her pre-eminence as a commercial port has been uncontested. This pre-eminence was never so absolute, before or since, as it was during the last fifty years of the eighteenth century and the first fifty of the nineteenth. The old maritime rivals were almost extinct, and the new ones had not yet arisen. For a time the only really formidable competitors were the Americans with their fast-sailing Atlantic ships. About the time when the Edinburgh Review' was born the Port of London was in a condition which called for remedies, the growth of the trade having outstripped that of the accommodation. There were not then, however, as there are now, formidable rivals, just across the North Sea, well-equipped and ready to take advantage of any weakness of London. The maritime commerce of France and Holland had been ruined during the long wars, and it was long before the birth of the modern German Empire.

In 1799 there were no docks in the Thames, except one small dock on the south side. Ships were loaded and discharged as they lay moored in the stream, or at quays and wharves. When, as was the case in sailing days, large fleets arrived about the same time, the river was so crowded that it was difficult to pass up and down, and there were consequently endless delays and irritations. This state of things was prejudicial also to the interests of Government, as it was difficult, under these circumstances, to prevent frauds on revenue. Committees inquired and reported, and it was agreed that the remedy was the construction of docks. Acts were, therefore, passed authorising the incorporation of dock companies and their encouragement by a system of temporary monopolies. So, for instance, the Act of 1799, constituting the West India Dock Company, provided that, for a period of twenty-one years, all ships in the West India trade should load and discharge exclusively in the docks to be built by the company. Under this system dock construction proceeded rapidly. Companies arose, built docks, fought each other, and, according to the usual law of developement in these matters, often terminated an expensive contest by amalgamation. The East and West India Dock Companies were amalgamated in 1838; the London and St. Katharine Companies in 1864. These two combinations competed ardently, and, in the course of the contest, the latter group built the costly Albert Dock, and the former the still more expensive Tilbury Docks. In 1888 the two combinations ended their war of rates' by entering into a working union.' The amalgamation was formally

completed in 1900, and the system is now controlled by the London and India Docks Company. This company has almost a monopoly of the large liners trading to London, but in certain special trades, such as corn and timber, the Surrey Commercial Docks Company on the south side, also the result of several amalgamations, and the Millwall Company, do a considerable business, while almost half of the whole tonnage using the port still load and discharge in the stream or at the numerous wharves which line the river for miles.

Till the year 1857 the general control of the river, including maintenance of the channels and regulation of the traffic, was exercised, or was supposed to be exercised, by the City Corporation. Everywhere these were originally municipal functions, but in all our leading ports, except Bristol, they have been during the last fifty years transferred to specially constituted authorities. These and other powers and duties were, by an Act of 1857, vested in the Thames Conservancy. This body governs the river from Cricklade in Wiltshire to a line between Essex and the Isle of Sheppy. It now consists of representatives of the riparian county councils and boroughs, with a few representatives of shipowners, and barge-owners, dock companies and wharfingers. It is not, therefore, distinctively constituted for Port of London purposes.

Other functions in the Port of London are discharged by the Trinity House Brethren, who control pilotage, buoying, and lighting; by the medieval guild called the Watermen's Company, who license and regulate boats and barges; by the City Corporation, who are the sanitary authority; by the Metropolitan Police, who police the river and docks; and by other bodies. Thus there is a wide distribution among dock companies and public authorities of powers which are in most foreign ports, and even at home, concentrated in the hands of a single administration.

The appointment in 1900 of the Royal Commission on the Port of London was immediately due to certain steps taken in Parliament by the London and India Docks Company, but, in a wider sense, it was due to the breakdown of the whole system of the Port of London in face of the revolution which has taken place in recent years in shipping and commerce. A port which does not adapt itself to these changes is lost. The Commissioners point to some signs of evil omen. It is true that the aggregate maritime trade of London, whether measured by value of goods or by shipping

tonnage, has rapidly and steadily increased during recent years. This increase is due to the growth in magnitude and purchasing power of the vast population on the banks of the Thames. But the ancient and considerable portion of London trade, which consists in the import, warehousing, and re-export of goods, has experienced during the last twenty years a singular arrest, and even decline. In the opinion of the Commissioners the decadence of London as the world's central maritime junction is due in part to outside causes, such as the construction of the Suez Canal and the trans-continental American railways, and the efforts of various countries to develope their commercial marine; partly to internal deficiencies, which might be remedied. They point out that, if London becomes less convenient or more expensive for the reception of large ships than Hamburg, Antwerp, or Rotterdam, it is quite possible that the transhipment trade may pass to these ports. It is even possible that goods destined for British ports, and for London itself, should be transhipped from ocean steamers at Rotterdam or Antwerp, and carried across the narrow seas in small steamers, the glory and profit of receiving the great steamers thus departing from London. It takes little to deflect the course of great steamers, to whose owners time is most literally money. 'These considerations,' say the Commissioners, 'point to the advantage of adapting the Thames in every way to the requirements of modern ocean-going ships.'

The Commissioners then call attention to the revolution which has taken place in maritime conditions. This is due to two chief causes-first, the displacement of sailing ships by steamships, and, secondly, the great increase in the average size of ships. It is not too much to say that the dimensions of vessels employed in the main liner services have been quadrupled within the last forty years. The construction of ships has also been revolutionised, ships built like rectilineal oblong boxes on keels taking the place of the gradually curved vessels of former times. This fact is of importance because dock entrances built with a view to the older construction of ships have to be reconstructed, even if their depth is sufficient. The largest ship afloat in 1901 was the 'Celtic,' of the now Americanised White Star line. Her gross tonnage is 20,880; her length 680 feet, breadth 75 feet, and depth 45 feet. These dimensions,' say the Commissioners, give some idea of the possible class of ship for whose reception the channels and docks ' of any port which desires to remain in the first rank must

' in future be adapted.' The Commissioners quote in the same connexion a passage from the evidence given to them by a leading shipowner, Sir Alfred Jones, whose experience is wide and varied. He said :

'If London is restricted in the depth and size of her ships, and Hamburg and Rotterdam-those two ports in particular which are going ahead tremendously-are able to get facilities which we cannot get, it is a tremendous drawback to the British shipowners and British commerce altogether. I might go further, because you may look with certainty to the future producing very much larger ships. The economical ship is the large ship, and unless you can provide for the large ship you cannot compete for the carrying trade. The carrying trade is not protected like a railway. Anybody can come into it who can produce a machine cheaper than his neighbour, and his neighbour is always looking for something that can do it cheaper. Then, again, the Englishman does not care what he ships his goods in, whether under the German flag or the French flag. You do not find that feeling with a German or a Frenchman; he will endeavour as far as he can to ship his goods under his own flag.'

The shipowners and merchants who gave evidence were agreed that, except for its neighbourhood to the greatest market and centre of consumption in the world, the Port of London, under its existing conditions, has every kind of disadvantage. The channels leading up to it are not deep or wide enough to allow the passage of great modern ships without long delays in awaiting sufficient tides; many of the dock entrances are of insufficient size; the berth space is often not sufficient to accommodate the ships, or the quays and sorting sheds to receive cargo; labour is inefficient or badly organised; plant not up to date. Consequently ships cannot enter, clear their cargo, and depart so quickly as they can at other large ports. Shipowners find it difficult to reckon on fixed dates; merchants have to wait days, or even weeks, before they can obtain delivery of goods; there is endless irritation and loss of time and money. The Commissioners observe that the conditions of modern trade and industry, and the increase of railway facilities in various parts of the world, have enabled enormous cargoes to be swept down to the coasts of every continent and to be shipped for London. Mechanical invention and ' enterprise,' they point out, have provided ships equal to 'carrying these cargoes; and the immense growth in 'population and wealth of London and the country round it has afforded a market sufficient to attract and absorb ' them.' While London has grown, and the trade has grown, and ships have grown, nothing except some

'desultory dredging' has been done to improve the channels of the Thames, and little, since the completion of the Tilbury Docks, to extend the dock system or to adapt it to modern requirements. The channels remain inadequate because the Thames Conservancy is an unenergetic and unsuitably constituted body, with a revenue insufficient for more than current purposes. The docks remain inadequate because they are in the hands of several independent companies, none of them possessing sufficient financial strength to execute the works which are necessary. It appears also from the evidence that the Thames Conservancy hesitate to spend money on the channels until the dock entrances are improved, while the dock companies doubt the policy of spending too much on their docks until the channels are deepened.

'Lord Chatham, with his sword drawn,

Stands waiting for Sir Richard Strahan ;
Sir Richard, longing to be at 'em,
Is waiting for the Earl of Chatham.'

Meanwhile, in the opinion of the Commissioners, it is necessary that at least two and a half millions should be promptly spent upon deepening and widening the river channels, and at least four and a half millions on extending and improving the docks, if the Port of London is not to lose its position.

We do not propose to discuss the reasons why the London dock companies, notwithstanding the great increase of trade, have, for the most part, hardly been able in recent years to pay dividends to their shareholders. Their enemies charge them with over-capitalisation and bad administration. The companies themselves-and the Commissioners seem to agree to this contention-ascribe their misfortunes to the fact that three-fourths of the goods which enter the docks bring no profit, inasmuch as they are carried off free of charge by barges whose owners have a statutory right, conferred in times when all circumstances were very different, to use the waters of the docks without payment. The attempt of the London and India Docks Company to obtain from Parliament power to tax these goods and barges roused the fierce opposition of the riverside wharfinger interests. The Commissioners summarise the situation thus created as follows:

'For a period of a hundred years the dock companies have carried on their business under the condition of the "free water clause," which they have endeavoured without success to induce Parliament