The Sun.
London, England, 1823-09-30 00:00:00

WEST INDIA DOCKS.

REPLY TO MR. MARRYAT'S OBSERVATIONS
ON THE WEST INDIA DOCK CHARTER, &e. &c.
(CONTINUED.)
(No. VII.)
- No. 18.-JURT REGARD TO PRIVATE INTEREsTs.

. Adverting to this, as one of the original objects kept in view
by the Legislature, Marryat says, "it may be-presumed,
" that the same considerations which influenced them, when
" the Charter was originally granted, will not be lost sight Of;
" now the continuance of it is requested," and he adds, " a
" few observations upon this point oppear necessary." A
sod necessity 'this ! that a Member of Parliament, after the
termination of a laborious investigation, after the point at
issue was decided., after the Committee had reported to the
House, that a Member of Parliament should be compelled to
write a b 001.7, and, what is worse, compelled to publish it ; and
this, with the object of inducing the House not to concede
that, which he already knew, had been retuned ! Probably the
greatest objection to this course of proceeding is that from the
over-zeal which it evinces, persons out of doors might suppose
that. the minds of Members of Parliament may be influenced
by personal considerations ; but to the point, the Chapter re-
lates to IlEcialtD/0 PRIVATE INTERESTS.
Mr. Alarryat's regard, for particular interests, is evinced
by a sort of lamentation over the unfair situation in which the
London Bock Company would be placed, by the continuance
of-that which no longer exists; he says, on the authority of
" that the effect of the, exclusive privilege of the
" West India 'Dock Company is to make their capital, of
1,200;000/., 0044 in value to the 2,250,0001. of the London
Dock Company';" and that "if this exclusive privile„7
" operates.with tOlons ipct, how tan;it possibly be eon-
" tinned with any just 'regard to PRIVATE I NTENgsl's ?"--
Ile furthertkeleres its• continuance would be " an interfetenee
". with private
.property, as inconsistent With justice, as with
" the spirit of a free Government ! !" this is speaking out
rather prematurely; but Air. Marryat's- zeal sometimes lead;
him to injure, thetanie 'Ulrich he espouses. •
The exclitsive'privileg: of the West India Dock Company,
has so depressed the capital of the London Docks, of 3,500,000/.
that it is not Wqth more than 1;200,000/. ! It would have been
difficult to have Medi this out, but Mr. Marryat is evidently a'
' Thdiand. not a Rep.; on such authority, therefore, the fact
must be taken.to be so ; Is the exclusive privilege, however, to
have the exclusive merit of having atchieved all this for the
Wrest India Decks ? May not something. arise out of prudent
,management? ..Might it not partly arise from what Mr. Mar-
cyst himself asserts in the:following passage :.-‘ The London
"•Doek COMpany, hi order to obtain the advantage of local
" situation, paid as much money in many instances for a square
" yard of land in Wapping, as the West India Dock Coln-
" parry paid firr..an acre iu the Isle of Dogs. The lrmer es-
" tablishinent re'ittiired a capital of 3,250,000/. ; and the latter,
" THORGEL EpoN A LARGER SCALE IN POINT or EXTENT, '
" only 1,200,000/."
It would he curious to know the precise period of time when
the Directors of. the London Docita bought laud (as the wives
and daughters of other people do ribbon) bYthe yard ; if it iras
aftcr the West. India Dock Act passed (and it Nano neiar
twelve months before their own), they certainly evinced great
providence and focesight ; especially its as the Honourable
Members' Book informs us, theirxitpital " was subscribed with
a view to a participation' in the general trade of the port of
:" London, ,when the period for which the exclusive privileges
" were granted should have expired." one and twenty
)0(1 year: heihre tern, they thought there was no time to be
lost ;. they thcretine immediately bought land, (by the yard,
or the foot, or 'the Inch, no metterylileli), and bought more
than they wanted, that they might . have the means of making
it useful; if' they should ever have occasion for it.

" Capital," says hlr. N., " may always be found in this
" metropolis for any object in which it can be invested to ad-
yantai,c ;" in this case he Might say, "although to be invested
to astadvantage ;" for be it recollected, that such portion of the
capital.as may have been unprofitably expended, has all along
borne the same dividend or interest (Such as it. is), as that which
was more usefully employed, thus diminishing the profits, and
'depreciating the stock.

3larryat admits that the West India Docks " are upon
a larger mile in point Vextent," but there he leaves the point ;
of what does that extent consist ? Not of stittare yards of land,
bought twenty-one yearn befOre there was a possibility of their
behig..required ; but of land, excavated into docks, with 'cat-
tiguous Wharfs and Warehouses, all completed, and all con-
tributing equally to the convenience of commerce,. and to the
revenue of the Dock CoMpany.

Speaking of the London Docks,. Mr. Marryat says elsewhere,
the want of a sufficient extent of water is a defect in that
establishment *bleh.requires to be remedied by the formation
of an export dock, upon the land which the Directors,have re-
served fin. that pnrpose."—Now it does 'not appear to be true
that the Directors, although they did buy the land fry the pur.
pose,have reserved it, for 3.4.-Inglis, when asked the question,
replies, " We have part of 11." •
illarryat ought not thus to 'have exposed his friends,
but he felt it necessary to account for " the emoluments of the
44 one Company, being greater than those,of the other," while,
es he says, the London Dock Company "are-deprived .of •all
" those advantages of situation, for.whicli. they have actually
" paid so valuable u consideration,"
This is really a melancholy state of. things for the holders of
London Dock Stock, especially,
..fir ltfrqlfarryet, who Is said
to; be so largo •et holder ; but how •is it to be remedied ?. Mr
liarry'r.t will, of "course, reply, " by competition ;" then we
must wait till we. come to his twentieth head.. Before quitting
the present bead,,hoWever,-it is necessary to notice the new '
light which has opened upon the ComMereial Docks.—"'Mr.
._'
4".lllartiti," says Mr. Marryatt, " states that tbe'Commercial
"' Dock Company had the
promise of a monopoly in the outset,
"'which promise was not made good ; and that they have

- •
kok..d firreoed to the opening of the other docks from rm.-

" nopoly as The only 'newts of remnneration." Against whom
this breach of faith ischaried does not, appear ; .but, upon
loOking at the - Act constituting the Commercial Docks, it
doe'%not teeth in-Mutable to the Id.igislattire. The Act (50 Geo.
fllli cap. 207), certaiply mentions the' purposes for which
the Cannuercial 'Docks were constructed, ~fi..c. " for the re-
ception atul discharre of ships laden with timber"
,and
o'9' articles " umally delivered AFLOAT by nivElt tSVFFEII-
- ;" but it gives n.O monopoly,—and so far from holding
4., °qt.ll4-to which Mr. Martin .says they have looked forward,
ti is important memento concludes the third clause ; " Pro-
vided always that nothing
in this Act contained shall ex-
"lend, Or be constnied to extend, to make any of 'be said
'c docks or what-ft, under this Act, LELIAL QuAys, or to era-
pu
" pOwer the said Company to land or load any such goods,
``;
provided. also that nothing
" in this Act shall extend, rpose without the aut N Et:itacr. of the Commissioners of Cns
~ toms, granted for that -
or be construed,to extend, to coin.
" I'd woV shit* or vessels totenter into the said docks or Pouns,
" ()it ANY OF TIll;M."
Upon what therefore was Mr. Martin's expectation founded?
what valid Jo a::e when he lookedibrward ? -
In.following Mr, Marryatt throligh •thelabyrinth of his lu-
cubrat'.ons, we. rotas, not be led astray from the main point;_.

the title is, " JUST regard to private interests;" there is one
interest which does not come within the scope of Mr. Alarryat's
just regard, and that is, the interest of the Proprietors of West
India Dock Stock. Mr. Marryat would Katie felt it just and
right to deprive them of that which the Legislature of the
country had guaranteed to them for ever; their right to divide
ten per cent., if the state of their affairs enables them to do so.

The Act of Parliament fixes the maximum of dividend, and
the maximuin of rates (or, in other words, the maximum of
prOfit and;, charge),4rd these constitute the conditions of the
original compact; they were established by the Legislaturems
inducements to the original adventurers, on the one hand, and
as securities to the public on the other, subject only to the
provisions in the original Act which relate to them.
The clause relating to the dividend has not the most remote
connection with the compulsory clause, which was limited to
twenty-one years, and has now expired; the West India trade
is not even mentioned in it ; that relating to the rates esta-
blishes the means by which the docks • and works are to be
maintained and upheld ‘ for the future," that is for ever.
There is much misapplication of the word Charier ; no ac-
tual charter exists; that which the C,ompany possess in the
nature of a charter, lies, not in the clause which compelled the
West India trade to use their dock; for a limited period, but
in the two clauses above-mentioned, relating to the rates and
the dividend ; these-constitute the bond of compact, in them is
to be found the charter of the company, and their duration is
not limited.

The maximum of 10 per cent. as a dividend is therefore a
fundamental right of the West Indio Dock Company, which
Cannot be compromised or aaeriftced consistently with u " JUST
regard to private interests,7"

• A largo pottiOn of the joint stock; still stands in the names
Of the Original subscribers, or of their children or executors ;
it has been urged that they have been already compensated;
that they have doubled their capital ; the answer is, they might
have lost it altogether, or have 'employed it still mare profitably.
If their property has been improved, can a portion of it, on
that ground, be taken away. ? Assuredly not. Every Pro-
prietor, whether an original subscriber, or a subsequent pur-
chaser, must have taken into account the possibility of his
property fluctuating in proportion •to the success or failure
of the undertaking ; but • neither the one nor the other could
have contemplated a reduction of dividend under any other cir.

cumstances.
Their priivate interests were certainly not justly regarded, in
the attempt to'reduce themaximum of the dividend ; and it is
a little singular to find the individual who was most strenuous
in endeavouring to effect this, arguing for the protection of the
interests of " the London Dock Company, the Commercial
" Dock Company, and all the other Dock Companies !,'_
:No. 19..-,-DISCONTINUANCE OF COMPULSORY CLAUSE:
The Compulsory clauses have expired ; but Mr. M arryat
has nevertheless devoted a chapter to this subject, in which he
argues as if they were yet in force he says, "it appears from
the evidence given on this subject, that the compulsory clause
forces commodities, intended for home consumption, to be
landed in Docks low down the rivet; fret *thence they must
be brought up to the City, at an extra expenceof cartage ; and
that commodities intended for exportation are landed in the
London'Do'cits, close to the city, from whence they have tole
carried down the river again." Mr. Marryat is quite right as
to the superior facility, and advantages, which the WeSt India
Wats present, in respect to exportation ; but he exaggerates
the inconvenience of their distance when goods are required
for home consumption :—ln the case of dye woods, for instance,
the West India Docks being the principal place of deposit, the
mice there regulates the market;--and the Purchasers of ,the
small parcels, which arc occasionally to be depOsited at the
London Docks, always claim an . abatement front the contract
price on account of the delivery charges, Which are made there,
and not at the West India Docks ; but nobody ever heard of
any difference in price, on account of extre cartage as between
the one Dock and. the other.'
It is evident, therefore, that the objections to the West India
Docks for the deposit of articles for hone. consumption, are al-
together frivolous. In the advantages which they offer, Jbr
,exportution, they are. and must ever continue to bp unrivalled.
All fiweign produte, and articles subject to such high duties,
as to be usually exported; are classed together, in one magni-
ficent Warehouse, adjoining the Blackwell entrance; and by
the' regulationA of the Company, site exporting vessel Is ad,
mitted to take them direct from the Quay, -at it 'Very trifling
expence, under arrangements, by which she can beloaded, and
proceed on her voyage, in afro hours.
It is gratifying to find Mr.Marryat conclude this chapter with
a jester regard to private interesti than he did in the preceedfng
one.; he says, :"Thia evidencealso relieves the mind from the
44 apprehension Of any injury being sustained by the Proprietors
44 of ?he Oil India Docks, from. the discontinuance of the
" compulsory clause ; for it proves, on tie authority of the Di.
" rectors, that this clause is not essential to the prosperity of the
Company ; that they would in all probability still continue to
" divide 10 per cent. on.their-copltal."
The Proprictora of the West, Witt Docks must feel obliged
to Mr. illarryat for the:consolation he thus gives them; and
for the very kind feiling 'with which it is offered.
No. 20.—COMPETITION OF DOCK COMPANIES. •
This, it is presumed, means what is commonly called "free
and open competition," a phrase which conveys no very definite
idea to the mind; and of which, neither. the Report Of the
FOreign Trade COmmittee affords, nor have the " Obtierva-
tions" of Mr. Marryat vouchsafed any. explanation ; neither
are any data given, by whiCh to.eitimate its probable effects.
Competition may, according to circumstances, be practicable
or impracticable, beneficial or prejudicial, rational or absurd ;
but the advocates for it decry. all scepticism upon the pOint,
continually harping upon the "generally recognized beneficial
principle ut competition," and the advantages of it to the-pub.
lie, " wherever applicable." It is in this point of applicability
that the theorists may be much out in their' calculation as to
the benefits; and, prebably,, this is peculiarly the case as re-
speeta the Dock Companies. For the purpose of illustration,
it will be sufficient to compare the situation of the LOndon and
West India Dock Companies. The capital of the former is
3,250,000/., that of the latter only 1,200,00 P. The London
:Dock Company at present distribute to their Proprietors
a dividend of only four and a half per cent., while the West
India Dock Company divide 10 per cent.; but the 43 per cent.
of the London Docks amounts to 116,2501. while the 10 per
cent. of the West India. Dock Company is only 120,000/. so
that for the' payment of their dividend the former, even now,
levy from the trade using their Decks, 26,240' 1. per annuli snore
titan the West India Dock Company.
The charges of the London Dock Company hare been al-
ready proved to be much higher than those of the West India
Docks ; the effect of competition, we are told, will be, to re-
duce all the charges in a very considerable degree; but let us
inquire how it will operate. Are we to suppose that the charges
a the London Docks are to be reduced so low, as to draw a
portion of the trade away from all 'their competitors ? They
still must give some dividend to their prorrietors : if they
should have business that world' yield tin:m an income of
300,000/. and their expenditure, exclusive of dividend, was
160,0001. they would be enabled to divide 4.1- per cent. ;
posing the West India Deck Company in the same situation,

as to intome and expenditure, (and competition can never ans
nihilate their business all at once) their profits would be 126
per cent., that is, 30,8001, more than by law they arc permitted
to divide; and therefore that amount would be applied in aid
of future dividends, and in reduction of future rates; this re•
duction would bring additional business, additional business
would occasion additional profit; a similar course of reduction
of rates, and increase of business, would again ensue, and that
state of things would arise which is contemplated in thelbrow-
ing extract from the Report of the Select Committee of the
House of Commons;-upon the Supply of Water to the Metro-
polis I,—" Your Committee are satisfied that from the peculiar
" nature of these undertakings. the principle of compciiOn- re-
" Vara to be guarded by particular checks and limits in its
" application to thesis, in order to render it effectual without the
"'risk of deetructfon to the competing parties, and thereby old-
" tnately of a serious injury to the Public."
If Mr. Alarryat should be inclined to turn the tables, and
say, "do not be so certain that the situation you allude to
may not be your own," we would ask him, if with the present
comparatively excessive rates of the London Docks, they can
only divide 44 per cent., to what rate of interest does he mean
to reduce the capital, of the London DoCkShsreholder ? If the
LondOn Dork charges are reduced by competition from th it
piesent amount, it seems olivious that the dividend must also
be reduced, unless it can be supposed that the effect would
be, instantly to give them the command of a much more ex-
tensive trade; but would not this be counteracted by the West
India Dock Company ? Assuredly it would, and the London
Dock Company viotild find that the disiiviortiOn of Capital
alone rendered com Petition on their • part 'altogether out of the
question ; they would discover, that well low rates which
would yet give a dividend to the Proprietors of West India
Dock Stock, might leave the Praprietor of the Lonion Docks
without any- dividend at all.

t ath
xi: thing Companyo
to
extant, ng 1,1, i n 'h u
The modern theorists will exclaim, " That is (racily what
WE want :"• but it is very questionable whether Mr. Marryat,
would hail such i result with much satisfaction ; he perhap.e
of the dividend ALONE, exactly THREE iIuNDRED aril
be
ercieg
xr,tsie.iihiviaepto
la!
thoiteePr rcetorpadnrti.ee;touirsfiontfigiLoatthzodaFDDoitka;:acristet,,hellp:::eitylmoliirsiott ,
TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS, thatis a charge of 'test
TWO HUNDRED AND FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS more t an
the West India Deck dividend, at its present amount, occasions.
As betiveen these two, then, the principal Establishments,
is it mit idle to talk of " Free and open competition ;" let
it not be supposed, however, that this contrast is drawn, as
a taunt from the powerful to -the weak ; it has been forced from
the writer, by the continual stress which Mr. Marryat lays
upon the futile pledges of the Directors. of other Docks, to do
the business on lower terms, which he is pleased to consider,
as accounting for the "dread of competitton,” on the part el
the West India Dock Company. •
to
have gphethasevlbaneidinh
ihshlct stated to
himself that
hee
aan,tei chew that
h3tehz
rao.tt theother
eira
rD
Docks
yVace :kit
Its
hnallndiaovset selL?evo cenrlk.;,
atnndownotthhaintgthtteiplrosivedegteh
open he may find, that even before the exiSting monopolies o
the London -Dockshave expired, it is possible that the2l mg,:
loose more than they will gain ; in all that is here said it
_te
with reluctance that such frequent mention is made of the
latter Eetablishment, but it is unavoidable, from the prominent
isofilslvaaYrebheoutsrinuge'istetharocweri
Manner In which their pretentions have been thrust forward,
by their injudicious' Friend. - -
mAr.ftemrurrycomatm
ceonmtiesngtouttlohnisthvemecvliudscionnce:_in„ hTturesus
usual
of
atir
the sane sentiment is most fbreibly expressed by the ConlM_
evidence Is conclusion, as to the advantage's. Ofcumpetitionina;nlle.::
shiners 'of inquiry into the Customs and Excise, who conclude
'their seventh report with the following luminous observauon
on the Wet Dock Companies -"
We are fully.satisiled, that they afford the means of protect-
":.:- ins the revenue, pot only more effectually, but more econe:
" mically thin it could 'under any yigulationS, be secured, if
" the vast transactions now conducted within the Docks were
" carried on, its fortherly, upon the open quays : anti we find it
generally admitted on the other hand, that they have been
" highly useful to the merchant, by the safeguard be has found
"lq them, against the frauds anti pilhige to which his goods
" were formerly exposed. These are advantages of great value,
" and more especially under a general warehousing system.—
" it is: therefore, ill o:ir viva' at the subject, most desirable, that
" the Doak ertablialinirnts should be. maintained upon.Me pre_ sent respedtablefvoting :' but We are at the same time far from
" being prepared to state, that for that purpose the continue
" ante of the iyhole of their exclusive. privileges would be.
" necessary or expedient. il'e are sensible,. on the con-
" bury, than the interest of the , mercantile community is
".deeply concerned,' in being enabled to obtain the accont-
" Riodation which. these -Docks afibrd (and to which, pr.
" the advanlageif the rev, they are compelled to resorto at
" the cheapest rate at which it can he yielded ; .and, after all
" the consideration. that 'we have hitherto been able to bestow
"upon the subject, we are not aware of any other mode of
"securing that object than by opening a competition between
" the several dock establishments, and other warehouses and
" ctuay 4, such as cannot 'eXist consistently with the exclusive
" rights by which the* former are no* protected; and which
" rights have been granted for certain, periods, as a fair rernu-
" neration to the,proprietors for the expense of the undertaking.
' ( ,By what inodyirotioas of their several privileges at The "ex-
piration of those periods, this competition, which in our
"judgmeßt can alone protect"the merchant against arbitrary "
" Merges, may be effected, we propose to consider, and sub-
" mit to your Lordships in a future Report," '
There is nothing in the opinion here given to warrant Mr.
Marryat's appliCation of it ; the Commissioners have, with
great propriety, spoken in the most guarded manner; they evi-
dently felt all the difliculdea of the subject; they do not recom-
mend "free and orn competition;"" but mereiy:express their
doubt, in the firstinstance, whether the continuance of the
whole of the exclusive privileges is necessary, and then declare
themselves unprepared to state by what modation of those
privileges competition migtit be effected; this surely implies
the continuance of certain restrictions ?
The Commissioners hive inadvertently made use of the term
" arbitrary. charges ;" if they meant to have said exorbitant
r'cluirges, kgislative limitatiOn, and a short term ofprivikge, are
the. only effectual securities against- theta:. competition can
hardly be carried on without :or/ritrory (that is -discretionary)
zharges, unless a maximum of, charge is fixed for the whole
port; but if that competition IS to be FREE and OPEN, then it
will be quiteinconsistent to impose any such restraint, and not
only the charges but the whole system must be entirely arbi-
trary, anti, as the Report of the Foreign Trade Committee
says, " the conerodeuee of twerinerec, whether ariiing from local
c" position, . regnlation or charges, would be alone the measure
of erriployment and tuivanta..bes enjoyed by each several este-
:ll
Thisim p::: 4" eof the Report, if it tneans any thins, must
mean that the coaveni,uce of COArmEncE ALONE is to be
considered ; that to this, locarposition, regulations, and
charges.must, all be adapted ' • and that, in proportion as they
are so adapted, each several Establishment is to have the
unlimited' enjoyment el, all the cuivanten,,ei .arising from the
employment it ratty thus attract. '
411 clauses limiting charges or limiting Dividends must
instantly be repealed, to give effect to this free and open system-
.4lllaws relating to particular establiShments must be also re-
pealed, as eattuil, and inconsistent with fair competition ;
general and uniform provisions must be made for the, whole—
the London Docks,.• for instance, are limitcd to a dividend of
ten per cent., uhile the Commercial Docki, East Country
Docks, and Su trey Canal, may divide to any extent; this, ur.der
the new system, would lint be fair towards the London. Dock
Company ; the le-anion Docks, on the other build; are legal
quays, the Commercial Docks and others are not; and this
would be a disads.uttage to the latter. Ali this sort of dispa-
rity
must he done away.
It would he well if illr. Alarryat.woulti turn his attention to
these points, and favour the public with his ideas in his next
publication; probably he could devise an expedient for rev-
dering all the limpet ty, in the various dock, end canals through-
out the kingdom, oi' equal value, and far paring down their
respective capitali to ooe standard, so that they might all
start fair in nit.. race mof competition, as equally weighed as the
fleet competittrfs IA the tutf.

In conclnding his remarks upon this uncalled for Publica-
tion, the write; to is !hat some apology is due to the public,
for the imperfe:u manner in which he has performed the task
which he I.ll.lerto-k. If these remarks appear to be at all al a
been extorted from him ; and to trust,, that some
personal nature, he has only to plead in excuse, that they have
may he found, in various passages of the "observations" that
he has had to combat, in which Mr. Marc at has indulged itt
illiberal refiecions upon most respectable and honourable indi-
viduals, on the Nround of their being interested, he hirnbelf
possessing a much greatcr pecuniary interest in the Puma" issue, than
,those against whose motives and conduct he ".".
yours to excite suspicien. justification