to eight men entered a wooden cylinder or drum,
upon which battens were nailed, and the men, laying hold
of ropes, trod the wheel round, singing the while. The wheel
was about 16 feet in diameter and 8 to 9 feet broad, and it
was estimated that they would lift 18 to 20 cwt. forty times
in an hour, an average height of 27 feet. The larger number

440 THE PORT OF LONDON

of the men were, however, engaged in cramped positions
drawing cargo from its stowage on ships, or in trucking
and piling weighty, dirty, rough packages on the quays
and in the warehouses or vaults. Only at the St. Katharine
Dock was there any method of selecting candidates for work.
No labourer was employed there without a previous
recommendation, and the system of gradual promotion to
the permanent staff already alluded to was still in existence.
The men at this dock were of a more decent class, notwith-
standing that the wages were on the same low scale as at
the other docks.

With the union of the London and St. Katharine Docks in
1864, the policy adopted by the amalgamated board tended
to be that of the London company, and no improvement in
labour conditions resulted. In the eighth decade of the
century the position of things had improved by the intro-
duction of machinery, but the large employers in the Port
carried on their operations mainly by casual labour.

The years 1871 and 1872 marked an important era in the
Port, in that dock labour as a class re-awoke and fought for
higher status and remuneration. In those years British
trade was exceedingly prosperous and the general demand
for labour very great. Wages, especially in the skilled trades,
were advanced and the agitation for better wages was
extended to the agricultural labourers and to other classes
where combinations of workmen had hitherto not been
organized. In November, 1871, a small strike broke out
amongst the tea-blenders at the West India Dock, and was
immediately stopped by firm action. Without any organiza-
tion in evidence, some of the men employed in certain of
the docks and wharves in the Port demanded increased
wages in June, 1872, and left work before an answer could
be given. The centre of the movement was at the West
India Dock, where the men went out on the 25th June,
1872. After making an effort to obtain other labour,
negotiations were opened by the Company with the leaders
of the strike, and with a promise to consider any just
grievances the men were induced to resume work on the
3rd July, receiving immediately afterwards an undertaking
that the minimum rate of wages should be increased from
4d. to 5d. per hour. This proved satisfactory to the men,
and this rate was adopted throughout the Port, the docks

oo

M

00

w

s

<

w

o

te.

w

—

as

w

K

h

p. 440

DOCK AND WHARF LABOUR 441

and wharf owners compensating themselves by increasing
the charges to merchants and shipowners by 25 per cent.

There were local dock labour disturbances in the spring
of 1880, arising from irregular practices in cases where
the work was let out to contractors. The men had cause
for complaint and resumed work immediately they had
the promise of redress.

Some of the employers endeavoured to safeguard them-
selves against future strikes by again reverting to the plan
of having a substantial nucleus of permanent men, but
under the stress of later competition the East and West
India Dock Company, who were the chief exponents of
this policy, deemed it expedient to disperse their per-
manent staff, and by the end of the year 1886 the conditions
of employment were much what they had been for half a
century, save that the day wages were higher, that a piece-
work system was in force in many docks and wharves, and
that a qualified protection against the results of accident
had been given to labour by the Employers' Liability Act.

At the end of 1886 a strike broke out at Tilbury Dock. It
lasted a short time only and did not succeed. It is note-
worthy now as marking the first appearance of Mr. Ben
Tillett as a Labour leader in the Port of London. Though he
failed then, the experience he gained could not have been
without results in equipping him to take a prominent share
in the great strike of 1889. There might have been more
success in this local strike if it had not taken place in
winter, or if there had been organization, or if the public
could have been interested in the cause.

Three years later the circumstances were more favour-
able for action. Unemployment had largely disappeared
from the East End of London, and there had developed a
public conscience on the subject of the conditions of life of
the East End working classes, represented in its practical
form by the settlements at Toynbee Hall, Bethnal Green,
and Canning Town. The life of the casual docker was
accepted as the specially typical case of the sordid, dull,
and precarious existence in the East End, which called to
society for drastic and immediate remedy. The dockers
needed remedy, but it was never so radically bad as society
was taught to believe by such articles as Mr. G. R. Sims
wrote for the Daily News under the heading of "How the

442 THE PORT OF LONDON

Poor Live" and "Horrible London." A small union had
been founded called the Tea Operatives' and General
Labourers' Association, with Mr. Ben Tillett as secretary.
The first step taken in the strike of 1889 was a letter written
by Mr. Ben Tillett on the jih August, addressed to Mr.
H. Norris, the head of the South West India Dock Depart-
ment, asking that the pay of dock labourers should be
increased from 5d. to 6d. per hour between 8 a.m. and
6 p.m. and to 8d. per hour after 6 p.m. This was followed
by a further letter on the i3th demanding a reply. This
reply not being forthcoming, a number of labourers,
estimated at 2,500, suddenly declined to go to work at
the East India Dock and West India Dock systems,
which had been the scene of Mr. Tillett's activities since
the abortive strike in 1886. The men formed themselves
into a procession and visited the Victoria Docks, and sub-
sequently the London Dock, with the object of drawing out
the men working there. They had only partial success on
the first day. On the i6th, with an increasing number of
adherents, the men went in procession to the City, passing
the offices of the London and India Docks Joint Com-
mittee in Leadenhall Street and returning to the docks.
Mr. Tillett and six dock labourers were given an interview
with the managers, and in the evening he met the men, who
had awaited their return outside the London Dock. With
him was Mr. John Burns — just then a public figure by
reason of his imprisonment for speaking in Trafalgar
Square. Mr. Burns came upon the scene voluntarily to help
a movement entirely after his own heart. He was asked to
address the multitude of men and convey the result of the
deputation. He was selected on the ground that he had a
powerful voice, and announced that whilst the Joint Com-
mittee would concede the demand that no man should be
taken on for less than half a day, they would not give any
increase of pay. Mr. Burns had other qualifications for
leadership in addition to the demagogic asset of a strong
voice, and after this first appearance he immediately
became the leader of the movement. But for his intervention
the strike might have failed. In the course of the next week
practically the whole of the dock and wharf employees in
the Port had been brought out, and these were joined by
the stevedores and the lightermen, who, coming out at first

DOCK AND WHARF LABOUR 443

ostensibly in sympathy with the docks, became afterwards
aggressively active for their own advancement. The man-
agers of both the Millwall and Surrey companies stated in
the Press that their men were content with their conditions
of work and accused the organizers of the strike of using
threats of violence to induce their men to cease work, and
cited cases of assault where the men had remained at work.
On the whole, however, the behaviour of the men was
orderly. The dock directors endeavoured to obtain labour
elsewhere by advertising permanent employment at £i per
week, but the response was not satisfactory. At the end of
a week's strike only about 250 men were at work, and these
men had to be lodged and fed on the dock premises. Mean-
while shipping was entering the Port and traffic was con-
gested. A partial relief of the situation so far as it affected
the public was the diversion of vessels to Southampton, but
this relief only lasted a few days, as that port had little
accommodation suitable for large liners. A much more
serious step was taken by merchants as the strike advanced
of ordering their consignments to Continental ports such as
Antwerp and Rotterdam, and disposing of them there, thus
giving an impetus to these ports of considerable advantage
to them, though it must be fairly observed that this transfer
of business was inevitable, and was rather precipitated than
caused by the strike.

The strike commanded the sympathy of the public from
the first, it appealed to the men, and it had as its leaders
men who had motives for making it a success. The public
were impressed with the evils of the casual and contract
systems, and they subscribed large sums for the mainten-
ance of the strikers. The men saw the prospect of a 20 per
cent, rise in wages. The leaders were intent on founding a
trade union for the dockers. The movement received a
blessing from an unexpected quarter. The shipowners
interested in the principal lines using the Port had for
some time been anxious to discharge their own vessels
instead of being compelled to entrust the operation to the
Joint Committee. For some days they bore patiently with
the delays and distractions caused by the quarrel, probably
realizing that if the companies gave way the bill would
ultimately have to be shared between the merchants and
shipowners. Then Mr. Thomas Sutherland, the chairman

444 THE PORT OF LONDON

of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company,
wrote to the Times criticizing the management of the docks
and expressing the opinion that if the shipowners controlled
their own work they could do it more satisfactorily, and
proposing that a co-operative dock should be established in
the Port by the shipowners. This attitude of the shipping
interest was the first indication of serious dissension
amongst the employers. A further weakening of their posi-
tion was caused by some of the wharfingers feeling the
pinch of loss of business and showing anxiety to settle with
the men. Meanwhile other sections of workers in the Port
ceased work, partially because of the holding up of ships
and goods in the docks and partially because they demanded
concessions for themselves. This applied especially to the
coal porters and carmen, but in their case the strike was
over by the end of August, the majority of their demands
having been conceded.

The strike of the dockers continued through August into
September. No strike was ever marked by so many attempts
of the parties concerned to come to terms. Conferences took
place day after day at the Dock House, Leadenhall Street,
between directors, managers, and the men's leaders. When-
ever an approach to a settlement appeared possible on the
majority of the points it inevitably broke down on the
question of the additional penny an hour. Exasperated by
the obdurate attitude of the directors, the men's leaders
issued a manifesto on the 3oth August appealing to the
workers of all grades and callings in London to refuse to go
to work on the following Monday, the 3rd September, if
by Saturday the sixpence had not been conceded. The
position was now threatening the existence of the metro-
polis. Yet no intervention on the part of the Government
had been made. The line taken by them was merely to hold
the ring while the combatants fought out their fight. It was
left to the initiative of Cardinal Manning to take the first
step which led to the termination of the struggle. On the
loth August he called on Sir Andrew Lusk, the acting Lord
Mayor, and together they saw the dock directors with the
object of inducing them to concede the demands of the
men. For the moment the mediation failed, but it secured
the withdrawal of the manifesto for a general strike, and
one immediate result was the formation of a committee by

DOCK AND WHARF LABOUR 445

the Lord Mayor (Sir James Whitehead), as representing
the City, with the object of bringing about a settlement of
the dispute. The members of the committee were the
Bishop of London, Sir John Lubbock, Cardinal Manning,
and Mr. Sydney Buxton, M.P. Meanwhile the strikers
appealed to the public for funds, and especially to the
trade unions. Several of the London newspapers also made
appeals. A considerable response was made to these appeals
in England, but the main contributions came from Aus-
tralia. £4,000 was sent from Melbourne alone, and the total
sum from Australia was £24,000. It was this evidence of
world-wide sympathy with the dockers more than any
other circumstance that perhaps had more weight in
determining the directors in conference with the Lord
Mayor's committee to yield the 6d. Even then a hitch
occurred by reason of the stipulation of the directors that
the 6d. should not come into operation until the ist
January, so as to give time for arrangements to be made for
securing additional income by a revision of the rates. The
men refused to wait, and after fresh agitation and confer-
ences the date for the commencement of the increased pay
was fixed as the 4th November, and work was resumed on
Monday, the i6th September. The following is a copy of
the document embodying the terms applying to the
majority of the strikers concerned :—

TERMS OF AGREEMENT.

1. The 5d. rate per hour to be raised in the case of all labour
not piecework on and after November 4th next to 6d. per hour
and 8d. per hour overtime. No pay for meal times.

2. Men called in not to be discharged with less than 28. pay
except in regard to special short engagements in the afternoon.

3. Present contract work to be converted not later than
November 4th into piecework under which the men will be paid
not less than 6d. per hour with 8d. per hour overtime and the
surplus, if any, to be equally divided between them all, payments
being made to the men under the supervision of the dock officials.

4. The hours of overtime at the docks and Uptown warehouses
shall be from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.

5. The existing strike to be terminated and all the men con-
nected with dock, wharf or river work to return to work forthwith.

6. The strikers and their leaders unreservedly to undertake that
all labourers who have been at work during the strike shall be
unmolested and treated as fellow labourers by those who have
been out on strike.

446 THE PORT OF LONDON

7. In employing fresh men after the strike is ended, the Director*
will make no difference between those who have not taken any
part in it and will not directly or indirectly show resentment to
any of the men who have participated in the strike.

The above terms of arrangement had been fully explained by us
to and discussed with the leaders of the strike and are accepted
by them.

JAMES WHITEHEAD, Lord Mayor.

HENRY E. CARD. MANNING.
i4th September, 1889. SYDNEY BUXTON.

On behalf of the London and India Docks Joint Committee and
by their authority 1 accept the above terms of arrangement.
1 4th September, 1889. RODOLPH A. HANKEY, Deputy Chairman.

On behalf of the Millwall Company.

G. R. BIRT.

On behalf of the Surrey Commercial Dock Company.

JOHN H. BOVILL, Deputy Chairman.

On behalf of the men on strike and by their authority we accept
the above terms of arrangement.

BENJAMIN TILLHTT. JOHN REGAN.
JOHN BURNS. TOM MANN.

JAMES TOOMEY. JAMES SULLIVAN.

CHARLES HAVELOCK. HUGH BROWN.

Witness to the signatures of the representatives of the men
on strike.
i4th September, 1889. W. J. SOULSBY.

This strike is known as the Great Dock Strike, perhaps
because there has never been a strike in which the public
took such a deep interest, indicated by the enormous pro-
portion it occupied in the columns of the newspapers of
the month it lasted. As regards the workers affected, it
was a smaller strike than the 1912 strike, to be hereafter
referred to. Its benefits to the men may be summed up as
an increase of pay of id. an hour and the substitution of
direct employment by the Dock Company for that of
contractors. This substitution was, however, never carried
out so as utterly to extinguish the contractor, who survives
to this day to a small extent with the Port of London
Authority, and to a very large extent in the loading and
discharging of ships where this is left to shipowners
themselves.

The question of casual labour, which had excited the
public sympathy, was practically left untouched by the
settlement. Merely to stipulate that men should not be

DOCK AND WHARF LABOUR 447

taken on for an hour or two hours, but must be taken on
for four hours, was trifling with the subject. One ultimate
result of the strike was to make the casual problem a more
difficult one than it had been. For the next twelve months
labour became difficult to handle. The victory had spoiled
some of the leaders, and a policy of ca-canny (that is,
"go slow with the work ") had been adopted, at the lower
docks especially. Continual small strikes occurred, and
pressure was exerted for further concessions, which were
granted for a time, amounting to 6d. a day for a large
number of workers. The vexatious delays to shipping led
to renewed applications from the shipowners to do their
own work, and partly out of the weariness of being buffeted
between the labourer and the shipowner and partly with a
desire to make more money, the London and India Docks
Joint Committee agreed to renounce the right of discharg-
ing ships at most of the dock berths. It was this act that
intensified the casual labour problem. Instead of one pool
of employment at the docks, there immediately became
twenty employers with their own individual maximum and
minimum labour requirements, meaning that the margin
of labour had to be multiplied considerably in order to
provide for the regular working of the docks. This question
is developed in another chapter of this history.

But the outstanding event which issued from this strike
was the revival of the organization of the dock and
wharf labourers. The leader of the strike, Mr. John
Burns, quitted the scene directly his work was done, giving
as his parting advice that the men should go and earn the
higher wages which they had obtained. The organization
was naturally carried out by Mr. Tillett and the other
prominent leaders in the strike. The chief union which
emerged was that of the Dock Wharf Riverside and General
Workers' Union, of which Mr. Tillett became secretary,
whilst others were formed of a local character representing
the men on the south side of the river, such as grain
workers and deal porters. Mr. Tillett 's union subsequently
developed in the provincial ports, and for a time was
relatively stronger at Dundee and the Bristol ports than in
London.

Though, as has been said above, the Mansion House
Agreement did not of itself provide for any remedy of the

448 THE PORT OF LONDON

casual labour problem, an honest attempt was soon after-
wards made by the London and India Docks Joint Com-
mittee to grapple with it so far as they could deal with their
own labour as the largest employers in the Port. They
decided to have four classes of labourers : —

1. A permanent staff of men with sick pay, fourteen days
holiday, and after fifteen years' service entitled to retirement
through old age or ill-health to pensions of 6s. to 158. a
week according to length of service. The pension was non-
contributory.

2. Registered or "A" labourers, weekly servants with the
holiday benefit. Vacancies in the permanent staff to be filled by
the promotion of "A" men and in such cases half their services as
"A" men was to count for pension purposes.

3. Preference or "B" labourers to have the first call for employ-
ment after those on "A" and to be promoted to that class as vacan-
cies occur. The "B" men were given tickets numbered according
to their seniority, and to save useless attendance at the dock 'gates
information was published at the gates every evening as to the
ticket numbers of the men likely to be wanted the next morning.

4. Casual men to be taken on on the few occasions when the
"B" list would be exhausted. They were to be considered for
filling vacancies in that class.

Such a scheme provided for the gradual promotion of
the individual from the casual class in which he might
begin to the permanent class with prospects far better than
those of the labourer in other callings. With the exception
of strikes of lightermen, there was no general disturbance
of peace in the Port between 1889 anc* 1911. and this may
in fairness be attributed to the steadiness of the labour in
the London and India Docks systems brought about by
this genuine effort to ameliorate the casual labour evil. The
new system of labour was subsequently acknowledged by
the Board of Trade to be a great advance in the administra-
tion of port labour, and it was by far the most important
practical contribution to social reform which followed
upon the strike.

In 1910 the leaders of the various transport organizations
spread over the ports of the kingdom conceived the idea of
federating the unions, and succeeded in forming the Nat-
ational Transport Workers' Federation under the presidency
of Mr. Harry Gosling, the secretary of the Amal-
gamated Society of Watermen and Lightermen of London.

CO

H
So

-
O

z

P- 449

DOCK AND WHARF LABOUR

449

''^^C^

In July of 1911 the Federation approached the Port of
London Authority with an application for an improvement
in the pay and conditions of employment in the Port,
chiefly on the ground of increase of cost of living. The
Authority agreed to discuss the question with the Federa-
tion, and were able to bring into the conference the great
shipowning lines and the principal wharfingers. Lord
Devonport, the chairman of the Port of London Authority,
presided at the conference, which occupied four successive
days far into every evening, and the result was that on
July 2yth an agreement was come to known as the Devon-
port Agreement. The terms of the agreement were as
follows : —

1. That the day rate of pay be raised from 6d. to yd. per hour.
Overtime rate from 8d. to qd. per hour. Piecework rates of the
Port Authority except bulk grain discharging rates to be raised
id. per hour per man. Subject to the arbitration provided for
below, men now receiving yd. per hour for ship and quay work
to receive 8d. and id. increase on overtime rates where less than is.

2. Day conditions of working to be from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. instead
of from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., as hitherto. Overtime rates to commence
at 6 p.m. and to run until 7 a.m.

3. Double pay for work on Sundays and statutory holidays.

4. The present arrangements of the Port of London Authority
as to dinner time to be abolished and one hour allowed at all
departments without pay.

5. No man to be paid off with less than four hours' day or night
pay.

6. Times of call of the Port Authority to be four in number at
the following hours, viz., 6.45 a.m., 7.45 a.m., 1245 p.m.,
5.45 p.m., and for perishable cargoes any time during the day,
due notice having been given at the previous time of call where
practicable.

7. Granary keepers' day work hours to remain as at present.
Piecework rates to be raised on the same scale as the Port Authority.
All conditions of meal times to remain as at present.

8. Working arrangements and conditions to remain as at
present.

The following points to be reserved for arbitration : —

i . Whether, in view of the increase of pay granted by the Port
Authority and wharfingers, there shall be an increase of id. per
hour to men at present employed at -d. per hour and for overtime
where this rate is now less than is. This is to apply only to the
discharge of vessels engaged in the oversea trade where the opera-
tion is carried on by shipowners or their contractors.

450 THE PORT OF LONDON

2. Federation Ticket. Any complaints of the National Sailors'
and Firemen's Union against the principle of the Shipping Federa-
tion Ticket or the system under which Federation Tickets are
issued to be submitted to an arbitrator to be nominated by the
London Conciliation Board, who shall decide whether such com-
plaints are well founded, and if so what change in the system
should in consequence be adopted. If the Federation are not
prepared to adopt any recommendation which the Authority may
make, the issue of Federation Tickets is to be discontinued.

[The Federation Ticket question referred to seamen only, and
will not further be referred to.l

The proceedings which resulted in this agreement were
conducted with perfect pleasantness throughout, notwith-
standing the extremely not weather then prevailing, and
no one who was present will forget the demonstrations of
cordiality on the part of Mr. Gosling and the other labour
leaders, or the compliment paid by them that if employers
were only so accessible and reasonable as the Port em-
ployers had been there would be no labour outbreaks. The
agreement was subject to ratification by the men, and a
meeting was called at which Mr. Gosling declared it to be
carried. Two days later Mr. Gosling and the other leaders
called out the whole of the men employed in the Port,
claiming for the dockers a further id. per hour. What had
caused such a sudden repudiation of the agreement ? The
only explanation ever given was that Mr. Gosling had
rushed his audience in declaring that the motion for accept-
ing the terms had been carried, and that as the majority
of the men were dissatisfied, the leaders were bound
to follow the men and denounce the agreement. This
explanation was only given long after the event. The imme-
diate effect was to render it patent that reliance on the
result of negotiations with dock labour leaders was useless.
The majority of the dockers responded to the call, including
i ,500 of the permanent men of the Port Authority. The men
were induced, some by exhortation not unaccompanied by
violence, to leave their work, and the hot weather was not
without its effect in promoting idleness. Coal porters,
lightermen, and carmen, who were utilizing the precedent
of the rise already awarded to the dockers, joined the
movement. The employers generally had always been
willing that all classes in the Port should obtain equivalent
increases of wages given to the Port Authority staff, but

DOCK AND WHARF LABOUR 451

were determined to resist any further demands, and the
public took the same view and supported the employers.
On the nth August the leaders declared the strike at an
end, trumpeting a victory. But the Devonport Agreement was
intact at the end of the strike, and remains so in principle
to-day. The "victory" was limited to the men having secured
from the shipowners an agreement that the men employed
by them should be taken on outside the dock gates instead
of inside, thus enabling the union officials to bring pressure
not otherwise open to them upon the men to join the
unions. It appeared subsequently that this concession was
only agreed to by the shipowners on the urgent representa-
tions of the Government that the then strained relations
with Germany made it necessary for them to make some
sacrifice in the interest of the State. It was this fact that
justified the shipowners in withdrawing the concession
when they found the opportunity twelve months later after
the crisis of 1911 was over.

Under the Devonport Agreement the question of the
extension of the extra penny per hour to certain labourers
employed by the shipowners had been left over for arbitra-
tion. The reason for the unwillingness of the shipowners at
once to fall in line with the general advance of a penny an
hour to dockers was never understood by the other
employers in the Port, nor was anyone surprised when Sir
Albert Rollit, the arbitrator appointed, awarded these men
the additional penny. Unfortunately there was left an
opening for further dispute, which came to a head in the
case of the Sea Belle, belonging to Messrs. Leach & Co.,
where the labourers claimed that the 8d. per hour, which
was without doubt originally intended to apply only to the
men employed on liners at the docks, equally applied to
oversea vessels discharging at river wharves. They were
able to carry their reading of the agreement at an arbitra-
tion in which Lord Alverstone was the arbitrator.

There can be no doubt that, in spite of the failure of
the 1911 strike, the Transport Workers' Federation had
gained ground. The officials had so cleverly managed their
propaganda as to persuade the men that they had
obtained the concessions which the Devonport and sub-
sidiary arrangements had brought them, not by means of
peaceful negotiation, as was the fact, but by the strike which

452 THE PORT OF LONDON

had followed the negotiation. The consciousness of growing
strength, or it may be the necessity of maintaining the
interest of the adherents of the various unions in their
membership, tempted the executive of the National Trans-
port Workers' Union to resume the battle in the late spring
of 1912. In the new campaign the avowed object of
their action from the outset was the aggrandizement
of the Federation by making it impossible for any
man to work in the Port unless he was a member of a
union affiliated to the Federation. Again the weapon of
the strike was employed to carry out the intention of
the Federation.

On the i gth May, 1912, certain lightermen refused to
work with a man named Thomas because of alleged
non-compliance with the rules of the Lightermen's Union.
Other transport workers then left work at the instigation of
the Federation leaders without formulating any demands,
without expressing any grievance, and, where agreements
existed, without giving the notice required by the terms of
their agreement. The Government were soon alive to the
threatening nature of the action taken, and on the 23rd
took steps with a view to the pacification of the trouble by
appointing Sir Edward Clarke to make an immediate
inquiry into the circumstances attending the disputes. The
proceedings began on Friday, the 24th, and finished on the
next day. On the 27th he made his report. The Port
Authority declined to attend the inquiry, and though some
of the other Port interests were present, the proceedings
were for the most part limited to questions between the
lightermen and their employers. The inquiry was so
obvious a political expedient to shelve a disagreeable
question that it utterly failed. Things were made worse
rather than better, especially as Sir Edward Clarke's
report was inconclusive on the facts of the case, and his
recommendations were confined to a suggestion that the
Board of Trade should, in accordance with existing agree-
ments, decide the differences in the lighterage cases.

By the 27th May work had practically ceased throughout
the Port. Not only was the withdrawal of labour accom-
panied by the demand that no man who did not hold the
Federation ticket should be employed in the Port, but it
was demanded that it should be obligatory on employers

DOCK AND WHARF LABOUR 453

to coerce their own men, as well as other employers' men,
to join the Federation. No question of wages was at first
raised, and it may appear singular how such a sudden
stoppage of work could be brought about amongst men
comparatively unaccustomed to the union whip, merely on
what must have appeared to them to be a more or less
academic issue. The explanation appears to have been that
the Federation had during the winter and spring prepared
the ground by the employment of an army of paid delegates,
absorbing so much of the Federation funds that no money
was ever available for strike pay during the struggle. Care-
fully organized and well versed in the arts of intimidation,
these delegates were able, in order to aggrandize the
Federation, to make impossible not only the lives of the
men who wanted to work, but the lives of their wives and
children in their homes.

Within a week of the zyth May it was clear that if the
parties in the fight were left to themselves the employers
would be the victors. The conditions were favourable to
them. The Federation ticket was not a cause to die for. The
British public does not favour the idea of coercing a man
for his own benefit, and worst of all from the Federation
point of view, there was an abundance of unemployed
labour available. Very quickly, labour from all parts of the
country offered itself for a rate of wages accompanied by
conditions of employment far superior to the conditions in
rural districts. By the 3rd June 4,300 men were at work in
the docks, and by the loth these numbers had nearly
doubled. A week later, there were 9,600, and the numbers
continued to increase week by week until by the beginning
of July they reached the numbers required to keep the
Port going. The chief inconvenience felt was that caused
by the absence of the lightermen, but the master lightermen,
their managers, and their staff of foremen were able by
co-operation and the waiving of by-laws by the Authority,
to give a sufficient service to overcome the difficulties due
to the emergency. On the ground that the food supplies
must not be endangered by the strike, the Government
provided police protection for vehicles used to bring goods
up from the docks, and they also dealt firmly with cases of
intimidation where they could be proved.

As soon as it became manifest that the battle was a lost

454 THE PORT OF LONDON

one, the men's leaders changed their policy. To stiffen the
men they let the Federation ticket retire into the background
and put forward fresh demands for higher pay and uniform
pay, and also for shorter hours of work. The demand for a
uniform rate of pay proved to be bad tactics, because few
men in the Port except those on the lowest scale favoured it.
There are degrees of aristocracy even in dock labour. With
these demands a campaign of obloquy against the em-
ployers was entered upon, culminating in outrageous
personal attacks upon Lord Devonport. The public were
begged to bring pressure upon the employers, and pathetic
pictures of women and children struggling with starvation
were drawn by orators on Tower Hill, especially by Mr.
Benjamin Tillett. His appeals were much discounted by
the attacks in the Daily Express to the effect that while he
spent his days in this class of oratory, his evenings were
occupied in pleasant personal enjoyment. Towards the end
of the campaign a final effort was made to induce the trade
union organizations to proclaim a general strike, but the
unions failed to make any response.

While these efforts to keep the battle going were bound
to fail, a more subtle attempt to cover the consequences
of defeat was made by the Federation approaching the
Government with the object of securing their intervention
and obtaining a form of settlement to which the Govern-
ment should be a party. Proposals were made with the
countenance of the Government for the formation of an
Association of Port Employers to meet the National Trans-
port Workers' Federation from time to time to adjust future
differences that might arise. The Federation would thus
achieve a recognized status in the Port for future discus-
sions on labour questions and have been able to point to
this achievement as well worth the sacrifices of the fight.
It was part of this programme of settlement that all the
strikers should be taken back into their old positions with
their privileges and that the free labourers who had saved
the situation should be got rid of. The Government, feeling
bound to put forward any proposition likely to heal the
quarrel, endeavoured to induce the employers to meet the
men's leaders, and there were many interviews between
members of the Cabinet and the employers. Amongst the
prominent members of the Ministry engaged were Mr.

DOCK AND WHARF LABOUR 455

Lloyd George, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Sydney Buxton, and
Mr. John Burns. It was not without interest in this con-
nection that Mr. Burns had led the great strike of 1889 and
that Mr. Buxton had been a mediator in that strike. To all
the proposals which were put before them by Ministers
and their subordinates for obtaining a settlement which
should in some way let the strike leaders off easily, the
employers always gave the same reply, and it was this :
They would have no dealings with the Federation whilst
its leaders were the men who had repudiated the Devon-
port Agreement of 1911 three days after it had been signed,
or with any organization that made as a condition of port
employment an unqualified submission to the rules of trade
union officials. They intended to retain every man who had
come into their service during the strike and who wished
to stay. They could not ignore the fact that during the
previous twelve months their servants had repeatedly
struck and had been forgiven and reinstated, and they
would only agree that these men would be re-employed as
vacancies occurred. A resolution was carried in the House
of Commons on the ist July, on the motion of Mr. O'Grady,
that it was desirable that the employers in the Port of
London should meet the strikers, but the employers
ignored the resolution. There was, in fact, no public opinion
to back the resolution. The employers had themselves
struck against the pressure of the Government and the
strike of the men was dead. It lingered on officially during
July. The Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, who had been
away in the Mediterranean visiting the Fleet, had really
settled the strike on his return by advising Mr. Gosling to
let the men go back, and the termination came by a simple
order from the leaders that the men should return to work
on the 2Qth July.

A few of the strikers had drifted back to work meanwhile.
Many of them never offered themselves for re-employment.
The newcomers who were efficient were made permanent
where they desired to stay, and were not thrown aside
as mere strike-breakers after they had served their purpose.
As to the balance of the strikers, they got back in most
employments with the loss of the pay not earned during
the prolonged fight.

In the case of the Port Authority such a serious view was

456 THE PORT OF LONDON

taken of the conduct of the men, some of whom had within
a year broken their agreements on three occasions, that it
was decided to reorganize the permanent labour staff and
meanwhile to reinstate strikers only as labourers on the
"B" list. This reorganization scheme came into effect in
October, 1914, and is the basis of to-day's organization.
It was as follows : —

I. (a) Engagement terminable on either side by seven days'

notice.
(b) Wages 283. per week of eight working hours between

7 a.m. and 6 p.m., rising to 293. after two years and

to 303. after two more years. Overtime at rate* of

Devonport agreement.
(e) Six days' leave annually in addition to statutory and

proclaimed holidays.

(rf) No sick pay. (This is provided by National Insurance.)
(e) No pension, but Authority will consider exceptional case*

for retiring allowances.
(/) Every permanent labourer to be transferable from one

dock to another.

(g) Participation by men in piecework as required.
(h) 3,000 permanent labourers to form first staff (since

increased to 4,000).

II. Preference Tickets to be issued to selected extra labourers
on same lines as the "B" class of labourer under scheme of 1889.

Men on the existing permanent staff and the strikers
were allowed to join the new scheme on special terms,
which, as they applied to transitory circumstances only,
need not be recorded here.

Deal porters and overside corn porters were excluded
from the scheme, chiefly on the ground that they were
averse from accepting conditions which necessitated regular
attendance at work.

The course of the strike had raised again the whole
question of decasualization of labour, and the Authority
while they were carrying out their reorganization also
reviewed this question, especially having regard to the
obligation cast upon them by the Port of London Act to
take it into consideration. A suggestion that it should be
dealt with by the establishment of Labour Exchanges at
the docks had been considered in 1910. A further sugges-
tion involved the adaptation of the Liverpool Dock labour
scheme to London. The first suggestion had broken down
through the refusal of the shipowners to be parties to the

DOCK AND WHARF LABOUR 457

establishment of Labour Exchanges. As regards the second
suggestion the Authority were informed by the Government
that the Liverpool scheme had not put an end to labour
troubles there and had also contributed nothing towards the
problem of decasualization, there being times when numbers
of men were unemployed at Liverpool, whilst plenty of
work was offering and no men available or willing to accept
it. Moreover, many of the London union leaders were against
the Liverpool scheme. The Port Authority felt that the
Port of London Act was ineffective for the purpose of deal-
ing with decasualization, as, while it laid upon the Authority
the duty of doing certain things by themselves or in co-
operation with other bodies, it provided that no one should
be deprived of any of their rights, so that if the other bodies
refused to co-operate, the Authority were precluded from
acting. The new organization of the labour staff would
reduce casual employment to a minimum so far as the
Authority's labour was concerned, but the Authority felt,
further than that, nothing beyond what was possible from
the force of example could be done by them in the absence
of statutory powers. The Government were duly informed
of the view of the Authority. Meanwhile the war tem-
porarily solved the problem.

In the following chapters the developments affecting
labour during the war and the relation of this important
question to the future prosperity of the Port are discussed
at some length. It may be generally stated here that no
outbreak of unrest involving strikes has taken place in the
Port since July, 1912.

CHAPTER XXXVI

The Port of London from August,
1914 till the end of 1920

I. EFFECT OF THE WAR ON TRADE.

THE first rebound in the mind of the public after the
momentous decision of the 4th August, 1914, was
a sudden anxiety as to the position of our oversea trade
during war-time with its possibilities that supplies of food
and other necessaries would be delayed in their transport
to the country and involve scarcity and, perhaps, famine.
The country had, in respect of some articles of food,
lived from hand to mouth, notably in the two important
articles of wheat and sugar. Some amount of panic was
at once created, and the nervous members of the public,
rich and poor, began to besiege shops with the object
of laying in stocks of food against any evil time that might
arise. Prices were at once raised ana to avert this natural
effect of the panic, the Government on the yth August
fixed provisional maximum prices for the principal articles
of food. Considerable help in calming the public mind at
this critical time when everyone was unstrung with the
seriousness of the situation was afforded by the Port of
London Authority in communicating through the Press
almost daily, reassuring information as to the actual
state and prospects of food supplies. On the yth August
it was pointed out that the stocks of imported meat were
double those held two months previously, and that though
the stocks of grain were, as usual in August, comparatively
small, a fine harvest was being reaped. The convinced
opinion was expressed that with so many Continental
ports closed, London was bound to have a large accession
of business. An instalment of such vessels carrying grain
and other foodstuffs had already been diverted to London
and were lying at Gravesend on the afternoon of that
day. Every indication showed that as the war proceeded,
produce of all kinds would have to come to the United King-
dom as the producer must realize his produce and the only

P-4S»

EFFECT OF THE WAR ON TRADE 459

free markets would be the British markets. The precedent
of the Napoleonic wars was cited to show that London, being
the safest of the great ports, would receive the surplus
stocks of the world. By the end of August all tendency
to panic had been dissipated. In the four weeks following
the declaration of war, the receipts of foodstuffs in the
Port of London had been considerably in excess of normal
imports, especially grain. Forty-eight vessels had been
diverted from Continental ports to London, most of them
with captured German cargoes. The stocks of food in the
London dock warehouses had never been so large. Stocks
of meat were 60 per cent, above the average, wheat was
150 per cent., maize 200 per cent., barley 600 per cent.
The only exceptions to the general prosperity of the Port
were in the export trade and amongst the small vessels
running to the near Continental ports. The situation as
regards sugar had been eased by the Government purchases
of 250,000 tons in Java, of which 20,000 tons arrived in
London during the early days of September.

During the whole of the autumn the receipts of food
and goods of all descriptions continued to gain on the
deliveries. The warehouses were full, and goods which
could not be absorbed, blocked many of the quays, both
in the docks and at the riverside wharves. Some of the activity
was attributable to the transfer of regular services from
Southampton, and some to the fact that regular shipments
of foodstuffs and of equipments and accoutrements manu-
factured in England were being made for the French and
Russian governments. But the more important additions
to the ordinary export operations which made all hands
busy were in connexion with the packing of immense
quantities of sugar, maize, oats, wheat, and barley for
British troops in France, and the vatting and bottling of
the whole of the rum for the Army and Navy. The out-
standing feature of the import business during the late
autumn was the enormous arrivals of sugar. In pre-war
time most of the sugar supplies came in regular weekly
instalments by Continental steamers, and went straight
to the grocer or manufacturer. At first, the circumstances
of war required that the whole year's supply should be
imported within four months, and the problem of housing
the sugar pending consumption was found to be a difficult

460 THE PORT OF LONDON

one not only in London but in Liverpool, Bristol and
Greenock. By the middle of January there was congestion
of all descriptions of shipping in all the ports, perhaps less
in London than at the others. Grave complaints arose in
all quarters. Vessels were kept waiting for berths, and at
one time there were as many as forty vessels held up at
Gravesend. The position in London had been worsened
by the weather in December, the records showing that the
rainfall had been continuous and the heaviest in quantity
for many years. The quays were never dry during the
whole of the month. Such goods as tea, butter, sugar, and
frozen meat could not freely be landed under such con-
ditions, and overtime would not be worked as labour was
getting short and the docks had to be darkened at night by
military orders. Amongst other causes of congestion were
the Customs regulations for the defence of the realm, the
sudden requisitioning of steamers by the Admiralty,
sometimes necessitating the turning out of a cargo directly
after it was loaded, and the occupation of sheds and ware-
houses by the War Office and Admiralty for war purposes.
The position in London was not, however, without hope.
The law of averages should give the chance of better
weather, and the growing daylight, longer working time.
But the Port Authority was able to give even more sub-
stantial assurances by the imminent bringing into use of
some of the new accommodation forming part of the
programme of improvements begun in 1909. Four sheds
at the East India Import Dock taking 25,000 tons had just
been finished, as also the new jetty warehouse at the London
Dock, holding 30,000 tons. For snipping, two new berths at
the West India Dock had been made available, and four
others could be completed in twelve months. The East
India Import Dock would be re-opened in three months'
time giving berths for eight steamers. One new berth for
the largest class of vessel had been completed at Tilbury,
with two others in rapid construction. Anticipating a later
programme, the Authority had put in hand two sheds at
the South West India Dock, and these were to be completed
within two months. The Authority had also in hand the
extension of the Albert Dock due to be completed in
eighteen months' time, giving eleven berths for the largest
ocean liners. They therefore contended that so far as

EFFECT OF THE WAR ON TRADE 461

they were concerned the question of congestion was but a
passing one and that they would soon be able to deal in
London with a trade far larger than that which was
responsible for the extraordinary pressure. In any case they
were in a position to promise that unless there were urgent
requirements beyond those in sight, there would be great
relief by the end of January.

The enormous increase in the forces sent abroad with
even greater forces in prospect, made the maintenance of
the flow of traffic through the ports of the kingdom a
question of vital importance to the nation, and in the early
part of 1915 the Board of Trade appointed an Advisory
Committee of members of dock and railway authorities
of the kingdom to investigate the causes of the congestion,
and to propose measures of relief. Lord Devonport, Mr. J. G.
Broodbank and Mr. H. T. Moore represented the Authority
upon the Committee which sat through February, March
and April, with Lord Inchcape, the chairman of the
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, as
chairman. Sir Eric Geddes was also a member of the
Committee. The Committee quickly reported. They advised
that the Government departments should give stringent
orders for the avoidance of detention of rolling stock at
sending or receiving stations, that a system of common user
of railway wagons at docks should be adopted, that repre-
sentatives of port authorities and other transport interests
should hold regular meetings at the chief ports in order
to co-ordinate their efforts for the removal and prevention
of congestion, that the Sugar Commission should vacate
all quayside sheds and warehouses wanted for goods in
transit, and either take accommodation elsewhere, or make
arrangements for the erection of temporary storage, that
incoming cargoes of sugar should be diverted to ports
which were not congested, that the Admiralty and War
Office should be requested to revise their arrangements
with a view to the more economical use of the accommoda-
tion they occupied, and that the War Trade Department
and Customs and Excise should be invited to facilitate the
issue of licences and permits for the clearance of goods and
generally to reduce the obstructions to the shipment of
export goods.

The policy of the Authority was to meet the abnormal

462 THE PORT OF LONDON

demands on London and elsewhere by the provision of ad-
ditional space in the Ports themselves. They regarded this
as in every way economically preferable to one of the alter-
natives suggested of forwarding goods to inland centres for
housing immediately they arrived at the ports. Such a
method would have meant a wasteful journey on the rail-
ways for the goods, and in many cases, a return journey
to the port of discharge at a time when it was desirable to
keep the railways as clear as possible for the transport of
troops and munitions. They continued to carry out this
policy with great energy in spite of the growing disabilities
of scarcer supplies of labour and materials, and they com-
pleted in twelve months about 2,000,000 square feet of
accommodation, thereby providing additional storage for
300,000 tons of goods.

During the greater part of 1915 the resources of the
Port of London were taxed by the heavy and irregular
arrival of goods. The demands upon the Authority may be
best measured by the fact that the number of dockers em-
ployed on the quays and warehouses, which was normally
about 4,500 before the war, was now constantly above 7,000,
and sometimes beyond 8,000. The export trade especially
was carried on under great difficulties by reason of the lack
of shipping tonnage offering for mercantile purposes. But
by the end of 1915 the congestion in the Port had dis-
appeared. Co-ordination of working had been effected with
wharfingers, shipowners, railway companies and lighter-
men. The Government had commenced to restrict imports,
and lighterage and van facilities had improved. Valuable
assistance was afforded by a number of motor lorries lent
by the War Department for the delivery of goods from
the docks, but undoubtedly the chief source of relief was to
be traced to the additions made to the storage and transit
facilities at the docks.

The clearance of the congested areas was in no way due
to any falling off of business. This appeared at the time
difficult to reconcile with the fact that the tonnage entering
the Port continued to show a marked decrease as comparea
with the previous year. The answer given was that a
ton of shipping of the day represented far more in cargo
to London than it did before the war. For several years
previously, the practice had been growing of shipping

EFFECT OF THE WAR ON TRADE 463

companies discharging part cargoes in London, then going
on to Antwerp and Hamburg to finish discharge and partly
load there, and then coming back to London to finish
loading. A large amount of shipping which counted as two
entries before the war only counted once during the war,
and any tonnage comparison suffered accordingly. But the
cargoes manipulated and stored in London from each ship
were double what they were, because full and not half
cargoes were dealt with.

The Committee on Congestion at the Ports having com-
pleted its labours, the ports were for a time left to shift for
themselves. But on the ist November, 1015, the Govern-
ment, realizing that executive action had become necessary
to secure the regular maintenance of the transit facilities
at all the ports, appointed the Port and Transit Executive
Committee by an Order in Council, with powers to issue
directions for regulating the traffic at the ports and harbours
of the United Kingdom for the purpose of preventing
congestion. The powers conferred upon the Committee
placed the whole of these undertakings under their control
for all purposes in the same way that the railway under-
takings had been made subject to the control of the Railway
Executive Committee. Lord Inchcape was appointed the
first chairman. The Committee was formed chiefly of
representatives of Government Departments, and included
Sir Norman Hill, of Liverpool, and Mr. Broodbank, of
London, but no other ports were represented. The Com-
mittee had its first meeting on the 4th November, 1915,
and remained embodied until the spring of 1921 for the
purpose of assisting the ports in dealing with congestion of
traffic which occurred after the cessation of hostilities.
Lord Inchcape retired from the chair on the 23rd July,
1917, and was succeeded by Sir Norman Hill, who re-
mained the chairman until the end of 1919, when he was
succeeded by Sir John Barran. During 1917 the Committee
was enlarged by the addition of several representatives of
labour and fresh recruits from the new Government De-
partments. The policy of the Committee was from the first
as far as possible to leave the administration of the ports in
the unfettered hands of those responsible for their manage-
ment. Only in rare cases have the Committee exercised the
autocratic powers vested in them, and then only after

464 THE PORT OF LONDON

exhaustive inquiry into the circumstances attending each case.
Their business has been by means of regular returns sup-
plied to them to satisfy themselves that the flow of traffic
through the ports is being kept free from obstruction, and
in cases of failure, by mandate or suggestion to secure that
result as quickly as possible. Three of their principal
executive acts should be dealt with here : —

First, the direction that all imported goods which might
appear to any authority to impede the flow of trade should,
ii not removed within forty-eight hours of notice given, be
either removed and stored at the cost and risk of the owner,
or be subject to penal rates of is. per ton for first seven
days, 2s. per ton for the next seven days, and 33. per ton
after fourteen days. This direction was given to meet cases
chiefly in outports where merchants were blocking quays and
sheds by taking advantage of the relatively cheap statutory
rates of Port Authorities as compared with the higher rates
claimed by private stores and carriers under war conditions.
The power has only rarely been applied in London, and in
most cases the offender has been a Government Department.

Secondly, the direction that a prescribed form (known
afterwards as "the pink form") indicating that certain
particulars required by the Customs regulations should be
filled up and lodged with the Authority before consign-
ments of export goods could be received into the sheds, the
object being to prevent the blocking up of the sheds by
export goods before Customs regulations had been complied
with.

Thirdly, the formation in 1916 of the mobile Transport
Workers' Battalions. These battalions consisting of soldiers,
were organized by the Committee for the purpose of
providing labour for Port work when the civil labour was
insufficient for the purpose. The battalions proved immensely
useful, as civil labour was drawn upon by the authorities
for military service abroad, in preserving the flow of traffic
in the ports. The first battalion experimentally organized
was 700 strong, and styled the i6th (Transport Workers'
Battalion) York and Lancaster Regiment, and it was largely
recruited from men who had been employed as dockers in
civil life. Local committees, consisting of one representative
each of the Admiralty, War Office, Port Authority and
Labour were constituted at each of the ports and these

< ^

>H **

p. 464

EFFECT OF THE WAR ON TRADE 465

committees considered applications of employers for a
contingent of the Battalions, and decided whether the
applications should be recommended for approval. The
Battalions were never permitted to work where civilian
labour was available, only being allowed to supplement
the existing supply of labour. It was in no sense a strike
breaking weapon for the employer to wield. The utility of
such a mobile body in times of irregular congestion was so
obvious that advantage was bound to be taken of it, and the
first battalion was never able to keep pace with the demands
made upon it. Four more battalions were soon sanctioned,
and by the end of the war the number of the men had been
raised to 15,000, and the scope of their usefulness had been
extended to the railways, canals and ironworks. The em-
ployers had to pay for the services of the non-commissioned
officers and men of the battalion at the current rates
applicable to dock workers (no charge being made in respect
of officers) so that no question of undercutting labour could
be involved. One of the most satisfactory features from the
beginning was the excellent relations existing between the
civilian and military docker as they worked together in
the speeding up of national transport. As a war weapon it
combined the merits of discipline in working, speed in
action, and economy in cost. The battalions have repeatedly
been employed in the Port of London both by the Port
Authority and the wharfingers, sometimes as many as
1,000 being engaged in the Port at one time. They nave
been put to all kinds of work, including the difficult task
of deal portering. They proved teachable and their spirit
was excellent. Demobilized, they should prove a most
valuable asset to the transport service of the country.

During the whole of the year 1916 the activity of trade in
London which had marked 1915 continued, and the volume
of goods dealt with, was practically about the same, though
the tonnage of shipping that paid dues indicated a further
falling off. The measures taken by the Authority in 1915
to cope with the increasing trade had proved efficacious
in preventing congestion and there were no delays or diffi-
culties due to that cause. With these measures, coupled with
the advent of the Transport Workers' Battalions, just alluded
to, London was now secure against the evils of congestion.

All risks, however, of this evil being repeated in 1917

466 THE PORT OF LONDON

disappeared with the inception of the ruthless submarine
campaign and its success in sinking many millions of tons
of British and neutral vessels. By this means the Port of
London during 1917 suffered severely in the losses of
shipping and goods on the voyage home, and even more
severely from the policy of the Government in deciding,
as part of their protective measures, to divert large volumes
of traffic to other British ports. This course was apparently
adopted in response to agitation in the House of Commons
following upon the loss of a ship with food which had called
at Falmouth for orders and had been torpedoed outside
that port on her way to London. The argument used in
the agitation was that the vessel ought to have been dis-
charged at Falmouth, and the cargo sent by rail to London,
and developing this line of reasoning pressure was brought
upon the Government to consign all ships to West Coast
ports and dispatch the cargoes to London by rail. The West
Coast was further from the submarine bases and also
possessed some of the most commodious ports in the king-
dom. The argument left out of consideration the fact that
the concentration of ocean-going traffic in the Irish Channel
would be offering a larger target to the submarines. The
Admiralty were doubtless seized with this obvious result,
but the number of destroyers available was at that time
not sufficient to escort convoys up both the Irish and
English Channels, and the Government therefore yielded
to the clamour and proceeded to make wholesale diversions
of traffic to the West Coast. At one time they contemplated
the diversion of the whole of the East Coast traffic to the
West Coast, and appointed a Committee, chiefly composed
of railway and port experts, to submit detailed arrangements
for carrying out such a scheme.

This Committee reported that such a diversion was only
practicable to a limited extent. Some of the conditions of
the problem seemed simple to solve to those unacquainted
with the working of traffic, and it may be well to deal with
them here. Most of the West Coast ports were already being
fully utilized for Admiralty and War Office purposes. Their
geographical position and facilities had dictated this use.
Where they were not so used it was because the accommo-
dation was unsuitable, and if they were unsuitable for war
traffic they were equally unsuitable for merchandise. As

EFFECT OF THE WAR ON TRADE 467

an instance, what was the value of the highly efficient coal
hoists employed in the shipment of coal at South Wales for
landing frozen meat or bulk grain ? More important were
the questions of depth of water for deep-draught ships
and the capacity of the transit sheds. New port accommoda-
tion could not be improvised by the waving of the wand of
a magician, especially in war time when all construction
work was hampered by the system of priority necessarily
adopted. Organization, staff and labour for working for
new undertakings were even more difficult. In such circum-
stances the experience of London in regard to congestion
during the year 1915 would be intensified at the Western
ports. The greatest problem was, however, not to be found
at the port of discharge, but arose in the transit and dis-
tribution of the cargoes. If cargoes were all of one descripton
such as grain in bags and intended for one merchant only,
the cargo could reach its destination easily. But un-
fortunately the cargoes coming to London from the Colonies
and America consisted of every class of goods mixed in the
holds of the vessels. There were often 500 consignees
interested in one American cargo. Therefore it would be
necessary to land the whole of the cargo and sort it before
delivery. The sorting would not be carried out at the port
of discharge as, if it were attempted, there would in any
case have to be a further sorting in London. The whole
cargo would therefore have to be placed in trucks as it
came ashore and sent on to London by rail. With one cargo
alone of 15,000 tons about 3,000 trucks would be required,
occupying about twelve miles of railway. The railway
depots in London already overcrowded, could not possibly
handle such a traffic, and the only accommodation available
would be the dock sheds in London, and it is undoubtedly
to the docks that the train loads of cargo would be forwarded.
Here again was another difficulty. The dock sidings and
sheds had been designed to receive import cargo from the
water side, and not from the land side. Nor could sheds
be spared for the long time they would be occupied between
the first arrival and final delivery if full cargoes had to be
dealt with in the sheds, instead of part being delivered
overside. When, at last, some weeks after the vessel had
discharged at the outport, the last consignment of the cargo
reached the docks, the real process of delivery to the

468 THE PORT OF LONDON

consignee would only have just begun. Let the incidence of
cost, of delay and especially of the wastage and spoiling
of food resulting from such arrangements be considered,
and it will at once be seen that the regular supply of food
to London would be disastrously crippled. The truth is
that the effects of interfering with existing methods of
distribution even in peace are inconvenient and confusing
to a degree not realized except at such times as those of the
dock strike of 1912. It seemed better to lose a vessel
occasionally than adopt the alternative proposed, though to
the uninstructed lay mind of that time, it seemed better
still to have provided ample protection to mercantile
shipping while sailing in the danger zone.

During the autumn and winter of 1917 the policy of
the Government in regard to the diversion of shipping
traffic from London remained unaltered, and the returns
of the Port indicate the severity of the losses sustained.
They show that in the year ending 3ist March, 1918, there
had been a reduction of nearly 29 per cent, in the shipping
tonnage entering the Port as compared with the previous
twelve months, and of nearly 20 per cent, in the goods
handled by the Authority. Though in adopting the diversion
scheme it had been proposed that the cargoes should still come
to London, this was not carried out in practice. Attempts
were made to distribute goods such as tea direct from the
Western ports, instead of using the London market, the
idea being to avoid unnecessary rail carriage. London lost
this lucrative class of business, but it also lost even more
severely by the fact, that, to save rail transit, provisions
which would have in the ordinary course served for London
supplies, were disposed of at the ports of discharge to the
advantage of the outport population at the expense of
Londoners. This is one of the explanations why the difficulties
of food supplies in London and the South East of England
were so accentuated in the winter of 1917-18.

Representations were made to the Government on
behalf of the Authority and by the leaders of port labour
as to the unwisdom of continuing the policy of diversion,
but any suggestion for immediate change was resisted on
the ground that the demands of the Admiralty were still too
onerous to allow of more warships being spared for convoying
merchantmen up the English Channel. The Government

DEFENCE OPERATIONS 469

attitude was stiffened by the events at the Front in
March, 1918, which threatened the safety of the French
Channel ports and the entire closing of the Straits of Dover
to mercantile shipping. The question, however, had become
such a grave one for London, that on the initiative of
Mr. J. D. Gilbert, M.P., a member of the Port of London
Authority, it was earnestly taken up by the London Members
of Parliament, and strong representations were made by
them to the War Cabinet.

Judged by its results the London members' intervention
was successful. The Government gave assurances that no
unnecessary diversions would take place, and promised
that as more escorts would soon be available a larger share
of the traffic would be despatched to London. The position
at the Front also became stabilized, and on the i5th July
began the series of operations which terminated in the
capture of Zeebrugge and the final victory of the Allies.
But even in April, 1918, the tide of traffic began to turn
towards London, and as the months passed it flowed
stronger and stronger, until by the end of 1918 something
like an equal distribution of trade was being made between
the East and West Coasts. With the month of May, 1918,
began arrivals of American troops in the Port of London,
and by the end of November, 114,000 had been landed in
the Port from ninety-five vessels. Though it is fair to
acknowledge that the circumstances of the end of 1918
were more favourable to London than those of the end of
1917, the intervention of the London members was justified
both by the circumstances at the time and by its results.

II. OPERATIONS CONNECTED WITH DEFENCE.

Early in October, 1914, the Port Authority were
requested by the Military Authorities to construct a pontoon
bridge across the Thames between Gravesend and Tilbury.
By continuous working day and night the approaches and
the bridge, with a removable section 600 feet wide for the
passage of navigation, were completed within the one
month specified, and on the i5th November a trial of the
bridge was ordered by the Army Council. At this trial,
which was in all respects satisfactory, the bridge opening
was closed in 3 hours 19 minutes after the receipt of
instructions, being 41 minutes less than the four hours

470 THE PORT OF LONDON

provided for. The navigation passage was restored in
2 hours 8 minutes. The Authority maintained tugs and
staff always in waiting to close or open the passage at any
time. The bridge was dismantled immediately after the
armistice was signed.

From time to time the Authority placed their dredging
plant at the disposal of Government Departments, twenty-
six vessels having in all being chartered to the Government.
The vessels were used, some in dredging operations con-
nected with defence works in the north, some were adapted
for carrying cargo, and others were converted into oil
tankers for bunkering purposes at sea.

In July, 1915, the Authority, at the request of the
Munitions Department, undertook the manufacture of
i8-pounder shells. Volunteers were called for, and the work,
which was carried out chiefly after ordinary working hours,
was continued until the temporary shortage was made up.

In the numerous air raids made upon the metropolis the
docks and warehouses of the Port have always been one of
the objectives of the invaders. Yet, though damage was done
to house property by enemy aircraft in Poplar and several
children killed, the property of the Authority and the
wharfingers remained practically immune from damage
throughout the war. Only a few German bombs ever
descended upon their premises, and these either dropped
into water or upon open ground. Only one bomb actually
struck a building, and the total of damage to the Authority's
property inside and outside the docks occasioned by the
enemy and by our own aircraft defence guns amounted to
£3,239. The strict carrying out of the lighting regulations
at the docks and the adequate anti-aircraft equipment pro-
vided by the War Office were probably the chief factors in
securing this immunity from attack. The nature of the
construction and contents of the dock warehouses made
them in many ways suitable for air-raid shelters, but for
obvious reasons they were not places where it was possible
to admit indiscriminately the public who would be likely
to use them. No general permission could therefore be
given to the public to resort to the warehouses during the
raids, but in consultation with the local and police authorities
certain premises at the London and St. Katharine, Millwall
and Victoria Dock, with proper sanitary accommodation,

a

I

s

^

1

t,

<s

P. 470

LABOUR 471

were reserved for the public during raids, and many
thousands of people took refuge therein under the super-
vision of the Authority's police.

Torpedo nets were fitted in front of every lock gate at
the river entrances to the docks, whilst the entrances them-
selves were regularly patrolled, at first by soldiers and later
on by the Authority's police.

III. LABOUR.

The labour question in the Port was naturally one of the
most difficult problems of the war. The facilities for rapid
transport at the ports were essential to the campaign, and
the Government, recognizing this from the first, made the
occupation of transport worker exempt from the conscript
call. When the war broke out a large number of port
workers were called up to the Army and the Navy because
they were reservists or in the Territorial Forces. A further
withdrawal took place, when many volunteers responded
to the appeal of Lord Kitchener. When the Government
wanted transport workers at Havre and other French ports,
about 1,270 London men were enlisted for service there,
still further depleting the staffs of the Authority and other
employers. Other men left for the munition works in the
neighbourhood, drawn there partly by the laudable patriotic
impulse of more direct service to the Army and others by
the higher pay offered. One feature of the early methods of
recruiting for munition work adopted by Government
Departments created much criticism, and has had evil
effects throughout the war and since. This was that instead
of approaching the employer and endeavouring to arrange
with them to spare a portion of their mechanics, the
Government agents took the short and easy course of
tempting men to leave by offering dazzling wages, often
standing outside the gates of East End engineering estab-
lishments and soliciting men as they entered or left the
works. The worst immediate effect was the discontent
engendered in the minds of the workers left behind. The
ultimate effect was to encourage the general unrest and
demands for higher wages everywhere in skilled and un-
skilled trades. It must be said to his credit that so far as the
docker was concerned he was one of the last class of worker
to put forward claims for war bonuses. By February, 1915.

472 THE PORT OF LONDON

the higher freights of shipping had been followed by higher
prices for food, and an application was made on behalf of
the dockers for an advance of wages to meet the increase in
the cost of living, and a war bonus equal to 35. per week was
agreed to at the end of the month. By July, 1916, the cost
of living had increased again, and a further bonus equal to
6s. per week was agreed to. Two further rises were given in
1917, one in April of 33. per week and another in December
of 6s. per week. These four war bonuses totalled i8s. per
week, and were given by the Authority in consultation with
the other employers and the men's representatives. This
1 8s. applied to ordinary dock and wharf workers. The other
classes of port employees had proportionate increases. In
March, 1918, the National Transport Workers' Federation
suddenly put forward a claim on the Government for a war
advance to be standardized at 8d. per hour over pre-war
rates (equal to 325. per week approximately), and it was re-
ferred to the Committee on Production, who invited the
employers in the ports to the hearing of the case. The in-
vitation was declined by the London employers. The Port
Authority in a letter to the Chairman of the Committee
pointed out that no application had been made to them by
the men or by the labour members of the Authority as to
any grievance affecting wages, that the claim for standard-
ization was against the known sentiment of the workers,
that no claim as to enhanced cost of living had been raised,
and that the proposal of the Federation was advocated
merely on the ground that the men were entitled to exploit
the economic position in the critical state of the nation's
fortunes. The Authority called in aid the report of the
Select Committee on National Expenditure recently issued.
This report had pointed out that the succession of fresh
cycles of wages advances was vastly increasing the cost of
the war, and had recommended that the strongest case
should be required to be established before any advance of
wages was conceded on any ground other than the rise in
the cost of living. The Authority, therefore, felt justified
in taking the stand that until a Government Committee
which had just been appointed to inquire specifically into
the cost of living had made their report they would give no
countenance or be parties to any proceedings. Though the
reason was not stated in the correspondence, the Authority

LABOUR 473

was largely influenced by the conviction that the Com-
mittee on Production was not a judicial body, and
that they were merely agents appointed by the Gov-
ernment to dole out to the men such increases of
wages as might appear to be necessary from time to time
to keep the men quiet. The Government felt forced by the
action taken by the Authority to proclaim the Port of
London as a district where a difference existed for adjudica-
tion under the Munition Acts, and this was followed by a
hearing where no evidence was tendered by the Authority
and an award equivalent to another 8s. a week bonus pay-
able from the 6th May, with a further bonus for overtime
work. A new application was heard in October, 1918, when
again the employers were practically not represented for the
same reasons as had influenced them in the spring, and
again an award for the men, this time equivalent to 6s.
When the armistice was signed on the nth November,
1918, the total of the war bonuses given by agreement were
therefore equal to 325. a week. To provide the funds to pay
this extra wage and the many consequential increases to
lightermen, carmen, and other port workers, and also to pay
for higher wages in the maintenance departments and the
higher cost of stores, it became necessary from time to time
to increase the tariffs of rates and charges on shipping and
goods, and by the end of 1918 the tariffs were 85 per cent,
in excess of those in force in 1914.

The character of the labour employed necessarily
suffered during the war by the losses through enlistment in
the early stages of the war, and by the fact that no young
men were available to fill vacancies. The numbers of the
men had to be increased for the work done because of the
inferior quality, but on the whole it may be said that the
labour was more efficient at the close of the war than in
1915 or 1916, experience having benefited the men who
had come in. But for the creation of the Transport Workers'
Battalion the supply of labour available would rarely have
been equal to the work on hand.

Though there has been much restlessness due to the
crude processes by which it has been attempted to meet the
increased prices of food by periodical war bonuses, it must
be fully acknowledged that during the war the dockers
generally did recognize their responsibilities as a vital link in

474 THE PORT OF LONDON

the equipment and feeding of the Army and civil population
and worked to the best of their ability. The only serious
exception to the rule in the early stages of the war was the
action of certain stevedores and men employed by ship-
owners who saw the opportunity of getting a regular
Saturday afternoon holiday and availed themselves of it
during the rest of the war.

When the Derby scheme of recruiting was started in
October, 1915, the importance of retaining sufficient
transport workers for efficiently carrying out the work of
the Port was pointed out to Lord Derby by the Authority,
and it was agreed by him that the arrangements to secure
this end should be made through the Authority. It was
decided that such men on enlistment should be starred in
groups and at once placed in the Army Reserve and sent
back to their civil occupation, and that all applications for
the release to private employers of men inadvertently
detained by recruiting officers should be vouched by the
Authority. The Authority thus acted as a clearing house
for the whole of the transport workers of the Port. This
arrangement lasted until May, 1916, when the work of
exempting transport workers from military service was
taken over by the London Shipowners and Transport
Workers Military Service Committee, which consisted of
representatives of the following bodies : —

Board of Trade.

Port of London Authority

London General Shipowners' Society

London Shipowners' Dock Committee

London Short Sea Traders' Association

London Chamber of Commerce

Association of Public Wharfingers of the Port of London

London Cartage Contractors' and Horse Owners' Association

London Master Stevedores' Association

Association of Master Lightermen and Bargeowners

Steamship Owners' Coal Association.

Representatives of Transport Workers' Unions

Military representatives

The chairman of this important committee was Mr.
J. B. Wimble (now Sir John Wimble, K.B.E.), and it was
largely due to his ability and impartiality that the duties of
the committee were carried out with satisfaction to all the
interests involved. This committee after the cessation of

CO

o

1

P-474

LABOUR 475

hostilities was entrusted with the arrangements for releasing
transport workers from the Army in the general demobiliza-
tion.

Immediately after the armistice an agitation was com-
menced for a shorter working week for dock labourers, the
men having in view a national half holiday on Saturday
throughout the country. No objection was raised in London
to the Saturday half holiday so long as the men were willing
to work for 48 hours during the week. The National Trans-
port Workers' Federation voiced the men's demands and
asked that the question should be settled on national lines,
and not locally. The demand was accompanied by the
condition that there should be no reduction in pay for the
shorter working week. Numerous informal conferences
took place between the Federation and employers from
various ports, and in the end, owing to the pressure put
upon them by the Ministry of Labour, the demand was in
effect granted by the employers as from the 24th April,
1919. In the case of some employers where the hours had
substantially exceeded 48 per week a compromise was
arrived at in settling the new rates of pay. Though the
concession involved considerable cost to the Port of London
Authority and other London employers, no addition to the
charges of the Port was necessary as the conditions of trade
were then so prosperous that the burden could be met out
of the current revenue.

In October, 1919, the National Transport Workers'
Federation, in pursuance of their policy of endeavouring to
obtain national settlements of wages, made an application
to all port employers with demands, the principal of which
were that the minimum pay for day workers and piece-
workers should be at the rate of :6s. a day for the 44-hour
week, and that pay for overtime should be at the rate of
time and a half. Though such a serious demand obviously
required treatment by the employers on national lines, no
national employers' organization was in existence. The
employers at the leading ports, with London at the head,
decided after consultation to form a Provisional Com-
mittee, with Lord Devonport as chairman, for dealing with
the emergency, and eventually agreed with the Transport
Workers' Federation to accept the offer of Sir Robert
Home (then the Minister of Labour) to let the question be

476 THE PORT OF LONDON

threshed out before a Court of Inquiry under the Industrial
Courts Act, 1919. The Court was constituted as follows :—

THE RIGHT HON. LORD SHAW OF DUNFERMUNH (Chairman)

SIR JOSEPH G. BROODBANK

SIR LIONEL FLETCHER

HARRY GOSLING, ESQ., C.H.

A. PUGH, ESQ.

FREDERIC SCRUTTON, ESQ.

JOHN SMETHURST, ESQ.

BEN TILLETT, ESQ., M.P.

ROBERT WILLIAMS, ESQ.

The inquiry opened on the 3rd February, 1920, and
there were twenty public sittings, the evidence being con-
cluded on the nth March. Sir Lynden Macassey, K.B.E.,
K.C., was the principal spokesman for the employers and
Mr. Ernest Bevm for the labourers. The Press soon dubbed
Mr. Bevin as the Dockers' K.C., and the skill and thorough-
ness with which he conducted his case entitled him to the
compliment. There were fifty-three witnesses. The men's
case was based broadly upon the claim that they were entitled
to a higher standard of life, that the industry could afford
this, and that in view of the casual nature of their employ-
ment they were also entitled to maintenance during the time
they were idle. The employers resisted the demands upon
the ground that the dockers were, relatively to other indus-
tries, sufficiently well paid by the existing minimum of
£3 45. 2d. a week, and that the increases of pay given during
the war had been followed by a most serious falling off in
output. Seven members of the Court, namely, the chairman,
the four labour members, Sir Lionel Fletcher, and Mr.
Smethurst, reported in favour of conceding the i6s. demands,
though Mr. Smethurst qualified his assent by objecting to a
minimum wage, but was in favour of a substantial percent-
age advance on earnings. Sir Joseph Broodbank and Mr.
Scrutton declined to sign the report and submitted a report
of their own.

The majority report summed up the results of the inquiry
as follows :—

i. That with a view to establishing a national minimum standard
(to use the words of the claim) the minimum for day workers and
pieceworkers should be i6s. per day on the basis of the national
agreement for the 44 hour week.

LABOUR 477

2. That a system of registration of dock labour should be intro-
duced into all the ports, docks, and harbours of the kingdom.

3. That the principle of maintenance of unemployed casual
labour is approved.

4. That wages of dock labour should be paid weekly and that
this system should be introduced at the earliest possible date.

5. That the constitution of a national joint council and its
correlative and local bodies should be undertaken for the dock
labour industry on the lines of the Report of the Whitley Committee.

6. That these bodies should, failing agreement by the parties,
be charged with the settlement of the incidental matters mentioned
in this report, and of the remaining items of claim.

The majority report confirmed the correctness of the
employers' complaints as to the falling off in output and
breaches of contract on the part of the men, but relied upon
the hopes held out by the men's leaders that increased
output would follow increased wages and upon a broad
appeal to the honour of the men.

The minority report pointed out that to raise the
minimum pay of dockers to i6s. a day would make it nearly
3^ times what it was before the war, and that the concession,
if given, would, as the Prime Minister had indicated in a
recent demand of the miners, be followed by demands from
every grade of skilled workmen in the country, and create
a new vicious circle still further inflating currency and
enormously increasing the cost of living. Sir Joseph
Broodbank's and Mr. Scrutton's suggestions for dealing
with the situation were : —

(a) That the rise in prices since the rates of wages were last
fixed in October, 1918, warrants a further immediate increase in
the present rates.

(b) That a scheme of maintenance should be at once jointly
considered, and after its effect on the ordinary rates of pay has
been estimated the parties by agreement should fix permanent
standard rates of pay.

(c) That pending such agreement (and in no case before the
ist January, 1921) no reduction should be made in the rates of pay.

(d) That having regard to the experience of the 44 hours' agree-
ment related at length in that report, better output would not be
secured by merely giving an all-round increase of wages irrespect-
ive of results actually achieved, and that in many cases existing
piecework rates might be increased in the hope of encouraging
better results.

The employers, after consideration, decided to accept
the majority report as a whole. Negotiations with the

478 THE PORT OF LONDON

National Transport Workers' Federation were opened, and
an agreement was signed on the 5th May, 1920, under
which as from the loth May the minimum of i6s. is applied
to the majority of the ports and 155. to certain or the
smaller ports.

The increase in pay to the labourers necessitated corre-
sponding increases to other sections of the Port establish-
ments, the total being estimated at £15,000,000 per annum
for the country, of which about one-third was referable to
London. The liability thus incurred was transferred to the
consumer by an increase in the rates and charges for port
services. In the case of the Port of London this was achieved
by increasing the all-round war addition of 85 per cent, to
150 per cent.

The employers proceeded to establish a permanent
organization of their own, and in the following July the
National Council of Port Employers was formed. Certain
members of this Council have been appointed to meet
representatives of the men for the purpose of dealing with
labour problems in the Port, and thus constitute the first
Joint Industrial Council for port labour.

IV. SPECIAL WAR REGULATIONS.

The Authority during the whole of the war undertook
the charge of the secret examination service on the river
of all incoming vessels, the officer in charge being Captain
Kershaw, the harbourmaster of the lower section of the
river. The Authority's police force co-operated with the
Government Aliens' Officers in carrying out orders affecting
enemy and friendly aliens in the prohibited area of the
Port. It was felt that the docks were the chief channel in
London for the conveyance of intelligence to the enemy,
and a large number of persons, not aliens, whom it was
considered undesirable to allow in the docks were pro-
hibited from entering altogether. As the dock statutes
permit the public to enter or leave the docks freely so long
as they have business to transact there, the performance
of this duty required great care and circumspection on the
part of the police in the scrutiny of persons passing through
the dock gates. It also necessitated a registration system
adapted to the differing circumstances of neutral and
enemy aliens and questionable characters of British origin.

I

Q
I

I
Cfl

I

o
o

p. 478

SPECIAL WAR REGULATIONS 479

The control of alien crews of vessels, who provided the
chief danger of communication to the enemy, was nomin-
ally maintained by Home Office officials, but the whole of
the executive work was carried out by the Authority's
police, including the conduct of all charges and prosecu-
tions. This work proved to be one of no little difficulty, the
more so in that in deference to the supposed wishes of the
shipping community the duties had to be carried out with
little attempt at strictness. Real segregation of alien ships'
crews was scarcely enforced until the middle of 1918. No
alien was allowed to pass over lock gates, and an additional
safeguard of these vulnerable points of the dock system was
the prohibition of passage over them by the general public
except to certified employees of firms engaged on work of
national importance. The control of all permits to take
photographs or drawings in the dock and river jurisdiction
of the Authority was also vested in their police. Even more
responsible work was thrown on the police in the guarding
of the many thousands of tons of explosives passing through
the docks. Minor but indispensable services were rendered
by the police in attendance at the embarkation and landing
of troops and the use of the Authority's ambulances for
the conveyance of wounded soldiers and sailors and
returned prisoners of war.

The following figures express in terms perhaps more
easily understood, the extent and value of the police services
of the Authority : —

Number
Aliens registered

Aliens arrested and convicted
Prosecutions for sketching, etc.
Dock passes issued after full inquiry
Lock passes issued

488

I9

164

799

These arrangements were organized with high ability by
Mr. E. Stuart Baker, the Authority's chief police officer.

V. RATES AND CHARGES ON GOVERNMENT
SHIPPING AND GOODS.

Immediately upon the declaration of the war the Authority
approached the Government with regard to the payment
for the services and accommodation at the docks for trans-
port, with the result that an arrangement was made with

480 THE PORT OF LONDON

the Admiralty, based upon that made with the London and
India Docks Joint Committee at the time of the South
African War, which provided for payment in full of dock
tonnage rates on ships and an agreed schedule of charges
for the special services accommodation and facilities
required by the Government. Three months later the
Admiralty suddenly terminated the agreement and claimed
complete exemption under the Harbour, Docks and Piers
Clauses Act, 1847, for all Government ships, including
hired transports, proposing in substitution an ex gratia
payment of 75 per cent, of the rates leviable on the mer-
cantile marine, and further demanding that in respect of
goods handled for the Government the dock charges should
be based on the out-of-pocket expenses of labour alone,
allowing nothing for wharfage or as a contribution towards
interest on capital. The effect of submitting to the applica-
tion of this principle to the shipping and goods then under
Government control would have been sufficient to endanger
the payment of interest on the capital of the Authority. If
it had remained in operation until the end of the war, when
about 90 per cent, of the services to goods and shipping
were on Government account, the Authority would have
even with its reserve fund defaulted in its interest by the
end of 1915, and have been hopelessly bankrupt and
unable to carry on. The same treatment was in contempla-
tion for the whole of the port authorities in the kingdom.
Remonstrance with the officials of the Treasury was made,
the authorities pointing out that Parliament could never
have intended the powers under the 1847 Act to be so
abused as to give the community the free use of ports in
the middle of war, which had diverted practically all
shipping and food imports into the hands of the Govern-
ment, and also pointing out that while private firms whose
works were taken over for war purposes were being accorded
arrangements giving them large profits, undertakings
managed by public authorities strictly for the benefit of
the public were to be starved and ruined by the application
of a statute obviously designed for normal peace conditions.
No redress being obtained from the officials, the authorities,
in concert with Members of Parliament representing the
constituencies in which the principal harbours and docks
were situated, sought and obtained the opportunity of

RATES AND CHARGES 481

approaching Mr. Asquith as a deputation. The deputation
was received on the lyth February, 1916, and after hearing
Lord Devonport and other members of the deputation,
Mr. Asquith undertook to consult with the Departments
concerned with the object of arriving at terms of payment
which could be accepted on all hands as reasonable and just.
Months of negotiation ensued ending in the following
offer being made by the Government to take effect from
the 4th August, 1914, and accepted by the Dock and
Harbour Authorities : —

Percentage of

I. In respect of ships. ordinary tariff.

A. Port and Harbour Dues.

(a) for ships belonging to the Royal Navy and
ships requisitioned during the war for naval
use as transports, mine sweepers, patrol ships,
etc.

(1) Port harbour and dock dues where
vessels have the use of berths in open or
closed docks or at other quays or jetties

in the port . . . . . . . . 75

(2) Port and harbour dues in open harbour*
where use is not made of the facilities
specified under (i) above .. .. nil

(b) For requisitioned and prize ships engaged
in discharging and/or loading grain, sugar,
timber, meat, and other goods which are

not munitions or naval or military stores . . 100

B. Payments for Services.

Graving dock rates and payments for tonnage, towage,
cranage, water, light, power, labour and all other specified
services to be in accordance with the ordinary tariff
applicable to such services.

II. In respect of Goods and Stores.

On all goods loaded into and/or discharged from all ships,
including requisitioned ships, the Government to pay the rates,
dues, and charges payable in accordance with the ordinary tariff
in force at the port, harbour, or dock concerned, that is to say, the
Government is to be put on the same terms as a large importer or
exporter dealing with similar quantities under similar circumstances.

This arrangement, though not giving the authorities all
that they considered they were entitled to, was on the
whole satisfactory to the larger ports. Some of the smaller
ports had been so denuded of business by the war that even
had the Government terms been more generous the
authorities would still have found it impossible to maintain

482 THE PORT OF LONDON

their position and these cases were met by an undertaking
of the Government to favourably consider hard cases.

It may be recorded here that the many thousands of
tons of gifts and comforts for soldiers and sailors and
refugees sent home or abroad were handled or stored during
the war at the docks of the Port of London Authority free
of charges. This concession was even applied to such con-
signments as the 200,000 bags of flour, part of the immense
gift from Canada in the early days of the war.

VI. WORKS AND PLANT.

War had the effect of seriously modifying the programme
of improvements and new works which had been adopted
by the Authority. Briefly put, it may be said that whilst
works in that programme approaching completion in August,
1914, were allowed to proceed, those not so forward have
been seriously delayed. Further works not contemplated,
but necessary to meet war emergencies, have been carried
out promptly. Some of the programme works completed
during the war have already been mentioned earlier in this
chapter. Others in this category included the important
new store for frozen meat at the Royal Albert Dock, with
part of the adjacent meat store, the new cold store in
Smithfield, the new ferro concrete jetty with double storey
transit sheds in the London Dock, the extension of the
Tilbury Main Dock, and the great installation of forty-three
electric cranes for the Royal Albert Dock. The works carried
out for emergency purposes were mostly in the nature of
shed and warehouse accommodation for goods.

The programme works which suffered great delays from
priorities given to other war work in the country were the
deepening of the river, the extension of the Albert Dock
and the river jetty at Tilbury.

River deepening was stopped early in the war owing to
the difficulty of obtaining labour and to the acquisition of
most of the dredgers by the Government. The river jetty at
Tilbury was in the hands of contractors who found them-
selves continually handicapped by lack of labour and mater-
ial and made slow progress . In the summer of 1 9 1 8 the contract
was cancelled by agreement and the Authority is now car-
rying on the work with some hope of the early completion
of the jetty with the more favourable conditions of peace.

WORKS AND PLANT 483

The Authority viewed the completion of the Albert
Dock extension as of great national importance and con-
tinually brought all the pressure in their power to secure
the priorities for steel and other materials, but these
priorities were persistently refused until the summer of
1918, when the Government, requiring increased dry dock
facilities for the repair of torpedoed vessels, approached
the Authority with an offer to give the necessary priorities
and to pay them a sum of about £200,000 to secure early
completion of the dock and dry dock. The circumstances
of the offer necessitated the cancelling of the contract
entered into with Messrs. Pearson. This has been done
and the work is being rapidly proceeded with under the
direction of Mr. C. R. Kirkpatrick the chief engineer of the
Authority. It is anticipated that the connexion with the
main Albert Dock will be ready for passage of vessels by
the summer of 1921, thus giving access from that date to
the new dry dock of vessels of about 12,000 tons. The new
river lock will probably be available for use about the same
time, and then both the new wet and dry docks will be
available for vessels up to 35,000 tons. It is a part of the
arrangement made with the Admiralty that all the dry
docks of the Authority shall be furnished with cranes and
pneumatic compressors, and this work is proceeding.

One unexpected series of works of reparation on a large
scale were thrown upon the Authority by the Silvertown
explosion on the igth January, 1917. A vast amount of
damage was caused to the buildings in the Victoria Dock
by the calamitous explosion. Many sheds were blown
bodily down, others were set on fire and burned to the
ground, and nearly every other building in this area had
their doors and roofs damaged. The clearance of debris and
the re-erections and repairs occupied nearly two years, and
the claim of the Authority on the Government who accepted
liability for the effects of the disaster was settled for
£250,000.

Amongst a number of various minor works carried out
for war purposes were

(a) The construction of the landing stages in connexion with the ferry
used by munition workers between Gallions Jetty and Woolwich.

(b) The supply of ballast for the making of concrete in defence
work* on the South Coast.

484 THE PORT OF LONDON

(r) The widening and strengthening of the Ctttle Market at the
Deptford Supply Reserve Depot of the War Department.

(</) Sheds for the War Office at Tilbury and Royal Albert Dock.

(e) Many salving operations in the raising of sunken vessels,
including one gunboat.

VII. SERVICE OF PORT AUTHORITY'S STAFF
WITH H.M. FORCES.

The members of the Authority's staff who were called
up or volunteered for service with His Majesty's Forces
up to the armistice numbered 3,542.

Of these 397 lost their lives in the defence of their country,
717 were wounded or disabled through illness.

Many distinctions were gained by members of the staff
including two Victoria Crosses.

The number of casualties amongst the men drawn from
the Port as a whole is not known, but approximately it
may be taken as about five times the number referable to
the Port Authority.

VIII. MISCELLANEOUS.

The canteen arrangements for workmen at the docks have
long been far from ideal. The general movement throughout
the country during the war for an improvement in the
conditions under which meals are served to workers was
extended to the docks, and the Authority in co-operation
with the Liquor Board and the Young Men's Christian
Association erected several temporary canteens in the
docks for the entertainment of the largely increased numbers
of men employed there during the war. Besides adopting
these temporary measures, the Authority erected two
permanent canteen buildings (one at Tilbury and the
other at the Albert Dock) over which they are exercising
direct control through their hotel manager, having in mind
also the possibility of extending that control to the whole
of the refreshment arrangements in the docks.

During the summer of 1915 to 1918 inclusive the
Authority provided a steamer for trips for wounded soldiers
on the Thames. A second steamer was provided by a
committee of the members of the Authority out of funds
derived from private sources during the last three of the
summers. In all 50,705 soldiers were carried. The manage-
ment of the trips was in the hands of Mr. F. Carbutt,

MISCELLANEOUS 485

acting on behalf of the British Red Cross Society. None
of the many excursions given to soldiers appears to have
met with such favour on the part of the men and there was
universal testimony from the commandants of the hospitals
as to the beneficial effect of these trips on the health of
the men.

During the war period the Port Authority were able to
bring about a revision of the arrangements between them-
selves and the public wharfingers in regard to rates. The
many agreements in regard to dock companies and sections
of the wharfingers, every one of them in different terms,
were abolished. In their place was set up the Port of London
Working Association, the object of which is to secure that
all merchants transacting business in the Port shall be
charged the same rates for equal services. The governing
body is a joint committee consisting of eight members of
the Authority and an equal number of wharfingers, the
chairman of the Authority being the chairman of the
Association. The complicated details affecting individual
rates are discussed and settled by sectional committees,
subject to the final approval of the joint committee. The
articles provide for the provisional maintenance of existing
arrangements where loss of business would have followed to
any individual wharfinger, but these exceptional cases have
been reduced to very few in number, and will, it is believed,
soon disappear, and it may be said that the adhesion of
wharfingers to the principle of the Association has been so
general that for all practical purposes there is now a single
tariff applicable throughout the Port. There is no fear that
the joint committee will develop into a ring to the detriment
of merchants inasmuch as merchants are safeguarded by
the Port of London Act. One most useful measure adopted
by the Authority during 1920 was the promotion of a Bill
which became law for unifying and consolidating their
powers.

CHAPTER XXXVII

The Future of the Port

THE pages of history show that with few exceptions
once a great community establishes itself on a site,
that site permanently remains a dwelling place of crowded
humanity. The vicissitudes due to war and other destructive
agencies or to the starting of rival communities may
temporarily dim the prosperity of the inhabitants, but the
conditions which originally attracted men to settle on the
site reassert themselves with the passing away of the adverse
influences. Thus we have such old cities as Paris, Moscow,
Rome, Athens survive through the ages the direst effects of
fire, pestilence and sword. Even Carthage, the classic
example of the deadly vengeance of its implacable foe, has
risen again in its suburbs and become the modern Tunis.
Even more distinctly is this principle illustrated in the case
of ports which have served generations as international
channels for the distribution of merchandise. The prosperity
of such ports may ebb and flow with the circumstances of
the trades which use them, but they almost universally
continue to serve their original purpose. To select the
oldest instances, Marseilles, Genoa, Athens, Alexandria,
Constantinople, Bristol, Southampton have been ports
since the countries in which they are situated had a cor-
porate existence, and they are to-day in the first rank.
London is perhaps the outstanding example of this per-
sistence of adherence to its original function in the common-
wealth, and London has been less subject to fluctuations
of prosperity than any of the other great ports of the world.
We may judge therefore from its 1,900 years' history which
this work is attempting to record that the future of the
Port of London is as secure as the future of any human
institution can be. Even though the British Empire should
have been disintegrated and despoiled as the result of the
late struggle it is impossible to believe that the Port of
London, with its natural advantages enhanced by the
expenditure of many millions on facilities, would have
ceased to occupy its pre-eminent position as a market or

! .

p. 486

THE FUTURE OF THE PORT 487

distributing centre. But with the triumph of the Allied forces
and the extension of the Empire's power and influence, we
have the prospect of increased commercial operations in
the chief port of the Empire, and as a consequence an
augmentation of shipping and merchandise there, which
should, as the years proceed, bring an increment of trade
to the Port enormously beyond anything that has hitherto
been dreamed of.

London will remain, as it has long been, the chief inter-
national market for Eastern and Colonial produce. The
most valuable of its imports has for many years been
Colonial wool, an inversion of the conditions of its earlier
history when wool was its chief export. Many attempts
have been made by rival ports to capture the wool trade of
London. British ports like Liverpool and Hull have en-
deavoured to cajole merchants with the argument that a
saving in carriage between London and Yorkshire could
be brought about by discharging Colonial wool nearer the
point of manufacture. The Germans before the war bought
largely in the Australian markets and shipped wool direct
to German ports. America and Japan have also bought
direct and continue to do so. Our home manufacturers
also adopt this practice to a limited extent. But the fact
remains that by far the greater part of such wool as is not
bought in Australia is sent to the London wool warehouses
and put on show for sale there, and buyers from all parts of
the world congregate there with the knowledge that in the
vast supplies laid out for inspection on the floors of the
London warehouse, they will have a greater selection to
choose from than at any other point in the world, that their
individual requirements will be satisfied at the ruling market
price, and that they will receive what they have bought and
paid for.

Tea has been a practical monopoly of the London market
ever since its importation began. During the war for the
purpose of saving shipping tonnage and railway transit,
considerable quantities of tea were sent to northern ports
and distributed from there. The scheme was not a success
even as a war measure, and though the Port of London
suffered, the consumer suffered even more. There was
disadvantage by reason of the ignorance of the methods
of managing the business. This might have been cured

488 THE PORT OF LONDON

by experience, but the blending and packing and distribution
of teas had been centred in London, and also the financial
operations, and it was not easy to move these important
items from London at a moment's notice. Hence much
confusion and loss of quality and quantity at the expense of
the community. In some cases it was found that tea landed
at Liverpool was being sent to the south of England, whilst
consignments landed in London were dispatched to
Yorkshire, thus defeating the objects of the Food and
Shipping Controllers in departing from the ordinary
methods governing the business. What has happened during
the war has proved so clearly that the trade practice was
founded on principles of utility that no other evidence is
required to justify the assurance that the tea trade will
remain a London one.

Rubber is relatively a new trade. Wild rubber finds its
way to Liverpool but the cultivated product, plantation
rubber, has its market in London. This trade is one which
must inevitably grow.

Another modern article of import, immensely increased
in volume during the last five years has been liquid fuel
in the form of mineral oils and spirits. Vast tanks for the
reception of petroleum and petrol have been erected on the
banks of the Thames at safe distances from the City, and
yet with such facilities for distribution that the conveyance
from the tank to the receiving station in London can be
performed at an infinitesimal cost per gallon. This trade is
certain of expansion.

The Port of London has always been the chief mart
for imported goods used in highly specialized and luxury
trades. Thus we find there the markets for articles of
medicine, such as bark, rhubarb, ipecacuanha, jalap,
iodine, etc., for spices, such as cloves, nutmegs, mace,
cassia and cinnamon, and for all the valuable working
metals such as copper, tin and quicksilver. The luxury
trades include carpets, feathers, silk and silk piece goods,
china ware, ivory. All these imports are so closely identified
with the industries of the metropolis that their development
with the increasing influence of the British Empire cannot
be questioned.

But in point of volume and weight the largest trades are
those which arise out of the consumption of commodities

THE FUTURE OF THE PORT 489

by Londoners themselves, and the population which is
served from London. Most of the coal for London under
normal conditions arrives by sea, and it is an ever-increasing
proportion. Corn, including wheat, oats, maize and barley,
reaches London by sea. Under war conditions more wheat
has been grown in England, but no one anticipates that the
conversion of pasture into corn lands is anything but a
temporary measure. Imports of wheat still continue to
arrive in enormous quantities, and it may be assumed that
so far as these imports are in excess of what is necessary
to compensate for the deficiencies still left in spite of the
improved home supplies, they will be used to maintain a
higher reserve in the Ports than that which was thought
sufficient in pre-war times. Sugar, meat, butter, cheese,
bacon and other provisions, with fruit, wines and spirits
also represent large tonnages in the imports of consumables.
Timber, both the hard wood and the soft wood types, arrives
in the Port of London in fleets in the summer season when
the Baltic and St. Lawrence, free of ice, allow navigation
to penetrate to their inmost recesses.

As the permanent population in and around London
grows with an ever-increasing number of visitors, the
demand for all these commodities must increase, and with
it, the demands upon the Port must be greater. Railway
transit from Channel ports may be serviceable to the
metropolis in the case of certain perishable goods of high
value coming from the Continent, and where products
originate in the interior of England that mode of transit
will chiefly be resorted to, but for the great proportion of
commodities the sea route into London is the cheaper, the
more convenient, and, in fact, the only practicable route.
Whilst the automatic developments of the production of
raw materials and food in the territories of the East and the
Colonial possessions will tend to maintain the pre-eminence
of London in those trades, there are recent indications that
a larger share of the Canadian and American trades will
make London their headquarters.

In connexion with the importation of raw materials,
it must be remembered that the London area is the largest
manufacturing district in the Kingdom. No single London
manufacture is equal in importance to the cotton or wool
manufacture of the northern counties, but the aggregate

490 THE PORT OF LONDON

of the enormous variety of factories in London exceeds
that of any other district. Amongst the articles so produced
in London are flour, furniture, pianos, chemicals, sugar,
rubber goods, motors, margarine, paper, biscuits, paints,
varnishes, oils, matches and electrical fittings. The majority
of the factories are not directly associated with the docks
of the Port, but the raw materials reach them through it,
and the finished article that is exported leaves London
through its Port. On the waterside itself, many factories
are, however, erected and utilize the facilities afforded
there and at the docks. Notable instances are the flour
mills of Messrs. Rank and Messrs. Vernon in the Victoria
Dock. The capital value of the waterside factories in the Port
was ten years ago officially estimated by their association
at £ 1 00,000 ,000, a value that has probably been more than
doubled since that time by additions and the increased
value due to higher prices. Though the advantages of the
waterside factory on the Thames have not yet been fully
exploited by manufacturers, there are unmistakable
signs that those engaged in new enterprises are realizing
those advantages. Evidence of this is to be gathered from
the recent erection of the huge factory for the production
of margarine by the Maypole Dairy Company and the
installation of Messrs. Vickers Maxim's works at Erith.
Consider the factors which make the Port attractive to the
manufacturer. A deep river allowing vessels to discharge
raw materials and fuel alongside the factory ; the biggest
produce and labour market in the world at its doors ; and
barge transit which is by far the cheapest in the country,
available for the whole length of the river and its canalized
tributaries. Vessels from every port in the world come into
the docks where delivery or shipment can be made by barge
free of dock charges for imports or exports. Trunk railways
for the whole of Great Britain with waterside depots within
easy and cheap reach of the factory, and the great Contin-
ental ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam within twelve hours'
steaming. To this let it be added that the Port charges
proper payable in London on vessels and goods are on the
lowest scale of any of the great ports, and are negligible in
their effect on the cost of manufacture. Even in the matter
of fuel, the position of London is not so unfavourable as
it is usually considered to be. Coal is brought by colliers

THE FUTURE OF THE PORT 491

from South Wales or the North, and the rates of freight
prevailing in normal times enable the best coal to be placed
alongside the Thames factory at a cheaper cost than in
many manufacturing districts which are served by rail
carriage. With the dearer cost of production now applying
to coal and with the prospect of even heavier cost,
it may ensue that liquid fuel will largely supplant coal
for factory use as well as for shipping, and in this
event, London will be equal in point of fuel supplies to
any other port and superior to those inland districts
which are now benefited by the presence of coal mines
at their doors. Allowing, however, only for the maintenance
of the present relative cost of fuel in London and coal
producing districts, the other factors of advantage which
are set forth above show such a balance of considera-
tion in favour of London as a manufacturing centre that
its progress is certain, and with this progress an advance in
the user of the Port, both for imports and exports.

It is to the increase of manufactures that the Port must
look for an extension of its export trade. Whilst the Port
has been first in regard to the volume and value of
imports, its exports have been considerably below those
of Liverpool which has benefited by the immediate proximity
of Lancashire and Yorkshire factories. Even, however, with
its disadvantage of distance, vast quantities of goods for
exports are forwarded to London from the North, but it
cannot be too strongly emphasized that to maintain even its
present relative position, let alone improve it, London must
more and more utilize its river side for factory development.

The one exception to the general advancement of in-
dustries on the Thames, viz., that of shipbuilding and
ship-repairing has already been referred to. The loss of
the business had its commencement in the substitution of
steel for timber as the material of construction, and while
Londoners could but lament that an industry so long their
pride was threatened, the event was one which arose in the
course of evolution of the industry. What has, however,
given rise to a much keener sense of disappointment is
that it was not in the inevitable nature of things that the
whole of the business of shipbuilding and ship-fitting should
have disappeared from the Thames. Whilst the ordinary
cargo steamship could be built more economically where coal

492 THE PORT OF LONDON

and iron were found in the same neighbourhood these
elements of cost did not so much apply to vessels where the
interior organization and fittings were of a complicated and
special character, and there was no reason why the yards
where such vessels were constructed should not to-day be
even busier than they were fifty years ago. Unhappily,
masters and men were apparently not able to meet the new
situation with the energy and skill which is so often stimu-
lated by adverse conditions, and the shipbuilding industry
left the Thames. The only explanation ever offered was that
the workmen had insisted on conditions that their Clyde
and Tyne competitors dispensed with. The demands on
the Port for the repair of British vessels damaged in the
war seem to provide the opportunity for reviving ship-
building on the Thames. A beginning has been made in the
improvement of the facilities for ship-repairing in the Port,
but few dry docks exist for this purpose in the Port. The
Port Authority's docks are only available for ordinary
painting and cleaning between voyages. The best of the
private docks are unable to accommodate the largest liners
which, if requiring repairs involving lengthy stay in dock,
have to proceed to a northern port for the purpose, with the
consequent delay, risk and expense. The recent decision
of Messrs. Harland & Wolff to commence shipbuilding
and ship-repairing work at the Royal Albert Dock is an
event that promises a resuscitation of London's lost trade
in this respect.

Another section of traffic in which the future presents
possibilities is the passenger traffic in the Port which has
almost disappeared in the upper reaches of the river. The
busy scene of lively human traffic which marked the Pool
for centuries is peopled now only by cargo steamers and
lighters and their crews. It is regrettable that the river
service initiated by the London County Council was
abandoned. Mr. J. D. Gilbert and his colleagues on the
Rivers Committee of the London County Council, who
initiated the service in 1905, made an error in telling the
public that the enterprise would at once be a remunerative
investment. They should have relied on the ground of
utility and amenity. No one can gainsay that on those
grounds the service was well worth the rate of one-fifth
of a penny in the pound which it cost the ratepayers. But

w

O

00

— • ^

S*d

-

u o

S fc

s

p. 492

THE FUTURE OF THE PORT 493

the conduct of the Moderate Party when they came into
power in abolishing the service in 1909, and in selling for
£18,000 the thirty steamboats which cost £200,000, is
defensible on no ground that can commend itself to anyone
who is not a slave to the narrowest theories of party politics.
With suburban trains becoming more crowded and vehicu-
lar traffic making greater demands upon London streets,
the conclusion is irresistible that in spite of their unhappy
experience, the London County Council will be driven to
consider the question of reviving the steamer service on
the Thames Highway. Co-operation between the Council
and the Port Authority might secure a better and more
remunerative service than that of 1905, and is, in any case,
desirable for complete success. The only passenger services
remaining are a few small up-river excursion steamers
running in the summer, the ferry service between Tilbury
and Gravesend, and the summer services to Thanet and
East Coast watering places. From the point of view of the
Port, the chief consideration arises in connexion with
passengers on ocean-going vessels. Here again the glory of
the Thames has departed. The river from the Pool to
Blackwall was once full of crowded points of embarkation
and disembarkation of passengers and emigrants, but no
longer serves the purpose. Liverpool and Southampton
obtain the greater share of this traffic. Such passengers as
sail to India or the Colonies direct to or from London, for
the most part embark or disembark by tender in the open
river at Tilbury. The Port of London Authority are making
strong efforts to revive the ocean passenger traffic on the
Thames. In their endeavours to accomplish this it has to be
recognized that though London is the destination of most
ocean-going passengers the way there by the sea route is
not the shortest, and if it is a question of saving passengers a
few hours, London cannot compete with Liverpool for pas-
sengers from America or with Southampton for passengers
coming from any port west of Boulogne. Owners of ocean-
going ships carrying no cargo and intended to carry passen-
gers destined for London only, can therefore find no benefit
in using the Port of London either for the passengers or for
the vessels themselves. Southampton offers better facilities,
better even than Liverpool for such traffic. But there is a
class of vessel (rapidly increasing in number in late years)

494 THE PORT OF LONDON

which carries large quantities of cargo and reserves the upper
decks for passengers, often carrying 500 to 600. These
vessels chiefly trade with Canada and the Australasian
Colonies. The speed is not that of the Atlantic greyhounds,
though often between 18 and 20 knots, and the fares are
proportionately much lower than on the faster boats.
With such vessels the cargo is the principal element which
governs the decision as to the port of discharge and loading,
while the question of saving the passengers a few hours
longer on the sea is relatively unimportant. The shipowner
in the case of such vessels has, therefore, no particular
inducement to incur the delay and expense of calling at an
intermediate port to land or embark his passengers if he
can conveniently do so in the port to which he is carrying
the cargo. It is for such vessels that the Port of London
Authority is catering in proposing to erect a floating
passenger landing stage at Tilbury. This stage will be avail-
able at any time of the tide. It will adjoin the Tilbury Station
of the Midland Railway Company which is within thirty
minutes' journey from the City, and not more than forty
minutes from St. Pancras. Three ocean-going vessels will be
able to use it at one time. Its manifest utility and the success
which has been achieved with a similar stage at Liverpool
make the Authority confident that this venture will prove
a welcome addition to the facilities of the Port, and restore
London to the front rank of ocean passenger ports.

Amongst the numerous possibilities of expansion in the
operations of the Port, there is that of London becom-
ing a -transit port for Switzerland's oversea trade. Under
the projected scheme, London would be the destination
and shipping port for the ocean-going vessels carrying the
imports and exports of Swiss traders and manufacturers,
the transit to and from Switzerland being by means of self-
propelled barges of 1,000 tons capacity running between
London and Basle, which would be the distributing centre
for Switzerland. In anticipation of the scheme being re-
alized, a large dock is in course of construction at Basle.
The projected service would bring great advantage to both
British and Swiss traders, as it would replace a service
which necessitates three transhipments between London
and Basle, viz., at Rotterdam, Cologne, and Strasburg,
involving in the repeated handlings, much damage to the

THE FUTURE OF THE PORT 495

goods and unnecessary expense to the trader. It is essential
for the success of this service that the Rhine above Stras-
burg should be deepened, and unfortunately the carrying
out of this work is being suspended until a final decision is
arrived at with regard to the making by the French of a
canal alongside the Rhine, which is intended to serve the
double purpose of providing a navigable channel for vessels
and a source of electrical power for industrial works. As
the construction of the canal may take 30 years, and (owing
to its huge cost) may never be made, the trade interests of
London are anxious that the existing river bed should in
any case be regularized and that this should be done at
once. Urgent representations to this effect have been
made to the British Government by the Port of London
Authority and the London Chamber of Commerce.

We come now to the question of accommodation and
facilities for shipping and merchandize in their con-
nexion with the future of the Port. Is London prepared
with the necessary channels, docks, wharves and other
facilities without which the development of a great
trade cannot be secured ? The general answer to this
question is to be found in the programme of improve-
ments already sanctioned by the Port of London Authority
and described in an earlier chapter. Its execution has been
delayed by the war but even with all the difficulties of the
war situation, such progress has been made with the principal
dock works commenced before the war that the whole of
them are practically completed and are in use. Those which
will yield the largest benefit to shipowners and traders are
the great extension to the south of the Royal Albert Dock,
the extension of the Tilbury Main Dock, the reconstruction
of the Tobacco Dock and Quay Sheds at the London Dock,
the widening of the lock into the East India Import Dock,
and reconstruction of its North Quay sheds, the rebuilding
of the sheds on the north side of the West India Dock,
and the erection of the Riverside Cargo Jetty at the Tilbury
Dock. It is estimated that the completion of these works
will provide accommodation for the discharge and loading
of steamers of a net tonnage 5,000,000 tons per annum,
equivalent to the whole of the annual tonnage of shipping
entering the port of Hull. When the entire programme of
dock extension at present contemplated is carried out

496 THE PORT OF LONDON

provision will have been made for a further annual
15,000,000 tons, making a total accommodation to be added
equal to 20,000,000 tons. This does not take into account
any extension of riverside quays to be undertaken either
by the Authority.

Less progress has been made with the deepening of the
river because of the diversion of the Authority's dredger
and hoppers to war purposes. But though it is an essential
part of the programme to deepen the river, the depth already
obtained is sufficient to give access to the docks of such
steamers as are likely to present themselves for many years
to come, and the utmost inconvenience likely to be suffered
by shipping meanwhile is an occasional detention of the very
largest class of vessel for an hour while the tide is making.

The Authority is determined that all the equipment
such as sheds, cranes, conveyors, tugs, etc., shall be of. the
most modern and efficient type, and that so far as they are
responsible, there shall never be any question as to the
traders or shipowners having to wait for facilities. In one
department of port facilities, however, the Authority has
not been able to attain that perfection of service to traders
which they have aimed at, viz., that of the railway access
to the docks. At the lower docks, viz., the Tilbury, Albert
and Victoria, East and West India and Millwall systems,
there is direct connexion with the various railway systems.
But there are no railways in the London and St. Katharine
Docks or at the Surrey Commercial Dock system. Connected
with the Great Eastern Railway there is a branch line at
Leman Street which is carried into the East Smithfield
depot of the Authority, but though it is carried a few yards
further into the Wool Warehouses of the London Dock,
it is never utilized in the dock itself, the reason being that
up to the present, engineers have not been able to submit
any workable scheme for retaining the complicated ware-
house system there and at the same time arranging for the
line to be continued into the dock or the neighbouring
St. Katharine Dock. It is hoped that modern ingenuity in
dealing with difficult transport problems may not be perma-
nently baffled in this case. No such physical difficulty,
however, applies to the introduction of railways into the
Surrey Commercial Docks. Both the South Eastern and
Brighton Railway Companies have lines immediately

THE FUTURE OF THE PORT 497

adjacent to this dock system, and the connexion with dock
lines could easily be made. The problem here is the getting
of traffic to and from the north side of the river. It is a
problem that not only touches dock traffic, but is concerned
with the whole of the through traffic between the north
and south of England, and it can only be satisfactorily
dealt with by the making of new tunnels or bridges across
the Thames. The Ministry of Transport may well turn
its attention at an early date to the improvement of this
manifest defect in the metropolitan railway systems. A
suggestion has been made for temporarily dealing with
the disability of the Surrey Dock systems in this respect
by the employment of a train ferry to and from the Millwall
Dock, but the expense appears to be prohibitive.

Whatever our hopes, no one can state with absolute
confidence what effect the Allied victory is going to have
on the future of the Port of London. Much depends upon
the time which elapses before the full industrial activity
of Germany and Russia is resumed, and commercial relations
with this country re-established. Before the war, trade
with both these countries was important to London. So,
too, was the trade with Belgium and Holland, which was
to a considerable extent of German origin. In spite of
the provisions in the articles of peace as to the future relations
of the belligerent nations, it seems hardly possible that for
several years there can be trade of any great extent between
Germany and this country. London and other East Coast
ports will be the losers by this suspension of trade exchanges.
The loss will appear to be greater than it really is if the
tonnage figures of shipping entering London are merely
considered by themselves. In pre-war times these figures
were, as has already been pointed out, artificially swollen
by the practice of shipowners in calling at more than one
port on a voyage, the tonnage mto London being often
counted twice for one voyage by reason of the vessel having
been to Hamburg and Rotterdam after discharging her
London cargo. Hence the falling off in tonnage figures of
shipping will not be the true measure of loss, but will
exaggerate the loss. As regards Russian trade, there will so
far as can be seen no sentimental obstacle to the resumption
of commercial relations, but the conditions of business
there are so overshadowed by the vagaries of Bolshevism

498 THE PORT OF LONDON

that it is impossible even to speculate as to when the ports
of the Baltic and Black Sea will find regular traders seeking
and bringing freights of cargo. But whether there is or is
not to be trade with Germany or Russia in the near or
distant future, it is not open to doubt that any deficiencies
in London will be made up by additional trade elsewhere.
London and the districts it supplies must be fed, and any
deficiency in such articles as the sugar which came from
Germany and Austria will be obtained from some other
sources. We have obtained our sugar supplies during the
last four years of the war chiefly from Java, Mauritius,
Cuba, and from the West Indies, and huge quantities have
passed through London docks and warehouses. These
sources and others will equally be available in future with
benefit to our tropical possessions. The wheat which we
derive from Russia has been supplied from Canada, the
Argentine, and the Cape. Provisions which Russia sent us
before the war have been replaced by consignments from
the United States and Canada. So far as in future we find it
expedient to import manufactured or semi-manufactured
articles, formerly imported from Germany, we have the
markets of Belgium and the United States to buy in. Not
only should these supplies be assured, but the British
merchant has the opportunity of recapturing some of the
entrepot trade in goods such as coffee, lost by London to
Hamburg during the last fifty years. To maintain our
world-wide position and to pay the interest on our debt
the export trade must be greatly expanded, and the oppor-
tunity for this expansion will be the more favourable by
the world-wide prejudice against, if not the elimination or,
our severest competitor in pre-war times. Much of the work
of restoration in northern France, Belgium, and Serbia
must of necessity be carried out with materials manufac-
tured and exported by this country. The augmentation of
exports involves a corresponding augmentation of imports
of raw materials. All these factors will increase the amount
of traffic through the ports of the kingdom, and London as
the chief port should get the chief share, and all the more so
because the vessels which will be employed in trafficking
to the ocean ports will be of a larger type than those engaged
in the former cross-channel traffic to Germany. It does not
appear, therefore, that the position of London will be

u

o

Q

OS

W

O

Pi

O

en

u

H
X

w
ffi

H
§

O

o
Q

Q
fc

p. 498

THE FUTURE OF THE PORT 499

endangered by any developments following upon the war,
but that if handled with skill it is more likely to be improved.
There still remains to be considered the threat of the
competition of the great Continental ports of Antwerp and
Rotterdam and later on the ports of Hamburg and Bremen.
All of these ports have suffered severely by the war. If
German trade is to be reduced in volume these ports will
continue to suffer, as German traffic constituted the bulk
of the largely increased traffic passing through these four
ports in the years before 1914. Many millions have been
spent upon the docks by the States owning them. Antwerp
may find some compensation by Belgium being able partly
to take the place of Germany in manufacturing for export.
Rotterdam has no such alternative. Holland has neither
coal nor iron for the purpose of manufactures, and the
outlook of Rotterdam in regard to exports will therefore be
unpromising, whilst such imports as are conveyed into the
interior of Germany may be diverted from Rotterdam to
Hamburg and Bremen in order that better use may be
made of German ports. Threatened by such a loss of trade,
both Antwerp and Rotterdam may look with covetous eyes
upon the entrep6t trade of London and attack it by means
of lowering the rates for port accommodation. This would
be an undoubted danger because in the long run the
cheaper route or market will prevail. Antwerp and Rotterdam
will be helped by the fact that the resources of the State or
municipality will be at their disposal, whilst in London the
burden of maintaining the Port is confined to the direct
users of the Port. If the Port of London in such circum-
stances is to be left to get on by itself the question will
largely be determined by the attitude of labour. It is quite
certain that if a substantially lower rate of wages is to pre-
vail at Antwerp than at London the transfer of much of the
entrepot business of London to Antwerp is inevitable. On
the other hand, if wages are generally kept up to the higher
level throughout the near Continental ports London has
little to fear. So far, the wages in Antwerp have nominally
kept pace with London war wages, but the currency con-
ditions are so abnormal in the former port that it is impossible
to make any forecast as to whether the workers there will be
able to maintain the present standard. Should, in the result,
there be any marked difference in the relative charges

500 THE PORT OF LONDON

between Rotterdam, Antwerp, and London, to the detriment
of London, it will be a question whether it may not be im-
perative for the State or the municipality, for a time at all
events, to subsidize the Port of London — a consummation
which is devoutly not to be wished.

This brings us to the consideration of the vital question
of the future of labour in the Port. It may first be
remarked that all the features of the effect of war on labour
observed in the rest of the community apply to labour
employed in the Port. Beginning the war like every one else
in a wave of patriotism, determined to sacrifice everything
to victory, dock labour left at home, exempted from military
service because it was wanted for transport of men and
munitions, gradually went the way of so many other
sections of society, and by the end of the war was thinking
more of what it could make out of the war than of winning
it. Who were the first profiteers in the war ? Labour gives
the credit first to the shipowners and then to dealers in
food, and on this, bases its defence for the repeated demands
for increased wages to meet the increased cost of living.
Labour claims to have said to the Government in August,
1914, "Keep food prices steady and we will keep labour
prices steady," and it must be said in favour of this claim
that no application for higher wages in London was made
by the transport workers until 1915. But it must be added
that once the game of demands for war bonuses began, it
was kept up unceasingly, and in the long run certain
classes of dockers, as represented by their unions, were pre-
pared to be as fine profiteers as any of the shipowners
whom they served, without having the checks upon them
provided against the shipowners by the right of the State
to commandeer shipping and to claim an enormous per-
centage of their excess profits. The taste acquired of fresh
increments of wages, apart form merit of service, bestowed
by a Government often offering to be blackmailed, has
naturally not been satiated by the cessation of hostilities on
the Continent, and further demands have flowed in from
transport workers, usually involving more pay for less
work. At the date of writing the minimum pay of the least
skilled man is i6s. a day, compared with 45. 8d. before the
war. No class of worker can show such an advance. It is
unbelievable that such a demoralizing condition of things

THE FUTURE OF THE PORT 501

can persist in a nation having such vast responsibilities and
hitherto credited with steadiness of view and the ability to
govern. Some statesmen will arise who will teach the people
that the motive that should dominate their life is not "What
is England going to do for me ? " but "What can I do for
England ?" If we could not feel that such a reaction is near
at hand it would indeed be a hopeless outlook both for
England and the Port of London.

No grounds exist for assuming, as is so often done, that
port labour in London to-day is in any way more dis-
affected, more unreliable, or presents more knotty problems
than any other form of labour. There are, however, several
points connected with it which have to be understood by
those who desire to improve its conditions in future and to
make it a more stable asset to the Port and Empire.

(a) There is the question of casual labour. So far as the
Port Authority's labour is concerned the worst features have
long since passed away, and though casual labour is taken
on at busy times there is always the prospect of a casual
labourer of fair character becoming a permanent servant of
the Authority. As regards labourers employed by ship-
owners and stevedores, the position of the labourer is some-
times less secure, and a man who gets worn out early
in their service may go to the wall, but it must be admitted
that many labourers seem to like this employment, accept-
ing its contingencies as one of the risks of the better wages
paid and often enjoying the enforced leisure. The ideal
remedy for disposing once and for all of the casual labour
question would be to make the Port Authority the only
employer of port labour. Whilst the wharves remain in
private hands this cannot be done, but a great step towards
this end would be achieved if the action of the old dock
companies in renouncing the right of discharging ships
could be reversed. The adoption of this renunciation policy
led to the introduction in the docks of a large number of
irresponsible employers competing with the dock com-
panies for labour and also with each other. The casual
labour question was intensified because a larger pool of
labour had to be drawn to the docks to satisfy the varying
demands of so many individual employers, leaving a much
larger margin in the aggregate of unemployed applicants
each day than would be necessary if only one employer

502 THE PORT OF LONDON

were in the labour market. An incidental but important
objection to this system is that it creates differential rates of
wages in the docks, for though nominally the wages
employed by shipowners and stevedores follow agreements,
cases are continually occurring where men are given
inducements beyond those laid down in the agreements.
Much of the success of the administration of the port of
Hamburg was due to the fact that all the port labour was
controlled by the port authority. Such a general control by
a supreme authority need not interfere with the freedom of
the shipowner to control the discharge or loading of his
ship, as the Port Authority could let out labour (as they
do now in some instances) to work under the supervision
and direction of the shipowner.

There is an alternative scheme possible in London which
would not invade vested interests, and therefore not excite
the opposition to which the above solution would be ex-
posed. This scheme would provide that all port labourers
should be registered and be available for work in any part
of the Port and be prepared to work on any job within their
capacity. In other words, the whole of the work in the Port
would be pooled. The number of men on the register
might be 10 per cent, in excess of the average total number
of men working in the Port. The register would consist of
(a) regular men on weekly wages, and (b) preferential men
with a guarantee of at least two days' work a week. The
preferential men would move up to permanent rank as
vacancies occurred. The men would be given, as far as
practicable, the work they have been usually engaged on
at the time the scheme comes into operation. All men
would receive weekly the pay applying to the class of
work performed. The registration, appointment, and allo-
cation of men would be supervised by a joint committee
of employers and workmen. The work in London is now
fairly regular from week to week, and with the stipulation
made above as to mobility and interchangeabiliry, preferential
men could be practically sure of at least four days' work a
week, whilst the cost to the employers of their guarantee
would not exceed their contributions under the Unemploy-
ment Act. Under such a system the casual man would
disappear from the Port.

(b) Much of the unrest in labour is caused by the fact

THE FUTURE OF THE PORT 503

that masses of men get the same rate of wages. A man of 21,
inexperienced, and with no responsibilities is paid for the
same class of work, the same wages as the man of 40 or 50.
This means that he has no prospects of advancement ;
indeed, there is the probability of his being regarded as
less valuable as an ordinary labourer at 40 than at 21. The
only method of his getting advancement is therefore by a
general rise in the wages of the class of labour to which he
belongs. Or the more intellectual of their class have to find
an outlet to their ambition by becoming trade union
leaders, where to maintain their position they are com-
pelled to be aggressive agitators against their employers.
If a proper minimum wage were established and then
increments were given for good service, or grades were
provided for promotion as years went on, a docker would
have some incentive to produce good work, and not be con-
cerning himself so much about combination with his
fellows against his employer. It is the difference in this
matter of prospect of promotion of the individual that
largely accounts for the difference between the relations of the
clerk and labourer to his employer. Trade union leaders do
not, however, favour labour being organized on such a basis.
(c) It would be an advantage to the future of labour in
the Port if the relations with the trade unions could be
placed on a more satisfactory basis. The Authority and
other employers have always recognized them as repre-
senting the men, have listened to their advocacy, and have
made agreements with them for wages and conditions of
working. But perhaps because leaders are not always able
to insist upon the carrying out of agreements which they
sign, it is a fact that agreements have often been thrown
over by sections of men without notice or argument. One
grave instance of the scrapping of an agreement by the
leaders themselves has already been referred to as following
upon the agreement of 1911, but subsequent to the
armistice few weeks went by without some sudden attempt
to depart from signed agreements. As a rule, the leaders
speak fairly to the employers on such questions, but it is
to be feared that they have not always the courage to speak
with the same frankness to the recalcitrants. It may be
guessed that they find it expedient to maintain their leader-
ship by occasionally following their followers for fear of

504 THE PORT OF LONDON

being ousted by an ambitious subordinate. Some of them
have so fostered the doctrine that a strike is the only
weapon that they find it used against themselves with
deadly effect, and so they adopt the precepts of the politi-
cians they so often become, and agree to what they know
to be wrong merely to preserve their leadership. The pity
of it is that the impossibility of reliance upon agreements
made with unions produces a distrust of the idea of trade
unionism which is not justified. Moreover, there is the
unfortunate view taken by some leaders that they do not
want the employers to have a contented staff, as such men
become "old soldiers" or "slaves." This prejudice against a
contented staff can, without injustice, be attributed to the
fear that such a staff might not need the intervention of a
trade union and the leaders' occupation would be gone.
This is probably also the reason why labour leaders have
hitherto been so apathetic when the Question of casual
labour has been discussed. Permanent labour might be too
satisfied and prefer to deal direct with the employer. To
keep the labourer in the union fold, the leader has, there-
fore, to preach the doctrine of aloofness between employer
and employed. This appears to be a short-sighted view of
the case, as the convenience and benefit of unions as
channels for negotiation and arrangement of conditions of
employment are indisputable. But this view illustrates the
fundamental vice of the inspiration of union policy, which
is that the Port exists for the interests of labour alone, and
that consequently the union is the thing and not the Port.
Hence we find the labour members on the Port Authority
who have always been union officials concern themselves
with little else than labour interests, and so devoted are
they to their theme that without exaggeration it may be
said that one-half of the time spent in Port committees is
devoted to innumerable points of wages and cognate ques-
tions originating in the zeal of local union officials on
behalf of their members. The leaders show no real care for
the imperial questions of maintaining or attracting trade,
the provision of accommodation (where their experience
should be useful), or in the all-paramount questions of
finance. It is to be hoped that with the growing numbers of
the Labour Party, and with their own anticipation of being
trusted with the formation of a Government, there may be

THE FUTURE OF THE PORT 505

found men who, while never forgetting the class whom
they represent, will administer enterprises on broader lines
than those of incessantly endeavouring to draw upon the
tax-payers for an increased share of national wealth to be
awarded to one class of the community without having in
mind the necessity of contributing an additional share
towards the production of that wealth.

(d) The general practice in the Port is to pay labourers
daily, the exceptions being the permanent men of the
Authority and a few other employers. This is a most
undesirable practice. A man taken on by the day and paid
by the day takes a view of things circumscribed by a day.
It is literally with him "sufficient unto the day is the evil
thereof." The men generally desire no change in this
respect, nor do the London leaders. At Liverpool there is
a scheme in force which, combined with arrangements
made under the National Insurance Act, provides for the
men, whether extra or permanent, receiving their wages
weekly. To adopt the Liverpool scheme at London would
hardly be practicable, but the object aimed at is admirable,
and it should be educative to all concerned on the subject
of casual labour.

(e) It is often said that as the unions fail to realize that
the prosperity of the Port is dependent upon their co-opera-
tion, the remedy should be found in the intenser application
of machinery to the operations carried out. This is an
alternative which has been present to dock management for
the last fifty years. It obviously becomes the more patent as
the cost of labour increases daily. New forms of machinery
are constantly being introduced, but the work at docks is
not comparable with that at factories. So far, machinery is
used in the storage and delivery of heavy cargoes, such as
mahogany and teak, in the discharge and housing of grain,
where London can claim to have always been in the van of
progress, and in the use of conveyor forms of transport for
cargoes of case goods where the packages are much of the
same size. Recently this conveyor principle has been
adopted for meat cargoes, where, however, the object has
been not so much cheapening of the operation as avoiding
damage by handling. Trucks and piling machinery moved
by electric power are also used to great advantage in a
limited sphere of action. But the most careful recent study

506 THE PORT OF LONDON

of this subject does not give any hope of the substantial
supplanting of existing labour by new forms of mechanical
power, and it is only necessary to state the problem to
appreciate the difficulties. Take the most ordinary case of
the discharge and delivery of the cargo of an Amercan
liner. She will bring usually some thousands of tons of
grain in bulk which can be dealt with by the floating
elevators very quickly. The rest of the cargo will consist of
boxes of lard, bags of flour, bundles of loose hides, cases of
canned goods, casks of lubricating oil, bales of flax, and a
hundred other varieties of goods and packages all stowed
together in the holds irrespective of the owners or destina-
tion of the goods. All these goods have to be landed and
deposited for sorting in sheds. The sorting is not merely a
separation of classes of goods, but first to consignees and
secondly to destination via lighter, rail, or cart. At intervals
goods come on shore with the package damaged and have
to be mended. Others are landed with damage to the con-
tents, which have to be examined to settle the question of
liability. Attending the discharge and other operations are
the officers of H.M. Customs, who direct certain packages
to be examined for revenue purposes. The accessibility of
goods in dark holds and the state of the weather are constant
variants in the progress of the work. The regulations for
protection against fire necessitate that fibres and other
inflammable goods should not be stored in the transit sheds.
The handling of meat is another problem. When the dis-
charge of all this mixed cargo into the sheds is completed
and the goods sorted to the piles, delivery to the conveyance
of the consignee commences and proceeds according to the
applications. This operation, comparatively simple, has,
however, its complications and delays when craft do not
turn up to time. Mr. Gattie has made large claims in
regard to the handling and sorting of traffic at railways and
docks, and he has been invited to suggest a scheme
for the application of his clearing-house idea to the
London dock systems. But the alternative his scheme
presents, whilst it might reduce labour, would be so costly
in capital outlay and so doubtful in working that no respon-
sible authority could proceed with it. It would appear,
therefore, that it is visionary to place reliance upon a whole-
sale displacement of labour in the Port by machinery.

-

-^
VJ

§

p. 506

THE FUTURE OF THE PORT 507

(f) A last word on this subject of labour concerns a
national aspect of it, but it is more applicable to London
than anywhere else, viz., the multiplication of the machinery
for dealing with labour questions. It is instructive to set
out a list of those agencies with which at the end of the
war Port employers were brought into contact : —

1. Two labour members on the Authority.

2. The Port and Transit Executive Committee, who dealt with
labour disputes interfering with flow of traffic.

3. Military Service Committee, charged with recruiting and
demobilization problems.

4. Port Labour Committee, dealing with the employment of
Transport Workers' Battalion.

5. The Dock and Riverside Workers' Union, and other Port
Unions for Corn Porters, Deal Porters, Lightermen, Stevedores,
etc.

6. National Transport Workers' Federation, speaking sometimes
for all the above.

7. All the trades unions connected with engineering and
building trades.

8. The National Union of Railwaymen.

9. The Ministry of Labour, including the Committee on Pro-
duction, and the Chief Industrial Commissioner.

10. Government Committee for general questions of demobiliza-
tion of labour at ports.

n. Government Committee for casual labour in the Port of
London.

12. Whitley Council Scheme.

Peace has brought no relief from the multitude of
counsellors, and the conduct of the administration of the
Port is becoming more and more strangled by all these
devices for cajoling and petting labour. They make the
labour world believe that labour disputes are the only
things that count. Can it be wondered that with such
patronage from the Government Departments, union leaders
continually push forward their claims, or, that that section
of the public which suffers from interminable labour
troubles regards the Ministry of Labour as a Ministry
likely to stimulate the propaganda of disputes rather than
their extinction ? And what has all this machinery done for
the worker himself ? Is he really better off in the conditions
of existence ? He certainly is less satisfied, and according to
some of his leaders is even verging on a revolution resem-
bling that of his defeated arch enemy. In the abnormal
conditions of war he has been taught that high wages are

So8 THE PORT OF LONDON

everything, and only a feeble voice here or there protests
that wages are counters and that production alone will
give wealth.

A candid enlightening discussion of the economic ques-
tion never took place during the war, and is being avoided
now, because unfortunately the politicians of to-day are
more afraid of the people in peace than they were of the
enemy during war, and therefore live from hand to mouth.
Labour leaders who know dare not tell their followers
economic truth. It cannot, however, be long before the idea
so fast getting accepted as gospel, that a nation can eternally
live on its capital, gives away before painful disillusionment,
and then the worker may consider whether his interests are
not, after all, more to be identified with those of reasonable
employers than with those of the many friends who flatter
him now.

No chapter on the future of the Port could be complete
without touching on the all-important question of the
constitution and powers of its governing body. The story of
the existing administration has been briefly told in the
previous pages, and the public must judge as to whether it
has justified its existence and its continuance in being. In
studying this question it will never be forgotten that
institutions like ports depend more upon the men who
administer them than upon their parchment constitutions.
The predominant feature of the constitution of the Port
Authority is that no one interest should be able to run the
Port for its own benefit. It was pointed out when the Bill
was before Parliament that though this was an excellent
device for preventing jobbery it might tend to destroy the
quality of initiative much required after so many years
lethargy in the Port. The danger of a negative policy was,
however, guarded against by the appointment of a chairman
of great experience and success in business gained by con-
spicuous untiring energy, assisted by a number of City men
as members who had been in the forefront as reformers of
the Port. The result is that, whatever criticism may be
passed upon the Port Authority, it cannot be said that they
have treated their job as an ornamental one. Great demands
on time have been willingly met by men who have been
unpaid and who get no honour or particular reputation for
their pains. Will the future successors of the original

THE FUTURE OF THE PORT 509

members be so public spirited ? The risk is that new mem-
bers will not have the incentive of the first Board to make a
success of a scheme which they had had a share in shaping.
Not the least difficulty is due to the fact that the class of
City merchant or shipowner whom it is most desirable to
have in charge of matters where the broad and experienced
view is indispensable is so occupied by his own business
that he cannot spare sufficient time to arrive at a considered
judgment on port affairs. Failing the maintenance of interest
of the highest class of City trader in the Port, the repre-
sentation of the trade element may be liable to fall into the
hands of second or third-rate traders who will exploit the
Port for their own benefit by a policy of log-rolling not at
all impossible under the existing constitution of the
Authority. The importance of keeping the Port efficient is
so absolutely vital to the general community that rather
than there should be any lowering of the status of member-
ship it would be better to secure the best men by reducing
the attendances at committees and entrusting wide execu-
tive powers to a highly paid competent chairman and
vice-chairman.

Beyond the question of the personnel of the governing
body there is that of the area which it should control. The
word "Authority" is a misnomer when applied to the Port
of London. Whilst the Authority is an authority in the
docks and on administrative details of navigation, dredging,
and licensing of embankments in the river, it cannot be
regarded as the sole authority in the Port whilst the public
wharfingers on the riverside are allowed to discharge ships
and warehouse goods in competition with the Authority.
That this situation was not intended to be a permanent one
is evidenced by the fact that in the Port of London Act the
Authority was given power, subject to certain procedure, to
acquire these riverside premises. No action has been taken
since the Authority came into existence, except that negoti-
ations have taken place with some few wharfingers, leading
to no result. The war has, in any case, interfered with
the financial operation which would be necessary upon any
wholesale acquisition of wharf property. From the Port
point of view it is inconvenient that there should be a
number of irresponsible rivals in the Port with no obliga-
tions and restrictions cast upon them in their methods of

510 THE PORT OF LONDON

doing business, such as the Port of London Act places upon
the Authority; and that, moreover, the Authority should be
forced to have amongst its members at least one repre-
sentative of wharfinger interest who is entitled to know and
communicate to his friends all particulars and projects
relating to the Authority's business without any right on
the Authority's part to be present at the councils of the
wharfingers. No other port authority is placed in such a
situation, and it is no defence of the system that the five
members of the Authority who are wharfowners have
always most honourably abstained from exploiting this
position. This point alone is one which can be urged in
favour of the completion of the transaction of purchase of
port accommodation begun in the purchase of the docks,
by the early purchase of the whole of the wharves affording
facilities to the public. But, apart from this reason, there
are cogent other reasons for their acquisition. It would
benefit traders generally by enabling the concentration of
businesses at present split over diverse establishments ; it
would guarantee equal treatment as to services and rates
all over the Port ; it should lead to considerable economy in
working ; and it would also set free many properties which
could be realized or used for other purposes. Fear has been
expressed that these undoubted advantages might be out-
weighed by the creation of the monopoly of warehousing
facilities in the hands of the Authority. The answer to this
fear is that the appointment of the majority of the Authority
is in the hands of the traders themselves, and that if justice
should be denied to any particular trade by other traders
there is an appeal to the Ministry of Transport against any
act of oppression or levy of excessive rates. With the
removal of this defect there is little likelihood of any
questioning of the composition of the Authority.

The recent decision of the Government to place the
railways and docks of the kingdom under the supervision of
the Ministry of Transport raises serious considerations in
regard to all harbour and dock undertakings. The railway
companies are owners of large systems of docks which have
been built or acquired for the purpose of feeding their
railways with traffic. In the effort to achieve this object,
railway companies quote rates for dock services in no way
commensurate with the cost of the operation. Though they

i

ca

o
5

Si

O
-

s

I

THE FUTURE OF THE PORT 511

may even lose money on dock operations they look for their
remuneration to the anticipated carriage of goods over
their railways. The effect of this form of competition
has been to draw away traffic from other ports, privately
or publicly owned, not furnished with any weapons of
retaliation, and yet bound to maintain a revenue at least
sufficient to meet the interest on its financial obligations.
Parliament has endeavoured to meet the just complaints of
these ports by compelling railway companies to publish
separate accounts of their port operations, but the informa-
tion given is meagre and the protection against a practically
subsidized competition is a sham one. The Ministry of
Transport Act for the time being affords some real protec-
tion, but if eventually the railways are to be nationalized
the desire of the railway officials to aggrandize their ports
will certainly not be less than now, whilst the power to
attract railway traffic by concessions at the docks will be
unlimited. In this case the Government docks may be
engaged in an aggressive attack on all the other docks of the
kingdom. London would not be the worst sufferer, but it
would have to be prepared for such a conflict, and it will
behove its Port Authority, in common with other dock and
harbour boards, to see that any legislation for the control
of the railway companies is framed on lines equitable to
competing ports. Logically, if it is desirable in the national
interest that the means of transport should be completely
under the direction of the Government, the docks of the
kingdom, as the marine terminal stations of the railways,
should equally be controlled by the Government. Of the
ultimate results of the immense addition to the number of
civil employees in the public service this book is not so
concerned to discuss. But it may be pointed out that some
amelioration of the dangers of the political pressure thereby
certain to be used and more equitable conditions of com-
petition would be secured if the railways were controlled
by a body constituted on the model of the Port of London
Authority instead of being administered by a Government
Department. The alternative favoured in certain Labour
quarters, that the next step in the Port's development should
be to hand the Port over to the control of the London
County Council, does not at all commend itself to the
mercantile public, having regard either to the composition

512 THE PORT OF LONDON

of the council or to the treatment of the Port when it was
a department of the older London municipality — the City
Corporation.

Whatever form of administration the fashion or mood of
the times may design for the Port of London, it can hardly
interfere with the development of its trade. Whilst the
channel of the Thames is kept clear of shoals and the docks
and warehouses are maintained to meet the demands of
shipowners and merchants, the market of London — the
oldest, the freest, and best in the world — ought as the
result of the victorious war to be extended beyond what
would have been brought about by the effluxion of time ;
and whether the future transit of the world's commerce is
to remain with steamers sailing the sea or is transferred to
airships sailing the sky, the market will not be displaced.
Given efficiency in its operations, a constant alertness to
accommodate new forms of trade, labour intelligently
applying its strength to work, and a moderate tariff of
charges, the future of the greatest port in the world can be
regarded with as much confidence as we look forward to
the future of the Empire of which it is the capital.

Finis.

APPENDIX I

Port of London

A. STATEMENT OF TONNAGE OF SHIPPING (FOREIGN AND COASTWISE)
ENTERING THE PORT WITH CARGOES.

year. Tons.

1700 435,000

1750 746,000

J795 1,775.°°°

1854 S.7S2.000

1913 20,088,000

B. STATEMENT OF VALUES OF FOREIGN TRADE OF THE PORT.
Year.

1700
1750

1795
1913

Note. — The returns for 1795 are quoted as having been considered by
the Select Committee of 1796. The year 1854 is exactly half-way between
1795 and 1913, the last complete year of normal trade. There are no com-
plete figures of values of trade for 1 854 available.

Imports.

L
4,876,000

5,541,000
14,863,000

253.879.°°°

Exports.

£,

5,388,000
8,415,000
16,579,000
157,913,000

Total.

L

10,264,000
13,956,000
31,442,000
411,792,000

APPENDIX II

Port of London

STATEMENT OF VALUES OF PRINCIPAL GOODS IMPORTED AND EXPORTED
(EXCLUDING COASTWISE) DURING THE YEAR 1913.

Importt.

L

Beef . . . . . . . . 5,567.000

Butter 7,869,000

Cars and Cycles 5,234,000

Cheese 3,732,000

Chemicals 1,803.000

Coffee 2,083,000

Eggs 2,848,000

Gutta Percha 1,002,000

Hemp 2.749.000

Jute 3,444,000

Lead 2,234,000

Leather 5,563,000

Machinery . . . . . . . . . . 2,875,000

Motor Spirit 2,571,000

Mutton 7,094,000

Oats 2,795.°°°

Paper 3,529,000

Rubber . . 12,399,000

Silk Manufactures 2,864,000

Skins and Furs . . . . . . . . . . 6,305,000

Sugar 7,443,000

Tea 13,486,000

Timber . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,775,000

Tin 9,021,000

Wheat 7.753.°°°

Wool 21,458,000

Exportt.
(a) British Manufactures and Produce.

Apparel
Arms and Ammunition . .
Books

3,630,000
2,690,000

i ,401; .000

Boots and Shoes
Chemicals
Cotton Manufactures

2,080,000
2,°45.°°°
9.93°.°°°

APPENDIX II 515

Exports (continued)

m

Electrical Goods 4,046,000

Iron and Steel Manufactures . . . . . . 5,538,000

Machinery 5,784,000

Tobacco i ,735,000

Woollen Goods 7,140,000

(b) Foreign and Colonial Merchandize.

Coffee 1,728,000

Copper .. .. 1,068,000

Hemp 1,222,000

Jute 3,047,000

Leather 1,632,000

Rubber 6,565,000

Skins and Furs 4,316,000

Tallow . . . . . . i ,409,000

Tea 2,290,000

Tin . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,108,000

Wool 8,275,000

Index

ACCIDENTS at docks. 108,
218
Adams, 52

Addington, Henry, 108, 117

Admiralty claim of jurisdiction on
Thames, 175

Admiralty, 183, 418

African Company, 53, 58

Agreements between Dock Com-
panies and Wharfingers, 264

Agricola, 8, 30

Ahlfeldt, F. C., 233

Air raids on London Docks, 66, 470

Albert Dock, Royal, 188, 191, 195,
217, 228, 233, 237, 257, 258,
275, 290, 320, 335, 492

Albert Dock Extension, 262, 269,
284, 295, 303, 320, 358, 483

Albert, Prince, 195

Albion Dock, 133, 223

Alexander, D., 116

Alexander, J., 159

Alexandria, 486

Alfred the Great, 13, 17, 416

Aliens, 478

Allectus, 9

Allemanii, 9

Almshouses of Trinity House, 422

Alverstone, Lord, 238, 451

Amalgamation of Dock Companies,

'97- 25S

Ambrose Thurston Quay, 401
Ambulance Service, 355
America, discovery of, 50
American troops, 469
Ammianus Marcellinus, 9
Amsterdam, i, 2
Anchor Line, 241
Anderson, Sir J. W., 96, 101
Anderson, J., 346
Andrew Morris Quay, 401
Anglesea, 6
Anglo-Saxons, 12
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 13

Anlaf, 1 8, 21

Antoninus, Itineraries of, 9

Antwerp, 2, 49, 52, 53, 298, 299,

333. 443- 49°. 499
Appledore, 17
Arlington, Lord, 403
Ashley, Lord, 403
Ashley, Mr., 338
Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H., 338, 455,

481

Assingdun, Battle of, 21
Atacotti, 9
Athelstan, King, 13
Athens, 486

Atkins, T. F. Burnaby, 247
Atkins, J.. 122
Atlantic Transport Line, 241
Augusta — London called, 9
Aulus Plautus — Conquest of

Britain, 7
Austin, Capt., 185
Australia, 365, 445
Authority for Port of London (see

under " Port ")
Avebury, Lord, 339
Avonmouth, 294
Ayliffe, F., 349
Ayrton, A. S., 225

BACHELORS Barge, 375
Baggally, H. C., 290
Baily, E. H., 253
Bainbridge, T., 115
Baker, E. Stuart, 350, 479
Baldwin, Mr., 323
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G., 322
Ballastage, 83, 417, 419, 422
Balliage, rights of, 61
Baltic Dock, 134
Banking — benefited by EntrepAt

trade, 2

Banks, Sir Joseph, 106
Bannerman, Sir H. Campbell, 338
Barber, T. W., 329

5i8

INDEX

Barges — exemption from charges,
98, 193, 2ii. 267, 304, 313, 320,

327. 4'3
Barge traffic, 46, 58, 81, 164, 288,

291, 294, 302, 334, 351, 362. 363
Barham, Lord, 127
Barking, i

Barran, Sir John, 463
Barry, Sir John Wolfe, 191, 221,

273

Barrage Scheme, 327, 329
Basle, Port of, 494
Bates, Sydney E., 248, 319, 347
Battersea, 27
Baynes, C., 115, 116
Baynes, Sir Donald, 237
Beacons, 184, 419
Beaconsfield, Lord, 108
Bear Quay, 401
Becket, Thomas a, 36
Bede, 14
Belgium, 299
Bellamy's Wharf, 414
Bell Dock, 118
Benfleet, 17

Benn, Sir I. Hamilton, 346
Bercot, 58
Betts, E. L., 193
Bevin, E., 476
Bidder's Pontoons, 195
Billingsgate, 19, 20, 28, 37, 67, 372,

399, 405, 428
Billingsgate Porters, 427
Billiter Street Warehouse, 210
Bills for Dues on Barges, 211, 267,

269
Blackwall. 57, 64, 65, 66, 79, 80,

121, 211

Blackwall — Projected Canal at, 84,

88

Blackwall Railway, 211
Blackwall Entrance Reconstructed,

261

Blackwater River, 29
Blake, Sir Acton, 346
Boadicea, 6, 9

Board of Trade, 183, 343, 345
Boddington, T., 115, 116
Bonding System, 74, 109, 151, 198
Bonham, H., 122

Boston, 5, 26, 30

Botolph Wharf, 401

Bowen, Lord Justice, 260

Boyle, Sir E., 247, 248, 319

Bradwell, 10

Bramwell, Sir F., as Arbitrator, 238

Brancaster, 10

Brassey, Messrs., 193

Bremen, 26, 499

Brentford, 7, 303

Brewers Quay, 401

Brickwood, J., 115

Bridge of Barges, 66, 469

Bridge House, 404

Brightman, E. C., 346

Bristol, 53, 55, 77. 294- 3'3. 335.

400, 410, 486

Britain — Caesar's Account of, 6
Britain — Exports of Ancient, 8
Broken Wharf, 403
Brokers, 58
Broodbank, J. G., 291, 320, 346,

461,463,476,477
Brook Street, Ratcliff, 57
Brooks Wharf, 403
Bruges, 40

Brunswick Dock, 64, 68, 70, 124
Bryce, Lord, 270
Buckle, J. W., 159
Buildings in Port, after Great Fire,

65

Bull, Sir W., 339
Bullock, Deputy, 101
Buonaparte, 421
Buoys, 184,423
Burns, John, 442, 447, 455
Burrell, Sir C., 155
Business of Port — Character of,

367
Butter Trade, 63

Buxton, Mr. Sydney, 445, 455
Bye Laws (see Regulations)

CABLE System — Influence on
Trade, 4
Cabot's Expedition, 51
" Ca-Canny." 447
Cade's Rebellion, 46
Caen Stone, 25
Caistor, 10

INDEX

Calais, 49, 335, 381

Camulodunum, 7

Cambridge, 5, n

Canada Dock, 220, 223

Canal Constructed by Canute, 21

Canteen Arrangements, 484

Canterbury, 13

Canterbury, Archbishop of, 390

Canute, King, 16, 20, 21, 27

Cape of Good Hope, 50, 299

Capital Expenditure of Joint Com-
mittee, 255

Capital — London as the, i, 5, 512

Capital of Dock Companies, 99,
109, 114, 119, 122, 125, 131,
132, 137, 159, 194, 200, 208,
223, 240, 249,253,311, 317,340

Capital of Port of London Author-
ity. 348

Carausius, 8, 9

Carbutt, F., 484

Cardiff, 302

Cardwell, Lord, 267

Cardyke, 30

Carmen, 87, 96

Carron Line, 414

Carthage, 486

Casual Labour, 431, 446, 448, 456,

477. 5°!

Cattle as Export, 8

Causes of London's Progress as a
Port, 4

Cavendish, 52

Cecil's Influence on National Ex-
pansion, 52

Cerdic, 13

Chambers, Sir G., 228, 319

Champion, A., 115

Champion, Alderman, 101, 102

Channels of Thames, 296, 301,

3°7. 354

Chapman, A., 122
Character of Business at Ports, i , 367
Charges on Goods and Shipping,

56, 71, T2. 97. 98- "4. I23. 128.
144, 150, 157, 160, 185, 190,

196, 201, 204, 210, 234, 241,

246, 264, 282, 293, 294, 298,
306, 313, 320, 331, 342, 407,

473. 478. 479- 490

Charles I, 60, 377

Charles II, 62, 377, 421

Charlton, C., 346

Charmouth, 13

Charters of London, 32, 43, 59,

60, 61, 62
Chatham, 66
Chelsea Dock, 206, 303
Chester, 6, 7, 400
Chesters Quay, 402
Chichester, 17
Chisholme, W., 101
Chitty, Lord Justice, 242
Christ's Hospital, 96
Churchill and Sim, 136
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston, 338
Church's Influence on Trade, 38
Cinque Ports, 38, 373
City Canal, 92, 95, 97, in, 127,

209, 213
City Corporation as Conservators,

32, 88, 115, 129, 163, 175, 183,

374, 380, 427
City Corporation — Contributions

to Improvements, 312
City Plan for Docks and Canal, 85
City Scheme at Royal Commission

of 1902, 276

Claims — Settlement of, 126
Clan Line, 241
Clarendon, Lord, 403
Clark, E., 242
Clarke, Sir Edward, 452
Classification of Produce, 141, 149,

369

Claudius, Emperor, 7
Clearing House — London as a

Trade, 5

Clinton, Lord, 338
Cloth, Prohibition of Imports, 40
Coaches in London, 383
Coal Trade, 46, 63, 65, 81, 170,

175, 489, 490
Cobden, 42
Cock, S., 157
Cocks Quay, 401
Colchester, 8
Cold Storage Accommodation, 262,

355
Coles, John, 243

520

INDEX

Collier Dock, The, 212

Collier Docks, Projected, 162, 170,

181

Collin, G., 215
Collingridge, Dr., 187
Cologne, 2, 15, 1 6, 26, 404
Colonies, Trade with, 5, 489
Colquhoun's Scheme for Policing

the Port, 89
Combe, H. C., 96
Commercial Dock, 70, 133, 145
Commercial Road, 125
Commercial Road Depdt, 236
Commercial Sale Rooms, 3
Companies — Establishment of

Trading (see Trading Companies)
Companies' Porters, 428
Compensation to Legal Quays and

others, 96, 115, 126
Competition in the Port, 147, 153,

156, 170, 198, 241, 262, 499
Complaints against Port Adminis-
tration, 77, 164, 406
Congestion of Traffic, 77, 80, 166,

407, 409, 459
Congestion of Traffic, Committee

on, 461, 463
Connaught, H.R.H. The Duke of,

228

Conservancy of River, 32, 164, 183
Consolidation Act, 484
Constantinople, 486
Constantius, 9
Constitution of Dock Companies,

100, 113, 122
Constitution of Port Authority,

3 '4. 34°

Consuls, Reports from British, 273
Continent, Direct Steamship Ser-
vices, 4

Continental Industries, 4
Continent, Trade with, 4, 497
Cooper, Edwin, 361
Cork, 302

Corn Laws, 42, 56, 63, 152
Corn Trade, 7, 8, 37, 41, 404, 427,

489

Cornwall, Sir Edwin, 277, 279, 346
Corporation of London (see City
Corporation)

Cotton, ]., 122, 123, 433

Count of Saxon Shore, 10

Court, C., 115

Court of Exchequer, 34

Court of Inquiry re Wages, 476

Cracklow's Plan for Docks, 86

Cranes, 105, 405, 482

Cramer, Sir John, 96

Crawford, W., 159

Crayford, 13

Cromwell, 62, 385, 420

Crosfield. G. F., 346

Cross, Viscount, 323

Crown Quay, 401

Crown Rights on River, 175, 364

Crutched Friars Warehouse, 210,

361

Crutwell, Mr., 338
Cummins, J. J., 194
Curling, R., 115
Currie, Sir Donald, 238
Curtis, W., 96, 101, 122
Customs and Excise Arrangements

and Regulations, 108, 109, 316,

400, 401, 461, 506
Cutler Street Warehouse, 122, 200,

210, 400
Cynric, 13

DAGENHAM. 71, 233, 234,
266, 415
Dakin, T., 185
Dane Geld, 17, 1 8
Danish Invasions, 13, 16, 17
Davidson, H., 101
Davidson, R. C. H., 273, 303
Da vis's Wharf, 414
Deepening of River (see Dredging)
Deffell, J., 101
Denmark, n
Deptford, 27, 57, 65, 68, 80, 121,

181, 303, 417

Derby Scheme of Recruiting, 474
Desborough, Lord, 329, 331
Devaynes, W., 115
Devitt, T. L., 248
Devonport Agreement, 449, 451,

455
Devonport, Viscount, 347, 449,

454, 461, 475, 481, 508

INDEX

Digby, Sir Kenelm, 239

Directors of Dock Companies, 93,

145, 198, 214, 247, 318, 345
Discharging of Vessels, 80, 149,

256, 265, 426, 447, 501, 506
Distribution Centre, London as a,

4. ".

Diversion of Traffic during War,

459, 466
Dividends— Limitation of Dock,

93- 295. 3°S
Dobree, H. H., 233, 238, 247

Dock Charges (see Charges)
Dock Companies — Compensation

to, 310, 323, 337, 348
Dock first on Thames, 64
Dockmaster, 146
Docks — Maintenance of, 216, 303,

35i

Docks necessary to Port, 91, 307
Docks (open), 20
Docks, Purchase of, 311
Docks, Schemes for New, 84
Dockers' Union, 428, 447
Docks versus River Quays, 91, 333
Dock and Wharf Labour, 425
Dodd, R., 131
Dogs, as Export, 8
Domesday Book, 31
Domett, Mr., 144
Dominy, J., 397
Domoney, J. W., 346
Dorsetshire, 21
Dortmund, 26
Douglas Silvester, 106
Dover, 10

Dowgate, 20 37, 399, 406
Drake, 52

Drapers' Company, 374
Dredging of Thames, 5, 29, 83,

171, 184, 188, 189. 192, 289,

301, 354,482,496
Drinkald, Mr., 144
Dry Docks, 64, 95, 123, 210, 226,

234. 483

Du Buisson, T., 319
Duckham, F., 226
Dues (see Charges)
Duke of Wellington, 215
Dundas, Henry, 105

Dunkirk, 68

Dunnage, J., 115

Du Plat Taylor, Colonel, 211, 215,
247, 248, 319

Dusseldorf, 2

Dutch, Expenditure by, on Rotter-
dam, 2

Dutch, Invasion of Port, 66, 420

Dutch, Trading of, 61, 299

Duthie, T., 346

Dyce Quay, 401

EADRIC, King, 15
Earliest Days of Port, i
Earliest Site, 10
Eastcheap, 402
East Country Dock, 135
Easterlings, The, 15, 19, 25, 37,

43- 48, 49. 53. 399
East India Company, 53, 54, 57,

58, 70, 101, 121, 210, 382, 400,

412
East India Dock, 92, 121, 140, 146,

207, 217, 218, 233, 411, 433,

435T ,-
ast India

East India Dock Road, 125

Eastland Company, 58

East London Waterworks Com-
pany, 1 20

East Saxons, 14, 15

East Smithfield Station, 230

East and West India Dock Com-
pany, 200, 207, 253, 317, 441

Edgar, King, 19, 26

Edmund, King, 21

Edreds Hithe, 28

Edward I, 38

Edward III, 38, 39

Edward IV, 42

Edward VI, 50

Eel Trade, 67

Egerton of Tatton, Earl, 273

Elbe, 4, 15

Eleanor, Queen, 373

Elder Brethren of Trinity House,
419

Electric Light Installation, 230

Ellis, J. E., 273

Elizabethan Era, 48

Elizabeth of York, 375

522

INDEX

Elphinstone, Sir ]., 225

Elwell, W. H., 350

Embankment of Thames, 29, 184

Emma, Queen, 19, 21

Employers' National Council of

Port, 478

Employers Liability Act, 437
Entrepot Trade, i, 3, 16, 43, 298,

499

Enth, 31
Esc, 13
Essex, 1 8, 31
Estill, T. H., 350, 365
Ethelbert, King, 13
Ethelred, King, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25,

372

Ethel woulf, King, 13

Evidence before Royal Commis-
sion, 274

Examination Service during War,
478

Excise Bill, 73

Execution Dock, 406

Export Trade, 8, 15, 26, 491

FACILITIES in Port, 367, 406
Factory Legislation, 152
Falconbridge, 46
Falmouth, 41 1
Fellowship Porters, 428
Fenchurch Street Warehouse, 210
Ferry at London Bridge, 20
Field, Admiral Sir Mostyn, 346
Figgins, Mr., 101
Findlay, Sir G., 242
Finnis, Sir T. Q., 185
Fires in London, 37, 44, 46, 65,

82, 378, 403, 407, 410
Fisher, Captain, 174
Fisheries of Thames, 32
Fish Trade, 405
Fitch's Expedition, 52
FitzAylwin, first Mayor of London,

32

FitzStephen, William, on London,

^A45

Flanders, 39, 40, 42, 49

Fleet River, 10, 37, 46, 65
Fleming, J., 274

Flemish Artizans, Immigration of,

25.40

Flemish Artizans, Expulsion of, 49
Fletcher, Sir Lionel, 476
Florida, 52
Fog in River, 300
Food Supplies during War, 458,

468

Foreign Trade, 36
Forster, E., 115, 116, 117
Fowler, J., 225
France, 19

Franks, London occupied by, 9
Freemen of City, 60
Free Trade Legislation, 39, 40, 45,

51,73,291.413
Freshfield, James, 155
Fresh Wharf, 126, 401, 414
Frobisher, 52
Frost Fair, 386

Frozen Meat (see Cold Storage)
Fry, T. H., 185
Furness, Lord, 346
Fusion of Companies in 1864, 197
Future of Port of London, 486

GAINSBOROUGH, 21
Galleons Reach, 193, 228, 275
Galley Quay, 401

Garbling of Goods, 43

Gattie's Scheme for Cargo Hand-
ling, 506

Gauging of Goods, 43

Gaul — Trade and Relations with,
6, 8, 12

Gaunt 's Quay, 401

Geddes, Sir Eric, 461

General Steam Navigation Com-
pany, 414

Genoa, 37, 298, 486

Geographical Advantages of Lon-
don, 4

George, The Rt. Hon. D. LJoyd,

333. 336. 338. 347. 455
German Trade, 2, 26, 42, 256, 298,

497

Ghent, 40
Gibraltar, 423
Giffen, Sir R., 273

INDEX

523

Gilbert's Expedition to Newfound-
land, 52

Gilbert, J. D., 277, 370, 469, 492

Gladstone, W. E., 198

Glasgow, 5, 313, 332, 333

" Globe," 124

Gloves, 20

Glyn, Sir E. Carr, 155

Glyn, G. Carr, 159

Godsell, E., 127

Gold as Export, 8

Gomme, Lawrence, 277

Gordon Riots, 153

Gosfrith the Portreeve, 25

Gosling, H., 346, 448, 455, 476

Government Ships and Goods,
Charges on, 479

Gowland, T., 101

Grain Elevators, 365

Granary, Millwall Docks, 227

Grand Surrey Basin, 132

Gravesend, 45, 63, 164, 211, 236,

30°. 373. 39°

Graving Docks (see Dry Docks)
Great Eastern Railway, 194, 228
Great Western Steamship, 193
Greenland Dock, 131, 134, 221, 338
Greenock, 294
Greenway, F., 320
Greenwich, 65, 377
Grenfell, Pascoe, 155
Gresham, Sir Thomas, 52
Grey, Lady Jane, 375
Grocers Company, 127
Guilds of London, 42
Gwydyr'g Lease of Mooring Chains

93. 96- I27

HAGUE, The, i
Haldane, Lord, 455
Haldimand, W., 159
Hale, Lord, on Conservancy Rights,

32. '76

Hall, Alderman, 185
Hall, Sir John, 132, 156, 161, 166
Hamburg, i, 2, 26, 287, 298, 333,

499, 502

Hamilton of Dalzell, 338
Hamilton, J. J., 319
Hammonds Quay, 402

Hamond, Sir A., 106

Hampden, 377

Hampshire, 18

Hankey, R. A., 242, 248, 253, 319

Hanseatic League (see Easterlings)

Harbour Docks and Piers Clauses

Act, 201, 234, 480
Harbour Staff, Criticism of, 129,

'73
Hardy, Lawrence, 323

Hardy, T., 290, 319

Harland & Wolff, 492

Hartland, Sir F. Dixon, 300, 322

Havre, 2, 298, 335

Hawkesbury, Lord, 105, 107, 117,

323

Hawkins' Expeditions, 52
Hay's Wharf, 414
Heath, J. B., 159
Hengest, 13
Henry II, 27, 32
Henry III, 32
Henry VII, 48
Henry VIII, 50

Herodian Description of London, 9
Hertford Union Canal, 205
Hext, Sir John, 273
Hibbert, Alderman, 101, 102, 125,

"7. '43

Hickson, Mr., 215
Hill, Sir Norman, 463
Hills, Arnold, 327, 329
Hirst, T., 350
Hithes on Thames, 20
Hlothere, King, 15
Hobart, Lord, 117
Hodgson, J., 159
Holland, i, 299
Holland, Hon. Sydney, 247, 249,

253. 3'9. 327
Home Trade, 15
Home, Sir Robert, 475
Housing of Working Classes, 160
Howland Great Wet Dock, 67, 131
Hubbard, John, 155
Hubbard, W. E., 248, 253, 319
Huddart, J., 115, 122, 124
Hudson's Bay Company, 63
Hudson's Bay Trade, 52
Hull, 5, 298, 335, 418

524

INDEX

Humphrey, Alderman, 185

Hunter, R., 115

Huy, 19

Hydraulic Machinery, 196, 217

ICE, in River, 81, 386
Import Trade, 8, 15, 26
Improvement of Port, 129, 303,

312- 34°. 35°. 353. 354. 356.

495

Inchcape, Lord, 461, 463
Indian Trade, 37, 52, 54
Inglis, J., 115, 144
Insurance, 56, 63
Insurance Companies, benefited by

Entrep6t Trade, 2
Internal Struggles on Trade, Effect

of, 38

Ipswich, 17
Iron as Export, 8
Irongate Wharf, 414
Isle of Dogs, Docks at, 85, 89
Italy, Trade with, 8, 44, 48
Itineraries of Antoninus, 9

JAMES I, 58, 179
James II, 62, 64, 66, 379, 421
James of Hereford, Lord, 239
Jetty System in Docks, 194
Jewry Street Warehouse, 210
Johnston, J., 101

Joint Industrial Council, 477, 478
Joint Committee, 244, 318, 448
Jones, Charles, 175
Julian the Apostate, 9
Julius Caesar on Britain, 6
Junction Dock, 214
Jurisdiction on River, Dispute re-
garding, 175
Justus, 14

KEARLEY, Sir Hudson (see
Viscount Devonport)
Kelk & Aird, 225
Kemble, E., 101

Kemble's " Saxons in England," 5
Kennard, J. P., 193
Kent, 6, 18
Kimbolton, Lord, 377
King, T., 115

Kirk & Randall, 237, 238, 242,

249, 250

Kirkpatrick, C. R., 349
Knight, Messrs., 414
Knutsford, Viscount (tee Hon.

Sydney Holland)

LABOURERS, Statute of. 40
Labour in Port, 141, 256, 259,
409, 425, 471, 499, 507
Labour during War, 471
Labour Exchanges, 456
Lambeth, 21

Lancaster's Expedition, 52
Lancastrians and Yorkists, 42
Landing Stage in River, 494
Lands Clauses Act, 311
Lands for Dock Construction, 95,

34i

Langland, 427
Langton, Stephen, 416
Larpent, G. G. de H., 159, 160
Laurentius, 14
Lavender Lock, 135
Lawrie, A., 242, 248, 258
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar, 332, 339
Lea, The, 6, 17
Leach, C. F., 346
Legal Quays, 55, 77, 84. 88, 95,

96, 115, 126, 145, 198, 401, 404
Leigh, 417
Leigh Middle Shoals, 191, 296,

33°

Leith, 302, 335
Leith of Fyvie, Lord, 338
Le Lacheur, W., 319
Le Marchant, Sir Henry, 242, 248,

253, 265, 278, 279, 305, 319,324
Lennox, W., 115
Lewin, R., 122

Licenses for Embankments, 184
Licensing of Barges, 313, 351
Liege, 19
Lightermen, 88, 302, 362, 372,

387. 389

Lighters (see Barges)
Lighthouses, 419, 423
Limehouse Dock, 406
Limits of Port, 183, 310, 339
Lincoln, 5

INDEX

525

Lincolnshire, Sea Dyke, 30

Liquor Control Board, 484

Lisbon, i

" Little Edward," The, 47

Liverpool, i, 2, 5, 53, 60, 70, 92,
IS1- 235. 2S7. 273. 298, 313,
3*4. S32, 335. 456- 488. 493

Locks on Thames, n, 186

London and India Docks Com-
pany, 223, 290, 308, 317, 327,

336, 338
London and India Docks Joint

Committee (see Joint Committee)
London and India Docks Scheme

of Port Reform, 293, 327, 336
London and St. Katharine Docks

Company, 197, 200, 237, 241

3'7 44°

London as a Roman Town 7
London, Bishop of, 14, 445
London Bridge, i, 5, 21, 27, 37,

45- 54. 372, 373. 399
London Chamber of Commerce,

282
London County Council, 189, 269,

270, 293, 323, 327, 331, 492
London County Council, Con-
tribution to Improvements, 312
London County Council, Scheme

at 1902 Inquiry, 280
London Dock, 90, 92, 113, 230,

411,432,437
London Dock Company, 113, 140,

142, 156,213

Londoners Ignorant of Port, i
London Grain Elevator Company,

365

London Lackpenny, 396

London — not originally intended
for Port, 6

London, Wall of, 14, 16, 20, 36

Long, Beeston, 115, 116

Long Ferry, 373, 395

Longlands, H., 145, 146, 158

Lord Mayor's Show, 374

Loughborough, Lord, 105

Lower Thames Navigation Com-
mission, 191, 290, 300

Lubbock, Sir John, 445

Lubbock, Sir J. W., 155, 159

Lubbock, Sir Nevile, 248, 319
Lucas & Aird, 228, 238, 239
Ludenwic, 15
Ludlow, Lord, 323
Lumpers, 83
Lushington, W., 101
Lusk, Sir Andrew, 444
Luxury Trades, 488
Lyle, Messrs., 414
Lymne, 17
Lympne, 10
Lynn, 5, 26
Lyon, D., 101
Lyons Quay, 402
Lyster, A., 191
Lyttelton, Hon. A., 273

MAAS, Expenditure on Im-
provements, 2
Macassey, Sir Lynden, 476

Machinery at Docks, Utilization
of, 505

Maconnochie, J. A., 221

Magna Charta, 45

Maintenance of Casual Labour, 477

Maintenance of Docks, 2 1 6, 303 , 3 5 1

Malcolm, N., 102

Maldon, 8

Mangles, C. E., 194

Management of Docks, 99

Manchester, 5, 273, 294

Manning, A., 233, 237

Manning, Cardinal, 444

Manufacturing District, London
as a, 489

March, S., 429

Margate Boats, 164, 211

Mark Brown's Wharf, 159, 414

Mark Lane, 402

Market, London as a, 2

Markets, Continental and Ameri-
can, 4

Marlborough, Duke of, 64

Marseilles, 298, 486

Martin, Lionel A., 346

Martindale, Colonel, 248, 319

Mary, Queen, 51, 376

Matilda of Flanders, 25

Matilda, wife of King Stephen, 28,
'53

526

INDEX

Mayhew, Henry, 438

Maypole Dairy Company, 490

McDougall, Sir J., 346, 370

Measuring of Goods, City Privil-
eges. 43. 59

Mediterranean Ports, 3, 10

Mediterranean Route, 298

Medway, n, 33, 288

M ell it us, 14, 15

Mellor, Mr., 323

Mercers Company, 374

Merchant Adventurers, 58

Merchants Plan for Docks, 84

Mersea, 17

Mersey Ferry, 60

Merchant Taylors Company, 374

Mercia, 5

Metropolitan Police, 300

Midland Railway Dock, 205, 303

Military Service Committee, 474

Milligan, R., 102, 103

Mills, Charles, 115

Milner, Viscount, 338

Milton (near Gravesend), 17, 395

Millwall Dock, 197, 213, 225, 232,
290, 308, 336, 338

Millwall Equipment Company, 227,

364

Mincing Lane, 402
Mints, 8, 19
Monopoly of 21 years given to

Docks, 96, 114, 123, 141
Monopoly of Port Authority,

Question of, 360
Moore, H. T., 346, 461
Moore, J., 134

Moorings in River, 80, 170, 184
Morgan, D. J., 322
Morgan, H. J.. 253, 320
Morocco Wharf, 414
Moscow, 486
Mowlem & Co., 361
Munitions, 470, 471
Munster, 26
Murray, Capt., 129

NARES, Admiral Sir George,
191
National Expenditure, Com-
mittee on, 472

National Transport Workers Feder-
ation, 448, 472, 475
Navigation Committee, 129, 169,

'73

Navigation Laws, 41, 42, 56, 298
Navigation of Steamers on Thames,

163, 1 66

Navy, The. 41, 55, 380, 381
Neave, Sir Richard, 115, 116, 117
Nelson, Lord, 136
Nevile, T., 375
Newcastle, 55, 313, 400, 418
Newfoundland, 52
New Zealand, 365
Newman, R. Finch, 177
New Street Warehouse, 200
New York, 335
Nivelle, 19

Norman, Sir John, 374
Normandy, 19
Norris, E. S., 248, 319
Norris, H., 350, 442
North London Railway, 212
Northumbrian Kingdom, 14
Norway Dock, 1 34
Norwood, C. M., 248, 253, 257

OAKLEY, Sir Henry, 242
Ogle's Plan of Improvements,

84

O'Grady, Mr., 455
Old Broad Street, 10
Old Gravel Lane, 80
Orient Line, 241
Orwell, The, 21, 29
Oxford, ii, 37, 58

PACKING of Goods. City
Privileges, 43, 61
Pallmer, C. N., 144, 146
Palmer, F., 349, 352
Palmer, J. H., 159
P. & O. Company, 260, 266, 444
Pannell, W. H., 346
Paris, i , 486
Parkes, J., 182
Parmoor, Lord, 238
Passenger Traffic in Port, 492
Paul's Wharf, 403
Payment of Labour — Methods, 505

INDEX

527

Payment of Members of Port

Authority, 315, 340, 349
Peace as an Asset of Trade, 21
Pearson, Contract with Messrs.,

483

Peckham, 131
Peel, Sir Robert, 152
Peel, Hon. W. R. W., 273
Penal Rates, 464
Pepper, 20, 54
Pepys' Diary, References to, 64, 66,

3?8

Perry's Dock, 70, 124
Peter of Cole Church, 27
Peto, S. Morton, 193
Petrograd, I
Petrol, Storage and Conveyance

of, 363, 488
Pevensey, 10

Philipps, Sir Owen, 346, 349
Philippa of Hainault, 39, 153
Philipson, R., 349, 371
Physical Advantages of Port of

London, 4
Picts, 9

Piecework, 477
Piers, the Plowman, 427
Piggott, Captain, 185
Pilotage, 282, 301
"Pink Form, "464
Pirates, 420

Pitt, William, 105, 108, 421
Plague in London, 64, 378, 384
Pleasure Boats, 190
Plender, Sir William, 335, 338
Plummer, T., 102
Plundering of Goods, 82, 138, 143
Plymouth, 411
Poitou, 19

Policing of Port, 89, 300, 303
Pollard, E. H., 239
Pollution of River, 187
Pook, F., 319

Poplar Dock, 206, 212, 303
Porta, Meaning of, 25
Port and Transit Committee, 463
Port Authority, Legislation, 322,

336. 339

Pott Authority suggested by Royal
Commission, 306, 313

Port, Character of Business carried

on, i, 367
Port Committee of City, 129, 171,

*73

Porterage of Goods, City Privil-
eges, 43, 61, 427

Porters Quay, 402

Portland, Duke of, 107

Port of London Authority, Ad-
ministration of, 346

Port of London Authority Com-
mittees, 349

Port of London Authority, Con-
stitution of, 356

Port of London Authority Offices,
360

Port of London Authority, Pro-
gramme of Improvements, 356

Port of London Working Associa-
tion, 485

Porto Rico, 52

Port Rates on Goods, 313, 342, 350

Portreeve, The, 25

Port Sanitary Authority, 187, 275,
300.303

Portsmouth, 13

Port Stock. 312, 338, 340. 342, 348

Portuguese Trade, 50, 52, 58

Powell, D., 247

Preferential Rates, 246, 342

Preston, 294

Price, Sir Charles, 133

Pringle, Captain, 182

Privileges of Watermen, 391

Privileges, Termination of Dock,
138, 412

Proprietors of Docks, Regulations,

94
Protective Legislation for Trade,

41, 42. 44, 49, 55, 56, 61. 62
Provision Trade, 223
Pudding Lane, 65, 403
Puddle Dock and Wharf, 20, 403.
Pugh, A., 476 [406

Purfleet, 415
Putney, 377

0

UATBRIDGE, 17
Queenhithe, 28, 37, 399,
403

528

INDEX

RACING of Steamers on
Thames, 164, 181
Raikes, W., 115

Railway Companies' Act, 1867, 249
Railway Commissioners, 246, 295,

329. 36'
Railway Companies, Docks of, as

Competitors, 510
Railways at Docks, 194, 218, 226,

23°. 235. 328, 344. 36i. 49°
Railways, Influence of, on River

Traffic, 181. 391
Raleigh's Expedition, 52
Rank, Messrs., 490
Ratcliffe, 27, 406
Rates (see Charges)
Rauff's Quay, 401
Rea, Russell, 323, 338
Rebuilding of London, Act of 1 667,

65
Reculver, 10

Redesdale, Lord, 240

Reed, J., 115

Reform of Port Administration, 77

Regent's Canal Dock, 170, 205, 303

Registration of Labour, 477

Regulations, Port and Dock, 100,

171, 176, 182, 202, 209, 260
Relations of London and India

Companies on Joint Committee,

253

Rendel, Sir Alexander, 228

Rennie, J., 103, 123

Renshaw, Sir C., 323

Reserve Fund of Port of London
Authority, 343

Reserve Fund of West India Dock
Company, 140, 142, 147

Reveley's Plan of Port Improve-
ments, 87

Revelstoke, Lord, 273

Rhine, Projected Lateral Canal, 495

Rhine Traffic, 2, 4, 9, 10, n, 15,

494
Richard I, Vesting of Conservancy

in City Corporation by, 32, 41
Richard II, 41
Richard III, 44
Rich borough, 8, 10
Ritchie of Dundee, Lord, 338, 346

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.. 269
Ritchie, W., 69, 134
River Banks of Thames, 29, 405
River Quays and Jetties, 91, 275,

333. 359. 412
Roads of England, London as

Centre of System, 6, 9
Roberts, J., 122
Robinson, G., 116
Rochester, 14
Rogers, J. Innes, 282
Rollit, Sir Albert, 269, 451
Roman Building of Embankments,

3°

Roman Operations in London, 6
Roman Trade in Britain, 8
Rome, 486
Romney Marsh, 31
Ronald, R. B., 319
Rother, The, 1 1
Rotherhithe, 21, 67
" Rothsay Castle," 163
Rotterdam, i, 2, 298, 299, 333,

443. 49°. 499
Rouen, 19, 25
Rowles, R., 159
Royal Albert Dock (see Albert

Dock)
Royal Commission on Port of

London, 269, 273, 296, 320, 321
Royal Oak, 64
Royal Victoria Dock (see Victoria

Dock)

Rubber Trade, 488
Rupert, Prince, 64
Russia Company, 51, 53, 58
Ryder, Dudley, 105
Ryder, Sir George, 274

SABS Quay, 401
St. Albans, Lord, 269
St. Aldwyn, Lord, 350
St. Augustine, 14
St. Botolph Without, 160
St. Clement, 417
St. Friedswide, n
St. Katharine Dock, 28, 153, 166,

406, 412, 430, 435, 440
St. Katharine Hospital, 28, 153,
161

INDEX

529

St. Mary Overy, 27
St. Saviour's Dock, 162, 406
Salt as an Import, 8
Saltmarsh, Sir George, 346
Samuel, Sir Marcus, 275
Sampson, W., 159
Sandeman, A. G., 248
Sansom, P., 115, 116
Sandwich, 13, 21

Sanitary Authority (see Port Sanit-
ary Authority)
Saturday Half-holiday in Port, 474,

475

Savory's Dock, 406
Saxon Port, 12
Saxons, 9

" Saxons in England," 5
Saxon Shore, Count of, 10
Scandinavia, 21
Scavage, City Privileges, 61
Scheldt, 4
Schemes of Arrangement with

Creditors, 249
Schemes of Port Improvement, 84,

356

Scholey, Sheriff, 132
Scotland Dock, 406
Scots, 9
Scott, C. J. Cater, 248, 253, 291,

305, 319, 328
Scrutton, F., 476, 477
Scrutton, T., 279
" Sea Belle " Case, 451
Sea Coal Lane, 46
Seine, i, 4
Severus, 9

Shadwell Waterworks, 87, 119, 120
Shaw of Dunfermline, Lord, 476
Sheds on Quays, Use by Shipowners,

257, 265
Sheerness, 66
Sheffield, Lord, 96
Shepherd, Captain, 185
Shepherd, Commodore, 185
Shipbuilding in London, 47, 55,

63. 491

Shipmoney Tax, 60

Shipowners' Case at Royal Com-
mission, 285

Shipowners Labour, 449, 451

Shipowners' Opposition to Legis-
lation, 246, 269

Shipowning in London, 47, 75
Ships (see Vessels)
Shoebury, 17
Shoreham, 10
Shorter Week for Dock Workers,

475
Short Sea Traders, 287

Sibthorp, Colonel, 163

Sierra Leone, 52

Silting up of River, 83, 171

Silver as Export, 8

Silvertown Explosion, 483

Sim, Captain, 136

Simmonds, T., 101

Sims, G. R., 441

Sion House, 376

Situation, Potency of, 5

Skinner, Alderman, 107

Skinners Company, 374

Skins as Exports, 8

Slaves as Exports, 8

Sluys, Battle of, 41

Smart's Quay, 401

Smethurst, J., 476

Smith, Hugh C., 346

Smith, Sir H. Llewellyn, 347

Smuggling, 74, 83, 400

Soldiers and Sailors, Charges on

Gifts to, 482
Sollis, S., 127
Somersetshire, 21
Somers Quay, 401
Southampton, 13, 17, 53, 55, 256,

298, 400, 443, 486, 493
Southampton, Lord, 403
South Dock, 135

South London Dock Scheme, 162
Southwark, 28, 372, 375
Southwark, Plan for Docks at, 86
South West India Dock, 210, 213,

216, 217, 229, 232, 262
Spalding, 30
Spaniards, Destruction of Antwerp

by, 2

Spanish Trade, 50, 58
Spence's Plan of Docks, 86
Spencer, Earl, 105
Spert, Sir Thomas, 417

530

INDEX

Spicer, Sir Albert, 339

Spice Trade, 488

Staff of the Port, 145, 204, 214,

245- 253. 344. 456- 484
Stafford, 5
Staines, 18, 33, 183
Standing Arbitrator, 245
Staples, 39, 43
Stave Dock, 136
Steamers on Thames, 163, 207,

398

Steele, Thomas, 106
Steelyard, 26, 49, 195, 403
Stephen, King, 27, 28
Stepney Church, 417
Sterry Trustees, 127
Stevedores' Union, 437
Storm of 27th November, 1703, 68
Strabo, 8
Strasburg, 494
Stratford in Essex, 31
Strikes of Labourers, 440, 450,

4S2- 457
Strover, Mr., 146

Subscribers to West India Dock
Company, 93

Submarine Campaign, 466

Suetonius Paulinus, 6

Suez Canal, Influence on Trade, 3

Sufferance Wharves, 77, 88, 405,
408

Sugar Trade, 81

Sullivan, Capt., 185

Sunday Ferry, 388, 389, 392

Surrey Canal Company, 131

Surrey Commercial Dock Com-
pany, 131, 133, 197, 203, 220,
290, 308, 338

Sutherland, Sir Thomas, 189, 260,

287, 443
Swansea, 302
Sweyn, King, 18, 20
Switzerland, Trade with, 494
Syria, 52

TACITUS on Agricola, 8, 30
Tacitus on London, 6
Tacklehouse Porters, 87, 96,
126, 427, 428
Tate, Messrs., 414

Taylor, Seth, 248, 319

Taylor, Water Poet, 383

Tea Trade, 487

Tees Ports, 302

Telford, John, 161

Termination of Dock Privileges,

138,412
Thames, The, 4, 5, 8, 10, n, 12,

27

Thames Conservancy, 180, 183,
289, 299, 307, 308, 315, 327,

331- 34i. 347- 393.422
Thames Haven, 363, 415
Thames Traffic Committee, 302,

rTM393

Thanet, 17

Theodosius, 9

Thieves in Port, Classification of,

83

Thomas, J. H., 350
Thompson, A. H., 159
Thompson, W., 159
Thornton, W., 122
Thorp, J.. 185
Three Cranes Wharf, 377
Ticket Porters, 96, 126, 428
Tickner, E., 173
Tidal Variations, 12, 334
Tilbury Contracting Company, 236
Tilbury Dock, 212, 218, 229, 232,

246, 258. 270, 275, 304, 337, 358
Tilbury Passenger Landing Stage,

494

Till, R., 194
Tillett, Ben, 441, 442, 447, 454,

476

Tilt Boats, 396
Timber Hithe, 403
Timber Trade, 221, 223, 226, 405,

489

Timbs, 426
Timperson, J., 102
Tod, J. H., 248, 253, 319
Tooke, T., 145, 159, 160
Tooley Street, 223
Torrey, C. F., 346
Torrington, Lord, 156
Torpedo Nets at Locks, 471
Tower of London, Privileges of

Keepers, 32, 59

INDEX

Town Warehouses, 123, 195, 200,
210

Trade of London, Effects of Vic-
tory, 497

Trade of London, Volume and
Value, 74, 156, 167, 297, 366

Trade Unions, Relations with, 503

Trading Companies, 50, 51, 53,

58,63

Transit Trade, i
Transport Workers Battalion, 464,

473

Travel, Cheapening of, 4

Travellers to London, 45, 373, 395

Trinity House, 35, 86, 87, 103,
169, 171, 172, 176, 183, 185,
281, 300, 301, 307, 308, 416

Trotter, J., 226

Turkey Company, 53

Turner, Sir Montagu, 346

Turner, S., 115

Turnley, J., 185

Tyler's Rebellion, 46

Tyne Ports, 302, 333

Tyrell, T., 103, 107, 123, 127

UPPER Navigation Commis-
sion, 1 86

Upton, H. E., 350
Utrecht, 26

VAUGHAN, William, 78, 84,
102, 115, 116
Venice, 37

Vernon, Messrs., 490
Verulam, 7

Vessels, Character of, n, 13, 16, 47
Vessels, Wrecked, 184
Vickers, Maxim & Co., 490
Victoria Dock, Royal, 26, 193, 212,
217, 225, 228, 257, 258, 275, 483
Vikings, n
Vinegar, 20

Vintners Company, 127
Virginia Company, 53

WAGES, Claim of 1 6s. a day,
475

Wagg, Edward, 247, 319
Walbrook, 10, 20, 37

Walderne, W., 374

Walker, R., 103, 124

Walker's Plan of Docks, 86

Wallace, Lord, 141

Wall, London, 14, 16, 20, 36

Walls round Docks, 94

Walpole, Policy of, 72, 109, 390

Wapping, Docks projected at, 79,
84, 88, 90

Ward, G., 115

Warehousing Acts, 109, 198

Warehousing Business, 198, 232,
258, 264, 291, 294, 309, 368, 400

Warehousing of Goods, City
Privileges, 43

Warehouse-keepers (see Wharf-
ingers)

War, Influence of, on Trade, 4, 16,
75, 458, 498

Warlters' Wharf, 132

War, Operations and Accommo-
dation in Port, 459, 460, 469,
482

War Wages, 472, 500

Warwick, 5

Water Companies, Payments by,
187, 190

Waterloo, 434

Watermen, 51, 88, 302, 372, 379

Watermen's Company, 165, 181,
182, 289, 300, 302, 308, 341, 349,
382, 386, 389

Waterpassage to London, 45, 373,

395

Waterside Manufacturers, 490
Watling Street, 6
Watson, Brook, 96
Watts, H. H., 349
Webb, Sir Aston, 361
Weddel, W., 346
Wedderburn, J., 102
Weighing of Goods, City Privileges,

43- 5°. 6o

Weirs, Regulations as to, 32
Welch Deputy, 101
Welland, The, 30
Wells, Messrs, j. & W., 69
West Coast Diversion Committee,
'"'466
West India Committee, 144

532

INDEX

West India Dock, 90, 92, 104, 232,

411,426,431,440
West India Dock Acts, 208, 427
West India Dock Company, 92,

in, 138, 161, 207
West India Trade, 76, 82, 413,

43'. 437
Westminster, 6

West Saxons, 13

Whale Trade, 63, 67, 69

Wharfingers, 3, 77, 88, 96, 184,
188, 198, 262, 288, 289, 291,
309, 324, 326. 337, 339. 370,
399, 485, 509

Wharfingers Association, 415

Wharves as Alternative Facilities,

275. 333- 359. 412
Wharves First, on Thames, 10, 20
Wherry Traffic, 46, 164, 166, 372,

380

White, R., 346
Whitehead, Sir James, 445
Whitley Council, 478
Wiggan's Quay, 402
Wight, Isle of, 21
Wigram, R., 123
Wigram, Sir C. H., 242
Wildman, H., 102
William (Bishop), 25
William I, 24
William III, 66
William of Ypres, 28
Williams, H. W., 253, 320
Williams, R., 476
Williams, S., 122
Williams, W., 123

Williams, W. Varco, 346

Williams, S. & Son, 415

Williamson, Mr., 339

Wilson, Fletcher, 159

\Vilson, T., 159

Wimble, Sir John, 474

Winchester, 5, 13, 17, 19

Wine Trade, 8, 19, 37, 39, 41, 43

Wisbech, 30

Witham, The, 5, 30

Wolverton, Lord, 323

Wood, T. McKinnon, Rt. Hon.,

277, 280

Wool Exchange, 3
Woolmore, J., 123
Wool Quays (Old and New), 401
Wool Trade, 3, 19, 37, 39, 40, 42,

43. 44. 5°. 63- 2I7. 487
Workmen's Compensation Act, 437
Wounded Soldiers, River Trips

for, 484

Wyat, Sir Thomas, 27
Wyatt's Plan of Docks, 85

YANTLET, 33. 183
York, 5, 9, 1 1
Younger Brethren of Trinity
House, 419

Young, Sir William, 79
Young Men's Christian Associa-
tion, 484

Young's Quay, 401
Ypres, 40

'EPPELIN Attacks, 66

THE WESTMINSTER PRESS

HARROW ROAD

LONDON

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM TH.S POCKET

HE
558
L8B?
v.2

London

. •-• .JFf- __:

• \ -^^^^IF

if' J_ ---. ' - %•'*•

q . • ',',/* f/*/r .<'*«r
Rf<tuaJ tt &{u Suu /rrm j .

/"nut ,n //>/ tefflsttft tf

z3Stc.**3*

*... lfsr*,f

if . t
•tf . X!

in alt Ha£

« '.'frit (Vutr.-A

n. J?*Ht

tj

y> f*tltl l

31 . J~! .Xaoftnitr
1.1 . Jtift j'n-rrr

JJ . Clfn-tr XK'/t
3* . .Ttww ti

37 . * tfi/tcrtfJ

38 . *

47.

&

9 '-'•"'"'.'