The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-16 00:00:00

THE GRIEVANCES OF THE SHIPPING
INTEREST.

A public meeting of shipowners and others in-
terested in British shipping was held yesterday at
the London Tavern, " to take into consideration,"
the language of the advertisement, " the ruinous
condition of British navigation, and to adopt such
measures as may be deemed expedient thereto."
Mr. David Dunbar was in the chair, and the plat-
form was occupied by a large number of dele-
gates from the various outports of the United
Kingdom. The following members of the House
of Commons were also present :—Mr. J. C. Cob-
bold, Ipswich ; Mr. It. Ingham, South Shields ;
J. Mellor and Mr. A. W. Young, Great Yarmouth;
Mr. H. Paull, St. Ives ; Mr. Jas. Clay and Lord
Ashley, Hull. The large room was crowded with
representatives of the London shipping firms.
The CHAIRMAN, in opening the proceedings,
said that the object of the meeting was to take into
consideration the depressed state of the shipping
interest, a fact which needed no arguments to prove.
Some time ago the Legislature thought fit to repeal
the Navigation Laws, but, whatever might be the
various opinions as to the expediency of that
course, he did not believe there was anyone pre-
sent who believed in the possibility of re-enacting
those laws. (Hear.) In the outset, therefore, he
was anxious to dislaim, for the meeting, any idea
of asking for a reversal of recent legislation on this
matter; nor was it their intention to go into any
discussion of the policy of that legislation. (Hear.)
Neither was it their intention to take into their
consideration the peculiar burdens to which the
shipping interest was subjected, such as the local
dues, the policies of assurance, &c. Another op-
portunity might possibly be taken for the discus-
sion of those grievances, but at present, acting
on a resolution which had yesterday been agreed
to by the assembled delegates, what it was
desired to
.press upon the attention of the public
was the grievance under which the shipping inte-
rest suffered from the non-fulfilment by foreign
nations of the reciprocity clauses in the statute
repealing the Navigation Laws. • When those laws
were repealed, a clause was introduced into the act
giving her Majesty power to re-enact the restric-
tions of the old laws against those nations which
did not grant to English vessels the same privileges
which their own vessels received therefrom, and,
after eight years' experience of the disinclination
of foreign nations to grant this reciprocity to
British shipowners, they were justified in asking
her Majesty to do them justice by exercising the
right which had been conferred upon them by this
clause. During those eight years foreign nations
had enjoyed all the benefits of the concessions then
made without their having one iota of advantage
in return. A gross hardship it was felt had been
done to the British shipowners on this point, and
their object in assembling there was to ask justice
from the hands of their countrymen. (Cheers.) He
had that morning received a letter from Melbourne,
in which it was stated that out of 52 ships
which were lying in that port only 21 were
British.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG moved the first resolution—
" That British shipping is at present, in all its most im-
portant branches, in a state of most deplorable and ruinous
depression,whichhas been partly caused ,and is greatly aggra-
vated, by the unequal 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 be-
half of the meeting, any intention of reviving the
controversy, of Free Trade v. Protection. It was
of the last importance, not merely as regarded con-
ciliating 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
had been arrived at on that question, however
erroneous some of them might think it. He was
there not to ask for Protection, but for simple jus-

tice. (Hear, hear.) 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 striving.
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
had taken this course without a full examination
into its merits. Still it was not for them to quail
before these obstacles, but bravely to encounter
them—(hear)—and he hoped that when a full and
clear statement of the case had 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 ex-
pectation was held out to the shipping interest that
in return for the surrender of the privileges then
surrendered, foreign nations would give to them
reciprocal advantages. That amiable man but ex-
ceedingly weak Minister, Mr. Labouchere, who
proposed that repeal to Parliament, said there could
be no doubt that foreign nations would follow our
example, although his concurrence in the clause
which enabled her Majesty to reimpose the pro-
hibitions in the case of non-reciprocating nations,
seemed to argue that he had some misgivings on
the subject. The language of Sir Charles Wood,
Mr. Cobden, 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 predic-
tions, instead of being verified, had failed lament-
ably. 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 had 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 an in-
crease of 66 per cent. in the eight years pre-
ceding 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 the
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 had increased from 4,390,375
to 5,427,534, or 24 per cent., and foreign tonnage
from 1,680,894 to 3,304,272, or 97 per cent. (Hear,
hear.) It was argued, however, that because there
had been an increase of British tonnage and of the
trade of the country since the repeal of the Navi-
gation Laws, therefore British maritime com-
merce 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 our
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 ?
(Hear, hear.) That was a nut for the journalists
who strove to write down this movement to crack.
It was necessary 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 opportunity which ought not to be
passed over. He might have written a pamphlet,
and shown the result much more conclusively ; but
who would have read it ? (Laughter.) He might
have written, too, a letter to the editor of the
Times, but would he have put it in? These figures,
however, stated at a public meeting, could not be
suppressed, and it was for their opponents to com-
bat 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 question. (Hear.)
But to return to the statistics. In 1849 the gross
registered British tonnage Was 4,144,115 tons, and
in 1857 it ,was 5,519,114, showing an increase
since the repeal, of 33 per cent. In the same
time the tonnage of the United States had in-
creased from 3,374,014 to 5,250,456, being an in-
crease of 60 per cent.; and there was very little
doubt that at the present moment the gross ton-
nage of the United States actually exceeded our
own. (Hear, hear.) 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 asto-
nished to find how foreigners had come in to ourit
commerce and run away with the best part of
In the eight years preceding the repeal of t
in and
clearing
he na-
vigationd laws British shipping entering
clearing out had increased about 43 per cent., and
foreignshipping
entered in and clearing out had
increased 36 per cent., but in the eight years suc-
ceeding the repeal, while British tonnage had only
increased 42 per cent., foreign tonnage had in-
creased 118 per cent. In 1849 British tonnage
entered inwards in the ports of London and Liver-
pool was 2,590,156, and foreign tonnage 1,900,209;
but in 1837, while British tonnage was only
4,671,672, foreign tonnage was 3,211,420 tons. It
was said, however, that we had overbuilt our-
selves, 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 preceding 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 3,353,945 tons. (Hear.) It was
beyond all doubt that the commerce of the United