Transcriber’s Note
  Italic text displayed as: _italic_
  ^ means abbreviation




[Illustration: SOUTH WEST INDIA DOCK. WESTERN ENTRANCE.

BARGES WAITING TO LEAVE THE DOCK. _See p. 65._]




  THE THAMES AND ITS DOCKS

  A LECTURE

  BY

  ALEX^R FORROW

  (_Of the East and West India Dock Company_)


  DELIVERED AT THE EAST AND WEST INDIA DOCK COMPANY’S LITERARY
  INSTITUTION, DECEMBER 18, 1876. CHAIRMAN: PERCIVAL BOSANQUET, ESQ.,
  CHAIRMAN OF THE EAST AND WEST INDIA DOCK COMPANY.—ALSO AT CITY OF
  LONDON COLLEGE, LEADENHALL STREET, FEBRUARY 8, 1877. CHAIRMAN: GEORGE
  H. CHAMBERS, ESQ., CHAIRMAN OF THE LONDON AND ST. KATHARINE DOCKS
  COMPANY


  LONDON
  PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY
  SPOTTISWOODE & CO., 38 ROYAL EXCHANGE
  _And to be had of All Booksellers_

  1877




  TO

  J. L. DU PLAT TAYLOR, ESQ.

  SECRETARY
  EAST AND WEST INDIA DOCK COMPANY

  THIS LITTLE WORK

  IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED

  BY

  THE WRITER




PREFACE.


At the urgent request of many who have heard this lecture, I have been
induced to publish it. I have had considerable hesitation in doing so,
because, as its structure sufficiently indicates, it was never written
with a view to publication. It is a sketch, and nothing more, of a
great subject, condensed into a two hours’ address. As, however, it
contains some curious information of considerable interest, otherwise
difficult of access, it has been considered worthy of preservation
in its present form. With a view to placing the readers of this
lecture, as far as possible, in the position of hearers of it, I have
accompanied it with some of the rarest and most interesting of the
plans with which it was illustrated. Whatever may be its shortcomings
in other respects—and I am conscious they are many—I venture to hope
that this feature of it will prove generally acceptable.

  A. FORROW.

  WOODFORD:
  _February 1877_.




THE THAMES AND ITS DOCKS.


The subject of this evening’s lecture is so vast and discursive,
that to attempt, within the brief period of a lecture, to give more
than a sketch of a particular portion of it, would be manifestly
absurd. Moreover, as a visit to any of the Docks will result in the
attainment of more practical information than could be imparted in
a dozen lectures, we may very consistently dispense almost entirely
with reference to contemporary dock history; and I intend doing so
except in so far as incidental reference to that part of the subject
may appear necessary. My object, in this lecture, is to convey some
interesting information respecting the origin and growth of the
facilities which have been provided in the river, from time to time,
to meet the requirements of the mercantile marine of the port; to
trace the steps by which its commerce has gradually been emancipated
from its ancient river-side restrictions, and then lead up to notice
the establishment of the magnificent system of docks, to which it so
largely owes its marvellous growth. I propose to deal with this portion
of the subject in preference to any other, because it is one of which,
although exceedingly interesting, the literature is singularly scarce,
fragmentary, and difficult of access. It is, however, obvious that the
ground which we have to cover necessitates such rapid travelling, that
it will be necessary to omit many interesting particulars to which I
should, otherwise, have invited your attention.

Leaving that misty period of English history when the only craft to
be seen on the Thames was the rude coracle of the ancient Briton; and
the 400 years during which the Romans occupied the island, I would
pass on to observe, that up to the tenth century, there appears to
have been so little disposition on the part of our forefathers to
engage in maritime pursuits, that in 938, King Athelstane, in order to
excite a spirit of enterprise amongst his subjects, offered the rank of
thane to any Englishman who undertook three voyages to the Continent
with a vessel and cargo of his own. But our real masters in the arts
of commerce were the Easterlings, a fraternity of German merchants,
who, in the eighth century, established themselves on the shores of
the Baltic for the protection of their commerce against the Normans
and Scandinavian nations. Some of the vessels of this confederacy,
which was afterwards connected with the Hanseatic League, appeared in
the Thames at Billingsgate in 979, during the reign of Ethelred II.
Here I should observe that Billingsgate was the first place appointed
for payment of king’s dues, Queenhithe being the next. Considered
by the king worthy of ‘good laws,’ the Easterlings agreed to pay a
toll of two grey cloths and one brown one, ten pounds of pepper, five
pairs of gloves, and two measures of vinegar, every Christmas and
Easter, and forthwith established themselves in London. Hard-headed,
keen-witted fellows were these old German merchants, and, like their
countrymen of a later date, soon found out that England was a rare
place for making money. And when these ancestors of our modern German
competitors first came to this country, they had to encounter so little
opposition from the native traders, that they speedily monopolised
the whole of the foreign trade of the port. But while the Hanseatic
League owed much of its power and influence to the early footing which
the Easterlings obtained in London, there cannot be a doubt that by
helping to develop the enormous productive resources of the country,
and revealing the unrivalled natural facilities of the port for trade,
they laid the foundation of the supremacy which London now enjoys as
the great entrepôt for the produce and commerce of the world. Moreover,
as their remarkable confederacy at one time comprised no less than
eighty of the largest and wealthiest cities in Germany and Sweden,
their establishment in London was the means of opening up commercial
relations with the Continent of a magnitude, which, while the balance
of immediate profit fell to the traders of the League, proved an
incalculable boon to this country when their exclusive privileges were
taken from them. Not only so; the success of the Easterlings in London
attracted the commerce of other continental nations, particularly
the Venetian and Genoese, and thus brought about the trade with the
Mediterranean ports, and, incidentally, with the East. In the reign
of Henry III. (1236) the foreign trade had become so important, that
the practice which had hitherto prevailed of buying goods on board
the importing ship, was found to be so irksome and inconvenient, that,
on condition of paying certain tolls to the Mayor, permission was
granted for the direct landing of cargo, so that it might be disposed
of on shore. This gave rise to the existing landing and wharfage dues.
Ten years afterwards, the Corporation purchased Queenhithe, which,
it should be remembered, besides Billingsgate, was the only place in
the river at that time suitable for the landing of goods. Meanwhile,
the enormous influence which the Easterlings had acquired in London,
by means of the charters granted them by successive monarchs, was
beginning to excite a spirit of competition and jealousy amongst the
citizens. But they found that, great as was the productive resources
of the country, their German competitors had obtained such complete
control of the continental markets, that no Englishman stood a chance
against the combinations which he had to encounter there. This led to
counter-combinations on the part of the citizens, as the only means by
which they could hope to introduce their goods into foreign markets. I
need hardly observe that this was one of the causes which led to the
origin of many of the trade guilds, and livery companies of London.
In the time of King Edward IV. a considerable impetus was given to
commercial transactions of all kinds, and the trade of the port rapidly
increased. Troubles on the Continent brought large numbers of skilled
artisans to this country, and the result was that, in course of time,
the English manufacturers found themselves, as regards the actual cost
of production, able to compete with their opponents. Conscious of their
growing wealth and influence, the citizens began to raise outcries
against their grievances. This feeling sometimes found expression in
great popular riots. During one of these outbreaks, which occurred
in the year 1493, the premises of the Easterlings in Thames Street,
then, and long after, known as the Steelyard, were attacked by the
mob; immense damage was done, and the tumult only quelled by the Lord
Mayor and aldermen, with all the force they could muster, coming to
the protection of the merchants. Some idea of the magnitude of the
influence gained by the Easterlings may be gathered from the fact that,
for several hundreds of years, they not only determined the weights
and measures to be legally used throughout England, but so late as
the year 1531, King Henry VIII. granted them a charter exempting them
from payment of all king’s taxes within the City. But from this period
the increased wealth, and growing intelligence of the citizens of
London, made it manifest that it would shortly be necessary to withdraw
all these privileges. Thus, in the year 1552, the English merchants
presented a petition to the king, complaining that their competitors,
by trading in a body, kept down the price of woollen cloths (one of
the staples of English manufacture), and having command of the foreign
markets, shut English merchants out of them. In proof of this statement
they alleged, that in the previous year (1551), the Steelyard merchants
had exported 44,000 woollen cloths, whereas the English merchants
had been able to export only 1,100. It was also represented that the
whole of the trade was carried on in foreign bottoms, greatly to the
detriment of the English marine. This effort was successful. The
greater part of the monopolies enjoyed by the Steelyard merchants were
abolished, and the whole of the trade with Flanders immediately passed
into the hands of the English, who, in the same year, exported no less
than 40,000 woollen cloths, as compared with 1,100, in the previous
year. In the year 1597, all the exclusive privileges of the League in
England ceased to exist.

From this period the commerce not only of London, but of England
itself, may be said to date its rise. The failure of Sir Hugh
Willoughby to discover a North-east Passage led, in 1553, to the
formation of the Russia Company, and the opening up of the important
trade with Russia and the Baltic; and the stories of the fabulous
wealth to be acquired on the newly-discovered continent of America,
excited a spirit of enterprise that gave a tremendous impetus to
commercial transactions of all kinds. It is quite unnecessary to speak
of the encouragement which good Queen Bess gave to this movement,
or how far the success of those old sea-dogs, Hawkins, and Drake,
and Frobisher, to say nothing of the exploits of the noble Raleigh,
contributed to this impetus. Billingsgate and Queenhithe, the two
places which had hitherto served for the landing of goods and the
collection of the king’s Customs, soon proved to be inadequate, and
permission was given for the landing of goods at other spots on the
river. But this naturally gave rise to attempts to evade payment of
Customs dues by smuggling goods ashore at unauthorised places. To
repress this practice, an Act of Parliament was passed in 1559,
enacting, under pain of very heavy penalties, that all goods should be
landed and shipped between sunrise and sunset, and that the landing and
shipment was to take place at such open spots as might be authorised by
Royal Commission. This Commission, which was appointed by the Court of
Exchequer, authorised twenty-two places for the landing of goods. As
some of these old landing-places are still known as Legal Quays, it may
be interesting to some of you to know that these ancient substitutes
for docks were known as:

  Old Wool Quay.
  New Wool Quay.
  Galley Quay.
  Androw Morris’ Quay.
  Ambro Thurston’s Quay.
  Ranff’s Quay.
  Cock’s Quay.
  Dyce Quay.
  Bear Quay.
  Somer’s Quay.
  Busher’s Wharf.
  Botolph Wharf.
  Sab’s Quay.
  Young’s Quay.
  Crown Quay.
  Smart’s Quay.
  Fresh Quay.
  Gaunt’s Quay.
  Billingsgate.
  The Three Cranes.
  Johnston’s Quay.
  The Bridge House.

Billingsgate was appointed only for Fish, Corn, Salt, and Fruit. The
Three Cranes and Johnston’s Quay for Wine and Oil. Busher’s Wharf for
Pitch, Tar, and Flax. The Bridge House for Corn and other provisions.
Wool, Coals, and Beer might be landed at any place in the presence of a
Searcher.

But the rapidly-increasing trade of the port soon outstripped the
landing facilities afforded by these places. This led to the laying
out of other frontages to the river by private enterprise for the
landing of certain articles of merchandise, mostly of a bulky nature,
which the Legal Quays gradually became unable to accommodate. These
places were known as Sufferance Wharves, as distinguished from the
Legal Quays, because for every particular article landed at them it was
necessary to obtain from the Customs a special sufferance or permission
for such landing, which might at any time be withdrawn; whereas at
the Legal Quays any goods might be landed free from any limitation
of privilege. As the commerce of the port increased the Sufferance
Wharves multiplied with marvellous rapidity, and extended so far down
the river as Blackwall. In the year 1590 we find that the total amount
of Customs Receipts for England and Wales on Exports and Imports was
£50,000. In 1613 they realised £148,075. 7_s._ 8_d._, of which London
alone contributed £109,572. 18_s._ 6_d._ Indeed, so late as 1796
three-fifths of the commerce of the country was centered in London;
and, until the commencement of the present century four-fifths of the
Customs Dues were also collected here. The ravages of the Great Fire of
1666 necessitated the rearrangement of the Legal Quays, and an Act was
passed appointing commissioners to define the limits of the port, and
to appoint places for landing and loading goods therein. The wharves
set out by the commissioners were twenty-one in number, as follows:

  Chester’s Quay.
  Brewer’s Quay.
  Galley Quay.
  Wool Dock.
  Custom-house Quay.
  Porteus’ Quay.
  Bear Quay.
  Sab’s Quay.
  Wiggan’s Quay.
  Young’s Quay.
  Ralph’s Quay.
  Dice Quay.
  Smart’s Quay.
  Somer’s Quay.
  Lyon’s Quay.
  Botolph Quay.
  Hammond’s Quay.
  Gaunt’s Quay.
  Cock’s Quay.
  Fresh Wharf.
  Billingsgate.

It will be seen that this list includes several of those selected by
the earlier commission, and comprised a total river frontage of 1,464
feet only, the whole of it lying between the Tower and London Bridge.
As might be expected, this limited accommodation practically left the
importer of goods entirely at the mercy of the proprietors of these
wharves, because there was no legal limit to the charges to be imposed,
similar to the restriction placed upon the Dock Companies when they
started. The result was that, as the business of the port increased
without any proportionate increase in the accommodation for it, so
the wharfingers raised their charges. And they not only did this, but
by acting in concert they contrived to evade their responsibilities
for losses inseparable from the limited and imperfect nature of the
accommodation which they afforded. It was a common complaint amongst
the merchants that, owing to the carelessness of the servants of the
wharves, lighters were sunk when alongside, goods stolen from the
lighters or off the quays; that losses by fire, &c., &c., constantly
occurred; and that as the associated wharves were not a corporate body,
the parties aggrieved never knew where to look for redress. Now, when
it is remembered that these complaints were the subject of a petition
from the merchants of London to the Privy Council so early as 1674,
and that from that period until the opening of the West India Dock
in 1802, not an additional foot of Legal Quay accommodation had been
provided, some impression may be obtained of what our commerce must
have suffered in the interval. It cannot be doubted that, but for the
unrivalled natural facilities of the river for trade, London must
have sunk into a third or fourth-rate port. And that such a state of
things should have been so long tolerated by London, while Bristol, and
Hull, and Liverpool supplied three or four times the extent of Legal
Quay accommodation, is all the more surprising. So unsparing were the
exactions of the earlier wharf proprietary, that it was ascertained
on enquiry that they had trebled their charges in the course of eight
years; and justified this proceeding by alleging it to be the only
means by which they could repair the losses which they had sustained by
the Great Fire.

Now it is commonly supposed that there were no docks in London in
existence at this time. Nor were there on the north side of the river,
where they were most wanted, and where the City interest always
attracted the landing of the most valuable classes of merchandise. But
for many years prior to the date to which I have brought my lecture
a most interesting dock had been in existence at Rotherhithe, known
as the Howland Great Wet Dock. Stowe tells us that when Canute laid
siege to London he commenced to dig a canal on the site of this dock in
order to divert the course of the river to Battersea; and in 1209 the
current was so diverted to admit of the rebuilding of London Bridge,
which in 1176 had been destroyed by fire; and the large opening thus
made from the river is said to have formed the nucleus of the dock
before you. But, be this as it may, the dock actually existed in 1660
as here represented, and may fairly claim to be the first public dock
in Great Britain. As shown in this view, the dock was 1,070 feet from
east to west, 500 feet in width, and had a depth of water of 17 feet.
It will be observed that on the north and south sides it is thickly
planted with trees, the object being to protect the ships in the dock
from the fierce gales which in winter swept over the open country
surrounding it. On the development of the Greenland Fisheries the dock
was specially laid out for the ships engaged in that trade, and was for
many years known as the Greenland Dock. Extensive premises, with the
necessary boilers and tanks, were erected for boiling the blubber and
extracting the oil; and for many years upwards of a thousand tuns of
oil were produced annually. At the commencement of the present century
this profitable business not only rapidly sunk, and finally left the
port of London, but the United Kingdom itself. But simultaneously with
the decline of the Greenland trade the timber and corn trade with the
Baltic ports increased, and the dock became the principal resort of
vessels engaged in them.

[Illustration: HOWLAND GREAT WET DOCK.

IN THE PARISH OF ROTHERHITHE.

FORMERLY BELONGING TO MRS HOWLAND OF STREATHAM]

About the year 1807, the period of the inception of the Commercial
Dock Company, a Mr. Moore, who owned some forty-five acres of land in
the neighbourhood of this dock, projected a Company to be known as the
Baltic Dock Company, and succeeded in obtaining from the Treasury a
promise of an exclusive right to bond timber in the docks he proposed
to construct, provided that they furnished sufficient accommodation
for the business. Strange to say, this concession was granted by the
Treasury and even notified to the Customs for their information,
although the proposed docks were never even commenced. Mr. Moore
subsequently sold his land and transferred the exclusive privileges
he had acquired to the promoters of what was afterwards known as the
Commercial Dock Company.

The City interest always opposed the recognition of this dock as a
Legal Quay, for a reason sufficiently obvious, and it was not until
1851 that the Commercial Dock Company obtained an Act empowering
them to land here nearly every description of goods, if sanctioned
by the Customs. But the development of the timber trade pointed to
the necessity of providing accommodation for it, and the owners of
this dock, which in the year 1808 received the name of the Commercial
Dock, encouraged by the prospects of the restriction acquired from
the Treasury through Mr. Moore, which, as you are aware, was never
practically operative, considerably enlarged and improved it; large
tracts of land adjoining were purchased and converted into timber
ponds, and in 1810 their first Act of Parliament was obtained by the
Commercial Dock Company. Granaries, wharves, &c., were subsequently
built, and between the years 1810 and 1815 four additional ponds, or
docks, were opened. You will thus observe that the Howland Dock was
the nucleus of the existing Surrey Commercial system of Docks—a plan
of which is now before you. In 1811, the year after the Commercial
Dock Company obtained their Act, an Act was obtained for completing
and maintaining what was known as the East Country Dock, the history
of which seems very obscure. Under their Act of 1851 the Commercial
Dock Company purchased this dock. Meanwhile, side by side with the
Commercial Docks, the Grand Surrey Canal and Docks had been steadily
growing. In the year 1800, Dodds, an eminent engineer, had recommended
the Greenland Dock as a suitable entrance to a tidal canal for ships to
Vauxhall and Lambeth, along the line now partly occupied by the Surrey
Canal. This scheme was never carried out, but the expense and danger of
the river navigation indicated the desirability of some similar means
of reaching points above bridge by water; and the result was the Grand
Surrey Canal, commenced in the year 1800. It was intended to make a cut
from Rotherhithe to Battersea, with collateral cuts to Croydon, Merton,
Tooting, Wandsworth, and Camberwell. Although empowered by their Act
of Parliament to build docks, the Surrey Company did not exist as a
Dock Company until 1854. Ten years afterwards this Company united with
the Commercial Company, and thus formed, under the title of the Surrey
Commercial Docks Company, the interesting and extensive network of
water-communication which you see before you. Including the new dock
recently opened, the total extent of these docks—land and water—is
nearly 370 acres.

Now returning to the north side of the river, I would ask you to bear
in mind my reference to the petition of the London merchants in 1674.
But anything like redress from a Privy Council of which King Charles
II. was the president, was by no means easy of attainment. The king
wanted money. As is well known, his favours generally went to the
highest bidder. Moreover, the wharf proprietary consisted for the most
part of the leading City magnates, and to conciliate them—or, rather,
not to do anything to offend them—was obviously a great point with this
most worthless of merry monarchs. So the merchants petitioned in vain.
But in spite of these serious drawbacks the trade of the port steadily
increased. An immense impetus was given to the manufacturing industries
of the country by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. This
measure had the effect of sending from 50,000 to 70,000 of the most
skilled of the French artisans to this country, and some £10,000,000 of
French money. The result was increased activity in the manufactures
of the country, and a great accession in the trade of the port. Thus,
while in the year 1613 the total value of the exports and imports had
been a little over £4,800,000, in the year 1700 they represented a
value of £13,272,891, of which London alone contributed £10,263,325.
It will, of course, be readily understood that in the absence of easy
and cheap means of internal communication, the only method by which
the manufacturing districts could get their goods into the London
markets would be by coasting-vessels. Hence this class of business
constituted the bulk of the shipping frequenting the river. Thus, in
the year 1728, while 1,839 British and 213 foreign vessels entered the
river, the number of coasting-vessels, colliers, &c., was not less
than 6,837. At this time most of the foreign trade was in the hands of
the East India Company, the Russia Company, the Levant Company, the
South Sea Company, the Hudson’s Bay Company, and the African Company.
With the exception of the cargoes carried by the ships of the East
India Company, much of the business conducted by these great companies
could be accommodated at the Sufferance Wharves, and did not present
the inducements to plunder offered by the valuable productions of
the East and West Indies. The conquests of Clive in the East Indies
resulted in an immense augmentation of the shipping of the East India
Company, and the acquisition of many of the West India Islands about
the same time led to a vast increase in the importations of sugar and
rum, which, from their value and the high duties to which they were
subject, offered tempting baits to the organised bands of river thieves
which the crowded state of the port and the unprotected condition of
the shipping and merchandise gradually called into existence. The Legal
Quays could accommodate 32,000 hogsheads of sugar only; whereas, so
early as 1756, the annual importations reached upwards of 60,200, and
over 5,000 puncheons of rum. The Sufferance Wharves could accommodate
60,200, and in the year 1793 the Government were compelled to sanction
the landing and storage of sugar at these places, although laid out
for, and principally used by, the coasting trade. In the year 1796, the
Sufferance Wharves on the south side of the river were known as:

  Chamberlayne’s,
  Cotton’s,
  Haye’s,
  Beale’s,
  Griffin’s,
  Symon’s,
  Stainton’s,
  Davis, Butt & Co.’s,
  Hartley’s,
  Pearson’s,
  Holland’s,
  Cole’s,
  Carrington’s
  Hoggarth’s,
  Scott’s,
  Merriton’s,

representing a river tonnage of 2,890 feet. Those on the north side of
the river were:

  Irongate,
  St. Catherine’s,
  Watson’s,
  Bryant’s,
  Down’s,

representing a frontage of 786 feet; or a total for both sides of the
river of 3,676 feet.

In many instances, the charges at the Sufferance Wharves were even
higher than those at the Legal Quays, to say nothing of the increased
liability to plunder incurred by merchants in sending their goods
there. And not only was this the case, but as Customs officers were
only officially stationed at the Legal Quays, whenever they did duty
at the Sufferance Wharves they were paid extra fees at the consignee’s
expense; and when permission was given to land the whole of a cargo at
these places, the consignee of each parcel of goods had to pay extra
fees for his particular parcel, and those _pro rata_, in order that
a separate sufferance might be taken out for them. If, therefore,
after waiting four or six weeks to get his goods landed at one of the
Legal Quays, a merchant, in despair, sent them to a Sufferance Wharf,
it was like jumping out of the frying-pan into the fire. Again and
again the necessity of extending the Legal Quays was brought under
the notice of Parliament, and in 1762 Lord Bute, then Prime-Minister,
warmly supported a scheme for thus laying out a large tract of ground,
including the Tower Ditch; but with all his influence, the parties
interested in the maintenance of the then existing order of things
were too strong for him, and the scheme had to be abandoned. Three
years later another commission was appointed; but, after a bitter
controversy, their proposition was rejected on the frivolous ground
that the land which they proposed to acquire and lay out as Legal Quays
was not an ‘open space’ as defined in the Act of Queen Elizabeth. From
this time until 1793 various plans were suggested, but all of them were
frustrated by the powerful combination of the wharfingers.

Thus the condition of things on the river went on growing from bad to
worse, until we reach the years 1793-94, when the crowded condition
of the river was declared to be altogether intolerable. Meanwhile, in
spite of these drawbacks, the increase in the commerce of the port
during the twenty-four years ending with the latter year had been
as great as in the first seventy years of the century. In the year
1702, the shipping entered inwards, foreign and British, exclusive of
coasting vessels, was 1,335 ships, with a tonnage of 157,035 tons; in
1751 it was 1,682 ships, with a tonnage of 234,639 tons; in 1794 it
was 3,663 ships, with a tonnage of 620,845 tons. From a little over
£10,000,000 in the year 1700, the value of the exports and imports
had rushed up to £31,442,040. With Legal Quay accommodation for
only 32,000 hogsheads of sugar, the annual importations had reached
upwards of 140,000 hogsheads. During war time, the West India fleets
only could more than trebly fill the warehouses. One fleet from the
Leeward Islands brought 35,000 hogsheads; another from Jamaica brought
40,000: on the arrival of the latter fleet only 7,000 hogsheads could
be warehoused at the Legal Quays; the rest had to remain in barges in
the river at the mercy of the river thieves, or be left on board the
importing vessels until it could be landed elsewhere. I may add that
in five months in the year 1794 not less than 122,000 hogsheads of
sugar arrived in the port. Indeed, at this period the Legal Quays could
not accommodate one-fourth of the trade.

I need hardly remind you that in the absence of quays at which vessels
could lay alongside and discharge, their freights had to be unshipped
in the river and crafted ashore, and some arrangement existed as to
those portions of the stream in which vessels from different parts
took up their position for this purpose. Mooring chains extended from
the Upper Pool to Limehouse, on both sides of the river. Each of
these mooring chains was intended to afford anchorage for fourteen or
sixteen vessels; but, sometimes, as many as thirty were moored to each.
The moorings from London Bridge to the Tower were for the most part
occupied by coasters; those at Blackwall were for East Indiamen; and
West Indiamen and king’s ships moored off Deptford. Altogether there
was mooring accommodation for 800 vessels, large and small. Now, as I
have already shown, in the year 1794, 3,663 ships, British and foreign,
with a tonnage of 620,845 tons; and 10,286 coasters, with a tonnage
of upwards of 1,000,000 tons, competed for this limited anchorage.
Of course, hundreds of vessels grounded with the tide, and in rough
weather sometimes sustained more injury than accrued from two or three
bad voyages. These figures will help to convey some impression of the
crowded state of the river, although I am unable to say what number
of vessels were, as a rule, in the river at one time. This condition
of things was greatly aggravated by the exigencies of war, which, by
throwing ships into large convoys, resulted in the river at times being
completely blocked. To increase the confusion it would sometimes happen
that as many as 300 colliers would come up the river at one time, and
although a regulation existed that a fair way of 300 feet should always
be preserved for vessels passing up and down the stream, the crowd of
shipping has been so great that one might walk from the Middlesex to
the Surrey shore over the decks of vessels. Here I may remark that, in
the winter of 1794 coals reached the enormous price of six guineas the
chaldron; for although there were hundreds of colliers in the river,
the glut of shipping was so excessive that they could not be unloaded.
Accidents and loss of life were matters of everyday occurrence: over
500 persons lost their life from drowning annually, three-fifths of
these cases occurring in the Pool. But by far the most serious of the
many evils arising out of this condition of things was the immorality
which it generated amongst all classes of labour employed on the
river. East Indiamen seldom came higher up the river than Blackwall,
where they discharged their cargoes into decked lighters, or hoys, of
from 50 to 100 tons; hence the pillage was, comparatively speaking,
trifling. By far the greater bulk of the most costly and valuable
merchandise, such as rum, sugar, wine, &c., was discharged into open
lighters, punts, billyboys, lugger-boats; and, to say nothing of the
plunder effected during discharge, and in the passage up the river to
the wharf, these craft unprotected had to lie up, sometimes as long
as six or eight weeks, before they could be unloaded, not a night
passing without sustaining loss of some kind. Lightermen, labourers,
watermen, the crews of ships—in some instances recorded, the officers
included, and even the Revenue officers—combined in this nefarious
system. The sides of the river swarmed with receiving-houses, many of
them kept by persons of considerable opulence; and when it is borne in
mind that the value of property floating on the river was estimated
at £70,000,000 per annum, it will be seen what a rich harvest these
rascals had to reap. The men engaged in the discharge of ships were
under little or no control, and their depredations had come to be of
so systematic a character that they were regarded as one of the taxes
of the port. The several classes of thieves were even known by special
designations to indicate the field of their operations. The body known
as the ‘River Pirates’ were the most formidable of these marauders.
Most of them were in open league with the marine store dealers.
Reconnoitring by day, they made their attacks upon ships by night in
armed boats, cutting adrift lighters and taking out their contents. The
‘Night Plunderers’—watermen of the lowest class—attacked unprotected
lighters and made over the booty to the receivers. The ‘Light Horsemen’
comprised the mates of ships and Revenue officers. Then there were the
‘Heavy Horsemen,’ consisting of the porters and labourers employed on
board ships, who wore dresses specially made with big inside pockets
to secrete anything of value that was not too heavy to carry off; to
say nothing of the ‘Mud Larks’, who picked out of the mud on the shore
property thrown overboard by persons in concert with them at work in
the ship. Some of these young thieves are said to have received as
much as £5 a night for their booty. The losses sustained in wines and
spirits were something enormous. Instances are recorded of lighters
with double bottoms being employed; and by dexterously loosening two
or three hoops of casks and turning them bung downward, hundreds of
gallons of rum, wine, or oil—as the case might be—were deposited in the
false bottom during transit from the ship to the wharf. The greatest
sufferers were the West India merchants. Mr. Hibbert, one of the most
eminent of our West India merchants, speaking in 1822 of this condition
of things, gives a graphic description of the grievances of the trade.
Both rum and sugar samples were drawn on board ship. The aggregate
weight of the sugar samples drawn from each cask averaged 12 lbs. In
breaking out hogsheads of sugar the casks were often knocked to pieces,
in order that their contents might be picked up as scrapings, and
claimed as perquisites. Sometimes whole packages were appropriated.
Of a cargo of 120 puncheons of rum brought by one vessel 7 puncheons
were thus _missing_. Mr. Lindsay, in his admirable work, ‘A History of
Merchant Shipping,’ gives some interesting details of the method in
which these transactions were conducted. He says:

‘Most of these infamous proceedings were carried on according to a
regular system, and in gangs, frequently composed of one or more
receivers, together with coopers, watermen, and lumpers, who were all
necessary in their different occupations to the accomplishment of the
general design of wholesale plunder. They went on board the merchant
vessel completely prepared with iron crows, adzes, and other implements
to open and again head up the casks; with shovels to take out the
sugar, and a number of bags made to contain 100 lbs. each. These bags
went by the name of “black strap,” having been previously dyed black to
prevent their being conspicuous in the night, when stowed in the bottom
of a river boat or wherry. In the course of judicial proceedings, it
has been shown that in the progress of the delivery of a large ship’s
cargo about ten to fifteen tons of sugar were on an average removed in
these nocturnal expeditions, exclusive of what had been obtained by
the lumpers during the day, which was frequently excessive and almost
uncontrolled whenever night plunder had occurred. This indulgence was
generally insisted on and granted to lumpers to prevent their making
discoveries of what they called the “drum hogsheads” found in the hold
on going to work in the morning, by which were understood hogsheads
out of which from one-sixth to one-fourth of the contents had been
stolen the night preceding. In this manner one gang of plunderers was
compelled to purchase the connivance of another, to the ruinous loss of
the merchant.’

Thousands of persons were employed simply to _watch_ goods until
landed. Of 37,000 persons employed on the river, 11,000 were either
professional thieves or receivers of stolen property. Over 1,600
Customs officers were employed on the river in the interest of the
Revenue. To an East Indiaman of 400 or 500 tons thirty officers were
attached, and to a West Indiaman from seven to ten. While on board
these officers were generally fed at the expense of the ship. The value
of property annually stolen on the river was upwards of £500,000,
and involved a further loss to the Revenue of £300,000. The Marine
Police—as the Thames Police were formerly called—in the first year of
their existence recovered stolen property worth upwards of £100,000.
So bitter was the feeling amongst the river thieves against the
magistrates and members of this useful body when established in 1797,
that they made a most daring attack upon the office, with a view to
intimidation. In defending themselves the magistrates were compelled
to use fire-arms. Several persons were killed, and a number injured in
the fray. As a further illustration of the delays incurred under this
condition of things, I may add that goods were often seized by the
Customs though duly entered, and in some cases, even the duties paid.
Wines were required to be landed within twenty-one days; rum and coffee
were allowed thirty days; whereas sometimes vessels remained in the
river two months before they entirely got rid of their cargoes. On one
occasion 5,000 puncheons of rum in this way became subject to seizure,
and would have been seized had not the Customs granted a special
indulgence.

Before proceeding to call your attention to the various schemes which
at this time (1794-96) were submitted to the Government for the
improvement of the port, I wish to bring under notice the existence of
a small private dock at Blackwall. This dock, commenced on March 2,
1789, and known as the Brunswick Dock in honour of the reigning royal
family, was constructed by Mr. Perry, of Messrs. Perry, Wells, & Co.,
who owned the adjoining ship-building premises, and opened on November
20, 1790. Here I may observe that, from a very early period, Blackwall
has been a noted place for ship-building yards. Pepys speaks of a visit
which he paid to them in 1661, and again in 1665, when, much to his
discomfort, he complains that he was compelled to pass a night in what
he calls the ‘unlucky Isle of Doggs.’ I may also mention in passing
that Mr. Perry built a small dock in 1783, just large enough to receive
one whaling vessel. This little dock, of which I have not been able to
obtain a view, was subsequently converted into one of the slips now
occupied by Messrs. Wigram’s dry docks. The Brunswick Dock was built
for the accommodation of the vessels of the East India Company, and
was capable of receiving twenty-eight large Indiamen and a number of
smaller vessels. This dock formed the nucleus of the existing East
India Export Dock, and many of you remember the old Mast House, which,
you will observe from its appearance here, was coeval with the origin
of the existing dock. But the relief afforded by this dock was merely a
drop in the bucket, and from the years 1793 to 1799, when the Bill for
the construction of the West India Dock was passed, we find a number
of schemes for increasing the accommodation of the port engaging the
attention of the mercantile community and Parliament. These, I now
proceed, as briefly as possible, to notice in the order in which they
were reported upon by the Committee of the House of Commons appointed
to take evidence and consider and report on them.

The first of these schemes, to which I would invite your attention,
is what was known as Mr. Ogle’s scheme. Mr. Ogle was a wealthy ship
broker and ship’s-husband. He was also Chairman of the Committee of
Proprietors, Lessees, and Wharfingers of the Legal Quays, and, without
doubt, one of the most intelligent and able men of his party. It is a
fact, which should always be borne in mind, that the scheme submitted
by this gentleman—who was, of course, deeply interested in getting it
adopted—was the only plan before the public based on the theory that
the river could be so deepened, and otherwise improved, as to answer
the purposes of the commerce of the port. _All the other plans were
founded on the one general principle of the necessity of docks or
recesses being made out of, and clear from, the channel of the river._
I lay particular stress upon this fact, because it is the practice in
some quarters to regard the origin of the docks of London as exhibiting
something like an act of grace on the part of the wharf proprietors,
and only tolerated by them on conditions from which the Dock Companies
in a spirit of doubtful faith would now gladly be absolved. But I
think I have already said enough to prove that no view of the question
could be less in harmony with the facts. The docks of London were
started, in the first instance, not so much as a profitable speculation
to investors, as a response to an urgent national demand which the
vested interests in the old order of things were no longer able to
resist; not so much in a spirit of competition with the wharves, as
the only means of saving the commerce of the port from utter ruin; not
so much as wealthy grasping corporations, who, finding they have made
a bad bargain, now wish to draw out of it, as the pioneers of the
marvellous prosperity of the port, if not its founders, its liberators.
Certainly, without its docks, the London of to-day would have been an
impossibility; but of this I shall speak more fully presently.

Mr. Ogle, whose plan is before you (_see_ Appendix A), proposed to
deepen the river, extend and improve the Legal Quays, and to increase
the number of mooring chains. He further proposed that the moorings
should be appropriated in proportion to the claims of the several
classes of commerce, and that harbour masters should be appointed to
see that vessels took up their proper position as they came up the
river. The different colours on the plan represent the moorings. It
was, however, the opinion of nine-tenths of the practical men of the
port that under no scheme would it be possible so to improve the river
and extend the Legal Quays as to obviate the necessity for wet docks.

The next scheme to which I would ask your attention was known as
the Merchants’ Plan of Docks at Wapping (_see_ Appendix B). The
desirability of having goods landed as near the City as possible is,
of course, obvious. As a natural consequence, all the schemes for
docks at Wapping were warmly supported by the City. The dock here
represented was to be 39 acres in extent, with a smaller one of 2
acres for the accommodation of lighters. One of the entrances was to
be by a canal 22 feet deep, 170 feet wide, and 2¾ miles in length, and
navigable for ships of 300 tons: and, as you will see, communicating
with the river immediately above Perry’s Dock, at Blackwall. The
object of this canal was, of course, to avoid the circuitous and
dangerous navigation round the Isle of Dogs, which was always a great
difficulty with the early dock engineers. To get from the Pool to
Blackwall when ‘kedging’ was the only means of getting a vessel along,
sometimes occupied fourteen days, and it was felt that no scheme would
be satisfactory which did not in some way enable vessels to avoid
this obstinate bend in the river. The line taken by this canal was,
as nearly as possible, that now occupied by the Commercial Road. This
scheme was estimated to cost £1,000,000. While this plan is before you,
I wish to call your attention to a small canal known as the ‘Bromley
Cut,’ connecting the River Lea with the Thames at Limehouse. It is not
generally known that this Cut was commenced so early as the reign of
Elizabeth, in the year 1571. Before this Cut was made, the connection
of the traffic on the Lea with the City was most difficult, inasmuch
as barges had to leave the mouth of that river at Blackwall, and wind
their way round the Isle of Dogs—a most hazardous undertaking. All
this was obviated by the now despised and unsavoury Cut. This system
of docks, although not accepted, was the basis of the existing London
Docks.

The third plan was known as the ‘Corporation Scheme’ (_see_ Appendix
C). This scheme, with the munificence which distinguishes every
undertaking of the Corporation of London, was at once the most
extensive and expensive of the many schemes which engaged public
attention. The Corporation proposed to excavate one dock in the Isle of
Dogs of 102 acres, and another at Rotherhithe of the same extent, with
a canal to Vauxhall. They further proposed to extend the frontage of
the Legal Quays by the acquisition of Billingsgate, and to provide for
the construction of slips for the accommodation of lighters. They also
intended largely to increase the warehouse space, by arching over the
quays and constructing warehouses on them.

This plan (_see_ Appendix D) represents what was known as Mr. Wyatt’s
Scheme. Mr. Wyatt was an eminent architect and civil engineer. His
plan of docks in the Isle of Dogs was, as you will observe, very
extensive—so extensive that, although the price of land in the island
was then only £5 per acre—indeed the whole of the island might have
been purchased for £10,000—and labour was cheap, the estimated outlay
was nearly £900,000. The water space afforded by the docks and basins
proposed by Mr. Wyatt would have been upwards of 200 acres; and in view
of the vast increase in the commerce of the port, and the present great
cost of dock extensions, one cannot but regret that some modification
of this scheme was not adopted.

This plan of docks at Rotherhithe (_see_ Appendix E), designed by Mr.
Cracklow, a surveyor, and which bears some slight resemblance to the
network of docks constituting the Surrey Commercial system, was known
as the ‘Southwark Plan,’ and included a canal opening to the Thames at
Bankside, above London Bridge. These docks, principally intended for
colliers, timber ships, and vessels for sale, were the most inexpensive
of the many schemes proposed, the estimated outlay being only £300,000.

These docks at Wapping (_see_ Appendix F) were proposed by Mr. Walker,
a wealthy shipmaster and Jamaica planter. The docks here shown included
a water space of 55 acres, leaving 35 acres for quays and warehouses.
You will observe that Mr. Walker also proposed a canal similar to
that suggested by the Merchants’ Plan, but taking lower ground near
the river. Besides the access to this dock afforded by the canal, Mr.
Walker proposed two others: one at a little bay known as ‘Hermitage
Dock,’ and the second at a place called ‘Pellican Stairs.’ His scheme
also included a dock in the Isle of Dogs for timber-ships, reaching
across the island by what was known as ‘Poplar Gut,’ a large piece of
swamp or boggy ground at the Limehouse side of the island, and now
absorbed by the West India Docks. The total cost of this great scheme
was estimated at £880,000. This plan of docks was very warmly supported
by the Brethren of the Trinity House, who alleged that it furnished
every requisite for the accommodation of the trade of the port and the
proper navigation of the river; and I am sure that those of my hearers
who would like to see a dock of 55 acres at Wapping, will agree with me
in expressing regret that this scheme was not carried out.

This plan (_see_ Appendix G) represents a scheme for docks proposed
by Mr. Spence, a maritime surveyor to the Admiralty. He proposed to
divide the shipping of the port into twelve different classes, each
class to have a separate dock for its accommodation. He proposed that
six of these docks should be 600 feet square, the other six being 400
feet, connected with each other on the plan of the docks at Liverpool.
As you will see by this plan, Mr. Spence suggested two alternative
sites for these docks. There cannot be a doubt that, had the principle
here indicated of localising the warehousing of the various classes of
merchandise been more fully carried out, the working of goods would
have been more efficient, more economical, and more satisfactory
in every way to both merchant and Dock Company. In the monopolies
granted to the earlier Dock Companies, the Government seem to have
made an attempt in this direction; but it is to be feared that the
spirit of competition and the morbid jealousy of anything tending to
a monopoly will always be a barrier to any extended application of
this principle, however much it might be the interest of the public to
promote it. The docks proposed by Mr. Spence were estimated to cost
£500,000.

The last, but by no means the least interesting, of these rejected
dock schemes to which I shall invite your attention, consists of
four alternative plans proposed by Mr. Willey Reveley, an engineer
and architect. You will observe by the plan before you (1), that Mr.
Reveley proposed (_see_ Appendix H), by a bold stroke, at once to
demolish the Isle of Dogs, as an impediment to the navigation of the
river, by cutting a channel straight through it from Limehouse to
Blackwall; leaving the long reach round the island as a magnificent
dock of 434 acres, with flood-gates at each entrance to the new course
of the river.

Under the second scheme proposed by him (_see_ Appendix I), Mr.
Reveley, as you will observe by this plan, suggested the cutting of
a new channel for the river, inclining towards Woolwich Reach below
Blackwall, so as to convert the upper bend of the river by Perry’s Dock
into a second dock, thus securing for the two docks a water space of
524 acres.

Under his third plan (_see_ Appendix J), Mr. Reveley proposed
to conduct the new channel of the river straight from Wapping,
intersecting the river so as to convert the three bends between
Wapping and Woolwich into three docks, to be known respectively as the
‘Ratcliff,’ the ‘Blackwall,’ and the ‘Greenwich’ Docks, giving a total
of 644 acres.

To meet the objection of the Trinity House that any of these schemes
would be impracticable without essential injury to the river and its
navigation, Mr. Reveley proposed a fourth plan (_see_ Appendix K),
under which, as you will see, the new channel of the river is made to
take its course from near Wapping to the old channel of the Thames
between Greenland Dock and Deptford, thence inclining gently to the
northward till it falls into Woolwich Reach; thus leaving two spacious
docks to the northward by shutting out the Ratcliff and Blackwall bends
of the river. The docks thus formed would have yielded a water space of
559 acres.

Each of these rejected schemes, of course, represented particular, and,
in some instances, conflicting, interests. The West India merchants
who suffered most severely from the depredations on the river, were
very anxious to have a dock in the Isle of Dogs, and in two days,
December 22 and 23, 1795, raised subscriptions of £800,000 for the
purpose. Opposed to the West India merchants was the Corporation of
London, with its large collateral vested interests. They professed
to be jealous of any measure which would have the effect of removing
the shipping from the City; hence their gigantic scheme, to which I
have called attention, and which, as you will remember, so far met the
views of the West India merchants as to include a large dock in the
Isle of Dogs. The fact is, the Corporation wished to get the control
of the docks of London into their own hands; and although Parliament
was not inclined in this way to swell the sufficiently plethoric bulk
of the Corporation, that body, with its allied interests, was strong
enough in Parliament to defeat any body of merchants going to it for
powers opposed to their interests; and, as you are aware, all the Dock
Companies when first started were largely represented by nominees of
the Corporation.

So the struggle went on for three years longer. Meanwhile a terrible
outcry was raised in the City against the proposed establishment of
docks of any kind either at Wapping or in the Isle of Dogs. It was
urged that the conservation, rule, and government of the Thames was
vested by prescription, confirmed by charters and Acts of Parliament,
in the Lord Mayor for the time being; and that to embank or inclose the
bed of the river, or make any cuts into it without previous license
under the City Seal, was against the law. The ‘Tackle-house’ porters,
the ‘City’ porters, the ‘City’ carters, watermen, and others, raised
a jeremiad of their impending ruin if docks were allowed. One of the
objections was that Christ’s Hospital would lose £400 a year, granted
from the sale of licenses. The proprietors of the Legal Quays protested
that the withdrawal of the West India trade alone would lower their
property to one-third of its value. It was even said that so many men
would be thrown out of employment that a vast increase would take
place in the poor rates. One cannot help feeling puzzled to understand
how objections of this kind could ever have been seriously advanced.
At length, after apparently endless delays, Parliament succeeded in
adjusting the conflicting claims of the various parties by payments out
of the Consolidated Fund, amounting in the aggregate to £1,600,000; and
on July 12, 1799, passed the first Dock Act. Under this Act, which is
known as an ‘Act for rendering more commodious and better regulating
the Port of London,’ the Corporation of London were authorised to
construct a canal in the Isle of Dogs, with power for fourteen years
to levy tolls of from 1_d._ to 3½_d._ per ton on all vessels using the
port, fishing and passenger craft excepted. The incorporation of the
West India Dock Company immediately followed. The West India Import
Dock commenced on February 3, 1800, was completed at a cost of £17,000
per acre, and opened on August 27, 1802, by William Pitt, the Prime
Minister. This view represents the appearance of the dock before the
water was let in; and, I may add, in passing, that in excavating this
dock, as also during the progress of the works at the South Dock, to
which I will call your attention presently, some most interesting
fossil remains and other curiosities were discovered.

This view represents the first ship entering the dock—the ‘Henry
Addington,’ a West Indiaman of the old school, and one of the wooden
walls, in privateering days, of England’s reputation. It is to be hoped
that the iron walls which have succeeded them in the Navy will give as
good an account of themselves in ‘the battle and the breeze’ as these
old wooden walls; and so dispel the misgivings to which some of their
recent achievements have given rise.

This view represents both the West India Import and Export Docks, with
the canal, as they appeared when completed in 1805. I should here state
that in 1829 the Corporation of London sold the canal to the West India
Dock Company for £120,000; and, until converted into the existing
South Dock, it was used by the Company as a timber pond, and for the
accommodation of an important grain trade. The Government was so
impressed with the necessity of removing the shipping from the river,
that for a period of twenty-one years they made it compulsory upon all
vessels from the West Indies to discharge in these docks. Not only
so; but the Commissioners of Customs were empowered to order vessels
from other parts to discharge here. And all vessels outward bound for
the West Indies were compelled either to take in their cargoes in
these docks or else in the river below Blackwall—an arrangement more
costly than the payment of dock dues. As a further illustration of the
interest which the Government took in these docks, I may add, that
the wall surrounding them was built at a cost of £30,000, advanced by
the Government; and that for a considerable time the premises were
under the protection of troops sent down for the purpose, and that
circumstance accounts for the existence of the guard-houses to be seen
facing the inner entrance to the West India Docks.

You will have observed that the West India Docks were established,
almost exclusively, in the interest of the West India trade. Their
location in the Isle of Dogs had, of course, been in opposition to
the views of a powerful party in the City. The result of this feeling
was the establishment of the London Docks, which followed so closely
upon the West India Docks that scarcely twelve months elapsed between
the passing of the two Acts; the London Dock Act passing on June 20,
1800. Commenced on June 26, 1802, the first stone being laid by Lord
Hawkesbury, Chancellor of the Exchequer, the ‘Western’ Dock of 20
acres, the first completed, was opened on the last day of January 1805,
at a cost £140,654 an acre: and this view represents the dock as it
then appeared. This is a remarkably fine view, as you will observe,
the sinuous course of the river and the Isle of Dogs in the distance,
coming out very distinctly.

This view represents the dock, when opened, as seen from the river.
All vessels entering the port with wine, brandy, tobacco, and rice were
compelled to unload here for a period of twenty-one years from the date
of completion, under a penalty of forfeiture of the ship to the Crown,
and a fine of £100 from the owner or master. The Hermitage Basin and
entrance were opened in 1820, the Eastern Dock and the Tobacco Dock
in 1828, and the original Shadwell entrance and basin in 1832. The
fine jetty in the Western Dock was built in 1838, and the new Shadwell
entrance and basin were constructed at a vast outlay and opened on
October 13, 1858.

The establishment of the West India and the London Docks still left the
East India and China shipping to be provided for; the accommodation
afforded by Mr. Perry’s Dock at Blackwall being scarcely sufficient for
the shipping of the East India Company alone. To meet this deficiency
the East India Dock Company was formed. The Act passed in the year
1803, the docks were commenced in August of the same year, and opened
on August 4, 1806. This view, which represents the docks as they
appeared when completed, gives a very interesting picture of the river
at this point, as also of the virgin character of the surrounding
country. Like its predecessors, the East India Dock Company started
with a twenty-one years’ monopoly. All vessels with cargoes from
the East Indies and China were obliged to discharge in these docks.
Outward-bound ships to these parts of the world were also compelled to
load here or else in the river below Limehouse. But, for the protection
of the London Dock monopoly, it was enacted that no vessel not
immediately from, or immediately bound to, the East Indies or China,
should, under a penalty of £50, enter these docks without the consent
of the Treasury in writing.

Most people are not aware that the East of London is indebted to the
East and West India Docks for two of its finest roads. Before the
establishment of these docks neither the Commercial, nor the East
India, Road had any existence. The distance of these docks from the
City rendered good roads an absolute necessity, especially in those
days. Here I may observe that when the Duke of Bridgewater began his
canal—forty years previously—the cost of the land carriage of goods
was 40_s._ a ton. The carriage of goods on the river was not less than
12_s._ a ton. From Wapping, eastward, fields, nursery-grounds, rope
walks, gardens, &c., &c., stretched right away to Barking. Through
these the Commercial Road was cut at a cost of £100,000; and when the
East India Docks were started, a further sum of £20,000 was raised to
continue the road to that distance, the extension taking its name from
the docks. The government of both these roads was vested in fifteen
trustees, including the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the two Dock
Companies. As you are probably aware, both these roads are now entirely
free.

This is a view of the Limehouse Dock as it appeared shortly after it
was opened, and before the Blackwall Railway was constructed. This dock
was built in connection with the Regent’s Canal for the accommodation
of lighters, and the Act for its construction was passed so early as
the year 1812. Although never, like the other docks, recognised as
Legal Quays, this dock has rendered admirable service to the river by
relieving it of a large portion of the coasting trade. Everybody who
has travelled by the Blackwall Railway must have observed the crowded
condition of this dock. Since first opened it has been enlarged three
times, and now possesses a water area of 10 acres. In 1869 a ship
entrance, 350 feet long and 60 feet wide, was opened, with cills laid
28 feet below Trinity high-water mark.

This view represents the dock from the river. Most of you are aware
that an extensive scheme is now on foot for enlarging this dock, and
making it a great Railway Depôt. If the scheme proposed should be
carried out, the dock will be enlarged to three times its present size,
and the whole character of the neighbourhood will be changed by the
alterations necessary.

Time will not permit me to refer to the questions which agitated
commercial communities in London on the expiration of the monopolies
which had been granted to the early Dock Companies. Suffice it to say
that so early as the year 1823 the St. Katharine Dock Company was
established chiefly, as I am informed, at the instigation of one of the
large trading companies, which had taken offence at the London Dock
Company. But this dock was no doubt mainly started as a competitor for
the trade that would be liberated on the expiration of the monopolies
granted to the other companies. The Government had refused to renew
that of the West India Dock Company, which had expired in 1822, and
those of the London and East India Dock Companies would expire in 1826
and 1827 respectively. It was thus clear that a considerable portion of
the business of the port which had hitherto been forced into particular
docks would soon be free to go where it pleased. These considerations
were the primary motives with the originators of the St. Katharine
Docks, who, moreover, comprised some of the leading merchants anxious
for a reduction of rates. But owing to the opposition of the London
Dock Company, into which I cannot now enter, the St. Katharine Company,
though started in 1823, could not commence their dock until May 3,
1827. But through extraordinary exertions it was completed and opened
on October 25 of the following year, at the enormous cost of £195,640
per acre. The picture before you gives a bird’s-eye view of the dock,
which comprises a water space of 11 acres. This was the first free
dock in London, and its promoters based their appeal to the public for
support on the allegation that the charges of the other Dock Companies
were exorbitant, and injurious to the interests of the port. Here I
may observe that two other Bills for the construction of docks passed
in the same year as that for the construction of this dock; one on the
south side of the river, and another for colliers in the Isle of Dogs.
But both projects were abandoned. In 1825 a ship canal from London to
Portsmouth was projected, navigable by vessels of the largest size,
and the prospectus, which may be seen at the British Museum, is very
interesting.

From the opening of the St. Katharine Dock in 1828, until the passing
of the Victoria Dock Act in 1850 (July 15), there was a lull in dock
enterprise. But the vast and rapid increase in the commerce of the port
appeared then to suggest the desirability of further dock extension;
and the Victoria Dock, the largest artificial dock in England—having a
water space of 90 acres—was the result. Most of you are probably aware
that this magnificent dock is now the property of the London and St.
Katharine’s Company, and as its history previous to the purchase of it
by that Company is of such recent date, it is quite unnecessary for
me to refer to it. In a short time this grand dock will be extended
by a ship canal to Gallion’s Reach; and this view represents the dock
and canal as they will appear when finished, an undertaking which will
afford a most valuable addition to the accommodation of the port. This
is the cheapest dock in London, the original cost exceeding a little
over £5,000 per acre only. But it should be borne in mind that the
ground excavated being marsh land, presented a natural nucleus for a
dock; and to this fact must be attributed the inexpensive character of
this undertaking.

The collier and coasting trade generally has always been a great
impediment to the navigation of the river; and I am informed on the
best authority that the object of the promoters of the Millwall Dock
was to attract this class of business. The colliers had, however,
fought shy of the Victoria Dock, which was mainly started for their
accommodation, and they proved even more chary of the Millwall Dock.
This dock, which was opened in 1864, has, however, been successful in
attracting to it a large share of the general business of the port, and
has proved no mean competitor to the other docks. The shares which not
so very long ago might have been bought for something over £20 the £100
share, now command more than four times that amount. The cost of this
dock was about £7,000 per acre.

The next addition to the dock accommodation of the port was the
conversion of the City Canal into the existing South-West India Dock,
and this view represents the opening of the dock by the entrance of
the ‘Lufra.’ This dock was commenced in the year 1866, and opened on
March 5, 1870. Having regard to the fact that when this dock was opened
it was little more than a great pond, the warehouses and mechanical
appliances being of most limited extent, it is almost impossible to
realise the change which it has undergone in the interval. But for
the evident newness of the buildings, and the modern character of the
mechanical appliances, a stranger would scarcely be prepared to believe
that in the vast range of sheds and warehouse accommodation extending
all round the dock, he beheld the work of less than five years.

This is another view of the South Dock, seen from the western end, and
its crowded condition helps still further to carry on the contrast
between the recent and present appearance of this noble dock. The fact
is the Company were scarcely prepared for the rush of shipping which
immediately followed the opening of this dock. The result has been, and
is still, to some extent, a neck-or-nothing race between the urgent
demands of the public for more accommodation, and the efforts of the
Company to supply it. When it is remembered that many vessels frequent
this dock upwards of 350 feet in length, discharging 2,000 or 3,000
tons of cargo to the orders for delivery overside to thirty or forty
different consignees, in less time than it would formerly have taken
to discharge a hundred-ton billyboy, some idea may be obtained of the
efforts which have been put forth by the Company, in so short a time,
to secure the high efficiency necessary to perform work under these
conditions. Fancy what our forefathers would have said to a prediction,
that the time would come when it would be possible to discharge 1,200
tons of miscellaneous cargo in eight and a half hours, and that samples
and accounts would be in the hands of the merchants in the course of
the following morning! Impossible as this would have appeared fifty
years ago, it is now of frequent occurrence. And, if there are any
practical dock officers here they will bear me out in the assertion
that, owing to the bitter competition and the insane demand for
despatch, dock officials are about as hard-worked, worried, and harried
a class of public servants as are to be found anywhere!

This is a view of the West India Import Dock seen from the eastern end,
and gives a very excellent picture of the North Quay Warehouses. In
these warehouses and on the quays there has been at one time property
of the value of £20,000,000 sterling. This dock is 30 acres in extent,
and, next to the Victoria, is the largest dock in London.

This is another view of the same dock, seen from the western end,
showing the South Quay, which comprises the Rum and Wood Departments.
Upwards of 45,000 casks of rum have been warehoused here at one time.

This is a view of the East India Import Dock. Many of you are probably
aware that the Company are enlarging the basin of the dock, and
constructing another entrance; there being at the present time but
one, always a source of risk; as, should it happen, as at Hartlepool
in May last, that a ship got wedged in the lock, thereby stopping the
exit or entrance of vessels, the inconvenience to business would be
indescribable.

This is a view of that part of the London Dock known as the Crescent.
This is an exceedingly interesting dock. The Wine Vaults alone may be
described almost as one of the wonders of the modern world. One of them
is nearly twelve acres in extent, and if you wish to fancy yourself in
the Catacombs, without the trouble of a visit to Rome, you cannot do
better than see the Wine Vaults at this or the St. Katharine’s Dock.
Altogether there is storage accommodation for 80,000 pipes of wine and
brandy. In fact as the West India Dock is the great depôt for rum and
sugar, so this dock is the great depôt for wine and brandy. The Queen’s
Pipe is also a most interesting feature of this establishment. Here
all condemned goods are destroyed by fire, which at times receives
some odd contributions. On one occasion 45,000 pairs of gloves were
consigned to the flames, and on another, 900 Austrian mutton hams.
Indeed comparatively few people who cursorily scan the frowning walls
of the great dock establishments are aware of the varied information
and instruction to be gathered within them.

I have thus finished my notice of the entire dock system of the Port
of London, for a complete view of which _see_ Appendix L: and a glance
at this plan, which has been specially drawn in connection with this
lecture, will convey some impression of its magnitude. It will be found
very interesting to compare London as it _is_ with what it _might have
been_ had some of the schemes to which I have called your attention,
been carried out. The aggregate water-space of the docks of London,
when the extensions in progress shall have been completed, will not
be less than 560 acres. It should be borne in mind that the whole of
these costly undertakings are the birth of the present century. Within
the like period we have seen the commerce of the port multiplied
nearly seven-fold; and it is no exaggeration to say, that to this
marvellous result, the docks, in conjunction with the development of
the warehousing system, which they have so much assisted, and to which
I should like to have referred, have contributed more than any other
agency. I fear that the public generally are rather inclined to lose
sight of this fact, which becomes obvious enough after a few moments’
consideration. If the tremendous evils to which I have called attention
as existing less than a hundred years ago, when the business of the
port was not one-seventh of its present magnitude, were the result
of overcrowding, it stands to reason that, in the absence of dock
accommodation, the increased business must have gone to the out-ports,
and, failing the necessary accommodation there, have located itself on
the Continent. This, it is unnecessary to say, would have been nothing
short of a national calamity. Look at Liverpool, a little fishing
village at a time when London absorbed four-fifths of the business of
England and Wales. But the dangers incident to the navigation of the
Mersey early called attention to the necessity of artificial water
accommodation for its shipping. This the people of Liverpool were
wise enough to recognise; and who can doubt that Liverpool, which,
considering its importance three hundred years ago, has grown even more
rapidly than London, owes its marvellous prosperity to its magnificent
dock system. Look, again, at Bristol. Time was when Bristol, as a
port, ranked next to London; and why? Simply because of her unrivalled
geographical situation and the early establishment of the dock system.
Why does Bristol no longer occupy that prominent position? Because, as
is generally the case where Nature has done so much, Art, her handmaid,
has been less assiduous in her attentions than at London, Liverpool,
Hull, and other places; and so, in the race for commercial prosperity,
Bristol has been left behind by her younger, and more enterprising,
sisters. Clearly Nature intended Bristol to be, what she once was,
the most flourishing port on the west coast of England, and no mean
rival of London. But the Bristolians appear to have forgotten that
large ships need plenty of water, and that the Avon, like some people
of unsettled habits, has a strange fancy at times for leaving its bed
unoccupied. Could the good people of Bristol be induced to dockise that
very erratic stream within a respectable distance of its mouth, I am
inclined to believe that many a shipowner who now sends his vessels
to London would think it worth his while to escape the dangerous
Channel passage by ordering them into Bristol, more especially with
an equalization of railway rates. I never visit this grand old city,
so rich in historic memories of maritime enterprise, the birthplace
of Sebastian Cabot, the real founder of the great Russia Company, the
moving spirit amongst the ‘Merchant Adventurers,’ and ‘Grand Pilot of
England,’ without feeling that, sooner or later, she will again assert
that supremacy in the West which is her natural heritage. The new docks
at Avonmouth and Portishead are a step in this direction, and cannot
fail, if well worked, to command a large share of the business of the
Western world. If I am right, then for peaceful, prosperous, contented
Bristol there are even greater things in store than she has ever yet
dreamed of in her commercial philosophy.

Of course, a sketch of the Thames and its docks would be incomplete
without a statement of the Legal Quays, Sufferance Wharves, and Private
Warehouses now in existence. Few people are aware of their enormous
extent, and it would be difficult to exaggerate the important part
which they have played in the history of the port. There cannot be a
doubt that the proprietors of these places have availed themselves
to the fullest extent of the advantage which they enjoy, under the
present state of the law, of being allowed free use of the dock-waters.
Undermentioned is a list of them, and I may add that, with very few
exceptions, all restrictions as to the goods which may be landed at
some of these places have now been removed.


_Legal Quays._

  Fresh Wharf.
  Hammond’s.
  Cox’s Quay.
  Botolph Wharf.
  Nicholson’s Wharf.
  Custom House Quay.
  Brewer’s Quay.
  Chester’s Quay.
  Galley Quay.


_Uptown Warehouses and Vaults._

  Aire & Calder.
  Beer Lane Vaults.
  Bell’s Warehouse.
  Billiter Street Warehouse.
  Cooper’s Row Warehouse.
  Crown Diamond Warehouse and Vaults.
  Crutched Friars Warehouse.
  Cutler Street and New Street Warehouse.
  Dowgate Hill Vaults.
  East India Avenue Vaults.
  Fenchurch Street Warehouse.
  George Street Vaults.
  Globe Yard Warehouse.
  Gracechurch Street Vaults.
  Lingham’s Warehouse and Vaults.
  Metropolitan Warehouse and Vaults.
  Mint Street Warehouse.
  Monastery Warehouse.
  Monument Warehouse and Vaults.
  Priory Warehouse.
  Red Mead Lane Warehouse and Vaults.
  St. Dunstan’s Warehouse.
  St. Andrew’s Vaults.
  St. Olave’s.
  Savage Garden Vaults.
  Smith’s Warehouse.
  Thames Street Vaults.
  Tower Hill Vaults and Warehouse.
  Trinity Warehouse and Vaults.
  Water Lane.


_Sufferance Wharves, at which certain goods may be landed and
warehoused._

  Allhallows.
  British and Foreign.
  Brooks’.
  Bull.
  Butler’s.
  Chamberlain’s.
  Commercial.
  Commercial Dock.
  Cotton’s and Depôt.
  Davis’s.
  Dowgate Dock and Warehouse.
  Dyers Hall, and Monument Warehouses.
  Fenning’s.
  Fishmonger’s Hall.
  Gun.
  Gun and Shot and Griffin’s.
  Hartley’s.
  Hambro’.
  Hay’s.
  Hermitage.
  Hibernia, New.
  Irongate.
  London and Continental.
  Lucas and Spencer’s.
  Mark Brown’s.
  Metropolitan.
  New Crane.
  New Dundee.
  Old Swan.
  Oliver’s.
  Paul’s Wharf.
  Pickle Herring, Lower.
  Platform.
  Red Lion and Three Cranes.
  St. Bride’s Upper.
  St. Bride’s.
  St. John’s.
  St. Katharine’s.
  St. Olave’s.
  St. Saviour’s.
  Smith’s.
  South Eastern.
  South Devon.
  Springall’s.
  Symon’s.
  Topping’s.
  Willson’s.


_Sufferance Wharves at which certain goods may be landed._

  Aberdeen.
  Atkin’s.
  Barnard’s.
  Barry & Co.
  Bethell’s.
  Brandram’s, New.
  Brandram’s, Lower.
  Broken.
  Brook’s, Upper.
  Brown’s.
  Brunswick.
  Burt’s.
  Canada.
  Carron.
  Chapman’s.
  Clyde.
  Cole’s, Upper.
    ” Lower.
  Coventry.
  Dock Wharf (Regent’s Canal Dock).
  Dudin’s.
  Durrand’s.
  Eagle.
  Fisher’s.
  Fogg’s.
  Foreign Cattle Market.
  Freeman’s.
  Free Trade, Lower.
  Garford’s.
  Gibb’s, Upper.
    ” Lower.
  Granite.
  Guernsey Granite.
  Hall’s.
  Harrison’s.
  Hibernia.
  Hudson’s.
  King and Queen.
  Kitchen’s, Lower.
  Landell’s.
  Mellish’s.
  Metropolitan, New.
        ” Upper.
  Mill.
  Miller’s.
  Morton’s.
  Newell’s.
  Noehmer’s.
  Orchard.
  Ordnance.
  Patent Fuel.
  Pearson’s.
  Peruvian Guano Works.
  Phillip’s.
  Plaistow.
  Pontifex and Wood.
  Pooley’s.
  Powell’s.
  Prince Regent’s.
  Reed’s, Upper.
    ” Lower.
  Scott’s.
  Sharp’s.
  Stanton’s.
  St. George’s.
  Sun.
  Sunderland.
  Surrey Canal Docks.
  Tubb’s.
  Union.
  Victoria.
  Victoria Wharf.
  Watson’s.
  West Kent.
  Whiting’s.
  Worcester.

This is a view (_see_ Frontispiece) of the South-West India Dock
seen from the western end. I have had this view taken especially to
illustrate the few remarks with which I shall close my lecture. You
will observe the accumulation of barges just inside the dock waiting
to go out, and you will be able to form some idea of the terrible
inconvenience which the presence of these craft must cause in the dock,
crowded as it constantly is with shipping; and it so happens that the
accumulation of these barges is greatest when there is the least room
for them. I must ask you to imagine that behind these barges there are
several ships waiting to leave the dock, and that _outside_ the dock
there is a similar accumulation of lighters and large vessels waiting
to come in. The presence of these barges, as shown in this view (which
it must be remembered was photographed on the spot, and with no thought
of using it in this connection), will help to convey some idea of
the delays and risk which they cause in the docking and undocking of
vessels—a delay and risk which, as I shall presently explain, the Dock
Companies are compelled to incur altogether _free of charge_.

Now you will have observed that all the earlier Dock Companies started
with a monopoly for twenty-one years of the shipping from certain
parts of the world. You will also have noticed that the object of
the Government in granting these monopolies was twofold; first, by
compulsorily clearing the river of a large proportion of the shipping
to remove the facilities for plunder afforded by the lighterage and
unprotected condition of goods; and, secondly, to secure for the
docks some equivalent for the money invested in them. Now what do
these facts indicate? Clearly that the Government saw the necessity
of legislative interference in the interest of the port, and that, to
render that interference operative, they must offer an inducement to
the public to invest their money. Thus, you will observe that the Dock
Companies sprang into existence, not so much independent speculations,
as a response to an appeal from the Government of the day on behalf of
the port.

But this compulsory alienation of certain shipping to certain docks,
of course involved the withdrawal from the Legal Quays of the profits
on the warehousing of goods left in the docks, and from the lightermen
much of the valuable carrying trade represented by the shipping covered
by the monopolies. It also affected a number of minor collateral
interests. These were, of course, entitled to compensation, and they
obtained it. The total amount of the claims received was little short
of £4,000,000. As is generally the case under the circumstances, many
of these claims were grossly exorbitant, and others had no foundation
at all. The Government were, however, disposed to take a liberal view
of the situation, and, as I have already told you, actually awarded
out of the Consolidated Fund not less than £1,681,000, which, of
course, included the sums paid for the purchase of the Legal Quays.

But the Government not only made ample _money compensation_ for the
rights which they invaded by granting the dock monopolies, they also
made access to the vessels in the docks as free as if they had still
discharged in the river; that is to say, the waters of the dock were
to be accessible, free of charge, to anybody who wished to bring in
lighters, for the purpose of taking goods or ballast to or from any
vessels lying in them. The reason for this is obvious. Virtually the
Government said to the Dock Companies: ‘As we have compelled ships
to enter your docks, you must not tax certain lighterage to or from
those ships.’ And this was perfectly reasonable and fair so long as
such compulsion existed; that is to say, so long as the Dock Companies
got a _quid pro quo_ for the free use of the dock waters by the goods
secured to them by the monopolies. But so soon as ships became free
to go where they pleased, and the docks were left to compete with the
wharves on even terms, this restriction upon their obvious right to
charge for the use of their property should have been removed also.
It must always be borne in mind that the _basis_ of the arrangement
in regard to the _free use of the dock waters_ was the _compulsory
alienation_ of certain shipping to the docks, which had hitherto
been _free to discharge in the river_; hence it is obvious that so
soon as that freedom was restored to the shipping referred to, the
_raison d’être_ of the restriction upon the docks ceased to exist. Mr.
Lindsay, an impartial witness, from whose valuable work I have already
ventured to quote, cannot help noticing this anomaly. He remarks:
‘These privileges, granted originally to stifle opposition, they (the
lightermen) still retain to their gain, and that of the wharfingers,
but to the loss of the Companies. Surely, when the monopoly of the
Companies had expired—a monopoly to which, for the time, they were
fully entitled, considering the service they had rendered to the Crown,
in the protection of the revenue—these privileges to the barge-owners
should also have been withdrawn.’

Now the liabilities of the Dock Companies of London represent a total
of upwards of £15,000,000. More than one-half of this has been spent
in providing the water accommodation of the several docks, and the
interest on it of course represents a vast permanent tax upon the
revenues of the Dock Companies, towards which, although enjoying full
use of the docks, the wharves do not contribute anything. The dock
waters are supposed to be paid for by the dues on shipping. As a
matter of fact this is not the case, although if it were, the claim of
the Dock Companies to be paid for services altogether distinct from
the operation of docking and undocking ships, would be in no respect
weakened. For a considerable time more than half the goods brought into
the docks by ships have been taken out of them again for warehousing
elsewhere, and upon the tens of thousands of lighters employed in
this service constantly inside, entering, and leaving the docks, the
Companies are prohibited from charging one penny; so that, coupling
this circumstance with the fact that the dues of the Company are levied
upon the register and not upon the gross tonnage of vessels, it will be
seen that, practically, the income from the shipping rates is reduced
to considerably less than one-half the amount which it nominally
represents.

But this is not the only hardship experienced by the Companies. The
expense and inconvenience in working the docks owing to the number
of these barges in them cannot be measured by money loss. In the West
India Docks alone there have been 500 barges at one time occupying the
water space when most urgently needed for the working of ships. The
delays caused in the docking and undocking of vessels in consequence
of the glut of craft waiting at tide time to enter or leave the docks
are sometimes attended with considerable danger. In fact, this view
represents the normal condition of the dock entrances whenever there
is an influx of shipping. Every barge entering and leaving the docks,
of course entails a distinct service on the Companies for their own
protection, for which the parties so compulsorily served pay nothing;
and the most startling feature in the case is the fact of the growing
magnitude of this burden. Some idea of its extent may be seen when I
state that the number of barges which entered the East and West India
Docks alone in 1869 was 51,985. In 1874 the numbers had rushed up to
61,390—-an increase of 20 per cent. in five years. Surely these facts
speak for themselves, and bear me out in the assertion that there
are no other public bodies in London which, having rendered such
incalculable service to the port, have been left in such an anomalous
position. In fact, you will see that the Dock Companies are pretty much
in the position of a man who, having been induced to build a house on
a particular spot on the understanding that a tenant would always be
found for it, not only loses his tenant but finds himself compelled to
maintain his house in a high state of efficiency, and to keep a large
staff of servants to wait upon anybody who may take a fancy to anything
in it, without so much as feeing the porters.

In dealing with this question you will observe that I have carefully
abstained from any arguments as such, preferring to leave the facts to
speak for themselves. I might have told you that before the docks were
in existence it was the practice at the wharves to charge half-wharfage
rates on goods passing over them; and I might have argued that if this
were recognised as right in a free river, surely the Dock Companies
should not be refused some equivalent return for the use of the dock
waters—a private property which has cost many millions. From this
argument and many kindred arguments I have abstained; but in closing my
lecture I must be permitted to anticipate just one objection. It may be
said, why did not the Dock Companies move in this matter when their
monopolies expired? My answer will be appreciated by all practical
men. When the dock monopolies expired, the business of the port was
not one-fourth of its present magnitude, to say nothing of the fact
that the lighterage to the docks was so insignificant that it entailed
no practical inconvenience. The force of this will be seen when it is
borne in mind that the tonnage of inward shipping, British and foreign
(exclusive of the coasting trade), which entered the port in 1827—the
date of the expiration of the monopolies—was only 990,170 tons; and
as by far the greater portion of the cargoes brought by vessels which
entered the docks was left in them for warehousing, the lighterage
was, necessarily, of very limited extent, and remained so, until
the repeal of the monopolies began to take practical effect in the
diversion of goods from the docks. But, side by side with the gigantic
increase in the commerce of the port, there has been a corresponding
increase in this gratuitous lighterage business. Its magnitude is seen
at a glance when I say that in the year 1874 the tonnage of British
and foreign inward shipping (exclusive of the coasting trade) had
reached the enormous total of 4,671,676 tons. Of this vast tonnage
nearly 3,500,000 tons discharged in the docks, and of this 3,500,000
tons of register tonnage, probably representing 4,000,000 tons gross
of goods, more than half was removed from the docks. Thus, it will
be seen that to argue that because the Dock Companies, _when their
monopolies expired_, did not regard the free use of their waters as
a grievance grave enough to call for the interference of Parliament,
ought not to complain and have no right to such interference _now_, is
to ignore the fact, patent to everybody, that circumstances have so
entirely changed the relations which formerly existed between docks and
wharves that no analogy exists to warrant such a conclusion. It was
utterly impossible for the Dock Companies, fifty years ago, to foresee
this gigantic growth in the business of the port, and the complete
revolution which has since taken place in the imperial tariff, by
which the docks have been so prejudicially affected. There cannot be a
doubt that in continuing this concession without the protection of a
monopoly, the Dock Companies made a great mistake; but it is one which
a grasping and selfish policy should not be suffered to perpetuate.
Both competitors for the trade of the port, the docks should be as free
from unfair restrictions as the wharves; and it is to be hoped that
before long the love of fair play, and hatred of oppression, of which
we Englishmen claim to be so proud, will find expression in a great
practical remonstrance, in which this burdensome tax upon the vitality
and prosperity of the dock establishments, to the foundation of which
London mainly owes its marvellous development as the great entrepôt for
the commerce of the world, will be indignantly swept away.

I will detain you no longer. What I have stated is but a sketch of a
portion of a subject which a dozen lectures would not exhaust; and,
as I only put it forward as a sketch, I must ask you, in making your
criticism, to bear that fact in view. I have simply sought to lay
before you a few facts not generally known and not easily accessible,
and which I hope will not fail to invest the river and the docks with
additional interest to all whose business or pleasure may be affected
by either. I can only trust that you have found them interesting, and
that you may perhaps find them useful.


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

[Illustration:

  Appendix A.

MR. EDWARD OGLES’ PLAN.

Spottiswoode & Co. Lith. London.]

[Illustration:

  Appendix B.

THE MERCHANTS PLAN OF LONDON DOCKS.

PLAN OF THE RIVER THAMES WITH THE PROPOSED DOCKS AND CUT.

  _Dan’l Alexander, Surveyor._

Spottiswoode & Co. Lith. London.]

[Illustration:

  Appendix C.

CORPORATION SCHEME.

Spottiswoode & Co. Lith. London.]

[Illustration:

  Appendix D.

MR. WYATT’S PLAN.

Spottiswoode & Co. Lith. London.]

[Illustration:

  Appendix E.

SOUTHWARK SCHEME.

Spottiswoode & Co. Lith. London.]

[Illustration:

  Appendix F.

MR. RALPH WALKERS PLAN OF WET DOCKS IN WAPPING.

Spottiswoode & Co. Lith. London.]

[Illustration:

  Appendix G.

MR. SPENCE’S PLAN.

Spottiswoode & Co. Lith. London.]

[Illustration:

  Appendix H.

MR. REVELEYS PLAN NO. 1.

Spottiswoode & Co. Lith. London.]

[Illustration:

  Appendix I.

MR. REVELEY’S PLAN NO. 2.

Spottiswoode & Co. Lith. London.]

[Illustration:

  Appendix J.

MR. REVELEY’S PLAN NO. 3.

Spottiswoode & Co. Lith. London.]

[Illustration:

  Appendix K.

MR. REVELEY’S PLAN NO. 4.

Spottiswoode & Co. Lith. London.]

[Illustration:

  Appendix L.

THE RIVER THAMES SHEWING ALL THE DOCKS OF LONDON WITH THE EXTENSIONS
NOW IN PROGRESS.

Spottiswoode & Co. Lith. London.]