DOCK scribing about one-sixth of the amount required. To enable the company to carry out its work the Government made a gift of the land occupied by the old fortifications of Hull, the customs made a gift of £15,000, and certain rights were granted to exact tonnage dues on vessels entering Hull harbour. The Queen's Dock was opened in 1779, and four docks followed in 1809, 1829, 1846, and in 1850. In Dublin docks were opened in 1796, and in 1821. The administration of the docks is in the hands of the Dublin Port and Docks Board, which in 1867, as regards the control of the docks, replaced the Corporation for Preserving and Improving the Port of Dublin. At Newport (Mon.) docks were opened in 1842, owned by the Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks Company. At Glasgow the trustees of the Clyde Navigation, by deepening the river-channel and erecting quays upon the banks, had practically converted the Clyde into a dock; but the extension of trade caused the trustees, in 1867, to excavate the Kingston Dock, and in 1880 the Queen's Dock. The combined area of these is 39 acres. Cessnock Docks were begun in 1885, and their construction is still (1892) proceeding. There are no warehouses under the control of the Clyde Trust; but special accommodation is provided for landing and housing cattle and storing timber. The North British and Caledonian Railway Companies have access through branch lines to the docks, and the trustees own a harbour railway on the street level. The total cost of the harbour works at Glasgow from 1770 till 1892, including interest, has been £13,641,301. The revenue of the trust is £369,226, and the| debt is £4,843,228. For further details see Table B. 615 At Leith, docks were constructed in 1819, in 1852, in 1869, and in 1881, the total area being 42 acres. The docks are under the control of the Commissioners for the Harbour and Docks of Leith. Application is being made to parliament for power to construct new docks, etc. A curious survival is the imposition of fish tithes by the kirk-session of North Leith Parish Church. The commutation of these is involved in the application to parliament. Mechanical Appliances at Docks. — Steam hoists for dock manipulation were introduced at the Surrey Docks in 1861. There also hydraulic machinery was introduced for the same purpose in 1873. In 1877 the system of distribution by bands was adopted at the grain warehouses of the Surrey Dock Company. The use of hydraulic cranes, steam machinery of various kinds, grain elevators and conveyors, refrigerating plant, coal loading machinery, etc., has developed largely during the past twenty years. In America the development of mechanical aids for such purposes has probably been carried further than in this country. Dock Warrants.-Under the system by which warrants are granted by the dock authorities at London, Bristol, and other places, for goods stored in their hands, goods may be sold repeatedly before they leave the warehouse. Goods in this way may be "mobilised like money," and the tendency is necessarily for such goods to be stored at great financial centres under the control of public or quasipublic bodies. See CLEARING SYSTEM; CONDITIONING; COTTON CLEARING; DOCK WARRANT; SAMPLING AND GRADING. Effect of Economic Changes upon Docks.Apart from the general causes which contribute to the fluctuations of trade, and by which the business of docks is affected, certain special causes have had important influences upon them. These causes have not affected all docks equally. Their influence varies with the nature of the trade of the port, and with the incidence of the dock charges. At Liverpool the incidence of the charges upon ships and goods is as follows as disclosed by the revenue:-dock tonnage rate on ships, 40 per cent; dock rates on goods, 31 per cent; dues on goods, 26 per cent; warehousing, 3 per cent. At London warehousing yields 70 per cent, and all other charges 30 per cent. It is thus obvious that any changes affecting the custom of warehousing must have much more important effects upon London, where this system is so highly developed, than on Liverpool, or, indeed, than on any other port in the kingdom. Although the warehouses at the docks on the Thames are not exclusively for goods in bond, yet the system of warehousing grew up under a policy of protection, when hundreds of articles now free of duty were taxed, and on importation were stored under the supervision of the customs, in the dock warehouses till the | London, much more seriously than they affect duty was paid. The successive steps in free trade were therefore successive blows to the revenue of the dock companies. The facilitation of commercial intercourse, too, through the submarine telegraph and the swift steamer, made warehousing at once less necessary and less profitable to the merchant. Markets became more closely drawn together and more sensitive, and the risks and expense of prolonged holding of goods became out of proportion to the possible profits. Thus in the case of many important commodities warehousing ceased to be customary, and the revenue from this, the most important branch of the business of the dock companies at London, fell off. Among the many economic effects of the opening of the Suez Canal were two in which docks were directly affected. The first of these was the impetus given, not alone to the building of steamers, but to the building of steamers of large size; the second, its influence on the entrepôt trade of Great Britain. Only 14 steamers of 4000 tons and upwards had been built prior to the opening of the Suez Canal. The great development of large vessels has taken place since then. From 1870 to 1891 about 200 vessels of 4000 tons and upwards were built. The entrepôt trade of this country has been affected by the reopening of direct trade routes between Europe and the East. The substitution of marine for land transport had made London, for at least a century, the common market for Eastern goods in Western Europe; but when the Suez Canal replaced the route by the Cape, as the main trade channel between east and west, and when the development of international commerce, resulting from this and other causes, enabled France and Germany to employ lines of steamers on direct routes between continental and eastern ports, the entrepôt trade of London gradually diminished. In addition to the changes traceable, directly or indirectly, to the alteration of trade routes, as by the opening of the Suez Canal, other causes, for example, the diminution of prices, had the effect of stimulating direct communication (cp. Dep. Trade Com., Report, III. Q. 10,848). The most potent cause was, however, the expansion of trade, enabling the continental ports to cultivate direct relations with the East. The ports which have developed most conspicuously in recent years are Antwerp, Havre, and Hamburg. Navigation laws (of France and Spain, e.g.) have stimulated direct intercourse by granting bounties on ships and cargoes. Although from a national point of view the importance of the entrepôt trade may be exaggerated, and although at its highest point it was not more than one-sixth of the total import of foreign produce, yet the fluctuations in it affect London, and specially the docks at any other port in the United Kingdom. Individual docks have been subject to the influence of important changes in the technique of production. The alteration in the sugar trade through the extensive substitution of beet-root for cane sugar, has seriously affected the revenue of the West India Docks, while the substitution of artificial alizarine, and of the aniline dyes for madder, cochineal, and other products, has led to the almost entire disappearance of these, from the London import lists, and to the importation from Germany and France of their substitutes. These substitutes are mainly imported at the provincial ports, e.g. Hull, Newcastle, Harwich, and Leith. Competition in relation to Docks.-One of the features which distinguish the port of London from the ports in the provinces is the circumstance that the docks at London compete not only with those at other ports but with each other, with the legal quay-owners and wharfingers, and even with lightermen discharging in some cases over the vessel's side in dock free from the payment of dues on the goods to the dock company. In almost all the provincial ports, on the other hand, the dock corporations, whether municipal, trustee, or joint-stock, exercise a local monopoly. Occasionally ports are so near each other as virtually to enter into competition for the same trade; but each dock and harbour authority in the provinces, with rare exceptions, enjoys a monopoly of the trade of the port. At Liverpool and Glasgow, e.g. there is no competition in docks, and rates are fixed exclusively with regard to the needs of the trust for maintenance and interest, although there is a necessary limit fixed by the competition of other large ports. Incidence of Dock Charges.-The policy of dock owners as regards the incidence of charges varies very widely. No definite principle is discoverable beneath the multiform methods of rating. The charges in each port have arisen largely through local custom, or have been altered in specific cases from time to time, owing to influential representations by oppressed interests. The charges may be broadly divided into charges on the ship and charges on the goods. Charges on the ship may be divided into dues and rent. Dues are usually charged on net register tonnage, though they have been from time to time charged on the gross tonnage, as in 1856 at Sunderland. (For discussion on the policy of charging on the net or on the gross tonnage, see Royal Com. on Tonnage, Report, 1881; also e.g. Shipping World, vol. i. pp. 274, 323, 365, and 402). Under the Harbour Docks Act of 1847 preferential rates are prohibited. Dock rent is charged, as in London, on gross tonnage. In some cases rent begins on entrance, in other cases it begins after a certain period has elapsed. Yachts are free in most harbours, DOCK they are charged for in the Thames Docks. Charges on goods may be divided into rates including landing, weighing, and delivery in the case of imported goods; collection, wharfage, and porterage in the case of exported goods; and warehouse rent. There are besides special charges on particular classes of goods. The rates on goods are fixed partly with regard to the difficulty, risk, and cost of handling them, and partly with regard to the value of the goods. At Bristol no rates are charged on exports. It is clear that dock rates so levied must act in a measure as a bounty on exports, and as a corresponding tax on imports. (On differential rates for freemen and foreigners, see Maitland, History of London.) There seems much need for simplification in dock charges. The classification adopted finally by the railway companies might form the basis of a classification for docks with advantage both to shippers and dock corporations. Dock Finance.-The proportion of working expenses to gross receipts at the Mersey Docks was in 1892, 44 per cent, at Swansea 41 per cent, and at Bristol 60 per cent, at the Surrey Commercial 73 per cent, at the Bute Docks, Cardiff, 52 per cent, at Falmouth 70 per cent, at Swansea 484 per cent, at Belfast 80 per cent. The capital invested in docks in the United Kingdom may be estimated as very close upon £100,000,000. This represents their probable cost. The water area is about 4000 or 4500 acres. This includes tidal basins, warehouses, and other adjuncts of docks; but excludes breakwaters on estuaries not constructed by dock authorities, or for the direct protection of docks. The net return on capital invested is stated to be (in 1892) at the Bute Docks, Cardiff, at Ipswich, Southampton, Swansea, Montrose, and Dublin, 4 per cent; at Llanelly from 3 to 4 per cent; at Belfast 3 per cent; at Millwall £3:18s.; Maryport 43 per cent; at Newport 4 per cent; at Penarth 5; at the Surrey Commercial £6 16s. per cent. : This last is the highest figure supplied to us by any dock authority. It is doubtful whether the total return on the capital invested can average from 3 to 3 per cent. Dock Ownership.-The ownership of the seventy-five docks in the United Kingdom is distributed as follows: 617 especially in connection with the docks at London and at Cardiff. There are three main points involved-1st, management; 2nd, public convenience; 3rd, finance. (1) Management.—It is argued that a number of men selected by their townsmen for known fitness for administration may administrate as efficiently as similar men selected for the same reason by a body of shareholders. No considerable support can be found for objecting to administration of docks by public trusts in the records of such bodies. The examples of Liverpool and Glasgow are very noteworthy as highly successful and efficient trusts, the Mersey Board alone dealing with a capital almost exactly equal to the aggregate capital of the London Docks. The same class of men is employed in the practical details of administration, both in companies and in corporations. The conventional answer to this argument is that directors who are pecuniarily interested in a concern are more likely to secure efficient management than trustees who are not pecuniarily interested. (2) Public Convenience.-There is some reason for doubt whether any general case could be made out on this ground for or against public control. The slowness with which public bodies sometimes meet public demand has frequently been exemplified in the case of docks under both joint-stock and public management. Directors and trustees alike are sometimes compelled to meet the pressure involuntarily. The Tilbury Docks were constructed some years before their time in anticipation of public demand, while the trusts have usually lagged behind demand. This, however, is susceptible of two interpretations. (3) Finance.-While dock property may one day be extremely remunerative, it is now in a period of transition. The joint-stock dock shareholder has had, during the past few years, in many cases, to go without his dividend, while the public trust bondholder has, as a rule, got his interest. this reference it should be remembered that municipalities have other resources at their command than dock charges. Recent instances of defaulting trusts are, however, the harbour boards of Greenock and Paisley. The broad ground of the advantage in the public interest of public ownership and control of all services which are essentially local monopolies, is the argument usually employed in favour of placing docks under public control. (See MONOPOLIES.) In [Harb. Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847.-Select Com. Ho. of Com. Harb. Accom., 1883.-Dep. Trade Com. Report iii., Entrepôt Trade, queries 10,072, 10,074, 10,098, 10,169, 10,283, 10,291, 10,673, 10,692, 10,848, and 11,334.-London and India Docks Joint Com. Tables of Rates and Charges.— Accounts of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, 1891.-The Port of Bristol Handbook.-Barry Docks, Description of Undertaking.-The Accounts of the Trustees of the Clyde Navigation, and other similar official publications.-Macpherson's Annals. |