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repealed, the expectation was held out to the ship-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 their 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 ownships; 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, in
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;