History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 3 (of 4)

CHAPTER XIV.

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 seized upon by the Shipowners’ Association, and made the basis for an energetic manifesto addressed to the constituencies of the United Kingdom at the general election in the spring of 1859.[195]

The returns in question consisted of five statements, including the period from 1834 to 1858. They are too voluminous to be given here, but it was clear from them that, if the increase of the entrances and clearances of British ships at the ports of the United Kingdom, since the repeal of the Navigation Laws, had been 3,221,767, the increase of foreign ships on the other hand amounted to 5,083,826 tons. To these leading facts, the Shipowners’ Association, triumphantly, referred the different constituencies, and, although British ships in the eight years over which these returns extended, had increased to a far greater extent than they had in any similar previous period, the Association pointed to the still greater increase of foreign shipping, and implored the electors of the leading maritime ports to send such representatives to the new Parliament, who would be exponents of the opinions they sought to perpetuate; and who would save British Shipowners from the certain ruin in their opinion awaiting them, as was so clearly demonstrated by the “appalling” number of foreign ships frequenting our ports. Pertinaciously adhering in this celebrated manifesto to their extreme Protectionist principles, they now reasserted with confidence, and with a brazen front the more astonishing, after what they had previously admitted, every doctrine that had proved to be fallacious, every “fact” which had long since been shown to have had its origin in the regions of fancy or fiction, every appeal to be saved from ruin as baseless as the shepherd’s wolf cry, and every theory as visionary as their own fears; by such means, hoping to revive a system, which the Legislature and every class of the community, except themselves, had pronounced to be neither wise, just, nor beneficial. But, with these principles patent to the whole world, fully confirmed, too, as they were, by the extraordinary success resulting from the repeal of the Navigation Laws, they kept harping on the one string, that foreign shipping entering and clearing from our ports had, since that period, increased in a greater ratio than our own, and this one fact produced to a large extent the desired effect on the maritime portions of the constituencies.

It was vain to tell them that, under the new policy, we had increased our shipping to an extent far beyond what had been hitherto accomplished; or that the nation at large, by obtaining all it required from foreign nations at materially reduced rates, was greatly and proportionately benefited by the change. Nor was it of any use to show that our exports and imports, and, consequently, the general wealth of the country, had already increased far beyond the most sanguine hopes of even the Free-traders. To attempt to prove to a maritime constituency that the more intercourse we had with other countries the better it would be for us, and that the impoverishment of our neighbours by restrictive laws was not the best means of enriching ourselves, was then a mere waste of time, and all such arguments were, at too many of our seaports, only received with scorn and ridicule. At all such places, the one fact I have named carried the day. Among various other seaport representatives who held Free-trade principles, I lost my seat for the Tynemouth boroughs; at least, I found such a phalanx of Shipowners arrayed against me, that I should have had a great struggle to retain it.[196] However, within a week, I found another seat at Sunderland, and, though the bulk of the Shipowners there, too, were opposed to my views, I was returned over my Conservative opponent (the late George Hudson) by a very large majority.[197] But it fared, otherwise, with many better men who lost their seats and did not find others.

The one fact in the Shipowners’ manifesto, apparently, strengthened their cause in Parliament. I say apparently, because though the new men were pledged to vote for the removal of all “grievances” in the shape of peculiar and special burdens and for “reciprocity,” whatever that might mean, I question if any one of them would have voted for a reversion of our policy. It was idle to talk about it. “Protection to native industry” was gone, and gone for ever! England had adopted a policy which can never be reversed. But the General Shipowners’ Society of London, elated with success, resolved to make one more determined effort to, at least, restore the Colonial trade to the vessels of Great Britain, and to induce Parliament to recommend her Majesty in Council to exclude from our carrying trade the vessels of those nations which did not reciprocate.

With these objects in view, they invited to their aid delegates from all the seaports in the kingdom, and every person of influence in and out of Parliament likely to aid their cause. Another public meeting was held in the London Tavern, at which Mr. R. W. Crawford, one of the members for the City, took the chair. I had, unexpectedly, received an invitation to attend, which I accepted, as the question to be discussed, apart from my duty to my constituents, was one in which I had a large personal interest. Knowing, however, that few persons in the vast assembly which had been got together agreed with the view I entertained, I took my seat, almost out of sight, in the rear of the platform. The meeting was, indeed, one of a most influential character. Many men were there whose cheque for 10,000l. would have passed as freely as a 5l. note, and whose hale and ruddy countenances did not at all betoken that they were on “the road to ruin.” Perhaps it was malicious on the part of the ‘Times’ to describe the meeting “as the largest collection of political and commercial fossils which could be got together in these adverse days for political antiquarianism;” but it is quite true that their views, generally, so far as they could be comprehended, were certainly of an antiquarian character.

Mr. Frederick Somes, the member for Hull, who moved the first resolution, declared “that nothing but ruin could result to the shipping interest,” if the existing policy was pursued; and Mr. Bramley-Moore, who seconded it, stated that “the coasting trade was gradually drifting into the hands of foreigners” (a very extraordinary statement in the face of the official returns), while he argued that, “we should have the right of selling to, as well as purchasing from, the foreigner,” as if any person or any law prevented him from doing so if he pleased. Mr. George Marshall, one of our largest and most intelligent shipowners, spoke, from experience, of the depressed state of British shipping, owing to the “inability to compete with foreigners;” and Mr. Duncan Dunbar told the meeting, but not in a doleful tone, for he was the jolliest of men, with the happiest of countenances, “that the very property he had made by his industry and hard labour was melting away like snow before the sun.”[198]

It was hopeless to expect that the Legislature would attempt to do anything, even if they could, for a body of men who, representing a great national interest, delivered such sentiments as these, and had, evidently, assembled for the purpose of obliging other people to make good any losses they might have sustained, if any there were, during the two previous years, while pocketing in silence, for their own special benefit, the large profits they had secured during the Crimean war. What had Government to do with the profits and losses of Shipowners any more than it had to do with those of any other branch of trade? Invited, as I had been, to take part in these deliberations, I felt that I should do wrong were I not, regardless of any insults to myself, to step forward and attempt to expose the fallacy of the course pursued by the meeting, especially, as the Shipowners had grievances which really ought to be redressed, and to which the Legislature, I felt sure, would readily listen, if properly appealed to. Shipowners were then, unquestionably, subjected to various burdens which would never have been imposed upon them had they not been a protected class, and, as such, supposed to derive advantages from which other classes of the community were excluded; burdens, too, I am bound and willing to add, from which they ought to have been relieved when the Navigation Laws were repealed.

Feeling, therefore, that the time of this large and important meeting would be wasted in vain and useless resolutions, I stepped forward to the front of the platform, resolved, at all hazards, to endure every contumely, and, if I could not carry an amendment, which I saw was altogether hopeless, to at least enter my protest as a British Shipowner against such subservient and worthless appeals to the Legislature of our country. My appearance on the front row was the signal for a yell of derision; and my amendment, which I had hastily written in pencil, “that a petition be presented to both Houses of Parliament, praying for an inquiry into the actual condition of British navigation, and for relief from all peculiar burdens and restrictions that still fetter maritime enterprise,” was received with hisses and the loudest and rudest demonstrations of dissatisfaction.

Although these events are matters for history, they are of too personal a character to be pursued at length; however, that my readers may form some idea of the feelings of a very large number of the most influential Shipowners of the period, I furnish in a foot-note[199] extracts from the report which appeared in the ‘Times’ and of other journals of the proceedings of this great meeting.

But, even if the Legislature had been disposed to consider the wailings of the Shipowners, or to listen to their unreasonable demands, an event supervened which for a time changed the aspect of their affairs. Critical questions arose in Europe. Political relations between France and Austria had become most unsatisfactory. The Emperor of the French, having recently, by a member of his family, contracted an alliance with a Princess of the House of Savoy, welded another political link with the King of Sardinia, and, on the 1st January, 1860, announced an approaching rupture with Austria. “A cry of anguish” arose from the provinces of Lombardy; and all the miseries the Italians, during many years, had suffered from Austrian domination were suddenly and ostentatiously paraded before the world. Free Europe witnessed with astonishment the scene in which the despotic Emperor of the French complained of the tyranny exercised by another despot in Austria, over a portion of Austrian subjects, whilst the Emperor of Russia, more despotic than either, joined in the strange and mysterious confederacy, and affected sympathy for the down-trodden and oppressed Italians.

It was impossible for Great Britain to remain indifferent while events so momentous were happening in rapid succession on the continent of Europe; hence, when Austria summoned Sardinia to disarm, and the French troops were put in motion to cross the Alps, the English people, carried away by their sympathies for the oppressed Italians, and forgetting to inquire “Can grapes come from thorns, or figs from thistles?” were almost willing to join France and aid her in her real object, the advancement of the eastern portion of the Empire towards the Rhine. But, whatever the results of the short but great war then publicly proclaimed by France and Sardinia against Austria, its effect, by increasing the demand for shipping, combined with other causes, proved very salutary to the fortunes of British Shipowners.

Though England had been startled by the proceedings on the Continent, and had made preparations for any emergency, she happily kept clear of “entanglement,” so that Parliament had time to direct its attention to other less exciting, but to her more important subjects. Under these circumstances, I consequently, on the 31st January, 1860, renewed my motion,[200] for an inquiry into the state of our merchant shipping, and the operations of the burdens and restrictions especially affecting that interest. After a long and interesting discussion, the House was pleased to adopt my motion, extending the inquiry into various Acts of Parliament then in force;[201] and, on the 16th February of that year, the Committee was appointed:[202] the whole of that session was devoted to the inquiry, and to the complaints and suggestions of the Shipowners and other persons interested, who were heard in detail: no less than 6813 questions were asked, and as many answers given in reply, and voluminous appendices swelled the Report.

No Committee ever commenced its duty with a more fixed determination to grant impartial justice and remedy any existing evils. I shall not venture to offer an opinion on the Report, as it was drawn up by myself, at the request of my colleagues. But I ought to state that the Committee examined most carefully and anxiously, in all its bearings, the great question with which it had to deal, and enabled me to prepare a report which was strictly just and thoroughly exhaustive, and which I hope has rendered unnecessary any further appeals, at least, on similar grounds, for relief to the Legislature. In prosecution of their inquiries the Committee examined numerous persons residing in London and the outports connected with the shipping interests, many of whom were extensively engaged in the home, colonial, and foreign trades. They also examined several officers in various departments of her Majesty’s Government, and others representing two of the corporations, which exercise trading powers affecting shipping, so as to more fully elucidate the subjects with which they were respectively acquainted. They then reviewed in detail the various measures which had been introduced during the previous quarter of a century affecting maritime commerce, directing attention to that part of the evidence which stated that the reason, why the Coasting trade was not thrown open until 1854, was the assertion on the part of the officers of Customs that there would be a difficulty in enforcing effectual regulations to guard the revenue.

Referring to existing treaties, the Committee remarked that, though the Government of the Netherlands placed the ships of England, ostensibly, on the same footing as Dutch vessels, English vessels, however, in consequence of the regulations of the Dutch East India Company, were practically prevented from trading with the valuable settlements of the Dutch in the Eastern seas.

When directing attention to the different nations who still withheld from British ships the advantages of their coasting trade, they could not fail to notice the often repeated fact, that the United States of North America not only shut out British vessels from the carrying of goods in the vast coasting trade of their Atlantic and Pacific sea-boards, but that British vessels running between New York and Aspinwall, and between Panama and San Francisco, were denied the ordinary privileges enjoyed by the American national flag; and that, thus, the indirect carrying trade between the eastern and western coast of the United States was, practically, confined to American shipping, as well as the coasting trade proper.

With regard to British colonial possessions the Committee stated that, while the coasting trade had been thrown open to foreign vessels in the British East Indies, Ceylon, the Cape of Good Hope, and Victoria, the coasting trade of our North American colonies was still confined to British vessels; foreign ships being, however, permitted to carry on the inter-colonial trade with our various possessions.

The Committee, especially, noticed the entire unanimity of the witnesses whom they had examined with regard to the unsatisfactory state of the laws then regulating international intercourse, not merely with the United States of America, but also with France, Spain, and Portugal; nor could they fail to perceive that every witness viewed with the greatest jealousy the restrictions still imposed by those nations on our shipping, and further, that we had not been met by them in that spirit of fairness and reciprocity we had a right to expect.

So far as regards the great question—the repeal of the Navigation Laws—into which the Committee inquired minutely and impartially, I may say that they were, unanimously, of opinion that it would be impossible to reverse the established policy of Free-trade, and that, in fact, it would not be to the interests of our Shipowners, if they had been able to do so. Indeed, the representatives of the then most conservative ports in the kingdom (Mr. Horsfall for Liverpool, and Mr. Liddell, now Lord Eslington, one of the members for Northumberland) were decidedly of opinion that any reversal of our policy would not merely be prejudicial to the great trading interests of this country, but, specially so, to those engaged in its maritime commerce; and, in fact, though they felt the advantages derivable by reciprocal advantages from foreign nations, they were not prepared to support an Order in Council against the admission to our ports of the ships of those nations which did not reciprocate.

While admitting the depressed state of the shipping interest during the previous two or three years, the Committee pointed out that this depression had arisen in great measure from causes beyond the reach or province of legislation. They remarked, for instance, with great force, that as one-fourth part of the whole coasting trade was then carried on by means of steam-vessels, while one steamer could accomplish as much work as five sailing vessels, it must follow that the owners of the latter would suffer; the result clearly showing that the depression arose in the north of England ports to a great extent from causes no government could control. Instancing Sunderland, they remarked that while in 1852 there were no steamers whatever engaged in trade at that port, the number of such vessels built there since that period (between 1852 and 1860) had displaced the enormous number of 4000 sailing ships, each of 250 tons capacity. Hence, while the Committee could not but regret the heavy loss thus entailed on one industrious class of men, many of whom were, no doubt, totally ruined, it was impossible for them to remedy a state of things brought about mainly by the progress of science, and one, moreover, with which the change in our policy had nothing whatever to do. Indeed, not one of the witnesses examined, although many of them had been sufferers in this way, proposed to recur to the absolutely restrictive system in vogue previously to 1850.

When the figures brought forward by the opponents of repeal were closely examined, it appeared that, while the increase of all the sailing ships in the United Kingdom had for nine years previously to the change in our Navigation Laws been only 23½ per cent., the increase of steamers, during the same period, had been as much as 81 per cent.; but that since then to the end of 1859, while the increase of sailing ships had been 26½ per cent., steamers had increased no less than 184 per cent. These were transient evils against which no legislation could provide; and it was, therefore, obvious that, instead of attempting to render remunerative a class of vessels, now obsolete owing to the improvements of the age, Shipowners would have done better to direct their attention to the development of the new power, for which they possessed in vast abundance the requisite materials of iron and coal: in this way, there could be no doubt that they would be able to compete successfully with all other nations. In how remarkable a manner these words have been fulfilled I shall be able to show when I come to treat of the progress of steam navigation in the Transatlantic trades. Nor has our success been less remarkable in our competition with the Swedes and Norwegians, with whom it was repeatedly alleged we were unable to compete; for they, in 1859, had already become large buyers of ships in our markets, and, I may add, are still frequently to be found purchasers of British-built vessels.

The question having now been narrowed to that of re-imposing the monopoly of the carrying trade to and from our Colonial possessions, the Committee soon arrived at the conclusion that the extent, diversified interests, and increasing power of our possessions abroad, offered insuperable obstacles to the re-imposition of restrictions on that trade, while the daily increase of feelings of independence in our Colonies naturally tended to resist a system which would place the grower of British plantation sugar and coffee in the West Indies at a greater disadvantage than then existed, especially when compared with the producer of slave-grown sugar and coffee in Brazil and Cuba. The Committee, therefore, looking to our relations with Canada, our possessions in the East and West Indies, and, above all, in Australia, considered it their duty, unhesitatingly, to declare that any proposal having for its object the re-establishing an exclusive monopoly of the carrying trade to and from our colonial possessions must, both on political and commercial grounds, be rejected as altogether impracticable. Moreover, that, while such a step would be unjust to our fellow-subjects in the colonies, it would very likely embroil us with those foreign Powers to whom we were bound by existing treaties.

The question, however, of the expediency of requiring foreign Powers, having colonial possessions, to reciprocate every advantage to us, which Great Britain had accorded unconditionally to them, though, commercially, when compared with other branches of commerce, unimportant, was one which demanded peculiar attention, as it was, and still is, a source of great annoyance, in that it creates a feeling that we have been very illiberally, if not unjustly, dealt with by these Powers. British Shipowners who, carried on the restricted and scarcely tolerated intercourse with the colonies of France, Spain, and Portugal, found their ships placed at an immense disadvantage, in the unequal competition they had to encounter, while they had the mortification to see foreign ships resort to our own colonies and secure much higher freights than our own ships when chartered to a port in Europe.[203]

For instance, it was given in evidence that Spanish vessels were chartered in English ports to Manilla at 3l. or 4l. per ton, while the British vessel could not obtain 30s. per ton. From the Mauritius to Europe a French ship, enjoying the option of both the British and French markets, obtained a freight for sugar of 3l. 10s. per ton at a time when English ships were obliged to accept 10s. per ton. Thus, in all our colonies and possessions, French, Spanish, and Portuguese vessels[204] could generally procure a freight greatly in excess of that obtained by British ships, as the foreign national flag secured for them, on arrival at a port of call in England, the advantage of our markets, with the option of sending on the cargo to the respective countries of Europe to which the national flag belonged, but from which markets such produce was excluded by heavy differential duties, if conveyed thither in British ships.

The Committee naturally felt that a sense of justice demanded that our Shipowners should, as far as practicable and consistent with the interests of the community, be placed on equal terms in the race of competition, and that, whatever difficulties might stand in the way of having recourse to retaliatory measures, there had been, they regretted to state, an apparent apathy on the part of the executive government, in remonstrating with those nations which then excluded our vessels from their trade; in other words, that the Foreign Office had not employed the influence it might have exercised to secure, by diplomatic negotiation, the advantages of reciprocity.

As the question of belligerent rights at sea was one which deeply affected alike the British Shipowner in the prosecution of his business and the general interests of Great Britain, the Committee devoted their especial attention to the evidence advanced on this important question.

In the recent war with Russia, England, as we have already incidentally noticed, when she formed an alliance with France, agreed with that country to waive her right to confiscate an enemy’s goods on board neutral ships as also neutral goods found on board an enemy’s, so long as they were not, in either case, contraband of war. This mutual but provisional waiver of belligerent rights placed the allies in harmonious action, and, practically, countenanced the principle that “free ships make free goods.” Upon the return of peace, as I have explained in a previous portion of this work, the declaration of Paris of April, 1856, signed by Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey gave a formal sanction to this principle. Privateering was also abolished.

America was invited to be a party to this general international agreement, but demurred, and coupled at first her assent to the abolition of privateering, with the condition that private property at sea should no longer be subject to capture. Finally, she refused to be a party to a convention, whereby she would be precluded from resorting to her merchant marine for privateering purposes, in case she became a belligerent. But this, in the opinion of the Committee, was not surprising, as the United States had obtained the recognition of the rights of neutrals, for which she contended throughout a long period of hostilities, and Great Britain had surrendered those rights without any equivalent from her. The Committee were therefore of opinion that our Shipowners would thereby be placed at an immense disadvantage in the event of a war breaking out with any important European Power. Indeed, they went so far as to give it as their deliberate conviction that “the whole of our carrying trade in the event of a great European war would be inevitably transferred to American and other neutral bottoms.”

“We must therefore,” they continued, “either secure the general consent of all nations to establish the immunity of merchant ships and their cargoes from the depredations of both privateers and armed national cruisers during hostilities, or we must revert to the maintenance of our ancient rights, whereby, relying upon our maritime superiority, we may not merely hope to guard unmolested our merchant shipping in the prosecution of their business, but may capture enemy’s goods in neutral ships, and thus prevent other nations from seizing the carrying trade of this kingdom during a state of hostility.”

Looking at this important question in all its bearings, and considering that we have at all times a much larger amount of property afloat than any other nation, the Committee were of opinion, that, though grave objections had been urged by high authorities against any further step in advance, they could not close their remarks without expressing an earnest hope, and, at the same time, giving it as a deliberate opinion, that “in the progress of civilisation, and in the cause of humanity, the time had arrived when all private property (not contraband of war) should be exempt from capture at sea.”

Having reviewed the question of liability, of which many Shipowners had complained, the Committee were of opinion that it was not advisable to reduce that liability to any extent below the value of the ship and freight, taking the value of the former at 15l. per ton. For to confine it simply to the actual value of the ship “would,” they urged, “be an encouragement to unprincipled persons to employ inadequate and worn-out vessels in the conveyance of passengers, and that, on the other hand, to subject shipowners to unlimited liability might induce men of property and character to withdraw their fortunes from so great a hazard.” The Committee could not, however, overlook the additional liability to which Shipowners were exposed by the operation of the municipal laws of foreign states, for, as the law now stands, the liability of the foreign shipowner is not limited to our courts, and the liability of the English shipowner by the same rule, if it were applied in the United States, would not be limited in their courts.[205] Therefore, although the English law may have contemplated the limitation of the British shipowners’ liability, any damage sustained by collision on the high seas between a British ship and a foreign vessel, would not fall within the statutory limit, and, practically, the liability of the British shipowner, in the event of loss of life, would be unlimited, or at least co-extensive with the loss, which a jury might assess according to the rank of life and the injuries sustained by the relatives and families of the deceased. It was further recommended that the practicability and desirability of an international arrangement with maritime countries,[206] so as to arrive at some uniform reciprocal principles, should be seriously considered by Government.

The incidence of the light dues paid by the Shipowners of the Empire, necessarily received consideration from the Committee, more especially as it was a serious burden on all merchant vessels. So far back as 1845, a Committee appointed specially to inquire into those dues, recommended, “That all expenses for the erection of lighthouses, floating-lights, buoys, and beacons, on the coast of the United Kingdom, be henceforth defrayed out of the public revenue.”

Entirely agreeing with this resolution, the Committee of 1860, while recommending Government to adopt that resolution, added: “That the lighting of our shores is a high imperial duty which we owe, not merely to ourselves, but to strangers, whom we invite to trade with us.”

They felt that the justice as well as the policy of such a course was strengthened by the fact that the large debt of 1,250,000l., the result of improvident grants, incurred under the authority of Parliament for buying up the lighthouses held by private individuals, had, since that period (1845), been paid out of light dues, raised out of a tax upon shipping, and they had less hesitation in recommending the adoption of this enlightened policy from the fact that the Congress of the United States of America appropriates an annual vote for lights throughout their whole territory, which is borne by the entire federation, and that no charge for light dues is levied on foreign vessels frequenting the ports of that country.

The question of pilotage was also one which received every consideration, the evidence showing that when a voluntary system prevailed, even where the navigation was difficult and, at times, dangerous, no inconvenience arose from the absence of legal compulsion for the employment of a pilot. Many of the members of the committee were of opinion that the whole pilotage of the kingdom should be thrown open; but no decided recommendation was offered, as it had been pretty clearly demonstrated in evidence that the compulsory system of pilotage still exercised at London, Liverpool, and Bristol, had worked in a manner satisfactory to those persons who were most directly interested in this matter.

The charges levied by local authorities on ships and goods entering or clearing from their ports, had so frequently been under the consideration of Parliament, that the Committee could do little more than refer to the various reports on this subject, and especially to that of the Royal Commissions of 1854, with the expression of their regret that not one of the recommendations of that commission had been carried into effect.[207]

The Committee, after inquiring into the management of the Trinity Houses of Newcastle and Hull, and the nature of the charges levied by the Russian Company and by the King of Hanover on shipping, under the name of Stade dues, both of which have since then been happily abolished, reviewed our mercantile marine legislation since 1835, and were of opinion that, though, in many respects the measures adopted had been judicious and beneficial, a few had been carried to excess in matters of detail (an opinion very different to that which at present prevails in the House of Commons); nor, indeed, could they have arrived at any other conclusion, as various witnesses clearly showed that, in some instances, a zealous wish to accomplish improvements, and to protect the interests of the public, had led to the adoption of legislative measures of a too minute and restrictive character, and, above all, that any unnecessary interference as to how a ship should be built, fitted, manned, and navigated, was frequently attended with prejudicial consequences, while it had as frequently retarded beneficial advance.

Such were the leading points of the report of the Merchant Shipping Committee of 1860. It seems to have satisfied all parties as far as anything could satisfy men whose policy had been ignored; at least no further inquiry into the state of British shipping, or for relief from oppressive and unjust burdens has since been considered either expedient or necessary. Indeed, the great majority of the recommendations have since been carried out by successive Governments. The Local Charges Bill, which had been referred to a Select Committee in 1856, was dealt with by separate inquiries; the important case of Liverpool occupying the whole of the Session of 1857, ultimately resulting in a reform of the Dock management, and in the transfer of the Liverpool town dues to the Dock estate.

In 1861, Mr. Milner Gibson, then President of the Board of Trade, introduced a Bill[208] by which most of the other grievances were removed. All taxes on shipping, raised for the purpose of granting pensions and other, so-called, charitable objects, were abolished; local differential charges on foreign shipping were, to a large extent, prohibited;[209] the passing tolls levied for the support of such harbours as Ramsgate, Dover, and Bridlington were swept away, and power (on the recommendation originally of the Harbours of Refuge Commission of 1854) was given to the Public Works Loan Commissioners to lend money for the improvement of trading harbours at a low rate of interest.[210] France, to whose shipping laws I shall hereafter refer, abolished her local charges and differential dues; Italy, in 1863, admitted British ships to national treatment; and Austria also, by treaty, in 1868, has followed her example.

Unfortunately, Shipowners are still taxed for the maintenance of the National lights; but, although the recommendations of various Committees have not in this respect been adopted, reductions in the charges levied have been made to no less an extent than 75 per cent, since 1853.[211] Great improvements have also been made since Mr. (now Lord) Cardwell put in motion this scale of reduction, which has proved so valuable in its results; since then no less than fifty-seven new lighthouses have been built, and fifteen new light ships moored on the coast, whilst thirty-seven old lighthouses have been rebuilt and re-organised at an aggregate cost of more than one million pounds sterling.

From 1860 the Shipowners of Great Britain, though they have experienced in their trade, like all other branches of trade, periods of depression, and rarely more so than at the present moment, have never looked backwards. All special and peculiar burdens having now been removed, their only present desire is, and it is not an unreasonable one, that they should be interfered with as little as possible—certainly not more so than is necessary for the protection of the public—in the management of their own affairs, and that they should have a fair and free field: they seek no favours.

What they have done since they have had free scope to their industry and skill, and been relieved from all unfair taxation on the one hand, and the swaddling-clothes of protection on the other, is truly astonishing. Since then, no country has produced more magnificent steam and sailing ships, the former having all but monopolised the great Transatlantic carrying trade, to which I shall fully refer hereafter, and the latter having driven the American clippers entirely from the China trade.[212] Such are the effects of wholesome competition.

Perhaps no merchant ocean-going ships of any country or of any age have equalled, certainly none have ever surpassed, the sailing clippers launched from the yards of Great Britain between 1860 and 1872, vessels far superior to those I have already named, including the Falcon, the Fiery Cross, Undine, Lahloo, Leander, the Isles of the South, Min, Kelso, Serica, Taeping, Ariel, Titania, Spindrift, Sir Lancelot, and Thermopylæ. As the Thermopylæ and the Sir Lancelot are the fastest sailing ships that ever traversed the ocean,[213] I have given a representation of the former under full sail at page 416, and the following drawing to scale of her midship section may interest my nautical readers.

On her first voyage from London to Melbourne, starting in November 1868, the Thermopylæ made the quickest passage on record between those ports—viz. in sixty days from pilot to pilot. Nor was this a mere chance passage, for on the next voyage from London to Melbourne she accomplished the same distance in sixty-one days, still faster than any other known passage between these ports; and, so far as I can ascertain, these voyages have never since been equalled by any other sailing vessels. On her first voyage, after leaving Melbourne she took on board a cargo of coals at Newcastle (New South Wales) for Shanghai, and accomplished the passage thence in twenty-eight days—the quickest on record. Leaving Foo-chow-foo soon afterwards with a cargo of tea, she made the passage thence to London in ninety-one days.[214] This has never been surpassed, except by the Sir Lancelot, which in the same year made the passage to London in ninety days[216] (her owner states eighty-nine days). Indeed, so completely have we outstripped the United States and all other nations, that instead of American clippers bringing teas from China to supply the London market, English clippers are frequently engaged to load the early teas from China to New York.[217]

Nor have other trades than that of China been very far behind in this great ocean race. Many of the sailing vessels now engaged in the trade with Australia and India are remarkable for their swiftness and increased capacity, combined with greatly reduced sailing expenses. Superior in speed to any of the ships of the old East India Company, they have double the space for cargo in proportion to their register tonnage, and are manned and navigated by about one-third the number of men. Among them and the China clippers are to be found some of the handsomest vessels the world has ever seen. Marvellous specimens of grace and beauty, not surpassed even by the finest yachts, and much easier in their movements, when under full sail and at their greatest speed, than any “thing of beauty” yet produced in either Great Britain or the United States for the purposes of ocean navigation.

But however great have been the strides in the improvement of the merchant vessels of Great Britain, their rapid increase in number since the repeal of the Navigation Laws has been equally astonishing; while the freedom of our laws has given an impetus to maritime commerce far beyond the most sanguine hopes of those who, a quarter of a century ago, most strenuously advocated the policy of Free-trade. That my readers may see how we stand, so far as our ships are concerned, in comparison with other nations, I have had a table prepared, which will be found in the Appendix,[218] showing the progress they have made as compared with other countries, before and after the repeal of our Navigation Laws. The figures are remarkable; and, though it is not the province of this work to enter upon controversial questions, I cannot refrain from directing the attention of my readers to the fact that the nations which have adopted a liberal policy have made much the greatest advance; while the United States of America, to which I have so frequently referred, have, with all their natural advantages, materially retrograded as a maritime people. Nor have continental nations, like France, to which I shall presently refer, made any progress worthy of note under the ancient commercial policy, to which they still, in a large measure, and most unwisely, adhere.