THE REPEAL OF THE BRITISH NAVIGATION LAWS--THE “ORIENTAL”
The repeal of the British Navigation Laws in 1849, after violent
opposition in Parliament and the House of Lords, and from almost every
British ship builder and ship-owner, gave a new impetus to the building
of clipper ships, as the British merchant marine was then for the first
time brought into direct competition with the vessels of other
nationalities, especially those of the United States.
During the years that had elapsed since the closing up of the East India
Company in 1832, some effort had been made to improve the model and
construction of British merchant ships, and as we have seen, clipper
schooners had been built for the Aberdeen service and for the opium
trade in China, but no attempt had been made in Great Britain to build
clipper ships. British ship-owners still felt secure under the
Navigation Laws, in the possession of their carrying trade with the Far
East, and paid little attention to the improvements in naval
architecture which had been effected in the United States.
This was not from ignorance of what had been accomplished there, for the
fast American packet ships had long been seen lying in the London and
Liverpool docks. In 1848, Lord William Lennox, in an article entitled _A
Fortnight in Cheshire_, mentions seeing them. He says: “Here (Liverpool)
are some splendid American liners. I went on board the _Henry Clay_ of
New York, and received the greatest attention from her commander,
Captain Ezra Nye. Nothing can exceed the beauty of this ship; she is
quite a model for a frigate. Her accommodations are superior to any
sailing vessel I ever saw.” There were also the _Independence_,
_Yorkshire_, _Montezuma_, _Margaret Evans_, _New World_, and scores of
other fast American packet ships which had been sailing in and out of
Liverpool and London for years. The arrivals and departures of these
vessels created no deep impression upon the minds of British
ship-owners, because they were not at that time competing with sailing
vessels for the North Atlantic trade to the United States.
The same lack of enterprise was apparent in the men who handled their
vessels, as we may see from the following amusing description in De
Tocqueville’s _Democracy in America_, published in 1835[5]:
“The European sailor navigates with prudence; he only sets sail when the
weather is favorable; if an unfortunate accident befalls him, he puts
into port; at night he furls a portion of his canvas; and when the
whitening billows intimate the vicinity of land, he checks his way and
takes an observation of the sun. But the American neglects these
precautions and braves these dangers. He weighs anchor in the midst of
tempestuous gales; by night and day he spreads his sheets to the winds;
he repairs as he goes along such damage as his vessel may have sustained
from the storm; and when he at last approaches the term of his voyage,
he darts onward to the shore as if he already descried a port. The
Americans are often shipwrecked, but no trader crosses the seas so
rapidly. And as they perform the same distance in shorter time, they can
perform it at a cheaper rate.
“The European touches several times at different ports in the course of
a long voyage; he loses a good deal of precious time in making harbor,
or in waiting for a favorable wind to leave it; and pays daily dues to
be allowed to remain there. The American starts from Boston to purchase
tea in China; he arrives at Canton, stays there a few days, and then
returns. In less than two years he has sailed as far as the entire
circumference of the globe, and he has seen land but once. It is true
that during a voyage of eight or ten months he has drunk brackish water,
and lived upon salt meat; that he has been in a continual contest with
the sea, with disease, and with a tedious existence; but, upon his
return, he can sell a pound of tea for a half-penny less than the
English merchant, and his purpose is accomplished.
“I cannot better explain my meaning than by saying that the Americans
affect a sort of heroism in their manner of trading. But the European
merchant will always find it very difficult to imitate his American
competitor, who, in adopting the system I have just described, follows
not only a calculation of his gain, but an impulse of his nature.”
At that time there were several American ships that could have
transported De Tocqueville from Boston to Canton and back in
considerably less than two years, and doubtless their captains would
have supplied him with something much better than brackish water to
drink, besides convincing him that what he regarded as recklessness was
in reality fine seamanship, and that he had been in no greater danger of
shipwreck than on board a vessel of any other nationality, besides being
a great deal more comfortable.
Some time before 1849, British sea-captains must have seen the American
clipper ships in the ports of China; or perhaps an Indiaman in the lone
southern ocean may have been lying almost becalmed on the long heaving
swell, lurching and slatting the wind out of her baggy hemp sails, while
her officers and crew watched an American clipper as she swept past,
under a cloud of canvas, curling the foam along her keen, slender bow.
But when these mariners returned home and related what they had seen,
their yarns were doubtless greeted with a jolly, good-humored smile of
British incredulity. With the Navigation Laws to protect them, British
ship-owners cared little about American ships and their exploits.
These Navigation Laws, first enacted in 1651 by the Parliament of
Cromwell, and affirmed by Charles II. soon after his restoration to the
throne, were intended to check the increasing power of Holland upon the
sea, but they had quite the contrary effect. With a few slight changes,
however, they were passed along from generation to generation, until
Adam Smith exposed the fallacy of Protection in his _Wealth of Nations_,
which appeared in 1776. From that time on, British statesmen, few in
number at first, adopted his teachings, and under the pressure of
popular clamor some concessions were made, especially in the way of
reciprocity treaties, but it was nearly three quarters of a century
before these barbaric old laws, a legacy from the thieving barons, were
finally swept away.
It may be well briefly to enumerate these laws as they stood previous to
their repeal, for it is seldom that one comes across so much ingenious
stupidity in so compact a form; also mainly because through their repeal
the ships of Great Britain eventually became the greatest ocean carriers
of the world.
(I.) Certain enumerated articles of European produce could only be
imported to the United Kingdom for consumption, in British ships or in
ships of the country of which the goods were the produce, or in ships of
that country from which they were usually imported.
(II.) No produce of Asia, Africa, or America could be imported for
consumption in the United Kingdom from Europe in any ships; and such
produce could only be imported from any other place in British ships or
in ships of the country of which they were the produce.
(III.) No goods could be carried coastwise from one part of the United
Kingdom to another in any but British ships.
(IV.) No goods could be exported from the United Kingdom to any of the
British possessions in Asia, Africa, or America (with some exceptions in
regard to India) in any but British ships.
(V.) No goods could be carried from one British possession in Asia,
Africa, or America to another, nor from one part of such possession to
another part of the same, in any but British ships.
(VI.) No goods could be imported into any British possessions in Asia,
Africa, or America, in any but British ships, or ships of the country of
which the goods were the produce; provided also, in such case, that such
ships brought the goods from that country.
(VII.) No foreign ships were allowed to trade with any of the British
possessions unless they had been specially authorized to do so by orders
in Council.
(VIII.) Powers were given to the sovereign in Council to impose
differential duties on the ships of any country which did the same with
reference to British ships; and also to place restrictions on
importations from any foreign countries which placed restrictions on
British importations into such countries.
Furthermore, by an act passed in 1786, British subjects were prohibited
from owning foreign-built vessels. This act was regarded as one of the
Navigation Laws, and was repealed with them.
One of the objects of the repeal of the Navigation Laws was to enable
British ship-owners to become the ocean carriers of the world, and to
remove every restraint as to where they should build or buy their ships.
This step was a natural sequence to the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846,
and the glorious dawn of Free Trade, by which every British subject was
permitted to purchase whatever he required in the best and cheapest
market, and so was able to work at a moderate wage, and to have
continuous employment. Thus Great Britain, with few natural advantages,
became the great workshop of the world and controlled every market upon
the globe in which her manufactures were not excluded by the barrier of
Protection. Even from these countries she reaped a decided benefit, for
they were so hampered by Protection, which increased the expense of
living, created high rates of wages for labor but with uncertain
employment, and brought about increased cost of production, whether of
ships or merchandise, that it became impossible for them to compete in
the open markets of the world, and these avenues of trade were left open
for Great Britain to exploit at her pleasure.
Such was the belief of the great leader, Richard Cobden, and his
brilliant colleagues. They were convinced that if British merchants were
to carry on the commerce of Great Britain they must do so untrammelled
as to where they bought or built their ships; they realized the fact
that cheaper and better wooden sailing vessels--then the ocean cargo
carriers of the world--were being built in the United States than could
be constructed in Great Britain. (Indeed, as we shall presently see, the
finest, largest, and fastest ships owned or chartered in Great Britain
between the years 1850 and 1857, came from the shipyards of the United
States.) They fully recognized the importance of the home ship-building
industry, and did everything possible to encourage it, but they also
perceived that ship-owning is of vastly more importance to a nation than
ship-building, and that fleets of ships are not commerce but only the
instruments with which commerce performs its work; likewise, that the
nation owning the best and cheapest ships, no matter where or by whom
built, must and will, other things being equal, do not only most of its
own carrying trade, but also a considerable portion of that of other
nations. These men were not willing any longer to sacrifice the carrying
trade of their country in order that a few comparatively unimportant
ship-builders, grown incompetent through long years of monopoly, might
continue to thrive at the expense of the nation.
No people excel the English in courage and resource in times of national
trouble, and they had long before this fought battles for
freedom--freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of the press,
freedom of the slave, freedom to worship God,--and now the final contest
for freedom, the freedom of trade, had been bravely fought and won. The
result, of course, was not immediate, as it required several years to
recover from the evil effects of two centuries of Protection. The fruits
of victories for freedom rarely ripen quickly, and in this instance the
records show that the increase of British shipping for the year before
the repeal of the Navigation Laws had been 393,955 tons, while during
the year following there had been a decrease of 180,576 tons; also that
foreign vessels arriving from foreign ports increased from 75,278 tons
to 364,587 tons in these years. It was therefore natural that there
should be a feeling of despondency throughout Great Britain among those
who had opposed the repeal, for they thought that their fears were being
realized, and that the over-sea carrying trade, which they had regarded
as their own, was being taken from them. In this hour of gloom the
stout-hearted ship-owners of London and Liverpool resolved that England
should again become Mistress of the Sea, and so competition, the
stimulus needed to rouse their latent abilities, was the instrument of
their salvation.
The first American ship to carry a cargo of tea from China to England
after the repeal of the Navigation Laws was the clipper _Oriental_, of
1003 tons, built for A. A. Low & Brother in 1849, by Jacob Bell, who
continued in the ship-building business after the firm of Brown & Bell
was dissolved in 1848. This ship’s length was 185 feet, breadth 36 feet,
depth 21 feet. She sailed from New York on her first voyage, commanded
by Captain N. B. Palmer, September 14, 1849, and arrived at Hong-kong by
the Eastern passages in 109 days. She discharged, took on board a full
cargo of tea for New York, sailed January 30, 1850, and arrived April
21st, 81 days’ passage. This was Captain Palmer’s last command, though
he lived many years, as we have seen, to enjoy the fruits of his toil
upon the sea.
The _Oriental_ sailed on her second voyage from New York for China, May
19, 1850, under the command of Captain Theodore Palmer, a younger
brother of Captain Nat, and was 25 days to the equator; she passed the
meridian of the Cape of Good Hope 45 days out, Java Head 71 days out,
and arrived at Hong-kong, August 8th, 81 days from New York. She was at
once chartered through Russell & Co. to load a cargo of tea for London
at £6 per ton of 40 cubic feet, while British ships were waiting for
cargoes for London at £3:10 per ton of 50 cubic feet. She sailed August
28th, and beat down the China Sea against a strong southwest monsoon in
21 days to Anjer, arrived off the Lizard in 91 days, and was moored in
the West India Docks, London, 97 days from Hong-kong--a passage from
China never before equalled in point of speed, especially against the
southwest monsoon, and rarely surpassed since. She delivered 1600 tons
of tea, and her freight from Hong-kong amounted to £9600, or some
$48,000. Her first cost ready for sea was $70,000. From the date of her
first sailing from New York, September 14, 1849, to arrival at London,
December 3, 1850, the _Oriental_ had sailed a distance of 67,000 miles,
and had during that time been at sea 367 days, an average in all
weathers of 183 miles per day.
Throngs of people visited the West India Docks to look at the
_Oriental_. They certainly saw a beautiful ship; every line of her long,
black hull indicated power and speed; her tall raking masts and
skysail-yards towered above the spars of the shipping in the docks; her
white cotton sails were neatly furled under bunt, quarter, and yardarm
gaskets; while her topmast, topgallant, and royal studdingsail booms
and long, heavy, lower studdingsail booms swung in along her rails, gave
an idea of the enormous spread of canvas held in reserve for light and
moderate leading winds; her blocks, standing and running rigging were
neatly fitted to stand great stress and strain, but with no unnecessary
top-hamper, or weight aloft. On deck everything was for use; the spare
spars, scraped bright and varnished, were neatly lashed along the
waterways; the inner side of the bulwarks, the rails and the deck-houses
were painted pure white; the hatch combings, skylights, pin-rails, and
companions were of Spanish mahogany; the narrow planks of her clear pine
deck, with the gratings and ladders, were scrubbed and holystoned to the
whiteness of cream; the brass capstan heads, bells, belaying pins,
gangway stanchions, and brasswork about the wheel, binnacle, and
skylights were of glittering brightness. Throughout she was a triumph of
the shipwright’s and seaman’s toil and skill.
No ship like the _Oriental_ had even been seen in England, and the
ship-owners of London were constrained to admit that they had nothing to
compare with her in speed, beauty of model, rig, or construction. It is
not too much to say that the arrival of this vessel in London with her
cargo of tea in this crisis in 1850, aroused almost as much apprehension
and excitement in Great Britain as was created by the memorable Tea
Party held in Boston harbor in 1773. The Admiralty obtained permission
to take off her lines in dry dock; the _Illustrated London News_
published her portrait, not a very good one by the way; and the _Times_
honored her arrival by a leader, which ended with these brave, wise
words:
“The rapid increase of population in the United States, augmented by an
annual immigration of nearly three hundred thousand from these isles, is
a fact that forces itself on the notice and interest of the most
unobservant and uncurious. All these promise to develop the resources of
the United States to such an extent as to compel us to a competition as
difficult as it is unavoidable. We must run a race with our gigantic and
unshackled rival. We must set our long-practised skill, our steady
industry, and our dogged determination, against his youth, ingenuity,
and ardor. It is a father who runs a race with his son. A fell necessity
constrains us and we must not be beat. Let our ship-builders and
employers take warning in time. There will always be an abundant supply
of vessels, good enough and fast enough for short voyages. The
coal-trade can take care of itself, for it will always be a refuge for
the destitute. But we want fast vessels for the long voyages, which
otherwise will fall into American hands. It is fortunate that the
Navigation Laws have been repealed in time to destroy these false and
unreasonable expectations, which might have lulled the ardor of British
competition. We now all start together with a fair field and no favor.
The American captain can call at London, and the British captain can
pursue his voyage to New York. Who can complain? Not we. We trust that
our countrymen will not be beaten; but if they should be, we shall know
that they deserve it.”