CHAPTER VII.
New Parliament, November 18, 1847—Speech from Throne—Mr. Robinson and Shipowners deceived—Conversation between Mr. Bancroft and Lord Palmerston—Mr. Bancroft’s declaration—Official letter from Mr. Bancroft to Lord Palmerston, November 3, 1847—Lord Palmerston’s reply, November 17, practically giving prior information to the Americans—Lord Clarendon tells the Shipowners’ Society that the laws will not be altered, December 26, 1846; and repeats this assurance, March 15, 1847—Interview between Lord Palmerston and Mr. Bancroft, published in ‘Washington Union’—Excites great indignation when known in England, January 1848—Parliament re-assembles, February 3, 1848—Lord Palmerston admits the correspondence with America—The Earl of Hardwicke’s proposal, February 25, 1848—Earl Grey grants a Committee—Evidence of the Shipowners before the Lords’ Committee—Mr. Young proposes some modifications, the first concessions of the Anti-Repeal Party—Claim in favour of direct voyages—Government insists on Total Repeal—Detailed views of Admiral Sir George Byam Martin—Importance of keeping up the merchant navy—Arguments from his personal experience as to its value as a nursery for seamen—Working of the system of apprenticeship, and of impressment—Evidence of Admiral Berkeley, and of Mr. R. B. Minturn—Details about American ships—Reciprocity treaties so far as they affect Americans—Their whale fishery.
New Parliament, November 18, 1847.
On the 18th of November, 1847, the new Parliament was opened by commission. It had been thus early called together to consider the distress caused by the recent commercial embarrassments and the severe pressure still prevailing in Ireland, notwithstanding an abundant harvest, together with the importation of an unprecedented quantity of grain, flour, and provisions.
Speech from Throne.
The Speaker having been chosen, the Speech from the Throne, delivered by the Marquess of Lansdowne, contained the following important paragraph:—“Her Majesty recommends to the consideration of Parliament the laws which regulate the navigation of the United Kingdom, with a view to ascertain whether any changes can be adopted which, without danger to our maritime strength, may promote the commercial and colonial interests of the empire.”
Mr. Robinson and Shipowners deceived.
The guarded terms in which this paragraph was couched lulled the suspicions of some of the leaders of the Protectionist party. Mr. Robinson, a merchant connected with the Newfoundland trade, and an influential member of Lloyd’s, was, at that time, in Parliament for the borough of Poole. On the debate on the Address, he said, “that with respect to the Navigation Laws, he had looked with much attention to the precise words in her Majesty’s Speech on this subject, and he did not object to them. He did not object to inquiry into those laws, with a view to consider any or what relaxation or modification might be made applicable to the existing state of things, and the maintenance of the maritime interests of Great Britain and her dependencies.”
Conversation between Mr. Bancroft and Lord Palmerston.
Mr. Bancroft’s declaration.
But though Mr. Robinson and the party of whose views he was then the exponent may have deluded themselves into a belief that Government had no intention of bringing any measure into Parliament for the abrogation of the Navigation Laws, it is, now, beyond doubt that the administration of Lord Russell, whatever might have been his Lordship’s individual opinions, had resolved to introduce and support, with all its power, a very sweeping measure. In the autumn of 1847 the American Minister put himself in communication and had interviews with Lord Palmerston, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, at which Mr. Labouchere was present.[80] On one of these occasions, Mr. Bancroft informed them that the American Government, believing it was the disposition of Parliament to make a large and liberal alteration in the Navigation Laws, was anxious to co-operate with the English Ministers in that great work, and, in conjunction with them, to set an example which he hoped would be productive of important and salutary effects. Mr. Bancroft’s language was singularly expressive and emphatic. In one of the interviews he said to the English Ministers: “We are ready to do anything you like; if you can do but little, we must do little; if you can do much, we will do much; IF YOU SHALL DO ALL, WE SHALL DO ALL.”[81]
This important declaration (whether or not Mr. Bancroft had any authority for making it in all its fulness) became at a future period the subject of incessant comment and controversy. It is important, therefore, that the facts, as they occurred, should be clearly stated. There can be no doubt that this conversation took place in the month of October 1847, but what Mr. Bancroft meant must probably ever remain a matter of conjecture. If, however, language is of any value in conveying the views or intention of the person who speaks, it may fairly be presumed that the positive expression “little” had reference to the carriage of European produce, indifferently, in either American or British ships to the ports of the United States, and the general produce of the world from American ports in the like manner to ports of Great Britain. The equivalent the Americans could give in return for the comparative “much,” presuming this to mean unrestricted trade with British colonies, is difficult to conjecture; seeing that the Americans have no colonies, and, in point of fact, no equivalent whatever to give. As regards the superlative “all, in return for all,” it could only have had reference to the coasting trade so jealously guarded at that time by both countries; and, in the sequel, it will be evident how far this magnanimous offer corresponded with the tenacious policy then and to this day adhered to by the United States Government.
Lord Palmerston, entertaining a strong feeling in favour of the repeal of the Navigation Laws, at once perceived what use could be made of the concurrence of the United States Government in a LARGE measure of reform. He accordingly requested Mr. Bancroft to put his views in a formal communication, which was done as follows:—
Official letter from Mr. Bancroft to Lord Palmerston, November 3, 1847.
“American Legation, 3rd November, 1847.
“The undersigned, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, has the honour to inquire of Viscount Palmerston, her British Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if her Majesty’s Government is inclined to remove existing restrictions on international commerce.
“Universal reciprocity, in the widest sense, is held by the American Government as the only thoroughly appropriate basis for intercourse between two great nations. The prohibition of the indirect trade has but restrained enterprise: it has done good to neither country. To abrogate it would at once set free dormant commercial wealth without injuring any one.
“Should her Majesty’s Government entertain similar views, the undersigned is prepared on the part of the American Government to propose that British ships may trade from any port of the world to any port in the United States, and be received, protected, and, in respect to charges and duties, be treated like American ships, if, reciprocally, American ships may in like manner trade from any port in the world to any port under the dominion of her British Majesty.
“The removal of commercial restrictions, while it would be of mutual advantage to the material interests of both countries, could not but give openings to still further relations of amity between them, and, by its influence on the intercourse of nations, create new guarantees for the peace of the world.
“The undersigned, &c.
(Signed) “George Bancroft.”
The following reply was given by Lord Palmerston:—
Lord Palmerston’s reply, November 17,
“Foreign Office, 17th November, 1847.
“Sir,
“I have lost no time in communicating to my colleagues your note of the 3rd inst. on the subject of the Navigation Laws which regulate the commerce of the British Empire and that of the United States with each other.
“This question has already engaged the serious attention of her Majesty’s Ministers, and we observe with pleasure that the sentiments we entertain with regard to it are shared by the Government of a country, with which we are so closely united by the ties of an extensive commerce and of a common origin.
“We do not, however, think that we should be justified in advising the Crown to enter into an engagement which would be at variance with some of the most important principles of the existing Navigation Law without the previous sanction of Parliament; but it is our intention to propose to Parliament, without unnecessary delay, measures which would enable us to place our commercial intercourse in regard to the matters to which your note refers on the most liberal and comprehensive basis with respect to all countries which shall be willing to act in a corresponding spirit towards us.
(Signed) “Palmerston.”[82]
practically giving prior information to the Americans.
Lord Clarendon tells Shipowners’ Society that the laws will not be altered, December 26, 1846, and repeats this assurance, March 15, 1847.
It thus appears that the English Ministers communicated their intentions formally and explicitly to the American Government, and, through that Government to the American people, a day before they chose to inform the English Parliament and the nation, somewhat vaguely, in the Queen’s Speech, of the course they might, eventually, be led to pursue. A year previously, on the 21st of December, 1846, the Shipowners’ Society of London had had an interview with Lord Clarendon at the Board of Trade. On that occasion, as appears from the Minutes of the Society, they were graciously received, and assured in distinct language, that no intention was entertained on the part of her Majesty’s Government of making any alteration in these laws. Three months later, on the 15th March, 1847, these gentlemen, entertaining a feeling of mistrust in the then governing powers, went again to the Board of Trade and asked the same question, and were once more assured that there was no intention on the part of Government to interfere with the fundamental principles of the Navigation Laws; that an individual member, Mr. Ricardo, had indeed mooted the subject of a committee, which Government could not refuse, but that the committee should be a fair one, with Mr. Milner Gibson[83] as chairman, as they were desirous to give satisfaction to all parties interested. So far no intention was expressed of tampering with these laws; and we have seen that Mr. Robinson, on scrutinising the terms of the Queen’s Speech in November, acquiesced in its propriety, no suspicion having entered his mind, that, already, these laws were foredoomed by Ministers, still less that, the very day before Parliament met, they had communicated their intentions to a foreign maritime Power—a nation, too, which, at that moment, was straining every nerve to wrest from us the supremacy of the ocean. Under such circumstances as these, the following article, first published in the ‘Washington Union,’[84] created intense astonishment. Nor is it surprising that it should have done so:—
Interview between Lord Palmerston and Mr. Bancroft published in ‘Washington Union.’
“Repeal of the Navigation Laws.—A correspondence has taken place between the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs and our Minister at that Court relative to the repeal of the Navigation Laws of Great Britain. Mr. Bancroft applied to Viscount Palmerston early in November to learn whether Ministers would consent to establish with the United States a perfect system of reciprocity, in making all vessels of either country, fitting out from any port of the world, free to trade to any port of the other nation, whether home or colonial. Viscount Palmerston, after the lapse of some weeks (it was just fourteen days), replied that, although her Majesty’s Ministers did not feel at liberty to advise her Majesty at once to make such a change in the commercial system as was asked by Mr. Bancroft without the consent of Parliament, yet as soon as that body should meet, a measure would be introduced which would embrace all the views put forth by Mr. Bancroft in his note. It is not doubted that Parliament will at once act favourably on the Bill. The importance to the United States of such a measure can scarcely be exaggerated. The British colonial system has been a most grievous restriction on our commerce, and its annihilation, as promised by Lord Palmerston, will open to our enterprising merchants the lucrative trade of the East and West Indies, and of the other British settlements from which they have been hitherto debarred. This will be the greatest stride yet taken by Free-trade: and it is not to be doubted that all Europe will follow the example of Great Britain! The liberal commercial treaty made by Hanover with the United States has been in no small degree instrumental in disposing the British Government to this wise measure. The Rhine provinces have recently imitated the example of Hanover towards the United States; and everywhere silently but steadily our commercial relations are being put upon the most advantageous footing. The repeal by Great Britain of the laws restricting the trade of the United States with her colonies will be far more beneficial to this country than any commercial treaty ever made by our Government.”
Such was the announcement put forth in the American journals semi-officially, and the reader will judge how far this “puff direct” of the American executive was borne out by facts, or the dates and tenor of the correspondence given between the American Minister in England and the English Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The spirit of the most perfect liberality, and, I must add, complete reciprocity, seemed to pervade all Mr. Bancroft’s professions when communicating with Lord Palmerston and Mr. Labouchere, promising “little, much, and all,” according as the same could be obtained from Parliament. In his special despatch, he described the concessions his Government was prepared to grant, as universal reciprocity in its widest sense, which, if it meant anything at all, meant the opening to our ships of their extensive coasting trade in return for the opening of our still more extensive colonial trade to the ships of the United States; or, if such was not his meaning, it meant that, when we opened our coasting trade, they would do so likewise. But the latter portion of his despatch, and the semi-official announcement in the ‘Washington Union,’ contain, in other respects, many vague generalities and, as subsequently appeared, the Government of the United States never had any intention of opening its coasting trade to the ships of Great Britain.
Excites great indignation when known in England, January 1848.
When the correspondence transpired in January 1848, it created great astonishment, if not alarm and indignation, throughout the country, especially among shipowners and all persons who considered that their best interests were interwoven with the maintenance of the Navigation Laws. The Conservative press loudly reproached Lord Palmerston for having made known the intentions of Government with regard to this important measure to the American Minister before communicating them to Parliament; nor could the Liberals approve of the course that had been adopted.
Parliament re-assembles on February 3, 1848.
Lord Palmerston admits the correspondence with. America.
On the evening of the 3rd February, 1848, the day of the re-assembling of Parliament, there was considerable excitement in the House of Commons, and, amidst it, Mr. Robinson asked the Foreign Minister whether any correspondence or communication had taken place between him and the Minister of the United States about the Navigation Laws; and, if so, whether he would lay it upon the table? Lord Palmerston, with the ready tact for which he was distinguished, and with the smiling coolness so characteristic of him, especially in times of excitement, at once and frankly avowed that there had been such a correspondence; looking, with a twinkle in his eye and a smile on his lip, at Mr. Robinson, as if to inquire in turn, and “if there has been, what is there to make such a fuss about?” adding that the correspondence would, at once, be laid on the table.
This announcement, perhaps more from the manner in which it was made than from the fact accompanying it, that Ministers intended immediately to submit to Parliament a proposition on the subject, quieted the House, but, at the same time, awakened the shipowners out of doors to what they considered their dangerous situation. They felt conscious that, in the House of Commons, a Free-trade majority would sanction any measure the Government might have the courage to propose. On the other hand, in the House of Lords, where popular passions prevailed less, they hoped to find a less prejudiced tribunal; hence, they prudently resolved to change the “venue,” and to appeal to the Upper House for the perpetuation of Protection. With this view they selected Lord Hardwicke as their mouthpiece and champion; and, in order to complete the inquiry commenced by the Lower House in the preceding session, resolved to move the appointment of a Committee of the Lords to inquire into the policy and operation of the Navigation Laws; the shipowners being sanguine that there, at least, they would be able to make out a satisfactory case, and counteract the one-sided evidence they conceived had been given by the repeal party before the Committee of the Commons.
The Earl of Hardwicke’s proposal, February 25, 1848.
Accordingly Lord Hardwicke on the 25th February, pursuant to notice, moved the appointment of a Select Committee of the Lords.[85] Recapitulating in his speech the events of the preceding year, and, dwelling in terms of indignation on the dissimulation which, he said, had been practised, he charged Ministers with having deceived the country; and stigmatised the whole evidence before the Committee of the Commons as one-sided and unfair. He complained that a distinguished officer of the Royal Navy, Sir James Stirling, had given his evidence in favour of the abolition of the Navigation Laws; but that, before he could be cross-examined, the Committee were informed, that the duty of the gallant officer required his absence, and that he had sailed from England. His Lordship then entered into numerous details, pronouncing Mr. Porter’s evidence to be false; he, and the statistical officers of the Board of Trade, “being learned in that description of theory which was so popular now-a-days;” whereby forty-seven vessels of 7101 tons, which had, in 1846, entered inwards from French ports, were converted, by multiplying the number of entries inwards, into 228,186 tons, and by treating the clearances outwards in a similar manner magnified to such an extent that they represented 556,824 tons; while the Prince Ernest, a passenger and mail boat, employed between Calais and Dover, of 145 tons, figured in the Custom House returns as 24,215 tons of British shipping![86]
Earl Grey grants a Committee.
Earl Grey, in granting the committee, took care to express an opinion, that no further inquiry was necessary. He defended the course taken by his colleague, Lord Palmerston, contending that no understanding had been come to with the Government of the United States with regard to the repeal of the Navigation Laws, and that the correspondence implied nothing more, than that a mutual relaxation of existing restrictions would be beneficial to the maritime commerce of both countries: he concluded by defending Mr. Porter’s returns, and added, that “their Lordships would find that, on strict examination, the allegations of falseness would vanish altogether.”
Evidence of the Shipowners before the Lords’ Committee.
The contest being thus transferred for the time to a Committee of the Lords, the shipowners feeling sure of success before this tribunal, brought forward a large amount of evidence, much of which was instructive, though somewhat conflicting. Mr. G. F. Young, who again took the leading part, insisted that if foreign ships were allowed to trade indiscriminately with British possessions, and took part in the indirect trade with foreign countries, it would be impossible that British ships could obtain an equivalent, because by far the greater proportion of foreign States do not possess any colonies. But, even if they had anything to offer in return, he had little faith in “reciprocity;” because every nation, except England, appears to exhibit, with respect to its maritime commerce, an intense feeling of nationality, and a fixed determination to support its commercial marine. Sweden, he said, admits any article used in the construction and equipment of Swedish-built ships duty free, and remits to such vessels, for the first year after they are built, the export duties on goods charged to others. Russia adopted a somewhat similar policy by exempting all vessels built in that country from the payment of her port-charges, for the first three years after they were launched. But Mr. Young failed to see that, while all such concessions as these must be made good by extra taxes on the people of the respective countries, they were at the same time prejudicial to their own shipping, in that they encouraged the production of cheap and inferior vessels.
Numerous arguments of a similar character were adduced, some based on facts, others on conjectures; and not a few adverted to heavy losses the British shipowner contemplated from causes which never had and never could have any real existence. Prussia, for instance, he said, confines the trade in the importation of salt to her own ships, which was true; America, invariably, gave the preference to her own ships, a statement either conjectural or, in some degree, supported by the fact that her merchants often found it to their interest as traders, and, not through any feeling of “intense nationality,” to employ on certain trades their own ships in preference to those of any other nation. He further alleged that British shipowners would be irretrievably ruined by the admission of foreign ships, an assertion, of course, speculative, or purely imaginary. While maintaining that the evils of the Navigation Laws had been greatly overrated, he thought the advantages of these restrictive laws were equally exaggerated. He, however, attached the very greatest importance to the “Long Voyage clause,” considering that it was far from clear that the interests of the country required its repeal, or that it could be safely repealed without the most injurious consequences to British navigation; in a word, he thought no other clause in the Navigation Act so essential to the maintenance of British navigation.
Mr. Young proposes some modifications,
He could not, however, fail to see that the impossibility of bringing American cotton from Havre, cochineal from Teneriffe, or hides from Buenos Ayres (about which great complaints had been raised), occasioned great inconvenience. The cochineal from Teneriffe was no doubt, as explained elsewhere, absurdly exaggerated as a grievance, but it involved other articles, and could not be maintained on principle. Mr. Young, therefore, to remedy this evil, suggested a modification of the third clause of the Navigation Act, by introducing some words with respect to the produce of distant quarters of the world, as that which regulated by the second clause the importations from Europe; namely, by the limitation of the restriction to certain articles to be specifically enumerated; the enumerated articles being made to comprise all those bulky commodities, the retention of the importation of which to British shipping was of the last importance, while the surrender of the remainder would not materially affect British maritime commerce, and ought therefore, in his opinion, to be conceded to general convenience. The effect of this would be to exclude from the restriction such minor articles as are not the staple produce of those countries, and which, though not entering largely into British consumption, might occasionally be required as part of assorted cargoes. Another relaxation Mr. Young proposed, guarding himself, however, by stating that he had no authority to do so from any constituted body of shipowners, was to introduce in like manner, in perfect accordance with the general principle of the Navigation Laws, a permission to import the produce of Asia, Africa, and America, not only from the country of production, but, from the country within those distant parts of the world in which the produce might be found. Under such a regulation, he explained that if it should happen that the hides of Buenos Ayres were found at New York, it would enable those hides to be imported into England either in British ships or in American ships; and it would enable tea, the produce of China, in like manner to be imported from New York, or any part of Asia, Africa, or America.
the first concessions of the Anti-Repeal party.
This was, perhaps, the first concession which the anti-repeal party had made with regard to the Navigation Laws. They vainly thought it would tend to settle the whole question. They saw that the relaxation proposed, if fully carried out, while meeting many of the cases of real grievance complained of by commission merchants, would practically retain most important advantages they would never consent to relinquish, but which they would as certainly lose if they were to allow the importation of goods, the produce of distant quarters of the globe, in foreign ships direct into Great Britain from the place of production.
This modification of the Navigation Laws was, doubtless, important, and was said to be in strict harmony with the principle then regulating the importation of goods from the various countries of Europe, which, in 1825, was permitted by Mr. Huskisson to be made from the place where found, the earlier restriction having been that the importation must be from the place of production.
The shipowners would still have retained to British shipping the advantage of the direct voyage, which was, after all, their great point. In consenting to the plan, they urged that, in the end, the interest of the consumer would be equally secured with that of the shipowner, by giving that encouragement afforded by the Navigation Act to direct rather than indirect importation. The opponents of repeal exhibited great alarm lest, if indirect importations were permitted, these would take place from distant ports of the world into the nearer ports of Europe, and be there warehoused: and they expressed the fear that the people of this country would then consume considerable proportions of the productions of tropical climates, burdened with the expenses of previous importation into the ports of continental nations, in addition to what was then paid under the limited direct importation!! It was only, he said, with the view of remedying palpable absurdities, such as that of the hides brought from Buenos Ayres to Hamburg, that Mr. Young suggested a modification of the existing law, which he thought would not merely meet that case, but also remove the greater part of the inconveniences complained of arising from the operation of the Navigation Laws.
Government insists on Total Repeal.
But these concessions were not sufficient for the requirements of Government. They, or rather the Free-trade party, which had by this time greatly increased in power and influence, had long felt that the principle on which the Navigation Laws were framed was entirely wrong, and consequently, that they could not accept any modification short of total and unconditional repeal. But they knew, also, they had still a powerful party to contend against, and that it was necessary to fortify their opinions by as strong an array of facts as could be collected. These were not, however, easily obtainable; nor could the advantages derivable from free navigation be proved by experience. No nation as yet had put this to the test; and, in fact, experience would hitherto have shown that the experiment of throwing open British ports to vessels of all nations, so that they might enter and depart, unconditionally, would have been alike unwise and dangerous. Nevertheless, Government felt its views to be sound, and that the change contemplated would benefit shipowners as well as the nation, but, in the absence of facts, experience alone could support the opinions thus formed and used as arguments in favour of the Government policy. The inferiority, in many respects, of the masters of our merchant ships, compared with those of other nations, which competition, they said, would improve, as well as the vessels under their charge, was one of their strongest points.
But Government had to meet many other arguments on which no experience existed; and, not the least of these was the question of manning the navy, embracing the all-important one of the maintenance of the British fleet.
Detailed views of Admiral Sir George Byam Martin.
Among other witnesses who came before the Lords’ Committee, Admiral Sir George Byam Martin was a stout advocate for upholding the Navigation Laws. He contended that these laws gave encouragement to the British shipowner by exclusive advantages in the colonial and coasting trade, which he regarded as a compensation for the obligation of building his ships in some parts of the Queen’s dominions, and of employing a certain number of apprentices. If manufacturers really felt that these laws in any degree cramped their commercial enterprise, they ought also, he thought, to be content to yield somewhat for the maintenance of a service to which they all owed their protection and safety. The Admiral held that the Navigation Laws gave protection to British seamen, by securing to them employment in a calling for which they qualified themselves by a long and severe apprenticeship. There were only, he said, four main objects presented to the shipowner to give him hope of a satisfactory competition with the cheap carriers of other countries:
1st. That by the abrogation of the Navigation Laws he would be left at liberty to build his ships in cheap foreign countries.
2ndly. That he would be allowed to take foreign seamen, without limitation of number.
3rdly. That he would no longer be compelled to take apprentices; and
4thly. As a further temptation to the shipowner to be reconciled to the change, his men would no longer be liable to impressment.
None, however, of these points could, in the opinion of Admiral Martin, be conceded without loss to the public service.
If the abrogation of the Navigation Laws left the shipowner at liberty to build his ships in foreign countries, and he availed himself of that licence, it would inevitably diminish the shipwright class in this kingdom; yet on this class, the admiral argued, the safety of England had greatly depended during the late and former wars, and this he thought would be even more the case in any future wars in which the country may be plunged.
“During the war which ended in 1815, we had,” remarked the admiral, “800 pennants flying, and even so many as 900 ships were in commission for a considerable time. Great exertions were necessary on the part of the shipwrights to keep up the repairs of such a fleet, and to build new ships to supply the decay and the casualties constantly going on. But numerous as our fleet was then, it was likely to be on a much larger scale hereafter; for, in addition to our usual fleets, there must, of necessity, be an immense number of steamers in a great measure as an addition, though not as a substitute for sailing ships.”[87]
The number of shipwrights in the King’s yards throughout the war, he estimated, might be taken at an average of 3714 and 875 apprentices, making a total of 4589 working shipwrights, besides 550 in the colonial yards. Notwithstanding this great shipwright strength, and the efforts exacted from them, the Admiralty was obliged to seek every possible assistance from the private shipbuilders,[88] and to these persons Admiral Martin maintained protection was due, considering how much they had done for the country when we had enemies to deal with in every quarter.
I need not dwell upon all the other points of Admiral Martin’s evidence; but that which relates to the merchant service and manning the navy must not be omitted.
Importance of keeping up the merchant navy.
Arguments from his personal experience as to its value as a nursery for seamen.
If the Navigation Laws were done away, Admiral Martin believed, the shipowner who would go to foreign countries for cheap ships would, from the same motive, take foreign seamen, such as Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, or Dutchmen, who would be content with small wages and a cheap scale of dietary. In this way, a large number of British seamen would be deprived of the employment they now enjoyed owing mainly to the Navigation Laws; and, in such a case, the naval service must suffer in proportion, especially, when, in time of war, seamen are most urgently required. It had been said, and it was a “marvellous assertion,” that the merchant service contributes so little towards the supply of the navy—that, so far as concerned this point, there need be no hesitation in abandoning the Navigation Laws. An assertion more completely contradicted by all experience, Admiral Martin confidently stated, had never been uttered. The merchant service, he held, was everything to the navy, while the navy, he was convinced, could not exist without it. He was unable, adequately, to express his surprise at these loose assertions, for every person who remembered the muster of the navy immediately preceding the war in 1793, could not fail to know that the glorious victory of the 1st of June, 1794, under Lord Howe, was gained by the merchant seamen of the kingdom. We had not then, he said, 20,000 men, and these were scattered over the globe when the war broke out; it was, therefore, the merchant service that enabled us rapidly to man some sixty sail of the line, and double that number of frigates and smaller vessels. By promptly bringing together about 35,000 or 40,000 seamen of the mercantile marine, Admiral Gardner was able at once to proceed to the West Indies with seven sail of the line, nine frigates and sloops of war; Lord Hood to man twenty-two sail of the line, and a large number of frigates and sloops, with which he occupied Toulon and took Corsica; while, by its aid, other squadrons were sent to America and to the East Indies to protect our interests in those quarters. The command of seamen from the merchant service also enabled Lord Howe to occupy the Channel with twenty-seven sail of the line and numerous frigates, thereby affording security to our own homes, and the means of protecting our colonies and commerce by detached squadrons.
Working of the system of apprenticeship,
Notwithstanding these proofs of naval energy on the first outburst of the late war, and of the important help derived from the merchant service, the number of men obtained was, after all, inadequate to the wants of the country. The merchant service, suddenly drained of so many thousands, could, afterwards, give only a comparatively small and occasional supply as ships arrived from foreign ports, or as apprentices grew out of their time. Now this continued, though insufficient succour to the navy, Admiral Martin thought, could never have been maintained throughout so long a war but for the provident provisions of the Navigation Laws in making it compulsory on shipowners to take a certain number of apprentices, and thus to keep up a constant replenishment of seafaring men.[89]
He expressed himself of quite a different opinion to those who were sanguine in believing the abrogation of the Navigation Laws would increase our shipping; and stoutly combated the notion that we could retain the same quantity of tonnage after we had entered on a system of rivalry with foreign countries in cheap carrying. But, assuming that we retained 4,000,000 tons[90] of shipping, it might be well to see how the comparison stood with respect to the supply of men derived from the 1,500,000 in 1793, and what might be expected from the present 4,000,000 tons. In 1793, and up to 1835, the Act of Queen Anne secured a replenishment of seafaring men by apprentices of more than double the number, when we had only 1,500,000, to what the Act of 1835 did in 1848 with 4,000,000. Consequently, in that respect, nothing was gained by the increased tonnage. By the Act of Queen Anne, vessels of 30 tons were obliged to take an apprentice; whereas under the Act of 1835 a vessel of 200 tons takes only one apprentice. Under the Act of Queen Anne, vessels of 400 tons took five apprentices; under the Act of 1835, only two. Formerly ships of 1400 tons were obliged to take fifteen apprentices; whereas, under the present Act, the largest ship built was only required to take five: so that the lesser amount of tonnage in 1793 gave a larger supply of fresh hands than the 4,000,000 tons.
The admiral did not fail to point out, in comparing the two periods, that the increase to 4,000,000 exhibited a noble proof of our commercial growth under the protection of the Navigation Laws, and seemed to warn us of what we hazarded in giving up 4,000,000 of shipping tonnage to be scrambled for by all the nations of the world.
and of impressment.
A more important and alarming view of the subject was the encouragement held out to the shipowner to believe that, among other changes contemplated, his men would be no longer subject to impressment. If that were to be the case, asked, pertinently, Admiral Martin, what was the use of increased numbers, the presumed result of increased tonnage, if the men were locked up, and, thus, were not at once available for the navy?[91]
It is unnecessary to repeat Admiral Martin’s further remarks concerning apprentices. I may, however, state that he considered the complaints against them but a “plausible grievance” of a few shipowners. Apprentices, he held, were not much expense, for though they ate as much as men, they soon became active and useful in the ship, performing a man’s duty without wages. They were, besides, the cheapest people to shipowners, who in war time were glad enough to have their full number of them, because, as apprentices, they were in fact so many hands protected from impressment. The number of fresh hands required to keep up the stock of seamen was very considerable; for the hard life of sailors tells early on human strength, and the perils of their pursuit contributes much to the waste of life. The Admiral, therefore, held that law which compelled shipowners to take apprentices was a most valuable part of the Navigation Laws, and ought not on any account to be given up: and that a constant influx of young blood into the sea service was essential to the interests of a naval country, and any diminution of the present number of apprentices in proportion to the existing tonnage would, in his opinion, be detrimental to the navy, and hazardous to our national security.
With regard to the quality of the supply from the commercial to the military navy of this country, and to the comparative value of those who had been brought up in the merchant service, or of those who entered the navy for the first time, Admiral Martin unhesitatingly said, that the real practical seaman was the north country sailor; but that the coasting sailor and the South Sea-fishery sailor were now very scarce, if we had not lost the latter altogether.
Evidence of Admiral Berkeley,
Captain Maurice Frederick Fitzhardinge Berkeley, R.N., who also gave evidence, entered into various explanations concerning the effect of bounties, and of the impressment of seamen, and approved the practice by which seamen in foreign parts could enter her Majesty’s ships without being deemed deserters: he admitted, however, that if he were a captain in a merchant vessel “he might probably think it a hard case.” He took care to remark that “the fault was not always with the men;” and, at the same time, gave a different testimony to that of Sir James Stirling about the proportion of merchant seamen who served on board men-of-war. In his opinion, two-fifths of the navy had been brought up in the merchant service; while a good many who had commenced life in it as boys, had subsequently gone into the merchant service. With respect to the registry system, he remarked that in the Jews’ shops at Shadwell, and in similar places at Bristol, sailors could purchase as many register-tickets as they wanted, and, for half the amount of the fine, that would be asked of them if they went to the Custom House.[93]
and of Mr. R. B. Minturn.
Mr. Robert B. Minturn, an eminent merchant and shipowner of New York, was the last witness examined before the Committee of the Lords. He was owner of portions of many ships, and part owner in the lines of packets between New York and London, and between New York and Liverpool. He traded also with India and China, and was also owner of whalers which went to the South Seas. Like most others of the high-class merchants trading to foreign countries, he was neither concerned in the inland trade of the United States nor the coasting trade. Having furnished evidence as to the progress of American tonnage, he stated that the New York packets, which were universally acknowledged to be the best description of ships built in the United States, having all of them a portion of live oak in them, cost, exclusively of their cabins, about $70 per ton, equal to about 14l. 10s. per ton, sterling. In this estimate it must be remarked that the American tonnage differs from our own.[94]
Details about American ships.
The American classification of ships also differs from that at Lloyd’s. There the rating depends on the age, the material, its quality, together with the quantity of the fastenings, whether copper or iron, and the mode of workmanship. The oak used in New York comes principally from Virginia, the live oak entirely from Florida; and the sheathing-copper and iron are those supplied from England, iron from other countries then paid a duty of 30 per cent.: sheathing-copper was free of duty, but cake or pig-copper, from which bolts are manufactured in America, paid 5 per cent. Sails were, till recently, brought from England, Holland, and Russia; but hemp-canvas was then being made in America. Cotton sail-cloth had for a long time been used to a considerable extent.
Shipwrights’ wages in the United States were then $2½ a day, about 10s. 6d. sterling. In New York, these artificers work only ten hours per day on new work, and nine hours on old work; but repairs of ships were more expensive in England than in the United States. In the equipment, as we have seen, of American ships, great attention was paid to lessening manual labour by capstans, winches, and other contrivances; and as they were much more lightly rigged in proportion to their tonnage, they were sailed with fewer men; the average number being about two and a half sailors to every 100 tons in a packet ship ranging from 900 to 1200 tons; but in a common American freighting ship, where despatch was of less importance, the proportion is even smaller. For instance, the Henry Clay, already mentioned, 1207 tons, American, and 1467 tons, English, had thirty seamen, two boys, and a carpenter, besides the captain, four mates, cook, and steward: 40 all told.
With regard to the payment of the American captains, it is not the practice to pay them by time, but by some advantage in the voyage. In foreign freighting voyages the captains depend chiefly on the primage, which is 5 per cent. upon the amount of the freight. That is usually their chief source of emolument; but they, generally, receive also $30 a month wages. This, of course, gives them an interest in prosecuting the voyage successfully, and in stimulating their men to exertion; but, with great good taste, Mr. Minturn excused himself from making a comparison between American and other ships; he strenuously, however, denied that any national feeling influenced the merchants in the least degree with respect to the freighting their goods from England in American bottoms.
Reciprocity treaties
so far as they affect Americans.
With regard to the effect on America of the reciprocity treaties to which I have already alluded, and which came into operation shortly prior to 1830, it would appear that though the Government of the United States proposed to all foreign nations that, if they would open their ports to American shipping, they might enjoy all the benefits of their foreign trade, the shipowners were distrustful of the operation of this Free-trade system, as it was chiefly embraced by the States of the north of Europe, which had no commerce to offer in return. Hence efforts were continually made to rescind these treaties; but the experience of their operation has been that the American commerce has increased in a much greater ratio since that period than it had done before. The reciprocity treaties have not, indeed, promoted the growth of American tonnage; but, on the other hand, they have not retarded it; and if the shipowners in the United States do not avow their error, at all events their opposition has now ceased. Mr. Minturn was far from acknowledging that the Americans had gained by these treaties; indeed, he gave a positive opinion that they had nothing to do with the increase of United States shipping. No new markets had been opened, but commerce with all the world had increased, and probably nowhere so much as with England. The chief extension of the commerce of the United States with South America was with the Brazils, which was enhanced owing to the consumption of coffee, the duty on which had been taken off, the result being that the American consumption had doubled within ten years.
The temperance system adopted on board the American vessels had resulted in the greatest possible advantage, both in the efficiency and discipline of the crews; and, with these, in the increased safety of the ship and consequent diminution in the rates of insurance. Indeed, Mr. Minturn stated that American underwriters attached so much importance to it, that at the commencement of this reform they encouraged it by offering to return 10 per cent. on the premium, on all vessels that performed a voyage without the use of ardent spirits.
Such are a few of the leading points of evidence furnished to the Lords’ Committee, who adjourned sine die on the 6th July, 1848.