The earliest formation of wet-docks and bonded warehouses.
Although the wars in which Great Britain had been so long engaged tended very materially to retard her maritime and commercial progress, they gave her, on the other hand, a position among the nations which at that period of her history could perhaps only have been achieved by force of arms; nor, though a sad stumbling-block in her path, did they prevent the development of those inventions which have done so much in our own time to make her the first of maritime nations. The steamship, to which we shall have occasion frequently, and at considerable length, to refer, had its birth, for all practical purposes, in the midst of war; while the dock, bonding, and warehousing systems, without which England never could have become the chief market of the world, were then, for the first time, successfully introduced. The power of steam, it is true, had been known, and the advantages which docks and bonding warehouses were likely to confer had been discussed long before the commencement of the present century, but it was only then that they were brought into useful and remunerative operation.
So early as 1660 the Commercial wet-dock on the Surrey side of the River Thames was opened to shipping, and, in 1662, the magistrates of Glasgow purchased the land on which Port Glasgow is now erected, and constructed there a harbour and a graving dock; but these were the only works of the kind in any way worthy of note until an Act, passed in 1709,[340] authorized the construction of a wet-dock at Liverpool. Close upon another century, however, elapsed ere the Act was passed which led to the construction and opening of the West India Docks of London. Nor had anything been done before that period to carry into effect the recommendations of Sir Robert Walpole, who, so far back as 1733, had strongly urged the desirability of some sort of warehousing system, whereby the duties levied upon imported goods might be collected so as to meet the convenience of their owners or consignees, and to protect the revenue.
System of levying duties.
Previously to 1802, if the duties were not paid on the arrival of the goods at the port of discharge, their owners or consignees were required to enter into bonds with the Customs to provide security for the amount due to the Crown. “It was often,” remarks McCulloch,[341] “very difficult to find sureties, and the merchant, in order to raise funds to pay the duty, was frequently reduced to the ruinous necessity of selling his goods immediately on their arrival, when perhaps the market was already glutted. Neither was this the only inconvenience that grew out of this system, for the duties having to be paid all at once, and not by degrees as the goods were sold for consumption, their price was raised by the amount of the profit on the capital advanced in payment of the duties; competition, too, was diminished in consequence of the greater command of funds required to carry on trade under such disadvantages, and a few rich individuals were enabled to monopolize the importation of those commodities on which heavy duties were payable. The system had besides an obvious tendency to discourage the carrying trade. It prevented this country from becoming the entrepôt for foreign products by hindering the importation of such as were not immediately wanted for home consumption, and thus tended to lessen the resort of foreigners to our markets, inasmuch as it rendered it difficult, or rather impossible, for them to complete an assorted cargo. And in addition to all these circumstances, the difficulty of granting a really equivalent drawback to the exporters of such commodities as had paid duty opened a door for the commission of every species of fraud.”
Opposition to any change.
Excise Bill proposed, 1733,
Nevertheless, when Sir Robert Walpole, in 1733, first introduced his famous Excise Scheme, requiring all importations of tobacco and wine to be deposited in public warehouses until the duty had been paid, there were the loudest clamours against a measure meant, not merely for the security of the revenue, but for the benefit and convenience of the merchants, who, however, scouted his proposal. Indeed, those of them who had availed themselves of the facilities afforded by the existing system for defrauding the revenue resisted the measure by every means in their power, exasperating the people to a state of the wildest fury against it.
but not passed until 1803.
Necessity of docks for London.