The Sun.
London, England, 1824-07-10 00:00:00

REPORT.

In entering on this momentous question, it ,was obvious to
your Committee, that whatever reciprocity of advantage might
be mutually conceded as between British and Foreign Shipping,
by the reciprocal removal of those protections by which'Mantime
States have hitherto endeavoureti to support their native Ship.
ping, 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 navigated; on
•
the cheapest terms.
To ascertain therefore, the relative expence of building,
equipping, manning, victualling, and sailing British and Fe..
reign Shipping, was the first and most anxious inquiry of your.
Committees and when, by concurrent testimony, it• became ep.
parent to them that in all these particulars the Northern States
or Europe possessed a decided advantage, they next endeavour-
ed to ascertain how far any ellicitinteounterpoise to such :Wyatt-
tap might, reasonably be anticipated, in any superiority of con-
struction or durability in British ships, in the skill and activity
of British seamen, or the capital and enterprise of British Ship
Owners.

_.... ...
With respect to the relative cxpence 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 iii Great Britain and in several of the ports of the
North of Europe, in which the same quantities of materials and
labour as were actually expended on the British vessel, ate up.
plied to the existing prices of those materials and labour in the
Foreign ports respectively. . • , ,
This calculation, which exhibits an enormous difference in
favour of tbreign-built shipping, will be found in the Appendix
marked A ; and your Committee cannot forbear remarking,
that they are confirmed in their belief of its accuracy, by hav-
ing 'ascertained that a vessel is At present building in London
nearly similar in description to that on which this calculation
is founded, at a price corresponding very nearly with the result
of calculation itself. But in further corroboration of this
point, your Committee beg to retCr to Appendix 11; containing
a statement of the actual cost of a number of ahips built in the
different ports of England, !and in foreign , countries ; from
which it will be perceived, duct while in England the price
varies from 2111. to 151., it amounts in Prussia to only from
11/s. lis. to 101. 10s.--and that in several other countries it is con.
dorably lower. The greater part of these statements can be
verified by documents, and the remainder are derived from
sources on which your Committee believe that implicit confi-
dence may 4e placed. •
While on this branch of the subject your Committee would
remark, that it has been clearly proved to them, that a very
small proportion of the difference in the . coast building and
equipment of British ships, arise* from direct &idea payable
on articles employed therein; and that therefore, any relief to
be expected by a reduction, or even a total remission of inch
duties would be inconsiderable; and any hope of reducing
thereby the scale of expencu to. • any. approximation to that of
Foreigners, altogether fallacious,
The next iniportent article of Maritime eipence is the wages
paid to the Officers anti 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
than in the cost of the ship; .British seamen's wages, in the
Baltic Trade, being at the present moment from bOs. to 3/.,
while the Prussian seamen receives but 245. the Swede 20s.
and the Russian 15s. per month. With respect to the British
wages, abundance of documents can be adduced in proof; and
though the nature of the case does not admit of similar de.
monstration in the case of the wages of Foreigners, your Corn.
mittee have satisfied themselves of the truth of the statement,
by personal inquiry on board ships of the respective countries.
In the article of provisions your Committee have experienced
considerable embarrassment? from the difficulty of establish.
ing any general standard of victualling. The scale, however,
taken for British ships, is that usually,,adopted in the West
India trade; and for Foreigners, it has been ascertained by the
most careful inquiry. A number of minor article* of provision
mud comfort usually afforded in the British merchant service
are omitted, in the desire of not overstating the comparison;
and a further advantage to the Foreigner, in this relative view,
will be perceived in the fact, that in British ships engaged in
the Baltic trade, no limitation of provisions is practised ; and
that the quantity actually consumed, exceeds that exhibited
by the' calculation referred to i The result will be found in
Appendix D, and completes the chain of evidence by which it
is proved' that the positive expense of building, equipping,
manning, and victualling, is infinitely less in the ports of 'the
Baltic than-in 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, pos.
timed by Foreigners, circumstances of a countervailing nature
might possibly exist, calculated in is great measure to restore
the equilibrium thus totally subverted by difference of cost :
From the belief indeed which appears to be entertained, that
such difference does actually exist, your Committee were
scarcely prepared to anticipate, the result to which they beg
next to solicit the most attentive consideration.

It has been asserted, that vessels built in those Ports, the ri.
valry of whose shipping is most seriously angelic:tided, though
cheaper as to first cost, are wanting in and are there.
fore ultimately as expensive as British-Ludt ships: lit order to
arrive at a correct conclusion on this point, your Committee be.
ginning at a part of Lloyd's It eotcr. Book takes indiacrimi.
nately, abstracted'from tiu.nee in the succession in which they
stand, the first 20 ships of the fonolOng (,:ountriett4
land, Prussia, Sweden, Iknroark, Atisstit, and. Norway% mark.
ing the ages of each ; to the result.of this abstraet4.4 winch win
be found in Appendix they would entreat particular awn»
lion, as it not only refutes the asiertioo of th 2 fupoiorAlurhbi-
ity of British Shipping, huh exhibits chum m the.kast duxtbk,

of the whole; while the Istorwegian Shipping, which is the
cheapest, and has been considered in quality almost worthless,
is actually proved to last longer than any, and to exceed the
durability of the British by more than one half !
Your Committee next directed their consideration to the
question, of how far the comparative view of the cost and ex.
pences f British and foreign shipping was affected by the
alleged difference in the mode of measurement. A reference to
Appendix F will prove that whatever force this argument may
possess with respect to American and French shipping, it has
no application to the vessels of the North of Europe, which are
stated, on competent evidence, to stow larger cargoes in gene-
rid than British-built vessels, according to their nominal ton-
nage, ascertained by the rules prescribed by the British Re-
gistry Laws. A reference to the manifests of the cargoes of
some of these ships, has convinced your Committee that this
opinion is correct, though the difficulty of reducing mixed car-
goes to a uniform standard capable of accurate relative com-
parison, has prevented them from rendering the fact the sub-
ject of documentary evidence.
The next point that suggested itself to your Committee was,
whether the disadvantage to British Ship Owners, in the high
wages and expensive provisions allowed to their crews, is com-
pensated by such a reduction in the number of seamen as
might be expected to be consequent on the alleged superiority
of British sailors in activity and skill. Appendix G establishes,
that instead of this being the fact, in the cases therein referred
to, the foreign ship employed but four men to five in the Bri-
tish ; while an extract from a Parliamentary return H shews,
that the number of men employed in navigating the whole of
the ships cleared outwards, from the several ports of the
United Kingdom, during the last nine years, including their
repeated voyages, was in the proportion of about .six men to
every 100 tons British, and only five to every 100 tons foreign.
But as, notwithstanding these conclusive demonstrations, it
has been asserted that British ships make quicker and more re-
peated voyages than foreign, and compensate thereby for their
mrccased expence ; your Committee have been at some pains
to ascertain this point, as regards the Baltic trade ; they annex
in Appendix I the certificate of two experienced brokers, con-
versant with that trade, stating that the number of voyages
made annually by each description of ships is equal; and
though they have not been enabled to obtain more conclusive
corroboration of the fact, which indeed is scarcely susceptible
of direct demonstration, the result of all their inquiries on the
subject leads them decidedly to the same conclusion.
It has further been asserted, that from the general prevalence
of Associations for mutual insurance, the rate of premiums paid
by the British Ship Owner is comparatively trifling. Appen-
dix K contains the most ample refutation of this assertion, in
the fact, that in the port of Newcastle, in which a greater num-
ber of ships are insured on that principle than in any other in
the kingdom, the average contributions paid by the owners for
actual losses on ships insured in all the Associations of the port
during the last four years, was 91. 17s. per cent. per annum ;
nearly equal to the rate of premium paid at Lloyd's, which is
about 101. per cent.
The result of these diflimences on the employment of capital
in British and foreign shipping will be found in Appendix 14,
exhibiting an advantage in favour of the Prussian of 39/. 1 Is. sd.
per cent. on his capital, if admitted to embark in the carrying
trade on equality
.of duties with British shipping.
In the prosecution of the foregoing inquiries, your Committee
have had to contend with many difficulties ; and on that part
of the subject more immediately embracing information only
to be derived from foreigners, or those connected with foreign
trading interests, they regret to have experienced a very general
unwillingness to impart it: their investigations have, however,
been conducted with all possible diligence and circumspection ;
and in every important calculation they have been anxious to
avoid any charge of partiality, by giving to the foreign interest
the benefit of any doubt that may have arisen. But with the
most anxious desire to disaird every prejudice, and to take the
fairest and most impartial review of all the bearings of this inte.
resting question, it can scarcely be matter of surprise, after the
evidence they have adduced, that your Committee should come
to the decided Conclusion that all the apprehensions expressed
by the Ship Owners in thei 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 of Duties Act, in regulating the future trad-
ing intercourse with the Northern States of Europe.
Nor is it on the abstract nature of the evidence alone that the
Committee ground this deduction; they are supported in their
conviction of its correctness by the more general observations
they have been enabled to make in the progress of the inquiry,
by remarking the increasing degree in which Foreign Ships are
even at present superseding British tonnage in. the Baltic trade,
—that they are sailing at rates, of freight so low as to defy all
British competition,—that in the Contracts by British Merchants
for the supply of his Majesty's dock-yard~ with Naval Stores,
Foreign Ships are very extensively employed in the conveyance
of those artieles,:-.4.14at the, recant equalization of the duties
on Lights, of Pilotage, Balsistage, eca., have tin increased their
'facilities, its to enable them already to engross the trade for the
supply of this Country with timber, to the extent to which they
possess Tonnage to enibark in it. Under all these circum.
stances, it appears clearly to your Committee, that they only
require the further advantage of the encouragement they would
receive by the abrogation of the protecting Duties hitherto
'afforded to British freight, to induce such further embarkation
of Capital in Shipping as would lead to their monopolizing the
entire Trade with their respective Countries. Assuming, in-
deed, that this must be the result, if 'they are actually enabled
to build, equip, and navigate their Ships at a cheaper rate than
the British Ship Owner, it appears to your Committee an ex-
traordinary inconsistency, thatliilt ot.
itshochuleldapantesosn,cteiobees etnointteenxdise
d
that such advantage, in In
while the necessity for restricting British Navigation to Na-

- £126 0 0
. 60 0. 0
64 0 0

- 360 0 0
60 0 0

„. • • .
£O6O 0 0
(1)) A Comparative Statement of the Scale of Victualling, am
manned by 20 Seamen, in the British and. Prussian lllei
URI !I Mr.
Dread, 71b; 47 man, if,' week, 72801 b. at cwt. 205..£65 0 0
Beef, B.lb. ~ 83201 b. tierce 100 s. 136 13 4
Pdrk, 441 h• 11; 46801 b. barrel 755. 87 15 0
Pease, l'a pints I, 1500 pints bushel 11$1. 13 8' 0
Flour, 41b. 1$ 41601 b..• cwt. 255. 46 5 0

The Interest in England may he taVen at P.
cent, which on'the above Capital is MO 0 0
Ships depreciate at the rate of 10 itk cent. r an-
num, which on said Qapital,arnounts to 760 0 0
The expence of insuring Ships at bloyd's for 12
months, is Si Guineas and Policy ss. cent. ;
and to ibis may be added those risks to which
the Underwriters are not liable, making it
about 10 V' cent. - . 760 0 0

tire Shipping and Native Seamen is defended. If British
Ships, either in point of actual cost, or from superiority of
construction, are eventually as cheap as those built in
Foreign Ports, the Provisions of the Registry Act can
be considered in no other light than an absurd and useless
restriction on Trade; nor could any evil result from their
repeal, since self-interest, the best and. surest guide in matters
of' Trade, would most effectually prevent the British Ship
Owner from seeking in a Foreign Country what he could pro-
cure on equal terms at home. But if the continuance of the
Act be necessary for the protection of the various branches of
native industry connected with the equipment of Shipping, from
the overwhelming effects of unrestricted Foreign competion, the
admission of such necessity involves also the admission of the
superior cheapness of Foreign Shipping, and establishes at once
the claim to protection ; and it appears to your Committee, that
to continue the restriction on the Ship Owners, and at the same
time to open the channels of his employment to unreserved
competition, would be to place him in a situation of such pe-
culiar hardship, as it could never have been the intention of the
Legislature to sanction. The same observation applies with
equal force to the restrictions on manning by British Sea-
men. If their wages be equal, or their peculiar skill and
activity compensate for any difference that may exist, the
same universal law of self-interest will induce the em-
ployment of Native crews, without the intervention of
the compulsory regulations of the Navigation Act. If, there-
fore, the Legislature or the Executive Government, pro-
ceeding on a conviction that the British Ship Owner can suc-
cessfully maintain competition with his foreign rivals, deter-
mine to annul the distinctions by which his freight has hereto-
fore been protected, your Committee would strongly advise an
appeal to be made for the abrogation of all those restrictions by
which he is at present prevented from maintaining it, as well
as those by which Agriculture and Manufactures are supported.
How far such abrogation may be consistent with the mainten-
ance of the important national objects for which these restric-
tions were imposed, it would ill become your Committee to in-
quire ; but though they are by no means of opinion that the
time has arrived when perfect freedom of trade can safely be
resorted to, they yet entertain a confident conviction, that such
an appeal to the justice of his Majesty's Government could
not fail to induce either the continuance of those protective
laws under which Ship Owners have vested their capitals,
under an assurance of that protection being continued to them
which is extended to the other great departments of 'national
industry, or, such a relaxation of the restrictions under which
they exclusively labour, as would afford them some chance of
maintaining that competition to which the measure in question
would expose them.
Having thus, they trust, succeeded in demonstrating that the
manner in which British Shipping would he affected by the
operation of the Reciprocity of Duties Act, would be such as
to expose it to the most unequal competition ; and having
proved that the degree in which it would be injured, would be
little short of its gradual annihilation in the trade between this
country and the Northern States of Europe, your Committee
cannot chise their Report without suggesting the expediency of
embracing the opportunity afforded by the production of the
evidence thus collected, to bring under the consideration of his
Majesty's Government not only the propriety of continuing the
existing protection to the Shipping Interest, but also its pre-
sent inadequacy to enable them to maintain competition with
their Foreign and more favoured rivals, and the strong neces-
sity established by the evidence, for a still further extension of
assistance and protection, if either, on the ground of individual
justice or national policy, the maintenance of the Naval supre-
macy of Britian be considered an object of importance.
George Frederick Young, Ra. Eenwick,
Richard Smith, Henry Nelson,
Thomas Urquhart, Chris. Tennant,
Edward Hurry, William Tindall,
Thomas Forrest, Robert Douglas,
J. Nickols, Thomas Gillespy,
Henry Blanchard, J. D. Fowles,
William Parker, J. M. Maude.
London, Dec. 9, 1E123.

Office of Comniittee of Privy Council for
• Trade, Feb. 27, 1024.

Sra—The Lords of the Committee of Ptivy Council for
Trade, having had under their most attentive consideration the
Report of the Committee of British Ship OviCers, dated 9th of
December last, as well as all the previous communications re-
ceived from you on the same subject, they determined to submit
these documents, together .with the representations which had
been received from Prussia, and other States in the North of
Europe, respecting our 'COmmercial Intercourse with those
States, to his: Majesty's Government, accompanied with such
Observations as it became the duty of this Committee to offer on
a matter of so much importance.
I am now directed to acquaint you that,after the most mature
deliberation, embracing all the various interests involved in the
question, us well present as contingent, upon which his Ma-
jesty's (loventment had to form their decision, they have' felt
themselves called upon to declare their readiness to give effect
to the Act of last Session, by equalizing the duties, bounties,
&c. on articles imported into, or exported from, the ports of
the United Kingdom, in the vessels of those Powers, with the
duties, bounties, &c. paid on similar articles imported or ex-
ported in British vessels.
am, at the same time, directed to assure you, beat in com-
municating to you this decision, it is a matter of personal regret
to the Lords of this Committee, that it is not in accordance with,
the sentiments entertained by the Committee of British Ship
Owners. I am, Sir,
Your most obedient humble Servant,
(Signed) THOMAS LACK.
George Lyall, Esq. &c. &c. &c.

. . . , __.__r_,.....__ . .
... .. •,. Summary of the Documents referred to in the preceding Report.
A) Is'a Stat,Otten.l /hewing the relative expence of building the Hull of a Staii,of 220 Tons at the under-mentioned places; in
swtahnicclei ct)iteativue4sts'etlitirette°nltltyhebusielvt Tha,mes ; and the calculation is made on the application of the same Own-
eglgeatitirivael: are taken front artaccurato Account of their actual expenditure, iu an in-
Mier to the present prices in the other places .reqieetfully. .14 the Statement is detailed at great length, it has been
deemed deslrable to give hero only tho respective results, viz. : •
In the River Thames - • -
• 4t Dantzic - • - -
. ...... Copenhagen - - -
-- Kiel, in Holstein -
(13) This Statement, like the preceding one,. is detailed at cons
port, the particulars arc omitted in this place.
(C) Details of this table are for the same reason also omitted.;
, . . Espence of' Manning for 0,
. ,
. .
Ewa-usu.'
1 Master for 12 months, at 10 Guineas
1 Mate
,12 „ £5 0 0
1 Carpenter 12 4 10 0
12 Seamen tee') 12-1144 months 2 10 0
5 Boys averaging 20s. pa inolith

£l3 11 3 per Ton.
12 10 ditto
8 10 7 'ditto
6 5 11 ditto
derable length: as the results are given in the body of the Re-

but the following calculation is founded on the results :
re Year a Skip rf 400 Tons.

PRUSSIAN.
1 Master, 4 voyages, at-X25 0 0 . .ClOO 0 0
Mate for 12 months,'.„ -2i Guineas - 81 10 0
1 Carpenter 12 „ . 31 10 0
12 Seamen 12-14,1 months,' 265. - 187 4 0
5 Oidimay Seamen and Boya, inch 12-40 39 0 0
months, Ins.

389 4 0
Balance in favour of the Prussian . 270 16 0

XO6O 0
the expence thereof, for 52 Weeks, in a Ship of 400 Tons,
:hart Service :

PRUSSIAN.

Bread, 71b.p man, li, week, 721101 b. at p cwt. , 9s. Od. £29 5 0
Beef, 11th. " " 52001 b. lb. 011.3 d. 66 0 0
Pork,l4ltl. " " 15601 b. lb. Os. 3d. 19 10 0
Grey Pease, 2 pints 2080 pints bus. 211.0 d. 3 6 0
White ditto, 1 i do. .1560 do. do. 26. 3d. 214 10
Barley, 1i quarts „ 1560 tits. do. 3s. Od. 76 3
Butter, llb. ~ 13001 b. lb. Or. 6d. 32 10 0

Or, 51d. men, per diem 159 11 1
Balance in favour of the Prussian - 199 13 3

- Or, I i iti. t' man, v. diem . £:149 14 I
(E) The. results of tkisicablet give the evevags duration of Ships as under, viz. :
Years. Siontlis.
. .
English Ships - - . . - 11 : 3
;11ussian ditto - - - - - 12 . i ~ 9
PTUfliiiiiil ditto - - - - 14:, i 3
Swedish ditto - - . . , 12 10
. Norwegian ditto _ ~ 4 - 20 .' 4
(F) h the declaration Of certain experienced Brokers, stating that Ships of tits North of Europe arc of capacity for Stowage
equal to British ships.
(G II I It) The results are stated m the body of then Report.
(L) A Comparative Statement of die effect produced by the difference of value between an English and Prussian Ship of 40(1
tons, employed each for one year v.— ,
..
ExoLisii SIIIP.
An English Ship of 400 tons, may be triton on an
average' at 191. 19. ton ; her' value therefore is .171100 0 0

£O9 1 4

PRUSSIAN SUIP.
A Prussian Ship of 400 tons, may be calculated
at 91. ton, to be of. equal goodness SCOO 0 0

The Interest of Money in Prussia .is 0 P cent.
which on the above Capital is - - 2113 0 0
The depreciation of value, as in England, is
10 Pont. - • - 360 0 0
The expense of ltlsuring may also. be taken at
io p cent. - - 360 0 0
Balance in favour of the Prussian in one year is 063 0 0

£l9OO 0 0
RE lIIP.
Etalsnee in favour of the Prussian, on Capital; as above
. r'ircagtulinii eals, vide
evitiCC D. -
11

- £06,1 0 0
. 270 16 0
- 183 10 3

Or, 991.11 x. 31d. I,* cent. on ilia Capital

FOR THE SUN.

SPANISH CORTEZ.

MR. EDlTOR—Havitsg met with the following
piece of information upon this subject in an old
periodical publication, entitled " The Universal
Advertiser," I send it, fancying it may prove ac-
ceptable to some of your readers : P.
" On a late occasion, chance directed m• to
the history of the Spanish Cortez, written by the
diligent and ingenious Dr. GEDDES, a sketch of
which will probably be agreeable to your readers,
as the book is but in few hands.

" King Henry 11. of Castile, intending to have
a war with the Moorish King of Granada, called
a Cortez (or Parliament) to meet at Toledo, the
29th of November, 1406, which was opened by
a speech from Don Fernando, the King's brother.
" The whole Cortez unanimously voted to as-
sist the King, but minutely computing the charges
of the war, found it was two-thirds more than the
people could bear, and passed a bill accord.;
ingly to be presented to the throne. The Infant
told them the King expected the whole chargei
but the Cortez adhering strictly to their bill, the
King at last passed it ; but at the same time dr-1,
sired, that in case the sum they had given shon
be found insufficient, they would empower him
raise money on the people, without assembling
Cortez, which would require time ; and thutt.;ll
the giving him such a power was fiercely opposed
by a great many of the Procurators, as a thing
that struck at the very root of their power, ye(
it was carried by a majority, and though granted
but for one year, created a precedent,' and en.•
couraged other Kings to desire the same power)
and to take it very ill if it were denied them;
and by such weak and corrupt concessions as
these it was that the Spanish Cortez came to
lose all their authority: t--.(Page 331, Svc'
Edition.)
" I must add, out of the history of Gongales
D'Avilla, that from the day that vote passed, the
Cortez of Castile never had any authority, and
that the Commons made a little struggle under
the Junto in the minority of Charles the Fifth to
recover their ancient rights : and though the
Junto often defeated the King's forces, under
the brave Padilla, bid fair for success and set..

tlement in their old Constitution ; yet the opi•
nion which the King artfully spread among
them, that if they proceeded they would never
be pardoned, and if they returned to obedience
would be well received, so split and divided
them, that the enterprise came to nothing, and
they all fell a sacrifice to Orir own folly and the
King's resentment; to their own folly, for ime.
gining that they could possibly offend any Prince
more by success than by declaring against him ;
or mitigate his resentment by being unfortunate,
and lying at his mercy —(The Universal Adver•
tier, Saturday, Dec. 29, 1753.)

At a meeting of the Catholic Association on
Saturday, Mr. O'GoamArt begged the Chair.
man not to withdraw for a moment, and read a
letter from Bandon, dated Ist of July, aigned
Denis Quinlan, which stated, that on the even•
ing of the Ist of July an armed procession of
Orangemen had taken place at Bandon. The
procession was excluded from the Church,
the gates of which were closed against them.--
(Cries of hear, hear.)—The yeomanry drumsand
fifes played party tunes, and after proceeding to
a Dissenters'Meet ing-hou se,an altercation between
them and some Catholics took place,which ended
in blood ; that 8 Roman Catholics were mortally
wounded, and three others killed I—Mr. O'Con.
nel thought they had better not act on this letter,
as it might be a quiz against them—a proof that
the Learned Gentleman is sometimes sensible.