The Press. — London, England, 1858-12-18 00:00:00

THE PRESS, DECEMBER 18, 1858. 1232 Paull, St. Ives ; Mr. James Clay and Lord Ashley, Hull. The large room was crowded with representa tives of the London shipping firms. After some observations from the CHAIRMAN, Mr. G. F. YOUNG moved the first resolution:— That British shipping is in present, in all its most im• portant branches, in a state of most deplorable and ruinous depression has been partly caused and is greatly aggra• Tilted by the unegull competition to which by the repeal of the navigation laws British navigation is now exposed with the shipping of foreign countries. After adverting to his long absence from public life, the hon. gentleman proceeded to disavow, on behalf of the meeting, any intention of reviving the con troversy of Free Trade v. Protection. It was of the last importance, not merely as regarded conciliating the support of public men, but even to obtain a hearing from the general public, that it should be distinctly understood that they had no intention of flying in the face of the decision which 'Dad been arrived at on that question, however erroneous some of them mieht think it. He was there, not to ask for protection, but for simple justice. He did not wish for any new legislation, but merely that the law as it now stood should be carried into execution. It was, no doubt, unfortunate that public opinion seemed to have adopted a foregone conclusion against the object for which they were striv'ng. The great organs of public opinion, too, seemed to have adopted by anticipation a view of the question opposed to their claims ; but it was clear that they bad taken this course without a full examination into its merits. Still it was not for them to quail before these ob stacles, but bravely to encounter them, and he hoped that when a full and clear statement of the case bad been laid before the public, those who professed to guide public opinion would look carefully into it, and would endeavour to do full justice to an important British interest. When the navigation laws were repealed, the expectation was held out to the ship ping interest that in return for the surrender of the privileges then given up, foreign nations would give to them reciprocal advantages. That amiable man, but exceedingly weak Minister, Mr. Labouchere, who proposed that repeal to Parliament, said there could be no doubt that foreign nations would follow oar example, although his concurrence in the clause which enabled her Majesty to reimpose the prohibi tions in the case of non reciprocating nations, seemed to argue that he had some misgivings on the suh jeet. The language of Sir Charles Wood, Mr. Cob den, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Porter on that occasion was that the effect of the surrender of these privileges must be to give an immense impetus to the increase of British shipping ; but their predictions, instead of being verified, had failed lamentably. The most influential organ of public opinion (the Times) had lately stated that the advance of British tonnage since the repeal of the navigation laws hail been incredible; and, according to the Economist, that increase was more than 50 per cent., but the facts contradicted both of them. According to the Board of Trade returns, the total tonnage of British and foreign vessels entered inwards with cargoes in 1842 was 3,655,230 tons, and in 1849 it was 6,710,269, being au increase of 66 per cent. in the eight years preceding the repeal of the navigation laws. In 1857 it was 8,731,806 tons, being an increase of 44 per cent. only in the eight years following that repeal. In the eight years preceding the repeal tho British tonnage had increased from 2,680,858 to 4,390,375 tons, being 64 per cent., and the foreign tonnage from 974,372 tons to 1,680,894 tons, or 73 per cent., while in the eight years following the repeal British tonnage bad increased from 4,390,375 to 5,427,534, or 24 per cent., and foreign tonnage from 1,080,894 to 3,344,272, or 97 per cent. It was argued, however, that because there had been an inzrease of British tonnage and of the trade of the country since the repeal of the navigation laws, that therefore British maritime commerce must have benefited from that measure ; but no fallacy could be more transparent. In the first place it might be asked, had the increase in onr mercantile marine been greater before the repeal of the navigation laws or since ; and next, had the increase since that repeal been greater in the British commercial marine or in the foreign! That was a nut for the journalists who strove to write down this movement to crack. It was neces sary that the people of England should take these things into their consideration before they made up their minds on this question, and this was an oppor. tunity which ought not to be passed over. He might Dave written a pamphlet, and shown the result much more conclusively ; but who would have read it? He miLllit have written, too, a letter to the editor of the Times, but would he have pat it in! These figures, however, stated at a public meeting, could not be suppressed, and it was for their opponents to combat them. Still, he would do the writers in the journals the justice to say that he believed they had been misled, and that they had not paid sufficient attention to the facts of the quevion. But to return to . the statistics. In 1849 the gross registered tonnage was 4,144,115 tons, and in 1857 it was 5 ; 519,111, showing aq 1119f1,469 ilia9e he spat;! of 33 per cent. In the same time the tonnage of the United States had increased from 3,374,014 to 5,250,450, being an increase of 00 per cent ; and there was very little doubt that at the pi esent moment the gross tonnage of the United States actually exceeded our own. That was the result which he had predicted at the time of the repeal, and it was one which had scarcely yet been brought home to the convictions of the British people. Most people who had not studied the subject would be astonished to find how foreigners had come into our commerce and run away with the best part of it. In the eight years preceding the repeal of the navigation laws British shipping entered in and clearing out had increased about 43 per cent., and foreign shipping entered in and clearing out had increased 36 per cent., but in the eight years succeeding the repeal, while British tonnage had only increased 42 per cent., foreign tonnage had increased 118 per cent. In 1849 British tonnage entered inwards in the ports of Locdon and Liverpool was 2,590,156 and foreign ti.nnage 1,000,209; but in 1857, while British ton nage was only 4,671,672, foreign tonnage was 3,211,420 tons. It was said, however, that we had overbuilt ourselves, and that the depression was partly caused by that fact; but he maintained that instead of that being the case we had not actually built to the extent which the average increase of the commerce of the United Kingdom would have justified us in building. In the eight years pre ceding the repeal of the navigation laws we built 1,751,913 tons, while the Americans built 1,448,842. But in the eight years following that repeal, while we had only built 2,947.127 tons, the Americans had actually built 3,385,915 tons. It was beyond all doubt that the commerce of the United States had not in that time increased in such a ratio as to justify this increase in their building; the in crease, in fact, was accounted for by the opening which the repeal of the navigation laws ha I given to the American carrying trade. Oar imports had increased from 1842 to 1857 from 65,000,0001. to 136,000,0001, but our tonnage had not in creased in anything like the same ratio. In fact, we had not built enough, but the United States had stepped in and supplied the deficiency. The British shipowners when the repeal of the navigation laws was passed were led to believe that they would obtain an indemnity for the privileges they then lost in the counter-advantages which would then be opened to them in foreign trade, butexperience bad proved the hollowness of this promise. For instance, the trade with Brazil was open to all the world, but out of 41 ships which cleared out from Rio Janerio for London last year, amounting to 13,138 tons, and employing 468 men, only 7 were British, and only 75 of the men were British sailors. This was a fact which the commissioners now sitting to inquire into the best means of manning the navy ought to take into their most serious consideration. On the Ist of the present month there were in London 17,258 tons of shipping loading for our Australian colonies, of which only 6,984 tons were British, and of six ships loading for Adelaide not a single ship was British. Again, in 1855-56-57, 399,542 emigrants were conveyed to America. Of these 105,246 were conveyed in British vessels, and 294,290 in foreign vessels. That is another proof of the extent to which foreign ships are stepping into our trade. The last accounts from Batavia, where we have a reciprocity treaty, state that of 29 ships lying there only one vessel is British. From Calcutta, from Singapore, and from the Chinese ports we have the same tale of vessels lying inactive. One great fallacy by which people were misled was that the interests of the consumers were benefited by the reduction of freight to the full extent of the difference which must exist between the sum paid to the English carrier and the sum paid to the foreign carrier. That was a pure delu sion. With respect to • large proportion of articles imparted, freight did not enter into the price at all. In bulky and heavy commodities freight, no doubt, constituted an important item in the cost of the article in the market in which it was sold ; bat in goods of a valuable description and not of any bulk it entered less, and it diminished gradually according to the diminution of the bulk and the increase of the value, until in the most valuable it ceased to exist at all as au element of price. But there could nnt be a greater mistake than to contend that, if a shipload or timber were brought over by a foreign vessel at a freight of 11. per ton, instead of a freight of 21. per ton by a British vessel, the consumer therefore would get it at 11. per ton cheaper. In all such cases the reduction of freight was added to the price of the article by the foreign producer, and he alone got the benefit. The price of an article was not regulated by its cost of production in the market, but by the proportion of supply and demand in the market. When the navigation laws were repealed the ports of Great Britain did not present a single petition in favour of the measure, but the West Indian colonists did petition. Their object was to get their sugar conveyed home cheaper, not that the consumer here might have the benefit of a reduced price, but that they might rut the difference between the higher and pockets. miry lower freight into th e i r own years he bad been an advocate of what were called the principles of protection ; but he was neither bigoted to protection as a principle, nor to free trade as a principle. He objected to every attelept to carry out principles in themselves good to results which were pernicious. The navigation laws could never be reiinposed in :heir integrity, and they ought not to be, but there was much of good in the naviga. tion laws, and that good ought to be restored, or the maritime commerce of Great Britain must sink from the position which it had so long occupied.—the hen. gentleman concluded by moving the resolution. Mr. ANDERSON seconded it, and it was carried unanimou:ly. Mr. S R. GRAVES, of Liverpool, in an excellent speech, moved the second resolution : That, after the experience of eight years, it is preyed that the indiscriminate admission of all foreign shipping to the privileges of British sh►ps has failed to induce many foreign Gove•nments reciprocally to admit British ships to equality of privilege with their own ships, and that British navigation is, consequently, in many casts impeded and injured by prohibitions, restrictions, and regulations inconsistent with fair and equal competition, for the ex press purpose of meeting which contingency the following clause was introduced into the act by which the navigation laws were repealed, was continued by the Act 18th sod 17th of Victoria, chap. 107, and is now the law of the Isn , l:—" It it shall be made to appear to her Majesty that British vessels are subject, in any foreign conntrv, to any prohibitions or restrictions as to the voyages in which they may engage, or as to the articles which they may import into or export from such country, it shall be lawful for her Majesty (if she think tit ), by order in Council, to impose such prohibitions, or restrictions, upon the ships of such foreign country, either as to the voyages in which they may engage or as to the articles which they may im• port into or export from any part of the United Kingdom, or of soy British possession in any part of the world, as her Majesty may think tit, so as to place the ships of such country on, as nearly as possible, the same footing in British ports as that on which British ships are placed in the ports of such country." Mr. ALLAN GILMORE, of Glasgow, seconded the resolution, and also quoted from the Bo,trl of Trade returns to show that whereas during the ten years previous to the repeal of the navigation laws British tonnage had increased fifty-six and a half per cent., and foreign tonnage forty-six and three quarters per cent., in the eight years following the repeal British tonnage had increased but forty two and a half per cent., while foreign tonnage in the same time had increased a hundred and twenty-two per cent. _ The resAution was put and carrie 1 unanimously. Mr. Arxmos, of Hull, propo3ed the next resolut Lion That, in the opinion of this meeting, the time has now arrived when all who are interested in British shipping should concur in an urgent appeal to her Majesty. praying her Majesty to exercise the powers thus vested in her, and to place the sbips of all such countries as may con tinue to refuse to reciprocate the benefits conferred on them by the liberal concessions accorded to their twigs don, "as nearly as possible on the same footing in British ports as that ou which British ships are placed in the ports of such countries." Mr. WAWM, late M.P. for South Shields, seconded the resolution, which was carried unanimuuNly. Mr. MITCHELL, of Montrose, in proposing the next resolution, — That with this object the address now read be appr3ved and adopted ; that it be signed by the chairman on behalf of this meeting, and by the chairmen of the General Shipowners' Society, and the members of the various deputations now present from the ports on belief of the shipping interests of the metropolis and of those ontports respectively; and that when so signed it be placed in the hands of the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department for presentation to her M raj esty,— qnoted from the Customs' returns of Montrose, Dundee, awl Aberdaen, to show the great decrease of British shipping and the increase of foreign shipping in those ports since the repeal of the navigation laws. The hon. gentleman also expressed his belief, founded on the Earl of Malmesbary's letter, that the present Government were anxious to do justice to the shipping interest. Mr. Pits, of Cork, seconded the resolution. and quoted similar statistics with regard to that part. Finally, an address to the Queen was agreed upon, of which the following is the pith We have now to represent to your Majesty that, after the experience of several years, it is found that the ant versal admission of foreign ships to all the privileges of British ',hips has not induced the thiverninents of inan . foreign Stites to admit British shipping to equality ofpritl. legea with their own ships; but thst British navigation is in many cases impeded by prohibitions, restrictiow. and regulations totally at variance with the reciprocity contem plated when the British navigation laws were repealed, and which serionsly agrravate to the British shipowner the difficulties i gainst which he is doomed to struggle, i n the unlimited and universal competition to which be is exposed. Under these circumstances, the British shipping inte rest has no resource but in an appeal to your Majesty ; and on behalf of that interest we are accordingly deputed re ' spectrally. but earnestly, to implore your Majesty to est;