The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-01-24 00:00:00

BRITISH AND AMERICAN TONNAGZ.

A statement of the tonnage statistics of the United States
on the 30th June last has just been published by the New
York Journal of Commerce, which serves tor comparison
with our own trade and tonnage. We have no special
returns of British shipping made up to the half year
ending June 30, 1856, to institute a close comparison with ;
but giving the Americans the advantage of the latter six
months, we are content to take the figures relating to
British tonnage for the year 1855, and to compare them
with the United States shipping for the year ending Jane
30, 1856. Commencing first with the entries for these
years, they stand thus

Vessels : Aggregate N,
':4 entered in. Tonnage. ~,,
Great Britain 40,980 8,951,239
United States 21,688 6,072,2,35
The proportion of foreign vessels entered in each country
is as follows :

Ships. Tons.<
Great Britain 18,193 3,680,447
United States 11,375 2 486,769

which proves that a much larger proportion 'of the Ame-
rican trade is carried on in foreign vessels than there is
of the British trade in foreign bottoms.
The clearances of vessels from our ports show even
more favourably than the entries, and are nearly one-half
more than those of the United States, the figures being
respectively as follows : 3 _

~ .
- Ships.- Tons. - -
Great Britain 42,597 9,538,231
United States 21,778 7,000,472
In the year 1855, 22,863 vessels, registering 6,426,566 tons,
cleared from the twelve principal ports of the United
Kingdom—being nearly equal to the whole of the American
clearances in 1856, and exceeding their clearances in 1855
by nearly 300,000 tons.

Of the entire foreign trade of the United States con-
ducted by foreign vessels, nearly the whole is carried on
under the British flag; for of the 11,375 ships, measuring
2,487,769 tons, 10,450 vessels, and 2,152,892 tons were
British, navigated by 115,628 men and boys.
To come now to the registered tonnage of the United
States. It will be remembered that the Americans have
long boasted that they equalled or supassed us in tonnage ;
but the figures before us tell a very different tale, and
prove how little dependence there is to be placed on these
statistical returns.

The Mercantile Marine of the Great Republic would
seem to be growing " fine by degrees and beautifully less.'
On the 12th January, 1855, when instituting some com-
parisons between the shipping of the two countries, the'
Shipping and Mercantile Gazette remarked, " that entire
dependence cannot always be placed on the accuracy of
American figures ; and this return proves the truth of
the remark. Now let us trace the American returns for
the last few years. On the 30th June, 1854, the American
tonnage was given at, 5,661,416 tons ; on the 30th June,
1855, at 5 212,001 tons ; and on the 30th June, 1856, at
4,871,652 tons. Here is aldecline in two years of 789,764
tons. How is this to be explained ? Shipbuilding has
been very active in the States during that period. but then
a large number of vessels have been sold to foreigners,
lost, and condemned ; and a very singular item appears in
the return now published, by which 691,135 tons are
struck off the American roll for vessels lost and sold in
former years which have never been deducted." If we
look somewhat closely into the return we are commenting
on we find that, of the total American tonnage, 2,336,738
tons, or fully one half, are employed in the coasting trade
and shore fisheries, and must therefore consist of a small
class of vessels. It would seem that 673,077 tons are
employed in steam navigation. We have but 380,635 tons
exclusive of colonial steamers ; but many have been
purchased into the navy and sold to foreign states.
Now, if we compare the registered tonnage of the two
countries, we find that Great Britain is largely ahead of
her progressive maritime rival. We owned, on the 31st
December, 1855, at home and in our Colonies, 34,714
vessels, and 5,106,248 tons. And giving the United States
the benefit of the six months' advance between that period
and the 30th June, 1856, we find that, even assuming the
official return to be correct—which is very doubtful—the
Americans owned but 4,671,652 tons ; and were the
comparison taken for corresponding dates the dispropor-
tion would be still more in favour of the aggregate British
tonnage. There is another item in the return, which is
the aggregate value of the imports and exports of the
United States for the fiscal year. This is given at
£128,321,000 (if converted into sterling). The value of
the imports and exports of the United kingdom in the
year 1855 was 4263,361,376, exclusive of about £3,500,000
of foreign goods transhipped at our ports. From the
single port of Liverpool alone, 4,563 ships, measuring
2,315,439 tons, cleared last year for various ports, convey-
ing goods of the value of 454,835,000, or within a fifth of
the whole to amount of goods exported from all the
American ports in the fiscal year.—Mitchell's Maritime
Register.

VALUE OF CANDLES EXPORTED —The value of candles
exnorted in ten months (January to November) was
£323,206.

THE POET BERANGER AND THE EMPRESS EIIGENIE.—It
was lately stated in the Journal de Bruxelles that the
Empress, being informed that the annual sum allowed to
Beranger by his publisher, M. Perrotin, was not sufficient
to provide for him in his old age, had privately intimated
to M. Perrotin that she would willingly contribute from
her own privy purse enough to raise the poet's income to
10,000 f. a year ; but her Majesty added that she wished the
matter to be so managed as not to let Beranger know the
source from which his accession of fortune was derived, and
to make him believe that it came from the extended sale of
his writings. The article in the Brussels journal contained
some very illiberal and insulting remarks upon Beranger,
who, it further asserted, had been informed by M. Per-
rotin, contrary to the desire of her Majesty, of the
kind little scheme she had devised for his benefit, and
Beranger was reproached for having, notwithstanding
this, accepted her bounty, and written her a very grateful
letter cf acknowledgment. The publication of these state-
ments has drawn forth a letter from M. Perrotin, in which
he thus narrates the affair Last year her Majesty the
Empress fading uneasy about the health and the circum-
stances of Beranger, proposed to me, through a person in
her confidence, her own secretary, under a promise of the
strictest secrecy, that she should pay to my credit an annual
sum, the amount of which was to be fixed by me, and
which I myself was to give, in my own name to Beranger.
The proposal was indeed a royal one, and worthy of a noble
heart; but I for my part had no right to accept it. It was
only Beranger who could have a right to do so, and when I
had obtained permission to inform him of the proposal
whichapproved
moyf
emeymchoi
td
ii
tc tl,
saying
understood
had acted otherwise. He did more than this; he wrote me
had
that
e should made,
not he
e
a letter in which he expressed, in excellent terms, 'hi gra-
ehnatviere l
gra-
titude which at the bottom of his heart he telt f( r the
kindness that had been shown him; and added that h had
never been richer than he was at that moment—that he had
never needed a larger income ; and that his gratitude was
the more sincere, since he did not accept the benefits with
the offer of which he had been honoured. This is all that
has taken place upon the subject."