Incon

clusive

of Board

and exports of the United Kingdom for that year.1

The Board of Trade argued, but very inconclusively, reasoning with reference to the free supply of foreign tonnage of Trade. for the requirements of British trade, that if, during the exceptional circumstances of recent years, British commerce had been obliged to depend on British shipping alone to the extent which was necessary before 1850, an artificial stimulus would have been given to the demand for British ships, which could not have been sustained, and that, therefore, the whole weight of the reaction would have fallen upon British shipping, instead of being diffused, as was the case, among the whole tonnage employed in British trade.

Upon this preposterous conclusion no argument can be raised as well might it be said that a man ought not to be individually prosperous, lest the revulsion of adversity should be too great for him,

Shipping (total entered and cleared in Cargo and Ballast).

ment pro

remove

especially if not diffused among his rivals in trade. At last, Government arrived at this conclusion about the condition of merchant shipping, that they could not attribute the actual depression of British shipping to the effects of increased competition with foreign shipping consequent on the repeal of the Navigation Laws; but that, considering the importance of the Governshipping interest in a national point of view, it was poses to desirable that all partial and unequal burdens to burdens which the shipping interest was still subject should on British be removed as soon as practicable. In this spirit, the repeal of the differential duty on foreign timber as the raw material of shipbuilding, and the abolition of passing tolls and other local burdens, which were still maintained without any equivalent in the shape of services rendered to shipping, were questions which deserved immediate consideration.

shipping.

sory reci

able.

It cannot be denied that this very elaborate expo- Compulsition of the state of merchant shipping completely procity no cut the ground from under those Shipowners who obtainstill advocated Protection. They, however, went on cavilling "for a principle," and contended that the Spanish and French trades for instance might become valuable to the British Shipowner if the Governments of France and Spain would adopt the liberal policy pursued by England towards them in this respect; whereas, under the existing restrictions, British Shipowners lost many valuable charters, and were prevented from completing voyages otherwise profitable. The Shipowners refused to allow the validity of the argument, that the British Shipowner carried on a greater business in the indirect trade with France and Spain than the French and Spanish Shipowners

Real value

of the

in the indirect trade with England, and that, therefore, retaliation would neither operate as an inducement to those countries to relax their system, nor afford material addition to the field of employment of British shipping. They contended that the commercial navy of this country was larger than that of France and Spain combined; that, therefore, the Shipowners of these countries had not the means of engaging in an oversea trade to the same extent as the Shipowners of England, and that, consequently, the superior energy of the British Shipowner. ought not be pleaded as a barrier to an act of justice. Nor did it, in their opinion, follow that, because the engagement of the Spaniard and Frenchman in the indirect trade with England was not larger and more active than that of the British Shipowners in the indirect trade with France and Spain, there was no inducement to the Governments of those countries to relax the present restrictive system, and no prospect, in the event of such relaxation, of increased employment of British shipping in the direction indicated. In fact, the London Shipowners thought the argument was entirely the other way, and would not be convinced to the contrary, whatever relative prosperity they might enjoy.

With regard to the Coasting trade, all parties were Coasting agreed that the Americans acted selfishly in denythe United ing to England the same reciprocity for the coasting States. trade, which she had unrestrictedly conceded to

trade of

them. The Shipowners, however, by no means acquiesced in the opinion given by the Board of Trade, that "the value of the American Coasting trade had been greatly overestimated." They said, and with

reason, that it was an error to imagine that because San Francisco formed the limit of the United States' coasting trade, the entrances and clearances at that port exhibited the entire amount of the trade along the American seaboard.

It was, indeed, an evasion to say that the American coasting trade, meaning the western coast only, never afforded employment to more than 200,000 tons of American ships. The records of these pages afford proofs to the contrary. All mention of the trade between the ports of the Northern States and those of the Gulf of Mexico is, for some reason or other, suppressed. All the vast and lucrative carrying trade between New York and Boston, New Orleans and Mobile and Charleston, is studiously kept out of view; trades far more valuable than that of San Francisco and of the whole western coast, collectively. The argument, therefore, set up by the Board of Trade, "that the participation of the Californian trade, however desirable, cannot be regarded as a circumstance which could exercise any important influence on the shipping interests of Great Britain," was altogether unsatisfactory. Magnanimous as it Magnawas of the English Legislature to throw open the England foreign, as well as the colonial commerce and navigation of the Empire, and the coasting trade afterwards, without imposing any previous conditions, such uncona liberal policy has, evidently, been unappreciated not appreby the Americans, who seem resolved to monopolise the Ameall advantages resulting from their geographical position.

nimity of

in throw

her Coast

ing trade

ditionally

ciated by

ricans.

VOL. III.

2 c

CHAPTER XIV.

Further returns of the Board of Trade, and address of the Shipowners' Society to the electors, 13th April, 1859-Shipowners' meeting in London - Character of the speeches at it-Mr. Lindsay proposes an amendment-Effect of the war between France and Austria-Mr. Lindsay moves for an inquiry into the burdens on the Shipping Interest, 31st January, 1860-Report of the Committee thereonViews with regard to foreign countries-The Netherlands-The United States-Generally unsatisfactory state of the intercourse with foreign nations-The present depression beyond the influence of Government-General results of Steamers versus Sailing Vessels-The Committee resists the plan of re-imposing restrictions on the Colonial Trade-Difficulty of enforcing reciprocity-Want of energy on the part of the English Foreign Office-Rights of belligerents Privateering abolished in Europe, America, however, declining to accept this proposal-Views of the Committee thereon, and on the liability of Merchant Shipping-Burden of light duesPilotage Charges made by local authorities now, generally, abolished, as well as those of the Stade dues-The report of 1860, generally, accepted by the Mercantile Marine-Magnificent English Merchant Sailing vessels, 1859-1872-The Thermopyla—Sir Launcelot and others-Americans completely outstripped-Equal increase in the number as well as the excellence of English shipping-Results of the Free-trade policy.

BESIDES the statistical returns supplied by the Board of Trade on their report on the memorial of the Shipowners to her Majesty, this Board, on the 25th February, 1859, published further returns which were scized upon by the Shipowners' Association, and made the basis for an energetic manifesto ad