{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017481270067784518, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0028540849090260435, 'mean_word_length': 5.108932461873638, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Iron Shipbuilding on the Thames, 1832–1915: A Roundtable Response

It is difficult not to be aware of the gulf between popular certainties as expressed in the media about the economic effects of particular changes in government policy and the considerable caution with which many historians approach economic and business issues that many might have imagined could have been readily settled a century or so ago. Of course, much of the charm of historical enquiry lies in attempting to recognise the multi-factor nature of economic and business activity, as David Starkey makes clear. Although this complexity makes for considerable difficulty in specifying moderately satisfactory models of causality applicable to particular industrial changes, it also leads to the rich diversity of legitimate approaches that are displayed in the reviews that precede this response. As a business historian with some knowledge of economic and accounting history, I essentially "backed into" one or two historical areas of shipping and shipbuilding because they provided particularly interesting arenas to observe how the contractual relationship between the state and the private sector actually functioned. Thus, an early interest in overseas mail contracts quickly led on to work on naval armaments in the years leading up to and during the First World War. At that point, given the importance that had been attached by the Admiralty to firms on the Thames, it was difficult not to be intrigued, if not actively challenged, by the comments of Murphy, Johnman and Ritchie that Thames shipbuilding was "little better documented than King Arthur!" I am therefore particularly pleased that Hugh Murphy and Lewis Johnman were members of the panel of distinguished shipping historians who have taken the trouble to review my recent book on iron shipbuilding on the Thames. I am even more pleased, if not relieved, that the various reviewers have approached the book, and the approach it embodies, with such generosity, and I am grateful for their reluctance to point out the undoubted limitations in my technical knowledge of the industry. On the other hand, we are all limited by our range of competences and preconceptions. Further, the main emphases of the book, and the "intellectual baggage" I brought to the subject, were signalled by the inclusion of "economic and business history" in the title. I have enjoyed reading the comments and have learned a great deal from them, as will the journal's other readers. Many of the points represent a well-argued preference for slightly different perspectives or approaches and need no further comment from me. I would, however, like to comment on a limited number of issues that I found particularly interesting and where there is indeed much scope for further discussion.