The Sun.
London, England, 1824-03-23 00:00:00

REPORT.

In entering into this momentous question, it was obvious to
your Committee that whatever reciprocity of advantage might
be mutually conceded as between British and Foreign ship-
ping by the reciprocal removal of those protections by which
Maritime States have hitherto endeavoured to support their
native shipping, the balance of actual benefit must ultimately,
under such a system of unrestricted competition devolve on
that nation whose shipping could be built, equipped, and navi-
gated on the cheapest terms. To ascertain, therefore, the rela-
tive expence of building, equipping, manning, victualling, and
sailing British and Foreign shipping, was the first and most
anxious inquiry of your Committee ; and when, by concurrent
testimony it became apparent to them that in all these particu-
lars the Northern States of Europe possessed a decided advan-
tage, they next endeavoured to ascertain how far any efficient
counterpoise to such advantage might reasonably be anticipated
in any superiority of construction or durability in British ships,
in the skill and activity of British seamen, or the capital and
enterprize of British Ship Owners.
With respect to the relative expence of ship-building, your
Committee, considering that from the various dimensions,
scantling, and modes of construction adopted in ships of the
same tonnage, any actual statement of cost might alone be
deemed inconclusive, have prepared a calculation of the cost
of a vessel in Great Britain and in several of the ports in the
North of Europe, in which the same quantities of materials
and labour as were actually expended on the British vessel are
applied to the existing prices of those materials and labour in
the foreign ports respectively.
This calculation which exhibits an enormous difference In
favour of foreign-biiild shipping, will be found in Appendix,
marked A. ; and your Committee cannot forbear remarking,
that they are confirmed in their belief of its accuracy, by having
ascertained that a vessel is at, present building in London of
nearly similar description to that on which this calculation is
founded, at a price corresponding very nearly with the result of
the calculation itself.

But in further corroboration of this point, your Committee
beg to refer to Appendix 8., containing a statement of the
actual cost of a number of ships built in the different ports of
England and in foreign countries, from which it will be per-
ceived that while in England the price varies from 281. to IE.
per register ton, it amounts in Prussia to only from 8/. Bs. to
151. 10s. ; and that in several other countries it is considerably
lower. The greater part of these statements can be verified
by document, and the remainder are derived from sources on
which your Committee believe implicit confidence may be
placed. While on this branch of the subject, your Com-
mittee would remark, that it has been clearly proved to them
that a very small proportion of the difference in the cost of
building and equipment arises from direct duties payable on
articles employed therein and that therefore any relief to be ex-
pected by a reduction or even a total remission of such duties
would be inconsiderable, and any . hope of reducing thereby
the scale of expence to any approximation to that of foreigners
is altogether fallacious. -
The next important article of maritime expence is the wages
paid to the officers and seamen employed in navigation. On
this point your Committee request particular attention to ap-
pendix C. from which it will appear, that in this particular the
advantage on the side of the foreigner is no less striking than
in the cost of the ship,—British seamen's wages in the Baltic
trade being at the present moment from 50s. to 31. while the
Prussian seaman receives but 245., the Swede 20s. and the Rus-
sian 15s. per month ; with respect to the British wages abund-
ance of documents can be adduced in proof, and though the na-
ture of the case does not admit of similar demonstration on the
case of foreigners, your Committee have satisfied themselves of
the truth of the statement by personal inquiry on board ships
of the respective countries.

In the 'article of provision your Committee have experienced
considerable embarassinent from the difficulty of establishing
any general standard of victualling. The scale, however, taken
for British ships is that usually adopted in the West India
trade; and for foreipers it has"been ascertained by the most
' careful inquiry. That a number of minor articles of provisions
and comfort usually afforded in the British merchant service, are
omitted, in the desire of not overstating the comparison, and is a
further advantage to the foreigner. In this relative view will be
perceived the fact that in British ships engaged in the Baltic
trade no limitation of provisions is practiced, and that the
quantity actually consumed exceeds that exhibited by the cal-
culation referred to. The result will be found in appendix D,
and completes the chain of evidence by which it is proved, that
the positive expence of building, equipping, manning, and vic-
tualling is infinitely less in the ports of the Baltic than those
of the United Kingdom. But it has not escaped the attention
of your Committee that great as are the advantages in point of
abstract cheapness possesed by foreigners, circumstances of a
countervailing nature might possibly exist, calculated in a great
measure to restore the equilibrium thus totally subverted by
difference of cost. From the belief, indeed, which appears to
be entertained, that such differences do actuallyi exist, your
Committee were scarcely prepared to anticipate the result to
which they beg next to solicit the most attentive consideration.
It has been first asserted, that vessels-built in those ports, the
rivalry of whose shipping is most seriously apprehended, though
cheaper as to first cost, are wanting in durability, and are
therefore ultimately as expensive as British built ships. In
order to arrive at a correct conclusion on this point, your Com-
mittee, beginning at a part of Lloyd's Register Book taken in-
discriminately, abstracted from thence in the succession in which
they stood ; the first 20 ships of the following countries, viz.
England, Prussia, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, and lsbaway,

mwilalrkbiongfotohnedaigneAs ofpp ee an el
ET,oththeye vs,
os uulltd oefnt
thriesa at bpsatrrtaiccut, t
utiac_th.
tention as it not only refutes the assertion of the superior
bility of British shipping, but exhibits them as the leas_uthe
rable of the whcle, while the Norwegian shipping, which !s,
tcihoeapeet, and has been considered is quality almost vio
is actually proved to last longer than any, and to exceed
durability of the British by more than one half !
n
Yourof Committeehow far
onex comparativet directed theirview consideration
tie
costand x
to thee ques-
of British and Foreign Shipping, was effected by the alien
oifference in the mode of measurement, a reference to APPen.
dix F, will prove that whatever force this argument may po,:o
seas with respect to American and French shipping, I,,theaseee
application to the vessels of the north of Europe, which are
stated on competent evidence to stow larger cargoes in gell--„es
than British built vessels, according to their nominal tonneate;
ascertained by the rules prescribed by the British Reg° of
laws. A reference to the manifests of the cargoes of some is
these ships has convinced your Committee, that this opinion
correct, though the difficulty of reducing mixed cargoes to 11 _,n
uniform standard capable of accurate relative comparson, ns:
or
prevented then, from rendering the fact the subject i,f d
mentary evidence.
The next point that suggested itself to your Committee Aar-
whether;
the disadvantages to British Ship-Owners in the 11„
wages and expensive provisions allowed to their crews, is CO,
,t
pensated by such a reduction in the number of seamen as mig
be expected to be consequent on the alleg p
ed sueriority os.
British sailors in activity and skill : Appendix G establishe
that instead of this being the fact in the cases therein reforr,
to, the foreign ship employed but 4 men to sin the Britt
while an abstract from a Parliamentary return, El, shoo t
the number of men employed in navigating the whole de ttris
ships and vessels cleared outwardi from the several ports or ,
United Kingdom during the last 9 years, including their re,
peated voyages, was in the proportion of about 6 men to 0'1)
100 tons British, and only 5 to every 100 tons foreign. it
But as, notwithstanding these conclusive demonstrations', 3
has been asserted that British ships make quicker voyage' tl4',.
foreign and compensate thereby for their increased expef -j.
your Co,mmittee have been at some pains to ascertain this nualls
As regards the Baltic trade. They annex, in appendix In tl
certificate of two experienced brokers conversant with the trael;
stating that the number of voyages made annually by
description of ships is equal; and though they have not li=e3
able to obtain more conclusive corroboration of the fact, widens
indeed, is scarcely susceptible of direct demonstration, th
result of all their inquiries on the subject leads them decidedly
to the same conclusion. It has further been asserted, that frontthe general prevalence of associations for mutual insurance"
the rate of premiums paid by the British Ship-owner is e°lli.
paratively trifling. Appendix K. contains the most ample re-
futation of this assertion, in the fact that in the port of New:
castle, in which a greater number of ships are insured in diat
principle than in any other in the kingdom, the average °°l
tributions paid by the owners for actual losses on ships insure,
in all the associations for the port during the last 4 years vi4i
91.175. 7d. per cent. per annum—nearly equal to the rate °
premium paid at Lloyd's, which is about 101. per cent.
The result of these differences on the employment of 'capita
in British and foreign shipping will be found in appendix In:
exhibiting an advantage in favour of the Prussian of 391. 11'1
sd. per cent. on his capital, if admitted to embark in the carry'
ing trade on equality of duties with British shipping.
In the prosecution of the foregoing inquiries, your Coll'',
mittee have had to contend with many difficulties, and °/1
that part of the subject more immediately embracing ,
formation only to be derived from foreigners, or those
connected with foreign trading interests, they regret to bet.;
experienced a general unwillingness to impart it. Theis
investigations have however been conducted with all pos.sibm
diligence and circumspection, and in every important calculi'
tion they have been anxious to avoid any charge of partiality
by giving to the Foreign Interest the benefit of any doubt the;
may have arisen. But with the most anxious desire to discard
every prejudice, and to take the fairest and most impartial
dui
°.`
view of all the bearings of this interesting question, it "a
scarcely be a matter of surprize, after the evidence they barb
adduced, that your Committee should come to the conclusion'
that all the apprehensions expressed by the Ship-Owners 31;
the petition which has given rise to the present Report must
be fully realized, should his Majesty's Government determine
on exercising the powers vested in them, by the reciprocity!,
,14
Duties Actin regulating the future trading intercourse wide
the Northern States of Europe, nor is it on the abstract nattlrea
of the evidence alone that they ground this deduction ; they w'"
supported in their conviction of its correctness by the more ge'
neral obserVatione they have been enabled to make in the Pr?'
gress of the inquiry, by remarking the increasing degree 2i,
which foreign ships are even at present superseding Brit' i•
tonnage in the Baltic Trade ; that they are sailing at eateSa°
freight so low as to defy all Bristish competition ; that in n;
contractsy
ttple,
neo
srk:ei
eycieuytnaontrbeddeyesengirßpghuwlaararoi
lloitltytihsi
tzetsshhadh
tetNehiyi
sl:neeaniovteenrarit
alorlchycdfheuesarmenttrciogotolsrsirentleaifvtdsrnoheeurieytettaiihsshe
circumstances,
conveyance
ftsepotu,i
alngroypptfnhppo el
lights,et
hfyrsa
appears
hosfpi
ecslhp
advantagecaejiaor
articles,
ruori Vet
tenyl!yresbtotte,yinshzultat.ii..;
lastage, atc. have so increased their facilities as to enable theta
Committee,i47l r
ie at
timber to the extent to which they possess tonnage to mbar-
encouragement they would receive by the abrogation of t'„-
protecting duties hitherto afforded to British freight, to ina°7(-/
such further embarkation of capital in foreign shipping as wou,'g
lead to their monopolizing the entire trade with their resneet'l:e
countries. Assuming, indeed, that this must be the result, !r
they are actually enabled to build, equip, and navigate thets
ships at a cheaper rate than the British Ship-Owner, it apPetal
to your Committee an extraordinary inconsistency, that 1,
should at once be contended that such an advantage in P°lne.
of cheapness does not exist, while the necessity for restricti,l4
British navigation to native shipping and native seamen is
fended. If British ships, either in point of actual cost, or fro'''
„
superiority of construction, are eventually as, cheap as thin
built in foreign ports, the provisions of the Registry Act can P"
considered in no other light than as an absurd and useless r_i,"
striction on trade ; nor could any evil result from their miler
since self-interest, the best and surest guide in matters of towel
would most effectually prevent the British Ship-Owner fr°A°
seeking in a foreign country what he could procure on
terms at home. But if the continuance of the Act be necessar'
for the protection of the various branches of native industrii
connected with the equipment of shipping from the overwhelm'
ing effects of unrestricted foreign"comptition; the admission of
such necessity involves also the admission of the superior cheat':
ness of foreign shipping, and establishes at once the claim ';
protection ; and it appears to your Committe, that to continue
the restriction on the Ship-Owner, and at the same dine to
open the channels of his employment to unreserved cool'
petition, would be to place him in a situation of such peen,
liar hardships, as it could never have been the intentiori
of the Legislature to sanction. The same observation sr
plies and with equal force, to the restrictions on manning
by ap-
plies,
seamen. If their wages be equal to their pseuit
skill and actually, compensate for any difference that may ex's'
the same universal law of self-interest will induce the employ'
meat of native crews, without the intervention of the compel"
e
sory regulations of the Navigation Act. If, therefore, th
Legislature or the Executive Government, proceeding on s
conviction that the British Ship-Owner can successfully Mau_l,
tarn competition with his foreign rivals, determine to annul
the restrictions by which his freight has heretofore been Pro'
tected, your Committee would strongly advise an appeal W
made for the abrogation of all those restrictions by which 10
is at present prevented from maintaining it, as well. as of those
by which Agriculture and Manufactures are supported. 1101
far such abrogation may be consistent with the maintenance °
the important national objects for which those restrictions well,
r
imposed, it would4ll become your Committee to inquire, I!°`
though they are by no means of opinion that the time hes er
ed when perfect freedom of trade can safely be resorted to, they
jyuestecne of histertainMajesty's Government
confident conviction that
couldsunot fail to
such an appeal ton ,
Justice induce
either the continuance of those Protecting Laws under wh:°;,
f
Ship Owners have vested their capitals, under an assurance
that protection being continued to them which is extended L°
the other great departments of national industry, or such a re
laxation of the restrictions under which they exclusively labour.
as would afford them some chance of maintaining that conoPf:
tition to which the measure in question would expose thennae
Having thus, they trust, succeeded in demonstrating that T.
manner in which British Shipping would be affected by
1:e
operation of the Reciprocity of Duties Act would be to OW°
it to unequal competition, and having proved that the de
in which it would be injured, will be little short of its
,an' u
annihilation in the trade between this country and the Norther t
States of Europe, your Committee cannot close their Itef°r
i.
without suggesting the expediency of embracing the onpor„ed
nity afforded by the production of the evidence thus coltec`
to brine under the consideration of his Majesty's Governmentnot only the propriety of continuing the existing protection to
the Shipping Interest, but also its present inadequacy to eO,
,
able them to maintain competition with their foreign and mots
favoured rivals, and the strong necessity established b 1
evidence for a still further extension of assistance and protec-
tion, if either on the grounds of individual justice or national
policy the maintenance of the naval supremacy of Britain /)
C
considered an object of importance.
London, 9th Dec. 1823.

(Signed) • Geo. F. Young. - Thos. Forrest.
' . Ra. Fenwiek. Roht. Douglas.
Rich. Smith. J. Nicholls.
Henry Nelson. Thos. GilfespY•
Thos, Urquhart. Henry Blanchard.
. Chris. Tennant. J. Q. Bevels. -
Edw. Hurry. William Parker.
William Tiudle. J. 31. Maude.