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.
[Sidenote: Magnificent English Merchant sailing ships, 1860-72.]
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.
[Illustration: TRANSVERSE MIDSHIP SECTION, “THERMOPYLÆ.”]
[Illustration: THE “THERMOPYLÆ.”]
[Sidenote: The _Thermopylæ_.]
[Sidenote: _Sir Lancelot_ and others.]
[Sidenote: Americans completely outstripped.]
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.
[Sidenote: Equal increase in the number as well as excellence of
English shipping.]
[Sidenote: Results of the Free-trade policy.]
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.
FOOTNOTES:
[195] An Address of Shipowners to the Electors of the United Kingdom,
13th April, 1859.
[196] I had served my constituents, I thought, well and faithfully
for two Parliaments. I had fought to obtain reciprocity from foreign
nations, before we repealed our Navigation Laws, the only time when we
could have had any hope of obtaining it unless the statesmen of other
nations became as enlightened as our own; and, having been defeated, I
was then doing my utmost to assist in obtaining for them from our own
Legislature, relief from the unjust and oppressive burdens with which
they had been saddled during a period of protection; consequently, I
could not but feel keenly the determined opposition which they, the
Shipowners—men of my own class—for whom I had worked so strenuously,
had organised against my return to Parliament.
[197] The numbers were, Fenwick, 1527; Lindsay, 1292; Hudson, 790. The
contest was between Mr. Hudson and myself; but, though Mr. Hudson,
better known as the “Railway King” during the fleeting days of his
transitory power, was a strong Conservative, he had done so much for
Sunderland through the railways which he brought into the town, and
the magnificent docks constructed entirely through his influence,
that I felt regret, at having been the instrument of his political
expulsion from the representation of a port, where he had rendered such
marked and valuable services. But I fear it is too true, that popular
constituencies are sometimes as inconsistent as they are fickle. Henry
Fenwick, whom Sunderland on that occasion, and deservedly so, returned
at the head of the poll, and who was one of the best of members and the
manliest of men, soon afterwards lost his seat, because the Government
of the day, appreciating his many good qualities, had appointed him the
Civil Lord of the Admiralty.
[198] When Mr. Dunbar died four or six years afterwards, he left behind
him somewhere close upon one million and a half pounds sterling, the
larger portion of which was made since the Free-trade sun had been
allowed to shine upon his ships!
[199] “Had I,” continued Mr. Lindsay, “remained a silent spectator at
this meeting as I intended, I should have been an assenting party to a
resolution which asks us to reverse our policy. (‘No, no!’) But such
would have been the case, for the resolution says, ‘that the principal
cause of the depression has been the impolicy of the existing system
of maritime commerce.’ I hold that the establishment of a Free-trade
policy has nothing whatever to do with the existing depression in
the shipping interest (cries of ‘Oh, oh!’ and great disapprobation),
and therefore I come forward and offer my dissent. This resolution,
further, asks us to confirm a memorial which the Shipowners’ Society
of London, this time last year, addressed to her Majesty. I, for one,
cannot be a consenting party to that resolution or memorial, because
I believe that the opinions therein expressed are fallacious, and I
shall endeavour to show you how. What is the prayer of that memorial?
It urgently entreats, indeed implores her Majesty to issue an Order
in Council against those nations which have not reciprocated with us.
(‘Bravo!’ and cheers.) I am in favour of reciprocity—it is Free-trade
in its most extended sense—but I ask you to look at the difference
between reciprocity and the _enforcement_ of reciprocity by
the Legislature. Enforced reciprocity, as prayed for by you in this
memorial, is Protection in its worst and most pernicious form. (Cries
of ‘Shame,’ and hisses.) It is a renewal of the old war of tariffs;
therefore, it is the war of Protection. (Great uproar.) We must not
retrograde, our course is onward.” (Hisses and uproar.)
Mr. G. F. YOUNG: I rise to order. (Cheers, and a few cries
of “No, no!”) Sir, I will not so far depart from the usages of debate
as to introduce a speech on rising to order, but will submit that the
course of discussion is irregular and unfair. I have challenged the
hon. member to discuss this particular point with me publicly. He has
declined my challenge. (Great cheering.)
The CHAIRMAN: I think that my friend Mr. Young in calling my
hon. friend Mr. Lindsay to order has rather himself travelled a little
out of order. (“Hear, hear!” and a laugh.) I cannot think that Mr.
Lindsay is out of order; but it will rest with the meeting to decide
whether or not they will hear Mr. Lindsay in continuation. (“Hear,
hear!” and disapprobation.)
Mr. LINDSAY: Gentlemen, remember that we are in the city of
London, and that the eyes of England are upon us. We are assembled to
discuss a question of deep interest to its maritime interests, viz.,
what is the best course for the nation to pursue in the first place.
Mr. YOUNG: No, no; to inquire what should be done. (“Hear,
hear!”)
Mr. LINDSAY: Well, then, I suppose it is to discuss this, that
we have come here. Now, I say, we have to inquire what is the best
policy to be pursued for the nation at large (cheers); and, secondly,
for ourselves as shipowners. (Cheers.) The question before us is this,
whether the reversal of our Free-trade policy will be best for the
interest of the country at large. (“Hear, hear!” hisses and confusion.)
Mr. G. F. YOUNG: The Legislature will inquire into that.
(“Hear, hear!”)
Mr. LINDSAY: I say this resolution goes to the root of Free-trade, and
confirms the memorial sent by you last year to the Queen. (Cheers.)
Now, then, in reply to that memorial—and bear in mind that you received
that reply from a Protectionist Government, my Lord Derby’s through
whom you made this appeal. (“Hear,” cheers, hisses, and cries of
“Question, question!”) I am speaking to the question. Now, the answer
given to your memorial by the Board of Trade clearly and distinctly
proved that under a Free-trade policy the British shipping had
increased in a far greater ratio than it ever did under a Protectionist
policy. (“Hear, hear!” and a cry, “Prove it!”) It has been proved, and
let those deny it who can, that from 1842 to 1849 British shipping
built and registered during the period of reciprocity increased 843,000
tons; but from 1850 to 1857 it had increased 1,670,000 tons, or more
than double under Free-trade what it did under Protection. (Cries of
“Bosh!”) It has been proved further, that the entries inwards and
clearances outwards—(confusion, “Hear, hear!” and “No!”) It does not
suit, you to hear the truth—you Protectionist shipowners! (Confusion.)
I say it has been proved that the entries and clearances of British
shipping have increased (cries of “Hear!” “No!” “Turn him out!”) in a
ratio equally as great as the tonnage built and registered. (The hon.
gentleman was here met by a storm of indignant and discordant cries,
among which were heard: “Go to Sunderland!” “Rubbish!” “Bosh!” “Sit
down!”) When order was restored the hon. member resumed as follows:—Mr.
Bramley-Moore has referred to what he calls the advantages which Spain
and France have gained by their protective system. (Uproar.) It is
quite true that in the five years between 1853 and 1857 inclusive, no
less than 600,000 tons of Spanish shipping entered and cleared our
ports; but, on the other hand, it is equally true that, during the same
period, no less than 1,700,000 tons of British shipping entered and
cleared from Spanish ports. (“Hear, hear!”) What does Spain, therefore,
gain by her system of protection? (Confusion, and a voice, “We can see
all that in the ‘Times.’”) It is true that 3,900,000 tons of French
shipping cleared for the ports of England during a similar period; but
it is no less true that 10,000,000 tons of British shipping entered
and cleared from the French ports. (“Hear, hear!” and “Question!”) I
could go on with many more facts to prove my case. I can prove to you
by undeniable facts that the British shipping interest, however much
it may be distressed at the present time, has been a gainer by the
policy of Free-trade (shouts of disapprobation), and that it is not
for your interest as Shipowners to reverse that policy. (Uproar.) You,
no doubt, wish to confine your trade to your own possessions (“No,
no!”), but what, I ask, would England be if it were not for the vast
magnitude of her trade with foreign countries? (Cries of “Oh, oh!”
“Hear, hear!” and “No, no!”) On referring to the Customs’ entries and
clearances, it will be found that out of the 5,000,000 tons of British
shipping annually so entered, 2,000,000 came from our own colonies and
dependencies, but that no less than 3,000,000 of British shipping are
entered from foreign countries (“Hear, hear!” and confusion), thus
proving that our trade with foreign countries is much more valuable
to us than the trade with our own possessions (cries of “Question!”);
and thus proving, further, that our trade with foreign countries is
of greater advantage, even to the British Shipowner, than our trade
with our own colonies and dependencies. (“Question, question!”) If
instead of the resolution proposed you adopted such a resolution as
I have sketched out since I have been in the room it would have been
better for your interest. (Uproar, and cries of “Sit down!”) You may
not think it for your interest, but the day will come when you will
find it for your interest. (Disapprobation.) If instead of looking
after the shadow, you would follow and grasp at the substance it would
be better for you. (Uproar.) Have any of you looked at the existing
burdens on British shipping? I have done so; but I will not occupy the
time of the meeting by going into details. (Great cheering.) I must,
however, tell you that these burdens are a serious hindrance to our
onward progress; and I also tell you, and I tell you as a thinking
man, that you are vainly attempting to get what you call reciprocity
enforced. I say vainly, because you will never get it. (“Oh, oh!”) You
are losing a chance, a favourable opportunity of obtaining relief from
those burdens which still unjustly oppress the British shipowners. (A
Voice:—“What is the amount?”) I am asked what is the amount? The amount
of these burdens reaches nearly 1,000,000_l._ sterling. They are 2 per
cent. upon the amount of the capital invested. Tax any interest 2 per
cent., and what is the consequence? You will drive the capital employed
in that interest elsewhere. (“Hear, hear!”) While that real grievance
exists, you are following a shadow (“Oh, oh!”) How futile then are your
attempts! (Confusion.) You are allowing the opportunity to pass of
obtaining substantial relief while you are following this delusion of
Protection. (Great uproar.) The policy I have recommended is the policy
which is best for the interests of the British Shipowner, and it is as
a British Shipowner that I advocate it. It is, as the representative of
a large maritime constituency, that I have come forward regardless of
your insults to state my opinions frankly on the subject, and to enter
my solemn protest against the course of policy you vainly attempt to
restore. (Great disapprobation.)
Mr. DUNCAN DUNBAR rose to order. He said that they had not met
there to discuss what had brought the shipping interest to its present
state; for he thought the fact would be universally admitted that the
Shipowners were on the road to ruin. (“Hear, hear!”) The object of the
meeting, therefore, was not to discuss figures and tonnage, but simply
to agree to a petition to the Houses of Parliament, asking them to
appoint committees to hear the evidence of witnesses on the subject.
His friend Mr. Lindsay,—no, he would not call him his friend (cheers
and laughter), but the gentleman who spoke last went beside the mark
in talking about the increase or decrease of tonnage. All must admit
that the Shipowners were on the road to ruin. (“Hear, hear!”) The
very property he had made by his industry and hard labour was melting
away like snow before the sun. (“Hear!”) The man who called himself a
British Shipowner, and moved such an amendment as the present, was the
worst enemy the British Shipowner could have. (Cheers.)
[200] See ‘Hansard,’ vol. clvi. pp. 332 to 347, and p. 347 _et
seq._
[201] An Act for compensating the families of persons killed by
accident 9 & 10 Vict. c. 93; the Merchant Shipping Act 1854; the
Merchant Shipping Amendment Act (1855); the Passenger Act (1855); and
the Chinese Passenger Act (1855).
[202] The following were the Members of the Committee:—Mr. Milner
Gibson (then President of the Board of Trade), Lord Lovaine (now the
Duke of Northumberland), Mr. (now Lord) Cardwell, Mr. Thomas Baring,
Mr. Crawford, Mr. Francis Baring, Mr. Somes, Mr. Gore Langton, Mr.
George William Bentinck, Mr. Wilcox, Mr. Liddell (now Lord Eslington),
Mr. Francis Russell, Mr. Hugh Taylor, Mr. Alderman Salomons, and Mr.
Lindsay.
[203] Though the Foreign Office is admirably administered, and was
brought into a state of high perfection in all its details by Mr. (now
Lord) Hammond, there can be no doubt that it is very ineffective in
its dealings with foreign nations on nearly all commercial matters.
Perhaps, this would be remedied if the Diplomatic and Consular Service
were amalgamated, or even if it was permitted for gentlemen in the
Consular to rise to the Diplomatic Service. I was strongly impressed
with this idea when serving as a member on the Consular Committee
of 1856-57; but my colleagues on that Committee were generally of a
different opinion. Unquestionably our diplomatists are gentlemen in
every sense of that word, and, as a rule, distinguished scholars,
but they lack that description of knowledge which is expected from
the representatives of by far the greatest commercial and maritime
nation in the world. The time is fast approaching when this may prove
a serious obstacle to our further progress. As times now go, we are a
workshop or we are nothing. I respect rank and envy learning; but these
will not feed the rising and increasing generations, who are to fill
our vacant places.
[204] That Portugal gained nothing by her restrictive policy those of
my readers who care to know may see by referring to a letter which I
addressed by request of its President to the Commercial Association of
Lisbon, when there in 1863. See Appendix No. 6, p. 596.
[205] Since 1860 the law has been altered so far that the
responsibility of foreign ships in our courts is limited on the same
conditions, and to the same amount, as British ships, and these are now
limited in the States, as well as in the Federal Court of the United
States.
[206] When I visited the United States after Parliament rose that
session (1860), the question of responsibility was one, to which, with
others, I invited the attention of the Shipowners of that country at
various meetings, with their chambers of Commerce and Boards of Trade,
which were frequently held in public. As the whole of these questions
refer directly to merchant shipping and seamen, I have given in the
Appendix of this work, No. 2, p. 567, a copy of a letter I addressed to
Lord Lyons on my arrival in Boston (U.S.), which embraces the whole of
them, as also a subsequent correspondence which I had in 1866 with our
Foreign Office (see Appendix No. 3, p. 571), on the subject of the then
unsatisfactory state of our relations with America, with regard to the
responsibility of British Shipowners when sued in their State Courts.
I have the less hesitation in giving this correspondence as it has not
hitherto been published, and as some of the questions in my letter to
Lord Lyons still wait solution.
[207] Since 1860 all passing tolls have been abolished, while most of
the local charges have either been modified or swept away, but not,
however, without a hard struggle, or without the payment of a large
grant of public money to compensate the persons, corporations, or
companies who held “vested interests”—a grant much greater, I think,
than they were entitled to receive.
I remember when Mr. Lowe, in his capacity as Vice-President of the
Board of Trade first brought in this measure, in the Session of 1856,
he exclaimed, in reply to demands of an exorbitant character which
were made on the ground of certain clauses in some very ancient deeds,
_What care I for your musty charters!_ or words to that effect.
You could almost see the hair raising the hats from the heads of a
number of old members who held all their property under musty charters.
But though Mr. Lowe was not very far wrong so far as regards some of
the monstrous claims made under ancient charters, and would I daresay,
if he had had his own way, not have paid the claimants one-half the
amounts they received, the expression was so appalling as coming from a
member of Government, that Lord Palmerston at once saw that, after what
Mr. Lowe had said, it would be impossible then to pass the Bill, and
with his usual tact referred it to a Select Committee, to which I shall
presently refer.
[208] 24 & 25 Vict., cap. 47.
[209] This was one of the most difficult and intricate questions any
minister ever had to deal with. And for that reason these charges, to
which I shall again refer, were not finally dealt with until 1867.
[210] By Parliamentary Papers, 176, 1871, no less than 1,846,400_l._
had been advanced up to that date, on loan for the improvement of trade
harbours, and since then, 350,000_l._, making in all about 2,200,000_l._
[211] The aggregate reductions since 1853 are estimated (see
Parliamentary Paper, No. 27, 1875) at more than 750,000_l._, or at the
rate of 237 per cent. on the present income of about 316,000_l._ per
annum. Nor has economy been consulted at the cost of efficiency during
the last twenty years, due in a great measure to the exertions of the
late Sir Frederick Arrow, Deputy-Chairman of the Trinity House.
[212] Passages of clippers from China, 1868 to 1872 inclusive, see
Appendix No. 8, p. 611.
[213] The log of this ship on her first voyage from London to
Melbourne, thence to Newcastle (N.S.W.), thence to China, and
thence home, will be found in the Appendix, No. 9, p. 613. She is a
“composite” vessel, that is, constructed with iron frames and wood
planking; she is 947 tons register, and her dimensions are 210 feet
in length; 36 feet width of beam, and 21 feet depth of hold. She was
designed by Mr. B. Waymouth, now Secretary to Lloyd’s Register. She
was built in 1868 by Messrs. Walter Hood and Co., of Aberdeen, for her
present owners, Messrs. George Thompson, Jun., and Co.
[214] This passage of the _Thermopylæ_, was eight days quicker than
those of the _Ariel_, _Taeping_, and _Serica_, in the great race of
1866[215], and six days quicker than the _Ariel_ and _Spindrift_ in
1868; the nearest competitor was the _Titania_ in 1871. By her log (see
Appendix No. 9, pp. 613-17) the _Thermopylæ_, in one day of twenty-four
hours, made a run of 330 nautical miles (about 380 statute miles), see
log, 3rd January 1870; or at the average rate of close upon 16 statute
miles per hour!!
[215] This race excited extraordinary interest at the time among all
persons interested in maritime affairs, five ships started for it, the
_Ariel_, _Taeping_, _Serica_, _Fiery Cross_, and _Tartsing_. The three
first left Foo-chow-foo on the same day, but lost sight of each other
for the whole voyage until they reached the English Channel, where they
again met, arriving in the Thames within a few hours of each other!!
[216] The _Sir Lancelot_ is also a composite vessel. She was
built by Mr. Steele, of Greenock, for her owner, Mr. James MacCunn, of
that place, and was commanded by Captain Richard Robinson, a native of
Maryport, who was brought up in the service of Messrs. Broklebanks, of
Liverpool, and who had, previously to being placed in command of the
_Sir Lancelot_, made very fast passages in the _Fiery Cross_.
She is 886 tons register; and her dimensions are—length, 197 feet 6
inches; breadth, 33 feet 7 inches, and depth, 21 feet. This celebrated
sailing ship, in her racing days, spread, when under full sail, 45,500
square or superficial feet of canvas. She was manned by 30 hands all
told, and delivered 1430 tons of tea (of 50 cubic feet to the ton), and
her draught of water, when thus laden, was 18 feet 7 inches forward,
and 18 feet 9 inches aft. In addition to about 200 tons shingle
ballast, there was 100 tons of iron kentledge (specially cast for the
purpose), stowed in the limbers—that is, between the ceiling and the
outer skin. This was fitted to the vacant spaces and distributed along
the keelson, tapering towards the foremast and mizen-mast. It gave
the ship great stability, and compensated for the immense height of
the masts, which, without the kentledge, would have made the ship too
tender. In the opinion of her owner, it contributed greatly to the
ship’s success. I may add that the bottom, which consists of teak, was
carefully planed before the metal was put on, and was quite as smooth
as the bottom of a yacht.
As everything relating to this famous sailing ship must prove
interesting and instructive to my nautical readers, I do not hesitate
to furnish the following details of her performances, courteously
supplied to me (4th October, 1875) by Mr. MacCunn. “The log,” he
says, “of the _Sir Lancelot_, I regret, is not by me, but I have
pleasure in handing you exact leading particulars of the celebrated
passage referred to (extracted by me at the time, with great
minuteness, from the log on board the ship, 14th October 1869).
“The particulars speak for themselves, and there is no parallel on so
distant a voyage in ocean clipper sailing:—
1869.
Up anchor at Foochow, and left the anchorage }
7 A.M. } 17th July.
White Dogs bore N.N.E. 15 miles 18th ”
Anjer Light bore E.S.E. 10 ” 7th August.
Land about Buffalo River (Cape) 28th ”
Signalled St. Helena 11th September.
Sighted Lizard 10th October.
Passed Deal 13th ”
Berthed in West India Dock 14th ”
ANALYSIS.
White Dogs to Lizard 84 days.
Foochow anchorage to St. Helena 56 ”
Foochow anchorage to Deal 88 ”
Foochow anchorage to West India Dock 89 ”
“The greatest day’s work of the _Sir Lancelot_ was crossing from
Anjer to the Cape, when she made, by observation, 354 miles in 24
hours. For 7 days (consecutive) she averaged on the same track, with
a beam wind, slightly over 300 miles per day; but I think the most
remarkable feature in the sailing of this ship was the maintenance of a
comparative high speed in light winds, and the great power she had to
beat dead to windward against a strong breeze.
“I may mention that after the racing premium was abolished, and with
it the sort of mania for China clipper sailing, I had 8 feet cut off
all the lower masts, and reduced the masts aloft and the yards in
proportion.
“Notwithstanding this the _Sir Lancelot_ is now arrived in London
after a voyage from London to Shanghai with general cargo, thence to
New York with a tea cargo, thence to London with a general cargo—all in
9 months and 2 days.
“I am afraid I am troubling you with too many details, but I feel proud
that this celebrated clipper, one of the very few China clippers left,
proves herself in the tenth year of her life as swift as ever.”
Mr. MacCunn may well be proud of his ship, and such pride is one of the
chief causes of our power and greatness as a maritime nation.
[217] Among those who took the lead in the production and improvement
of clipper ships at that time may be mentioned Captain Maxton, of the
_Titania_, who had formerly commanded the early iron clippers, _Lord of
the Isles_ and _Falcon_, and who has, with the assistance of Messrs.
Robert Steele and Son, brought out in successive years the _Ariel_
and _Titania_, vessels of great beauty. Nor must I overlook Captain
Bullock, who navigated the _Challenger_ through the most successful
and exciting part of her career; and Captain Rodger, who commanded the
_Kate Carnie_, and subsequently owned the _Taeping_, _Ellen Rodger_,
_Min_, and other well-known clippers. Among the builders, the name of
the late Mr. William Pile, of Sunderland, should not be overlooked: he
designed, built, and launched many famous clipper ships, such as the
_Spray of the Ocean_ and the _Crest of the Wave_, two of the handsomest
sailing vessels that ever floated. The latter vessel once left Shanghai
for London with the American clipper ship, _Sea Serpent_, a well-known
China trader, which was to receive 30s. per ton extra freight on her
cargo of young teas (which obtain the highest price in their relative
qualities), if she beat the _Crest of the Wave_. Both ships arrived
off the Isle of Wight the same day, but the captain of the American,
leaving his vessel in charge of the pilot, started by railway for
London, and reported the _Sea Serpent_ at the Custom House before his
own ship or the _Crest of the Wave_ had passed through the Downs.
[218] See Appendix No. 10, p. 618. See also No. 14, p. 637.
CHAPTER XV.
First Navigation Law in France, A.D. 1560—Law
of Louis XIV., 1643, revised by Colbert, 1661—Its chief
conditions—Regulations for the French Colonial trade—Slightly
modified by the Treaties of Utrecht, 1713, and of 1763,
in favour of England—Provisions of 1791 and 1793—Amount
of charges enforced—French and English Navigation Laws
equally worthless—“_Surtaxes de Pavillon_” and
“_d’Entrepôt_”—“_Droits de Tonnage_”—Special exemption
of Marseilles—French Colonial system preserved under all its
Governments, but greatly to the injury of her people—English
Exhibition of 1851—Messrs. Cobden and Chevalier meet first
there, and ultimately, in 1860, carry the Commercial Treaty—The
French, heavy losers by maintaining their Navigation Laws—Decline
of French shipping—Mr. Lindsay visits France, and has various
interviews with the Emperor, Messrs. Rouher and Chevalier on this
subject—Commission of Inquiry appointed, and Law ultimately passed
May 1866—Its conditions—Repeal Act unsatisfactory to the French
Shipowners—Another Commission of Inquiry appointed, 1870—Views of
rival parties—M. de Coninck—M. Bergasse—M. Siegfried—M. Thiers and
Protection carry the day, and reverse, in 1872, much of the law of
1866—Just views of the Duke Decazes—Abolition for the second time
of the “_Surtaxes de Pavillon_,” July 1873.
[Sidenote: First Navigation Law in France, A.D. 1560.]
The first appearance of anything in the shape of a Navigation Law
which can be traced in the history of the French nation is to be found
about A.D. 1560, during the reign of Charles IX., or rather
during that of his mother, Catherine of Medicis, when Regent. It is
of the most absurdly stringent character, forbidding French subjects,
under any circumstances, to freight foreign vessels in the ports of
his realm. Nor would he allow such vessels to carry from his ports any
kind of merchandise: but, like most other laws of a similarly rigorous
character, they were very imperfectly carried out, and so seldom
enforced that, by degrees, they fell into desuetude.
[Sidenote: Law of Louis XIV., 1643, revised by Colbert, 1661.]
It was not, however, until the reign of Louis XIV. (A.D.
1643) that anything like a regular system of Navigation Laws was
adopted; and this would seem to have been copied from the laws of
England of that period, inasmuch as it had for its object that which
England had proposed with regard to her own ships—the protection
and the development of the French mercantile marine. But Colbert,
the celebrated finance minister, in 1661, appears to have devoted
considerable attention to this question, and, though he framed a law,
at first as protective in its character as any of the maritime laws
promulgated in England, it was, soon afterwards, moderately relaxed by
his wisdom, in favour of the ships of other nations.
[Sidenote: Its chief conditions,]
In the reign of Louis XIV., as also in that of Louis XV., various
ordinances and regulations were likewise issued for the purpose of
determining the conditions necessary to entitle a vessel to the
privileges of a French ship. Thus in the regulation bearing date
24th October, 1681, and, in several letters as well as in various
ordinances, it was provided that no vessel should be allowed the
privilege of hoisting the French flag, unless she were entirely owned
by the subjects of that country, and unless the names of all the
owners were duly registered. For every offence, or any deviation from
this law, a fine of 1000 livres was inflicted; and, in case of any
repetition of the offence, corporal punishments were ordained against
all captains who navigated, under the French flag, any vessel of alien
ownership. There was, however, no prohibition against the acquisition
of vessels of foreign build. French subjects were allowed to confer
on such vessels the French character by certain declarations, such
as dimensions, where and by whom constructed, and by registering the
names of the owners, and the contract of sale. No alien was, however,
permitted to command a French vessel; nor, by the ordinance of 27th
October, 1727, could even a French subject do so _who had married an
alien_.
Foreigners were also excluded from any functions of authority; and,
as in the case of the English Navigation Laws, it was ordained that
every vessel should be manned by a crew of which two-thirds, at least,
were French subjects. Indeed, in 1710, French subjects were forbidden,
agreeably with their most ancient Navigation Law, to import goods
from England in any but French bottoms—a law, at that time, levelled
exclusively against this country, as it did not embrace other nations.
This law was, however, abolished, three years afterwards, by the treaty
of Utrecht, though again enforced when war, subsequently, broke out
between the two countries. Besides this, the duty known by the name of
“Droit de tonnage” (tonnage dues), for the protection of the French
mercantile marine, was levied on all foreign vessels; and, though
England obtained a temporary exemption from it also by the treaty
of Utrecht, this duty remained practically in force till replaced
by another tonnage duty in 1793. Indeed, for a long time, absolute
prohibition had existed against all foreign vessels engaging in the
carrying trade between the ports of France, except those of Spain,
which in 1768 (January 2nd), by a treaty, known by the name of “Pacte
de famille,” signed by the Kings of France, Spain, the Two Sicilies,
and the Duke of Parma, as members of the reigning Bourbon family, made
the Spaniards free of the existing French trade, and placed them in all
respects on a similar footing, so far as that treaty was concerned,
with the subjects of France. This privilege, though suspended by the
Revolution, was restored by the Convention of 20th July, 1814, and
still remains in force, on the part of France.
[Sidenote: Regulations for the French Colonial trade.]
The most important element, however, of the ancient Navigation Laws
of France was the system of regulations for the purpose of increasing
the trade with the French colonies. In its main features, it has been
preserved by all the Governments, Revolutionary and Constitutional,
which have, successively, presided over the destinies of that country,
continuing almost unaltered far into the present century, when it was
materially modified, though not entirely abolished, by the economical
reforms of Napoleon III.
[Sidenote: Slightly modified by the Treaties of Utrecht, 1713, and of
1763, in favour of England.]
That system, known among French economists and lawyers under the name
of the “_Pacte colonial_,” from the implied contract supposed to
have been entered into between each colony on its foundation and the
mother-country was, so far as the rights of the latter were concerned,
characterised by three principles, which dictated, as far as expediency
allowed, all the laws and measures of the various Governments
previously to the Second Empire.
These may be briefly stated as follows:—First, no goods, the growth,
produce, or manufacture of the colonies, were to be carried to any
but a French market. Secondly, the colonial market was to be reserved
for the commodities and produce of the mother-country. Thirdly, the
carrying of all goods between the colonies and the mother-country was
to be reserved for the shipping of France.
These rules, which embodied the spirit and policy of France with regard
to her maritime dealings with her colonies, though undergoing from time
to time various modifications necessitated by circumstances, have,
as far as possible, been upheld and enforced, and in many cases with
considerable severity. Thus, while the exclusion of alien shippers was
jealously secured by the most stringent measures, as, for instance, by
the law of 1727, Article 3, in which it was further ordained that no
foreigners should land with their ships or other vessels in the ports,
bays, or harbours, of the French colonies and islands, nor navigate
within one league round the said colonies and islands, under penalty of
confiscation of their vessels and cargoes, and a fine of 4000 livres,
jointly and severally, upon the master and his crew. These rigorous
prohibitions concerning sailing near the coast were, however, relaxed
in favour of England, after the cession to this country by France in
1763 under the Treaty of Paris of various islands on the American
coast, but with reference only to such as were in the vicinity of
British possessions.
But these stringent laws, ere long proved most disadvantageous to
France herself, and became a very great hardship to some of her
colonies; for, having lost Canada and Louisiana, which carried on a
flourishing trade with the Antilles, the inhabitants of these islands
were deprived of many essential commodities. Some of their ports were,
consequently, opened to foreign shipping for the importation of certain
enumerated articles, and the exportation of such of the goods produced
by them as could not find a sufficient market within the French
dominions.
Such, in a few words, were the ancient Navigation Laws of France; nor
did the Revolution, which cast aside so many of the most venerated
laws and customs of that country, discard the system of protection
which those ancient laws were assumed to afford to their shipping. This
system, on the contrary, seems to have suited the views of the chiefs
of the revolutionary period, and, being, also, in accordance with the
spirit of the stern legislators of that period, was rendered by them
still more stringent by the addition of special prohibitions, which
their predecessors had not considered expedient.
For instance, a decree of the 13th May, 1791, prohibited the
acquisition from that date of all vessels of foreign build; and
on the 21st September, 1793, another decree was issued, of a more
comprehensive character.
But it must be remembered that France was then at war with all the
Powers of Europe as well as with her own Rulers (the King having been
beheaded 21st January, 1793), and, consequently, her commercial and
naval laws were in accordance with the spirit of war, which has been
ever opposed to the progress and well-being of the people. The laws,
therefore, relating to trade and navigation, from 1792 to 1814 must
not be considered such as the nation would have approved of if at
peace, but rather as warlike measures, presumed to be necessary for the
welfare, and, indeed, for the very existence of the nation. England
being the nearest and most powerful enemy of France, as well as the
financial supporter of all the other nations then leagued against her,
it is not surprising that French statesmen should have passed such laws
as had special reference to the injury of her maritime commerce and her
power at sea; and that those laws should have been thought to display
a spirit of revenge and hatred, though in reality they were merely
counterparts of our own.
Consequently, Article 3 of the law of the 21st September, 1793, enacted
that “No foreign commodities, productions, or merchandise, shall be
imported into France, or into the possessions or colonies of France,
except directly in French vessels, or in vessels belonging to the
inhabitants of the countries in which the articles imported grew,
were produced or manufactured, or from the ordinary ports of sale or
exportation.” All officers and three-fourths of the crew were required
to be natives of the country of which the foreign vessel bore the
flag, under penalty of the confiscation of the ship and cargo, and a
fine of 300 livres, enforceable under pain of imprisonment, jointly
and severally, against owners, consignees, and agents of the vessel
and cargo, as well as against the captain and mate. Article 4, copied
from the most ancient laws of France, ordained that foreign vessels
should not carry from one French port to another any commodities,
productions, or merchandise, of the growth, production, or manufacture
of France, or of its colonies or possessions, under penalties similar
to those provided under Article 3. Another article stipulated that no
vessel should be allowed the privileges of the French flag, unless
built in that country, or in the colonies, or other possessions of
France, or condemned as a prize, or for any infringement of the laws of
the State, and, unless all the officers and three-fourths of the crew
were French.
[Sidenote: Amount of charges enforced.]
The provisions of this Act were made more complete by those of the
decree of the 18th of October of the same year (27 Vindémaire, year II.
of the Republic), establishing, among others, various rules concerning
the amount of repair to be done to a foreign vessel, sold after wreck
in the waters of France, to entitle her to carry the French flag; the
amount of repair which a French vessel might undergo in a foreign
country without forfeiting its national character; and the conditions
under which a French subject, resident abroad, might own a French
vessel; together with several enactments for securing the French
character of ships, and for the proper measurement of their tonnage.
At the same time, there was created by the Act a system of taxes, for
the purpose partly of revenue, and partly of protection, intended to
supersede the previous system of marine taxation, abolished expressly
by Article 29. Of these new taxes, some applied to the vessel and some
to the cargo; but the most important of them was a duty, assessed
according to tonnage, though in very different proportions, on all
vessels, whether French or foreign, entering French ports; excepting
French fishing vessels, or privateers, and French vessels returning
from foreign countries. It amounted to _three_ sous[219] per ton
on French vessels of above thirty tons engaged in the coasting trade
of the same French sea-board; to _four_ sous per ton, where the
trading was from the French ports of one sea to those of another;
and to _six_ sous, where the navigation was between France and
her colonies or possessions beyond the limits of Europe. On foreign
vessels, whencesoever they came, an uniform duty of fifty sous per ton
was levied when they discharged their cargoes in French ports.
[Sidenote: French and English Navigation Laws equally worthless.]
Such were the most important provisions of these two stringent laws;
they were, however, only similar, in nearly all respects, to those of
England, so much so that they have, frequently, been called in France
_Les Actes de Navigation_. Indeed, they were almost as famous, at
the time, in that country as the so-called celebrated Acts of Cromwell
were in Great Britain—notorious, rather than famous, not for any
benefits they conferred on the people of either country, but because
the object of each was to cripple the maritime and naval resources of
the rival power without enhancing its own; for, in those days, the
happiness and prosperity of one nation was supposed to be best promoted
by increasing its power of summarily inflicting punishment for any
wrongs attributed to its neighbour.
But the absolute rule introduced by the law of the 21st of September,
1793, against the importation into France of foreign produce by foreign
vessels except those of the country from which the produce originally
came, could, in the nature of things, be only partially enforced.
Supremacy cannot be obtained merely by the will of a legislator, nor
can a stroke of the pen conjure navies into existence.[220]
The mercantile marine of France, which had almost entirely disappeared
during the wars of the Republic and Empire, progressed so slowly
for some time after the Restoration, that the assistance of foreign
vessels became absolutely necessary for the supply of the French
market. Strange, however, to say, for the supposed encouragement of the
national shipping, and, as the next best protection that could be given
to it, the carrying marine of all other nations was heavily weighted,
by means of duties levied on almost all the commodities imported in
foreign bottoms. In the first tariff, published after the return
of the Bourbons, on the 17th of December, 1814, with the object of
providing for pressing requirements until a more matured system could
be established, differential duties were imposed on certain goods,
more or less heavy, according as they were imported under a foreign or
under the French flag. The system was developed and perfected by the
Finance Law of the 28th of April, 1816, which established a new order
of things, brought about by the heavy expenses of the _centjours_,
and of the fine imposed on the French nation by the treaties of
November, 1815. Consequently, most of such articles as were admitted
free under the French flag, were charged with duty under a foreign
one. For goods liable to duty, when imported in French bottoms, the
foreign carrying trade was generally mulcted with an additional
charge through the instrumentality of a series of differential duties
called, respectively, _surtaxes de pavillon_ and _surtaxes
d’entrepôt_.
[Sidenote: “_Surtaxes de Pavillon_,” and “_d’Entrepôt_.”]
The _surtaxe de pavillon_ was the additional duty levied on
such commodities when arriving under a foreign flag. The _surtaxe
d’entrepôt_ was an increase in the rate of duty on the same
merchandise, though imported under the French flag, coming from the
warehouses of intermediate countries. An example of both these taxes
with reference to coffee may be drawn from the tariff of the Finance
Law, Article 3, of the 28th of April, 1816;[221] and, by a further
decree of the 26th June, 1841, it was laid down, as a general rule,
that all goods under a foreign flag should pay the highest rate of
duties.
[Sidenote: “_Droits de Tonnage._”]
But, although this system of differential duties levied on goods
conveyed from their place of production in foreign vessels, was
somewhat modified by subsequent decrees and treaties of reciprocity,
it remained, practically, in force, or to a considerable extent, up
to a very recent period, while the _droits de tonnage_ levied
on foreign ships alone, were not abolished until 1867: these tonnage
duties were of the most objectionable and purely protective character,
all French vessels being exempted from this charge. Happily,
however, for France, there was one port where they were not exacted,
and hence this has ever been one of her most flourishing commercial
_entrepôts_.
[Sidenote: Special exemption of Marseilles.]
By a strange anomaly, Marseilles had been, by the law of the 16th
December, 1814, as well as by the ordinance of the 19th September,
1777, put out of the pale of the tonnage duty, and made substantially a
free port. This exception, the revival of a still older privilege, had
been conceded for the purpose of drawing again to Marseilles, as far as
possible, the trade of the Mediterranean, which, during the long period
of warfare through which France had passed, had been taken possession
of by her rivals in that sea, principally, by the Genoese. The
Marseillais considered it as a very great advantage; and Cette, besides
other ports of the Mediterranean, solicited a like exemption from a
duty they justly regarded much more as an evil than a protection;
but in vain, till the time when, as will be explained hereafter, the
whole of France was admitted to the freedom which had so long been the
exclusive privilege of a single port.
[Sidenote: French Colonial system preserved under all its Governments,]
The policy of France with regard to her colonies under the first
Republic was continued by subsequent Governments, subject, however,
to many qualifications and exceptions, by which the system lost much
of its uniformity and regularity. But with reference to the treatment
of the foreign mercantile marine, the rule excluding alien vessels
from the trade between France and the generality of her colonies and
possessions was for the most part maintained.
The term _Colonie_, or _Colonie à Culture_, is equivalent to
the English word Plantation. _Possession_ or _établissement_
applies to such settlements as were made more especially for the
purpose of trading, some of the other colonies and settlements being of
a mixed character. In the process of time the name of Colonies, in the
vocabulary of the Fiscal and Navigation Laws, came to be applied in a
stricter sense to the three coffee and sugar islands which had remained
to France, La Guadaloupe, la Martinique, and Bourbon (or la Réunion as
it is now styled). These three colonies had always been more jealously
guarded than the rest from foreign intrusion, and had remained very
much under the same system; a series of special regulations common to
each of them, placing them, as it were, apart from the rest. The rule
as to foreign vessels was still exclusion, and prohibition against
approaching the coast (with an exception in favour of the English flag
by the second Treaty of Paris in 1763 as already stated) was still,
in principle, maintained under the same penalty of confiscation, a
penalty, however, not unfrequently disregarded.
[Sidenote: but greatly to the injury of her people.]
These restrictive laws, as has been the case with all other countries,
while most injurious to the mass of the people of France, are really
of no benefit to the Shipowners of that country, in whose favour they
had been passed and so long adhered to. A few individuals may now
and again have been gainers, to the loss of the community at large,
but a reference to the customs returns of that country too clearly
demonstrates, that its shipping did not keep pace with the other
branches of its commerce, and that, ever since the time of Charles
IX., when the Navigation Laws were first imposed, France has had to
depend, frequently, to its serious loss, on the ships of foreign
nations for supplying its population with, not merely the luxuries,
but the actual necessaries of life: the restrictive system, therefore,
though remaining so long in force and apparent vigour, has ever
exhibited a gradual tendency to decline, and, by slow degrees, has been
worn away by the current of events flowing towards Free-trade.
[Sidenote: English Exhibition of 1851.]
It was not, however, until the year 1851 that the eyes of the people of
France really began to be opened to the advantages to be derived from a
policy of commercial freedom. In that year, the people of Great Britain
had reared in one of the beautiful parks, by which their capital is
adorned, an elegant structure. The idea, originating with the Society
of Arts, was readily adopted by the Prince Consort of our beloved
Queen.[222] Perhaps no grander and nobler idea ever emanated from the
mind of man. It had for its object peace and good will among nations,
and no structure, hitherto erected, ever conveyed a more striking
impression of “the abodes of Peace” than did the Crystal Palace of
1851. To it, all nations were invited to send specimens of the natural
and cultivated produce of their soil, and the manufactures and arts of
their people.
[Sidenote: Messrs. Cobden and Chevalier meet first there,]
[Sidenote: and, ultimately in 1860, carry the Commercial Treaty.]
In that marvellous structure, two great and good men for the first
time met—Richard Cobden of England and Michael Chevalier of France.
Men of such great intelligence could not fail to see how numerous
were the articles exhibited which were required by the people of both
countries where they could not be economically produced, but which were
heavily taxed, merely for the special benefit of the few who produced
them, to the great loss of whole communities; and that, consequently,
productions and manufactures were limited by a system of protection,
alike iniquitous and unnecessary for the purposes of revenue. They,
therefore, resolved to do what they could to modify the tariffs of
both countries, especially France, and thus to secure a more free
interchange of those articles each country produced more cheaply and
more abundantly than the other. The result of their labours was the
Commercial Treaty of 1860.
Although, by the great changes in the English tariff, carried into
effect by Sir Robert Peel (1842-46), the duty on French goods had been
much reduced in England, and on a great number of articles altogether
abolished, France still maintained high duties on most manufactured
articles, and, indeed, prohibited altogether the importation of
various descriptions of cotton and woollen cloths; the Treaty of 1860
had, therefore, not only the effect of abolishing or reducing duties
still levied on French goods or produce imported into England, but
of abolishing prohibitions and reducing duties on British goods and
manufactures imported into France; and, above all, it gave an impulse
to Free-trade ideas throughout Europe. In fact, immediately after
that Treaty was signed, other treaties were concluded, on liberal
terms, with most of the European States, and their direct or indirect
neighbours. Indeed there was then a general movement, to a greater or
less extent, in favour of increased freedom of commercial intercourse
between all nations.
Had it been possible, it would perhaps have been desirable that a
Treaty of Navigation should have accompanied or been embraced in the
Treaty of Commerce with France, but, as it was considered by Government
advisable to keep the one distinct from the other, a resolution I
submitted for the consideration of the House of Commons,[223] though
unanimously adopted, was held in abeyance until the Commercial Treaty
had been finally adjusted.
[Sidenote: The French, heavy losers by maintaining their Navigation
Laws.]
The discussion on that motion, however, paved the way for the changes
subsequently made in the ancient Navigation Laws of France. It was
shown, in the most incontrovertible manner, that the people of that
country were serious losers by the maintenance of these laws, and
that, by being unable to send their produce and manufactures, on as
favourable terms as other nations, to the markets of the world, they
were competing, at a disadvantage to themselves, while they were
likewise sufferers by not being able to import the raw materials
they required from abroad at the lowest current rates of freight.
Practically, thirty-five out of thirty-six millions of the nation (for
I presume that not more than one million of the inhabitants of France
depend for their living, directly or indirectly, upon its shipping)
were paying for the support of the remaining thirty-sixth million.
[Sidenote: Decline of French shipping.]
Nor does this payment, which their Navigation Laws so long enforced,
seem to have been of any advantage to the favoured class for whom it
was made. The shipping of France did not increase. On the contrary,
it actually decreased during the whole period when these laws were
enforced with the utmost rigour. While, in the year 1787, France
employed 164,000 tons of native shipping in her trade with foreign
countries, she had, forty-three years afterwards, only 156,000 tons.
In her colonial trade, which was confined entirely to her own ships,
she employed 114,000 tons of French shipping at the former period,
and only 102,000 tons in the year 1860. But the most complete answer
to those persons who desired still to retain the Navigation Laws was
the remarkable fact that, while the protected branches of her shipping
trade decreased, there was a steady and not inconsiderable increase in
those branches of it, where her ships had to enter into competition
with the vessels of other nations.
[Sidenote: Mr. Lindsay visits France, and has various interviews with
the Emperor, Messrs. Rouher and Chevalier, on this subject.]
Though the motion which the House of Commons had adopted was in favour
of a Treaty, that mode of negotiation presented so many objections
that, nine months after it had been passed, when Lord Russell furnished
me with an introduction to Lord Cowley, it was arranged that we should
endeavour to induce the French Government to consider this question as
one entirely relating to France, and to urge that she would inquire for
herself, and, having done so, to pass such measures as would be most
conducive to the interests of her own people, irrespectively of other
nations.[224] This was the course subsequently adopted.
There were many enlightened men in that country, as I shall hereafter
show, who entertained opinions favourable to the desired change, though
the prejudice in favour of the ancient laws and customs had become
so strong in the minds of the mass of the people, that it would have
been all but impossible to remove it, except through the powerful
influence of the enlightened monarch _then_ governing France, who
readily saw the advantage the nation would derive from Free navigation.
Consequently, he in due time appointed a council to inquire into the
whole subject.[225]
In the meantime an important step was taken in Colonial Legislation,
which paved the way for more important changes. La Martinique,
la Guadaloupe, and la Réunion (or Bourbon), the only three of
her old sugar plantations which France still possessed, had been
long complaining that the benefits they derived from the _Pacte
Colonial_ had entirely ceased, since the protection which their
sugar used to receive in the French market against foreign sugar,
and against that manufactured in France, had been withdrawn; and
that nothing remained of that system, except the hardships they had
to endure from the exclusion of the foreign trade and flag, and the
difficulty they had in getting rid of their produce, which the French
shipping was not sufficiently numerous to export.
In consequence of these and other[226] representations, a law, passed
on the 3rd July, 1861, enacted (Articles 1 and 2) that all the foreign
commodities allowed to be imported into France were to be admitted into
Guadaloupe, Martinique, and Bourbon, under the same conditions and
duties. Article 3 broke down the barrier which had hitherto shut out
foreign shipping from freedom of access to those islands. It allowed
the importation of foreign goods under every flag, without distinction,
subject, however, to the payment of special duties, which varied
according to the ports from which the goods were brought, and those to
which they were imported. Thus, goods carried under any foreign flag
from Europe or the Mediterranean to the Antilles, had to pay a duty,
per ton, of 20 francs; if to the Réunion, of 30 francs: and when from
the ports of the Atlantic coast (except the Cape and its territory),
to the Antilles, 10 francs; and to Réunion, 20 francs. The duties,
however, imposed by this Article, were only applicable to such foreign
commodities, admissible under the previous laws, as were not liable to
a higher duty. Otherwise, that duty was to continue in force. Article 6
went further, and allowed French goods to be carried to the colonies in
question, and their goods to France, in foreign bottoms, subject to a
duty of 20 francs per ton of cargo between France and the Antilles, and
of 30 francs per ton between France and La Réunion.
The seventh Article granted the like freedom for the exportation of
the goods of the colonies, either to foreign countries or to any other
colony, provided such colony were beyond the limits of the coasting
trade. But the law still excluded the foreign mercantile marine from
entering the Colonial coasting trade, and it was only applicable to
the three colonies mentioned in the Act. Nor were its provisions
applicable to the other French possessions, nor to its coasting trade;
nevertheless, it was an important step towards the freedom of maritime
commerce.
[Sidenote: Commission of Inquiry appointed, and law ultimately passed
May 1866.]
Many difficulties, however, had still to be overcome, and though the
_Conseil_, after a most minute inquiry, and the publication
of three large volumes of evidence, reported that great changes
were imperatively required in the laws, their recommendations did
not receive the sanction of the French legislative chambers until
1866,[227] and then only after many prolonged discussions.
Among these difficulties may be mentioned the removal of certain local
charges on shipping, which had long been maintained in our ports, and
against the payment of which the French Government had frequently
protested, though neither the vessels of France nor of other countries
were called upon to pay more than those of our own, except in some
special cases, such as the case of ships owned by freemen, and other
locally privileged persons, who were exempt. These charges differed in
every port, and sometimes within the limit of the same harbour. Some
of them were levied by virtue of Acts of Parliament, but others of a
vexatious character, though trifling in amount, were only claimed by
a prescriptive right, through long use. Those which were levied by
prescription were either in the nature of petty customs, or of duties
charged on vessels for anchorage, keelage, or with respect to ballast
or to fees levied on goods in the nature of cranage, metage, cartage,
wharfage; and, in too many instances, they were extorted for the use
of cranes which had no existence, or of wharves which for ages had
tumbled into decay. No doubt, in ancient times, it was an unquestioned
prerogative of the Crown to create petty customs for local purposes,
and, though that power has long since ceased to exist, when once
granted to corporations or individuals it became assignable, like other
property. It was, therefore, no easy task to abolish them without
conceding the exorbitant demands of their owners, as the Board of
Trade found out when the Vice-President, Mr. Lowe, brought the subject
before Parliament.[228] But France insisted on their abolition, and,
since then, the great bulk of them have been removed, by purchase or
otherwise.
By Article 1 of the law of the 19th May, 1866, all materials raw or
manufactured, including marine engines, intended to form parts of the
construction or equipment of iron or wooden vessels, were admitted into
France duty free. Article 2 abolished the premium granted by the law of
the 6th May, 1841, on all steam-engines manufactured in France intended
for international navigation. Article 3 permitted, after the expiration
of six months from the promulgation of the law, the admission of
foreign-built and fully equipped vessels to registration on payment of
two francs per ton admeasurement; while Article 4 abolished all tonnage
duties upon foreign ships, except such as had been or might be levied
for the improvement of certain commercial harbours.
[Sidenote: Its conditions.]
But other changes were more tardily made: Article 5 providing that,
only after “three years from the promulgation of the present law,
the surtaxes on the flag (_surtaxes de pavillon_), at present
applicable to productions imported from the countries where they are
produced, otherwise than under the French flag, shall be abolished;”
while Article 6 provided for the ulterior establishment, by imperial
decree, of such compensating duties as might be rendered desirable,
in consequence of any other nation imposing on the French flag higher
duties than were to be levied on its own vessels; thus copying the
retaliatory clause of the English Navigation Repeal Act of 1849. By
Clause 7 these various articles were made applicable to the islands of
Martinique, Guadaloupe, and Réunion (or Bourbon); and by Clause 8, the
conditions of Articles 1, 3, and 4 were extended to Algeria; while by
Article 9 the trade between France and that colony and its Coasting
trade (_cabotage_) was permitted to be carried on by foreign
vessels under the authorisation of its governor.
The 10th, or last Article, of the law of 1866, abolished the
differential duties (_surtaxes de navigation_) which had been
imposed on goods imported under a foreign flag, and the lower rate of
duty on certain commodities, imported from French warehouses, under the
flag of that country.[229]
[Sidenote: Repeal Act unsatisfactory to the French Shipowners.]
But the law of the 19th May, 1866, was very far from giving general
satisfaction in France. Many French Shipowners were as loud in their
complaints against it as the most noted Protectionist had been in
England against the repeal of her Navigation Laws, and with, perhaps,
more valid reasons. The new law did not give to them that freedom in
the purchase or construction of their ships they had a right to expect.
And though the duty of two francs per ton levied on every ship they
purchased from a foreign country was insignificant, the restrictions,
imposed on all materials necessary for the construction and equipment
of vessels in their own country, were of a harassing and vexatious
character. The measure in itself was good, but various classes of
Protectionists, fearing that numerous articles might be imported which
could be used for other than shipbuilding purposes, and thus interfere
with their own particular branches of trade, had influence enough with
the Legislature to obtain the issue of another decree[230] on the
8th June following, which nullified in some important respects the
operation of the law of May 1866, and rendered it less beneficial to
the people of France.
Under such vexatious restrictions it was impossible for the shipbuilder
of France to compete successfully with those of other countries, as
they were nearly as prejudicial to his interests as they would have
been by the maintenance of the duties on all the articles he required.
Competition in every branch of commerce throughout the world is so
close, that, wherever the Legislature imposes not merely taxes but
conditions, which, from their nature, must necessarily interfere with
the course of business, and occupy a considerable portion of the
shipbuilder’s _time_, which is a part of his capital, he cannot
successfully compete with those of other countries where no such
conditions are imposed.
[Sidenote: Another Commission of Inquiry appointed, 1870.]
Such restrictions, though in themselves comparatively unimportant,
afforded the Shipowners of France a lever which they worked
incessantly, hoping with the aid of the other Protectionists, to
overthrow in time, the wise and liberal Act of the 19th May, or at
least to abrogate its leading principles. At last the complaints from
the seaports, and some changes in the administration of affairs, led to
the appointment of a Commission or Parliamentary Committee, with powers
to inquire not merely into the effect of these restrictions, but into
the state generally, of the Commercial Marine of France, and on the
best means of affording it assistance, should any be deemed necessary
or desirable.
Although this Committee, which sat early in the year 1870, never
concluded its labours, its minutes are interesting and instructive,
from the depositions and discussions they embodied, and, more
especially, from the important fact, that not a few even of the
Shipowners themselves, who had previously doubted the policy of
Free-trade as applicable to their own interests, had, within the
previous five years, become converts to the advantages to be derived
from unfettered commerce. But the larger portion of them were, as, in
fact, Shipowners have long been in all countries, Protectionist. They
contended that the French commercial marine was both absolutely and
comparatively in a state of decline, caused, as they argued, mainly, by
the abolition of the protective duties, which they held were necessary
to prevent them from being ruined by foreign competition. Among the
various causes they alleged, as rendering them unable to compete
successfully with the vessels of other nations, was the want of “bulky
freights,” in consequence of which their ships had frequently to leave
France in ballast, or with incomplete cargoes; and, moreover, that
“France, being at the western border of Europe, English, German, and
other northern vessels, called at her ports, when not fully laden, to
complete their outward cargoes, and compete for French freight with
French shipping.”
[Sidenote: Views of rival parties.]
On the other hand, the partisans of Free-trade denied that French
shipping had declined either absolutely or in comparison with the
commercial marine of other countries. While conceding the point that
the rates of freight had diminished, they maintained that such was the
case in all other parts of the world; that this, therefore, was not in
any way peculiar to France, such diminution of freight being, in fact,
the natural consequence of a competition which, in the interests of the
community at large, it would be as impossible as it was undesirable to
prevent. Moreover, they showed that, where their Shipowners had kept
pace with the movements of the age, by substituting iron for wood, and
steamers for sailing vessels, whenever the requirements of the trade
necessitated a change, and in cases, where the masters of these vessels
themselves were enterprising and disposed to seek for freight, wherever
it could be most advantageously procured, they had increased. Thus
proving that the French commercial marine was fully able, if relieved
from needless restrictions, to hold its own against that of any other
nation. What they required was to have the “system of liberty more
completely and logically applied” by the alteration or abolition of
certain oppressive burdens; and by the removal of all troublesome,
onerous, and, frequently, frivolous duties imposed by the French laws,
besides a few other reforms which they specified.
But those Shipowners who favoured the Free-trade movement were, as
has been the case in other countries, assailed as traitors by the
adverse party, who taxed them with having selfish views, at variance
with the true interests of French shipping, owing to their position of
commission agents or shipbrokers, as well as of Shipowners; and, no
doubt, these two interests were conflicting, inasmuch as the profits
on the vessels might be made subservient to other and more lucrative
sources of gain. But this is an old story, which has been frequently
told, and those persons who, in this instance, used it as an argument,
did not perceive that it was double-edged. Nor was it, indeed,
conclusive, as, whatever the motives which prompted the arguments of
the partisans of Free-trade, these arguments were good and sound in
themselves. Besides, there were many shipowners in France in favour of
Free-trade who had no other interests to serve.
[Sidenote: M. de Coninck.]
For example, the late M. de Coninck,[231] who was a large shipowner,
in his evidence states that he had given up every other branch of
business except ship-owning—being at the time, as he remarked, “nothing
but a carrier” (_charretier_). In other respects his evidence was
equally frank and straightforward. The cause, he deliberately told the
Commissioners, the real cause of the complaints of the Protectionist
Shipowners was not loss, properly speaking, but a mere diminution in
their profits;[232] this loss, certainly, had, he as frankly admitted,
been reduced by competition to an average rate, inferior to that of
the palmy days of Protection, during which, he added, the Shipowners
obtained unreasonably large profits at the expense of the community. M.
de Coninck then gave happy illustrations of the _loss_ so called
of which they so loudly complained. “Formerly, and in my time,” he
said, “it was considered that a vessel should clear herself in three
voyages! That was the golden age of shipowners; but there is no such
thing now, and, when we can gain _ten_ per cent. per annum on the
cost of our vessel we should be well satisfied.”[233]
[Sidenote: M. Bergasse.]
In support of the opinions expressed by M. de Coninck we have the
indirect testimony of a well-known Protectionist who gave his evidence
before the Commission. M. Bergasse, himself a leading Shipowner of
Marseilles, was deputed by the Shipowners of that important seaport
to appear before the Commission and state the hardships of their
case. He was a gentleman of high position and considerable experience
and knowledge of the world. After attempting to show the advantages
which the Shipowners of other nations had over those of France, he
came to the old story which had been told a thousand times in England
about the Shipowners and seamen of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark,
“accustomed,” said he, “to live poorly, they equip their vessels in
an entirely economical manner, and _do not seek to make Shipowners
fortunes_,[234] but only to gain their livelihood.”
[Sidenote: M. Siegfried.]
M. Siegfried, a retired merchant, who followed, gave much valuable
evidence, showing the fallacy of the system of protection as insisted
on, in this instance, by its partizans. He contended that France, so
gifted by nature, only required outlets for her oversea commerce, a
better commercial training, and a more hardy and enterprising spirit
in trade. In the course of this portion of his evidence he stated, as
characteristic of the business deficiencies of French shipmasters,
that French export houses frequently chartered English vessels in
preference to those of their own country, because the English masters
were more easy to deal with, and more accommodating in their way of
doing business. Nor were they subject to the extreme anxieties about
their responsibility which distinguished the French shipmasters. For
instance, he said, the latter will constantly insist upon somebody
coming to take note “that bale number so and so had been wetted in
the corner,” and, by calling attention to reserves and protests on
the bills of lading were, constantly, wearying exporters by their
troublesome and minute precautions against responsibility.[235] With
regard to the demands of the Protectionists, he strongly adjured the
Commissioners on no account to be induced to advise the resumption
of the differential duties, as any such protection to the commercial
marine of France could have no other effect, in the end, but to
increase the prosperity of the railways and to give a fresh impetus
to the maritime prosperity of the Italian ports, on the one hand, and
of Antwerp and other ports in the northern vicinity of France, on the
other.
But this most excellent advice was given in vain; and, though the
Commissioners do not appear to have made any regular report on the
evidence, the evidence itself was so full of Protectionist views that
it taught abundant Protectionist lessons to the legislators who had to
draw conclusions from it. Many of these gentlemen are, indeed, imbued
with strong Conservative principles, and are, naturally, prone to
seize on any statement in favour of their own views without inquiring
very minutely into its soundness.
[Sidenote: M Thiers and Protection carry the day,]
Although an impression prevails that the spirit of Protection took
deeper root, than it had previously done in the French Legislative
Assembly, after the terrible disasters of the war with Germany, the
truth is that it only manifested itself owing to the pressure exerted
by M. Thiers when he came into power on that memorable occasion. The
spirit of the Assembly was still as much in favour of freedom of
commerce as it had been in 1860, when it passed its famous commercial
treaty with England. But the enormous drain on the resources of France,
together with other causes, and the then all-powerful influence of M.
Thiers, who, throughout his long life, has been an honest Protectionist
in its most original form, inspired the Assembly with a financial
policy intended to husband those resources and to make the most of
them, but, being timorous and narrow-minded in its conception, it
was by no means calculated to attain the object in view. That such
was the case we see most clearly in the system adopted by the New
Assembly with respect to foreign commerce, and even more especially,
in its relations with the mercantile marine of other countries. That
Assembly, in its wisdom, decided that the commercial treaties between
England, on the one hand, and Belgium, on the other, should be revised
from a Protectionist point of view, so as to return to the old system.
Happily, however, a proviso was introduced into the new law which was
only in conformity with the spirit of the Treaties of 1860, whereby
it was decreed that timely notice should be given to England and to
Belgium of any intention on the part of France to put an end to the
Treaties of 1860.
[Sidenote: and reversed, in 1872, much of the law of 1866.]
But the Assembly had its own way with regard to foreign shipping, and,
by the laws of the 30th January and 3rd February, 1872, it was enacted,
almost entirely through the overwhelming influence of M. Thiers:
That all goods imported in foreign ships, except from the French
colonies, were to be charged with a _surtaxe de pavillon_ per
100 kilogrammes, according to the following scale of rates: from the
countries of Europe and the basin of the Mediterranean, 75 centimes;
from countries out of Europe, on this side the Capes of Horn and Good
Hope, 1 franc 50 centimes; and, from all countries beyond these Capes,
2 francs. Guano was, however, excepted from these duties because a
French mercantile house had entered into a contract to purchase a large
quantity of it from the Peruvian Government.
This law further provided that all goods produced, originally, by
countries out of Europe were liable to a _surtaxe d’entrepôt_,
when imported from the warehouses of Europe, of 3 francs per 100
kilogrammes, unless they were, by the laws then in force, liable to a
higher duty, which, in such case, would be charged. But, perhaps, the
most suicidal portion of this law, as affecting the French Shipowners,
was the re-imposition of from 30 to 50 francs per ton measurement on
all foreign vessels, purchased for registration in France, together
with a duty on marine engines. Again, a tonnage duty was charged on
vessels of every flag coming from any foreign country or from the
French colonies, of from 50 centimes to 1 franc per ton measurement;
while Articles 1, 3, and 5, of the law of the 19th May, 1866, were
repealed.[236]
The object, however, of this new law seems to have been, more
especially, directed against the vessels of those countries which
were in some respect protected by commercial treaties, and would,
otherwise, have been free from it. It was introduced by a report of
M. Ancel, of a very discouraging character, who charged the law of
1866, which had abolished the _surtaxes de pavillon_, with the
sufferings and depression of the French maritime interests. Among the
injurious effects attributed to that law, M. Ancel’s report alleged
the diminution of the imports under the French flag from India and
the South Seas. Thus, he stated that, previously to 1860, the foreign
flag carried only a small portion of these goods (they never carried
any on account of the prohibitory differential duties then in force),
whereas, in 1869, three-fourths of them had been imported into France
in foreign vessels. Consequently, he demanded, forgetting altogether
the interests of the consumer and manufacturer, the re-establishment
of the _surtaxes de pavillon_ upon all importations, except those
under the flag of such producing countries as were protected against
_surtaxes_ by the treaties of navigation with France, at the same
time, expressing a hope that these changes would afford to the French
Mercantile marine “an encouragement and a strength that its situation
imperatively required.”[237]
But it is difficult—indeed it is impossible, to understand how the
abolition of the _surtaxes de pavillon_ by the law of 1866
could have caused so much mischief in 1869 and previously, as it was
only from the 11th of June of that year that the abolition came into
operation; and as to the _surtaxes d’entrepôt_ they had, in fact,
never been set aside! It was on such grounds as these, that the chief
provisions of the wise and liberal Merchant Shipping Act of Napoleon
III. were swept away!
[Sidenote: Just views of the Duke Decazes.]
Happily, however, there are still many able and shrewd men in the
Councils of France—men who were, from the first, well aware of the
pernicious effects which this law had produced upon the commerce of
their country. “It may be said,” remarks the Duke Decazes with great
truth and wisdom, “that it is that law which has jeopardised the great
trade in corn of the port of Marseilles, in the same way as it has
directed towards Genoa the exports of ore from the island of Elba, so
valuable for our foundries ... what has taken place in the south is
equally brought under our notice from the north, with respect to the
port of Antwerp, which has profited by the new law to the detriment
of Havre and Dunkirk. In those seas, it is the German flag which has
now obtained the advantage, and enjoys the freight which heretofore
pertained to the shipping of France.”
[Sidenote: Abolition, for the second time, of the _Surtaxes de
Pavillon_, July 1873.]
Unanswerable facts such as these, confirming as they did the lucid
and strong opinion expressed by M. Siegfried, showed what a nation
may suffer, if it disregard the clear teachings of political economy
applicable to all nations, and adopt such ancient and exploded dogmas
as those propounded by M. Thiers; hence the Assembly retraced its
steps, and by the first article of the law of the 28th and 31st July,
1873, which is still in force, the _surtaxes de pavillon_ were,
for the second time, abolished.[238]
It is to be hoped that this practical measure will have more effect
than the disregarded admonitions of experience and of knowledge, and
that the _surtaxes de pavillon_ will no more find a place in
the statute book of France. For the present, vessels of all foreign
countries are placed upon the same footing as those of France, except
with respect to the Coasting trade between its ports, from which
foreign vessels are, as a rule, excluded, except those of Spain.
Richer in agricultural products than most other countries, and, with
a population very largely engaged in the cultivation of the soil, the
French people will, no doubt in time, see the many advantages that
they themselves would derive, were this trade, also, thrown open to
the competition of the ships of all nations; not, that any nation
could manage it so well and profitably as themselves, resident as they
are on the spot, but, the fear of competition from others would have
a marvellous effect in rousing French Shipowners, as it did those of
England, to greater efforts on behalf of their own interests, apart
from the interests and well-being of their country.
It may thus be hoped that France will not again be found in the crooked
road of retrogression, but that, having under innumerable difficulties
and after long years of political discussion, often in the midst of
civil wars and great changes in her constitution, achieved victory over
the antiquated dogmas of a cumbrous and ruinous system of protection,
she will continue in the clear path of progress, which so well becomes
a nation endowed by nature with the richest soil and finest climate in
Europe. Possessing a population, whose industrious and frugal habits
will enable her to maintain for centuries yet to come the relatively
high position she has always held among nations, her legislators
would do well to teach the people that these great natural advantages,
and not her armies, are the true sources of the lasting greatness and
happiness of France.
FOOTNOTES:
[219] A sou is as nearly as possible one half-penny sterling.
[220] To the “celebrated decrees” which followed these laws, that
of Berlin of the 21st of November, 1806, and that of Milan 17th of
December, 1807, and to our “Orders in Council,” which were all mere
acts of war, I have already referred at considerable length (see
_ante_, vol. ii., Chaps. VIII., IX., and XI.). In regard to these
Acts, nations would do well to refer to the saying of Napoleon himself,
in 1816, at the commencement of his exile, “We must fall back for the
future on the open navigation of the seas, and on the entire liberty of
universal trade.”—_Memorial of St. Helena_, 12th June, 1816.
[221] Coffee in French ships paid 48 francs per 100 kilogrammes, and in
English and other foreign ships 84 francs.
[222] This Exhibition was followed by a similar one in Paris in 1855,
and, when the Emperor Napoleon came to visit the Queen just before it
was opened the merchants of London presented him with an address. The
late Mr. Samuel Gurney was one of the deputation. After shaking hands
with those of its members whom he knew, the Emperor remarked to Mr.
Gurney that it was a long time since they had met. “Yes, Sire,” said
the fine old Quaker with one of his blandest smiles, “it _is_
a long time, and there have been many changes since then;” having,
evidently, in his mind at the time, the means, whereby his Majesty had
risen to power, and the Crimean war. “I hope,” continued the Emperor,
“you will visit our Exhibition next year, and that you will allow me
the pleasure of seeing you there.” “It is my intention, Sire,” replied
Mr. Gurney, “to visit thy great PEACE DEMONSTRATION, and,
should I do so, I shall not fail as thou wishest to pay my respects
to thee.” The Emperor was, doubtless, pleased with the ready manner
in which his old Quaker friend had construed his Exhibition into a
demonstration of peace, and, especially, peace with England, which, at
that time, and, as I believe throughout the whole of his reign, he was
most anxious to maintain.
[223] The motion was as follows:—“That an humble address be presented
to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to enter
into negotiations with the Emperor of the French with the view of
making a Treaty for the reciprocal abrogation of all discriminating
duties levied upon the vessels and their cargoes of either of the two
nations in the ports of the other; and for procuring such alterations
in the Navigation Laws of France as may tend to facilitate the
commercial intercourse, and strengthen the friendly relations between
England and France.”—See ‘Hansard’s Reports’ (March 29, 1860), vol.
clvii. pp. 1528 to 1553.
Having prepared and carried this resolution, I had frequently occasion
to correspond and converse with Mr. Cobden on the subject, who said
that the labour in connection with the Commercial Treaty was so
immense, that it would have been impossible to embrace the question of
navigation. Indeed, he observed that he, alone, never could have got
through with its numerous details, had it not been for the valuable
assistance rendered by Mr. (now Sir Lewis) Mallet, who, at that time
attached to the Board of Trade, accompanied him on his mission. I can
also state of my own knowledge that the services of Mr. Mallet during
the subsequent inquiry into the French Navigation Laws were of the
greatest importance. With regard to the Commercial Treaty itself, there
can be no doubt that, if the Legislatures of England and France, of
their own free will, had adopted measures to allow the people of the
respective countries to exchange their produce and manufactures free
from all duties, except such as were required for the revenue, it
would have been much preferable to the system of “bargaining” which
Treaties invariably entail; but, unfortunately, all nations do not yet
see that, if a principle is sound, it must be beneficial wherever it
is applied, and, as they are still prone to set up their own laws in
opposition to the laws of nature, no step in advance could have been
made at that time, so far as France was concerned, without a Treaty. On
the other hand, I have frequently heard objections raised to the Treaty
because France was the larger gainer; its opponents said, to use a
homely phrase, that the French people got 9_d._, while we got only
3_d._ out of the shilling. I offer no opinion on this point, but
even if such were the case, we are 3_d._ better off than we should
have been had no Treaty been made, and why therefore should we cavil
against it?
[224] I daresay many persons thought at the time that I was
interfering, where I had no business, with the affairs of Diplomacy;
but the truth was this, as I had taken upon myself the responsibility
of the motion which the House of Commons adopted, Lord Russell felt,
that I ought to go a step further, and do what I could to carry it
into effect, more especially, as the whole question was one full of
technical details. Indeed, Lord Cowley frankly stated that it was so
technical in its character, that he did not feel competent to bring
it under the notice of the French Government, and, in justice to his
Lordship, I must state that, so far from feeling that I was interfering
with his duties, he, not merely, rendered every assistance in his
power, but was most anxious that I should succeed in the object of
my self-imposed mission. The advantages I possessed were a practical
knowledge of the subject in all its bearings and details—a slight
personal knowledge of the Emperor which I had gained when I had an
interview with him about his transport service during the Crimean war,
and, more especially, the friendship of Michel Chevalier, through whom
I became acquainted with M. Rouher, the then Minister of Commerce.
[225] Having consulted with Messrs. Rouher and Chevalier as to
the most advisable course to pursue, and, seeing with them the
difficulties which had to be overcome, I had resolved with their
entire consent—indeed on their suggestion—to seek an audience with the
Emperor himself, a course which so thoroughly met the approval of Lord
Cowley, that he, at once, undertook to obtain it, and, himself, to
accompany me to the Tuileries. I had learned from the “tossing of the
horses’ heads” what an apt scholar I was about to meet, and that any
imperfect arguments or inconclusive facts would be at once detected.
Consequently, I had carefully rehearsed in my mind every point
necessary to bring under his notice, and had taken all my figures from
the _French Official Returns_. At first the subject, necessarily a
dry one, did not seem to interest the Emperor, but, when I called his
attention to the fact that, while the sailing-ships of Great Britain
had been increased during the previous twenty years by 2,800,000 tons,
and her steamers by 400,000 tons, those of France had only, in that
time, been increased by 370,000 tons, and 50,000 tons respectively,
though her general commerce, in every other branch, increased nearly as
rapidly as our own, he asked me to repeat the figures and explain, why
it was that there was such an enormous difference. The task was an easy
one; but, perhaps, the facts which struck him most were, that, though
the Shipowners of France were carefully protected at a loss to the
community, as more than one-half of the whole of her oversea carrying
trade was conducted by foreign vessels owing to the differential
duties, her people were really paying greatly enhanced prices for
everything they required from abroad, without adding one sixpence to
his revenue.
The interview, which, altogether, lasted for nearly two hours, must,
however, have made a considerable impression on the Emperor, for, on
parting, he requested me to put in writing, and in a letter addressed
to himself, the leading facts and figures I had brought under his
notice, and to let him have it that evening, if convenient. I made it
convenient, and by 6 P.M. of that day he received the letter,
a copy of which will be found in the Appendix, No. 4, p. 582.
On the following morning, I received a note from his private secretary,
M. Mocquard, saying that the Emperor wished to see me that forenoon
alone. After communicating with Lord Cowley, I waited upon his
Majesty, and his first expression was, “I have read your letter more
than once, and I wish you to explain more fully the effect of the
Navigation Laws.” That I might convey to his mind, effectually, the
operation of all such laws, I asked for the use of a Mercator chart
on a large scale, which was soon obtained, and, spreading it on the
floor, I drew upon it, with a pencil, lines to explain, for instance,
the usual course of commerce with India, by way of Egypt as well as
by the Cape of Good Hope. I then showed him that, though our steamers
and sailing-ships were constantly passing his chief ports of Havre and
Marseilles laden with produce, of which his people might be in the
greatest want, the differential duties imposed by his laws prevented
us from landing these goods; and then, turning to his own official
returns, I repeated the fact that not one franc of revenue was derived
from these dues; so that, while his people were heavy losers on one
hand, his exchequer was not benefited on the other. To obtain the
sugar, coffee, indigo, and other articles with which, for instance,
a Peninsular and Oriental steamer passing his port of Marseilles
was laden, it was necessary that they should be carried through the
Straits of Gibraltar (still tracing the lines on the chart), cross
the Bay of Biscay, pass his other great port of Havre, and be carried
on to Southampton, to be there landed, and, most likely, sent by
railway to London, where they were bonded, and thence shipped again
in either French or English vessels for Calais or Boulogne, and then
conveyed across France to wherever they might be required by his
people; possibly even to Marseilles or Havre. “Now, Sire,” I said,
still kneeling on the chart and looking earnestly at the Emperor, “if
your people prefer to have what Indian produce they need conveyed
to them, in that very roundabout and expensive manner, instead of
importing it direct in whatever vessels may be ready to carry the
produce to them on the most favourable terms, it is a process to which
I, as an Englishman, have no objections to offer, for we carry in our
ships not merely the great bulk of the Indian produce, but have also
much extra profit from it in the shape of landing, bonding, railway
carriage, transhipment, commissions, and so forth; I do not, however,
see how your manufacturers can compete successfully with those of other
countries, if they are compelled by your Navigation Laws to import the
raw material they require by such antiquated and expensive modes as
these.”
As the room, in which we were was small and the light not very good,
the Emperor had followed my example, and, that he might see the lines
and ports more distinctly, had himself, before I concluded, knelt down
also on the chart.
In the palaces of France are to be found many grand pictures
descriptive of the wars of the Empire, but its artists may now add
to the decoration of these walls a far grander and nobler scene, and
represent their last Emperor performing a duty to his people of much
greater importance as regards their future welfare and happiness, and
far more worthy of record than the blood-stained fields of Magenta and
Solferino. I had, subsequently, frequent occasion to see the Emperor on
the subject of these laws; and I gave evidence, for the same purposes,
before the _Conseil Supérieur_ he appointed to inquire into them:
in the report of these proceedings there will be found a copy of my
letter to his Majesty, and also a copy of one addressed to M. Fleury on
the same subject. (See Appendix to this volume, No. 5, p. 591.)
[226] The dates were:—Address of the House of Commons, and debate
upon it, 29th March, 1860; brought under the notice of the Emperor,
10th January, 1861; Report of the Minister of Commerce of France to
the Emperor relative to the state of the French Mercantile Marine,
published in the _Moniteur_ 2nd May, 1862; Conseil-Supérieur of
Commerce commenced its inquiry, 10th July, 1862.
[227] See correspondence respecting the operation of the French
Navigation Laws on British Shipping, Parl. Pap. 1867; also No. 11
Appendix, of this volume, pp. 620-3, where these dues, as they existed
in 1852, will be found.
[228] See _ante_, p. 411.
[229] A proposal was made to abolish the _Surtaxes d’Entrepôt_, or
taxes upon goods from the warehouses of Europe, but it was summarily
rejected.
[230] The Articles of this Decree were as follows:—
Article 1. From the date of the promulgation of the present Decree
shall be admitted, free of import duty, conformably to Article 1 of
the Law of May 19, 1866, with respect to the Mercantile Marine, all
raw or manufactured objects entering into the construction, rigging,
equipment, and maintenance of steam or sailing-vessels, of wood or
iron, destined for commerce.
Articles such as moveable furniture, bedding, linen, plates and dishes,
cutlery, table glass, and, in general, all objects intended for
personal use, shall not be considered as forming part of the equipment.
Art. 2. Shipbuilders, and manufacturers of articles destined for the
construction, equipment, rigging, or the maintenance of vessels, can
alone enjoy the benefit of the provisions of the present Decree as far
as raw materials are concerned.
To these articles they will have to prove their title at the
Custom-house.
Art. 3. Declarations made at the Custom-house for the admission of
articles duty free must bear, with respect to every kind of produce,
the particulars required by the Custom-house Regulations for the
payment of the dues.
Art. 4. Importers must engage, by an undertaking guaranteed in due
form, to prove, within a period not exceeding one year, that the
raw material admitted free, or the products manufactured with such
material, or, finally, the machines and machinery, detached portions
of machines, and other articles completely finished and temporarily
admitted free, have been applied to the use of vessels.
If, at the expiration of the term of one year, the before-mentioned
proofs have not been produced, the Custom-house will collect the
official fees, and take steps for their recovery, conformably to the
third paragraph of Article 1 of the Law of May 19, 1866.
Art. 5. All declarations relative to machines and machinery, to
detached parts of the same, and to other articles completely
manufactured, should contain the description of the said articles, in
order to ensure identification, and this, without prejudice to the
stamp which may be applied to steam or other machinery, to detached
portions of machines, to boilers, to sails, and to such other articles
as the Custom-house officers may think fit to apply it.
Art. 6. The incorporation into vessels of the raw material, or the
placing on board of manufactured articles destined for construction,
rigging, or equipment, shall be preceded by a declaration specifying—
1st. The nature and weight of the raw material, as well as of the
manufactured articles to be employed or put on board;
2nd. The date, number, and office of delivery of Custom-house
discharge; and,
3rd. The vessel to the construction, repair, or use of which the said
raw materials or the said manufactured articles shall have been applied.
When a manufactured article, which shall have required several metals
in its construction is in question, the declaration shall indicate the
weight of each kind of metal.
Art. 7. The Custom-house, in order to check the declarations set out of
the employment, whether as to raw material or manufactured articles,
shall make use of whatever mode of proceeding it may judge necessary.
Art. 8. There shall not be applied to vessels in substitution:—
1st. For iron in bars of irregular shape, any except articles
manufactured with iron of a like irregular shape.
2nd. For iron plates and rolled copper of a millimètre and less in
thickness, any objects unless manufactured with sheet iron or rolled
copper not exceeding that thickness.
In no case shall articles be admitted in the auditing of the
importation accounts, made up with materials of a degree of manufacture
less advanced than that of the articles tendered for entry.
Art. 9. Products manufactured with raw materials introduced duty free
must represent those same materials weight for weight, and without any
allowance for waste.
Art. 10. All infractions of the provisions of the present Decree will
be followed by the application of the penalties provided under the
third paragraph of Article 1 of the Law of the 19th May, 1866.
Art. 11. All articles placed on board vessels, and all material
incorporated into the construction of the said vessels under the
provisions of the present Decree, shall, in case of landing, or in case
of the dismantling, repairing, or breaking up of the ships, be subject
to the provisions of general legislation in matters of Customs’ dues.
[231] This gentleman was an eminent merchant and shipowner of Havre; he
was also one of the most able and consistent supporters of the freedom
of navigation.
[232] See _ante_, p. 363, in regard to how some persons calculated
their losses.
[233] See the Minutes and Evidence before the Commission, p. 877.
[234] “Ne cherchant pas à faire des fortunes d’armateur.”—See Minutes
of Evidence, p. 166.
[235] See Minutes of Evidence, p. 632, _note_. Matters have
materially changed in this respect during the last forty years. While
French shipmasters have deteriorated, the English have been greatly
improved by education and competition.
[236] It may be remembered that when the Assembly rejected certain
important clauses of this foolish Bill, M. Thiers resigned. He,
however, knew full well that at that moment the Assembly would submit
to his wishes sooner than let itself be deprived of his services. It
was only, therefore, in subserviency to him, that the retrogressive
law of 1872 passed the Assembly. It may have been the case that, at
this period of disorder and financial pressure, there was a rush of
Protectionists to propound their schemes for raising revenues—schemes
for making other people pay these debts—the cherished but delusive
theories of bygone ages; but the main spring of action was the
influence of M. Thiers. He was _the_ Government of the day. He
abhorred any opinions different from his own well-known principles in
favour of Protection, which he urged with all his might, and, being
then all-powerful, he carried the Assembly with him; and, that such
was the case, is clearly evident from the fact that, immediately after
his overthrow, the laws he had forced upon France were changed, and
the limited liberties of its people, which he had removed, were again
restored.
[237] The fact, as I learn from my friend M. Michel Chevalier,
connected with this Committee of Inquiry—the evidence before which was
made the basis of Thiers’ measure—was that Pouyer-quertier, though
not a member of it, exercised so much influence with its chairman, M.
Paulmier, a deputy of Calvados, that he, being constantly in attendance
with witnesses of strong Protectionist views, prevailed on him to
put such questions to them, as would make it appear that Free-trade
was ruining France. Witnesses of Liberal views, as I have shown,
could hardly be heard. Nevertheless, the Committee, as I have already
observed, came to no conclusion, and no report was made beyond the
informal one of M. Ancel.
[238] M. Thiers, it may be remembered, was thrown out of office May
24, 1873, and, as this Bill was passed on the 31st of July, or only
two months after his fall, his political opinions cannot have left
much impression on the Assembly which had so recently been under his
dictatorship.
CHAPTER XVI.
Recent legislation relating to the loss of life and property at
sea in British vessels—Committee on shipwrecks, 1836—Estimated
loss of life at sea between 1818 and 1836—Recommendations of
the Committee—Committee of 1843, loss of lives and ships at that
period—First official return of wrecks, 1856—Loss of lives and
ships, 1862 and 1873—Further recommendations—Various laws for the
protection of seamen, 1846 to 1854—Agitation about “unseaworthy
ships,” 1855—Further provisions for the benefit of seamen,
1867-69-70—Mr. Samuel Plimsoll, M.P.—His first resolution,
1870—Introduces a Bill, 1871—Government measure of that year—Mr.
Plimsoll publishes a book, ‘Our Seamen,’ 1873—An extension of
the principle applied to testing chain-cables strongly urged—Mr.
Plimsoll moves an Address for a Commission of Inquiry, which
was unanimously granted—Royal Commission on unseaworthy ships
1873-74—Its members—Their order of reference—And mode of thorough
investigation—Their reports—Load-line—Deck loads—Government
survey—Its extension undesirable—Shipowners already harassed by
over-legislation—Mode of inquiry into losses at sea, examined and
condemned—Recommendations—Examination of masters and mates, and
shipping officers approved—Power of masters—Scheme for training
boys for sea—Marine Insurances—Report as a whole most valuable.
[Sidenote: Recent legislation relating to the loss of life and property
at sea in British vessels.]
[Sidenote: Committee on shipwrecks of 1836.]
Great Britain having by her example shown to other nations the
advantages to be derived from free navigation and unfettered commerce,
and having relieved her shipowners from nearly all the burdens of which
protection was the origin, directed her attention in a more special
manner than had hitherto been done to the safety of life and property
at sea. No doubt she had been ever mindful of her seamen and, from the
earliest records of her history, a just pride has been felt in those
who protect her sea-girt homes; but it is only in recent years that
any organised system has been adopted to reduce the disasters of a
naturally hazardous profession, or that the Legislature has seriously
devoted itself to the provision of measures whereby the proverbial
dangers of the sea may be lessened. Very little attention, indeed, had
been paid to this important subject until 1836, when a Committee of the
House of Commons was appointed to inquire into shipwrecks, the result
being that certain facts were, for the first time, brought prominently
under public notice in a practical manner. These facts are interesting
and instructive, especially when viewed by the light of subsequent
experience.
There being then, however, no reliable statistics of the extent of
the loss of life and property at sea, the Committee were obliged to
depend on information from other than official sources; hence, it was
only from the records of Lloyd’s, supplemented by estimates of their
own, that they were able to compare the casualties of 1816-18 with
those of 1833-35, the three years previous to their inquiry. Nor was
this comparison complete. To make it so, it would have been necessary
to compare, not merely the actual amounts of loss at the two periods,
but the proportion the amounts bore relatively to the amount of life
and property exposed to danger. There were, however, then no means
of obtaining these with accuracy, as the returns were imperfect as
regards the number of vessels, their sizes, and the number of persons
they carried, an imperfection arising, in a great measure, from the
fact that many vessels, which in 1816 had ceased to exist, were still
retained on the registry. Though the entries and clearances of British
ships engaged in trade between the United Kingdom and her colonies, and
foreign countries, could at both periods be obtained with accuracy,
there were no certain returns of the amount of tonnage and of the
number of men engaged in the Coasting trade, as the Customs did not
take any notice of vessels sailing in ballast or with cargoes of a
certain description. Nor do we even now know the actual amount of the
shipping and men engaged in this particular trade with anything like
perfect accuracy.
[Sidenote: Estimated loss of life at sea between 1818 and 1836.]
Thus it was impossible to arrive at a correct comparative estimate of
the increase, or otherwise, of the loss of life at sea at any given
periods previous to 1835. I may, however, state that the Committee,
with the best information they could obtain, arrived at the conclusion
that while the loss of life for the three years previous to 1818 had
averaged 763 persons per annum, it had increased to 894 per annum
for the three years previous to 1835, though the tonnage of vessels
belonging to the United Kingdom was actually less at the latter than it
had been at the former period.[239]
The amount of tonnage, however, in itself, even when correct, is
an imperfect criterion; indeed, to obtain anything like accuracy
we ought to have before us, not merely the number of entries and
clearances,[240] but the actual number of persons conveyed by sea; for,
without such data, we cannot hope to ascertain the comparative loss of
life.
[Sidenote: Recommendations of the Committee.]
The Committee of 1836 had, nevertheless, sufficient information before
them to arrive at certain sound conclusions; the more important
of these being that the increase of disasters at sea arose, in a
great measure, from the imperfect classification of ships which had
existed up to 1834 (when the improved Society of Lloyd’s Register was
instituted) depending, as it had, almost exclusively on the age of
the vessel; from the bad forms of vessels, arising from the defective
system of admeasurement for tonnage dues, and from the shallow harbours
where ships lay aground and were strained. The Committee likewise
attributed the losses to the incompetency of masters and officers,
and to their habits of intemperance, as well as to that of the crews;
to the system of marine insurance; to the want of harbours of refuge;
to the imperfection of charts;[241] and, strange to add, to the
“competition with foreign shipowners, who, from the many advantages
enjoyed by them in the superior cheapness of their materials for
building, equipping, and provisioning their vessels, and in the lower
rate of wages paid to their crews, were enabled to realise profits on
terms of freight which would not even cover the expenses of British
ships.”
[Sidenote: Committee of 1843—loss of lives and ships at that period.]
The next Committee appointed to inquire into shipwrecks commenced their
investigation in 1843, and the returns made up from the evidence before
them show that in the previous three years the annual average loss of
vessels was 611, of 128,678 tons, and 766 lives, out of 22,977 ships,
of 2,908,737 tons belonging to the United Kingdom, and of 37,380 of
such ships, of 6,730,242 tons entered and cleared in the foreign trade
of this country, so that, while the intercourse with other countries
had very materially increased, the loss of life had been only a
fraction more than it was in the three years previously to 1818.
[Sidenote: First official return of wrecks, 1856.]
But as we have no accurate and continuous official record, even of the
wrecks happening on our own coasts, till 1856, when the Board of Trade
for the first time published its return, and, as there is no official
record of the wrecks of British ships in other parts of the world until
1865, little reliance, beyond an approximate comparison, can be placed
on the full extent of the casualties at sea till that period. In some
measure they were guess work, and, as numerous vessels were no doubt
lost of which no record of any kind had been kept until about the year
1836, the probabilities are that the loss of life was greater than the
estimates of it made out by the Committees of 1836 or even of 1843.
[Sidenote: Loss of life and ships, 1862]
We have, however, a return[242] for the three years previously to
1863 much more complete and accurate than any earlier ones, on which
reliance may be placed, showing that, on an average in each of these
years, 1004 ships, of 251,000 tons, belonging to the _British
Empire_, and 1316 lives were lost. The average number of ships on
the register in these years belonging to the _whole Empire_ was
38,932, of 5,882,565 tons, and the British ships entered and cleared
in the foreign trade of the United Kingdom were 56,997, of 15,094,105
tons.
[Sidenote: and 1873.]
[Sidenote: Percentage of loss of life, 1833 to 1873.]
The last return,[243] made for 1871-3 inclusive shows that the average
number of ships lost in each of these three years was 1095, of 319,790
tons, and of lives was 1952; the number of ships belonging to the
British Empire being then 37,086, of 7,168,618 tons, and the entries
and clearances of vessels engaged in the foreign trade of the United
Kingdom being 73,783 vessels, of 27,275,339 tons. No doubt this return
shows a sacrifice of life which every humane or right-minded person
must wish to mitigate, as to desire to save life has now happily
become one of the highest objects of ambition among nations who are
truly civilised, but, considering the number of vessels afloat, and
the enormous increase in the entries and clearances, it, at the same
time, shows a very considerable comparative reduction on the losses of
previous years so far as they can be ascertained or estimated, more
especially when we consider that previous returns included only the
vessels belonging to the United Kingdom, whereas the later ones embrace
the tonnage of the whole of the British Empire then greatly increased,
and that, too, by steam vessels, increasing the risk of disaster to a
serious extent by the rapidity of their movements.
[Sidenote: Further recommendations.]
But to this important question I shall more fully refer hereafter. In
the meantime I may state that, among the various other recommendations
offered by the Committee of 1836, may be mentioned the formation of a
Mercantile Marine Board; the compilation and consolidation of a Code
of Mercantile Marine Laws; the improved classification of ships;
nautical schools; courts of inquiry into shipwrecks; tribunals for the
settlement of disputes; savings-banks for seamen, and asylums for them
in old age or when unfit for duty; and, above all, “discouragement of
drinking on board,” while attention was called “to the vast superiority
in officers, crews, and equipments, and to the consequent superior
success and growth of American shipping.”
To remedy many of these evils various Acts of Parliament were passed,
to most of which I have already referred, and, presently, I shall
refer at length to the great changes for the better made since then in
the classification of our ships by Lloyd’s Register and other private
associations; but some years elapsed before the more important of these
recommendations were carried into effect. In the meantime, the new
organisation in connection with the classification of ships, which had
been established in 1834, stirred up, no doubt, by the report of the
Committee, was laying the foundation for that career of success which
has since attended its efforts. Other similar associations followed;
one in Liverpool, which was afterwards amalgamated with Lloyd’s
Register, and the _Veritas_, a foreign association, still carrying
on its useful work in this country, though to a limited extent, but
largely in Canada, as well as on the Continent and in the United States
of America.
The Committee of 1843, confirming the recommendations of its
predecessor in 1836, added to them the survey of passenger ships;
amendments in the law of pilotage, the establishment of signals
by sound at the principal lighthouses, and of rocket and mortar
apparatuses for the saving of life on different parts of the coast;
the supply of life-buoys and belts in case of shipwreck; the carrying
of life-boats in all passenger vessels; a revision of the laws and
administration for the protection from plunder of wrecked property;
international regulations for vessels meeting at sea, and a code
of laws for the guidance and protection of seamen. All of these
recommendations, and many others for the protection of life and
property at sea, have since been carried into effect.
[Sidenote: Various laws for the protection of seamen, 1846 to 1854.]
In 1846, and again in 1848, further Acts were passed having the same
laudable object in view, and these, with all the other Acts, including
the important Act of 1850, to which I have already referred at
length,[244] were carefully revised and improved by the great Act of
1854, and by subsequent measures. Nor have the health and interests of
seamen, as well as the preservation of their lives from shipwreck, been
overlooked in this mass of legislation. In 1835, a register office for
seamen and apprentices was established, but the system, not answering
the objects in view, was abolished in 1853. By the Acts of 1844[245]
and 1845[246] seamen were enabled to recover their wages summarily, and
they were, for the first time, protected from imposition at the hands
of crimps. By these laws, all merchant ships were required to carry a
sufficient supply of medicine, as also of lime-juice for the use of the
crew; and, by the Act of 1854, the proceedings for the recovery of
wages were made still more summary, so that, under our present maritime
laws, seamen have special remedies for the recovery of their wages,
together with a lien on the ship not granted to any other class of
the community. Beyond the advantages of savings-banks and money-order
offices, specially for their use, a system has been established,
through the medium of the shipping offices and the consulates abroad,
under which, seamen, when paid off, can remit their wages without
expense to their relatives at any port in the United Kingdom.[247]
[Sidenote: Agitation about “unseaworthy ships,” 1855.]
[Sidenote: Further provisions for the benefit of seamen,]
In 1855, a question arose very similar to that which has recently
arisen regarding “unseaworthy ships,” as to whether seamen could be
compelled to go to sea in them. The opinion of the law-officers of the
Crown taken by the Board of Trade was given in favour of the seaman’s
right to refuse to sail in such vessels, and this opinion, having been
sent to the magistrates at the seaports, has ever since been acted
on, though it has been frequently abused by unprincipled seamen, who
have alleged unseaworthiness as an excuse for being relieved from
their engagements, more especially in cases where they have received
a payment of wages in advance, or where they have thought they could
improve their position. Nor did the efforts of the Board of Trade,
the permanent officers of which have been frequently charged with
neglecting the interests of seamen, here end. In 1864, that Board,
aware of the difficulty seamen accused of desertion might have in
proving unseaworthiness, recommended the Home Office to inform the
magistrates that, in all such cases, their surveyors would be at the
disposal of the magisterial bench for the purposes of survey, so that
seamen might have, _at the expense of the community_, what no
other class is allowed, easy and ready means of inquiring into their
complaints by officers remunerated by the Crown, and, consequently, an
economical and prompt dispensation of justice.
[Sidenote: 1867,]
In 1867, another Act was passed, specially for the benefit of seamen,
known as the Health Act,[248] which made further provision for the
inspection and safe custody of lime-juice or other anti-scorbutics,
and for serving these out in proper quantities and with regularity to
the crews of merchant ships. Provision was also made in this Bill,
compelling shipowners to bear all expenses connected with a seaman’s
illness, when not brought about by his own fault or misconduct, and for
securing him increased and improved accommodation on board ship.
[Sidenote: 1869, 1870.]