Views of Sir Josiah Child on the Navigation Laws.
Relative value of British and foreign ships, 1666.
When these Acts were passed, and for some years afterwards, they created quite as much excitement and discussion as their repeal has caused in our own time. Even Sir Josiah Child,[190] who took the lead among the few merchants of the period who questioned their policy, appears to have had strong protectionist views, one of which may be noticed, as it throws some light upon the cost of shipbuilding at that period. He proposes to impose a customs duty of no less than fifty per cent. on all Eastland commodities, timber, boards, pipe-staves, and salt imported into England and Ireland in any other than English-built ships, or at least in such as were not sailed by English masters and a crew whereof three-fourths were English. His reasons for this highly protectionist proceeding are that “the Danes, Swedes, and Easterlings will certainly, in a few years, carry off the whole trade, by reason of the difference of the cost of building the requisite ships, there and in this country.” Similar statements, we may remark, were the protectionist arguments used in our own day against the repeal of these same laws. “The cost,” he goes on to state, “of building a fly-boat of three hundred tons in those countries would be 1300l. or 1400l., whereas in England she could not be constructed for less than from 2200l. to 2400l., which is so vast a disproportion,” he adds, “that it is impossible for an Englishman to cope with a Dane in that navigation under such discouragement.” The stranger’s duty of five or six pounds per ship each voyage was the only set-off against this alleged disadvantage, and in his opinion the prizes taken in the Dutch war alone enabled us to withstand that competition, Sir Josiah averring that “during the seventeen years the Act of Navigation had been in force, not one single English ship had been built for this, which we may call the Lower Baltic trade.”
Sir Josiah, it will be seen, estimates the cost of constructing an English ship at that time at somewhat under eight pounds per ton, while a vessel could be built by the Danes and Swedes at very little more than one half that price. We must, however, remember that in stating these prices he was arguing in favour of a certain line of policy, and, in doing so, may have made the cost of construction in the Northern ports of Europe considerably less than it actually was. Besides, so much depends upon quality and outfit that a price per ton, unless all the particulars are stated, gives only a vague idea of the actual value.
Another well-known writer of that period, Sir Henry Petty,[191] estimates the value of the whole of the shipping of Europe, old and new, at eight pounds per ton. He also furnishes some valuable information with regard to the extent of the shipping of Europe at the time he wrote. Estimating the whole at 2,000,000 of tons, he apportions to the English 500,000, the Dutch 900,000, the French 100,000, the Hamburgers, with the subjects of Denmark and Sweden, and the town of Dantzic 250,000 tons, and he gives, which seems small, the remaining 250,000 tons as belonging to Spain, Portugal, and Italy. He further states that the Dutch East India Company had then a capital of 3,000,000l., and that goods to the value of that sum were annually exported from Holland into England. The shipping belonging to France was then, it would appear, only one-ninth of that belonging to the Dutch, or one-fifth of that of Great Britain, which, on the authority of Dr. Charles Devonport, had doubled between 1666 and 1688, while her royal navy had in the same time increased from 62,594 to 101,032 tons.[192]
British clearances, 1688, and value of exports.
1692.
From another return[193] we for the first time ascertain the annual clearances outwards from Great Britain, and the value of the cargoes of the ships. These in 1688 amounted to 190,533 tons of English, and 95,267 tons of foreign vessels, the gross value of these exports being 4,486,087l., showing an annual increase not merely steady but rapid during the previous ten years. War, however, again harassed the people. France, the old enemy of England, now sought to pluck from her the laurels she had won from the Dutch, and to claim a maritime supremacy over both nations. Her naval force had now become so formidable, being augmented by numerous privateers, that it played havoc among the merchant vessels of Great Britain, destroying or capturing nearly the whole Smyrna fleet, consisting of many richly laden vessels, as also two of the English men-of-war which accompanied them.[194]
War with France.
Such a disaster upon the element where England claimed supremacy was keenly felt, not merely by those persons who were interested in maritime affairs, but by the entire nation, while the direct loss sustained by the English was estimated by the French at one million sterling.[195] The Turkey Company complained that, the Admiralty had neglected its duty; that spies in the pay of the French monarch were allowed facilities for ascertaining the strength and movements of the English fleets, and the destination of any ships worthy of capture. Numerous complaints were also made in Parliament, but, in the sequel, nothing was done to satisfy the nation or to compensate the parties directly interested for the losses they had sustained. The attitude, however, taken soon afterwards by the English fleet in the Mediterranean under the command of Admiral Russell,[196] and the raising of the siege of Barcelona, with the undisputed command which she recovered over the Narrow Seas, restored the prestige of England, and forced the French to keep themselves cooped up in their harbours. But the war had proved disastrous to her commerce and her shipping; the clearances at its close, in 1696, having fallen to 91,767 tons, showing a decrease of no less than 98,766 tons in eight years, while the value of her exports during that period had declined to the extent of 1,356,567l.[197]