The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-02 00:00:00

1857 had also increased three and a half time Between
1807 and 1832 our shipping increased about 15 per cent. ; but
between 1832 and 1857, a considerable portion of that time
being a period of free trade, it had increased no less than 1101
per cent. He hoped he had now satisfied the owners that it
was the interest of the shipowners to support free trade.
There was another branch of this subject to which he would
call attention, the number of British seamen and appren-
tices. In 1851 the number of British seamen in our mer-
chant service was 136,140 ; in 1857 there were 162,000.
Then with regard to apprentices, in 1836 there were 11,219,
and they went on increasing until 1848, when there were
34,858. In 1849 the law requiring a certain proportion of
apprentices to the number of seamen employed was repealed,
and in 1852 they had fallen off to 11,105. He did not think,
however, there were less boys employed now than formerly,
but they were employed by the voyage or by the year. He
would now compare the increase of British shipping with
foreign shipping. The shipping entered inwards—
In 1843, was—British shipping (tons) 3,545,000
Foreign
In 1850, was—British
Foreign
In 1857, was—British
Foreign ,
From these figures it appeared that the comparative increase
was in favour of foreign shipping. But he did not think
British shipowners need be under any alarm, as during that
period British shipping had increased more than ever it
did before, and far more than it did during any similar
period of protection. And when they considered that
foreigners would always have had a right, under the
reciprocity treaties, to bring their own produce in their
own ships, it was a matter of surprise to him that
our shipping had increased at the rate it had done. In
1850 our imports of cotton amounted to 658 million lbs. ;
whereas in 18,58 it had grown to 1,025 million lbs.—an
immense increase. In 1857, of 8,684,000 cwts., 5,846,000
cwts. came from the United States, and it was quite clear
that under any circumstances the greater portion of any
article of commerce must come in the ships of the country
which produced it. In point of fact out of those 5,684,000
cwts. only 1,279,000 cwts. came in British bottoms. Again,
take breaastuffs. In 1857, out of 3,438,000 quarters of corn
imported into this country, 1,765,000 came from the United
States ; and of those only 58,000 were brought in British
bottoms. Again, of 42,000,000 lbs. of stemmed and un-
stemmed tobacco, 25,000,000 lbs. came from the United
States; and of those only 700,000 lbs. were carried in
British ships. Such being the case he was really surprised
to find that British shipping had increased in the manner
it had. He hoped the time had for ever gone by when we
should think it was possible for us to get rich by im-
poverishing our neighbours. The policy of free trade had
given each nation a direct interest in the prosperity of
those around them. It had been proposed to go back to
the principle of reciprocity; but if we adoped that principle
we should not only be taking a retrograde step, but a step
fraught with suicidal results. For instance, the present
amount of our shipping was 5,232,000 tons entered inwards,
and 5,874,000 tons cleared outwards. Now, the total
amount of tonnage employed under all flags in our colonial
trade was only 2,150,000 tons inwards, and 2,119,000 tons
entered outwards; so that if the principle of reciprocity
were everywhere established, more than 3,000,000 tons of
our shipping would have to be idle, the total trade of all
our colonies being that amount less than our trade with
foreign countries. (Hear.) Reciprocity was free trade in
every sense; but unfortunately those who advocated reci-
procity in this house forgot that we had no power to legis-
late for other countries, or power to compel them to adopt
free trade. There was an order in council provided by Sir
R. Peel's Act, but hitherto it had been a dead letter. When
the shipowners of this country were deprived of all protec-
tion, there remained certain special burdens which they had
had imposed upon them, because it was supposed they were
enabled to bear them by the advantages they derived from
protection ; but when the protective laws were swept away
those burdens, the creatures of protection, ought to have
been swept away also. Instead of that, they still remained
and hindered the British shipowner in his progress to that
freedom which at present he only knew of in theory. He
(the hon. member) trusted that the Government would have
no objection to lay on the table any correspondence that
might have passed between this country and any
other Power since 1850 on the subject of the
burdens to which British ships were subjected by foreign
states. While, however, we continued to levy light dues
and harbour dues upon foreign shipping we could not
expect other nations to establish a real reciprocity. Why
should foreign ships pay a tax for the paving and lighting
of Newcastle, or for keeping in order the harbours of Rams-
gate and Dover, from which they could receive no benefit ?
But there were other weights which pressed heavily on the
British shipowners in the race of competition which they
are now forced to run. Thus was for instance the tax on
marine policies, which last year amounted to £380,000.
Again, there was the system of compulsory pilots. Those
whom he represented, and who were suffering under this
severe oppression, complained that they were compelled to
take pilots when the masters of their ships knew the coast
as well, or better, than any pilot they could take. It was
said that if the pilots were not certain of being engaged
their number would decrease, and the result would be pre-
judicial to the real interests of shipping. Such an argu-
ment he considered quite illusory. There were various
clauses in the Passenger Act and the Mercantile Marine
Act which afforded the shipping interest great cause of
complaint ; but, as his hon. friend the member for London
wished to make an addition on the subject to his motion,
he would not enter into that question; neither would he do
more than refer to the timber duties, which were a great
subject by themselves ; because his hon. friend the member ,
for Bridport had given notice of a motion on the subject.
It was, however, quite obvious that when they admitted
the manufactured article in the shape of ships, it was unjust
to tax the raw material of which ships were made. Other
smaller grievances he preferred leaving to the shipping in-
terest to state for themselves. If the committee were ap-
pointed, if in consequence of its report the burdens to which
he had referred were repealed, and if the ports of other
countries were thrown open, he had no fear of British ship-
ping being able to maintain its position, and even to ad-
vance before all competitors. (Cheers.)
• Mr. LIDDELL, in seconding the motion, expressed his
gratification at seeing it proceed from the other side of the
house. He did not say that by way of taunt, but he had a
right to refer to it in proof of the reality of the hardships of
which he complained. As reference had been made to free
trade, he (Mr. Liddell) wished to state that he did not
desire the Government to exercise the power given them of
closing our ports by order in council to the ships of non-
reciprocating powers. Such an act could not be done with-
out the sanction of the house ; and, after the experience of
the last twelve years, no minister dare advocate such a
step. All that he wanted was to see pledges which had
been given redeemed, and the policy of free-trade really
carried out. The hon. gentleman had stated how our trade
was restricted at home, and he (Mr. Liddell) would proceed
to show how it was restricted abroad. The hon. gentleman
had stated that the shipping of some non-reciprocating na-
tions was worse off than our own. He (Mr. Liddell) thought
that no one could be a better witness of the fact than the
hon. gentleman, and he, therefore, took all that he had
said upon that point as absolutely proved. One point de-
serving of the attention of the Government was the regula-
tion made by the Government of the United States as to the
ports between St. Francisco and Fraser River. France,
our intimate ally, levied double the duties on goods im-
ported in British bottoms over those in French ships. In
some cases this acted as a prohibition ; in all it gave French
vessels a preference even in our own colonies. A vessel
called the Statesman, lay at Calcutta ten months, unable to
obtain a freight, owing to the presence of French ships in
the harbour, which obtained freights of 75f. per ton for
sugar, while the English ships could only get ss. The reason
of this was, that the French ships had the choice of both
the English and the French markets, and several of those
ships unloaded to London. In some cases the French
Government levied fourteen times the amount on Eng-
lish ships which they did on their own ; aad in many
instances preference was given to American ships. Look-
ing at Spain, he found that that country excluded our
ships altogether from her ports, and Portugal robbed us
by means of wine duties. These were the two countries
for which we had made such enormous sacrifices.
(Hear, hear.) Holland levied double duties on our ships ;
and Belgium, while professing to reciprocate with us, con-
trived to place our trade at a disadvantage. He believed
that our own coasting trade had to a great extent been taken
out of the hands of British shipowners, and the result had
been the complete ruin of many families in the north. A
large shipowner, Mr. Chapman, had found it cheaper to
charter Swedish and Norwegian vessels, and leave his own
ships to deteriorate. Swedish and Norwegian captains
might be found in London every day purchasing second-
, hand stores. Our own second-hand ships were greatly de-
teriorated in value ; and the Swedes and Norwegians were
purchasing them up. He would now show how foreigners
had thriven under this system by extracts from the trade
returns for eight years preceding and eight years succeed-
ing the repeal of the navigation laws. In the eight years
1842-49 our imports had increased £40,632,000, and our ex-
ports £76,244,000, showing a total increase of both of
£116,876,000. The tonnage of British ships had increased
in the same period 2,990,000 tons, and that of foreign ship-
ping 1,877,000 tons. In the eight years after the repeal of
the navigation laws our exports and imports had increased
£130,000,000, and the tonnage of British ships employed
4,024,000, while foreign tonnage had increased 5,149,000
tons. The result was, that while British tonnage had in-
creased from about six million and a half tons to 13,694,000
tons in the 16 years, foreign tonnage had increased in the
same period from 2,457,000 tons to 9,484,000 tons; so that
while British shipping had little more than doubled itself,
foreign shipping had been nearly quadrupled. That was a
very remarkable result. He knew that our trade had
thriven under the system ; but foreign shipping had in-
creased so much faster that we must soon be surpassed.
He could quite understand shipowners being rather
alarmed. lie did not wish to take a gloomy view ; but in
the face of these facts the house was bound to do all in their
power for the shipowner. Though the house pledged itself
when repealing the navigation laws, to remove all disadvan-
tages from the British shipowner, not a step had been taken
in that direction. He hoped the house would go into com-
mittee with a sincere desire to effect that object.
Mr. CRAWFORD moved the following addition to Mr.
Lindsay's motion :—" And of the following statutes, 9 and
10 Vic. c. 93, an Act for compensating the Families of Per-
sons killed by Accidents ; the Merchant Shipping Act,
1854 ; the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1855 •
the Passengers Act, 1855 ; and the Chinese Passengers Act,
1855." He said he had been a party to the representations
made by the shipowners, believing them to be well founded.
He should have been disposed to leave the question in Mr.
Lindsay's hands, but he thought that the inquiry he pro-
posed would hardly be sufficient. It was necessary to con-
sider the effect of recent legislation, and the obstructions
which shipowners suffered from Acta of Parliament. (Hear,
hear.) He could not but see that there existed a largo
amount of distress among the shipping interest ; but from
what did it arise ? Undoubtedly there was competition,
but that competition had been sanctioned by the Legisla-
ture, and it did a great deal of good to consumers generally.
He attributed the distress principally to the want of trade ;
the trade had been overdone by the shipowners themselves.
Mr. COLLIER, as the representative of a commercial
port, wished to second the amendment, and expressed his
satisfaction that there was to be an inquiry into the matter.
It had been clearly established by those who preceded him
that the shipping interest did labour under grievances. Ho
agreed with the hon. member for Northumberland, that
many grievances pressed upon that interest, and he only
differed from him as to the nature of the remedy. He (Mr.
Collier) would be disposed to deal in a more summary way
with the matter than the hon.. member seemed inclined to
do. He thought the addition of his hon. friend was a de-
cided improvement, and he concurred with him in the opi-
nion that over legislation was one of the grievances which
the shipping interest had to complain of. (Hear.)
Mr. HORSFALL said it was admitted that great distress
existed amongst the shipping interest, and that 'being so, th e
natural course for the house to pursue was to appoint a com-
mittee to inquire into the cause of that distress, and if pos-
sible to suggest a remedy. He thought the amendment of
his hon. friend was an improvement on the motion of the
hon. member for Tynemouth ; but perhaps it would suit his
hon. friend's view if the word "certain" were struck out
and the word " all" substituted for it. It was better not to
limit the inquiry, because the decision of the committee in
that case would be inconclusive and unsatisfactory. But he
thought it was the duty of the house to grant a committee