LONDON, Match 27.
Tar telegram which we published two days ago announcing that the Board of Trade had made an offer for the purchase of the India Docks is a satisfactory indication that Mr. Lloyd George's promised measure relating to the Port of London has reached the first stages of a definite undertaking. As a subject of extreme technicality—how technical may be gathered from the reluctance of experts to commit themselves to any precise recommendation—the control of the Port of London may at first sight appear alarming to the general public. But sentiment, no less than practical considerations, is concerned in the welfare of what is still, though seriously assailed by younger rivals, the largest port in the world; and it is clear that even outside shipping circles the problem of the London docks is engaging serious attention. During Jast summer and autumn certain members of the London County Council's Rivers Committee visited a number of the principal. British and foreign ports—entirely at the members' own expense, be it remarked—and the results of their inspection were submitted in an exhaustive report to the Council. Into the technical side of this report it is not necessary for the moment to enter; but the upshot of the inspection was that no time should be lost in appointing a single controlling authority for the Port of London which would be able to carry out the necessary reforms in uniform manner. So far back as 1902 the Royal Commission then appointed to investigate the condition of the port made the same recommendation in very nearly the same terms of urgency. Nothing
Royal Commusion would have single authority as proposed by the done: possibly because the
Proved more unwieldy than the five separate authorities between whom the control of the Port of London is actually divided. What' we are ly concerned with, however, is that the urgency which was great in 1902 is not smaller in 1908. The nataral problems of the river itself are no less, indeed they are increased by the enormous growth during the last five years in the size of a which have to be handled, while the rivalry of forei, rts is still become more acute, If we compare the tonnage of vessels using the ports of London, Hamburg, Antwerp and Rotterdam from the year 1890 down to the end of 1906, we find that while London has certainly made large and steady progress, her rate of increase has not been neatly so rapid as that of any of the other three ports. shipping grew within. the years Whereas the tonnage of London
mentioned from 13.1 millions to 17.5, Hamburg had raised its total from 5.2 millions to 11; and Rotterdam from 2.9 millions to 9.1. It is only natural, of course, that a young port should grow most! quickly in the years while it is still young; and that after a certain point development is bound to be slower, because it no longer depends so much on the internal consumption of the country to which the port belongs as upon the receptivity of others. But the comparison between London and foreign ports is more disadvantageous to the former than appears from the bare! figares. For none of the great barge traffic which is carried on between the ports and the interior of foreign countries is shown in their returns and in proportion as that. traffic steadily increases London loses some of, her supremacy as a distributing centre. Cargoes which were brought, to London in former days to be broken up are now taken direct to Hamburg or Antwerp as required, and London only: retains the sale of them. It is apparently inevitable that a proportion at least] of London's coastwise trade is lost! beyond recall. It follows that she mast be so much the more assured in the retention of her full share of the larger shipping; and thus we come back to the tour of inspection accomplished by the members of the London County Council. On technical points it is impossible for make any serviceable comparison with other ports because of the widely different nature of local conditions. The controversy between the relative merits for London of closed docks, or wharves in the open river, appears to have resolved itself in favour of docks, on account of the high, tidal movement in the river. The problem of a deep channel is being manfully attacked by the Thames Conser-fancy which maintains perpetual dredging. But for the moment it is agreed that the main problem of the Thames is neither one of ongineering nor navigation, but of authority When that authority is constituted it will be able, as the River Committee points out, to decide what are the precise deficit endes of the port and how they are to be handled.
In all departments of London life a tendency is now observable to centralize control, because the different public services concerned are growing, with the growth of London, beyond the management of the private companies to which in their infancy they could be entrusted as well as, if not better than to an official board. But it remains to be seen whether the principal of board does not result in a loss of elasticity and waste of time by pressure of red tape. If the of London forbids the contin: of the private authority, it remains that all possible weight must be given to expert knowledge in the counsels of the public body. Since the Royal Commission of 1902 published its recommendations there are unmistakable signs of a setback in public opinion against the idea of a single authority for the Port of London; and discouraging analogies are drawn from the experiment of the Metropolitan Water Board, which has certainly not been an unqualified success. Probably the bulk of this objection, however, might be traced tothe form of the particular authority outlined by the Royal Commission, which was to consist of a council of forty members, of whom only fourteen would -be. representative of the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.