THE PORT OF LONDON.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11512, 19 February 1903, Page 4

THE PORT OF LONDON.

Among tie Bills promised in the King's Speech at the opening of the Imperial Parliament is one dealing writh uhe Port of London. This is likely to prove one of the most important questions with which Parliament will have to deal, for if the Government proposes to carry out the scheme formulated by the recent Royal Commission, and obtain legislative power to acquire the property of the London Dock Companies, the measure will involve the purchase of undertakings of a value of over forty millions sterling. The nominal capital value of tine docks alone "a £24,000,000, but the actual sum expended on them hae exceeded that amount by some mdllione; and if the wharves and jetties in the river are included, their purchase will represent, according to evidence given before the Royal Commission, an additional £13,000,000 or thereabouts. These properties, it is stated, the Government proposes to acquire compulsorily from the present at & valuation to be determined by arbitration. Most careful consideration will have u> be given to any measure whidh involves a radical change in the management of £he Port. That there are two sides to the question is evident from an article in the January "National Review" by SSr Henry D. Le Marchant, Director of the London and India Docks Company, wtoo answers in detail the charges which have been levelled against the present administration of tihe Port, and enters a strong protest against the compulsory sale of their properties by tfhe dock companies to the Government. He contends that the various authorities controlling the administration never clash; Parliament has "allotted to each separate duties which "each has fulfilled without trespassing on "the province of the other." In reply to "the allegation that the trade of the Port of London is dwindling, he quotes the report of iho Royal Commissioners, who, after examining the figures of shipping, said, "We are unable to conclude that the "figures show any relative decline of Lon"don compared with the other ports "named, allowing for the difference in the "nature of the business done." As for the charge that the docking accommodation at London is "out-of-date," Sir Henry Le Marchant declares that "there is not "a single vessel afloat whidh cannot be oc- " commodafeed at one of the docks of Lon"don. Every vessel coming to the dock " entrances can be sure of admission, a safe "berth, sheds for discharging and loading "cargo, cranes for lifting both ordinary "and heavy packages, dry docks, and "last, but not least, of remaining afloat " while she is in dock. No vessel has ever "been turned away for want of proper "dock accommodation in the Port of Lon-

"don." The largest vessel now afloat, tlie Celtic, could, it ie stated, get into the Tilbury Dock oo the Thames at a time considerably before high water, and remain afloat and not rest on the mud. No other port in the United Kingdom, according to Sir Henry, could offer the same facilities— not even Liverpoo l , which ie the Celtic's

venal port of call. Whaterer delay takes place in the discharging of cargoes alt London ie attributed to the Byetem whereby shipowners h*ve the option of discharging their own ehipe—a system for which tho shipowner and the consignee between them, and not the dock companies, are alone respomsible. It is evident that the dock companies will strenuously oppose the Royal Commission's proposal that the London docks shall be included in the interests to be controlled by the port authority which, it is Kuggeeted, should take the place of the existing bodie*. The dock companies not only offer accommodation for vessels, but they compete with the wharfingers and warehouse-keepers on the riverside in the work of discharging and distributing cargoes. They are, in facx, commercial undertakings in which immense sums of capital have been embarked, and it becomes a serious question as to bow far the State is justified in interfering with private enterprfee in this direction, and upon wnat terms the interests affected are to be acquired. It will also be the duty of Parliament to consider whether the new authority proposed by the Royal Commission will have the experience necessary to direct successfully so great an undertaking, and expend to advantage the large sum ol money necessary for the improvement* recommended by the Commission. That an extension of the existing accommodation Ls desirable the dock companies admit, but, we are told, they " make no secret of the "fact that they are delaying extension be- " cause they are uncertain as to how "they will be compensated for the necessary outlay." While this uncertainty exists, therefore, there can be no improvement, co that the question undoubtely is one which calls for an early settlement.